>> the full interview with supreme court justice e. linton kegan will air at 63930 p.m. eastern. -- 6:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. eastern. >> we will have a serious case where the obama administration is trying to create new law by changing interpretation of existing law. >> as the justice department considers a legal case and congress weighs its options, see what the founder of with the leaks has to say. it is washington, your way.

>> this month, "q&a" expense tutti the zero programs. looking at the new british coalition government. its planned cuts to a variety of programs and a comparison to what is happening in the united states. our guest is john wakeham. we first interviewed him in 1988. today he is a member of the house of lords.

>> how is it that you go in as a leader? who determines that? >> the leader of the awards is a member of the cabinet. the party does not have a majority, but he has a role in running the house, which is respected by everybody. he still has his political battles to fight, as well. >> a lot of our audience may not remember our previous interviews. i want to run a clip of the one we did in 1988. it tells a story they should know about you before we go any farther. >> an i.r.a. bomb went off. i was in a bedroom near the bomb.

my wife was killed instantly. a lot of people were killed or wounded. i was hurt very badly. we were under the rubble for seven hours before they dug me out. everybody else was under for three hours. they got me out alive. i spent a long time in the hospital. i had to rebuild my life. >> go back to when that happened, please. >> i got married again fairly soon afterwards to a great friend of my first wife. i have three sons. we have just celebrated our silver wedding, my second wife and i. i have rebuilt my life in that sense. i have a wonderful family around

me. i still have problems with my legs were they were crushed. i was at the hospital a few days ago. every now and then i have difficulty with my legs. that side of it has not completely cured. a lot has happened in the political scene as well so far as they are concerned. >> are you surprised that there are no more bombing is going on? >> there is still a small element that would like to get the bombings billing again.

they do not have much popular support. even the parliament in irish society -- even be part of irish society that would have been in favor of them. so far they have been controlled. it has been a lot of hard work, gradually getting things going again. >> it was a conservative party meeting? >> it was a convention. >> how many people were killed? >> five people were killed. because i was the government chief whip at the time, i was in the room next to mrs. thatcher. it was her she was after. the bomb went off and i fell four stories in the hotel. they dug me out several hours later. the only reason i survived was

blockluck. a. burke stopped the hotel from crushing me. the springs of the bed gave me enough to keep me going. it was a horrendous thing. there is a another story about it which is very interesting. what i did at the time, the rescuers had to abandon rescuing me at one stage because the roof was going to fall in on them. they dug in sideways like they do in mining. two brave men stayed up, risking their lives, one to direct operations. the other kept me talking. doctors said i would have a better chance if they can't make

conscious. someone had asked to see me in the hospital. i went to see him and he died the next day. >> how old were you then? >> i guess i was in my early fifties. >> how many people were killed by the i.r.a. in great britain? >> if there were several thousand killed. there were not so many in great britain. it went on for a long time. >> i remember a member of parliament was killed in his driveway. looking back on that and what you went through, are there any lessons for americans looking at 9/11 and thinking this will never be over? >> i think you have to have a combination of strong security,

do what is best to try to frustrate them. you need very good intelligence and some very brave men to infiltrate some of these organizations and 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. however evil the overall organization might be, there are some people who could be persuaded to be peaceful. what you must not do is drive them all away. in all of the successful things, i think there have been some negotiations where people are drawn away from the hard-liners. >> 18 years as a member of the house of commons? >> if yes.

>> leadership positions included? >> if yes. i was the leader of the house. i was the secretary of state for the -- i was the secretary of state for energy. >> if you went to work in what year? >> it would have been 1992. that is when i was made a lord. we did our very best to avoid

trouble in the house of lords. we did not entirely succeed. i was chairman of the committee. >> how many members are there in the house of lords? >> too many. 700. over 50% of the membership of the house of lords was put there by mr. blair and mr. brown. the place is physically not big enough for them. >> when we started covering the parliament, there were 1200 members? >> most of them did not turn out. but the 750 or so, only about 125 ever came regularly. the others might possibly come one day eight years so they could mark the books. >> there are 100 let that were

put in at the time of the legislation. it was a bit of a compromise when they ran into difficulties. the reform that all of us agree , when they go, we should not have any more. that will have to change. >> what does a lord make every year in money? >> 8 does not get a penny apiece in salary, but he does get expenses. i guess a member of the house of lords could turn in all of his expenses and pains, maybe $50,000 a year. that sort of figure. >> a member of the senate or any member of the house cannot do outside work. what is the role here? >> unless you are a member of

the government, you can do outside work. the house of lords is designed to encourage you to do so because we believe the house of lords should be filled with a large number of people who hold expertise in different areas like surgeons, professors, and lawyers who are most of the time practicing their trade. they come to the house of lords to take part in the debates. some people like me are there every day. >> can a member of the house of commons do outside work? >> they can do some, but it is fairly limited now. every penny of it has to be declared. that is a pity, too.

i think we are better governmene -- i think we are better governed. >> do you have a disclosure requirement on where you make your money outside? >> you do, but you do not have to show how much you make. you have to say what you do and where your interest are. >> as you know, you are offered referred to as "mr. thick." what do you think that means? >> i am not the slightest bit ashamed of it. i spent a great deal of my time trying to reconcile positions between different people in the

government where they had a contrary view of how to succeed -- country view of how to proceed. -- contrary view of how to proceed. what i am not proud of is if you reckon you are going to be successful, people have to trust you. if you do a dirty deal, that lives with you forever. you have to play the game straight. i always try to. that is why i am not ashamed to be known as "mr. fix -it." >> the press suggest that you were hammered in this country because you were a member of a

board. is that true? >> it was a bit difficult. i do not think many people in britain understood the issues. the truth of the matter was that the legal proceedings that followed, if i can summarize in this way -- in the united states when something goes wrong, everybody sues everybody. we, the directors, set out our position. those who were originally suing us realized that our position was the sensible position. it was the one they thought was right. our evidence was used against the other people. the plaintiffs said they do not need to sue the executives. they have done their hon. best

to try to sort things out. the fact is, they were deceived by management, by some of the bankers, and by some of the professional advisers. the nonexecutive directors of enron was the finest board i have ever served on. but we were deceived. we have to be able to trust somebody. if you cannot trust management, you should not be on the board. you are entitled to trust your professional advisers. if they are not trustworthy, that is not very good. thirdly, you have to use your brains to ask the right questions and try to understand it. if you are deceit, it is very difficult. d, it isu are deceive

very difficult. >> what is your memory of what you felt like when all of this came down? >> the eight or so years i was on the board, the first six years were very exhilarating and very good. the company was extremely well run. then things went wrong and they started to deceive both themselves and us. eventually it all went wrong. >> are you free and clear of all legal problems? >> i had not been free of anybody for years. >> why did it happen? >> in my view, some of the figures were not coming out right. they found creative ways of keeping things going. they persuaded their lawyers that they were on the brink of acceptable.

they persuaded some of the big bankers to give them the right some of money. it was a big mistake. >> what should have been changed in the law in your opinion? >> i do not know at that there was a great deal to change the law. certain people did not carry out their duties as they should have done. >> we have another clip from our interview in 1988. this has to do with the economy, which i want to switch to edit your comments on. >> we have made enormous progress in the last 10 years in getting our economy back. tremendous strides. we are much more effective and much more competitive. we have dealt with many of our industries, which were extremely inefficient. crisis, in 1979 be

taxpayer was paying 4.5 billion pounds. that was to support industries that were losing money. that has virtually stopped now. during the course of this parliament, what we have to do is spread at prosperity, which is now widely shared by the majority, into those areas where profits have traditionally been the home of old industries. we need to make sure those parts of the country get the benefits. >> how do things look today? >> if that was a long time ago. we have gone through 10 years of not making as much progress as we should. to be fair, i think the people

came in hoping and thinking they could do the right thing. they held the line for a bit, but they gradually spent too much money on too many schemes. they did not see that they get value for it. we are running now a massive financial deficit on our public accounts. that will be packed -- that will be very painful to get back. we have to persuade people it will be worth while at the end of the day and that the growth will come back into the economy. i think it will, but it will take a bit of time. >> in the united states over the last few years, the republicans are basically saying, "no," to everything on purpose. looking back on what happened

during the bellaire years, what is the -- during the blair years, what is the difference? >> i think what happened in our time, we inherited -- we left the government a pretty prosperous economy. they held the line for a bit and then things went wrong with spending. we criticized them pretty rally at the time saying that they were not mending the roof when the sun is shining and when it rains we all get wet. it is much more difficult now starting from a difficult position to get back at the economy. i do not know if i am fair about this because i do not follow american politics closely, but there is one thing i have noticed about politicians. if they are going to lose

because they do not have a majority, they can say some pretty outrageous things in terms of criticizing their opponents knowing their opponents will get the thing through anyway. they want to be on the safe ground of criticizing so they can be ready in years to come to say, "it did not work." i suspect if it had been the other way around, the other parties would have said similar things. when you are in government, you are faced with some pretty horrendous problems. there is no way to doubt them. you have to try and deal with them. when you are in the opposition you can pick and choose what to make a fuss about. no doubt from where i stand, some of the major industries in the united states had built up over the years some 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 employee of the company. no company could survive that sort of historical cost. big decisions had to be taken. oppositions sometimes criticize a bit knowing perfectly well they may have to do some of the things themselves. >> we watched all the cuts that have been announced and then watched what happened in our country. during the george bush years he doubled the debt from $5 trillion to $10 trillion. we have almost done that again during the barack obama years. is it better in a parliamentary system or in the three branches of government might we have in

the united states? >> i am not sure i know the answer to that. i do not know if there is that much difference. what i do know and what i suspect is that one development you may see in this country is that there will be a bit of a move, whether it will be come to any -- whether it will come to anything or not, to move the executive branch to the parliamentary system. it is very difficult to have eight successful political career and to have some of the expertise 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

blame -- to be the main parts of the government. they do not want to waste their time in politics. if you need someone who really understands the developments in information technology to find someone who would make a minister is much more difficult. they tended to put people into the wards as ministers the cut -- into the lords as ministers. the executive branch will separate from the parliamentary branch. >> how much appointment power does the prime minister have that? how many different jobs does he or she fill? >> he fills virtually the whole of the government.

about 100. they come from the house of commons. if he wants them in, he puts them into the house of lords. >> what is the restraint of the number of people you can put into the house of lords? >> there is no real restraint. you would be very much criticized if you put too many in. mr. brown and mr. blair are criticized today. if they can have the nerve to do it, they can do it. >> how long is your appointment as a lord? >> it is for life. the two categories of people in the house of lords in my time had been on a limited tenure had been the church leaders. the bishops have to give up when they cease to be bishops. the judges -- are supreme court was part of the house of lords up to about two years ago. they have moved out and no

longer sit as members of the house of lords. >> al is a supreme court justice -- hal is a supreme court justice appointed? >> they are appointed by and advisory committee of people. the senior judges have a pretty good site. >> is there a way the public can get rid of a judge? >> i have never heard of it. i cannot tell you. i am short there must be a way. it has never happened in my lifetime. i think the lord chancellor or the head of the judiciary would make sure he did not get any work to do. >> what about the cabinet positions for prime minister? what if people do not like a cabinet officer? is there any way to get rid of

them? >> only if the prime minister was to get rid of them. the prime minister has total say. there has to be a vote of no- confidence in the prime minister to get rid of them. if the prime minister backs them, you cannot get rid of them. the prime minister is quite sensitive to his own political position. he would not support somebody who had clearly lost favor with everybody. >> if you had the opportunity, would you rather be prime minister of great britain or president of the united states when it comes to the power and the ability to get things done? >> the prime minister of this country has a great deal of power, more power than people realize. while the president does have a great deal of power, the prime minister in this country has a great deal of power and can get most things done, some of which

the president of the united states would find very difficult. >> with all the experience, what kind of its vice would you give to someone getting into politics, including the prime minister you have now? >> let me step back one stage from that and i will answer it. it is a very important thing. i say this to young people who are getting into politics. first could do something. demonstrate you have a living outside of politics. you do not have to be rich, let you got to be reasonably independent financially before it would be sensible to embark on a political career. i started a business of my own

with 300 pounds. when i gave up, i had 1000 people working for me. >> what was the business? >> it was in a lumber. i was very big in distribution of massey-ferguson tractors and automobiles. it has all been merged into other businesses. i am completely separated from it. >> i also read you had at least 60 directorships. >> yes, i did. i had 60 directorships, but i should think about 40 of them were shell companies i formed in my office.

i did have four or five tough directorships, but i did have 60. i made my first serious mistake on television when i was a very young politician. an interview -- an interviewer said to me, "surely 60 directorships is too many." i was not in it for the money. i only got 1,000 pounds for each one. >> when you were a member of parliament, he continued to be a director. >> yes. i gave up most of them except for a few. i think there are some restrictions on now. iraq to declare much more than you did in my day. -- you have to declare much more than you did in my day. >> the next thing is to learn the trade of politics. if you are going to be

successful, you need to know how the system works. you need to know how parliament works and if you need to know how westminster, which is the government, works. you have to know a bit about business. then you can gradually find your way. by and large, most of the people who had been successful have been good speakers in the house, did or raiders. that is not the essential quality that is required. it is a question of judgment in difficult circumstances. the truth of the matter is this -- if you are in government, about 90% of all the decisions you have to make our decisions that any sensible person would make in your position. it is what is the sensible thing to do.

you make sure that those are done effectively. there are 10% of tricky decisions where there are several courses of action. none of them is absolutely right were absolutely wrong. they are questions of judgment. they are gray areas, if you like. a successful politician is the one who can sort this out best to get those bright. maybe you need a bit of luck, but that is what you have to do. >> right behind you is westminster. how long has that building been there? >> that building has been there -- it has been a royal palace for many years. a lot of it has been rebuilt. there was a big fire in the middle of the 19th century. it was a palace in henry the viii's time.

>> during your career, when have you enjoyed yourself the most? >> i enjoyed being in the comments. it was the best job. you are managing the situation. most people's troubles are somebody else's troubles. you give them be bested by she can't and you find ways of making the show work. a great deal of what went on in the house of commons, and i suspect in many legislatures, there has to be consent by the government, but also by the opposition. the rule that i worked on was this -- i did not propose any procedural matters in the house of commons which i would have thought was unfair if i had been

the opposition chief. he seek to negotiate. they have to accept you won the election, you are the government. you have to accept they are your tentative government and they have the right to put their case in the proper reasonable fashion. them the give opportunity to say what they have to say. a minority as the right to be heard. that is the process. i enjoyed doing that. >> in 1998 there was no television in the parliament. here is another clip about what you had to say about television in general. >> people have expressed emotion and feeling at all times. we respect that. i have some worries that it is getting out of hand at the moment. normally it has been quite raucous at times.

people still get a fair hearing. that is the tradition. it sounds slightly worse on the radio that it does when you are in the chamber. in the chamber you can hear the speeches a bit better than on the radio from outside. with the television cameras come understanding will be better than it is at the moment. people's behavior may get worse, but that remains to be seen. >> what you think happened? >> can i make one comment? 20 years ago when i said that, i have the dubious record as a leader of the house of moving a motion to expel a member of the house for bad behavior. i did it nine times.

the speaker is the one who says they must go, but ask to be on a motion. of those nine times, eight of them were premeditated. the member had decided the best way he could make his political point was being thrown out. i had no complaint with that. they went and met with that. one chap lost his cool and could not control himself. his friends were try to control them and i was tried to control him. i did not want to throw him out. i had to. that was as a result of the opposition party, which was the labor party in those days, being extremely frustrated at having lost an election. it was not the house of commons

in itself, it was the house of commons and reflecting the political frustrations of the party that had won its election. >> when you throw somebody out, how long are they out? >> 5 days. never paid for five days. there we are. now, i had some trepidations about television coming to the house of lords. mrs. thatcher had more trepidations than i did. i inevitably knew it was going to come. i was not rushing get too much. i had a boss who was not talking. i knew it would come. it is accepted. it does not get a great deal of debate. they use it for good journalistic policies. i do not think there are a large number of people who what some programs. if there is something important

they seem to do it. there are not many complaints about it being unbalanced were unfair. those of us who were a little bit cautious about it before have to admit it was not as bad as we thought. those who were most passionately in favor of it have to also admit it. it has not changed anything that much. mrs. thatcher was against it because she felt that -- she was not the biggest lover of the bbc. she thought it would be used in a confrontational, biased way. there was an interesting episode in all of that. i would not have said it in 1988, but i will say it now. i was concerned about what the television cameras were allowed

to do. i took the vehicle that we should start with tight coverage rules and as we get used to hit any forecaster scott used to it, maybe we could relax it a little bit and allow them to look around the chambers. that is what happened. my difficulty was how did i persuade the labor party to go along with tight control because some of the difficult people were on their side. if they had been able to get the coverage, they may have given mrs. thatcher 8 rough time. i spoke to the labor party leadership at the time. it was a very friendly talk. i said, "if you have loose rules of coverage to start off with, it will reflect badly on the labor party. it may be a successful, short- term television confrontation, but if i judge you write, you

want to win the election and you need to persuade the british public that you are in a position to be a successful prime minister and i do not think he wants to see the more raucous elements of your party." i hope that had some effect. >> as you know, no one votes for the prime minister extent for the constituency he or she has. what do the polls show? how often do people go in thinking they are voting for david cameron or nick clegg or prime minister brown? >> this was the first election that we had the leaders -- all

the the public has no right to vote for them, they had three debates. i think they were generally thought to be a success. i think they will be a regular feature of future elections. there was a great deal of difficulty about its. mrs. thatcher would have never taken part in them. she would have been told by her advisers that she had everything to lose and nothing to gain. you are in the lead. this election was quite interesting. david cameron was very keen to have them. he was certain he could out debate gordon brown in the elections. that is what he felt. he completely, in my view,

underestimated the appeal of nick clegg. the was able to say, "you two keep arguing about it." the polls went up. by the second round, they had a better way of handling them and got it right. it is interesting how it took place. >> the opportunity to watch all three of the debates. they were impressed by the pace of them compared to our debates. let me show you another clip of you speaking. here is another moment for 1988. >> every television owner in

this country pays a fee. it is about $100 a year. it is to see the bbc. it is not for the television set. the money goes to the bbc. the rest of the channels or commercial channels and they rely on advertising. -- are commercial channels and they rely on advertising. the arrangements have got to be looked at. the government has produced a discussion paper of the way the government sees it moving. there will be changes. one never forecast what will be set next year. there is a great possibility in some people's mines that next year there will be a major government bill changing our relationship with television in

this country. >> there are so many television channels i cannot get to them all. it has happened in the last 22 years. what has happened to the power of the bbc? >> it is still quite strong, but i think it is changing. it was not changing as fast as i forecast 20 years ago, but i think, for example, the bbc is now being required to maintain at the license fee, they are having cost they did not have to pay for it before. it is now being paid for by the bbc. in the long run, the days of a license or not going to be forever. how it will happen in britain, i do not know.

the bbc has a fabulous brand name. if they were in the commercial world worldwide, there would be extremely successful. i do not think they need to worry about what will happen. >> he ran the press complaints board? what is it, runs it, and who controls it? >> it was an attempt by the newspaper industry to demonstrate that they had set up a body to raise press standards, particularly standards of privacy in reporting and things. it was to stop political parties from bringing in any statutory control of the press. they wanted me to run its after the first chap.

he retired and they wanted me there. they wanted to set the standards for getting the public to complain about anything they thought was unfair, inaccurate, distorted, or things of that sort. we had no actual legal penalties. we could not fine people, but we could criticize them pretty heavily. the newspapers they did that. it was also free to make a complaint. you're never charged for making a complaint. we raised the standards over the years. >> to pay for it? >> the newspaper industry pay for it. i was the wine as chairman who had to maintain our independence from the newspapers. >> what years did you run it?

>> white founded it in 1995. i might tell about 1981, 1982. >> i am very fond of him. he is a very successful man. he will be very successful in america. i have no hard feelings about him at all. a published photographs of the first spenser's wife who was working through a nursing home and had a mental breakdown. the is the brother of princess diana. he is one of our big land owners. i am an aristocrat in the new

school. i do not have any land. he is one of the big ones.

i was followed by the british ambassador in washington. it is not quite in the center of the news. whether that is because they do not have as many complaints, i do not know. the job i had to do was to get the standards up sufficiently anti-government all of their back. >> here is what we see looking at great britain. we see change coming in the house of lords, a change coming in the house of commons, chain's coming with the bbc. all of these cuts -- display

what is going on and what changes will ultimately be made in the house of commons. >> i am looking in my crystal ball. i think the house of commons will successfully reduced the size of the constituency. we will probably be 50 less members of parliament. it will go down to 650. there will be an attempt to make the constituencies a much even size so that each member will be the same. it has become like gerrymandering, but by accident. it will be much less likely to happen. >> wendy make the decision? >> before the next election.

>> will make that decision? >> the independent boundary commissions will decide on how to implement it. >> there will only be 600 members? >> the house of lords has been being reformed for many years. it is very difficult. everybody agrees it should be reformed, but nobody can agree how it should be reformed. i would not be surprised. i think some things will have to happen. the number is getting so big. what i think will be a big mistake, other people disagree violently with what i have to say. if you have direct elections to

the house of lords, which is what some people think, the result of that 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 assemblies or the london assemblies. we'll have a team in the house of lords. we'll have a chamber to give advice to other people. it does not strike me as being the basis for getting the right sort of people to do it. the way we have now in effect is this. we try to get wise and experienced people in the house of lords. they can be overruled by the comments. i think we may be able to tinker at it on the edges.

i had been chairman of the commission on reform with the house of lords. 10 years ago i produced a report recommending how to proceed. a small element could be elected about being appointed. the elected people, and this was the important part, i was never reelected. once they got there, they had to do their best for 15 years. they can never go back to their electorates' and be reelected. they start to do the job of the house of commons, which is a more democratic thing. >> you have been chancellor of the university. >> i still am. i have been there 14 years. it is a ceremonial figure had mostly. if you are interested as i am,

you can have influence behind the scene. the british all is the equivalent of the chairman. the vice chancellor is the chief executive. i attend the ceremonial occasions. i shake 3000 fans a year. i also spent quite a bit of time. i visit with the court faculties and apartments. i taught to professors about their programs and what they are doing. they enjoy what they are doing and i enjoyed listening to them. they know it is going to come. they make sure it is is in their presentation early on. >> what about the cuts on a

school like yours? >> the vice chancellor says we will manage quite well. this last government has been pretty good at the universities. they have perhaps neglected some of the lower schools. i think there will be a bit of tightening. i am sure there will be a bit of complaining. i am not sure it will be as bad as some people make out. >> i asked you earlier about your favorite job in the house of commons. what has been your favorite job in your life? well, i would answer by saying there are moments in each of my jobs which i have enjoyed rather than saying this was all good. there are moments in life where you are able to help get over

some problem. i have never been one who wanted to bang the drum and demand this or demand that. i want to understand why people have the positions they have and what we could do to help them feel satisfied. in other words, when i chaired a cabinet committee, this is a trick i learned as a young man, if there is a big debate going on, i had decided in advance how i felt the outcome would be. the meeting was to test light hypothesis against what people say. i tended not to be impartial, but to support the person who's going to lose. at the end of the day, i could turn to the person who was going to lose it and say, "i have a

great deal of sympathy with what you said, but i think the voices around this table, the chancellor has the best argument and we ought to go that way. i helped him deal with his problems. i got a lot of satisfaction in making the system work. i got the satisfaction in politics. i got that satisfaction at the university. i certainly got it in my earlier days as a professional accountant dealing with a father-son relationship. you find ways of giving them a way to live with each other. that is what i have enjoyed most. >> we are out of time. we will see you in 20 years. >> process is very much. i look forward to it. -- thank you very much. i look forward to it.

for a copy of this program, -- "q&a" programs are available as c-span podcasts. >> from inside the theater, the hostage and used her cell phone to call for help. >> we have never had the kind of material to rival these phone calls. it gives you an inside view of the terrorist attack. we never had that before >> this month, "q&a" expands to two

programs. tomorrow, documentary filmmaker dan reed on the terror in mumbai. >> next, a portion of the senate floor debate on the "don't ask don't tell" policy. then, senator durbin talks to reporters about the defeat of the immigration dream act. >> on "newsmakers," ron paul on domestic monetary policy. the is the incoming chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the federal reserve. >> this sunday, on c-span, the newest supreme court justice elena kagan and her relationship

with chief justice john roberts, an unprecedented on the record conversation sunday at 6:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. on c-span. >> today, the senate voted to repeal the don't ask don't tell policy. here is a portion of the for debate that set the stage for final passage. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: mr. president, i believe under the previous order, i have five minutes of senator mccain's time. i'd like to take a minute to speak on this issue of repeal of don't ask, don't tell. i want to start by talking about the process. here we are once again at the end of the year, the last week, just a few days, in this case, one week before christmas, dealing with a very sensitive, a very emotional issue that is of critical importance to our men and women in the military as well as every other american, but most significantly those men and women who are willing to put

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a student at one of the academies, at the top of his class, same thing because of his sexual orientation tossed out. do you know that we spent by one estimate more than half a billion dollars training those 14,000 members of the american military that we -- we discharged solely because of their sexual orientation? what a waste. these people simply want to serve their country. and, mr. president, i know you probably had the same experience i had. when you talk to any of the 14,000, why are they lobbying, pleading with us to repeal don't ask, don't tell? they want to go back and serve our country. they want to put their lives on the line for our security and our freedom. does it make any sense to say no to them simply because of a private part of their person? in the survey that was done as part of the pentagon report, there are some remarkable numbers. one of them is that of the gay and lesbian members of our military surveyed, only 15%, 15%

said that they would come out, that they would repeal their sexual orientation. one of them was quoted as saying, and i paraphrase, that's private, that's not part of our responsibility in the military. none of us do that in the military. and incidentally, when, as i hope and pray don't ask, don't tell is repealed, gay and lesbian members of the military, just like straight members, will be held to the highest demands and standards of the military code of conduct. if they are involved in any inappropriate behavior, they will be disciplined. mr. president, i ask for two additional moments of the time we have. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. the other really significant number in this survey i thought was this. well over two-thirds of the members of our military surveyed, 120-some-odd thousand surveyed, said that they thought

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

and it saves the military, as secretary gates has said over and over again, from facing an order from a court that forces the military to do this immediately. bottom line -- and i'll speak personally here. i was privileged about ten years ago -- incidentally, thinking of the dream act. grandchild of four immigrants to america. could they have ever dreamed that i would end up a united states senator? in 2000, i had the opportunity to be the first jewish american to run on a national ticket. and i'll never forget, somebody called me up that day and said how thrilled they were, a member of another minority, and said, you know, joe, here's what's significant. when a barrier falls for one group of americans, the doors of opportunity open wider for all americans. i think we have got that opportunity today to make our great country even greater, and our best in the world military even better. i thank 0 the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

so that's the first point. second, this bill is brought to us with no hearings or markup in a committee. it's the sixth version of a "dream" act. actually i worked with senator durbin on another version of the "dream" act in connection with the comprehensive immigration law. there are problems with this bill, and those problems need to be dealt with. but the bill comes before it under a condition in which there can be no amendments. there need to be amendments. in the remaining three minutes or so that i have, let me simply identify ten particular problems that we need to deal with and that can only be dealt with by getting together and working it out or by having amendments, which we can't do obviously in the short time that we have. the bill would immediately put an estimated 1 million to 2 million illegal immigrants on path to citizenship, a number which will only grow because there is neither a cap nor sunset in the legislation. these people would then have access to a variety of other

federal programs, federal welfare programs, student loans, federal work study programs and the like. third, the entire time such individuals are in conditional status, they're not required to attend college or join the military. that's a common misperception here. only when such individuals seek to get lawful residents status, do they then have to complete the requirements for education or military. fourth, the education and military requirements can be waived altogether, including for activity that would relate to -- criminal activity -- in other words, for people who have a serious criminal background. five, chain migration, which is something we dealt with in the legislation in 2009, would result from this legislation because once the citizenship is attained, the individuals would have the right to legally petition for a green card for their family members. and that means the numbers here could easily triple from the 2 million-plus that are estimated

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

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

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

mr. bennet: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: i rise in strong support for the "dream" act. i have a lost sympathy for the arguments the senator from arizona made about what is going on in arizona, what's going on in the rocky mountain west where i come from, which reminds me of the need that we have in this country to -- and in this congress to finally face up to the facts and pass comprehensive immigration reform. but that's not what we're talking about today. what we're talking about today is the dream act, a narrow bill that deals with about 65,000 people a year that are here through no fault of their own and have no other country of their own but want to make a contribution to our country. as scholars, as taxpayers, as part of our military. the people that have worked hard, that have played by the rules, and they want to do nothing other than make a contribution to the united states of america. much as my grandparents and my

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

tell, i can't think after policy that greater undermines the integrity of our entire armed services and who we are as a nation. this is a policy that is corrosive. you are asking men and women who want nothing but to serve this country to give their lives for this country, to say no, you cannot, because of who you love. i can't think of something more egregious, more undermining of our command structure and of our goodwill and the entire fabric of our military lives of the men and women who serve. mr. president, i urge my colleagues to look at this as an urgent priority for national security when we are talking about worrying about having two wars and terrorism on every front, we need to know that all of our best and brightest, how many are not serving today because of this policy. how many will return to the military when this policy is removed. all i know is that since this policy has been in place, we have lost 13,000 personnel, more than 10% of our foreign language speakers, and more than 800 in mission critical areas that cannot be easily replaced.

if you care about national security, if you care about our military readiness, then you will repeal this corrosive policy. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: today we vote on two very important votes in the great, long and often difficult march that america has made towards equality. that is one of the greatnesses of this country, mr. president, that we inexorably move to equality. sometimes it's painful, sometimes it's difficult, sometimes we take two steps forward and one step back, but as the great scholar de tocqueville wrote when he visited america in the 1830's, the thing that separates america from all the other countries of the world is equality always prevails. we are dealing with equality on two scores today, in two areas. one, in the military. one of the great things about our military, number one, is they defend us and risk their lives for our freedom, but the second is that it always has

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

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

measure at this time. mr. mccain: so here we are about six weeks after an election that repudiated the agenda of the other side, we are jamming -- or trying to jam major issues through the senate of the united states because they know they can't get it done beginning next january 5. you capital do it next january 5, and the american people have spoken and you are acting in direct repudiation of the message of the american people. that's why they are jamming through this. and, my friends, there is a lot of talk about compromise, there is a lot of talk about working together. do you think what this bizarro world that the majority leader has been carrying us in of cloture votes on this, votes on various issues that are on the political agenda of the other side, do you somehow think that beginning next january 5, we

will all love one another and kumbaya? i don't think so. i don't think so. unfortunately, the majority is using a lame-duck session to push an agenda when the fact is lame-duck sessions are supposed to be to finish up the work of congress so that the new congress can act on the issues of the day. the american people have spoken in what the president of the united states described as a shellacking, and everything we're doing is completely ignoring that message. maybe it will require another election. for example, i filed two amendments that i believe are irrelevant to this bill, important to this major change. those won't be in order. i have always and consistently stated, and i have listened to and would fully consider the advice of our military and our military leadership. on december 3, the committee on

armed services heard from the chiefs of our four military services, the chiefs of our four military services. general amos said, based on what i know about the very tough fight in afghanistan, the almost singular focus of our combat forces, is to train up and deploy into theater the necessary and tightly woven fabric of our combat forces that we're asking so much from at this time. and finally, the direct feedback from my survey is that we should not implement repeal at this time. then he talks about mistakes and inattention or distractions cost marines lives, cost marines lives. marines come back after serving in combat and they say look, anything that's going to break or potentially break that focus and cause any kind of distraction may have an effect on cohesion. i don't want to permit that opportunity to happen, and i will tell you why if you go up to bethesda, marines are up there with no legs, none. we have got marines at walter

reed with no limbs. general casey said i believe that the implementation of the repeal of don't ask, don't tell in the near term will add another level of stress to an already stretched force. two, be more difficult in our combat arms units, and three, be more difficult for the army than the report suggests. general schwarz basically said the same thing. i have heard from thousands, thousands of active duty and retired military personnel. i've heard from them, and they're saying senator mccain, it isn't broke and don't fix it. so all of this talk about how it's a civil rights issue and equality, the fact is the military has the highest recruiting and highest retention at any time in its history, so i understand the other side's argument as to their social-political agenda, but to

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

schools that bar military recruiters from campus, that don't partake in the salons of georgetown and the other liberal bastions here around the country, but there will be additional sacrifice. i hear that from master sergeants, i hear that from you and your officers, i hear that from leaders. so i am confident that with this repeal, that our military, the best in the world, will salute, do the best they can to carry out the orders of the commander in chief. that's the nature. that's the nature of our military. and i could not be more proud of them in the performance that they have given us in iraq and afghanistan, and before that, other conflicts. and they will do what is asked of them, but don't think that it won't be at great cost. i'll never forget being just a few weeks ago in kandahar, an

army sergeant major with five tours in iraq and afghanistan, and a forward operating base said senator mccain, we live together, we eat together, we sleep together. unit cohesion is what makes us succeed. so i hope that when we pass this legislation, that we will understand that we are doing great damage and we could possibly and probably, as the commandant of the marine corps said, and i have been told by literally thousands of members of the military, harm the battle effectiveness which is so vital to the support -- to the survival of our young men and women in the military. mr. president, i yield the balance of my time. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, how much time is remaining on this side? the presiding officer: 10 1/2 minutes to the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i rise today in support of the dream act and in support of the

repeal of don't ask, don't tell. i will focus my remarks on the dream act, but i want to make it clear to my colleagues, you won't get many chances in the united states senate, in the course of your career, to face clear votes on the issue of justice. this morning, you will have two. not one, but two. the question is whether the united states senate will go on record as a nation prepared to stop discrimination based on sexual orientation. it is a monumental question, a question of great moment, and a question we should face squarely. and there will be a vote as well on whether or not the united states senate will stand by thousands of children in america who live in the shadows and dream of greatness. they are children who have been raised in this country. they stand in the classrooms and pledge allegiance to our flag. they sing our star-spangled banner as our national anthem.

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

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

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

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

security? i'm for border security. in july, senator schumer came to the floor with senator mccain, added $600 million to border security without any objection from either side of the aisle. i suppose if we were playing this game of negotiating, we could have stood up and said, no, no more money for border security until we get the dream act. we didn't do it because we are as dedicated to border security as anyone. and we want to make sure people have that opportunity to vote for border security and to also vote for the dream act. let me ask you at this point, mr. president, how much time is remaining. five minutes, thank you. i'd like to say a few things about the people that are involved in this. they are faceless and nameless until we bring them to the floor. this is venita velez. she has an amazing story which i want to share with you. brought to the united states by her parents in 1993 when she was

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

school. he passed his boards but cannot become a dentist in america because he is undocumented. i want you to meet this man. his name is david cho. david is a person you might have seen on television. it is kind of an amazing story. david, brought to the united states at the time age of nine, graduated with a 3.9 g.p.a. in high school, a senior at ucla. he's the leader of the marching band. he wants to serve in the united states air force. i say to my friends who stand on the floor and profess their true belief that the military means so much to us as americans, why would you deny these young people a chance to serve in the military? that's all they're asking. the last story i want to tell is about a young man from new york, caesar vargas. he was brought to this country at a very young age. when 9/11 occurred, he was so mad at those who attacked america, he went down to the

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

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

is our moment in history to show our courage. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: we'll soon be voting on two consequential and contentious matters: the dream act and repeal of the legislation concerning the defense department's don't ask, don't tell policy. as our ranking member on one of the two committees of jurisdiction recently made clear, the democratic majority in the senate is again depriving the american people of the right to have their concerns addressed through debate on amendments by depriving the minority of its right to offer amendments. when democrats were in the minority, my good friend, the majority leader, said about this

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

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

floor stage in either house of congress since president bush's first term. now i guess our democratic colleagues believe that this bill is so perfect, it doesn't need any amendments whatsoever. just a few last-minute rewrites during a lame-duck session. i don't think that's what the american people believe. in regard to the ill-conceived effort to repeal the military policy on don't ask, don't tell, the majority leader has insisted on pressing forward with this effort despite the fact, despite the fact that the ranking member of the armed services committee has established the need for additional hearings. the all-volunteer force has had many successes but has this body become so alienated from the enlisted men and women in uniform that liberal interest groups have more influence over military personnel policy than the senior enlisted leaders of the army and marine corps who were denied the opportunity to testify? this repeal will be rushed through despite the fact that it

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

allowed to offer, debate on a number of amendments and the senate is allowed to be the senate once again. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president, i'll use leader time. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: mr. president, i say to people in the united states senate and to the american public, to hear my friend, the distinguished republican leader, talk about our having done things procedurally brings a big yawn to the american people. everyone knows how we have been stymied, stopped and stunned by the procedural roadblocks of this republican minority. so, mr. president, we're where we are today. we're where we are today. number one, we 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 really 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 have been hearings held, 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 pentagon thinks; they did that. more than 70% of the people who served in the armed forces believe it doesn'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. president, 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 from 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 for at least five years. even then, in order to have 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 talking about. i didn't know that this brilliant young, beautiful woman of hispanic origin couldn't go to college, 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 letting 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 national 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. that'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 to 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. they 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 suggesting such 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 nothing for free and it demands a great deal of those who earn legal 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 children who grew 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 the "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 >> the senate voted twice. then they voted to repeal the policy. senate democrats had a news conference where they were joined by gay-rights advocates, including a former military personnel who was discharged under the don't ask don't tell mom. -- law. this is about 20 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

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 will talk with the capitol hill reporter on how democrats were able to get the votes today. >> the senate is working on "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. don'took the "don't ask, tell" provision out and considered its separately. there was enough republican support for many weeks to pass this, but because it got ensnared in these other issues -- >> 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. -- ditto 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 non-even. --event. some people might leave the military over it and some might join because of the change of 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 -- any 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. it is better for congress to enable us to do this in a slow and careful way then to have the court's order us to do this asap. president obama should sign this into law a relatively quickly once it arrives on his desk. >> john donnelly, thanks as always. >> thank you.

another amendment will be debated and voted on tomorrow. the senate failed to move forward on the dream act, an immigration bill. several democratic senators to support the legislation spoke after the bill was voted down 55-41. this 25 minute briefing begins with dick durbin.

>> it is a chance to make a dream come true for tens of thousands of americans. today's vote a setback. 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 know they will continue as hard for a gun as they may be at this moment. 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.

it is 3%. 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. that is because we had a vote on don't ask don't tell in the dream act.

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. the military knows this, and that is why they support this legislation. 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. it is good for our country's economy. 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 want them to stay in our state.

we had a solid 55 of votes. i am committed to working on this. my mother was born in another country. she became naturalized before i was born. what is happening to these young people can happen to everyone. we need to stand with them. i want to offer my deepest thanks for the dedication of the 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. to get that many votes for the dramatic shows its inevitability. -- a dream act shows its inevitability. 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.

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. we lowered the age, which i did 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?

>> it can only be done next 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. >> there is no timetable yet. 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 is not the only solution and 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 the fringes. we hoped for a few more on our side of the aisle and a few more on their side. things change in the senate. we are in active conversation. this bill has been worked on for a long time. a long time.