>> up next, columbia university history professor eric foner examines abraham lincoln's thoughts on slavery and reports that early in president lincoln's political career he was naturally anti-slavery but adhered to the constitution's original protection of the institution in the slave states. this discussion is about an hour, ten minutes. >> well, thank you very much for that kind introduction, and thanks to all of you for coming out on this kind of -- now i know why they call chicago the windy city. coming in here today. but i'm very, very happy to be here at this great institution, and as was said after my talk, i would be more than happy to take some time to respond to questions -- >> [inaudible] >> okay. someone can't hear the mic. i will, i'll be happy to answer questions after the talk is over. well, i don't need to tell you

here in illinois that abraham lincoln is probably the most iconic figure in american history. every political group from radicals to conservatives, from selling regaitionists to civil rights advocates has tried to claim lincoln as their own, every protestant denomination as well as nonbelievers has claimed that they share lincoln's religious views. lincoln is, nowadays, if you watch television, you will see lincoln as a way of selling products. there's an ad for geico automobile insurance using lincoln or a facsimile thereof. and there's even a rather well-selling book out there right now about lincoln as a vampire hunter. [laughter] which is a side of his career i didn't quite get into my book. [laughter] and, you know, there's a lot of

lincoln collectors of various things. i actually have my own little lincoln collection, and i brought along a couple of things to show you. these are from supermarket tabloids, you know? i don't read this stuff, but my students pass it along to me. so these are just two articles from supermarket tabloids. here's one, i had abe lincoln's baby. [laughter] see that? some kind of cloning experiment, i don't know. and then even more surrealistic, the weekly world news. can you read this? abraham lincoln's corporation revived -- corpse revived. and the student wrote on here, why didn't they have the sense to ask him what his plans for reconstruction were? [laughter] so we missed a big opportunity there. [laughter] well, in 1876 as only of you

know the great black abolitionist frederick douglass delivered a celebrated speech in washington at the unveiling of the field man's -- freed man's monument showing abraham lincoln and a slave kneeling before him. and it's a very often-quoted speech in which douglass talks about lincoln's views of slavery and be emancipation. along the way he said no man can say anything new of abraham lincoln. that was in 1876. but in the ensuing 130-odd years, that has not stopped, as you well know, innumerable historians, literary critics, psychiatrists and many others from trying to say something new about abraham lincoln. and in the past few years thanks to the bicentennial of lincoln's

birth last year, there's been another outpouring of works of every size, shape and description about lincoln. many of them offering valuable new insights into lincoln's career. so i am frequently asked, understandably, why are you writing a book about lincoln? what is there to say anymore? is there anything new to say? well, i feel that the dramatic expansion of scholarship on lincoln has too often gone hand in the hand, lately, with a kind of narrowing of focus. a kind of self-referential quality. not every single book, but too many works kind of act as if all you need to know about lincoln is lincoln. in other words, you want to understand why he developed some policy as president. you look back at his law career. you want to understand his policies about slavery, you look back at his early belief -- some

people claim -- in natural law. in other words, lincoln is, it's all self-referential, and the larger, wider world tends to slip out of view. now, my book just recently published tries to counteract this a little by trying to really place lincoln firmly in the his historical context. it's not a biography, it's a book that really focuses on lincoln and slavery, lincoln's relationship with slavery, his policies, attitudes towards slavery and toward race and the role of african-american people in american life over the course of his career. i want to situate lincoln particularly within the broad spectrum of what the great senator charles sumner called the anti-slavery enterprise, a broad social movement which contained many different kinds of people within it, some of them radical abolitionists who demanded the immediate abolition of slavery and incorporating

black people as equal citizens of the united states. others much more conservative who thought about a very gradual ending of slavery and maybe in the phrase of the time colonizing black people, that is encouraging them to leave the one once free for africa or haiti or central america. at one time or another in his life, lincoln occupied different positions in that broad anti-slavery enterprise. the first thing to bear in mind about lincoln is that the hallmark of his greatness was his capacity for growth and change. it's fruitless even though people try to do it to take a single quotation, a single moment and say here is the quintessential lincoln, a single speech or letter. at the time of his death, lincoln occupied a very different place with regard to these various issues than he did earlier in his career. now, i'm particularly interested in lincoln's relationship with

these abolitionists and radical republicans, people in the republican party but who sort of had that abolitionist sensibility. lincoln was not an abolitionist, he never claimed to be an abolitionist. they often criticized him, sometimes very strongly, and he had some unflattering remarks to say about them. but i think it's important that lincoln saw himself as part of a broad anti-slavery movement of which abolitionists were also a part. he was well aware of their -- even though it was a small movement -- he was well aware of their impact on public opinion. their letters, their speeches, their pamphlets, newspapers, traveling itinerant lecturers arousing northern sentiment to confront the moral dilemma of slavery. in 1858 lincoln said, he said every schoolboy recognizes the names of wilbur force and sharp.

these were the leaders of the british movement in the 1790s to abolish the slave trade from africa. who today can name one man who opposed them? in other words, lincoln saw history moving in a certain direction. he didn't know how fast or when it would conclude, but he saw himself as part of this general tendency toward the eventual end of slavery. and the destruction of slavery during the civil war, i think, is a good example of how this combination of an enlightened political leader and a broad social movement can produce par-reaching -- far-reaching social change. now, lincoln was a politician virtually his entire adult life. he first ran for public office at the age of 23, i believe, and for all the rest of his life with the exception of a few years he was either in office or trying to get into office.

i mention this just because today we're facing an election soon, but as you well know, politicians in general seem to have a somewhat reduced reputation nowadays compared to lincoln's day. in fact, i saw a kind of public opinion poll which ranked, you know, different occupations or professions, and politicians were, like, third from the bottom. the only groups below them were convicted felons and wall street bankers. [laughter] and there's actually a lot of overlap between those two groups, so politicians are down there. [laughter] but lincoln was a politician. he devoted his life to politics. he was a prominent member of the illinois whig party and served in the legislature as many of you know in this state in the 1830s and early 1840s, and he had one term in congress as a whig from illinois. during that early part of his career, he didn't say very much about slavery.

his main interest was economic questions, the tariff, banking issues, etc., etc. but at one point in his legislative career he did take a stand about slavery which was quite interesting and really set the stage for much of his later career. that was in 1837, the year in which elijah lovejoy, the abolitionist editor, was killed by a mob in this state inialton, illinois, defending his printing press against a mob that wanted to destroy it. illinois at that time was largely settled from the south. chicago didn't even exist in 1837 really. most of the early settlers, like lincoln, had been born in slave states like kentucky, tennessee, virginia. this was a free state, the northwest ordnance had barred slavery in illinois, but it was a pro-slavery state at that time, and it harbored deep prejudices toward african-americans. and be anyway, the legislature passed a resolution affirming

their high -- it said our deep regard and affection for southern slave owners and their constitutional right to keep their property in slaves. this passed the illinois legislature, it passed the senate unanimously and the house of representatives 77-6. in other words, in the whole legislature only six people voted against it. one of those was with abraham lincoln. and a few weeks later lincoln and one other legislator issued a statement explaining why they had voted gwen it, and lincoln wrote, he said, they believe the institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy, but that the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase rather than abate the evil. slavery is wrong, slavery is bad policy, but abolitionists by stirring up public opinion are just making things worse. now, this was not a ringing condemnation of slavery, but in

the context of illinois in 1837 it was rather courageous. more importantly, this little protest articulated a position that lincoln would actually stick to until a while into his presidency. lincoln always thought slavery was wrong, there's no question about that. he said during the civil war i can't remember when i didn't think slavery was wrong. but thinking slavery is wrong does not necessarily translate into be an effective policy to deal with slavery, especially if you're a politician in a political system whose constitution protects slavery and whose political structure erected powerful barriers to any direct action against slavery. so lincoln really saw slavery in the 1840s as a divisive issue, as a danger to national unity. it wasn't until the 1850s that he merges, of course, as a

leader of the new republican party which rises in illinois and the entire north to prevent the westward expansion of slavery. and lincoln emerges as probably the major spokesman in this state, anyway, for this policy of nonextension. in speeches of moral power, of great eloquence he condemns slavery and the prospect of its expansion. now, as you know, in 2008 a lot of people made comparisons between another illinoisian, barack obama, andlincoln. obama announced his candidacy, as you know, in springfield -- lincoln's hometown -- and be i think he took his oath of office on the same bible that lincoln had used when he was inaugurated. he even had the same dinner that lincoln did the night before the inauguration. i don't know if that worked out

too well. but, you know, there were a lot of kind of comparisons. but one comparison between lincoln and obama, i think, that is useful is that both of them rose to national prominence through oratory, through speeches. lincoln didn't hold any office in the whole decade before he became president. wasn't in public office at all from 1849 to 1861. obama, of course; was in the u.s. senate briefly, but nobody associated him with any major legislation. it was speeches -- >> the u.s. senate has scheduled a saturday session today, so at this point we're going to leave our booktv coverage and take you live to the floor of the senate. at 10:30 eastern this morning, four votes began. the first two attempt to limit debate on two bills that deal with repealing the don't ask, don't tell policy on gays in the military and be immigration rules for noncitizen children. both require 60 votes to move forward, and we'll also see votes on judicial nominations.

let's take you live, now, to the u.s. senate. by the way, we'll resume booktv when the senate has finished its business today. live senate coverage, now, on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. we wait patiently for you, eternal god, for you have been our help in ages past and our hope for years to come. you listen to the voice of our intercession and permit us to feel your presence, just when we need you most.

cultivate in our lawmakers a great trust in you. turn them away from false solutions, as they seek your wisdom and obey your commands. lord, make them your instrument of wisdom, justice, courage and moderation, so that your will may be done on earth. give them a passion to accomplish your purposes. we pray in your sacred name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag

of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., december 18, 2010. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable chris coons, a senator from the state of delaware, to perform te duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, senators should expect a series of up to four roll call votes beginning at 10:30 this morning or thereabouts. the first vote will be on cloture with respect to the dream act. if cloture is not invoked on the dream act, the senate would proceed to a cloture vote with respect to the don't ask, don't

tell repeal. following the cloture votes, the senate will proceed to vote on two confirmations, albert diaz of north carolina to be a united states circuit judge, evan hollander of maryland to be a united states district judge. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that two additional staff members from senator lieberman's office be granted floor privileges for the duration of the debate to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the amendment to the senate amendment. one problem, senator lieberman didn't supply the names, so that makes it a little tough. i will pretend i didn't say that. oh, i see. what the deal is, we don't need their names. you're entitled to two, and he wants to be able to have four. so i ask that consent, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i note the be a benefits of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: could the chair advise me how long was taken in this last quorum call? the presiding officer: seven minutes. mr. reid: i would ask unanimous consent that the time for debate continue to be 45 minutes on each side, and the vote as to the previous order would begin as outlined in the previous order, but the time that i took speaking to -- what i had to speak to would not count against the 90 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent to resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered.

mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that prior to any of the succeeding votes, there be two minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form. further, that the first vote and succeeding votes be limited to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senate is now in a period of morning business, with senators permitted to speak for periods of up to ten minutes each.

mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: under the previous discussion we had, i had been authorized to use 15 of our 45 minutes, and i would ask consent that i be allowed to speak for 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: and i assume this would be counted against our time. mr. president, essential to american greatness, i truly believe is our respect for the rule of law. the american people understand this. for years, they have asked congress and the president to secure the borders and to enforce our immigration laws, but for years, congress has

refused to do that. and indeed, as part of this legislative session, there has been no serious movement to do anything that would improve the grievous situation of illegality at our border. so what we have is just contrary to that today when we'll be dealing with the dream act. leaders in washington have not only tolerated lawlessness, but, in fact, our policies have encouraged it. americans living near the border are the ones that often pay the steepest price. illegal drugs, guns, people pour in to states like arizona and texas every day. phoenix has turned into the kidnapping capital of the world. ranchers in the southern part of the state are forced to accept chaos as a part of their daily lives. smugglers, traffickers stream across their properties, homes

are broken into, livestock killed, families placed in danger. our government has failed in its duty to protect these citizens in the peaceful possession of their property. consider the fate of robert kranst, the son of one of arizona's oldest ranching families, working land that had been in the family for 100 years. his home had been robbed, their livestock slaughtered. on the night of march 27, he went to mend a fence and check his water lines. he reached his brother on the radio to say he was helping someone he believed to be illegally entering the country, helping him. that was the last time anyone herat of mr. kranst. he was found several hours later shot dead. the death of robert kranst is sadly one of the many tragedy that could have been avoided if our government, this federal government had done its job. instead, when arizona tried to support federal immigration law

and federal authorities, they were sued by attorney general holder and the department of justice, saying stay out. they d for trying to protect themselves because the federal government would not. yet, here we are in the final days of a lame-duck, some say dead-duck congress, considering a bill that would create a major problem to the effective enforcement of immigration laws. people are not happy with us, mr. president. i just had a little recognition, recalled in the shower this morning a little event with oliver cromwell with the parliament in england. he said it's high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place. you're odious to the whole nation. in the name of god, go.

well, i don't think we're odious around here, but i think the american people are not happy with us, and i think it's time for us to quit trying to move political bills in a way that's not appropriate. not through regular process. so the american people are pleading with congress to enforce our laws, but this bill is a law that at its fundamental core is a reward for illegal activity. it's the third time we've tried to schedule a vote on it during this lame-duck session. it's the fifth version of this legislation that has been introduced in the past two months. not one of these bills has gone to committee. not one of them is subject to amendment. the house passed a bill after one-hour debate, having

announced it being brought up one day before. in fact, the version that we're now considering was the same one that was rammed through the house. the majority leader has filled the tree here. so once again the legislation has no -- cannot be amended. for two years democratic leaders have ignored the public. they rammed through a lot of unpopular legislation, and sometimes and too often the process has been skirted and it has been not healthy for the republic, which is one reason people have not been happy with us. and so we're at it again in these last hours, attempting to force through legislation that is not acceptable to the people.

proponents of the "dream" act are sincere, and they insist that this is a limited bill for young children of illegal immigrants who graduate from high school, get a college degree and join the military. but the facts of the legislation are different. the tkao*epl act would -- the "dream" act would grant legislation to millions of illegal aliens regardless of whether they go to or finish college, high school or serve in the military. it's certainly not limited to children. it would apply to people illegally here who are as old as 30. and now because the bill has no cap or sunset, who will remain eligible at any future age. i know, mr. president, my good friend, senator durbin, who's such an able advocate, last night challenged me or my staff

that we were incorrect in saying that the secretary of h.h.s. would have the ability to waive some of the requirements in the bill. just for my staff's sake, i would like to read this part of the bill. he said it wasn't in there. actually my staff has explained why they thought it was in there to his staff, but the waiver section states -- quote -- "the secretary of homeland security may waive the ground of deportability under paragraph 1 of section 237-a for humanitarian purposes or family unity." maybe we can disagree how that might all be played out, but i think there's clearly a waiver provision in the bill. the amnesty provisions -- and this is an amnesty bill because

it provides every possible benefit, including citizenship, to those who are in the country illegally, and i think that's a fair definition of amnesty. the amnesty provisions are so broad that they are open to those who have had multiple criminal convictions up to two misdemeanors -- just not three -- and many criminal cases felonies are pled down to misdemeanors, including certain sex offenses, drunk driving and drug offenses. the bill goes further offering a safe harbor to those with pending applications even if they pose some risk to the country. in other words, if you have filed and sought protection under the act, this can stay any action against you and any deportation proceedings. and i think it's particularly dangerous because the safe

harbor would apply to those even from terror-prone regions in the middle east. in fact, the "dream" act altogether ignores the lessons of 9/11 going so far as to open up eligibility to those who previously r defrauded immigration authority, previously provided false documentation, as did many of the 9/11 hijackers on their visa applications. some have suggested that this should not be a debate about policy, but instead be a debate about passion. but good policy faithfully followed is compassionate. i would ask my friends who support the legislation what is compassionate about ignoring the public wishes and forcing people to live with a lawless border and a lawless immigration system

that must be reformed and congress refuses to reform. i would ask them is it compassionate to put illegal aliens in front of the line ahead of those who patiently waited and played by the rules? is it compassionate to act in a way that undermines the integrity and consistency of our legal system, a system that's so important to our prosperity and liberty? so the message from the public has never been in doubt. before we consider regular status for anyone living here illegally, we must first secure the border. my friend, ben nelson from nebraska, has spoken on this for half a dozen years. and when he speaks, he has a sign behind him. it says "border security first." that's what senator mccain has said. he's been a champion of immigration reform, but he said he's come to understand with

clarity that we must have security first. and that's what the american people have told us with clarity, i'm convinced. if we do not, do those actions first, if we pass this amnesty, we will signal to the world that we're not serious about the enforcement of our laws or our borders. it will say, you make plans -- you can make plans to bring in your brother, your sister, your cousin, your nephew, your friend, into the country illegally as a teenager, and there will be no principled reason in the future for the next congress then sitting to not pass another "dream" act. and it will only be a matter of time before that next group illegally here will make the

same heartfelt pleas that we hear today. so it's a time to end the lawlessness, not surrender to it. not surrender to it, but to end the lawlessness that's occurring. this is a decisive vote. i urge my colleagues to oppose the reckless bill and to commit themselves, ourselves as a nation to creating an immigration system that is just and lawful and that befits the nation as great as ours. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the time remaining that i have not used be reserved and to be allocated to the -- that's been allocated to the republicans to be divided as follows and not necessarily in this order: senator mccain ten minutes, senator chambliss five, senator inhofe ten, senator kyl

five. and one more thought, mr. president. we have it within our power to fix the broken immigration system. last year approximately 600,000 people were arrested entering our country illegally. that's lower than it has been. but a determined leadership from the president, from the congress came within a matter of one or two years end this problem, and then we can begin to wrestle with the difficult question of those who have been in our country for some time. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection, the time will be allocated as suggested. the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, how much time has been used by senator sessions? the presiding officer: the senator used 14 minutes. mr. levin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that now the senator from oregon be recognized for 3 minutes and then i be recognized for 6 minutes. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. inhofe: i would like to have you amend that to include me to have ten minutes following your remarks. mr. levin: mr. president, i would request that. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senator from oregon is recognized. mr. wyden: thank you, mr. president. senators, let me thank all of you for your many kindnesses over the last 48 hours. when news about your prostate is ricocheting around the flog sphere, all the -- around the blogosphere, all the calls and notes and even offers to object on my behalf have meant a lot. and i only want to say that i just hope this encourages everybody to go out and get those physicals. because what this is all about

is prevention, and we can sure agree -- disagree about health care around here but we all ought to focus on prevention. let me just say briefly, mr. president, why it was so important for me to be here today. don't ask, don't tell is wrong. i don't care who you love, if you love this country enough to risk your life for it, you shouldn't have to hide who you are. you ought to be able to serve. the history of our wonderful nation is spotted with wrongs, but this institution is at its best when it corrects them. that's the opportunity we will have today. don't ask, don't tell has resulted in the discharge of over 14,000 patriotic and talented service members who are otherwise qualified to serve their country. a 2005 government accountability

office report says that nearly 10,000 of those discharged under don't ask, don't tell have been linguists trained in critical languages such as arabic, farsi and chinese. as a member of the senate intelligence committee, let me tell you turning away arabic, farsi and chinese speakers is bad for national security. it makes it harder for us to win the war on terror. and don't just take my word for it. the fact of the matter is the military now understands how important it is to make this change. today the senate has the opportunity to be on the right side of history. don't ask, don't tell is a wrong that should never have been perpetrated.

let us move to end it today. again, mr. president and colleagues, let me say thank you to all of you, and i look forward to being with all of you next year. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: let me thank the senator from oregon for his powerful statement and his powerful presence, and we look forward to 110% of that power being back with us in the days ahead. mr. president, the armed services committee held two excellent hearings to consider the final report of the working group that reviewed the issues associated with the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. that report concluded that allowing gay and lesbian troops to serve in the united states armed forces without being forced to conceal their sexual orientation would present a low risk to the military's effectiveness even during a time of war and that 70% of the surveyed members believe that the impact on their units would be positive, mixed or of no

consequence. as one service member told a working group -- quote -- "all i care about is can you carry a gun and can you walk the post?" and in combat, mr. president, the troops have told us that what matters is doing the job. now, we learned also during the course of our hearing that while predictions of problems after repeal were higher in combat units than among other troops, that this committee -- this commission found that the difference disappeared among those who had actual experience serving on the front lines with gay colleagues. that is, experience is a powerful antidote to negative stereotypes about gay service members. and we learned that our close allies, great britain and canada, were preparing to allow open service by gay -- when they were preparing to allow open service by gay and lesbian

troops, that there were concerns about problems there. those concerns which totally disappeared after they changed their policy to allow service, those concerns, that level of concerns in our allies' armies was higher than the current level of concern in our troops. both of those countries, other allies like israel, made the transition with far less disruption than expected, and their militaries serve alongside ours in afghanistan with no sign that open service diminishes their or our effectiveness. secretary gates has assured everybody that he is not going to certify that the military is ready for repeal until he is satisfied with the advice of the service chiefs.

that we had, in fact, mid gated if not eliminated to the extent possible risks to combat readiness to unit cohesion and effectiveness. we learned that secretary gates, admiral mullen and other senior military leaders are concerned that unless we pass this law, without this legislation, that they're going to be forced to implement a change in policy, not when they can certify that they are ready, as provided for in this legislation, but when a court orders a change. the only method of repeal that places the timing of repeal and the control of implementation in the hands of our military leaders is the enactment of this bill. so there's a lot of reasons why repeal of don't ask, don't tell can and will hopefully happen, and we know what happened without harming our military's effectiveness. now, that's the reasons why we

can do this safely, but there are other reasons why we must end this discriminatory policy. a policy which in admiral mullen's words, memorable words -- quote -- "forces young men and women to lie," to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. we should end this policy because it's the right thing to do. some have argued that this is social engineering or this is partisan, even though this change is supported by the overwhelming majority of the american people, and they are grossly mistaken. mr. president, how much time do i have remaining? the presiding officer: one minute. mr. levin: mr. president, i'm not here for partisan reasons. i'm here because men and women wearing the uniform of the united states who are gay and lesbian have died for this country because gay and lesbian

men and women wearing the uniform of this country have their lives on the line right now in afghanistan and iraq and other places for this country. one of those is a captain by the name of jonathan hopkins. he finished fourth in his class at west point, commanded two companies, one in combat, earned three bronze stars, including one for valor in combat, and yet that decorated combat leader had to leave the army because of don't ask, don't tell. i'm here because of staff sergeant eric alva, the first ground unit casualty of the war in iraq, the first casualty in the war in iraq was a gay soldier. the mine took off his right leg, and that mine that took off his right leg didn't give a darn whether he was gay or straight. we shouldn't either. we cannot let these patriots

down. their suffering should end. it will end with the passage of this bill. i urge its passage today. it's the right thing to do. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: it's my understanding i have ten minutes. i would like to ask you to let me know when i have one minute remaining. the presiding officer: the chair will notify. mr. inhofe: first of all, mr. president, we have a couple of votes today that are things that we should have been addressing for a long period of time, and i had time to really get at the bottom, and one is the dream act. i think the senator from alabama did a very thorough job of talking about the problems. i would only say this about the dream act. i have been privileged over the past, oh, 20 years to probably give more speeches at naturalization ceremonies than anybody else that i know. you look at these people who did it the legal way and they come in, they learn the language.

i have to say, mr. president, they probably know more about the history of this country than many of us in this chamber, and they do it the right way. they study and they're proud. and when i see something like this, which i believe is done purely for political reasons, i just can't imagine slapping these people in the face and those people who did it the legal way and saying it's all right to open the doors. enough on that. i think it was covered by the senator from alabama. i do want to mention this thing on don't ask, don't tell. you know, i -- i thought back in 1994, 1993 i guess it was during the clinton administration that this probably wouldn't work, and then i was in shock when i found out how well it has worked for this long period of time, and that is the don't ask, don't tell policy. you know, we have a saying in oklahoma that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. well, this isn't broke. it's working very well. right now -- and this is something i never believed. i was a product of the draft. i was actually drafted into the

united states army. these are all-volunteer force. our recruitment and retention today is -- on all services is over 100%. i look at this and i wonder what effect is this going to have on that, and i think we have some pretty good indications on what effect that would have. first of all, the study that was supposed to take place was supposed to have the input of the -- the members of the -- of the services. the ones i have talked to felt it was already over. in fact, it was. here we go out and we ask them for their input as to the repeal of don't ask, don't tell, how it would affect our military and their operations. then we turn around and go ahead and pass it. we did that on may 27. and so i think their -- they didn't respond as they normally would to a survey because the decision is already made. when i look at this and i see things written into this thing -- well, first of all, 23% even on this survey that said

they would leave or think about leaving sooner than they had planned. that's 23%. and 27% of the military members surveyed said that they would not be willing to recommend military service to a family member or close friend. now, our studies have shown us that 50% of those who -- who join into the services are -- do so at the recommendation of someone who is already in the services. so when you think and you look at this report, even the working group, the working group is made up of a large number of people, and even they say that they didn't tabulate the results, but when pressed, they said don't ask, don't tell policy, our sense is that the majority of the views expressed were against review of the current policy. i think if you really want to know, there are four very courageous chiefs of the services that have been willing to stand up and be counted.

general casey is the chief of the army. he said as such, after a long statement, this is in a hearing, mr. president, we had just on the 3rd of this month. he said i think implement of the repeal of don't ask, don't tell will add, one, another layer of stress to an already stressed force. b, be more difficult with arm and combat units. and three, be more difficult for the army than the report suggests. general schwarz of the air force said, nonetheless -- this is the same hearing, december 3, current stuff. nonetheless, my best military judgment does not agree with the study assessment that the short-term risks to military effectiveness is low. i remain concerned with the outlook of a low, short-term risk for repeal to military effectiveness in afghanistan. and he goes on to talk about i therefore recommend deterring or -- or deferring certification and full implementation until

2012 while initiating and education efforts soon after that would take place. there is general schwarz of the united states air force agreeing with general casey that this should not be implemented. then general amos said in that same hearing, he said while the study concludes that repeal can be implemented now, provided it is done in a manner that minimizes the burden on leaders in deployed areas, the survey data as it relates to the marine corps combat arms force does not support that assertion. and he goes on to talk about the fact that the risk, the element of risk which is a term that we use in the military, when you change something, what risk does that bring, is that risk low, medium or high? the risk in this case ranges from medium to high in the estimates of these individuals who really know what they are talking about. i have to say that general amos just two days ago came out -- this is actually on the 14th

as opposed to the 3rd. he said, "when your life hangs on the line, you don't want anything to distract. mistakes, inattention and distractions cause marines lives." the marines same back and they said look, anything that is potentially going to break the focus and cause any kind of distraction may have an effect on cohesion. i don't want to permit that opportunity to happen to our kids. if you go to bethesda hospital, the marines are up there with no legs, none. we have got marines at walter reed's with no limbs. this is the statement of general amos. let me repeat that first sentence. he said, "when your life hangs on the line, you don't want anything to distract. mistakes, inattention and distractions cost marines' lives." we're talking about marines' lives in this case, and that's the significance of this thing. we could go on -- we have been talking about this now for a long period of time as to some of the real serious problems. i had a letter that i read some

time ago with the -- from 41 retired chaplains that sent a letter to president obama and secretary gates, stating that normalizing homosexual behavior in the armed forces will pose a significant threat to chaplains and service members' religious liberty. the letter warned that reversing the policy would negatively impact religious freedom. it could even affect military readiness in troop levels because the military would be marginalizing deeply held religious beliefs. now, i know that we're very short on time, the votes are going to be coming up, but i have to respond to something that the distinguished chairman of the armed services committee said. he was talking about we will not implement this thing until we find out and determine that -- and he is speaking of himself, admiral mullen, the chairman of

the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of the -- of defense and the president. so they're not going to implement this until they have studied this and determined that it's going to not have the risk and all that. but wait a minute, let's look at what they already said. they have already made up their minds. president obama said this year i will work with congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. secretary gates said i fully support the president's decision. the question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change but how we best prepare for it. secretary gates said that he strongly preferred congressional action to -- as opposed to court action. admiral mullen, he had already made up his mind. these are his words. he said, mr. chairman, speaking for myself, it is the right thing to do. now -- and that's why when people stand up and say that they are not going to do this until such time as these three people certify that it's the right thing to do, they have

already done it, so that's behind us. i don't want anyone out there to think that this is -- that this is an open process. the last thing i would say is that as we speak and go over, and i will be spending -- i will be spending new year's eve in afghanistan with -- with the troops, and i know what they're going to say. they will say the same thing they have said before. we were under the impression last january that we were going to have input in this, we haven't had input. so i think that if you want to pursue this, we should have time to go ahead and do it the right way, not try to do it at the last minute before -- well, one day before my 51st wedding anniversary. with that, i'll yield the floor. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent there be five minutes additional on each time and the additional five minutes be allotted to senator graham on this side. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i thank the chair and i thank my colleagues. i thank the senator from

illinois. a senator: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president. unanimous consent saoubg that the full text of my -- i ask unanimous consent that the full text of my remarks be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: i've spoken many times about the repeal of don't ask, don't tell and how it will improve our national security but i would like to make a few additional short points today before we take this important vote at 10:30. repealing this law is not about scoring political points or catering to a special interest group. rather it's about doing the right thing for our national security, especially during a time of two wars. instead of turning around qualified interpreters, mechanics, infantry men and others, we need every able-bodied man and woman who is willing to fight for our country. an exhaustive study by the pentagon revealed what numerous reports have shown, that don't ask, don't tell can be repealed without harmful effects.

in fact, what it shows is that our national security will be enhanced by this repeal. it's one of the reasons that our defense secretary robert gates and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mullen, have strongly urged us to repeal the law this year before we adjourn this week. second, the u.s. lags, sadly lags behind the world's other top militaries which allow open service by gays and lesbians. our troops fight next to service members from many of these countries every single day. mr. president, there's no evidence showing that our military operations in afghanistan or iraq are negatively affected by allowing gay service members to serve openly along our u.s. service members. third, the vast majority of americans support repealing this harmful law. as the pentagon study showed, our service members are complete professionals. they will comply with the repeal and they will not allow open

service to negatively affect the jobs they do. finally, mr. president, the senate does not act to give the department of defense and the president the authority to end this policy, then we are leaving the issue in the hands of the courts. secretary gates has said it makes far more sense, far more sense to bring certainty to don't ask, don't tell through legislation rather than through lawsuits. so, mr. president, let me end with the words of a marine captain who wrote a courageous opinion piece this week that was in "the washington post." he said "it is time for don't ask, don't tell to join our other mistakes in the dog-eared chapters of history textbooks. we all bleed red, we all love our country waoerbgs all marines. -- we are all marines. in the end, that's all that matters." mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: i think senator mccain asked that i be recognized for five minutes. if that's correct, i'd like to proceed. the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. graham: thank you.

it is a week before christmas. i don't know where we're going to be next week. all i can say is that the senate is taking up some very important matters to the don't ask, don't tell repeal. the marine corps commandant has said he believes that changing this policy this way would cause distraction among the marine corps to the point that he is worried about increased casualities. let's hope he's wrong, but you've got to ask yourself is he crazy to say that? is he the kind of man who would make such a chilling statement without having thought about it? my advice to my colleagues is that the marine corps commandant is a serious man who is telling this body and this nation that repeal as being envisioned today could compromise focus on the battlefield, and we are in two wars. the review from the military is positive in one area, negative

in the other. the army, the air force, particularly the marine corps have cautioned us not to do this now this way. other people have said now is the time. i can only tell you that those in close combat units have the most concern about repealing this policy. some will say this is a civil rights issue of our time. the day has come, we need to move forward as a nation. the marine corps does not have that view. they have a different view that this is about effectiveness on the battlefield at a time of war, not about civil rights. it is up to the members of the body to determine who's right and who's wrong, to be cautious or to boldly go forward. but to those senators who will take the floor today and announce this as a major advancement of civil rights in america, please let it be said that you're doing it in a fashion that those who have a different view cannot offer one

amendment, that we're doing this in a way that the united states senate, those of us who want to maybe speak for the marine corps and have some amendments and ideas that may make this less distracting have zero ability to offer an amendment on a policy change that the commandant of the marine corps, the air force and the army say is problematic. to those who are pushing this process, it is not appreciated. it is not appreciated by your fellow senators, and i don't think it's going to be appreciated by the men and women who are going to have to live under this kind of change. does that matter? apparently not. and that says a lot about the senate. that says a lot about modern politics. to the "dream" act, i have been involved in comprehensive immigration reform for many years. senator durbin and i have talked about how to make the "dream"

act part of comprehensive immigration reform. to those who have come to my office -- you're always welcome to come but you're wasting your time. we're not going to pass the "dream" act or any other legalization program until we secure our borders. it will never be done stands alone. it has to be part of comprehensive immigration reform. there is a war raging in mexico that is compromising our national security. so i would argue that the best thing for the united states senate to do, the house to do, the administration to do is work together to secure our borders before we do anything else. and to those who are bringing this bill up today, i know why you're doing it. you're not doing it to advance the issue. you're doing it to advance your situation politically. it is not appreciated. you're making it harder. you care more about politics in the last two weeks than you care about governing the country. this will not help america do

the things america does. it is not appreciated. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. webb: thank you, mr. president. mr. lieberman: mr. president, if i may, i would say that of the time we have on this side, we yield five minutes to the senator from virginia. and i thank him for coming over to speak. mr. webb: i thank the senator. i rise in support of the notion that we need to make adjustments to this policy, this don't ask, don't tell policy. i say that after many years of thought and consideration and also in light of the analysis that has been provided by the department of defense to the armed services committee on which i sit. and i would say to my friend from south carolina, i take the points that he has made about the concerns and small unit cohesion and has gone into the

formula that i have used myself in order to come to this conclusion. we need to, first of all, understand what this is and what it is not. the question is not whether there should be gays and lesbians in the military. they are already there. according to general hamm, who conducted this extensive study, approximately the same percentage of the military is gay and lesbian as in our general population. the question is not about whether anyone should be able to engage in inappropriate conduct as a result of this policy, because we will not allow that and we will be very vigorous in our oversight of the department of defense to make sure that does not occur. the question is whether this policy as it was enacted works today in a way that on the one hand can protect small unit cohesion, or to sort that out, and on the other, allow people to live honest lives. here's what we have. we have a secretary of defense who served in the air force and

who implemented a policy of nondiscrimination when he headed the c.i.a., coming forward strongly and saying he believes that the alteration of this policy will work. and i would remind my colleagues he began as secretary of defense in the bush administration. we have a chairman of the joint chiefs who has extensive career in surface warfare starting with small destroyers and up to commanding fleets saying he believes the policy should change and that it can work. we have the vice chairman of the joint chiefs, a marine, saying he believes this policy should change and it can work. and most interestingly, we have general hamm, who ducted this study -- who conducted this study, a former enlisted army soldier whose religious beliefs caused him great concern about the notion of homosexuality at the same time saying this policy can be changed and it should be changed. that is what we are seeing here. the question here -- and i think senator graham laid it out very

well -- is whether a change in this policy will create difficulties in small-unit cohesion. and that depends, as i mentioned during these hearings, on how this policy is implemented. i wrote a letter yesterday to secretary gates. i would ask that it be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. webb: -- wanting to reaffirm my understanding that this repeal would contemplate a sequenced implementation for the provisions for different units in the military as reasonably determined by the service chiefs, the combatant commanders in coordination with the secretary of defense and chairman of the joint chiefs. he responded to me this morning, and i would ask that his full letter be included in the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. webb: saying this legislation would permit -- the specific concerns you raise would be foremost in my mind as we develop an implementation plan. without this, mr. president, i would say i would not be voting to repeal this. i have spent my entire life in

and around the military, including five years in the pentagon. with this understanding and with the notion that we need to be putting a policy into place that allows an open lifestyle -- not lifestyle, but an open way of living among people who have different points of view, i'm going to support this legislation. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: mr. president, i believe under the previous order, i have five minutes of senator mccain's time. i'd like to take a minute to speak on this issue of repeal of don't ask, don't tell. i want to start by talking about the process. here we are once again at the end of the year, the last week, just a few days, in this case, one week before christmas, dealing with a very sensitive, a very emotional issue that is of critical importance to our men

and women in the military as well as every other american, but most significantly those men and women who are willing to put their life in harm's way to protect america and protect americans, and they do such a good job of that. what we've seen here is we've seen the house take up a bill, pass a bill, and it comes to the senate direct to the floor, and no opportunity for amendments, limited opportunity for debate, which we'll have today, and then we're going to vote on this. i see the assistant majority leader is here, and i want to just say that as we move into next year, get ready. get ready because this game can be played by both sides. there will be a number of bills that are passed in the house next year that the majority is not going to want to vote on. they better believe that those bills are going to be coming to the floor of the senate in the same twhaeu this bill is come -- in the same way that t