[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16053-16072]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time between now and 2:30 p.m. will be 
equally divided.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to Senator Reed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, we are at a critical juncture in proceeding 
to the National Defense Authorization Act. This bill is routinely taken 
up every year. I want to emphasize again, we are at the first step. 
This is just a motion to go forward to begin to debate the bill. I 
would hope we could at least summon sufficient votes to agree to talk 
about these critical issues.
  This legislation contains important programs for our military. We 
have a military that is at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. They need 
equipment, and they need support. We have included changes for the 
quality of life of their families. One change, significantly, is to 
make the TRICARE system comparable to the new health care system by 
allowing children who are up to 26 years old to stay on their parents' 
policies.
  There are some controversial provisions and proposals. One is don't 
ask, don't tell. The other is the DREAM Act. First, the minority or 
anyone has the right to move an amendment to take out or change 
provisions with respect to don't ask, don't tell. I would disagree with 
that and oppose that, but that is something that can and will happen 
and will engender a very strong, positive debate. The other issue is 
the DREAM Act. I think that has a significant connection to this bill 
because that is one of the ways in which

[[Page 16054]]

a youngster who came to the United States--not by his or her choice but 
because of a family choice--under 16 years of age who later joins the 
military, and who serves honorably, can be put on a path to eventually 
become a citizen. That has a strong nexus to this bill. But that issue 
has to be proposed on this legislation and voted for by a majority of 
Members.
  So we are here simply to begin an important debate and discussion to 
support our men and women in uniform across the globe, and their 
families. To deny at least the initiation of such a debate seems to be 
exactly contrary to why we should be here, which is to support our 
military, to debate difficult issues, and then to take votes up and 
down to decide the policy of the United States.
  With that, I urge all my colleagues to support this motion to proceed 
to the bill.
  Mr. President, I yield any remaining time I have back to the chairman 
of the committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Time will be charged equally.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will yield myself just a minute and a 
half. I would ask that the Republicans have their speaker--if they are 
going to be using their time--to come immediately after me; otherwise, 
it would not be fair for us to be using up all of our time in advance.
  Mr. President, this morning a number of Republican Senators stated 
they would support the current filibuster of this bill because they 
were afraid that if we take up the bill, we are going to have a closed 
process that would limit their ability to offer amendments. The 
majority leader has addressed this issue. He specifically said last 
Thursday that he is ``willing to work with Republicans on a process 
that will permit the Senate to consider these matters and complete the 
bill as soon as possible.'' He is very clear on this. He is not trying 
to prevent other amendments from being offered. However, there are not 
going to be any amendments, there is not going to be any opportunity to 
vote on any amendments unless we get 60 votes to overcome the current 
filibuster and proceed to the bill. It makes no sense for Senators to 
block all amendments, which is what the effect will be if we do not end 
this filibuster, to deny consideration of this bill so we can consider 
amendments. It makes no sense to do that under the guise of wanting an 
open amendment process. We are not going to have any amendments unless 
we can get to this bill, unless we end this filibuster.
  Amendments are appropriate. We have always had amendments on the 
Defense bill. The majority leader assures we are going to do that 
again, and I will do everything I can as chairman to make sure that is 
true. So the issue today is not whether there is going to be specific 
amendments in order; it is whether we are going to get to the bill so 
we can try to consider amendments to the Defense authorization bill. 
There are many amendments that should be considered, and I hope we do 
not continue this filibuster. I hope we can get 60 votes and do the 
important work of the Nation, which is to get a defense authorization 
bill passed after it has been considered.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has 5 minutes 50 
seconds.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is, obviously, an important vote that 
is coming up. I repeat, I am not opposed in principle to bringing up 
the Defense bill and debating it, amending it, and voting on it. I am 
not opposed to having a full and informed debate on whether to repeal 
don't ask, don't tell and then allowing the Senate to legislate. What I 
am opposed to is bringing up the Defense bill now before the Defense 
Department has completed its survey because we need to know the views 
of the men and women who are serving in the military in uniform. Give 
them a chance to tell us their views. Whether you agree or disagree 
with the policy, whether you want to keep it or repeal it, the Senate 
should not be forced to make this decision now before we have heard 
from our troops. We have asked for their views, and we should wait to 
hear from them. All four service chiefs have said the same thing: Let's 
conduct the survey, let's get it done and then act on whether to repeal 
or not repeal.
  There is one other aspect. This is a blatant political ploy in order 
to try to galvanize the political base of the other side, which is 
facing a losing election. That is why the majority leader said we would 
take up don't ask, don't tell, take up the DREAM Act, and then take up 
the issue of secret holds and then address the other issues after the 
election. I wonder why the majority leader would have those 
priorities--in other words, take up those that would be politically 
beneficial, galvanize his political base as far as the Hispanic 
community is concerned and the gay and lesbian community, and then take 
up the other issues after--after--the election is over in lameduck 
session.
  This majority leader has filled up the tree and has not allowed 
debate 40 times--40 times--more than all the other majority leaders 
preceding him. Last year, the hate crimes bill was arranged in such a 
way that there were not amendments that could be proposed by my side of 
the aisle.
  So let's vote against cloture. Let's sit down and try to reach some 
kind of an agreement. Let the men and women in the military be heard 
from. Let their leaders go to their men and women who are serving and 
tell them we have heard their input before we make this legislative 
change and stop the cynical manipulation of the men and women in the 
military in order to get votes on November 2.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Senate should have the opportunity 
to debate and amend this important bill. While the bill has many 
provisions I support, it also includes billions of dollars of earmarks 
and funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that will dig us 
deeper into debt without advancing our national security. I have a 
number of amendments to improve the bill, including one to require that 
future war funding be paid for, so it doesn't add to the deficit. I 
look forward to the opportunity to offer those amendments.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the time to the Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Levin.
  I rise to oppose the filibuster of the National Defense Authorization 
Act and to say what is obvious--that this is a preelection campaign 
season. There are a lot of politics, partisan politics swirling around, 
everything going on here, including procedural matters such as those we 
are involved in right now. But there are two things I know and I 
believe, and I wish to express them about this vote coming up.
  One is, we have to proceed to consider the National Defense 
Authorization Act. If we do not do it today, I hope we will do it as 
soon after as we can because our military needs it. They are in combat. 
Without this legislation passing, we will not have the authorization to 
increase compensation and benefits for the military and their families, 
we will not have authorization for critical military construction, we 
will not have authorization for acquisition of critical military 
equipment that our troops need to fight safely on our behalf and to 
remain what they are--the bravest, most effective fighting force in the 
world. So it may be today, it may not be today, but it is going to be 
sometime before the end of the year that we have to take up this bill. 
It is our national, constitutional, moral responsibility.
  Second--and this is a controversial part, of course--I believe we 
have to repeal don't ask, don't tell, not only because it is not 
consistent with the American values of equal opportunity, of judging 
people by whether they can

[[Page 16055]]

do a job or not, not by their nationality, their religion, their 
gender, their race, or their sexual orientation--can you do a job, and 
if you can do it, then you can get that job in America. We have 
thousands of Americans who are patriotic who want to serve who happen 
to be gay or lesbian, and we are telling them: You cannot. Not only 
that, we kicked out 14,000 of them in the last 17 years under don't 
ask, don't tell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority's time has expired.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. At some point, we are going to come to a vote on the 
bill and on don't ask, don't tell. I believe a majority of my 
colleagues in this Chamber--maybe more than that--are going to do what 
we need to do, which is to repeal don't ask, don't tell.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has approximately 2 minutes 45 
seconds.
  Mr. McCAIN. I just wish to emphasize again the statements of the 
service chiefs.
  GEN George Casey:

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

  Admiral Roughead:

       My concern is that legislative changes at this point, 
     regardless of the precise language used, may cause confusion 
     on the status of the law in the Fleet and disrupt the review 
     process itself by leading Sailors to question whether their 
     input matters.

  General Conway:

       I encourage the Congress to let the process the Secretary 
     of Defense created to run its course.

  General Schwartz:

       I believe it is important, a matter of keeping faith with 
     those currently serving in the Armed Forces, that the 
     Secretary of Defense commissioned review be completed before 
     there is any legislation to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell 
     law.

  Let's listen to the people we place in charge of the men and women in 
the military. This is not the time to move forward on this issue, 
particularly with a political campaign at its highest.
  I hope my colleagues will oppose the cloture vote and let's hear a 
statement in favor of the men and women serving in the military.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I indicated to the majority leader that 
I was going to propound a unanimous consent request at this time.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the 
consideration of the Defense authorization bill; provided further that 
amendments be offered in an alternating fashion between this aisle and 
that; that the first 20 amendments offered be Defense-related 
amendments within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee, 
with no amendment related to immigration in order during the first 20 
amendments.
  Before the Chair rules, this is an important bill and the Senate 
should consider the way we have done it every year. There are many 
controversial issues related to the underlying bill that need to be 
debated and voted on by the Senate. Our view is we should start work on 
the bill and tackle the relevant Defense issues before we divert into 
unrelated measures.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I pride 
myself in being a very patient person, and I will continue to be 
patient now. But during this Congress, we have had to overcome so many 
procedural roadblocks--not one, not two, but scores. We are now over a 
hundred. This is in keeping with what has gone on this whole Congress. 
It is remarkable that we have been able to get as much done as we have, 
with all of the roadblocks that were thrown up.
  This is an important bill. I recognize that. It is basically to take 
care of our military personnel. To have this consent agreement, written 
in the language it is written in, changes how we have done legislation 
for a long time.
  We all know the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee has 
offered so many unrelated amendments to this bill. He is on record as 
having done so. His response to one dealing with transparency was: This 
is my only opportunity to do it.
  For anyone to suggest that the Secretary of Defense is somehow 
antimilitary--he is a person who supports the DREAM Act.
  I appreciate the manner in which the Republican leader offered this. 
He gave me plenty of warning. We don't have surprises between the two 
of us.
  I respectfully say this is changing the way we do business in the 
Senate, and I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke 
cloture.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 3454, the Department of Defense authorization 
bill, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 238 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

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

                                NAYS--43

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Murkowski
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 56, the nays are 
43. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by 
which cloture was not invoked.

[[Page 16056]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to reconsider is entered.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for those who have been following this 
vote, this was an attempt to proceed to the Defense authorization bill. 
It is one of the most important bills we consider during the course of 
a year. Senator Levin of Michigan is chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, and he was prepared to bring that bill to the floor.
  There was an attempt made by the majority leader, Senator Reid, to 
allow three amendments to be considered--three amendments which would 
be considered before other amendments on the bill. One of the 
amendments related to the don't ask, don't tell policy. There is a 
provision already in the bill which allows--after review by the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, the President, and the Department of Defense--the 
possibility of removing that provision from our law. That was one of 
the amendments. The second amendment related to Senate procedure on 
secret holds. But the third amendment--and the one I rise to speak to--
is the one which became the focal point of this last vote. That 
amendment related to a measure known as the DREAM Act.
  Almost 10 years ago, I introduced this bill called the DREAM Act. The 
reason I introduced it was because I felt there was a serious injustice 
and unfairness going on in America. We have within our borders 
thousands of young people who were brought to the United States by 
their parents at an early age. I don't know what it was like in their 
homes, but there weren't many democratic votes when I was 5 years old 
as to where we were going for vacation. I went where I was told, and 
these children followed their parents to America. They came here and 
became part of America. We made certain they had an opportunity for an 
education and health care. We made certain they had an environment 
where they could grow up in this country, and for many of them, it was 
the only home they ever knew. But because they came to this country 
with undocumented parents, they were not legal. They were not 
documented. They couldn't be citizens.
  That, to me, is a serious injustice. We do not, in this country, hold 
the crimes and misdeeds of parents against their children. What I have 
tried to do with the DREAM Act is to give these young people a chance--
a chance to earn their way to legal status and become part of the only 
country they have ever known. The DREAM Act isn't easy. The DREAM Act 
says if you came here as a child, if you were raised in the United 
States, are of good moral character, with no criminal record, and you 
have graduated from high school, then we give you 6 years. In that 6-
year period of time, you have a chance to do one of two things to 
become legal: No. 1, serve the United States of America in the 
military; and No. 2, complete 2 years of a college education. Then we 
will give you a chance to come off temporary status and become legal in 
America. But you have to earn your way all the way through, subject to 
review, examination, and all the requirements that should be there 
before someone gets this chance of a lifetime.
  Well, the Republican minority leader came to the floor before this 
vote and he offered a unanimous consent request--which Senator Reid 
objected to--and here is what it said. Of all the amendments you can 
consider on the Defense authorization bill, you cannot consider any 
amendment that relates to immigration.
  I know what that was about. The Senate knew what that was about. It 
was an attempt by the Republican side of the aisle to make certain the 
DREAM Act could never be called on the Defense authorization bill. They 
have made an empty argument on that side that this DREAM Act has 
nothing to do with the defense of the United States. It is an empty 
argument.
  Mr. REID. Would my friend yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. I ask my friend, through the Chair, is it not also true 
that under the terms of the DREAM Act, no one becomes a legal citizen, 
that they get a green card?
  Mr. DURBIN. They reach legal status. They have to make application to 
go beyond it. In this situation, young people, undocumented in the 
United States, who want to voluntarily serve in our military, cannot do 
so. They are willing to risk their lives for America. Yet we say no.
  The Secretary of Defense knows that is wrong. This morning, in a 
conversation I had with him in my office over the telephone, he 
reiterated what he had said to me before: These are the kind of young 
people we need in America's military--high school graduates from 
cultural traditions that respect the military; people who are going to 
make more diversity in our ranks. That is what we need. He knows, from 
a national defense perspective, these will be good recruits for our 
military and will distinguish themselves serving our country and coming 
up through the ranks.
  That is what the DREAM Act offered to the Defense authorization bill. 
The Republican leadership and every Republican Senator said no.
  Mr. REID. Will my friend yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. I ask, through the Chair, are you telling the American 
people that the Secretary of Defense--a man chosen by the President of 
the United States, not only by this President but the last President--
is in favor of our passing the DREAM Act? Is that what the Senator from 
Illinois is saying?
  Mr. DURBIN. I would say to the Senator from Nevada exactly that. The 
Defense Department's fiscal year 2010-2012 strategic plan for the 
defense of America specifically includes the DREAM Act as a means of 
meeting the strategic goal of shaping and maintaining a mission-ready, 
all-volunteer force.
  In 2007, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense at that time said the 
DREAM Act is very appealing because it would apply to the cream of the 
crop of students and be good for readiness. Over and over again, the 
Department of Defense has told us this is an opportunity for young 
people to serve your Nation, for America to be a safer place.
  I wish to relate to my friend, the Senator from Nevada, a story I 
told him earlier. This young man came this morning to the U.S. Capitol 
from the city of New York. I say to the Presiding Officer, he lives in 
Brooklyn. His name is Cesar Vargas. Cesar Vargas came to the United 
States at the age of 5, brought here by his mom and dad from Mexico. He 
graduated from the regular public schools of New York and then went on 
to graduate from college. It was more difficult for him because he is 
undocumented. So he couldn't get any Federal aid to education--no Pell 
grants, no Federal student loans. But he made it and he graduated. He 
said to us this morning that after 9/11, because of his deep commitment 
to America, he tried to enlist in the Marine Corps. He said: I wanted 
to defend this country after we had been attacked by terrorists. He not 
only tried the Marine Corps, but he tried other branches as well and 
repeatedly he was turned down because Cesar Vargas is undocumented.
  But his dream has not died. Now he is a third-year student at the 
City University of New York Law School. He speaks four languages. He 
said he is studying a fifth--Cantonese. He is an exceptionally gifted 
young man. Do you know what his ambition is? Once again, to join the 
Marine Corps--to be in the Judge Advocate General Corps to serve 
America, a country he dearly loves.
  Because of this Republican decision--a procedural decision that says 
we can't consider the DREAM Act--we will not have a chance to vote on 
this important measure which would give Cesar Vargas and those like him 
a chance to volunteer to serve America. I would say to my friends and 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, where is the justice in this 
decision? At least have the courage to let us bring this matter to the 
floor and stand and vote no. But to hide behind this procedural ruse--
this unanimous consent request--is totally unfair. It is inconsistent 
with the spirit and the history of this Chamber, where we deliberate 
and debate and

[[Page 16057]]

vote. But they ran and they hid behind this procedural decision.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield for a brief question.
  Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield for a quick question.
  Mr. REID. I want everyone within the sound of my voice to understand 
how much I appreciate--and the thousands and thousands of other people 
who appreciate--Senator Durbin's advocacy of this issue. I also want 
everyone else within the sound of my voice to know we are going to vote 
on the DREAM Act. It is just a question of time. This is so fair. That 
is all it is about, fairness--basic fairness.
  I have to say to my friend from Illinois that I feel so bad. I have a 
stack of letters in my office that are the most heart-wrenching stories 
about these dreamers. They are dreamers. But I want them to understand 
this isn't the end of this. We are going to continue to move on it. We 
know we have been blocked procedurally, but this is the first time we 
have had our colleagues on the other side of the aisle stand and defy 
basic fairness on the DREAM Act. They have gone around telling people: 
Yes, we like it. We like it. But here was their chance. All we wanted 
to do was bring it to the floor, and they wouldn't even let us do that. 
They didn't have the courage to allow us to have a vote on this.
  So I want my friend to know how deeply appreciative I am--and 
speaking for thousands and thousands of other people--for what he has 
done on this issue.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Nevada, the majority leader, and 
I will tell him and those following this debate--some who are in the 
Chamber, in the galleries, who I am sure are disappointed, if not 
heartbroken at this point. I mentioned Cesar Vargas, who is here, but 
Gaby Pacheco, and so many others who have worked so hard for this 
chance, for this day, and my promise to them is this: As long as I can 
stand behind this desk and grab this microphone and use my power as a 
Senator, I will be pushing for this DREAM Act. It is my highest 
priority. It is a matter of simple American justice, and I would hope 
the 11 Republicans who joined us last time will stop cowering in the 
shadows and come forward and join us in a bipartisan effort and not 
stop us procedurally from even debating and deliberating this critical 
issue.
  For those who are so sad today, take heart. Tomorrow is another day, 
and we will be there to fight for you, and many others will join us. 
Don't give up your dream to be part of this great Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I wish to step back in history, if I 
may.
  On December 7, 1941, something terrible happened in Hawaii--Pearl 
Harbor was bombed by the Japanese. Three weeks later, the Government of 
the United States declared that all Japanese Americans, citizens born 
in the United States or of Japanese ancestry, were to be considered 
enemy aliens. As a result, like these undocumented people, they could 
not put on the uniform of this land.
  Well, I was 17 at that time, and naturally I resented this because I 
loved my country and I wanted to put on a uniform to show where my 
heart stood. But we were denied. So we petitioned the government, and a 
year later they said: OK, if you wish to volunteer, go ahead.
  Well, to make a long story short, the regiment I served in, made up 
of Japanese Americans, had the highest casualties in Europe but the 
most decorated in the history of the United States. I think the 
beneficiaries of the Senator from Illinois will do the same.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I know the Senator from Hawaii has to 
leave, but before he goes I just wish every American could have heard 
from a hero not of this body, of this Nation but of the world. Senator 
Inouye did more than swim against the tide in order to put on the 
uniform of his country. He had to fight his way into the Army. He then 
became a Medal of Honor winner. The highest honor--the Medal of Valor--
that can be granted was awarded to Senator Inouye. He gave up more than 
just a few years of his life; he gave up part of his body for this 
country.
  His eloquence and his passion for proper treatment of people who want 
to put on the uniform of this Nation is extraordinarily powerful. I 
only wish every American could have heard it. I thank him for that 
service and for that statement.
  I also want to add a thank-you to the Senator from Illinois. I want 
to reinforce something he said by asking him a question. It had to do 
with that unanimous consent request to which he referred. The way this 
request was worded, even if--well, let me back up.
  We have heard for 2 days objections from Republicans that there would 
be nonrelevant amendments that would be offered--which, of course, is 
permitted under our rules. As a matter of fact, the Senator from 
Arizona has on a number of occasions on this bill offered nonrelevant 
amendments. But even if that DREAM Act amendment of yours were modified 
so that it only related to young men and women who wanted to go into 
the Army to serve their country and the educational part of it, as 
important as it is, if that were left out--even if the amendment were 
designed so that it could be referred to the Armed Services Committee 
because it would be defense related, even if you could design an 
amendment like that, under this unanimous consent agreement no 
amendment related to immigration would be in order during those first 
amendments.
  Is that not singling out immigration, saying, despite all of the 
protestations we heard here about wanting to make sure amendments were 
relevant--despite the history that is not required under the rule but 
that is the protestations we heard over the last few days, we want 
relevant amendments and the DREAM Act isn't relevant--under this 
unanimous consent request, even if the DREAM Act were modified so it 
might be within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee 
because it would be focused on service in the Armed Forces, under this 
request no amendment relating to immigration would be in order; is that 
correct?
  Mr. DURBIN. I reply to the Senator from Michigan through the Chair 
and thank him for this question. Just as the door was closed on Dan 
Inouye of Hawaii when, as a Japanese American from Hawaii, he wanted to 
serve his country, the unanimous consent request from the Republican 
leader closed the door on anyone who wished to serve this country if it 
involved the issue of immigration. It had one intent: stop the DREAM 
Act, stop these young people from being given a chance to serve their 
nation. That is clearly the intent. Unfortunately, the partisan 
rollcall that followed is evidence that was the strategy.
  Just as Dan Inouye prevailed and persisted and not only served his 
country admirably but with the highest level of valor, I am convinced 
that many of the young people who leave heartbroken today by this vote 
will get their chance someday, just as the Senator did, and they will 
serve this country with distinction and they will serve this Nation as 
the Senator has led us in the Senate.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, what is the present parliamentary 
situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering the motion to 
proceed to S. 3534.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask to speak as in morning business, and I also ask 
unanimous consent the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, be 
recognized immediately after my remarks and she be recognized to speak 
for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Baucus pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 
636 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise to express my deep disappointment 
that we were unable to proceed to the Defense authorization bill.

[[Page 16058]]

  I have been here a while, maybe I am wrong--I am searching my 
memory--I don't remember any time that we voted against proceeding to 
the Defense bill. I am going to go back. Certainly, in the time I have 
been here, I don't remember that.
  It is a filibuster just to go to the Defense bill. It is perplexing 
to me because of some of what is in this bill--including funding for 
the defense health program to care for our military personnel and their 
families, including our wounded warriors. We know these wars in Iraq 
and Afghanistan have taken quite a toll on our military men and women, 
both in seen injuries and unseen injuries--injuries to the brain.
  We know some incredible work is going on. I visited some of the 
research universities that are finding better ways to treat our wounded 
warriors. They are finding better ways to treat terrible wounds that 
result from horrible burns to our brave men and women. Now is the time 
to put those new and better treatments into place and there is a 
filibuster and we cannot get to the bill.
  We know there is a military pay raise in this bill for our 
servicemembers. Those voting no to proceed to this are stopping that.
  This bill authorizes TRICARE coverage for eligible dependents up to 
age 26. In other words, just as we did in the Health Care Reform Act, 
in this bill we are saying if you are in the military and you have a 
child, you can keep them on your coverage until they are 26.
  It provides $3.4 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles 
or MRAPs, which have proven highly successful in protecting our troops 
from improvised explosive devices, and it requires companies to certify 
for all DOD contracts valued over $1 million that they are not engaged 
in any sanctionable activity under the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996. So 
we would make sure that the DOD, Department of Defense, is not involved 
in giving contracts to companies that are trading with Iran. This is so 
important, as we seek to sanction Iran for its reckless activity in 
moving toward a nuclear weapon.
  In the bill the Republicans blocked is also a repeal of the 
military's don't ask, don't tell policy. The bill includes a provision 
stating that there will be no repeal of this policy until there is a 
certification from the Department of Defense that it will not have 
adverse consequences on our troops.
  Some said: Oh, this is just ignoring the Department of Defense, 
ignoring the Secretary of Defense. Not at all. The way Chairman Levin 
put it together definitely has a check on it. So I do not understand a 
lot of my colleagues' claims that it is just a quick repeal with no 
checks and balances from the Secretary of Defense.
  I will say it again, it is clear in there, and I will read the exact 
words, that there must be, as we repeal don't ask, don't tell, a 
certification from the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that there will be no significant 
impact on ``military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion 
and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.''
  I think it is important to note what countries allow gays and 
lesbians to serve. How about 22 of our allies who have fought with our 
service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan: Australia, Britain, 
Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Switzerland, 
Austria, Canada, Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, New Zealand, Spain, 
Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, Luxemburg and Norway and 
Sweden. In addition, Israel and South Africa also don't discriminate 
against gays and lesbians. I don't know who we end up with, but some of 
the countries I can find that still discriminate against gays and 
lesbians in the service are Iran, Pakistan, Cuba, North Korea, and 
Turkey.
  For us to stand with Iran, for us to stand with Cuba, for us to stand 
with North Korea, Pakistan, and Turkey over Australia, Britain, 
Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Canada, 
Germany, et cetera--it just doesn't make sense.
  The point is, because we are part of this coalition of 22 other 
nations, our service men and women are already fighting alongside gays 
and lesbians.
  A majority of Americans think it is the right thing to do, to allow 
our qualified young men and women to serve regardless of their sexual 
orientation. According to a CNN poll conducted in May, 78 percent of 
Americans said they support allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly 
in the military--78 percent of Americans. We would be standing with 
them and we would be standing with our allies.
  Don't ask, don't tell is hurting our military. It is costing our 
Nation--more than 14,000 service men and women have been discharged 
from the military under don't ask, don't tell. It has cost taxpayers 
between $290 million and maybe up to more than a $\1/2\ billion to 
replace servicemembers who were discharged under this policy.
  I know many Americans have seen in their living rooms, on the TV, men 
and women who are our neighbors' kids, and our neighbors, who have been 
kicked out of the military even though they were stellar service men 
and women. It is most unfortunate that our friends on the other side 
are mischaracterizing what is in the bill.
  We allowed them an amendment to strip that language, and they said, 
oh, well, if we pass this, then the military would be caught off guard. 
Not at all. The way it is written specifies that there must be a 
certification that a repeal would not be harmful to our military.
  I am also terribly disappointed we will not have a chance to vote on 
the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act allows those students who have been here 
most of their lives an opportunity to earn legalized status if they met 
certain criteria. Those are kids who were brought over as kids, maybe a 
month or 2, or a year or 2, or 5 or 6 years old. They must have lived 
in the United States for 5 years. They must earn a high school diploma. 
After high school, they must complete 2 years of college or serve in 
the Armed Forces for 2 years. They must demonstrate strong moral 
character, and only those who pass these tests would be eligible to get 
on the pathway to legality. Sixty-five thousand young people a year 
graduate from high school, but they cannot join the military, or they 
cannot go to college, because of their immigrant status. It was not 
their fault they were brought into the country by their parents. I want 
to tell you that our military has said--and I will quote retired Army 
LTC Margaret Stock. She said: ``Potential DREAM Act beneficiaries are 
likely to be a military recruiter's dream candidates for enlistment.''
  Let me repeat that. The military itself has said, The DREAM Act will 
result in a military recruiter's dream, because some of these recruits 
are very good with foreign language skills, foreign cultural awareness, 
they are in short supply, and they would be excellent recruits.
  Businesses support the DREAM Act. Our economic future is something we 
talk about every day around here. I read a U.S.C. study that said, if 
we finally begin a process where people who are here, who are hard 
working and caring, can stay here and come out of the shadows, it will 
create 25,000 jobs and increase the gross domestic product of my State 
and of the Nation.
  That is why I have the San Jose Mercury News, home paper of the 
Silicon Valley, writing an editorial last week in favor of the DREAM 
Act, saying it will boost America's economic competitiveness. So here 
we have the time where we have something on the floor that is directly 
related to the military bill, because the military is saying it is a 
recruiter's dream, this DREAM Act, because they are going to have so 
many people lining up to join. We have Silicon Valley strongly 
supporting this, and I will tell you, the San Jose Mercury News said: 
``The high school dropout rate in this country terrifies business 
leaders, who fear that in the coming decades we will not produce enough 
college graduates with math and science ability.''
  That is why the Silicon Valley Leadership Group supports the DREAM 
Act. That is a group made up of Republicans, Independents, and 
Democrats.

[[Page 16059]]

They wrote: DREAM Act students ``deserve a chance, and the U.S. economy 
needs their knowledge and ability.''
  Companies such as Microsoft also support the DREAM Act. They wrote: 
``The DREAM Act rewards those who place high value on education, and on 
service to country.''
  Last week the president of the University of California, the 
chancellor of the California State university system, and the 
presidents of State universities in Arizona, Washington, Minnesota, 
Utah, and Washington wrote in support of the DREAM Act. They write in a 
letter: ``In the current international economic competition, the U.S. 
needs all the talent it can acquire and these students represent an 
extraordinary resource for the country. The DREAM Act . . . is an 
economic imperative.''
  In closing, I want to talk about a couple of stories. I think this is 
very important. David graduated from high school with a 3.9 grade point 
average. He is studying international economics and Korean at UCLA. He 
has served as the leader of the UCLA marching band, and he spends his 
free time tutoring high school students. After graduation, he hopes to 
enter the Air Force and some day politics. In many ways, he is a model 
college student and a leader in his community. But he was born in 
Korea. He came here when he was 9. His family spent 8 years trying to 
navigate their way to legalized status, only to find out that their 
sponsor had erred in filling out the paperwork.
  So here sits David. He had nothing to do with all of this. Here is 
what he says:

       I will not be able to put my name down on a job application 
     because of my status. This country is throwing away talent 
     every second . . . but the DREAM Act can bring thousands of 
     students out of the shadows and allow them the opportunity to 
     work for the country they truly love right now.

  I would say these students such as David did not choose to come to 
this country. They were brought here by their parents. The reality is, 
they have grown up here. This is the only country they know. I am very 
disappointed that we are not voting on this important bill today. I 
hope we can take up the DREAM Act later this year. I believe it will 
truly strengthen our economy, our military, and our Nation.
  The very last point I want to make as we wind up this Congress is, I 
am so pleased that we passed the Small Business Jobs Act last week. I 
traveled across California. I have met with so many small businesses, 
and I did a conference call with about 10 of those businesses, 
including the Los Angeles Baking Company, the Blue Bottle Coffee 
Company in Oakland, biofuels manufacturer Solazyme, Capstone Turbine in 
Chatsworth, U.S. Hybrid in Torrance, the Back on the Beach Cafe in 
Santa Monica, and the Santa Barbara Adventure Company. These are small 
businesses in my State that are very strong. They could not get access 
to credit to expand and hire. As a result of the work we did, they will 
be able to get that credit. I want to thank the two Republicans who 
crossed over to vote with us. It shows us that we can make progress 
when we work together, because this has to come ahead of politics.
  I went to a company called Renova. Renova is helping to make 
California the hub of the clean energy economy. Vincent Battaglia, the 
owner there, told me he has been getting no help accessing the credit 
he needs. He called our legislation ``the missing piece,'' the piece he 
has been waiting for.
  Small businesses create 64 percent of our new jobs. That is what 
happened over the last 15 years. I believe this bill will help get them 
back on track. As they get back on track, our recovery will begin to 
have a little more energy behind it. Because it is very slow; it is 
agonizingly slow.
  I wanted to state on the Record how much I appreciate the two 
Republicans----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank you and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senators from New Hampshire, Arizona, Kansas, and I be permitted to 
engage in a colloquy for half an hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Senate Proceedings

  Mr. ALEXANDER. On December 3, 1996, Senator Robert C. Byrd, the late 
Senator Byrd, who most of us think understood this body better than any 
Senator in its history, told the newly arriving U.S. Senators the 
following:

       Good afternoon and welcome to the United States Senate 
     Chamber. You are presently occupying what I consider to be 
     hallowed ground.

  Senator Byrd went on to say:

     . . . as long as the Senate retains the power to amend and 
     the power of unlimited debate, the liberties of the people 
     will remain secure.

  In his last testimony before the Senate Rules Committee before he 
died--this was in May of this year--Senator Byrd said:

       Our Founding Fathers intended the Senate to be a continuing 
     body that allows for open and unlimited debate and the 
     protection of minority rights.

  If I may add to that the last paragraph of a letter from Senator 
Coburn, which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Senator Coburn writes:

       Too many Americans are upset, even angry, that their voices 
     are not being heard in Washington. The majority's abusive 
     practice of suppressing debate undermines the Senate's debate 
     traditions . . .

  We could start out by complaining that the majority leader has cut 
off debate, cut off amendments at a record level. I have submitted 
evidence of that. But I think that would look to the American people 
like we are kindergartners in a sandbox. Because it is not the voice of 
the Senator from New Hampshire, or Tennessee, or Arizona, or Kansas 
that is so important. The voices of the people whom we are elected to 
represent are the important voices.
  When 39 times in the last two Congresses the majority leader, through 
procedural tactics, says no to amendments, and no to debate, he is 
causing the Senate to deteriorate to a shadow of its former self, the 
kind of Senate that Senator Byrd thought was important, and the kind of 
Senate in which we want to serve.
  Our goal is to represent the voices of the American people, to let 
their feelings, their anger, their hopes, all be represented here. That 
means we have to have a chance to offer amendments and have to have a 
chance to debate.
  What that means is if we are successful in this election year, we are 
going to make sure that in the new Congress we have that opportunity. 
We will make sure that these voices we hear across America are heard on 
the floor of the Senate. The Defense authorization bill, which is being 
debated today, is a perfect example of why I say the Senate is 
deteriorating to a shadow of its former self by closing off the voices 
of the American people and by denying their elected Senators an 
opportunity to have a full debate on the issues facing them.
  Mr. GREGG. Would the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Of course.
  Mr. GREGG. Because I think the Senator has addressed a core issue of 
constitutional government. When the Founding Fathers got together in 
Philadelphia and created this extraordinary Nation called America, and 
built the Constitution upon which we were based, and upon which we 
govern, was it not their intent to create the Senate as a body 
different from the House of Representatives?
  We understand in the House of Representatives amendments are not 
allowed if the Speaker does not want them. It is an autocracy over 
there. We know that. But was not it the intention of the Founding 
Fathers, as the Senator has pointed out, to give the American people a 
chance, through their Senators, to amend complex legislation? And has 
that not always been the tradition since the founding of our Nation? 
Did Washington not explain this rather accurately when he said,

[[Page 16060]]

The Senate is the saucer into which the hot coffee is poured? The House 
boils the coffee, they get all charged up about an issue, they pass it 
without amendments, often without any debate. It comes over here, and 
the American people get to hear a little more subtlely about the issue, 
a little more discussion about the issue. Specifically, they get to 
amend it and address the issue.
  I know the Senator from Arizona is here. Maybe he will be able to 
tell us--I am sure he will--how many times we have had a bill as big as 
the Defense authorization bill on the floor, which is spending $700 
billion, and not had a chance to amend it. But was that not the purpose 
of the Founding Fathers, to make the Senate the place where there was 
debate and discussion and amendment? Has that not been basically cut 
off by the majority leader and the majority party's attitude that they 
do not want to take tough votes?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. The Senator from Arizona was here when that was not 
the case, and the Senate functioned the way the Senate was supposed to 
function.
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I make a couple of comments? One is, one of the 
things that has disappeared that I saw in the first years I was here in 
the Senate is the two leaders sitting down and perhaps coming to 
informal agreements that are then put into unanimous consent agreements 
to move forward.
  The other aspect of this I wonder if my colleagues would care to 
comment on. One of the reasons why we have these--the majority leader 
comes forward, as I believe he has 40 times, brings up a bill and then 
immediately fills up the tree--and to the uninitiated, obviously that 
means there will be no other amendments allowed through that kind of 
parliamentary procedure. A lot of times that is read by the Members 
saying, hey, there is going to be an amendment up that I do not want to 
have to vote on. I do not want to have to vote on it. So fill up the 
tree, have no other amendments allowed to be voted on.
  It seems to me that we should have the courage to go ahead and vote. 
Time after time, when I have seen basically a shutout from amendments, 
I have said, look, I will agree to a time agreement. I am not going to 
filibuster it. Just give us 15 minutes either side and vote on it. But 
they do not want to take tough votes. I am not going to call it 
cowardice, but I cannot call it courage, that people will prevail and 
say, hey, let's fill up the tree so we can only get this done and we 
will not have to take a tough vote on whatever the issue is that seems 
to be attracting the attention of the American people.
  I say to my colleague from New Hampshire, who will not be with us 
next January----
  Mr. GREGG. I will be with you; I just will not physically be here.
  Mr. McCAIN. I certainly do not in any way indicate that there is any 
physical ailment that will cause you not to be a Member of the Senate 
next January.
  If the Senator from New Hampshire could provide us with the benefit 
of his experience in both the House and the Senate, and also maybe he 
would give us at some point his view of what we need to do to fix this 
gridlock we have over the economy. He has done it on numerous 
occasions, but it comes to my mind that perhaps the Senator from New 
Hampshire at some time would take an hour on the floor and say: Here is 
what I think we need to do. I think it would be valuable. I don't think 
there is anybody in the Senate today who has a better grasp for the 
budgetary issues we have to grapple with as we face an unprecedented 
situation of debt and deficit.
  Perhaps after this election, it may be possible for us to sit down 
and be included in the agenda of the Senate. That is one of the things 
that has been a big change. It used to be that at least the majority 
leader, whichever party was in the majority, would come over and say: 
Here is our agenda. What is your agenda? What is your input? What do 
you want to see happen? Most of the time nowadays, we hear what is 
going to happen either through reading it in the media or when the 
majority leader comes to the floor and says: Here is what we will take 
up next. It does not lead to comity.
  Mr. GREGG. Those are very generous and kind comments coming from a 
Senator who is of huge stature not only in the Senate but in the 
country. I do hope to make some comments on that. It won't take me an 
hour because the answer is simple: Stop spending. That is pretty much 
the bottom line.
  The point of the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Arizona 
on the issue of shutting down the amendment process is as critical to 
us getting better governance as anything. We can't have good governance 
if we don't have discussion and different ideas brought forward. Yet we 
are not allowed to do that any longer because the majority leader says: 
We will not allow any additional amendment or any discussion.
  On budgetary issues, on the spending issue, independent of the 
Defense bill, I think one of the reasons we haven't done a budget this 
year is because the other side knows that if they bring the budget to 
the floor, they cannot shut down amendments. Amendments have to be 
allowed. Under the rules, we have to be able to amend the budget 
resolution. I don't think they want to do that. They couldn't fill the 
tree on the budget.
  As a practical matter, this attempt to foreclose debate on core 
issues of public policy, such as the defense issue and spending, by 
shutting down the floor through filling the tree is undermining not 
only the Senate and its role but the whole constitutional process and 
the right of the people to be heard.
  Mr. McCAIN. Doesn't it send a message to people who are having their 
budgets squeezed, having to make the most difficult decisions about 
their budget, that this body will function and continue to appropriate 
money for our functions without a budget of our own? What kind of a 
signal does that send to the American people? Doesn't that contribute 
to the disconnect and the frustration Americans feel and give rise to 
the tea party, which has had a seismic effect on the political 
landscape?
  Mr. GREGG. Absolutely. More than that, it begs the question as to why 
is the majority party governing. If they are not willing to govern, 
what are they collecting their paychecks for? Governing means putting 
together a budget and deciding how to spend the money. They are not 
willing to do that.
  Mr. McCAIN. One of the first decisions every family has to make is 
what is the budget, what are they going to be able to spend. We will be 
going out of session sometime here before the election without even a 
cursory effort at a budget.
  Mr. GREGG. Absolutely.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, the Senator from Kansas is here. He 
served with distinction not only in the Senate but in the House of 
Representatives.
  I wish to go back to the point Senator Byrd made. He said in his 
address to new Senators in 1996:

       [A]s long as the Senate retains the power to amend and the 
     power of unlimited debate, the liberties of the people will 
     remain secure.

  What we are talking about here is not the importance so much of the 
voice of the Senator from Kansas or the voice of the Senator from New 
Hampshire but the voices of the American people. And they are being 
suppressed.
  The Senator from Kansas has seen Congress for a long time. What do we 
need to do to take the Senate back to the Senate that it should be?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I appreciate the Senator bringing up the statements by 
our revered Senator Byrd. I remember when I first came to the Senate, 
he had, for lack of a better word, a lecture or maybe a sermon to us 
all about the comity of the Senate and why the Senate is different from 
the House. The standard example is that the House is where we pour a 
hot cup of coffee, and then it cools off in the Senate when we put the 
coffee in the saucer. And that is what we are supposed to do to protect 
the minority. Here is what Senator Byrd said in one of his last 
speeches before the Rules Committee before we lost Bob. His knowledge 
and love for this body were unmatched. He actually

[[Page 16061]]

wrote the history of the Senate. He said he opposed cloture by a simple 
majority because ``it would immediately destroy the uniqueness of this 
institution. The Senate is the only place in government where the 
rights of a numerical minority are so protected. A minority can be 
right and minority views can certainly improve legislation.''
  Obviously, if we go down another road--and we have--I just heard the 
majority leader indicate this side of the aisle is guilty of 
obstructionism. I guess it is in the eye of the beholder.
  I might remind my friend from Arizona that the bumper sticker for the 
distinguished State of New Hampshire is ``Live Free or Die.'' I hope we 
live free, and I would hope that the distinguished Senator from New 
Hampshire would not take that literally, given the comments by the 
Senator from Arizona.
  I came into public service in 1980, with my dear friend from New 
Hampshire. Other than some rather obstreperous incidents in regard to 
basketball, we have enjoyed a very good relationship. But there isn't 
anybody here who understands the budget process and how minority rights 
should be protected and how we should proceed other than Judd Gregg. He 
has done an outstanding job. I know that once he leaves the Senate, he 
will be called upon to help us get out of this tremendous debt problem 
and to face the entitlements square-on.
  Facts are stubborn things. I am not trying to put these facts on any 
individual. As the distinguished Senator from Tennessee has pointed 
out, what this really is about is the consent of the governed. That is 
what Madison was really interested in when he wrote about the 
Constitution. We want a strong Executive and certainly a House and a 
Senate to be responsive, but it is to protect the consent of the 
governed. The governed, as everybody knows, is extremely upset. It is 
because their voice is not heard. Why is their voice not heard?
  In the 110th Congress in the House of Representatives, only 1 percent 
of the bills were brought to the floor with open amendment rules--1 
percent. Ninety-nine percent of the bills reached the Senate from the 
House with little or no input from the minority. As of March of 2010, 
the House was on track to shatter its record for closed amendment rules 
in the 111th Congress. That is the House.
  I spent 16 years in the House. I can remember very well one 
particular incident where there was a real controversy over a seat in 
Indiana. The secretary of state of Indiana declared the winner. It came 
back to the House Administration Committee, went back out to Indiana, 
recounted. When the Democrat went ahead, they called it closed, and 
that was it. We walked out. We said the comity of the House had been 
destroyed.
  We are close here in the Senate. In the 110th Congress, cloture was 
filed 133 times, 98 of which were filed the moment the question was 
raised on the floor. If that isn't obstructionism, I don't know what 
is. Over the last 22 years, the majority leader has filled the tree 
roughly three times per Congress on average. However, from January 2007 
to April of 2010, the majority leader filled the tree 26 times. That is 
a 300-percent increase in filling the tree for the 110th and 111th 
Congress. These numbers do not reflect the additional times this has 
taken place in the 5 months since the numbers were submitted to the 
Rules Committee, including today, with DOD authorization. From the 
103rd to the 109th Congress, rule XIV to bypass the committee was used 
on average 24 times per Congress. This was shattered in the 110th 
Congress when it was used 57 times. I go over these facts to show that 
in regard to the definition of obstructionism, it goes both ways. That 
is the rest of the story.
  A little bit later, if the distinguished Senator from Tennessee has 
time, I would like to go over this sense-of-the-Senate resolution or 
legislation to be introduced by the junior Senator from New Mexico 
declaring the rules of the Senate unconstitutional in order to rewrite 
the rules to favor a simple majority to pass legislation. I would like 
to have a discussion with him at a future time.
  I know the distinguished Senator from Utah has something to say as 
well.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. The Senator from Utah has had a distinguished career 
in the Senate. His father did before him. He has an unusual perspective 
of this body. I wonder what his reflections might be upon Senator 
Byrd's thought about the importance of allowing Senators to reflect the 
voices of people in this country and when those voices are cut off in 
the Senate, they are cut off at home.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for 
his reference to my service. I use as my example for why I am here to 
join this colloquy not my long service, because it hasn't been all that 
long by the terms of the Senate, but my experience today. I think what 
we experienced today on the floor is a demonstration of what happens.
  I happen to be one--perhaps a minority on my side of the aisle--who 
is in favor of the DREAM Act. I want to be one who will vote for the 
DREAM Act. The Senator from Tennessee talks about people and their 
concern. While I was back in Utah over the weekend, I had a 
demonstration of very earnest young people show up in front of the 
Federal building to ask me to please vote for the DREAM Act. They had 
compelling stories. I was identifying with what they had to say.
  I had to say to them: I won't get an opportunity to vote for the 
DREAM Act.
  Yes, they said, you will have a vote on Tuesday on the DREAM Act.
  No, the vote on Tuesday is not on the DREAM Act. The vote on Tuesday 
is on a motion to proceed to the Defense authorization bill that has 
been loaded down with amendments that prevent us from having an up-or-
down vote on the DREAM Act itself.
  They said: Well, the DREAM Act will be one of those amendments. The 
DREAM Act will be added to it.
  Yes, it will be added to it. But will I have an opportunity to vote 
on an amendment to strip out the other stuff I don't like? No. I won't 
have the opportunity to do that. So this was the dilemma I explained to 
these young people. Some of them looked too young to vote, but I am 
sure they are old enough to vote. It is just that everybody looks a lot 
younger to me now than they used to.
  I said: Here is the dilemma I have. By virtue of what the majority 
leader has done, he has created a parliamentary situation where, in 
order to vote as you want me to vote, as you express your voice to me, 
I have to vote opposite to what a large number of my other constituents 
want me to vote. I have to vote in favor of Federal funding for 
abortions in military hospitals. Some will say it will be private 
funding. Yes, but it will take place in a military hospital supported 
by Federal funding. I have never voted for Federal funding in any form 
for abortions. Now, in order to support the DREAM Act by the way the 
tree has been filled, by the way this thing has been put together, I 
have no choice. If I vote the way you want me to vote, I will offend a 
vast majority of my other constituents who don't want me to vote that 
way on the question of abortions in military hospitals. If I vote to 
proceed, I will be voting to act precipitously, in my view, with 
respect to the policy of don't ask, don't tell, which President Clinton 
signed into law at the beginning of my service in the Senate.
  I am perfectly willing to vote to repeal don't ask, don't tell if the 
military services complete their survey that tells us that is right and 
proper for military performance. But the majority wants to make that 
decision before they get the information from the military. So I have 
to cast a vote that I think is the wrong vote for the military in order 
to vote for the DREAM Act.
  Well, they looked at me as if I were crazy.
  Well, certainly you can separate these things and vote on each one on 
its own individual merits?
  I had to say to them: No, I can't. The way this is being handled now 
in the

[[Page 16062]]

Senate, I cannot vote on the merits of each of these individual items 
because the majority leader, exercising his right, has packaged them 
together--filled the tree--in such a fashion that makes it impossible 
for you to divide them and discuss each one on its own merits.
  I was questioned by the press as I went in to lunch.
  Senator, we thought you were in favor of the DREAM Act?
  Yes, I am.
  Well, then, aren't you going to vote for cloture on the Defense 
authorization bill?
  Wait a minute, cloture on the Defense authorization bill becomes the 
key vote on an immigration issue? That is the situation we have come to 
as we get this kind of procedure. And it very clearly, as the Senator 
from Tennessee has made clear, says the voices of the people on the 
legislation in which they have an interest are not being heard because 
of this procedural activity. That is why I have joined in this colloquy 
to raise my voice in protest to the way this is being done.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Utah.
  Madam President, the point of our discussion is a very simple idea: 
This is a year above all years when there are voices in the country 
that seek to be heard. When through procedural means the majority 
suppresses those voices by suppressing their elected representatives, 
it only adds fuel to the fire.
  Whatever the conditions after the election, I hope we Republicans 
come back with the notion that we intend to make sure this Senate 
functions with an unlimited right to amend and with an unlimited right 
to debate, so we can force consensus on issues and deal with jobs, deal 
with spending, deal with debt, and deal with the other issues that 
cause the American people to be turning out in droves this year in 
elections.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I say to my friend from Tennessee, I want to ask him a 
question. Is it fair to characterize these attempts by the majority to 
change the rules--and that is what they want to do; I think it is a 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution in the Rules Committee--to continue 
favoring them, even if their majority narrows after November, in the 
lameduck or what I call the Daffy Duck, the lameduck now, you could 
characterize that as an ``arrogance of power.'' Those are pretty tough 
words, but that is the exact term used by then-Senator Biden in 2005 to 
describe a similar attempt to rewrite the rules to favor the majority 
at that time. So what goes around comes around.
  Does the Senator from Tennessee find it as disconcerting as I do that 
the junior Senator from New Mexico has introduced a resolution 
declaring the rules of the Senate ``unconstitutional'' in order to 
rewrite the rules to favor a slimmer majority, i.e., one, one free 
throw. That is it.
  Does any majority last forever? The answer to that is no. What goes 
around comes around. If the interpretation of the Constitution and the 
Senate rules of the junior Senator from New Mexico is accepted, I say 
to my friend from Tennessee, what is to prevent any majority of either 
party from rewriting the rules of the Senate whenever it suits them? 
Would such a practice not negate the whole point of having rules in the 
continuing body that is the Senate? Would this practice not make the 
Senate nearly identical to the House, where majority takes everything? 
Would this not neutralize the express purpose of the Senate to act as a 
check on the House and be directly 180 degrees opposed to what Senator 
Byrd was warning us about in regard to his last testimony before the 
Rules Committee in this distinguished body?
  Again, my friend from Tennessee has hit the nail right on the head. 
We have a lot of challenges around here. People say ``problems'' or 
``crises.'' We have a lot of challenges. The only way you meet a 
challenge is to work together and to represent the consent of the 
governed. What we have here now is we do not have the consent of the 
governed. We do not have the opportunity.
  I remember in the health care debate staying up until the wee hours 
of the morning in the HELP Committee, the Finance Committee. I did not 
get behind closed doors to write the bill that was actually written, 
but I had 11 amendments on rationing. All of them were defeated on a 
party-line vote. Trying to be a little clever by half, I introduced a 
Democratic amendment, one of Senator Schumer's amendments. It was 
defeated on a party-line vote. They did not even recognize it was 
Senator Schumer's--all on rationing.
  One of the biggest controversial items you hear about throughout the 
country in regard to the health care debate is the rationing of health 
care, which is going on right now. There was no consent of the 
governed. It was ``our way or no way.'' It did not have a chance. That 
is the biggest issue we face, and it seems to me it really reflects on 
this body and how we treat each other and, more importantly, how we 
treat the American people and why we have such a fuss out there in the 
hinterlands.
  I thank the distinguished Senator for taking this time. I think it is 
very valuable time. I hope we can lower the debate a little bit--a 
whole lot--and work together, as he has indicated, to meet the 
challenges we have before the country.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator 
from Kansas for his thoughtful remarks. He is exactly right. The voices 
of the people are to be heard here. They can only be heard and their 
liberties protected if their elected officials have the right to 
express those voices through unlimited amendment and unlimited debate. 
When the majority leader closes that debate off and closes off those 
amendments a record number of times, that is closing off the voices of 
the American people.
  As the Senator from Kansas said, the shoe can sometimes be on the 
other foot. Those who today are wanting to create a freight train 
running through the Senate as a freight train runs through the House 
may not be so eager to do that if the freight train turns out, after 
the election, to be the tea party express.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                               Washington, DC, September 21, 2010.
     Hon. Lamar Alexander,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Alexander: The U.S. Senate once was considered 
     ``the world's greatest deliberative body.'' This no longer is 
     the case as the Majority Leader commonly abuses Senate rules 
     and traditions to prevent debate and obstruct other Senators 
     from offering amendments to legislation.
       As you know, historically, the cloture process authorized 
     by Senate Rule XXII has been used sparingly. According to 
     Senate Procedure and Practice, ``Between 1917 and 1962, 
     cloture was imposed only five times.'' Fast forward 50 years 
     later, a report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), 
     reveals a clear trend by the majority of limiting debate by 
     immediately filing cloture on nearly all legislative 
     questions.
       Under Democrat control of the Senate, 219 cloture motions 
     were filed in the 110th and 111th Congresses combined. 
     Perhaps most troubling, 171 of these cloture motions were 
     filed after the Senate had considered the legislative 
     question for one day or less. In contrast, when the 
     Republicans were in charge in the 108th and 109th Congresses, 
     only 84 cloture motions were filed.
       Additionally, the Majority Leader has regularly abused a 
     procedure known as ``filling the tree,'' to exclude the 
     minority from offering amendments to bills. According to CRS, 
     he has employed this tactic 39 times on major pieces of 
     legislation since the start of the 110th Congress. The result 
     of this practice was the passage of legislation spending 
     hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars without members of 
     the minority having the opportunity to raise issues of 
     importance or to improve legislation. To put this number in 
     perspective, this represents a drastic increase from the mere 
     fifteen occasions former Majority Leader Frist ``filled the 
     tree'' in 108th and 109th Congresses combined.
       Majority Leader Reid's use of ``filling the tree'' combined 
     with filing cloture entirely preempts any input from the 
     minority into legislation and destroys the two distinguishing 
     characteristics of the Senate--the right to fully debate and 
     amend legislation.
       Too many Americans are upset, even angry, that their voices 
     are not being heard in Washington. The majority's abusive 
     practice of suppressing debate undermines the Senate's debate 
     traditions as well as the cherished American rights of free 
     speech and

[[Page 16063]]

     dissent. As a caucus, we should commit ourselves to ensuring 
     a more open and deliberative process that protects the rights 
     of every Senator to express the views of the taxpayers they 
     were elected to represent.
           Sincerely,
                                               Tom A. Coburn, M.D.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Goodwin). The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent 
that we not go into the quorum call.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRANKEN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss two important issues we 
will not have the chance to debate because we are unable to take up the 
Defense authorization bill.
  Let me start with the need for repeal of the discriminatory don't 
ask, don't tell policy. We are so close to making a historic 
accomplishment that I think we would be able to look back on with 
pride. It is also simply the right thing to do. This country is long 
past ready for it, and it is the right thing because the don't ask, 
don't tell policy has been costly for our military. Treating gays and 
lesbians unequally because of their sexual orientation just does not 
make sense to me. We should not be denying gay and lesbian Americans 
the ability to serve our Nation simply because of who they are. We 
should not make them lie in order to serve.
  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen, endorsed 
the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. He put it this way:

       I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in 
     place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about 
     who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For 
     me, personally, it comes down to integrity: theirs as 
     individuals and ours as an institution.

  But as I said, this is not just about the right thing to do. The 
country is ready for it, and the military is ready for it. Things have 
changed since 1993. The country is now way ahead of us on this issue. A 
Washington Post/ABC News poll in February 2010 showed that 75 percent 
of Americans believe gay and lesbian Americans should be able to serve 
openly in the U.S. military--75 percent. There is almost nothing we can 
get 75 percent of the country to agree on these days. The country has 
been steadily moving in this direction for some time. In 1993, 44 
percent of those surveyed favored this. It was up to 62 percent in 
2001. And now we are at 75 percent. Multiple other polls reinforce this 
result. The country is way past being ready for this change, and so is 
the military.
  Do we need to think carefully about how to implement repeal? Yes. 
That is why the Pentagon is undertaking a comprehensive review of how 
to implement the repeal. But is there any reason to think unit cohesion 
or military readiness is going to be negatively affected? No. There is 
simply no reason to think that. In fact, let's look to the military's 
own thinking on this question. A recent article in Joint Force 
Quarterly concluded that ``there is no scientific evidence to support 
the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals 
serve openly.'' No scientific evidence.
  Let me also briefly tell you about my experience. Before I was a 
Senator, I did a number of USO tours over the years. On each tour, I 
was more and more impressed with the men and women of the military. 
This was between 1999 and 2006. I did seven tours. The last 4 years, I 
was in Iraq and Afghanistan and Kuwait. I would go with a very eclectic 
tour of guys and women: the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, country 
western artists, almost all of whom are very rightwing, and we love 
each other because we went on these tours.
  Let me tell you about one show I did. I am not going to say what base 
it was. I do not want to get anybody in trouble. We did a 4-hour show. 
This was the fourth year we did this with the sergeant major of the 
Army. We did a 4-hour show because we found out the troops loved the 
show because it was a little bit of home. During the show, I would--I 
was kind of the cohost with a beautiful woman named Leeann Tweeden, and 
we would do comedy routines, we would introduce music, and we would 
introduce the cheerleaders.
  I would go out and do a monologue. This is something I would do and 
had done for a number of years. I would go out and I would say: You 
know, I have done now seven USO tours, and every year I am just more 
and more impressed with the military, except for one thing I don't get. 
It is this whole don't ask, don't tell policy.
  Now, it was about 28 degrees where I was talking, and there were 
maybe a couple thousand troops. Most of them were standing, some were 
in the bleachers. This was like 3 hours into the show, but they were 
just loving the show.
  I said: But there's one thing I don't understand. It is this don't 
ask, don't tell policy. We all know that brave gay men and women have 
served in our country's uniform throughout its history, and yet we have 
this policy. Take, for example, General Smith.
  I then pointed to the commander of the base.
  I said: Now, here is one of the bravest men ever in the history of 
our country to don our Nation's uniform in battle, and yet he is one of 
the gayest men I have ever met.
  And they started laughing and cheering.
  I said: Now, why should General Smith have to stay in the closet when 
he is such a great leader? General Smith, stand up and wave.
  He got up and waved, and everyone cheered. And in the bleachers there 
was a group of women soldiers who cheered extra loudly and waved at 
him, and he waved back at them.
  At the very end of the show, we sang ``American Soldier'' by Toby 
Keith.
  I don't know if you know that song. It is a beautiful song. I will 
always remember while doing the USO tours seeing soldiers with their 
arms around each other crying and singing: I don't do it for the money. 
I've got bills that I can't pay.
  At the end of the show, the general came up and gave me this 
beautiful frame with an American flag that had flown over the base. He 
gave it to every member of our troop. When he gave it to me, he said, 
``Al, keep telling those don't ask don't tell jokes. I think you may 
have some fans up there.'' And he pointed at those women. Later, those 
women came up to me and said, ``We are gay.'' And I think everybody 
knew it.
  This was in 2006 when it was really hard for the military to recruit 
people, so they gave waivers out at that time. They gave waivers--moral 
waivers. They gave waivers for people who didn't do as well in school 
or didn't graduate from school. I swear, if you asked every man and 
woman on that base: Who would you rather have standing to your right 
and left, that gay man or that gay woman who has been serving with you 
for the last year or somebody who comes in here with a moral waiver--
and many of those troops who had moral waivers served very honorably 
and bravely--or someone with a cognitive waiver--and many of those 
flourished in the military--they would say: I want that gay soldier, 
that lesbian soldier, who I know has been on my right and on my left.
  All gay and lesbian servicemembers want is to be able to serve. 
Instead, people are getting kicked out of the military--people who 
don't need any kind of conduct waiver, people who don't need standards 
lowered for them in order to serve, people who are patriotic and 
courageous and who have vital, irreplaceable skills.
  What is more, the evidence is clear from other countries that have 
allowed gay and lesbian citizens to serve openly in their military--and 
Susan Collins spoke about this today. That evidence says this will not 
be a problem. Ask the Israelis, ask the Canadians, and ask the British. 
They have all successfully implemented open service.
  But it is not only that the military is ready for this change; don't 
ask, don't tell is just costly for the military. Thousands of willing 
and capable Americans with needed skills have been kicked out of the 
military because of this foolish policy--and this

[[Page 16064]]

policy alone. These are soldiers, airmen, and sailors in whom we have 
invested time and training. We cannot afford to lose dedicated 
personnel with critical skills when we are engaged in two wars.
  On top of that, do we want our military officers spending valuable 
time and resources investigating and kicking troops out of the military 
for being gay?
  The argument offered by some opponents is that this legislation goes 
back on the promise to take into account the comprehensive review being 
conducted by the Pentagon, but that is just a canard.
  Let me remind you what Secretary Gates said about the review when he 
testified before the Armed Services Committee back in February. 
Secretary Gates said:

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

  Not whether, but how. That process is going forward, and the 
provision in this bill repealing the flawed don't ask, don't tell 
policy does nothing to interfere with the Pentagon's process. All the 
provision does is repeal the existing law. It does not tell the 
Department of Defense how to implement the repeal.
  What is more, the repeal itself doesn't even go into effect until 
after the Pentagon's comprehensive review is complete and the 
President, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff have certified that the Department of Defense has prepared the 
necessary policies and regulations for implementation. They must also 
certify that the implementation is consistent with military readiness 
and effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention.
  To be honest, I am not fully satisfied with that compromise. I wanted 
a moratorium on discharges. But that is the compromise, and it doesn't 
undercut the Pentagon's review in any way.
  Don't ask, don't tell makes no sense. It is foolish, it is unjust, 
and we must end it. The country is ready, the military is ready, and it 
is the right thing to do. I urge all of my colleagues to stand for 
equality and for common sense and to stand for our troops. It is long 
past time to end don't ask, don't tell. We will be proud that we did.
  Let me turn to the DREAM Act, which also would have come up if we had 
been able to get cloture and move to the Defense authorization bill.
  Minnesota is what it is today because we welcomed immigrants with 
open arms. We welcomed the Swedes, who first tilled our fields and 
built our railroads. We welcomed the Norwegians, who thrived in our 
lumber industry and founded choirs that remain the best in the world 
today. We welcomed the Danes, who made our State a leader in dairy 
farming. We welcomed the Germans, the Finns, the Poles, and the Czechs.
  In fact, from the time we were admitted to the Union in 1858 until 
1890, no less than one-third of Minnesotans were born abroad. Today, 
most of the people we welcome don't come from Europe. They don't speak 
Swedish or German. They speak Spanish or Hmong or Somali, and they are 
not one-third of our population. Just 7 percent of Minnesotans were 
born abroad. So there are far fewer immigrants in Minnesota by 
percentage. Mr. President, let me tell you, these folks work just as 
hard and they show just as much promise.
  I rise to speak in support of the DREAM Act because just by passing 
this law we can do something remarkable to help those Minnesotans--at 
least some of them. This is a group of young people who were brought 
here by their parents. They were raised as Americans and, for the most 
part, speak English just like you and I. But because their parents made 
a mistake, because their parents broke the law and entered the country 
illegally, or overstayed a visa, these kids are stuck. They can't go to 
college. They can't get jobs. They can't join our military. They are 
out of luck, and our society is going to pay for it.
  The DREAM Act would allow these students to reenter society, to come 
out of the shadows of society to study or to serve in our country's 
military.
  I want to put faces to the young people of Minnesota who would 
benefit from the DREAM Act. I am going to change their names to protect 
their identity.
  There is a young man named Daniel. Daniel came to the United States 
from Colombia when he was 8. He grew up in the suburbs, and he ran 
varsity track and cross-country for his high school. Since he couldn't 
get a driver's license, he took a 2-hour bus ride every day just to get 
to classes at Normandale Community College. In his second year, 
Daniel's father died, leaving Daniel and his mother without any income.
  Daniel almost dropped out, but he didn't. Instead, he became the 
first member of his family to graduate from college, with dual 
associate degrees in education and computer science--both with honors. 
Daniel is now at the University of Minnesota. He is trying to get his 
bachelor's degree. But since he can't work, he can't afford to attend 
school full time. So every semester, Daniel saves up all of his money 
to take just one class. He is completing his bachelor's one class at a 
time.
  There is another remarkable young Minnesotan, Javier, who came to 
this country at the age of 15. He enrolled in St. Paul High School and 
quickly learned English, and by his senior year was taking advanced 
placement and college courses and volunteering at the State capitol. He 
even started to like the weather in Minnesota.
  Today, Javier is an elected leader of student government at a college 
in our State. He has become a role model not just for immigrants but 
for all his fellow students. Javier wants to dedicate his career to 
improving our educational system. But because of the decision his 
parents made, he can't.
  I get letters from students like these all the time. Many of them are 
just as talented, and they all ask me for the same thing: the 
opportunity to work hard for this country. Let me repeat that: They 
only ask for the opportunity to work hard for this country.
  Another young woman wrote me to ask:

       We do not want welfare or any money. We are not asking for 
     immunity to the law. We are only asking for a chance to come 
     out to the light and live like any other person.

  There are a lot of reasons we should help them. The first reason is 
that it is the smart thing to do. Some of my colleagues have stood here 
and said they couldn't believe the DREAM Act might be included in the 
Defense authorization bill.
  In fact, the Defense Department has supported the DREAM Act since the 
Bush administration. This bill is actually a part of our Nation's 
strategic defense plan--hence, the Defense authorization bill. It will 
incentivize and reward students to wear our Nation's uniform, and our 
Nation will be safer because of it.
  Here is another reason this is smart. We don't want kids like Javier 
doing dishes. We don't want kids like Daniel taking 10 years to get 
their bachelor's degree. We want them studying, contributing to our 
economy, and serving in our military. But there is a far more important 
reason we should pass the DREAM Act, and that is because it is the 
right thing to do.
  Mr. President, there is a passage in Leviticus--a book that appears 
in both the Old Testament and the Torah--which I think is appropriate. 
Leviticus is a book of laws. It is said to describe God's covenant with 
the Israelites. This is chapter 19, verse 33:

       When the foreigner resides with you in your land, you shall 
     not oppress the foreigner. The foreigner who resides with you 
     shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the 
     foreigner as yourself, for you were foreigners in the land of 
     Egypt.

  Mr. President, these are children, and we need to help them. They 
have learned in our schools, they have played with our kids, and they 
want to serve our country. We just need to give them a chance.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is clear from the debate on the Defense 
bill and the vote that was held a bit ago that this is a partisan time 
for our

[[Page 16065]]

Nation. I come to the floor this afternoon to talk about an issue that 
is not at all partisan; that is, the question of doing public business 
in public.
  When you say those words--``doing public business in public''--people 
are almost flabbergasted when they are told that, regrettably, much of 
the important decisionmaking in the Senate is not done with that level 
of public accountability and public transparency. That is because of 
what are known as secret holds where one Senator--just one--in a 
completely anonymous fashion, can block a bill or a nomination from 
even coming to light, from even being heard in the Senate.
  For years now, there has been a bipartisan effort to change this 
procedure, to require that all Senators be held accountable. Senator 
Grassley and I have been involved in this effort in a bipartisan way 
for over a dozen years--for a dozen years--trying every way we could. 
We established the principle that the Senate would do public business 
in public, and if a Senator wanted to object to a bill or a nomination, 
they would have to be publicly accountable.
  For years now, the defenders of secrecy, the defenders of a system 
without transparency and accountability look for one dodge or another. 
But our bipartisan group--on the other side of the aisle, Senator 
Grassley, of course, the champion, Senator Collins, Senator Inhofe, a 
very significant bipartisan group; over on our side of the aisle, and 
particularly appreciative, is Senator McCaskill, who has done such hard 
work on the principle of establishing open accountability; my colleague 
from the Pacific Northwest, Senator Murray, an influential member of 
the Rules Committee, want this level of public accountability. It has 
been a big bipartisan group, and we seek to finally change this 
procedure through an amendment that would have been possible under the 
Defense authorization bill.
  It was said in the course of this discussion that a bipartisan effort 
to end secret holds through an amendment to the Defense authorization 
bill is ``a corruption of the process and procedures of the Senate if 
ever there was one.'' I believe the use of secret holds and not a 
bipartisan effort to end them is the real corruption of the procedures 
of the Senate.
  Secret holds cannot be found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution or 
anywhere in the Senate rules. We have had a considerable debate over 
the last few months about the Constitution, our reverence for this 
sacred document. Secret holds are nowhere in the Constitution and 
nowhere in the Senate rules. Yet in this Congress alone, they have been 
used to block what seems to be dozens of qualified nominees. I point 
out, this has gone on for years and years on both sides of the aisle. 
That is the point Senator Grassley and I have emphasized for over a 
decade: that this is an area of abuse where we have seen both sides of 
the aisle use the secret processes to the detriment of the public 
interest.
  The real corruption of the process, in my view, is the way secret 
holds have been used to block the Senate from acting on numerous 
nominations and pieces of legislation without any accountability to the 
public. That is why I believe it ought to be possible to debate a 
bipartisan amendment, to do public business in public to end these 
secret holds.
  The reason it needs to be done now is because past efforts to ban 
these secret procedures have been blocked from getting a vote. This has 
happened five times in just the past few months.
  In the course of the debate as well, there was a discussion about 
what our bipartisan effort--to do public business in public--has to do 
with national security. The answer is: a great deal.
  For example, earlier this year, one of our colleagues secretly placed 
a blanket hold on 70 nominations to critical positions in the Federal 
Government that were pending before the Senate. These nominations 
included nominees to positions in the Defense Department and the State 
Department. The Senator who secretly held up those 70 nominees said he 
was doing it to address national security concerns.
  Let me repeat that. We had 70 nominees under a blanket hold being 
held up from even an open debate to address national security concerns.
  It turned out that this particular Senator was concerned about a 
dispute about the Defense Department's contracting practices and an 
earmark for a counterterrorism center in the Senator's home State. This 
one example shows that secret holds have been used, and certainly the 
question of whether they have been abused, to hold up dozens of 
qualified nominees over defense and national security issues.
  This is only one example. Even today, there is at least one nominee 
for a national security position whose nomination is secretly being 
held up. No one knows who has the hold or why it has been placed.
  I come back to the connection, first, that changing these Senate 
procedures so public business is done in public is fundamental to all 
the operations of the Senate and certainly our accountability to the 
American people. But it has a direct link because of the examples I 
have cited this afternoon to the future of national security policy in 
our country.
  The continued use of secret holds is an abuse of secrecy by the 
Senate, and there is no better time to end this undemocratic process 
than through an amendment to the Defense bill. With colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle determined, finally, to get this done, I believe we 
will get it done when we get an open debate.
  Our democracy and our national security are weakened when secrecy is 
abused. I very much appreciate the opportunity this afternoon to 
highlight a number of key points in this discussion. First, this has 
absolutely nothing to do with partisanship. Second, it is absolutely 
key to the fundamental accountability of the Senate to the American 
people to end this process of secrecy and of all Senators held 
accountable. Finally, this has a direct connection to matters of 
national security because in so many instances, these secret holds have 
kept appointments to key national security positions from being open to 
debate and scrutiny in the Senate.
  At the end of the day, there are a lot of issues we face in the 
Senate that are hard to explain, that are complicated, and they are 
hard for folks to follow at home. What is not hard to explain is why it 
is so important to do public business in public.
  At a time when the American people are certainly voicing considerable 
skepticism about the ways of Washington, this is a chance to show the 
American people that the Senate is listening to them, that we share 
their commitment to open government, to doing public business in 
public. I hope the Senate will be able to change this offensive, 
antidemocratic procedure that has been used way too long to keep the 
American people from seeing the way the Senate operates.
  I look forward to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle having 
the debate on ending secret holds, doing public business in public. I 
believe that when we get that vote, we will get a resounding vote to 
finally close this dark chapter in the way the Senate does business and 
bring some sunshine to the decisionmaking process in the Senate.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise to talk about the vote we had a 
little while ago and the need to go to the Defense authorization bill. 
To me it is unconscionable that, at a time in which the Nation is at 
war, our Republican colleagues would vote lockstep, in uniformity, to 
oppose going to the Defense authorization bill--for whatever the 
reasons are, even though I do not find the reasons to be valid.
  I think it is very clear that the majority leader said there would be 
a host

[[Page 16066]]

of amendments that would be offered once we went to the bill and 
disposed of a few particular amendments that the majority leader was 
going to offer, that are in every way germane to the Defense 
authorization bill, more germane than the amendments that have been 
offered in the past on extraneous matters by those who oppose 
proceeding to the bill. They thought it was fitting and appropriate to 
offer it on the Defense authorization bill. Yet, when you have 
amendments that go to the very heart of how you recruit individuals for 
the Armed Forces and how you allow individuals to serve in the Armed 
Forces, that is not germane? Ridiculous.
  What this is all about is an attempt once again to use the power of 
the minority to obstruct the process of making sure this Congress is 
moving forward and meeting its obligations to the American people, and 
in this particular case to the Nation's collective security. Because 
someone does not like an amendment to be offered doesn't mean they 
should use their power simply to obstruct the whole process of 
considering the Defense authorization bill. Clearly they would have the 
opportunity to vote against any amendment they believed was not, in 
their view, in line with their views or in the national interest, but 
certainly not to stop the process.
  What is it? I looked at Senator McConnell's consent offer. It is 
interesting. His consent offer basically said you have to do a whole 
bunch of amendments before you can do anything related to immigration. 
First of all, the DREAM Act is in total focus on recruiting in the 
United States. What does it say? It says young people who, by no fault 
of their own, no choice of their own, were brought to this country and 
do not have a legal status here, and are willing to fight and maybe die 
for their country--because this is the country they know, this is the 
country they believe is theirs, and they are willing to join the Armed 
Forces of the United States and serve with honor and distinction and 
risk their lives in defense of the country--if they did all of that, 
then a couple of years down the line they would have a shot at becoming 
a permanent resident of the United States, but their service to the 
Nation would precede that.
  Even those who say on the campaign trail ``we are for the DREAM 
Act,'' even those who are cosponsors and say ``no, we are for the DREAM 
Act,'' could not cast a vote to allow us to go to the Defense 
authorization bill--which is much bigger than that--and then ultimately 
permit an up-or-down vote on several of those amendments before we got 
to a whole host of other amendments that Members are going to be able 
to offer, under the guise, under the cloak of saying, ``Oh, no, we 
opposed it because we were not going to have our opportunity, our 
say,'' when clearly the majority leader said there would be a whole 
host of amendments offered and clearly when amendments have been 
offered in the past under Democratic majority and Democratic rule. So 
the precedent there is that this particular bill has always had a wide 
range of amendments--the hypocrisy of saying no, you can't have an 
``immigration amendment'' even though that amendment deals with 
recruiting people into the Armed Forces of this country.
  The bottom line is we have had bill after bill debated in this Senate 
having nothing to do with immigration and the other side of the aisle 
has come forward with all types of amendments, immigration related, of 
all sorts. Whether it was a bill about jobs and the economy, whether it 
was a bill about health care, it doesn't matter--motherhood and apple 
pie--we had immigration amendments.
  Yet, when we have the opportunity to bolster the armed services of 
the country and those who are willing to risk their lives to defend the 
country, we are told, oh, no, that is inappropriate. That clearly is so 
transparent that I hope the Nation understands, and particularly in 
communities that were looking for the opportunity of the DREAM Act, to 
have a vote on it, it is understood.
  It is pretty amazing to me when I go to Walter Reed, and I have been 
there in the past, or when I visited some of our troops in my travels 
abroad and see young men and women there who are not citizens of the 
United States yet. It is pretty amazing to me when I go to Walter Reed 
and see them with both of their legs blown off in support of the 
country they call their own, wearing the uniform of the United States, 
that people question whether they love this country and are willing to 
serve it. They rejoice when, after their service, they get to take an 
oath and become citizens of this country. These are sacrifices which 
the few have been called upon to make for the many who do not have to 
go. There is a small universe who have gone to defend this Nation 
compared to the large universe of all of us as Americans who get 
defended by the men and women in uniform--it is a small percentage of 
America. Yet, many of that percentage who wear the uniform and risk 
their lives cannot call themselves a citizen. They are permanent 
residents of the United States. They aspire to become citizens. But 
they are not able to serve the country they call home.
  It is fundamentally wrong, in my mind, to simply not allow a vote. 
Yet not one Republican was willing to come forth and vote to proceed to 
a debate and to consider amendments on the Defense authorization bill 
simply because of an ideological view they hold as it relates to the 
first two amendments that would have been up in a long line of 
amendments. Imagine if Democrats had lockstep voted against the Defense 
authorization bill at a time of war--imagine.
  I see the majority leader moved to change his vote in order to be in 
a position to reconsider. I hope we will have that opportunity. I hope 
there will be some enlightenment into understanding that there will be 
plenty of opportunities for all amendments. There will be a robust 
debate. There will be the opportunity for up-or-down votes on the 
amendments on both the DREAM Act--which, as I have said, is about 
giving those young people an opportunity to serve their country, either 
educationally and/or in the armed services of the country, and to have 
to do so and perform before they get any relief--and, at the same time, 
to let many already in the service of their country and performing 
valiantly and risking their life and limb be able to do so without 
hiding their own person, who they are. Then we will go on to all the 
other amendments.
  It is amazing to me that we have a lockstep vote to stop us from 
proceeding to this legislation. I hope all those communities and others 
who both care about the defense of the Nation and those who believe in 
the dignity of an individual who is serving their country, who believe 
in the opportunity to serve their country, will rise and their voices 
will say no more filibustering, no more obstruction, no more ``no's,'' 
it is time to say yes to our country, it is time to say yes to our 
defense, it is time to say yes to those individuals willing to serve.
  Many others may not be willing to serve and we respect their choices. 
But let's not stop those who are willing to serve, willing to wear the 
uniform of the United States, willing to risk their lives, willing to 
defend their country. The vote that was taken sends all the wrong 
messages. It is, in fact, a shame.
  I hope we will have an opportunity another time and that the lights 
of some people will be able to turn on and we will have an opportunity 
to make sure we move to a Defense authorization bill. As the Nation is 
in the midst of winding down one war and is fully engaged in another 
war, I hope we will have the opportunity for those who want to serve 
their country to be able to do so and earn their way, in the process in 
serving to have an opportunity to fully call America home, and for 
those who are serving already, gallantly, who are serving with 
distinction and courage and honor, not to have to hide who they are. 
That is what is at stake. That is why it was so important to move 
forward and that is why today's vote is one that is shameful, hopefully 
one we can turn around.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I had hoped we could begin consideration of

[[Page 16067]]

the annual National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, today but, 
hopefully, we will consider it as our first business when we reconvene 
after the election.
  I filed three amendments that deserve serious consideration by the 
Senate, two of them dealing with the New START treaty. It is important 
to deal with these amendments before consideration of the treaty.
  Amendments Nos. 4636 and 4638 deal with modernization of the U.S. 
nuclear deterrent, which is directly related to the reductions called 
for by the treaty; and, the Bilateral Consultative Commission, of which 
much has been written concerning the implications for the Senate's 
prerogatives in the treaty making function. Amendment No. 4637 deals 
with a matter of great concern, China's reckless disregard for the 
international nonproliferation regime. I will ask that the article, 
``NSG Makes Little Headway at Meeting'' from the Arms Control 
Association Web site be printed in the Record.
  Regarding amendments Nos. 4636 and 4638, I will first briefly discuss 
amendment No. 4636 concerning START and modernization of the U.S. 
nuclear deterrent. In section 1251 of the fiscal year 2010 National 
Defense Authorization Act, the administration was required to provide a 
comprehensive plan for the nuclear weapons stockpile, nuclear weapons 
complex and delivery platforms. The report--hereinafter the 1251 Plan--
was delivered to the Senate with the new START treaty on May 13, 2010.
  While the 1251 Plan identified certain administration proposals to 
maintain and modernize our nuclear deterrent, it became quickly 
apparent that the plan, prepared on a tight schedule, did not provide a 
fully detailed picture of what is needed to modernize the U.S. nuclear 
deterrent and how much it will cost. Of course, additional decisions 
and revised budget estimates will continue to be made over the next 
decade of the 1251 Plan's scope. That is why the 1251 Plan and the 
corresponding budget will require regular updating--a point often 
repeated by the Directors of the national nuclear weapons laboratories.
  As Dr. George Miller, Director of Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory, testified:

       It is important to note that the nature of NNSA's work 
     requires program flexibility because technical issues arise 
     in the stockpile and requirements evolve. The scope of work 
     and budgets will need to be correspondingly adjusted. Annual 
     updates . . . could provide a mechanism to outline the 
     program's funding requirements and projections.

  My amendment No. 4636 codifies that recommendation and resolves the 
issues of evolving requirements and costs by requiring the President to 
provide a detailed update to the 1251 Plan report annually, for the 
duration of the new START treaty, describing revisions or adjustments 
to the plan as well as progress on satisfying the requirements of 
section 1251. Reductions in the nuclear force posture are tied to the 
submission of that update. As the Secretary of Defense has stated, 
there are 7 years to implement the treaty reductions; thus, a 1-year 
notice-and-wait requirement should not cause any difficulty.
  Additionally, the unbiased input of the directors of the NNSA 
laboratories and facilities will accompany the report as validation 
that adequate resources are being provided by the administration in 
support of sustainment and modernization activities. This is quite 
similar to the annual stockpile assessments as those familiar with that 
process will recognize.
  This amendment fosters improved project management, a detailed 
commitment to sustaining the U.S. nuclear deterrent, and reflects 
strong bi-partisan support for nuclear weapon complex modernization.
  I appreciate the broad support expressed for modernization. As 
Secretary Gates stated in his October 2008 Carnegie Endowment speech:

       [t]o be blunt, there is absolutely no way we can maintain a 
     credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our 
     stockpile without either resorting to testing our stockpile 
     or pursuing a modernization program.

  Concerning amendment No. 4638, the purpose is equally clear: to 
maintain the role of the Senate in treaty making. The Bilateral 
Consultative Commission authority is very broad. As Jack Goldsmith and 
Jeremy Rabkin observed in an August 4 Washington Post op-ed piece, 
``New START Treaty could erode Senate's foreign policy role'':

       This treaty . . . does, however, create a Bilateral 
     Consultative Commission with power to approve `additional 
     measures as may be necessary to improve the viability and 
     effectiveness of the treaty.' The U.S. and Russian executive 
     branches can implement these measures and thus amend U.S. 
     treaty obligations--without returning to the U.S. Senate or 
     the Russian Duma.

  The time to deal with this concern is now. The Lugar Resolution of 
Ratification approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee makes a 
genuine effort to address concerns; I hope to work with the ranking 
member to further improve his Resolution. But more can and should be 
done in binding legislative language, such as my amendment. These 
provisions are essential if we are interested in protecting the 
Senate's constitutional role and our missile defense and conventional 
prompt global strike capabilities.
  As Messrs. Goldsmith and Rabkin observed:

       If the administration does have a problem with them, the 
     Senate should worry--about the commission's power to limit 
     missile defense, the executive's attempt to limit the 
     Senate's constitutional role in the treaty process, or both.

  I am pleased to have the support of Senator Sessions, the ranking 
member on the Senate Judiciary Committee and a senior member of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee, who has cosponsored this amendment. I 
ask unanimous consent that the Goldsmith-Rabkin article be printed in 
the Record in addition to the article from the Arms Control 
Association.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    [From Arms Control Association]

                  NSG Makes Little Headway at Meeting

                           (By Daniel Horner)

       The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) last month concluded its 
     annual plenary meeting with little apparent progress on two 
     high-profile issues, the potential sale of two reactors from 
     China to Pakistan and the adoption of more-stringent rules 
     for sensitive nuclear exports.
       The Chinese-Pakistani deal was not on the formal agenda for 
     the meeting in Christchurch, New Zealand, but sources from 
     participating governments said the matter was discussed.
       The group's June 25 public statement at the end of the 
     meeting does not specifically mention the discussions, but it 
     says that the NSG ``took note of briefings on developments 
     concerning non-NSG states. It agreed on the value of ongoing 
     consultation and transparency.''
       The planned Chinese sale is an issue for the NSG because 
     the group's guidelines do not allow the sale of nuclear goods 
     such as reactors and fuel to countries that do not accept 
     International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards on all 
     their nuclear facilities. Pakistan does not have these so-
     called full-scope safeguards.
       When China joined the NSG in 2004, it had already built a 
     power reactor at Pakistan's Chashma site. It claimed at the 
     time that, under the NSG's ``grandfather'' provisions, it was 
     entitled to build a second reactor, on the grounds that the 
     second project was covered in its existing agreement with 
     Pakistan. According to several accounts, the group agreed 
     that the second reactor would be allowable under the 
     grandfather provision but that subsequent power reactor sales 
     would not.
       In the weeks before the June 21-25 Christchurch meeting, 
     the U.S. government said the sale of reactors beyond Chashma-
     1 and -2 would be ``inconsistent with NSG guidelines and 
     China's commitments to the NSG.'' (See ACT, June 2010.)
       In its public statements, China has responded to questions 
     about the deal in general terms. At a June 24 press 
     conference, Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said, ``China 
     and Pakistan, following the principle of equality and mutual 
     benefit, have been cooperating on nuclear energy for civilian 
     use. Our cooperation is consistent with the two countries' 
     respective international obligations, entirely for peaceful 
     purpose[s] and subject to IAEA safeguard[s] and 
     supervision.''
       It it not clear what additional information China provided 
     at the Christchurch meeting. According to a European 
     diplomat, the discussion was ``not confrontational.''


                          Clarification Sought

       In a June 30 e-mail to Arms Control Today, a U.S. 
     Department of State official said, ``We are still waiting for 
     more information from

[[Page 16068]]

     China to clarify China's intended cooperation with Pakistan, 
     in light of China's NSG commitments.''
       According to the official, ``The United States has 
     reiterated concern that the transfer of new reactors at 
     Chasma appears to extend beyond cooperation that was 
     `grandfathered' when China was approved for membership in the 
     NSG. If not covered by the grandfather clause, such 
     cooperation would require a specific exception approved by 
     consensus of the NSG.''
       In 2008 the NSG, led by the United States, granted an 
     exemption making India eligible to receive nuclear exports 
     from NSG members. Like Pakistan, India does not have full-
     scope safeguards.
       The NSG, which currently has 46 members, operates by 
     consensus. It is not a formal organization, and its export 
     guidelines are nonbinding. Before the 2008 NSG exemption, 
     Russia made and carried out deals with India for reactors and 
     fuel, justifying them on the basis of interpretations of the 
     NSG guidelines that other members considered overly 
     expansive.


                      Enrichment and Reprocessing

       A long-standing issue for the NSG has been its effort to 
     adopt a more rigorous standard for exports relating to 
     uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing. Since 2004, 
     the group has been discussing a new, so-called criteria-based 
     set of guidelines for enrichment and reprocessing transfers, 
     under which recipients of these proliferation-sensitive 
     exports would have to meet a list of preset requirements. The 
     list drafted by the group includes adherence to the nuclear 
     Nonproliferation Treaty, full-scope safeguards, and an 
     additional protocol, which gives the IAEA enhanced inspection 
     authority. However, the NSG members have not been able to 
     overcome certain states' objections to the proposal. Current 
     NSG guidelines simply call for members to exercise 
     ``restraint'' with respect to enrichment and reprocessing 
     exports.
       At the end of 2008, the suppliers appeared to be close to 
     an agreement (see ACT, December 2008), but since then they 
     have not been able to reach consensus. According to the 
     Christchurch public statement, ``Participating Governments 
     agreed to continue considering ways to further strengthen 
     guidelines dealing with the transfer of enrichment and 
     reprocessing technologies.''
       In a June 27 e-mail to Arms Control Today, the European 
     diplomat said that ``while progress was made there was no 
     consensus'' on the matter. Before the meeting, observers said 
     the main objections were coming from South Africa and Turkey. 
     The diplomat declined to identify the sources of the 
     objections at the meeting but said, ``The delegations which 
     have had difficulties in the past continue to have 
     problems.''
       Meanwhile, at their June 25-26 meeting in Muskoka, Canada, 
     the Group of Eight (G-8) industrialized countries extended 
     their policy to adopt on a national basis the proposed NSG 
     guidelines on enrichment and reprocessing transfers. The 
     leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the 
     United Kingdom, and the United States said in their summit 
     communique, ``We reiterate our commitment as found in 
     paragraph 8 of the L'Aquila Statement on Non-Proliferation.''
       Paragraph 8 of the L'Aquila statement, issued at the July 
     2009 G-8 summit in Italy, said the eight countries would 
     implement as ``national policy'' for a year the draft NSG 
     guidelines on enrichment and reprocessing and urged the NSG 
     ``to accelerate its work and swiftly reach consensus this 
     year to allow for global implementation of a strengthened 
     mechanism on transfers of enrichment and reprocessing 
     facilities, equipment, and technology.''
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, Aug. 4, 2010]

       New START Treaty Could Erode Senate's Foreign Policy Role

                 (By Jack Goldsmith and Jeremy Rabkin)

       Critics of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) 
     warn that it may endanger the United States' capacity to go 
     forward with missile defense. But the treaty, Senate 
     consideration of which has been pushed back to the fall, 
     raises another concern. Consent to it as it stands will 
     further erode the Senate's constitutional role in American 
     foreign policy.
       This treaty does not constrain future development of 
     missile defense (except in a few limited ways). It does, 
     however, create a Bilateral Consultative Commission with 
     power to approve ``additional measures as may be necessary to 
     improve the viability and effectiveness of the treaty.'' The 
     U.S. and Russian executive branches can implement these 
     measures and thus amend U.S. treaty obligations--without 
     returning to the U.S. Senate or the Russian Duma.
       Could the commission constrain missile defense? It is 
     empowered to ``resolve questions related to the applicability 
     of provisions of the Treaty to a new kind of strategic 
     offensive arm.'' The treaty's preamble recognizes ``the 
     interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and 
     strategic defensive arms.'' The commission might have 
     jurisdiction over missile defense through this 
     interrelationship. Russia has already warned that it might 
     withdraw from the treaty if the United States develops 
     missile defenses. Limits on missile defense systems thus 
     might be ``necessary to improve the viability and 
     effectiveness of the Treaty.''
       Supporters say the treaty allows the commission to make 
     only changes that, in the words of one State Department 
     official, ``do not affect substantive rights or obligations 
     under the Treaty.'' This assurance provides little comfort. 
     New START does not explain what counts as a ``substantive 
     right,'' and the commission, which is given very broad power 
     to interpret the treaty, will itself decide the issue.
       It is true that the amendment procedure contemplated in the 
     new treaty is similar to one in the original START and that 
     amendment procedures of this sort have been embedded in arms 
     control agreements for decades. Also, the president has long 
     exercised an independent authority to make new international 
     agreements that implement treaties. Why should the Senate 
     care about this issue now?
       One reason is that as treaty delegations of this sort have 
     expanded, and as more authority for making international 
     agreements is transferred to the executive branch and 
     international organizations, the cumulative effect of these 
     arrangements becomes increasingly hard to square with the 
     Senate's constitutional role in the treaty-making process 
     and, more generally, with separation of powers.
       Some courts have begun to give credence to this concern. In 
     2006, the federal appellate court for the District of 
     Columbia declined to implement the ``adjustments'' that an 
     international organization had made to an environmental 
     treaty even though the political branches agreed to the 
     adjustment process. The court noted the ``significant debate 
     over the constitutionality of assigning lawmaking functions 
     to international bodies'' and held that treating the treaty 
     adjustments as law ``would raise serious constitutional 
     questions in light of the nondelegation doctrine, numerous 
     constitutional procedural requirements for making law, and 
     the separation of powers.''
       Another reason is that courts often look to the practice 
     between the branches of government in determining 
     constitutional limits. If the Senate continually acquiesces 
     in delegating international lawmaking to the president and 
     international organizations, courts are unlikely to protect 
     senatorial power in the end. Moreover, arms control treaties 
     such as New START rarely come before courts.
       In short, only the Senate can protect its constitutional 
     prerogatives.
       One way for the Senate to do this would be to condition its 
     consent to the treaty on an interpretive ``understanding'' 
     that the commission's amendment power extend only to 
     technical treaty matters and not to limitations on missile 
     defense. Understandings of this sort are common in U.S. 
     treaties. The Senate could also condition consent to the 
     treaty on a requirement that it be notified about 
     deliberations of this commission.
       Such provisions would preserve the commission's core 
     authority while constraining it in ways that eliminate the 
     most serious constitutional objections. They would also lay 
     down a marker about the Senate's role in this context.
       The State Department insists that ``there were no secret 
     deals made in connection with the New START Treaty; not on 
     missile defense or any other issue.'' If that is true, the 
     administration should have no problem with minor Senate 
     tweaks of this sort. If the administration does have a 
     problem with them, the Senate should worry--about the 
     commission's power to limit missile defense, the executive's 
     attempt to limit the Senate's constitutional role in the 
     treaty process, or both.

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise today to express my profound 
disappointment that we were unable to proceed to the Defense 
authorization bill. First and foremost, this is an important bill that 
provides our men and women in uniform with the resources they so 
desperately require while they bravely fight overseas. Day in and day 
out they make sacrifices to keep us safe, and the fact that we were 
unable to proceed to a bill that provides them not only with the 
equipment they need, but also provides for their families, is extremely 
disheartening.
  Not only does this bill provide necessary requirements for our armed 
services, but it also contains landmark legislation that would finally 
lead to the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. Today, my colleagues and 
I, had a historic opportunity to put a stop to this discriminatory 
policy, and the fact that the Republicans blocked the bill from being 
debated is discouraging. The current policy actively discourages a 
significant portion of our population that is willing, capable, and 
able from serving in our military at a time when our Nation is at war 
and needs our best and brightest to serve. We owe it to the gay and 
lesbian community to repeal this law. I am confident that today's 
military is ready for this change,

[[Page 16069]]

and most importantly, it is the right thing to do.
  Since 1993, when don't ask, don't tell was implemented, over 14,000 
men and women have been discharged from the service at a cost of over 
$600 million to the American taxpayer. These gay and lesbian service 
members, who are proud to serve in our military, and are often serving 
in critical specialties, are being denied the opportunity to fight 
based solely on their sexual orientation. We cannot afford to continue 
to discharge these brave soldiers in whom we have invested time, 
resources, and training. We cannot afford this policy monetarily, but 
most importantly, we cannot afford this policy because it negatively 
affects our national defense.
  It has been estimated that approximately 48,000 gay and lesbians are 
currently serving in today's military. That means that there are 48,000 
men and women who on a daily basis are being forced to lie about who 
they are so they can continue to serve their Nation proudly. These are 
patriotic Americans who are willing to put their lives on the line in 
defense of our country but are unable to do so openly, simply because 
of who they are. Gay and lesbian service members fight, and die, 
alongside their fellow troops. It is time we stop asking them to live a 
lie.
  I have travelled overseas many times and have met with our troops--
all kinds of men and women--first generation Americans and those with a 
long family history of service, members of every race and religion, 
and, yes, gays and lesbians. No matter what their religious background, 
nationality, or sexual orientation they are all unmistakably proud to 
be serving the United States of America. It makes no sense to me why we 
would deny that right to serve to any American who is brave enough to 
answer the call of duty.
  As we forge ahead in the coming weeks, I urge my colleagues to fully 
repeal don't ask, don't tell. The time to do so is now; we can afford 
to wait no longer.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, like many Americans, I am 
frustrated with the gridlock in the Senate, and I am very concerned by 
our dysfunctionality, witnessed once again here today. When we were 
asked to lead on critical issues facing our men and women in uniform, 
our troops--also tied to our national security and our international 
leadership in the 21st century--the Senate has once again taken a pass, 
has once again let politics obstruct our progress.
  Coloradans sent me here to lead, like they sent the Presiding Officer 
here from her great State of North Carolina, and to find solutions to 
problems however vexing. I, for one, am increasingly tired of the 
partisan wrangling that besets each and every issue.
  This debate, like so many others we have attempted to have, was 
derailed by obstructionism before it even began. Now, I realize some 
will say they scuttled this critical Defense bill in part because the 
majority leader announced he expected to have a vote on the DREAM Act, 
which, by the way, would allow young, undocumented immigrants a chance 
to attend college and serve in our military. They were brought here to 
this country through no decision they made as very young people.
  But I have to tell you, I think it was about more than just that. In 
my humble opinion, the issues mattered far less than the politics. 
There has been a concerted effort to prevent or stall debate on nearly 
every major bill this year, and, sadly, a bill dealing with our troops 
is not free from the same tactics.
  There is no reason we should not have a debate on any issue, let 
alone a vote, and the DREAM Act is no exception. I know the Presiding 
Officer and I joined the Senate at the same time. We heard about how 
the Senate is the world's greatest deliberative body. If you do not 
deliberate, what does that make us?
  I also know that repeal of don't ask, don't tell is a contentious 
subject, and it has also been used as an excuse to sink this very 
important bill. But, I have to tell you, I think this is an outdated, 
discriminatory policy that undermines the strength of our military and 
the basic fairness upon which our great Nation was built. At a time 
when we are fighting two wars, we need every skilled servicemember we 
have: airmen, mechanics, translators, and all the many other 
specialties our military serve in.
  Unlike what some on the other side of the aisle have claimed, the 
language in this bill repealing don't ask, don't tell respects the 
Pentagon's timeline and gives our military leaders flexibility to 
implement repeal in a way that tracks with military standards and 
guidelines. As Admiral Mullen testified before the Senate Armed 
Services Committee--the Presiding Officer remembers what a powerful day 
that was--he said repealing don't ask, don't tell is the ``right thing 
to do.''
  Unfortunately, political debate and disagreement has prevented us 
from having this important discussion on how best to support our 
troops, plus thwarted a serious discussion about numerous pressing 
national security issues. I am disappointed in the partisanship, but I 
have to tell you, I am even more disappointed in the disservice to the 
men and women in uniform that today's inaction has caused.
  Our American citizens, our constituents, our friends and neighbors 
face difficult decisions in their lives every day, but many here in 
Washington bristle at the notion that they face hard choices. They say 
taking votes on certain issues will be too difficult, that the politics 
are too tough, or that they cannot stomach the thought of losing. But 
Americans have not run away from hard decisions in the past. What about 
us? This place is a forum--or it should be a forum--where we can work 
together.
  But, today, with the Senate blocking this bill, I fear our national 
security and our troops will suffer. Every year for nearly a half 
century--I think accurately put, 49 years consecutively--Congress has 
taken up and passed a bill that renews, in some cases reforms, and in 
other cases replaces our defense policies.
  This Defense authorization bill, like all those that came before it--
the previous 49 Defense authorization bills--is critically important. 
It provides funding for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. It supports 
our servicemembers who keep America safe by including fair pay and 
benefits for our men and women in uniform.
  Preventing this debate keeps us from pushing forward with this bill's 
provisions to enhance our military's readiness, improve our 
servicemembers' training, and upgrade equipment and resources to 
succeed in combat. We are also leaving behind provisions in the bill to 
strengthen our nonproliferation programs and enable the reduction of 
our nuclear weapons stockpile while ensuring the stockpile has 
continued reliability.
  We are foregoing the crucial opportunity--I know the Presiding 
Officer has believed this is very important as well--to increase the 
Pentagon's use of alternative energy technologies and fuels to improve 
the Department's efficiency and energy security.
  The bill also includes so many important provisions for the health 
and resiliency--both mental and physical--of our servicemembers and 
their families. Specifically, it includes a provision I authored 
extending health insurance for military families, enabling the children 
of Active-Duty servicemembers and retirees to stay on their parents' 
plans until the age of 26--similar to what we did in the Health Care 
Reform Act for the civilian sector. Importantly, the bill provides 
improved care for our wounded servicemembers and their families.
  As part of a longer term effort to treat both the physical and the 
unseen mental wounds of war, I have been reviewing the Army's report on 
Health

[[Page 16070]]

Promotion, Risk Reduction, and Suicide Prevention, which was published 
earlier this summer. One passage particularly struck me:

       In just six years, Soldiers experience the equivalent of a 
     lifetime when compared to their civilian counterparts.

  In other words, at the age of 24, the average soldier has moved 
multiple times, been deployed around the world, married and had 
children, seen death, had financial and relationship problems, is 
responsible for dozens of soldiers, and gets paid less than $40,000 a 
year.
  The lives of average soldiers bear no resemblance whatsoever to ours. 
Their sacrifices are far beyond what many of us can imagine, and we 
have demanded so much of them for so long. That is why I have continued 
to focus my efforts on how we can help our brave service men and women 
suffering from mental wounds when they come home. Fort Carson in 
Colorado has had its share of difficulties addressing the needs of our 
soldiers, but we are seeing real progress. I am particularly proud of 
what Fort Carson has been doing in the way of providing behavioral 
health care to soldiers not just when they get back home but also while 
they are still on the battlefield.
  That is the essence of Fort Carson's Mobile Behavioral Health Teams, 
which embed credentialed behavioral health providers within a brigade 
combat team, both during deployment and in garrison. Language I 
authored in this bill encourages the Army to replicate this successful 
program to help facilitate early identification and treatment of 
behavioral health problems.
  The bad news, again, is that this provision--and so many important 
provisions in this bill--will not be debated today. It appears election 
year partisanship has prevailed over the responsibility and the need to 
provide for our men and women in uniform as they fight two wars.
  Having said that, I do remain optimistic about our future, and I am 
committed to working toward a new kind of politics, where we find 
consensus amidst disagreement. I know Americans want their leaders to 
tackle challenging problems and resolve the tough issues. That is what 
America does. That is what Americans do. That is what we were hired to 
do. So in that spirit, I will continue to reach out to all my 
colleagues who wish to find common ground and call on others to let 
this debate move forward in the coming weeks so support for our troops 
is not held back any longer. Americans sent us here to do no less.
  Madam President, I thank you for your attention. I thank you for your 
service on the Armed Services Committee alongside me. With that, I note 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I just completed a visit with the Republican 
leader. There will be no more rollcall votes tonight.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, ever since an act of horrific violence on a 
bright blue morning 9 years ago, our Nation has been at war. At home 
and abroad, this war has tested our Nation, tested our military 
strength and our diplomatic skill, tested our resilience and our 
courage. Over the last few months, I fear our Nation has been in danger 
of failing one of these tests, a failure that would threaten our safety 
and the freedoms we hold so dear.
  At issue is a plan to build an Islamic community center a few blocks 
away from the site of the attack on the World Trade Center and the 
larger question of whether our Nation will embrace diversity or choose 
a path of division. This is not just a question of doing the right 
thing, although it is that. It is not just a question of preserving the 
values that have made our Nation a beacon of freedom across the globe, 
although it is certainly that too. This is also a question of whether 
we will make our Nation safer by focusing on and extinguishing the 
flames of hatred that spawned the 9/11 attacks or, on the other hand, 
add fuel to the fire that threatens us.
  There should be little doubt that religious intolerance has no place 
in a nation built on the idea, as Thomas Jefferson once wrote, ``that 
our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions.'' Our 
history is filled with moments in which we struggle to live up to that 
notion, in which Roman Catholics or Mormons or Jews or others found 
themselves beset by religious intolerance and wondering if the ideals 
set forth by our Founding Fathers would hold.
  So it is in this case. American Muslims have built homes, raised 
families, and run successful businesses in communities across our 
country. They have been drawn here because of the belief, as one 
prominent member of Michigan's Arab-American community recently wrote, 
``that there is room in America for all cultural and religious 
backgrounds.''
  Well, that is the America in which they chose to build their lives. 
It is the America we aspire to be, that we claim to be. We should ask 
ourselves, if we would not object to a church or synagogue at that 
location in Manhattan, how can we object to a Muslim place of worship 
and remain true to our most fundamental principles?
  Upholding the promise of our founding values should be reason enough 
to resist anti-Muslim sentiment. But there are equally powerful reasons 
that rely not on values but on simple common sense. The war that began 
on September 11, 2001, is not only a war against terrorists but a war 
to isolate those terrorists from broader Muslim society. We have seen 
time and time again that when we stray from our values, it is not just 
a moral failure but a national security failure. Our troops work every 
day to keep weapons out of the hands of al-Qaida and its terrorists. 
Yet, by indulging in intolerance, we hand al-Qaida a powerful 
propaganda weapon, one to use to stoke hatred of us and to recruit the 
terrorists who threaten our troops abroad and our citizens at home. We 
have already seen in the violent and even deadly protests in 
Afghanistan how anger can spawn anger and hatred and can inspire 
hatred.
  By threatening to burn holy texts or by holding an entire faith as 
somehow responsible for the actions of its most fanatic members, Osama 
bin Laden and his kind are given precisely the kind of clash of 
civilizations they so desperately seek to create.
  I was heartened by the words of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who said:

       We would be untrue to the best part of ourselves--and who 
     we are as New Yorkers and Americans--if we said ``no'' to a 
     mosque in Lower Manhattan.

  I am also encouraged by the religious leaders of many faiths across 
our country who have stood up and said:

       We support the rights of all Americans to worship in their 
     chosen place, through a climate of respect, dignity and 
     peace.

  I am encouraged by the words of our commander in Afghanistan, GEN 
David Petraeus, who powerfully pointed out that the acts of religious 
intolerance are ``precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses'' to 
direct hatred at our brave troops.
  I am encouraged by the words of our President:

       This is America and our commitment to religious freedom 
     must be unshakeable.

  I am heartened, too, by the reaction in my home State, which is home 
to a large, thriving, and valued community of Muslim Americans. The 
Grand Rapids Press has editorialized that ``[a] Manhattan mosque would 
be a powerful statement that the terrorists did not--and cannot--win.'' 
A columnist in the Detroit News wrote:

       Ground zero would seem to be the perfect place to 
     demonstrate that religious tolerance is why so many flocked 
     to our shores in

[[Page 16071]]

     the first place, and remains a key block in the foundation of 
     our freedom.

  A Detroit Free Press editorial reads:

       It's not just about this being a mosque, but about the 
     religious freedom that we all hold dear, and that was such a 
     critical part of this country's founding.

  Michigan civil and religious leaders of many faiths and backgrounds 
have invoked our most closely held beliefs and called on the Nation to 
speak and act in harmony with those beliefs. The power of those beliefs 
represents a powerful tool against the hatred that inspired 9/11.
  The founding principles of our Nation call on us to stand with voices 
of tolerance and reason. Those who have given their all in the defense 
of those principles would surely hope that we would resist the calls to 
hatred and violence. Our moral authority depends on that. Preservation 
of the freedom that defines us depends on that. Our safety depends on 
that. I commend those who have spoken for tolerance and diversity, who 
have resisted anger and intolerance, and who in doing so have upheld 
our most important values and have made our Nation safer.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 6 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         World Alzheimer's Day

  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Minnesotans and 
their families affected by Alzheimer's disease and recognize September 
21 as World Alzheimer's Day. Today, over 94,000 Minnesotans and 5 
million Americans are living with Alzheimer's disease. These are 
epidemic numbers, and the toll on our families and communities is 
devastating. Alzheimer's is the seventh leading cause of death and 
costs our Nation $172 billion a year.
  But today, on World Alzheimer's Day, we have reason to be hopeful. On 
this day, Alzheimer's is getting the attention it deserves. Take the 
first ever Alzheimer's Breakthrough Ride as an example. For the last 66 
days, Alzheimer's researchers from across the country biked hundreds of 
miles to spread awareness about Alzheimer's. Today, these researchers 
arrived in Washington to demand that the fight against Alzheimer's be 
made a national priority.
  I am proud to say that among the researchers on the ride is Minnesota 
doctor Michael Walters of the University of Minnesota's Grossman Center 
for Memory Research and Care. Dr. Walters rode from Madison, WI, to 
Chicago, IL, to raise awareness about Alzheimer's. He is here in 
Washington to demand that we in Congress provide the funding needed to 
make real progress against this disease. And we need real progress. 
After decades of research, there is still no effective treatment and no 
way to prevent or cure Alzheimer's. That is why my colleague from 
Maryland, Senator Mikulski, has put forth a bill to make Alzheimer's 
research a national priority. S. 1492, the Alzheimer's Breakthrough 
Act, would dramatically increase funding for Alzheimer's research at 
the National Institutes of Health. Under this bill, the NIH would also 
focus on prevention and early detection of the disease--two 
understudied areas that could drastically improve the health of 
millions of Americans. That is why I am proud to have cosponsored the 
Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act.
  The bill puts us one step closer to finding a cure and gives hope to 
families affected by Alzheimer's. One such family is the Shapiros of 
Edina, MN. In 2006, Alan Shapiro was diagnosed with Alzheimer's 
disease. Alan's father, uncle, and grandfather have all died of 
Alzheimer's, and Alan's brother Robert is currently living with the 
disease as well. Right now, Alan is in the midstage of his disease and 
needs round-the-clock supervision. His wife Carol spends her days 
caring for him so they can continue to live at home together. In 
addition to caregiving, Carol also takes care of all the things Alan 
used to do, such as maintaining the house. While Carol is involved with 
local support groups, she struggles just to stay afloat.
  Like the Shapiros, many families affected by Alzheimer's will tell 
you that their needs are not being met. It is not always clear where to 
turn for help. Sometimes a doctor can tell you about a clinical trial 
or a friend can offer to do the grocery shopping, but unfortunately it 
is never really enough. Families such as the Shapiros need help 
planning for the future, they need help navigating complicated 
insurance policies, and they need help finding high-quality, long-term 
care services and respite care. Fortunately for families in need of 
this kind of help, there is a Federal law called the Older Americans 
Act. The Older Americans Act provides seniors and families affected by 
Alzheimer's with tools to create a long-term care plan, and it can help 
caregivers, such as Carol Shapiro, find services for their loved ones. 
For example, in Minnesota, the Older Americans Act funds the Senior 
Linkage Line. Families can call the line and get information about 
services for people with Alzheimer's available in their community.
  Because of limited funding, even resources such as the Senior Linkage 
Line are not always well known or able to serve everyone who needs them 
the most. That is why it is important to take a close look at the Older 
Americans Act when it is up for reauthorization next year. It is 
critical that the Older Americans Act receive robust funding so 
families affected by Alzheimer's know about the resources that are 
available to them. It is also important that we strengthen the law to 
ensure that people with Alzheimer's have access to high-quality, long-
term care services and that States have the resources to protect people 
with Alzheimer's who receive care at home.
  Today, on World Alzheimer's Day, I am committed to making support for 
families affected by Alzheimer's a national priority. As a member of 
the HELP Committee and the Special Committee on Aging, I will be 
fighting for the needs of Minnesotans affected by Alzheimer's disease 
during the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act. I will be a 
strong supporter of Alzheimer's research so real progress can be made 
to stop this disease. I urge my colleagues to do the same. I ask that 
they take this important day to remember the families, such as the 
Shapiros, living in their home States.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     In Praise of Michelle O'Neill

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I rise again to honor one of our Nation's 
great Federal employees. As my colleagues know, I have been coming to 
the floor since last May to deliver a series of weekly speeches 
recognizing Federal employees' contributions to this country in some 
small way. When I was appointed to the Senate, I saw this as an 
opportunity to draw attention to the important work performed each day 
by some of America's hardest workers. They work for all of us. They 
choose careers in public service not because they will be paid more, 
because they will not, or because it is an easy job, because it 
certainly is not; they do it for love of their country and for a sense 
of duty. They do it because there are inherently government tasks we as 
a nation expect to be performed and because every one of us deserves 
the most highly skilled and hardest working public servants to carry 
them out.
  I have been honoring great Federal employees from this desk for the 
past 16 months. It has been one of the highlights of my time in the 
Senate. Now I rise to honor a great Federal employee for the last time. 
I am proud to share that my honoree today is my 100th great Federal 
employee, a talented individual who spent two decades reducing trade 
barriers for American goods.

[[Page 16072]]

  Michelle O'Neill has served as Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for 
International Trade since 2005. In this role, Michelle supervises the 
day-to-day operations of the International Trade Administration, or 
ITA. The ITA has over 2,400 employees and an operating budget of over 
$400 million. Its mission is to promote American exports and ensure 
fair access to overseas markets for our businesses.
  Michelle, who holds a bachelor's degree from Sweet Briar College in 
Virginia and a master's degree from the Lyndon B. Johnson School of 
Public Affairs at the University of Texas, first came to the Department 
of Commerce in 1983 as an intern. Over the course of her career, she 
has served under 5 administrations and 11 Secretaries of Commerce. She 
has traveled to over 40 countries to carry out her work.
  From a family with a long history of public service, Michelle knew 
very early that she wanted to pursue a career in government. Born on a 
military base, Michelle has said that ``public service is part of my 
DNA; I have always found helping others, being part of something bigger 
than myself, to be very rewarding.'' Throughout her career at the ITA, 
she has done just that--helping Americans trade fairly across borders 
and pursue commerce, which has always been a vehicle for achieving the 
American dream. Michelle has consistently placed her work above her own 
advancement and taken risks for the sake of carrying out the ITA's core 
mission.
  Michelle served oversees from 1995 to 1998 as the commercial attache 
to our mission to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development, OECD. Before that assignment, she worked as executive 
assistant to the Deputy Under Secretary for International Trade--the 
position Michelle now holds. In 1995, she served as a Brookings 
legislative fellow with the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade in the 
House of Representatives and from 1990 to 1991 was detailed to the 
Office of Policy Development in the White House.
  One of her major achievements at the ITA has been resolving a major 
China market access barrier, for which she won the Department's Silver 
Medal. She also has been praised for her role in developing an online 
portal for government export assistance, called export.gov. Michelle 
was also awarded the William A. Jump Award for exemplary service in 
public administration. This June, she was honored as Outstanding Woman 
of the Year by the Association of Women in International Trade.
  Today, Michelle is part of the ITA's leadership team. The American 
people are fortunate to have her talents and experience at work for 
them. She joins the 99 other outstanding public servants whom I have 
honored weekly throughout my term. Together, they are my 100 great 
Federal employees--not that these are all the great employees, but I 
think you see a mosaic which represents all of our Federal employees.
  I hope to come to the floor next week to speak about a special group 
of outstanding Federal employees, but this week's honoree, Michelle 
O'Neill, is the final individual whose story I will share in this 
series. I hope my colleagues in the Senate and all Americans will join 
me in thanking her and all those who work at the International Trade 
Administration for their service to our Nation. They are all truly 
great Federal employees.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________