[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.

                          ____________________