companies. they oppose any serious effort by the federal government to secure health insurance coverage for tens of millions of americans who currently have no coverage. so it's about really giving control back to their good friends at wealthy, powerful insurance companies so they can raise your rates, hold on to your money by denying you benefits, and making egregious profits. we all remember william buckley's famous admonition to deservives, he said that the role of conservatives is to -- quote -- "stand athwart history yelling 'stop'" william f. buckley. the role of deservives is to stand athwart history yelling 'stop'." we will, congress paled social security providing basic retirement security for every

american. republicans yelled "stop." 75 years later they they're still trying town do social security. in 1965 president johnson and the president passed medicare. ensuring seniors access to decent health care coverage. the republicans yelled "stop." they fought it bitterly. 45 years later they're still trying to undo medicare. well, here they go again. here they go again in trying to undo the affordable care act. as i said before, they are on the wrong side of history. i think we should listen to the american people, leave our ideological obsessions behind. we need to work together to make the law even better. the choice is to go forward or to be dragged backward. it is time to come together as a united american people to create a rue formed health care system that works not just for the healthy and the wealthy but for

all americans. mr. president, i think it's important to also put a human face on this. let's just put a human face on what this bill really does. i've shown some of these people before. let's talk about emily schl schlichting. she testified before our committee. she suffers from a rare autoimmune disorder that would make her uninsurable in the old days. but thanks to the affordable care act, as a student, she was able to stray on her parents' policy until he is 26. here's what she said at our hearing last year. here said, "young people are the future of this country and we are the most affected by reform -- we're the generation that is most uninsured. we need the affordable care act because it is literally an investment in the future of this country." emily schlichting, a student in

omaha. then there is sarah posekany of cedar falls, iowa. she was diagnosed with crohn's disease when she was 15. during her first year in college, she ran in complications from crohn's disease, forced her to drop her classes in order to heal after multiple surgeries. because she was no longer a full-time student, her parents' private health insurance company terminated her coverage, stopped it. four years later, after many, many health care interventions, she found herself $180,000 in debt and forced to file for bankruptcy. she was able to complete one semester at hawk eye community college but could not afford to continue. because of her earlier bankruptcy, because of her earlier bankruptcy due to her health, every bank she applied to for student loans turned her down. but now, things to the -- thanks

to the new law, people like sarah are able to stay on their parents' health insurance plan until they're age 26. so again are we going to just say to people like sarah and emily, tough ... you got a bad break. tough luck. are we going to say that just to make some political point because of some ideological obsession? the affordable care act protects children with preexisting conditions now. that protection will be expanded to all adults in 2014, just in a couple of years -- well, actually, now that i think about it, in a year and a half. every adult american will have the coverage, be able to get affordable coverage even though they have a preexisting condition. well, that could meaning a lot to eleanor pierce, from cedar

falls, iowa, he willer in pier pierce. when her nor at job was elimine could purchase the cobra insurance, but it was completely unaffordable for her. she searched for coverage on the private insurance market but was denied access because of her preexisting condition condition of high blood pressure. the only plans that would cover her came with premiums that she could never hope to afford without any income. here is eleanor, age 62, suffering from high blood pressure, had no choice but to go without insurance and hope for the best. mr. president, hope for the best is no substitute for regular medical care. one year later, eleanor -- eleanor pierce suffered a massive heart attack. she racked up $60,000 in medical debt.

so again, are we going to leave people like eleanor without coverage, with mounting debt and declining health just to make some political point? these are real people. these are real people that the affordable care act is now helping. they're now helping. well, mr. president, as i've said before, the affordable care act is for every american. many of the benefits that are there now republicans would take away by voting to repeal it. and many like eleanor, who will be helped when it is fully implemented in 2014, will be denied -- denied -- the ability, the wherewithal to have affordable health care coverage, so that they can have good preventive health care measures,

so they can get medical care before they have to go to the emergency room, and yet tomorrow i'm told that the house of representatives will once again vote to repeal the affordable care act. mr. president -- and once again they are on the wrong side of hoax it is time to come together. let's work together now to implement the law. it's constitutional. i.t. the lait's the law. let's get it implemented. let's make sure we don't go down that road again of just political theater, political theater, ideological obsessions. i know it is a campaign year. i've been in a lot of campaigns myself. they're tough. i know that. but there comes a point -- there comes a point where you got to put politics aside for what's good for the american people. now is the time to put the politics aside on the affordable care act. let's get to the business of

implementing it. as i said, governor romney is the nominee of the republican party for president. i'm sure they will do everything they can to elect him. i understand that. that's fine. that's the american way. wouldn't have it any other way. but just keep in mind, when he was governor, he put in a health care system in massachusetts that's very much like the affordable care act, with a mandate -- with a mandate, and which he himself said -- governor romney said -- no, no, i like mandates; mandates work. well, it's time to move ahead. let's implement the bill and let's get over this political theater that the house is going to embark in -- on tomorrow. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: i ask consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, last week we passed some significant legislation, and it was one little glimpse of a

bright, shining moment of bipartisanship. the overall transportation bill passed overwhelmingly. the magnificent leadership of the chairman of the committee, senator boxer, the ranking member, senator inhofe, was a good example of how government in general and this institution, the u.s. senate, should operate to get things done. we went through the amendatory process. you notice that the two leaders of the transportation and public works committee did -- they fought off all of the amendments that would have been killer amendments. they accepted some that they felt strengthened the bill, and we passed it something like high

high0's70's to something in the teens. as a part of that bill, in the process several months ago when the transportation bill was on the senate floor, i had the privilege of offering an amendment -- again, bipartisan -- that was the amendment to restore the gulf of mexico after the effects of the b.p. oil spill. and it emanates from the fact that we have a fine that will be leviebe. mr. levin: i haved by a -- by -- and it d. mr. nelson: and it emanates from the fact that we have a fine that will be levied by a

federal judge. the law allows for a certain amount for the judge to determine per barrel of oil spilled in the gulf of mexico. and the law in general allows for the amount to be levied against any barrel of oil that is spilled in a public waterway. in this case, we're talking about some real money. we're talking about almost five million barrels spilled in the gulf of mexico. and, as a result, the feeling is that this could be anywhere from a $5 billion fine all the way up to a $20 billion fine. so the question was, once the fine is determined and approved by the court, where is that money going to go an, and what e

gulf state senators are argued is that we'd be able to have this come back and to help the people and the environment. mr. president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. necessarilmr. nelson: thank you, mr. president. the feeling was to have the money come back and help the people and the environment of the gulf who were harmed, and there are so many effects that we do not know what is going to be the ultimate result, particularly on the health of the gulf. when you dump five million barrels of oil into the gulf, that's a lot of oil. and the question is, the natural

processes of the bacteria in the water that consume oil that naturally leaks through the ocean floor, is the gulf so overwhelmed with all that oil that the bacteria are not being able to consume it? and since this came from a ruptured well 5,000 feet below the surface of the water, how much oil is still down there? down there where it is hard to get any kind of research done because of the depth and the pressure. so that's what we need to know. we need to know for the future. we need to know for all the people that have their livelihood by the gulf, be it

the seafood industry -- but that not only affects the gulf. the gulf provides seafood for the entire country. indeed, entire parts of the world. so i'm coming here to say that we have an incredible success in a bipartisan way, and i remind the presiding officer that we passed that amendment on to the transportation bill, the restore the gulf of mexico act -- we passed it in this chamber 74-22. it was a huge bipartisan vote. so last week it was a time to celebrate, and it was a time to celebrate for our whole country, for a lot of reasons that i've mentioned. and i have recently -- as a matter of fact, yesterday --

gone back to the shores of the gulf to share with the people what are the specifics of the legislation that we passed. and once the court decides what the fine is, how that money's going to flow and what it's going to do for our people to improve their economies and the environment and for the long-term outlook on the health of the gulf. and i want to bring this to the attention of the senate because the gulf doesn't just belong to the gulf coast counties of five gulf states. it belongs to all americans. and the president signed it into law last friday.

so i want to thank those people in the senate, the house, the white house for signing it, a wide array of staff and stakeholders, the cities and counties whose tireless efforts led to the enactment of the restore act. it aims to make sure the gulf does recover. the course of support behind the success of this bill is enormous and it would take me till the next congress to thank everyone. but in addition to senator boxer and senator inhofe, i want to mention the spark plug behind this whole thing was senator mary landrieu of louisiana, whose state has suffered mightily. senator shelby, senator baucus, the chairman of the finance committee who helped us come up with sources of revenue that we

had to have to satisfy the general accounting office. senator whitehouse. all of these senators were involved. indeed, when we filed the bill a year ago, we had all ten senators on the five gulf states signed up, another display of bipartisan cooperation. well, think back. this all emanates from the fact that two years ago this disaster began. it was about 10:00 at night. it was april 20 of 2010. it was 52 miles off the coast of louisiana, the macondo 252 oil well, it suddenly kicked, leading to an explosive blowout that claimed the lives of 11

americans. and for the next 87 days, almost five million barrels of crude oil gushed into the gulf. fishermen pulled the gear off their boots and replaced it with -- they pulled the gear off their boats and replaced it with boom and skimmers. the tourists canceled their vacations. the waiters came to work to find that there were no customers. and the oil continued to coat the marshes that are the nursery habitat for juvenile shrimp and so many of the other critters that spawn in and around the marshes. the beaches that draw all the tourists every summer, some of them were coated. and even those that did not have oil, the perception was that

there was oil on our beaches, and the tourists did not come. and it killed an entire tourist season. and that's why, in addition to louisiana being affected with their environment and their shrimping industry and their fishing industry, the economy of florida where oil got on to the western most beaches -- as a matter of fact, there is that famous photograph that had those white, sugary white sands of pensacola beach and it looked like the entire beach was covered. well he, that shot around the world and people started canceling vacations. only a few tar balls got as far east as panama city beach, and the rest of the gulf coast beaches all the way down to the southern tip of florida, no oil.

but the tourists stopped coming. and when the tourists stopped coming, there's nobody in the hotels, and the hotel workers can't work. there's nobody in the restaurants, and all of those workers aren't working. and all the ancillary businesses that depend on that major component of the economy. and then of course the seafood industry, the source of a third of our domestic seafood in this country, the gulf of mexico -- of course the fishing industry was devastated. and even those that could fish outside of the danger zone of where the oil was lurking, people stopped buying gulf seafood because they were afraid that it was tainted.

and even when the oil was finally shut off after three months, the gulf was left with this public perception that the gulf was tainted. well, you remember the president asked the secretary of the navy, ray maybus to recommend a strategy that would restore the gulf? why ray maybus? because he had been a gulf state governor, the governor of mississippi. after he first did his first tour, secretary mabus labeled the gulf a national treasure and he recommended that a significant portion of the clean water act fines to be levied against b.p. be sent back to the region for environmental and economic recovery. and over the last couple of

weeks, the president, the congress, stakeholder groups from across the country and across the political spectrum have made this commitment to restore this national treasure, and the result is that we passed the restore act. now, over the next six months what's going to happen is the department of treasury is going to develop procedures in which to implement the restore act, the ecosystem restoration council established by the act will build on the recommendations of secretary mabus. the task force and others to develop a draft comprehensive plan to address the environmental needs of the gulf will be appointed. it's a federal-state council. and once we know the outcome of

the justice department's lawsuit against b.p. -- and there are rumors that there is a settlement in the works. if that settlement were to be true and the judge approves it, the money will be ready to flow under the procedures being set up under this federal-state council as initially determined by the department of treasury. now, the reason that i want to speak today is not only to thank the many people that helped us accomplish this major milestone, but i also want to put in to the "congressional record" why certain provisions in the restore act are there as the

sponsor of the amendment, i want this legislative intent to be understood on a going-forward basis as the law is implemented. certainly i want it understood from my perspective as one of florida's two senators and what we've done. but it's important to flush it out if it hasn't been said already in testimony in committee as well as the testimony as given in the speeches here on the floor. the restore act sends 80% of all the clean water act fines back to the gulf through four mechanisms. the first is to direct equal allocation among the five gulf

states. in the spring of 2011, in our state, the florida legislature passed and the governor signed legislation to ensure that the most effective counties receive the bulk of any oil spill funding that comes to the state. this is different in the allocation in this first pot of money in the state of florida from what was indicated in the other four gulf states. in some of those states, they directed funding back to their state government. in the case of florida, it is memorialized in this act in law that the florida legislation in effect specifically the law, the state law directed that 75% of the funds for florida in this first pot of money would be spent in the eight

disproportionately affected counties in the florida panhandle. so from the west, escambia county all the way to the east to waukola county, while the remaining 25% would be spent in other counties. that allocation of funding is mirrored in the restore act, and it's now law. this is important because while there are places across the state that suffered from the misperception of oil, the panhandle counties were some of the hardest hit. so when it comes to the first allocation, the intent was to have those eight counties receive 57% of the funds in that first pot and for the other counties along the gulf coast of florida to receive the remaining

25%. if that state law is changed in the future, i want it clearly known that the legislating -- legislative intent of the sponsor of this bill was what was just said. the 75-25 allocation. not to be squirreled off into some other pots, not to be squirreled off into some other purposes in the state government, but to go to the counties that were affected by the spill. the senate-passed version of the restore act included impact allocation formulas for disproportionally affected counties and for other gulf coast counties that took into account things like population and proximity to the oil spill.

these impact allocations were meant to provide a reasonable and transparent method for accounting for impacts between gulf coast counties in florida. and the florida association of counties convened working groups of the disproportionally affected counties to determine just such a method. when we got into the conference committee with the house, the house didn't go along with that particular internal approach, so that language was not included in the final public law, but i want the record stated that that was the intent of the senate-passed bill, and as i have just come from the gulf coast yesterday, i understand from the county commissions all up and down the gulf that they intend to work with the cities

and the other affected parties to try to follow that method that they had recommended to us that we put into the senate senate-passed bill. the eight panhandle counties worked hard to reach a consensus, and it's my expectation that they are going to continue to honor these collected decisions to come up with a fair and reasonable method of allocating the money, and throughout the spill and for the recovery efforts that are moving forward, the gulf region worked as one gulf, with louisiana shrimpers standing shoulder to shoulder with florida county commissions because together the gulf would be stronger and better. and i urge all of the

stakeholders to continue this unified consensus-driven process. any one city, any one county or state restoration effort will only help the region, if you look at it as a whole. now, i said there are four pots, and each of the pots have a defined, specified amount of percentage of the total fine money, and each of them have certain criteria. the first pot that i just described will be divvied up among the five gulf states, equal parts to each state and distributed according to the formulas that i just mentioned. the second pot is an amount of money specified to be directed under a federal state council,

and it will be for the purposes of restoration of the environment of the gulf. a third pot will be specified to be according to state plans operating under the criteria put together by all of the stakeholders, including a representative from all the gulf coast points in florida and ultimately approved by the state federal council. the last pot, the final 5% of the allocation of the moneys, is to be an investment in the long-term science and monitoring of the gulf ecosystem. and when the oil began to spill, we immediately realized how little that we knew about the gulf. many commercially and recreation

ally important fish stocks in the gulf had never had a stock assessment. we didn't know what the fisheries were. we knew that organizations were trying to protect the fisheries by closing down certain fish stocks to fishing because you didn't want to wipe out the species, but it was never done with up-to-date data, and to know how to restore a whole ecosystem, we have to know what has been harmed and how we go about straightening it out. so half of this pot of funding, the science funding, is going toward a grant program to collect data, observe and monitor the fish, the wildlife and ecosystem of the gulf in the long term.

from the beginning, this program has been a priority of mine because our fishing industry is so important, commercial fishing as well as recreational fishing, and among recreational fishing, it certainly includes all the charter boat captains who make their livelihood on people who want to come to florida, enjoy the beaches and then go and enjoy the benefits of the gulf of mexico with our fishing. and by the way, the protection of these species, it's not just for the fish in the gulf, because so many of these critters that are spawned in the marshes and bayous of the gulf in the near shore habitats of the gulf are the species that go and migrate to the oceans of the world. i want to reiterate that this program was intended to provide

the long-term investment in the gulf science. years ago in alaska after the exxon valdez spill, it took five years for the herring population to collapse, and it has not recovered in the 19 years since. we don't want this to happen in the gulf of mexico fisheries. if this gulf science program looks only at the short term, we may not be able to adequately assess the real impacts. this funding is also meant to supplement existing efforts and not to supplant them. i want that clear in the legislative intent. the health of the gulf, the fishing industry and the tourism industry all rely on adequate,

up-to-date science which is lacking. by the way, not just in the gulf but in all of our fisheries in the outer continental shelf. there is a strict cap on the administrative expenses of 3% so that the restore funds produce on-the-ground results rather than plugging budgetary shortfalls. all right. of that science pot, the fourth pot, it's divided up in two. i have just described the long-term science, the looking at the fisheries, the health -- the updating of the fish stocks. the remaining half of the science pot will go to centers of excellence to be established in each of the five gulf states.

universities and research institutions in florida have been a vital part of the response to the deep water horizon incident. since the 1960's, florida research institutions have worked together to benefit oceanographic science in the state. this coordinated effort is called the florida institute of oceanography. this institute is essentially florida's marine science brain trust, and its members have done excellent science work, particularly since the oil spill. this model has produced excellent results that avoids the duplication and makes the most effective use of the resources in the state, and that's why the restore act includes language that specifies

that in our state in florida -- and each state can decide their own, the other four states, but in our state of florida, a consortium of public and private research institutions in the state, a total of 20 with seven associate additional members, including the two-state research agencies, they are going to be the ones named to carry out a center of excellence in our state. this language is intended to provide for the florida institute of oceanography to carry out this program as a centralized voice of the ocean science in florida. i want that clearly understood for any who read about this legislation in the future was the legislative intent with

regard to the center of excellence in the state of florida. each of the other states have their own procedures. and so that past week, i have been on the gulf coast quite a bit to tell folks about what i am sharing here today. this new law is going to provide some of the necessary resources and a framework to restore the gulf coast and the waters of the gulf of mexico. and just like plugging the macondo well was a step in the right direction, this is another monumental step. but obviously, our work is not done here. the department of justice is still negotiating with b.p. to ensure that they are held responsible for the damage done, and it's time to implement

restore because we want to eat gulf seafood forever at fourth of july barbeques, and parents want to see their children playing on the white sand beaches of the gulf. they want them to visit the gulf islands national seashore and all up and down from the perdido river in the west all the way to the tip of the florida keys at key west. i'm going to continue to work with our colleagues to move this process forward in a way that adequately restores this national treasure of the gulf of mexico for many, many future generations. mr. president, i appreciate the opportunity to share this, and i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burr: mr. president, i come to the senate floor today for a reason i never dreamed would be needed. recently, there have been a series of articles published in the media that have described and in some cases provided extensive details about highly classified unilateral and joint intelligence operations, including covert actions. to describe these leaks as troubling and frustrating is by all standards an understatement. they are simply inexcusable criminal acts that must not and must stop now. our intelligence professionals, our allies and most importantly the american people deserve better than this.

i understand that there are ongoing efforts within the house and senate of which i am part of to address these leaks through legislation and that the director of national intelligence has implemented some administrative steps to investigate these leaks. i support those efforts, but i also believe that special attention needs to be drawn to unauthorized disclosures relating to covert actions. and so today i have introduced the deterring public disclosure covert action act of 2012. this act will ensure that those who disclose or talk about covert actions by the united states will no longer be eligible for federal government security clearance. it's novel. it's very simple. if you talk about covert actions, you will have your clearance revoked and you will never get another one. this is not a bill that any

member should ever have to introduce. covert actions are by their very definition supposed to be kept quiet. those who engage in them, those who support them and those who work to get them authorized all know that. yet, those rules, those very laws that are supposed to protect classified information are being disregarded with few repercussions, even though each one of those leaks undermines the hard work of our intelligence officers, puts lives at risk and jeopardizes our relationship with overseas partners. as i said in this chamber last month, i strongly believe that those leakers are violating the trust of the american people. those who are given access to classified information, especially covert actions, are given the same responsibility we

as members have. as long as something is classified, you don't talk about it. in other words, keep your mouth shut. yet month after month we see articles about covert action that quote a wide range of u.s. officials, mostly anonymous, and often senior administration officials. while this act focuses on covert action, it in no way minimizes the importance of maintaining the secrecy of other types of classified information. those who leak any classified information should no longer be trusted with our nation's secrets. but i believe that the damage that is being done to our covert action programs by these leaks deserves special attention today. the act also ensures that any determination that an individual has leaked information about covert action will be made only in accordance with the

applicable law or regulation. in short, no one will lose his clearance without appropriate due process. i believe that's an important requirement. as losing clearance often means losing your livelihood. today i'm taking one step to silence those who may have done irreparable harm by putting their own personal agendas above their colleagues and most importantly, their country. we cannot afford to wait for more leaks, more compromised covert actions. the bill i've introduced today may target only one part of the problem, but i believe it is an essential part of a solution. i urge my colleagues in the days and weeks to come to be supportive of this piece of legislation. i think it's a small thing to

ask of those who are entrusted with our nation's most important secrets, that they actually keep them secret or we take that ability away to be entrusted with that information. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the instant majority leader. mr. durbin: ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i rise to discuss a disturbing article which most of us saw on the front page of "the washington post." it's called in niger hunger crisis raises fear of more child marriages. the article highlights child marriages around the world. a human rights atrocities that

steals the future, the health, and lives of little girls and even boys in many developing countries. in many of these countries girls are treated like chattel or commodities, sold into 345eur7b8g with older men to settle debts or for do you remember ris to help families disief. in niger the focus of the post article, the famine is raising fears more families will turn to that practice, marry off their little girls to gain economic security and even survival. niger happens to already have the highest prevalence of child marriage with 2001 wurn out of two girls marrying by 15, some as young as seven. can you imagineam ? women, look and are you. if you see another woman, in niger one of you would have been married before you were 15 years old. that's exactly what happened to balki suli. she was married at 12 years of age. let me show this poster of her

here. she's now 14. she recently lost her first child during child birth at age 14. she almost died herself. her small body was just too frail to handle the difficulty of facing labor. while niger has the world's highest rate of child marriage, it's not the only place this scourge occurs p. it can be found all over the world and most prevalently in africa and southern asian. recently the senate acted to ensure the united states government is adequately addressing this global human rights tragedy by passing the international protecting girls by preventing child marriage act. senator olympia snowe and i were joined by a bipartisan group of 34 senators and in introducing this legislation. we've now passed this legislation in the senate, not once but twice. unfortunately, despite the bipartisan support for this bill in the senate, the republican

leadership in the house refuses to act on this legislation. with every day that that failure in the house continues, more and more little girls around the world like balki are forced into early marriage. this means more girls in developing countries will lose their freedom, have their childhood innocence stolen, and may, in fact, lose their lives. it means more young girls will be forced into sexual relationships with men two or three times their age. and it means more girls will suffer the devastating and often deadly health consequences that accompany forced child marriage. sexually transmitted disease, birth complications for the child and for the mother. that's not what america stands for. i'm calling on speaker boehner, majority leader cantor, and house foreign affairs committee chairman ileana ros-lehtinen to bring the bill to a vote in the house immediately. read the article in the post and

other places. the lives of these girls in developing countries across the world are literally in your hands. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. durbin: mr. president, ask the quorum call be suspended.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: 11 years i introduced the dream act. legislation to allow a select group of young immigrant students with great potential to be a bigger part of america. the dream act gives these students a chance to earn their way into legal status. it isn't automatic. they have to come to the united states as children, be long-term residents, have good moral character, graduate from high school, and complete at least two years of college or military service. it has a strong history of bipartisan support over the 11 years. i first introduced it with senator orren hatch of utah, my republican lead sponsor when it was introduced. when the republicans last controlled the congress, the dream act passed the senate on a 62-36 vote with 23 republicans voting yes. it was part of comprehensive immigration reform. unfortunately, that bill didn't pass. the republican support for the dream act diminished for

political reasons, and the vast majority of democrats despite our support can't stop a republican filibuster when the bill has been called for consideration since. i'm still committed to the dream act and committed to work with any republican or any democrat who wants to help me pass this important legislation. but even though we have to wait on congress to act, these young people who would be benefited from the dream act can't wait any longer. unfortunately, many are now being deported or at least they were. they don't remember where they're being deported to and they certainly in many instances don't even speak the language. those who are still here at risk of deportation themselves, they can't get a job and find it difficult to go to school, they have no support from the government in terms of their education. that's why president obama and homeland secretary janet napolitano decided the obama administration would no longer deport young people who were

eligible for the dream act. instead, the administration said they will permit these students to apply for a form of relief known as deferred action which puts on hold deportations and allows them on a temporary, renewable basis to live and work in america. i strongly, strongly support this decision. i think it will go down in history as one of the more significant civil rights decisions of our era and i salute president obama for his courage. in reaching this conclusion. remember, the students we're talking about didn't come to this country because of a family decision. they were brought here as babies and children. as secretary napolitano said, immigrants who were brought here illegally as children -- quote -- "lack the intent to violate the law" -- end of quote. it's not the american way to punish kids for their parents' wrongdoing. the obama administration's new policy will make america a stronger country by giving these talented immigrants a chance to

contribute more fully to the economy. studies have found dream act students could contribute literally trillions of dollars to the u.s. economy during their working lives. they'll be our future doctors and engineers and soldiers and teachers. they'll make us a stronger nation. let me be very clear. the obama administration's new policy is clearly lawful and appropriate. throughout our history, the government has decided whom they will prosecute and whom they will not based on law enforcement priorities and available resources. previous administrations of both political parties have made those decisions on deportations and the supreme court recognizes the right of a president to decide what agency will make a decision to prosecute or not prosecute. and listen to what the supreme court said in a recent opinion on arizona's immigration law -- and i quote -- "a principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. discretion in the enforcement of

immigration law embraces immediate human concerns." the administration's policy isn't just legal, it's smart and realistic. there are millions of undocumented immigrants in the country. it would take literally billions of dollars to deport all of th them. it will never happen. so the department of homeland security has to set priorities. the obama administration has established a deportation policy that makes it a high priority to deport those who committed crimes -- serious crimes -- or may be a threat to public safety. and the administration said it is not a high priority to deport dream act students. i think the administration has its priorities right. and this isn't amnesty. it's simply a decision to focus limited government resources on those who've committed serious crimes and to basically say to dream act students, you have an opportunity to remain here in a legally recognized temporary and renewable status. that policy has strong support in congress. it was richard lugar, republican

of indiana, who joined me two years ago in writing to froam ask him to do this -- to president obama to ask him to do this. last year, senator lugar and i were joined by 21 other senators, senators who stood together with us, like majority leader harry reid, judiciary committee chairman patrick lea leahy, and senator bob menendez. according to recent polls, the american people think the president made the right decision. for example, a bloomberg poll found that 64% of likely voters, including 66% of independents, support the president's policy on dream act students compared to 30%, less than half, who oppose it. some republicans outside congress have also expressed support. for example, mark shirtleff, attorney general of utah, said -- and i quote -- "this is clearly within the president's power. i was pleased when he announced it. until congress acts, we'll be left with too many people to deport. the administration is saying, here's a group we could be spending our resources going after, but why? they're americans. they see themselves as america

americans. they love this country." from mark shirtleff, attorney general of utah. it's easy to criticize the president's policy on the dream act in the abstract. what i've tried to do on a regular basis is to introduce those who follow the senate proceedings to the actual students who are affected by this. one of them is kelsey burke. brought to the united states from honduras at the age of 10. her family settled in lake worth, florida, where she started school in the sixth grade. by the time she was in eighth grade, she was taking advanced placement classes. she was accepted into the criminal justice magnet program at lake worth high school. she developed a passion for the law, started to dream about becoming an attorney. she continued to take honors classes, enrolled in college at palm beach state college. she graduated from high school with a 3.4 g.p.a., a criminal justice certificate, and already

15 college credits. in 2008, kelsey was granted temporary protected status which allows immigrants to remain in the united states temporarily because it's unsafe for them to return to their home country. with temporary protected status, kelsey's able to work legally, although she's still not eligible to stay here permanently or become a citizen. after she began working, kelsey was able to afford college. keep in mind, kelsey and other dream act students are not eligible for federal student loans or any other federal financial aid. going to college for them is tougher than it is for most kids. while working full time, kelsey went to florida atlantic university, graduating with a major in public communications and a minor in sociology. she was, indeed, the first member of her family to graduate from high school and college. she now works as a paralegal at a law firm in palm beach county. she's very active in her comeent, serves on the board of the hispanic bar association,

volunteers at her neighborhood community center, and coaches youth soccer. her dream is to become a u.s. citizen. and she wants to be an attorney. of course, not being a citizen, there's an obstacle to her ever becoming a member of the legal profession in this country. here's what she said when she wrote to me. "i desire to help others pursue their passion to fight for their dreams, make a positive difference. others forgot where they came from and how their ancestors got here and what coming to america represents. i've been blessed. and i want to use my knowledge and experience to help other immigrant families." mr. president, i'm the child of one of those immigrants. my mother was an immigrant to this country. i now have been honored to serve in the united states senate, a first-generation american. i am proud of my mother's immigrant heritage and my heritage as well. up in my office behind my desk is my mother's naturalization certificate. at about age 23, she became a citizen. and i keep that certificate there as a reminor about my

family -- reminder about my family roots and a reminder about this great country. it's the immigrant contribution to america that adds to our diversity, gives us strength, and i think brings a lot of special people to our shores who are willing to make great sacrifices to be part of this great nation. these young people affected by the dream act were too young to make that conscious decision but their parents who brought them here were. they were making that decision for them. now we want these young people to have a chance in their generation to make this a stronger nation. i ask my colleagues, would we be better off if kelsey were asked to leave? i don't think so. i think her having grown up in this country and overcome so many odds is an indication of what a strong-willed and talented young woman she is. we need so many more just like her. the president has given kelsey and others some breathing space here with his decision on the dream act. now it's time for us to accept the responsibility not only to deal with the dream act but also

to deal with the immigration question. we cannot run away from the fact that it is unresolved and has been for years. we need to work together on a bipartisan basis to make certain that we have an immigration system that is fair, reasonable, will continue to build this great nation of immigrants, bringing to the shores of this country those who have made such a difference in the past and will in the future. i thank all my colleagues, including the presiding officer, for his strong support of the dream act. the president's decision has given us a new opportunity to introduce these young people to america in a legal protected status on a renewable basis. mr. president, i yield the floor and to my colleague from ohio. mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i so appreciate the leadership of senator durbin on the dream act. nobody has kept this alive more than he has, has spoken more passionately and cares more about young people. and the point of so much of what

he was talking about was that you give people an opportunity and they work hard and they play by the rules and they get ahead in this country. and my comments, while i didn't come to the floor to talk about immigration and the dream act, i support what senator durbin's doing and i'm talking about something else that you give people opportunity and they get ahead and that is ohio and american manufacturing and why it's so important to our country. the best ticket to the middle class in the last hundred years in the state of ohio and really all over the country has been people making things. the way to create wealth is you either mine it or you grow it or you make it. the presiding officer in his state of colorado, he's -- he understands all of those three things. in colorado, they mine things, they grow things, they make things, as they do in ohio. ohio is increasingly becoming an energy state in many ways. we're a leading farm state. it's actually our biggest job -- our biggest industry in a sense in ohio is -- is agriculture.

we also are the number three manufacturing state in the united states of america. only colorado -- excuse me, only texas and california make more things than ohio does. they're states two and three times our size in population and an area even more than that. we know a couple of things. we know that from 2000-2010, we lost one-third of the manufacturing jobs in this country. we lost more than 5 million manufacturing jobs just disappeared. tens of thousands of plant closings, thousands of communities abandoned or crippled, teachers laid off, librarians laid off, police and fire laid off, families broken because of these manufacturing job losses. more than 5 million manufacturing jobs lost -- jobs lost in manufacturing 2000-2010. since early 2010, we have had 500,000 -- we now have 500,000 more jobs than we had in early 2010. in other words, for the first

time in a decade, we're actually seeing manufacturing job gains in this country. a big part of that is what's happened to the auto industry. i spent much of last week all over my state but especially visiting places in northern ohio where manufacturing and especially auto are so important -- auto is so important. i talked to business owners who grateful and are enthusiastic about what happened with the auto rescue. the auto industry was -- was literally dying in ohio and across the country at this point four years ago, in late 200 2008/early 2009. and if the united states congress, the president and the house and senate hadn't stepped in, my state would be in a depression. since then, we are seeing major investments -- major investments, in many cases meaning hundreds of millions of dollars in investment, tens of millions minimum, major investments in ohio in chrysler,

toledo, major investments in ohio in g.m., major investments in ohio in ford, and major investments in ohio in honda. all of them understanding the auto industry is alive and well and coming back. but many of these auto suppliers, the companies that make brackets or bolts or wheel covers or glass or -- or a number of other products that ultimately go into auto assembly, many of these manufacturers of -- of -- component manufacturers of parts for the auto industry talk about competing against china. for too long, they tell me, and i recognize china has been manipulating its currency to give chinese exports an unfair advantage. the chinese government also gives illegal subsidies to domestic industries, domestic in china, for the purpose of exporting and dumping products on the american market. dumping -- the term "dumping" simply means they subsidize it so the product itself is priced

under the cost of producing it. it's called dumping it in our market. china, if that wasn't enough, skirted trade law even further by placing illegal duties that affect more than 80% -- more than 80% -- of u.s. auto exports to china, including ohio-made vehicles like jeeps -- like the jeep assembled in toledo, and acuras assembled in mariesville. we can't afford to let china take the wind out of our sails. last week, the administration stepped -- a day after independence day, the administration announced it would stand up for american workers, it would fight back against china's discriminatory tariffs on american automobiles. when they put illegal -- illegal under international trade law, when they put illegal tariffs on american products, it means they basically keep the chinese -- basically keep, the chinese keep prices so high for american-made autos, artificially high, the chinese -- the chinese simply won't buy them, chinese motorists won't buy them.

so they, in effect, by these tariffs have kept american products, made by american workers, made in the united states of america, keeping them out of china. we buy so much from china, not hard to find products at any store in america almost made in china, we buy so much of thei their -- so many of their products, they do all they can illegally in many cases to keep our products out. now is the time to stand up for american workers, to stand up for suppliers in dayton who provide aluminum and zinc for casting, for aluminum and zinc dyecasting. and also those who focus on heavy gauge steel for the auto industry. that's why the president's decision, the united states trade representative's decision aimed at defending american jobs is so important. we know what rescuing the auto industry meant for us. it was not only about preventing crisis but it was -- could have been an economic depression, especially in the industrial midwest. hundreds of thousands of ohioans depend on the auto industry.

workers, suppliers, manufacturers, drivers, truckers, sales representatives, dealerships. for those of us in congress who supported rescuing the auto industry, doing so meant standing up for the hundreds of thousands of ohioans and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of americans as much as it was about supporting the big three. today the domestic auto indust industry's back on course. g.m.'s the leading car company in the world. it's earning significant profi profits. as i said, plants in toledo and lordstown and defiance are hiring workers. honda, chrysler, ford, g.m. have also announced those various multimillion-dollar investments just in ohio alone, not to mention many other states that i mentioned earlier. we've got to continue making the investments in manufacturing that matter for our recovery and our economic competitiveness. i was just on a conference call with -- with rural housing advocates in ohio. we know historically in this country that -- that what leads us out of depression is too --

are two things, manufacturing and housing. we're -- we're doing significantly better in manufacturing. remember earlier in my short little talk, we lost thousands of jobs in manufacturing. we've gained thousands since then almost every single month over the last 30 months or so. manufacturing is according to its part to pull out of this recession. we've got to do better in housing. that's a subject for another discussion. but the manufacturing part is so important. one place we must remain vigilant is the enforcement of trade laws. that's what the president is standing up and doing. we know that enforcing trade law isn't just the right thing to do for manufacturing, it is the right thing to do for job creation. the international trade ruling -- commission's ruling in december 200 led to a broader -- led to a measure on imports to support domestic producers of steel pipe like b.n.m. steel in

youngstown. by addressing the chinese trade policies, this helped increase demand for domestic production. it made a significant role in the decision to do something that people didn't expect would happen anytime soon. b.n.m. star steel made a decision to build a new $650 million seamless pipe mill in youngstown, ohio, bringing about 1,000 building trades jobs, building the structure of the plant, and now several hundred jobs as they begin production. a new steel plant in youngstown, ohio, one of the major steel-producing centers in the country that had come on hard times, particularly in steel, a new steel mill in youngstown, ohio, because the president of the united states, because the international trade commission, because the department of commerce, because congress pushed for it, actually ruled, enforced trade rules and look what happened. so trade enforcement matters.

we also need to be vigilant on currency manipulation. our trade deficit in auto parts with china grew from about $1 billion ten years ago to almost $10 billion today. these massive illegal subsidies the chinese are engaging in are worsened by indirect predatory subsidies like currency manipulation. that's why my legislation, the currency exchange and oversight reform act, the largest bipartisan jobs baloney'sed the senate in the last two years, is so important. it got more than 70 votes. senators from both parties supported it. the house of representatives passed a similar measure one other time. now we're simile asking speaker boehner to schedule this bill for a vote. if it's scheduled for a vote, if the house votes on it, they will pass t i would predict with at least 300 votes because large numbers of members of both parties want to see the house of representatives move on this. they voted for it before. we need speaker boehner to actually bring it to a vote. it means standing up for

american jobs when china cheats. without aggressive enforce many of trade law, this unlevel playing field will cost hundreds of thousands of american jobs. it is born from the realization that the stakes are too high for our workers, our manufacturers, our economy if we don't fight back. we need an all-hands-on-deck approach at the u.s. trade represent, at the department of state, at the department of commerce to be involved in more aggressive, especially by initiating more trade actions. we know that our trade actions stablize -- we know that our actions stablize the auto industry. we know that enforcement of trade law transplates into steel jobs and paper jobs and tire jobs and other jobs. we know it's time to continue fighting for and investing in american manufacturing. thank you, mr. president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent for senators to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 433, s. s. res. 429. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 433, s. s. res. 429 supporting the goals and ideals of world malaria day. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the wicker amendment at the desk be agreed to. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i know of no further debate on this measure and urge its passage. the presiding officer: all in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. pwr-pb mr. president, i ask unanimous consent -- mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be made and laid on the table, any statements related to the resolution appear at this point in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i understand that s. 3369 introduced earlier today by senator whitehouse is at the desk. i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 3369, a bill to amend the federal election campaign act of 1971, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. brown: i ask for its second reading and object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will receive its second reading on the next legislative day. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that s. 3240, the agriculture, reform food and jobs act of 2012, be printed as posted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i

ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on wednesday, july 11, that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, that the majority leader be recognized, and that the first hour be divided equally and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the republicans controlling the first half, the majority controlling the second half, and that all time during morning business, adjournment and recess count postcloture on the motion to proceed on s. 2237. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, we hope to begin consideration of the small business jobs and tax relief act tomorrow. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.

>> now, a panel discusses local challenges, including climate change, poverty, unemployment and human rights violations. this discussion is part of the world summit of nobel peace laureates recently held in chicago. >> we are under reverberate here at investing in peace, but we have made a basket by pulling out a check book and read the chat, although that is always helpful for nonprofit organizations. but more about how all of our panel here is invested their life with a message to the young people perhaps an everybody in the audience that we can all get a little more involved and i will begin with dr. pachauri.

i want to ask you about global warming and climate issues. it seemed about five years ago when al gore did in giving a truth is the sort of popular culture and people were talking about it and now you read newspapers or look on the news and it seems to have been eclipsed, yet the climate problem is worse than ever. how does that happen? >> well, i think in any new knowledge that emerges, if you go through history, there is always that. when there will be absent balance. of course, scientists will come debate and discussion of scientific fight means. but i can come you find that there is a very strong reaction. i would like to point out the fact that al gore's movie was titled appropriately,

"inconvenient truth." these things in particular can be inconvenient and therefore if you would see some changes in public perception. but let me say for the colleague of mine mcgill university who carries out regular surveys of public opinion on climate change and you find in the last three or four months there seems to be a shift in particular, a large number of americans now believe that some of those free weather events taking place or because of climate change. many say that the ip cc has brought out a special report on disaster five months ago. and that has come up with some very profound pain means, based on observations and projections about will happen in the future.

i just want to mention two of them. the first is with respect to see ways. these are clearly on the increased frequency and intensity. to give you an indication, this hubris which currently take place once in 20 years don't do anything about climate change, by the end of the century those he waves in other words of the same intensity about tape place once in two years. the other point that want to make which is another important finding is the fact that extreme precipitation events are on the increase coming so much so that even in those regions of the world, where you have a decline in average precipitation, a larger share of it will now be in the form of heavy rules. so the point i am making is that knowledge is now becoming far more end convertible and i am

reasonably confident that in the next few years, if not earlier, the public will accept the realities of climate change and i hope human society can and do something about it. >> t. like when people use the term, global warming? or do you prefer climate change quick >> i like climate change because global warming carries this misperception that climate change is just -- i womanish is smooth, steady linear. but the reality is that the entire climate system is being affected by an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere and we have made two important findings in the fourth assessment among several others, firstly that warming of the climate system is unequivocal and secondly, most of the

warming that has taken place since the middle of the last century is very likely an account of photogenic concentration of greenhouse gases. and when we used the term very lately, that conveys a probability of over 90%. so that is where we are and therefore i would say far more accurate and reflective of reality to use the term climate change rather than global warming. >> i was speaking with the actress gloria reuben about the concerns of climate and what you're talking about in your increased iconic chickadee. there stratus. they were feeling less extreme weather conditions. what frightens you the most right now? if you're going to look at how our lives are being affected by climate change?

>> there's a whole range of things. but what concerns me particularly is the fact that the impacts of climate change will fall on some of the most vulnerable regions of the world, on communities who are least equipped to handle these impacts. i can give you the example of the units come from bangladesh, which are highly vulnerable. there are agriculture that will be community is dependent entirely on agriculture. and they are not producing agriculture produced for sale from the global market. they are produced barely enough to take care of their own needs and they already have high levels of malnutrition. so all of this put together, and the scarcity of water in several parts of the world already

exists. so there is a combination of things. and my concern is not in the scientific community to come to any conclusion to this, but my concern is with all these realities, you could have major disruption and the stability of society itself. this can happen in different parts of the world. >> professor yunus, do you want to wait and? do you see any climate change problems in bangladesh? >> this is certainly imagine not. we see it coming and more frequent and more and more to the point i to the point i want to make when you talk about the environmental degradation and climate change of the issues better than another chap there

and a separate power. for me, the real is integrated. this just part of many other problems of food crisis that very quickly comes into the issue. we are losing land for agriculture because of the climate change. and food crisis itself is a separate issue. poverty is a separate issue. similarly, financial crisis. these are expressions of many frustrations of the same fundamental problem. fundamental problem the whole framework, conceptual framework in the way that we work. in our previous panel there were discussing and panelists are making reference that we need a new economic order or new world

order. for me it is not an economic order or world order. it is more a creation new civilization because the way we have carried on in the past, i don't think we carry on the family to increase separately. we can accept or so from now. we had to design a new civilization by many of these things do not exist visioning now. that is the starting point. many of the things we take for granted we have a question. if something just coming out of conceptual framework that was created in the economic framework with the businesses, financial structure, the way we interact with each other? so unless we address that, we can go in peace by piece basis. we are not going to solve the problems. >> in the 1960s, johnson's

great society and the united states have a war on poverty, do you ever see a day that there will be no poverty? can we ever actually eradicate poverty in the world? >> yeah, i've been saying that for many, many years now. it can sound ridiculous, sound absurd because we all in the millennium united nations brought all the countries of the world for the millennium develop goals, eight boland and develop goals. it is to reduce by 2015. now many nations are moving ahead to achieve that goal and bangladesh should be one of those countries which would be goal number one. if we accept that, it can reduce by opinion. if you continue the process,

some were you come to the middle point, too. this is an obvious kind of logic that will take. so reducing poverty 20 is not something unthinkable. today we have the millennium development goals for phase one of 22015. soon probably we will making or comparing for millennium development goals for phase two. i'm sure this is an issue that we will be addressing, when do we achieve more. so it is very possible. the question is not can we, as when will we come how fast will we. we have the creative power. we have all the things combined and it's possible to make it faster. somebody put a date to it, then it's possible and that in the process we they should create

mediums. so in many poverty in the world, so we should get poverty nations the same museum in chicago, for example, declaring there is no poor person in the city and the city will make it happen and put all the examples of poverty that we have and we promise we will not go back to it again. it's goodbye forever. that's what the whole world can do. it is not a question of type allergy or resources. >> what about corporations that are worried about profit and how do we get companies involved more with dealing with issues of poverty? >> that is what i was referring to as a conception dreamer. today that economics that is in business is all you do is make

money. money making is your mission that makes it so we learned so much. we train ourselves so much that it becomes a habit and sometimes it becomes an obsession and sometimes it becomes kind of an addiction. we keep on money. we don't know why we make money, but we do that because that's the position we are put in. my point is human beings are not one. but this year and the conceptual framework -- if you're in the framework is that they're sometimes a moneymaking robber appears to that's where we are wrong. everything we are following all the time, environmental problems and other problems is all because the human being. human beings are much bigger than just being known.

human beings are multi-conventional. human beings make money at the same time can do it in the business world and we can create a business to make money at the same time we can create a business to solve problems. because today all the technology we have in our command all over the world, who is commanding this technology? basically its business and what does the business make of this? they make more money out of it. if we could open a door, that technology can be used to solve problems. and i gave a challenge. i think if we create all the technology of human beings on one side and put all the problems of the world on the other side and make them with each other and see who is the winner, my prediction with the human creativity and technology which we don't connect with each other, we do it in a separate war. it doesn't belong to each other. if it comes to the problem,

leave it to the government to solve it. >> if i could make a comment. >> you know, i think we really need to change our metrics of what constitutes human progress. [applause] it was the hot condi, speed is irrelevant if you're going in the wrong direction. so i think what we measure is essentially speeding around direction and we believe were doing better every day. but as a matter of fact, i mean despite the outstanding work that a person like professor yunus has been dealing out, poverty in the world is still a major scourge. it's a major problem and i think stress is that they have ruled that going to be exacerbated with the impacts of climate change and other related

challenges. i think we really need to shift gears somehow i don't know how it can be done. maybe the younger generation has to show us the way. >> one position i was making to create a new business along with the business to solve problems and creativity and all people, particularly the younger generation, if they can put their mind into it and designing business is without having any intention of personally benefiting come community ideas that keep coming in problems of resolve. these are the writings of businesses. so we include a textbook or so will have an option to see how much you want to use this to make money and solve problems. >> mr. stelzer, let's get you in a conversation here. what can the united nations do on poverty, on climate?

what is the united nations to be now one be nowadays created in 1945 the united states was a dream as fdr. but today many americans don't really know what the u.n. does and many people think the united states should have less influence in the u.n. what is the best story for the young people here to understand the united nations is doing around the world? >> vimy take a practical approach. some of the big issues are ratified. the u.n. is providing a platform for solutions. once we can agree on the global challenges on topics which are too big to be resolved one country on its own needs cooperation. once we identify the problem, we can start looking for a solution. we have tremendous challenges in opportunities. in 50 days from now we are having a conference, which the

secretary general has defined the most important conference of our generation did with the enormous challenge, which the general cause the 50/50 50/50 challenge, which means by 2050 there'll be 50% more people living on the scope than 10 years ago and why we have to say within his famous 2%, which is much too high for many scientists, we have to reduce co2 emissions. that's the easy part. writing a billion people every time, 12, 15 years would have to create opportunities. not only opportunities to survive, but to develop. how we do not? fighter we have to produce co2 emissions? secretary-general said we around two sides of the track.

we need to produce and consume and live together. we cannot afford continuing mutual. if we continued using wood as usual in a few years, the deficit will be 40% between demand and supply global. this is very alarming. so how do we we think? had we provide opportunities for the billion extra people every year? why do we reduce the co2 emissions we are emitting 30 billion tons of co2 every year? at the same time, reduced social inequalities and provide economic access. because that's what it is. it's not only to be decided in economic terms, it can access. if access to the game of society. we are 60% of both globally and the last 15 years. we still have a billion people who goes to bed hungry, who've

lived with $1.25 everyday. hundreds of millions of people who work 15 hours a day, not be able to provide social security, clean water, access to education, and the social security to the families, to the children. we have nothing better than growth. our economy has to grow to accommodate the jobs. if you look at the crisis the last two years, of the green shoots we have been referring to have not been producing jobs. if you look at the world today, this is the first crisis, which is hitting the south of the north in the same way. no countries dissent anymore from crisis. but if the effects of globalization is the shockwaves hit every part of the world or if you look at so-called economic centers today, the

largest economies of the world have 50% unemployment today. several countries coming out only a few. how do we provide opportunities for god people in the future? we talk about in the united nations. we have to get away from dirty energy. how do we get away from coal and oil? it's very possible. there's a 60% energy efficient efficient -- sorry, already today we produce 1 dollar gdp with 60% less energy. if we just continue like this, looks quite well. it's very good development. if we get together in a hundred 35 heads of city government to to authority confirmed con to gather and define the next 10 to 15 years, which includes the

energy goals, meaning increasing energy efficiency by 50% by 2030, increasing the share of renewables and energy equation to 50% -- and providing global access to energy, we can do it. if we get the little ugly welt, we have strategies, technology. we just have to make the technology accessible. somebody has to pay for, vestments. but when we invest in dirty energy by subsidies, tax and other subsidizing track of which leads us into a dead-end street. whether we rechannel into renewables, to lower unit prices to make it comparable, to come in with more realistic feed. >> let's say a young person here

in chicago wants to be environmentally sensitive. nobody likes the word dirty energy, coal and gasoline. you look at our major companies in the united states at top exxonmobil and almost become cartels. they may be on fossil fuels for 20 or 30 years. look at a young person, 16, 17 and 18 do to help this revolution you're suggesting me being quarks ..

young people need to participate with to make the government aware of who are we doing it for, who are the beneficiaries? we are not working in the glass house we are working with real people do not abstract the positions we take have been in effect how we create opportunities in decent work right based jobs which are

predictable, so young people can invest in to the future into families and houses and businesses into the future and take their own life into their own hands. some of the united states the month cc civilian conservation corps could there be a climate conservation corps of working through the united nations? really started to doing the reforestation project and spending the summer work programs and kind of a peace corps on climate with young people. >> that's a good idea but we have to be where the change is only one aspect of the global challenge. this kind to be much bigger than the climate change. it's going to be rebuilding the production patterns. rebuilding our economy. get independence from oil and

gas. it's possible. the recent study reinvented if we do nothing if we continue as we have in the last few years by 2050 we are increasing productivity in the united states by more than 150% we will be oil and gas independent just because they don't have the case anymore and if we stop subsidizing the energy and a internalize the externalities' as clear and transparent, and then they totally change and the energy we have been relying on in the past just don't have a business case. let me bring in this conversation talking again trying to talk to some of the younger people what's your story

how did you get involved in social justice issues and human rights and what was it like growing up in el salvador? >> i grew up in the middle of the war issues like justice or social justice and even consciousness about what was unfair was something that took some time to realize and i managed to get a perspective of what we were talking about, with the groups were talking about and understand the war. >> people but are not familiar with what happened in el salvador what did you grow up experiencing? >> there was terrorism, there was of people, this was in the market coming and there were movements of students in the

universities. was very difficult for students to go to school because if you would go to a private university, you could be considered that was a right-wing university you could be cut by the terrorists and if you go to a public university you were also risking to be kidnapped so there was polarization, and was closest to the movements and they got organized was over ten years so that we have a peace agreement finally. >> you work with the international labor organization, and what does that do? >> i think it's a fantastic opportunity to be especially against the students as well.

i was in high school and had a great opportunity to explain in simple words what the ilo is about because it is an important organization in the war she kept from saying everybody should be following closely the words of the ilo. i would read the very brief quotation that says we are driven by feelings of justice and humanities as well as the desire to guarantee permanent peace in the world. permanent peace in the world. this quotation is not from today. it's from 1919, 100-years-old when the ilo was founded as a part of the treaty of versailles that ended the first war and one thing that is very interesting about the ilo is that after having been born after a world

war where the ideas were to address the root causes of the injustices of the war and the visionary response was to put together three main actors which are employers, workers and organizations. we heard today the president was saying about the discussions. this is exactly what the ilo brought about. and when we look at the history, because it is important to look at ourselves today almost 100 years later from when the organization was built, we see that at every moment where we have the war in a transition there was a particular role that these organizations had to play.

we had a net 1944 an amendment to the constitution, and this was to the declaration of philadelphia something in the united states, and that expanded the role to look at human rights at the center of social policy and also to include economic planning. interestingly many people might not know the human rights declaration of was written in 1948, the treaty used this for the concept of human rights. so the continued to work setting up international standards it also had a mandate to look after the social protection for all and to create employment for the

economy and foster dialogue so that we do not have to go to war. so these have been the pillars for the structure. and when we have the nobel peace award, it was because of the work that we had done after the world war. it was because of the international standards that we had been advancing, and because we have the fight for social justice in the world which is at the heart of every one, everybody gets up in the morning if they have a job and they go to work. so i tell you all of this because now here we are. we had an important declaration that shaped the ilo after the second world war. then when the cold war ended, we were instrumental in the

democracies that were established in south africa and poland and chile, and we continued to strengthen with the declaration so we have another declaration at this time with the declaration of the rights at the war at that particular time. the cold war ended, and it increased the free-market and globalization, and it was another transition and another very interesting turning point. in 1999, we had the very first director-general from the south, and at the heart of the new changes we had, he had to bring terms. it's a lot of information to say

to the world this is a proposition this is what we have to do for the world and for the human rights at work. as of the concept of decent work encompasses these things where we are today. ilo is pushing forward the idea of peace and work for all. this is just in a not show real >> what frustrates you the most, everyone's human rights but president carter today at lunch spoke about some of the spirit, human rights declaration we are not in the united states living up to. but personally, what should the community do regarding human rights? if you could really change a behavior or to? >> it's interesting because this question this morning at the school i think that if you look at the convention, we have 189 conventions. the very first 11919 it was six

conventions, and we had the last one it was 199 on the domestic workers very much related to the work of the scope of people who had not had rights, and i would say if you look at the conventions if you look at the declaration like we heard today from the president gorbachev, unef words and let's walk the talk. i think there's been a frustration right now that we have many instruments to make it work, and we are not using that as we should coming and we have committed generations. i stand here on behalf of generations that have given their life and organizations which is also the government of the worker of the employer with

a staff of the ilo that have been for putting this forward and the work is there to get consensus on one declaration on one convention you need the consensus of workers of 183 nations with employers and government and we get with incredible negotiations and dialogue. so the value of what we have come at something very important that i want to say in this very last decade, the declaration the was put forward as a result of the globalization is a declaration on social justice for a fair globalization which addresses basically with a whip to be fair globalization to

bring social justice to this new way >> i want to bring alexander hit at the end of the conversation. the international red cross, you have no problem with a grand identity. everybody knows the international red cross, but what do you feel it is the crux of the mission of the organization for kaput how you decide where to go to? >> our priority we decide to go wherever we have an added value. it isn't a question of mandate, it is not a question of media attention. we go wherever, and wherever we see that by definition because

of our history but also because of our know-how in the situations of armed violence that can be qualified as a conflict or not qualified as a conflict but this is where we see that we can do something for the people that other organizations cannot do. >> is there any place right now or i should say where is the red cross doing work that he would like the audience to know about? >> there are contacts that we work on syria - it would be there is one man that tried to get the parties to the turmoil and syria to sit down and talk and that man as kofi annan, and

he needs the backing. [applause] despite that, there are governments, there are people that are still heralding this romantic image of war but still believes that there is something glamorous about going to the war as long as the situation of the conflict believe that they can gain something through the war they will go to war. now the only message that the world needs to leave to the syrians is that there is no other solution of people talking and finding an arrangement and after all, if the people we had in previous panel could manage peacefully the transition such

as the soviet union are the apartheid, there is a way to get syria to manage a peaceful transition coming and that would be my message. in the very interesting discussion that i had with the students this morning, and i have to say that it was a more interesting discussion than what most adults, so i congratulate them for that. [applause] one message i try to pass this war is not a glamorous and is not a game. there is nothing like a clean war. it isn't because you have no boots on the ground that there is no blood on the ground. so we just need to move away from this idea that they can solve problems or that there is

something romantic about the war [applause] >> we have about ten minutes or so. i'm glad to ask a question. these are coming from the audience. this one is by robert come and he wants to know in your opinion how does the environmental -- how does the environment impact the prospect for global peace? >> welcome as i said, the impact of climate change first or not going to be uniform, and as it happens, there are certain of vulnerable locations come certain vulnerable communities. they are the ones that are going to be hit the worst rate just to give you a number, since 1970 if you look at the disasters and related deaths that have taken place, 95% have taken place in the developing world. and therefore, if you look at

the increase as well as the frequency of these impacts, clearly the ones who are the most underprivileged are the ones that are going to be affected worst of all, and there's every prospect that if we don't do something about this problem there will be refugees who will move from one location to the other and therefore we see what we really need to do is inform the public about what's going to happen and also create capacity which can be done at low-cost to be able to adapt to the impact of climate change. and in this respect, there are several measures, early warning systems and so on which can make an enormous difference to life and property and protection.

let me also say that there's been a discussion about the war. president gorbachev very likely said that there is also the conflict on nature and this is where we need to bring about change. in my view there is nothing more effective than creating awareness. einstein said problems can be solved a the level of awareness that has created them. and today we have awareness and therefore we should be able to create major dissemination of information by which people are equipped to handle these problems. otherwise there will be a very serious effect there will be this conflict in different parts of the world, and all of that will get exacerbated with

climate change. >> very good. professor, this is from josh. he's curious -- it's a big question. how is it possible for us to reduce poverty if we are not going to change society's standards for poverty? >> if you look from the human-rights issue since you are discussing that, you can get poverty as the denial fall human right to food, right to shelter, right to work and you name it they all denied and that is what is all about. once you understand that from the human-rights issue it should be the top priority how to bring those to those people and then

you look at the poor people and see whether it is their fault that they are poor or somebody else. you look around the world and we see a person works hard and come to the conclusion it's not created by the poor people. it's created by the system. if it is created by the system so eager to bring human-rights to all people we don't we designed a system that we do not clear? there's the question of getting people out of poverty not because we go and address the poor people but because how to reduce poverty and to take the unemployment issue very strongly that thomas mentioned 50% of the young population and unemployment forget about the poor countries of the

unemployment was very high command again the question is if something is wrong with that of unemployed person, is he not willing to work and capable of working? is something missing? no, nothing. very eager and creative and productive. who did that? again, the system. we are not looking at the system. we are simply looking at the systems to fix that. why don't you sit down and design the whole thing? so today we have the capability of examining the system not just creating from the path something happened to hundred years back. we are in the 21st century. our technology is at a stage where we can design things in a completely different way and everything is changing so fast. what happened today and what

happened 20 years from now will be completely different. we start the process of redesigning the system so that we don't have anybody that is unemployed, anybody that is poor >> building on that point, we have a question that connects nicely on with their capital is coming to continue in this century or not, and it's a problem that we are dealing with global capitalism. >> i just try to look from the point of view what we have been experiencing. very obviously the system doesn't produce the results of us want with a more equitable, more inclusive environment in society. in the united nations we believe that every crisis is the

consequence of unsustainable we have the political appearances the result. if we drive clements to the global warming, we will have catastrophic consequences. so the question is between the different interests, balances, so what does it mean for the economy? it doesn't mean that nobody is supposed to be rich. it doesn't mean that the market's still function. the question is just how do we provide inclusive developments? how do we open up sustainable development? this is the centerpiece of the term. how do we provide access? the question is and about how much we would produce.

we produce more food than we can consume. still a billion people are hungry because it is a question of access. we have enough money in this world, 60% more than 15 years ago. today many governments tell us the main concern is balancing the budget they have no more money to spend on the poor. i just heard in a recent interview that we have no money to continue the social systems. we have 5 billion people in this world that have no exit for social protection, no insurance, no access to service, no job security, nobody predicts 5 billion people out of seven against adversities of life. how we distribute access? we do not have double standard supply. the question is how to do it more intelligently without

depleting our natural resources. nobody says don't drive. just the opposite. we want to have cars but can we afford cars and suvs in the european cities? what is the purpose for them? we have to think what is the cost? who pays for what? for example in year up we are in this economic crisis and of course the banks are too big to fail so we need to help that. in europe it came from very strong policy signals that in europe it's made available a trillion dollars to strengthen the balance sheets but there were no strings attached. so the money doesn't to be reinvested and made available for small and medium-sized enterprises to create jobs. now they can just go into the risky investments as in the

past. at the same time we are told we don't have the money to continue our social states. in the crisis we have seen that those countries which are both strong social protections are the most resilient against. my own country, austria, has the lowest unemployment in europe because we still have a functioning system and people don't drop out. they are resilient. that is a great game. ideology can dictate. we continue our concentration like the last 15, 20 years. we exclude more and more people but what will the consequences be? nada if we cannot provide jobs for young people. look around what happened in north africa. the main driver was desperation

among young people, highly educated people that had no future because the states and the society could not provide the future for them. that is why they lost their trust in the states as in the society at the social contract is the national structure fell apart. this is the biggest danger we are facing today globally that we cannot provide purpose and future for young people jobs. we haven't been producing jobs. the numbers are abysmal globally sub-saharan cities are going to double in the next ten years. if we look at some of this come average age 25 years, and in planning rates come 25% already. imagine how do we control social

tension? how will the next election will give some politicians who are less responsible are affecting votes. how do we deal with that and create opportunities? hal do we create in the united states you have 120 million if we increase energy efficiency by 50% you have a lot of work to do. they just change 6,500 windows. they would regain the investment because they are saving 40% energy. but they just changed the windows. so, if we raise energy efficiency at 120 million buildings in the states, you can employ generations of young people. today in germany more people are employed in the solar industry already than in the steel industry in the united states.

so versus past versus future how do we become energy independent? the united states is spending $2 billion a day on the imports. 4 billion. they are not counting the armies which protect the energy flow. how long can we afford this cost which subsidize? the $20 to become million of taxpayers' money -- >> if i could add for one minute just to get tom because we are running out of time and i want you each to have a chance because you have a specific question about whether being from el salvador do you feel el salvador and smaller nations are represented in the united nations and the voices of countries for central america can they be heard among the

giants like china and the united states? >> i think this because they get together with smaller countries. in other words, the voices are important and we can always bring to both these things. it happens and to show that it is multilateral and sometimes the voting on the resolution calling one direction or another it has happened recently in the u.n.. obviously the the decisions are not necessarily in their hands but there is at least a voice and the u.n. does pay for that voice i think so. >> you are being asked how can a young person get involved with the red cross? do you volunteer or do you have to do any particular training? how do you get engaged with the

international red cross pucks >> the web site, go there. [laughter] i would say first, with the mayor of chicago organized in the schools and the fact is the first. you need to understand the world you are living in. you need to understand you need to be able to put yourself in a situation of other people live under the old, and i think that this is the first step to the humanitarianism and second you can get involved in your community. you don't need to go to ugonda to get involved. more and more what we are going to see is actually decentralized

action. i think that is the model of western humanitarian organizations that necessarily go and care for the problems in the south this surely a good thing. there is a transfer of competence and responsibility, and there is more than anything else a shift of spirited among the people of most countries whether they want to get involved in helping their own people. so i think this is important and most importantly, as citizens, you have to demand to your respective governments principal diplomacy. we cannot expect that the rules of the game change all the time. countries that your government support need to be countries that respect human rights and international and you have to be

vocal about that. we cannot discover after supporting some regimes for 30 years that they have no legitimacy. this is not serious. they never had a legitimacy most of these regions but they did simply contribute to the self-interest of some nations. i'm doing some naming and shaming here but i'm saying if we have the principal policy, if the rules of the game are clear, we will have -- we will work towards a much more peaceful international community coming and we will also lead the governments that do not respect human rights to start caring about their citizens and to start acting irresponsibly. so we need to become global citizens. that would be my message.

interestingly enough, 150 years ago a man wrote that i found my way here the enemy is not the neighboring country, it is poverty and ignorance, routine superstition and prejudice. he was the first recipient of the nobel peace prize, and this is true today as it was 150 years ago, and i think that this is why we have to focus our efforts. >> last question and i want you to answer quickly because we are running out of time. if we can only do so much in an hour but if there is a book that you each would recommend that has meant a lot to you that you really wish people would read, you mentioned gondhi but is there a particular book that you would tell everybody in the audience might be able to go home and had the homework assignment and read? >> we published a book called

the apostle of human ecology. i would recommend that. just to give you want quote what do you think of wildlife in the jungles? wild life in the jungle was decreasing but it's increasing in the city's. >> very good. we will go right down the line. [laughter] >> what's the title? creating a world without poverty. before i recommend the book i just want to say one sentence because i was fascinated when you opened the meeting here and deferred i think it is all about justice. it is access to the resources. we cannot deny people their rights. we just have to respect them as human beings. as access to a fair trial that is just a fair sharing of resources. it might be a dream that justice

is in from israel but the dream can be. and we have to pursue that in the book with china not recommending now. the book i would recommend for the moment definitely shows us there is an easy way after of the crisis if we reach the signs on wall and if we are able to look forward instead of looking dhaka. >> what is the title again? >> reinventing fire. >> there is an abbreviated version in the last foreign affairs division. >> very good. >> since we are breaking down because we want to reach out for the generation i'm not going to recommend a book, but i'm going to recommend you download from the web site of the report the youth employment crisis and ask them to get involved.

we have an employment for them going on at the ilo to a 26th of may. it will be webcast come you can twitter and participate we have 50 countries where we have consultations. you can engage so this is what i want you to read what we have their for you. >> if they can read any book instead of playing video games i would be very happy. [applause] by the way i mentioned we have engaged in major war against the producers of these video games for them to remove systematic violations of international law we in these games. [applause]

if there was one book i recommend the book of happiness and happy people don't go to war. >> very good. that's the note we will in bonn. a think you for being patient. it's been a great day. thanks to the university of illinois chicago. [applause] >> carter in his opinion had a macmillian accent, and she's of the dominoes start to fall during this time, and by 1979 she was a full-fledged opposition in which he saw as

carter that appeasement and in particular crucial in this respect she saw the fall of the shaw and nicaragua a couple of lacerating experiences for her and people like her.

the economy is headed in the wrong direction and americans need to change it come november. senator mitch mcconnell of kentucky criticized president obama's economic decisions. senate democratic whip then got up on the floor to defend the president's policies and criticized republicans for blocking legislation. this part of today's senate session is 20 minutesrican peope woke up to the news that the economy is on life support. the first response of the president of the united states was that we're headed in the right direction. the president says we're headed in the right direction. now, just think about that for a second. the president's first reaction to the news that more americans signed up for disability last month than got jobs was to flash a thumbs up and head back to the

campaign trail, just like his first reaction to a question about the economy at a recent white house press conference was to say that the private sector is doing just fine. well, obviously, answers like that just aren't going to cut it. the president's advisors must be telling him that much, so yesterday the president, the man at the wheel, changed his tune by doing his washington best to change the subject. for three and a half years, this white house has shown an utter lack of imagination when it comes to jobs and the economy. if the solution doesn't involve more government, they're not interested. that's all they have got. so yesterday, the president went back to the same well one more time. after three and a half years of more government, more debt, more spending, more taxes, more regulations, he demanded even

more. yesterday, the president issued an ultimatum. raise taxes on about a million business owners to fund more government, and i won't raise taxes on the rest of you. raise taxes on about a million business owners and i won't raise taxes on the rest of you. that was his considered response to this crisis. now, let's leave aside for a second the complete and total absurdity of raising taxes on job creators in the middle of what some are calling the slowest recovery ever. leave that aside and ask yourself a more fundamental question -- whose money is it in the first place? whose money is it in the first place? i mean, why should small businesses be put on the defensive about keeping money they worked for and earned? it seems like every day for the past three and a half years we have woken up to stories about waste and abuse and government.

whether it's a bankrupt solar company or the $800,000 party some government agency threw for itself or this week's report that we overspent on unemployment benefits by about $14 billion. as far as i'm concerned, there shouldn't even be a debate here. the government doesn't need any more money. it's government that should be answering to us for the tax dollars it's wasted and misdirected. it's the president who should be on the defensive. he's the one who pledged he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term but doubled it instead. he's the one who spent the first three and a half years of his administration shattering spending records. and now he wants us to believe that he will direct new tax revenue toward tackling the deficit? look, yesterday's announcement was many things, but let's be

honest, it wasn't a plan for deficit reduction. and it sure wasn't a plan for job creation. first and foremost, it was a distraction. by any standard, the president has a nightmarish economic record, a nightmarish economic record. by demanding higher taxes on the few, he's trying to direct attention from it. second, it's deeply ideological. the president has already admitted that the last thing you do in the middle of a recession is raise taxes. he knows yesterday's proposal would only make the economy worse. he knows that. his goal isn't jobs. it's income redistribution. it's his idea of fairness, which means you earn, he takes. his definition of fairness means

you earn and he takes. and third, it's purely political. the president's top priority for the last year hasn't been creating jobs. it's been saving his own. let me say that again. the top priority of the president in the last year hasn't been creating jobs for anybody else. it's saving his own job. and his advisors seem to think if they create enough scapegoats , he will slip by in november. that's why he spent the past year trying to convince the public that somehow his predecessor is more responsible for the economic failures of the past three and a half years than he is. all the bailouts and the trillions in borrowed money, and the government takeover of health care, and the onslaught of bureaucratic red tape and regulations are somehow irrelevant to the fact that we're mired in the slowest

economic recovery in modern times. that we're just one more stimulus away from an economic boom. that the fact that we've had unemployment above 8% for 41 straight months has nothing to do with the policies he put in place in his first two years in office. that all these massive pieces of legislation he touted were somehow hugely historic, and yet at the same time completely unrelated to the joblessness, uncertainty and decline we've seen almost every day since. it's this kind of economic thinking that leads to the kind of proposal the president announced yesterday which says that a tax hike is harmful to middle-class earners but somehow meaningless for the 940,000

business owners who will get slammed by this tax hike, as well as all the other tax hikes the president has in store for them at the end of this year. the sad truth is the president isn't just ignoring the economic problems we face, he's exacerbating them, and he's running us head-long into the cliff that's fast approaching in january. now, frankly, it's hard to imagine a president deliberately doing all these things he knows will only make things worse, but that's where we are, and now it's incumbent on the rest of us to outline a better path, and& that's what we support, commonsense pro-growth policies that liberate the private sector, starts by repealing a health care law that's stifling businesses, by ending the senseless regulations that are

crushing businesses, by ending the threats of tax hikes on businesses that can't afford them, and by putting our faith in free enterprise over the dictates of a centralized government. in the obama economy, we need policies that are designed to create jobs, not destroy them. no one should see an income tax hike next year, no one. not families, not small businesses, no one. we should extend all income tax rates while we make progress on fundamental tax reform. it's time to put the failed policies of the past three and a half years aside and try something else. washington has done enough damage to the economy already. let's focus on the kind of

pro-growth jobs proposals that the republican-led house has already passed. and above all, let's do no harm. it's time to give the private sector and the innovators and the workers who drive it a fighting chance. republicans controlling the final half. the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: it's been three years, three years since my colleague from kentucky who just spoke announced to america that his highest priority as a senate leader was to make sure that-bedroom was a one -- that barrack obama was a one-term president. since then we've seen a record number of republican filibusters on the senate, broken all records in terms of efforts to stop even to allow a vote on the priorities of the obama

administration. and then for the republican leader to come to the floor and bemoan the fact that president has not done more suggests that he believes we're victims of political amnesia, and we're not. we know when the president came with a stimulus bill, when we were losing 800,000 jobs a month, that's what we were losing the month the president was sworn in, he came with a stimulus bill to turn the economy around to give tax breaks to businesses and individuals, we ebbed ended up getting three republicans who would join us over the objection of their leadership. we needed those three to break the republican filibuster on the president's effort to get the economy moving forward again. and when it came time for health care reform, senator baucus, chairman of the finance committee, invited the republicans in to sit down and construct a bipartisan bill with us and they walked away. they walked away. and then started a republican filibuster against any change in health care reform. do you remember the republican

alternative for health care reform? of course you don't because there wasn't any. they didn't have a bill. they didn't have a good idea. they were just here to say no. and to use their filibuster to achieve it. the story is repeated over and over again, trying to rein in wall street greed so we don't go through another recession like the one we're living through now, not a single republican would step up and support that, not one and we faced a republican filibuster again. so for the republican leaderdom to come to come to the floor and bemoan certain things have not come here is to ignore the reality his priority was to make barrack president obama a one term president. now tax cuts. what president obama said yesterday, your first $250,000 in income, your first $250,000 will continue to receive a good

tax break. there will be no increase in taxes on your first $250,000 in income. now, for 98% of americans, that's great. because they make less than $250,000, so they're not going to see any tax increase by the president's proposal. but for the 2% who make more than $250,000, the president's suggestion was let's go back to the tax breaks for that money earned over 250, go back to the tax breaks of the clinton years which was a time of dramatic economic expansion and the last time, the last time we in washington balanced a budget. that's not a radical idea. it's a sensible idea and you can't come to the floor of the senate day after day and week after week posing for holy pictures about dealing with the deficit, the debt, the deficit, and then when you suggest raising taxes this much on 2% of the american people, to say, oh, that's just

unacceptable. the only way to reach fiscal stability and deal with the deficit ands -- debt and deficit is to put all on the table, to make sure spending as well as revenue are on the table and if we can't touch income over $250,000 for the top 2% of americans, we will never honestly deal with the deficit crisis. the republican leader came to the floor and said, well, last week's employment numbers were not that encouraging and i would join him in saying i wish they were better, too. i'm not going to tell you this is where i want to be but i will say this: for 28 straight months, 28 straight months under president obama we have seen increases in private sector employment. jobs are being lost in the public sector, you know that, being lost back home as state and local governments and others are reducing their%. that's part of it -- payrolls. that's part of it. why we haven't seen more fulsome

growth but private-sector job growth has continue forward 28 straight months and for the republican leader to suggest the president took this news and then went out on the campaign trail, he forgot something. last friday president barack obama signed the bipartisan transportation bill, a bill that will create and keep two million americans working in this country, building the infrastructure that we need, a bill we've been waiting for three years and the president signed it. i'm glad he did. helps kwreu8 and -- illinois and helps the nation. we can do more things to help get this economy moving forward. the first thing i'd like to see is the republicans to end their filibuster against the small business bill we have before us today. what does this bill do? this bill says to small businesses across america we will give you a tax credit if you will create jobs or if you will expand your payroll. a tax credit and we will give

you a quicker depreciation on those items of equipment, technology, and capital that you purchase now. this would be a shot in the arm, it's a recipe every republican has sworn to grover norquist they're going to stand by hell or high water to cut taxes, cut taxes on small businesses so they create jobs. give them a break to buy equipment so that they can depreciate it more quickly and create the jobs of those supplying them. what's wrong with this notion? it's supposed to be the republican credo, cut taxes. and for small business. can't we agree on that? no. we're facing a republican filibuster on that, too. well, it's an illustration in my mind of an example of a bill that can move us forward with a million new jobs. why won't the republicans join us on this? well, because they've said over and over again they want this president to be a one-term president. they don't want success. they don't want job creation on

his watch. they want as miserable a record as they can produce to take into the november election. one republican senator said two weeks ago in the press i hope the defense contractors start laying people off with the prospects of spending cuts and the sooner the better. he said don't wait until after the election, do it now. how can you say that when you face these abortion and their families? we don't want anyone laid off. we want people to have an opportunity to work good-paying jobs. i think we understand what we face today. we have 20 come together as a nation with solutions that aren't part of the presidential campaign rhetoric. i served on the simpson-bowles commission, i didn't agree with all of it but a responsible way to move forward on deficit reduction but we also put everything on the table in terms of deficit reduction. and we conceded the fact we can't start the cutting that's needed until we bring ourselves strongly out of this recession.

we are moving forward on that path. it is time for us to continue that movement forward on a bipartisan basis. i'm asking for somebody to throw open the windows and bring in fresh air in the senate this afternoon when we vote on the small business tax credits to create more jobs across america. i'm asking the republicans to join us. this is not about president obama. this is about america, its workers, its families, and our economy. >> if there was ever a time we should come together on a bipartisan basis, knock down the republican filibuster, bring this bill to the floor, let's do our very best to create let's do our very best to create

.. whether it's been our civil war or revolutionary war. whether it's been world war ii, whether it's been the depression. and that threat comes to us because we've sp