Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. So I yield myself 10 additional minutes, Mr. President. This bill includes a handful of contentious provisions which were adopted during the course of the markup. There always are contentious provisions in this bill, and the reason we are here is to debate those provisions. Hopefully, we will have that opportunity. Some of the provisions in the bill I support, some of the provisions I objected to in committee and I voted against them. But we should not deny the Senate the opportunity to take up a bill which is essential for the men and women in the military because we disagree with some provisions in the bill. These are legitimate issues for debate, and the Senate should debate them. But the only way we can debate and vote on the issue--the various issues, contentious and otherwise--is if the Senate proceeds to the bill. It has been argued that we should not proceed to consider this bill for a number of reasons: One, because of the don't ask, don't tell provision in the bill. Another one is because there was a cut in the bill to the money requested by the administration for the Iraqi Security Forces Fund. It has been argued there is ``wasteful'' spending that was added by the Armed Services Committee. Another issue is because of the likelihood that nonrelevant amendments, such as the DREAM Act, will be offered. First, as to don't ask, don't tell, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs informed our committee in February that they support the President's decision to work with Congress to repeal the existing law. Secretary Gates said: The question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but . . . how we best prepare for it. The committee held two hearings on don't ask, don't tell policy and questioned numerous other witnesses in other hearings about the policy as they came before the committee. The amendment of the policy was debated on and voted on in the Armed Services Committee. It is clearly relevant to the bill because the original policy was adopted as a provision of the fiscal year 1994 Defense Authorization Act after being debated and voted in the committee 15 years ago. The argument, then, is made that it is inappropriate for us to act on don't ask, don't tell before the Department of Defense has completed its review of the issue. But the provision that is in this bill and the provision we adopted in committee doesn't tie the military to any specific course of action. There will not be any change to the law or to the military's policy before the Department has completed its comprehensive review and considered the comprehensive survey of the force now underway. Even when that review has been completed, under our bill, no change can take place until and unless the President, Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff consider the results of the review, and only if then they can certify to the Senate and the Congress that the change can be implemented in a manner that is consistent with standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention. That certification, if it is not made, then will result in this policy not changing. Only if the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, obviously in consultation, as the law provides, with the Chiefs of Staff--only then, if the certification is made that our standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention can be maintained, will this law be changed. The Senate should debate and vote on don't ask, don't tell as we debated the original provision on that issue. As I understand it, by the way, one amendment that has been filed is a motion to strike. But amendments are not limited to that. The majority leader specifically said there may be other amendments relative to don't ask, don't tell that would also be able to be considered. But only if we can get to the bill can we consider those other amendments. We are not going to have the opportunity to debate this issue and vote unless we proceed to the bill. As to the cut in the money requested for the Iraqi Security Forces Fund, I pointed out yesterday this decision was consistent with the previously expressed view of the Congress and the Armed Services Committee that the Government of Iraq should assume a greater responsibility for the financial burden of building Iraqi security forces as U.S. forces draw down. Iraq, according to a GAO analysis we just received, has a cumulative budget surplus of $52 billion through the end of fiscal year 2009, and as much as $5 billion in unspent security funds. It is well positioned to pay for its own military equipment instead of coming to the American taxpayers for large handouts. This issue was debated and voted on in the committee. There was an amendment of the Senator from Arizona to strike $1 billion, which we added for our military, and provide the money, under his amendment, to the Iraqi Government instead. What we did is, we had a request for $2 billion. We reduced that to $1 billion. The Senator's amendment was to restore the $1 billion. We defeated that amendment in committee after debate by a vote of 15 to 10. I know the Senator is disappointed in that outcome, but that is what debates are for. The Senate should debate and vote on the issue, but we are not going to be able to do that unless we proceed to the bill. As to the ``wasteful'' funding that the Senator from Arizona says was added by the committee, yesterday I gave a detailed accounting of how the committee proposes to spend the money for added force structure, force modernization, and quality of life for our troops. The Senator responded and gave several examples of what he considered to be wasteful spending. Well, let's take a look at some of those. The Senator--by the way, we added $4 billion. We made cuts and we added. We made changes of $4 billion in that budget request for force structure, force modernization, and support of the troops. The wasteful spending list of the Senator yesterday was $28 million out of $4 billion. Apparently, $4 billion was a pretty good spending decision when questions were raised about $28 million. Let's look at some of the $28 million that is labeled wasteful spending: $3 million because it was for a ``plant-based vaccine development.'' This effort that we are supporting, an additional $4 million, has been identified by the military as the most promising path so far to rapidly produce the millions of vaccine doses that could be needed to respond to a biological threat against our troops on the battlefield. And $8 million was pointed to by the Senator, which is going to a physical fitness center at an Air Force base. That fitness center has been identified by the Air Force as being mission essential. These are not porkbarrel items added by Senators who just want spending in their States. These items have been identified by the military as being essential items for them. It wasn't in the budget. They could not find the money. We did. The Senator questioned the proposed spending of $7.6 million for a quiet propulsion load house. I doubt that too many Members of the Senate know what a quiet propulsion load house is. It is a place where we test our ships to make sure that they meet requirements for avoiding enemy detection. The Navy said it ``requires new ship propulsion technology to be sufficiently tested, evaluated, and certified to ensure that signature performance goals and objectives are met prior to fleet introduction and operational use.'' The Navy says the current equipment does not have the capability to test and evaluate either reduced or full-scale electric propulsion motors with the necessary quiet load machine to approve and certify electric propulsion technology and design. The Navy says it needs the new facility to be operational within the next 5 years. I believe the 10 minutes I have allocated to myself is up. So I will withhold further comment on the arguments made against the bill. My main point is the time to debate can only come if we can get to the bill. That is the issue this afternoon, not whether issues are debated--they are and there are plenty of issues to be debated, not as to whether issues will be debated. They will be, and the majority leader has said so. To try to get an agreement in advance on what amendments will be in order before the bill comes up and amendments are filed is a task that cannot be achieved. Only the intention can be stated to allow that to happen. The majority leader has stated that intention and the ways to implement it. There is plenty of leverage to stop the bill from passing if there is inadequate opportunity. We will get to the bill only if 60 Senators decide we should move to its consideration before the recess on the Defense authorization bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding there will be a modification. There is no objection on this side to the following: that the unanimous consent agreement we previously entered into would be modified so the vote would occur at 2:30, and the time between 2:15 and 2:30 would be equally divided. I ask unanimous consent for that.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we do alternate when there are Members who wish to speak. That would be the appropriate course. So I will yield myself 5 minutes to respond to the Senator from Arizona. Mr. President, I want to quote Admiral Mullen. Admiral Mullen reached a conclusion about the necessity to change this policy. He reached this conclusion, I hope and believe, without any regard to an election coming up. Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in front of our committee back in February said the following: It is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do. No matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy that forces men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. To me personally, it comes down to integrity, theirs as individuals and ours as an institution. To suggest that Admiral Mullen somehow or another reached his conclusion because there is an election coming up it seems to me would be totally inappropriate, and I hope no one is making that suggestion. He reached a conclusion about gays and lesbians serving in the military. He stated his conclusion. Election driven, insulting? Of course not. He reached a conclusion--so did Secretary Gates--reached a conclusion that this policy must change. Because an election is coming up, Secretary Gates, a Republican, decides this policy must change because there is an election coming up? Of course not. It is because they reached a conclusion that the policy needs to change, and the study they got underway is to determine how to implement that change. What do we do in our bill? What we say in our bill is very explicitly there is not going to be a change in policy unless and until there is a certification from the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the President of the United States that the changes in policy, which they are going to presumably provide, will not undermine the morale, the recruiting, the retention of troops in the United States. Our bill that is in front of us specifically says there will be no change in policy unless and until that certification comes. We want to hear from the troops also--the way the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff wants to hear from the troops, the way the Secretary of Defense wants to hear from the troops--as to how to implement a change in policy. And we go beyond that. We say there will not be a change in policy unless and until there is a certification from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs that there will be no negative impact on morale, retention, and recruitment. That, it seems to me, is a totally appropriate way to legislate. That does pay respect to the men and women of the Armed Forces. Unless the opponents of this language suggest that Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Secretary Gates, who have reached a conclusion that this policy must change, unless they are suggesting that their conclusion is driven by elections, it seems to me it is wrong to suggest the fight legislatively is election driven. Was the decision to implement this policy 15 years ago election driven? No, it was based on a decision at that time that don't ask, don't tell was the right policy. I did not think it was. I voted against it. But the decision was made. To argue now that it is all about elections misunderstands the importance of this issue, the significance of this issue, and what the people of this country have come to understand, which is the service by gays and lesbians is just as valued as the service by others. Giving their lives up for the country, being buried in Arlington Cemetery, as gays and lesbians are, who have had the uniform of this country on, is the ultimate sacrifice citizens can make for this country. Gays and lesbians have made this sacrifice, and nongays and lesbians, obviously, have made this sacrifice too. One other point. Is my time up?

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Brown for his service on the committee. He has been invaluable to the committee, and I very much appreciate that. The Senator's statement that he favors an open process is one that I share. That is why I talked to the majority leader, and the majority leader made a statement last Thursday which I hope the Senator from Massachusetts would look at relative to the process. The majority leader has talked about a number of amendments which he would like to see offered and would intend to offer. That is his right, as it is the right of any Senator. Last year, we adopted the hate crimes bill, which was a nonrelevant amendment. There was some objection to it. Many years ago, when the Senator from Arizona offered a campaign finance amendment to the Defense authorization bill--totally nonrelevant--Senator Warner, sitting right over here, very much objected to it. He said it would sink the bill. It did not sink the bill, by the way; it was passed by the Senate--nonrelevant. And we have adopted other nonrelevant amendments on this bill and other bills because the rules of the Senate allow for nonrelevant amendments. As to whether this process is going to be open to other amendments, I assure the Senator from Massachusetts it will be, and I will make sure I do everything in my power to see that happens. That is why the majority leader, last Thursday, assured the Senate--and these were his words: In addition to issues that I have talked about in the last couple of days, there are many other important matters that both sides of the aisle wish to address. I am willing to work with Republicans on a process that will permit the Senate to consider these matters and complete the bill as soon as possible. So Senator Reid was giving the assurance that other amendments besides the three he has identified publicly are going to be in order. He is not going to try to cut off debate. As chairman of this committee, I have, for 30 years now, fought to make sure this bill was open to amendments, and I will continue to do that. Last year, I think there were something like 60 amendments. So there is not going to be an effort to cut off debate on amendments which Members of the Senate want to offer that is different from any other time when this process is used. We have to manage a bill. We have to get a bill passed. After there is debate on a bill, there comes a time when the majority leader says to the managers: We have to get a bill passed. You have to find some way we can get a bill passed. Then we enter into, hopefully, unanimous consent agreements, where we work out how many amendments are left on each side. That is what our intention is to do here, too--to work out these kinds of agreements as this matter unfolds. But the issue now is whether we are going to get to debate the bill, whether we can get to the point where we can offer amendments and reach agreements on what amendments are left that would be in order and on time agreements. We can't get to that point unless we are allowed to proceed to the bill. As far as I am concerned, it is totally inaccurate to say the men and women in uniform are being in some way not respected by proceeding to this bill. If we cannot debate this bill this year, if we cannot offer a motion to change don't ask, don't tell language, strike the language, whatever, then we are not taking up the bill which is so critical to the men and women in uniform. This bill is critical to them. If there are Members here who want to strike or modify don't ask, don't tell, the time to do it is when we get to the bill. We cannot do it now. We cannot amend this bill now unless we get to the bill. There is no point, it seems to me, in talking about the need to amend the bill--which I happen to agree is in order--unless we get to the bill. It becomes a theoretical statement that something will or will not happen, unless we can get to the bill. I do not know of a time when there has been a filibuster against getting to the Defense authorization bill. No matter how contentious issues have been, and they have been contentious over the years, the idea that there is a filibuster against proceeding to the bill so we cannot debate the kinds of issues which need to be debated, it seems to me, is what denies the men and women in uniform the opportunity to get a bill passed that is so important to them. We need to get to this bill. We need to make progress on this bill. I believe, as the majority leader has said,--I believe what he said--that this is not going to be the kind of closed process which some have suggested and imputed to him. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will yield myself 30 seconds. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has reached a conclusion, the Secretary of Defense has reached a conclusion--that this policy should be changed. It should be. We ought to debate it. Whether to change this policy, how it is changed--how it is implemented is what they set in motion, a study to help them decide. That is the process they agreed to. Have they offended or insulted the men and women of the Armed Forces by concluding that this policy should change? Has the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, somehow, in some way, not taken into consideration the well-being of the men and women of the Armed Forces when he concluded this policy should change? Has Secretary Gates been guided by elections coming up when he concluded that this policy should change and that the study that is underway should be taken in order to determine how to implement that change? I don't consider that they have offended or insulted the men and women they command. This language surely protects exactly what Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen have put into motion--a study as to how to implement a change in policy. That is what this study is all about. That is what we require be completed prior to any change in the policy. We have gone a step beyond--a step beyond--requiring that they certify--obviously, after consultations with the Chiefs of Staff; that is required by law--that they certify that there will not be a negative impact on morale, recruitment, or retention.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time is on this side?

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from GEN John Shalikashvili, the retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. Let me read just part of this letter. I am writing to urge the Senate to vote in support of the 2001 national Defense Authorization Act. Each element contained in the legislation that passed the Senate Armed Services Committee is essential to the maintenance of a strong, capable fighting force for our nation. Provisions in the bill will ensure that our soldiers have the pay they deserve and the equipment training and support they need to conduct their critical missions. In particular, I support the don't ask, don't tell repeal language that passed through the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this year and is currently part of the pending legislation. He goes on: The pentagon is currently conducting a study in how to implement a policy of open service. Congressional repeal is vital for the Pentagon to implement their findings, whatever they may be. As I have said before, repeal strikes down the law that straightjackets military leaders' ability to craft a sensible and practical policy about open service. Most importantly, the current repeal language allows the Pentagon the time it may need to answer any questions about how to actually implement the change. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if what the Senator from Florida said is going to occur, it indeed would be a broken system. But the majority leader has said and said publicly that there are many other important matters that both sides of the aisle wish to address other than the ones he has raised himself, and he is willing to work with Republicans on a process to permit the Senate to consider these matters and complete the bill as soon as possible. I do not know exactly what the Senators are saying when they say this is a closed process, when the majority leader says, no, it is not. I mean, they want to debate amendments. You cannot debate amendments unless you get to the bill and offer amendments. I wish to debate amendments too. There are provisions in this bill that I do not like that I voted against in committee as chairman. There are a number of provisions I would like to see stricken in this bill. But you cannot strike a provision or try to strike a provision before the bill is on the floor to debate. The issue here is whether this filibuster against bringing this bill to the floor so we can debate the amendments is going to succeed. That is the issue today. Should we be able to debate amendments? You bet. I fought for that as long as I have been either chairman, ranking member or member of the Armed Services Committee and other committees. Of course, we ought to be able to debate amendments. But the debate today is whether we can get to the point where we can debate amendments. People want to strike the language on don't ask, don't tell. The only way we can get to that point, to strike or modify that language, is if the filibuster does not succeed this afternoon; otherwise we cannot get to that point. We are debating now whether we can bring a bill to the floor so we can do exactly what the Senator from Florida wants us to do, be able to offer amendments, be able to strike language, modify language, add language. As to whether nonrelevant amendments should be added, if we want to change the rules of this Senate, offer an amendment to the rules. But the rules of this Senate allow nonrelevant amendments to be offered, and dozens have been offered on Defense authorization bills, including by the Senator from Arizona, who about a decade ago offered a very contentious amendment to change the campaign laws on terms of disclosure. The Senator, who was chairman of the Armed Services Committee, John Warner, argued passionately to the Senator from Arizona: Please, do not offer that to this bill. It could sink this bill. That was the argument of the chairman. The Senator from Arizona went ahead anyway, as was his right. By the way, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee acknowledged it was the right of the Senator from Arizona to offer nonrelevant amendments, and the Senator did that, the Senator from Arizona. It was not the first time. Senators on both sides of the aisle have offered nonrelevant amendments to the Defense authorization bill and to other bills because that is their right. What is broken around here is the determination on the part of the Republicans to not allow us to proceed to debate bills. That is what is broken, in that the filibusters are now being used over and over and over in a way that they have never been used before, at least in this quantity, to stop a bill from coming to the floor. How do we debate the amendments which the Senator from Florida rightfully says we should debate unless we can get to the point where we can debate them. We cannot debate them now. The bill is not before us. The question this afternoon is whether we are going to allow this bill to come before us so the Senate can do exactly what the Senate should do, which is to have Senators be able to offer amendments, debate those amendments, accept or defeat those amendments. That is what the Senate should be doing. But we cannot do that if a filibuster denying the Senate an opportunity to debate the bill succeeds. Then we cannot do that. We cannot do what the Senator from Florida wants us to do, and I want us to do, to debate amendments, to have Senators be able to offer amendments. That is the problem which we face more and more in this body, and I deeply regret it. I do not know how to change this system without changing the rules, which we are not going to be able to do. I do not know how we can prevent a filibuster succeeding or delaying the Senate from acting for days and days and days, from being able to debate. Filibusters have their place, I believe, to protect the minority. They have their place so that the minority can be assured of extended debate. I have supported that. But the filibusters are being used now more and more to prevent us from debating, not to guarantee the opportunity to debate for the minority, which is a legitimate function of the filibuster, but to prevent us from debating. This filibuster, if it succeeds this afternoon, is going to prevent us from debating the very issues which need to be debated. Don't ask, don't tell, we should debate it. We cannot debate it if we do not get to the bill. The DREAM Act, should that be offered, should it not be offered? We cannot debate that unless we get to the bill. As to the other provisions in this bill, one of the Senators mentioned the language about abortions. By the way, he said taxpayer- paid abortions, which is not in the bill, as I think the Senator from Florida knows. It only allows abortions on a voluntary basis, which are legal, if the woman pays for the abortion. These are not taxpayer-paid abortions. So putting that aside, it is a legitimate subject for debate. How do you debate it if we cannot get to the bill? That is what this issue is about this afternoon. Will we get to a bill, which I think all of us believe is a critically important bill to the men and women of the Armed Forces? How do we get to that bill? How do we debate these issues, which I agree with the Senator from Florida need to be debated, rightfully are debated, if we are not able to get to the bill? That is the issue which we will decide this afternoon.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Are we on the bill now?

Mr. LEVIN. If cloture passes this afternoon, would we then be able to be on the bill?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, ever since an act of horrific violence on a bright blue morning 9 years ago, our Nation has been at war. At home and abroad, this war has tested our Nation, tested our military strength and our diplomatic skill, tested our resilience and our courage. Over the last few months, I fear our Nation has been in danger of failing one of these tests, a failure that would threaten our safety and the freedoms we hold so dear. At issue is a plan to build an Islamic community center a few blocks away from the site of the attack on the World Trade Center and the larger question of whether our Nation will embrace diversity or choose a path of division. This is not just a question of doing the right thing, although it is that. It is not just a question of preserving the values that have made our Nation a beacon of freedom across the globe, although it is certainly that too. This is also a question of whether we will make our Nation safer by focusing on and extinguishing the flames of hatred that spawned the 9/11 attacks or, on the other hand, add fuel to the fire that threatens us. There should be little doubt that religious intolerance has no place in a nation built on the idea, as Thomas Jefferson once wrote, ``that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions.'' Our history is filled with moments in which we struggle to live up to that notion, in which Roman Catholics or Mormons or Jews or others found themselves beset by religious intolerance and wondering if the ideals set forth by our Founding Fathers would hold. So it is in this case. American Muslims have built homes, raised families, and run successful businesses in communities across our country. They have been drawn here because of the belief, as one prominent member of Michigan's Arab-American community recently wrote, ``that there is room in America for all cultural and religious backgrounds.'' Well, that is the America in which they chose to build their lives. It is the America we aspire to be, that we claim to be. We should ask ourselves, if we would not object to a church or synagogue at that location in Manhattan, how can we object to a Muslim place of worship and remain true to our most fundamental principles? Upholding the promise of our founding values should be reason enough to resist anti-Muslim sentiment. But there are equally powerful reasons that rely not on values but on simple common sense. The war that began on September 11, 2001, is not only a war against terrorists but a war to isolate those terrorists from broader Muslim society. We have seen time and time again that when we stray from our values, it is not just a moral failure but a national security failure. Our troops work every day to keep weapons out of the hands of al-Qaida and its terrorists. Yet, by indulging in intolerance, we hand al-Qaida a powerful propaganda weapon, one to use to stoke hatred of us and to recruit the terrorists who threaten our troops abroad and our citizens at home. We have already seen in the violent and even deadly protests in Afghanistan how anger can spawn anger and hatred and can inspire hatred. By threatening to burn holy texts or by holding an entire faith as somehow responsible for the actions of its most fanatic members, Osama bin Laden and his kind are given precisely the kind of clash of civilizations they so desperately seek to create. I was heartened by the words of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who said: We would be untrue to the best part of ourselves--and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans--if we said ``no'' to a mosque in Lower Manhattan. I am also encouraged by the religious leaders of many faiths across our country who have stood up and said: We support the rights of all Americans to worship in their chosen place, through a climate of respect, dignity and peace. I am encouraged by the words of our commander in Afghanistan, GEN David Petraeus, who powerfully pointed out that the acts of religious intolerance are ``precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses'' to direct hatred at our brave troops. I am encouraged by the words of our President: This is America and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. I am heartened, too, by the reaction in my home State, which is home to a large, thriving, and valued community of Muslim Americans. The Grand Rapids Press has editorialized that ``[a] Manhattan mosque would be a powerful statement that the terrorists did not--and cannot--win.'' A columnist in the Detroit News wrote: Ground zero would seem to be the perfect place to demonstrate that religious tolerance is why so many flocked to our shores in the first place, and remains a key block in the foundation of our freedom. A Detroit Free Press editorial reads: It's not just about this being a mosque, but about the religious freedom that we all hold dear, and that was such a critical part of this country's founding. Michigan civil and religious leaders of many faiths and backgrounds have invoked our most closely held beliefs and called on the Nation to speak and act in harmony with those beliefs. The power of those beliefs represents a powerful tool against the hatred that inspired 9/11. The founding principles of our Nation call on us to stand with voices of tolerance and reason. Those who have given their all in the defense of those principles would surely hope that we would resist the calls to hatred and violence. Our moral authority depends on that. Preservation of the freedom that defines us depends on that. Our safety depends on that. I commend those who have spoken for tolerance and diversity, who have resisted anger and intolerance, and who in doing so have upheld our most important values and have made our Nation safer. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to Senator Reed.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will yield myself just a minute and a half. I would ask that the Republicans have their speaker--if they are going to be using their time--to come immediately after me; otherwise, it would not be fair for us to be using up all of our time in advance. Mr. President, this morning a number of Republican Senators stated they would support the current filibuster of this bill because they were afraid that if we take up the bill, we are going to have a closed process that would limit their ability to offer amendments. The majority leader has addressed this issue. He specifically said last Thursday that he is ``willing to work with Republicans on a process that will permit the Senate to consider these matters and complete the bill as soon as possible.'' He is very clear on this. He is not trying to prevent other amendments from being offered. However, there are not going to be any amendments, there is not going to be any opportunity to vote on any amendments unless we get 60 votes to overcome the current filibuster and proceed to the bill. It makes no sense for Senators to block all amendments, which is what the effect will be if we do not end this filibuster, to deny consideration of this bill so we can consider amendments. It makes no sense to do that under the guise of wanting an open amendment process. We are not going to have any amendments unless we can get to this bill, unless we end this filibuster. Amendments are appropriate. We have always had amendments on the Defense bill. The majority leader assures we are going to do that again, and I will do everything I can as chairman to make sure that is true. So the issue today is not whether there is going to be specific amendments in order; it is whether we are going to get to the bill so we can try to consider amendments to the Defense authorization bill. There are many amendments that should be considered, and I hope we do not continue this filibuster. I hope we can get 60 votes and do the important work of the Nation, which is to get a defense authorization bill passed after it has been considered. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the time to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2010, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Investing in Infrastructure: Creating Jobs and Growing the Economy.''

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Welfare Reform: A New Conversation on Women and Poverty.''

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2010, at 9 a.m.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.