my colleagues to adopt it. and i yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. before entertaining amendments, is there any discussion on the subcommittee's report? >> mr. chairman? >> gentleman from arizona, mr. barber, is recognized. >> i certainly want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee again for conducting business in a remarkably bipartisan manner, and i fully support the section which deals with brac. i do not think it's time for us to be moving forward with the brac. while we need to find efficiencies given the budget control act and sequestration, this is not the time to implement or to proceed with a brac. by implementing sequestration, mr. chairman, we have created great uncertainty in our military and in the community that surrounds our military installations. i have two such installations in my district, and i'm really hopeful that we can figure out a way to roll back on this

sequestration. very irresponsible decision. had i been here, i would have voted against it. .. finish further discussion about brac but certainly this is not the top to move forward. i commend the subcommittee, the chair and ranking member for putting language in our report that involves any planning for brac. thank you. i yield back. >> this gentleman yields back. the gentleman from utah is recognized for five minutes. >> i would like one quick

comment towards this particular market, simply because i was the subcommittee chairman of the resource committee that heard some of the land transfers that went over there. i wanted the committee to be very clear that, for example, china lake as a simple example was technically owned by the blm but it was controlled and used by the navy. to reauthorize that took a for your process because it required a full appliance and it cost $1.4 million to continue doing what they've always been doing. the transfer of the land to the department of defense clearly saved the department of defense a great deal of money and there's nothing wrong with the land itself. the idea that the land has to belong to dea blm is a silly id. the transfer makes all the sense in the world and it saves a whole lot of money for the military to allow them to do what they have been doing continually, transfer is the right thing to do. these land issues we did not transfer them and that was

simply because of the peculiarities to the issue that was second. but i'm very proud of chairman wittman for including that in the market. it's the right thing to do, especially at these times. i yield back. >> any further discussion before entering, entertaining amendments? hearing none, are their amendments to the subcommittee's report? >> yes, mr. chairman, i have an imminent. it hasn't been passed out yet. >> ranking member smith has an amendment. with the clerk please pass the amendment. without objection, the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. [inaudible conversations]

>> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from washington for the purposes of authoring and explaining his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this and goes to one of the comments ms. bordallo mentioned in her comments. while this mark prohibits a brac for this year, i believe for the next couple of years, and though i disagree with that i won't oppose that decision. but it goes even further than that. it prohibits the department of defense from planning for proposing an additional brac round. and that's just bad legislation. i mean, the executive branch, has its role. the legislative branch has its role. if the executive branch wishes to propose something, you can oppose it. we can have a debate and discuss about it but to go so far in our

mark as to prohibit the department of defense, planning or proposing an additional back -- brac doesn't make any sense to me. i think the remaining republicans on -- are very critical of the department of defense for not playing for sequestration just saying we don't think it's going to happen so when it went to plan for it. it's a pretty fair criticism. you've got to plan for what's coming, and to say that they can't plan or propose the future i think is an unnecessary restriction. and it also goes back to the larger point that i made at the beginning of my opening comments, and i will disagree with the chairman slightly. while this mark reflects the house budget resolution, and house budget resolution has a significantly higher defense number than the senate budget resolution, and that's a basic disagreement because obviously the senate budget resolution has a much higher number for other

programs, 40 of the 11th appropriation bills, and we can work away through the. need of those budget resolutions, and not this bill either, considers sequestration. considers it in fy 2014, which is what we're marking up, sequestration is most likely to happen. there's no pathway out of it. how many republicans are going to support a tax increase between now and october 1? i won't ask for a show of hands. you know, how many democrats in the senate, and the white house are going to accept straight mandatory spending cuts as a way out of sequestration. not enough. that's been our basic block since way back in july 2011 that led to sequestration in the first place, and nothing has changed. it's coming and we continue to act like it's not, and further restricting the department ability to plan and try to figure out how to do with it just doesn't make sense. now, i understand in many

instances in the short-term brac can be more expensive, but in the long term, by the long-term three, four, five years, it begins to save money and sequestration is a nine-year deal. so we are looking at a longer period of time here. the final point i'll make is we've gotten to the point on this committee, and i won't quote the specifics but senator mccain in our conference last year was flabbergasted by being in some state somewhere where they were proposing i think five c-130s out of the state and everybody pretty much came unglued. we can't do that. i've had stuff moved out of my district, moved into my district, too, but you don't, dod, the one and only rule is my district can't be reduced by anything. because we wind up paralyzing. now, when times are flush, when we were doubling the budget over the course of 10 years, we had a little play and we could do

that. but now, now with the cuts that have already come, the chairman continues to mention, the foreign aid that have been put in place, and sequestration from fy '13 now being a fact of life, and sequestration in fy to 14 unless someone wants to argue with what will happen there, with all of that happening, i don't think this committee has the luxury of being so darned parochial for it. to say every single time anyone in the services comes into our state and says, look, you've got to rearrange, that we're going to fight tooth and nail to stop them. and i guess this is just the logical extreme of that to say that, you know, you can't even think about it. we don't know what it is but don't you dare think about it. don't dare think about moving one thing or another. i would urge us at eminem to strike that language that prohibits them from even planning or proposing additional brac ground. i yield back spent the gentleman yield back.

for what purpose the gentleman from virginia requests time? >> mr. chairman, i want to be held on record as seeking an adamant opposition to the -- >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you if you look at the process of brac, planning and proposing is the process. implementation is the end product of the. so he took wednesday welcome were going to plan and proposed brac, to me that's the process. and if you look at the other element of planning that are being undertaken right now that look at where we're going, that is, what is the strategy, you have the secretary of defense that's doing a strategic choice and management review. you have the qdr, and then you also have an independent review team done by this committee. if are going to do planning, planning is putting together information to achieve an objective. if we don't know what the objective is why in the world would want to continue to go

down the road to plan and proposed a brac? it doesn't make any sense. in addition to the uncertainties that are out there with a drawdown of forces in afghanistan, with the end strength reduction. additional to this in that realm of uncertainty. if you look at that to the cost, there is cost and time associated with doing the planning and proposing for a brac. my question is this, if we are focused on making best use of time and resources, time and resources best to propose and plan with information that ultimately is going to be useless because the objectives may change, the strategy may change? and we're doing all that now putting the cart before the horse. so my look at this is that this is not the right thing being done to propose this, too proposed this amendment at this time, nor is it the right direction. and i feel very strongly that we need to make sure that we

understand all the other different moving pieces that are about as now, whether it's the sequestration, ma whether it's planning on this nation strategy, whether it's the drawdown in afghanistan, whether it is industry. to go forward and say we will put together and plan and proposed a brac and do not call it a brac, to me is foolishness and it's not the right time nor the right place to do this. and again i stand in strong objection to the amendment, and yield back the balance of my time spent gentleman yield back. mr. garamendi request time. >> to speak in support of the amendment. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. the ranking member laid out a very sound argument for being prepared, for understanding the options that we will have to face and the choices that we will have to make to be ignorant is never wise, and we rely

heavily upon the department of defense to provide us with information. in this case, about the challenges that we face as a committee and as representatives of the american people on the choices with regard to the military. so what the ranking member wants to do here is simply give the military the opportunity, the department of defense, the opportunity and responsibility to continue think through, to plan, and to prepare options for us to consider. i think that's wise. and i think the ranking member's amendment allows the department of defense to do that and to provide us with the information that we will ultimately need to make some very tough decisions in the question of how we use the taxpayers resources. so i support the ranking member.

>> gentleman yields back. for what purposes does mr. ford's request on? >> request to strike the last word. i would like to join the distinguished chairman of the readiness subcommittee and his objections to this amendment. i have enormous respect for the ranking member, and i hear consistently talked about the need to raise taxes. and also need to plan because of additional resources we will need. i just wish, and i outlined this before, that we had that kind of planning and discussion before we spent $833 billion on a stimulus bill and then $347 billion of interest on that, all of which is almost the exact overlay of what we're not cutting out the defense. we pleaded and pleaded and pleaded when our friends on the other side of the aisle were in the majority, please don't do that because it will come out of

the backs of defense. we are harvesting what we plan. the second thing is the distinguished ranking member mentioned that we protect spending programs because we like them. well, there's some members may be do that but most of us try to protect these programs not because we like them but because we need them. and when you look at the pentagon, they're not coming over here and saying we don't need these for structures but there's a because of the budget we are giving we can't have been. we've got to go back to the point of time on this committee where we are asking what does the united states need to defend this country, not just what we can afford, but what's the risk to the united states of america if we don't supply these resources. and the chairman of the readiness committee is exactly correct when he says this, if you believe that these force structures on the right force structure, that we need to reduce the army where we are reducing it, if you believe that we need to reduce the marine corps where we are reducing it, if you believe that we have to reduce the air force where we're going to reduce them, if you

believe we are to reduce the number of ships in the navy, then you should vote for brac because once we put the brac in place you'll never be able to build those up again. but if you believe as many of us do that these force structures ahead in the wrong direction, the curve went ahead in the wrong direction, then we need to be very, very careful about having another round of brac that locks us into the force structures. that's why the other thing i would close with is what the chairman of the subcommittee said, that in the pentagon, planning is the process. once they start the plan, it starts in motion those things and you don't turn them around. that's why it's important that i think we stay with the subcommittee recommendations and we reject this amendment. i yield back. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i secret mission in support of the amendment. >> gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

>> mr. speaker -- mr. chairman, every dollar wasted is not in the defense budget is not a dollars and in defending this country. and i think what mr. smith is trying to do is merely give the authority to the department of defense to determine what the excess capacity is a military installations across this country so we can make a decision as to what the trade-offs are. by not supporting the amendment what we're saying is we don't even want to know. we don't want the pentagon even make the determination as to what the excess capacity. we had testimony from the secretary of the army who said that in 2004 was the last time they study the issue and the excess capacity was determined to be 20% in army installations in the continental united states. now, he speculated that the number was much greater now. but that success has prohibited

from finding a. we've got to at least know what the number is so we can have an intelligent debate in this committee. so i rise in strong support of this amendment. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. what purposes does ms. noem request on? >> speak in opposition. >> recognized for five minutes. >> i was proud to vote with my college on the readiness subcommittee to support the section 20 7-11. there's no doubt our country is facing serious is the challenge is pretty to look at the 2000 by brac it's the perfect example for why this an image should not be pursued at this point i. the 2005 brac cost more than $35 billion but it was a 67% increase over the original estimated cost. according to the recent report the gao put out, they said iraq actually cost more than what the savings going to be in the long run. in fact, they categorized it as excessive. i know it's our response building to save dollars but if

recent results prove true, i'm proposing and going after and planning for brac is not a good way to do that when significant up front cost and is going to be questionable savings in the long run. the same gao report states the last brac after as may be cost that it overestimated the long-term savings and so i've supported section 20 7-11 in committee i planted it now but i stand opposition to this amendment and i yield back, mr. chairman. >> gentlelady yield but. for what purposes of the gentlelady from california request on? >> to speak to this amendment. >> recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think the ranking member mr. smith from washington did a good job in outlining how this is really shouldn't, we shouldn't be prohibiting the administration didn't look at things that they may feel are necessary. we certainly, in the long run are the ones who have the final say, as you know on most of these things.

but to somehow close off and say, you, we just don't want this to happen, i mean, we may need is this to happen and with that i will yield back the rest of my time to the ranking member, mr. smith come to speak on the subject. thank you, mr. chairman. >> just two quick points to the 2005 brac in part was so expensive because we were so flush with money that as we were closing down the basis that kept being more and more proposals for how to soften the blow, for how to get more money to those local communities, the previous four racks were much more cost-effective and i would not propose that we revisit the 2005 although i will say over the long term even the 2005 brac will wind up saving money. the final point i would make us just in opposition to couple who said proposing and planning is doing. that's just logically troubles me because the department proposed and planned a brac for

this year. we rejected it. so rather self-evident proposing and playing is not doing. that's why we have the congressional branch here. we can reject it like we did. so to the very illogical point made by couple i found troubling. with that i will yield back. ask for a roll call vote. >> further debate on the amendment? >> mr. chairman? >> the gentleman from california is recognized. >> i yield to the chairman of the readiness subcommittee, mr. wittman. >> thank you, mr. junta. i just want to remind folks again that the brac process was supposed to be a logical process and it does include planning and proposing. so if you say that you're in favor of this amendment what you're saying is you want brack to be planned for and to be proposed. you also have to know that the planning process assumes you

will reach an objective that you understand what the strategy is going to be. we are undergoing a review of what our strategy is going to be. both the department of defense, secretary of defense and this committee and the department of defense are all undertaking that review. so it seems like to me that is very illogical to say somehow we can pursue a brac, plan and proposing a brac where you don't know what the strategy is going to be. how do you structure even looking at a brac if you don't know what you're going? that's like getting in the car, thinking the windshield blacken sang i'm going there don't know when going to go. we're going to do it just because we want to make sure we have the option to do it. that's not what this process is about. is supposed to be a logical process. at this particular time with all these uncertainties, this provision in this amendment makes it an illogical process. it makes it, the outcome of a planning opposing that would happen if this amendment were to pass, would itself be useless because it would be based on not knowing where we are going or

what the strategy is. so again, mr. chairman, i urge the members to vote against this amendment. >> the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut request time? >> thank you, mr. chairman. strike the last word and speak in opposition. >> recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i would just to point out that someone has been on the readiness committee post 2005 brac, the fact is that the cost overruns which year in and year out department of defense's government asked us to pour more money into the process, you know, was something all the predictions that can '03 and over when the brac process of moving forward was never projected or disclosed to congress. again we have followed this on the subcommittee over the years, and again i think there are huge

questions which the department in innings we've had over the last two years have failed to answer in terms of why we should have any confidence that moving forward with a brac this time around would, in fact, be any better. what i would also note is secretary panetta, when he was rebuffed in the last congress indicated that they were going to move forward with some base and military site installation closings in europe which again dan did no authority from congress to go forward with it. again, to date our committee has not received any update, any progress report, any information regarding where the department is on that initiatives which again was promise. to all of us. i would just simply say the chronology of the 2005 brac as ms. noem indicated, gao told it would be 13 years before net

savings of 1 penny here going back in time to the prior bracket at least six years for any net savings to be produced as mr. smith said. those were more successful bracts. but again if you put a timer that were not going to pass defense bill before christmas but we know that unless two or three years. so it's going to a two-year process for brac to move forward. again using the best case scenario over six year net savings timeline are past the budget control act. that's where the high functioning successful brack process. so again i understand some of the concerns about the language in mr. wittman's base bill. but again i supporte support it, frankly, this subcommittee over the years with mr. reyes and mr. forbes and now mr. wittman, again, we have just not been given adequate information for us to basically allow this process to go forward. we need more back from the

pentagon on both, their intentions in terms of european military sites as well as a more coherent explanation of why we should anymore confidence that a brac would proceed with any more success, particularly if the goal is stated is budget reduction, deficit reduction but with that i would yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. if there is no further discussion on the amendment, the question is on the adoption and offered by mr. smith. in favor of say aye. those opposed, no. spent in the opinion o of the chair than of the chair and knows how it. the amendment is not agree to. there has been a recorded -- that will happen at the end of this subcommittee's market. are there any other amendment to the subcommittee's report?

>> mr. chairman? >> the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman. >> i ask unanimous consent to call off an unblocked package of amendments that a been work and approved by the minority side. >> without objections order. was a clerk please pass on the members to be offered unblocked. without objection reading of the amendments will be dispensed with. [inaudible conversations] >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes for purposes of offering and explaining his on

blocked a minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i call up an unblocked package number one comprised of the following. amendment numbered 014 by mr. ridge will align dod with omb guidance on close associated with inherently governmental functions. amendment number 227 by mr. andrews requiring a brief on commercially available meteorological data gathering and weather modeling technology amendment number 039 by mr. loebsack requiring a view of requirements for which there is no commercial source that can be performed in army arsenals. a name at number 040 by mr. loebsack increasing information of able to pentagon executive officers and program managers regarding the capabilities provided by on the arsenals for use when evaluating manufacturing requirements. amendment number 041 directing dod to them a standardized checklist of existing sourcing and management laws modeled after the check was already used by the army. it would not create any new laws.

amendment number 069 enhancing repair america's efficient by ensuring non-vessels are considered as homeported and videos for purposes of repairs and overhauls but it also defines voyage repair. amendment number 07 by mr. wittman striking 12 billion projects in the uk. amendment number 072 by mr. wittman directing the comptroller general of the united states to provide the congressional defense committees and assessment of readiness status of the military ocean terminal concourse, in california. amendment number 073 by mr. wittman and ms. bordallo to review dod wedding is and the risk dod faces to report reduced to the congressional defense committees. amendment number 074 by mr. wittman concerning the army reserve project location modification and virginia. amendment numbers are certified by mr. wittman striking generic

casey 46 a with location specific casey 46 a. amendment number 083 by mr. wittman requiring dod to brief the defense committee on plans to make excess defense articles from afghanistan of able to domestic entities including improvement in sharing information about availability of retrograde equipment. >> is there further debate on the unblocked amendments? if not the question is on the adoption and emmett offered by mr. wittman the so many in favor with say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. >> you've been watching a portion of wednesday's house armed service committee markup of the defense department spending bill. quick reminder you can see this entire event online anytime at c-span.org. in a moment we will be live with

the u.s. senate as lawmakers will be gaveling in to wrap up their week. immigration policy is on the agenda today. no votes are scheduled. this is expected this debate will stretch into next week. and now live to the senate floor here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god who sets boundaries for the sea to make it obey. your mercies are new every morning. thank you for your faithfulness. you save us from distress, rescuing us from danger because of your great love.

lord, uphold our senators and renew their strength. empower them to bravely face the challenges of our time. when they are bewildered, lead them with your grace. give them the wisdom to prepare now for the difficult seasons before them. may they obey your teaching, striving to be guided by your words. and, lord, bless our senate pages on this, their graduation day. we pray in your holy name. amen.

the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. tepl the majority leader. -- the president pro tempore: the majority leader. mr. reid: following my remarks and perhaps senator mcconnell if he wishes to speak, the

senate will resume the motion to proceed to s. 744, the comprehensive immigration legislation which, mr. president, you have done a masterful job of getting us to where we are on this matter. as chairman of the judiciary committee. the time until 1:30 will be for debate on the motion to proceed. mr. president, i have been told that we need a little extra time. so what we will do is extend that time until 2:00. so i ask consent that the prior order be extended until 2:00 and that the extra half-hour be divided between the majority and minority, each getting 15 minutes. the president pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: then i ask unanimous consent that i be recognized at 2:00 p.m.. the president pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: there will be no roll call votes today. the next roll call vote will be monday at 5:30 p.m. on passage of the farm bill.

mr. president, today the senate will have the opportunity to debate the partisan -- i'm sorry -- the bipartisan immigration bill reported by your committee, the presiding officer's committee, last month. as i've already done once today, i do it again, i commend the chairman of that committee, senator leahy, for leading a thorough and transparent process in the committee. i thank senator sessions for working with us yesterday to move forward on this measure as quickly as possible. as i've said before, senator sessions, i once in a while disagree on substance but we've always had a friendly relationship, which i appreciate. i applaud the efforts of the gang of eight, four democrats and four republicans, who set aside partisan to face immigration. the system is broken and needs to be fixed. it is gratifying to see this package of commonsense reforms which will make our country

safer and help undocumented immigrants get right with the law. mr. president, i had a number of meetings over the last few days with pollsters taking a look at this legislation, and they all acknowledge that the vast majority of the american people want us to move forward on this. democrats, independents and republicans, recognizing the system is broken and needs to be fixed. and, mr. president, they all agree on a pathway to citizenship. and i have committed to as open as possible process for amendments. i don't want to say totally open because sometimes with the procedures we have here, as with the farm bill, people throw monkey wrenches into things and we're not able to do as we want to do. but we'll wrap this legislation up before the july 4 recess. i hope senators will take advantage of today's time for debate. i look forward to a thorough and

thoughtful discussion and deliberation of this legislation in the days ahead. would the chair announce are the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 744, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 80, s. 744, a bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order the time until 2:00 p.m. will be divided with the senator from alabama, mr. sessions or his designee, controlling 3 hours and 15 minutes and the majority leader or his designee controlling the remaining time. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i see my friend from alabama on the floor. i ask consent to continue for one minute. mr. president, i just wanted to thank the majority leader for his kind comments, but i should also note that throughout the

markup and debate on the immigration bill, his advice and his counsel was always there. we discussed it many, many times. and i appreciate the fact that he made it very clear the bill would come up at the time he said. and we would not have it here without his strong support. so i appreciate senator reid's very nice comments this morning. and i yield the floor. mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, this is important legislation, the immigration bill. and i was able to have a discussion with senator reid yesterday, and he was moving forward to the -- on the motion to proceed to the bill which requires considerable debate. i asked for and insisted on the

opportunity to have some time today to talk about it, and he agreed to that. so i think that was a good step, and i thank him for that agreement. we just got a lot to talk about. the matters are complex and important. and i would urge my colleagues to begin to pay real attention to the legislation. this is the bill as printed, front and back of each page. it was reported there were going to be 1,000 pages. colleagues, they said it was 800 but more has been added to it, so it is back over 1,000 pages again. it is very complex and certain key points making multiple references to other code sections that are in existing law. therefore, it's very difficult to read. it takes a considerable amount of time, and i don't even suspect that the gang of eight has had the time to read and

digest and understand fully what's in the legislation. we are a nation of immigrants. the people that i know that are concerned about this legislation in congress are not against immigration. i certainly am not. we admit about a million people a year legally into our country. that's a substantial number by any standards. inseed, it's the highest of any country in the world. it's important that we execute that policy in an effective way. it impacts our whole nation. immigration has enriched our culture. it's boosted our economy. and we've had tremendously wonderful people who have come here, people who have contributed to our arts, to our business and economy, to science and sports. we just had a good time, a good run with immigration in a lot of

ways. but we need to ask ourselves at this point in time, is it working within limits? are the american people happy with what we are doing? and are we moving in the right direction? we know that our generous policies have resulted in a substantial flow of people into the country, and our challenge today is to create a lawful system of immigration that serves the national interest and admits those people into our country who are most likely to be successful, most likely to prosper, most likely to flourish. therefore, most likely to be beneficial to america. surely we can agree that that is a good policy. and it's not been our policy really prior to this.

we have both the enormous illegal flow of people into the country as well as a legal flow that is not evaluated in a way that other advanced nations do when they execute their policies of immigration. for example, like canada. so we should establish smart rules for admittance, rules that benefit america, and rules that must be enforced, that must be lawful. we can't reject a dutyful good person to america and then turn around and allow someone else who came in illegally to benefit from breaking our laws. to the disadvantage of the good person who, when told "no," had to accept that answer. it's just the way we are. so establishing these smart rules for admittance, rules that

benefit america, and these rules have to be rules that are enforced. it just has to be. and that's not happening today. so the current policies that we have are not serving our country well. therefore, an immigration system, a reformed immigration system should spend some time in depth in public analysis of how and what we should consider as we decide who should be admitted. because we can't admit everybody. and then when that's done, we need to create a system that we can expect to actually work to enforce the standards that we have. so i really believe we can make tremendous progress and we can fix this system. it needs to be fixed. the legislation that's been

offered by the gang of eight says they fixed it, don't worry, we've taken care of all that is needed. you've got a plan that will be compassionate to people who have been here, and we've got -- and we've got a plan that will work in the future and end the illegality. well, it won't do that. that's the problem. it will definitely give amnesty today. it will definitely give immediate legal status to some 11 million people today. but the promises of enforcement in the future, the promises that the legislation will focus on in a way that enhances the success rate of people who come to america is not fulfilled in the legislation. you just have to read the bill and see what's in it. i wish it were different. and we'll talk about in the days

and weeks to come what's in the bill and why it fails. and i can share with you how it is that we came to have such a flawed bill before us. and we need to understand that as we go forward. so i'm amazed that the gang of eight has sent such legislation forward to it. how aggressively they defended it in the judiciary committee. we did have a markup in the judiciary committee. we were allowed to offer amendments and had some debate there. but it was an odd thing, and repeatedly members not even in the gang of eight would say, "i like this amendment, but i can't vote for it because i understand it upsets the deal." so we need to ask ourselves who made the deal. whose deal is this? and how is it that the deal is such that members of the united states senate who agree with an

amendment say they must vote against the amendment because it upsets some deal? who was in this room? who was in the deal-making process? so, i think that was a revealing time in the committee. they had agreed, stated openly there would be no substantial changes in the agreements that the gang of eight had made, and they would stick together and vote against any changes, and that they did except minor changes. there were a number of amendments accepted, a number of republican amendments accepted. many of those were second-degreed or altered by the majority in the committee. but none of those fundamentally altered the framework and the substance of this legislation. i don't think that's disputable, and we'll talk about that.

so, this is the problem that we are working with. so how did the legislation become as defective as it is? i contend, i think it's quite plain, it was because it was not written by independent members of the senate in a more open process, but was written by special interests and would like to share some thoughts on that subject right now. because i think it goes to the heart of the difficulties we have. there were continual meetings over the last couple of months. we got this bill off to the wrong track in the beginning. powerful groups met, excluding the interests of the american people, excluding the law

enforcement community. throughout the bill you can see the influence that these groups had on the drafting of it. some of the groups actually did the drafting. a lot of the language clearly came from the special interest groups that were engaged in these secret negotiations. and they -- of course, what was a special interest group? a special interest group is a group of people that have a commitment, an interest that they want to advance but they don't pretend to share the -- portend to share the national interest. maybe it is a legitimate special interest, maybe it is not a legitimate special interest. but they have a particular interest that they want to advance. so this is what happened. big labor and big business were active in drafting this legislation, with the entire deal obviously hanging on, it was reported, their

negotiations. for example, "the wall street journal," march 10, the headline, "competing interests abound." quote -- "the chamber of commerce and businesses it represents are locked in negotiations with the afl-cio about workers in industries like hospitality and landscaping. meanwhile, farm worker unions have been quietly negotiating with growers associations about how to revamp short-term visas for agricultural workers, and senators on both sides of the aisle are weighing in to ensure their state industries are protected." "the washington post," march 10," hush-hush meeting for gang of eight senators as they work on sweeping immigration legislation." the article read reads, "they're struggling on the question of

legal immigration and future workers and are trading proposals ar with the leaders of the afl-cio to try to get a deal." they're working on a deal. how about this, "roll call" march 21.) "talks led by the afl-cio over a new guest worker program for lower-skilled immigrant are stalled promptings workers of the bipartisan grume of eight norse to get personally involved to try to nudge the negotiations on to resolution. so the senators were not in there discussing. so the senators -- when it got to be tough and things weren't moving along, they come in to try to egg it on to get the agreement. what is the agreement? between the unions and big business. who's representing the american worker effectively? "the new york times," march 30, "the nation's top business and

labor groups have reached an agreement on a guest worker program for low-skilled immigrants, a person with knowledge of negotiations said." senator schumer convened a conference call on friday night with thomas j. donahue, the president of the u.s. chamber of commerce, and richard trumka, the president of the afl-cio, the nation's main federation of labor unions, in which they agreed in principle on a guest worker program for low-skilled, year-round temporary workers." and we know that there was one group not included in these talks, and that is the group that is given the duty to enforce the laws involved in immigration. the national i.c.e. union, the customs enforcement organization, wrong letters to

-- they wrote letters to the gang of eight asking them to consult with the officers who have the duty to enforce this law but to no avail. they were shut out of every meeting and have never really been consulted. so it's interesting to note, however, that others weren't shut out of the meetings. they weren't left out of the room. "the washington post," april 15, "while obama has allowed senate negotiators to work on a compromise that can win approval, a white house staff member attends each staff-level meeting to monitor progress and assist with the telecommunication any cal aspects of writing the bill." so there's been an attempt to suggest that this is purely a congressional action, that the white house is just sort of hands off. but we know the white house is deeply involved in this, in

approving every aspect or disapproving aspects they don't approve of. the question is, who is influencing this? who is influencing the white house? president obama. the daily caller on february 6 notes this: "on february 5, obama held a white house meeting with a series of industry leaders, progressive advocates, ethnic lobbies, including la raza, to boost support for his plan that would provide a conditional amnesty to 11 million illegal aliens allowing new residents to get residency for their relatives and elderly parents and also establish rules for a future flow of skilled and unskilled workers. the invitees included the c.e.o. of goldman sachs, motorola, marriott, and deloite."

so they're in the meeting pawrntsly. also we know participating in a the love these discussions was the american immigration lawyers association. this group obviously was involved in writing it, and i have to tell you, they will be the biggest winners of this legislation. time and again, rules that were fairly clear today and probably should have been made clearer, are muddled. provisions are place placed in t will create litigation and encourage lawsuits, delays, and costs. for example, hardship is being given as an compeltion i compely cases. when i.c.e. says you should be deported, then the deportee has the ability to say, well, i've got a hardship. my mother is here, or i have a

brother that's sick, or i need this or i that. and what does hardship mean? it means a trial is what it means. so the immigration lawyers association was substantially involved in the meetings. "politico" on march 19 said, "in a bid to capitalize on the shared interest in immigration reform, a budget deal and new trade pacts, the white house has launched a charm offensive toward cooperate america since the -- corporate america since the november election hosting more than a dozen conference calls with top industry officials, which have not previously been disclosed, along with a flurry of meetings at the white house." continuing to quote, "participants on the recent calls include the heads of gold goldman sachs, business round table, everycore, center bridge partners the u.s. chamber of commerce, as well as the heads of washington trade groups

representing the banking industry, such as financial services and round table." and they've been involved in these discussions. even foreign countries have had a say in drafting our law. "the hill" on february 7 reported, "mexico's new ambassador to the united states, eduardo medina, has had a number of meetings with the administration where the issue of immigration has come up since he took office last month, said a mexican official familiar with the process. he is expected to meet with lawmakers shortly as legislation begins to take form. probably like no other country we are a player at this -- on this particular issue, the source said." well, the law officers weren't in the room, weigh kno.

we know that. people that questioned the size and scope of our immigration system weren't in the room. so in case anyone doubts the role of special interests in drafting the legislation, pay attention to this quote by frank sheri, executive director of the liberal proamnesty group "america'america's voice." in "the wall street journal," april 1, "the triggers are based on developing plans and spending money, not on reaching that effectiveness, which is really quite clever." in other words, the sponsors of the bill were telling everyone that they had triggers in the bill that would guarantee enforcement of laws in the future about immigration flow into america and that if enforcement didn't occur, the

triggers would stop people from being legalized around en and ee process. well, that's not so. we've studied the language, and we know the triggers are infectual and are not significant and won't work. and that will be explained in the days to come. and mr. sheri acknowledges it. he said, that was really clever to have these tool triggers, these triggers that won't work, because we can tell everybody that, don't worker the legality won't occur if the enforcement doesn't occur. in clever ways they drafted a bill that won't work. they'll say it works, but it won't work. again, with all the slush funds in this bill -- and there are a number of them -- that go to private activist groups, community action groups, it is easy to see who had special

interest at the table. the "national review" on may 29 reported, "a number of immigration activist groups such as the national council of la raza would be eligible to receive millions in taxpayer funding to advise illegal aisle granimmigrants applying for legl status under the bill." so money will go 0 it these activist groups like la raza who's basically advocated not enforcing our laws, so la raza is in the meetings, la raza is an open advocate for not enforcing laws involving illegal immigration. they are there participating. they're going to get money out of the deal with some of the grant programs while the law officers who have the ability to tell the committee -- the gang of eight -- how to make the system work, are shut out of the process. prosecutors, were they involved in the floss no, they've not been. the national immigration forum

-- a proimmigrant group -- has been involved in some of these discussions. so some people said the bill had to be drafted in secret but that the markup process in the judiciary committee would be open and transparent. but that is only partially so. we did have a markup. we were allowed -- those who have objections to the bill -- to offer amendments, as did those who support the bill. they had the opportunity to talk and offer amendments. but at every turn in the committee, the members of the gang of eight expressed support on occasions for certain amendments but only to vote against the amendment. due, they said, to the agreement they had to vote together and against significant amendments, regardless of their personal feelings. the gang influenced other members on the committee t to do the same. the huffington post, "senate

immigration group turns to keeping fragile agreement inta intact." it goes ton quote senator mccain as saying, "we will pledge to oppose all eight of us provisions that would destroy the fragile agreement that we have." so they've got an agreement. they've got an agreement with the unions and big business and agribusinesses and la raza and immigration lawyers. they got agreement with them, and they're going to defend it even though they acknowledge amendments that were offered would improve the bill. this is no way to serve the national interest, in my view. in discussing an amendment that would require workers to make a good-faith effort to hire american workers first, senator whitehouse said this. this is what happened in the committee -- quote -- "i'm in a position which i'm being

informed that this would be a deal breaker to the deal. i frankly don't see how that could be the case, but i'm not privy to that understanding. and so i'm going to vote in support of the agreement that's been reached." close quote. in other words, senator whitehouse says, well, i don't understand this. i'd like to vote the other way, but i'm told you got a deal and this would damage the deal. and so i can't vote for it. he wasn't even in the gang of eight but went along with that. waited for that same amendment, senator franken echoed the remarks saying -- quote -- "i really just want to associate myself with senator whitehouse's remarks." he goes on to say "i don't want to be a deal-breaker. in discussing an amendment that would increase family-based immigration, senator feinstein noted -- quote -- "i think it's

been a unique process because those people who are members of a group that put this together have stood together and have voted against amendments that they felt would be a violation of the bipartisan agreement that brought both sides together." i'm not sure that's always good. i'm not sure that's the right thing to do, is set public policy in america to have some secret agreement reached with a group of people we hardly know who they are trump the ability to do the right thing for the american people. i just want to say that is what's happened here. and the point to make is, and what i think our colleagues need to understand and the american people need to understand in reality, the special interests

interests -- la raza, the unions, the corporate world, the big agriculture businesses, the food processers -- they are the ones that made the agreement in this process. and the senators just sort of ratified it, and they can't agree to a change because they promised these special interest groups things. so if la raza would accept point a that somebody wanted accepted, and the unions, say, would accept point b, they would both agree i'll do a if you do b. then the bill gets to the floor and somebody says a is wrong and we should not put that in the bill. let's change that. oh, no, we can't agree, and we've got an agreement. agreement with who? la raza? agribusinesses. the chamber of commerce? microsoft? zuckerberg? that's what happened here.

i'm just telling you. and the people who drafted this bill, the people who have advocated these special interests, we shouldn't be surprised. businesses, groups, organizations have special interests. there's nothing inherently wrong with that. what's wrong is members of congress, members of the united states senate need to be representing the national interests, the people's interests, the workers interests in america. that's what we need to be doing. not the special interests. and i've got to tell you the openness of this is sort of breathtaking to me. who is protecting the national interests? did they have any of the top-ranked economists in this country asking -- being asked what would be the right number of low-skilled workers to bring in to america? did they have any of the top experts say how much advanced science degrees can we have? how many of our college

graduates are unemployed? what's the right number? none of this was apparently discussed by our colleagues who allowed this process to go. i would say finally with regard to the special interests, they have no interest, virtually none of them that were involved in this process, of guaranteeing in the future that we don't have illegality. that's the failure here. they don't have any interest in that. and, therefore, there was no intensity of interest in that aspect of the legislation. oh, there was a lot of interest in how many computer people could be admitted or how many agriculture workers or how many low-skilled factory workers or construction workers or other workers; they all worried about that. i mean, they fought over that. that's what these tkpwoegss were

about. -- that's what these negotiations were about and internal discussions and disagreements. but nobody was investing any time or interest in the second phase of this. if you have an amnesty, if you have illegality of millions of people who came here illegally, what are we going to do to ensure it doesn't happen in the future? i was a federal prosecutor. i personally tried an immigration case myself. i bet nobody else here can say that. but, so i'm aware that you've got to have certain legal processes and certain investments in investigative and enforcement mechanisms to make the system work in the future. so as we go forward with this debate, we're going to show, and it's going to be clear that this has not been fixed.

in fact, the standards of current law with regard to what ought to be done, requirements in current federal law are being weakened, some of them eviscerated by this bill. this bill is far weaker, mr. president, than the 2007 legislation. i don't think there's any doubt about that. it will be clear when we get through here. it was rejected by the american people, the 2007 agreement. it actually weakens current law in quite a number of significant areas. weakens current law. while we're being told, don't worry, this is the toughest bill ever. so if i'm mistaken, i'm sure we will hear about that as we discuss it. this is a great democracy we are part of. i'm expressing my view. i spent some time on these issues. i was involved with it in 2006

and 2007. i'm a federal prosecutor. i've done this over the years. i know how our i.c.e. agents work, our border patrol agents work, our customs and immigration agents work. i've worked with them. i know them personally. they have been left out of this process. the i.c.e. union has voted no confidence in john morton, their supervisor. what a dramatic event. i'm not aware of that ever happening in my 14 years-plus as a federal prosecutor. actual employment union declaring that their supervisor is -- they have no confidence in him? and what did they say? they said he spends all his time advocating for amnesty and not enforcing the laws. he's directing us to not follow legal requirements that we took an oath to follow. and get this. the i.c.e. officers have filed a lawsuit in federal court

attacking secretary napolitano, at least the conduct of her office. and they have asserted that she's not above the law. she is not authorized to direct them not to follow requirements of federal law. and the federal judge initially seemed to -- accepted the validity of the lawsuit. i've never heard of that before. this is really an incredible event. nobody is even talking about it. so it's been the position of this administration everybody has to know to see that the laws not be effectively enforced, particularly in the interior of america. and that has basically been, some even acknowledge a de facto amnesty because you're directing your law officers not to do their duty.

you basically eliminated the law, and the administration shouldn't be doing that. congress has refused to change these laws time and again. if anything, they sometimes increased them, strengthened them. and now we've got our agents blocked from doing it. and u.s. customs and immigration service, who deals with the visas, who deals with the application for citizenship -- c.i.s., citizenship and immigration service. they deal with the citizenship process and paperwork and all of that that go. they have written in opposition to this legislation. first the i.c.e. officers, chris crane, the head of that group, has written a powerful letter in detail condemning this legislation, saying it will not work. it will make matters worse, and it will endanger national

security. and the customs and immigration -- citizenship and immigration service group that deals with the paperwork and the citizenship processing and visa work and a lot of that, they have likewise written saying this bill will not work and they oppose it. i just got to say somebody needs to be thinking about what's going on here. amnesty done. the promise of enforcement, the toughest bill ever in the future? no, sir, not there, not close. that's why we have a problem. i can't understand it really why people wouldn't want the legal system to be complete, to be effective and be followed so we as americans could be proud of it.

well, you know, there's a lot of power behind this legislation. i can feel it. when i raise questions, push-back comes. you're not politically correct. you're unkind. you don't like immigrants. that's offensive to me. i believe in immigration. we've got a million people that come in here every year legally. i don't oppose that. i don't oppose doing something responsible and compassionate for the people who have been here a long time illegally. but we've got to be careful about it, but we can do that. but the american people are so right on their basic instinct about this matter. i was just -- i just have to say

how i believe the american people's heart and souls are good about immigration. a lot of people think, well, we have to meet in secret and we have to run this bill through as fast as possible because we don't want the american people to find out about it because they don't like immigrants. not so. a recent poll reveals something very important that our members of this body and the house need to note. it said if you're angry about the way things are going with regard to immigration, are you angry at the people who came into the country illegally? or are you angry at the government officials for allowing it to happen? 12% said they were angry at the people that entered illegally. 88% said they were angry at public officials for not creating a legal system that will work.

now isn't that a good -- doesn't that speak well of the american people? you could be angry about somebody who came into our country in violation of the law i think the american people understand people want to come here, and it's our duty to stop it. and they have been pleading with congress for over 30 years to do something about it, to create a lawful system to end the lawlessness, to do the right thing, to create immigration processes that we can be proud of, like canada has and other countries around the world have. so we believe in immigration. we want to do the right thing. but it needs to be lawful. we have more applicants for admission into america than we can possibly accept. i was in, i believe, peru with senator specter a number of years ago, and a poll was called to our attention from nicarauga

that said 60% of the people in nicarauga said they would come to america if they could. 60%. and then the ambassador in peru told us, he said they had a poll around here that said 70%. well, so you just can't -- everybody can't come to america. we're not able to assimilate or absorb, and we all know that. we all agree on that. and so, therefore, you set rules and processes that we can be proud of, that are fair and objective, and that people who want to come meet those standards and they wait their turn and they come lawfully. but we've had from this administration and prior administrations -- president bush also -- too little interest in seeing that the law is enforced. and we've got loopholes in our laws and processes need to be fixed, and we can do that with a good immigration bill. but this one doesn't get us there.

we have -- my friend i noticed did an op-ed yesterday, carl rove, president bush's political advisor and a man of great talents. i knew him back to the day we were in college together. and he quotes a lot of polls that say the american people are willing to accept legal processes and status for people in this country. and i acknowledge that. they are. but they -- he does not quote the polls that say overwhelmin overwhelmingly that they want the illegality ended first. they want border security first because they're smart enough to know -- they're smart enough to know, if you don't get the border security now, you may never get it. in fact, they want to get it because history tells us so. he didn't quote a recent poll --

i see rasmussen -- the so-called -- this was what was in the rasmussen polling report, the so-called gang of eight proposal in the senate legalizes the status of immigrants first and promises to secure the border later. by a 4-2 margin, people want that process reversed. my good friend karl rove didn't quote that. additionally, while voters think highly of immigrants, which speaks well of us as american people, they don't trust the government, and that skepticism is growing. in january 45% thought it was at least somewhat likely that the federal government would work to secure the border and prevent future illegal immigration. today only 30% has that

confidence. why? because they're beginning to learn that this bill doesn't do what they were told it was going to do. the growing awareness of the border control issue has led to other shifts in public opinion as well. early in the year democrats were trusted more than republicans on the issue of immigration. now that's switched. well, we're not interested in politics. we're interested in doing the right thing. if we do the right thing, the people will affirm us. so mr. rove, he goes to on to s, "now don't say amnesty." that's bad thing for you to say. well, let me just say, under the legislation that's before us now, we would have a circumstance immediately when people are given legal status.

they'll be able to get any job, and they're here safe and sound, unless they get arrested for a felony or something very serious like that, and they're put on a path that guarantees them the ability to go all the way to citizenship. and mr. rove says though pay $1,000 -- and mr. rove says they have to pay a $is,00 $1,000 finr six years. what is that? $170 a year? $15 -- $12 a month? so this is the punishment. so you pay $12 a month worth of fines that allows you to not have to go home, even though you entered the country illegally, didn't wait your turn, and you're guaranteed a path to citizenship. and then at the end you have to pay another $1,000, some 10, 13 years later. so that's -- that's -- so this is the punishment that's in the

legislation. but the people who came illegally get exactly what they wanted immediately, which is to stay here, the ability to work here, they'll get a social security card, and they'll get the ability to go to any job in the country. they have an i.d. that will allow them to do that. so they'll be able to compete with any job in america, to be able to compete for the jobs of our husbands and sons and daughters and grandchildren might be competing out there. 11 million would be in that position. so i don't think my friend carl is makin -- so i don't think myd karl is making a very strong point there that this is some kind of punishment. and he says they must pay taxes. well, hallelujah! shouldn't you pay taxes?

and -- quote -- "-- they are -- quote -- "barred from receiving any federal benefits including welfare and obamacare." that's a flat statement, and it's flat wrong. the first group -- the dream act group -- will be some 2 million, 2.5 million, maybe 3 million. they will be citizens in five years and will benefit -- will get any other federal welfare programs in five years. many of the ag workers will be in that position in ten years. and immediately any workers who qualify for the earned income tax credit can get that immediately now. other provisions are put off for 10, 13 years, and that makes the cost score look better. but over the long term, once the group is given legal status and

citizenship, they will then qualify for every program. and since an overwhelming number of the workers here today are lower-skilled that are illegal, they're lower-skilled and you can expect their incomes to be low, they'll qualify for earned income tax credit, for medicaid, and program after program -- food stamps and others. and the score goes up tremendously in the out years. the heritage foundation is the only group that's done an in-depth analysis and they say over the lifetime, the people that are here illegally, if they are legalized under this bill it would add $6.3 trillion to the deficit of the united states, because that's a lot of money. that's almost as much as the unfunded liabilities of social security, which is about $7 trillion. so this would be $6 transform i am going to say that -- so this would be $6 trillion.

i would going to say that number is too high. nobody else has done a study to rrefute it. it is going to be trillions of dollars in the out years. it is not true ... there will be no government benefits to people who are in the country who get legalized under this. that's just not so. with thiwith this iswell, this o meevment it sounds good when you have a political guru like my friend cal. he says, "to renew their status after six years, those waiting to become citizens must prove they have an been steadily employed, paid all taxes and arounaren't on welfare." so let's take what's happened. so we've got an individual that's been in the country three

years. they get the provisional legal status immediately when this bill passes, and in six years they have to have, we're told, to show they're steadily employed, paid taxes, and aren't on welfare. well, who's is going to investigate that, first, number one? rand sand so they've already bee three years. as long as it came before december 31, 2011, they're given legal status, whether they have a job or not, no matter what, they're given this legal status, without a family,ings have no -- without a family, have no roots here, they've been here before december 31, 2011. but we're not willing to deport them. we're not willing to deport them. so now six years later they work intermittently and they're unemployed and we've got a

recession and we don't have enough jobs for people, we're going to send out the feds and uproot them, their children are now in junior and high school and send them back home? give me a break. that is one of the most bogus claims ever. that won't be enforced. and there are waiver authorities in the bill, so waivers will be issued. nobody is going out to enforce this. so i'm just tired of them saying it. they soon eve shouldn't even sa. they're trying to get the american people to believe that we're going to actually go out and deport what could be millions of people who are out of work in five or six -- the six-year period when they have to reestablish themselves. that just bothers me. and they say, these individuals, karl rove said, "must stand at the back of the line behind everyone who's waiting patiently and legally to immigrate here."

well, that's not so many of give m--well, that's not so. give me a break. these people are here illegally now. they do not want to be deported, which is understandable. they're going to be given permanent status, a social security and the right to work anywhere in america. and they're not ahead of somebody in honduras waiting in line to come here? not ahead of somebody in china or indonesia or italy or spain? of course they're ahead of them. they're not waiting -- and then -- and so i'm without words to express my concern about that. we need to be accurate about what the legislation says here. and so what about this amnesty?

well, people say you shouldn't call it amnesty. well, i think that's a legitimate word. the legislation right here before us would immediately give legal status, allow people to move to legal, permanent residence and citizenship later. and you have to pay a few thousand dollars in fines. well, i think that's amnesty, in my opinion. some may say, well, they pay a $1,000 fine. they paid a penalty, therefore, you can't call it amnesty. nah, i don't think so. this legislation basically says everybody here is given legal status on put on a guaranteed path to citizenship. just don't get convicted of a felony. so, i really don't think that's a good argument. so that was contended a by the, -- so, that was contended a bit, but i think the sponsors kind of

gave up objecting back in 2007 when the legislation was before us at that time. but i would just note that in 2007, the initial fine that people paid had to be paid initially $3,000. under this bill you pay $1,000 over six years. then to get a green card, the legal, permanent residents, you had to pay an additional $4,000. an interim review period calls for a fine or payment of $1,500. totaling $8,500. so in 2007, the payments required for car to move forward to -- required for someone to move forward to citizenship was at least $8,500. this bill is $2,000 and really $1,000 to get -- to be able to stay here. and work here. and that is -- payments are

stretched over time. so i just would have to say, it's difficult for me to accept that this is a -- people are earning their citizenship, and they're paying a price for it. then mr. rove mentions they have to pay their taxes but one of our washington publications, "politico," did an article about that june 3, and said, with regard to tax payment, "after all, it was one of the gang of eight's main talking points when it unveiled the immigration blueprint in january. sponsors vowed that their proposal would include a backtax requirement to ward or critics' claims that the bill would be amnesty. citizenship would come at a price, they said.

but the gang has all but dropped that talking point. the immigration legislation currently moving through the senate includes a scaled-back provision that relies almost entirely on the immigrants' coming forward to the internal revenue service voluntarily. critics call it toothless." it is toothless. there's no backtax. my friend karl rove still out here spinning, claiming that you've got some great advantage. we're going to collect all of these backtaxes. nobody is going to investigate these cases, even if the law were clear. we don't have the woul money ane ability to do so, and it's not going to happen. that's just a fact. let's talk about in general some of the other issues that will come before us. i know senator -- my colleague, senator lee, will be joining us on the floor in a little bit and

i'll yield to him if he -- if and when he comes. but i wanted to talk about these promises that we were given by the people who wrote the bill. promised that the path to citizenship would be -- quote -- "contingent upon securing our borders and tracking whether illegal immigrants have left the country when required." that is need. that is fundamentally correct. that was the promise. i'm quoting that. that's one of the gang of eight principles they published. our bill, they say, does that. i wish that were so. a path to citizenship would be -- quote -- "contingent upon securing our borders and tracking whether legal immigrants have left the country when required."

but in truth, the bill is amnesty first and a promise of enforcement later. and with regard to tracking immigrants who left the country when they're required to, it devastates and weakens current law. so that can never happen effectively. it's unbelievable to me that they would pass a bill that directly contradicts current law. on "meet the press," not too long ago, senator schumer, one of the gang of eight, said it flat-out, he acknowledged the promise of enforcement first is not going to happen. he said -- quote -- "first people will be legalized. then we'll make sure the border is secure." so instead of enforcement first, it's legalization first. that's plain as day.

it's not even disputed any longer. the illegal immigrants will be legalized immediately and not a single border or interior enforcement measure has to be in place then or ever. and all secretary napolitano needs to do is submit two reports to congress. illegal immigrants will then begin receiving legal status, work permits, social security accounts, drivers licenses, travel documents and other state benefits, financial benefits that come from the states. nothing requires that any border security be in place, any fence be built before this amnesty is ever accomplished. we were told we were going to have a trigger. and until the fences were built, until other enforcement mechanisms were undertaken, until that happened, you weren't going to have amnesty.

but it's not so. all the secretary needs to do is submit a report, and she's already said we've got better enforcement than ever in history and indicated she does not believe we need more fencing. so the contention from the gang of eight that we were going to have a major building of fencing at the pwor -- border has not been proven out. frank sharry, head of the proamnesty group as i noted, he said -- quote -- "triggers are based on developing plans." she's supposed to develop a plan, the secretary of homeland security. so he says -- quote -- "the triggers are based on developing plans and spending money not underreaching that effectiveness, which is really quite clever." close quote. what mr. sharry is saying is,

first he kind of let the cat out of the bag. he said it is a faux trigger, a trigger that is not real. he said it was quite clever, and indeed it is. but now it's becoming clear that what's been promised is not happening. so you can say to the american people, don't be taken in on this. you can see it now. make your voices heard. follow this debate. and if the promises for this bill are not followed, then let your voice be heard in congress. tell your congressman you're not happy. tell your senator you've got to do better. because the whole gist of this, the whole crux of this is to, if we have an amnesty, if we have a very generous, compassionate treatment of people who violated

our laws and come here, shouldn't we have a policy that ends illegality in the future? that's what the american people have demanded for 30 years. they are good and decent. that is an absolutely proper thing for them to demand of congress. and we're not doing it. and it's heartbreaking to me that we're here going through this process with a bill that's flawed as this one. as time goes by, we'll talk more about it. i see my friend, the senator from utah, the senator -- senata fabulous addition to the judiciary committee, where this legislation moved, contributed in many, many able ways to the discussion offering excellent amendments; a skilled lawyer and a man who is deeply committed to the principles of law and made our country great.

i yield the floor, mr. president. mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, today i rise in favor of immigration reform. the current immigration system is a travesty. it's inefficient. it's uncompassionate. and it's dangerous. it doesn't serve america's economic or social interests, and it undermines respect for the rule of law while simultaneously undermining respect for our democratic institutions. comprehensive reform is badly needed and long overdue. the comprehensive immigration reform i envision includes real border security, visa modernization, employment verification, robust programs or both high -- for both high and

low-skilled workers and a compassionate approach to those in the country illegally. but i believe each of these vital components must be addressed sequentially in order to assure meaningful results. i understand our reluctance to admit it but congress is very, very bad at overhauling and creating massive bureaucratic systems at once. every new law no matter how big carries with it unintended consequences and the bigger local law, the more accidental problems that we tend to create. history teaches us that trying to fix lots of problems all at once is the surest way to avoid fixing any of them very well. obamacare is and will continue to make our health care system worse, not better. it promised to lower health insurance premiums, yet they're exploding all across the country. the dodd-frank financial reform measure was supposed to end too

big to fail and prevent another financial meltdown. and yet, fannie mae and freddie mac are still on the taxpayers' books. and today the very biggest banks on wall street are bigger than ever. did the american people have any idea that the patriot act would spwour the national -- empower the national security agency to spy on all americans through their cell phones and computers? what makes any of us, least of all any conservative, believe this immigration bill is going to work out any better? the lesson we should be taking from our recent mistakes is not that we need to pass better huge, sweeping new laws, but that we should instead undertake major necessary reforms incrementally, one step at a time, and in the proper sequence. we need to face the fact that thousand-page bureaucratic overhaul do not achieve their desired goals, and they create far more problems than they tend to solve.

we can achieve comprehensive immigration reform without having to pass another thousand-page bill full of loopholes, carveouts and unintended consequences. therefore, from my perspective, there's no one amendment that can fix this bill. indeed, there's no series of tinkering changes that will turn this mess of a bill into the reform the country needs and that americans deserve. the only way to guarantee successful reform of the entire system is through a series of incremental reforms that ensure the foundational pieces like the border security visas and effective entry-exit system are done first and done correctly. such a commonsense process will allow congress and, more importantly, will allow the american people to monitor policy changes as they're implemented with each step. that way we can isolate and fix

unintended consequences before they grow out of control and before we move on to the next phase. a step-by-step approach would also allow congress to move quickly on those measures on which republicans and democrats both tend to agree. we ought not hold commonsense and essential measures hostage to unavoidably contentious ones and that's what this bill does. both sides largely agree on many essential elements. these measures are relatively uncontroversial and could pass incrementally with broad bipartisan support in congress. indeed, the only reason immigration reform is controversial is that congress reap fuses to adopt the incremental -- refuses to adopt the incremental approach. that is why true immigration reform must be pursued step by step, with individual reform measures implemented and verified in the proper sequence. happily for immigration reformers like me, this appears

to be the approach being pursued by the house of representatives. it's the only one that makes sense. first of all, let's secure the border. let's set up a workable entry-exit system and create a reliable employment verification system that protects immigrants, protects citizens and protects businesses from bureaucratic mistakes. then let's fix our legal immigration system to make sure we're letting in the immigrants our economy needs in numbers that make sense for our country. there's no good reason why we must or even why we should try to do these things all at once, all in one bill, all in the same legislative package. once these and other tasks which are plenty big in and of themselves are completed to the american people's satisfaction, then we can address the needs of current undocumented workers with justice, compassion and sensitivity.

since the beginning of this year, more than 40 immigration-related bills have been introduced in the house and the senate. by a rough count i could support more than half of them. eight of them have republican and democratic cosponsors. we could -- we should not risk progress on these and other bipartisan reforms simply because we're unable to iron out each and every one of the more contentious issues. this is not the bill to fix our immigration system. now i want to pass immigration reform. i want to debate immigration reform. and that is exactly why we should not proceed to the gang of eight bill. we're being presented with a choice between the gang of eight bill or nothing. commonsense, recent history and the ongoing legislative process of the house of representatives confirmed that that is a false choice. there is another way.

it's a more sensible and a more successful way. we can do better than another 1,000-page mistake. haven't we learned our lesson in this regard? isn't it time that we tried? rather than fix our current immigration problems, the gang of eight bill will make many of them worse. it's not immigration reform. it's big government dysfunction. all advocates of true immigration reform on the left and on the right should oppose it. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from balance bam. mr. sessions: i'd ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: and i would ask consent, mr. president, that i be allow it engage in a colloquy with senator lee. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. sessions: mr. president, i thank the senator for his comments and his insight and

contribution to the debate. his clear mind and thinking that rulely -- it's clear mind and thinking that really causes us to analyze how to handle things. the problem we have today at the most fundamental level is that in 198 7, as senator grassley has been so passionate and so clear about -- voted for the 1987 amnesty. and amnesty occurred immediately and there was a promise of enforcement in the future. and so in senator grassley's view, and the view of the american people, by a 4-1 margin, a recent poll just said, let's have the enforcement first. then we'll talk about amnesty. all right? so, senator lee, you offered an amendment that kind of dealt with this process. under the legislation that we have here, the question of

enforcement is almost entirely given to the secretary of homeland security, who's basically said, enforcement the is good now; we don't need anymore enforcement and that she would basically certify or establish whether or not we have an effective border and enforcement system. and, if not -- and she just had to issue a report -- then you could turn it over to a nation had no power and -- turn it over to a commission that had no power and they could review it. so that really absolves congress of the responsibility. from that background, you offered a very interesting amendment that i think places responsibility for enforcement where it should be. would you explain your thinking. mr. lee: i certainly would. i would be happy to. in the judiciary committee on which the? er from alabama and -- in the judiciary committee on which the senator from alabama and i both sit, during the markup session

on this bill, we were able to propose a number of amendments. one that i proposed, lee amendment number 4, addressed this very problem, the problem inherent in the fact that much of what this bill accomplishes is to outsource and delegate many of the delicate task, many of the delicate decisions that have to be made along the way in the implementation of this bill. outsource to the secretary of homeland security, the task of coming up with a border security plan and border fencing plan and once those plans are in place and once the secretary makes the necessary findings under the bill, which she has basically complete discretion to do, then the r.p.i. status begins, the pathway to citizenship commences, and citizen shimon peres from that moment -- and citizenship from that moment forward for those who meet the basic eligibility standards because more or less a

certainty, becomes very, very likely. so my understanding was that congress would have no input. etch of us has been elected. each of our colleagues in the house of representatives has been elected to that body to make decisions, to make law and not simply to make outside lawmakers who will make incremental piece pieces of lawe outside. each of us will stand accountable on six-year periods in this body to the voters who placed us here. each of us should have the opportunity to decide whether and to what extent the border has adequately been secured, whether and to what extent we have enough fencing along the border to allow us to begin this legalization process and the pathway to citizenship. so lee amendment number 4 to this bill would have said, simply, that the r.p.i. status, this pathway, would not have

competenccommenced until such tt congress had the chance to vote, to vote on whether or not we had made sufficient progress toward securing the border and fencing the border before the period of legalization started. the very simple question -- and it is the question that lies at the heart of the concerns surrounding this very bill -- the request he that lies at the heart -- the question that lies at the heart of the lingering concerns of what we did back in 1986. i was only 14 years old at the time that that debate commenced so it was not in the forefront of my mind, though it should have been. but the lingering concerning surrounding what happened in 1986 relates to the fact that congress said in effect we're going to legalize the several million people who are here illegally right now and then once and for all we're going to secure the border. we're going to stop the flow of illegal immigration once and for

all. well, it didn't happen because they sort of put it off and they said at some unknown point in the future the border will in fact be secure. this would have solved that problem. it at least would have kept members of congress on the hook for finding that the border was adequately secure by obtaining a vote before the pathway to legalization commenced. to my frustration and dismay, it was rejected and it was rejected along the lines of a particular odd argument. the argument went something like thisthis, from those who profess their undying loyalty to the gang of eight bill, as it was original lid drafted. the argument said, in essence, we cannot adopt lee amendment number 4 because we can't trust congress to do the right thing. we can't trust congress to do what we want congress to do. in particulars the argumenin pas made that we can't be certain

that the house of representatives, currently under the control of the republican party, will in fact vote to commence the legalization process. well, if that's the case, aren't we really saying we can't trust the democratic process? if that's the case, aren't we really saying that the american people aren't yet comfortable with that? so i'd ask my colleague from alabama, why cannot -- why should we not trust the elected representatives of the american people to make critical decisions like these? and why should we instead outsource them to someone who, having been appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate, doesn't reresponsibility spond, at least -- doesn't respond, at least not directly, to the people? mr. sessions: i would say this is a very important amendment and i think it reveals a lot, as you just have indicated. you know, when we vote on an amnesty bill and if that were to

pass, the senators voting for it are basically promising the american people, giving assurances to the american people that they will end the illegality in the future. because, as i noted, the polls are 4-1 that you should have the enforcement before you give amnesty and the reason is a lack of confidence. so, senator lee, i think, if your bill will been passed, it would place some burden on us, a moral obligation to stand before the world at a point in time in the future and declare whether or not we've accomplished what we've promised the american people we would do. is that the way -- part of your thinking? mr. lee: yes. that is exactly why i introduced lee amendment number 4 in the committee and why i think it should have been passed. it is because the whole reason why we entrust the legislative

power only to people who are elected at regular intervals and stand accountable to their electors at regular intervals is because of the fact that it is perhaps the most dangerous power of government. you know, we can do a the love damage when we make law, and, as a result of that potential for damage, that potential for harm that we can inflict on the people, we have to stand accountable in in incremental te periods of either six years or two years to make sure that we don't abuse that power. and that's why it's so harmful when we take that very dangerous potentially destructive power and we outsource it. now, to some extent in different ways this has been going on for many decades. it started more or less during the new deal era when congress discovered that, as the federal government was dramatically expanding, congress physically couldn't come up with the immense and steadily building task of legislating, of doing

all the law making, all the rule making that it needed to do, and so it started passing broader pieces of legislation, setting out very broad objectives, and then outsourcing to some outside bodies, sometimes a cabinet-level official, other times a so-called independent commission, to do the real law making. now, congress during this time period discovered an interesting and important tool. during this time period, it discovered that, you know, sometimes we, as members of congress, are not going to like the way that the outside body or the outside official within the executive branch might exercise this delegated law-making authority. so we'll reserve to ourselves, we'll reserve to congress, an out, a legislative veto, it it t became known. in some instances, this legislative veto allowed either

house of congress -- either the house or the senate -- to undo a rule maying or an important -- to undo a rule making or an important decision. in other conveyings, it required -- in other cases, it required dosh -- the president could then sign or veto that legislative veto. this went on for several decades. it went on until the mid-1980's when the supreme court interveninged in a case called i.n.s. v. chatta, occurring in the specific context of a decision by the attorney general to exercise delegated authority from congress to issue a discretionary waiver of deportability to an otherwise removable alien. the supreme court said that this legislative veto was itself unconstitutional, because it

amounted, in essence, to a subsequent enactment by congress that was not subject to the presentment requirement of article 1, section 7, of the constitution. thus, the supreme court concluded in i.n.s. v. chatta, the legislative veto process was itself unconstitutional, it was invalid, it was stricken. now, some might have predicted that, as of the moment of the issuance of this decision in i.n.s. v. chatta, that congress would say, that's it, we're not going to delegate this much authority anymore, because we can't trust these outside officials, these outside entities within the executive branch of government to do the law making. that's our job. but that's not what happened. shockingly, in the eyes of some, congress continued to delegate its law-making authority left and right. if anything, it has accelerated its gel gas emissions of law-making -- its delegation of law-making authority.

in part because members of congress like, first and foremost, to wash their hands of things, in the grand tradition of pontius pilate, we're sometimes inclined to wash our hands of things and push important decisions off to someone else to make them, someone else who can take accountability for those decisions. makes it easier for us, and in some ways that's what's happening here. in some ways that's what we're doing here, by pushing off to the secretary of homeland security the decision to make a decision that we ourselves ought to be making. that decision ought to rest here so that we ourselves can be held accountable. we are not sovereigns unto ourselves. we certainly ought not be making sovereigns out of someone else who need not stand accountable to the people. mr. sessions: i think that's a very wise insight, and on the question of immigration,

congress has been irresponsible. the american people have pleaded with us to end the illegality and create a lawful system that serves the national interest, a system that we can be proud of, and for 30 years congress just fails. and your amendment requiring that vote by congress to assure that we've done what we promised reminds me of what happened in 2007. another bill was -- an omnibus, comprehensive immigration bill was on the floor. i opposed that bill. it was stronger than this bill, in a lot of ways. imu it failed because it -- but it failed because we didn't have confidence about the future. and in the course of that debate, i think maybe shortly after the bill failed, we'd had an amendment to build a certain amount of fencing on the border. and i offered it.

and it passed overwhelmingly. republicans and democrats, virtually everybody voted to build more fencing at the border, 700 miles out of about 1,700-mile border. and everybody was for it. but that's just the first vote, as our colleagues know. the second vote is will anybody appropriate any money to build a fence. not long afterwards up comes an appropriations bill for homeland security, and it had no money for the fencing. so our colleagues going back home, i voted to build a fence, but here we have a bill on the floor that doesn't have any money to build a fence. the fence wasn't going to get built. so i raised cane about it and fussed and fussed and sort of mocked the congress for one moment saying you're going to do something and not stepping up to the plate a little later. and they put money in for the

fence. but you know what happened? the double-layered fencing that was required, 700 miles of it, only 30 were built. they came out with this idea of a virtual fence. airplanes and computers and radars, i guess. it was a total failure. we spent $1 billion. it was abandoned. it's only about 30 miles of double fencing. a number of, 100 or so miles of automobile barriers. and it was never built. if we had to vote again to affirm what we did in a year, i think that would make it more likely from my experience here about how this body works, would make it more likely what we promised would get done. do you agree? mr. lee: i think that would i --

i think that would make a big difference. the fact that we would have to vote on it would have an impact on the executive branch of government whose job it is to implement jobs we pass. the executive branch of government would know they have a duty, a duty would he would be following up on -- a duty we would be following up not on some amorphous oversight committee context but we would be emphasizing oversight in a real way in the fact that we would have to vote on whether they had done something adequately in a specified period of time. thrapbld be consequence -- and there would be consequences, very real consequences if we were to refuse to exercise this vote. this vote would go through the normal process. it would be debated, discussed and acted upon in both houses of congress and then submitted to the president for signature or veto and would be consistent with the presentment clause of the constitution.

some have suggested that this might be a bad idea because it would perhaps get held up through some procedural mechanism or another. but the way the amendment was written, that would not in fact be the effect. this would be a privileged motion through which it could come to the floor. it would go through the senate on a 51-vote threshold and would, therefore, be able to move through quite quickly. that's why it's important for this kind of mechanism to be in a bill like this. mr. sessions: i just want to thank you because the danger, the problem that's so very real, as senator grassley has so eloquently discussed, is one thing to grant amnesty today. it's another to see in the future that we've followed through on a system that will end illegality in america. and senator leahy, you're a -- senator lee, you're a good

lawyer and been involved in a number of these issues. it's clear the immigration lawyers association of the country was involved in the drafting of this legislation. i don't say it was all done just for their personal gain, but did you notice quite a number of alterations in current law that gave more flexibility, more uncertainty where the law says thus and so, but it can be waived for hardship or family problems or other matters? and as a lawyer, what at first glance would be an open-and-shut case where your client's in the country illegally and due to be deported, now the client can demand a trial and perhaps overload the system.

everybody claims hardship. everybody claims some other exception to the rule. and we could have -- is there a danger that our whole enforcement system could be bogged down in litigation we never had before? mr. lee: yes, it certainly could be, and it certainly would be if at the end of the day you have literally hundreds of instances of secretarial discretion built into the bill. if every one of these important decisions that have to be made along the way or through the process of legal immigration, if any of the critical decisions that have to be made along the way are subject to certain rules but those rules can be waived by the secretary at the secretary's unfettered discretion, it's not much of a law. it becomes something else. it becomes a set of guidelines with ultimate discretionary

decision-making vested in the secretary. and that's something very different than a law. now, i don't doubt that there were lots of people who had input on this bill. nor do i necessarily blame any one group for being involved. they have every right to give their input into a law. but at the end of the day we have to ask the question whose job is it to legislate? it's not their decision to legislate the accountability, to legislate or the accountability for flaws in this bill. therefore, must not rest with any outside group, with any group of lawyers or activists of any stripe or at any end of the political spectrum. the accountability for the legislation that moves through this body must rest ultimately with us. and that includes legislation that gives someone else the effective power to legislate as this one does in literally

hundreds of instances. so if at the end of the day this bill, assuming it's passed out of this body and passed by the house of representatives and signed into law by the president, if this bill at the end of the day says, for instance, that the secretary may at her discretion waive certain exclusions, waive exclusions that would otherwise prevent somebody from entering on to the pathway to citizenship on grounds that they had reentered the country after previously being deported, that's a pretty big issue. because at that moment somebody who reentered the country after previously being deported, they've committed a felony. the point has been made many times that it's not necessarily a crime to enter this country illegally. it's considered by most to be a civil violation, but that changes when you've been previously deported.

a previously deported illegal alien who reenters following deportation has committed a felony offense. so if the legislation that we're considering now becomes law, and if at the end of the day as enacted it allows for those people to enter into a pathway to citizenship, i think that's cause for concern. it's one of many areas in which we need to be very cautious in granting this much discretion to the secretary of homeland security. now it's interesting, senator sessions. i got a letter from a woman in my home state of utah, a woman who is a schoolteacher in american fork, utah. she's an immigrant to this country. she's here on a nonimmigrant visa. she sent me a letter saying i've spent years of my life and thousands of dollars emigrating

to this country legally, the right way. i have a job. it's a good job, a job that i love, a job teaching school. but i'm here on a visa, and that visa expires in a few years. and i know that when that visa expires, unless somehow i'm able to get that visa extended, unless i'm able to get another visa, i will be sent home. i will have to leave this country. and it breaks my heart, she wrote, that at the same time that i'm going to have to leave this country there will be lots of people, in fact 11 million or more, who are currently here illegally, who have broken the law in coming here, many of whom have been working here illegally, who will not only be allowed to stay, not only be allowed to stay in their current job, but be put on a pathway to citizenship. she said this seems like a profound unfairness that we're rewarding those who have broken

the law. we're punishing people who like me, the schoolteacher who came here on a nonimmigrant visa, have spent years of their lives and thousands of dollars trying to do it the right way. don't you think that's cause for concern, cause for concern that relates to this excessive granting of discretion? mr. sessions: i couldn't agree more. when you're -- as i had the honor to do, prosecute violations of federal law for over 14 years and you feel a deep abiding sense that fairness has to occur because you're putting somebody in jail for a period of time, you're saying you don't get this money if they made a claim you can't give them, even though they might benefit but they just don't qualify, and you do these things day after day, and you have to believe that the system works. and with regard to immigration,

it's so deeply important, so deeply important that people who wait in line whorbgs -- who do the thing the right way feel like that others aren't getting away with it, that aren't beating the system. then they feel like chumps. they feel like they have been had by the system. and it's such a deep moral responsibility not just for the federal prosecutors -- and the ones i know feel deeply about this. they feel really that sense, because you kabt -- can't do your job every day and go to bed and sleep if you feel like everybody -- and you do a tough job one day. you don't qualify for disability. you don't qualify for money. you have to go to jail. guidelines say you go. the next guy comes along and guidelines don't apply to him. the next guy comes along, they file a claim, he gets the money and you didn't.

it is so critical for the magnificent legal heritage of our country that the law be followed equally. and anybody that suggests that this amnesty that will occur has no moral consequences, do not understand the depth of the question involved. so if we do it and if we do something very compassionate for people who are here illegally, the american people are correct to say do not let it happen again. do not let this happen again. the way the law should work in america, you come legally, okay. you don't come legally, you get deported. that's what the law is. that's what it should be. anything less than that cannot be defended morally. can't be defended constitutionally. can't be defended legal. can't be defended as a matter of policy.

so people blithely suggest that we can just reward a person that came in this country illegally 18 months ago, never had a job, but because they weren't caught and deported in the interim, they get to stay here legally forever and be on a guaranteed path to citizenship whereas your friend has to go back home, the lady that wrote you. this is -- we cannot treat this lightly. so if we do this thing -- and i'm prepared to work on it and try to do it in a good way -- we absolutely have to do it in a way that doesn't damage too much the rule of law. it will damage the rule of law because it's a violation of the rule of law to reward somebody who came illegally, give them the benefit of their act, someone robs a bank and you catch them, they got the money, they have to give the money back. they don't get to keep the money.

you don't get to keep the benefits of your activity normally. so we're willing to reconsider that. we're willing to as a nation compassionately -- and i think the american people are willing to do this. but don't you feel, senator lee, that there's a strong sense that people are uneasy about it? they know this isn't -- they don't like having it, that this is the thing that they feel like they must do. but they know that it isn't a good thing. it should be avoided in the future. mr. lee: the american people are a compassionate people. they are people who welcome immigrants because we're a nation of immigrants, and we always have been. and i think most of us hope that we always will be. we want people to continue to come to this country. and it's this sense of compassion that causes many of us to feel some sense of concern about this particular legislation. because this legislation goes

far beyond simply showing compassion. this legislation in some ways is the opposite of compassion when you consider it from the perspective of those, who like this woman who wrote this letter to me, have come here legally. and those who, unlike her, have not yet gotten here but have waited in some cases for years outside the united states, spending a lot of money and a lot of time hoping and praying that one day they too will get to emigrate to this country legally. we do them a great disservice when we say that your effort, the time, the blood, sweat, and tears that you've devoted to this process is all for naught, because all you had to do was come here illegally and you would have been put not just on a pathway to legalization, but on a pathway to citizenship. this was one of the more enlightening moments of the senate judiciary committee markup of this bill, was that when our friend and our colleague, the junior senator

from texas introduced an amendment that would have done one simple thing to adjust that process, all hell broke loose. senator cruz introduced an amendment that said, would have left everything else about the bill intact. it would have made everything else in the bill identical to what it says now but with only one change. it would have said that those people who enter into r.p.i. status, enter into the pathway to legalization would not ultimately become citizens. they could ultimately become lawful, permanent residents or the functional equivalent thereof, but they would not become citizens under the bill. everything else would be left intact. so they would be allowed to come in -- come out from under the shah dorks they would be allowed to stay here and work here. we could have a debate over whether that would be the right approach. but this particular amendment

focused on the citizenship aspect of it, yet you would have thought, by the treks this, that this was -- by the reaction to this that this was offering up something draconian because the opponents of this bill couldn't been -- the proponents of this bill couldn't even handle that change, let's have some consequence that this group of people entered here illegally. let's not put them ton a path to citizenship so they can vote and all the other rights. so i do think this is strange. i do think that the american people, not in spite of the fact that they are compassionate, but because of the fact that they are compassionate, deserve more than to have the rule of law turned on its head and deserve more than to have those who have taken the time and spended the energy and the financial

resources to immigrate here illegally, have their sacrifice deny greated to the point that it means nothing or less than nothing. mr. sessions: that is a very interesting insight that you made. i believe senator schumer was particularly hostile to that amendment and said, without citizenship, there is no reform. in other words, we won't agree to anything. that's absolutely nonnegotiable. but i thought about it a lot during 2007 and that bill and have been thic thinking about it since. i believe that after 1986, where we gave amnesty and citizenship with a promise of enforcement and that didn't happen, we promised it well-know it wouldnn again, this was a one-time amnesty that wouldn't happen again, that it should be the clear policy of the united states, if you enter the country illegally, you do not get everybody benefit, everything

single thing that america can provide, does provide people that enter lawfully. and i don't believe that we should and certainry we are not required -- and seniorly with we are not required to provide -- and certainly we are not required to provide citizen hispanic t--citizen hispanic too entered unlawfully. to condition the whole bill on attacking senator cruz's amendment, i thought, was odd and revealing, as you did. it was a surprise to me and in the intensity of the push back on that. but i don't believe it should happen. and i don't think it should. so the person would be able to legalize, get legal permanent resident status, be able to participate in america, of course their children would be citizens, but you don't get everything if you come illegally.

and a rather brilliant piece recently by yale graduate lawyer breen, and he talked about the military. so we act like somebody comes into this country illegally, it's just unthinkable that they would be required to move themselves back to where they came from. and his comment was, we tell our military guys all the time to move your family, go to west texas, go to alabama, go to germany, go to japan, go to korea, spend 18 months in iraq, with your life on the line, leave your family. they do it all the time. so you come to this country under a lawful condition that you can come for so many months and you volunteer. you sign up. i come in, i get to stay so many years, and i'm supposed to go home. is this somehow unkind?

is this immoral? they expect those people when their time is up that they ask for to go home. the reality -- some of the thinking that came up in the committee seemed to be totally oblivious to this fundamental concept. you have certain requirements. you're not allowed to pay a guide and come across the border illegally and 18 months later demand a pathway to citizenship in the united states. it's just not law. it's just -- i don't know what that is, but it's not law. it's not the way principled policies should be executed. but we're willing to consider and work through a process, and i've said for sometime, people have been here a long time and they've done well, and we want to be compassionate. we can work through it. but it's -- when we come through the system, we need to have no

doubt in the future -- no doubt in the future -- that somebody who overstays a visa, somebody who comes into the country i i will lylely, is going to be deported. if we don't make that commitment intellectually and morally and legally, then we have really guaranteed we'll have another one, don't you think? -- another amnesty fight and sadness and the integrity of our immigration law will be further degraded? mr. lee: as surely as past is prologue, this will happen again if we do it in the wrong sequence. sequencing matters. when i was six or seven years old, my mother pointed tou out e that you don't try to butter the toast before you toast it. there are all kinds of examples that we could come up with where you need to follow the right sequence. if you don't follow the proper sequence, you will not get the

results you want. this is note another area where the sequence matters. now, i am convinced that we can treat those 11 million people who are currently here i will iy with the dignity, respect, and compassion that we want to treat them with as americans. i'm convinced that we can find way to do that. i'm convinced that we can find a broad-based, bipartisan solution to do precisely that. i'm less convinced that it makes any sense to do that now before we fix the underlying problem. again, it is a matter of simple sequencing. we have got to first stop the flow of illegal immigration. once we've stopped that flow, we'll be in a better position to better ascertain the needs of those here illegally. along those lines, ired i'd lio address an issue that sometimes comes up with this. sometimes arguments are made by

the proponents of this bill that if you don't support this bill, not just if you don't support immigration reform generally, but if you don't support this particular bill, that you're somehow anti-immigrant or you're an uncompass national person, that your heart is made of stone, that your ribs are made of concrete and that you have no heart. i think that's a reckless and irresponsible argument. that is an argument that is beneath the dignity of this body. during the committee's markup of this legislation, one of our colleagues dish think it was the junior senator from texas -- introduced another amendment, an amendment that in some way would have limited the ability of those currently illegally in the country to participate in certain entitlement benefits, certain antipoverty benefits that would otherwise be available to them; perhaps www.the earned-income tax credit, i don't know the exact provision.

but it would have had some broa application to make sure that those who were here currently i illegally would not during this r.p.i. period be able to benefit from federally funded entitlements. to my great dismay, one of our colleagues on that committee who was an avid supporters of this bill personally attacked the junior senator from texas simply for having introduced that amendment. it wasn't enough for him to say, i agree with this amendment, or i think this amendment is bad policy. he it went something like this, "you don't care about these people you don't care about their children. you're willing to let their children remain hungry and uneducated. you don't care about them. you are not compassionate." with respect, i think that kind of comment has no place here. it's not helpful. it's not productive. and it's something that

completely clouds the issue. it is because we are compassionate that we do need to ask these questions. look, we're in a difficult spot as a country. we're trying to do everything we can to make solvent those programs that are designed specifically to alleviate some of the needs of the most vulnerable in our society. and unless we make sure that we're in a position economically to be able to sustain those programs, we're going to run out of money. and when we run out of money, it will be the poor, it will be the vulnerable who suffer most as a result of our inact to payer to -- our inability to pay for those programs. with respect, i would advise all of my clerk colleagues, particuy those who have made comments like that one, to resist the temptation that some of them have succumbed to in recent weeks to say that anyone who opposes this bill is somehow uncompassionate. it is because we are

compassionate that we have to ask difficult questions. it is because we are compassion that the that we've which have to proposed -- that we have to propose amendments in order to make the programs that society's most vulnerable have come to depend more sustainable. mr. sessions: i am glad you mentioned that because we have to have an honest discussion about what is in the national interest of the united states and how immigration fits into that an and, first and foremosto we want to have a lawful system or not? do we want to allow lawlessness to continue in the future? that's not unkind to talk about that. prime minister cameron of the u.k. in london recently made this remark. they are wrestling with immigration and how to do it the right way in the united kingdom. he said, "there are those who

say you can't have a sensible debate because it's somehow wrong to express concerns about immigration." now, i think that's nonsense." close quote. i think we can have a sensible discussion about it and we ask about how many people, what skills they should possess, what america would benefit from most in the immigrants that come to our country, what immigrants ims will be most likely to be successful and flourish and do well. we know statistics establish that people who come with about two years of college and speak english, almost all do very well. but people that come without high school di diplomas, they dt do as well. so if we can't accept anybody, we ought to develop a system that most can be -- can be the most successful and take

advantage of america. it would be helpful. prime minister cameron goes on to say, "well, i've always believed in the benefits of immigration. i've also always believed that immigration has to be properly controlled. without proper controls, community confidence is sapped, and the benefits that immigration can bring are lost or forgotten." close quote. so i just -- i think that's somewhat in line with the points you were making. i see the chairman of the judiciary committee, senator leahy, who has wrestled with these issues longer than i have. and he conducted a hearing that allowed a large number of amendments, and although unfortunately some of the members, even if they liked our amendments wouldn't agreamendmeo

vote for them. but we have a product process that has allowed some airing of the details of the bill and a lot of amendments were offered. senator lee, thank you for participating in this discussion. thank you for coming to the senate with fresh ideas and enthusiasm and passion for america, for the rule of law, for the proper functioning of our branches of government, and classical constitutional heritage of this nation. i'm honored to serve with you. mr. lee: thank you. mr. sessions: i would yield the floor. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i was here earlier on this as had been the distinguished presiding officer and now we have another distinguished presiding officer.

madam president, it is good to see you here as a member of the senate judiciary committee. and as the presiding officer knows, the senate judiciary committee held lengthy and extensive public markup sessions with the board of security and economic opportunity and immigration and modernization act, s. 744. we worked late into the evenings. we also started pretty early in the morning. we debated the bill. we considered hundreds of amendments. but the public saw our consideration firsthand. we streamed everything we did on the internet, and it was broadcast on television. to call the proposed amendments republican and democratic alike, we put them on our web site, we

updateed the committee's web site to include adopted amendments in real time. i heard from people all over the country that they felt they actually had involvement in what we were doing, which is what i wanted, and i appreciate the fact that both republicans and democrats, members from both sides of the aisle, praised the transparent process and also praised the significant improvements to the bill made by the judiciary committee. in fact, the markup process followed three additional hearings on top of all the others we had had, with 26 witnesses, and the bill as amended was supported by a bipartisan two-thirds majority of the committee. i sent that bill s. 744 to the senate on behalf of the judiciary committee. i'm filing an extensive committee report as well.

i hope that the report is going to be a valuable resource for senators. it explains not only the underlying provisions in the legislation and its history, it also summarizes all of the amendments that were adopted and also those that were rejected. so in order for all senators to be able to file amendments and work on this bill, of course the senate first needs to proceed to the bill. i had hoped that would not affect these proceedings. senators from both sides of the aisle worked together to develop this legislation. senators from both sides of the aisle had amendments adopted by the judiciary committee. almost none of the more than 135 amendments adopted by the judiciary committee were adopted on party-line votes, unlike this week's vote in the house in which nearly every member of the

republican conference stood together to prevent dreamers from being able to stay in our country. the one thing that ought to unite all of us are the aspects of the dream act. these young people are here through no fault of their own. they have enriched our nation. they have enriched this debate. i'm proud that the senate is considering exclusive legislation that supports it. and i hope the fair process in the senate, barring problems actually in the other chamber. i don't know how anybody who professes to care about family values, who professes to care about other people can sit down with these young people, the dreamers, and not be moved, and not want them to have the same advantages that our children, our grandchildren have.

the dysfunction in our current immigration system affects all of us. it's long past time for reform. as members of the senate judiciary committee from both parties said at the conclusion of our proceedings, this is a matter of great significance to the american people, and the senate should debate it, but the senate is being delayed from doing so by a small minority of opponents. this is not a time to have a tiny handful stop a debate. madam president, we senators, there is only 100 of us, 99 now with the loss of our dear friend frank lautenberg, but you take a senate of 100 people, we represent over 300 million americans. they are counting on us not to use stalling tactics but to stand up, vote for or vote

against, but stand up. when you stall and refuse to let votes come, it's an easy way to say i'm voting maybe. you can go back home and you can be on everybody's side, whether people are for it or people are against it, i'm on your side because nobody can point that you voted one way or the other. that's not what we're elected for. we're elected to stand up, take a position, yes or no. not maybe. legislation we seek to bring before the senate was the result of senators from both sides of the aisle who came together and made an agreement. what was initially a proposal for the so-called gang of eight became to the committee process the product of a group of 18. now let's have a product of a group of 100 representing all states in this country. amendments authored by 17 of

those 18 members were adopted into the bill. 17 of the 18 members of the senate judiciary committee had amendments adopted into the bill. a bipartisan majority of more than two-thirds of the senate judiciary committee voted for the bill the senate is being called upon to consider. now, i'm honored to serve as both the chairman of the senate judiciary committee and the president pro tempore of the united states senate. as an office established in article 1, section 3 of the constitution of the united states. i have been privileged to serve the people of vermont for more than 45 years, the last 38 as their senator. but one thing i've learned many years ago was taught to me by the distinguished majority leader at that time when i came here, senator mike mansfield, is how important it is for senators

to keep their commitments, keep their words, to stay true to their agreements. senators have come together to help develop this bill, do those things. i have no doubt we'll be able to end this filibuster and stop voting maybe, but actually vote up or down and pass this fair but tough legislation on comprehensive immigration reform. our history, our values, our keysency conspires us to take action without the prolonged partisanship that often paralyzes this chamber. we need an immigration system that lives up to american values. this is the time we are called upon to come together. few topics are more fundamental to who we are as a nation than immigration. the statue of liberty has long proclaimed america's welcome, give us your tired, your poor,

your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. send these the homeless, tempest tossed to me. that's what america stood for. that's what we should continue to represent. that's the america that attracted my maternal grandparents from italy to vermont. my paternal great grandparents from ireland to vermont. immigration throughout our history has been an ongoing source of renewal of our spirit, our creativity, our economic strength. our bipartisan legislation establishes a path to earn citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country. it addresses the lengthy backlogs in our current immigration system, backlogs that have kept families apart sometimes for decades. it grants a faster track to the dreamers brought to this country as children through no fault of their own and to agricultural

workers who provided our nation's critical food supply. it makes important changes to the visas used by dairy farmers and the immigrant investors creating jobs in our communities. it addresses the needs of law enforcement, requiring the help of mpts who witness crime, who are victims of domestic violence and human trafficking. it improves the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers so that the united states will remain the beacon of hope in the world. and it's going to make us all safer. this is a measure the senate should come together to consider and pass. we should do what is right, what's fair, what's just. immigration reform is a -- is an important economic issue, a civil rights issue and a fairness issue.

if a majority of us stand together, we stay true to our values and our agreements. i believe we can pass legislation to write the next great chapter in the american history of immigration. those of us who served in the senate who are immigrants understand that. those of us who are children or grandchildren of immigrants understand that. just as my wife's family came to this country and created a better state of vermont. they understood it, as so many come. i know i -- i give a speech at the -- that the distinguished presiding officer knows better than anybody in here. she knows what it is to come to the country and become part of this great country. you can come as an immigrant and

then become a united states senator, and as president pro tempore, i'm delighted to see the acting president pro tempore in the chair, and i will suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the -- consent the time be divided equally. the presiding officer: without objection. and the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from florida mr. nelson:

i ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: madam president, i want to insert in the record, with the permission of the chair, remarks other than the immigration bill about my fondness and respect for senator lautenberg and also remarks on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of one of the largest universities in the nation which happens to be university of central florida located in orlando. so with your permission, i would like those remarks in -- inserted in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: madam president, i would like to address the debate issue in front of the senate. i want to thank the leadership that has been offered with the chairman of the judiciary

committee, which his strong ha hand, his very firm but fair hand has allowed the bill to be here, assisted by very able lieutenants on the judiciary committee, not the least of which is senator schumer of new york, who, as the subcommittee chairman, has been absolutely key. i also want to compliment my colleague from florida, senator rubio. people in this highly partisan, charged atmosphere say, how can a democrat or republican, vice versa, say good things about each other? and, of course, i not only willingly do so but do so at the drop of a hat to give credit where credit is due. and it's too bad that so much of

the discussion is ideologically based on issues and is so partisan charged and tinged, looking for that slight, little advantage in the next election that we get to the point that we can't come together. well, i think what we're going to see on display in the senate over the course of the next several weeks is that the senate can function and it can function in a bipartisan way. and i give no small amount of credit to the bipartisan group of the gang of eight. they have arrived on the scene at the right place, at the right time. now, we've been trying, a number of us in this chamber and

previously when i was a member of the house of representatives, going back to when i was a young congressman, trying to get comprehensive immigration reform. i voted on it in the 1980's. we actually passed a bill. it's instructive that there were less at that time in the 1980's, there were less than 3 million illegal aliens or undocumented, whatever you want to refer to it, in the country. and that attempt at immigration reform failed because there were not the safeguards to make sure that the law was followed, especially among employers to make sure that the people that they were hiring was legal. and as a result, over the

inner -- ensuing decades, the law wasn't followed, and what happened? the amount of undocumented in the country rose from less than 3 million in the 1980's all the way to where it is now, about 11 1/2 million. so the time and the place has arisen to do something about it. it's too bad that it hasn't been done. but what's done is done. now we have a chance to change that. now, if you happen to come from a state like my beloved state of florida that has such a rich mixture in the fabric of our society of so many different peoples from so many different parts of the world, then, of

course, you ought to be a little more sensitive to the broken system that we have. and, thus, it was not unusual that when it came time, that suddenly a case exploded in the newspapers of a child, a dreamer, who had come here as a child with parents who were undocumented. the child never even knew that he or she was not american, and it gets down to the end of their graduation and high school and they want to go off to college or they want to go in the military and, lo and behold, they are now under the order of deportation. and, of course, this senator like many other senators has had to try to intervene in these