himself in his younger days, some of those ta tax rates he hs displayed -- some of those traits he has displayed here on the floor of the senate. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa.

mr. grassley: i ask the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, mary geiger lewis of south carolina to be united states district judge. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be 30 minutes of debate, equally divided in the usual form. mr. grassley: i should probably defer to the chairman of the committee. go ahead. i yield the floor. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i thank my friend from iowa. obviously if he had a schedule and had to go, i would yield to him. but seeing him on the floor, i would know that the senate republicans announced last week they're going to shut down and block the confirmation process for qualified and consensus

circuit nominees for the rest of the year. that's unfortunate. it does nothing to help the american people or our courts. the courts continue to be overburdened while consensus nominees for vacancies that could be filled are being stalled. we're talking about in some cases nominees where you have two republican senators from the state supporting it, others where you've got a democratic and a republican senator have gone through our committee, usually by voice vote, they're that noncontroversial. and it's hard to see this new application of the thurman rule as anything more than stalling tact isics. i have yet to hear any good reason why we should continue to vote on well qualified consensus nominees just as we did up until

september of the last two presidential election years when we had a republican president. that was supported by both democrats and republicans, to vote through september. i have yet to hear a good explanation why we can't work to solve the problems of high vacancies for the american people. so i'll continue to work with the senate leadership to try to confirm as many of president obama's qualified judicial nominees as possible because i hear from judges all over the country how these judicial vacancies are burdening our courts and american taxpayers are unable to get a court to hear their cases. now, it's heartening to see the senior senator from maine said she will continue to work with the bipartisan senate leadership in an effort to bring the maine nominee to the first circuit before the -- before the senate for a confirmation vote. and i trust that the many

republican senators will join senator kyl and senator mccain in opposing the filibuster of justice hurwitz will now join to oppose the filibusters of william kayatta of maine, judge robert balk of oklahoma, judge schwartz of new jersey. and i hope that the senators from south carolina whose state's nominee we consider today will aid this effort just as we worked with them throughout the process to assure they were consulted by the president. in fact, i personally requested the president to consult with republican senators when they're going to have a nominee from their home state. i hope they're going to show that same courtesy to other senators. i think this pattern of obstruction -- i say this more out of sadness than anything

else -- has been as transparent as the senate republicans' leader's statement that the single most important thing senate republicans want to achieve is for president obama to be a one-term president. now, i fully expect them of course to support their republican nominee for president but as they obstruct his qualified judicial nominees, they've also rejected virtually every effort this president has made to improve the economy and to create jobs. and they've become the party of no. no help for the american people, no to jobs, no to economic recovery, no to police, firefighters, and teachers, no to students seeking help to pay for their education, no to consumer protection, no to assisting state and local governments, no to the highway bill, no to any more judges.

i think the obstruction of judicial nominations is just one more example of republicans saying no or going slow as they have to the firefighters, the teachers, the students or the consumer protections or those 50 states that want to go forward with highway bills. now, i know vermonters -- and i hear from vermonters, republicans and democrats alike -- they can't wait while politics trump sound policy efforts here in washington. it's time for a reality check. our economy is showing some signs of progress since the economic collapse of four years ago. there is no doubt domestic job growth has not been as strong as we had hoped, even though we have under 5% unemployment in vermont, we still have too many vermonters looking for work. we have to continue to lookinger

for ways to spur job growth and economic investment in this country. efforts by congress to increase jobs, to reduce our unemployment, support hard-working american families struggling to keep food on their table and roofs under their heads meet with partisan obstruction, too. while congress delays, the clock is ticking down for millions of americans struggling to afford college, those struggling to pay back student loans once they graduate. in less than two weeks millions of jobs will be put on hold when critical transportation programs including funding for the highway trust fund expire. failing to pass a long-term transportation bill jeopardizes thousands of construction development projects, impacting millions of jobs in every single state in this country. in a little over a month important legislation to extend the national flood insurance program will expire. failure to reauthorize this

important program puts at risk the sale of thousands of homes at a time when our housing market is still trying to recover. and meanwhile in this election year republicans in congress are more intent on extending the bush era tax cuts that contributed to the financial crisis facing us today than working together to move toward reasonable policies. the most economic growth. i know i raised the question at the time when congress voted to go to war in iraq, a war that i voted against, they're going to do it by borrowing the money. the same in afghanistan. never before in this nation have we gone to war and borrowed the money we've had a tax to pay for it. so we lose a trillion dollars in iraq and at least half a trillion dollars so far in afghanistan. now, if you want to cast

partisan politics aside, if you want to have consensus on meaningful jobs and job preservation legislation, we can do so. we've shown how we did it. the leahy-smith america invents act is one of the best examples of laws enacted in this congress to promote our american economy and create american jobs. republican chairman of the house judiciary committee, i in the senate brought together republicans and democrats, both parties, we passed the leahy-smith american invents act. unfortunately, it's one of the few job creating bills enacted this congress. so i'm disheartened to hear republican leaders in congress say they're simply done legislating for the year. the reality check is that vermonters and americans of all states can't wait. president obama signaled his commitment to moving forward with job creating legislation to

get americans back to work, to protect america's leadership in the global marketplace, we should move on that. let the two candidates for president argue, let them state their positions, let the voters decide which one they want to vote for. but in the meantime, when we have legislation to put americans to work, let's put the politics aside, focus on the right policy. on the needs of the american people. let's all of us, republicans and democrats alike, act on behalf of the people who sent us here. it's really past time for the games to end and the work to begin. mr. president, i ask my whole statement be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: i suggest the absence of a quorum and i ask consent the time be equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. chairman? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. a senator: i would ask that the

quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: i ask that all time be yielded back. the presiding officer: all time is yielded back. mr. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? seeing none, on this vote, the yeas are 64, the nays are 27. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. the president will immediately be notified of the senate's action, and the senate will resume legislative session. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. senators, please take your conversations out of the chamber. the senator from massachusetts. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i rise to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i will be brief. i rise to speak about the electronic systems center at haskem 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 loud and clear that the threat of cyber attacks on our country and the need for america to develop strong military cyber capabilities keeps him up at night, and i can tell you it keeps me up and many other people up as well. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. as i said, the secretary of defense has said loud and clear that the threat of cyber attacks to our country keeps him up at night. well, it keeps me up at night and many other people as well because we have read about the cyber attacks by the chinese, we have 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 forced structure change that ignores crucial facts that i just stated.

at a time when cyber threats are growing more and more important each day, the air force is making questionable decisions that in my opinion creates 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's why just a few weeks ago, the house and senate armed services committees took strong action to prevent what the entire massachusetts delegation felt was a premature proposal by the air force to redues haskem's leadership from a three-star general to a two-star general. the elimination of the e.s.c. commander position at haskem will eliminate our cyber capabilities and focus across the entire force, and that is not a good thing at this point in time. that's the last thing we need in the midst of a cyber attack. in response, representative tsongas from massachusetts inserted a provision in this year's national defense authorization act that was passed by the full house of

representatives that required the secretary of the air force to remain and to retain core functions at haskem as they existed on november 1, 2011. her language was aimed at retaining haskem'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 brain structure until two defense committees -- until the two defense committees have an opportunity to review the recommendations of the national commission on structure of the air force. given secretary patent'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 haskem's mission and the senior leadership should be preserved in order 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 had affect cybersecurity. i also want to explain why the delegation feels so strongly about this. massachusetts has been a leader for many decades. groundbreaking innovation in cybersecurity has taken place in massachusetts, as we speak. perhaps more than any other state in our entire nation, that innovation is happening at universities like the massachusetts institute of technologies, in our defense sector. our capabilities are second to none. the electronics systems center has unlimited potential to take on future missions and threats in the realm of cybersecurity. the air force and m.i.t. labs have upgrading our nation's ability to meet the

cybersecurity requirements. the department of defense and the air force continues to depend on urge matched cyber expertise. to ensure our nation's crucial cyber defenses, i say again very firmly today that the air force must preserve the senior three-star massachusetts in massachusetts. madam president, it just does not make sense for our military cyber leadership, expertise, and talent to be based in a location where some of the world's most leadership is taking place. placing the cyber team under a chain of command with a three-star general in another state with a number of other air force responsibilities diminishes our nation's a to deliver critical cyber tools and resources and impacts our ability to respond to ever-growing cyber threats. 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 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 if a netop 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: thank you, madam president. i rise today -- i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to five minute . the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i rise to speak about a resolution to commemorate june 13 independence day. in two weeks we will gather to

celebrate the 4th of july. when our nation gained its independence, there were some 450,000 enslavinged people in the 13 states. it wasn't until june 19, 1865, more than two years after president lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation which liberated a number of people that enslaved people on june 18, 1965, in the southwestern states fine rally learned of their freedom. months after, federal troops arrived in galveston, texas, 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 in my state from all backgrounds -- not african-americans only, not only descendants of delay of much be slaves -- but people of all backgrounds and ethnicities

will gather at special placings all over ohio, in our state capital, at the emancipation memorial service just a few miles from my house, the site in observerland of visits from martin luther king, the sight of the underground railroad where slaves escaping slavery were housed on their way to canada, ohioans will reflect in westwood cemetery where former slaves and famous abolitionists are buried. at sin sing's juneteenth festival, families and visitors will gather on one of the hilltops overlooking the ohio river, which slaves saw coming from kentucky into freedom as they crossed the river into the north. they remember the perilous journey to freedom that many made at the banks of that river. in wilberforce, one of -- in

wilberforce, an african-american school higher university in southwest, ohio, in wilberforce in, in zanesville, in cleveland, ohioans will hold ceremonies. on juneteenth independence day especially we have yet another opportunity to celebrate our great democratic traditions, our american ingenuity and innovation and imagination. we celebrate the rich heritage and vibrant culture of all americans who are decendants of enbe slaved people on american soil. we celebrate the ingenuity of ohioans like columbus native grandville t. woods who invented the telegraph device. we celebrate the innovation of ohioans like a clevelander who invented the traffic light. we celebrate the imagination and wisdom of oweians like nobel prize-winning and recent presidential medal of freedom

honoree toni morrison of lorraine, ohio. we move closer to being a nation our framers envision. 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. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator oklahoma. mr. inhofe: madam president, i ask unanimous consent tha to spk in morning business for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: thank you, madam president. as you know, the senate will take up a vote this week on the c.r.a. that i have offered concerning utility mact. utility mact is a requirement -- mact of course means maximum achievable control alaskanology -- and one of the problems we're having have the overregulation we have on a lot of these

regulations is there is no technology to acome tate this one. the case of utility mact, i think everyone understands now, this is an effort to kill coal. and i know there are a lot of reasons people have on this, but recently some things have happened, and i thought i would mention that as we look toward this vote, it looks like its real estate going to be on wednesday. it looks like there's going to be some speaking time on tuesday. then on witness day we'll actually have the vote. as we all know, a c.r.a. is an effort for the elected officials to reflect upon the overregulations and to stop a regulation. we're 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 afte afternoon, ed markey and henry waxman came out fighting with the new report detailing what

representative waxman has called the most antienvironmental house of representatives in history. i would like to remind my democratic friends that 19 house democrats supported the companion legislation in the house, the same thing that we'll be voting on here. the democrats and a lot of the -- many of the labor unions have sent letters in support of my resolution, so it's not just reflection whose constituents are feeling the pain of the e.p.a.'s regulations. now, to my democrat friends in the house, i beg to differ. it is not that this congress is antienvironmental, it's that the e.p.a. is the most radical e.p.a. in history, aggressive to the point that even the left-leaning "washington post" has called out the agency for -- quote -- "earning a reputation for abuse." of course this is the same e.p.a. whose top officials have told us that they are out to crucify the american energy producers. we all remember that, the sixth

area of the e.p.a., amadarez came out and made the statement to some of his subordinates that we need do the same thing that the romance did, they did back in the old days when they went around the mediterranean and went into the towns in turkey and they'd crucify the first five people that they would see, and that gets them under their control. he said, that's the same thing. that's what we have to do. that's going to be our operation. well, we went through and a he's no longer there. over the course of president obama's presidency, whatever they could achieve through legislation they've tried to achieve through aggressive, onerous e.p.a. regulations. they tried first of all to do it through legislation. remember cap-and-trade legislation. they tried for ten years to get that done. finally each year they brought it up, more a understand more people in this body -- more and more people in this body, the united states senate, were

opposed to a cap-and-trade system to do away with greenhouse gases and to put resolutions on it. 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 a very costly thing. it was obama that made -- president obama said with the cap-and-trade regulations it would be -- with the cap-and-trade regulations it would be very, very expensive. now, when they couldn't pass the clean water restoration act, the same thing happened. that was introduced by senator feingold from wisconsin and by representative oberstar in the house. and they -- not only did they defeat overwhelmingly the clean water restoration act, but the two individuals that were the sponsors were both defeated in the next election. by imposing these backdoor

global warming cap-and-trade regulations through the e.p.a., 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 e.p.a. rule in history, he is making good on his campaign promise that if anybody wants to build a coal fired power plant, they can. it's just that it will bankrupt them. and he succeeded in throwing hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars out the window on companies like solyndra, which he said would lead us to a brighter and more prosperous future. president obama is not running on this record of accomplishment. why? because americans are worse off, not better off, for it. they are out of work, they're struggling to make ends meet, and under the pain of regulations that cause their

energy prices to skyrocket. so he's running as faraway from that radical record as possible. so what are we trying to do in the senate by stopping utility mact is to prevent the president from achieving under 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 for improving air quality narcs it should be done in a way that doesn't harm jobs and cause electricity prices to skyrocket on every american ambassador away with one of the most -- or a way with one of the most reliable energy resources: coal. you got to keep in mind that right now in order to run this machine called america, 50% of that is actually being done on coal. i'd like 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 legislation. let's be clear about one thing, one thing from the offset: if the effort behind utility mact were really about public health, then my democrat colleagues would have joined our efforts way back in 2005 and passed the clear skies bill, a bill that would have put plan in place to achieve a 70% reduction in mercury emissions. but they didn't. and we all remember why. we remember that they wanted to include in this bill that covered sox, nox, and merkley, the real pollutants, a mandatory 70% reduction and they said we can't do it because you don't also have co26789, 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 that president obama said -- this is a quote. he said everything "i voted against the clear skies bill. in fact, i was the deciding vote despite the fact that i am a coal state and that half my state thought i throwerly we tried them because i thought cleaner air was critical and global warming wag critical." at that environment and public works hearing in april, the national wildlife federation rep was asked if the american people would have been better off if the senate had passes the clear skies bill back in 2005. her answer was, absolutely. of course the national wildlife federation was not happy that we were calling attention to ms. ar campeau's. not only did she 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 250," she replied, "sure." the entire openings change from the hearing has been posted on our e.p.w. web site. i don't think it gets any clearer than that. commonsense reductions earlier would have made us better off. that was 2005. that we had would have had these mandatory reductions in a short period of time and that time is more than 50% expired at this time. in the national wildlife federation blog accusing me of twisting her words, the author said an odd part of senator inhofe's attack, he's

essentially saying a 70% reduction in mercury emissions would have been dandy but the 91% reduction proposed by the e.p.a. would have destroyed the economy. is that really such a huge difference or is he playing politics with public health? that's a good question. what is the difference between the clear skies and the utility mact, it's very simple. clear skies would have reduced emissions dramatically by 70% -- we're talking about reducing emissions on sox, nox and mercury but without killing coal and the millions of jobs coal sustains. on the other hand, utility mact is designed to kill coal. it makes no effort to balance environmental protection and economic broat growth. who is playing politics with public health? if public health were really the priority, why did priority and -- president obama and his fello democrats vote against a 70% reduction in 2005? what is this effort really

about? it's about one thing, killing coal. and killing coal is the centerpiece of their radical global warming agenda. remember then-senator obama said he voted against the health benefits and clear skies because he thought -- quote -- "a global warming was critical." in other words, global warming was more important than any of the considerations regarding health. these are real pollutants. sox, nox and mercury. importantly the senate will take this vote to my resolution just as the world leaders are gathering in rio day janeiro right now they're down there gathering at the rio plus 20 sustainable development conference. let's remember what happened 20 years ago. 1992, the conference in rio where they all got together and they were going to be doing all these things on gases and all of that. president obama who is now 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 really about? as fox news reported back in april, -- quote -- "the main goal of the much-touted rio plus 0 united nations conference on sustainable development is to makes dramatic and enormous changes in, as one of the documents put it, a fundamental shift in the way we think and act. utility mact is huge part of this effort to change the way we live and to spread the wealth around." and that's what they're talking about down there. we start invoking new tax system. it was secretary-general of the u.n., he proposes how sustainable development changes must be addressed. he included, i'm quoting him, "more than a $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 measures." he's advocating new carbon taxes on us of industrialized countries, cost about $250 billion a year or .06% of gross domestic product. other taxes are mentioned but not specified. further unspecified price hikes that extend beyond fossil fuels to anything debris riefd from agriculture, fisheries, forestry or other kinds of land and water use, all of by which would be radically reorganized. these changes would contribute to a more level playing field between the established and the brown technologies and new greener ones. he advocated global social spending programs including a social protection floor and

social ?ets for the world's -- safety nets for the world's most vulnerable. it's all talking about, about -- more higher taxes on the developed world to go to the beneficiary of the undeveloped world. the same thing they were talking about 20 years ago. so i think it's very timely this is happening today. it's happening at the very moment that we'll be voting on wednesday as to whether or not to kill coal. and, by the way, this is the only way, 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 all are broken, and we have to figure out what are we going to do in this country if you kill coal, how do run this machine called america. and the answer to that question is you can't do it. it's very, very important and i hope that -- i don't think there is any doubt in anyone's mind the real purpose for the vote that will take place on wednesday is going to be to kill coal in america. and america can't provide the

necessary energy to run its machine and be competitive without coal. so it's a critical vote, and it's one this i think people are aware of that is going to be taking place. with that i yield the floor. and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: scoik i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: more than two centuries ago in the declaration of independence our founding fathers wrote all men are created equal. america has sometimes fall hen short of that bithe history of our country has been a slow march towards equality for all. we've seen presidents play a key role in expanding freedom and equality.

who could forget harry truman's' segregation of the mill teafer which set the stage for a civil rights era that has changed the face of america. last friday was another case in point. president barack obama declared 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've ever called home. with that decisive executive decision, america took another step towards fulfilling the founders' promise of justice for all. madam president, it's been 11 years. 11 years since i first introduced the dream act. legislation that will would allow a select group of imgrant 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've been long-term u.s. residents, they have good moral character, graduate from high school and either either complete two years of military service or two years of college. the dream act has a history of broad bipartisan support. when i first introduced it, senator orren hatch of 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 the republicans last controlled this congress, the dream act passed the senate as part of comprehensive immigration reform on a 62-36 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 in 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 that it can't pass without support from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. that's why i have always said i'm willing to sit 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 can't wait any longer for congress to act. many have been deported from the only country they have ever known, america. they've been sent off to countries that they don't remember with languages they don't speak. those who are still here are growing older, and when they graduate from college, they're stuck. unable to work, unable to contribute to the only country they know. that's 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. madam president, that was the right thing to do. these students grow griewp here pledging allegiance to our flag and singing the only national anthem they nor. they are americans in their hearts and in their minds. 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 nairnts' actions. we don't -- parents' actions. don't want do that in any aspect of the law in this country. why would we do it here? there will always be critics when the president uses his power as did he last friday. some members of congress attacked president truman when he ordered the desegregation of america's military. they said the order would hurt the military and 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 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 -- madam president, i ask for order in the chamber, please. the presiding officer: may we have order, senators. thank you. the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: 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 have found that these young people could contribute literally trillions of dollars to the u.s. economy during their working lives. they will be the doctors and engineers, the soldiers, the teachers who will make us a stronger nation. why would we waste that talent? these are young people who have been trained and educated 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 who to prosecute, who not to prosecute based on law enforcement priorities and resources. the supreme court has held, and i quote -- "an agency's decision not to prosecute is the decision generally committed to an agency's absolute discretion." end of quote. president obama granted deferred action to use the technical term to dream act students. past administrations, democrat and republican, have used deferred action to stop deportations 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 the executive branch has granted deferred action since at least 1971, and the federal courts have recognized this authority since at least the mid 1970's. these immigration experts have also noted that there are a number of precedents for

granting deferred action to individuals like the dream act students. the president's actions are not just legal. it's also a 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 as a handful of politicians have called for. so the department of homeland security has to set priorities about which people to deport, which not to deport. the obama administration has established a policy that makes it a high priority to deport those who have committed a serious crime or any threat to public safety. i totally support that approach. and president obama has said we won't use our limited resources to deport dream act students. now, some of my colleagues on the other side have claimed that this is a back-door 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 want to say a special word about one of my colleagues. 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 i said dick, i just want to tell you how much i respect you. it took us two 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 some price for it although he denied it in the phone conversation, but i can't tell you how much i respect the man for his courage in asking for this. it took two 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 chairman patrick leahy, and of course senator bob menendez who heads up the hispanic caucus in the senate. it's easy to criticize the president's new deportation policy when it's abstract and we're talking about constitutional and legal theory and deferred action and so forth, but i think what has brought this debate to where it stands today is the real stories, the stories of these young people. i've tried almost every week to come to the floor to tell a dream act story. today, i want to tell you one more. it's the support about many barch. many was born in germany. he was abused and neglected by his parents so his grandmother became his guardian. after many's grandfather passed away, his grandmother married an american soldier. when many was 7 years old, sadly, his grandmother was tragically killed by a drunk driver.

his step-grandmother decided to return to america and brought many with him -- step-grandfather, brought many with him. they moved to a small town in ohio. unfortunately, many's step-grandfather, wanting to protect him, failed to file any papers for many. many grew up in ohio, he went to elementary school and high school. preparing to apply for college, he learned he didn't have any legal status in america, but he wanted to do the right thing so he made an appointment with immigration services to clear things up. when he showed up for his appointment, many was arrested and detained. he was 17 years old. here is what many 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. to think about leaving, i just wouldn't be able to imagine it." many's friends and family rallied behind him, asking for

his deportation to be at least temporarily suspended. thanks to community support, he was ultimately allowed to stay. he went to college at heidelberg in tiffon, ohio. last month, he graduated with a major in political science and minor in history. he was president of his fraternity and active in community service. last year he organized a fundraiser to purchase christmas gifts for kids with cancer at the cleveland clinic. here is what he said about his future -- "i would go through any channel to correct this situation. i am not asking for citizenship but i would love to earn it if that possibility would arise. i would love to give back to this country. i just don't understand why they would educate people in my situation and then deport them back to other countries that will reap the benefits of our american education." david hogan is the president of the history division at the university. here is what he said about

many -- "we want hard-working people, pure and simple. he is in the top 2% of students in terms of brilliance and work ethics." thanks to president obama's order, many and other dream act students will be able to continue to live and work in america. i ask the critics of that policy would we be better off if we deported many back to germany, a country he left when he was a little boy? of course not. he grew up in america. he adopt have any criminal background. he is no threat to our country. he will make america stronger if we just give him a chance. many isn't just one example. there are a lot more. literally hundreds of others if not thousands just like him. 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's also clear it is only a temporary solution. it doesn't be a solve congress,

the senate and the house from rolling up its sleeves and tackling this difficult but critically important issue in the matter of justice as well as the future of our economy. this is still our burden and our responsibility. madam president, it was two years ago when i sent this letter cosigned with senator lugar to the president. i'm sorry it took two years, but i am grateful, grateful that there was a president who read it and listened and had the courage to act. his courage in standing up 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're going to say thank goodness, they were given the chance to make america a better nation. i want to personally salute the president for his leadership. this was an extraordinary, as i

said, historic humanitarian moment. it has changed the debate in america about immigration, and it's given these young people a chance. i called one of those students on friday, gabby pachecko. she is the best. she walked from florida to washington to dramatize the dream act. she came out publicly and said i'm undocumented and i'm going to stand up for those in a similar situation. she was crying on the phone. she had just heard about it. she said i'm afraid. i'm afraid that these students will come forward, they will admit they are undocumented, and someday some congress, some president will use it against them and deport them. i said gabby, i don't think so. once these young people stand up and say we're going to follow the law, we're going to do what we're told to do, we're going to put our names down and tell you who we are, anyone who tries to use that against them is going to suffer a terrific backlash across america because average american people will come to know these young people, respect them, honor what they bring to this nation and realize that we

will be a better nation because of them. madam president, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: