[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 169 (Saturday, December 18, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10649-S10663]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, briefly, it was so important for me to be 
here today because don't ask, don't tell is wrong. I don't care who you 
love. If you love this country enough to risk your life for it, you 
should not have to hide who you are. You ought to be able to serve.
  The history of our wonderful Nation is spotted with wrongs, but this 
institution is at its best when it corrects those. That is the 
opportunity we will have today.
  Don't ask, don't tell has resulted in the discharge of over 14,000 
patriotic and talented service members who were otherwise qualified to 
serve their country.
  A 2005 Government Accountability Office report says nearly 10 percent 
of those discharged under don't ask, don't tell have been linguists 
trained in critical languages such as Arabic, Farsi, and Chinese.
  As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, let me tell you

[[Page S10650]]

that turning away Arabic, Farsi, and Chinese speakers is bad for 
national security. It makes it harder for us to win the war on terror. 
Don't just take my word for it. The fact is, the military now 
understands how important it is to make this change.
  Today, the Senate has the opportunity to be on the right side of 
history. Don't ask, don't tell is a wrong that should never have been 
perpetrated. Let's move to end it today. Again, let me say thank you to 
all of you. I look forward to being with all of you next year.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his 
powerful statement and powerful presence. We look forward to 110 
percent of that power being back with us in the days ahead.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Armed Services Committee held two excellent hearings 
to consider the final report of the working group that reviewed the 
issues associated with the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. That report 
concluded that allowing gay and lesbian troops to serve in the U.S. 
Armed Forces, without being forced to conceal their sexual orientation, 
would present a low risk to the military's effectiveness, even during a 
time of war, and that 70 percent of the surveyed members believe the 
impact on their units would be positive, mixed, or of no consequence.
  As one servicemember told the working group:

       All I care about is can you carry a gun, can you walk the 
     post.

  In combat, the troops have told us that what matters is doing the 
job.
  We also learned during the course of our hearings that while 
predictions of problems after repeal were higher in combat units than 
among troops, this commission found that the difference disappeared 
among those who had actual experience serving on the front lines with 
gay colleagues; that is, experience is a powerful antidote to negative 
stereotypes about gay service members.
  We learned that when our close allies, Great Britain and Canada, were 
preparing to allow open service by gay and lesbian troops, there were 
concerns about problems there. Those concerns totally disappeared after 
they changed their policy to allow service, but those concerns--that 
level of concern in our allies' armies was higher than the current 
level of concern in our troops. Both those countries and other allies, 
such as Israel, made the transition with far less disruption than 
expected, and their militaries serve alongside ours in Afghanistan with 
no sign that open service diminishes their or our effectiveness.
  Secretary Gates has assured everybody he is not going to certify that 
the military is ready for repeal until he is satisfied with the advice 
of the service chiefs that we have mitigated, if not eliminated, to the 
extent possible, risks to combat readiness, to unit cohesion and 
effectiveness. We learned that Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, and 
other senior military leaders are concerned that unless we pass this 
law; that is, without this legislation, they are going to be forced to 
implement a change in policy not when they can certify that they are 
ready, as provided for in this legislation, but when a court orders a 
change. The only method of repeal that places the timing of repeal and 
the control of implementation in the hands of our military leaders is 
the enactment of this bill.
  There are a lot of reasons the repeal of don't ask, don't tell can 
and will, hopefully, happen, but we know it can happen without harming 
our military's effectiveness. Those are the reasons we can do this 
safely, but there are other reasons why we must end this discriminatory 
policy. In Admiral Mullen's memorable words, it is a policy which 
``forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to 
defend their fellow citizens.'' We should end this policy because it is 
the right thing to do.
  Some have argued that this is social engineering or that this is 
partisan, even though this change is supported by the overwhelming 
majority of the American people. They are grossly mistaken.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. One minute.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am not here for partisan reasons; I am 
here because men and women wearing the uniform of the United States who 
are gay and lesbian have died for this country because gay and lesbian 
men and women wear the uniform of this country and have their lives on 
the line right now in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places for this 
country. One of those is a captain by the name of Jonathan Hopkins. He 
finished fourth in his class at West Point, commanded two companies--
one in combat--and earned three Bronze Stars, including one for valor 
in combat. Yet that decorated combat leader had to leave the Army 
because of don't ask, don't tell. I am here because of SSgt Eric Alva, 
the first ground unit casualty of the war in Iraq. The first casualty 
in the war in Iraq was a gay soldier. The mine took off his right leg, 
and that mine that took off his right leg didn't give a darn whether he 
was gay or straight. We shouldn't either.
  We cannot let these patriots down. Their suffering should end. It 
will end with the passage of this bill. I urge its passage today. It is 
the right thing to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I have 10 
minutes, and I would like to ask the Chair to let me know when I have 1 
minute remaining.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will so notify.
  Mr. INHOFE. First of all, Mr. President, we have a couple of votes 
today on things we should have been addressing for a long period of 
time in order to get to the bottom of them, and one is the DREAM Act.
  I think the Senator from Alabama did a thorough job of talking about 
the problems. I would only say this about the DREAM Act. I have been 
privileged over the past 20 years to probably give more speeches at 
naturalization ceremonies than anybody else I know. You look at these 
people who did it the legal way--they came in and learned the language, 
and I have to say, Mr. President, they probably know more about the 
history of this country than many of us in this Chamber. They do it the 
right way. They study, and they are proud. When I see something like 
this, which I believe is done purely for political reasons, I just 
can't imagine slapping these people in the face--the people who did it 
in the legal way--and saying it is all right to open the door.
  So enough on that. I think that was covered by the Senator from 
Alabama.
  I do wish to speak about don't ask, don't tell. I thought back in 
1993, during the Clinton administration, that this probably wouldn't 
work. I was shocked when I found out how well it has worked for this 
long period of time; that is, the don't ask, don't tell policy. We have 
a saying in Oklahoma: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This isn't 
broke. It is working very well.
  This is something else I never believed would work, but I was a 
product of the draft--I was drafted into the U.S. Army. Yet today we 
have an all-volunteer force. Our recruitment and retention today in all 
services is over 100 percent. I look at this, and I wonder what effect 
this is going to have on that. I think we have some pretty good 
indications on what that effect would be.
  First of all, the study that was supposed to take place was supposed 
to have the input of the members of the services. The ones I have 
talked to felt that it was already over. In fact, it was. We go out and 
ask them for their input as to the repeal of don't ask, don't tell, how 
it would affect our military and their operations, and then we turn 
around and go ahead and pass it. We did that on May 27. So I think they 
didn't respond, as they normally would to a survey, because the 
decision was already made.
  When I look at this and I see things written into this--well, first 
of all, like 23 percent, even on this survey, said they would leave or 
think about leaving sooner than they had planned. That is 23 percent. 
Twenty-seven percent of the military members surveyed said they would 
not be willing to recommend military service to a family member or 
close friend. Our studies

[[Page S10651]]

have shown us that 50 percent of those who join the service do so at 
the recommendation of someone who is already in the service.
  So when you look at this report, everyone in the working group--and 
the working group is made up of a large number of people--says they 
didn't tabulate the results, but when pressed, they said their sense on 
the don't ask, don't tell policy is that the majority of views 
expressed were against repeal of the current policy.
  I think, if you really want to know, there are four very courageous 
chiefs of the services who have been willing to stand up and be 
counted.
  General Casey is the Chief of Staff of the Army. After a long 
statement at a hearing we had on the 3rd of this month, he said:

       As such, I believe that implementation of the repeal of 
     don't ask, don't tell in the near term will, one, add another 
     level of stress to an already stretched force; two, be more 
     difficult in combat arms units; and, three, be more difficult 
     for the Army than the report suggests.

  At the same December 3 hearing--so this is current stuff--General 
Schwartz of the Air Force said:

       Nonetheless, my best military judgment does not agree with 
     the study assessment that the short-term risk to the military 
     effectiveness is low. . . . I remain concerned with the 
     outlook for low short-term risk of repeal to military 
     effectiveness in Afghanistan.

  He goes on to talk about the implementation.

       I therefore recommend deferring certification and full 
     implementation until 2012, while initiating training and 
     education efforts soon after you take any decision to repeal.

  So there is General Schwartz of the U.S. Air Force agreeing with 
General Casey that this should not be implemented.
  Then in that same hearing, General Amos said:

       While the study concludes that . . . repeal can be 
     implemented now, provided it is done in [a] manner that 
     minimizes the burden on leaders in deployed areas, the survey 
     data as it relates to the Marine Corps' combat arms forces 
     does not support that assertion.

  He goes on to talk about the element of risk, which is a term we use 
in the military when you change something, and whether that risk will 
be low, medium, or high. The risk in this case ranges from medium to 
high in the estimates of these individuals who really know what they 
are talking about.
  I also have a quote from General Amos of just 2 days ago. This was 
actually on December 14, as opposed to the 3rd. He said:

       When your life hangs on the line, you don't want anything 
     distracting . . . Mistakes and inattention or distractions 
     cost Marines' lives. So the Marines came back and said, 
     ``Look, anything that's going to break or potentially break 
     that focus and cause any kind of distraction may have an 
     effect on cohesion.'' I don't want to permit that opportunity 
     to happen. . . . If you go up to Bethesda Hospital . . . 
     Marines are up there with no legs, none. We've got Marines at 
     Walter Reed with no limbs.

  This is the statement of General Amos. Let me repeat. He said:

       When your life hangs on the line, you don't want anything 
     distracting . . . Mistakes and inattention or distractions 
     cost Marines' lives.

  So we are talking about marines' lives in this case, and that is the 
significance.
  I could go on. We have been talking about this now for a long period 
of time as to some of the very serious problems.
  I have a letter I read some time ago from 41 retired chaplains who 
sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary Gates stating that 
normalizing homosexual behavior in the Armed Forces will pose a 
significant threat to chaplains' and servicemembers' religious liberty. 
The letter warned that reversing the policy will negatively impact 
religious freedom and could even affect military readiness and troop 
levels because the military would be marginalizing deeply held 
religious beliefs.
  I know we are very short on time--votes are going to be coming up--
but I have to respond to something the distinguished chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee said. He was saying we will not implement this 
until we find out and make a determination, and he was speaking of 
himself, Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the 
Secretary of Defense, and the President; that they are not going to 
implement this until they have studied this and determined it is not 
going to have the risks and all that.
  But wait a minute, let's look at what they have already said. They 
have already made up their minds. President Obama said this year: I 
will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that 
denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because 
of who they are. 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. And Secretary Gates 
also said he strongly preferred congressional action as opposed to 
court action. Admiral Mullen had already made up his mind. These are 
his words: Mr. Chairman, speaking for myself, it is the right thing to 
do. That is why, when people stand up and say they are not going to do 
this until such time as these three people certify that it is the right 
thing to do, they have already done it. That is what is behind this. I 
don't want anyone out there to think this is an open process.
  The last thing I would say is that I will be spending New Year's Eve 
in Afghanistan with the troops, and I know what they are going to say. 
They are going to say the same thing they said before: We were under 
the impression last January that we were going to have input in this. 
We haven't had input.
  So I think if you want to pursue this, we should have the time to go 
ahead and do it the right way, not try to do it at the last minute, 
before--well, one day before my 51st wedding anniversary.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be 5 minutes 
additional time on each side, an additional 5 minutes be allowed for 
Senator Graham on this side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair and my colleagues and the Senator from 
Illinois.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I start by noting it has been a 
pleasure to work with Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins, Chairman 
Levin, Senator Gillibrand, and others in the effort to repeal this 
outmoded law.
  I have spoken many times about the repeal of don't ask, don't tell 
and how it improves our national security, but I would like to make a 
few additional short points today before we take this important vote at 
10:30.
  First, repealing this law is not about scoring political points or 
catering to a special interest group. Rather, it is about doing the 
right thing for our national security, especially during a time of two 
wars. Instead of turning away qualified interpreters, mechanics, 
infantrymen, and others, we need every able-bodied man and woman who is 
willing to fight for their country.
  An exhaustive study by the Pentagon recently revealed what numerous 
reports have shown, that don't ask, don't tell can be repealed without 
harmful effects. In fact, what it shows is our national security will 
be enhanced by this repeal. That is one of the reasons our Defense 
Secretary, Robert Gates, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
Admiral Mullen, have strongly urged us to repeal the law this year, 
before we adjourn this week.
  Second, the United States lags--sadly lags--behind the world's other 
top militaries which allow open service by gays and lesbians. Our 
troops fight next to servicemembers from many of these countries every 
single day. There is no evidence showing that our military operations 
in Afghanistan or Iraq are negatively affected by allowing gay 
servicemembers to serve openly alongside U.S. servicemembers.
  Third, the vast majority of Americans support repealing this harmful 
law. As the Pentagon study showed, our servicemembers are complete 
professionals. They will comply with the repeal, and they will not 
allow open service to negatively affect the jobs they do.
  Finally, if the Senate does not act to give the Department of Defense 
and the President the authority to end this policy, then we are leaving 
the issue in

[[Page S10652]]

the hands of the courts. Secretary Gates has said it makes far more 
sense to bring certainty to don't ask, don't tell through legislation 
rather than through lawsuits.
  Let me end with the words of a Marine captain who wrote a courageous 
opinion piece this week that was in the Washington Post. He said:

       It is time for ``don't ask, don't tell'' to join our other 
     mistakes in the dog-eared chapters of history textbooks. We 
     all bleed red, we all love our country, we are all Marines. 
     In the end, that is all that matters.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I think Senator McCain asked I be 
recognized for 5 minutes. If that is correct, I would like to proceed.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it is a week before Christmas. I don't 
know where we will be next week. All I can say is, the Senate is taking 
up some very important matters--the don't ask, don't tell repeal. The 
Marine Corps Commandant said he believes changing this policy this way 
would cause distraction among the Marine Corps to the point that he is 
worried about increased casualties. Let's hope he is wrong. But you 
have to ask yourself, is he crazy to say that and is he the kind of man 
who would make such a chilling statement without having thought about 
it?
  My advice to my colleagues is that the Marine Corps Commandant is a 
serious man who is telling this body and this Nation that repeal, as 
being envisioned today, could compromise focus on the battlefield, and 
we are in two wars.
  The review from the military is positive in one area, negative in the 
other. The Army, the Air Force, particularly the Marine Corps have 
cautioned us not to do this now this way. Other people have said now is 
the time. I can only tell you that those in close combat units have the 
most concern about repealing this policy.
  Some will say this is a civil rights issue of our time, the day has 
come, we need to move forward as a nation. The Marine Corps does not 
have that view. They have a different view, that this is about 
effectiveness on the battlefield at a time of war, not about civil 
rights.
  It is up to the Members of the body to determine who is right and who 
is wrong; to be cautious or to boldly go forward. But to those Senators 
who will take the floor today and announce this as a major advancement 
of civil rights in America, please let it be said that you are doing it 
in a fashion that those who have a different view cannot offer one 
amendment. We are doing this in a way that the Senate, those of us who 
want to maybe speak for the Marine Corps and have some amendments and 
ideas that may make this less distracting, have zero ability to offer 
an amendment on a policy change that the Commandants of the Marine 
Corps, the Air Force, and the Army say is problematic.
  To those who are pushing this process, it is not appreciated. It is 
not appreciated by your fellow Senators, and I don't think it is going 
to be appreciated by the men and women who are going to have to live 
under this kind of change.
  Does that matter? Apparently not. That says a lot about the Senate. 
That says a lot about modern politics.
  To the DREAM Act, I have been involved in comprehensive immigration 
reform for many years. Senator Durbin and I have talked about how to 
make the DREAM Act part of comprehensive immigration reform. To those 
who have come to my office, you are always welcome to come, but you are 
wasting your time. We are not going to pass the DREAM Act or any other 
legalization program until we secure our borders. It will never be done 
stand-alone. It has to be part of comprehensive immigration reform.
  There is a war raging in Mexico that is compromising our national 
security. I would argue that the best thing for the Senate to do, the 
House to do, the administration to do, is work together to secure our 
borders before we do anything else.
  To those who are bringing up this bill today, I know why you are 
doing it. You are not doing it to advance the issue. You are doing it 
to advance your situation politically. It is not appreciated. You are 
making it harder. You care more about politics in the last 2 weeks than 
you care about governing the country. This will not help America do the 
things America does. It is not appreciated.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, if I may, I would say that of the time 
we have, this side will yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Virginia, 
and I thank him for coming over to speak.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I rise in support of the notion that we need 
to make adjustments to this policy, this don't ask, don't tell policy. 
I say that after many years of thought and consideration and also in 
light of the analysis that has been provided by the Department of 
Defense to the Armed Services Committee, on which I sit.
  I would say to my friend from South Carolina, I take the points he 
has made about the concerns in small-unit cohesion and that has gone 
into the formula I have used myself in order to come to this 
conclusion.
  We need, first of all, to understand what this is and what it is not. 
The question is not whether there should be gays and lesbians in the 
military. They are already there. According to General Hamm, who 
conducted this extensive study, approximately the same percentage of 
the military is gay and lesbian as in our general population. The 
question is not about whether anyone should be able to engage in 
inappropriate conduct as a result of this policy, because we will not 
allow that and we will be very vigorous in our oversight of the 
Department of Defense to make sure that does not occur.
  The question is whether this policy, as it was enacted, works today 
in a way that, on the one hand, can protect small-unit cohesion or to 
sort that out and, on the other, allow people to live honest lives.
  Here is what we have. We have a Secretary of Defense, who served in 
the Air Force and who implemented a policy of nondiscrimination when he 
headed the CIA, coming forward strongly and saying he believes the 
alteration of this policy will work. I would remind my colleagues, he 
began as Secretary of Defense in the Bush administration.
  We have a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who has an extensive career 
in surface warfare, starting with small destroyers up to commanding 
fleets, saying he believes the policy should change and that it can 
work.
  We have a Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, a marine, saying he 
believes this policy should change and it can work.
  Most interestingly, we have General Hamm, who conducted this study, a 
former enlisted Army soldier, an infantry officer whose religious 
beliefs cause him great concerns about the notion of homosexuality, at 
the same time saying this policy should change and it can be changed.
  That is what we are seeing. The question, and I think Senator Graham 
laid it out very well, is whether a change in this policy will create 
difficulties in small-unit cohesion. That depends, as I mentioned 
during these hearings, on how this policy is implemented. I wrote a 
letter yesterday to Secretary Gates, wanting to reaffirm my 
understanding that this repeal would contemplate a sequenced 
implementation for the provisions for different units in the military 
as reasonably determined by the service chiefs, the combatant 
commanders, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs.
  I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. WEBB. He responded to me this morning. I ask his full letter be 
printed in the Record.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. WEBB. He said:

       This legislation would indeed permit a certification 
     approach as you suggest. . . . The specific concerns you 
     raise will be foremost in my mind as we develop an 
     implementation plan.

  Without this, I would say, I would not be voting to repeal this. I 
have spent my entire life in and around the military, including 5 years 
in the Pentagon. With this understanding and with the notion that we 
need to be putting a policy into place that allows an

[[Page S10653]]

open way of living among people who have different points of view, I am 
going to support this legislation.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                Washington, DC, December 17, 2010.
     Hon. Robert Gates,
     Secretary of Defense, The Pentagon, Washington, DC.
       My purpose in writing is to reconfirm my understanding that 
     the certification requirements contained in the Don't Ask, 
     Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 contemplate a sequenced 
     implementation of its provisions for different units in the 
     military, as reasonably determined by the service chiefs and 
     unified combatant commanders in coordination with the 
     Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
     Staff.
       This was my understanding of the response I received from 
     General Cartwright when I raised the issue during his 
     testimony December 3, 2010. Specifically, I asked if the 
     process could be considered service-by-service, combat arm-
     by-combat arm, or unit-by-unit. He agreed that this was a 
     correct interpretation.
       Knowing of your many current commitments, I would very much 
     appreciate a short, written confirmation or clarification on 
     this matter as soon as possible.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Jim Webb,
     U.S. Senator.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2


                                         Secretary of Defense,



                                Washington, DC, December 17, 2010.
     Hon. Jim Webb,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Webb: Thank you for your letter of December 
     17, 2010, regarding the certification requirements contained 
     in the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010.
       In response to your question, it is my understanding that 
     this legislation would indeed permit a certification approach 
     as you suggest. We have not determined the specific 
     methodology that would be used should this legislation pass, 
     but I can assure you that the specific concerns that you 
     raise will be foremost in my mind as we an implementation 
     plan. Further, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and 
     I remain committed to working closely with the Service Chiefs 
     and the Combatant Commanders in developing this process.
       As Admiral Mullen and I have stated previously, neither he 
     nor I would sign a certification until we were satisfied, 
     after having consulted with each of the Service Chiefs and 
     Combatant Commanders, that risks to combat readiness, unit 
     cohesion, and effectiveness had, in fact, been mitigated, if 
     not eliminated, to the extent possible for all Services, 
     commands, and units.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Robert M. Gates.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I believe under the previous order I 
have 5 minutes of Senator McCain's time. I would like to take a minute 
to speak on this issue of repeal of don't ask, don't tell. I wish to 
start by talking about the process.
  Here we are, once again, at the end of the year, 1 week before 
Christmas, dealing with a very sensitive, a very emotional issue that 
is of critical importance to our men and women in the military, as well 
as every other American, but most significantly those men and women who 
are willing to put their lives in harm's way to protect America and 
protect Americans--and they do such a good job of that. What we have 
seen is the House took up a bill, passed a bill, it comes to the 
Senate, direct to the floor, no opportunity for amendments, limited 
opportunity for debate--which we will have today--and then we are going 
to vote.
  I see the assistant majority leader is here. I wish to say that as we 
move into next year, get ready--get ready--because this game can be 
played by both sides. There will be a number of bills that are passed 
in the House next year that the majority is not going to want to vote 
on. But they better believe those bills are going to be coming to the 
floor of the Senate in the same way this bill is coming, and we are 
going to insist on that.
  Second, let me just say we are in the middle of two military 
conflicts, where men and women are getting shot at, injured, killed, 
doing heroic acts, and providing for freedom in a part of the world 
that is of critical importance to all Americans and, at the same time, 
making sure, as they fight that battle in Iraq and Afghanistan, those 
individuals who would seek to do harm to America and Americans are not 
allowed to do so.
  We have a policy in place called don't ask, don't tell that has been 
in place for 18 years now and it has worked. Admiral Mullen, in his 
testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that as a 
commander he had to terminate individuals who decided to let it be 
known they were a member of the gay or lesbian community, and he did.
  I said in an additional question to him when he responded to that: 
Did you have a morale issue when you had to terminate those people? He 
said: No; morale remained high.
  Morale today, in every branch of our service, is probably as high as 
it has ever been in the last several decades. Recruiting and retention 
are at all-time highs. But what does this survey that was sent out on 
this issue to military personnel and military families show? First of 
all, it does not address the issue of: Do you support repeal of don't 
ask, don't tell? They did not ask the question. The survey assumes the 
repeal and talks about implementation. What is interesting about the 
survey is that the individuals who conducted it, in addition to sending 
out pieces of paper, also had personal interviews, they had online, 
back-and-forth chats with individual members of the military, and a 
majority of the individuals who wear the uniform of the United States 
who had personal interaction with the individuals who did the survey 
were opposed to the repeal of don't ask, don't tell.
  The survey does show that nearly 60 percent of the respondents from 
the Marine Corps and the Army combat arms said they believe repeal 
would cause a negative impact on their unit's effectiveness. Among 
marine combat arms, the percentage was 67 percent. And we think this is 
a good idea? We think it is a good idea when 67 percent of those 
marines who are in foxholes and are dodging bullets around corners in 
Afghanistan as we speak today, who say that this is going to have an 
impact on them, we think it is a good idea to repeal this policy?
  And, by the way, this has nothing to do with the valiant service that 
gays and lesbians have provided to the United States of America. That 
is a given. We all agree with that. But what the Marine Corps and what 
the Army, as well as what the Air Force Chief said is this is not the 
time to repeal this. In the middle of a military conflict is not the 
time to repeal a policy that is working, that has the potential for 
affecting morale, it has the potential for affecting unit cohesiveness, 
and it also, most significantly in my mind, according to both General 
Casey and General Amos, does have the potential for increasing the risk 
of harm and death to our men and women who are serving in combat today.
  If for no other reason, we ought not to repeal this today. Should it 
be done at some point in time? Maybe so. But in the middle of a 
military conflict is not the time to do it. So as we think about this, 
and we think about the men and women who are serving, and the fact 
that, as Senator Inhofe alluded to earlier--I will not repeat all of 
those numbers--but the fact is that if the percentages in response to 
the survey turn out to be true, then we are going to have about 30 
percent of marine combat forces who are going to get out early and not 
reenlist, and we are going to have to replace them. We have got about 
25 percent of those combat troops in the Army who are not going to 
reenlist and who would like to get out early.
  If that happens, we are going to have 250,000 soldiers and marines 
that need to be replaced in short order. When I asked Secretary Gates 
about it, he said: Well, that is not going to happen. Well, if it does 
happen, we are going to have serious consequences.
  I do hope common sense will prevail here and that we will not get 
cloture, and we can move on to something that is extremely important to 
the men and women of America at this time in our calendar year.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I would yield myself 
up to 8 minutes of the time on our side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I want to thank Chairman Levin, Senator 
Udall of Colorado, and Senator Webb for their informed and informative 
remarks in support of the motion to concur with the House in regard to

[[Page S10654]]

repealing the policy that has come to be known as don't ask, don't 
tell.
  I think that in considering this matter today we have an opportunity 
not just to right a wrong, not just to honor the service of a group of 
American patriots who happen to be gay and lesbian, not just to make 
our military more effective, but to advance the values that the 
Founders of our country articulated in our original American documents.
  I want to talk very briefly about that, because it is important to 
set what we are doing here in the context of history. From the 
beginning, America has been a different Nation. We did not define 
ourselves based on our borders. Our Founders defined America based on 
our values, and none stated more powerfully than those words in the 
opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence that: There are 
self-evident truths. This is a political statement, a constitutional 
statement, but also a religious statement.
  There are self-evident truths, and one of them is that all of us are 
created equal and endowed by our Creator with those unalienable rights 
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In the second 
paragraph, our Founders say, in the Declaration, that they are forming 
this new government, America, in order to secure those rights to life 
and liberty. The sad fact is, at the moment they adopted the 
Declaration of Independence, these rights were not enjoyed for a lot of 
Americans, including, of course, the slaves, most of all, but women had 
no legal rights to speak of.
  One way I think I like to look at American history is as a journey to 
realize, generation after generation, in a more perfect way, to make 
ours a more perfect Union, the rights given in the Declaration of 
Independence, the rights promised in the Declaration of Independence 
and, of course, with a lot of pain and turmoil we have done that with 
regard to race in our country, certainly true with regard to women.
  We have created an ethic. It is the promise of America, but in some 
sense it is what we also call the American dream, that in this country 
you are judged not by who you are but how you perform. In this country, 
no matter where you were born or how you were born, the fact is you are 
able to go--if you play by the rules and you work hard, you should be 
able to go as far as your talents will take you, not any characteristic 
that one might associate with you, any adjective that one might put 
before the noun ``American'' whether it is White American, Black 
American, Christian, Jewish American, gay or straight American, Latino, 
or European American, that you should be entitled to go as far as your 
talents and your commitment to our country will take you.
  In our generation, it seems to me that the movement to realize the 
promise of the Declaration has been one of the places that has been 
most at the forefront and realized most significantly is in regard to 
gay and lesbian Americans, to promise that, in our time, we will 
guarantee, as a matter of law, that no one will be denied equal 
opportunity based on their sexual orientation. They will be judged by 
the way they live and the way they perform their jobs. That is why the 
existing don't ask, don't tell policy is, in my opinion, inconsistent 
with basic American values.
  It is not only bad for the military, it is inconsistent with our 
values. I want to say it is particularly bad for the military, because 
in our society, the American military is, in my opinion, the one 
institution that still commands the respect and trust of the American 
people, because it lives by American values. It fights for American 
values. It is committed to a larger cause and not divided by any 
division, including party.
  So to force this policy as the don't ask, don't tell does on our 
military is to force them to be less than they want to be, and less 
than they can be. Admiral Mullen, the No. 1 uniformed military officer 
in our country today, said very powerfully:

       We--

  The military--

     are an institution that values integrity, and then asks other 
     people to join us, work with us, fight with us, die with us, 
     and lie about who they are the whole time they are in the 
     military.

  That, Admiral Mullin says, is what does not make any sense to me. I 
agree. The fact is this is not just a theory we are talking about. The 
fact is that under the don't ask, don't tell policy, more than 14,000 
members of our military have been discharged since 1993, not because 
they performed their military responsibilities inadequately, not 
because they violated the very demanding code of personal conduct in 
the military, but simply because of their sexual orientation.

  I think if you view this as an issue, that can be controversial in 
the realm of rhetoric or theory. But if you face those 14,000--and I 
have talked to a lot of them--yesterday, an Air Force major, commanding 
more than 200 members of the Air Force--all sorts of commendations, 
tossed out simply because someone did not like him, found out he was 
gay, and he was pushed out.
  A student at one of the academies, at the top of his class, same 
thing. Because of his sexual orientation, tossed out. You know we 
spend, by one estimate, more than half a billion dollars training those 
14,000 members of the American military that we discharged solely 
because of their sexual orientation. What a waste. These people simply 
want to serve their country.
  I know you, Mr. President, have probably had the same experience I 
have. When you talk to any of the 14,000, why are they lobbying, 
pleading with us to repeal don't ask, don't tell? They want to go back 
and serve our country. They want to put their lives on the line for our 
security and our freedoms. Does it make any sense to say no to them 
simply because of a private part of their person?
  In the survey that was done as part of the Pentagon report, there are 
some remarkable numbers. One of them is that of the gay and lesbian 
members of our military surveyed, only 15 percent said they would come 
out, that they would reveal their sexual orientation. One of them was 
quoted as saying, and I paraphrase: That is private. That is not part 
of my responsibility in the military. None of us do that in the 
military.
  And, incidentally, when, as I hope and pray don't ask, don't tell is 
repealed, gay and lesbian members of the military, just as straight 
members, will be held to the highest demands and standards of the 
military code of conduct. If they are involved in any inappropriate 
behavior, they will be disciplined.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes of 
the time we have.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. The other significant number in the survey I thought 
was this: Well over two-thirds of the members of our military surveyed, 
120-some-odd thousand surveyed, said that they thought the military was 
ready for this change.
  I know there has been talk about the marines. There is a fascinating 
number about the marines. A significant number of the marines are 
worried about this change in policy. But among those marines who have 
served in marine units with gay and lesbian marines, 84 percent say no 
problem. Why? Because we do not care, when we are out in combat, what 
somebody's race or gender or ethnicity or religion or sexual 
orientation is; all we care is whether they have got our back and they 
are a good member of the unit.
  My friends have said that this simply--if, and I hope when this 
measure passes, and don't ask, don't tell is repealed, it authorizes 
the repeal, but it does not finish it. It starts a deliberative process 
in which, without time limit, the Secretary of Defense, the President, 
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have to decide that it is 
time for the repeal to occur. It is a very reasonable process. And it 
saves the military, as Secretary Gates has said over and over again, 
from facing an order from a court that forces the military to do this 
immediately.
  Bottom line, and I will speak personally here, I was privileged about 
10 years ago--incidentally, thinking of the DREAM Act, I am a 
grandchild of four immigrants to America. Could they have ever dreamed 
that I would end up a Senator--2,000 have had the opportunity--to be 
the first Jewish American to run on a national ticket?
  I will never forget. Someone called me up that day and said how 
thrilled they were, a member of another minority group, and said: You 
know, Joe,

[[Page S10655]]

here is what is significant. When a barrier falls for one group of 
Americans, the doors of opportunity open wider for all Americans.
  I think we have that opportunity today to make our great country even 
greater, and our best-in-the-world military even better.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 23 minutes remaining for 
the majority, just under 16 minutes to the Republicans.
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, 
for 7 minutes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Lieberman for his 
authorship of and advocacy for repeal of don't ask, don't tell. I wish 
to use my time to speak about pieces of legislation.
  Don't ask, don't tell has been with us now for 17 years. I just 
pulled a speech I made on the floor 17 years ago. The DREAM Act has 
been with us for 10 years. So neither of these are surprise bills. Both 
of these affect large numbers of people in major ways. For many, they 
are their life. For those who love the military, who see no life 
outside of the military, don't ask, don't tell is their life. The same 
for students, the DREAM Act becomes their life.
  Let me begin with don't ask, don't tell. Seventeen years ago, Senator 
Boxer introduced an amendment. I spoke to that amendment. We lost by a 
vote of 33 to 63. Only one-third of the Senate voted to repeal don't 
ask, don't tell in what was a benign amendment, essentially a consent 
resolution, but it lost. It lost despite the testimony of legions of 
military.
  The time has gone by, 17 long years. Many of us believe the policy is 
unconstitutional. We believe it does more harm than good. And 17 years 
later, I am only more certain that is the case. The criteria for 
serving in the U.S. Armed Forces should be courage, competence, and a 
willingness to serve. No one should be turned away because of who they 
are--not because of their race, their sex, or their sexual orientation. 
Since 1993, however, don't ask, don't tell has required gay and lesbian 
Americans to make a choice. You can serve the country you love, but 
only if you lie about who you are.
  This has forced honorable American soldiers to conceal their true 
selves from their family, their friends, their fellow servicemembers, 
and their military superiors. It has deprived the U.S. military of 
talent and badly needed special skills.
  Let me discuss one person. SGT Lacye Presley served two tours of duty 
in Iraq as an Army medic. The Army awarded her a Bronze Star for her 
heroic action in keeping several critically wounded civilians alive 
after a car bomb exploded in their midst. Another Army sergeant who 
worked with her around the same time said this about Sergeant Presley:

       I would serve with Sergeant Presley any day, no doubt about 
     it. She's one of the best medics that I've ever seen in my 18 
     years of service.

  Sergeant Presley was discharged after someone reported her sexual 
orientation to a senior commander. This is one for Sergeant Presley.
  Let me discuss some other affected military personnel. Former PO2 
Stephen Benjamin was an Arabic linguist for the Navy. He started his 
service in 2003, graduated in the top ten percent of his class from the 
Defense Language Institute, and spent 2 years translating for the Navy. 
In 2007, he was prepared to deploy to Iraq but was turned away and 
discharged because it was discovered that he was gay.
  Army SGT Darren Manzella served two tours of duty providing medical 
services in Iraq. He earned three promotions over 6 years and was 
awarded the Combat Medical Bridge for leading over 100 patrols to treat 
the wounded and evacuate casualties. But after he confided in a 
supervisor about his sexuality, he was threatened with discharge, his 
sexuality was made public, and he was later discharged under don't ask, 
don't tell.
  PVT Randy Miller of Stockton, CA, was a member of an elite Army 
paratroop division with a long family history of military service. He 
spent 2 years training in preparation for deployment and then served a 
tour of duty in Iraq beginning in the winter of 2005. But when he 
returned to the United States to be treated for a knee injury, someone 
reported that he was gay and he was discharged from the Army.
  Finally, there is LTC Victor Fehrenbach, a 19-year veteran of the Air 
Force. He has flown 88 combat missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, 
and the former Yugoslavia. He received nine Air Medals and five 
Commendation Medals. When our country was attacked on September 11, 
2001, he was hand-selected to fly patrols over Washington, DC, as part 
of the initial alert crew.
  But Colonel Fehrenbach has been recommended for honorable discharge 
because his sexual orientation was made public in 2008.
  These are only five stories. There are at least 13,500 more. All of 
these men and women volunteered to defend the country they love, only 
to be discharged because of who they happen to love.
  Now I wish to speak about the DREAM Act. I thank those who have 
supported this, brought it forward--Senator Hatch, Senator Durbin, as 
well as Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins on repealing don't ask, 
don't tell. I have supported the DREAM Act since it was first 
introduced. Each year the support has grown.
  Each year approximately 65,000 undocumented young people graduate 
from America's high schools. Most of these did not make a choice to 
come to the United States. Many were brought here by their parents, 
some at 6 months old, 6 years, 12 years--whatever it is. Many of these 
young people grew up in the United States. They have little or no 
memory or resources in the country from which they came. They are hard-
working young people, dedicated to their education or serving in the 
Nation's military. They have stayed out of trouble. Some are 
valedictorians--I happen to know one--and honor roll students. Some are 
community leaders and have an unwavering commitment to serving the 
United States.
  Mr. President, I would like to tell you about a few college students 
in California, who would benefit from the DREAM Act.
  Ana was born in Mexico. She was brought to the United States when she 
was 7 years old. She says one of her earliest memories is her mother 
waking her up early in the morning to go to school in the United 
States. She quickly learned English and excelled in school. She didn't 
find out that she was undocumented until she was 13 years old and 
overheard someone talking about ``illegal aliens.'' When she asked her 
father what it meant, he told her that she should never ask about that 
word again. Like most kids, she didn't know what it meant to be 
undocumented.
  Then, when she was ready to apply for college, her guidance counselor 
asked for her social security number. This is when the meaning of 
``undocumented'' hit home. She graduated from high school with honors 
and is currently a sophomore at DeAnza College in California. She is 
active in her student government and is studying political science.
  Ivan was brought to the United States when he was just 10 months old. 
His family settled in San Bernardino, CA, where Ivan excelled in 
school. He found out about his undocumented status in the 7th grade 
when he could not accept an award he earned at a science fair because 
he didn't have a Social Security number.
  Ivan is a Presidential scholar who graduated within the top 1 percent 
of high school graduates in San Bernardino County. He is currently a 
senior at California State University and is a pre-med biology major. 
He hopes to become a doctor in the Army someday and says that it would 
be an honor to provide care to the brave men and women risking their 
lives for this country.
  Blanca came to the United States in 1989, when she was 6 years old. 
Her family left Mexico after a devastating earthquake. Blanca's family 
settled in the San Francisco area, where she attended elementary school 
and graduated from high school. Although Blanca knew that she was 
undocumented, her family never spoke about it.

[[Page S10656]]

  Despite being undocumented, Blanca was determined to get the best 
education she could. She attended Contra Costa Community College and 
the University of California Davis. She graduated from college in 2008 
and hopes to become a lawyer someday so that she can work to prevent 
sex trafficking.
  Justino was brought to the United States 10 years ago by his mother, 
along with his two siblings, to escape his abusive father. He attended 
school and graduated within the top 5 percent of his class. He attends 
Mount San Antonio College and is a student leader, actively engaged in 
community service in the Latino community.
  Justino says that he has a strong love for his community and has been 
doing everything he can to improve it just like his role models, Martin 
Luther King, Jr., and Gandhi.
  Because of their undocumented status, these young people are 
ineligible to serve in the military. They face tremendous obstacles to 
attending college. For many, English is actually their first language, 
and they are just like every other American student. Now reaching 
adulthood, these young people are left with a dead end. They can't use 
their educations to contribute to their communities. They can't serve 
the country they call home by volunteering for military service. In 
other words, they are dumbed down by their status. They are relegated 
to the shadows by their status. And along comes the DREAM Act. That 
provides an opportunity for these young people to prove themselves. It 
provides the incentive to prove themselves.
  It would permit students to become permanent residents if they came 
here as children, are long-term U.S. residents, have good moral 
character, attend college, or enlist in the military for 2 years. So 
already they have to prove themselves. The legislation requires 
students to wait 10 years before becoming lawful permanent residents 
and undergo background and security checks and pay any back taxes. This 
is a multistep process. It is not a free pass.
  Additionally, according to CBO, the DREAM Act would actually increase 
Federal revenues by $2.3 billion over the 10 years and increase net 
direct spending by $912 million between 2011 and 2012.
  In addition, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee 
on Taxation indicate that enacting the bill would reduce deficits by 
about $2.2 billion over 10 years.
  DREAM is a winner. Repealing Don't ask, don't tell is what we should 
do. I hope there are ``aye'' votes sufficient to pass both of these 
today.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Could I be advised after I have spoken for 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, the DREAM Act is an attempt to cure a symptom of a 
problem. The symptom is that some children have been brought here 
illegally and they are suffering the consequences of being illegal 
aliens under American law. The problem is illegal immigration, which 
causes all manner of other bad results or problems. There are huge 
costs to society and any number of personal tragedies as a result of 
illegal immigration, the DREAM Act problems being only one subset.
  Just a few days ago, another Border Patrol agent was killed in the 
State of Arizona, illustrating again another kind of personal tragedy 
from illegal immigration. Unfortunately, treating symptoms of the 
problem might make us feel better because we are doing something for a 
particular group of folks, but it can allow the underlying problem to 
metastisize. Unfortunately, that is what is happening at our border.
  In some respects, the problems are getting worse, not better. Our 
citizens have a right to be safe and secure. Right now that situation, 
at least in my home State, does not pertain. So the first point I make 
is that we have to secure the border and stop illegal immigration. When 
we do, there will not be more problems for people associated with 
education that would be solved by the DREAM Act or other problems 
associated with illegal immigration. We will have excluded or we will 
have limited the nature of the problem to simply those who are here now 
and then, obviously, we can deal with that problem. That is the first 
point.
  Second, this bill is brought to us with no hearings or markup in a 
committee. It is the sixth version of a DREAM Act. I worked with 
Senator Durbin on another version of the DREAM Act in connection with 
the comprehensive immigration law. There are problems with this bill. 
Those problems need to be dealt with. But the bill comes before us 
under a condition in which there can be no amendments. There needs to 
be amendments.
  In the remaining 3 minutes or so I have, let me simply identify 10 
particular problems we need to deal with and can only be dealt with by 
getting together and working it out by having amendments, which we 
can't do in the short time we have.
  The bill would immediately put an estimated 1 to 2 million illegal 
immigrants on a path to citizenship, a number which will only grow 
because there is neither a cap nor sunset in the legislation. These 
people would then have access to a variety of other Federal programs, 
Federal welfare programs, student loans, Federal work study programs, 
and the like.
  Third, the entire time such individuals are in conditional status, 
they are not required to attend college or join the military. That is a 
common misperception. Only when such individuals seek to get lawful 
permanent resident status do they then have to proceed to complete the 
requirements for education or military.
  Fourth, the education and military requirements can be waived 
altogether, including for criminal activity--in other words, people who 
have a serious criminal background.
  Five, chain migration, which is something we dealt with in the 
legislation in 2009, would result from this legislation because once 
the citizenship is obtained, the individuals would have the right to 
legally petition for a green card for their family members. That means 
the numbers could easily triple from the 2 million plus estimated right 
now.
  Sixth, the bill has no age limit for aliens in removal status. This 
is supposed to be for children, but there is no age limit for people 
who are in removal proceedings and simply file an application for 
status under the DREAM Act to stay their removal. That has to be fixed.
  Seven, the bill forbids the Secretary of Homeland Security from 
removing any alien who has a pending application for conditional 
nonimmigrant status regardless of age or criminal status. In other 
words, it provides a safe haven for illegal immigrants, some of whom we 
would not want to allow to stay in the United States and should be 
subject to removal.
  Eighth, the DREAM Act as written provides that applicants who are 
currently ineligible under current law for status of a green card could 
nevertheless be eligible under this act. The reason is because some of 
the grounds of waiver that exist in this act do not exist under current 
law, but they could be waived for DREAM Act aliens--things such as 
document fraud, alien absconders, and marriage fraud.
  Nine, the act does not actually require that an illegal alien finish 
any type of degree other than a high school GPD. To receive green card 
status, the bill requires only that the alien complete 2 years at an 
institution of higher education. There is not a requirement that they 
ever receive a degree of any kind. The requirement is that they needn't 
receive a degree of any kind. This is important.
  For those who want to go into the military, there is the requirement 
for 2 years of service in the uniformed services. When you enlist in 
the service today, you are enlisting for a commitment of 4 years.
  Finally, removal, if it can be demonstrated as resulting in a 
hardship either to the applicant or to a spouse, the requirements for 
education can be waived altogether. So a sympathetic Secretary of 
Homeland Security could obviously create a situation in which there is 
essentially just a waiver for people to come into the United States.
  For these reasons, I urge colleagues to vote against cloture on the 
DREAM Act.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield to three of my colleagues at this 
point before, I believe, Senator McCain

[[Page S10657]]

speaks. I yield Senator Bennet 2 minutes, Senator Gillibrand for 2 
minutes, and Senator Schumer for 2 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
DREAM Act. I have a lot of sympathy for the arguments the Senator from 
Arizona has made about what is going on in Arizona, what is going on in 
the Rocky Mountain West, where I come from, which reminds me of the 
need we have in this country and in this Congress to finally face up to 
the facts and pass comprehensive immigration reform. But that is not 
what we are talking about today.
  What we are talking about today is the DREAM Act, a narrow bill that 
deals with about 65,000 people a year who are here through no fault of 
their own and have no other country of their own but want to make a 
contribution to our country--as scholars, as taxpayers, as part of our 
military--the people who have worked hard, who have played by the rules 
and they want to do nothing other than make a contribution to the 
United States of America, much as my grandparents and my mother wanted 
to make when they came here as immigrants.
  So I think on this Christmas Eve it would be more than appropriate 
for the Senate to join the House and do the right thing and pass the 
DREAM Act.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the two very 
important votes we are having today on the DREAM Act and the repeal of 
don't ask, don't tell.
  The DREAM Act is a moral imperative. These are young people who have 
come to this country through no fault of their own, who want nothing 
but to achieve the American dream--either through education or through 
military service--but they want to be part of this community and be 
able to give back to this community.
  In a country that was founded on immigrants, where the richness of 
our heritage and culture and the breath of our economy is due to our 
immigrants, we want to make sure every one of these young people can 
become American citizens.
  With regard to don't ask, don't tell, I cannot think of a policy that 
greater undermines the integrity of our entire Armed Services and who 
we are as a Nation. This is a policy that is corrosive. We are saying 
to men and women who want nothing but to serve this country, to give 
their lives for this country: No, you cannot because of who you love. I 
cannot think of something more egregious, more undermining of our 
command structure and of our goodwill, and the entire fabric of the 
military lives of the men and women who serve.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to look at this as an urgent 
priority for national security. When we are talking about worrying 
about having two wars and terrorism at every front, we need to know all 
of our best and brightest--how many are not serving today because of 
this policy; how many will return to the military when this policy is 
removed. All I know is, since this policy has been in place, we have 
lost 13,000 personnel, more than 10 percent of our foreign language 
speakers, and more than 800 in mission-critical areas who cannot be 
easily replaced.
  If you care about national security, if you care about our military 
readiness, then you will repeal this corrosive policy.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, today we vote on two very important 
issues in the great, long, and often difficult march that America has 
made toward equality.
  That is one of the greatnesses of this country, that we inexorably 
move to equality. Sometimes it is painful. Sometimes it is difficult. 
Sometimes we take two steps forward and one step back. But as the great 
scholar de Tocqueville wrote, when he visited America in the 1830s: The 
thing that separates America from all the other countries of the world 
is equality always prevails.
  We are dealing with equality on two scores today, in two areas. One 
is in the military. One of the great things about our military, No. 1, 
is they defend us and risk their lives for our freedom. But the second 
is, it has always been an integrating, positive force in America. Any 
policy that says you cannot serve even though you want to be an 
American, you are an American, is wrong; bad for our military service 
and bad for the country.
  Second, we speak of the DREAM Act. Inevitably, from the time the 
first settlers came to New York, the English began to displace the 
Dutch, and the Dutch were upset. But what does America do? We reach out 
to newcomers and say: Become Americans and contribute to the American 
dream and work hard.
  There are always people who have reasons to say no. They always fail. 
They may not fail this morning, but they will fail because the drive 
for equality is a great American drive. It is part of the American 
dream, and on both these issues we will prevail.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, over the last 3 years, I have spent a lot 
of time traveling around the State of Arizona and meeting with my 
constituents. Many of these trips took me to the southern part of my 
State where I sat down with ranchers, farmers, small business owners, 
local officials, and law enforcement officers in the border region and 
discussed the issues that were important to them and their neighbors. 
Everywhere I went people told me of their fear and concern over the 
lack of security along Arizona's border with Mexico.
  Due to the drug war in Mexico, the situation along the southern 
border has proven to be a very serious and real threat to the people 
living in the region. The violence that continues to plague our 
southern neighbor by well-armed, well-financed, and very determined 
drug cartels poses a threat to our national security. Despite the 
increased efforts of President Calderon to stamp out these bloodthirsty 
and vicious drug cartels, violence has increased dramatically, claiming 
over 31,000 lives in Mexico since 2006. The murderers carrying out 
these crimes are as violent and dangerous as any in the world.
  Two weeks ago, the Mexican military arrested a 14-year-old U.S. 
citizen who has been working as a hit man for the Cartel of the South 
Pacific. This child assassin came to the attention of the public after 
YouTube videos surfaced of him decapitating kidnapping victims. When 
questioned by Mexican authorities, he is quoted as saying, ``When we 
don't find the rivals, we kill innocent people, maybe a construction 
worker or a taxi driver.'' Truly disturbing behavior.
  This week there was another tragic murder on the U.S. side of the 
border that took the life of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. Our 
thoughts and prayers go out to his family and his fellow Border Patrol 
agents. Agent Terry was killed outside of Rio Rico, AZ, during a 
shootout with a Mexican ``rip-crew'' that was attempting to rip off a 
rival drug gang. These incidents are becoming all too common and are a 
byproduct of the lack of resources and personnel along our border.
  Incidents like these are why the residents of southern Arizona tell 
me that they feel that they live in a lawless, forgotten region of the 
country where they live in constant fear in their own homes. They are 
begging for our help. It is time--in fact, the time is long overdue--
for the Federal Government to fulfill its responsibility to secure our 
international borders and ensure the safety and well-being of the 
families and citizens living within those borders.

  All of that being said, I still believe that the overwhelming 
majority of men and women trying to enter our country illegally are 
looking for nothing more than the opportunity to improve their lives 
and the lives of their families. Fixing our immigration system, with 
reforms like the DREAM Act and the implementation of a workable and 
labor-market-driven guest worker program would benefit our Nation's 
economy and our society. Such reform would also provide immigrants 
desperate to come to the United States to look for work a safe 
alternative to illegal human smugglers or ``coyotes'' that have cost so 
many people their lives and dignity. According to the U.S. Border 
Patrol, 253 people died attempting to cross the Arizona border between 
September 2009 and October 2010.
  With respect to the DREAM Act, I have great sympathy for the students

[[Page S10658]]

who would benefit from passage of this legislation. I have met 
personally with many of the students advocating for the bill, and many 
of their stories are heart-wrenching. Through no fault of their own, 
they are now caught in legal limbo that leaves them unable to obtain 
employment in the United States and unequipped to return to the country 
of their birth, often a place foreign and completely unknown to them. I 
truly sympathize with the plight of these men and women.
  But I also feel for the men and women of Arizona who live along an 
unsecure border and have been promised for decades that the Federal 
Government will do its job and stop the illegal migration and drug 
trafficking that run through their towns, neighborhoods, and backyards.
  I pity the farmers in my State who are unable to harvest their crops 
because they cannot navigate the burdens of the H-2A agriculture guest 
worker program. Most of all, however, I sympathize with the families 
who live in constant fear in their homes and neighborhoods, especially 
those who have been victimized by criminal elements crossing the border 
illegally. Consequently, I cannot in good faith put the priorities of 
these students, as tragic as their situation is, ahead of my 
constituents and the American people are who are demanding that the 
Federal Government fulfill its constitutional duty to secure our 
borders. Once we fulfill this commitment, we can then address the other 
issues surrounding and plaguing our broken immigration system.
  On a practical note, I also believe that any casual, impartial 
observer will recognize that our inability to secure the border has 
made immigration reform politically unattainable as the American public 
insists we stop the flow of illegal entries before considering any 
changes to our immigration policies. In 1986, we passed what was truly 
an amnesty and we failed to secure our borders either before or after 
that bill's passage. Consequently, we now have an estimated 12 to 20 
million people living in our country illegally, and the American people 
have said ``enough is enough.'' They are telling us to ``secure our 
borders first.''

  We have already made steps in the right direction. In fact, we have 
shown our ability to work in a bipartisan fashion to secure the border 
during this Congress. Most recently, in August, the Senate unanimously 
passed legislation to deploy $600 million in personnel and new assets 
to the southwest border. We must continue this important work together.
  While it is true that there are more assets and resources at the 
border now than ever before, we need a complete and comprehensive plan 
that incorporates the ideas of the State and local law enforcement, 
elected officials, and the border Governors. In the coming months, I 
will begin a deliberative and comprehensive process of discovering what 
is truly needed to secure our borders and give the Governors of our 
Southern States the peace of mind and assurance they need to certify 
that their borders are secure.
  These elected officials are on the front line and know best what 
assets, personnel, and technology are needed. Once the border State 
Governors certify their State border has been secured and the Federal 
Government can demonstrate such to the American people--only then 
should we and can we begin working on comprehensive immigration reform.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in a bipartisan matter 
to address all of these issues that are important to the American 
people and the people of Arizona.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while partisan rancor seems to have seized 
the Senate on so many issues this year, on at least one count, I am 
encouraged and hopeful. There may yet be sufficient bipartisan 
agreement to repeal the discriminatory don't ask, don't tell policy 
before this Congress ends. I commend those Senators who have pledged to 
support the repeal, and I renew my own commitment to this worthy 
effort. It is well past time to put an end to this discriminatory and 
harmful policy.
  Today, in the U.S. Senate, the stage is being set for one of the 
major civil rights victories of our lifetimes. Years from now, I hope 
that historians will have good cause to remember this day as a day when 
the two parties overcame superficial differences to advance the pursuit 
of equal rights for all Americans. After much effort, and just as much 
study and discussion, the Senate finally will proceed to an up-or-down 
vote on repealing this counterproductive policy.
  For those who still harbor concerns that enacting this repeal would 
somehow harm readiness, one simple fact is the clearest answer: Gay and 
lesbian Americans already serve honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces and 
have always done so. There is no doubt that they have served in the 
military since the earliest days of the Republic. The only reason they 
could do so then, and now--even under today's discriminatory policy--is 
because they display the same conduct and professionalism that we 
expect from all of our men and women in uniform. They are no different 
than anyone else, and they should be treated no differently.
  Ending this policy will also bring to an end years of forced, 
discriminatory and corrosive secrecy. Giving these troops the right to 
serve openly, allowing them to be honest about who they are, will not 
cause disciplined service members to suddenly become distracted on the 
battlefield. It is pandering to suggest that they would be.
  This is not only my view. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral 
Mullen, has said time and again that this is the right thing to do and 
that it will not harm our military readiness.
  Every member of our armed services should be judged solely on his or 
her contribution to the mission. Repealing don't ask, don't tell will 
ensure that we stay true to the principles upon which our great Nation 
was founded. We ask our troops to protect freedom around the globe. It 
is time to protect their basic freedoms and equal rights here at home.
  Throughout our history, the Senate has shown its ability to reflect 
and illuminate the Nation's deepest ideals and the Nation's conscience. 
It is my hope that the Senate will rise to this occasion by breaking 
through the partisan din to proceed to a debate and vote on repealing 
this discriminatory and counterproductive policy.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise to voice my strong support for this 
legislation which I am proud to co-sponsor and which effectively 
repeals don't ask, don't tell.
  Today, we are at a historic crossroads. Our choice is to continue a 
policy that conflicts with our founding principles of freedom and 
liberty for all, or to open the doors of the military to all Americans 
courageous enough to serve.
  Don't ask, don't tell is discrimination, plain and simple. Any 
American prepared to die for their country should be afforded the 
respect and admiration they deserve. Brave men and women in uniform are 
willing to fight for our freedom every day, and it is our 
responsibility as Senators as Americans first to fight for theirs.
  President Truman had the vision and leadership to racially integrate 
the military at a time when he faced even stronger opposition from 
political and military leaders than we face today. We should act today 
in that tradition.
  I have met with many courageous members of the military some of whom 
also happened to be gay or lesbian and listened to congressional 
testimony on this issue. I share the view of our military leaders that 
the most pressing question is not whether to repeal don't ask, don't 
tell, but rather, how to implement a repeal. This is why I am pleased 
the bill before us today leaves this issue in the hands of military 
leaders, who are granted the time needed to certify adequate 
preparation for a repeal reflecting the best interests of our troops.
  Under the legislation, a repeal of don't ask, don't tell would be 
enacted 60 days after the President, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs certify they have done three things. First, that 
they have considered the Pentagon working group report on the impact of 
a repeal. Second, that the Department of Defense has readied the 
necessary regulations for implementation. Third, that the manner of 
implementation is consistent with the standards of military readiness, 
effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention.
  This legislation does not stipulate a timeline for this process, but 
provides

[[Page S10659]]

a congressional mandate that the policy must be changed once measures 
are in place to mitigate any negative impact of a repeal. This includes 
training, education, and additional steps to ensure a smooth transition 
to implementing a repeal.
  The issue of implementation was one concern shared by all the service 
chiefs who testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on 
December 3, and I am pleased it is adequately addressed in this bill. 
Another concern shared by all service chiefs was the view that they 
would prefer that Congress legislate a repeal rather than leave it to 
the courts. They shared a concern that a court order would compel 
military leaders to implement a repeal without the time and flexibility 
required.
  As the recent Department of Defense report demonstrated, 70 percent 
of our troops believe a repeal of don't ask, don't tell will have 
little impact on military readiness or unit cohesion. Sixty-nine 
percent believe they have served with someone who is gay or lesbian, 
and of that group, 92 percent responded that serving with someone who 
is gay or lesbian had little impact on their unit.
  These report findings demonstrate a basic truth that we can deny no 
longer. Gay Americans have chosen to proudly serve their country, and 
the current don't ask, don't tell policy forces them to lie about who 
they are or face discharge. In fact, we have discharged nearly 14,000 
brave servicemembers since the law was implemented in 1993, simply 
because their sexual orientation was disclosed. Those discharged 
include high-decorated combat veterans, national security experts, and 
badly needed military linguists when our nation is engaged overseas in 
two wars. These are losses we can ill afford.
  Sexual orientation is not a choice but discrimination is. Homosexuals 
in the military today face the double burden of risking their lives for 
their country while being force to lie about who they are or face 
discharge. Today, I am pleased to join my colleagues in ending this 
burden once and for all and repealing don't ask, don't tell.
  I wish to voice my strong and unequivocal support for this bill which 
effectively ends the seventeen year policy of treating homosexuals as 
inherently unqualified for military service. It is time we join the 
majority of our allies in allowing those already serving in our 
military to do so free from discrimination, with integrity and honor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, over the past few months, we have heard a 
variety of justifications for why now is not the time to repeal don't 
ask, don't tell.
  Opponents of repeal have said that we should wait for our military 
leaders to call for change. Well, in the past year, the Secretary of 
Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--the two highest-
ranking military leaders in America--have told us now is the time for 
Congress to act.
  We have been told that we should wait for the results of the Pentagon 
study on the effects of ending don't ask, don't tell and 
recommendations for implementing its repeal. We now have the results of 
that study. It concludes that the risks associated with overturning 
don't ask, don't tell are low, with thorough preparation. The repeal 
bill before us provides for just such preparation.
  A survey included in the Pentagon study shows that a substantial 
majority of servicemembers--about 70 percent--predict little to no 
negative effects from allowing gay men and lesbians to openly in our 
military.
  Rather than listen to our top military leaders and rank and file 
servicemembers, opponents of repeal now want to move the goal posts. 
After months of exhaustive study and debate, they now say they want a 
survey that asks different questions and to hear from different 
leaders.
  They say the 103-question survey, 95 forums, and 140 focus groups 
included in the Pentagon study were not sufficient to gauge the affects 
of repeal.
  Enough with the stalling and blocking.
  The days of don't ask, don't tell are numbered. This discriminatory 
policy, which is harmful to our Nation's principles and or national 
defense, will end. The only question is whether Congress will act and 
give military leaders the time they seek to make an orderly transition, 
or continue to delay and risk that the federal courts will demand a 
more abrupt change.
  Congress or the courts. That is the choice.
  Secretary Gates warned us as much at the release of the Pentagon 
study. He said:

       Now that we have completed this review, I strongly urge the 
     Senate to pass this legislation and send it to the president 
     for signature before the end of this year. I believe this is 
     a matter of some urgency because, as we have seen in the past 
     year, the federal courts are increasingly becoming involved 
     in this issue.

  He continued:

       Just a few weeks ago, one lower court ruling forced the 
     department into an abrupt series of changes that were no 
     doubt confusing and distracting to men and women in the 
     ranks. It is only a matter of time before the federal courts 
     are drawn once more into the fray, with the very real 
     possibility that this change would be imposed immediately by 
     judicial fiat--by far the most disruptive and damaging 
     scenario I can imagine, and one of the most hazardous to 
     military morale, readiness and battlefield performance.

  Just this week, another legal challenge was filed in federal court by 
three former servicemembers discharged under don't ask, don't tell.
  Their stories illustrate once again the arbitrary and unjust the 
nature of the current policy, and the harm it causes.
  The plaintiffs are Air Force veterans Michael Almy and Anthony 
Loverde, and Navy veteran Jason Knight. Let me tell you about these 
brave men.
  MAJ Michael Almy is the son of a West Point graduate and served 13 
years in the Air Force.
  Major Almy deployed to the Middle East several times in the late 
1990s, helping to enforce the no-fly zones in Iraq. He deployed again 
in 2002 and 2004 to support the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath.
  Near the end of his 2004 deployment, Major Almy was named the Field 
Grade Officer of the Year. It was also during this deployment that a 
member of his unit found e-mails Major Almy sent to another man and the 
discharge process started.
  Major Almy's superiors and subordinates provided glowing character 
references during the discharge.
  This is what one subordinate said--Major Almy:

     one of the most respected leaders in the squadron thanks to 
     his no nonsense approach to mission accomplishment.

  He added:

       I can say without any reservation that Major Almy was the 
     best supervisor I have ever had . . . It would be an absolute 
     travesty to lose such an outstanding officer and superior 
     leader.

  Even while his discharge was pending, Major Almy's wing commander 
recommended his promotion to lieutenant colonel--ahead of his peers.
  None of this was enough to save Major Almy's career. Despite his 
exemplary record, he was discharged for being gay.
  The second plaintiff, SSG Anthony Loverde, is also a highly decorated 
veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He had the difficult and job of a 
C-130 loadmaster.
  During his deployment in 2007, Loverde found that he could no longer 
pretend to be someone he was not. Upon returning home, he sent his 
supervisor an email saying he would like to continue to serve, but he 
could not do so if it also meant continuing to conceal his sexual 
orientation. That letter started his discharge.
  One month after his discharge, Sergeant Loverde received the Air 
Medal for ``superior ability in the presence of perilous conditions.''
  But that is not the end of Sergeant Loverde's story.
  Shortly after his discharge, he went to work for a defense contractor 
and headed back to Iraq, this time as an openly gay man. As a defense 
contractor, he shared quarters with servicemembers--without incident.
  In a letter last year to the Washington Post, Sergeant Loverde wrote:

       At the same time I was being discharged, my younger 
     brother, who served a 15-month tour in Iraq during 2004-05 
     with the Army infantry, was stop-lossed to be sent back for 
     another tour of duty. He had a new wife and a young son; he 
     had fulfilled his initial commitment and wanted to leave the 
     Army to continue his career as a civilian. But our country's 
     needs were too great--he was told he had to keep fighting.

  Why, in such a time, would we discharge decorated servicemembers who 
want to serve our Nation?

[[Page S10660]]

  The third member in this latest court challenge is PO2 Jason Knight.
  Petty Officer Knight enlisted in the Navy in April 2001 and served 5 
years. He spent the first 3 of those years as a member of the elite 
Navy Ceremonial Guard at Arlington National Cemetery. He participated 
in more than 1,500 military funerals.
  In 2004, Petty Officer Knight realized he was gay. He ended his 
marriage and informed his commander.
  He was discharged in April 2005, but because of an error in the 
paperwork, he remained eligible for recall.
  Sure enough, Petty Officer Knight was recalled in 2006, and deployed 
to Kuwait. During that deployment, he served as an openly gay man and 
received high praise from those with whom he served.
  In 2007, responding to a statement by GEN Peter Pace, then-Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that he viewed homosexuality as immoral, 
Jason Knight wrote a letter to the editor of Stars and Stripes.
  In his letter, Petty Officer Knight wrote:

       I spent four years in the Navy, buried fallen 
     servicemembers as part of the Ceremonial Guard, served as a 
     Hebrew Linguist in Navy Intelligence, and received awards for 
     exemplary service. However, because I was gay, the Navy 
     discharged me and recouped my $13,000 sign-on bonus. Nine 
     months later, the Navy recalled me to active duty. Did I 
     accept despite everything that happened? Of course I did, and 
     I would do it again. Because I love the Navy and I love my 
     country. And despite [General] Pace's opinion, my shipmates 
     support me.

  For writing those words, Jason Knight was discharged for a second 
time under don't ask, don't tell.
  The men and women discharged under don't ask, don't tell are not 
asking to be treated as a special class. Just the opposite--they are 
asking to be treated like everyone else.
  Some defenders of the status quo claim that things are working fine 
under don't ask, don't tell. How in the world can anyone say that after 
hearing these stories?
  At a time when our Nation is fighting two wars, honorable men and 
women with proven records of outstanding service are being forced out 
of our military, they are having their careers destroyed, solely 
because they are gay. It is time for Congress to act and give our 
military leaders the time they need to bring this flawed policy to a 
responsible end.
  We know that some branches and some members of our armed services are 
more skeptical than others of the ability of America's military to 
adapt to a repeal of don't ask, don't tell.
  Lack of complete agreement is no reason to delay.
  We have been here before. In 1948, when President Harry Truman signed 
Executive Order 9981 calling for an end to segregation in the armed 
forces, he also created a military advisory committee and charged them 
with examining military rules, procedures, and practices that 
interfered with equitable treatment of military personnel. It was 
called the President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and 
Opportunities in Armed Forces, but it became better known as the Fahy 
Committee, after its chairman.
  In March of 1949, the three Service Secretaries testified before the 
Fahy Committee. The Secretaries of the Air Force and Navy testified in 
support of President Truman's executive order. But Secretary of the 
Army Kenneth Royall argued in favor of maintaining the status quo, 
saying that the Army was ``not an instrument of social evolution.''
  As it turned out, Secretary Royall was wrong. The U.S. military--and 
the Army in particular--helped lead the way in creating the vibrant, 
integrated society we know today.
  America has the best trained, most professional military in the 
history of the world. I am confident that our military can and will 
meet the challenges of ending discrimination based on sexual 
orientation, just as they helped lead the way in ending legalized 
racial discrimination in the past.
  Former Senator Edward Brooke served in this body for 12 years in the 
1960s and 1970s. He was the first African-American elected to the U.S. 
Senate since Reconstruction.
  He remembers well the injustice of serving in a segregated Army. He 
recently wrote an impassioned plea for ending don't ask, don't tell. It 
appeared in the Boston Globe. I quoted from it when I spoke on this 
topic a few days ago. I want to do so again, because what he says bears 
repeating.
  Senator Brooke wrote that don't ask, don't tell ``shows disrespect 
both for the individuals it targets and for the values our military was 
created to defend.''
  He wrote:

       Regardless of its target, prejudice is always the same. It 
     finds novel expressions and capitalizes on new fears. But 
     prejudice is never new and never right. One thing binds all 
     prejudices together: irrational fear. Decades ago, black 
     servicemembers were the objects of this fear. Many thought 
     that integrating black and white soldiers would harm the 
     military and society. Today, we see that segregation itself 
     was the threat to our values.

  He went on to say:

       We know that laws that elevate one class of people over 
     another run counter to America's ideals. Yet due to ``don't 
     ask, don't tell,'' the very people who sacrifice the most to 
     defend our values are subject to such a law. We owe them far 
     more.

  One month before President Truman's Executive Order, a Gallup poll 
showed that only one in four American adults supported ending racial 
segregation in our military.
  Today, 75 percent of Americans say that gay men and lesbians should 
be allowed to serve openly.
  A majority of our servicemembers and our top military leaders say it 
is time to end the discrimination against gay men and lesbians.
  The time for change has come. The only question is whether we will 
act responsibly and give our military leaders the time they are seeking 
to make this transition. Or will we continue to delay and let the 
courts set the timetable?
  America is ready to end don't ask, don't tell. Now it is our turn to 
take the next step forward and end a policy that offends our national 
principles and harms our national security.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on both sides?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona has 10 
minutes. The Senator from Illinois has 10 minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. McCAIN. Well, Mr. President, I would ask, is it true the 
parliamentary situation as it exists right now is that we will be 
voting on cloture on both what is known as don't ask, don't tell and 
the DREAM Act?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct. There will 
be cloture votes on both of those House messages.
  Mr. McCAIN. Meanwhile, on the Executive Calendar, we have the START 
treaty?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. And there are no amendments that are in order on either 
the DREAM Act or don't ask, don't tell, no amendments are in order?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. My understanding is there is no 
place for an amendment on either measure at this time.
  Mr. McCAIN. So here we are, about 6 weeks after an election that 
repudiated the agenda of the other side, and we are jamming, or trying 
to jam, major issues through the Senate of the United States because 
they know they cannot get it done beginning next January 5. They cannot 
do it next January 5. The American people have spoken, and they are 
acting in direct repudiation of the message of the American people. 
That is why they are jamming this through.
  My friends, there is a lot of talk about compromise. There is a lot 
of talk about working together. You think what this ``bizarro'' world 
that the majority leader has been carrying us in, of cloture votes on 
this, votes on various issues that are on the political agenda of the 
other side--to somehow think that beginning next January 5 we will all 
love one another and kumbaya? I do not think so. I do not think so.
  Unfortunately, the majority is using the lameduck session to push an 
agenda, when the fact is lameduck sessions are supposed to be to finish 
up the work of Congress so the new Congress can act on the issues of 
the day.
  The American people have spoken in what the President of the United 
States described as a ``shellacking.'' Everything we are doing is 
completely ignoring that message. Maybe it will require another 
election.

[[Page S10661]]

  So, for example, I filed two amendments I believe are relevant to 
this bill, important to this major change. Those will not be in order.
  I have always and consistently stated that I would listen to and 
fully consider the advice of our military and our military leadership. 
On December 3, the Committee on Armed Services heard from the Chiefs of 
our four military services--the Chiefs of our four military services.
  General Amos said:

       Based on what I know about the very tough fight in 
     Afghanistan, the almost singular focus of our combat forces 
     as they train up and deploy into theater, the necessary 
     tightly woven culture of those combat forces that we are 
     asking so much of at this time, and, finally, the direct 
     feedback from the survey, my recommendation is that we should 
     not implement repeal at this time.

  Then he talks about:

       Mistakes and inattention or distractions cost Marines' 
     lives.

  Cost marines' lives.

       [M]arines came back--

  After serving in combat--

     and they said, ``Look, anything that's going to break or 
     potentially break that focus and cause any kind of 
     distraction may have an effect on cohesion.'' I don't want to 
     permit that opportunity to happen. And I'll tell you why. If 
     you go up to Bethesda . . . Marines are up there with no 
     legs, none. We've got Marines at Walter Reed with no limbs.

  General Casey said:

       I believe that the implementation of the repeal of Don't 
     Ask, Don't Tell in the near term will, one, add another level 
     of stress to an already stretched force; two, be more 
     difficult in our combat arms units; and, three, be more 
     difficult for the Army than the report suggests.

  General Schwartz basically said the same thing.
  I have heard from thousands--thousands--of Active-Duty and retired 
military personnel. I have heard from them, and they are saying: 
Senator McCain, it isn't broke, and don't fix it.
  So all of this talk about how it is a civil rights issue and 
equality, the fact is, the military has the highest recruiting and 
highest retention than at any other time in its history. So I 
understand the other side's argument as to their social, political 
agenda. But to somehow allege that it has harmed our military is not 
justified by the facts.
  I hope everybody recognizes this debate is not about the broader 
social issues that are being discussed in our society, but what is in 
the best interest of our national security and our military during the 
time of war.
  Now, I am aware this vote will probably pass today in a lameduck 
session, and there will be high-fives all over the liberal bastions of 
America. We will see the talk shows tomorrow--a bunch of people talking 
about how great it is. Most of them never have served in the military 
or maybe even not even known someone in the military.
  And, you know, we will repeal it; all over America there will be gold 
stars put up in windows in the rural towns and communities all over 
America that do not partake in the elite schools that bar military 
recruiters from campus, that do not partake in the salons of Georgetown 
and the other liberal bastions around the country. But there will be 
additional sacrifice. I hear that from master sergeants. I hear that 
from junior officers. I hear that from leaders.
  So I am confident that with this repeal our military--the best in the 
world--will salute and do the best they can to carry out the orders of 
the Commander in Chief. That is the nature--that is the nature--of our 
military, and I could not be more proud of them in the performance that 
they have given us in Iraq and Afghanistan, and before that other 
conflicts. They will do what is asked of them.
  But do not think it will not be at great cost. I will never forget 
being, just a few weeks ago, at Kandahar. An Army sergeant major, with 
five tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, in a forward operating base, said: 
Senator McCain, we live together. We sleep together. We eat together. 
Unit cohesion is what makes us succeed.
  So I hope when we pass this legislation we will understand we are 
doing great damage, and we could possibly and probably--as the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps said; and I have been told by literally 
thousands of members of the military--harm the battle effectiveness 
which is so vital to the survival of our young men and women in the 
military.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There remains 10\1/2\ minutes to 
the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the DREAM Act 
and in support of the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. I will focus my 
remarks on the DREAM Act, but I want to make it clear to my colleagues, 
you will not get many chances in the Senate in the course of your 
career to face clear votes on the issue of justice. This morning, you 
will have two--not one but two.
  The question is whether the Senate will go on record as a Nation 
prepared to stop discrimination based on sexual orientation. It is a 
monumental question, a question of great moment, and a question we 
should face squarely.
  There will be a vote, as well, on whether the Senate will stand by 
thousands of children in America who live in the shadows and dream of 
greatness. They are children who have been raised in this country. They 
stand in the classrooms and pledge allegiance to our flag. They sing 
our Star Spangled Banner, our national anthem. They believe in their 
heart of hearts this is home. This is the only country they have ever 
known. All they are asking for is a chance to serve this Nation. That 
is what the DREAM Act is all about.
  Last night, Senator Bob Menendez, who has been my great ally on this, 
and I stayed late to speak on the Senate floor. I left and went 
upstairs, and there were many of these young people who were here in 
support of the DREAM Act, who came by my office and we spent a few 
minutes together. Some of them have ridden on buses for 28 hours from 
Austin, TX, to be here, to sit in this gallery, and to pray that 100 
Senators will consider the issue of justice and stand up for them.
  Some have come to the floor today and criticized this as a political 
stunt. I wish to tell my friends, I hope you understand my sincerity on 
this issue. I have been working on this issue for 10 years. These 
people have been waiting for more than 10 years. To say we are pushing 
and rushing a vote--for them, it can't come too soon because their 
lives hang in the balance.
  I would just say this is not a procedural vote. It is not a political 
stunt. We are voting on a bill that has already passed the U.S. House 
of Representatives. If it passes on the floor of the Senate, it will 
become the law of the land with the President's signature.
  I thank those who have brought us to this moment: the President, who 
was a cosponsor of the DREAM Act when he served in the Senate; 
Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar, who is on the floor today, as a 
former Member of the Senate. What a great ally you have been, Ken, 
throughout this entire debate; Secretary of Education Arne Duncan; 
Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano; and especially my 
friend, Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana. What an extraordinarily 
courageous man he has been to join me in cosponsoring this measure, 
which is controversial in some places.
  What will this bill do? Let me make clear some of the things that 
have been said on the floor which are not accurate. First, when this 
bill is signed into law, the only people eligible to take advantage are 
those who have been in the United States for 5 years. Anybody who comes 
after 2005 cannot be eligible, and those who are eligible have 1 year 
to apply and to pay the $500 fee and then they have 5 years under the 
bill to do one of two things: to serve in our U.S. military and risk 
their lives for America or to finish at least 2 years of college.
  What are the odds they are going to do those things? I will tell my 
colleagues. Today, about half the Hispanic youth in America don't 
finish high school. Only 1 out of 20 enters college in this status. So 
the odds are against them. But that isn't the end of it. There is a 
long list of things they must do in order to qualify for the DREAM Act, 
including background checks on their moral character and criminal 
records. If they have been convicted of a felony, they are ineligible; 
if they have been convicted of more than two misdemeanors, ineligible.

[[Page S10662]]

  There have been things said on the floor by the Senator from Alabama 
and others that the Secretary of Homeland Security can waive this 
requirement. That is not true. It is not true.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement by 
the Department of Homeland Security which makes it eminently clear she 
has no power, no directive to have any power under the DREAM Act to 
waive any of these requirements which bar those with criminal records, 
who violate the law or have a history of terrorism or threat to 
national security.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               Department of Homeland Security DREAM Act

       MISLEADING CLAIM: The DREAM Act is not limited to children.
       FACT: The DREAM Act limits applications to persons who were 
     children when they arrived in the United States (under 16) 
     and are under age 30 on the date of enactment.
       MISLEADING CLAIM: The DREAM Act will be funded on the backs 
     of hardworking, law-abiding Americans.
       FACT: The DREAM Act is fully paid for by applicants without 
     cost to the Federal Government. It allows for collection of 
     fees to recover ``the full costs of providing adjudication 
     and processing services,'' and requires a total of $2,525 in 
     surcharges paid by applicants during the process designed to 
     ensure that the DREAM Act does not increase direct federal 
     spending. Not only will the DREAM Act cost the government 
     nothing, but it will actually reduce the deficit over the 
     next ten years. Moreover, as conditional nonimmigrants, these 
     individuals are barred from a broad range of federal public 
     benefits as well as federal tax credits to purchase health 
     insurance in the exchange created by the health care reform 
     bill.
       MISLEADING CLAIM: The DREAM Act provides safe harbor for 
     any alien, including criminals, from being removed or 
     deported if they simply submit an application.
       FACT: Only individuals who can show that they are prima 
     facie eligible for cancellation of removal and conditional 
     nonimmigrant status are prohibited from being removed. A 
     prima facie showing of eligibility is not a modest or low 
     standard of legal proof and cannot be satisfied by the 
     alien's signature. In immigration law it is a much more 
     stringent determination.
       Prima facie eligibility determinations are required under 
     the existing provisions governing Temporary Protected Status. 
     USCIS must make a determination that an applicant is prima 
     facie eligible for TPS under section 244(a)(4) of the INA and 
     implementing regulations at 8 C.F.R. 244.5. USCIS checks the 
     applicant's nationality and verifies identity through 
     biometrics checks. The agency also runs fingerprint checks 
     through the FBI and conducts certain background checks in 
     relevant systems to determine whether there is available 
     derogatory criminal or security information that would call 
     into question the applicant's eligibility for TPS, and thus 
     may require further review. If this initial identity check of 
     the applicant and the background and security checks raise no 
     immediate concerns about TPS eligibility, the applicant will 
     be considered ``prima facie'' eligible for TPS and provided 
     certain ``temporary treatment benefits,'' such as an 
     employment and travel authorization.
       DREAM Act applicants would be required to undergo a similar 
     process to establish prima facie eligibility.
       MISLEADING CLAIM: Certain inadmissible aliens, including 
     those from high-risk regions, will be eligible for amnesty 
     under the DREAM act.
       FACT: The DREAM Act is not an amnesty. No one will 
     automatically receive a green card. Rather, the DREAM Act 
     requires a decade-long process for a narrowly tailored group 
     of young persons who were brought to the U.S. years ago as 
     children to resolve their immigration status, thereby 
     allowing America to derive the full benefits of their 
     talents. The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal 
     opined on November 27: ``[W]hat is to be gained by holding 
     otherwise law-abiding young people, who had no say in coming 
     to this country, responsible for the illegal actions of 
     others?''
       MISLEADING CLAIM: Certain criminal aliens--including drunk 
     drivers--will be eligible for amnesty under the DREAM act.
       FACT: Any criminal who applies for the DREAM Act will only 
     hasten their deportation. Anyone who has committed a 
     deportable crime and applies for the DREAM Act will have 
     their application denied and will be placed in removal 
     proceedings. In addition, the DREAM Act creates a new 
     criminal offense punishable by imprisonment of 5 years for 
     anyone who commits fraud on a DREAM Act application. 
     Moreover, all applicants must establish that they are persons 
     of good moral character, which is a much higher standard than 
     that required of other immigrants becoming permanent 
     residents.
       MISLEADING CLAIM: Conservative estimates suggest that at 
     least 1.3 million illegal aliens will be eligible for the 
     DREAM act amnesty. In reality, we have no ide how many 
     illegal aliens will apply.
       FACT: The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 
     estimates, under the DREAM Act, that 700,000 persons would be 
     able to gain conditional non-immigrant status at the end of 
     the 10-year conditional residency period.
       The CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates 
     that the bill will reduce deficits by approximately $2.2 
     billion over the next ten years. But that figure alone 
     underestimates the enormous benefits to taxpayers because the 
     CBO and JCT do not take into account the increased income 
     that DREAM Act participants will earn due to their legal 
     status and educational attainment. It is estimated that the 
     average DREAM Act participant will make $1 million over his 
     or her lifetime simply by obtaining legal status, which will 
     bring hundreds of thousands of additional dollars per 
     individual for federal, state, and local treasuries.
       America must increase the proportion of persons who 
     graduate from high school and college in order to remain 
     competitive in the global economy. The students who benefit 
     from the DREAM Act will have opportunities to attend college 
     and graduate school not otherwise available to them.
       MISLEADING CLAIM: The DREAM Act does not require that an 
     illegal alien finish any type of degree (vocational, two-
     year, or bachelor's degree) as a condition of amnesty.
       FACT: In order to be eligible for the DREAM Act, a person 
     must already have completed a GED or have earned a high 
     school diploma. In order to satisfy the requirements of the 
     DREAM Act, an applicant must acquire a degree from an 
     institution of higher education in the United States or 
     complete at least two years in good standing, or serve in the 
     Armed Forces for at least 2 years without receiving a 
     dishonorable or other than honorable discharge.
       MISLEADING CLAIM: Despite their current illegal status, 
     DREAM Act aliens will be given all the rights that legal 
     immigrants receive--including the legal right to sponsor 
     their parents and extended family members for immigration.
       FACT: DREAM Act individuals will not be able to sponsor 
     family members for permanent residency for more than a 
     decade. For the first 10 years of their conditional status, 
     DREAM participants would have absolutely no ability to 
     sponsor any family members, not even spouses or minor 
     children. Only after they have earned permanent residency--at 
     the end of that 10-year period--would they be able to sponsor 
     their immediate family members, spouses and children. The 
     spouses and children would have to go to the end of the 
     family preference line, like everyone else, a line that can 
     take many years. Only when an eligible DREAM Act individual 
     earns citizenship--after at least 13 years in conditional and 
     permanent resident status--would they be able to begin the 
     process of sponsoring their parents or siblings. But even 
     then, spouses, children, parents, and siblings who entered 
     the U.S. illegally would have to leave the country for at 
     least 10 years before they could reenter legally. DREAM Act 
     participants would NEVER be able to sponsor extended family 
     members, such as grandparents and cousins.
       MISLEADING CLAIM: The DREAM Act allows the Secretary to 
     waive all grounds of inadmissibility for illegal aliens, 
     including criminals and terrorists.
       FACT: The DREAM Act expressly limits the Secretary's 
     authority to waive grounds of inadmissibility and 
     deportability. Under this bill, the Secretary may only waive 
     health related grounds; public charge; status-related 
     immigration violations; or violation of previous immigration 
     status. The Secretary cannot waive other grounds of 
     inadmissibility or deportability, including criminal and 
     national security related grounds.
       Under the structure of the INA, an alien, when being 
     removed from the country, is either subject to grounds of 
     inadmissibility (found at INA section 212) if they have never 
     been legally admitted to the country, or subject to grounds 
     of deportability (found at INA section 237) if the alien was 
     previously lawfully admitted to the country. At the time of 
     adjustment of status or seeking an immigration benefit (such 
     as status under the DREAM Act), an alien is deemed to be an 
     applicant for admission and subject to the grounds of 
     inadmissibility at INA section 212 and would be subject to 
     the waiver authority for section 212 grounds. The Secretary 
     would not have authority to apply a waiver of a ground of 
     deportability (under section 237) when applying for admission 
     (when subject to section 212 grounds).
       If an individual was previously admitted to the country 
     (i.e.-- a visa overstay), when placed in removal proceedings, 
     the individual would be subject to grounds of deportability 
     at INA section 237 and waiver authority at that time would 
     have to be pursuant to INA section 237. A waiver of INA 
     section 237(a)(1) would not waive other section 237 grounds, 
     which include separate criminal and security grounds. INA 
     section 237(a)(1) does not waive these other grounds of 
     deportability. In other words, the individual would still be 
     subject to the concurrent criminal, security, or other 
     applicable grounds of deportability.
       MISLEADING CLAIM: The DREAM Act allows applicants to 
     immediately become permanent residents.
       FACT: The DREAM Act does not allow individuals to become 
     permanent residents immediately. In fact, they must wait many 
     years before receiving green cards. Under section 8 of the 
     DREAM Act, only persons who have been granted conditional 
     nonimmigrant status for at least nine years are

[[Page S10663]]

     eligible to apply become permanent residents. Section 8(c) 
     allows persons to apply for adjustment to permanent residence 
     one year before the 10 year period of conditional 
     nonimmigrant status expires so U.S. Citizenship and 
     Immigration Service has plenty of opportunity to carefully 
     review applications to determine that only those who meet the 
     stringent requirements of the Act are approved.
       MISLEADING CLAIM: The DREAM Act allows individuals to 
     remain in nonimmigrant status indefinitely.
       FACT: Conditional nonimmigrant status is not indefinite. It 
     can only be granted for two 5 year periods according to 
     section 7(a) and 7(d) of the bill. At the end of the second 5 
     year period, individuals can apply for adjustment to 
     permanent residence status. There are no extensions of 
     conditional nonimmigrant status for individuals who do not 
     apply to become permanent residents at the end of the second 
     5 year extension. Let's be clear: Individuals who do not 
     apply for adjustment by the end of the second 5 year period 
     will no longer have legal status in the U.S.
       Immigration law generally requires an individual to file an 
     application to obtain legal status. The DREAM Act requires 
     three such filings: the first is for the initial 5 year grant 
     of conditional nonimmigrant status; the second is for another 
     5 year extension of conditional nonimmigrant status, and the 
     last is for adjustment of status to permanent residence, 
     starting no earlier than 9 years after the initial grant of 
     conditional nonimmigrant status.
       MISLEADING CLAIM: The DREAM Act does not require that an 
     illegal alien complete military service as a condition for 
     amnesty, and there is already a legal process in place for 
     illegal aliens to obtain U.S. citizenship through military 
     service.
       FACT: The DREAM Act has been strongly embraced by the 
     military as an important element in furthering our nation's 
     readiness. The DREAM Act is part of the Department of 
     Defense's 2010-2012 Strategic Plan to assist the military in 
     its recruiting efforts. The DREAM Act streamlines and 
     simplifies the process by which aliens who wish to serve in 
     the Armed Forces may gain permanent status in the United 
     States.
       MISLEADING CLAIM: Current illegal aliens will get Federal 
     student loans, Federal work study programs, and other forms 
     of Federal financial aid.
       FACT: DREAM applicants are expressly prohibited from 
     obtaining Pell grants, Federal supplemental educational 
     opportunity grants and other federal grants. DREAM Act 
     beneficiaries would, like all students, be required to pay 
     back any loans they have incurred.

  Mr. DURBIN. Let me also say I join my colleague from Alabama in 
sadness over the loss of a life of a border guard. It is a terrible 
thing. These men and women are serving our country, and it is a 
tragedy. But can we blame these young people sitting in the galleries 
and across America for that, to question the border security? I am for 
border security.
  In July, Senator Schumer came to the floor with Senator McCain and 
added $600 million more to border security without any objection from 
either side of the aisle. Oh, I suppose if we were playing this game of 
negotiating, we could have stood and said: No; no more money for border 
security until we get the DREAM Act. We didn't do it because we are as 
dedicated to border security as anyone, and we want to make sure people 
have the opportunity to vote for border security and to also vote for 
the DREAM Act.
  Let me ask, at this point, how much time is remaining.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 5 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Five minutes. Thank you.
  I wish to say a few things about the people who are involved in this. 
They are faceless and nameless until we bring them to the floor. This 
is Benita Veliz. Benita Veliz has an amazing story which I wish to 
share with my colleagues. Benita was brought to the United States by 
her parents in 1993, when she was 8 years old. She graduated 
valedictorian of her class, received a full scholarship to St. Mary's 
University in Texas, majoring in biology and sociology. Her honors 
thesis was on the DREAM Act. She sent me a copy of it.
  What she has asked for, basically, she says in these words: I was 
called to a Cinco de Mayo community celebration and asked to sing the 
national anthems of the United States and Mexico. I couldn't do it. I 
only knew the words for the American national anthem. I am an American. 
I want to live my dream. Benita Veliz.
  Meet this young man, another who would benefit from the DREAM Act. 
His name is Minchul Suk. This is an amazing story as well. Brought to 
the United States from South Korea at the age of 9, graduated from high 
school with a 4.2 GPA, graduated from UCLA with a degree in 
microbiology, immunology, and molecular genetics. With the help of the 
community, they raised enough money for him to finish dental school. He 
has taken his boards, but he cannot become a dentist in America because 
he is undocumented. Do we need more dentists in America? Yes, we do, 
and we need a man of his quality to serve our Nation.
  I want you to meet this young man too. His name is David Cho. David 
is a man you might have seen on television. It is kind of an amazing 
story. David was brought to the United States at the age of 9, 
graduated with a 3.9 GPA in high school. He is now a senior at UCLA and 
the leader of the marching band. He wants to serve in the U.S. Air 
Force. I say to my friends who stand on the floor and protest their 
true belief that the military means so much to us as Americans, why 
would you deny these young people a chance to serve in the military? 
That is all I am asking.
  The last story I wish to tell is about a young man from New York: 
Cesar Vargas. He has an amazing story. He was brought to this country 
at a very young age and when 9/11 occurred, he was so mad at those who 
attacked America he went down to the Marine Corps and said: I want to 
sign up, and they said: You can't; you are undocumented. So he 
continued on and is attending the New York University Law School now. 
He speaks five languages. He has had offers from the biggest law firms, 
for a lot of money. He turned them down. His dream, under the DREAM 
Act, is to enlist in the Marine Corps and serve in the Judge Advocate 
General Corps.
  These are the faces of the DREAM Act, and the people who stand before 
us and try to characterize this as something else don't acknowledge the 
obvious. These are young men and women who can make America a better 
place.
  I understand this is a difficult vote. It is a difficult vote for 
many. As a matter of fact, I am not asking for just a vote for the 
DREAM Act today. From some of my colleagues I am asking for much more. 
I am asking for what is, in effect, an act of political courage. Many 
of my colleagues have told me they are lying awake at night tossing and 
turning over this vote because you know how hard it is going to be 
politically; that some people will try to use it against you. But I 
would say, if you can summon the courage to vote for the DREAM Act 
today, you will join ranks with Senators before you who have come to 
the floor of this Senate and made history with their courage; who stood 
and said the cause of justice is worth the political risk. I am 
prepared to stand, they said, and vote for civil rights for African 
Americans, civil rights for women, civil rights for the disabled in 
America. I am prepared to go back home and face whatever comes.
  Most of them have survived quite well because of their genuineness, 
their conviction and their strength and the fact that their courage is 
recognized and respected, even if someone disagrees with part of their 
vote. That is what we face today. We face the same challenge today. I 
hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will summon the courage 
to vote for justice. We don't get many chances. When it comes to 
justice for these young people of the DREAM Act or justice for those of 
different sexual orientation to serve in the military, this is our 
moment in history to show our courage.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________