13-year path before you could become a citizen, but two million to three million of those who are in the country legally are expected to assert that they came into the country as younger people and therefore would be eligible for citizenship in five years. and would -- under this remarkably broad dream act provision, that removes any age cap on the persons who can assert they came as a youth, and even those who have been removed from the country can come back and claim the benefit of this. illegal agricultural workers will also get green cards in five years. legal permanent residence if you're working ill illegally -- illegally at an ag place, a farm, you can apparently get permanent legal status in just five years and enable them to

receive benefits of some kind. we were told this legislation was for illegal immigrants who have deep roots in the country, but the amnesty is extended to recent arrivals, those that may have been here, came here as a single person just over a year ago. millions would be legalized who have overstayed their visas, people who aren't even living in the country anymore could receive benefits and legal status, and those who have been deported multiple times, already been deported, could receive benefit under this. that's just what's in this complex 850-page bill. we were told the legislation would curtail the administration's aggressive undermining of federal law. that somehow the law was going to be enforced more but it provides the secretary of homeland security with even more discretion than she has today.

it's filled with grants of waiver power and discretionary power. when we -- when the american people are very dubious about the willingness of our government to do anything that would consistently and effectively enforce law. and i believe the american people's heart is right about the issue of immigration. i believe the american people should be respected and their opinions valued. and wash they -- what are they saying? they say we need a lawful system of immigration. people should be treated fairly, they believe in immigration. right now we're bringing in a million people a year legally and the american people say that's about right, although a recent poll just showed that over half of the american people believe that number is too high, they'd like to see it brought down some, at this time of unemployment and falling wages.

but they still favor, strongly, immigration for america, and they're not mad at immigrants. and they don't hate imimmigrants and they don't dizz like them. they respect people who want to come to america. they understand the desire of good people around the world who would like to come to america. but what they're angry about is people in high office who flatly told them time and time again we're going to fix this system, we're going to make it lawful, make it one you could be proud of and then they don't do it. they say they're going to build a fence and it doesn't get built. they say they passed a law that requires removal of certain people who violate the law, and they don't get removed. and the american people are right about. this. -- about this. it's congress and the president that's not been fulfilling the right standards. we were told there would be strict standards for the amnesty, but the bill grants

amnesty for those who have been convicted of multiple crimes, mostly nonviolent crime, nonfelonies, but it's a whole host of them. we were told the bill would make us safer, but mr. chris crane, the head of the i.c.e. association says it won't, that they've been undermined, they have voted, the 7,000 member association voted no confidence in joe morton as supervisor, they filed a lawsuit, as i said, against the failure of their officials to allow them to enforce the law. basically complaining about their supervisors directing them to violate the law. that's what they complained about and that's what the judge seemed to take very seriously. we were told that this would move us toward a merit-based,

high-skilled immigration system with the responsible future flow that would be more effective in identifying people who could be successful in america. this may be the biggest and most dangerous flaw of all. it does not look like it's going to move our numbers in any way in that direction. the bill would remove limitations on the number of visas for spouses and children of all green card holders, and that would apply to both those here illegally and current and future legal immigrants. it would clear immediately 4-9z 5 million the legal immigration backlog, people who came to come -- to come under the chain migration, only so many were

supposed to be admitted per year, you wait until your time comes up and then you get admitted. people the drafters of the bill felt bad because you're saying you're giving people who came illegally advantage over those who have been waiting their time. how did they solve that? that was a brilliant way to solve it. they agreed to let everybody who filed come in immediately and wipe out all the caps. that solved the problem, all right. and those who approved under the dream act as persons who came as younger individuals can obtain green cards expedited for their families, spouses, parents, spouses, and children. we've got to be care thankful we don't create a system that allows aging parents to be brought to the country in large numbers that will be a burden on us. truly we've got to be thoughtful about that.

we've got to be responsible. as a member of the budget committee, we're looking at these numbers and we've got to reduce our costs, not add to it wherever possible. agriculture worker program is expanded giving the secretary of agriculture almost unchecked authority to increase these visas to whatever number he or she sees fit and at a minimum, we're looking at handing out citizenships and green cards -- think about this. how many will be here? the christian science monitor i asked, how many i asked today in committee to bill sponsors and supporters would be admitted over the next ten years? under current law, we should be admitting about a million people a year. the largest number any nation in the world allows to come into our country legally. that would be ten million over ten years. under this bill, we believe the number would be 30 million plus.

so mr. chairman i see my time -- mr. president, my time is up. i thank the opportunity share these thoughts and i would ask consent to have one additional minute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: just to say to my colleagues, i respect their work and their efforts, and i know that we are always vawbled immigration in our country, but it's time to create a system that serves the national interest, a lawful system where those who violate the law are validated and those who don't violate the law are not rewarded, a kind of system that brings in the kinds of persons who have the best chance to be successful and not be a ward of the state or charge on the state. and there are just a lot of things that we need to do. protect our national security, have a system and a policy that we're proud of that's morally defensible. i'm afraid this bill is not

there and that's why i'm concerned about it and will look forward to doing the best i can to examine it carefully. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. are grassley: over the course of the next mr. grassley: over the course of the next several weeks i hope to come to the floor and visit with my colleagues about the immigration bill that will soon be going through the judiciary committee, so i want to share my thoughts today on parts that deal with the border security section of s. 44 -- 744. the immigration bill is very likely to allow millions of people who entered our country illegally or overstayed their visa to receive legal status and eventually green cards. however, it is very unlikely to result in a true border security. the bill provides that those in a probationary status -- and

that's known in this legislation as registered provisional immigrant status -- be given green cards as soon as the secretary of homeland security certifies that four conditions have been satisfied. on page 11 of the bill, it lays out the process. the secretary certifies that the border and fencing strategies, and those strategies are ones that she wrote, are substantially deployed, operational, and completed. she also has to implement a mandatory employment verification program and electronic exit system at air and seaports. the authors of the bill envision this will happen in five or ten years down the road. there are three reasons why this process is problematic. first, the secretary has unbridled discretion to conclude

that the four provisions have been satisfied even if they not have been satisfied. the secretary herself determines if the strategic plans are substantially deployed operational, and completed according to the requirements of the law. for example, the secretary could say that she is using an electronic exit system by collecting visa and passport information even if that system is not totally effective. and the bill establishes no deadline for implementing any of these conditions. second, the bar is set very low for certifying that these conditions have been met. one of the four triggers to green cards is the summation of a border fencing strategy. the bill defines in one sentence in section 5 the don't of that

border fence -- the contents of that border fencing strategy. at a hearing on tuesday before our judiciary committee secretary napolitano testified that fencing was not a priority of this administration. considering how sensitive of an issue is this is, you would not think that she would say that. she didn't really want $1.5 billion to be designated just for fencing. she implied that no more fencing was needed. well, ask the people down on the border if that's true. she testified that the department would prefer -- quote, unquote -- "flexibility to use -- quote -- "unquote technologies other than fences. she stated if she determined that little or no additional funding for necessary for fencing, that she might then be able to certify this condition very quickly.

third, litigation could ensure that legalization could occur in ten years, regardless of whether any and all of the four border security triggers in the bill are met. the bill does this in four ways. first, green cards can be issued if litigation of any kind prevents any conditions from being met. second, green cards can be issued if the supreme court rules that the implementation of any of the conditions is unconstitutional. third, green cards can be issued if the supreme court grants review of litigation on the constitutionality of the implementation of these conditions. i note that this provision is especially ill considered because it could trigger green cards merely -- merely because the supreme court agreed to

review the conditions' constitutionality, a highly likely event, even if the court later upheld them. fourth, the bill restricts litigation challenging one particular decision of the secretary to a constitutional challenge only, but that limitation expressly does not apply to litigation challenging implementation of the conditions. litigation brought against the conditions can be based on any legal theory. under the bill, if any court in this country issues a stay on implementing one of the conditions, then green cards are to be issued after ten years. the bill does not specify what sort of ruling must prevent implementation and even that the ruling be based on merits, nor

does the bill require that appeals run their course, even if the appeal upholds the condition. it says that the secretary shall permit, and this is mandatory language, shall permit application for adjustment to the l.p.r. status if litigation has prevented one of the conditions from being implemented. under the plain language of the bill, ten days after the day that any court prevents any of the border security conditions from being implemented, then of course the floodgates for green cards are to be open, and nothing in the bill stops the administration from agreeing to a consent decree that prevents one of the conditions from being met. so because i listened to seven

hours of testimony on monday, and because on tuesday the secretary of homeland security shared her thoughts, i summarize to this one statement not during all that time not one person disputed the fact that legalization begins upon the mere submission of both a southern border security and fencing strategy. thus, the undocumented become legal after the plans are submitted despite the potential that the plans could be flawed or if they're inadequate. if enacted today, the bill would provide no pressure on this secretary or future secretaries to actually secure the border.

secretary napolitano has stated that the border -- the border is stronger than ever before. she even indicated that congress should not hold up legalization by adding border security measures and requiring them to be a trigger for the program. i'm concerned that the bill we will be taking up repeats the mistakes we made in 1986, and maybe people will resent my referring to 1986, but i do that because i went through this before, and we thought we were doing it in 1986 absolutely right. we didn't secure the border then, and assumed legalization alone would stop the flow of more people crossing the border without papers. so simply, we screwed up. we need to learn a lesson

because the basis of this whole legislation is that the borders will be secured. the people don't want some phony language that allows the secretary to circumvent congressional intent, so i urge my colleagues to really understand what the bill does in regard to border security and in the process to make sure the same mistakes of 1986 aren't repeated, insist that the border be secured instead of trusting what the secretary says. in regard to this whole issue, there's been lots of finger pointing going on in washington in the past two weeks as it relates to immigration. it's a lot like the weeks and months after 9/11, what warning signs were missed about the brothers who bombed the boston marathon. law enforcement intelligence agencies tell conflicting

stories. bureaucracies are gearing up to do battle over who dropped the ball. they're preparing their defenses. they're leaking bits and pieces of information favorable to themselves. meanwhile, congress and the public have a growing number of questions. i have written the department of homeland security and the f.b.i.. senator paul and i have written on another matter to the f.b.i.. but the senate judiciary committee has not yet received clear answers to our questions, and they're very serious questions about whether our government has forgotten the lessons of 9/11. the most important of those lessons is this: when extreme fanatics say they want to wage war against us, we should take them seriously. our government has reportedly warned -- was reportedly warned

on multiple occasions that one of these brothers had become a radical jihadist. do we still have agencies failing to follow up, failing to share information, and failing to connect the dots? in this morning's "washington post," the editorial board asked -- quote -- "is the f.b.i. focused enough on the real bad guys?" end of quote. their editorial said that in the -- in addition to the older brothers in the boston bombing, the editorial pointed out that in addition to the older brother in boston, several people that have been investigated by the f.b.i. have gone on to commit attacks. the "post" cited two examples. the man who shot two soldier at little rock military recruiting office in 2009 and the man who is accused of shooting and

killing 13 people at fort hood later that year. according to the editorial -- quote -- "meanwhile the f.b.i. devoted considerable resources to sting operations sometime on what looked like dubious grounds." end of quote. for example, the kw*eub -- f.b.i. launched an elaborate sting operation in boston against a man planning to attack the u.s. capitol with a remote-controlled model airplane loaded with grenades." as the post concluded, begin quote, "in some cases it's not clear that a sometimes far-fetched plot would have gone forward without the encouragement and help of f.b.i. informants." end of quote. now that's a very good point. it may be easier for an f.b.i. informant to draw someone into a far-fetched plan, but it's harder to detect the real

terrorist plot like the one in boston. unfortunately, it's connecting the dots that keep us safe, not those easy sting operations. other signs about the older brother may have been missed because tips weren't shared between law enforcement. the older american's best american friend was murdered in an unusual triple homicide. my office has been told local authorities investigating the murder were unaware of the warnings from russia about his radicalizeation. thus, those local authorities in turn apparently didn't know that they should make the f.b.i. aware of the murder. four months later the older brother traveled to russia, just as the russian government had warned us. the f.b.i. claims it was unaware

of the older brother's trip, even though the homeland security department says its systems alerted them to the travel. did the homeland security department fail to share the information with the f.b.i.? the immigration reform bill, with all of its bells and whistles, can't make agencies share information with each other. that bill is supposed to require background checks on 12 million people in our country undocumented. yet, it seems we have a hard time doing successful background checks just on those here legally. lack of information sharing and failure to see real warning signs are probably things that no bill will fix. so what has to change is the culture. of course that begins at the

top. it requires true leadership. at the end of the day, this is about much more than who dropped the ball. it's about learning from mistakes and doing a better job next time. in order to do that, we need real transparency about what happened. not just talking points from agencies tying -- trying to deflect the blame. the immigration bill before the senate will make enforcement of immigration laws more inefficient, time-consuming and ineffective. i refer to my colleagues to section 3502 of the bill. that section governs immigration court proceedings. under current law, people here illegally who are going through removal proceedings are not entitled to legal counsel at government expense. and the justice department is

not required to provide that. however, this section opens the law wide open, making taxpayers foot the bill for attorneys who will represent people here who are undocumented. it provides that -- quote -- "the attorney general in the attorney general's sole and unreviewable discretion may appoint or provide counsel to aliens in removal proceedings." end of quote. the heading of the section implies that court proceedings would run more efficiently when in actuality the goal is to ensure that people here illegally have every opportunity to fight removal orders. some of these aliens could be dangerous. they certainly don't deserve

free counsel when the attorney general is inclined. making it harder to deport aliens who should be deported will make it harder to deter aliens from entering the country legally. of course there are organizations such as law firms, law school clinics and others who provide pro bono legal services at no cost to aliens or to the taxpayers. but the bill's language is just so astounding. there are very few statutes that say that any government official can do anything in his or her soepl and unreviewable -- in his or her sole and unreviewable discretion. that means no oversight. but time and again throughout this bill this language pops up. it means that no court can stop what that official wants to do. that's hard to square with our principles of democracy, and

this government, based on the principles of checks and balances, ironically the title of the section implies that this measure would -- quote unquote -- reduce costs. but in fact it only increases costs to the taxpayers. this measure to provide legal counsel for people here illegally would be paid for from the newly created fund known as the comprehensive immigration reform and trust fund. this fund, on the date of enactment, will have $6.5 billion which is transferred from the general treasury. how much will this section cost? we don't know until c.b.o. scores it. but it won't be borne by the people in the removal

proceedings. and that's going to be hard for the american people to swallow. anything that makes deportation harder and thaeubgs deportation -- and that makes deportation proceedings more likely to be about delaying tactics should be avoided, but the immigration bill appears to desire those results as goals. we should be inclined -- we should decline that invitation to mischief that's going to be a direct result. mr. president, on another matter, i have long been a strong advocate for responsible stewardship of the taxpayers dollars. throughout my career, i've sent countless requests, letters, and conducted numerous investigations all in the interest of preventing waste, fraud, and abuse of the taxpayers' money. today we're confronted with the

government that is recklessly spending tax dollars and running up a huge federal budget deficit and debt. we're also confronted with the need to tighten the government's belt when it comes to this reckless spending. one area where we need to do a better job of responsibly using taxpayer dollars is through our drug treatment and prevention efforts. i have a strong commitment to ensure drug abuse does not flourish in communities throughout the country. i have championed numerous efforts to prevent drug abuse before it starts, including -- before it starts, and that includes my sponsorship of the drug-free communities grant program. drug abuse is very costly to society. the national survey on drug use and health estimates that 22.5 million americans age 12 and older used drugs in 2011. this is clearly a problem that

needs to be addressed in an aggressive and wise manner. senator feinstein and i -- of the federal crime prevention and treatment programs that has also i been released. this report and another which is is annually reported -- it reports on the duplication and overlapping of federal programs, states that out of 76 drug abuse prevention and treatment programs, 59 or nearly 80% had evidence of overlapping efforts. in fiscal year 2012, $4.5 billion tax dollars were allocated to these programs. the government accountability office reported that some programs, including the drug-free communities program,

have a low risk for duplication because they have coordinated their efforts among their respective administering agencies. however, 29 of the 76 programs surveyed reported no staff having coordinated with other agencies or programs to reduce duplication. now, this is almost 40% of all federal drug prevention and treatment programs. the national -- the report further states that the office of national drug control policy, which is responsible for coordinating the government's antidrug efforts, has not systematically assessed drug abuse, prevention, and treating programs to examine the extent of overlap and opportunities for cord nation. it is with disappointment that i learned that the president has proposed a significant increase in his budget to many of these programs. specifically, the president has

proposed a $1.5 billion increase in drug treatment programs, which is an increase of 18% from fiscal year 2012. many of these programs have good intentions and may even do good work. but in time, like now, when we're making many painful cuts throughout most government agencies and programs, in order to rein in spending, should we then be making such large increases. further, should we be spending more taxpayer dollars on programs that are duplicating efforts before they correct their problems? the last thing that we need to be doing now is chasing good money after bad, and this is what in this area of the president's budget he's proposing to do. before we start increasing any program budgets, we must first ensure that that program is responsiblely tracking and

utilizing every taxpayer dollar it currently has and not wasting it by duplicating the work of another program. one example of success in eliminating duplication can be found with the national drug intelligence center. this center had rooptedly been listed as duplicating -- as a duplicating agency for a number of years. the funding for this center was eventually eliminated in fiscal year 2011 while the work of the center has been consolidated. i'm pleased that the office of national drug control policy agrees with the government recommendations of the government accountability office's report to assess the extent of overlap and duplication across all drug, prevention, and treatment programs by identifying where agencies can better coordinate their effort. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: could i ask my friend to yield for a unanimous consent request?

mr. grassley: i've got 15 seconds left. is that okay? mr. reid: of course. mr. grassley: thank you. yet thee actions should have been taken years ago. so it is very disappointing that we have this report now. it needs to be newt in effect. i think the government accountability office did gooded, and i'll put the rest of the statement in the record. i yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask that th the senator's statement not appear interrupted in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on s. 743 occur this evening at 5:35 p.m. further, that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be considered expired at 5:00 p.m. monday, may 6, that the durbin amendment 745 then be withdrawn and no other decade amendments be the senate will come to order, that the senate then proceed to vote in relation to the enzi-durbin amendment 741. upon disposition of the

amendment, the senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amend. finally, the filing degree for second-degree amendments be monday at 6:00. i appreciate very much -- this is a consent agreement that i had nothing to do w i appreciate all the good work of everyone involved in this. the presiding officer: is there any objection? to the request? without objection. the presiding officer: the clerk will report to incloak cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on

s. 743, a bill to restore states' sovereign rights to enforce state and local sales and use tax laws and for other purposes, sewned by 1 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on senate 743, a bill to real estate store states' sovereign rights to enforce state and local sales and use tax laws, and for other purposes, shall be brought it a close i? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 63, the nays are 30. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent notwithstanding rule 22 the senate proceed to a period of morning business and during that period of time senators be allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. please take your conversations out of the senate. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware.

mr. coons: i ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with the senator from alaska for up to 30 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: madam president, senator murkowski of alaska is a strong leader on energy issue shuster and i'm grateful to work with her on the energy and natural resources committee and so in my view it's fitting that we're here today despite representing very different states from quite different regions of the country and different parties, to talk about an issue that we believe can bring us together. republicans and democrats alike can agree that when it comes to american energy, we need a comprehensive, all-of-the-above strategy. that's the only way we're going to succeed in developing secure, homegrown, and affordable sources of energy for our next generation. oil and gas in my view aren't going away any time soon but if renewable sources of energy are going to grow and also become central players in the american energy marketplace, we have to make sure they're operating on a level playing field and right

now, the playing field is anything but equal. for nearly 30 years, traditional sources of energy have had access to a very beneficial tax structure called master limited partnerships. this is a financing arrangement that taxes projects like a partnership, a pass-through but trades their interests like a corporate stock. this prevents double taxation and leaves more cash available for distribution back to investors. so limited partners, general partners come together and invest capital and form an operating company and for the last 30 years that's been used in natural gas, in oil and coal mining, predominantly in pipelines but in fossil fuels. not surprisingly this structure means that m.l.p.'s have had access to private capital at a lower cost, something that capital-intensive projects like oil pipelines badly need and, frankly, something alternative projects in the u.s. need more

than ever. so, madam president, let's work together and level this playing field. let's remove the restriction that allows only traditional energy projects like oil and gas and coal and pipelines to form m.l.p.'s. it's literally in the original statute that only nonrenewable forms of energy are eligible. in my view, we should open it up to include clean and renewable energy and then let the free market take it from there. so this week senator murkowski and i joined republicans and democrats from the house and the senate to introduce the master limited partnerships parity act of 2013, a bill that will do just that. we are grateful for the support of senators jerry moran of kansas, debbie stabenow of michigan as well as congressman ted poe of texas, petter welch of vermont, and chris gibson of california, our original cosponsors. this bill does not change benefits for traditional energy sources at all.

it doesn't touch m.l.p.'s and their benefits for oil and coal and natural gas, it just allows renewable energy projects to compete fairly by also accessing this tax advantage capital formation vehicle. it gives an squall equal changs to projects using energy from the wind and the sun and biomass, projects that use breakthrough technologies to provide affordable homegrown energy for the projects to come. this is a new and improved version of the national parity act from last year. we introduced a version last year that got strong support from republicans and democrats as well as outside interests and the business community. this year we're expanding the scope of the bill to include additional energy projects that qualify as m.l.p.'s. waste heat to power, carbon capture and stourpblg. biochem -- storage, biochemicals

to buildings. that's how we can get the best competition and deliver the most affordable and efficient energy from consumers to delaware, kwa*bg -- alaska and across our country. our bill is very simple. it's just a few pages long. it makes simple tweak to the tax code. it is the embodiment of what i've heard from many colleagues in the last three years that we should not be picking winners and losers in energy technology and we should have an all of the above strategy. this change, in my view, will bring a significant new wave of private capital off the sidelines and into the renewable energy marketplace. it allows the private sector to look at clean energy in a whole new way. today, master limited partnerships reached a market capitalization of close to $450 billion with about 80% of it devoted to traditional energy products, oil and gas and the majority of that to pipelines.

access to this kind of scale of private capital could drive the investment that's essential to creating new jobs in a fast-growing new field. it would also, in my view, bring some fairness, some modernization to this well established section of our tax code. as you know, madam president, our tax code hasn't been broad limo tkerpbzed in --ly modernized in decades. in the mid-1980's, there were changes. this tax benefit hasn't been significantly changed, expanded more -- modernized in nearly 30 years. we're updating them to recognize the modern market reality of new energy technologies and to reflect the changing investment opportunities in the emerging markets of renewable energy. one of the lead cosponsors of this legislation in the house, congressman ted poe, judge poe, a texas republican, said at a recent press event we did that

over the course of his career he's represented as many oil refineries as any other member of congress, yet, he sees this as an efficient and effective opportunity to expand from its traditional use of pipelines in oil and gas to the broader energy marketplace of the united states. and he's confident expanding this structure to include clean sources of energy would create jobs. senator murkowski, sruls seen the -- have you seen the same thing in alaska? do you see this as an opportunity that will help us grow in an all of the above energy strategy for the united states? ms. murkowski: to my friend, the senator from delaware, yes. in fact, i view this as an opportunity. i view this as a positive direction as we build out an energy policy that works for the entire country. your question is specific to my home state of alaska, an area that is known for its enormous

potential with our fossil fuels, our oil, our natural gas and the opportunities that have been available to a state like mine where we have the more traditional fossil fuels. but we also are a state that is rich with potential for renewable energy resources, whether it is geothermal, whether it is marine hydrokinetic, whether it is ocean energy potential, harnessing the tides, harnessing the waves, whether it is biomass, whether it is wind which we have abundant capacity, whether it is solar, which we don't often get a lot of credit for but yes, we too have solar. so from my perspective as a senator from alaska, i'm looking to try to find those areas that we can branch out, that we can move the energy discussion to what we're all talking about now, which is an all of the

above policy. in order to have truly an "all of the above policy" and to avoid picks werpbs and losers -- picking winners and losers, it is important to talk about how we finance these energy prospects. we all know there's considerable dollars at stake with any energy project. then let's work to provide a level of parity. and that's exactly what this bill does. and my hat goes off to you as the senator from delaware. your leadership on this bipartisan measure is extremely important. i can recall when you first came to me to talk to me about it, and i said we need to really do wholesome tax reform. i haven't changed my mind on that. but what i have recognized is that if we are to work to build out our energy sector, if we are to work to really advance our

"all of of the above" policy, then we need to be a little more expansive in how we're going to look to the financing opportunities. and so i agreed to join you as a cosponsor with the master limited partnership parity act because fundamentally at its base here, it is about fairness and opportunity. and that's a pretty good, pretty good place to be sitting. i think too often this nation's debates about our energy policy kind of devolve into this advocacy where we show preferential treatment for one sector or another sector. and as you and i have discussed, i am absolutely an advocated for an all of the above approach. i spelled that out in a blueprint i shared with many of my colleagues: energy 2020. we released it earlier this year. but i do think with the legislation that you have spearheaded, we've identified a way to further our progress in

that direction. right now the oil and gas sector is able to benefit from the master limited partnership structure, and it's a good thing because it has helped to raise billions of dollars in private markets for much-needed pipeline infrastructure. we're going to need that as we work to keep up with the natural gas boom that we're having in this country, how we build new infrastructure, how we take care of existing infrastructure. so we need to have these financing mechanisms. that's all great. but why not expand that out to the renewable sector? because currently, as you point out, the law does not allow for that, and it's time to fix that. what we do with this legislation is extend the parity, the renewable sector so that businesses that are pursuing investments in biomass, energy efficiency and other areas are able to structure as an m.l.p..

i want to pause there for a moment because i just came back from a meeting, a bipartisan, bicameral meeting where we're talking about the energy agenda for this congress moving forward. and, of course, as a nation that is looking at a $16.8 trillion debt, everything that we do, we've got to figure out how are we going to pay for that. and when we think about the energy efficiency initiative -- and i know that our colleague, senator sheen from new hampshire is on the floor with us. senator shaheen, senator portman have spearheaded a great piece of legislation with their energy efficiency. but if we think about how do you move that forward, because that's going to require dollars. where do we find those dollars? there's not enough rocks with enough money underneath them to advance this. so if we can expand the opportunities for financing to include our renewables and to include energy efficiencies,

this is how we move it forward. and bottom line, when we're talking about the dollars here, this is only going to happen if the private markets think that the math makes sense. the investments and the structures of the entities that are making them very well might not occur. but, again, that's not our job. we're not here to pick winners and losers. if it's good, if it works, it will happen. but we're helping to provide a financing mechanism that, again, is fair and creates opportunities. our job, which this bill highlights, is to provide that level playing field. this is about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. we can't guarantee that outcome, but what we can do is kind of level that playing field in terms of what options are available. this bill enables the renewable sector to structure a certain way. i'm certainly glad to be supporting it with you. i think we've got some momentum

here. i was talking to some folks up in new york. i addressed the financial -- an energy financial forum, and what everybody was interested in was not what's happening on the r&d side. it was so much interest in the master and limited partnership and its ability to expand to other areas. how we can take a tool that has worked very well for us in the oil and gas sector and push it out to renewables and efficiencies. so i think the momentum is there, and i applaud you, senator coons, for your leadership in that. and you also mentioned the expanded scope. i think, again, that's an important aspect of this bill. i'm excited about where we are right now and look forward to working with you as we build out

our renewable energy future here. mr. coons: thank you so much, senator murkowski. i'm grateful for your joining me as an original cosponsor and for your being a strong and engaged advocate for this approach at the conference in new york and conversations with colleagues and the energy plan you've laid out. you've been a real champion for a commonsense, all of the above visionary path forward that will move us in the committee and here in the congress. as the ranking member of energy and natural resources, your support for this legislation is central, is significant. i'm also glad the chair of our committee, senator wyden, recently in a public setting referred to this as -- quote -- "exactly the right approach." i believe, as do you, as you've said, that the bill will unleash private capital, it will help create jobs. it will modernize our tax code. it will make it more fair. and i think that's exactly why it's earned support from republicans and democrats in the house, in the senate. but also from some at senior levels in the administration. former secretary of energy

steven chu said the m.l.p. parity would "make a world of difference and have a private effect on private and capital investment." hopefully dr. moniz also pointed toward it as a great opportunity to increase financing and put it on a level platform. this legislation earned back tpr-g business leaders, from -- from business leaders, experts, academics. two experts in energy finance, felix mormon and dan riker shared their story. they wrote -- quote -- "if renewable energy is going to become fully competitive, technological information must be accompanied by financial information so that clean energy sources gain access to the same sort of low-cost, long-term capital that traditional energy sources like coal and oil and gas enjoy." our financial innovation has to keep up with our energy

innovation. it's that simple. that's why more than 250 companies and organizations recently signed a letter supporting our master limited partnership parity act. they range from fortune 500 energy companies like n.r.g. to the american wind energy association, solar energy association, american council on renewable energy and many more. just one more quote if i might. david crane, the c.e.o. of energy energy said -- quote -- "the m.l.p. parity act is a phenomenal idea. it is a fairly arcane part of the tax law but worked well and been beneficial in the oil and gas bass. -- gas base." madam president, senator murkowski, one of the things that the folks who we work for expect us to do is to find ways to move forward together. is to find ways to nail down and address inequities in the law, and this is one that we can fix with a simple, straightforward

bill. i'm so grateful for your cosponsorship and your leadership. i agree with you that i see real momentum behind this free market approach. did you have anything else today you wanted to add, senator murkowski, as we advocate on the introduction of this bill? ms. murkowski: senator coons again, thank you. thank you not only for your leadership but for the opportunity to speak to this issue on the floor today. as we talk about the momentum, i think we recognize that oftentimes there will be good ideas that are discussed and debated. but often don't get that full-body support that allows the good thought to materialize into policy. and i want to let you know how committed i am to advancing this good policy. you mentioned the reference to financial innovation, and i think perhaps some, in view of what we've seen in past years

with a little bit of chaos there on wall street and our banks and derivatives, et cetera, that some people might be concerned about this term financial innovation. we're not re-creating the wheel here. this has been, as you point out, this has been a -- a financing mechanism that has been available to a certain sector of the energy industry for a considerable period of time, and it has benefited them. so we're not -- this is not financial innovation in that we're -- we're building something out of whole cloth here and hoping that it works. we know that it works. what we are trying to do with this is contained in the title. it is bringing about parity, allowing for an extension of a good financing mechanism that will benefit our energy sector throughout the country. and again, i don't mean to

repeat myself, but when we talk about an all of the above energy policy, i think we need to appreciate it that there are some things we do from a policy perspective that hinder us from achieving that all of the above. when we put regulatory hurdles or when we put in place limitations that would -- would limit our ability to move to that all of the above, then we need to look critically at that. we need to look at how we could address this. and so i -- i think the effort again here to allow for a real fairness equal opportunity is critical to us. and i -- i want to just wrap up my remarks here by saying i think it is important that what we are doing is allowing for this level playing field within the energy sector, so we are not talking about stripping oil and gas pipelines of their eligibility for the m.l.p.

status and replace it with renewables. this is not a swapping out deal. i would not support that if that were the case. i would also not support it if it extended a false sense of parity by making let's just say only wind available for m.l.p. status or only solar. but, as you have noted, this bill includes -- includes it all. we just had a hearing in energy committee this week on hydropowering. great bill coming out of the energy and natural resources committee. i can't wait until we get it to the floor here. hydropower holds enormous potential for our nation, and when we talk about kind of the backbone of the american energy system, fossil fuels are kind of it right now, but then hydropower is by far the backbone of the renewable energy sector. about 60% of our renewable energy comes from hydropower.

so what we are doing is opening this m.l.p. structure to our renewable resources, but it goes beyond. it's kind of like the ginsu knife. there is more. it includes the marine hydrokinetics, the biorefineries, alternative fuels, biomass, energy-efficient buildings which i have spoken to, storage, solar, wind and more. and again, there is no guarantee here that we're going to see billions of dollars of private capital that's going to flood immediately into these sectors. we can't guarantee the outcomes, but we are trying to ensure that equal opportunity across an enormous scope of energy sources. so again, i thank you for your leadership on this, your stick-to-itiveness. i do think that as we move the issues of tax reform forward, as we move more energy matters through the bodies of the

congress here, i think folks will look at this as a sensible and rational way to approach how we build out an energy sector in this country that we can all be proud of. so i thank you for your leadership and i am just so pleased to be part of the effort. mr. coons: thank you, senator murkowski. i think if we are going to lead on energy or on anything, we have to listen to each other and we have to work together. i have been so grateful for the way that you and senator wyden have worked closely together and moved the energy and natural resources committee forward. we had a great hearing earlier this week on the shaheen-portman bill, the energy efficiency bill that senator shaheen of new hampshire has worked so well with senator portman of ohio on. also some bipartisan bills on hydropower. it is my real hope that this strong bipartisan bill opening up master limited partnerships to energy efficiency, to hydropower and to a dozen other clean and renewable sources of

energy, this sort of simple, straightforward, commonsense bipartisan bill that creates opportunity will allow the private sector to then marry up with the innovations of researchers and help with the deployment of new energy sources. at the end of the day, we in congress, the federal government, have to set a realistic policy pathway forward to sustain innovations in the energy markets and then let the financial markets work to their fullest potential. the master limited partnership parity act moves us closer to that goal and that day. so thank you, senator murkowski, for your leadership, for being here with me today, to senator moran and senator stabenow, our original senate cosponsors and our house counterparts by leveling the playing field for fair competition, this market-driven solution can provide vital support to the kind of comprehensive, all of the above energy strategy we all need to power our country for generations to come. thank you, and with that, madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire.

mrs. shaheen: thank you, madam president. i came to the floor this evening to address the -- what's known as the marketplace fairness act, but before i do that, i just want to applaud senator coons for his work on the master limited partnership legislation. i think it's a great bipartisan approach to one of our energy needs. and also applaud senator murkowski for her leadership on the energy committee and for her willingness to work in a bipartisan way to try and move an energy agenda that this country can benefit from. so thank you both very much for your efforts, and i look forward to working with both of you on the shaheen-portman energy efficiency legislation which i know the committee heard this week and really appreciate the efforts to move that forward as well. so thank you both very much. now, as i said, madam president, i really came down to the floor today to continue my opposition

to the internet sales tax legislation that's before us. the proponents of this legislation claim that it's about fairness, but when you really think about it, this bill is anything but fair. in fact, it creates an unfair situation for small businesses in a number of ways. first, the legislation is particularly unfair for businesses in my state of new hampshire and in the other four states in this country that do not collect a sales tax. now, i filed amendments, as i know a number of my colleagues have. my colleague from new hampshire, senator ayotte, has filed a number of amendments that we hope can help address this issue. but i think it's important for everyone here, especially those who are concerned with creating new red tape to understand how this legislation is going to affect small businesses.

this proposal is going to put new regulatory burdens on small companies across the country, not just in new hampshire, and as a result, it's going to put those small businesses at a disadvantage, making it harder for them to compete with large online retailers. now, as a former small business owner myself, i understand how time-consuming regulations and compliance requirements can be, and make no mistake, the bureaucratic nightmare that we're going to be creating for small businesses under this legislation is real. and i think it's worth talking for a minute about what that process is going to look like for the small online retailers. in a recent piece for the daily beast, writer megan mccarthyle went through what this process would be like for small business. she pointed to the s.b.a.

guidebook for small businesses when they collect sales taxes in multiple states. the guidebook tells small businesses, and i quote -- "generally states require businesses to pay the sales taxes they collect quarterly or monthly. you will have to use a special tax return for sales taxes, report all sales, all taxable sales, all exempt sales and the amount of tax due, and not paying on time can result in penalties. as always, check with your state or local government about the process in your location." mccartle points out that despite claims from the proponents of the marketplace fairness act, that tax collection will be easy and streamlined, the bottom line for small business is that you have still got to keep 50 states' worth of records and file 40-odd states' worth of returns.

mccartle went on to say -- quote -- "for amazon, the actual target of these laws, this is trivial. their staff of crack accountants can probably roll these things out before their monday morning coffee break, but for a small vendor, that's a whole lot of paperwork." and that's what this legislation is really about, those small business owners who are working hard to grow their companies. they don't need an additional network burden to distract them from running their companies. let me just provide one example. there is a small company in the town of edsome, new hampshire. it's called michelle's sweet shop. michelle sells popcorn and other gourmet streets, both at their brick-and-mortar store and online. now, this is a small business that's growing and that wants to create jobs. they sell locally in new

hampshire at their brick-and-mortar store, but a big part of their future strategy for growth is taking advantage of new markets through the internet. under this legislation, however, there is an arbitrary ceiling on this company's growth because as they get closer to a million dollars in online revenue, as they have said to me, they are going to have to ask themselves is it worth going through the bureaucratic nightmare of complying with 46 different state sales taxes? unfortunately, for them and for too many other businesses, the answer is more than likely to be no. for amazon and online retailers, this this isn't even a question. this is exactly the reason why this bill is good for big businesses and bad for small businesses. it makes it harder for small mom and pop stores to compete, and small businesses, certainly in new hampshire and in most of the

country, are really the economic engine of our economy. two out of three of the new businesses that are going to be created are going to be created by small business, and we should really think twice before we pass this kind of legislation that will keep them from growing and that is really designed to help those big businesses. now, i support a number of amendments to this bill. i would like to see them at least voted on. i hope that some might be adopted because i think they would make the legislation fair for small businesses. one of those is a bipartisan amendment that we have worked on with senator toomey to raise the threshold for small businesses under the legislation. i have also filed an amendment to address a fundamental flaw in the legislation that i think must be addressed because this legislation is anything but fair to states like new hampshire, states like alaska, to montana,

to the other states in this country that don't collect a sales tax. this is a proposal that fundamentally violates state sovereignty. it enables one state to impose the enforcement of its laws on the 49 other states and territories without their approval, and it provides zero benefit for the non-sales tax states while it creates an additional and unnecessary burden on our small businesses. so that's why i filed an amendment to create an exemption for businesses and states like new hampshire. states will be able to force new hampshire companies to collect sales taxes, especially when our states get no benefit whatsoever, and this amendment is designed to prevent that. i'm disappointed this evening that it doesn't look like we're going to be allowed to vote on any of these amendments, although i'm still hopeful that we might get a hearing. and i urge my colleagues again

to think twice about this legislation. i urge them to look at the amendments when they are filed if we're able to get an amendment process, to think about supporting those amendments so that the legislation really could live up to its billing as the marketplace fairness act, because right now it certainly doesn't meet that standard for the state of new hampshire and our small businesses. thank you very much, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murk: madam president, i -- ms. murkowski: i appreciate being here to hear the comments of my friend, the senator from new hampshire. she has noted there is a small handful of states that for a host of different reasons have chosen not to impose a sales tax

on their residents, and as she has very well stated, this so-called marketplace fairness act is really not fair. it's really not fair to those states that have put in place other mechanisms, and yet what we are doing through this legislation that we have pending on the floor right now is to tell states like new hampshire, to tell states like alaska, that regardless of what your state chose to do, those who are engaged in an online sales and activity, you're going to be scooped into the requirements of whatever state the individual purchasing your product is. to me, madam president, that is absolutely not fairness within the marketplace. i think the people in alaska when they think about their

marketplace, they're looking at where they are, and assuming that their state's laws are going to be what they're dealing with. so i thank the senator for her comments, and in laying out i think very well how this measure impacts these few states. and maybe that's our problem here. maybe we just don't have enough of us in terms of those states that have opted to not move forward with the sales tax. we are at a point in the evening where we just had a vote to move, we're told that we're going to be taking this measure up when the senate returns in about a week, but it's my understanding that at this point in time there will be no amendments allowed, despite the efforts of many of my colleagues to help address this, to help bring about some fairness into

this legislative measure and we need to be allowed to do that. so it's a real challenge today as a we discuss this, recognizing that these few states might be impacted disproportionately in a way that i think does not demonstrate any level of fairness. mrs. shaheen: will the senator yield for a question? ms. murkowski: i'll be happy to yield. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: my friend from alaska, as she has pointed out, represent states neither of which have a sales tax and would you agree with me that if this passes, it sets a dangerous press department that says -- precedent that says that at any point this congress could impose on states like ours, despite what we've chosen

to do in are -- in our open states, a tax we may totally disagree with and that that's a very dangerous precedent for us to set? ms. murkowski: i would absolutely agree. as you point out, it's alaska, oregon, new hampshire, delaware, that are in this situation and basically if this situation were to pass, it's a message to those within these states that it doesn't make any difference what your state laws are with regards to a state's sales tax. it doesn't make any difference. because we've made this directive back here that there's going to be uniform application out here. i have a tough time with that. i think our states may be somewhat similarly situated in the sense that there's a real sense of states' rights, state

sovereignty, i believe your motto is "live free or die." we feel pretty independent up north as well. and i do feel that this is -- this is a real hard push against states' rights, and their ability to impose local taxes within their state boundaries. so i am very concerned about the direction that we have taken. madam president, i note that, again, the states without sales tax and use taxes like these five states that my colleague and i have been talking about, and who are not members of the streamlined sales and use tax agreement, that this legislation really creates an inherent unfairness. and, again, i do think it's somewhat ironic that the bill's sponsors chose to call it the marketplace fairness

marketplace fairness bill. we have no noted here on the floor what the requirements under this legislation would mean, and senator shaheen from new hampshire has indicated, you know, exactly what it means to a small business. but a remote seller in alaska that makes an online sale to someone in vermont, who is a member of the streamlined sales and use tax agreement, will have to comply, collect, and file a return in the state of vermont. the seller otherwise has zero connection to vermont. so it really does beg the question, is this fair? and i would contend not. does this present a burden on interstate commerce? absolutely. absolutely. the drafters of this bill will argue that it creates new taxes, but i would also respectfully disagree on that. this bill essentially forces states like ours to adopt its

requirements to ensure parity. now, currently no states can impose its local sales tax on another, short of meeting constitutional nexus requirements. we've made clear you can't do that. this legislation, again, kind of scoops everybody in. states who wish to into agreements with other states for this purpose are able to do so. but let those individual states decide whether or not they want to participate in the stliemed sales tax and use tax agreement but don't mandate it and that's what this measure would do. only 24 states could could agree to do this. you want -- you have to ask, is 24 states a mandate for congress? i don't think so. again, it begs the question, is this fair? absolutely not, and how this law presents a back-door mandate to states like alaska, like new

hampshire, to effectively adopt a sales tax, i think congress has to respect a state's rights to determine how to implement and how to enforce its tax laws and not impose how it must do so. and you've mentioned the burden on small business owners, madam president, and spoke to an article that detailed some of the concerns. this is -- this is an issue that has generated considerable interest in my state. i've had over 600 constituents who have written to me in opposition to this bill. a couple of the examples of the mail that i'm getting, i've got a constituent in fairbanks, alaska, who says i'm a small business woman selling books off of my web site and i do not want to be atax collector for other states. i especially don't want my customers running off to other nontax parts of the world.

another constituent who owns a business in anchorage writes i do not support a measure that would allow individual states to collect sales taxes on any online purchases regardless of which state an online retailer is located. as a small business owner this legislation will affect me because i often have clients that start our transaction out of state and we don't have the staff to handle collecting taxes for 50 states. and then finally, a constituent from eagle river writes as a former small business owner i'm very aware of the constant and increasing burden that governments subject our businesses to. requiring online businesses to collect local sales taxes would be a horrendous administrative burden that would undoubtedly cause many businesses to fail. governments at all levels should be trying to encourage businesses to succeed rather than trying to squeeze every last dollar of revenue out of the businesses and their

customers. these are just three examples of some of the correspondence that i've received from folks who are worried about the burden it's going into flict on our small business owners and, of course, we hear it from the other states, we certainly heard it just now from the senator from new hampshire. the communities i mentioned we've befer hearing from are all on the road system as we call it in alaska, our bigger communities. but in many, many of our rural communities, those that are off road where economies are very limited, there's no major business, there's no big stores, we have been encouraging folks in our villages to use the internet to kind of bring the world marketplace to your door. and to sell their products qlien and to -- online, whether it's the arts and crafts or whatever it may be. so we're encouraging them to do

this, and now the concern that we're hearing is i don't want to be the one that is the tax collector for california taxes. i don't -- i'm trying to get myself up and going, and make a business, make an economy in a very small area. and, madam president, i know there is -- there is a carveout or an exception for the smaller businesses and that's critical. that's important. that's going to help the really, really small mom-and-pop operators. but i think we recognize it will have a burden on our small businesses, not only in alaska but around the country. the ability of a small business owner to comply with the reporting requirements that will be required by this bill which would include the 50 states plus the district of columbia and the s. territories i think -- i think it deters new start-ups, it acts as a -- as a hurdle,

if you will, and i don't think think our businesses need that particularly now. we've already got regulatory burdens that our small businesses are concerned and worried about. i don't think we need to impose that on these states that have, again, made that determination that they would not apply a sales tax within their state's boundaries. so for these reasons, madam president, as well as so many of the reasons that have been outlined by others on this floor earlier, i can't support this measure. we will see whether or not we've got the opportunity to have any amendments in the week following, but, again, i felt it was important to express the concerns of many of the individuals that i represent in the state of alaska. i thank you for the privilege and the time and with that i would yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: are we in morning business? the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: are we in morning business? the presiding officer: yes. mr. rubio: thank you, madam president. i wanted to speak for a few moments on the floor as we finished the business for this

work period and return to our home states for about a week, we'll be back here i think on the 6th of may and at that time i will continue this important conversation we're having on a number of issues but one of them is this issue of immigration recently back in the news as a result of some efforts we had here. let's begin by saying -- let's scribe describe that the reality that the united states faces today. foyers and foremost this is a country that doesn't need to be convinced of the benefits of legal immigration. virtually every single one of us, people that comblork work in this building and across this country are all but a generation or two removed from someone that came here from into some where else. we don't need to be convinced of the virtues of immigration. we see them every single day and read about them in terms of innovations that have changed the economy and made this country different from any in the history of the world. there may be some debate but not much about the value, the importance of legal immigration to the united states. the problem that we face is that we have a legal immigration

system right now that is broken. it happened worked well in a very long time and efforts to reform ive last 20 to 30 years have failed. let me describe what's wrong with the process. number one, it's bureaucratic and cample cade. it's difficult -- complicated. it's difficult to navigate. the result is whrotion blogs and you have to lawyer up to legally come here. that comes with its own set of problems. the second problem with the legal immigration system is based on the middle part of the last century and a difficult economic time in the world and our country. that's why you're not going to get a lot of debate from people when you say we need to have a legal immigration system that reflects the modern area, that reflects our global economy, our knowledge-based economy. we need a legal immigration system that is good for america's economy. and that means a lot of different things. for agriculture, it means the ability to find workers when they need them and that's usually most of the time. foreign workers that come here as guests and work on a

temporary basis or year-round basis, but a way to access those workers in a legal way. it means to continue the flow of legal immigrants to the united states through a safe but reliable and nonbureaucrattic process. it also means, by the way, in some industries and in some sectors from time to time you will need guest workers, people that are not going to stay here permanently, but people that fill in the gaps, particularly in times of very low unemployment when you cannot find a domestic worker to do that work. you need a legal way to be able to do all of these things. perhaps the most important initiative that you need is a legal immigration system that's based on merit and on skill. right now the legal immigration system is based on whether you know someone that lives here. if you know someone who lives here as a family member, they can bring you with them. it's this term you hear a lot about, chain migration. there is nothing inherently wrong with that. the problem is that if today our economy has changed, and our immigration system has to change with it. and so i think there is a growing consensus around the

country that we need a legal immigration system that is no longer solely based on whether you know a family member that lives here, but rather having one that is built on whether you are going to bring a special skill or talent or fill a void that exists in our economy today. the second problem with our legal immigration system that our laws are not being enforced. i can tell you in the last nine or ten days since we introduced a bipartisan bill we're working on as a starting point for this debate, there is one thing that's become clear, is the complete lack of trust that people have on the federal government and on its ability or willingness to enforce our laws. i want you know that of all the impediments that stand in the waive immigration reform, none looms ladies and gentlemen of the jury than that lack of trust in the -- looms larger than that lack of trust in the federal government. it is especially pronounced on the issue of illegal immigration. people -- too many people simply do not believe that the federal government is enforcing the law or is willing to enforce the law.

and it is going to make efforts for immigration reform very difficult unless we are able not just to convince people but to show people that the measures that we are pursuing in immigration reform are efforts that once and for all will begin to deal with this problem effectively. and the third problem that we have is this thrae we have millions of human beings -- is that we have millions of human beings living in this country illegally. some came legally and overstayed the visa. they were supposed to be here for 90 days and they stayed. others crossed the border illegally. by the way, of the people that overstay, that's about 40%. in florida it is much larger. the point is we have millions of people living in this country now that are illegally here. by the way, people that do not have a right to be here legally. no one has a right to violate the immigration laws of the united states. on the other hand, the decisions that created that problem were made in 1985 and in 1986 when i remind people that i was in ninth grade.

and as a policy-maker, what i now confront is this reality that we have 10 million, 11 million human beings living in the united states in violation of our immigration laws. and to add to that, most of these people have been here for more than a decade. they have children that are u.s. citizens, they may even own property. they work. they're here. and they're never going to go back. so we have to deal with that fundamental reality as well. with all of that in mind, is how i decided to get involved in this immigration reform debate. let me explain, there is really very little political benefit to this issue. believe me. number one, i would rather be on the floor debating issues like taxes and the debt and the impediment they play on our economy and its growth. this is also an important issue. i remind members of my party that we are not the majority here. i wish we are, and we'll continue to work to make that happen. but we are not the majority. and this issue is going to come up on the floor of the senate with or without us. and it is a legitimate problem the country faces.

therefore, i decided it is better for us to be engaged and try to come up with something that works, and that's why i endeavor to get involved in this issue. and that's why i continue to be involved in this issue. as a result of that, i laid out some pretty clear principles about what i think immigration reform should look like. it should modernize our system, create real stpeupls -- systems for enforcement. it deals with the people that are here illegally in a way that is compassionate and humane, true to our heritage as a compassionate people but also in a way thaepb shaours it is not being -- that ensures it is not being unfair to the people that did it right and doesn't encourage people to do it wrong in the future. those are my principles. based on those principles, i entered into negotiations with seven other senators to work on a bill that begins as a starting point of this debate. i heard criticism about that process. people say it's a secret process. it's behind the doors. let me clue everybody in on something. every bill around here is drafted at the beginning in someone's office.

most people here, when they draft up a bill or an amendment to bring to the floor, they don't do it in some auditorium. they're working on it in their office with their staff. that is the starting point. that bill has to be filed. they're not voting on a sheet of paper. you're voting on a bill that people read and analyze. that's what this bill is, it is a starting point. it is eight senators -- four senators and four republicans -- that spent two to three months working on a bill that we present to our colleagues and say this is what we were able to come up with. now it's your turn to make it better. we actually have a process here to do that and here is how that process works. i don't mean to be patronizing but it is important to remind people of that process. here's how it works. you file a bill. committees hold hearings on those bills. then they do markup. for those watching at home it means a bunch of senators sit aaron and vote on -- sit around and vote on how to change the bill. that is an important process and has to happen with this bill. two weeks from today -- two

weeks from today they will begin that process. i have heard my colleagues come to the floor, some and express concerns about different provisions in the bill. and i don't have time to rebut every point but frankly they raise valid points. suffice it to say some of the concerns they have are not valid and i think we can address that with them. others are and some are just disagreements and they need to be worked out through the legislative process. here's my encouragement to my colleagues who don't agree with the bill that we've crafted. change it. let's work on changing it. if you believe that what we have today is broken, if you believe that the status quo on immigration is chaos and a disaster, if that's what you believe, as i do, then let's solve it. and the way you solve it is by working together. in essence, don't just be against it. offer ideas to change it. for example, if you don't think that the border security provisions of the bill we have drafted are strong enough or enforceable enough, change them. offer some ideas. right now i stand on the floor of the senate and i ask any of

my colleagues who have a bill to guarantee border security, please bring it to my office. please offer it as an amendment. i continue to extend that offer. i am looking for an idea to improve what we've drafted. quite frankly, i think we can get it to be even better. and i think those of us who worked on it would agree if people disagree with the way we modernize the legal immigration system, they don't think we bring enough high-tech workers or farm workers, change it. file an amendment to change it. here's what i would say. unless you believe we don't need to do anything -- if you believe that, that's valid, fine. if you believe what we have is okay, if you believe that we don't need to do anything about immigration, just leave it the way it is, that's fine. i respect that view. i disagree with it but i respect it. but if you think what we have is a disaster -- and i think that's most of us -- let's work on it together to change it. don't view the bill that we've drafted as something that's being shoved down your throat because it's not. view it as a starting point product upon which we can build

something that i hope most of us can support. if you are opposed to this bill or elements of it, try to change it. try to improve it. that's why we have something called the amendment process. and, by the way, that's just in the judiciary committee. beyond that it's got to come to the floor of the senate where i expect there to be open debate. where i expect there to be an open amendment process. and if it passes here, then it has to go to the house and we have to work with them to get a product we all agree on. here's my point. if you're going to be against anything, no matter what we file, and you just don't want to do immigration reform, that's fine. but if you believe, as i do, that our legal immigration system is broken and needs to be modernized, let's work to change it. if you believe that we need to be realistic about the fact that we have 11 million human beings in this country who are going to be here for the rest of their life whether we deal with them or not and that it's not good for america to have that many people here who tkpwhaoepbt and have no -- who we don't know and have no idea who they are, where

they are, many are not paying taxes, let's find a way to deal with it. if you believe our laws are not being enforced and we need to pass laws that force the administration, this one and a future one, to enforce our laws, let's change it. i'm all ears. i'm all open-minded about that. so are my colleagues. but let's not leave it the way it is because the way it is is chaos. it's bad for our country. what we have today is not good for the united states. and our job as policy-makers is not just to come here and criticize. our job is to come here and make a difference. our job is not just to come to the floor and make speeches or go back home and give speeches or do television interviews or our job is not just to poke holes. our job is to plug holes too. our job here is not just to criticize but to make better. and what we have now just doesn't work. it's not good for our country. we can't leave it this way. and we have a chance now to, i think, truly improve it. this is not an effort to force

anyone, anything down anyone's throat. this bill we've worked on is a starting point. it's not a take it or leave it proposition. it never has been. to pretend that it is isn't fair. to pretend that something is being crafted here that's being forced down someone's throat with no options to amend it or make it better, that's not true. i talked to almost all of my colleagues here and extended an open hand and let's work together to make this better. i really think we have to. is this the most important issue america faces? no. we owe $17 trillion and we have no idea how we're going to pay it back. we have an economy that's not growing and we need to do something about it. but this is an important issue. by the way, it's related to that issue. there actually is a growing consensus that we have a chance to do something about it once and for all. let's work together. let's work together. let's come up with a solution that modernizes our legal immigration system so it's good for our economy, that once and for all forces the administration -- this one and future ones -- to enforce our

immigration laws and that once and for all deals with the 11 million people that are here illegally in a way that's fair and compassionate. but also fair to the people that did it right and also a way that ensures that this never ever happens again. and i hope when we come back here in a few days we'll begin to work on that together. tpo* the good of our -- for the good of our country and future of our great nation. with that, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: