i can't think of a greater gift than the work that lies before you. righteous in its cause, noble in its purpose, and essential for the prosperity of our people. i will always cherish the relationships that i have gained here and the work that we have done together. god bless you, god bless the united states senate, and god bless >> congress returns this week with several items on the agenda. a closure vote is scheduled at 3:00 p.m. to limit the debate. live senate coverages on c-span 2. the house returns on tuesday at

12:30 p.m. eastern with general speeches. legislative work begins at 2:00 p.m. among pending items, a continuing resolution for the omnibus bill. live coverage of the house is on its peace -- is on c-span. > >> this week on a "newsmakers," senator carl levin. >> this week, the senate voted not to proceed with the repeal of the 1993 don't ask/don't tell law, which bars openly gay people from serving in the military. there is now a freestanding repeal of the don't ask/don't tell law.

people are asking how that will happen. amendment to other proposals in the government? >> harry reid will use rule 14 which will put that directly on the calendar. then he will try to bring up the calendar. i think he wants to try that. he very much supports the repeal. i think that is probably the best for to do it. " again, that is subject to filibuster. -- again, that is subject to filibuster. the don't ask/don't tell as part of the defense bill.

setting the policy in place was authorityhe defense of 4 bill. >> to do not sound optimistic, chairman? >> filibusters in the senate take a lot of time. i hope we can get it done one way or another. we will certainly try hard enough with the defense authorization bill. but the filibuster's but that bill in jeopardy. was long enough that it is a big help to climb to get a bill that for the defense department even without that provision. >> you say, one way or another, you want to get this done. for getting legislative avenues, what other avenues can be done? >> to repeal don't ask/don't

tell, the only other way i know is through the court. it would have to decide it is counts -- it is unconstitutional. secretary gates has pointed out that is more rigid than our language, which has provision for some time to take place during the implementation. so secretary gates strongly favored our language. he favored the merits that it was time to and that military policy. >> thursday, when the procedural motion failed, this probably dooms the legislative preference for years. do you agree? or is there some hope that it can come back and be successful

next year? >> i hope it could be successful. i am hopeful that we could at least get a pass next year for a couple of reasons. number one, public support for the repeal is very strong. it is probably too-to-one -- is 2-to-1. it will permit more hearings to take place when the opposition to the repeal of don't ask/don't tell, people who feel that should be additional hearings are beyond the ones we already had, and that could -- and those hearings could be held if we had more time to do it. the public support for the repeal is very, very strong. sooner or later, and i hope it is sooner this year, and if not this year, next year, that

public support for the end of this policy would persuade enough republicans to and that filibuster. >> what about the overall defense authorization bill's prospects in? had you go from here with so little time available? there's talk about a stripped- down version of it with the most controversial elements taken out. are you talking about that or planning to talk about that, something that could conceivably be approved by unanimous consent in the senate? >> we are exploring all options. this would be the first year and over 45 years that we will not pass a defense authorization bill. and that the bill contains critically important provisions for men and women in uniform and their families. for their training, their equipment, their health care, it is unconscionable, i believe, to have held up that bill by

filibuster since it would have been open to amendment and people oppose the repeal of don't ask/don't tell could have offered amendments on the floor to limit the language, which we were able to put in committee to repeal the don't ask/don't tell provision. everyone said they wanted a defense authorization bill. i am looking for various alternatives as to how we might be able to get that accomplished. it is an 800 page bill. it is very complicated. there are a lot of provisions in that bill which need to be resolved. >> can you talk about what some of the things are that the pentagon absolutely cannot do it unless they are authorized? is there a talk about plan b if the house has some authorities for bonus or pay attached to it?

it looks like a fallback measure in case the defense authorization bill does not become law. what can those items be? >> for pay, for benefits, for bonuses, for health care reform, for family support, there are even changes in the criminal code, the uniform code of military justice, which would make prosecution for rape easier. there are hundreds of provisions. it is an 800 page bill. it depends on whose definition of what is important. military construction -- there are all kinds of provisions that are critically important. >> not just important. they are absolutely essential by statute, right? for example, military construction projects. >> that is correct. >> that have to be authorized. across-the-board pay raises.

>> hopefully, they will be in an authorization bill with a bill or in an appropriation bill where they do not belong. i would suggest that bill to a point of order. we're talking about support of our military. nonetheless, they are in jeopardy if we do not pass an authorization bill, much more complicated legislatively. even if you could get it done in an appropriations bill, if you cannot pass the authorization bill, there's a whole lot of them that, time-wise, we could not figure out how to get into the appropriation bill. >> let me ask a broader question about the defense bill. you have been here 32 years. you say we have not gone without a defense authorization passed in 48 years. why is this happening? why cannot congress agree? we have seen all kinds of

partisan rancor before. that is for sure. what is going on here? >> the opposition to the language and don't ask/don't tell was so strong that they filibustered the bill. if you filibuster a bill, we have to get 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. the public is beginning to get not operate by majority rule. they're beginning to get it that we need to change some of our rules. i hope we will change some of those rules in january, by the way, with a filibuster, particularly on proceedings is so abuse, but that the current rules cannot run the senate. >> at the end of the year, when you have so little time left. >> that may be the ultimate answer. >> not to minimize the significance of don't ask/don't tell, but 28 years, the vietnam war was certainly a divisive

issue in congress and the country. i can go through the 1970's, the 1980's, and the 1990's. is it that democrats will not compromise? the republicans will not compromise? what is different in the political mood? >> we had 87 filibusters by republicans this year. we have the minority that has a minority probably for a minority in the minority which is used and abused the rules prevent things from coming to the floor. that was not done to such an extreme in prior years as it was done in this congress. we have to find a way to change the rules. hopefully, we can change them on a bipartisan basis to eliminate the abuses. the senate is a pledge were extended debate is supposed to be kind of the hallmark.

if we have seen this week where we have one member of the u.s. senate who is on the floor, hour after hour, that is his right and i will protect that right. i wanted. but in terms of proceeding to a motion to debate, where people are preventing debate, not protecting debate, which is what the senate should do, we should be protecting extended debate. the trouble is that the rules, which are set out to protect extended debate, have been missed used to prohibit -- has been misused to prohibit or prevent the bay from occurring at all. that is the key issue. i think that is one area where we can get some reform. >> it don't ask/don't tell is the reason you cannot move forward with the bill, why not separate it as a stand-alone bill when you this would be such an obstacle back in september and october and move forward with a defense bill? >> i would say that the strongest supporters of that

bill, that repeal, believe that the best hope of getting that repeal accomplished was to put it in a bill where, logically, it belongs, by the way. ok? this is not as though this was dragged into a bill in an unrelated bill. the subject of don't ask/don't tell belongs on the defense authorization bill because it was a defense authorization bill which created the policy or put it in law. >> we have about 10 minutes left. >> on the point about what stopped the defense authorization bill, it really was not don't ask/don't tell. ironically, a supermajority in a senate, 60 senators supported repealing the bill and don't ask/don't tell. you knew there were 60 votes on that. but it was blocked because it was tied to unrelated issues because republicans wanted to

have a vote first on taxes. do we not have an ironic situation here where that is not really it? it is because it is getting wrapped in with larger, politically charged issues. it is not really the will of a minority. >> we did not get 60 votes. the reason we did not get 60 votes, which you are driving yet -- i can read you one line in a letter sent by republicans. "we will not agree to proceed on any legislative item until the senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently waiting taxpayers." in other words, -- you have to ask ms. mcconnell and 41 other republicans why is it they

decided nothing would pass the senate until we resolve the issue over taxes and the next funding bill. it was a tactic on their part, obviously, to get something done that they felt was more important than the defense of this country, which was the particular version of tax cuts that they favor. that would be the single thing. they want to force that resolution which they hope will favor them and they use the defense authorization bill and all the other legislation, by the way, in order to achieve that goal. >> do you want to ask about the tax issue? >> yes. you give me an opening there. >> as things now stand, will you vote for the tax bill that was introduced on thursday night to? >> i do not know. i inclination is i do not let the bill. but that does not necessarily mean i will vote against it

because it may be a better option than not passing it. but i not only have problems with the bill, the estate tax provision, which is a gift to the wealthiest people in this country, they do not need it. that upper-income tax cut, again, it is something like 20% to 25% that goes to one full 1% of the wealthiest people in the country. i have real problems with it and some other provisions. however, i have some real problems with the process that, if we cannot even vote on amendments, such as changing that estate tax provision to go back to something more reasonable, and if we cannot vote to strike that tax cut for the wealthiest americans, we are not even given an opportunity to vote on it, that causes me some real problems as well as the

substance of the bill. you put those things together. we're not allowed to even vote on those changes, those of us who believe that bill should be repaired correctly, then i have a double problem with this bill. i have not decided how will vote, but i have a double problem if you cannot even vote to change the bill of the parts we do not like. >> 1 not just rule out a yes vote? >> there are a number of positive things. you have unemployment benefits extended and very important tax provisions for middle-income people that are in there. we have some really stimulates parts to that bill. i hate to see just taxes used to stimulate the economy, by the way, particularly since most of those tax cuts are going to the upper bracket. i do not believe in trickle-down economics. nevertheless, there are some provisions that will stimulate the economy, some of the expensing provisions, the so-

called purchases by businesses so they can take a deduction in the first year rather than appreciating their purchases over a number of years -- those are very useful provisions. >> that it should have a discussion about the start treaty. where that stands now, the two main senators, republicans, are on board. where do you go from here? >> in the senate, again, you have to get 60 votes. the treaty, you have to get 67 votes. so you do not face a filibuster on the treaty. but because we are up the last 10 days of the session, if, for whatever reason, a significant minority wants to stop that debate from succeeding or being completed, they probably can stop the debate. i do not know if they opposed start or because they want us to

do their version of tax cuts before we begin start. i don't know what the motivation is. i do not easily -- i tried to avoid attributing motives to people. it is complex. motives are complex. the votes are there, i believe. just like they were there for the defense authorization bill. but there are also ways for the minority, through the end of the session, to prevent 60 people from acting or even 67 people, which is two-thirds required for treaty verification. >> is there enough time for doing taxes, fund government, start, and defense authorization? are you making any kind of arguments about the relative importance? >> hi made that argument that i think it is critically important -- i made that argument that i think it is critically important.

that is why, finally, the majority leader's suggestion, hey, if we do not get this bill started this week, it cannot get done even with don't ask/don't tell repeal. so i made the argument that it had to be this week if we were going to get a defense bill, with or without it. as you well know, you have to have a couple of days on the floor. you have a day and half of post- closure time, even if there are 60 votes. you have to go to conference reduce something similar at the house of representatives. you have to allow time for amendments. we usually spend weeks on the floor on this bill. they're usually must take in four conference against the host and the senate. we want to do that in a week or so. we had to start this week with don't ask/don't tell. to enter your question, i do not make that judgment. -- to answer your question, do not make that judgment. the start treaty is a very

significant thing. obviously, we have to fund the government. and we have to resolve that tax issue. >> i hear a glimmer of hope there, that come even if you did not get the closure of the things we, you might still be able to pass it. but that would have to be in a stripped-down form, right? >> it could have don't ask/don't tell. >> but besides that. abortions in military hospitals call last of a half ago. is that a fair assessment? >> it is a changed form? the house has adopted the bill. our senate committee has adopted the bill. hopefully, we could try to find common ground between those two bills in one alternative. the senate passed a bill and our committee has 800 pitches and the house has 1000 pages. but the staff is very familiar with those. >> your doing a behind-the-

scenes, right? >> yes. >> 01 to wrap up a couple of these things. -- i want to wrapup a couple of these things. has the president and his administration give you enough support to? >> generally, i think they are. in the case of taxes, do not like the way they pushed. i cannot say are not pushing hard. in the case of start, they do want to start. a very strong statement came out of the president the other night after the republican filibuster succeeded in defeating it. yes, they are pushing hard. one of the questions will be whether we will stay long enough to get some of these things done. i hope we stay as long as we need. we do not have been many days extra fee come in after christmas, that would add a few -- days extra if we came in after christmas, but that would

add a few days. if it will make a difference, and i think it can, i would hope we would take this extra days. that is a majority leader decision. >> when i ask democrats the same question, i did a similar answer. certainly, the administration is behind us. certainly, they're strong. should the president personally be talking to people about start? should he put on a full-court press? >> i think he has talked to a lot of people about it. the one thing i am not satisfied in with the presidential pushes that he used the pulpit to push taxes. in thisng i believe i president, going through his list of police, do not believe that tax cuts for the rich -- i

think the president needs to fight them. he needs to say he will use all of the power he has on the bully pulpit and urge the senate to state and, right up to newt -- to stay in, right to new year's , and if the republicans want to continue to filibuster the tax bill, which is aimed to helping people, thatal income is something that they will have to take on their own heads. that is the problem. i do not see that kind of a willingness to fight that hard, where he will take that kind of a position. that is what is necessary. the senate and house, these are test of wills. we need all the help we can get. is the hope there? yes. does it come to the extent that

i would see it and in the way i would like to see it? no, not in that form that i think is essential to come down in the right way and what i believe to be the best way in terms of the tax bill. >> we have a couple of minutes left. >> we talked about the dysfunction of the senate quite a bit. start raises that question also. you have a situation where you have a super majority that favor the don't ask/don't tell and it could not get cleared. on start, u.s. the foreign- policy establishment of the republican party -- you have the foreign-policy establishment of the republican party that supports it, from henry kissinger and condoleezza rice and george w. h. broche. why is it you cannot get support for something like that from the republicans? >> a significant number republicans decided they would filibuster anything that did not

fit their order of business. i have never seen a letter like this. i read it before. i will not read it again. but i have never seen a letter like this. 42, that is enough to block the senate from acting. you need 60. 42 senators signed a letter saying they will stop any legislative business that does not follow what they want to get done. so they are setting the agenda. what they're saying is that you have to do the taxing first and you have to do the government funding second. but we are not going to let anything else come first. even if you can i get those done. even if there is a week we waste trying to negotiate something on those items. there it is. we will not let the senate

function on legislative business on until their priorities are dressed. i have never seen that before -- are addressed. i've never seen before the senate. >> why you think the president is not holding them accountable? >> these are procedural issues. people get up and argue the other side. the funding of this government is the most important business and these tax cuts are the most important business, and is very important business, but to say nothing else is important and cannot get addressed until those items are done, it means that their agenda, come hell or high water, will be in place. >> what about wikileaks? >> we're getting briefed on these leaks. it is very serious. we believe that people who leak information that is classified ought to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and held accountable in any way possible

for the damage that results to our nation and the american people. >> are we looking at legislation? >> it is complicated legislation. but the committee that would look at it would not be as, but probably the judiciary committee. i do not know if they have started looking at legislation or not. >> senator carl levin, thank you for being on "newsmakers." >> thank you. >> i want to begin with the defense authorization bill and what you heard on that from the chairman. >> is not at all clear what will happen next on this bill. i think the biggest enemy is time. they just have so little time left, even if they go the -- during christmas week and a few days after christmas. it is just really hard to imagine that there would be able to do the repeal of don't ask/don't tell or the defense authorization bill. it may have been a mistake for them to do this closer vote this week. they did not know whether they

have the votes to move the bill forward, but they did the votes anyway. my have been a miscalculation. >> it sounds as though he plans to bring this bill to the floor in some form. you ask him if it gets stripped down and have those controversial provisions taken out. >> he said was noncommittal on it. those are the things that will engender the most to debate and the things that will force a filibuster. given the lack of time, they may have no choice but to really strike it down. >> did you hear a defense authorization over start is the party? >> as the chairman of the armed services committee, it is his role to advocate for the defense authorization bill. but he did not say it should go ahead of start. ideally, he would like to see both. both.