[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 5, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3714-S3723]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURE REFORM, FOOD, AND JOBS ACT OF 2012--MOTION TO PROCEED
Mr. REID. I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 415, S. 3240.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is pending. The clerk will report
the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 415, S. 3240, a bill to
reauthorize agricultural programs through 2017, and for other
purposes.
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a cloture motion at the desk on the
motion to proceed to this matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 415, S. 3240, a bill to reauthorize
agricultural programs through 2017, and for other purposes.
Harry Reid, Debbie Stabenow, Carl Levin, Kent Conrad,
Jeff Bingaman, Herb Kohl, Patrick J. Leahy, Michael F.
Bennet, Christopher A. Coons, Al Franken, Max Baucus,
Barbara A. Mikulski, Ben Nelson, Amy Klobuchar, Sherrod
Brown, Jeff Merkley, Robert P. Casey, Jr.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the
mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Paycheck Fairness Act
Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the leader yield for a question?
Mr. Leader, I noted that on the last vote, you voted no. Was that so
the bill could be reconsidered?
Mr. REID. I say to my friend, through the Chair, there is no one in
this body who has a reputation for a bigger and better fighter than
Barbara Mikulski, the senior Senator from Maryland. I entered the
motion to reconsider the vote because I want the fight to continue.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I would like to respond to the majority leader. We want
to fight too. We thank him for his vote and his voice. I want him to
know that although we lost the vote today, we are not going to give up
on this vote. It is a very sad day here in the Senate, but it is a
sadder day every day when paycheck day comes and women continue to make
less than men.
We are sorry that this vote occurred strictly on party lines. Under
the leader's effort to reconsider, we hope to bring up this bill again.
We hope to forge a bipartisan vote. We are coming up on the 49th
anniversary of equal pay for equal work. We are not going to let this
bill die in parliamentary entanglements. The majority should rule in
the Senate.
I want to say this, in the words of Abigail Adams. While John Adams
and all the guys were sitting around Philadelphia writing the
Constitution, she wrote him a letter and said, ``Don't forget the
ladies.'' And they did it for 150 years, and then they forget, too, to
get rid of the loopholes in the Equal Pay Act now. Well, Abigail said:
If you forget us, we will foment our revolution, and we are going to
foment our revolution.
So I say to the women here, to the good men who support us, to the
women out there in America, let's keep this fight going. Put on your
lipstick, square your shoulders, suit up, and let's fight for this new
American revolution where women are paid equal pay for equal work.
Let's end wage discrimination in this century once and for all.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the statement made by
the Senator from Maryland, as usual. She will outline a way to proceed
on this matter that will be dignified and strong.
I filed cloture on this motion to proceed to this very important bill
relating to farm programs in America and nutrition programs in
America--extremely important legislation. I am confident--maybe it is
the wrong thing in the temperament of the Senate today--that we are
going to be able to complete this bill. It is an important bill for
America. It will be a good thing for this Congress to do this farm
bill. The two managers of this bill, Senator Stabenow of Michigan and
Senator Roberts of Kansas, have done a remarkably good job. This bill
creates jobs and reduces subsidies by a significant amount. Where else
would you find a bill that reduces the debt of this country by $24
billion? This is a fine piece of legislation, and I hope we can work
something out so we do not have to have a vote on this matter on
Thursday, that we can start legislating.
We have had good fortune shine upon us on the last couple of big
bills we brought through here. We had the managers work with floor
staff to work on the relevant amendments and then have a way to finish
the bill. I hope we can do that.
I repeat, I have confidence in Senator Stabenow and Senator Roberts.
They are very good legislators. We need to proceed on this bill. This
bill is not a Democratic bill or Republican bill, it is a bill for
America.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I will be happy to.
Mrs. BOXER. I want to say that I agree with my friend's comments
about
[[Page S3715]]
Senator Stabenow and Senator Roberts. I consider both my friends. They
are terrific legislators.
The Paycheck Fairness Act
I do want to go back to the vote that just occurred. I would note
that we had present in the Chamber some of the House Members, women of
the House. I think they are gone now. It was to underscore the
importance of this vote and what it means.
My question goes to this: Is my colleague aware that women in their
lifetime are so shortchanged that the average woman, in the course of
her career, by the end of her career has made $400,000 less than her
male counterpart? Is my friend aware of that?
Mr. REID. Yes. In the State of Nevada--I am sure it is maybe more
than that in California--in the State of Nevada, women earn $400,000
less. A man in his lifetime makes X number of dollars, and in Nevada a
woman makes $400,000 less--in fact, a little more.
Mrs. BOXER. I think it is important for people to understand what
just occurred. We had a straight party-line vote on an issue that
impacts every single woman in this country. I think when people say
there is a difference between the parties--I like working with my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I have good relationships
with them. But for goodness' sake, how can you have a party that, to a
person here, votes against equal pay for equal work?
I will close with this question to my friend. It is my understanding
that 90 percent of the people support the idea of equal pay for equal
work. Is my leader aware of this, and when does he think he might bring
this back before the body?
Mr. REID. I say to my friend, through the Chair, she is absolutely
right. Seventy-seven percent of Republicans across America support this
legislation. Eighty-one percent of men across America support this
legislation.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, before speaking about moving forward on
the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act, I want to thank our leader.
I also want to thank Senator Mikulski. Together we have brought forward
the issue of equal pay for equal work, and we intend to focus on that
until we make this truly the law of the land.
Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to allow us to
proceed to the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act, commonly known as
the farm bill. I first want to thank my friend, colleague, and partner
as we moved through the committee process, Senator Roberts. It has been
terrific working with my ranking member and his staff. We worked in a
truly bipartisan way. I think that is reflected in the fact that this
bill came out of committee with a strong bipartisan vote of 16 Members
and only 5 dissenting. We are looking forward to working with all of
our colleagues on the floor of the Senate to have this same kind of
strong bipartisan vote as we move through the process in the Senate.
There are 16 million people in this country who have a job that
relies on the strength of American agriculture. The farm bill is a jobs
bill. Over the last few years when our Nation's economy has seen some
very rough times, agriculture has been one of the few bright spots. In
fact, in Michigan, during our toughest times in manufacturing,
agriculture was growing five times faster than any other part of our
economy. Agriculture is one of the only parts of the economy with a
trade surplus. I think it is, in fact, our No. 1 trade surplus with
$42.5 billion in trade surplus.
We are growing it here, we are processing it here, developing it
here, selling it overseas, but the jobs are here. This farm bill is all
about keeping it that way. Last year our farmers exported $136 billion
worth of goods, which is a 270-percent increase in the last 10 years.
This is about jobs, and we want to continue our leadership not only in
this country but internationally in agriculture through this important
bill.
We also know our country is facing serious deficits. Last August the
Senate passed the Budget Control Act by a vote of 74 to 26. That law
created a deficit reduction committee, which we called the
supercommittee. They set out a process to find significant savings, and
I am very proud of the fact that the Agriculture Committee came
together in the House and the Senate. The chairman and the ranking
member in the House--along with me and the ranking member in the
Senate--did some very tough negotiating and made tough decisions,
worked long hours, and came up with a detailed deficit reduction plan.
I wish we had that same kind of opportunity with every committee.
Unfortunately, in the end, the Agriculture Committee was the only
committee that did that. We did our part, and we believe the work we
did in the fall helped to not only build relationships that are
important to allow us to work together, but also set up a foundation
from which we have written what we call the farm bill, or the
Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act.
We have built into this bill a real deficit reduction of $23 billion.
Let me emphasize that the Agriculture Committee passed a bipartisan
bill that strengthens the economy and cuts the Federal deficit. This
$23 billion is roughly 2 percent of what the Budget Control Act put in
place in terms of sequestration next January of $1.2 trillion. We are
roughly 2 percent of Federal outlays. In those efforts are agriculture
production, conservation, and nutrition through the UFDA.
The UFDA is roughly 2 percent of Federal outlays. We are taking
responsibility for 2 percent of the cuts, and this is more than is
actually required in the Budget Control Act, and it is double what was
recommended in Simpson-Bowles and the Gang of 6.
So agriculture is doing its fair share, and we are doing it in a
responsible way that focuses on reform and strengthening those efforts
to make sure we have a strong agricultural economy, strong conservation
practices, and support for jobs through energy and other important
nutrition efforts.
We end direct payments. That means no more paying farmers for crops
they don't grow and no more payments for farmers when they are already
doing very well. In fact, the biggest savings in the bill comes from
eliminating direct payments and consolidating three other commodity
subsidy programs. America's farmers know in order to lower the deficit
we all need to do our fair share. Agriculture has stepped up and is
willing to do that.
We also make sure millionaires no longer get payments from commodity
programs. We tightened payment limits to half of what farmers currently
are able to receive. We closed what is known as the managers' loophole
that lets people get farm payments when they are not farming. Instead,
we support a strong safety net based on crop insurance and risk.
If someone has a risk, if they have a loss, then it is critically
important we stand with American agriculture. We have the safest and
most affordable food supply in the world, and it is critically
important that we have the risk management tools available for our
Nation's farmers.
We heard over and over when Senator Roberts was in Michigan--and I am
grateful he joined me. I was pleased to have joined him in Kansas. We
heard the same issues in our hearings in DC and around the country that
crop insurance was the most important tool for our producers.
Nobody wants to see a family farm--some passed down from generation
to generation--go out of business because of a few days of bad weather
or because of other changes in the markets beyond their control. I
cannot think of a more high-risk venture, frankly, than agriculture.
This year in my State when it got very warm in February and March,
the cherry blossoms, apple blossoms, peaches, and grapevines all
thought it was spring and the blossoms came out. Then when the freeze
and the snow came, we were literally wiped out of tart and sweet
cherries, apples, peaches, and grapes. Everything across the board was
devastated. I can't think of any other business that has to go through
that kind of risk other than farmers.
So we put in place a strengthened program so more specialty crops and
more fruit and vegetable growers can get access to crop insurance. We
have new capacity to support expanded risk tools. We substituted that
with a market-oriented, risk-based approach that
[[Page S3716]]
supports farmers in the bad times; so they will not get a government
check in the good times but in the bad times when we need to make sure
our farmers can survive and thrive.
This bill does not set a government price. It focuses on what is
happening in the marketplace. The farmers are choosing what to plant
from the market. We make sure no farmer goes off the cliff when a price
drops immediately, and that crop insurance is there for them as well.
Independent economists have said this is a fair system that is
equitable to all regions and all commodities.
We have a very diverse country. We know we have colleagues that still
have concerns, and we are certainly working with them to fine-tune this
bill, but we also know moving to a risk-based system treats all regions
fairly. It is the kind of reform people across the country, including
taxpayers, are asking us to do.
This bill is much more than just a bill related to production
agriculture--as important as production agriculture is. I am very proud
of what we have been able to do on conservation. We have gone through
every program, streamlined them, and increased flexibility. We have
done what families and farmers across the country are doing, analyzing
and stretching every dollar.
Frankly, we have a conservation title that does more with less. We
have taken 23 programs, consolidated them into 13, and put them into
four different areas with a lot of flexibility. We are maintaining our
conservation tools and strengthening key priorities. There are certain
areas that did not have any funding when this farm bill ends on
September 30. We have been able to combine that into a larger effort,
and we are now able to continue and strengthen conservation. That is
why we have heard from 643 conservation groups in all 50 States that
support the approach we have taken in this bill. We continue the
important work done in the farm bill around nutrition and helping
families who are most in need.
I have heard from so many people in Michigan in the last few years,
with the huge recession we have gone through, who never imagined in
their lives they would need help putting food on the table. They paid
taxes all their lives and never thought they would have to ask somebody
to help them and their children get through the month but are now in
that situation. I am committed to making sure every single dollar goes
to people who need it.
We are cracking down on trafficking. We have had at least two
situations in Michigan where lottery winners somehow maintained food
assistance. Obviously, that is crazy, and so that will not happen
anymore under this bill.
Students who live at home with their parents and have been able to go
through the loopholes to get food help, it is not right. That is not
where it is intended. We address that as well. We have tightened a
number of areas on accountability. We know there are areas where we can
make sure there is accountability, there is transparency and, in fact,
families in need know they can help feed their children during these
tough economic times.
We are also recognizing the diversity of agriculture in America by
strengthening support for fruits and vegetables and other specialty
crops. We are making sure we are getting those healthy foods into
schools, supporting organic farmers, farmers' markets, and food hubs
locally. By the way, that also creates jobs.
We are continuing our work on energy and helping farmers save money
on their bills while getting America off of foreign oil. We are opening
opportunities for new innovative companies involved in
biomanufacturing. This is an exciting area for me as we look at how we
make and grow things in this country and bring those two together. I
think that is why we have a middle class in America--because we make
and grow things.
Biomanufacturing is the process of taking raw materials from
agricultural products, whether it is soybean oil, corn byproducts,
wheat husk, biomass materials, and using them to create products and
replace chemicals and petroleum in plastics, for example, with
biodegradable bio-based products, which is very important for our
future in so many ways. That is what the Agriculture Reform, Food and
Jobs Act is all about.
As we go further in this debate, I will have much more to say about
all of the specifics in the titles. But let me just end with this
before turning to my friend to speak.
The current farm bill, the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act--the
current farm bill expires this September 30, when farmers are getting
ready for the harvest. If Congress cannot come together in a bipartisan
way, as we did in the Agriculture Committee and as we did in the fall
with the agricultural leaders, and pass this bill before then, it will
create tremendous uncertainty and job losses in communities all across
America, and it will have a serious impact on our economic recovery. I
hope our colleagues will work with us, will join with us to make sure
that does not happen.
We have received broad support for this legislation from 125 farm
groups, healthy food groups, and other stakeholders. I am very grateful
to 45 of our colleagues who, on a bipartisan basis in a letter to
leadership, urged that this bill be taken up. It is clear there is
broad support in Congress and across the country for the farm bill. So
I urge my colleagues to let us begin the debate on this important jobs
bill that affects 16 million people across this country.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I intend to give my full opening comments
in regard to the farm bill tomorrow, but I wish to quickly say thank
you to the chairwoman for helping to bring us to this point. I thank
her for her leadership. It has truly been a bipartisan effort. It has
been a team effort.
I wish to reiterate what the chairwoman has said. I wish to tell our
colleagues this is a true reform bill. I could say that 10 times over
for emphasis, but it is a true reform bill. It also reduces and
streamlines the Department of Agriculture programs--long overdue. We
cut $23 billion in mandatory spending, and it was voluntarily, without
any direction from the Budget Committee or anybody else, and it is real
money. It is mandatory money.
The Super Committee tried to work out a deal, and they weren't so
super. They tried hard. I am not trying to criticize a tough deal. We
are the only authorizing committee that I know of in the Senate that
has voluntarily come forth and said: Here is real deficit reduction in
mandatory spending--over $23 billion. It is rather remarkable that
people who tend to be critical of agriculture would all of a sudden
discover it is the Agriculture Committee, in a bipartisan effort, that
has cut real money, real mandatory money.
How many times have we heard folks back home say: Why don't you work
together? Why can't we all get along? Why can't you reach across the
aisle and accomplish something? We did that in our committee, with
strong bipartisan support, and we achieved this true spending
reduction. We eliminated four of the commodity programs.
I just had a colleague come in to visit with me this morning. He
said: I looked at this farm bill and I couldn't figure it out. It is so
complex I don't know how anybody can figure it out. That is pretty true
in farm country too--trying to figure out all of the complexities, and
when they go down to the farm service agency, trying to figure out what
is in each program and which one they should pick. We eliminated four
commodity programs and made it much simpler. We strengthened and
improved crop insurance, which is the No. 1 issue we heard about in
every hearing we had. We eliminated $6 billion in conservation spending
while streamlining 23 programs into 13 to eliminate duplication. When
have we heard: When are you going to start to streamline and reduce
duplication? We have done that. We cut $4 billion in nutrition
programs--a painful cut for some, I understand that. But it is not
going to affect anybody's payments so much as it is the $4 billion--
that is 82 percent, by the way, of the agriculture budget is in
nutrition.
We have eliminated a grand total of more than 100 programs. Get this:
We have eliminated a grand total of more than 100 programs--I don't
know of any other committee that has done that--and authorizations
totaling nearly $2 billion in reduced authorizations alone. So we dealt
with not only mandatory spending but also $2 billion in authorizations.
[[Page S3717]]
This is, as I have said, a reform bill. We need to get this thing
passed. We need to get the farm bill passed. The current law expires on
September 30 of this year. Failure to pass the bill means we revert to
permanent 1949 law that would provide absolute chaos in the
countryside. If we don't pass this bill by September 30, then we are
back here voting on an extension. Who wants to extend the current farm
bill? It is yesterday's farm bill. This is tomorrow's farm bill. We
can't go back to 1949, and I do not think we need to be in any business
of trying to extend the current act when we have a true reform bill and
one that is fiscally sound.
The big thing is we need to provide set guidance to our producers and
their lenders--our farmers, ranchers, bankers, all up and down Main
Street who depend on agriculture, including every rural community and,
for that matter, anybody who eats, every consumer. We are talking about
the hometown banker and the farm credit agencies so they can know
exactly what this farm bill looks like when, as early as this August,
they will begin to discuss their operating loans for the coming year.
I know we are debating the motion to proceed at this time, but the
chairwoman and I and our staffs are available. We are available. If
someone has heartburn, we are available. We have the Rolaids; don't
worry about it. Our staffs are available. Come to us if a colleague
wants to discuss a possible amendment. Come to us and talk to us. We
are working together in a bipartisan effort. I urge Members who intend
to offer amendments to please come to us and allow us to begin working
with them now. We stand ready and willing and, with the help of
Members, able.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Always Free Honor Flight
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise to recognize a very special event
taking place tomorrow in our Nation's Capital: West Virginia's first
ever Always Free Honor Flight, a free trip for our veterans to see the
monuments built for their service and sacrifice.
I have always said West Virginia is one of the most patriotic States
in this great Nation, and we are so proud of the number of veterans and
Active-Duty members who have served our country with honor and
distinction. The 31 veterans who are traveling to the Capitol tomorrow
embody our State's history and contributions to the freedom of this
Nation: 12 of them served in World War II, 3 in the Korean war, and 16
in Vietnam.
I wish to tell my colleagues a little bit about this very special
group. These heroes engaged in combat across the globe, fighting in the
Aleutian Islands, England, Normandy, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the
South Pacific, the Philippines, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam. Some served
here at home, servicing aircraft with ammunition. Some served in
historic events such as the Battle of the Bulge, the liberation of the
Philippines, and the front in Japan. They took on different roles,
serving as infantrymen, door gunners, ammunition soldiers, combat
fighters, tactical fighters, and medics. One brave World War II veteran
received the Legion of Honor Chevalier Award from the French Embassy.
These veterans come from all parts of our great State--from Welch to
Beckley, to Huntington, to Princeton, to Bluefield, to Lester, and all
the places in between.
I especially wish to point out one special person. His name is Gene
Cecil Pennington of Princeton, WV, and he will be joining us tomorrow
also. He is the youngest West Virginia veteran of World War II, and
that is because he lied about his age to join the Navy in the 1940s and
first saw combat--think of this--first saw combat at the age of 16. He
is 83 now, and we are so proud he will be visiting with us.
In addition to the veterans visiting us, a number of volunteer
escorts will also be accompanying them. Seven of these escorts will be
representing their deceased fathers who served in various wars
throughout the years. Three of our World War II veterans are
accompanied by their sons who themselves are veterans of the Vietnam
war. Service is truly a family tradition in our State and in this
Nation.
Our veterans have a full day's journey ahead of them tomorrow. They
will leave Princeton, WV, at 2:15 in the morning, traveling here by
bus. They will return to West Virginia after touring our beautiful
Capitol Building, the World War II Memorial, the Korean War Memorial,
the Vietnam War Memorial, and the Iwo Jima Memorial. These monuments to
service and sacrifice have important meaning to everyone in this
country, but I know our veterans will find special meaning tomorrow
when they tour these sites.
This is the first time for many of these veterans to see these
monuments, which is why I am very grateful for the hard work of the
West Virginians who made this trip possible by bringing the Honor
Flight Network to our State--the Denver Foundation and Little Buddy
Radio located in Princeton, WV. These nonprofits were founded by Bob
Denver--also known as Gilligan from ``Gilligan's Island''--and his wife
Dreama, a West Virginia native. Their love of West Virginia, their
vision, and their dedication to service have truly been a gift to our
great State.
The Honor Flight Network is an idea that started with Earl Morse, a
physician assistant and retired Air Force captain who wanted to honor
the veterans he had cared for over 27 years. Earl found that many of
his patients couldn't afford to see the monuments built to honor their
service, so he took it upon himself to make that happen.
Earl was also a private pilot, and he offered a free flight to a
World War II veteran who was also his patient. One free trip led to
another, and with the help of more volunteers, Earl's efforts grew into
the Honor Flight Network. The first flight took place in May of 2005,
and by the end of that year, Honor Flight had taken 137 World War II
veterans to visit their memorial. The Honor Flight Network has expanded
to cities and States around the country, and in 2011, the network
transported 18,055 veterans to see their memorials--at no cost to those
veterans.
In West Virginia, we are lucky to have had the operations manager at
Little Buddy Radio in Princeton, WV, Charlie Thomas, introduce the
Honor Flight to our State. Tomorrow, Charlie will be representing his
deceased father, Clifford Richardson, who served in the Navy during
World War II.
I would also like to take a moment to thank the Vice President of the
Always Free Honor Flight, Dreama Denver, who is the widow of
``Gilligan''--Bob Denver. She is representing her deceased father, Glen
E. Peery, who served in the Army during the Korean War.
I would like to thank Pam Coulbourne, who has been instrumental in
planning West Virginia's first Honor Flight. She is representing her
father Francis Fluharty, an Air Force aerial photographer on a B 24
Liberator during World War II.
Thanks to Charlie, Dreama, Bob Denver, Pam, and the hard work of so
many others, 31 veterans will be traveling to Washington tomorrow on
this very special journey. I commend them for their dedication and for
giving West Virginia just one more way to say thank you to our veterans
for their service and sacrifice.
I have always said we owe our men and women who have served more than
a debt of gratitude. Showing our appreciation is something we should do
each and every day. But tomorrow is a special day where we can pay
tribute to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our great
Nation. I am so pleased I am able to greet some of our most courageous
West Virginia veterans who are all heroes. I ask the Senate to join me
in honoring these 31 veterans and welcome them and their close friends
and family to Washington, DC, tomorrow.
Thank you. I yield the floor and I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Arizona.
Security Leaks
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, over the past few months there has been
a
[[Page S3718]]
disturbing stream of articles in the media and common among them, they
cite elite, classified, or highly sensitive information in what appears
to be a broader effort by the administration to paint a portrait of the
President of the United States as a strong leader on national security
issues--information for which there is no legitimate reason whatsoever
to believe should be in the public domain. Indeed, the release of this
information in these articles harms our national security and puts in
danger the lives of the men and women who are sworn to protect it.
What price did the administration apparently pay to proliferate such
a Presidential persona--highly valued in an election year? Access.
Access to senior administration officials who appear to have served as
anonymous sources divulging extremely sensitive military and
intelligence information and operations.
With the leaks that these articles were based on, our enemies now
know much more than they did the day before they came out about
important aspects of our Nation's unconventional offensive capabilities
and how we use them. Such disclosures can only undermine similar
ongoing or future operations and, in this sense, compromise our
national security. For this reason, regardless of how politically
useful these leaks may have been to the President, they have to stop.
These leaks have to stop.
The fact that this administration would aggressively pursue leaks
perpetrated by a 22-year-old Army private in the Wikileaks matter and
former CIA employees in other leaks cases but apparently sanction leaks
made by senior administration officials for political purposes is
simply unacceptable. It also calls for the need for a special counsel
to investigate what happened.
I am also pleased to report that Chairman Carl Levin has agreed, at
my request, to hold a hearing on these leaks in the Senate Armed
Services Committee. The Senate Armed Services Committee has a
responsibility here, and I am grateful that Chairman Levin has agreed
to hold a hearing.
In the latest of the recently published articles--published on June
1, 2012, just a few days ago--the New York Times documented in rich
detail the President's secret decision to accelerate cyber attacks on
Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities with a computer virus that came to
be known as Stuxnet. The author of the article, Mr. David Sanger,
clearly states that former and current American officials spoke to him
but refused to do so on the record because the program is both highly
classified and parts of it are ongoing. I repeat, the administration
officials discussed a most highly classified operation that is both
highly classified and still ongoing, an operation that was clearly one
of the most tightly held national security secrets in our country until
now. And I might point out to my colleagues that this is all about the
Iranian effort to acquire nuclear weapons, which is one of the most
difficult national security challenges this Nation faces.
Other recent articles divulged critical and classified information
regarding U.S. plans to expand the secret drone campaign against
terrorists in Yemen and the Horn of Africa. One of these pieces was a
sorry excuse for journalism that the New York Times published on May
29, 2012, which Charles Krauthammer rightly observed should have been
entitled ``Barack Obama--Drone Warrior.''
Finally, there was a recent so-called article about the so-called
``kill list''--the highly classified list of counterterrorism targets
against whom the President has authorized lethal action--in other
words, to kill. It was reported in that article on May 29, 2012, in the
New York Times that David Axelrod, the President's chief political
adviser--who is running the reelection campaign as we speak--began
attending the meetings in which this list was discussed. I repeat, the
President's campaign manager was present and attending the meetings
where lists of possible people to be eliminated through drone strikes
was discussed and decisions were made. The only conceivable motive for
such damaging and compromising leaks of classified information is that
it makes the President look good.
These are not the only times I have been frustrated about national
security-related leaks coming from this administration. The
administration similarly helped journalists publish some of the highly
sensitive tactics, techniques, and procedures that enabled our special
operations forces--including the classified name of the unit involved--
to carry out the operation to kill Osama bin Laden last year. It is
entirely possible that this flurry of anonymous boasting was
responsible for divulging the identity of Dr. Shakil Afridi, the
Pakistani doctor who assisted us in our search for Osama bin Laden and
whose public exposure led to his detention and a 33-year prison
sentence in Pakistan. His name was divulged by members of the
administration, and he has been basically given a death sentence, a 33-
year sentence in prison in Pakistan. Our friends are not the only ones
who read the New York Times; our enemies do, too.
Let me be clear. I am fully in favor of transparency in government. I
have spent my entire career in Congress furthering that principle. But
what separates these sorts of leaks from, say, the whistleblowing that
fosters open government or a free press is that these leaks expose no
violations of law, abuses of authority, or threats to public health or
safety. They are gratuitous and utterly self-serving.
These leaks may inhibit the Nation's ability to employ the same or
similar measures in its own defense in the future. How effectively the
United States can conduct unmanned drone strikes against belligerents,
cyber attacks against Iran's nuclear program, or military operations
against terrorists in the future depends on the secrecy with which
these programs are conducted. Such activities are classified or
enormously sensitive for good reason--in many cases, for reasons
related to operational security or diplomacy. Their public disclosure
should have no place in how this or any other administration conducts
itself. These are the kinds of operations and intelligence matters no
one should discuss publicly, not even the President.
With this in mind, I call on the President to take immediate and
decisive action, including the appointment of a special counsel, to
aggressively investigate the leak of any classified information on
which the recent stories were based and, where appropriate, to
prosecute those responsible. A special counsel will be needed because
the articles on the U.S. cyber attacks on Iran and expanded plans by
the United States to use drones in Yemen were sourced to--and I quote
from the articles--``participants in the [cyber-attack] program'' and
``members of the [P]resident's national security team.'' In the cyber
attacks article, in particular, the author stated that ``current and
former American officials'' spoke to him anonymously about the program
because ``the effort remains highly classified and parts of it continue
to this day.''
What could be worse?
The suggestion that misconduct occurred within the executive branch
is right there in black and white and is why a special counsel is
needed.
As part of this investigation, this special counsel should also
scrutinize the book from which the New York Times cyber attacks article
was adapted, which was just released yesterday, for other improper or
illegal disclosures.
Where classified information regarding cyber operations was leaked,
the President should assess any damage that those leaks may have caused
to national security and how that damage can be mitigated.
In my view, the administration should be taking these leaks,
apparently perpetrated by senior administration officials, as seriously
as it pursued those made by relatively low government personnel such as
the Army private in the WikiLeaks matter or the former CIA employee who
provided the New York Times with classified information about U.S.
attempts to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program. The failure of the
administration to do so would confirm what today is only an inference--
that these leaks were, in fact, sanctioned by the administration to
serve a pure political purpose.
As I continue to closely monitor developments in this matter, I hope
to be proved wrong.
There is a Wall Street Journal article, ``FBI Probes Leaks about
Cyberattacks by U.S.'' I am glad the FBI is going to probe that. It
says Mr. Sanger, in an appearance on CBS News ``Face the Nation,''
suggested that deliberate White House leaking ``wasn't my experience.''
[[Page S3719]]
He added:
I spent a year working on the story from the bottom up and
then went to the administration and told them what I had.
Then they had to make some decisions about how much they
wanted to talk about . . . I'm sure the political side of the
White House probably likes reading about the President acting
with drones and cyber and so forth. National security side
has got very mixed emotions about it because these are
classified programs.
Mr. Sanger again is authenticating that senior members of the White
House and our intelligence community decided to talk to him about
classified programs. Their motivation for doing so--perhaps we don't
know particularly at this time, but I don't think one could argue that
these articles have all conveyed the impression that the President is a
very strong warrior in carrying out his responsibilities as Commander
in Chief, something I have disputed as far as Iraq, Afghanistan, and
other national security issues, which I will discuss on another day.
I don't know how one could draw any conclusion but that senior
members of this administration in the national security arena have
either leaked or confirmed information of the most highly classified
and sensitive nature. Some of these leaks have concerned ongoing
operations. Since they were highly classified and sensitive
information, that classification was there for a reason--the reason
being that if that information was classified, it could harm our
national security.
These are very serious actions on their part. They are very serious
actions when ongoing operations in the war against terror and the issue
of Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons could trigger attacks either
by Israel or the United States to prevent such an eventuality. We now
find leaks which have exposed, not only to the American people but to
the Iranians as well, exactly what American activity is of the most
sensitive nature. This is not a proud day for the United States of
America.
I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of Senator
Chambliss, he and I be permitted to engage in a colloquy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend from Arizona
for his very direct comments on this very sensitive issue. As vice
chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I can say
without a doubt that these ongoing leaks of classified information are
extraordinarily harmful to our intelligence operations.
Every day we ask our intelligence officers and agents to be out there
on the frontlines, putting their life in harm's way, gathering
information, meeting sources, and using a variety of highly sensitive
collection techniques. Depending on where these officers are around the
world, the operating environment can be both dangerous and downright
hostile. This means they have to be as much or more on guard to ensure
that operations don't get blown and their own lives and the lives of
our sources are not jeopardized.
But each time classified information shows up in the media, the
intelligence community's ability to do these dangerous assignments
becomes that much more difficult. Not only do these leaks tell our
enemies how we do our jobs and therefore how they can block or impede
our efforts, but with each leak our friends and allies are left to
wonder how much they can trust us with their own secrets.
These are not hypothetical concerns. Senator McCain alluded to a
couple of anecdotes. Also, a few weeks ago, in the middle of an ongoing
operation, we all--friends and enemies alike--learned the details of
efforts to disrupt an al-Qaida plot to bomb a civilian aircraft. Up to
that point, most Members of Congress knew nothing about this operation.
That is how sensitive we were told it was. Unfortunately, rather than
quietly recognize our--and, frankly, our partners'--successes and move
on with the business of protecting the American people, some in the
administration apparently decided that scoring political points in an
election year outweighed protecting our intelligence operations as well
as our liaison relationship with our intelligence partners around the
world.
Whether we could have learned more from an operation that was cut
short by this leak will now never be known, but we have been warned by
some of our allies they will think twice before they share highly
classified information with us.
Unfortunately, the leak of the airline plot was no isolated incident.
From kill lists and bin Laden movies to cyber warfare, it appears
nothing is off-limits, nothing is too secret, no operation is too
sensitive, and no source is too valuable to be used as a prop in this
election year posturing. The doctor associated with the bin Laden
operation appears to be paying the price for this posturing. Following
public disclosures of his involvement, he has been sentenced to 33
years in prison--a true life sentence of 33 years in prison in
Pakistan. This hardly provides incentive for anyone else to help us.
These disclosures--whether quietly sanctioned or not--are simply
unacceptable, and they are against the law. This administration reminds
us repeatedly that they are prosecuting more people for leaking
classified information than ever before, and I support that effort. But
just as we hold ordinary government employees accountable for violating
their oaths to protect our Nation's secrets, we must also hold the most
senior administration officials accountable. Recently, the FBI began an
investigation into the scenario surrounding this latest bomb plot, and
I applaud the FBI's efforts. Following the public disclosure in the
press reports on comments made by senior administration officials, I
sent a letter to Director Mueller and asked him to please include this
aspect of these leaks in his investigation. I received a letter back
today that he is indeed going to do that, and I applaud that. I don't
know whether the reports are true. I have no idea. But if they are,
they are serious violations of the law having been conducted by senior
administration officials.
Beyond that, we still have to do more. So today I join with my good
friend Senator McCain from Arizona in calling for the appointment of a
special counsel to investigate this pattern of recent leaks. Leaks
should never be tolerated, but leaking for political advantage is
especially troubling. There must be swift and clear accountability for
those responsible for playing this dangerous game with our national
security.
The Senator from Arizona has been around here a lot longer than me.
He has been involved in the world of national security for many years,
both on the frontline himself as well as a Member of this body.
Has the Senator from Arizona ever seen anything as egregious as the
purported leaks that are coming from this administration on these
highly classified and sensitive number of programs that we have seen in
the last few days and weeks?
Mr. McCAIN. As my colleague well knows, the leaks are part of the way
the environment exists in our Nation's capital, and leaks will always
be part of the relationship between media and both elected and
appointed officials. I understand that. I think my colleague would
agree there have been times where abuses have been uncovered and
exposed because of leaks so this information was made public, and we
have always applauded that.
There has also continuously been a problem of overclassification of
information so government officials don't have to--be it Republican or
Democratic administrations--discuss what is going on publicly.
But I have to tell my friend, I do not know a greater challenge that
the United States faces in the short term than this entire issue of
Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. The President of the United States said
it would be ``unacceptable.'' We all know the Israelis are going
through an agonizing decisionmaking process as to whether they need to
attack Iran before they reach ``breakout,'' which means they have
enough parts and equipment to assemble a nuclear weapon in a short
period of time.
Here we are exposing something that, frankly, I was never told about.
I was never informed of Stuxnet, and it is ongoing, at least according
to the media reports. So aren't the Iranians going to
[[Page S3720]]
learn from this? I would ask my colleague, aren't the Iranians going to
become more and more aware?
Drone strikes are now one of the leading methods of going after al-
Qaida and those radical terrorists who are intent on destroying
America. So now al-Qaida and our enemies, both real and others who plan
to be, are very aware of the entire decisionmaking process in the White
House.
I guess the most disturbing part--and I would ask my friend--it is
one thing to have a private, in the WikiLeaks matter, who had access to
it, low-level members of certain agencies, one in the CIA who I know
was prosecuted, but this is, according to the articles that are
written, the highest levels in the White House are confirming this
classified information and maybe even volunteering it, for all we know.
But there, obviously, has been a very serious breach of perhaps the
two most important challenges we face: the Iranian nuclear process and,
of course, the continued presence and efforts of al-Qaida to attack
America.
I wonder if my friend from Georgia would agree that these are two of
the most challenging national security issues America faces.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I think my friend from Arizona is
exactly right. There have been rumors of the drone program for actually
a couple years now, maybe back almost into some period back into the
Bush administration. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, we were
always told--and rightfully so--this is a covert program and we simply
cannot discuss it. So we never have. Now we pick up the newspaper, and
over the last several weeks we have seen the President of the United
States discussing the drone program. We have seen the Attorney General
of the United States discussing the drone program. We have seen the
National Security Adviser discussing the drone program. Yet,
technically, we as Members of Congress--particularly members of the
Intelligence Committee--cannot talk about this because they are covert
programs.
So there is simply no question but that our enemy is better prepared
today because of these various leaks and public disclosures.
Let me move to the other issue the Senator has talked about, though,
the issue of the nuclear weaponization of Iran. There is no more
important national security issue in the world today. It is a daily
discussion at the United Nations, it is a daily discussion at the
Pentagon, it is a daily discussion in Israel and in virtually every
part of the Middle East that we cannot allow for the country of Iran to
become nuclear weaponized. Here, all of a sudden, we see public
disclosure, whether all of it is true or not, in a newspaper article on
the front page of an American newspaper, detailing a purported program
of attack against that Iranian program.
What are our friends in the intelligence community to think? What are
our friends in Israel to think? How much cooperation are they going to
now give us from the standpoint of disclosing information to the U.S.
Intelligence community on any program if they can expect that--if this
is, in fact, true--what they tell us is going to be on the front page
of the New York Times? Not only that, but it is not coming from some
private who went on the Internet and found a bunch of classified
documents. It is coming from statements made, supposedly, by high-level
administration officials.
It puts us in a real--not a quandary. This is not a quandary. It puts
us in a position of having to defend ourselves with our allies over
certain statements that purportedly are made by high senior
administration officials. I simply can never remember a scenario of
information being leaked where we have the level of administration
officials that now supposedly have made these comments, and they are
quoted by name in some instances.
Mr. McCAIN. Could I finally add, the disturbing aspect of this is
that one could draw the conclusion, from reading these articles, that
it is an attempt to further the President's political ambitions for the
sake of his election at the expense of our national security. That is
what is disturbing about this entire situation.
I see our friend from Oregon is waiting to illuminate us, so I yield
the floor. I thank my friend from Oregon for his patience.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Forest Service Airtanker Fleet
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, yesterday I joined with Chairman Bingaman
to introduce legislation to address an urgent threat to America's
national forests: the lack of resources to fight serious wildfires that
at this very moment are burning on more than 300,000 acres in our
country. To date--and it is certainly early in the fire season--more
than 830,000 acres already have burned.
The heart of the problem is, as the fires have gotten bigger, the
Forest Service airtanker fleet to fight these fires has gotten smaller.
In 2006, the Forest Service had 44 large airtankers under contract in
their fleet. Last week, they had just 11 large airtankers under
contract, and 10 of those averaged 50 years of age.
After the very tragic events of this past weekend--in which one of
those airtankers crashed and its courageous pilots were killed and
another had a failure of its landing gear and sustained serious
damage--the Forest Service is down to nine large airtankers. This is an
extraordinarily serious problem and a solution is long overdue.
The reason I have come to the floor this afternoon is that Congress
has an opportunity to expedite what could be the beginning of a
solution. The Forest Service now is ready to begin awarding contracts
for the next generation of airtankers, consistent with their large
airtanker modernization strategy.
On May 25, as is required by law, under 41 U.S.C. 3903(d), the Forest
Service gave Congress a 30-day notification of its intent to award four
multiyear contracts, which contain cancellation ceilings in excess of
$10 million and require congressional notification.
These four contracts would, in effect, begin to fill the Federal
Government's need for large airtankers to fight wildfires. The 30-day
waiting period is simply delaying urgently needed action. Without
congressional action, these contracts will not be awarded until June
25. My view is, with hundreds of thousands of acres burning and a
severely depleted capacity for sending airtankers to battle these
fires, I see nothing that can be served by the Congress sitting on its
hands and waiting for those 30 days to expire.
The Forest Service requested that Congress waive the requirement to
wait the full 30 days to award these important contracts. The sooner
the Forest Service can award these contracts, the sooner the companies
that receive the awards can begin to deliver those next-generation
airtankers and get them out fighting the fires.
I wish to be clear that I do not know the details of these contracts
and have no idea as to which companies that submitted bids are going to
be the successful recipients, but I do know the Forest Service has
complied with its obligation to notify the Congress. Congress has been
notified with the required information, and I just fail to understand
how the country is going to benefit by simply letting time pass. I urge
my colleagues to see how important and how serious this fire situation
is and approve the critical legislation I have introduced with Chairman
Bingaman.
At this very moment, there are 11 uncontained large fires nationally,
152 new fires that have been reported in just the last 24 hours, and
dire predictions about hot and dry conditions combining with strong
winds, looming thunderstorms, and arid lands across much of our
landscape. All these factors contribute to a dangerous fire situation
on the ground. Yet, as we speak, the Forest Service now has only nine
airtankers to assist those hard-working fire crews. Eight of those
tankers are getting to the point where they ought to be considered
museums in the sky.
While the Forest Service can and should use all possible assets--such
as helicopters and innovative options such as the 20,000 gallon Very
Large Airtankers--and the agency is likely to need to call in the
National Guard, the large airtankers remain a critically important tool
for fire suppression. In fact, the firefighting agencies mobilized
airtankers 153 percent above the
[[Page S3721]]
10-year average in 2011. Yet these planes needed to assist on-the-
ground firefighters have dwindled to the dire shortage--they have
atrophied to the point I have described this afternoon.
This lack of resources is coming at a time when the Nation's forests
are very vulnerable to fire. The fire season is early, but we are
already seeing the production of record-breaking fires. Fire seasons
are getting longer and they are more severe and we are seeing more and
more of what the professional foresters called a megafire.
From 2000 to 2008, at least 10 States had fires of record-breaking
size. The Forest Service indicated in its airtanker mobilization
strategy that the agency will need up to 28 of these airtankers in
order to adequately battle fire threats. So the Forest Service says we
need 28. As of this moment, this afternoon, there are only nine.
I am asking today for the Senate to recognize the seriousness of the
threat and let the Forest Service proceed in awarding these new
contracts as rapidly as possible. The legislation Chairman Bingaman and
I have introduced would enable the agency to do just that and begin to
tackle this extraordinarily serious health problem.
In closing, I wish to express my thanks to all of America's
courageous and dedicated firefighters. They put themselves in harm's
way to protect our communities, and we should be grateful to them and
to the pilots and companies and agency personnel who tirelessly battles
these fires. I believe, on behalf of every Member of the Senate, it is
appropriate to express our deepest condolences to the families and
colleagues and friends of the recently deceased pilots. I hope by
advancing the legislation I have described this afternoon, Congress
will be sending a message to those courageous firefighters and those
with whom they work that the Congress is beginning to put in place a
system that would provide them real relief.
With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
DREAM Act
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, people wonder as they watch the Senate how
bills get started. One of the bills that I have worked on probably the
hardest in my career got started 11 years ago when there was a phone
call to my Senate office in Chicago. It was a phone call from a friend
of ours, Duffie Adleson, who was managing a program called the Merit
Music Program.
It is a wonderful program in Chicago that offers opportunities for
free musical instruments and free music lessons for kids from some of
the poorest schools in town. The net result of it is a life-changing
experience. One hundred of the Merit Music Program graduates go on to
college. It is transformative.
Well, she had a story to tell me. It was about a young lady named
Tereza Lee, Korean, who was a child prodigy when it came to the piano.
She played it so well she had been offered many scholarships, including
to the Manhattan Conservatory of Music. When she went to fill out her
application, one of the questions was, What is your citizenship or
nationality?
She turned to her mother and said: What is it, Mom? Her mom said: I
do not know. You see, they brought Tereza to America when she was 2
years old on a visitor's visa. Her mom said: We never filed anything
after that.
Mom and dad became citizens. Brother and sister born here
automatically became citizens, but Tereza was a question mark. What am
I? So she called Duffie. Duffie called the office, and we checked the
law.
The law said Tereza Lee, who had lived in the United States for 16
years, had to leave for 10 years and after 10 years could apply to come
back into the United States. She did not know where she would go. Her
family had come to Chicago from Brazil, originally from Korea. There
was no place to go, no other language that she spoke. This was the only
country she ever knew.
So I wrote a bill and called it the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act said
young people like her should be given a chance to become legal in
America, to earn their way into legal status. The bill basically laid
out some conditions: First, that they came to the United States as a
child; second, they completed high school; third, they have no
significant problems of moral character or a criminal record to speak
of, and beyond that they had to do one of two things: finish at least 2
years of college or enlist in the American military.
Well, when I introduced this bill it was bipartisan. In fact, as many
as 13 Republican Senators would vote with me. But we never quite got to
that magic number of 60 votes in the Senate. We would get a majority
but never quite get 60 votes. Then over the years this political issue
started changing. Unfortunately, we started losing support on the
Republican side of the aisle. Even those who were the original
cosponsors of the bill started voting against it. They heard the talk
about amnesty and all the criticism. They were swept into the belief
that this should not pass.
But the bill is still very much alive, and it is the most important
thing I have pending in the Senate, and has been for a long time. What
it does, of course, is offer this opportunity.
I want to salute Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. He is a new
Republican Senator, conservative, who took a look at this issue and
said this is not an immigration issue; this is a humanitarian issue. We
should offer these young people a chance, a chance to earn their way
into legal status.
He is right. He remembered when 600,000 Cubans left to come to
America to escape Castro's regime it was not the immigration system
that welcomed them; it was the humanitarian effort by the United States
to allow them to find a home. What a difference they have made, a
positive difference in this country, not just in Florida but all over
the country.
Look at Marco Rubio, a man who now represents Florida in the Senate.
It was his father and grandfather who made it here because of that
humanitarian gesture. He and I and many others are working now to try
to find a bipartisan way to put this together again.
I have come to the floor countless times--dozens of times--to ask my
colleagues to think about this issue in real human terms. Almost every
week I come and tell the story of one of the students who would be
affected by the DREAM Act. When I started on this issue, the DREAM Act
students would hide in the shadows. They would wait in the darkness by
my car to tell me: I am one of those undocumented immigrants. I am one
of those students who has no place to go.
Well, times have changed. They are now stepping up and saying: Look
at me. Know who I am. Realize, as Senator Menendez has said on the
floor many times, these are young people who spent their entire lives
with their hands over their hearts pledging allegiance to the only
country they ever knew. They only know one national anthem, and it is
ours. They think it is theirs. But technically, legally, they have no
legal standing.
Let me introduce you to a young man who has a great story. His name
is Novi Roy. He grew up in Illinois. He was brought to the United
States from India as a child. He was an especially good student. Novi
attended Evanston Township High School just north of Chicago, graduated
with a 3.9 grade point average.
During high school he volunteered working in the soup kitchen in
Rogers Park and continues to do that even today. He went to the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, which we are pretty proud
of, and he graduated with a bachelor's degree in economics. Just last
month he had two master's degrees awarded to him, one in business
administration and one in human resources. He is 24 years old now.
His dream is to work in the health care field to try to provide
health care protection to people who don't have it today. He said this
in a letter he wrote me:
I love America for all its opportunities and, like any
other aspiring student, I want
[[Page S3722]]
a chance to realize the American dream. I owe the State of
Illinois, its taxpayers, and America a huge debt of gratitude
for the level of education I have attained thus far. I am
confident that my education will serve me well enough to make
a difference in people's lives [and] there is nothing I
[would] like more than to give back to the community that has
been so good to me.
For the record, Novi, because he is DREAM Act eligible, is not
eligible for Federal assistance for education. These young people,
DREAM Act students, have to work harder, borrow a lot more money, if
they can, or save it, and it will take longer to get through. But they
do it anyway because they are so determined to have a good life.
Novi has been offered jobs with Fortune 100 companies, but he cannot
work legally in America because he is undocumented. Novi came to the
United States legally, and his family applied for legal permanent
resident status. When their application was denied, Novi was placed in
deportation proceedings.
He never committed a crime. He grew up in this country. We have
already invested in Novi, obviously, with an outstanding education from
a great university. He has a potential to make America a better place.
Despite these facts, even at this moment, Novi could be deported from
the United States.
In his letter to me, he said this about that possibility:
I have never entered the U.S. illegally, nor broken any of
its laws at any time. Unfortunately, my immigration case has
simply fallen through the cracks. I have lived here in
Illinois for the last 10 years, and my entire identity is
exclusively based on my life in the U.S. I have nothing to go
back to--no friends, no family, nothing. America is my home.
My office contacted Immigration and Customs Enforcement and asked
them to consider Novi's request that his deportation be placed on hold.
We just learned yesterday this request had been granted. But the
decision to put Novi's deportation on hold is temporary. It doesn't
give Novi permanent legal status, and he still is at risk of
deportation in the future. The only way for Novi to become a citizen is
for the DREAM Act to become law.
Would America be stronger and better if Novi Roy was deported? Of
course not. He has all these years of education and his graduation from
Evanston Township High School with a high GPA, two degrees from the
University of Illinois, and we would let him leave and go to some other
country and use his talents to make their country better? That makes no
sense.
He has overcome great odds to achieve the great success he has so
far. He doesn't have any criminal background problems or pose any
threats to this country. He would make America a better place.
Novi is not an isolated example. There are literally thousands of
others just like him around the country.
The DREAM Act would give Novi and other bright, accomplished, and
ambitious young people like him the chance to become America's future
entrepreneurs, doctors, engineers, teachers, and soldiers.
Today, I again ask my colleagues to support the DREAM Act. Let's give
Novi Roy and so many other young people like him a chance to contribute
more completely to the country they call home. It is the right thing to
do, and it will make America stronger.
Overseas Visit
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week during the Senate recess I
traveled overseas to four countries: Ukraine, Turkey, Georgia, and
Armenia. It was a lot of ground to cover in 5 days in a region with
considerable history and great, challenging issues.
Before I go further on the matter, let me say for the record how
impressed I am with the men and women who work representing the United
States overseas. The ambassadors, all of their staff, the consular
service, the military attaches, and those working through the
Department of Agriculture do us proud every day. Many make a personal
sacrifice to represent our country. They are on the front line.
I thank Ambassador John Tefft in Ukraine, Ambassador Ricciardone in
Turkey, Ambassador Bass in Georgia, and Ambassador Heffern in Armenia
for their public service. They are a reminder of why the relatively
small amount of money we spend on our diplomatic and foreign assistance
efforts makes a big difference in the world.
A visit through this region is a reminder of the legacy of the Soviet
Union and the challenges facing countries such as Ukraine, Georgia, and
Armenia as they try to rebuild independent and democratic nations. They
inherited an environmental degradation that had been virtually
destroyed by the Soviet Union, with broken economies built on a failed
Soviet model and weak political and governing institutions. Sadly,
these countries are not just trying to build modern nations, but must
at times face continued and increased pressure from Russia on issues
such as security and energy.
Ukraine is a good example when it comes to energy. They continue even
though they face pressures from Russia to look west to the European
Union, the United States, and NATO. They long to be in partnerships
with the United States. We need to support that relationship, as well
as the programs that help them transition away from the Soviet-era
legacy.
There isn't enough time to cover all the issues facing these
countries, but I will mention a few.
In Ukraine there has been a troubling development recently that
threatens to overshadow so much of the economic and democratic progress
they have made in recent decades. Specifically, this government
currently in control has jailed former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko
over her alleged wrongdoing regarding a contract for natural gas with
Russia. Many people have read about her detention and hunger strike.
One need not agree with policy decisions of former politicians--and I
am not here to judge whether that gas contract was sound, but I can say
in a democracy one should not make a practice of jailing political
opponents. It kind of discourages people from running.
Doing so has the bad taste of Lukashenko's dictatorship in
neighboring Belarus--not exactly the model a modern democratic Ukraine
should follow. I have seen that firsthand where, the day after his
election, the last dictator in Europe jailed all of his political
opponents. Talk about discouraging people from running for office.
As long as no criminal activity occurred, in a democracy voters
should decide at the ballot box if they did or didn't like policy
decisions of an elected official.
I had a heart-breaking discussion with Tymoshenko's daughter Eugenia.
I was deeply troubled by some of the stories I heard about her mother's
detention.
I also had a hopeful meeting with Prime Minister Azarov and President
Yanukovich on many issues of shared U.S. and Ukrainian cooperation, as
well as the Tymoshenko detention. They are going to move on a timely
basis to deal with this detention, and I assured them that the West was
watching closely. I hope she will be released from her detention as
quickly as possible.
My second stop was in Turkey. I have been there several times before.
It is a growing power in a region and the world, a thriving Muslim
democracy and a strong NATO partner of the United States.
Turkey most recently agreed to build an important NATO radar base on
its soil, an installation that is absolutely critical in keeping an eye
on Iran and its nuclear ambitions. It was a hard decision by Turkey to
agree to this installation for NATO, and they made it. I thank them for
that. It makes the world a safer place.
Turkey is hosting on its border more than 20,000 refugees who have
fled the violence in Syria. I visited one of these refugee camps in the
town of Kilis. Almost 10,000 refugees--more than 60 percent of them
women and children--were given a good, clean safe place to stay there,
education for the kids, as well as health care.
The Turkish Government needs to be commended for the generous
hospitality and kindness they provided to their Syrian neighbors
fleeing Syrian President Assad's brutality. I wonder if the United
States would be as welcoming under those circumstances. Well, Turkey
has been and they should be commended for it.
I spoke with many of the Syrians in the camp, and they told me deeply
troubling stories about the violence
[[Page S3723]]
they faced and why they had to leave everything behind and flee to a
neighboring country. They were worried about family and friends who are
still in Syria--particularly given the massacre reported last week in
Houla.
The international community must do more to end the violence and
foster a representative transition to democracy in Syria.
I have to note for the record that I saw my colleague, John McCain,
on the Senate floor. He, Senator Lieberman, and others have been to the
same place and have met with refugees and have strong feelings about
Syria. I have to say, and I said this to the Syrian opposition I met
with, I don't believe there is an appetite in America for invading
another Muslim country or sending in our Army. We are war weary after
more than 10 years at it. What we are looking for is an international
organization or others who will join in the effort to stop Bashir al-
Assad.
We encouraged Russia to step up. It has always had a special
relationship with Syria. If Russia can bring the various parties
together and end the violence and start a transition away from the
brutality of Bashir al-Assad, it will be in the best interest of Russia
and of the world.
The Arab League needs to raise its voice about solving those problems
in Syria. We cannot let Assad bring any further embarrassment to the
nations around the world. He has proven himself unworthy of the support
of Russia or any country.
I urge Russia to join the United States and Turkey and others to find
a timely way forward in Syria.
Georgia and Armenia are two other friends of the United States. In
Georgia, President Saakashvili has made great progress on democratic
and economic reforms. He was a leader in the Rose Revolution. His term
is ending soon, and I hope the ensuing election will serve as a model
for the region.
We should also not forget one important thing about Georgia. It is
still dealing with the aftereffects of the 2008 war with Russia that
resulted in the breakaway republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. I
investigated the South Ossetia borderline, and I saw the permanent
Russian facility there. It is clear that Putin is trying to create a
provocative environment within Georgia today.
We need to take steps to make sure the EU six-point plan is worked
out--a plan that wasn't implemented after the war. I hope displaced
persons and communities in South Ossetia and those in Abkhazia as well
will have a chance to be reintegrated back into Georgia where they
belong.
We need to take the steps to eliminate and reduce unnecessary human
suffering. The EU has an important monitoring mission there, and I urge
Russia and Georgia to work with them.
One last point about Georgia is that a lieutenant colonel in the U.S.
Marine Corps, stationed at Tbilisi in our Embassy, reported on what is
a phenomenal thing going on. Georgia is not in NATO. President Obama
has said they can be, and will be, and should be. At this moment,
Georgia is contributing more forces and soldiers per capita than any
nation on Earth to the NATO mission in Afghanistan. A lieutenant
colonel in our Marine Corps, who is training Georgian soldiers, said
they were great fighters. He went on to say: If you want to know how I
can prove that, I am sending them to Afghanistan to stand next to our
U.S. Marines and help us in the fight. That is as great an endorsement
any marine could give to another fighting soldier.
Lastly, Armenia. There are so many Armenians across America who have
made such a profound impact on our Nation--in fact, around the world.
The diaspora of Armenian citizens is larger than the current population
of that nation. They have lived through terrible brutality and loss of
life. The genocide that occurred in the beginning of the last century
may have claimed as many as 1.5 million lives as Armenians were
displaced from eastern Turkey, and it is a legacy they will always
remember.
I visited the Armenian Genocide Memorial and Museum to pay tribute
and acknowledge the great loss of life that Armenia has suffered. There
was a special tribute to Clara Barton, who may be remembered in
American history for her work in establishing nursing and health care.
She went late in her life--in her seventies--to Armenia to provide that
same kind of assistance. She is given special recognition in the
Government of Armenia today. The Armenian Genocide Memorial pays
tribute to the many Armenians who died during this terrible period and
the courageous leadership of those countries that went forward after
their painful past.
I called on the President of Turkey, when I visited him, as I did
several years ago, to work closely with the Armenians to try to resolve
past differences and make an honest acknowledgement of the history
between the two countries and try to work out a peaceful and
cooperative relationship.
Mr. President, one encounter in Armenia in particular gave me hope
that such a path forward is possible. I met with six Armenians who had
participated in U.S.-supported cross-border reconciliation programs
with Turkey. They were artists, journalists, business entrepreneurs,
filmmakers, and high school students. Some of their stories were deeply
moving.
One high school student named Victoria talked about the summer camp
she visited in Vermont with Turkish high school counterparts and how
they broke through stereotypes and started friendships. The filmmaker
talked about joint films made with Turkish counterparts and then shown
at the Istanbul Film Festival. An entrepreneur in Armenia talked about
a service he set up to help businesspeople from Turkey work in Armenia
and invest there.
These stories gave me hope that some of the painful wounds between
these countries can be healed.
Let me close by saying what a reminder these countries are of the
importance still played by American leadership all over the world. At a
time with so many economic and security challenges around the world,
now is not the time for the United States to retreat from the global
stage.
I support the President's ending of the war in Iraq. I believe we
should remove our troops from Afghanistan as quickly as possible. I
know we have to remain engaged. The world still looks to us for
leadership and values that they can build their countries' future on as
well.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________