[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9167-9174]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM AND MODERNIZATION ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--
                               Continued

  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER.


                         Hanscom Air Force Base

  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I rise today to speak 
about the Electronic Systems Center at Hanscom Air Force Base in 
Massachusetts and its role in our Nation's cybersecurity.
  I want to clarify a situation we face as a nation. First, the 
Secretary of Defense has said loudly and clearly that the threat of 
cyber attacks on our country and the need for America to develop strong 
military capabilities keeps him up at night, and it keeps me and many 
other people up as well. We read about the cyber attacks by the 
Chinese, and we read about Iran. The Secretary has described it as an 
evolving and urgent threat in our future. Our Nation's security depends 
on winning the battle in cyberspace.
  Unfortunately, the Air Force is in the midst of a four-structure 
change that ignores the crucial facts I have just stated. At a time 
when cyber threats are growing more important each day, the Air Force 
is making questionable decisions that, in my opinion, create an 
unnecessary risk to our Nation's cyber defenses and our ability to deal 
with those very threats. It makes absolutely no sense at this point in 
time.
  That is why just a few weeks ago the House and Senate Armed Services 
Committee took strong action to prevent what the entire Massachusetts 
delegation believed was a premature proposal by the Air Force to reduce 
Hanscom's leadership from a three-star general to a two-star general.
  The elimination of the ESC commander position at Hanscom will 
diminish our cyber capabilities and focus across the entire force, and 
that is not good at this point in time. That is the last thing we need 
in the midst of a cyber attack.
  In response, Representative Tsongas of Massachusetts inserted a 
provision in this year's National Defense Authorization Act that was 
passed by the full House of Representatives which required the 
Secretary of the Air Force to remain and retain core functions at 
Hanscom as they existed on November 1, 2011. Her language was aimed at 
retaining Hanscom's three-star leadership.
  Similarly, I worked with Senator Lieberman and our Senate Armed 
Services Committee to include language in the Senate Armed Services 
markup reported version of the Defense authorization bill that directs 
the Air Force to keep in place the current leadership rank structure 
until the two defense committees have had an opportunity to review the 
recommendations of the National Commission on the Structure of the Air 
Force.
  Given Secretary Panetta's warning, I believe we must pay particular 
attention to any changes that relate to cybersecurity. The 
Massachusetts delegation has been united in declaring that both 
Hanscom's mission and the senior leadership should be preserved in 
order

[[Page 9168]]

to bring forth the best cyber capabilities our country has to offer.
  Both defense committees have spoken with one voice to the Air Force: 
Stand down with this change until both committees receive more 
information about how the proposed force structure changes will impact 
our cybersecurity.
  I also wish to explain why the delegation feels so strongly about 
this. Massachusetts has been a national security and information 
technology leader for many decades. Groundbreaking innovation in 
cybersecurity is taking place in Massachusetts as we speak--perhaps 
more than any other State in our entire Nation. That innovation is 
happening at Hanscom, at universities such as the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology, and in our defense sector. Our capabilities 
are second to none.
  The Electronic Systems Center at Hanscom has unlimited potential to 
take on future missions and future threats in the realm of 
cybersecurity. The Air Force and the MIT Lincoln Lab are now upgrading 
their partnership to enhance our Nation's ability to meet key and 
growing cyber requirements. The Department of Defense and the Air Force 
continue to depend on Hanscom's unmatched cyber expertise.
  To ensure our Nation's crucial cyber defense, I say again very firmly 
today that the Air Force must preserve the senior three-star leadership 
in Massachusetts. Doesn't it make sense for our military's cyber 
leadership, expertise, and talent to be based in a location where some 
of the world's most leading research and technological development is 
actually taking place? Placing Hanscom's cyber team under a chain of 
command with a 3-star general in another State with a number of other 
Air Force responsibilities diminishes our Nation's ability to deliver 
critical cyber tools and resources and impacts our ability to respond 
to the ever-growing cyber threat.
  Congress has spoken in a bipartisan and bicameral way. We have stated 
our position clearly. The Air Force should not move forward with any 
force structure changes at Hanscom until Congress has had an 
opportunity to review what our appropriate force structure mix should 
be, particularly as it relates to cybersecurity. We absolutely, 
positively must be ready to meet this next-generation threat--the one 
that keeps Secretary Panetta up at night. I will continue to fight to 
make sure we are prepared.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 
as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Celebrating Juneteenth Independence Day

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I rise today in support of a 
resolution I am cosponsoring to commemorate Juneteenth Independence 
Day.
  In just 2 weeks, Americans will gather, of course, as we know, to 
celebrate the Fourth of July, but it is important to remember that when 
our Nation gained its independence, there were some 450,000 enslaved 
people in the 13 States. It wasn't until June 19, 1865, more than 2 
years after President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, 
which liberated a limited number of people, that enslaved people in the 
Southwestern States finally learned of their freedom.
  Months after the 13th amendment was ratified, Army MG Gordon Granger 
and Federal troops arrived in Galveston, TX, to enforce emancipation. 
Since then, Americans in Texas and throughout the United States have 
celebrated Juneteenth, which is the oldest known celebration of the end 
of slavery in our country.
  To celebrate that day, people from all backgrounds--not only African 
Americans and not only descendants of slaves but people of all 
backgrounds and ethnicities--will gather in special places all over 
Ohio. They will gather at Franklin Park in Columbus, our State capital. 
They will gather at ``The Coming of Emancipation'' memorial service in 
Oberlin, just a few miles from my house, the site of visits from Martin 
Luther King and the site of the Underground Railroad where those 
escaping slavery were housed on their way to Canada. Ohioans will 
reflect in Westwood Cemetery in Oberlin, where former slaves and famous 
abolitionists are buried. At Cincinnati's Juneteenth Festival in Eden 
Park, families and visitors will gather on one of the hilltops 
overlooking the Ohio River, which slaves saw while coming from Kentucky 
into freedom as they crossed the river into the North. They will 
remember the perilous journey to freedom that many made at the banks of 
that river. In Wilberforce, an African-American school--a university in 
southwest Ohio--and Zanesville, in Newcomerstown and Cleveland, Ohioans 
will hold ceremonies of remembrance and celebration.
  On Juneteenth Independence Day, especially, we have yet another 
opportunity to celebrate our great Democratic traditions--our American 
ingenuity, innovation, and imagination. We celebrate the rich heritage 
and vibrant culture of all Americans who are descendants of enslaved 
people on American soil. We celebrate the ingenuity of Ohioans such as 
Columbus native Granville T. Woods, who invented the telegraph device 
that sent messages from moving trains and train stations. We celebrate 
the innovation of Ohioans such as Garrett Morgan, a Clevelander who 
invented the traffic light. We celebrate the imagination and wisdom of 
Ohioans such as Nobel Prize-winning and recent Presidential Medal of 
Freedom honoree Toni Morrison of Lorain, OH.
  In America, progress is never promised, but through the work of 
dedicated citizens, we move closer to being the Nation our Framers 
envisioned. We can work together toward achieving a more perfect union, 
where justice isn't limited to the powerful but is also accessible to 
the people.
  Today I am proud to commemorate Juneteenth Independence Day.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business 
for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Utility MACT

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, as we know, the Senate will take a vote 
this week on the CRA that I have offered concerning Utility MACT. 
Utility MACT is a requirement. MACT, of course--M-A-C-T--means maximum 
achievable controlled technology. One of the problems with the 
overregulation we have with a lot of these emissions is that there is 
no technology to accommodate this. In the case of Utility MACT, I think 
everyone understands now that this is an effort to kill coal. I know 
there are a lot of reasons people have, but recently some things have 
happened, and I thought I would mention them as we look toward this 
bill. It looks as though it is going to be on Wednesday. It looks as if 
there will be some speaking time on Tuesday, and on Wednesday we will 
actually have the vote.
  As we all know, a CRA is an effort for elected officials to reflect 
upon overregulation and to stop a regulation. After all, we are the 
ones who are accountable to the people and not the Environmental 
Protection Agency.
  The breaking news is that President Obama just issued a statement 
this afternoon that he will veto my resolution if it passes. Just 
before that announcement from the White House this afternoon, 
Representatives Ed Markey and Henry Waxman came out fighting with a new 
report detailing what Representative Waxman has called the most anti-
environmental House of Representatives in history. I wish to remind my 
Democratic friends that 19 House Democrats supported the companion 
legislation in the House--the same thing we will be voting on here. 
Democrats and many of the labor unions have sent letters in support of 
my resolution, so it is not just Republicans whose constituents are 
feeling the pain of the EPA's regulations.
  To my Democratic friends in the House, I beg to differ--it is not 
that this Congress is anti-environmental; it

[[Page 9169]]

is that the EPA is the most radical EPA in history, aggressive to the 
point that even the left-leaning Washington Post has called out the 
Agency for ``earning a reputation for abuse.'' Of course, this is the 
same EPA whose top officials have told us they are out to crucify the 
American energy producers.
  We all remember the sixth area of the EPA, when Mr. Armendariz came 
out and made this statement to some of his supporters: We need to do 
the same thing the Romans did. We remember back in the old days when 
they were going around the Mediterranean and they would go into the 
towns in Turkey and they would crucify the first five people they would 
see. That gets them under their control.
  He said: That is what we have to do.
  He said: That is going to be our operation.
  Well, we went through that, and of course he is no longer there.
  Over the course of President Obama's Presidency, whatever they could 
not achieve through legislation they have tried to achieve through 
aggressive, onerous EPA regulations. They tried first of all to do it 
through legislation. Remember the cap-and-trade legislation--they tried 
for 10 years to get that done. Finally, each year they brought it up, 
more and more people in this body, the U.S. Senate, were opposed to a 
cap-and-trade system to do away with greenhouse gases and to put 
regulations on them. Well, every time a vote comes up, there is a 
larger majority opposed to it because the people of this country are 
concerned about the economy and the fact that this would be very 
costly. It was President Obama who said that with the cap-and-trade 
regulations, it would be very expensive.
  Now, when they couldn't pass the Clean Water Restoration Act, the 
same thing happened. Remember, that was introduced by Senator Feingold 
from Wisconsin and by Representative Oberstar in the House. And not 
only did they defeat overwhelmingly the Clean Water Restoration Act, 
but the two individuals who were the sponsors in the House and the 
Senate were both defeated in the next election.
  So just how radical is President Obama on environmental issues? By 
imposing these backdoor global warming cap-and-trade regulations 
through the EPA, President Obama is fulfilling his campaign promise 
that energy prices would necessarily skyrocket--his words. By vetoing 
the Keystone Pipeline, he gave the far left what one of his supporters 
called the biggest global warming victory in years. By finalizing the 
most expensive EPA rule in history, he is making good on his campaign 
promise that if anybody wants to build a coal-fired powerplant, they 
can; it is just that it will bankrupt them. And he succeeded in 
throwing hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars out the window on 
companies such as Solyndra, which he said would lead us to a brighter 
and more prosperous future.
  But President Obama is not running on this record of accomplishments. 
Why? Because Americans are worse off, not better off, for it. They are 
out of work, and they are struggling to make ends meet under the pain 
of regulations that cause their energy prices to skyrocket. So he is 
running as far away from that radical record as possible.
  So what are we trying to do in the Senate by stopping Utility MACT? 
We are trying to prevent the President from achieving another aspect of 
his radical global warming agenda and hopefully restore some sanity and 
balance to this out-of-control regulatory regime.
  I think everyone in this body can agree that we all share a 
commitment to improving air quality, that it should be done in a way 
that doesn't harm jobs and the economy and cause electricity prices to 
skyrocket on every American or do away with one of the most reliable, 
abundant, affordable energy resources--coal. We have to keep in mind 
that right now, in order to run this machine called America, 50 percent 
of it is actually being done on coal.
  I wish to address the public health debate which has long been the 
excuse for those in this administration who simply want to kill coal. 
It was certainly the excuse President Obama used today to defend his 
decision to veto my resolution. Let's be clear about one thing from the 
outset: If the effort behind Utility MACT were really about public 
health, then my Democratic colleagues would have joined our efforts way 
back in 2005 and passed the Clear Skies bill--a bill that would have 
put a plan in place to achieve a 70-percent reduction in mercury 
emissions--but they didn't. We all remember why. We wanted to include 
in this bill SoX, NoX, and mercury--the real 
pollutants--a mandatory 70-percent reduction, and they said we can't do 
it because we don't also have CO2 anthropogenic gases that 
are covered by this bill. So it was held hostage, and consequently we 
weren't able to get it passed.
  I can remember President Obama said:

       I voted against the Clear Skies bill. In fact, I was the 
     deciding vote despite the fact that I'm a coal State and that 
     half of my State thought I'd thoroughly betrayed them because 
     I thought clean air was critical and global warming was 
     critical.

  At an Environment and Public Works hearing in April of this year, 
Senator Barrasso asked Brenda Archambo from the National Wildlife 
Federation if the American people would have been better off if the 
Senate had passed the Clear Skies bill back in 2005, and her answer was 
``absolutely.'' Of course, the National Wildlife Federation was not 
happy that we were calling attention to Ms. Archambo's admission, so 
over the weekend they accused my staff of twisting her words. My staff 
did nothing of the sort. Not only did Ms. Archambo say that mercury 
reductions in 2005 would absolutely have made Americans better off, she 
reiterated that same point later when Senator Barrasso asked her again, 
``It would have been better if they had done it in 2005?'' Ms. Archambo 
replied, ``Sure.'' The entire exchange from the hearing has been posted 
on our EPW Web site for anyone who wants to see exactly what was said.
  I do not think it gets any clearer than that. Commonsense reductions 
earlier would have made us better off. That was 2005 when we would have 
had these reductions, mandatory reductions, in a very short period of 
time; and that time is more than 50 percent expired at this time.
  In a National Wildlife Federation blog accusing me of twisting Ms. 
Archambo's words, the author says:

       An odd part of Sen. Inhofe's attack: He's essentially 
     saying a 70% reduction in mercury emissions would've been 
     just dandy, but the 91% reduction proposed by the EPA would 
     destroy the economy. Is that really such a huge difference? 
     Or is he just playing politics with public health?

  That is a good question: What is the difference between Clear Skies 
and Utility MACT? It is very simple. Clear Skies would have reduced 
emissions dramatically--by 70 percent--now we are talking about 
reducing emissions on SOX, NOX, and mercury--but 
it would have done it without threatening to kill coal and the millions 
of jobs that coal sustains.
  On the other hand, Utility MACT is specifically designed to kill 
coal. It makes no effort whatsoever to balance environmental protection 
and economic growth.
  Now who is playing politics with public health? If public health were 
the priority, why did President Obama and his fellow Democrats vote 
against a 70-percent reduction way back in 2005?
  What is this effort about? It is about one thing: killing coal. And 
killing coal is the centerpiece of their radical global warming agenda. 
Remember then-Senator Obama said that he voted against the health 
benefits in Clear Skies because he thought ``global warming was 
critical.'' In other words, global warming was more important than any 
of the considerations regarding health. And these are real pollutants: 
SOX, NOX, and mercury.
  Importantly, the Senate will take this vote on my resolution just as 
the world leaders are gathering in Rio de Janeiro. Right now they are 
down there gathering at the Rio + 20 Sustainable Development 
Conference.

[[Page 9170]]

  Let's remember what happened 20 years ago. In 1992, that was the 
conference in Rio where they all got together, and they were going to 
be doing all these things on anthropogenic gases and all of that. 
President Obama, who is now busy pretending to be a fossil fuel 
President to garner votes, will not be attending. But he is sending his 
``green team'' to negotiate on his behalf.
  What is this conference about? As Fox News reported back in April:

       The main goal of the much-touted, Rio + 20 United Nations 
     Conference on Sustainable Development . . . is to make 
     dramatic and enormously expensive changes in the way that the 
     world does nearly everything--or, as one of the documents 
     puts it, ``a fundamental shift in the way we think and act.''

  Utility MACT is a huge part of this effort to change the way we live 
and to spread the wealth around, and that is what they are talking 
about down there. We have started invoking a new tax system.
  U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon proposes how sustainable 
development challenges ``can and must be addressed.'' He included--now 
I am quoting him--more than $2.1 trillion a year in wealth transfers 
from rich countries to poorer countries, in the name of fostering 
``green infrastructure,'' ``climate adaptation,'' and other ``green 
economy'' measures.
  He is advocating for new carbon taxes--that is on us--for 
industrialized countries that could cost about $250 billion a year or 
0.6 percent of gross domestic product by 2020. Other environmental 
taxes are mentioned but not specified.
  Also included are further unspecified price hikes that extend beyond 
fossil fuels to anything derived from agriculture, fisheries, forestry, 
or other kinds of land and water use, all of which would be radically 
reorganized. These cost changes would ``contribute to a more level 
playing field between the established, `brown' technologies and newer, 
greener ones.''
  He has advocated for major global social spending programs, including 
a ``social protection floor'' and ``social safety nets'' for the 
world's most vulnerable social groups for reasons of ``equity.''
  It is all talking about more higher taxes on the developed world to 
go to the benefit of the underdeveloped world. This is the same thing 
they were talking about 20 years ago.
  I think it is very timely that this is happening today. It is 
happening at the very moment we will be voting on Wednesday as to 
whether to kill coal. By the way, this is the only vote that will be 
taken this year or probably ever to ultimately kill coal. Once this is 
passed, then, of course, the contracts are all broken and we have to 
figure out: What are we going to do in this country? If you kill coal, 
how do we run this machine called America? The answer to that question 
is, you cannot do it.
  So it is very important, and I do not think there is any doubt in 
anyone's mind that the real purpose of the vote that will take place on 
Wednesday is to kill coal in America. And America cannot provide the 
necessary energy to run its machine and be competitive without coal. So 
it is a critical vote, and it is one that I think people are aware of 
that is going to be taking place.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             The DREAM Act

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, more than two centuries ago, in the 
Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers wrote that ``all men 
are created equal.'' America has sometimes fallen short of that ideal, 
but the history of our country has been a slow march toward equality 
for all.
  We have seen Presidents play a key role in expanding freedom and 
equality. Who can forget Harry Truman's desegregation of the military, 
which set the stage for a Supreme Court decision and a civil rights era 
that has literally changed the face of America?
  Last Friday was another case in point. President Barack Obama 
declared that his administration will no longer deport immigrant 
students who grew up in America. This action will give these young 
immigrants the chance to come out of the shadows and be part of the 
only country they have ever called home. With that decisive executive 
decision, America took another step toward fulfilling the Founders' 
promise of justice for all.
  It has been 11 years--11 years--since I first introduced the DREAM 
Act--legislation that would allow a select group of immigrant students 
with real potential to contribute more fully to America.
  The DREAM Act would give these students a chance to earn citizenship 
if they came to the United States as children, they have been long-term 
U.S. residents, they have good moral character, graduate from high 
school, and either complete 2 years of military service or 2 years of 
college.
  The DREAM Act has a history of broad bipartisan support. When I first 
introduced it, Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican from Utah, was my lead 
cosponsor. In fact, we had kind of a head to head--who was going to be 
the first name: Hatch or Durbin? Since the Republicans were in the 
majority, I bowed toward Senator Hatch.
  In 2006--when Republicans last controlled this Congress--the DREAM 
Act passed the Senate as part of comprehensive immigration reform on a 
62-to-36 vote, with 23 Republicans voting for the DREAM Act. 
Unfortunately, the Republican leaders in the House refused to even 
consider the bill.
  Republican support for the DREAM Act, unfortunately, has been 
diminishing over the years. The last time the DREAM Act was considered 
in Congress, the bill passed the House under the leadership of 
Congressman Luis Gutierrez of Illinois and received a strong majority 
vote in the Senate. But only eight Republican House Members and three 
Republican Senators voted for the bill. What a change in such a short 
period of time.
  Let's be clear: The only reason the DREAM Act is not the law of the 
land of America is because we consistently face a Republican filibuster 
whenever we bring up this bill.
  The vast majority of Democrats continue to support the DREAM Act, but 
the reality is it cannot pass without support from my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle. That is why I have always said I am open to 
sitting down with anyone, Republican or Democrat, who is interested in 
working in good faith to solve this problem.
  I am personally committed to passing the DREAM Act, no matter how 
long it takes. But the young people who would be eligible for the DREAM 
Act cannot wait any longer for Congress to act. Many have been deported 
from the only country they have ever known: America. They have been 
sent off to countries they do not remember with languages they do not 
speak.
  Those who are still here are growing older. And when they graduate 
from college, they are stuck, unable to work, unable to contribute to 
the only country they know.
  That is why President Obama, using his Presidential authority, did 
such an important thing to help these immigrant students. The President 
granted them a form of relief known as ``deferred action,'' which puts 
a hold on their deportation and allows them, on a temporary, renewable 
basis, to live and work legally in America.
  That was the right thing to do. These students grew up here pledging 
allegiance to our flag and singing the only national anthem they know. 
They are Americans in their heart and in their mind. They did not make 
the decision to come to this country; their parents did.
  As Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said last Friday, 
immigrants who were brought here illegally as children ``lacked [any] 
intent to violate the law.'' And it is not the American way to punish 
children for their parents' actions. We do not do that in any aspect of 
the law in this country. Why would we do it here?

[[Page 9171]]

  There will always be critics when the President uses his power, as he 
did last Friday. In fact, some Members of Congress attacked President 
Truman when he ordered the desegregation of America's military. They 
said Truman's order would hurt the military. Many even claimed Truman 
had performed an illegal act as President.
  Today, many of the naysayers in this generation claim that halting 
the deportation of DREAM Act students will hurt the economy and that it 
too may be illegal. President Truman's critics were wrong, and so are 
President Obama's.
  President Obama's new deportation policy will make America a stronger 
nation by giving these talented immigrants the chance to contribute 
more fully to our economy.
  Studies show these young people could contribute literally trillions 
of dollars to the American economy during their working lives. They are 
the doctors, engineers, teachers, and soldiers who will make us a 
stronger nation. Why would we waste that talent? They have been 
educated and trained in the United States. We have invested in these 
people. Let us at least see the fruits of this investment, the benefits 
that can come to America.
  Let's be clear. What the Obama administration has done in 
establishing this new process for prioritizing deportations is 
perfectly appropriate and legal. Throughout our history, the government 
has decided whom to prosecute, and whom not to prosecute based on law 
enforcement priorities and available resources.
  The Supreme Court has held this:

       An agency's decision not to prosecute . . . is a decision 
     generally committed to an agency's absolute discretion.

  President Obama granted deferred action--to use the technical term--
to DREAM Act students. Past administrations, both Democratic and 
Republican, have used deferred action to stop deportation of low-
priority cases.
  Last month, 90 immigration law professors sent a letter to the 
President arguing that the executive branch has ``clear executive 
authority'' to grant deferred action to DREAM Act students. The letter 
explains that the executive branch has granted deferred action since at 
least 1971 and that Federal courts have recognized this authority since 
at least the mid-1970s. These immigration experts have also noted there 
are a number of precedents for granting deferred action to groups of 
individuals such as DREAM Act students.
  The President's action is not just legal, it is also a smart and 
realistic approach to enforcing our immigration laws. Today, there are 
millions of undocumented immigrants in the United States, and it would 
literally take billions of dollars to deport them.
  The Department of Homeland Security has to set priorities about which 
people to deport and which not to deport.
  The Obama administration has established a deportation policy that 
makes it a high priority to deport those who have committed serious 
crimes or are a threat to public safety. I totally support that 
approach. President Obama has said we will not use our limited 
resources to deport DREAM Act students.
  Some of my Republican colleagues have claimed this is a sort of 
backdoor amnesty. That isn't even close to being true. This is simply a 
decision to focus limited government resources on serious criminals and 
other public safety threats. DREAM Act students will not receive 
permanent legal status or citizenship under the President's order.
  This policy has strong bipartisan support in Congress. I wish to say 
a special word about a colleague. Two years ago, Indiana Republican 
Senator Richard Lugar joined me--crossing the aisle--to ask the 
Department of Homeland Security to grant this deferred action. I called 
him on Friday and said: Dick, I just want to tell you how much I 
respect you. It took us 2 years, but we got it done.
  He was the only Senator from the other side of the aisle with the 
courage to step up and join me in that letter. He may have paid a price 
for it, though he denied it in the phone conversation. I cannot tell 
you how much I respect that man for his courage in asking for this.
  It took 2 years, but those students who are appreciative of the 
President's action should not forget the singular courage of the 
Senator from Indiana.
  Last year, when Senator Lugar and I sent a renewed request, 21 
Senators joined us, including majority leader Harry Reid, Judiciary 
Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, and, of course, Senator Bob Menendez, 
who heads up the Hispanic Caucus in the Senate.
  It is easy to criticize the President's new deportation policy when 
it is an abstract debate and we are talking about constitutional legal 
authority and deferred action and so forth.
  I think what has brought this debate to where it stands today are the 
real stories, the stories of these young people. I have tried almost 
every week to come to the floor to tell a DREAM Act story. Today, I 
wish to tell one more.
  This is a photo of Manny Bartsch, who was born in Germany. He was 
abused and neglected by his parents, so his grandmother became his 
guardian. After Manny's grandfather passed away, his grandmother 
married an American soldier. When Manny was 7 years old, sadly, his 
grandmother was tragically killed by a drunk driver. His step-
grandfather decided to return to America, and he brought Manny with 
him. They moved to Gilboa, a small town in northwestern Ohio.
  Unfortunately, Manny's step-grandfather, wanting to protect him, 
failed to file any papers for Manny to become a U.S. citizen. But Manny 
grew up in Ohio, where he went to elementary school and high school. 
When Manny was preparing to apply for college, he learned he didn't 
have any legal status in America.
  Manny wanted to do the right thing, so he made an appointment with 
Immigration Services to clear up things. When he showed up for his 
appointment, Manny was arrested and detained. He was 17 years old.
  Here is what Manny said about the prospect of being deported to 
Germany, a country he left as a little boy:

       I don't know anybody over there. This is my home. This is 
     where everybody I know lives, and to have to think about 
     leaving, I just wouldn't be able to imagine it.

  Manny's friends and family rallied behind him, asking for his 
deportation to be at least temporarily suspended. Thanks to the 
community support, he was ultimately allowed to stay. He went on to 
college at Heidelberg University in Tiffin, OH.
  Last month, Manny graduated with a major in political science and a 
minor in history. He was president of his fraternity and has been 
active in community service. For instance, for the last 4 years, he has 
organized a fundraiser to purchase Christmas presents for children with 
cancer at the Cleveland Clinic.
  Here is what Manny says about his future:

       I would go through any channel I have to to correct this 
     situation. I'm not asking for citizenship [but] I would love 
     to earn it if that possibility would arise. . . . I would 
     love to contribute to this country, give back to it. I just 
     don't understand why they would educate people in my 
     situation and deport them back and let countries reap the 
     benefits of the education system here.

  David Hogan is the chairman of the History Department at Heidelberg 
University. He says this about Manny:

       We want good people in this country. We want honest, hard-
     working people, and that's Manny pure and simple. [He is] in 
     the top two percent [of students] in terms of brilliance, 
     work ethic, personal qualities.

  Thanks to President Obama's executive order last Friday, Manny 
Bartsch and other DREAM Act students will continue to be able to live 
and work legally in America.
  I ask the critics of that policy this: Would we be better off if we 
deported Manny back to Germany, a country he left when he was a little 
boy? Of course not.
  Manny grew up in America. He doesn't have any criminal background. He 
is no threat to our country. He will make America stronger if we just 
give him a chance.
  Manny isn't just one example. There are a lot more--literally 
hundreds, if not thousands, of others just like him.

[[Page 9172]]

  When the history of civil rights in this century--the 21st century--
is written, President Obama's decision to grant deferred action to 
DREAM Act students will be a key chapter.
  But It is also clear this is only a temporary solution. It doesn't 
absolve Congress--the Senate and the House--from tackling this 
difficult but critically important issue. It is a matter of justice as 
well as for the future of our economy. This is still our burden and 
responsibility. It was 2 years ago when I sent this letter with Senator 
Lugar. I am grateful there was a President who read it and listened and 
had the courage to act. His courage in standing for these young people 
will make us a better nation, and, equally important, it will bend that 
arc toward justice again.
  At the end of the day, these young people will make the case for why 
this was the right thing to do. I have no doubt in my mind that when 
the balance sheet comes in on these DREAM Act students, we are going to 
say thank goodness we did this. I personally salute the President for 
his leadership. This was a historic and humanitarian moment. It has 
changed the debate in America about immigration and has given these 
young people a chance.
  I called one of those students on Friday, Gabby Pacheco. She is the 
best. She walked from Florida to Washington to dramatize the DREAM Act. 
She came out publicly and said: I am undocumented, and I will stand for 
those in a similar situation. She was crying on the phone. She just 
heard about it. She said: I am afraid these students will come forward 
and admit they are undocumented and someday some Congress and some 
President will use it against them and deport them. I said: Gabby, I 
don't think so. Once they stand and say we are going to follow the law 
and do what we are told to do and put our names down and tell you who 
we are, anybody who tries to use that against them is going to cause a 
terrific backlash across America. People in America will respect these 
young people and realize we will be a better nation because of it.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                  Unanimous Consent Agreement--S. 3240

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this is a day I did not think would ever 
arrive. But we are here, I think. I so admire, having managed a few 
bills in my day, the work done by Senator Stabenow and Senator Roberts. 
I will say more about that later. This is not a great agreement, but it 
is a good agreement, and they worked so hard to get where we are. I so 
appreciate what they have done. As I said before, I did not think we 
would be here.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes 
consideration of S. 3240, the pending motion to recommit be withdrawn; 
that amendment No. 2390 be withdrawn; that the Stabenow-Roberts 
amendment No. 2389 be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered 
original text for the purposes of further amendment; that the following 
amendments and motions be the only first-degree amendments and motions 
in order to the bill: Akaka No. 2440, Akaka No. 2396, Baucus No. 2429, 
Bingaman No. 2364, Brown of Ohio No. 2445, Cantwell No. 2370, Casey No. 
2238, Coons No. 2426, Feinstein No. 2422, Feinstein No. 2309, 
Gillibrand No. 2156, Hagan No. 2366, Kerry No. 2187, Landrieu No. 2321, 
Manchin No. 2345, Merkley No. 2382, Schumer No. 2427, Stabenow No. 
2453, Udall of Colorado No. 2295, Warner No. 2457, Wyden No. 2442, 
Wyden No. 2388, Leahy No. 2204, Nelson of Nebraska No. 2242, Klobuchar 
No. 2299, Carper No. 2287, Sanders No. 2254, Thune No. 2437, Durbin-
Coburn No. 2439, Snowe No. 2190, Ayotte No. 2192, Collins No. 2444, 
Grassley No. 2167, Sessions No. 2174, Nelson of Nebraska No. 2243, 
Sessions No. 2172, Paul No. 2181, Alexander No. 2191, McCain No. 2199, 
Toomey No. 2217, DeMint No. 2263, DeMint No. 2262, DeMint No. 2268, 
DeMint No. 2276, DeMint No. 2273, Coburn No. 2289, Coburn No. 2293, 
Kerry No. 2454, Kyl No. 2354, Lee No. 2313, Lee No. 2314, Boozman No. 
2355, Boozman No. 2360, Toomey No. 2226, Toomey No. 2433, Lee motion to 
recommit, Johnson of Wisconsin motion to recommit, Chambliss No. 2438, 
Chambliss No. 2340, Chambliss No. 2432, Ayotte No. 2195, Blunt No. 
2246, Moran No. 2403, Moran No. 2443, Vitter No. 2363, Toomey No. 2247, 
Sanders No. 2310, Coburn No. 2214, Boxer No. 2456, Johanns No. 2372, 
Murray No. 2455, McCain No. 2162, Rubio No. 2166; that at 2:15 p.m., 
Tuesday, June 19, the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the 
amendments in the order listed, alternating between Republican- and 
Democratic-sponsored amendments; that there be no amendments or motions 
in order to the amendments prior to the votes other than motions to 
waive points of order and motions to table; that there be 2 minutes of 
debate equally divided in the usual form between the votes, and all 
after the first vote be 10-minute votes; that the Toomey No. 2247, 
Sanders No. 2310, Coburn No. 2214, Boxer No. 2456, Johanns No. 2372, 
Murray No. 2455, McCain No. 2162, and Rubio No. 2166 be subject to a 
60-affirmative-vote threshold; that the clerks be authorized to modify 
the instruction lines on amendments so the page and line numbers match 
up correctly; that upon disposition of the amendments, the bill, as 
amended, be read a third time; that there be up to 10 minutes equally 
divided in the usual form prior to a vote on passage of the bill, as 
amended, if amended; finally, that the vote on passage of the bill be 
subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, as we are waiting for wrap-up this 
evening, I wish to take a moment to thank all our colleagues for the 
extraordinary effort to get to this point where we are going to be able 
to come together, debate a number of different issues related to the 
farm bill and other issues as well, and be able to come to a final vote 
and passage of the farm bill.
  I wish to thank, first of all, Senator Reid for his extraordinary 
patience and talent in working with Senator Roberts and me and all the 
staff, all the leadership staff, who have worked with us on this.
  I also wish to thank Senator Roberts for being a tremendous partner 
with me, and both our staffs who are doing yeoman's work.
  There is a lot more work to do. We have a lot of amendments we will 
begin tomorrow, I believe tomorrow afternoon, and then we will work on 
through the week to get this done.
  But this really is an example of the Senate coming together to agree 
to get things done--people of different backgrounds, ideas, and 
different regions of the country. This is an opportunity for us to show 
that the Senate can work together--which is what we are doing right 
now, on a bipartisan basis--and be able to move forward on a very 
important piece of legislation.
  This bill is a jobs bill. This bill represents 16 million people in 
the country who work because of agriculture in some way. We have had a 
lot of jobs bills in front of us. I am not sure there has been one that 
has directly affected 16 million jobs like this does.
  We also have an opportunity in this bill to come together and clearly 
state that we are serious about deficit reduction. We are the only 
authorizing committee that has come forward in a bipartisan way with a 
bill that cuts the spending within our jurisdiction--$23 billion in 
deficit reduction. We have

[[Page 9173]]

gone through every part of this bill, and we have literally analyzed 
every page and determined that there were some programs that were 
duplications or not effective or didn't make any sense anymore, and we 
ended up with about 100 different programs and authorizations that we 
eliminated from those items under USDA's jurisdiction. So this really 
is a reform bill.
  I know the Presiding Officer is a real champion of reform and of 
agriculture. We have worked together, certainly, on fruits and 
vegetables and organic farming and local food systems and a whole range 
of things that we have improved upon in this bill. I thank the Chair 
for his continued leadership on those issues.
  This really is an opportunity to come together around deficit 
reduction, around reform, to focus on jobs and give our farmers and 
ranchers predictability in terms of knowing what will happen going 
forward as they make business decisions for themselves.
  It is a huge opportunity around conservation. I think most people 
wouldn't realize at first blush that the farm bill is actually the 
largest investment we as Americans make in land and water conservation, 
air quality, related to working lands. Seventy percent of our lands are 
privately held lands in some way--farmers and others, landholders--and 
the conservation title affects how we work with them to be able to 
conserve our land and water and address the air quality issues. We have 
had two successes there. So this is a real opportunity to build on that 
certainly for many regions in the country, such as my own Great Lakes 
region. It is critical in working with our farmers who have a number of 
different environmental issues to address. On behalf of all of us, this 
gives us an opportunity to partner with them and deal with soil erosion 
and water quality issues and runoff into our lakes and streams and 
Great Lakes and deal with open spaces, protecting wildlife habitat and 
wetlands, and creating a new easement program that will address urban 
sprawl so that we are protecting our lands.
  I am very proud of what we have done in conservation. We have taken 
it from 23 programs down to 13 and divided it into 4 topics--a lot of 
flexibility, locally led, with farmers and ranchers working with local 
communities. We have saved money, but at the same time we are actually 
strengthening conservation, which is why we have I think 643 different 
conservation and environmental groups supporting what we are doing in 
terms of our approach on conservation. I am pleased with that.
  The rural development provisions of this bill affect every community 
outside of our urban areas. The majority of Michigan--we see support 
through financing for water and sewer projects, small businesses, 
housing, working with local law enforcement, police and firefighters, 
local mayors and city council people, counties all across Michigan and 
the country, certainly in Oregon, where rural development funding and 
support for quality of life and jobs and rural communities is very much 
a part of the bill.
  We think of the bill in terms of production agriculture. Obviously, 
it is critical. I don't know any business that has more risk than a 
farmer or rancher--nobody. So we all have a stake. We have the safest, 
most affordable, dependable food supply in the world. We wanted to make 
sure no farmer loses a farm because of a few days of bad weather. What 
we do in production agriculture is very important.
  We also have a broad role, together with rural communities, with 
ranchers and farmers, to support our land and our water and our habitat 
and our air. We do that through conservation. We have rural 
development. We have an energy title that allows us to take what we 
do--the byproducts from agriculture, whether that be food or animal 
waste or biomass from forests or corn or wheat or soybean oil--whatever 
it is--to be able to create jobs through bio-based manufacturing, 
advanced biofuels, going beyond corn to other kinds of advanced 
cellulosic biofuels, which is very much a part of the bill, all of 
which creates jobs.
  We are creating jobs in a multitude of ways in the bill. We are also 
supporting families who, because of no fault of their own in this 
recession, have been hit so hard and need temporary food help. That is 
also a very big and important part of the bill. For the people in my 
State who have been hit very hard in the last number of years, it is 
important that we be there. They have paid taxes all their lives and 
supported their neighbors. They have been there for other people. Now, 
if they need some temporary help, we need to make sure it is there for 
them as well. That is a very important part of the bill also.
  In addition, we see a whole range of efforts around local food 
systems that also create jobs--farmers markets, children's schools 
being able to get fresh fruits and vegetables, schools being able to 
purchase locally, things that we can do to support families to put 
healthy food on the table for their children or make sure it is 
available in school--very important efforts going on there. We make 
sure that all of agriculture is included in our local food systems. 
That is a very important part of the bill.
  This is a large effort. We do it every 5 years. It takes a tremendous 
amount of work. Every region of the country has a different view and 
different crops that they grow and different perspectives, so it is a 
lot of hard work to bring it all together.
  This evening we have been able to come together on a path to final 
passage, agreeing to the list of amendments. This is a democracy. I 
don't agree or support all of those amendments. I know other colleagues 
don't as well. We will talk about them and debate, and we will vote. 
That is the Senate at its best. That is what we are doing here by 
agreeing to a process or list of amendments from every part of the 
country.
  Members on both sides have very strongly held beliefs. We respect 
that. We respect their right to be able to debate those amendments, and 
I also thank those for the amendments that will not be brought up, 
which were not in the unanimous consent agreement. I think we had about 
300 amendments when we started. We knew it was not possible to be able 
to vote on every one of those. So colleagues' willingness to work with 
us was important, and I am grateful to the people who worked with us on 
both sides of the aisle and those whom we will continue to work with.
  This is another step in the process, as we have put together a bill 
that we reported out of committee with a strong bipartisan vote. Now we 
have brought it to the floor with a large majority. Ninety out of 100 
colleagues came together to say: Yes, we should debate and discuss and 
work on this Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act.
  Now, with the agreement we have, Members are saying: Yes, we should 
go forward and work on these amendments and have a final vote. In the 
democratic process, people of good will are willing to come together 
and have the opportunity to debate and vote. That is what it is about. 
I am grateful that colleagues were willing to work with us to be able 
to do that.
  We are waiting for the final wrap-up comments. At this moment, I 
yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Unanimous Consent Agreement--S.J. Res. 37

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, 
June 19, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after 
consultation with the Republican leader, the Republican leader or his 
designee be recognized to move to proceed to the consideration of S.J. 
Res. 37, a joint resolution disapproving a rule promulgated by the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency relating to 
emission standards for certain steam generating units; that there be up 
to 4 hours of debate on the motion to proceed, with the time equally 
divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; 
further, that 2 hours of

[[Page 9174]]

debate equally divided occur on Tuesday, June 19, and the Senate resume 
consideration of the motion to proceed at 10:30 a.m., Wednesday, June 
20, for the remaining 2 hours of debate; that at 12:30 p.m. on 
Wednesday, the Senate proceed to vote on the adoption of the motion to 
proceed; that if the motion is successful, then the time for debate 
with respect to the joint resolution be equally divided between the two 
leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, 
the joint resolution be read a third time and the Senate proceed to 
vote on passage of the joint resolution; finally, all other provisions 
of the statute governing consideration of the joint resolution remain 
in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________