secondly, let me say here we are in the middle of two military conflicts where men and women are getting shot at, injured, killed, doing her oic acts and providing for freedom in a part of the world that is of critical importance to all americans and at the same time making sure as they fight that battle in iraq and afghanistan that those individuals who would seek to do harm to america, and americans are not allowed to do so, and we have a policy in place called don't ask, don't tell that has been in place for 18 years now, and it's worked. admiral mullen in his testimony before the senate armed services committee said that as a commander, he had to terminate individuals who decided to let it be known that they were a member of the gay or lesbian community, and he did. and i said in response to -- or as an additional question to him

when he responded to that, did you have a morale issue when you had to terminate those people? and he said, no, morale remained high. morale today in every branch of our service is as high as it's ever been in the last couple of decades. our recruiting and retention are at all-time highs. but what does this survey that was sent out on this issue to military personnel and military families show? well, first of all, it does not address the issue of do you support repeal of don't ask, don't tell. they did not ask the question. the survey assumes the repeal and talks about implementation. but what's interesting about the survey is that the individuals that conducted it, in addition to sending out pieces of paper, also had personal interviews, they had online back and forth chats with individual members of the military, and a majority of

the individuals who wear the uniform of the united states who had personal interaction with the individuals who did the survey were opposed to the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. the -- the survey does show that nearly 60% of the respondents from the marine corps and the army combat arms said they believe repeal would cause a negative impact on their unit's effectiveness. among marine combat arms, the percentage was 67%. and we think this is a good idea? we think it's a good idea when 67% of those marines who are in foxholes and are dodging bullets around corners in afghanistan as we speak today who say that this is going to have an impact on them. we think it's a good idea to repeal this policy. and by the way, this has nothing

to do with the valiant service that gays and lesbians have provided to the united states of america. that's a given. we all agree with that. but what the marine corps and what the army as well as what the air force chief said is that this is not the time to repeal this, in the middle of a military conflict is not the time to repeal a policy that's working, that has the potential for affecting morale and has the potential for affecting unit cohesiveness, and it also most significantly in my mind, according to got general -- to both general casey and general amos, it does have the potential for increasing the risk of harm and death to our men and women who are serving in combat today. if for no other reason, we ought not repeal this today. should it be done at some point

in time? maybe so, but in the middle of a military conflict is not the time to do it. so as we think about this and we think about the men and women who are serving and the fact that we, as senator inhofe alluded to earlier -- i won't repeat all of those numbers, but the fact is that if the percentages who responded to -- if the percentage is correct of those respondents to the survey comes forth to be true, then we're going to have about 30% of marine combat forces who are going to get out early and not re-enlist, and we're going to have to replace it. we have got about 25% of those combat troops in the army who are not going to re-enlist and who would like to get out early. if that happens, we're going to have about 250,000 soldiers and marines to be replaced in short order. and when i asked secretary gates about it, he said well, that's not going to happen.

well, if it does happen, we're going to have serious, serious consequences. so, mr. president, i do hope that common sense will prevail here and that we will not get cloture on this and we can move on to something that's extremely important to the men and women of america at this time in our calendar year, and i yield the floor. mr. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i thank the chair. i would yield myself up to eight minutes of the time on our side. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. mr. chairman, i want to thank chairman levin, senator udall and senator webb for their informed and informative remarks in support of the motion to concur with the house in regard to repealing the policy that has come to be known as don't ask, don't tell. mr. president, i think that in considering this matter today, we have an opportunity not just

to right a wrong, not just to honor the service of a group of american patriots who happen to be gay and lesbian, not just to make our military more effective, but to advance the values that the founders of our country articulated in our original american documents. and i just want to talk very briefly about that because it's important to set what we're doing here in the context of history. from the beginning, america has been a different nation. we did not define ourselves based on our borders. our founders defined america based on our values, and none stated more powerfully than those words in the opening paragraph of the declaring of independence, that there are self-evident truths. it is really -- this is a political statement, constitutional statement but also a religious statement.

there are self-evident truths, and one of them is that all of us are created equal and endowed by our creator with those unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. in the second paragraph, our founders say in the declaration that it -- they are forming this new government, america, in order to secure those rights to life and liberty. the sad fact is that at the moment they adopted the declaration of independence, those rights were not really enjoyed for a lot of americans, including, of course, the slaves, most of all, but women had no legal rights to speak of. one think i think i like to look at american history is as a journey to realize generation after generation in a more perfect way to make ours a more perfect union, the rights given in the declaration of independence, the rights promised in the declaration of

independence. and, of course, with a lot of pain and turmoil, we have done that with regard to race in our country. certainly true with regard to women. we have created an ethic. it is the promise of america, but in some sense it is what we also call the american dream, that in this country, you're judged not by who you are but how you perform. in this country, no matter where you were born or how you were born, the fact is that you're able to go -- if you live -- if you play by the rules and you work hard, you should be able to go as far as your talents will take you, not any characteristic that one might associate with you, any adjective that one might put before the noun american, whether it's white american, black american, christian, jewish american, gay or straight american, latino or european american, that you

should be entitled to go as far as your talents and your commitment to our country will take you. in our generation, it seems to me that the movement to realize the promise of the declaration has been -- one of the places it's been most at the forefront and realized most significantly is in regard to gay and lesbian americans. to promise that in our time we will guarantee as a matter of law that no one will be denied equal opportunity based on their sexual orientation. they will be judged by the way they live and the way they perform their jobs, and that's why the existing don't ask, don't tell policy is, in my opinion, inconsistent with basic american values. it's not only bad for the military, it's inconsistent with our values. and i want to say it's

particularly bad for the military because in our society, the american military is, in my opinion, the one institution that still commands the respect and trust of the american people, because it lives by american values, it fights for american values. it is committed to a larger cause and not divided by -- by any division, including party. and so to force this policy as the don't ask, don't tell does on our military is to force them to be less than they want to be and less than they can be. admiral mullen, the number-one uniformed military officer in our country today, said, and i quote, very powerfully, we, the military, are an institution that values integrity and then asks other people to join us, work with us, fight with us, die with us and lie about who they are the whole time they're in

the military. that, admiral mullen says, is what just doesn't make any sense to me. i agree. the fact is that this is not just a theory that we're talking about. the fact is that under the don't ask, don't tell policy, 14,000 -- more than 14,000 members of our military have been discharged from the military since 1993. not because they performed their military responsibilities inadequately. not because they violated the very demanding code of personal conduct in the military, but simply because of their sexual orientation. mr. president, i think if you view this as an issue, it can be controversial in the realm of rhetoric or theory, but if you face those 14,000 -- and i've talked to a lot of them -- who yesterday an air force major commanding more than 200 members of the air force.

all sorts of commendations tossed out simply because somebody who didn't like him found out that he was gay and he was pushed out. a student at one of the academies, at the top of his class, same thing because of his sexual orientation tossed out. do you know that we spent by one estimate more than half a billion dollars training those 14,000 members of the american military that we -- we discharged solely because of their sexual orientation? what a waste. these people simply want to serve their country. and, mr. president, i know you probably had the same experience i had. when you talk to any of the 14,000, why are they lobbying, pleading with us to repeal don't ask, don't tell? they want to go back and serve our country. they want to put their lives on the line for our security and our freedom. does it make any sense to say no to them simply because of a private part of their person? in the survey that was done as part of the pentagon report,

there are some remarkable numbers. one of them is that of the gay and lesbian members of our military surveyed, only 15%, 15% said that they would come out, that they would repeal their sexual orientation. one of them was quoted as saying, and i paraphrase, that's private, that's not part of our responsibility in the military. none of us do that in the military. and incidentally, when, as i hope and pray don't ask, don't tell is repealed, gay and lesbian members of the military, just like straight members, will be held to the highest demands and standards of the military code of conduct. if they are involved in any inappropriate behavior, they will be disciplined. mr. president, i ask for two additional moments of the time we have. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. the other really significant number in this survey i thought was this. well over two-thirds of the members of our military

surveyed, 120-some-odd thousand surveyed, said that they thought the military was ready for this change. i know there has been talk about the marines. there is a fascinateing number about the marines. a significant number of the marines are worried about this change in policy, but among those marines who have served in marine units with gay and lesbian marines, 84% say no problem. why? because we don't care when we're out in combat what somebody's race or gender or ethnicity or religion or sexual orientation is. we care whether they have got our back and they are a good member of the unit. my friends have said that this simply -- if and i hope when this measure passes and don't ask, don't tell is repealed, it authorizes the repeal but it doesn't finish it. it starts a deliberative process in which, without time limit, the secretary of defense, the president, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff have to

decide that it's time for the repeal to occur. it's a very reasonable process, and it saves the military, as secretary gates has said over and over again, from facing an order from a court that forces the military to do this immediately. bottom line -- and i'll speak personally here. i was privileged about ten years ago -- incidentally, thinking of the dream act. grandchild of four immigrants to america. could they have ever dreamed that i would end up a united states senator? in 2000, i had the opportunity to be the first jewish american to run on a national ticket. and i'll never forget, somebody called me up that day and said how thrilled they were, a member of another minority, and said, you know, joe, here's what's significant. when a barrier falls for one group of americans, the doors of opportunity open wider for all americans. i think we have got that opportunity today to make our great country even greater, and

our best in the world military even better. i thank 0 the chair and yield the floor. mr. durbin: how much time is remaining on each side? the presiding officer: 23 minutes to the majority. just under 16 minutes to the republicans. mr. durbin: the senator from california, senator feinstein, 7 minutes. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much. let me thank you, senator durbin, for your authorship and for your advocacy for don't ask, don't tell. i'd like to use my time to speak about both bills. don't ask, don't tell has been with us now for 17 years. i just pulled a speech that i made on the floor 17 years ago. and "dream" has been with us for nine years. so neither of these are surprise

bills. both of these affect large numbers of people in major ways. for many, they are their life. for those who love the military, who see no life outside of the military, they are their life. don't ask, don't tell is their life. and the same for students. the "dream" act becomes their life. let me begin with don't ask, don't tell. 17 years ago senator boxer introduced a resolution on the floor. i spoke to that resolution. we lost by a vote of 33-63. only one-third of the united states senate voted to repeal don't ask, don't tell in what was a benign resolution, essentially a consent resolution. but it lost. it lost despite the testimony of legions of military.

well, the time has gone by. 17 long years. many of us believe the policy is unconstitutional. we believe it does more harm than good. and 17 years later i am only more certain that that's the case. the criteria for serving in the united states armed forces should be courage, confidence, and a willingness to serve. no one should be turned away because of who they are, not because of their race, their sex or their sexual orientation. since 1993, however, don't ask, don't tell has required gay and lesbian americans to make a choice. you can serve the country you love, but only if you lie about who you are. this has forced honorable american soldiers to conceal their true selves from their family, their friends, their fellow service members and their

military superiors. and it has deprived united states military of talent and badly needed special skills. let me tell you about one person. sergeant lacey presley, she served two tours of duty in iraq as an army medic. the army awarded her a bronze star for her heroic action in keeping several critically wounded civilians alive after car bomb exploded in their midst. another army sergeant who worked with her around the same time said this about sergeant presley: "i would serve with sergeant presley any day, no doubt about it. she's one of the best medics that i've ever seen in my 18 years of service." sergeant presley was discharged after someone reported her sexual orientation to a senior commander. and i can go on and on.

but this is one for sergeant presley. now i'd like to speak about the "dream" act. i would like to thank those who have supported this and brought it forward: senator hatch, senator durbin, as well as senator lieberman and senator collins on repealing don't ask, don't tell. i supported "dream" since it was first introduced. and each year the support has grown. each year approximately 65,000 undocumented young people graduate from america's high schools. most of these did not make a choice to come to the united states. many were brought here by their parents. some at 6 months old, 6 years, 12 years, whatever it is. many grew up in the united states. they have little or no memory or resources in the country from which they came. they are hardworking young

people, dedicated to their education or serving in the nation's military. they have stayed out of trouble. some are valedictorians. i ha*ep happen to know one -- i happen to know one. and honor roll students. some are community leaders and have unwavering commitment to serving the united states of america. because of their undocumented status, these young people are ineligible to serve in the military. they face tremendous obstacles to attending a college. for many, english is actually their first language and they're just like every other american student. now reaching adulthood, these young people are left with a dead end. they can't use their educations to contribute to their communities. they can't serve the country. they call home by volunteering for military service. in other words, they are dumbed down by their status.

they are relegated to their -- to the shadows by their status. and along comes the "dream" act. that provides an opportunity for these young people to prove themselves. it provides the incentive to prove themselves. it would permit students to become permanent residents if they came here as children or long-term united states residents, have good moral character, attend college or enlist in the military for two years. so already they have to prove themselves. the legislation requires students to wait ten years -- ten years -- before becoming lawful permanent residents and undergo background and security checks and pay any back taxes. this is a multistep process. it is not a free pass.

and additionally, according to c.b.o., the "dream" act would actually increase federal revenues by $2.3 billion over the ten years. and increase net direct spending by $912 million between 2011 and 2020. in addition, the congressional budget office and the joint committee on taxation indicate that enacting the bill would reduce deficits by about $2.2 billion over ten years. i think "dream" is a winner. i think don't ask, don't tell is what we should do. i hope there are aye votes sufficient to pass both of these today. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: who yields time? mr. kyl: mr. president, unless senator durbin would like to -- the presiding officer: the

senator from arizona. mr. kyl: thank you. mr. president, could i be advised after i've spoken for five minutes? the presiding officer: the chair will notify. mr. kyl: thank you. mr. president, the "dream" act is an attempt to cure a symptom of a problem. the symptom is that some children have been brought here illegally and they're suffering the consequences of being illegal aliens under american law. the problem is illegal immigration which causes all manner of other bad results or problems. there are huge costs to society and any number of personal tragedies as a result of illegal immigration, the "dream" act process being only one subset. just a few days ago another border patrol agent was killed in our state of arizona, illustrating again another kind of personal tragedy from illegal

immigration. unfortunately, treating symptoms of the problem might make us feel better because we're doing something for a particular group of folks, but it can allow the underlying problem to metastasize. unfortunately, that's what's happening at our border. in some respects the problems are getting worse, not better. our citizens have a right to be safe and secure. and right now that situation, at least in my home state, does not pertain. so the first point that i would make is that we've got to secure the border and stop illegal immigration. and when we do, there won't be more problems for people associated with education that would be solved by the "dream" act or other problems associated with illegal immigration. we will have excluded, or we

will have limited the nature of the problem to simply those who are here now. and then obviously we can deal with that problem. so that's the first point. second, this bill is brought to us with no hearings or markup in a committee. it's the sixth version of a "dream" act. actually i worked with senator durbin on another version of the "dream" act in connection with the comprehensive immigration law. there are problems with this bill, and those problems need to be dealt with. but the bill comes before it under a condition in which there can be no amendments. there need to be amendments. in the remaining three minutes or so that i have, let me simply identify ten particular problems that we need to deal with and that can only be dealt with by getting together and working it out or by having amendments, which we can't do obviously in the short time that we have. the bill would immediately put an estimated 1 million to 2 million illegal immigrants on path to citizenship, a number

which will only grow because there is neither a cap nor sunset in the legislation. these people would then have access to a variety of other federal programs, federal welfare programs, student loans, federal work study programs and the like. third, the entire time such individuals are in conditional status, they're not required to attend college or join the military. that's a common misperception here. only when such individuals seek to get lawful residents status, do they then have to complete the requirements for education or military. fourth, the education and military requirements can be waived altogether, including for activity that would relate to -- criminal activity -- in other words, for people who have a serious criminal background. five, chain migration, which is something we dealt with in the legislation in 2009, would result from this legislation because once the citizenship is attained, the individuals would have the right to legally petition for a green card for

their family members. and that means the numbers here could easily triple from the 2 million-plus that are estimated right now. sixth, the bill has no age limit for aliens who are in removal status. this is, supposed to be for children, but there's no age limit for people who are in removal proceedings and simply file an application for status under the "dream" act to stay their removal from the united states. that's got to be fixed. seventh, the bill forbids the secretary of homeland security from removing any alien -- this is a quotation -- "any alien who was a pending application for nonimmigrant status." in other words, it provides a safe haven for illegal immigrants, some of whom we would not want to allow to stay in the united states and should be subject to removal. eighth, the "dream" act as written provides that applicants who are currently ineligible under current law for status of a green card could nevertheless

be eligible under this act. the reason is because some of the grounds of waiver that exist in this act do not exist under current law. but they could be waived for "dream" act aliens. things like document fraud, alien absconders, marriage fraud, those kinds of things are not waivable today but they would be under the "dream" act. nine, the act does not actually require an illegal alien finish any type of degree other than a high school g.e.d. to receive green card status the bill requires only that the alien complete two years at an institution of higher learning, or higher education. this is not a requirement that they ever receive a degree of any kind. and -- mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for one more minute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: thank you, mr. president. the requirement is that they need not receive a degree of any kind. and this is important, those who want to go into the military, there is a requirement for two years of service in the uniformed services. when you enlist in the service today, you're enlisting for a commitment of four years.

and finally, removal, if it can be demonstrated as resulting in a hardship either to the applicant or to a spouse, the requirements for education can be waived altogether. so, a sympathetic secretary of homeland security could obviously create a situation in which there's essentially just a waiver for people to come into the united states. for these reasons, mr. president, i urge my colleagues to vote against cloture on the "dream" act. the presiding officer: who yields time? mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i want to yield to three of my colleagues at this point before i believe senator mccain speaks. senator bennet for two minutes,

senator gillibrand for two minutes and senator schumer for two minutes. mr. bennet: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: i rise in strong support for the "dream" act. i have a lost sympathy for the arguments the senator from arizona made about what is going on in arizona, what's going on in the rocky mountain west where i come from, which reminds me of the need that we have in this country to -- and in this congress to finally face up to the facts and pass comprehensive immigration reform. but that's not what we're talking about today. what we're talking about today is the dream act, a narrow bill that deals with about 65,000 people a year that are here through no fault of their own and have no other country of their own but want to make a contribution to our country. as scholars, as taxpayers, as part of our military. the people that have worked hard, that have played by the

rules, and they want to do nothing other than make a contribution to the united states of america. much as my grandparents and my mother wanted to make when they came here as immigrants. so i think on this christmas eve , it would be more than appropriate for the united states senate to join the house and do the right thing and pass the dream act. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. ms. gillibrand: i rise in support of the two very important votes we're having today, the dream act and the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. the dream act is a moral imperative. these are young people who have come to this country through no fault of their own who want nothing but to achieve the american dream, either through education or through military service, but they want to be part of this community and be able to give back to this community. and in a country that was founded on immigrants where the richness of our heritage and culture and the breadth of our economy was due to our immigrants, we want to make sure

every ryun of these young people can become american citizens. with regard to don't ask, don't tell, i can't think after policy that greater undermines the integrity of our entire armed services and who we are as a nation. this is a policy that is corrosive. you are asking men and women who want nothing but to serve this country to give their lives for this country, to say no, you cannot, because of who you love. i can't think of something more egregious, more undermining of our command structure and of our goodwill and the entire fabric of our military lives of the men and women who serve. mr. president, i urge my colleagues to look at this as an urgent priority for national security when we are talking about worrying about having two wars and terrorism on every front, we need to know that all of our best and brightest, how many are not serving today because of this policy. how many will return to the military when this policy is removed. all i know is that since this policy has been in place, we have lost 13,000 personnel, more than 10% of our foreign language

speakers, and more than 800 in mission critical areas that cannot be easily replaced. if you care about national security, if you care about our military readiness, then you will repeal this corrosive policy. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: today we vote on two very important votes in the great, long and often difficult march that america has made towards equality. that is one of the greatnesses of this country, mr. president, that we inexorably move to equality. sometimes it's painful, sometimes it's difficult, sometimes we take two steps forward and one step back, but as the great scholar de tocqueville wrote when he visited america in the 1830's, the thing that separates america from all the other countries of the world is equality always prevails. we are dealing with equality on two scores today, in two areas. one, in the military. one of the great things about

our military, number one, is they defend us and risk their lives for our freedom, but the second is that it always has been an integrating, positive force in america. and any policy that says you can't serve even though you want to be an american, you are an american, is wrong, bad for our military service and bad for the country. and second, we speak of the dream act. inevitably, from the time the first settlers came in new york, the english began to displace the dutch and the dutch were upset, but what does america do? we reach out to newcomers and say become americans and contribute to the american dream and work hard. there are always people who have reasons to say no. they always fail. they may not fail this morning, but they will fail, because the drive for equality is a great american drive, is part of the

american dream, and on both these issues, we will prevail. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: who yields time? mr. mccain: how much time remaining on both sides? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona has ten minutes. the senator from illinois has ten minutes and 30 seconds. mr. mccain: well, mr. president, i would ask is it true the parliament situation as it exists right now is that we will be voting on cloture on both what is known as don't ask, don't tell and the dream act. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. there will be cloture votes on both of those house messages. mr. mccain: meanwhile, on the executive calendar, we have the start treaty. the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. mccain: there is no amendments that are in order on either the dream act or don't ask, don't tell, no amendments

are in order. the presiding officer: my understanding is there is no place for an amendment on either measure at this time. mr. mccain: so here we are about six weeks after an election that repudiated the agenda of the other side, we are jamming -- or trying to jam major issues through the senate of the united states because they know they can't get it done beginning next january 5. you capital do it next january 5, and the american people have spoken and you are acting in direct repudiation of the message of the american people. that's why they are jamming through this. and, my friends, there is a lot of talk about compromise, there is a lot of talk about working together. do you think what this bizarro world that the majority leader has been carrying us in of cloture votes on this, votes on various issues that are on the political agenda of the other

side, do you somehow think that beginning next january 5, we will all love one another and kumbaya? i don't think so. i don't think so. unfortunately, the majority is using a lame-duck session to push an agenda when the fact is lame-duck sessions are supposed to be to finish up the work of congress so that the new congress can act on the issues of the day. the american people have spoken in what the president of the united states described as a shellacking, and everything we're doing is completely ignoring that message. maybe it will require another election. for example, i filed two amendments that i believe are irrelevant to this bill, important to this major change. those won't be in order. i have always and consistently stated, and i have listened to

and would fully consider the advice of our military and our military leadership. on december 3, the committee on armed services heard from the chiefs of our four military services, the chiefs of our four military services. general amos said, based on what i know about the very tough fight in afghanistan, the almost singular focus of our combat forces, is to train up and deploy into theater the necessary and tightly woven fabric of our combat forces that we're asking so much from at this time. and finally, the direct feedback from my survey is that we should not implement repeal at this time. then he talks about mistakes and inattention or distractions cost marines lives, cost marines lives. marines come back after serving in combat and they say look, anything that's going to break or potentially break that focus and cause any kind of distraction may have an effect on cohesion. i don't want to permit that

opportunity to happen, and i will tell you why if you go up to bethesda, marines are up there with no legs, none. we have got marines at walter reed with no limbs. general casey said i believe that the implementation of the repeal of don't ask, don't tell in the near term will add another level of stress to an already stretched force. two, be more difficult in our combat arms units, and three, be more difficult for the army than the report suggests. general schwarz basically said the same thing. i have heard from thousands, thousands of active duty and retired military personnel. i've heard from them, and they're saying senator mccain, it isn't broke and don't fix it. so all of this talk about how it's a civil rights issue and equality, the fact is the military has the highest recruiting and highest retention at any time in its history, so i understand the other side's

argument as to their social-political agenda, but to somehow allege that it has harmed our military is not justified by the facts. i hope everybody recognizes that this debate is not about the broader social issues that are being discussed in our society, but what is in the best interests of our national security and our military during the time of war. i'm aware that this vote will probably pass today in a lamedz, and there will be high fives all over the liberal bastions of america, and we'll see the talk shows tomorrow, a bunch of people talking about how great it is. most of them never have served in the military or maybe not even known someone in the military. and you know, we will repeal it. and all over america, there will be gold stars put up in windows,

in the rural towns and communities all over america that don't partake in the elite schools that bar military recruiters from campus, that don't partake in the salons of georgetown and the other liberal bastions here around the country, but there will be additional sacrifice. i hear that from master sergeants, i hear that from you and your officers, i hear that from leaders. so i am confident that with this repeal, that our military, the best in the world, will salute, do the best they can to carry out the orders of the commander in chief. that's the nature. that's the nature of our military. and i could not be more proud of them in the performance that they have given us in iraq and afghanistan, and before that, other conflicts. and they will do what is asked of them, but don't think that it

won't be at great cost. i'll never forget being just a few weeks ago in kandahar, an army sergeant major with five tours in iraq and afghanistan, and a forward operating base said senator mccain, we live together, we eat together, we sleep together. unit cohesion is what makes us succeed. so i hope that when we pass this legislation, that we will understand that we are doing great damage and we could possibly and probably, as the commandant of the marine corps said, and i have been told by literally thousands of members of the military, harm the battle effectiveness which is so vital to the support -- to the survival of our young men and women in the military. mr. president, i yield the balance of my time. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, how much time is remaining on this

side? the presiding officer: 10 1/2 minutes to the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i rise today in support of the dream act and in support of the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. i will focus my remarks on the dream act, but i want to make it clear to my colleagues, you won't get many chances in the united states senate, in the course of your career, to face clear votes on the issue of justice. this morning, you will have two. not one, but two. the question is whether the united states senate will go on record as a nation prepared to stop discrimination based on sexual orientation. it is a monumental question, a question of great moment, and a question we should face squarely. and there will be a vote as well on whether or not the united states senate will stand by thousands of children in america who live in the shadows and dream of greatness. they are children who have been raised in this country. they stand in the classrooms and

pledge allegiance to our flag. they sing our star-spangled banner as our national anthem. they believe in their heart of hearts this is home. this is the only country they have ever known. all they're asking for is the chance to serve this nation. that is what the dream act is all about. last night, senator bob menendez, who has been my great ally in this state, he and i stayed left. there were many people here in support of the dream act who came by my office and we spent a few minutes together. some of them have ridden on buses for 28 hours from austin, texas, to be here. to sit in this gallery and to pay that 100 united states senators will consider the issue of justice and stand up for them. some have come to the floor today and criticized this as a political stunt. i want to tell my friends i hope you understand my sincerity on this issue. i have been working on this

issue for ten years p. these people have been waiting for more than ten years. to say we're pushing and rushing a vote, for them it can't come too soon because their lives hang in the balance. i would just say that this is not a procedural vote. it's not a political stunt. we are voting on a bill that has already passed the u.s. house of representatives. if it passes on the floor of the senate, it will become the law of the land with the president's signature. i thank those who have brought us to this moment. the president, who was a cosponsor of the dream act when he served in the united states senate. secretary of interior ken salazar who was in the corner here as a former member of the united states senate. what a great ally you've been throughout this debate. secretary of education arne duncan, secretary of homeland security janet napolitano. senator reufrpbd lugar --

richard lieu gaffer indiana, what -- senator richard lugar of indiana, what a courageous man he has been. mr. president, what will this bill do? let me make it clear some of the things on the floor that have been said are not accurate. first, when this bill is signed into law, the only people eligible to take advantage are those who have been in the united states for five years. anybody who comes after 2005 cannot be eligible. and those who are eligible have one year to apply and to pay the $500 fee. and then they have five years under the bill to do one of two things: to serve in our united states military and risk their lives for america or to finish at least two years of college. what are the odds that they're going to do those things? i will tell you, today about half of the hispanic youth in america don't finish high school. only one out of 20 enter college in this status. so the odds are against them. but that isn't it. that isn't the end of it.

there is a long list of things that they must do in order to qualify for the dream act. background checks on their moral character, criminal records. if they have been convicted of a felony, they are ineligible. convicted of more than two misdemeanors, ineligible. there have been things said on the floor by the senator from alabama and others that the secretary of homeland security can waive this requirement. that is not true. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement by the department of homeland security which makes it eminently clear that no director will have power under the dream act to waive any of these requirements which bar those with criminal records that violate the law or have a history of terrorism or threat to national security. i ask unanimous consent. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: let me also say that i join my colleague from alabama in sadness over the loss of life of a border guard. it's a terrible thing. these men and women are serving our country, and it's a tragedy.

but can we blame these young people sitting in the galleries and across america for that? and to question a border security? i'm for border security. in july, senator schumer came to the floor with senator mccain, added $600 million to border security without any objection from either side of the aisle. i suppose if we were playing this game of negotiating, we could have stood up and said, no, no more money for border security until we get the dream act. we didn't do it because we are as dedicated to border security as anyone. and we want to make sure people have that opportunity to vote for border security and to also vote for the dream act. let me ask you at this point, mr. president, how much time is remaining. five minutes, thank you. i'd like to say a few things about the people that are involved in this. they are faceless and nameless until we bring them to the floor. this is venita velez.

she has an amazing story which i want to share with you. brought to the united states by her parents in 1993 when she was eight years old. graduated valedictorian of her class. received a full scholarship to college majoring in biology. she sent me a copy it have. what she has asked for, she says in these words: i was called to a cinco de mayo celebration and asked to sing the national anthem for the mexico. i couldn't do it. i'm an american. i want to live my dream. meet this young man, another one who would benefit from the dream act. his name is mincho sook. brought to the united states from south korea at the age of nine, graduated from high school with a 4.2 g.p.a. grad waeutd with a degree in

genetics. with the help of the korean community, they raised enough money for him to finish dental school. he passed his boards but cannot become a dentist in america because he is undocumented. i want you to meet this man. his name is david cho. david is a person you might have seen on television. it is kind of an amazing story. david, brought to the united states at the time age of nine, graduated with a 3.9 g.p.a. in high school, a senior at ucla. he's the leader of the marching band. he wants to serve in the united states air force. i say to my friends who stand on the floor and profess their true belief that the military means so much to us as americans, why would you deny these young people a chance to serve in the military? that's all they're asking. the last story i want to tell is about a young man from new york, caesar vargas. he was brought to this country

at a very young age. when 9/11 occurred, he was so mad at those who attacked america, he went down to the marine corps recruiter and said i want to sign up, and they said you can't. you're undocumented. so he went on and continued. he's at the new york university of law school now. he speaks five languages. he's had offers from the biggest law firms for a lot of money. turned them down. his dream under the dream act is to enlist in the marine corps and serve in the judge advocate general corps. these are the faces of the dream act. and the people who stand before us and try to characterize this as something else don't acknowledge the obvious. these are young men and women who can make america a better place. mr. president, i understand this is a difficult vote, a difficult vote for many. as a matter of fact, i'm not asking for just a vote for the dream act today. from some of my colleagues, i'm asking for much more. i'm asking for what is in effect an act of political courage. many of you have told me that you're lying awake at nights

ting and turning over this vote because you know how hard it is going to be politically, that some people will try to use it against you. if you can summon the courage to vote for the dream act today, you will join ranks with senators before you who have come to the floor of this united states and made history with their courage, who stood up and said the cause of justice is worth the political risk. i am prepared to stand, they said, and vote for civil rights for african-americans, civil rights for women, civil rights for the disabled in america. and i'm prepared to go back home and face whatever comes. most of them have survived quite well because of their genuineness, their conviction and their strength and the fact that their courage is recognized and respected even if someone disagrees with part of their vote. that is what we face today. we face the same challenge today. i hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will summon the courage to vote for justice. we don't get many chances. when it comes to justice for

these young people under the dream act, justice for those of a different sexual orientation to serve in our military, this is our moment in history to show our courage. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: we'll soon be voting on two consequential and contentious matters: the dream act and repeal of the legislation concerning the defense department's don't ask, don't tell policy. as our ranking member on one of the two committees of jurisdiction recently made clear, the democratic majority in the senate is again depriving the american people of the right to have their concerns addressed through debate on amendments by depriving the minority of its right to offer amendments.

when democrats were in the minority, my good friend, the majority leader, said about this practice, he said this is a very bad practice and -- quote -- "runs against the basic nature of the senate." in fact, he suggested we should not shut off debate -- quote -- "before any amendments have been offered." end quote. with back-to-back blockage of amendments on both the dream act and legislation repealing don't ask, don't tell, the current majority has set a dubious record by denying the minority its right to amendment, a total of 43 times. let me just say that again, mr. president. the current majority has set a dubious record by denying the minority its right to offer amendments a total of 43 times. to put that in perspective, in his four years as majority leader, senator frist did this 15 times. the current senate majority in the same amount of time has done it three times -- three times as

often. in fact, the current majority has blocked the minority from offering amendments more often than the last six majority leaders combined. the current majority has blocked the minority from offering amendments more often than the last six majority leaders combined. the danger of following this practice is underscored by the flawed process used on the very measures that are before us now. the dream act the senate will vote on today has never had a senate hearing. in fact, it has not had any senate committee action in seven years. but of course this is the house bill. in the legislative record there, it is more sparse still. the house, like the senate, has never had a legislative hearing on the dream act and never had a markup there either. now the senate majority is preventing their colleagues from addressing the concerns of the american people by shutting off the ability to offer any

amendments here on the floor. so in sum, there's never been an amendment offered to the dream act at either the committee or floor stage in either house of congress since president bush's first term. now i guess our democratic colleagues believe that this bill is so perfect, it doesn't need any amendments whatsoever. just a few last-minute rewrites during a lame-duck session. i don't think that's what the american people believe. in regard to the ill-conceived effort to repeal the military policy on don't ask, don't tell, the majority leader has insisted on pressing forward with this effort despite the fact, despite the fact that the ranking member of the armed services committee has established the need for additional hearings. the all-volunteer force has had many successes but has this body become so alienated from the enlisted men and women in uniform that liberal interest groups have more influence over military personnel policy than the senior enlisted leaders of the army and marine corps who

were denied the opportunity to testify? this repeal will be rushed through despite the fact that it is concerning to those in army combat arms units, and 58% of those in marine corps arms units believe repeal will be harmful to unit readiness. should we ignore the volunteers' charge with the most difficult missions in our military combat with the enemy? i think not. democrats will deny the opportunity to amend the bill to require the service chiefs to certify that this repeal will not harm combat readiness, although they are responsible for training the force. why would anyone oppose this change or even the opportunity to vote on this change? this is harmful during a time of war and irresponsible manner in which to change policies that the academyant of the marine corps -- that the commandant of the marine corps stated could change lives. i'm going to ask that my colleagues take the vice of my colleague of nevada and not vote to shut down the debate for an

amendment process on these bills at least until the minority is allowed to offer, debate on a number of amendments and the senate is allowed to be the senate once again. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president, i'll use leader time. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: mr. president, i say to people in the united states senate and to the american public, to hear my friend, the distinguished republican leader, talk about our having done things procedurally brings a big yawn to the american people. everyone knows how we have been stymied, stopped and stunned by the procedural roadblocks of this republican minority. so, mr. president, we're where we are today. we're where we are today. number one, we