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 very egregious cases.

i want to mention one, and it illustrates the ridiculousness of the present system that is so broken. a child brought at age 6 months from the bahamas now grows up in america thinking he is american. he's a floridian. he goes into the army -- now, how he missed the checks there that he was undocumented i don't know but he goes into the army. he serves two tours in iraq. he has a top-secret rating. when he comes back after the two tours, going into the private sector, he enlists in the naval reserves and because of his

top-secret clearance, this particular now navy reservist on active duty is sent to the very sensitive position -- because of his top-secret clearance -- as a photographer at the guantanamo detention facility of the detainees. and he serves that admirably. and somehow in the process after this, back in civilian life, this particular former army, now navy reservist in applying for an application for a passport, answers something incorrectly on the passport application and -- because he

doesn't know that he's not an american. and he gets arrested and he's thrown in jail, and is in jail for three, going on four months, until this senator finds out about this case because i'm reading it in the newspaper, and, of course, once we blew this up to the attention of the public at large, even the federal judge that is asking the prosecutor why in the world are you prosecuting this case, that shows the ridiculousness of the existing law because it is so broken. now, that, of course, had a good outcome. i didn't have a other good outcome while somebody who had a top-secret clearance is sitting in jail for over three months,

but it's illustrative, again, of we've got to do something about the existing system. and thus we have in front of us today a compromise. remember, the art of legislating is respecting the other fella's point of view, reaching out, trying to bridge the differences with the goal that you want to achieve a result. now, there are some here who don't want to achieve that result. and they're going to try to torpedo it, they're going to try to put poison pills that are so seductive as amendments that will kill the bill. they're going to make a lot of the senators on both sides of the aisle take tough votes on things that they would ordinarily support but they're going to have to reject them to keep the integrity of the compromise in order at the end of the day to pass the

immigration reform bill and then hope that we get a big enough vote here so that there's such a momentum and that all the difference advocacy groups, including businesses, farmers, the immigration community, pro-immigration reform community, all of them start to lean heavily on the house of representatives, and maybe at that point we can get the bill passed. and so as we consider this bill to fix this broken immigration system, many of us are going to disagree about details, but deef tot to -- we've got to remember what is the goal at the end of the day. this bill includes important things to secure the borders.

borders are secure now? they're a lot more secure now than they were just a few years ago. they're catching some 60% of all the people that are coming across the border now, but that's not good enough. 40% are still coming across. this bill is going to try to take it up to 90%. they're going to reform the visa program. they're going to make it easier at the end of the day because of the technology that we have where you can swipe the passport that on some countries that desperately have wanted to get into a visa waiver, instead of having families come hundreds of miles to the consulate because of the information that's going to be contained on that

passport, biometric information, we're going to be able to streamline that process. and certainly at the end of the day we're going to be able to supply the work force needs of the country if the employers will follow the law. and so now this reform bill is going to make it mandatory upon those employers to follow the law so that they can have a legal work force instead of what is the case now. don't look, i've got to have them for my business or my farm, my agriculture, whatever the business is. i've got to have them, but don't look. because i know they're illegal. well, that's going to be changed.

and then there's another component. what about those people who came here on a legal visa but now they've overstayed the visa? we're going to be able to check because now with that biometric information, they're going to swipe as they leave the country that information so that it matches up with the information that we got when they came into the country on a legal visa, and now we're going to know who's staying behind. and, by the way, those countries that want to be in the visa waiver program, like china or like brazil -- chile or like brazil and they've got to keep those defaults under 3% of the total visas, lo and behold, now those countries who want to keep the visa waiver to make it easier on their citizens to travel to the u.s., how about

all those brazilians that want to come to disney world? now they have an incentive to help their own people by keeping those defaults under 3% of the total visas for that country. and this reform of the visa program is very, very important. now, what about the people that are here? well, does anybody think that the solution to the problem is deport 11 million people? you can't do that. but if you could, what would happen to this national economy? it would collapse. and so we're going to make a very lengthy path to getting a green card, of which they're going to have to pay fines, they're going to have to pay the taxes, they're going to have to

learn english, and they're going to to go to the end of the line. but they're going to be here legally so they can be employed and they have to stay employed. you don't stay employed, you're out. and anybody who doesn't abide by all of that -- presently we don't have a requirement that you've got to learn english. now they're going to have to learn english. and so anybody who doesn't make all of those requirements is going to have to leave. and so i have just scratched the surface of the bill, but i think you can see that it is a good-faith attempt to bring together all of the interests

using a little common sense to try to reform what is a broken system. and i hope we will get a huge vote out of the senate. i hope this vote exceeds three quarters of the senate and that will send a message to the house. madam president, i yield the floor and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam chair? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: madam president, as we begin to discuss this legislation, the immigration bill that's before us, a lot of people haven't realized it's coming up, a lot of people don't realize the breadth of it, a lot of people are concerned about it. we've gotten a lot of phone calls in my office, people are wondering who's speaking up about the bill and they want to know what's in the bill. i think that's a big part of what we should be doing in the days to come. going over the bill in a careful way concerning the -- any progress that the bill makes and

any deficiencies that the legislation has. as i noted previously, the fundamental challenge that we must recognize based on the way congress works and the difficulty it has had with these issues over the last number of years, that is, we have to be sure that once the amnesty is granted that there is enforcement in the future. and so in 1986, that bill, as senator grassley has so passionately delineated, he voted for it, amnesty was given, three million people, but the enforcement never occurred and now we have 11 million people here illegally. and this cannot happen again. if we allow this to happen again, we will have eviscerated

any ability that we have to ask people to comply with the law. because people who don't comply with the law aren't held to account. and there's nothing wrong with saying that a person can come to america under certain conditions for certain periods of time and then they must leave. and if they don't leave, and they're apprehended, they should be deported. we're at a condition today where nobody is being deported. if you asked your law officers in whatever city and county you're in -- and this has been going on since before president obama took office -- you ask them what happens if they catch somebody that was speeding in their town, in alabama or indiana or colorado, and they discover they're here illegally, what happens? isn't this a fundamental question?

well, what happens is they turn them loose. you ask them, your law officers. because nobody will come and get them. the federal government is -- reached a point now where virtually no one is being deported except those convicted of serious crimes. and it's led to the i.c.e. union, the immigration customs enforcement officers who deal with deportations and arrests, these officers voting no confidence in the head of the i.c.e. department, joe morton, the head man, john morton. no confidence. i've never heard of that. then in addition they have opposed this bill. they said it makes things worse. it will increase the likelihood of -- it would diminish america's national security, and it will make the bill better. so have the association, the

union for customs citizenship and immigration service that deals with the visas and -- deals with the citizenship processing and all of that. they have opposed the bill, saying it would make the situation worse than present law, which is completely not being enforced today. that's what we are wrestling with here overall, and i know the american people need to get alert to this. so we have been told by the supporters of the legislation don't worry, we're going to have the toughest enforcement legislation in history. senator schumer said tough as nails, the toughest ever. well, it's not in the bill. so what happened in 1987 was once the amnesty was given, everybody forgot in the future to worry about enforcement. and enforcement just didn't happen. and it's going to happen again.

that is exactly what's going to happen again. so the people that are concerned about the legislation objecting to this legislation are not against immigration. we will allow a million people to come into the country legally every year. more than any other country in the world, so we're not trying to stop that. what we're trying to say is that you need a good future flow for immigration and you need to be sure it's enforceable. more people want to come to this great land than can come here. i don't blame them for wanting to come here. and if somebody convinces them that america really -- the american people, the american government doesn't care if they come illegally and stay here and eventually they will be given citizenship, why shouldn't they come illegally? so we have to have a national consensus that -- that as we

treat compassionately, people who have been here a long time and been good people and we try to be generous there, that we don't create further flow of illegal immigration as we have been warned will happen by governmental experts and that we tighten up the enforcement mechanisms that are so clearly broken today. that's the fundamental principle of what we are about. i'm going to mention some of that now. we'll talk about more of those problems in the future. but the whole fundamental principle that we need to create a lawful system of immigration, that works in the future as well as today. and our sponsors, the gang of eight, have said that's what they have. they have told us their bill does that. they say our bill will end the

illegality at the border. they say they are going to have a strong enforcement on visa violations, which is really not true. and they say they have got guaranteed enforcement at the workplace, and that one has some benefits, but the way they have done it is it delays it longer than it should be and creates some dangers there. but a good workplace enforcement would be a step forward. and then they claim that they have got mechanisms to lead to removal of dangerous people from the country. all of which i have to say is fundamentally not accurate. so they acknowledge what needs to be done. so the members of the senate, the members of the congress and the american people, they need to be asking does this bill do what has been promised for it, and if it does, we may be on the

track to doing something good, but if it doesn't, it needs to be rejected. we cannot go down the path of amnesty now and another massive illegality in the future. cannot do that. we have got to do the right thing, and isn't that the right thing? our sponsors of the bill say it is. they promise this is going to be tough as nails, the toughest bill ever. well, i can tell you with absolute confidence, it's not as strong as the bill in 2007 that was voted down and rejected. it's weaker than that. it's weaker than current law. and so many important -- in so many important areas. you say well, you can say that, jeff, it's not true. it is true. fundamentally, we will show that the legislation is not where it needs to be. even senator rubio is saying he won't vote for the bill itself. he's one of the gang of eight that wrote it, but he sees

enough loopholes that he wouldn't vote for it now. and it has to be reformed. it absolutely has to be reformed. there is no doubt about that, but the problem is except for senator rubio, i guess, the gang of eight agreed to stick together and have no real amendments passed, and they did that in the committee. we had a committee process. we had a lot of members offered. they just stuck together and voted down all the amendments. any of them that were significant. a lot of smaller amendments were passed, but you know the -- senator schumer apparently said well, did the republicans have a pass on this vote? i mean, did the republican gang of eight members, were they allowed to vote their conscience or were they still committed to

voting like the gang of eight signed in blood to vote, so they gave them a pass on a few votes. this is not a way to do the public business. it's just not. madam chair, one thing i think i do believe is important for us to understand, i have been wrestling with the issue for a long time. i have been a federal prosecutor. i would tell you that we could make the system work. a lot of people think it's just hopeless that you could not make the system work, not so. we -- we made some progress at the border, and if we had real strong leadership, really effective in identifying where the gaps are and moving resources and stepping up our fencing and our equipment, we could see real progress at the

border, real progress. and it's a lot -- a lot of it is mathematics, i'd say from my law enforcement experience. if you have got -- you add more police officers and the crime rate is going down, then you have got more police officers per criminal, per crime, and you have got more ability to drive down in a virtuous cycle. so we have added after 2007 a number of border patrol officers. president obama claimed credit for it, but he didn't have it happen before he took office. they were hiring into his term, i'm sure, but it was passed before he took office. so we have more people there and we could have fewer illegal immigrants for a whole lot of reasons, and then you have got more offices per illegal immigrant so you can do better at the border. secondly, biometric entry-exit visas have been required by six different pieces of

congressional legislation. it was recommended by the 9/11 commission. when people come into the country, they are fingerprinted and they are admitted into the country. what we are not doing is verifying they ever leave the country. and we know most of the 9/11 attackers came on a visa. so you don't -- people don't know if they are legally overstaying or ever left. and it's easy -- so they say it's going to cost billions of dollars. $25 billion to do this, one of our gang of eight said in the committee. it's not going to cost $25 billion. we discovered in 2009, i believe, a report issued by the department of homeland security, and that report discovered that

you could easily identify people when they depart the country. you go into the terminal, one of the complaints where we have to build all these new buildings and structures and so forth, but when you leave the -- all you have to do is put your finger on a fingerprint recording machine and it reads your fingerprint. and it identifies you. and what they found was in atlanta when they were doing this, like 20,000 or so many -- 25,000, i believe, were exiting. over 100 were hit on the watch list. some of them had felony warrants out. some of them were on the terrorist list. that's a large number, and it didn't cost much money. it's not hard to do. so that could be done. and we could absolutely make the workplace secure by using an e-

verify system at all employment places. that's a key to that. so there are things -- we do those things fundamentally, we could make the system work. unfortunately, the promises made in this legislation don't do it. what the american -- what would happen under this bill is that secretary napolitano, after the enforcement officially stops, would give -- must give two reports to congress within six months. two reports. not do anything. two reports, and then all the people here illegally will be given a provisional status, legal status, a social security card, the ability to work.

so that no real action has to occur at the border or anyplace else, and that's the fundamental flaw and we have got to deal with that. what the american people are saying is first deal with the illegality and then let's talk about how to be compassionate for people who have been here for a long time. but the more troubling issue that's not been fully discussed, the other half of the immigration equation is interior enforcement. this bill further weakens an already decimateed interior enforcement -- decimated interior enforcement system. immigration reform will never work. this bill will never work unless the united states immigration and customs officers are given the resources and the authority they need to do their jobs. it will not work.

and they are -- their morale was plummeted because their leadership is blocking them from enforcing plain law. they have virtually the lowest morale rating of any agency in government. over a year ago, i asked secretary napolitano was she not concerned about it, would she meet with the i.c.e. agents and determine what the problem was? so i came back this year and i asked her had she met with them? no. they voted no confidence, and their survivor -- in their supervisor john morton, and they have written us a long letter detailing the failures in this bill, saying it will make it worse than current law and will leave this country more insecure than we were. it's really a remarkable thing, but they have got to be allowed to be a part of the game. it cannot be the policy of the united states of america if someone gets into the country illegally, that they are home

free. if they get past the border patrol at the border, nobody will ever deport them. that's what we are doing now. unless they are convicted of a serious felony, nobody is being deported. so i say well, people have been here a long time, we don't want to start deporting people, we're about to give them amnesty. so that's the -- so, the bill, if passed, assumes everybody has been given amnesty. the bill assumes that everybody is being given permanent legal status or legal status, basically a guaranteed permanent status in the country. they will be given a social security card, identification, right to work anywhere. so what about people who come illegally after that? are we not ever going to enforce the law again if other people come illegally, overstay visas, come through the border, stow away on ships?

we've got to know that it's going to be fixed, and it cannot be that if somebody gets past the border, nobody will ever apprehend them and make them be deported, because they shouldn't be here. you're just not entitled to come to america illegally and then protest when you're apprehended, oh, no, i have a right to be here. i have been here for 18 months. you cannot deport me. once this amnesty occurs, we've got to know that we have the mechanism in place to do the job that immigration enforcement at a minimum requires. i think that's so important. chris crane, the president of the i.c.e. officer's union and an i.c.e. officer himself, a former marine, explained the situation in his testimony before the house of representatives recently. quote -- "agents report that if they encounter suspected illegal aliens in public" -- now, i'm

talking about federal agents, i.c.e. agents, immigration agents -- quote -- "they cannot arrest them. the day-to-day duties of i.c.e. agents and officers often seem in conflict with the law, as i.c.e. officers are prohibited from enforcing many laws enacted by congress, laws they took an oath to enforce. i.c.e. is now guided in large part by influences and powerful special interest groups that advocate on behalf of illegal aliens." does that not cause any concern? we've got to deal with that. he also testified -- quote -- "morale is at an all-time low as criminal aliens are released to the streets." criminal aliens. he's not talking about people who violate the immigration

laws. he's talking about aliens who committed crimes, like drugs and assault. criminal aliens are released to the streets and i.c.e. instead takes disciplinary -- he's talking about his supervisors -- takes disciplinary action against its own officers for making lawful arrests. it appears clear that the federal law enforcement officers are the enemy and not those who break the nation's laws, closed quote. so he's saying the supervisors are punishing the i.c.e. officers who actually go out and arrest people because they've set a policy not to enforce the law of the united states. now, people may not think that's true but it is absolutely a fact that we have basically made it impossible to enforce the law and that's come from secretary napolitano right on down. and that's why she doesn't want to meet with them because she doesn't have an answer, because she's telling them and her

deputy is telling them not to enforce the law. mr. crane further testified -- quote -- "if an alien is arrested by local police, by your local police officer, and placed in jail, again, i.c.e. agents may not arrest them for illegal entry or visa overstay. new policies require that illegal aliens have a felony arrest or conviction or be convicted of three or more misdemeanors. so many illegal aliens with criminal convictions are also now untouchable." that's the reality of law enforcement in this country. it's just very, very serious and it's a sad state of affairs, no doubt about it. and we're -- these officers -- were these officers consulted when the gang of eight wrote the bill? they tell us they've got a bill that's going to work to end lawlessness in america in the future, but did they ever

consult with the people who are out there trying to enforce the law now, to get their ideas about how to make the system work better in the future and do they have new provisions in the bill that give our i.c.e. agents and border patrol agents and citizen immigration officers more authority to do their job? no. so the bill gives actually more discretion to the secretary to eviscerate enforcement by not having to enforce plain law. there are a number of provisions in the code that says if somebody racy arreste's arrestee queue to be deported, it says they shall be deported. that's the law. well, they're just not doing that.

well, i don't think this is, frankly, just loophole or failure of attention. i don't think the gang of eight was really on top of all the details of the legislation. i think they spent most of their time consulting with mr. trump at the afl-cio and mr. donahue at the chamber of commerce and lla raza and the immigration lawyers association and the meatpackers and the growerr they folks or the big agribusinesses. that's who they've been talking with. the computer gie gurus demanding more and more. and so they didn't focus on this. but the people who were actually in there writing it, the immigration lawyers, the chamber of commerce or union lawyers and all that have been working on this bill, they knew what they

were doing. and so these scribes, these drafters of the legislation i believe fully understood what it meant. under this bill, amnesty will occur at once, just like it did in 1987, and like then, we get a mere promise of enforcement in the future. a mere promise. but far from making our laws tougher, as the gang of eight has promised and as we need to do, the enforcement of laws are -- are greatly weakened in a whole number of significant areas. ladies and gentlemen, the drafters of the bill will have gotten what they want. they will have gotten amnesty for the 11 million. they will get a dramatic increase in the flow of -- of workers and low-skilled workers into america. that's what they want. they're not interested in future enforcement. and, in fact, many of them felt

like that big increases in immigration in the future weren't enough, so they have no objection to illegal immigration, it seems, or they would have put a lot more attention in drafting legislation that would improve the illegal system. so this bill fails and we'll go into more detail about it as time goes by. but this bill fails as a matter of law enforcement. that's going to be clear. now, i'm looking at a new piece of legislation introduced by tray gouty, who is the chairman of the house subcommittee. he's a former prosecutor, federal prosecutor, six years assistant united states attorney, a real prosecutor who understands how the system works. mr. gouty's put together a good bill. he says this -- quote -- "robust internal immigration enforceme

enforcement. that is what the i.c. agents do in denver and in memphis and in indiana -- indianapolis. robust internal immigration enforcement paired with border security is our safeguard against repeating the mistakes of 1986. his bill, called the safe act, is a critical step in our efforts to fix our broken immigration system and ensures we will not be having this conversation again in 10, 20 or 30 years. closed quote. ensures that we won't be back here with another amnesty demand because we've enforced the law. and he's put together some good principles that are not in this bill. first, it grants states and localities the authority to help enforce immigration laws. the supreme court -- the supreme court said you can't do that, it's unconstitutional. not so.

supreme court says the u.s. congress, by the way it passed its legislation, preempted local enforcement in a lot of areas and -- and they couldn't participate because -- and one -- attorney general holder tells the federal agents not to enforce the laws, state people can't enforce them either, basically. so secretary -- attorney general holder says that we're not enforcing these laws. secretary napolitano, we're not enforcing these laws, then the states can't do it because it's totally preempted essentially by the federal government. except for peripheral areas, like a business can't get a business license if they knowingly hire illegal workers. that can probably be a state thing. well, it's just a matter of congress's action. so mr. gouty would explicitly allow help from state and local

officers. now, let's get this straight. if a police officer in alabama arrests somebody in the country illegally, they cannot prosecute them, they can only hold them for a short period of time. all they can do is turn them over to federal officials. now that's clear. mr. gouty doesn't change that really. but the fundamental thing, it could do that. but that's the way the system works. so what he -- what we need to be thinking about is don't we have to have local law enforcement to be participants in any system that guarantees legality? there's 600,000 state and local law enforcement officers. there are 5,000 interior federal immigration officers. 5,000 i.c.e. officers, and many of them have other duties. so it's our local police and sheriff as that are out on the highways and -- and state

troopers that are out there every day coming into thousands -- in touch with thousands of people, and they're the ones that identify people here illegally. when the attorney general and the secretary of homeland security rejected agreements with state and federal officers to have their assistance in identifying people here, they knew what they were doing. they were effectively eliminating the identification of many of the people here illegally. that was a deliberate, calculated act and people need to know it. and it was wrong. it was wrong. so a good system of immigration for america in the future -- remember now, we're talking about after people have been given amnesty under this bill -- the bill should then welcome the assistance of state and federal officers and make up policies that whep that.

-- that help with that. the gouty bill would protect american communities from dangerous criminals by facilitating and expediting the removal of criminal aliens. this has been delayed. it's not working effectively. it's costing us a lot of money. if someone is here illegally, they're convicted of a felony, they ought to be removed and ought not to be a big deal about it. i mean, how much trouble is that? so his bill would speed that up and make the system work better. it improves visa security. it helps the i.c.e. agents do a better job. it assists the i.c.e. officers in carrying out their jobs by enforcing federal immigration laws by allowing them to make arrests. they're basically being prohibited from making arrests today. can you believe it? for federal felonies and federal criminal offenses and for bringing in and harboring unlawful aliens. the officers need to be able to enforce those laws.

it strengthens border security in a number of ways. it reviews the prosecutorial authority that's basically a directive not to enforce the law that's out there. it strengthens national security in quite a number of ways. well, this is a good piece of legislation. he knew what he was doing. he drafted something that will make a difference, really would make the bill stronger. so i would ask my colleagues, why wouldn't you put something like to in the legislation? you say you want to have a tough bill. you say your bill is tough. so this has been -- will be called to the attention of the bill's sponsors. we'll ask for legislation like this to be passed as an amendment to the bill, and we'll see if it passes f. it doesn't pass -- if it passes. if it doesn't pass, then we can draw a conclusion that the sponsors of the bill and the people that are promoting the bill don't really want to see the law enforced better in future than it is today. and that would be a sad

admission, it seems to me. to wrap up, this is a great institution, the united states senate. i'm glad that senator reid acquiesced in my insistence to at least have the opportunity to begin our discussion today. it's just the beginning. we will begin to talk about the legislation, talk about how to make our system work better, talk about the american people's desire, good and decent people that they are, to be compassionate to people who've been here a long time. but their insistence that in the process we create a lawful system of immigration in the future so we're not back here again. and as i indicated earlier, a poll showed that 88% of the people said they're angry with their elected officials about failure to enforce the law,

whereas only 12% said they were anger -- angry at people who entered the country illegally. and the american people are willing to create a legal status for people who've come here illegally. but -- but we need -- we need to do it in a way that works. and they're demanding that we create a system of lawfulness that will work. we can do it, it's absolutely possible. that will be demonstrated as we go forward, and we're going to have to change this bill, however, and put some teeth in it and give some real power to our dedicated law officers whose lives are at risk every day out there on the streets, give them the backing and the mechanisms in law that allow them to be effective. and if we do it right, madam president, the whole world will say uh-oh, the

united states has gotten their act together. the united states is serious about their immigration system being lawful. and if you try to enter, they're liable to catch you, if you try to enter you won't be able to get a job illegally and if you enter and get past the border and hide out in -- in minneapolis and you get caught, you're going to be deported. so don't try to come here illegally. apply to come legally. and we could see a rather dramatic drop in the attempts to enter illegally if we do that. that's what a system of integrity requires. first, people need to know you shouldn't do it. the united states will enforce its law and if you come into the country illegally, you will be deported. i thank the chair, would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: i ask unanimous consent that michael london, a law clerk with the finance committee, and kate glaisbrook and jonathan diem with the finance committee be allowed on the senate floor the remainder of the 2013 calendar year. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: thank you very much. i take to the floor today in strong support of comprehensive immigration reform. and the action that was taken yesterday by the house of representatives really underscores how critical the work we'll do in these next few weeks is to the future of our nation. what did the house republicans do yesterday? they voted to deport hundreds of thousands of young people who we refer to as dreamers.

these young people were brought to this country through no fault of their own and they are contributing greatly to our society and our economy. some of these young people were brought here at 2 years old, 4 years old. they had no idea they were doing anything wrong. now, senator durbin has been working for years to pass the dream act. president obama implemented the dream act, he stopped deporting these people if they meet certain requirements, and those requirements are pretty clear. they have to be truly good people, they have to be people who are getting their education, serving in the military, being responsible. but yesterday the house republicans said no. they said deport these dreamers. that's not what the american people want. in poll after poll, the american people say if someone is brought here through no fault

of their own at a young age, this is their country. but yet the house republicans would say deport them. and the american people know -- and i never say i speak for the american people. i'm just talking about polls. polls that i've seen and, madam president, polls that you've seen show that the people know that we need immigration reform, comprehensive reform that will take people out of the shadows, that will make sure that they are not afraid to be part of society. they'll buy homes, they'll start businesses, they'll create jobs, they'll lift our economy, they'll lift their families out of poverty and they'll strengthen our country. the american people get this. like so many americans, i am proud of my immigrant roots. my mother came here from austria as an infant. she never finished high school

because she had to work to support her family. my dad, he was from an immigrant family, too. the only one of nine children to be born in america, and the only one to graduate from college. and then when i was a little girl, graduate from law school. when my mother passed away, i remember going through her memorabilia, and i saw a certificate in there that was wrapped in plastic. she stored it with other valuables in her jewelry box. it was the only document, the only document she protected in that fashion, it meant so much to my mother. it was her certificate of citizenship. that's what the dream of citizenship means to the millions of californians and to the millions of americans who are now forced to live in the

shadows. for immigration reform to be truly comprehensive, it must include a path to citizenship for all 11 million undocumented immigrants in our country and it must include the dream act. we can't have two classes of citizens in america, one with full citizenship and one with half citizenship. that's not the promise of our nation. the bill that we will debate next week addresses this problem. it provides a tough but fair path to citizenship. it is also crucial that we pass reforms that protect workers and their families from exploitation and abuse. too many immigrants, especially women, face sexual harassment in the workplace, violence, and discrimination. the judiciary committee bill includes critical protections for women, including new visas to keep women safe from domestic

violence. a strong reform bill must also include a fair and effective guest worker program which provides workers with livable wages and strong labor protections, and this bill meets many of these tests. what i -- would i have made it even stronger? yes. with my friend -- would my friend in the chair have made it stronger in many ways? absolutely. but the bill is a real step forward. when we pass comprehensive immigration reform, we don't just help immigrant families. we help all americans. i would like to see family reunification be made stronger in this bill. i commend those who worked on this. i know they had to hammer out these compromises and i know, having brought a successful highway bill to passage, a successful wrda bill to passage on the senate floor, i know i don't get everything i want.

so i'm sympathetic to the fact this isn't a perfect bill but but, madam president, i know you and i will support making this bill better, making this bill stronger, and maybe we will persuade colleagues to go with us. but we have to remember, this bill isn't the be-all and the end-all. we can make it stronger with the coming months and years. now, according to a 2010 u.s.c. study, university of southern california, when we create a path to citizenship, it will result in 25,000 new jobs, $3 billion in direct and indirect spending in california alone every single year. nationwide, our immigration bill will increase our g.d.p., our gross domestic product, by $1.5 trillion over ten years. it will increase wages for workers. that's what's happens when workers come out of the shadows. it will lead to between 750,000

and 900,000 new jobs according to the center for american progress. when workers come out of the shadows, their wages rise, they open bank accounts, they buy homes, they spend money in their communities, they -- they are known to find new businesses. and businesses will benefit by having access to talent,, to talent in fields ranging from health care to manufacturing to high tech. taxpayers are going to benefit. you'll hear horror stories about how expensive this. is the fact is studies -- that is, studies that don't have a bias show -- taxpayers will benefit from $5 billion in new revenues in first three years alone including $310 million a year in state income taxes which will support education and other important services just in my home state of california. so we will see workers

benefiting, yes, from higher wages but also better working conditions and they will get respect and they will get dignity. and what that means is they will be proud members of our community. families and children will benefit when we lift the fear of being deported and separated from their loved ones. i know the dream act that senator durbin has worked on for so many years, in the bill it does impact the families of the dreamers. it will help them, because we don't want to separate families. so i'm going to be working on many amendments and offering some to improve this bill, amendments to provide a fair and reasonable path to citizenship, amendments to ensure we treat immigrants with dignity and respect, amendments that are friendly to family reunification, amendments that are friendly to workers, workers are the backbone of this country. i want to close with a quote

from president john f. kennedy. back in 1958, he wrote a book entitled "a nation of immigrants." in that book, he eloquently described how immigrants have strengthened our nation. i already talked about my own immigrant roots. this is what john kennedy wrote. quote -- wtion this was the secret of america, a nation of people with the fresh memory of old traditions who dared to explore new frontiers, people eager to build lives for themselves in a spacious society that didn't restrict their freedom of choice and their action." and he added -- quote -- "every ethnic minority in seeking its own freedom helped to strengthen the fabric of liberty in american life." unquote. those words were true back in 1958, and they are just as true today. americans are ready and they're waiting for comprehensive

immigration reform. i want to thank our colleagues who worked so hard on this bill, including my own colleague, senator feinstein, who worked so hard on the ag jobs title. we have to protect that title. there are those who would weaken it, and we can't weaken it. it's put together in such a way, madam president, that you have the growers supporting it and the workers. that's pretty good when you can get those two sides together. so the president has said the time is now. i agree the time is past now. we need to get this done. i think senator leahy has handled this bill beautifully. i believe 150 amendments were adopted in the committee, and also many others were offered. the system has been fair. and senator reid has given us plenty of time to offer attempts to debate these issues. i'm excited about it. my state is waiting with bated breath for this.

it is so overdue. let's get to work. let's make comprehensive immigration reform a reality. and i am pleased to say to the president i leave this world with great hopes that we can get it done. thank you very much. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. boxer: is there a quorum call? i would ask that it be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: i understand there are two bills at the desk and ski for their first reading en bloc. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bills for the first time. the clerk: s. 1121, a bill to stop the national security agency from spying on citizens of the united states, and for other purposes. h.r. 126, an act to direct the secretary of the interior to enter into an agreement to provide for management of the free roaming wild horses in and around the current tuck national wildlife refuge. mrs. boxer: i now ask for a second reading en bloc and object to my own request en bloc. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bills

will be read for a second time on the next legislative day. mrs. boxer: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2:00 p.m. on monday, june 10, 2013, that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their later use in the day, and that following any leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 744, the comprehensive immigration reform bill under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: madam president, we expect to swear in senator-

designate during monday's session. at 5:30 p.m. on monday, there will be a roll call vote on passage of the farm bill. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. monday.

in order to raise money i filed an application with the irs in january 2011 seeking to obtain 501c3 status as an educational organization. as of today, i've been waiting 29 months without status. >> many of the agencies of the federal government do not understand that they are under servants of the people. they think they are our masters and they are mistaken. i'm not interested in political points. i want to protect and preserve the america that i grew up, the america that people across oceans and risk their lives to become a part of.

>> the purpose of the tax exemption is to enable easier promotion of public goods, not political work. it's the responsibility of the irs to determine which are proving the exempt status and which are trying to manipulate the system to avoid taxes and high political organizations and campaign donors

chilean president sebastian pinera talk about relations with the u.s., trade issues and the progress of the transpacific partnership. he also discussed mining safety and recounted the rescue of 33 trapped miners. from the national press club this is just under an hour. [applause]

>> good afternoon. chairman of the board of the press club. members, ladies and gentlemen. we are just coming to a meeting with president obama which was a very useful one and we discussed many issues. first of all the relationship with chile and the united states. we have had a very long and friendly relationship with the u.s.. we signed a free trade agreement in 2004 and since then we have been able to more than triple our trade with the u.s.. actually, today our trade is -- our counsel figured close to $3 billion. and we have the challenge to double or triple again.

and it's not only trade goods and services. we also have a very strong relationship in terms of energy, education, science, innovation, and entrepreneurship, and we are working very hard together with the u.s. and trying to promote the transpacific partnership which would be an alliance of 11, maybe 12 countries, that will become the largest free trade zone in the world. we are very committed with the u.s. to push that agreement forward. it was established a year ago before the meeting that would take place in bali in october of this year we should have that agreement or should have made great progress toward that agreement. we also discussed of course education in the u.s., europe, the asian giants, and we

discussed the situation of latin america. of course in latin america there are different views and positions. on the one hand you have countries like mexico, peru, chile, media others which have a very common view of the world and we share the same values with the u.s.. we are fully committed with democracy, human rights, the rule of law, separation of powers, freedom of press which is important for you and everybody else. and we have created the pacific alliance which is a very young alliance that has been extremely successful. we have already reached agreements to utilize to integrate our financial sectors, to create a free movement of people are now all these countries and a lot of

collaboration's and we are joining forces to penetrate the markets which is a challenge than the u.s.. but on the other hand you have the other countries that understand democracy in a different way. the economic development model is different from ours and of course it has the right to choose its own behalf, but we are fully convinced that at least for the pacific alliance country the path that we are following -- the countries that have created the trans-pacific alliance are by far the fastest growing countries in latin america. and before we follow on this path -- because in chile we have to face big challenges in the last 25, 30 years. the last one has already been done and was accomplished in a very successful way with a transition from the military government that took place in chile for 70 years, and to the

space government. normally the transition's take place in the middle of the political crisis, the economic. that was not the case with chellie. it is a very peaceful way because we reach an agreement on how to do that transition. and maybe that's why chile house since then performed so well. but now we are facing a second transition, which is harder. and at the same time, very motivating which is to transform chile into the first latin america developed country without sovereignty and a better solution that can come and more equality of opportunities. that is a challenge with which we are committed right now. so that we need to look at things much better. that's why when we came to power

in the government three years ago, we knew that we were going to face big problems and challenges. first of all we knew the international economy was going through a very deep crisis. europe today is in recession. the u.s. recovery has not been as strong as it used to be in the past. the asian giants are losing momentum and in many countries they are losing their capacity to grow. so for us, the first time you want to deal with the international crisis without affecting overcapacity to duplicate our rate of growth and to duplicate or job creation capacity. the sutphen did it was second difficulty is before we came into office. chile was hit by the fifth worst earthquake and tsunami in the history of mankind which was a devastating one. in a few minutes we lost a good

percentage of our infrastructure. we lost one out of every three schools, airport, many things. so there was a second challenge. to reconstruct our country within our presidential period. the third difficulty is that the economy was losing its capacity to grow and create employment and therefore have to change very dramatically. according to how it was planned, the only thing that wasn't gone of course was the earthquake. the economy is going at the rate of 6% a year. we have been able to double our capacity to create jobs and it's close to full employment, so finding work which is very different. wages are growing very rapidly

and at the same time, we have been able to reduce poverty, and reduce inequalities of the country is moving according to our view in the right direction. but i would tell you before this ticket, chile has become a developed country with a more inclusive society, more opportunity and at the same time, less income inequality. and we are moving in that direction. if we keep growing at five to 6%, we would be able to achieve that goal by 2018, 2019. we would achieve the per capita income which is the difference between the developed world and the developing world. there are many european countries which today are below that threshold.

we double our growth rate from three to 6% to double our capacity to create jobs and to be able to tackle the unemployment problem we have. and at the same time reducing inequalities and defeating. for that of course we have the powerful instrument. the first one of course growth. growth is a very powerful instrument. to create opportunities, jobs and the social problems and the infrastructure problem in which we are engaged right now and that is one of the first objectives but not the only one to be the second is that we want the growth to get to everybody. that's why we are so committed with reducing inequality and creating a society where everybody will have the guarantee of a life with dignity

and at the same time the devotee of having the opportunity to really take advantage of all of the talent that people have. for that, we are also undertaking a very important reforms. one of them is the educational reform. we are fully aware that the pillars of development are necessary and not sufficient. the old pillars or to have a stable democracy come and open market economy and a modern state. that isn't today in the informational knowledge. that's why we have tried to strengthen or build the new pillars of development. the first one is to do a major reform to increase the quality of our human kind. and therefore, we put our mind and our resources into a very profound educational reform. for instance, we have been able

to increase our education from $8.9 billion to more than $14 billion today. and that means we are increasing not only coverage, we had a very good coverage and terms of school education but we would have to increase preschool education and quality at every level. and we are undertaking that reform. we have put a lot of resources on spending almost on 5% of our expenditure in education. that was the first pillar that we have to build or strengthened. the second one was that we have to triple our investment in science and technology to be able to take advantage of the new information and knowledge. and we are moving the direction. r investment in science and technology was close to 4%. we close to double that figure now but we have to triple it. the first new pillar we are trying to build this to boost

and promote innovation and and entrepreneurship, because those are the real and accessible resources that we can rely on. and we have a huge effort not only to create 1 million jobs in the government period which is equivalent to creating 25 million jobs in the u.s. and the same figure according to the size of the population. but at the same time, we are trying to promote and create more entrepreneurs. we have been able to -- we've already created more than 800,000 jobs at the same time, 140,000 new and entrepreneurs which is very important and the fourth pillar we have to build and strengthen is to get rid of poverty and have a more inclusive society. that's why those are the priorities of the government. but we are pushing very, very hard in order to be able to create these new propellers that would allow us to become a

developed country with a more inclusive society. but we also are very committed with the integration and the world with free trade. that's why we have a free trade agreement with the u.s. which was signed in 2004, and 62 other countries of the world, canada, mexico, the european community, korea, vietnam, singapore, many others. so, we, as a small country in the far south of the world, isolated from the rest of the world by the driest deserts in the world -- the biggest ocean and the world, the pacific ocean. we thought that it was to integrate the world coming and we are doing that using all the means we have at our disposal. that's why it's so when portend.

that is one issue that was fairly discussed with president obama because we share the same views. we have the kind of alliance with the u.s. to work together in a trying to make that come to life and be able to benefit from having the largest free trade zone in the world which would be the trans-pacific. we are also trying to include the quality. we have 5 million people but were not [inaudible] and we have a voluntary code and that means we went from 8 million people allowed to vote to 13 million people allowed to vote in the next three years and we also as the cliche system. not equivalent to the u.s. because it happens in one day

not like here you have a long period for that to take place and therefore i am convinced that the economy or the society is moving in the right direction. we will have a more stronger, more transparent democracy. we will have a healthier and a more robust economy which is growing at 6% creating jobs like never before. we are increasing salaries and using poverty and at the same time, we are taking these huge reforms in terms of education, and also the building of these new pillars. with respect to the relationship with the u.s., we have always had a very close and a very friendly relationship with the u.s.. that's why i think that chellie has this free trade agreement with the u.s. and naphtha.

we have a strategic alliance with california and massachusetts, and we are working with the main university and the state government in areas like education, energy, science, technology come on to knorr ship, innovation, and we want to keep the race even stronger in the future. that's why this visit to the u.s. will have the chance to talk to the member of the congress, to the secretary of state, vice president and president obama has been useful for us because convinced that chile which was the poorest spanish colony and has already become the country with the highest per capita income in latin america, we would be able to become a developed country. we would be able to overcome the development and deep poverty and strengthen its demography by integrating ourselves to the world. not only from the economic point of view but also a political

point of view and from that point of view of course the u.s. is one of our main partners in terms of trade and investment and collaboration. we are talking with president obama about patrilateral cooperation we join forces with the u.s. to help the less developed countries and we are already doing that in central america, south america, he and many other countries. that is one of the issues we discussed because both the u.s. want to strengthen and fortified those trilateral cooperation problems. so, basically we are here in the small country but with a tremendous commitment to become a developed country, a committed with democracy, freedom, ruled law, human rights, respect, separation of power, respect for

freedom of press and freedom of expression, and the values very much share the u.s. society and the u.s. people. that's why i would like to end by saying that even though we arrived late to this, and that's why we have been an underdeveloped country we will not arrive late to this which is much stronger and deeper than the old one. it is the new society of the knowledge and information which is emerging in front of us and which will be extremely generous that really want to take advantage of all of the opportunities that this new society and applies. but it will be in different or it could be even cruel with the countries that just want to let it go. so we made a very strong commitment of not making the

same mistake that we did when invested in the revolution, and we didn't realize that and we didn't take advantage of it. this time we are fully committed within tikrit and yourself to the world, competing with countries all over the world coming and for doing that of course, the new pillars that i was mentioning to you, education, science technology, innovation on japan or ship and a more inclusive society is the key to our success in this big challenge, which is the mission of our generation. we are just celebrating 200 years of independence. in your case it is a little bit more. but chile is one of the oldest democracies in the world it is the fourth or fifth oldest one in the world. and therefore, this is the right moment where we are just the liberating our bicentennial to the level to say of course with

pride but at the same time in a humble way that we hope that chile will be the first, hopefully not the only, latin american country able to achieve the goal of overcoming the development and defeating poverty. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. you came here right from the white house. tell us what progress you and president obama made on hammering out the details that remain in the trans-pacific partnership. >> okay, our target is to reach an agreement before the end of the year. hopefully before the next big meeting, which will take place in october in indonesia. we have made a huge progress, but there are still some issues that have to be discussed.

the main issue that we will discuss with president obama and also with secretary kerry and his team, basically intellectual property. also rights and standards and legislation in terms of labor and the environment. chile has very high standards in terms of labor and environment legislation. so we are moving ahead at the same speed. but in terms of intellectual property and -- there are some differences. basically what we decided with president obama is to work together in order to reach a consensus between the 11 countries may be 12 countries because japan will probably join the transpacific partnership. and there won't be easy.

it's never been easy. but we are confident, and this was something that we reassessed with president obama that if we work together with the u.s. and with other countries like australia and new zealand, we will be able to reach an agreement in this new or the most difficult topics like labor environment and intellectual property. >> yes, japan does join the group of countries in the talks. well that delay the completion of the talks and how do you define completion? does that mean a final product subject to the congressional approval and if not, what else would it mean? >> of course of japan decides to join the transpacific partnership, that will have an impact. to say the opposite would be very disingenuous. but at the same time, there will have to accept to go along with

most of the things that have already been approved. so it would take more time, but it is worthwhile. because japan would add to the transpacific partnership. it would make a huge contribution they have had some problems with their agricultural sector to get light with many other countries that japan is less than 4% of the gdp. and before when i had the opportunity to discuss these with the prime minister of japan, i remember that i was telling him that japan cannot be let out of the integration just because a small sector of the economy is opposed to it and i think they have made a lot of progress since then and of course we also have a problem with the agricultural sector because we want to have this free trade in the first place and therefore we have to leave

at the same time that we cannot continue with such a problem as in many other countries. that is another issue that will have to be discussed. what do i mean by accomplished? of course accomplishment means that the system is working today and that it is more than just to get an agreement between the 12 countries because this agreement would have to be approved by the congress in each and every country. and here you have in the u.s. two different ways to do it. one is a fast track authority. so, we hope that the u.s. will be able to use the fast-track because that would make it if he could get in the other country we have to approve the transpacific partnership according to our own rules and institutions. so, accomplishment means that the system is working. we hope that we have reached an agreement before the end of the year, and we hope that in the next year we will be able to approve these agreements and all of the member countries.

and again, fell one rule discussed is when this agreement will enter because one proposal is that when more than 50% of the gnp represented by all these countries have signed agreements. our countries have a proposal for about triet this is a very important one. >> what specifically does chellie want to gain out of the partnership and where do you see market access and proving the most for your country out of these talks? >> welcome of the truth is that chile has already had a free trade agreement with each and every country, which is part of the trans-pacific purpose of including japan. so, from our point of view, the games we can obtain in market access, so we are looking for a third generation not only free

trade but also to improve the rules, how to resolve the controversy is and how to expand the agreement not only to the goods and services but to the capitol movement, the people movement and so we are looking for an agreement much more deep and much more wide. the agreement that we signed this is true and it's a discussion we have in chile. we have agreement with the other countries there aren't much to gain. chile has a strong commitment free trade. then by signing bilateral free trade agreements and then by signing the multilateral

agreements in the european community and therefore we don't without chile. >> you said we've had a free trade agreement with chile for nearly a decade already. what are you looking forward to improve out of these talks between the u.s. and chile? >> well, we still have some progress to be made in terms of globalizing our markets and the free and fair trade. there are some areas the u.s. has restrictions, particularly in the agricultural sector. so, we would like to expand our free trade agreement with the u.s. in the trans-pacific partnership. but there are many other areas the we want to collaborate with the u.s.. we have much more in the past in terms of education. we are sending more than 3,000

students master's or ph.d. is all over the world more than one-third of them coming to the u.s. and there are other students going to chile. we have a lot to learn from you in terms of your leadership in the areas of energy, science, technology, and therefore we are also working to the right now one of the largest of the largest. we are also working in the strategic alliances with california and massachusetts and there is a lot to gain for us in terms of improving the quality of our education and the quality of our science technology. many of them are already there. by now we are in the process of

inviting many american research centers of barry prestige that apply in the chile to run it and the research centers. >> if we think about trade, maybe we have already accomplished much of it. but if we think about what it takes to become a better country, we still have a lot of areas where we can collaborate to the benefit of both contributing chile and the u.s.. >> how would you assess the obama administration overall relationship with latin america? his obama taking a genuine interest in latin america or is the u.s. playing defense as china foster's in the region. >> a country like u.s. has many problems, challenges and interests are around the world. but we think that we have a special condition because we are part of the same continent. that's why when i heard that the bush initiative from alaska's

[inaudible] i thought i was the right idea. unfortunately, we haven't made much progress in that direction. and when president obama visits chellie, he made a kind of speech or proposal to the whole latin american world, and he was very committed in trying to recover the lost time in terms of doing much more to integrate our americas. imagine your representative. they have to suffer two world wars. but they were smart enough to move from the marginal line philosophy which is instead of fighting themself and kill themselves by millions like they

did, they try to create the economic union. of course they are facing some problems. maybe not in the right way. maybe some traditionally they should of been accompanied by more coordination and things like that because we are aware of the problems they are facing by now. but we are convinced that the u.s. has to play a much more active role and at has to serve its leadership in its own continent like america, like the americas in a much better way. and obama is fully aware of that and he should and that is what he has told us. that is what he told us in santiago that he would move forward. it's not only mexico that has a free trade agreement in the u.s. but also colombia, costa rica so

we are moving in the right direction. we have to realize there are some countries that have a stronger relation that want to get rid of the u.s. or to get away from the u.s., so it's not an easy task. part of the responsibility is on your side the other parties our side. >> you talked in your speech about the pacific alliance. tell us what are the overall goals of the pacific alliance and how would that differ from what you have already had from 15 years in that region? >> welcome of the pacific alliance in countries mexico, colombia and chile, will descend one-third of the population. but represent more than 55% of the total latin american trade. because the countries are very open. right now we have a free trade agreement that means more than

90% of our goods and services can flow between the countries with no ties at all. and we are eliminating these areas. at the same time, we want this to have a deep economic integration of which means good services, capital people, and we are also working together to integrate our financial sectors we have created cooperation to promote the interchange of students among the four countries. there are many countries that want to join the pacific alliance and among them i can mention costa rica, panama and the pacific alliance like france, portugal, spain, new zealand, australia, canada and even the u.s. has expressed an interest in becoming a member. so what we are trying to do is move faster and get -- move

faster and reach goals that without the school incidents in terms of principles and values would haven impossible. some of the effort of integration has been made in latin america and south america has not been as successful as the pacific alliance. and i feel the main reason for that is that we are able to reach an agreement in a very easy way because we have the same approaches. we share the same values. we are not discussing democracy or freedom of press. we are not discussing a separation of power. we are not discussing these things because we fully agree with those basic principles. we are discussing how to join the forces to take advantage of all of the opportunities that we are facing today. and the pacific alliance was than one year ago is today a

reality that has been according to my view extremely successful. and i think that the best truth of the pacific alliance is yet to come. >> your term is coming to a close early next year. please give us your perspective on the upcoming presidential elections. >> well, we still have nine more months. [laughter] and nine months we can do a lot of things. [laughter] so we are not thinking yet about the next. we are thinking how to close successfully our government. but i will the answer your question. in three years the results that we have been able to accomplish have been from my point of view very impressive. they were at 3% and now we have doubled that rate. we have doubled our capacity to

create jobs. we have a -- have to keep our inflation under control. it was 1.5% and we have developed the budget. we have an important trade relations in the u.s. and by the way, they have a very big surplus in the trade balance. we are one of the few countries in the world that can say that. so basically we have been able to reduce poverty and reduce the quality and in the last government, the poverty went back. so the change for the country's experience is very substantial. of course people want more. you were telling me about progress from people because of course we are not a rich country in terms of fossil fuels. we don't have enough gas or oil. the only gas and oil that we

have of course we are concerned that situation might change if we don't take care of those. that's why we want to have the consumption the students. we have almost 6 million students and chile and of course you would always find 50,000 that want to march in protest and they are exercising their right because it is a free society and people have the right to express their ideas and proposals. the only problem is that they have become very violent particularly at the end. not because of the students but at the end we have a lot of destruction in terms of private property and life freedom of

expression can march on keeping it in place. but also there are some differences. for instance, they are asking for education for anyone and the free education for those that really need it, particularly not the richest ones because they can afford its the way that we discuss and make decisions in our space system is not always doing more in the streets but we have a space system for years people can express their opinion and they can collect the government that they want. the next elections would take place by the end of this year. my impression is that the decision has not been made yet by the people. there are some candidates but my

impression is that it would be a tight election and we don't know yet who is going to be the next president of chile. >> on education, tell us what you are doing to expand education opportunities for the poor and where you draw the line between the rich and poor. >> well, as i mentioned before, we have put in a huge priority and commitment on transforming our educational sector. we have already increased public investment in education by more than 50%. what are we doing with that money? first of all, we are very much aware that we did not have the coverage in the school education or in the university education. and it was also a problem of guaranteeing access to

everybody. but we did have a huge coverage problem and preschool the education. so we made a commitment. we would guarantee free e and mandatory preschool education to each and every child in chile, and we are doubling our capacity and will substantially -- in terms of what preschool education we will be giving to our boys and our children. and for that we have to understand this and we have more professionals, more requirements and at the same time we have increased the funding of preschool the education. we more than doubled our investment in preschool education. even though we know those kids do not march, protest and a vote but we are fully convinced where we can make a difference. that's where we can really do a huge contribution to equality of

opportunity to read because if we wait until they get to school with 6-years-old, many times the vulnerability -- keeping a lot of incentives. and you decide to study to become a teacher and. you get a scholarship that means the education is absolutely free and even better than that you

would get a scholarship to go to some other country. many of them are coming to the u.s. and to europe to study for a semester and that is to improve the quality of the teachers which is a key aspect. another thing that we are doubling of course is that we are trying to evaluate our performance. that is very difficult. because normally they progress according to age. we are trying to produce this performance test in order to incentivize more of those people that are giving a better job at that something that is important in the school education and university education. we want to guarantee to all of the students belonging to the 60% of the most formidable homes the right to have a scholarship and would pay for the university education. and we are doing that.

as a government we belong to a family which is part of the 60% of the most vulnerable families and chile come and you have the right to get the scholarship funded by the government. and for the 30%, we have established a system, very subsidized loan system. i will say the interest rate is 2 percent which is one-third or maybe one fourth. but what should have been if it was according to the market rate you don't pay more than 10% of your income. so it is contingent to your income. you pay whatever you support but never more than 10% of your income and after 15 years, whatever is left, it's over because you will be committed to pay your loan for only 15 years and therefore will have 90% of the chile students belonging to

90% of the most vulnerable middle class families in chile that have guaranteed access to a scholarship. so 10%, the most rich or the richest 10% of the population that they have to fund the education of their own resource. that is a system that we have and that we have to of course increase the number of scholarships. we have tripled the number of scholarships in the last few years. so basically that is our approach. even though this is a very generous system that some people have different ideas and that our discussion with some of the students because we shouldn't confuse these students with those students. they want free education for everybody. and we think that is unfair and that we cannot afford it. of course we have three education and preschools and school levels very badly.

we are talking about university education -- and the second discussion is whether we should have a mixed system where both private and public institutions are participating at all levels of our educational sector within that solution to have private and public institutions, and the government is responsible for all of these institutions and at the same time to provide the funds in order to help free the preschool and schools education for the students are the parents according to the right to choose. so we do not believe in a government, more in the educational sector at every level and tall times, and that is another difference with the students. so we have these discussions which are normal in a space society. the important thing is that we have to make decisions according to our demographic system, and not according to who is able to

be violent in the streets. >> stomach on a different topic, the body is then examined to determine whether he was poisoned as a result of his opposition. can you tell us about whether the result of the investigation might have any sort of impact on e ele >> well, they're have been the same questions in the past and there was a negotiation and it came out for the conclusion that he committed suicide as was the fury of his family, the government and everybody. now, there for the judiciary power in chile has determined to undertake an investigation which is of course. so we will see what the results are. even though he died in 1973. so more than 43 years ago.

who knows? i cannot guarantee you what was the cost of debt. but at the same time i can tell you that there is no strong evidence about any kind of assassination. but if somebody wants to find out, our judiciary power which is absolutely independent decides that they would undertake a investigation which is in the process right now. >> you're presidency will be remembered for the rescue of the 43 miners. the accident exposed safety concerns about mining in the country and probably other places as well. tell us what your administration has done to improve safety in that industry since then. >> well, i remember that episode

with a lot of emotions because it was a huge accident. suddenly we realized we were informed 33 miners were caught in a small mining in the driest desert of the world. more than 2,000 feet below the earth. i remember i was in colombia at the time because the president was having a settlement and i decided to come back and win they told me don't go there because there is no way that we will be able to find them and there is no way we will be able to rescue them because the accident had been so terrible. i decided to go there that night and i remember i met with the wives, mothers, daughters, friends and they were desperate because we didn't know anything. we didn't know where they were,

we didn't know whether they were dead or alive and i remember i made a commitment to them. the only commitment i can make to you is that we will look for them and we would do whatever is possible to find them and rescue them safe and alive we are doing everything that is useful and necessary to find them and it took them three weeks to find them. we knew they were alive and we had to face a second challenge which was to rescue them. it was extremely difficult to get something that has never been done before in the world. so, we asked for help in the countries where they were very grateful for the u.s. because the u.s. was very helpful in providing that equipment and

technology. after almost three months, we finally were able to rescue each and every one of them alive and safe. so, for us it was something very emotional and important because it wasn't just a question of rescuing miners tebeau was a question to our commitment of life, those 33 miners, the commitment of the quality-of-life of each and every chilean. and we were very motivated because the whole country rallied behind this challenge, and the whole world at one point in time. since then we have taken a lot of measures to improve the quality and security of the working conditions of our workers. and we have been able to reduce by half the number of accidents that we are having. and half the number of lives lost because of mining accidents

.. we have improved our standards, and we have standards. that is our goal. >> we are almost out of time, before i ask you the last question i have a couple of housekeeping matters to take care of. first of all, would like to remind you of our upcoming lunch

speakers. tomorrow on june 5th we had u.s. agricultural secretary to read on july 1st we have the former ceo of hewlett-packard who currently serves as the chairman of good 360 and on august 8b will have jim rogers, the ceo of duke energy. second, i would like to present our guest with the traditional national press club coffee mug. >> thank you very much. >> you're welcome. thank you. [applause] >> i am pleased -- [applause] >> say hello to tom on my behalf because they're very good friend of mine. >> wonderful. suitable of course for digging chilean wine as well. [laughter] and for our final question we begin by mentioning your -- the fact that you are a helicopter pilot and like to fly helicopters. tell us if that is something you're looking for to doing more of once your out of office. >> well, i think that it supplied has been a human d

since that day we began. the member agree stories about the crow he wanted -- icarus. don't get too close to the ocean. that happened to 4,000 years ago it took almost 4,000 years to get to the wright brothers. it took 4,000 years to get to leonardo da vinci command the was the first one who started actually to engineer or planning how to fly. to 400 years from then for the wright brothers to have the first flight, even though many people think that other people flew before them. but you know, where's read the stories. [laughter] and that is all the time, at least in my case. to fly has been always my dream. therefore when i have a chance,

this was eight years ago, to become a pilot to my ticket. and even though i am president and this is something that i would like you to keep inside your. [laughter] i still fly. [laughter] the very simple reason, if i don't fly i don't accumulate hours and lose my license. and to get my license back would be very difficult. one story which was very funny because just like in the u.s., you cannot live the white house. was flying in the election of our white house. was called by the traffic controller in said look, you cannot go there. why? because that is the president's house. what we have this rule? we want to protect the president. well, i'm the president, said. [laughter] thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much for

coming today. we appreciate it. i would like to thank our national press club -- press club's staff including journalism as did and rocket center for helping organize today's event. you can find more information about the national press club on line. if you would like copy of today's program you can find that on our website. thank you. we are adjourned. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> thanks very much. >> bye-bye. thank you. have a good day. >> and here is what is coming up today on c-span2. next, a portion of today's immigration debate from the u.s. senate. that will be followed by remarks from u.s. trade representative. a little bit later, the first of two washington journal segment looking at the relationship between the u.s. and china. michigan democratic congressman john dingell today began the longest serving member of congress in u.s. history, having

served continuously since 1955. mr. dingell, born in 1928 to my chair the house energy and commerce committee twice during the tenure. he has cast over 25,000 votes during that time. president obama mark the occasion today saying, john has always worked tirelessly for the people of his beloved michigan and for working families across america. he has a passel of the most important laws of the last century. president obama getting ready to meet with the chinese leader in southern california this weekend. we took a tour of the venue recently. >> sunnylands is the historic estate of walter annenberg. they built this as a winter residence. it was completed in 1966. and they lived here until their death in 2002 and 2009. sunny lance has been referred to as the camp david of the west.

and that is, of course, because presidents came here to relax and to get away from the hustle and bustle of washington d.c. during the in inverse lifetime. the inverse father, moses annenberg, the company called triangle publications think. and that company actually published the daily racing form. in the philadelphia enquirer. and if his father had been involved in the business for decades. his father actually was sent to prison in 1940 for tax evasion. and at that point walter took on the reins of triangle publications. and it was in deep financial problems. and he was responsible for introducing a number of new publishing elements that were wildly successful.

seventeen magazine was launched in the early 1940's. the first magazine in america geared specifically for young women. he put together this idea of tv guide and launched tv guide at a time when there were only 10 percent of american households who own televisions. that, of course, became the most popular magazine in america. it had the highest circulation for decades and made the bulk of the fortune of triangle publications. walter annenberg had really is a genius for recognizing future trends. and he was able to use his company to get ahead of those trends. leonora and in byrd was a delightful, hospitable woman who was very typical of regeneration. she was the woman behind the man very often walter would be the person you receive the first

recognition, and he was the one who certainly was the businessmen whose monies funded their livestock. walter actually had a speech impediment, and so he practiced every day to make certain that he could form his words and speak clearly. and so he was very careful about his language and his presentation. so he was more reserved. mrs. annenberg was, instead, the more light hearted and more engaging conversationalist. we are in the atrium of the house. this is the room that would have been seen as you were welcome to the sunnylands. presidents, the queen of england, major political figures to migrate celebrities all cantor the front door. this space was used for receptions, for the new year's eve parties that happened regularly.

much of the furniture in this space was removed, and it was set so that they can have up to about 110 people for a seated dinner and dancing. jimmy stewart might sit at the piano and play. bob hope entertained. frank sinatra, of course. walter annenberg new ronald reagan going back to the 1930's. and so they had this really long personal history. and when ronald reagan was an actor in hollywood. and so over time that relationship, which was deep and personal continued. and win while reagan was governor of the state of california he came here. then, of course, after he had been elected president he continued to come here. he came every single year for 18 of the annenberg new year's eve parties. and so for that was a moment every year where hollywood and

government came together in a large, a social gathering. otherwise the an inverse really entertained in small groups. they would invite these individuals who were their friends to spend time here, and then they would thoughtfully determine who those friends might enjoy meeting and create these kinds of connections that, perhaps, had not existed before. the architect, a quincy jones, use these elements of midcentury modern architecture to create a space that was informal, that could flow from place to place, and that at the same time took a huge space, this is actually 6,400 square feet, which was the size of five average american homes in the 1960's. and yet it does not feel overwhelming. it has a very comfortable kind

of quality to it. and that is the combination of the architecture and then the furniture groupings that william haines designed. right off the atrium and living room is the room of memories. a very special room at sunnylands. so the room of memories was actually named that by the end birds. they made this determination that they wanted the space where they could keep the memories of the importance of friends and family and other individuals to they had come in contact with during their lifetime. so there's actually a portrait of winston churchill that is signed by winston churchill. he met walter annenberg in the late 1940's. we have a photo of the annenberg is with prince charles. this one from 1986. the end and birds, of course, had a really important relationship with the royal

family. and so you see walter and queen elizabeth

decades in the end birds life. clearly those individuals who were important to them over time needed to this wall. so it isn't generally an individual who they knew only and interacted with only once, but rather people who became their friend. in addition, we have a photograph of ronald reagan sitting in this chair looking at the television in this cabinet in 1983 when gorbachev was speaking to the american people about nuclear disarmament. and at the same time, ronald reagan's speech to soviet people was being broadcast. this important topic was

critical and changing world political dynamics. and for us it makes this a very important historical spot in the sunnylands. the end birds are definitely republicans. there were long republicans. however, they crossed the aisle. and so actually, walter had the philadelphia inquirer indorse lyndon johnson when he ran for president. so he did not only support republicans. and the republicans that he did support tended to be more centrist in relation to what we might see today. this is the yellow room. it is one of five historic guest rooms here at sunnylands. and this room was the preferred presidential room. so the reagans always stayed in this room.

as a beautiful view. and so did the bushes, margaret thatcher was here. colin powell with his wife. so to really a prestigious list of room the president's, and like all the rooms in the guest wing, this was differentiated by its color. we have a pink room and a patron and a green and blue room along with the zillow room. and actually, if you were staying here you would have color coordinated jellybeans and specially selected books to read this room, as one of the earliest rooms actually also had twin beds. we have been set up that way. today if you visit sunnylands as a participant in one of our retreat's we actually change this out and provide current retreat participants with king size beds, more comfortable and with contemporary lenin's and

all that. but you would have the opportunity to join that nice, long list of important people who has led to before you. the hen birds made a gift of this property to the nation for the purpose of continuing its history by dynamic and relevant conversations amongst people today. we have an interesting mission. our mission is both exclusive and inclusive. so our property is being preserved and maintained so that it can be used by a relatively small number of people for these high-level retreats, but at the same time, it is being preserved and maintained so that it can be open to the public for a broader public access so that they can appreciate the history of the place and experience the uniqueness and beauty of

sunnylands. >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on which not -- weeknights want to keep public policy manson every week in the latest nonfiction authors and books on book tv. you can see past programs and get our schedules that are website, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> whether -- the u.s. senate today began debate on immigration legislation crafted by the bipartisan gang of eight. deliberations are expected to continue this coming tuesday with the vote to move forward set for 4:00 p.m. eastern. here are a look at some of the deliberations from earlier today. >> mr. president, i just wanted to thank the majority leader for his kind comments. i should also note that throughout the markup in debate

on the immigration bill, his advisers were always there. we discussed it many, many times. i appreciate the fact that he made very clear that the bill would come up. he said we would not have it here without his strong support. i appreciate the senator very nice comments this morning. i yield the floor. >> the senator from alabama. >> this is important legislation, the immigration bill. and i was able to have a discussion with senator reid yesterday. he was moving forward to the motion -- on the motion to proceed to the bill which requires considerable debate. and i asked for and assisted on the opportunity to have some

time today to talk about it. he agreed to that. so i think that was a good step, and i thank him for that agreement. we just have a lot to talk about. the matters are complex and important. i would urge my colleagues to begin to pay real attention to the legislation. this is the bill as printed. front and back page of each page . it was reportedly going to be a thousand pages. i was proud. they said it was 800. but more than added to it, so it is now back over a thousand pages again. it is very complex in certain key points. making multiple references to other code sections that are in existing law. therefore it is very difficult to read. takes a considerable amount of time, and i don't even suspect that the gain of eight s at the time to read and digest and understand fully what is in the

legislation piece. we are nation of immigrants. the people that i know that are concerned about this legislation and congress are not against immigration. i certainly am not. we admit about a million people per year illegally into our country. that is a substantial number fight any standards. indeed, it is the highest of any country in the world. it is important that we execute that policy in an effective way. it impacts our whole nation. immigration has enriched our culture. it has boosted our economy, and we have had tremendously wonderful people who have come here, people who have contributed to our hearts, for our business and economy, says sports. we just had a good time, a good run with immigration and a lot

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

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

have to be rules that are enforced. it just has to be. and that is not happening today. for their current policies that we have are not serving our country well, their for an immigration system, and reform immigration system should spend some time in-depth and public analysis of how and what we should consider as we decide who should be admitted because we cannot admit everybody. and then once that is 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't fix this system. needs to be fixed. the legislation that has been offered by the gang of eight

says that they fixed it. don't worry. we have taking care of all that is needed. you have a plan that will be compassionate to people who have been here. and we have a plan that will work in the future and end the illegality. well, it won't do that. that is 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 the 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 is in it. i wish that it were different. we will talk about it in the days and weeks to come, what is

in the bill. why it fails. i can share with you how it is that we can have such a flawed bill for us. we need to understand that as we go forward. so i am amazed that the gang of eight has sent such legislation forward. 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 have some debate there, but it was an odd thing. repeatedly members not even in the gang of aid would say, like this amendment, but i cannot vote for it because i understand it upsets the deal so we need to ask ourselves who made the deal. who's 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 dealmaking? so i think that was a revealing time in the committee. they had agreed, stated openly that there would be no -- no substantial changes in the agreements that a gang of eight had made, and they would stick together and vote against any changes, and that made minor changes. there were a number of amendments except is, number of republican amendments accepted. many of those were second degree or altered by the majority in the committee. none of those fundamentally altered the framework and the substance of this legislation. i don't think that is disputable .

so this is the problem that we are working with. how does the legislation become as effective as it is? i contend i think it is quite plain. it was because it is not written by independent members of the senate and a more open process. it was written by special interests and we would like to share some thoughts on that subject right now. because i think it goes to the heart of the difficulties that we have. a continual meetings over quite a number of months. they got this bill off to the wrong track in the beginning. a powerful group net, excluding the interest 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. all of a language clearly came from the special-interest groups that engage in these secret initiations. and they, of course what is as special interest group? a special interest group is a group of people that have a commitment, and interest that they want to advance, but they don't pretend to share the national interest. so they have to a -- may be is a legitimate special interest, maybe not. they have a special interest from 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 their negotiations.

for example, "wall street journal," march 10th. the headline, competing interest abounds. the chamber of commerce and businesses represents a locked in negotiations with the afl-cio and the workers in industries like hospitality and landscaping meanwhile, a farmworker unions have been quietly negotiating with growers associations about how to revamp short-term pieces for agricultural workers. senators on both sides of the aisle are weighing in to ensure their state industries are protected. the washington post march 10th , i shush meetings. the gang of eight senators as they seek -- as they work on sweeping immigration legislation the article reads, they're struggling on the question of legal immigration and future

workers and our trading proposals with leaders of the afl-cio to a chamber of commerce to try to get a deal strike to get a deal. try ike to get a deal. they are working on a deal. how about this. roll call march 21st. talks led by the chamber of commerce and the afl-cio over a new guest worker program among lower skilled immigrants costing members of the bipartisan group of eight senators to get personally involved . try tie nine is the negotiations on the resolution. so the centers were not in their discussing. so the senators, when it got to be tough and things are not moving along they come in to try to ended on, to get the agreement. what is there agreement? between the unions and a business. who is representing the american worker effectively? new york times, its 30th. the nation's top business and

labor groups have reached an agreement on a guest worker program for low skilled immigrants and persons with knowledge of the negotiations. a conference call on friday night. the president of the u.s. chamber of commerce, the president of the afl-cio. the nation's main federation of labor unions. and they agreed and sensible on a guest worker program. low-skilled year round temporary workers. we know that there was one group not included in these talks. that is the group that is given the duty to enforce the laws. the national ice union, the customs enforcement organization pleading with the gang of eight. they wrote letters. i send information to the gang

of eight asking them to consult with the officers to have a duty to enforce this law. to no avail. there were shut out of every meeting and never really have been consulted. so it is interesting to note, however, that others were not shut out of the meeting. they were not left out of the room. "washington post," april 15th, followed -- while obama has allowed senate negotiators to work on a compromise that can win approval, white house staff member at tens each staff level meeting to monitor progress and assess what the technical aspects of writing the bill. there has been an attempt to suggest that this is purely a congressional action. the white house is just sort of playing golf, we know the white house is deeply involved in this in approving every aspect or

disapproving aspects. and the question is, who is influencing this? who is influencing the white house? president obama. the daily collar on to your sixth, on february 5th, obama held the white house meeting with a series of industry leaders, aggressive advocates, lobbies, including plaza to boost support for his plan that would provide a conditional amnesty to 11 million illegal aliens, allowing you aaron rents to get residency for their relatives and elderly parents and also establish rules for a future flow on skilled and unskilled workers. the invitees include the ceo of goldman, motorola. so they are in the meeting.

also we know that participating in a lot of these discussions was the american immigration lawyers association. this group, obviously involved in writing it. and i have to tell you, there will be the biggest winners of this legislation. time and again rules that were fairly clear today and probably should have been made more clear are models of provisions that will create litigation and encourage lawsuits, delays, and talks. for example, hardships are being given as an exemption in many cases, exemptions for family problems and other kinds of things of that nature. well, when they should be deported, then the deportee has the ability to say, i have a hardship. my mother is here.

i have a brother that is sick. i need this or that. what discharge should mean? means a trial is what it means. so the immigration lawyers association or substantially involved in the meeting. politico on march 19th said in a bid to capitalize on their shared interest in immigration reform a budget deal and a new trade pact, the white house has launched a charm offensive for corporate america since the november election hosting more than a dozen conference calls with top industry officials which had not previously been disclosed along with a flurry of meetings at the white house. continuing the code, participants include the heads of goldman, business roundtable, silverlake, 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 roundtable. and they have been involved in these discussions. even foreign countries have had to say in drafting a law. the hill on february 7th reported, mexico's new ambassador to the united states, eduardo medina, has had a number of meetings with the administration read the issue of immigration has come up since he took office last month. a mexican official familiar with the process said. he is expected to meet with lawmakers shortly as legislation begins to take form. probably like no other country, we are a player at -- on this particular issue. well, the law offices who were not in the room, we know that. people a question the economics

link, size and scope and nature of our immigration system were not in the room. so in case anyone doubts the role of special interest in drafting the legislation, pay attention to this ." executive director of the liberal pro amnesty group. the "wall street journal" april 17th. that triggers are based on developing plans and spending money, not on reaching that effectiveness, which is really quite clever. 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 did not occur the

triggers would stop people from being legalized and in the process. well, that is not so. we started the language and know the triggers are ineffectual and are not significant and will work. and that will be explained in the days to come. mr. sherry ethnologist. he said, was really clever to have these triggers. these triggers that won't work because we can tell everybody that don't worry, it will occur if the enforcement doesn't occur in clever ways they drafted a bill that will work. they will say it works, but it won't. again, what all this slush funds in this bill, and there are a number of them among private activist groups, community action groups. it is easy to see who has special interest at the table.

the national review were made -- reported a number of immigration activist groups such as the national council of more of all would be eligible to receive millions in taxpayer funding to advise illegal immigrants applying for legal status under the bill. so money will go to these activist groups who is basically advocating, not enforcing the laws. so in the meetings. an open advocate for not enforcing laws involving illegal immigration. they are there participating. they're going to get money and of the deal with some of the grant programs while the law officers to have the ability to tell the committee, the gang of eight, how to make the system work our shut out of the process prosecutors were not involved. they have not been. the national immigration forum

of co immigrant groups have been involved in some of these discussions. some people have said that the bill had to be drafted. but the markup process and the judiciary committee were a open and transparent. that is only partially so. we did have a markup. we were allowed objections to the bill to offer amendments. those who support the bill had the opporunity to talk and offer amendments. but at every turn expressed support on occasions for certain amendments but only to vote against the imminent. against significant amendments, regardless of the personal feelings. the gang influence other members of the committee to do the same. the huffington post april 16 deadline. said immigration group turns to

keeping fragile agreements and tax. we will pledge provisions that will destroy the fragile agreement that we have. so they have an agreement. they have an agreement, the unions and big business and agribusinesses and the food processors and the immigration lawyers have an agreement with them. and they're going to defend it even though they knowledge amendments that were offered improve the bill. this is no way to serve the national interest in my view. this is what happened in the committee. i am in a position which i am 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 am not privy to that understanding. and so i'm going to vote in support of the agreement that has been reached. now it was said, well, i don't understand this. i would like to vote the other way, but i am told you have a deal. this would damage the deal. so i cannot afford. he was not even in the gang of eight but when along with that. on the same amendment, echo the remarks saying i really just want to associate myself with senator white house is remarks. goes on to say, i don't want to be a deal breaker. in discussing an amendment that would increase family immigration, senator feinstein noted, i think it has been a unique process because those

people who are members of a group put this together have stood together and then voted against amendments that they felt would be a violation of a bipartisan agreement and brought both sides together. i am not sure that is always good. i am not sure that is the right thing to do. set public policy in america. have some secret agreement reached with a group of people we hardly know a they are truck the ability to do the right thing for the american people. so i just want to say that is what has happened here. and the point to make is, what i think our colleagues need to understand and the american people need to understand, in reality the special interest, the unions, the corporate world,

the big agriculture businesses, the food processor, they are the ones that made the agreement in this process. the senators just sort of ratified. they can agree to change because they promised the special interests groups things so if they would accept that some they wanted excepted. the unions would except point b, they would both agree that i'll do a few will do be. and then it gets the floor and somebody says say is wrong. we should not put that in the bill. let's change that. no, no. we can't agree. we have an agreement. in agreement with two? the chamber of commerce? microsoft? that is what happens here. i'm just telling you.

.. who is protecting the national interest? do they have any of the top ranked economists in this country asking what would be the right number of low-skilled workers to bring into america how much advanced science degrees can we have this was

apparently discussed by our colleague who allowed this process. i would say finally with regard to the special-interest, they have no interest involved in this process of guaranteeing in the future that we don't have illegality. that's the failure. they don't have any interest in that and therefore there was no intensity of interest in that aspect of the legislation. there was a lot of interest of how many computer people could be admitted or how many agricultural workers or how many low-skilled factory workers or construction workers or other workers. they worried about that. that's what these negotiations

were about, internal discussions and agreements but nobody was investing any time or interest in the second phase of this. if you have an amnesty or and illegality of millions of people what are we going to do to ensure that it doesn't happen again in the future? i was a federal prosecutor that tried in the immigration case myself. nobody else can say that. i am aware that you have to have certain legal process these and certain investments and investigative and enforcement mechanisms to make the system work in the future. as we go forward with this debate, it's going to be clear

the standards of the current law with regard to what ought to be done, requirements on the federal law are being weakened and some of them even serenaded by this bill. this bill is far weaker, as your president, than the 2007 legislation. i don't think there's any doubt about that. it was rejected by the american people of the 2007 agreement, and it's actually weekend the current law and quite a number of areas while we are being told don't worry this is the toughest bill ever. so if i am mistaken i'm sure we are going to hear about it this is a great democracy we are part of and i am expressing my view. i spent some time on these issues. in 2006 and 2007.

on a federal prosecutor. i've done this over the years. i know how i see the agents' work and border patrol agents work and customs and immigration people work. i've tried cases for them. i know them personally. they have been left out of this process. we've voted with a dramatic event. i am not aware of that ever happening in my 14 years plus as a federal prosecutor actable employment union declaring that their supervisor is -- they have no confidence in him and what did they say? face said he spends all his time at ticketing for amnesty and not enforcing law. to not follow the legal requirements that we took an oath to follow and the officers have filed a lawsuit in federal

court attacking secretary napolitano from at least the conduct of her office, they have asserted that she is not above the law, she is not authorized to direct them not to follow the claim requirements for federal law. i've never heard of that before the. nobody's even talking about it so it is in the position of this administration. everybody has to know to see that the law is not enforced particularly in the interior of america. and that is mostly been based on even acknowledgment of the defacto amnesty because you are directing a the law officers not to do their duty you basically

eliminated deval. the administration shouldn't be doing that. congress refused to change the law time and again. if anything, they sometimes increase them, strengthen them, and now we have our agent blocked from doing it and the u.s. customs and immigration service who deals with the application for citizenship. the citizenship and immigration service and the paperwork and all that. they had written in opposition to this legislation. so first, the i.c.e. officers, the head of the group has written a powerful letter and the telling the legislature saying that it will not work, it will make matters worse, and it will endanger national security

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

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

i would have to say how i believe the american people's heart and soul are good about immigration. a lot of people think 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 revealed something very important, and i remember this body it said if you are angry about the way things are going with regard to immigration are you angry at the people who came into the country illegal or 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 would work.

now doesn't that speak well to the american people? you could be angry about somebody that can into the country in the violation of law i think the understand that the american people want to come here and it is our duty to stop and they have been pleading with congress for over 50 years to do something about to create a lawful system to end but lawlessness, to create like others have, like canada has. we believe in immigration. we want to do the right thing that needs to be lawful. we have more applicants for admission into america than we can possibly accept. i was in peru with senator specter and the poll was called to our attention from nicaragua

that said 60% of the people in nicaragua said they would come to america if they could. 60%. and then the ambassador said they had a poll that said 70%. so everybody can come to america. we are not able to assimilate and we know that, we all agree on that so that's why you set rules and processes that we can be proud of that are fair and objective and people that want to come meet the standards and wait their turn and they come lawfully. but we have had from this administration and prior will interest in seeing bowl is enforced and we have with poles and process these need to be fixed. we can't do that with a good immigration bill. this one doesn't get us there to

read my friend i noted in op-ed yesterday, karl rove, on some of boesh's political adviser and a man of great talent. back to the data we were in college together, he quotes a lot of polls that say the american people are willing to accept the legal process and status of people in this country. not only that, but they are. he doesn't quote the polls that say overwhelmingly that the illegality in the first. they want border security first because they are smart enough to know if you don't get to the border security now, you may not ever get it paid in fact want to get it because history tells us so. he didn't put a recent poll that

i see on rouson this was what lesson in the polling report the so-called gang of eight proposal and the senate legalizes the status of immigrants first and promises to secure the border leader. by a four to one margin, people want that process reversed. my good friend karl rove didn't quote that and a nationally while the voters think highly of them which speaks well about these 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% have that

confidence. why? because they began to learn that this bill doesn't do what they were told was going to do. the growing awareness of the border control issue of 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 and now it's switched. we are not interested in politics. we are interested in doing the right thing and we do the right thing if people -- he goes on to say don't say amnesty. don't say amnesty. that is a bad thing for you to say. well, let me just say under the legislation we would have a circumstance immediately when people were given legal status.

they will be able to get any job when they are here safe and sound unless they get arrested for felony or something very serious like that. and they've put on a path that guarantees them the ability to go all the way to citizenship and they have to pay a thousand dollar fine over six years. what is that? $170 a year? 15, $12 a month? so this is the punishment. you people dollars a month for the fines that allows you to not have to go home even though you are in the country illegally, didn't wait your turn and you are guaranteed to have of citizenship and pay another thousand dollars, ten, 13 years later. so this is the punishment that's in the legislation.

but the people who came illegally did exactly what they wanted immediately, which is to stay here, the ability to work here, get a social security card, and they will get the ability to go to any job in the country and have an idea that would allow them to do that. so they would be able to compete with any job in america and be able to compete with the jobs of our husbands and sons and daughters and grandchildren might be competing for and the 11 million would be in that. i don't think my friend is making a strong point but this is some sort of punishment. they must pay taxes. shouldn't you pay taxes? and then, they are barred from

receiving any federal benefits including welfare and obamacare. that is a flat statement and its flat wrong. the first group, the dream act group will be some two and a half million common 83 million. they will be citizens in five years and they will get any of us federal welfare programs in five years. many of the workers will be in that position in ten years. and immediately any workers who qualify for the end income tax credit can get that immediately. now are there provisions put off for ten, 13 years and that makes the costs or look better but over the long term, once the guerrillas given legal status

and citizenship they will then qualify for every program and the workers here today are lower skilled than illegal and you can expect the income to below and they will qualify for income tax credit for medicaid and the program after program, food stamps and others, and the score of those are tremendously in the out years the foundation is the only group that is done in the end of the 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 is a lot of money. almost as much as the unfunded liability of social security which is about 7 trillion. i haven't seen anybody say that number isn't in the ballpark and

nobody else has done a study to review it and it's going to be trillions of dollars in the out years. and it's not true. there will be no government benefits to people in the country who get legalized under this. it's not so. this is the point to me. it is a fundamental point and a sound so good when you have a political bureau like my friend carvel. he says to renew the temporary status after six years, those waiting to become citizens must prove they have been steadily employed, paid the taxes and aren't on welfare and. so let's take what's happened. we have an individual that has been in the country for three

years. they get the professional legal status when this bill passes. they have to have what we are told to show steadily employed paid taxes and not on welfare. who's going to investigate that first? so it's been here for three years. it came before december 31st, 2011. they are given legal status. whether they have a job or not. they are given this without a family and no roots in america other than having been here they claimed before december 31st, 2011. but we are not willing to deport them. we are not willing to deport them so now six years later they are unemployed and we have a recession and we don't have enough jobs for people we are

going to send out the feds and approved them and send them to junior high and high school and send them back home. give me a break. that is one of the boldest claims ever. that won't be enforced. and there are qualities in the bell. so nobody is going out to enforce this. they shouldn't say yet to get the american people to believe we are going to go out and deport what could be millions of people out of work in the five or six year period when they have to reestablish themselves that just bothers me. and they say these individuals must stand at the back of the line behind everyone who's waiting patiently. 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 are going to be given status, social security number and right to work anywhere in america. and they are not a hint of somebody waiting in line to come here? notte i had somebody in china or indonesia or italy or spain? of course they are ahead of them. they are not waiting. without words to express my concern about that. we need to be active about what the legislation says here. so what about this amnesty?

people say you shouldn't call it amnesty. well, i think that is a legitimate word. the legislation right here before us would immediately give legal status, a lot of people legal permanent residents and citizenship leader and they have to pay a few thousand dollars. well they pay a thousand dollars fine therefore you cannot call with amnesty. this legislation basically says everybody here is given legal status and put on a guaranteed pettis citizenship just on convicted of a felony. that was continued a bit but i think the sponsors gave up

objecting back in 2007 when the legislation was before us at that time but i would note in 2007 the initial finding that people paid had to be paid initially $3,000. under this bill you pay a thousand dollars over six years. then to get a green card the legal permanent residents you had to pay an additional $4,000. and on the intercom review period it calls for a payment of $1,500 totaling $8,500. so in 2007 the payments required for somebody to move forward for citizenship was at least 8500. this bill is 2,000. that is a payment stretched over

time. it is difficult for me to accept that people are earning their citizenship and paying a price for it. then they have to pay out their taxes and politico did an argument about that june 3rd and said with regard to tax payment, quote, after all it was one of the gang of eight's meen talking points the sponsors fell to their proposal would include a back tax requirement to ward off the claims that the bill with the amnesty. citizenship would come at a price, they said, that they have

all but dropped that talking point. immigration legislation moving through the senate includes a scaled-back provision that allows almost entirely on the immigrants coming forward to the internal revenue service voluntarily. critics call it toothless. it is. it has no back tax. my friend karl rove still out here claiming you have some great advantage we are going to collect all these back taxes to read and nobody's going to investigate the cases even if it were clear we don't have the ability to do so and it's not going to happen. that's just the fact. let's talk about in general some of the other issues that will come before us. i know my colleague will be joining us on the floor in a little bit and body will yield

to him if and when he comes. but i wanted to talk about these problems we were given by the people that wrote the bill. the path to citizenship would be contingent upon securing our borders and tracking whether illegal immigrants have left the country when required. that is fundamentally correct. the was the product. the gang of eight principles. the bill they say does that. i wish that were so. the path to citizenship would be contingent upon securing the borders and tracking with illegal immigrants have left the country when required.

but in truth, the bill is amnesty first and a promise of enforcement leader and with regard to tracking immigrants who left the country when they are required to it devastates and weakens the law so that can never have been effectively. it's unbelievable to me to directly contradict the current labour. on meet the press, not long ago senator schumer said flat out the promise of enforcement first is not going to happen. first people would be legalized. so, instead of enforcement first it's a legalization first as plain as day and it isn't even

disputed any longer. the illegal immigrants would be legalized immediately and not a single border war enforcement measure has to be in place then or ever. all that the secretary needs to do is submit bug reports to congress for the legal status the social security accounts, driver's licenses. the amnesty is ever accomplished. we would have a trigger until the enforcement mechanism we are not 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 that enforcement in history and indicated we do not need more fencing. so the contention from the gang of eight that we are going to have a major building at the border is not proven out. and in fact, the head of the program said, quote, the triggers are based on developing plans. she spoke to develop a plan, the secretary of homeland security, said he said they are based on developing plans and spending money not on a reaching that effectiveness which is quite clever, he said. so what mr. sherry is saying here is first he kind of let the cat out of the bag.

he said it was quite clever and it is but it's not becoming clear that that's not then what's been promised is not happening. so, you could say to the american people don't be taken in on this. we can see it now. the date and if the promise for the bill is not followed, then let your voice be heard. tell your congressman you're not happy. tell your senator you've got to do better because this is if we have an amnesty and a very generous and compassionate treatment of the people of

violating the law and come here, shouldn't we have a policy that in this illegalities in the future? that's what the american people have demanded for 40 years. they are good and decent. that is an absolutely proper thing for them to demand. and we are not doing it. it's heartbreaking to me that we are here going through this process as time goes by we will talk more about it. i see my friend from utah who is a fabulous addition to the senate committee where this legislation moves and contributed in many ways to the discussion offering excellent amendments and skills to the man that is deeply committed to the principles that made our country

great. i yield the floor mr. president. >> i was here earlier and this had been the distinguished presiding officer and now we have another distinguished presiding officer. madam president it's good to see you here as a member of the senate judiciary committee to read as the presiding officer knows they had extensive public market sessions, so the border security and economic opportunity and immigration modernization act s. 744. we worked late into the evenings and debated the bill to consider hundreds of amendments. the public saw the consideration first hand. we stream everything we did on

the internet and was bypassed on television. republican, democratic alike, we put them on the web site, we updated the committee's website to who adopted the amendment in real time. i heard from people all over the country they had involvement in what we were doing. republicans and democrats from both sides of the aisle praised the transparent process and the significant improvements for the bills made by the judiciary committee. the process followed three additional hearings with 26

witnesses and those amended supported bipartisan two-thirds majority in the committee. on behalf of the judiciary committee following an extensive committee report as well the report will be a valuable resource for senators and explains not only the underlining provisions in the legislation and its history, it also summarizes all of the amendments that were adopted and those that were rejected. so in order for all of the senators to file amendments and work on this bill the senate needs to proceed to the bill. i hoped it wouldn't affect these proceedings. senators from both sides of the dial work to develop this legislation. senators adopted by the

judiciary committee. almost no the the outcome of the amendments adopted by the committee were adopted on the party line votes on like this week's vote in the house it was nearly every member of the republican conference to prevent dreamers from being able to stay in the country. the one thing that ought to unite all of us in the dream act, these young people are year through no fault of their own. if they are considering the and pollution legislation that supports them and i hope and fair process in the senate i don't know how anybody who cares about family values, who professes to care about other people can sit down with these

young people and not be moved and not want them to have the same advantages that our children and grandchildren have. the dysfunction affects all of us. it's past time for reform. as members of the senate judiciary committee from both parties are said to conclude the proceedings, this is a matter of great significance to the american people. the senators should debate it but they are delayed from doing so by a small minority of opponents. this is not the time to have them stop the debate. madam president, there is only 100 of us, 99 now since we lost

our friend mr. frank rothenberg. we represent over 300 million americans. they are counting on us to standout for or against. when you stall you would have said i am voting may be. you can go back home and be on everybody's side. people are for it or against it. i am on your side because nobody can go one way or the other. that's not what we are looking for. we like to stand up and take the position. it's a result of the 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 came to the committee process

the product of the group of 18. now let's have a product of a group of 100 representing all the states in this country. amendment offered by 17 of the 18 were adopted in to the bill members had adopted a bill. a bipartisan majority more than two-thirds of the judiciary committee voted for the bill and it was called upon to consider. i'm honored to serve as the chairman and the senate judiciary committee and the president pro tem and the united states senate. and so section 3 in the constitution of the united states. i've been privileged to serve the people of vermont from more than 35 years, the last 38 as

their senator. but one thing i learned years ago. the senator howell important it is to keep them to stay true to their agreements. they've come together to help develop the bill do those things and we will be level to end this filibuster and stop voting up or down for the legislation on comprehensive immigration reform they take action without often paralyzing this chamber. we need an immigration system that lives up to american values. it's called upon to come

together. a few topics are more fundamental to the art as a nation than immigration. it is long proclaimed america is welcome, give us your tired and poor to breathe free. that is what america stood for. that's what we should continue to represent. my paternal great grandparents from ireland to vermont immigration in our history has been an ongoing source of renewal and our spirit and creativity and economic strength. our bipartisan legislation establishes a path of vern citizenship 311 million undocumented immigrants in this

country. it addresses a link the backlog in the current immigration system. backlogs have kept the families apart for decades. the country is chosen through no fault of their own. and agricultural workers provide the critical food supply and these important changes in the business used by dairy farmers and immigrant investors creating jobs to address the law enforcement to witness a crime. it improves the treatment of refugees since the united states as a beacon of hope in the world and it's going to make us all safer. the senate should come together to consider and pass.

we should do what's right and fair and just. immigration reform is an important economic issue and civil rights issue and fairness issue. if a majority of us stand together, we stand true to our values and agreements i believe we can pass legislation and write the next great chapter in american history and immigration those of us who are immigrants understand that. the parents and grandparents of immigrants understand just as my wife's family came to this country and created a better state of vermont. the understood.

i gave a speech with the presiding officer who knows better than anybody in here, she knows what it is to come to the country and to become part of this great country. to come as an immigrant and then become a united states senator and as the president pro tem in the chair i would suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time would be divided equally. >> that was just a portion of the debate that took place today.

i filed an application in january of 2011 seeking to obtain the 501c3 status as an educational organization. as of today i have been waiting for 29 months without status. >> many of the agencies in the federal government do not understand that they are servants of the people. they think they are masters and they are mistaken. i'm not interested in scoring political points. i want to protect and preserve the america that i grew up in, the america people cross oceans and risk their lives to become a part of and i'm terrified that it is slipping away.

thank you. >> the purpose of the tax exemption is to enable easy promotion of public goods, not political work. it's the responsibility of the irs to determine which groups are choosing the exempt status and when you're trying to manipulate and hide political organizations and campaign donors the senate finance committee held a confirmation hearing

yesterday from president obama's kit to be the next u.s. trade representative. he has come under fire for having half a million dollars in onshore account in the cayman islands, something president obama criticized mitt romney for during the presidential election could if confirmed he will oversee major trade negotiations with european union and asia. this is about one hour and 45 minutes. >> william shakespeare once said , they can both sea and land the complex world of trade negotiations and enforcement. it allows them to address the challenge. it's effective and fewer than to under 50 employees punches beyond its late to the goods,

services and intellectual property. and it negotiates rule to create jobs. it requires the leadership that is equal. leadership that can harness the strength to the u.s. government as a whole. it is a leader to put in the miles to meet with foreign counterparts and a hard bargain. a leader to partner with us in the congress to develop trade policies that work. and a leader that is willing to put in the hours to understand the challenges faced in the businesses, farmers and ranchers like jim petersen who are facing these barriers in places like china, but i'm pleased we have a leader before us today. michael was the right person for this job. for the past four years he's demonstrated a mastery of trade policy development and

implementation. he understands a small detail and sees the big picture. he's close doubt trade agreements and guided the global economic policy and promoted initiatives that have boosted america's exports by more than 40%. and he has skillfully represented the united states global firms like the g8, the g 20. he is capable to do the job at hand. we should confirm his nomination and we should do it quickly. president obama outlined a trade agenda that requires the representative who can hit the ground running. the time is right. the have an opportunity to share the growth of the region and to a lot further economic gains from the already deep ties to europe. they seek to complete the transpacific partnership negotiations by the end of the year. we will soon be reading of the free trade agreement negotiations in the european union.

and it is hard at work in geneva on the multilateral services agreement expanding opportunities for u.s. information technology products and reducing the border delays around the world. these trade policies will make a difference here at home. these are the largest for the goods and services. last year the current ttp countries totaled nearly $260 billion representing 40% total of u.s. goods and exports. and breaking down trade barriers in the country is like a real difference. japan has restrictions earlier this year and the sales are almost 50% higher. japan's average agricultural tariffs are more than 20% where hours are only five. when they come down, they will go up. the transatlantic trade partnership will stimulate economic growth and job creation and then european union has

close to $64 billion in last year supporting 2.4 million american jobs. a comprehensive agreement that tackles longstanding regulatory and agricultural barriers could add even more jobs here at home. my home state of montana shows the critical and ambitious trade agenda is to good paying jobs. montana's manufacturers, farmers and ranchers have open markets to create and maintain jobs in fact one in six manufacturing jobs in montana comes from exports. they have to offer 250%. last year montanas growers exported 65% of their crops because of the efforts of the u.s. trade negotiators in plight park and others and the farmers connect to congo. we must fulfill the promise of the trade agenda confirming them quickly. we are not fun to read the next

step would be to pass the trade promotion authority and trade adjustment assistance. with so many trade initiatives moving to completion and getting off the ground, we need tpa to support usgr and to insure the work force remains ready to compete and they went anywhere in the world. i am pleased that the administration supports tpa and worker assistance and i look forward to working with you for the new tpp and tpa so we can lay the groundwork for the trade agenda. i will continue a bipartisan tpa del. finally i would like to emphasize that the usgr must continue to harness the resources and the energy of the government for the trade agenda to be successful. it must continue to be headquartered at the white house and the government must continue to pull together behind ustr's leadership. the ambitious trade agenda has nimble action and i'm confident

that with him at the helm they will meet the ambition the president said. mr. froman, members of the committee will probably ask you some tough questions today. that is our right and responsibility. over the past several years and have shown that you are willing to go the extra mile overland and the sea to get the best deal for the rangers, businesses and workers. and i believe that you will serve ably as the next u.s. trade representative and i look forward to our discussion. >> thank you mr. chairman and mr. froman for joining here with us i look forward to hearing your testimony. >> before talking about the trade policy, i want to take a few minutes to talk about the wide disparity between the obama administration's rhetoric and the action by the administration officials. this has particular relevance to mr. froman's nomination. a few months ago when they were considering the nomination of jack lew he had invested in the

cayman islands hedge fund located that so many democrats decried as the tax haven. at the time we reminded people that in 2008 while campaigning for president, then senator obama said that the house was, quote, either the biggest building in the world or the biggest tax scam in the world today and throughout the 2012 campaign, president obama repeatedly attacked mitt romney come his opponent, for having the funds invested in the cayman island spirited and making such investments, governor romney was in the words of the obama campaign betting against america. if the president had no problem nominating someone who made similar investments to be treasury secretary. as a result of the process, we now learned that mr. froman's actively invested roughly half a million dollars in the exact same hedge fund located at the house. he is in fact the third cabinet level nominee of this year to have made use of offshore investments and structures

despite the president's unequivocal condemnation of these types of activities during the campaign. moreover, the cayman island investment is in a fund that in turn has invested in companies that helped force jobs or using the president's rhetoric to shift them below the countries like india. on top of that we already remember in 2009 when president obama remarked about wall street saying that the institutions were teetering on the collapse and asking for taxpayers to help sustain them. the president also railed against the bonuses of the time saying, quote, that is the height and your responsibility to be this shameful. elsewhere he referred to the wall street bonuses as of seen. like secretary lew, mr. froman was employed for citigroup during much of the financial crisis. in late 2008 and early 2009, american taxpayers provided over

$45 billion with the direct assistance to citigroup and hundreds of billions of assets. during the same two years, mr. froman received more than $5 million of bonuses much of which was paid for the work performed when they were on the verge of collapse. once again we see the contradiction between the president's rhetoric with regard to wall street and his decision to nominate him to be the u.s. trade representative. i don't raise these issues to suggest that mr. froman has done something wrong or that he hasn't complied with our tax law. i believe he has complied and he's looked within all to the events that i simply what went out with a pierced the hypocrisy. on the part of president obama and this administration. the president's rhetoric seems to suggest offshore investments and outsourcing and wall street bonuses are not simply bad policy but they are morally wrong it the same vitriol used to attack the president's

political opponents doesn't seem to apply to his nominees for the cabinet positions. as i said during the takeover secretary lew's nomination, the american people are a essentially being told that they should do as the obama administration says, not as they do. that doesn't inspire a lot of confidence to say the least. that said we shouldn't allow them to distract us from trying to help grow the economy through trade. the u.s. trade representative is a vital position. and despite any disagreements i might have with the obama administration's rhetoric i believe the nomination should be considered on its own merits. trade is the engine of economic growth. since the end of world war to the international trade has helped pull millions of people out of poverty level creating enormous opportunities for growth here in the united states. unfortunately it appears as though the trade policy has been a draft for much of the term.

the delay in submitting trade agreements with colombia, panama and korea kept this exporters on the sideline for far too long. now we say they are working out as very good agreements. while new and potential meaningful negotiations have been launched by this administration, not one of them seems close to a successful conclusion to but i am counting on you to strengthen that out. this is due to a lack of leadership and the fact that our trade negotiators don't have the tools needed to do their job. the trade promotion authority expired in 2007 as the chair pointed out as a result our trade negotiations lack authority necessary to conclude the new trade agreements. unfortunately, they're has been no effort by president obama to secure the approval. members of congress have thought that to fix this we push for a renewal on the senate for 21 months ago. unfortunately that effort failed

deutsch the lack of support from the senate democratic colleagues. to me this shows that presidential engagement on the renewal is vital. without the president's act of leadership and public support, it's hard to see how the current efforts to renew the trade promotion authority can succeed. and we must succeed. today, 95% of the customers live outside of the united states. they account for 92% of the global the economic growth. and 80% of the world's purchasing power. the united states was falling behind as we fight for access to these markets. fortunately the u.s. has a number of promising initiatives underway in putting the transpacific partnership and the negotiations with of the european union as mentioned by the chairmen. these agreements must be comprehensive and incorporate the highest standards of intellectual property rights protection and provide meaningful market access for the u.s. exporters. in pursuing these initiatives, i

hope the administration doesn't lose sight of the importance under the auspices of the world trade organization including expansion of the information technology and government procurement agreement and conclusion of the robust agreements on trade and international services and trade facilitation to beat each of these represents an important opportunity to further advance trade and grow our economy. during the hearing on the president's trade agenda, i call on the president to nominate someone to serve as the united states trade representative who has the trade expertise, political savvy and leadership skills necessary to effectively lead this agency to be our nominee today certainly appears to meet that test to read and i am pleased that you are willing to do this. you have served most recently as assistant to the devotee national security adviser for the economic affairs at the white house and in multiple senior economic roles under the prior administrations.

i intend to support you. but i did want to raise these issues because the hypocrisy involved certainly during the last election. we thank you for holding this hearing today and i look forward to hearing from mr. froman and how he will if confirmed by the senate carey of the duties of the u.s. trade representative. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. froman before we begin it is customary to ask the nominees if they wish to introduce their family. >> thank you very much mr. chairman and ranking member hatch. it's my pleasure to introduce my wife, nancy, my children, benjamin and sarah, our caregiver jennifer and i will ask the committee's indulgence. today is ben's last day of school so he may leave early and we will see how long sahara last but it's my pleasure. >> do you mind standing so we can recognize you? [applause]

good luck, ben on your last day. knock them dead. as you know, mr. froman, if you could summarize the record in about five minutes. >> thanks mr. chairman, ranking member hatch and members of the committee for the kind introduction. i'm humbled by the confidence president obama has shown by nominating me for this position and i'm grateful and honored to be considered by the committee, i want to thank my family for the love and support they've given me to make this possible, the possibility of service and real. i also want to thank my parents and recognize how much the of meant to me and what they've contributed to me. my mother was an elementary teacher, a den mother and an active member of the pta. my father was an immigrant that fled hitler germany, grow up in israel, came to the united states to go to school, built a small business, president of the

rotary club and is an important source of guidance today. my parents taught me the value of hard work and education, the importance of getting back to the community and the privilege to serve and work and improve the world. i wouldn't be in today and i certainly wouldn't be here today without then. in the recent weeks i have enjoyed candid discussions with many of you about trade and america's broad economic challenges. there is a long tradition of cooperation between the finance committee and that is a tradition that i plan to continue if i am confirmed. as president obama has made clear, our goal must be to promote growth, create jobs and strengthen the middle class. i can see ustr's job in that effort to be threefold by opening the markets around the world so we can expand our exports. second by leveling the playing field so people can compete and win in the global economy. fervor by ensuring that our trade rights and laws that we worked so hard for our fully

implemented and enforced. i first had the opportunity to work with ustr as a white house fellow under george h. w. bush and then under president clinton and over the past four years as president obama's adviser on economic affairs. it's clear to me that ustr is a very special place. ustr professionals to exemplify the finest traditions of public service. they work hard, they are nimble, they bring intellectual rigor to the mission and get things done for the american people. if confirmed it would be an honor to lead them to read as we speak, ustr staff are busy negotiating the groundbreaking transpacific partnership. they are consulting with you on the upcoming negotiations for an unprecedented trans-atlantic trade partnership. in geneva they are working to liberalization on transportation technology and services. all of these negotiations are designed to strengthen the multilateral rules based trading system and press it to achieve

its highest possible aspirations. if we can conclude these agreements, let me be clear my view is that it's better to accept no agreement than a bad agreement. we will position the united states at the center of a network of agreements creating free trade with 65% of the global economy to beat is among the most ambitious trade agendas and history. the trade is also a powerful tool for development and if confirmed i look forward to working with you to renew the gsp and find innovative ways to facilitate trade and regional integration across the developing world. the trade policy can only work if it is fair. and we are committed to opening up the markets but we are equally committed to enforcing the trade rights and the trade law and helping displaced workers obtain the skills and the jobs they need. american workers are the most productive in the world and they deserve to compete in a level playing field. 18 cases were brought to date and the creation of the interagency trade enforcement

center to enhance the death and the reach of our enforcement efforts to be doused with so many things that couldn't have been possible without the support of this committee to be a trade policy only fulfills its full potential when it reflects close consultations between the administration, congress and a wide range of stakeholders. in that regard if confirmed, i will engage with you to renew the trade promotion of 40. tpa is a critical tool and i look forward to working with you to craft a bill that achieves our shared goals. let me conclude by making clear that if given the honor of serving as the representative i will do everything in my ability to promote the interest of workers, farmers and ranchers, manufacturers and service providers, innovators and investors and consumers. thank you again for considering my nomination. i'm happy to take your questions. >> thank you. we ask the nominee is first is their anything in the background that might present a conflict of

interest with the duties of the office that you have been nominated? do you know of any reason personal or otherwise the would venture from discharge of the responsibility to the office for which you have been nominated? do you agree to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and testify before any constituted committee of congress if you are confirmed? the last one we have added recently. do you commit to provide a prompt response in writing to any questions addressed buy any senator in the committee? thank you. you have outlined a very ambitious agenda, trade agenda, multiple negotiations going forward. they would like to have some confidence in the agreement that you've reached to the united states will be honored to be in line pleased that you personally said you are making a trade promotion of authority that the

congress will get the promotion of 40 to pass quickly. does this mean the president is requesting the removal of the trade promotion authority? connect yes mr. chairman. >> the president is asking for tpa to be moved? >> yes. >> good. there has been some question about that. and i am glad to hear that is clearly stated. next an opportunity to clear the air a little bit about the cayman islands investment that you just told this committee how you can to invest in it and the taxes paid, money earned, etc.. what happened? >> thank you mr. chairman. when i was in the private sector i had the opportunity to produce a peaden program to invest in the international fund. i didn't invest in the fund because of where it was located. because it allowed me to diversify my portfolio.

i'm no tax expert but my understanding is this is an investment partnership fund where all of the earnings and the gains or losses are passed on to the individual investors. i pay taxes. i can every penny of taxes due on that fund. i am not aware of any tax benefit i've received and the investment in that fund. >> is there a legitimate question about the investment practice as a consequence what might it be? several have raised questions. if you could adjust again tell us why your investment is on the up and up and all taxes are paid, nothing of any illegal nature -- >> again i know tax expert and i can't speak for other

activities. all i can say is with regard to this kind of find all of the gains and losses of the investment are passed on to the individual investors. i forwarded that to my accountant and every penny of taxes that are due on that investment. >> could you talk to us a little bit about china cracks there's a lot of articles lately in the news particularly struck the article in the sunday review section of "the new york times" about how china is very aggressively investing wide-body not only direct investment but loans. the chinese loans exceeded the world bank loans for that year. real concern that the playing field isn't level with china.

the united states is more open. the investment example in the plant that china doesn't take a 1 ounce. it doesn't seem to be to level to me. what leverage does this country have? what leverage can you undertake to help level the playing field? i don't think anybody wants to bash the that the other time we don't want to be taken advantage of. can you help indicate to us what your policy would be and how we get leverage so we are doing something constructive? >> there is probably no greater issue on the trade agenda than our relationship with china as it comes across so many different issues. we have engaged with them

through all sorts of mechanisms by laterally from the president down through the strategic and economic dialogue through the joint commission on the commerce and trade through the bg 20, the volume f to take on the issues we think as you said create an unlevel playing field between us and we are focused on making progress where we can both in terms of pushing for further domestic reform in china on issues like the liberalization of the exchange-rate policy, the reform of the financial sector, reform of the state-owned enterprise sector to ensure our companies competing in those enterprises are not the world have a level playing field in which to operate. we work also through the enforcement agenda. we brought several cases against china over the next four years from manufacturing to agriculture to services at the wto. the 421 case about china with regards to tires and see that

sector we've founding and more jobs created so we have to use every tool at our disposal. the result of an end to the dialogue, international institutions and also the enforcement mechanisms where necessary to ensure there is a level playing field for the workers and ranchers and farmers. >> i would urge you to spend more time thinking about this in an effective way because the playing field is not level and we have to start standing up for ourselves in the country more than we have in the past. it means leverage. no country altruistic we have the goodness of its heart is a trade barrier. they don't own their own. they do it for the leverage if they have to. and you're going to have to figure out a way working with this committee and other relevant committees to figure out that leverage is. because if we believe this unattended i think it is going to get worse.

>> thank you mr. chairman. i will defer to him and then maybe get my timing back later. >> i think my colleague. mr. froman, thank you for coming to my office and the conversation we had their. i will assure the chair i'm only going to ask one question. i think it's an easy question. but i do need a specific answer. you and i talked at that time about the fact that a poorly negotiated tpp agreement could result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of u.s. jobs in the textile industry or related industries, and specifically in my state of north carolina, about 40,000 jobs would be in jeopardy. ..

we have clear rule of origin. we also need mechanism to ensure there's a transshipment. we have to work with our colleagues including cpp to ensure there's heck -- mechanism. yes, the yarn forward rule is the essential part of our textile. >> thank you, i would yield senator hatch the balance of his time, if he would like it. >> anything at all. >> that will be great. let me just say this, as you probably know, usgr is an agency

in crisis. the personnel management conducts an annual employee survey to, you know, evaluate staff and satisfaction in government agencies. the 2012 study found usgr placed last month's agencies in effective leadership as shown by this chart. the -- [inaudible] which is disturbing to me. you may well tell me this is a result of constrained resources. the dollar trend in the satisfaction has been continue use since 2009, as you can see by this chart. the best place to work -- you can see there for those -- this

this case it is almost half of what it was in 2009, the study declined is really a concerning to me. when in your opinion, required to effectively lead the agency. i intend to restore morale in us dwrks r? >> thank you, senator hatch. i agree with you about the importance of staff morale and would be a high priority of mine if confirmed to focus on it. my experience is that staff tends to have high morale when they feel like they are working on something important, and their work is valuabled. and the trade agenda we were doing this morning and the president laid out regard to ttp and ttip. and the other initiatives that the building works on give it a sense of mission and the opportunity to make improvements in morale. resources are an issue, clear

lip, but i think the combination of being able to secure adequate resources and focus people on the importance of the mission they have before this and the sen centrality of the mission and the country's overall economic agenda will be an important part of turning around on that chart. >> i have a high opinion of you. you come well recommended. there's no question about your dedicated service and intelligence in my eyes. i'm glad here today the president is formally requesting tpa, i think it's about time. i can't imagine any president not wanting that. he will get active in the area. we are sphawling way behind. other countries are moving ahead with trade agreements.

and we're slipping. so we're counting on you being energetic and i don't know how you are going stand away to be away from the cute kids and your wife, but you are going have to do that. we appreciate your willingness. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, senator. senatorwide. >> thank you. i want to pick up on your point, mr. chairman, as we begin mr. froman. i believe we believe the country needs vigorous proactive approach to remedying unfair trade practices. that's what our businesses deserve. that's who our workers deserve. as you know, our solar industry has exercised the right to obtain antidumping order. china responded by evading the order and unfairly retaliating against our producers in the global solar supply chain. china acted similarly with

respect to a trade case in europe. now, as you have talked about. our government can't restofl on our own. we have to have a global settlement. we have to have an opportunity for governments to discuss this as far as china and europe. my administrations is that the administration is gauged now with the party, with china, with europe to the goal of forging an agreement that would end the retaliatory chinese cases and level the playing field for america's producers. my understanding is that you support those efforts, and you are one of the leaders in those discussions. can you just share your vies on this? >> thank you, senator. thank you for your leadership on this important issue. it is a critically important issue. it brings together both the importance of enforcing our trade laws effectively, the importance of seeing the further development of clean energy, and

the importance of leveling the playingfield so so we can participate in the growing market. it's one of the reasons we have been active over the last few years in bringing cases related to clean energy. we brought out a case of the wto against india's localization policy in the solar area. that kept our producers. we brought the first section 301 case against china for wind subsidizes and got them to drop them. we brought a wto case against china. >> since my time is short. do you support a global settlement? >> yes. on the solar issue in particular. yes. it involves the whole supply chain, silicon makers, not just the u.s. but the european market as well. there have been initial discussions with the european market and china about how to deal with this on a global basis and that would be -- i look forward to working with you to

determine how to do it in the best way possible. >> if you are confirmed i want you to own the negotiations. it's a hugely important issue. we have to be able to be producers in the renewable energy field. question two on transparency. as you know, i feel strongly about this and talked about it particularly we saw in. pippa s. how strong the public feels about this. if confirmed, will you make sure where there is a significant public interest gate clear and updated -- seeking to obtain in the negotiation so we can make the process more transparent in the future? >> yes, senator. i think it's critically important that we have very good transparency and consultations between the administration, between congress, between key stakeholders and the public at large. as you know, we table -- we brief this committee staff on

every proposal before we table it in any negotiation. we get their input and feedback. we have robust program of making available to any member of the committee, any member of the senate, any member of the house a text of negotiating proposals. >> let's plan to talk about it some more. i would like that to be online for the american people can be a fuller pather in in the debate. let me ask you about one other question. as you know question agree genetically engineered wheat. they said it's safe. as you know, an investigation is going on right now. but what i'm concerned about is some of our trading partners, unfortunately, responded by suggesting sort of in the meantime they are going discriminate against american wheat import and do it despite a lack of evidence that there is a problem with this genetically

engineered wheat in the extreme of commerce. what i would like you to tell us if confirmed will you use all the tools you have to stand up for america's agricultural exports so they don't face discriminate treatment in the foreign marketses? >> -- yes, senator. >> thank you, senator. >> i appreciate your question about transparency. i read an article recently the administration usgr not being transparent. i think your answer explains it. and the negotiations are fully transparent respect to the member of congress and staff. i encourage you to keep it up. nothing worse than the american people think something is being hidden and secret. i urge you to keep it up. >> absolutely. >> thank you very much. next is senator carr don. >> thank you.

mr. froman thank you for your willingness to serve. we thank your family. it's a family sacrifice. i thank you for that. i want to first talk about the -- your position on strong human rights, labor, and environmental standards as we look at expanding trade opportunity. having stable trading partners is important for us. good govern mans is important to have stable trading partners. we have been able to make advancement on human rights and environmental labor standards through trade agreements. one of the last tpa negotiated, there were certain provisions put in that tpa to guarantee the right to organize to prohibit child labor standards and force labor standards. we have environmental issues and human rights standards. i want to know your willingness to work with us to use every opportunity we have to expand interest important to the united

states. we have a tension of our country when we have trade agreement. other times we don't have that intention. are you prepared to work with us to advance these goals. >> yes, senator. i think we agree it is very important that we maintain and establish high standards on issues like labor and environment and ipr and other issues through our trade agreement. i would broaden it out rchtion however, and say we need to pair it with other efforts question do with the country whether it's dialogue around human rights or the open government partnership which focused on good govern mans and transparency and anticorruption and accountability. i look forward to working with you on the issues. >> and i agree with that, but i underscore the point. you have opportunities that aren't available at other times. the other opportunity we -- we need followup. we have been able to make tremendous drives.

when we have at the negotiating table. when you look at tpa you should have the authority the broadest possible authority to negotiate on behalf our country. i urge you to work with us and be open to opportunities where we can advance the goals. >> thank you, senator. >> i want to talk about the tpa, i was in asia this past week, i had a chance to talk to some of the countries that are involved. particularly japan. i heard your response to senator burr as it relates to yard forward issue. i appreciate that and certainly support that position. let me point there are other issues that are involved. in maryland we have manufacturers that are facing a very difficult circumstance as we go through the terrorist issues on the importation of wool. there's a wool trust fund we need to modernize and move forward. will you -- are you prepared to

work with us as we look at the trade agreement to make sure we have the appropriate programs in this country, such as the wool trust found deal with fair competition for u.s. manufacturers? >> yes, senator. we understand the sense sensitivity of those issues. >> i appreciate that. one other issue, which deals with heavy trucks. we have global mack in maryland, a truck which makes heavy trucks, and is concerned that in the agreement that we have of colombia and a five-year elimination for the tariff. mexico moved more quickly. the agreement provide you can accelerate that reduction of the tariff of the other countries. but would you be submitted -- committed to advancing the best question the accelerate of the terrorists which would help u.s.

manufacture ers? >> my understanding there's a process for accelerating tariff and there's a federal register asking for comments and idea from industries that would like to see it done. i'm happy to look in to that. >> accelerate tariff elimination. >> make sure we have that clear. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. congratulations on your nomination. your record is outstanding. i wish you the best in your service to the country. now a couple specific questions of interest. the trade representative has a unique to right wrong when you start negotiated. we have the opportunity to correct some things that have been added in term of past practice. as japan entering the tpp raises a question of great interest to me. as you probably know, the number of life insurers have been working in japan under the agreement with the japanese government for years to the tune of e6d $66 billion.

japan through the japan post insurance has become the major competitor with those life insurance companies to the detriment of their business. and with preferential advantages granted by the japanese government. will you engage on the issue and the tpp negotiations? you said your number two priority was level the playing field. in japan right now the playingfield has been tilted in favor of the government-owned entity. we need attention to the matter. will you commit to in? >> yes, senator. one of the chi issues we agree to let japan come in tpp is reach the agreement upfront on part of that issue. and also agree to a parallel negotiation on the insurance. so even beyond within the tpp agreement we'll try to address the particular by lateral issues with japan. >> thank you for that commitment. i appreciate it. when you were in my office, we talked about my interest in africa and trips we have made

there. in particular, what we did last year at the 11th hour we got a third party extension on the african growth and opportunity act which comes up for renewal in 2015. we can't afford to wait until 2015 until the last minute to renew the act. what is your plan as u.s. trade representative to engage in term of timing wise and effort. >> senator, the forum meets in august of this year. with all of the countries. and if confirmed, i would like to use that as an opportunity to start a process looking at it looking backwards and seeing what worked where can it be improved, and working with the committee and appreciate your leadership in particular on the committee and foreign relations committee with regards to africa to make sure there's a seemless renewal prior to the exper ration in 2015. >> thank you. the chairman may reference to china and africa in his remarking. it's important in that relationship. trade has -- where we can trump

china is money. and china is investment for their own benefit is to trump them on trade with the african people. that's a rich environment for the united product and advanced technology and agricultural product and the like. africa is an important part in the future. as that trade represent, i hope you will focus on that. lastly, my last question is with regards to the free trade agreement with south korea. and the breakthrough language that caused criminal penalty to be likened to the u.s. criminal penalty in term of intellectual property theft. are you familiar with that? why i'm not, no. >> one of the biggest problems we have had with a particularly asia, i want to pick one part of the world. intellectual property going in to american movie theaters, recording a movie and taking it overseas and marking it. the is south korea free trade agreement -- to criminalize it on the party with united states

law. will you work on doing the same things? intellectual property is tremendously important for our business and economic growth industry. >> absolutely, senate. we very much agree about the importance of intellectual property rights protection. we want to strengthen the protections around the world including on taking new issues like cyber theft as part of the trade secret issue. yes, we will work on that. >> thank you vsh very much. best of luck to you. >> thank you. mr. browne. >> thank you. thank you for joining us. i want to talk to you about too big to fail. and the raid representative involvement in that. wall street and industry friendly european regulators are now seeking to use any they can to roll back some of the reform that the three and what we did with dodd-frank. seeking to include in the us

e.u. the ongoing negotiations. negotiations european finance industrying want to stop some of the derivative, rules earlier this week the business round table here advocated we tire hands effectively. in some ways unilaterally disarming ourselves from the too big to fail. do we need strong financial rules in the negotiations, and refraining from a race to the bottom? >> well, first of all, senator. there's nothing that we are going do through a trade agreement that weaken our financial regulation to roll back dodd-frank or roll back the effort that the administration and congress worked on for the last four years to reform our financial regulatory system and here and the g20 and other mechanism to raise the standards around the world. with regard to the transatlantic financial service are key part of our economic relationship.

our view is that market access should be part of trade and negotiation. after the financial crisis of '08 and '09 there's an explosion of activity among regulators. bilot i are between the u.s. and the e.u. and the bis, fsb, and our view that work ought to continue in parallel not in negotiations, but parallel with the negotiations that they are working on ideally at the end of the negotiates be able to look and see aexroses the whole relationship. what progress we have made toward bringing our economy together. we're going to to through our trade negotiation. >> you can assure this committee and the senate in that these large scale regional trade agreement whether it's the tpp that we will not undermine any of the financial regulators. the fdic.

>> yes. >> one more thing. does an agreement like this do they need investor state. i understand the investor state canceling with countries that haven't had the history of the rule of law and investor protection and public enforcement and all of that. why do we -- do we need an extrajudicial and private enforcement system when the u.s. and european property rights are sophisticated and advanced and protected already? >> first of all, we are still in the ninety day period of consult assistant. we haven't launched it yet. we're in in process of taking in feedback from members of congress and stakeholders and others. it's i think it's topic worthy of discussion of the consultation process. our goal in the agreements is to try and establish the highest

standards and do discipline where appropriate to raise the overall level of the global trading system. how it get translated is an issue we need to consult on. >> do you think investor state provisions are fundamentally different in a advanced property rights group of country like the e.u. than in the trade agreement we might assign with latin america country? >> at this point. i don't have a position on that. i want to think about how -- your right. there may be different legal regime. what impact including or not including it might have on our desire to raise the standards overall in the multilateral trading system. >> receipt -- let me ask in another contradiction. a recent study by the peterson institute found that half or more -- the extend to which to currency manipulation by foreign government. they estimate that up to 5 million job -- the figure of 5 million job losses as a result

of a that. the national manufacturers said it's a key the administration spare no effort to see that currencies are market determined and free of government intervention. the house 200 plus members sent a letter to the president saying warning -- we're talking about currency discipline for tpp. there is significant sentiment on this committee there were five sponsors. there are five of the six original sponsors in representativing both parties on this the committee of my currency legislation which passed the senate overwhelmingly last year. i think there's great interest in doing something on currency either on fast track or tpp. what would you do to address the kind of currency manipulation which i think unquestionably violates international rules.

>> thank you for your sense of leadership on the issue. this is an issue that is obviously very high on the agenda. it's something we raise an example of china at every meeting at any level with regard to their currency policy and continuously push them to move forward market-oriented trade rate to allow adjustment to the rate. the tissue i are department has a lead on cush issues. if confirmed i look forward to working with them and you to determine how best to move forward. with regard to china, there's been modest progress. when we came in to office, the it was pegged. in june 2010 after several discussions with the chinese it began to depressureuate. it depreciated sufficient%. not fast or far enough. we need to continue to prez it at every occasion. we need to find each step in the way what the most effective way to make progress.

we happy to continue to work with you on that. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. froman to your willingness to step farred. we were talking about your family earlier. i thank your family for their sacrifice. i had three kids under 15 when i had that job, and it does require a lot of travel. but as i went to talk to the former usgr. don't confuse travel or motion with movement. meaning you can do a lot without traveling as well. i'm sure you figured that out in your current job. you have a great team there. it's a terrific team of committed professional. i'm concerned about what senator hatch laid out. this is a crisis of morale. you talk about a sense of mission, you try to -- the agency with. i think that's important.

it's not just funding. it goes to leadership and mission. i think tpa is part of giving a mission. in other words without trade promotion authority which the administration hasn't asked for until the trade agenda this year. it's kind of difficult to make progress on the issues. in fact i would argue that in the five years since we had trade promotion authority, u.s. has fallen behind substantially. the senator talked about that earlier. it's one of my major concerns that we need to get it done so we can have the opportunity. we tend make the most progress on reducing barrier. i would ask can you give personal assurances to the committee today that you will indeed be involved and engaged in trying to get trade promotion authority to the congress by the end of the year. >> senator, absolutely. thank you for your leadership on this issue and the continued

support of usgr as an institution. we are ready to engage and work with the committee. we like to get the tpa done as soon as possible. >> you will personally engage in that. my understanding in the march report there hasn't been a deep enbasement. -- engagement. in term of japan and the broader issue we have in term of autos and specifically you have probably seen the ad. i got it today. it's about the u.s..3% market share in japan. it's not small vehicles. it's broader than that. it's about currency and non-tariff barriers. i would ask you how well negotiations with japan parallel to the tpp talks we're having. address the concerns. what are you willing to coin term of dealing with the

currency issue. which i think is critical. since october of last year the yen weakened by nearly 6%. it's a $6 ,000 advantage per car to japanese vehicles. and this is on a $30,000 car. so this is a big deal to big three here in the united states and they're looking for a level playing field. can you team us what you were doing with regard to this issue and also nontariff barriers as you work on the tpp agreement? >> before we agree to let japan join tpp be engaged in a series of negotiations with them about. rereach some agreement up front with regard to the increased access to the market. and more than doubling of their program, accelerated import. we received agreement about how tariff will be treated in tpp before they join. and we agree on a term of

reference for a parallel negotiation on auto which is to be binding, resolution and part of the overall tpp process. we have ongoing work to do with japan the ttp process to allow us do the work. >> i we appreciate it today. you will be involved with that. with regard to india we have a lot of concerns about what is going on today in india. especially the market access barrier protection measures. one is the lack of respect for patent. you probably follow somebody in your current job. basic and intellectual property protections are set aside. i think the actions are in disregard of the rules. they are disruptive to innovation. and i think frankly, it's a major concern because it can spread in ohio alone i would tell your exports to ipped ya have slunk by over 5 percent after a year of steady growth.

i think there's an issue with regard to india. i would ask you if confirmed if you would personally engage with india trade issues what i think is a critical time. >> absolutely, senator. >> mr. chairman, i see my time is coming to an end. i have a lot of other questions for you, mr. froman. ly supply them to you as qfr. i appreciate your stepping up and taking on the job. i think there are a lot of challenges but tremendous opportunities particularly with the trade negotiation authority as a tool you can use to open up foreign markers to our farmers, workers, and ranchers. >> thank you, senator. i think it's a good point to end on. since i have been on the committee i can't think of a more important challenging time for usdr.

the competition is greater. the need for more creative effective action. i would like you to follow you have the full confidence of the committee in working with you to accomplish it. knees own jectives. we don't have much time left. we have to work creatively to have the best for our kids and grant -- grand kids. we want them to have the life that the americans have enjoyed so wonderfulfully. it only happens if we rise to the challenge and work there's a salvation here which i addressed. i want to agree with, one, ip issues that are department raised. this is coming to more and more worldwide problem. china, india, and other countries.

and i urge you to think more creatively than your predecessors have. they have done well. but they have to step up and -- senator hatch alluded to it. you are well qualified, right experience, and experience. you are the man for the job. you're the man for the time. we want to work with you. hopefully it will address other issues raised here correctly and that's morale at the usgr. i think we can address that problem. if we can go ahead and -- you find a crack team down there. it's good help them do that. it's a self-fulfilling prophesy and -- work us with and let us know. hopefully get you confirmed right away so you have the job. >> mr. chairman, i see senator hatch. if after senator hatch goes.

i had two brief questions additional. >> senator hatch. >> i have a few questions regarding india. i would like to ask one of the largest recipient of benefit under the system is not the largest that is india. they shut u.s. company out of the market through a variety of measures including restrictive of inport and product and force companies to manufacture in india forcing companies to give their intellectual property to indian companies to increase local employment, and of course engaging in market access policy that give preferences to the companies other u.s. company and communication technology space. considering the administration must consider whether india provided equitable and reasonable market access and determining whether to extend gsp benefits.

to enjoy gsp benefits when it shuts u.s. companies entirely out of its own markets? >> thank you, senator hatch. gsp has multiple purposes. some is for development, some u.s. firms rely on the import from gsp curve for their production talk about what reform might be appropriate. >> do you understand with regard to the -- absolutely. with regard to india in specifically. i think there are a number of concerning development regarding the innovation and investment, environment. you messagessed a number of them. i'm concerned with the dedoor deter your

continues to take action and make it very difficult for u.s. innovative pharmaceutical companies to secure and enforce their patent in india. i'm disturbed by india's decision to issue a license for an important issue on a spacious grounds. also counterfeiting and piracy continue to be rampant in india. the and the government's ipr enforcement efforts remain weak. given that negotiations have not born fruit what specific steps would you take to bring about improvement in the ip policy and practices and should india continue to have access to gsp benefits considering the effect of reconsideration as the extend to which india is providing adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights. >> senator, i think first we should make sure we are using

our enforcement tools where we can to press india to implement ipr protection. we brought the case on localization for solar panel and working with industry to determine how best to address the specific issues you raise. with regard to gsp, as i said i think we ought to sit down after renewing gsp to think through what kind of reforms make sense going forward including how to deal with issues like this. >> well, the united may enter in to a bilateral investment trading with india, but -- [inaudible] would you please let us know how many investment they are pending between india and u.s. entity. and two, whether india has been abiding by the invest stake commitment with the international adds well. could you do that for us? >> yes, senator. >> if you do that i would be appreciative. let me ask one other question. while the online marketplace is critically important to our u.s.

creative industries, it's estimated full potential because of rampant online copyright theft. as ustr what additional steps would you take in the online space and foster a legitimate online commerce? >> well, this is a key. the process markets we found china were two website there was a rampant cowrpt fit product being sold and managed to shut them down. we want to use our enforcement available to us including work at the interagency trade enforcement center to put together cases with the consultation of industry to go after practices like that. >> all right. thank you. let me ask one other question before my time runs out. last february the administration issued an executive order i tech in large part to improve efficiency and bringing trade

and enforcement action. it's been nearly sixteen months since it was create. i was wondering for you could tell us how it's been working and the sufficiency been improved. are there any changes or recommend or make that you would think would improve it? >> thank you, senator. it's gotten off the ground and doing well. it's got detailee from several agency. the department of commerce, treasury, justice, usda, state and others. and having subject matter expert. language expert country experts all in the same place allowed it to put together cases we couldn't have put together before. i'll mention the export case against china we brought in the wto. they literally had to piece together the puzzle of several hundred regulations that showed a picture of extensive export subsidies for auto parts. and we haven't been to be go that with the resources working

together in one place. we are pleased with the way they have gotten started. it's one of several cases it managed to put together. we are grateful that the department of commerce and the other agencies for having put up resource and helping to get it off the ground. we work hoping with the committee and others going forward with enable it is to to be properly resourced and continues to strengthen it. >> thank you. i'll submit my other questions so you answer them in writing. >> senator -- [inaudible] you're next, i believe. and i'm not sure after you. >> i think it's senator kasey then men menendez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> well, i've been off at the meeting on immigration reform. i'm happy to be back. i see your ben daughter and -- son ben have bailed. >> my boys are 22 and 24.

there's no way they would walked in the door at that age. the fact they showed up is a compliment to them. we our older boy when he was a 22, i was spending time in india, and clean energy issues and so forth. really a challenging time. but i think also a good experience for him. got to go visit with him and learn a little bit more about the country through him and our time there. a number of my colleagues have already raised the issue of india. i don't want to pile on with respect to india. as you hearing today there are real concerns important trading partner. important nation for us to get along with. and work with. and to be our partner at love ways. with the issues are. issues being raised here. we hope you will be mindful of those. the other thing i would say and people ask how do we make the economic pie pigger for the

united. i talk about investing in three areas. investing in world class work frors and infrastructure probably. and third area in r&d and create products and goods and services can be soupled. and also tax policy. those are the same thing we have tax policy working in spending policy in those three areas. another thing that is important for us is make sure that whether we create those product, technology, goods, or service we can sell them to markets and some cases if they are hard to get in to. the job you are taking on -- you have nominated for. i'm grateful for you and your way of and kids. thank you for letting him do this and sharing him with our country. i was impressed when i met with your husband. he said you think i'm smart, you should talk to my wife. [laughter] we're grateful for that. i have a question that relates to enforcement.

and i obviously believe trade could be an effective tool to level the playing field so that our businesses can compete in global marketplaces. however enforcing the rule on the book is fair trade, and to competition. they take step to ensure that it was a key deponent trade agenda. at the time when u.s. poultry industry -- the reason i'm interested. chickens for every person that lives in delaware and it might be true in maryland. it's a big deal for us. but at the time when u.s. poultry industry sees key market close as a result of unscientific nontariff. continue the important rule of

-- including several in the agricultural area. including some in poultry against india for the influenza restriction against china for some of the its use inappropriate use of the law against our poultry export. we continue to focus on those as we move ahead. >> all right. and related question, but at the same time can you ensure us that you and the folks you -- would work to address existing barrier for poultry industry through agreement -- senator, we be clear to our trading partner that agricultural and sanitary standards that are often used as trade barrier need to be addressed through these agreement. we have made some progress.

through confidence building measures. as we complete it it will be on the agenda. >> great. one last question. i was here for your testimony. others may have asked the question. in term of what we do to help you and the folks at the be more effective a short to-do list, please. >> well, senator, thank you if the offer. i think on many issues whether it's t pressuring p, t tip. ensuring the usgr has the support it needs. we very much look forward working with this committee and working closely between the u is gr and we plan to continue it. >> thank you. >> i would like for the record indicate that i could barely see his wife's lips move when he spoke. we're grateful to you nancy. thank you for your willingness

to serve. >> thank you for being with us and willingness to serve. it's a great exeement -- one on the question of tpp and japan and debate about auto. i want to start with question about competitiveness and intellectual property. we know the advantage that we've had for a long period of time now because of our great bio farm industry here. we rely upon the ip, the intellectual property that underguards that advantage we have. i know, it's of great concern to the administration and frankly people in -- seen you seen

numbers like this i'm when it comes to a particular product it could cost as much as $1.3 million on investment on average of ten to fifteen years to work to woght develop. i wanted to make sure we have a strong set as possible. i think fairly broad based agreement on a as long-term as possible of data exclusivity of the twelve-year consensus, i would argue. and just want to ask you about your work as trade representative upon conformation. will you work to make sure we have those kinds of protections in place for that term of years? >> senator casey. , i agree our innovation is central part of our comparative

advantage of our nation. and economy. we need ensure that we offer the intellectual property as to the highest possible standards. and through tpp, as one example, we are working to ensure that there high standards for intellectual property. we have begun the process with the tpp partner explaining what is in u.s. law with regard to data protection and by logic and how it work and why it's in there. that's part of the ongoing discussion rehaving now. >> i urge you to embrace what has been a strong consensus here and throughout the country and the maximum protection possible. and really the second question is one i know that you have addressed if not directly today certainly it's been raised. that's the question of japan and auto industry and whether or not

after many years of efforts to open up the japanese auto market, we've had, in my judgment, years of frustration, which i think creates kind of a predicate for skepticism when it comes to tpp and whether or not in tpp in place whether or not we're going have the kind of access to the japanese allowing their market to open up as it relates to auto and i want to get your view on that. i think it's a major issue for a lot of people here as it relates to not just tpp but broader trade policy. >> i don't think there's anybody that cares more about the u.s. auto try or certainly it direction i have received from

him to ensure what we're doing through tpp give us the opportunity to protect -- and fbi us the opportunity to build on the strength going forward. we made it a central focus in theup to japan's why we agreed on certain provision that give us more immediate access on the market as well as how we deal with our own. and the context of tpp. make sure we have enough defensive measures here as well. that's very much part of the overall effort. >> just for the record say there's skepticism about ability to open up the market and look forward to working with you.

thank you, senator. >> senator men menendez. >> thank you. we had an opportunity to discuss you're going to hear consistent issues that i will raise today, and that i will raise on your conformation. and as you're in the job. that's intellectual property rights, protection. the united states is a global leader in this respect, and if we create too to the intellectual capacity of our nation and protects and think can be worldwide. it's an undermining of a significant part of our economy. enforcement, because to the extent that those of us willing to put vote on trade agreement it's because we believe that the enforcement provisions that we provide to ensure that the agreement is going put us on a level playing field will compete

against anybody in the world. not if they have disproportionate standards. standards that we live up to but they do not. and certainly the impact of our trade agreement in national security and economic interest. those are my three basket of concerns. upstairs i'm chairing a senate foreign relations hearing on one of the worst tragedies we have had in the manufacturer of clothing, which is the ronald plaza tragedy. i asked representatives including department you head. how many more lives have to be lost before we act? my understanding there has been a petition before ustr reviewing labor rights issue in beaning will bangladesh since 2007. six years.

we have seen no real progress. i would appreciate hearing how you plan to leverage should you be confirmed the positions you have including with gps to encourage a country like bangladesh and others to improve the safety and worker rights effort? >> thank you, senator. thank you for your leadership on that issue and the other committee as well. the tragic loss of life there is very much high on the agenda as you note there's a petition pending before ustr and my ustr intends to act on that over the course of the month. there are currently interagency discussions about best to proceed. so if confirmed it's very much i look forward to and working with you on. >> my concern is six years -- six years. maybe had we acted we would not have seen those people die.

because standards would have been raised. conditions would been improved. labor rights would have been observed. and so i hope that what we'll get from you is when it is merited a robust effort and a recommendation only the president can make that ult make decision. you're going to be in a key position it make a recommendation. i hope you will make that type of recommendation. secondically, on intellectual property right, i don't mind piling on as it relates to india because there are piling on on u.s. companies as if relates to intellectual property rights, and i have been hearing from the pharmaceutical industry, i've been hearing from the high-tech industry. i've been hearing from other cities about how india's inadequate protection to put it mildly it's ability access.

t not about access. they could observe the patent and negotiate prices. so it's about protecting their agreer generic industry at the intense of the intellectual created in the united to create global medicine that save live and improve the quality of lives. so i would like to hear from you how do we in fact intend to enforce -- because if countries india is only the present example, but there are others china. we have a company in new jersey that produces the scientific manual for u.s. and across the world. they are inpiewnty have taken by the chinese. if countries see no consequences and begin to emulate india's actions on the most innovative

sector it faces serious problems. what action can the administration take at you and your position upon conformation to con for convince, for example, to ensure that the tryouts of american innovation are protected and what you plan to do as the trade rep? >> thank you, senator. we are concerned at the moment. you these are issues we need to pursue at every opportunity secretary kerry will be there later this month for interagency strategic dialogue. i'm sure it will be brought up. and we have thought that would be the best way to resolve issues and consulting with

industry to determine how best to proceed in these cases as well. >> you are very -- [inaudible] on these issues. i have no doubt about that. also i think you are diplomatic. in swore responses. i want to see a trade representative who at the end of the day is going to stand up for u.s. the benefit of the creative ability of americans can be preserved well. why they can receive the resources from it. i hope your diplomacy will have limits. at the end of the day we have diplomatically been losing a lot of ground across the globe. that's not the interest of u.s. companies, u.s. citizens and at the end of day of our economy. thank you, mr. chairman.

thank you very much, senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you and the ranking member for holding the important hearing today. mr. froman thank you for your willingness to come up and answer our questions. we know trade is an agreemently important part of our economy. and critical when it comes to -- maintaining a high standards of living. i know, you think, i think, have talked about this already. but my view one of the best things is open new market is successfully conclude transpacific trade pro. the system you intend to engage with the committee is and confirmed to renew tpa and understand it, the chairman got formal request, is that right?

today? we've been saying for some time it's important. and there's a lot of rhetoric about it. but until there's a request that comes forward it is difficult for us act. i hope that's the first order of business. i want to ask you a question something important a lot of agricultural producers and my part of the world and it has to do -- spearheaded to the u.s. acting trade rep along with 13 other senators expressing our -- ethanol from the united american ethanol producers believe that what the e.u. has done in imposing a country-wide antidumping dutied on u.s. ethanol import and completely close the e.u. to american ethanol. the question is will you commit if confirmed to carefully review

the e.u.'s action on ethanol. will you pursue every available rem i doer -- rem i do ensure they are treated fairly the e.u.? >> yes, senator. >> are you familiar with the somebody. >> i am. my understanding that the ustr is reviewing the methodologies they used in the case. >> okay. i want to ask one other question in the news this week. the strengthen the enforcement patent. they included reform to the process to which the itc issue exclusion orderers. we know there have been high profile itc decisions recently. without commenting on any particular issue. do you believe that the current process needs reform? if so, why? >> senator, i'm not an expert in that area. i'm happy to get back do you on it. >> i would appreciate it if you could. any comments on the e.u. and

u.s. trade agreement or ttp? >> on the agreement we are still in the ninety day consultation phase with congress and stakeholders. we think there is great probably there to move tariff barriers, nontariff barriers and address the regulatory standards issues that create unnecessary cost and obstacle to trade. we spend the last year working with the e.u. to identify what the key outstanding issues are. we think there's a momentum and a lot of political will to address the outstanding issues. once we finish the ninety days and the mandate process. it's successful we look forward to launch the negotiations. i would like to address one other pressure. the importance of protecting trade secret in trade agreement. they manufacturing process