>> tomorrow on wearnl, dan balz, has the latest political development in washington, including the ramify ramification a g.o.p. controlled house. peter wallison talks about what's next for panel. and simon lazarus from the national senior citizens log center and georgetown university randy barnett debates the legality of the new health care law specifically the mandate for americans to purchase health care coverage. "wall street journal" live at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. >> tonight on c-span, q. & a with lord john wakeham former leader of the house of common. after that senate debate on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

>> this month, q. & a. expands to two interviews this weekend, looking at the new british government, it's program of planned cuts to a variety of programs and to compare it to what's happening in the united states. our guest is john wakeham who is leader of the house of commons when we first interviewed in 1988. .

life. >> go back to when that happened, please. >> well, i got married fairly soon afterwards to a great friend of my first wife's. and i have had one morrison. three sons. and we have just celebrated our

silver wedding, my second wife and i. 25 years ago since that happened. so i have rebuilt my life in that sense and i have a wonderful family around me, which helped. i still have trouble with my legs, where they were crushed. i was in the hospital just a few days ago. every now and again i get a flare up of my legs. >> but the human spirit does recover, and i was lucky. >> this would have been 1984. so it was just over 25 years ago when the bomb occurred. >> that is the i.r.a. >> correct, yes. of course a lot has happened in the political scene as well. we are trying to work together with them in northern ireland. and with some success, too. >> are you surprised that there is no more of the bombings

going on? >> well, there are still a small element i think would like to get the bombings going again but they have not gotten much popular support, even with the elements in irish society that would have been in favor of a united ireland. so i think so far things are reasonably under control. but you know, it has been a lot of hard work, gradually getting things going again. >> that was a party event, the conservative party meeting? >> it was the annual convention. >> how many people were killed? >> five were killed in the hotel that i was in. i nfts next room to mrs. thatcher. it was mrs. thatcher no doubt that they were after. but the bomb went off in the room above and i fell four stories in the hotel. so they dug me out seven hours

later from the foyer of the hotel. the only reason i survived was really luck. a girder from the hotel came down to stop the hotel and rubble from crushing me, and the springs of the bed gave me enough air to keep going. but it was a pretty horrendous thing. there is one story about it which is very interesting. what i did not know at the time was that the rescuers had to abandon rescuing me because the roof was going to fall in on them. so they got me out digging in sideways like they dig in mining, you know. and two very brave men stayed up, risking their lives, one to direct operations, and the others, the doctors told him to

keep me talking because i stood a better chance if he could keep me conscious. two years after words his wife rang me up to say he was seriously ill in the hospital and ised to see me. >> how old were you then? >> guess, i guess i was in my early 1950's. >> how many people were killed by the i.r.a. in bombings in great britain? >> in great britain, including northern ireland, several thousand killed. there were quite a few hundreds in great britain. it went on for a long time. >> i remember a member of parliament was killed in his drive way at home at night. >> correct, yes. >> looking back on that is there any lesson for americans looking at 9/11?

thinking that this will never be over? >> you need very good intelligence and some very brave men who have infiltrated some of these organizations to find out what is going on. at the same time political leaders have to be able to start some sort of dialogue with these people because however evil the overall organization might be there are some less evil people in them and some people who could be persuaded that a peaceful part is what is required. what you must not do is to drive them all off. in all of the successful things i think there have been some negotiations where the moderate people are gradually drawn away

from the real hardliners. >> 18 years as a member of the house of commons. >> yes. >> leadership positions in there. >> yes. absolutely. yes. i was a leader of the house. i was secretary of state for energy. and i was in the treasure at one time. i had a few jobs, yes. >> you were made a lord in what year? >> it would have been 1994. >> what does that mean now? >> 1992 is when i was made a lord. after the general election. >> the house of lords is right over your shoulder. it is a live picture. a lot of people think that is a painting. >> yeah. >> do you still go to the house of lords? >> i go there every day. i am always there. it is a very nice place to be. i tend now to be involved in the committee's which are mostly concerned with the administration of the place, the main political committees that do that. in fact i had a big part in reorganizing the house of lords expenses system.

as you know we have terrible trouble with the house of commons expenses. we did our best to avoid trouble with the house of lords. we pretty well did succeed. i was chairing a committee that devised the new system which i think will be satisfactory. >> how many members are there in the house of lords now? >> coming up to 700, which is too many. the truth is that over 50% of the membership of the house of lords was put there by mr. blair and mr. brown. the place is not big enough for them now. >> don't i remember that when we started covering the parliament that there were something like 1,200 members. but a lot of them did not turn up. of the 750 or so, only about 125 ever came regularly.

there are 100 left put in at the time of the legislation as a bit of a compromise when it ran into difficulties but they are in effect lifers. the reform that all of us agree is that probably when they all go we shouldn't have any more. >> what does a lord make? >> not a penny in salary. but he does get expenses, which are not unrecently but i guess that a member of the house of lords could turn in, including all of his expenses, maybe $50,000 a year, that sort of figure. >> in the united states a member of the senate or house by in large can't do any

outside work. what is the rule here? >> what the vule here that you can do outside work unless you are a member of the government. if you are just a back bencher like i am you can do outside work. and indeed the house of lords is designed really to encourage you to do so. because we believe that the house of lords should be filled with a large number of people who have expertise in all sorts of different areas of like surgeons, professors, lawyers, people who are most of the time practicing their trade. i am there every day but i don't have the expertise that these people have. >> can a member of the house of commons do outside work? >> i think they can do some but i think it is fairly limited

and very much has to be declared. and i think gradually they are not. i think we are better by people who have at least a foot in the real world, as long as we know who they are. i wouldn't defend anybody vlad coindicating a cause in parliament and not making absolutely abundantly clear where they are coming from. >> do you have a disclosure requirement? >> yes, you do. but you don't have to say how much you make. you have to say where your interests are and that is on file and recorded. >> as you know in the press over the years you were referred to as mr. fix it. >> yes. >> what do you think that means? >> well, i got that reputation, and i am not in the slightest bit ashamed of it. i got it when i was chief whip. and i spent a great deal of my time trying to reconcile the

positions between different ministers in the government where they had a contrary view as to how to proceed. after the treasure with a spending department you needed to find some common thing. and i used to try to negotiate agreements. all with the other parties sometimes on management matters of the house. and why i am not proud of it is this, because if you reckon you will be a successful mr. fix it, people have to trust you. if you do a dirty dealing that lives with you forever. you have to play the game straight. i have always tried to. that is why i am not ashamed to be known as a mr. fixit. >> you have been house of commons, house of lords. being on the enron board of directors. >> right. >> and the press, you look on

it today and you can find all kinds of articles, they suggest you are hammered in this country because you were a member of that board. >> i won't tell you that it wasn't difficult at the time but i don't think many people in britain understood the issues. the truth of the matter is that in the legal proceedings that followed, if i can summarize them in this way, when, as you know the united states something goes wrong everybody sues everybody. we, the non-executive directors, set out our position and those who are originally suing us realized that our position was the sensible position, the ones which they thought was right. so our evidence was used against the other people. in other words what the

plaintiffs said we don't need to sue these non-executive directors. they have done their honorable best to try to sort things out. the fact that they were deceived by the management, by some of the bankers, and by some of the professional advisors. the non-executive directors of enron the finest board we ever served on. we were deceived. thirdly fimay number and thirdly you have to use your breaks to ask the right questions and try to understand it. if you are deceived, it is very difficult.

>> when was the last time you had anything to do with enron? >> it would be about 1995, i should think. >> what is your memory of what you felt like when all of this came down? >> i thought that for the eight or so years i was on the board, the first six years i thought were exhilarating and very good and i think the company was extremely well run. then things went wrong and they started to deceive both themselves and us. and then there was worry and eventually it all went wrong. >> are you free and clear of all legal problems? >> as far as i know. i haven't heard anything for years. >> why did it happen? >> well, it happened because the management, in my view, the management thought some of their figures were not coming out right. they thought one or two creative ways of keeping things going and persuaded their

auditors and lawyers that this was just about the on the brink of acceptable and they persuaded some of the big bankers to give them the right advice and right money. it was a big mistake. big, big mistake. >> what should have been changed in the law after that in your opinion? >> well, i don't know that there was a great deal needed to change the law. >> this has to do with the economy, which i want to switch to quickly and get your background on that. we have made enormous progress in the last 10 years in getting our economy back on to a reasonable basis, tremendous strides. our industry is much more effective and competitive. we have dealt with many of our

industries which were extremely inefficient. in today's prices in 1979 the taxpayer was paying $4.5 billion and judged by the size that to support industries which were belonged to the state because they were losing money. that virtually stopped now. we are a lot more efficient. now i think we have, during the course of this parliament, we have to spread that prosperity, which is now widely shared by the majority of people into those areas, particularly those pockets where a traditionally been the home of old industries to make sure that those parts of the country get the benefits of what some of us referred to as a revolution. >> how do things look today? >> that was quite a long time ago. we have gone through 10 years

of not making as much progress as we should. i think that to me, to be fair, tony blair and his people came in hoping and thinking that they could do the right thing. and they held the line for a bit. but gradually they spent too much money on too many schemes and really didn't see they got value for money for it. so we are running now a massive financial deficit. and that is going to be very painful to get straight. we have to persuade people that will be worthwhile at the end of the day. >> fiam sure you watched what happened in the united states over the last few years with the republicans basically saying no for the last four years or last two and a half years during barack obama's term. no to everything on purpose and

now they are about to get the house of representatives back. looking back on what happened during the blair years, which is the difference when tony blair was in charge versus what the republican consist do in the us when they were not in charge? >> i think what happened? our time we inherited -- we left for the government a pretty prosperous economy and they held the line for a bit and then things went radicly wrong for spending. so it is much more difficult now starting from a difficult position to get back in the economy. now, i don't know if i am fair about this because i don't follow american politicals that closely.

but there is one thing that i have noticed about politicians. and that is if they are going to lose in the vote because they haven't gotten a majority they can say pretty outrageius things knowing that their opponents will get the thing through anyway and they want to be on the safe can crowd of criticizing so they can be ready in years to come to say that didn't work this . didn't work. that didn't work. and i suspect if it had been the other way around the other parties would have each said similar things. in other words when you are in government you are faced with some pretty horrendous problems. there is no way of ducking them. you have to try to deal with them. in opposition you can pick and choose that which you can make a fuss about. and no doubt from where i sat, some of the major industries in the united states ,

particularly i think the car industries and others, had built up over the years very, very deep-seated problems which had to be resolved. i had a little bit in the coal mining industry in this country. we had nine pensioners of the coal industry for every one company. no company can survive that. big decisions have to be taken. >> as we look from the united states over to great britain and watch all of the cuts that have been announced and watched what happened in our country during the george bush years he doubled the debt going from five trillion to 10 trillion. almost it has done that again during the barack obama years. the question i have for you is

it better in a parliament system or in the three branches of government like we have in the united states in governing? >> well, i am not sure they know the answer to that. i don't know that there is all that much difference. what i do know is that i suspect one of the developments that you may see in this country is that there will be a bit of a move, whether it will come to anything or not, to remove the executive branch out of the parliamentary system. what is evident to me is that it is very difficult to have a successful political career and to have some of the expertise that is needed to be a minister in the government. for instance, it has long been difficult for the government of

the day to find sufficiently qualified law officers to be the main legal positions in government. the really good lawyers are busy making money in the law. they don't want to waste their time in politics. it is the same for example if you need someone who really understands the developments in information technology and i.t. to find somebody who will make a minister for that, much more difficult. what this government has done and what the last government did, they tended to put people into the lords as ministers because they had particular expertise which the parliamentary process never produced. the way that will develop is more and more the executive branch will separate from the the parliamentary. >> how much appointment does the prime minister have? how many jobs does he or she fill? >> he fills virtually the whole

of the government. >> how many would that be? >> about a hundred. >> do all come from the members of the house of commons or house of lordss? >> yes. if they are not, if he particularly wants them in he puts them into the house of lords, which he can do quickly. >> what is the restraint on the number of people he can put in the house of lords? >> there is no real restraint. you would be very much criticized if you put too many in as mr. brown and blair are criticized today but there is no legal constraint. >> how long is the appointment as a lord? >> for life. two categories this that in my time have been on a limited tenure have been the bishops. they have to give up when they cease to be bishops.

and the judges. they no longer sit as members of the house of lords. >> how is the sprout justice here appointed? >> we have an independent appointments word -- burden. they are appointed by an advisory committee of people, which the senior judges have a good say at it. >> is there any way that the public can get rid of a judge like they do in the united states? >> i never heard of it. i can't tell you. i am sure that there must be a way but it has never happened in my lifetime. but i think the lord chancellor or head of the judiciary, the senior judge in the supreme court would who schedules the appearances would make sure he did not get any work to do. >> what about the cabinet positions for the prime

minister? what if people do not like a cabinet officer? >> only if the prime minister wants to get rid of him. the only way that you can get rid of them is by having a vote of no confidence in the prime minister. the prime minister of course is quite sensitive to his own political position. he wouldn't support someone who lost favor with everyone. >> if you had the opportunity, would you rather be prime minister, forget the country involved, prime minister of great britain or president of the united states when it comes to the power and the ability to come? >> i think the prime minister of this country has a great deal of power, more power than people realize.

the prime minister can get most things done, some of which the president of the united states would find very difficult. >> what kind of advice would you give someone who was getting into politics, including this prime minister that you have now as to the best way to get a job done? >> i think the very important thing, and i say it to many young people thinking of a political career. i say first go and do something. demonstrate you can earn a living outside of politics. you don't have to be rich but you have to be reasonably independent financially before you can really would be sensible to embark. >> stop there and tell us what you did. >> i chartered a certified public accountant in american

terms. i had a thousand people working for me. >> what was the business? >> quite a lot of it was in lumber. i was in distribution of tractors in this country and overseas. i had successors who took over. it has all been merged into other businesses but i am completely separated from it. >> i heard you had at least 60 directorships.

i should think 40 were shell companies. i did have four or five pretty tough directorships. but i did not have 60. i made my first serious mistake on television when i was a young politician when an interviewer said to me 60 directorships is rather too many. i said thinking it was a joke, of course 60. but don't think i was in it for the money. i only got 1,000 pounds from each one. >> can people still do that? >> i think there are restrictions now about it. you have to declare much more than duin my day. >> first things first, make money before you get into politics. what is next?

>> the next thing is to then you can gradually find your way. by in large most of the people who have been successful has been good speakers in the house. but that has not been the essential quality that is required. it is a question of judgment in very difficult circumstances. a lot of politicians won't say this to you. if you near government about 90% of all of the decisions that you have to make are the

decisions any person would make . it is the sensible thing to do. there are 10% of tricky decisions where there are several courses of action. none are absolutely right or wrong. they are questions of judgment. they are gray areas if you like. the successful politician is the one who sorts those out best. >> how long has the building been there? >> that's been there, well, it has been a royal palace for many years. a lot of it has been rebuilt. there was a big fire but it was a royal pass in henry the 8th

time. it is still technically a royal palace. but most of it is built from the life. >> when duenjoy yourself most? >> i enjoyed being a chief whip in the commons. because you are managing the situation. most people's troubles are somebody's else troubles who come to you for help and you give the best advice you can. a great deal of what went on in the house of commons, and i suspect in many, there has to be consent. there has to be consent to the process by both by the government and also by the opposition. the rule that i worked on with this, i did not propose any procedural matter in the house

of commons when i was the government chief chip which i would have thought would be unfair if i am the opposition chief whip. you won the election. you are entitled to do your business. you have to accept that they are the alternative government and have a right to put their case in the proper, reasonable fashion, give them plenty of opportunity to say what they have to say. in the end a majority is entirelied to get its business as well as a minority has a right to be heard. that is the process. i enjoyed doing that. >> when we talked to you in 1988, i want to run another clip of what you said back then about television in general. >> i have some worries that it is getting a bit out of hand at

the moment. normally it has been full of emotions. but the tradition is people still get a fair hearing. it sounds slightly worse on the radio than it is when you are in the chamber. in the chamber you can hear the speeches better than it comes over on the radio from our side. some people think when the television cameras come in there will be a more balanced presentation and people's understanding will be better than it is at the moment. it may alter people's behavior in the house and it may get worse. >> so what do you think happened? >> i can make a comment first on 20 years ago when i said that? i have the dubious record of as leader of the house, move the motion to excel a member out of

the house for bad behavior. i did it more times than any other leader of the house ever has done. i did it nine times. the leader gets up and proposes the mogs. of those nine times, eight were premeditated. the member decided the best way that he could make his political point was being thrown out. i have no complaint. one chap lost his cool and couldn't control himself. his friends were trying to control him. i was trying to control him. he just lost his cool. but in the end i had to. and that was all as a result of really the opposition party, the labor party in those days,

being extremely frustrated with having lost an election. it wasn't the house of commons in itself. it was the house of commons reflecting the political frustrations of the party that had won its election. >> when you throw somebody out how long are they out? >> usually for five days and no pay for five days. i had some trepidations about television come figure the house of lords employees -- lords but i knew it would come. i wasn't rushing it too much. i had a boss who was not talking on it. but i knew it would come. it is no longer an issue. it is accepted. it does not get a great deal of debate. they use it for good journalistic purposes.

i don't think there is an enormous number of people who watch the long programs. but if there is something important they seem to do it. they do it pretty well. those of us who were a little cautious about it before have to admit it is not as bad as we thought. those most passionately in favor has to admit it hasn't changed political life that much. >> why was mrs. thatcher against it ri think because she felt that partly because she was not the greatest lover of the bbc. she thought it would be used in a confrontational basised way and disorder would be shown. as a matter of fact there was quite an interesting episode in all of that which i would not have dreamed of in 1988.

now one of the things that i was concerned about was the rules for coverage. and i took the view that we should start with pretty tight coverage rules and as we got used to it and the broadcasters got used to it maybe we could relax it and allow them to look around the chamber. that is what happened. my difficulty was how dipersuade the labor party to go along with tight controls, because some of the difficult people were on their side who might, if they were able to get the coverage. might have given mrs. thatcher a pretty rough time. i spoke to the labor party leadership at the time in a friendly talk. i said if you have loose rules of coverage to start off with, actually it will reflect badly on the labor party.

in the long run, if i judge you right, you want to win the election. you want to be the prime minister. and you need to persuade the great british public that you are in a sufficient position to be a successful prime minister. i don't think you want to see them making all of the running. i hope that had some effect on him. because we had no difficulty in getting all of this agreed in the house. >> nobody votes for a prime minister so what did the polls show when people go into the polls, how often do they go in thinking they are voting for david cameron or prime minister brown? how often? >> this was the first election

that we had leaders, like you do in america, we had prime minister candidates. although the public had not got any right to vote for them, but they had three debates. i think they would generally thought to be a success. there was a great deal of difficulty about it. mrs. thatcher would never have taken part in them because she did not hold with that sort of thing. but she would have been told by her advisors you have everything to lose and nothing to gain. you near the lead. this election, it was quite interesting really. david cameron was keen to have them. because he was pretty certain that he could outdebate gordon brown in the elections. others judge whether it is

right or wrong. that is what he felt. he completely, in my view, underestimated president appeal of nick clar, the liberal, who was able to say you two keep arguing about it but the reality is something else, you see. so the first time the liberal man was the outstanding winner of that debate. and the polls went up. by the second one they got a better way of handling him and they got it right. but it was quite interesting how it took place. >> our audience watched all try of those debates and was fairly impressed by the pace of them compared to ours. >> yes. >> let me show you another clip. >> television is part state and part private. we have a duel system that is the bbc, which is done on the act of the parliament. they have a charter.

and they collect the proceeds of the license fee. every television owner pays about $100 per year license fee. and it isn't for television set it is to see the bbc. the money goes to the bbc. the rest of our channels are commercial channels and rely upon advertising. with satellites coming and cable and other advances which we have gotten a bit behind in, these things, the arrangements have to be looked at again. government produced really a discussion paper on the way the government see its moving. because we can't go on with the same system. there will be changed and they will almost certainly. there is a good possibility in some people's minds that next year you will see a major

government bill changing the basis of television in this country. >> where i am standing there are so many television channels i cannot get to them all. that happened in the last 22 years. what happened to the power of the bbc? i know you have to pay three times as much as you did back in those days? >> it is still quite strong but i continuing is changing. it wasn't changing as fast as i had forecast 20 years ago but i think for example the bbc is now being required, first of all, to maintain the license fee. that they are having costs that they did haven't to pay for before like world service. i think in the long run still the days of a license probably won't be forever.

but how soon they happen in britain, joan. and the bbc knows that as well. they have gotten a fabulous brand name where if they were in the commercial world, worldwide they would be extremely successful. but they are a big vested interest at the moment. >> you were on the press complaints board. >> yes. press complaints commission. >> what it was, to really be blunt, it was an attempt by the newspaper industry to demonstrate that they had set up a body to seek to raise press standards, successly standards of privacy and inaccurate reporting and everything. partly to stop either whoever won the election to bring in any control of the press.

they wanted me to run it. a very nice man but hasn't made much of an impact. they want mede there. my task was to force up the standards, if i could, by getting the public to complain about anything that they thought was unfair, wrong, inaccurate, distorted, invasion of privacy, things of that sort. but we had no actual legal penalties. we couldn't find people. what we could do is criticize them heavily. and the newspapers hated that. they hated that completely. but of course it was also free to make a complaint. we were never charged. lawyers were not involved. and we did raise the standards over the years. >> who paid for it? >> the newspaper industry paid for it. i was the chairman. i had to maintain our independence from the newspapers. i had to be civil respected by

people to say that i was not there too. because we were being paid for. made no secret of it. >> what years did you run it? >> i ran it for several years. i started in about 1995 and went to about 1992-1992. >> you took on someone publically in that time period, pierce morgan. he is going to take the larry king show. >> i will tell you exactly. he is a very successful man and will be very successful in america. i have no hard feelings about it at all. when i was first starting, he published photographs of i think it was the first earl spencer's wife who was walking in the grounds of a nursing home where she had gone to a mental breakdown. >> who is earl spencer? >> one of -- he is the brother of princess diana.

he is one of our big landowners . this was right at the heart of what we were trying to stop, the intrusion of somebody in the hospital. i said that this is a very serious breech of the code. and it was right at the beginning. i went to rupert murdoch and said in the end it is you who has people that have confidence in running your show. he ran news of the world, a popular newspaper. he said very famously the conducts of this young man is unacceptable. and he shortly afterwards left. went and got a better job with another newspaper. i invited him to lunch. we had lunch together. we are good friends.

there are no hard feelings about it at all. it was part of a process of trying to demonstrate that a free newspaper system did not require government intervention and laws. it is still going strong. a lady run its now. the person who followed me was the british ambassador to washington. it is not quite as in the center of news as it was. whether that is because they don't have so many complaints, i don't know. but certainly the job that i had to do was to get the standards up civil to get the government off of their back. >> sitting outside looking over to great britain, here is what we see.

>> looking at my crystal ball, i think the house of commons, they will successfully reduce the size. there will be 50 less members of parliament. it will go down to about 600 rather than 650. there will be an attempt to make them much even size so that each will represent the same. it is happened by accident. i think we will have a system which will make that much less

likely to happen. >> when do you make the decision here? >> this will be done before the next election. >> who will make that decision? >> the parliament will pass the act and then the independent boundary commissioners will decide how to implement it. the high pressure system of lords is being reformed for membership, many years. everybody agrees it should be reformed but nobody will agree how it should be reformed. i would want be surprised. i think that some things will have to happen because the numbers are getting so big.

i am not saying there are not other people that disagree in what i am saying but if you had direct elections to the house of lords, which is what some people think, the result of that in my opinion would be as follows. the best political brains in the country would go to the house of commons. the next lot would go to the european parliament the next to the scottish and the london and so on. so we would have the fourth team in the house of lords. and as a revising chamber to give wise advice to the other people it does not strike me as being on the basis of getting the right sort of people to do it. the way we have gotten now in sesket this. we try to get reasonably wise and experienced people in the house of lords but they can be overruled by the commons which is directly elected.

we may be able to tinker at it on the edges. i have been chairman of the royal commission on the reform of the house of lords. 10 years ago i produced a report recommending how to proceed. i said a small element could be elected, the bulk being appointed. they they got there they could never go back and get reelected. once you do that they do the job of the house-commons, the much more democratic one. >> you had been chancellor of the university. >> yes. >> is it brunell? >> yes. >> how long have you done that? >> 14 years. >> what is that job? >> that is a rather -- it is a

ceremonial figurehead, mostly. but if you are interested, as i am, you can have influence behind the scenes. in british company law it is the equivalent of the chairman and the vice chancellor is the chief executive. and so what i do is that i attend the ceremonial occasions, i shake 3,000 hands per year of the graduates and they get their degrees. and i also spend quite a bit of time visiting the different faculties and departments and talk to the professor busy their research programs and what they are doing which they seem to enjoy me doing and i enjoy listen to them and hearing them. i got past the stage when i started where i tended to hear what fine piece of research that they were doing. and then i would say what is the point of all of that. they know that is going to

come. they make sure that is in their presentation early on. >> what is the impact of cuts coming from a school like yours? >> the vice chancellor said we should manage quite well. we have had 10 years. the last government has been pretty good i am not sure it will be as bad as some people are making out. >> i asked you earlier what has been your favorite job in your life? >> well. there are moments in each of my

job i have enjoyed, rather than saying this was all good. there are moments in life where you are able to help get over a problem. i suppose it is the mr. fixit side of it. you know i have never been one who wanted to bang the drum and demand this and that. i wanted to understand why people got the position they got. why they felt as they did. what can we do to help them feel satisfied. in other words when i chair the cabinet committee. and this is a trick i learned as a young man is when i started to do it. if there is a big debate going on i decided in advance how i thought the outcome would be. and the meetingly was really to test my hypothisis. i tended in my remarks not to be impartial but to slightly support the person who was going to lose.

so at the end of the day i could turn to the person who was going to lose and i could say well secretary of state, i had a great deal of sympathy for what you said but listening to the voices around the table probably the chancellor has the better of the argument and i think probably we ought to go that way. i helped him deal with his problems. and i got a lot of satisfaction making the system work. i got that satisfaction in politics, i got that satisfaction occasionally in universities. i certainly that is what i enjoyed moth. >> we thank you very much for your time. we will see you in 20 years. >> thank you very much. i will look forward to it.

>> the redesigned booknotes website features over 800 nonfiction authors interviewed about their books. view all of the programs and use the searchable database and find links to blogs, facebook pages and twitter feeds. a brand-new look and feel. helpful research tool and a

great way to enjoy the authors and their books. >> from inside the theatre, a hostage used her mobile phone to call a local radio station. >> we have never had the type of material to rival these phone calls. really gives you an inside seat and view of the terrorist attack. we never had that before. we never heard the terrorists intimate conversations with their mosses. >> tomorrow, documentary film maker dan reed. . . .

minutes of the timen 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 i 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 indendence, 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 mont 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 t reaze generation after generion in a more perfect way to make ours a more perfect union, the rights given in the declaration of independce, 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 promisef 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 becau 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 thathis 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 arican 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 s 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 real their sexual oritation. one of them was quoted as saying, and i paraphrase, that's privat 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 aut 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. rbin: 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 t 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 amnly more certain that that's the case. the criteria for serving in the united states armed forces should be courage, confidence, and a williness 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 tellas 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. anotr army sergeant who worked with her around the same time said this about sergeant

presley: "i would serve with sergeant preey 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 uted 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 actuall 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 p 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. inddition, 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 againnother 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 growecause 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 unr the "dream" act. ne, 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 ien 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 tt 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. . 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 factsnd 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 nothin 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 tochieve 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 t 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, becau 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 our best and brightest, how many are not serving today because of this policy. how many will return to the military when this poly is removed. all i know is tha 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 tt 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, posite 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 couny. 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 yie 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 offic: the senator is correct. there will be cloture votes on both of those house messages. mr. mccain: meahile, 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 ection 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, theres a lot of talk about comprise, 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 beginningext 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 areupposed 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 electi. 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 fromy 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 cae 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 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 t 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 theommander in chief. that's the nature. that's the nature of our military. and i couldot be more proud of them in the performance that they have gen 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 thi 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

terally 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.resident, 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, youill 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 aegiance 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 nendez, 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 n a political stunt. we are voting on a bill that has already passed the u.s. house of representatives. if it passeon 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 meland 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 ited states for five years. anybody who comes after 2005 cannot be eligible. and those who are elible 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. lete 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 cls. 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 frohigh school with a 4 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 dtal 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 pfess 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 litary? 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 attacke 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 fiveanguages. 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 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 causef 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, theemocratic 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 sayhat 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 currentenate 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 hse, 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 dressing 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 presint 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 repealhe 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 coat 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 mility 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 t debate for an amendment process on these bills at least until the minority is allowed to oer debate on 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 i 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 have, nearing the end of this congressional session there is a continuing resolution that's been prepared by senator inouye and senator cochran, something that i don't re like, but it's been done because we have to do this. and we'll finish that in the immediate future. mr. president, i'm going to speak just briefly on don't ask, don't tell. but to suggest that there hasn't been hearings, adequate hearings on this is just simply nonsensical. senator levin has held two days of hearings in the last 30 days. there ha been hearingseld, reports done by the military.

my republican friends have said this is something we probably should do, but when we have a study by the military and see what the ptagon thinks; they did that. re than 70% of the people who served in the armed forces believe itoesn't matter at all. and this is really exemplified, mr. president, in a story that appears in the "las vegas sun" newspaper today. i will read two paragraphs from this story. the pentagon's report is done, and it conclude thad revealing the law would do little to affect troop readiness. in fact, most of the troops interviewed for the report indicate they didn't think it would be a problem. a majority of them said they had served with someone who is believed to be gay or lesbian and it doesn't bother them or affect their unit's effectiveness. now, mr. president, listen to this. for example, the report quotes a special operation soldier who said, and i quote -- "we have a gay guy in the unit. he's big, he is mean and he kills lots of bad guys. no one cared that he was gay."

end of quote. mr. president, that says it all. as barry goldwater said, you don't have to be straight to shoot straight. now, mr. predent, the dream act. i first must say to everyone within the sound of my voice, i came to washington in 1982 to serve in the house of representatives. one of the people that came in that very large democratic class that we had was dick durbin fm illinois. i've gotten to know him extremely well. he is very good. we all know he has the ability to express himself extremely well. i have known him for all these 28 years. we have worked very closely together. he is now the assistant leader of the united states senate. i have never known him to feel

so strongly about an issue as he does this dream act. he has worked on it for more than a decade. he has shed tears, talking to me about some of the people that he visits with. and we saw the emotion that he felt here today. i so admire and appreciate him for the work that he has done. i'm committed to passing the dream act. as we work toward a comprehensive approach to reform our country's broken immigration policies, one thing we can do now is ensure the next generation can contribute to our economy and to our society. the dream act applies to a very specific group of talented, motivated young people who already call america home. that is their home. it applies only to those who came here at age 15 or younger and have been here fort least five years. even then, in order to hav a

chance at permanent legal residency, you would have to graduate from high school, pass strict criminal background checks and attend college or serve in the military for at least two years. mr. president, i have said on this floor on several occasions, but i will repeat it, where i first became aware of a problem we had in our country. i was in smith valley, nevada, an structural community in the northeastern part of our state, and they had -- i was a relatively new senator. they had gotten all the students there, a very small high school together. i had made a presentation to them. when i finished, i could tell that there was a girl that wanted to talk to me. she was there. i could see her. i could feel her presence, and i knew that she was embarrassed to talk to me. i said do you want to talk to me? she said yes. she alone said to me, senator,

i'm the smartest kid in my class, have the best grades, but i can't go to college. my parents came here, they are illegal. what am i supposed to do with my life? now, at that time i didn't know what she was talkingbout. i didn't know that this brilliant young, beautiful woman of hispanic origin couldn't go to colle, but she couldn't. that's what this is all about. i don't know where that young woman is now. but she hasn't completed college. is she working at the onion and garlic farms up there? what is she doing? i don't know. i have thought about that many, many times. when we jeopardize our education, we jeopardize our economy, our economy, our education. the congressional budget office found that letti these men and women contribute to our society will reduce the deficit by more than one half billion dollars. the ucla study found the dream

act would add as much as as $3.5 trillion to our economy. that's trillion with a t. that's from the university of california-los angeles. this bill is not only the right thing to do, but it's also a very good investment. the defense department also knows it's good for our natnal security. the pentagon has said it will help it meet its recruitment goals of our all-volunteer force. that's why our military made part of the 2010-2012 strategic plan. at's in their plan, the pentagon's plan. some republicans are trying to demonize these young men and women who love this country, want to contribute and fight for our country. the real face of the dream act are the dreamers, the dreamers. i was welcomed to washington on thursday. there was this beautiful child there with her graduation hat on. had a little four-cornered hat. she was a dreamer.

she wants to be able to go to college. that's all she wants. we have others we want to -- who want to be able to join the military. the real faces who belong to people like astrid silva who wrote to me in nevada and i have visited her on many occasions. i am 22, she says, and i have never even stolen a piece of gum from the 7-eleven, yet i feel as if my forehead says felon. and to richard who wrote to me and said that young men like him would like t fight and give our entire lives for our country, end of quote. opponents use the word amnesty, hoping to trick people into thinking this bill is something it's not. ey are trying to play to people's worst fears. one united states senator said in the presence of one of these dreamers that he couldn't vote for it because the law said you didn't need to serve. all you had to do is sign up.

i say to this united states senator and anyone else suggting suc an absurdity, read the bill. it takes two years of service in the military. and it will be longer than two years because you can't sign up for two years. you have to sign up for more than that. we certainly get our money's worth in that regard. the dream act couldn't be further from them. it gives opportunity, it gives nothg for free and it demands a great deal of those who earn lel residency. it's not granting citizenship immediately. it puts them on the path to citizenship. it gives no one the incentive to break any law but gives so many the incentive to contribute to our nation and its economy. when it passes -- and, mr. president, i hope it passes. as my friend, senator durbin said, i hope it passes today, but it's going to pass. millions of chiren who gw up in america as americans will be

able to get the education they need to support our economy. many who volunteered to defend our country will no longer have to fear being deported. democrats know this is a good policy. republicans know it's a good policy. that's why senator orrin hatch co-authored it ten years ago and why t "wall street journal," a very conservative editorial board, called it a worthy immigration bill just within the last few weeks. the only question is whether we will let good policy inform our votes or let partisan politics get in the way of so many futures. not these children, but our >> senate voted twice on the don't ask don't tell measure. the first passed 63 to 33. then they voted to repeal the policy. senate democrats held a news conference where they were joined by gay-rights advocates including the former air force

maj. speaking first is majority leader harry reid from the capital we are two 0.5 hours away from fulfilling a promise, not just a promise to our troops, but to our country. as you love your country. repealing don't ask, don't tell is the right thing to do.

if that were the only argument, that would be enough. it is more than that. repealing this policy will make our military stronger. some have said this is not the time to repeal this policy. they are right. it should have been done yesterday. some are saying that because we are repealing don't ask, don't tell, they are going to retaliate by not voting on the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. that are going to vote against this treaty dealing with nuclear weapons because they had to vote on don't ask, don't tell. that is real statesmanship. we are making the military stronger by following discrimination. they want to make america weaker by making it easier for terrorists to get nuclear weapons.

the only things these votes had in common is that they strengthen america. they make america live up to its promise. we are moving toward a more perfect union. today, we moved one step closer to that perfect union. we are going to hear from joe lieberman, who has been terrific in this regard. i also have to acknowledge chairman carl levin. carl levin advocates -- carl levin is the reason we had the don't ask, don't tell debate in the armed services committee. everyone knows if he had not done that, we would not be here today. joe lieberman, i appreciate his

advocacy in helping bring the few republicans in. i appreciate those few republicans. we could not have done it without them. they are brave in doing so with the pressure they have received on these issues. we are going to hear from the president of the human rights campaign. aubrey is the executive director of the services member's legal defense fund. we are going to hear from a discharged airforce member. >> i do not have much to add except thank you for your leadership. without your commitment to get don't ask, don't tell repealed, this would not have happened today. you realized we had the votes.

you said this was too important. you thought culture and brought it to a vote. i also want to join you in thanking my chairman on the armed services committee and my colleagues. i almost said moe. your dad was here in 1976. senator mark udall. i want to thank the republicans who bought a party position. it should not have been a party position. repealing don't ask, don't tell is the right thing to do. whether you are democrat, republican or independent bid it is consistent with those values. i want to thank lisa murkowski,

scott brown, and a few we do not know about. senator george voinavich came in today. part of why this past is because gay and lesbian americans in this era of our history of organist to utilize their first amendment rights. speaking to centers where they lived about one this law should be changed, as a result, for all of us in the senate, this is one of those days when we to privilege to be here because we righted a wrong.

it took too long, but the -- toward justice. today, we have done justice. joe? >> senator thank you for your leadership on this issue. we would not be here today without the steadfast commitment of senator joe lieberman and senator collins. we thank you so much for your steadfast commitment. it is also important that we recognize the heroic members of day. don't ask, don't tell will soon elected forever. today, our nation lived up to its highest ideals of freedom and equality when the senate

voted that all men and women have a right to serve openly. it does not matter who you are or who you love. you are not a second-class citizen any longer. for the 17 years that this law has been in place, over 14,000 dedicated service members have been discharged because of their sexual orientation. it is most important today to stop and honor those soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines whose military careers were ended, whose lives were threatened and whose french ships were cut short because of gosh friendships were cut short because of -- whose friendships were cut short because of a failed law that failed them and

our country's national security and our best interests. meant something. i hope they know that their courage and their integrity helped a nation understand what it means to serve. i hope they know that more thani am the executive director of sldn, service members legal defense network. we have assisted with counsel to over 10,000 service members who have been discharged or impacted by this law. today's vote means service members who are gay and lesbian and are posted all over the world can stand taller.

tellknow don't ask, don't will soon be coming to an end. this vote gives the pentagon and the president a clear path to getting rid of the military's gay ban. it paves the way -- get rid of the military's gay ban. repeal is not yet final. the president will sign this bill shortly. the certification process must go forward. the 60 day congressional period must go forward as well. during this limbo interim period, i call upon the secretary of defense to use his existing authority to suspend all investigations and all

discharges until the law is over 40 years. i can tell you that this man has been determined to repeal this law in this congress. he has made good on his word. gratitude to senator reid for his determined leadership and tenacity. thank you everyone in the senate. >> on a point of personal privilege, i want to say two words before the major comes up for us and the public, this may be an issue to be debated and legislation to act on. for the major and 14,000 other

american servicemen and women, this was and is there life. when you hear his story, you will fill out how unjust this policy has been to a real american heroes and how important what we did today is to them. >> that is quite an introduction there, senator. what a day. a long, hard process, years in the making. a hard fight through the senate and years in the senate have made this day possible. don't ask, don't tell is the that mandate someone be fired because they have committed a

crime, but because of who they are. today, we took a huge, historic step to ending that discrimination and treating lesbian and gay americans no longer as second-class citizens no longer able to defend our nation. air force for 13 years through four deployments in the middle east. i led a squadron that controlled the airspace over the majority of iraq. we were there when the marines went into fallujah and liberated that city. we faced nearly daily mortar attacks that damaged equipment and injured one of my troops who was returned to duty two weeks later. while i was in iraq, i wrote

private e-mails to loved ones and someone i dated, no differently from my counterpart in my squadron. i did this to keep in touch withshortly after i left iraq, upon those e-mails. they proceeded to read them. the air force in iraq took time out from the war to search my private e-mails to determine if i had violated don't ask, don't tell and to gather evidence they could use against me. six weeks after i had returned to iraq and was in germany, my command called me into his office. tell policy and handed me these

private e-mails and asked me to explain them. question. not once in my 13 years as an officer or during the 16 months of the process that followed did i make a statement to the military that violated don't ask, don't tell. i was fired from my job leading nearly 200 men and women that had a disruptive effect on my unit. my security clearance was suspended. part of my pay was to make it. 16 months later, i was thrown out of the air force and given a police escort from the base on my final day of active duty. despite all this, about one year into the process, after i had been fired, the air force recommended that i be promoted

to colonel despite the fact that they were actively trying to throw me out. they still recommended i be promoted to the next highest rank. there is nothing that i want more than to resume my career as an officer and leader in the air force. the estimated 66,000 gay and lesbian soldiers who are wearing the uniform in defense of our that they will not be fired for who they are. today, in the senate, we took a step forward to making that a reality. i look forward to the president to sign it into law. i look forward to wearing the uniform of an officer of the united states air force. thank you. [applause] >> we will take questions. >> an order has already been entered into the senate. >> how does that play out in the next few days?

>> i want to make sure everyone does not feel they are being jammed on the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. we are in the eighth day of work on the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. we will work on it this afternoon. we are up to six or seven days for sure. i hope we are going to have a vote this afternoon on one of the amendments that have been offered. i want this to go forward. i am a strong believer in the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. the two nations that control

more than 90% of the nuclear warheads -- to think they have gotten together to lower the amount of warheads each have. they have done this in an agreeable fashion. there is a situation in iran. there is a situation in afghanistan. to think that we would not ratify this treaty is scary. to have people running around saying i have poisoned the well by having two votes on the dream act and don't ask, don't tell. i am not able to understand the reasoning. >> do you plan on bringing the defense authorization bill up? >> i cannot comment on the

authorization of the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. i hope that is the case. that has not been my responsibility. i think that question would be better directed toward him or the vice president or the president. i hope we can get unanimous consent to pass it. >> how long do think it will take before the repeal will be elected? >> there will be close consultation between the chairman of the joint chiefs and joint services. we do not have an estimate of how long it will be. we hope it will be sooner rather than later. in that regard, i want to pay tribute to our top leadership.

i want to pay tribute to secretary gates and admiral mullen. admiral mullen's comments from the heart moved our committee and the country. no one wearing a uniform should have to live a lie. they should be able to be who they are. his comment about integrity and people wearing the uniform of this country and that that is important to everyone in uniform and everyone wearing a

uniform be able to be honest about who they are gave momentum to this effort. i want to pay tribute to admiral mullen and secretary gates. both of them pointed out that this is a leadership issue. making this change is simply a matter of leadership. doing the right thing is a leadership matter and they have -- including the chiefs who said they were wary about this. this will happen. >> thanks, everybody. >> now, we talk with a couple hill reporter on how democrats were able to get the measure to a vote today. "don't ask, don't tell" this weekend. how did the democrats get the

votes that they needed? >> they basically extricated from other issues. in september and earlier this month, they held procedural votes on the issue. it got tied up before the election in discussions about emigration. and other politically-charged issues before the election. earlier this month, the swing republicans that they were counting on would not vote in their favor because republicans had sworn as a group not to do anything prior to the senate acting on the tax cuts and government spending. now, congress has acted on the tax cuts, and they are on a path to do something about

overall spending. they took the "don't ask, don't tell" provision out and considered its separately. this, but because it got -- >> how significant is this for those who are against it, for it, and president obama? >> i think it is a little bit of red meat for each side. for the left, it will help energize their base, and did note for the right. i think it is probably a net plus for president obama because the majority of the public believe this policy should be repealed, something on the order of 75% of the public in most of the polls i have

seen. it is kind of a non-issue for most people. i think it is remarkable that in the 17 years the public has shifted on this subject. i think in the military it is probably going to be largely a some people might leave the military over it and some might policy. most of our allies have changed this rule without much of an affect. >> what is the timeline now? are there any the joke -- in the legal challenges? >> and there is the possibility of legal challenges from opponents over the repeal.

there are several court cases pending right now that, i assume, will be succeeded -- exceeded by congressional action. >> thank you. >> the senate also continue debate on the u.s. /russian nuclear arms treaty. they held one procedural vote. another amendment offered by senator from idaho will be voted on tomorrow. the senate also failed to move forward on the dream act. it would offer young illegal immigrants account to citizenship if they pursue a college degree or enter the armed forces. several democratic senators spoke after the bill was voted down.

this briefing begins with remarks by dick durbin. it has not changed our resolve at all. the expansion of freedom and justice has required courage and persistence. these young people are the next generation of leaders in america. our doctors, lawyers, engineers, and teachers.

they must be part of the nation, the only nation they have ever known. i commend all the people who worked so hard today. let me start with the students. i met with a group last night that has spent 28 hours on a bus to come here for a chance to be a part of america. we would not have done what we did without their persistence. i promise i will never give up this fight until the dream act is passed. as long as these young people are determined to be a part of this nation, i am determined to stand by them so they can call this nation a home. i particularly thank senator harry reid. we would not be here were it not for his personal commitment. i thank him for his friendship, kind words, and his help. there were so many profiles in

courage that i do not know where to start. i want to thank my colleagues were stepping up and thinking about what could be controversial back home because they believe it was the right thing to do. they have written their names in the history of this institution with their dedication. senator melendez has been an ally and a friend. >> i believe we are still a nation that would rather welcome our promising and patriotic use with a warm embrace rather than a closed hand because of their parents' actions. this is a vote that will not be soon forgotten by a community that is growing in size and

political awareness. since we cannot get justice on the floor of the senate, we will get justice at the ballot box in two years. let me make one last comment. we are where we are today because the republicans insist on a super majority vote. the vote shows that the majority of the senate wants to make the dream of these young people an opportunity. the majority of the senate believes that with the 55 votes. it is only because the filibuster of the senate makes a 60 vote majority necessary.

that is where we are today. i appreciate that 91% of the democratic caucus voted for this legislation. i am incredibly disheartened that less than 1% of the republican caucus voted for this. at the end of the day, it was less than 1%. it was a huge imbalance. at the end of the day, 10% is 42. what happens to a dream

deferred? does it dry up like a raisin in the sun or does it explode? this dream is going to explode. it will someday become a reality. it is a shame where politics took this event. >> to think that some republicans are saying they will not vote for the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. there is no excuse for some of our most patriotic americans and how they were treated this morning. i call them americans because that is what they are. that is all they know. this is the only country they ever lived in or been in in their memory. they did not decide to come here. they grew up here.

they have gone to school here. they want to continue contributing to their country. they love this country so much they want to go to college, start a career, and be part of this society. they will volunteer to defend it and put their lives on the line and die for it. people have spent years demonizing these children. they have played to people's ears and did not let truth to get in the way of people's stories. the dream act is going to pass. it did not pass today. but it is going to pass. it is the right thing to do. not just for the future of these young americans.

it is good for our country. we will keep fighting to paraphrase ted kennedy. this thing shall never die. we will get back to the floor. >> america is the country where dreams are made, not crushed. today, dreams were crushed. my message to these young people is never fear. we are not going anywhere. we are going to fight because this is the right thing to do. i would ask everyone of you in this room to think about what it would be like for you if you suddenly found out when you were 17, 15, or 18 that your parents brought you here when you were six months old or seven months old. think about it. you would still be the same person that you are today. you would be the same patriotic person you would still love this country.

you would only love this country. what happened here today is beyond sad. these young people find themselves in a state of limbo -- i can speak for my state. we want these youn we would have won this issue. we got 55 votes. that is solid. were it not for a filibuster, we would have won this issue. my mother became naturalized

just before i was born. what is happening to these young people could happen to everyone. we need to stand with them. i want to offer my deepest thanks for the dedication of the men here -- men here. my husband and i and a group of friends were having a dinner. senator durbin said he was going to the floor. i could see his mind was on this. he is dedicated. we are going to get there. this country has a history of opening up its arms. maybe today they are temporarily closed. but it is just temporary. >> in vermont, we do not have a large latino population. but people in vermont believe in fairness.

they support the dream act because it is fairness. the supreme court of the united states has held that we should not punish children for the actions of their parents. they should not be denied citizenship. it is wrong. it is absolutely wrong. as the grandson of immigrants, i cannot understand how anybody could have filibustered this. it goes beyond a political question. it is a moral question. it is immoral to stop their path to citizenship. >> thank you. first, let me salute dick durbin for his indominable ability to push and push so

that, while we did not succeed, today's vote represent progress. senator bob menendez has been a beacon. the reason we are here today is because despite pressure in every direction, harry reid said we would have a vote because it is the right thing to do. the dream at this part of a grand american tradition of welcoming those from foreign shores to be here. in my state in the 1700's, there were concerns because the dutch did not want the british to come.

it proved to be good for our state and good for our country when we welcomed new groups. immigration gives our country strength. one of the reasons our country is in better shape than europe is because we welcome the best and the brightest to become americans. they worked hard and learned english and are part of america. it is going to happen with these young people. i know they are disappointed. i saw the looks on their faces when we saw votes finalize this morning. they have started something that cannot be stopped. second, immigration reform is hardly dead. i believe, as chair of the subcommittee, senator patrick leahy believes that we can move forward this year. this is an issue where bipartisanship works best.

last year, we were disappointed that we did not have republican supporters. we are hopeful that we can get some this next coming year and hopefully immigration, including the dream act, can be something the parties will work together on. it will be tough because there are so many cries from every direction to stick to the status quo. most americans do not want the status quo. they know it is broken and needs to be fixed. finally, i would like to salute those young people from new york in here who do not let the dream die. they are an inspiration. they will inspire us when we pass this legislation.

>> i would like to thank my colleagues in this leadership. i have a slightly different perspective. i was a superintendent of a large school district in this country where, day after day, week after week, i saw young people giving their best studying as hard as they could study and competing as hard as they could compete on athletic fields developing new ideas in technology. their only interest was contributing to our country. their only country was this country. i was thinking about them today on the floor as this vote failed. i was thinking about the teachers and the principals who, day after day, do everything they can to lend themselves to encouragement and support. they keep working. somehow we will figure out how to get you to college. what i want to say is what i used to say as superintendent to all of those young people.

do not worry about what the united states senate did today. we will fix it in the future. they call my office and come to my office and sit in the gallery. please do not give up. do not be disappointed because we could not get our act together. we have got to keep this fight going as long as they are willing to continue to work as hard as they are working for the future of this country. we will be back. i also want to say as the last thing, i come from a complicated state.

it is complicated politically. if "the wall street journal" editorial board and the "new york times" editorial board can work together, we can work together. thank you. >> i want to thank dick durbin for his leadership. he has been so passionate and so forceful in his advocacy. i want to recognize bob menendez who has been an advocate in fairness. i want to thank them for their leadership and dedication to this. we are a nation of immigrants. the richness of our culture and

heritage is because of our immigrant past and because we have such a rich nation. that is what creates growth in our country. it is part of educational growth and part of the future of our nation. to deny these children who came here through no fault of their own the opportunity to serve in our military is a grave injustice. i agree with the senior senator of new york. this is something we will achieve. we will have comprehensive immigration reform. it is a mandate for this nation. it is essential for our economic future and essential for who we are as americans. >> republican said that the democrats did not offer any opportunity for amendments. >> we offered and then at three different times. and they have been part of the conversation. what we have tried to do is accommodate their concerns. first they said do not offer it as an amendment to the defense authorization bill. we made it a freestanding bill.

not want to do. we added provisions which said they had to complete provisions before they could go forward. they said do not call the bill before we consider tax and spending. we waited. we have done everything they asked for and then -- this bill has been there for 10 years. i expected them to come up with a new reason. i do not think it is a valid reason. >> senator chuck schumer how can you say we can work on the bill next year? year. comprehensive reform could only be done this year on a bipartisan basis. i am talking to congressmen on the other side of the aisle.

i believe it is possible. but we need to sit down with people of goodwill on both sides of the aisle and see if we can come up with a framework. it is december. >> what needs to happen differently? >> we need to have bipartisan buy-in. many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle look at the election results. in three states, colorado, nevada, and california, the hispanic vote was hired for democrats than in 2008. i do not think any political party can succeed in writing

off such a large percentage of americans. >> when are you going to introduce another border security bill? >> it will have to be done in a comprehensive way. as senator durbin said, we showed our good will. we are not against closing the border. it will not work on its own. we are looking for comprehensive reform that will strengthen the border even more than the legislation i introduced that was supported last summer by senator joe lieberman. we have done border bill after border bill. it does not solve the problem. it helps, but it does not solve the problem.

>> to get to your vote, senator reid had to give up on the omnibus. it included provisions for healthcare. they are not related. senator mcconnell and the leadership on the other side started picking things off one after the other. we did not have 60 votes. it was not a trade-off. >> are you concerned about health care in the coming year? >> we are very concerned. in terms of the politics, we are concerned.

we have been working on thewe hoped for a few more on our side of the aisle and a few more on their side. inthings change in the senate. we are in active conversation. this bill has been worked on forit has strong bipartisan support. 75 democratic and republican

senators can be included in our back up of this lame-duck session. the conversation is back on track. senator reed feels strongly about this issue. there are terrible problems in his home state. people have been poisoned by bad food and diet.

>> both of these issues have fates that are not assured if you are not patient, do not work for the senate. thank you. >> in the senate returns tomorrow to continue debate on the treaty. there is a vote scheduled for 3:00 p.m. eastern time. live coverage of the senate begins at noon eastern on c- span2. next, q&a with lord john away from a and then senate floor debate on the don't ask don't tell policy.

>> airing this sunday night at 6:30 p.m. on c-span, supreme court justice elena kagen. she talks about her experience including opinion writing, the acclamation process and others. this took place inside chambers that the supreme court. >> as of our taping, have you been assigned an opinion? >> i have. i will not be very much specific, but every justice gets at least one opinion. the general practice has been followed. >> this is a part of the job that is new and we have learned

about the art of persuasion through opinion writing. how are you approaching this? >> of a light my opinions to be as clear as possible. i want people to pick them up and understand them. i want to be as vocal as possible. i want to write the kinds of opinions that really to address arguments and not try to sweep arguments under the rug. i am trying hard to write opinions that i think our lawful and complete -- are thoughtful and complete. >> can you talk to us about your acclamation process? >> it is like drinking out of a fire hose. there is always something new.

there is a lot to learn. the learning curve is extremely steep and sometimes it feels vertical. people have been extraordinarily helpful. my colleagues have been wonderful and warm and gracious and i think that the experiences that i have brought to the job are going to help me a good deal. you get to see the court and everything it does from a different point of view. from the point of view of an advocate. i think that i am familiar with practices and procedures of the court. i am familiar with a fair number of my colleagues, where they ask the kinds of things that they might be interested in. it has been a whirlwind. there are new and exciting things all the time.

>> explain the process. your having to recuse yourself from a number of cases. how does it work when there are cases under consideration? >> on cases where i recused myself, i actually get up and walk out and they let me know when i should come back. that is consistent with the general practices that if somebody is recused from a case that the person will not be there for that discussion. >> will the ark of refusal diminish? >> definitely. i think that by the middle of this year, most of them will likely be gone. there will be an occasional case after t