[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18991-18996]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I noted last week that President Obama 
took a surprise trip to Afghanistan and visited with our troops, and it 
was heartwarming to see the reception our Commander in Chief received 
in Afghanistan. I looked out at that large crowd of young men and women 
in uniform who have volunteered--volunteered--to serve our Nation and 
risk their lives and saw how happy they were that the President 
acknowledged they were there and what they were doing. I am glad he did 
it. I am sure it was no fun flying all night, but it is certainly no 
fun to be under enemy fire, as these young men and women are almost 
every day. Those of us here in the comfort and security of the Senate 
Chamber or in our homes in America should never forget the sacrifice of 
these individuals.
  I also read over the weekend we have now lost over 1,400 in 
Afghanistan. I pour through the names each day and, I guess 
understandably, look first for someone from Illinois. Recently, we have 
had several. I have attended two funerals in the last 2 or 3 weeks of a 
soldier and a marine who died in Afghanistan from my home State of 
Illinois. It is heartbreaking to meet the young wives carrying babies, 
the moms and dads, and share their grief as they stand by their fallen 
heroes and acknowledge that they have carried on a great tradition in 
America of being willing to volunteer to protect our freedoms. But they 
paid the ultimate price. The lives of those families will never ever be 
the same because of that loss.
  Many of us, on both sides of the aisle--Democrats and Republicans--go 
out for unannounced tours to the hospitals in the Washington, DC, area, 
particularly Walter Reed. We see these incoming soldiers who are about 
to become veterans who have been injured in battle and face many 
grievous injuries. They come home to get the very best in medical care 
so they can return, as much as possible, to a normal life on the 
civilian side as veterans, having given so much to this country.
  The first person I ever visited at Walter Reed was after the invasion 
of Iraq. He was a young guardsman who had lost his left leg below the 
knee. It was amazing to me, as I talked to him, thinking how his life 
would be changed now, when he said the one thing he couldn't wait to do 
was to get his prosthetic leg and go through rehab so he could return 
to his unit in Iraq. What a great comment that is on the training and 
dedication of the men and women who serve us.
  I wish to comment this afternoon and talk about one aspect of that 
being discussed here in Washington and try to add some perspective to 
it. I remember the early days of the war in Iraq. They were 
controversial. As our young men and women went into harm's way in an 
effort to displace Saddam Hussein and bring some order and civility to 
that country, great sacrifices were made.
  In 1990, a young man named Eric Alva joined the Marines at the age of 
19. Thirteen years later, at 32 years of age, he was serving in Basra 
on the first day of the war in Iraq on March 21, 2003. This young 
marine--Eric Alva--went into the invasion of Basra and stepped on a 
landmine. He became the first U.S. casualty of the war in Iraq. As a 
result of that occurrence, his right arm and left leg sustained 
permanent damage and his right leg was simply gone.
  He was saved and sent to hospitals in Landstuhl, Germany, then here 
in the United States, where they did everything humanly possible to 
repair his broken body--the broken body of this young marine who was 
the first casualty of the war in Iraq.
  As he lay in that hospital going through countless surgeries to 
restore his life, he was visited by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld 
and then by First Lady Laura Bush and President George Bush, who 
personally awarded him a Purple Heart. It was the least this country 
could do to acknowledge his courage and heroism and being in the first 
wave of marines who went into Iraq and who paid such a heavy price.
  Eric Alva tried to put his life together after that devastating 
injury. Finally, after several years, he spoke up and said there is 
more to the story. After 4 years, Eric Alva told the world he had lied 
to become a member of the U.S. Marine Corps because he is gay and he 
kept that a secret. When he finally spoke out against don't ask, don't 
tell in 2006, he said: I have risked my life to save this country, but 
as a gay American veteran I still don't have the full rights of every 
American.
  MAJ Margaret Witt has also felt the injustice of don't ask, don't 
tell. Major Witt was an Air Force flight nurse. For 17 years, she rose 
steadily through the Air Force and Air Force Reserve, winning strong 
performance reviews from superiors and service medals from the 
department. Almost no one--not even her parents--knew about her sexual 
orientation. That ended in 2004, when her commanders discovered she was 
in a committed relationship with a civilian woman. After an 
investigation and hearing, the Air Force discharged her in 2007 under 
the don't ask, don't tell policy.
  After all those years--17 years of service to the country--they 
discharged her. Her suspension came less than a year before she would 
have earned her full pension. There she was, 17 years after joining, 
all the years of good performance reviews, 1 year away

[[Page 18992]]

from her pension, and she was suspended.
  In 2006, Major Witt said: This is worth a fight. She sued the Air 
Force, claiming it had violated her rights. Her suit was dismissed by a 
Federal judge. Two years later, an appeals court panel overruled that 
judge, holding that before the military can discharge a gay service man 
or woman, it must first prove their firing furthers military goals.
  This year, Major Witt went back to court to try to get her job back. 
She faced the same judge who had dismissed her claim earlier--U.S. 
District Court Judge Ronald Leighton. Former Air Force MSG James 
Schaffer, one of the four witnesses who testified on behalf of Major 
Witt, said he thought Major Witt's dismissal was so unfair it was part 
of the reason he retired from the Air Force himself in the year 2007.
  Judge Leighton issued his ruling in the case in late September of 
this year. Judge Leighton is no liberal. He was nominated to the 
Federal bench by President George W. Bush. In his ruling, Judge 
Leighton hailed Major Witt as a ``central figure in a long-term, highly 
charged civil rights movement.'' He said her discharge advanced no 
legitimate military interest. To the contrary, he said, her dismissal 
hurt morale in her unit and weakened the squadron's ability to carry 
out its mission.
  Major Witt's case is now on appeal.
  Judge Leighton was the second Federal Court judge in less than a 
month to find that don't ask, don't tell was unconstitutional. Earlier 
in September, in a case brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, a Federal 
judge in California ruled that don't ask, don't tell ``infringes on the 
fundamental rights of United States servicemembers in many ways,'' and 
he said violates the due process clause of the fifth amendment and the 
free speech protections under the first amendment. That ruling as well 
is under appeal.
  Many of my colleagues have said they are inclined to support the 
repeal of don't ask, don't tell, but they wanted to reserve final 
judgment until the Defense Department studied this issue in-depth. 
Well, the study is complete--one of the most exhaustive studies in the 
history of the Pentagon. According to the Pentagon's own study, more 
than 70 percent of the 115,000 servicemembers and 44,000 military 
spouses who responded said the effect of repealing don't ask, don't 
tell would be ``positive, mixed or nonexistent.''
  Think about the responses there--115,000 members of the military and 
their spouses responded to the question, and 70 percent said it was 
time to end don't ask, don't tell.
  In releasing that study, Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged 
that there are challenges behind unwinding don't ask, don't tell. He 
worried that leaving this matter to the Federal courts could be the 
wrong thing to do. A decision for one of these Federal courts could be 
done in a very short period of time, but better, he said, that Congress 
step up and accept its responsibility to repeal don't ask, don't tell 
and put in place a transition period to have the least negative impact 
on our military. He basically put us on the spot and said those of us 
who serve in Congress, don't stand on the sidelines and wait for the 
courts to decide. Pick up the issue and decide yourselves.
  President Obama supports repealing don't ask, don't tell. Many of us 
want to join him. But, unfortunately, we are being stopped by other 
colleagues who do not want this matter to come before the Senate. They 
run the risk that any day a Federal court can do, in one opinion, what 
we should be doing in an orderly, sensible way.
  Defense Secretary Gates also added:

       Those that choose not to act legislatively are rolling the 
     dice that this policy will not be abruptly overturned by the 
     courts.

  He urged us to move and move quickly.
  This is not the first time we fought battles involving discrimination 
in our military. As proud as I am of the men and women who have served 
in our military throughout our history, military historians and those 
who serve will be honest and tell you that in times gone by, some 
things have occurred which should not have happened. In World War II, 
our colleague, Senator Danny Inouye of Hawaii, and other Japanese-
Americans, defended our Nation even as many of their family members 
were imprisoned in internment camps in this country. Senator Inouye's 
unit, the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, was made up entirely of 
Japanese-Americans who initially were denied the right to even 
volunteer and serve for our country. They became, once they were 
allowed to fight, one of the most highly decorated units in the history 
of the Army.
  Our friend, Senator Inouye, in World War II lost his arm fighting in 
Italy for America. Yet when he returned from the war, a clearly 
disabled veteran, a hero in a U.S. Army uniform, he went into a barber 
shop where the barber refused to give him a hair cut and said: ``We 
don't cut Jap hair.''
  The discrimination he faced before he was allowed to serve our Nation 
and even after is a reminder that even in this great Nation there are 
times we have to step up and stand up for the cause of civil rights.
  Incidentally, we know in this Chamber, and those who follow this 
debate should know, in the year 2000 our colleague, Senator Dan Inouye 
of Hawaii, was awarded the Medal of Honor for his heroism in World War 
II.
  Edward Brooke was another man who served in the Senate. He was 
elected in 1966, the first African-American to serve since 
Reconstruction, a Republican from Massachusetts. He is a recipient of 
the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal. In 
World War II he served in an all-Black regiment in the infantry. As he 
said, he and his fellow African-American soldiers fought tyranny in 
Europe even as the U.S. military fought to protect White troops from 
having to live and fight alongside of them. The military, for all 
intents and purposes, was basically segregated at that time.
  This past June, Senator Brooke wrote in the Boston Globe calling for 
an end to the don't ask, don't tell policy. It was a powerful call for 
justice, and I want to read part of it. Here is what Senator Brooke, a 
Republican from Massachusetts, said:

       Military service requires extraordinary sacrifice and love 
     of country, and every man and woman in uniform deserves our 
     respect and gratitude. However, the ``don't ask, don't tell'' 
     policy that bars openly gay and lesbian soldiers from serving 
     in the military shows disrespect both for the individuals it 
     targets and for the values our military was created to 
     defend. It is a discriminatory law that must be repealed.

  Senator Brooke said that under Don't Ask, Don't Tell: The military is 
divided into soldiers who are judged solely on their merit, and those 
who can be condemned for a personal characteristic unrelated to their 
performance. We've been here before, and history shows that prejudice 
was the wrong policy.
  He added:

       Regardless of its target, prejudice is always the same. It 
     finds novel expressions and capitalizes on new fears. But 
     prejudice is never new and never right. One thing binds all 
     prejudices together: irrational fear. Decades ago, black 
     service members were the objects of this fear. Many thought 
     that integrating black and white soldiers would harm the 
     military and society. Today, we see that segregation itself 
     was the threat to our values. We know that laws that elevate 
     one class of people over another run counter to America's 
     ideals. Yet due to ``don't ask, don't tell,'' the very people 
     who sacrifice the most to defend our values are subject to 
     such a law. We owe them far more.

  Whether it was the Marine Eric Alva, the first serious casualty of 
the war in Iraq, or Major General Witt, in the Air Force, who after 17 
years of service was basically told to leave, we understand we owe them 
and so many more the right to serve without discrimination.
  More than 24 nations allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the 
military. They include Canada and the United Kingdom. Other nations 
that have lifted their bans include Australia, Austria, Belgium, the 
Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, 
Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, 
South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland.
  Israel, too, has lifted its ban against service by those who are of a 
different

[[Page 18993]]

sexual orientation. Does anyone think for one minute the Israelis would 
allow gay men and women openly in the military if they thought it would 
harm their military readiness and national security? Of course not.
  Let me add, there is currently no discrimination against those who 
are gay who wish to serve in the CIA, Secret Service, or FBI. Only in 
the U.S. military is that discriminatory policy still part of the law 
of the land.
  Our military leaders have told us they can implement repeal and do it 
in an orderly way. Secretary of the Army John McHugh, former 
Congressman of New York, has said that. Secretary of the Navy former 
Governor Raymond Mabus, Admiral Gary Roughhead, Chief of Naval 
Operations, and General Douglas Fraser, commander of the U.S. SOUTHCOM 
all agree the military is up to the challenge--everyone.
  In releasing the Pentagon survey, Defense Secretary Gates said:

       One of the most important things to me is personal 
     integrity and a policy or law that in effect requires you to 
     lie gives me a problem. Such a policy is fundamentally 
     flawed.

  Admiral Mike Mullen, the highest ranking military leader in America, 
testified and said:

       Speaking for myself and myself only, it is my personal 
     belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would 
     be the right thing to do. No matter how I look at the issue, 
     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.

  He added:

       I have served with homosexuals since 1968. Everyone in the 
     military has.

  Indeed, there are an estimated 66,000 gay men and lesbians serving in 
our military today. Ending don't ask, don't tell is the right thing to 
do for those troops and for our Nation.
  I want to salute Senator Lieberman for being the author of the 
amendment to repeal don't ask, don't tell, and I am proud to cosponsor 
it with him. This amendment gives us the right to begin the process of 
repealing it in an orderly way. It says specifically that before don't 
ask, don't tell can be repealed, the President, Secretary of Defense, 
and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must all certify that the new 
rules are consistent with the standards of military readiness and 
effectiveness.
  Over the last 60 years, the U.S. military has ended racial 
segregation and integrated women into its ranks. In many respects the 
military, after realizing that prejudice did not serve our country 
well, has led our Nation in opening up to equal treatment and equal 
opportunity men and women of different racial backgrounds as well as 
obvious changes in gender.
  Ending the ban against gays and lesbians serving openly will require 
leadership and care, but I am confident America's leadership, the 
finest in the world, is up to the task.
  Let me close with one last comment from Senator Brooke. In his op-ed 
he wrote:

       Civil rights progress doesn't happen automatically or 
     without resistance. History almost always obscures that fact 
     because after the battles are won, it is difficult to 
     understand why we needed to fight them in the first place. 
     Laws change and values change with them. I'm confident that 
     repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell will be the same. A law 
     believed to be necessary becomes a relic that the next 
     generation finds curious and shameful.

  In this case the values have already changed. The vast majority of 
Americans, including the majority of our top military leaders, our men 
and women in uniform and their spouses, support ending don't ask, don't 
tell. It is time to stop coming up with excuses to continue this 
discrimination. We owe to the men and women in the military not only 
our respect for what they do and how they serve our country but our 
respect for their judgment, and in their judgment it is time for don't 
ask, don't tell to end.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Durbin for his eloquent 
remarks. I urge everyone who wants to get a full understanding of this 
issue of don't ask, don't tell to read his remarks.
  I would only say, if you sum it up, what my colleague has told us is 
that ending don't ask, don't tell will make us a stronger nation 
because we will have the unqualified support of people who are serving 
in the military in a situation where they have to hide who they are. 
This can't be good. Many of them are thrown out of the military.
  Frankly, if we do this, it means we are listening to the American 
people, a strong majority of whom support ending don't ask, don't tell; 
and listening to Secretary Gates, our Defense Secretary, who tells us 
he supports repeal; and listening, frankly, to the members of the 
military who have taken a survey and over 70 percent of them say we 
should end don't ask, don't tell.
  It is hard to understand why this is not being done. Senator Durbin 
is right. If it is done by the courts--which, by the way, I want it to 
be done by everyone, courts included--but if it is done by the courts 
before we deal with it, it means there will be more of a rush to change 
things, and it will take a lot of the control out of the hands of the 
Defense Secretary so he can phase in this change in policy.
  I have to say, as someone who way back in 1993 spoke out against this 
policy and offered an amendment to keep it out of the rules and out of 
the law, I tried to say let's just leave it up to the military and not 
have a congressional statement on it--I offered that amendment. I don't 
know, we got how many votes--about 12 or 13 votes at the time.
  Imagine all those years ago I was so blessed to be here then to speak 
out against this policy, and now I am here at a time when we can 
finally end it. What that means is we are moving civil rights forward.
  In this great Nation of ours we have a lot of ups and downs, we have 
a lot of disagreements, we have a lot of open debate, as it should be 
as a democracy. But at the end of the day, we always expand freedom. We 
always expand equality.
  We started off with only White men of property could vote, when we 
started off as a nation. It was a big struggle to get the African-
American vote. It was a big struggle to get the women's vote. Then we 
extended the age downward so we had the 18-year-old vote because we had 
people going to war and they couldn't vote, so we expanded that. This 
is a country that includes our people. This policy runs counter to that 
whole notion of inclusion. In fact, it makes people who are willing to 
die for their country lie about who they are.
  We want to stop that policy, at least the vast majority of the 
American people do--the Secretary of Defense does, the majority of the 
people in the military do. We have a couple of people on the other side 
of the aisle, frankly, who keep raising the bar. They said we will end 
this don't ask, don't tell when we have a survey. Then the survey came 
out and they said: You know what. We didn't like the survey. Let's have 
another survey.
  What are they going to do, keep designing different surveys until the 
answer comes back the way they want it? Come on. That is wrong. That is 
holding back something so important that we have to do.
  We have a chance to stand up for civil rights and human rights and I 
don't want to give it away to the courts. I hope the courts continue to 
rule the way they have. By the way, the courts have been, to me, 
eloquent on the point. But we ought to be eloquent as well.
  Here we are in a postelection session called a lameduck, but this is 
no reason for us to be lame, and there is no reason for us to be 
limping out of this session. We can do some good things. I am here 
today to look at where we are, what we have done, what we have to do, 
and what I hope we will do.
  Let me say we did do one positive: We did pass the Food Safety 
Modernization Act by a vote of 73 to 25. One Senator held it up and 
held it up. We know thousands of our people die every year of foodborne 
illness. This was a no-brainer. This was easy. The industry itself 
wanted to do this. We had to have a big fight and cloture votes and the 
rest of it. At the end of the day we passed it, and I am grateful and, 
believe me, many people in our country

[[Page 18994]]

will be grateful when they see the changes that will be put in place.
  We are increasing the number of FDA inspections at foreign and 
domestic facilities to make sure our food is safe before we have an 
outbreak of a disease. And it will allow removal of contaminated food 
from store shelves far faster by enhancing the tracking and tracing of 
high-risk foods. It is going to mean the FDA has clear mandatory recall 
authority. We have more surveillance systems out there. So this is 
going to lead to a healthier nation.
  Then we got a letter from the Republicans, my friends, and they said: 
We are not voting on one more thing until you extend tax cuts for all 
Americans. So, listen, we did that. The Democrats passed two--not one 
but two versions of tax cuts for every single American. One said: We 
will make sure those tax cuts stay in place for the first $250,000 of 
income. That passed with a majority. We needed 60 because our friends 
filibustered. We got 53. Then we had another version that said: Let the 
tax cuts continue for up to $1 million of income. Just so people 
understand what that means, it means we gave tax cuts to every single 
American, every single one, and we gave a bonus tax cut to people 
earning up to $1 million, an additional tax cut.
  That was not enough for my Republican friends. They brought down 
those two bills that meant tax cuts for everyone because they want a 
bonus for people earning over $1 million. Let me tell you how many 
people there are in this country--307 million Americans. Let me tell 
you how many Americans earn more than $1 million--315,000. That is one-
tenth of 1 percent. My Republican friends voted no on a bill that gave 
every American a tax cut but stopped a bonus tax cut for 315,000 
families who earn over $1 million. Not only that, they said: We are not 
going to do one more thing in this Senate until we get that tax cut for 
those people. Give me a break. Give me a break.
  I read into the Record a letter signed by 90 millionaires. Do you 
know what they said? Thanks, but no thanks. We do not want this extra 
tax money. Do it up to $1 million. After that, it is a waste. We are 
not going to spend it in the economy. We are not going to stimulate 
this economy. Give it to everybody else, not us.
  But, oh, no. Oh, no. They voted no. And they are stopping everything.
  You know, a lot of people complain because there is debate going on 
between the two major parties. I understand it. We have to get things 
done, and we do. But every once in a while, it is good for the American 
people to see who is fighting for whom. And put me down as fighting for 
99.9 percent of the American people. Put them down as fighting for one-
tenth of 1 percent of the American people. This is unreal.
  People said: You have to meet the Republicans halfway. Absolutely. 
That is why I said I would vote to retain the tax cuts for people up to 
$1 million. We talked about it just being the first $250,000. We moved 
to $1 million. That covered almost everybody. They will not meet us an 
inch of the way. We went all of the way over here, and they will not 
meet us here at all. It would require a little baby step.
  So where are we? You see us. We are not voting on anything, folks, 
because they voted down the tax cuts and now they will not do anything 
else. And let me tell you some of the things they have already stopped. 
They have already stopped help for the unemployed. Two million 
Americans in this Christmas season, this Hanukkah season, are not going 
to get their unemployment benefits that they paid for through 
insurance. They are hard-working people. I read their stories into the 
Record, and I hope people will look at those stories. They touch your 
heart. We have veterans who cannot get a job. We have single moms who 
cannot get work. We have children saying: I cannot go to college now 
because my family is unemployed; I have to quit college and go back to 
work. And $300 a week is the benefit. That is what they stopped on the 
other side so they could get $460,000 a year in tax cuts, additional, 
for people who earn $10 million. Think about that. Think about that.
  They stopped $300 a week going to the long-term unemployed, not the 
ones who have reached the 99 weeks--after that, they do not have any 
more--just to get them up to that 99 weeks, if necessary. They blocked 
$300 a week because they are very upset about the cost. Yet they are 
fighting for a tax cut of $460,000 a year extra to someone earning $10 
million a year, adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit. 
They don't care about that. They don't care about paying for that. Oh, 
they do care about paying for the extension of unemployment insurance.
  So every once in a while, when people get upset and they say the 
parties are battling, trust me, every once in a while it is worth the 
fight. Every once in a while it is worth the fight because our country 
is worth the fight, because our middle class is worth the fight, 
because our working people are worth the fight.
  This is where we stand. Look at this. We are doing no legislative 
business because everything is being held hostage for the millionaires 
and the billionaires, the top one-tenth of 1 percent of the people. 
Just read the letter the Republicans sent us. They said they would not 
compromise. We said: We will give you the first $1 million of income, a 
lower tax. That was not good enough. That was not good enough. They 
want every penny over $1 million to get that tax break. So talk about 
the party of no--the GOP is the n-o-p-e party.
  Here are some other things they blocked and they are blocking. How 
could we ever forget 9/11? I certainly can't. No American can ever 
forget it. And who could ever forget the heroes who went down and 
worked to clear the debris, the toxic debris from 9/11. They went down 
to find survivors, then they went down to find remains. They never 
thought about themselves.
  The Bush EPA said the air was safe. They went down there, and they 
are sick, and we need to help them. We have a bill that passed the 
House. The Republicans are blocking it to fight for tax breaks for the 
people who earn over $1 million, for the people who earn $1 billion.
  Right now, they say we can't do any other work. They have stopped the 
START treaty, a treaty supported by none other than George Schultz, 
Henry Kissinger, Howard Baker, all very well-respected Republicans. 
Those Republicans turned their backs on those Republicans because they 
are fighting for the top one-tenth of 1 percent of earners in this 
country, and we can't make our country safe. We have no inspectors on 
the ground in Russia. We need to inspect their nuclear program. I 
remember asking all of our national security people what is their 
biggest fear. Republicans, Democrats, all of them. Do you know what 
they said? A terrorist getting hold of a nuclear weapon. We have to do 
inspections and make sure that nuclear arsenal is safe from terrorists. 
Oh, no, we can't do that because the people who earn over $1 million 
need more tax help. Thank you. That is the answer from the other side.
  We are now ready to give $250 back to Social Security recipients who 
didn't get a cost-of-living adjustment. As far as I know, that is being 
stopped. Nothing is happening here.
  We want to help our firefighters, these heroes, negotiate so they can 
get the benefits they deserve. Oh, no, that is being held up.
  I can tell you personally that they held up the unemployment benefits 
I talked about before because I made a unanimous consent request to get 
those unemployment benefits out there. Oh, no.
  Senator Barrasso: I object. I don't want these benefits going to the 
people who have been on unemployment benefits for more than 99 weeks.
  I said: Well, wait a minute, my friend--he is my friend--we are not 
doing anything for people longer than 99 weeks; we are just trying to 
make sure that up to 99 weeks you have help.
  Oh, he still objected. They want to pay for it. But they don't want 
to pay for the benefits to the millionaires. It is going to lose us 
hundreds of billions of dollars and add to our debt.
  This is a time to show the difference between the parties. This is 
postelection. There is no election until a couple of years from now. 
Let's just show the difference. This is nothing to do with voting; 
these are the true colors of the parties.

[[Page 18995]]

  It is important that people understand we cannot do the business of 
this country. We have a significant number of clean water bills to help 
the Chesapeake Bay, to help the San Francisco Bay, to clean the 
waterways, to help the Great Lakes. We voted them out of our committee, 
the Environment Committee. I am proud to chair that committee, so 
proud. They are not even controversial. We didn't even have barely a 
``no'' vote from anybody on either side of the aisle. We can't get that 
done either.
  Don't ask, don't tell--you heard Senator Durbin talk about that. It 
is attached to the Defense bill. The Defense bill is critical. We are 
in two wars. Whether you support those wars or not, we support the 
troops and want to get them what they need. The don't ask, don't tell 
repeal is in there, and we can't get that done.
  Let me tell you something else we have not been able to get done--the 
DREAM Act. I wish to talk about that, and I want to put a human face on 
it, so I am going to tell you some stories about it. I am going to tell 
you the stories, and then I am going to tell you what the bill is we 
want to do.
  I am going to show you a picture of this handsome young man who is 
the drum major of the UCLA Bruin Marching Band. Anyone who knows 
anything about universities knows UCLA is a great university. If you 
want to get into UCLA, you have to be darn smart. You have to be at the 
top. David Cho is very smart. He is the drum major of the UCLA Bruin 
Marching Band, and every week he leads them as they cheer on the Bruins 
in the Rose Bowl. Here is a beautiful picture of him.
  Last weekend, the Bruins hosted their crosstown rivals from USC at 
the Rose Bowl, and you might have seen David on your TV screen Saturday 
night. There at the 50-yard line of the most iconic football stadium in 
America, leading the Bruin Marching Band as they played ``Sons of 
Westwood,'' was David Cho, the face of this team and their cheerleaders 
and the face of the DREAM Act.
  David is a senior at UCLA studying international economics. He has a 
3.6 GPA at UCLA. That is not easy. In his free time, he tutors local 
high school students. If ever we saw it, this is Americana--a smart, 
motivated leader in the community, giving back. What is the problem 
with David? He was born in Korea. He came here on a family visa with 
his parents when he was 9 years old. His family spent 8 years trying to 
navigate their way to legalized status. They found out their sponsor 
erred in filling out the paperwork. They tried and tried and could 
never fix it. David did not learn he wasn't an American citizen until 
he started applying to college.
  He writes:

       I feel like I'm living inside an invisible prison cell. I 
     want to serve in the Air Force . . . I want to attend the 
     Kennedy School of Government. I dream of becoming a U.S. 
     Senator because I want to serve and change this country for 
     the better. This is the American Dream I want to achieve, but 
     I am unable to fulfill it because of my status.

  Years ago, when the Republicans were in charge of the Senate, a bill 
came out called the DREAM Act. It would say to these young people who 
are here without the proper papers, not because they did anything wrong 
but because their parents did, they grew up thinking they are American, 
America is their home, some came at 6 months, some came at 2 years, 
some came at 4 years, David came at 9 years--it sets them on a path, if 
they hold up their average in school, if they join the military.
  The military wants this bill passed. They call it a recruiter's 
dream.
  We have many other stories, and I will quickly go through a few. I 
ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 5 or 6 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Pedro Ramirez is the student body president of Fresno 
State University. He is studying political science and agricultural 
economics. He is another face of the DREAM Act. His parents brought him 
to the United States When he was 3 years old. Did Pedro know he was 
doing anything wrong at 3? Nor did David know he was doing anything 
wrong at 9. Pedro discovered he was in this country illegally, again, 
when he began applying to college when he was 18. His immigration 
status became public knowledge when an anonymous e-mail to the Fresno 
Bee detailed how he was forced to waive a small stipend the university 
provides to its student president. He had to waive that. Pedro is 
paying his tuition with private scholarships and by mowing lawns. This 
is what he writes:

       The DREAM Act itself symbolizes what it is to be an 
     American, which is our goal. We want to contribute to the 
     United States, and utilize the degrees and skills we gained, 
     to make it a better place.

  Now let's look at Maria Duque, 19 years old. She is the vice 
president of student government at Fullerton College. When she was 5 
years old, she moved to Los Angeles from Ecuador with her parents who 
were seeking a better life for their children. As a high school 
student, she finished sixth in her class with a 4.4 grade point 
average. I don't know how one gets over 4; I guess by doing bonus work 
and getting an A-plus-plus. This is what we are talking about. She was 
also student body president, yearbook editor, and a newspaper editor. 
At Fullerton College, Maria's excellent record continued. She has a 3.9 
GPA. She volunteers at a nonprofit organization that helps low-income 
high school students prepare for college. She was accepted into top 
universities but is unable to afford to attend them because she does 
not qualify for student aid. On weekends she sings in public arenas 
asking for donations to help her afford tuition.
  How do we make our country better when our laws don't recognize 
students such as these? Who could answer that question for me? How do 
we make our country better when we don't help students such as these?
  She hopes to transfer to UC-Berkeley or UCLA and complete her double 
major in political science and history. Then she wants to go to law 
school. She wants to continue her work helping others pull themselves 
out of poverty. She is another face of the DREAM Act. She writes:

       My bachelor's diploma, my masters and law degree in the 
     future will only be a piece of paper. It might tell of my 
     accomplishments, but I will not be able to use it to help 
     others in this country which I consider my home.

  She came here at 5 years old. She doesn't know anything else but 
America. She says that DREAM Act students ``are like any other young 
person in the [U.S.], aspiring to do more for society, our fellow 
neighbors, and our home, the United States of America. The DREAM Act is 
. . . a source of hope.
  Lastly, Luis Perez. He graduated in May from UCLA school of law, the 
first undocumented student to do so. Luis is another face of the DREAM 
Act. Brought to the United States by his parents at the age of 9, he 
has lived in this country for 20 years. He grew up in an area infested 
by gangs and drugs, and he rose way above those distractions and 
dangers. He went to community college. He transferred to UCLA where he 
earned a degree in American government, and he went to UCLA law. That 
is such a hard school to get into. He has worked side jobs to help pay 
for room and board.
  Tell me, somebody, how does it make our country a better place when 
we turn our backs on these students?
  He writes:

       May 7th marked my graduation from UCLA law school. I am now 
     forced to look beyond the joy of graduation. Instead I must 
     now reassess my current situation, as I am deprived the 
     luxury of making long-term plans.
       I have done and continue to do everything within my means 
     and ability until Congress does their part and passes the 
     DREAM Act. I have faith that our Founding Fathers entrusted 
     us with the legislative process to make just laws.
       I am living the American Dream. I am a living example of 
     what education, opportunity, and community support can 
     produce regardless of challenges and disadvantages.
       I have learned firsthand that it is only during times of 
     adversity that we have the opportunity to be a leader and 
     show true courage. As I acknowledge the difficulties with 
     immigration reform, I am hopeful that this Congress will give 
     me the opportunity to fulfill my Dream; after all, being an 
     American really means to stand up for what's right, even when 
     we are standing alone.


[[Page 18996]]


  This is a bill that has had bipartisan support over many years. It 
started in 2001. I have statements from my Republican friends about how 
important this bill is and why.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record quotes from my 
Republican colleagues.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 Quotes


                            Bipartisan Bill

       The Dream Act has always been bipartisan; in fact, it was 
     first introduced in the 2001 by Republican Senator Hatch, 
     with six (6) other Republican cosponsors.
       Senator Hatch reintroduced the Dream Act in the 2003--this 
     time with thirteen (13) of his fellow Republicans as 
     cosponsors.
       Since the first Hatch bill was introduced in 2001, Senate 
     Republicans have cosponsored the Dream Act 39 times.
       In 2007, the Senate held a vote on the Dream Act. The bill 
     was filibustered, but 10 Republicans voted for it, including 
     Senators Brownback, Collins, Lugar, and Snowe.
       Some of the most moving words about the importance of the 
     Dream Act have been spoken by my Republican colleagues.
       In 2004 the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Senator 
     Hatch, issued a report on the Dream Act:
       ``Most came to America as children, playing no part in the 
     decision to enter the United States, and may not even know 
     they are here illegally. A great many grow up to become 
     honest and hardworking young adults who are loyal to our 
     country and who strive for academic and professional 
     excellence.
       ``It is a mistake to lump these children together with 
     adults who knowingly crossed our borders illegally. Instead, 
     the better policy is to view them as the valuable resource 
     that they are for our nation's future.''
       Senator Hatch in 2003 on the Senate floor:
       ``I believe the DREAM Act will live up to its name. It will 
     allow these illegal immigrant children the opportunity to not 
     only dream of the infinite possibilities that their futures 
     may hold in the United States, but it will also afford them 
     the opportunity to realize their dreams.''
       Senator Chuck Hagel, in 2007:
       ``The DREAM Act would make it possible to bring these young 
     people out of shadows and give them the opportunity to 
     contribute, work, and pay taxes--giving back to the 
     communities in which they were raised.''
       ``The DREAM Act is not amnesty. It is a narrowly tailored 
     piece of legislation that would help only a limited, select 
     group of young people earn legal status. This is not an 
     incentive for more illegal immigrants to enter our country.''
       In 2009, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush co-wrote a report 
     for the Council on Foreign Relations. The report said:
       ``The DREAM Act is no amnesty. It offers to young people 
     who had no responsibility for their parents' initial decision 
     to bring them into the United States the opportunity to earn 
     their way to remain here.''
       And last week the Wall Street Journal editorialized about 
     the importance of the Dream Act:
       ``What is to be gained by holding otherwise law-abiding 
     young people, who had no say in coming to this country, 
     responsible for the illegal actions of others? The DREAM Act 
     also makes legal status contingent on school achievement and 
     military service, the type of behavior that ought to be 
     encouraged and rewarded.''

  Mrs. BOXER. We have a situation where people were brought to this 
country by their parents. The kids had nothing to say in the matter. 
They grew up thinking they were Americans. They did everything American 
kids do, and they excelled. They went to the top. This bill is crafted 
in such a careful way that essentially we are taking the cream of the 
crop and giving them a path to legality, a path so their hopes and 
dreams can be realized and, therefore, they will help this Nation 
realize its hopes and dreams.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to listen to the students in their 
States who are desperate to earn a chance for this dream. They are here 
in Washington, and they are going to various offices. They love their 
country. Never before in U.S. history have we punished children for the 
actions of their parents. To deny these students an opportunity to earn 
the dream would be a dark moment in our Nation's history, in my view.
  The American dream is real. It is not easy to attain. We have to work 
hard. We have to work hard always from the time we are a kid in school 
and we get our first job. Here we are talking about young people who 
excel. All they want to do is be able to reach their dream and help us 
move this country forward. This is the next generation of community 
leaders, the next generation of military leaders, the next generation 
of entrepreneurs. We don't punish children for the sins of their 
parents. We don't do that. That is wrong.
  Let us do the right thing. Every once in a while we have to say: We 
have to do the right thing. Is it a tough vote? Will some people ask, 
why are you doing that? Of course. But that is true about anything we 
do.
  We have so many golden opportunities to be on the right side of 
American history. We are presented them every day. We are presented 
them in this postelection session. We could end don't ask, don't tell. 
We could pass the DREAM Act. We can pass an unemployment benefits 
extension. We can help our firefighters. We can help our heroes from 9/
11 get help with their illnesses, with their breathing problems, with 
their cancer problems. Let's not say no because the Democrats said: 
Yes, we will give everybody in this country a tax cut for the first $1 
million of income and after that, we have to worry about the deficit. 
We go all the way up to $1 million, and we take care of everybody in 
this country. Everybody gets a tax cut. If one is over a million, they 
don't get their little bonus tax cut. We help reduce the deficit which 
is an issue absolutely on our agenda.
  Why would someone then say no to everything else, after we have met 
them all the way up to the $1 million level of income. It is 
unbelievable.
  America, pay attention. Pay attention to who is fighting for you and 
who is fighting for 315,000 of the richest families, many of whom say 
to us: Don't do this. It is more important to cure the deficit. 
Economists tell us at that level of wealth, they are not going to spend 
the money at the corner store. Look at Mark Zandi's comments, the 
Republican economic adviser to John McCain. He told us: You give out 
unemployment benefits, for every dollar, you increase economic activity 
by $1.61, because that money is spent right away at the corner store. 
You give huge, enormous tax breaks to people over $1 million, they are 
not going to spend it. They are going to put it in a trust fund.
  Let's put that money toward deficit reduction. For me, speaking for 
myself, this postelection session has been one of the most interesting 
I have ever seen. Because the true colors of the parties are coming 
out. I know people get very frustrated about our debates. They want us 
to come together. I want to come together. I went all the way to the 
Republican side and said: The first million of income will get a tax 
cut. Only over that, that one-tenth of 1 percent, let's put that to 
deficit reduction. And my Republican friends won't move that inch over 
to me and to us. At the same time they are blocking action on all those 
important bills I laid out.
  I wanted to lay this out for history. I think we sometimes forget. 
The battles we wage here tell the country who we are.
  I am very pleased to have this opportunity. I thank the people of 
California for giving me this opportunity again. It means a lot to me 
to be able to weigh in on these issues of the heart and soul of the 
country that I love so much as a first-generation American on my 
mother's side. I thank them for that.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to 
speak for up to 25 minutes in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________