space. this probably tried to hire people from other countries and i suspect there's a certain amount of trial and error they do on their own. >> host: on hers, new york up next. hello. >> caller: thank you very much. given the fact china's economic and military develop so much right now, i'm one during how realistic it is that china gave the possibility to take over the superpower in the world. >> guest: by 20 to five look at a situation where china's economy in terms of gross domestic product may be the largest in the world possibly. it depends on a couple things including whether or not china gauges and economic reform,

which received peter out over the past 10 years as part of the reason the economy is slowing. another piece is chinese demographics. they are beginning to run low on cheap labor because populations growing older and one of the things xi jinping and other leaders are worried about is the prospect of china growing old before it grows rich and that combination of factors, china may top the u.s. in terms of gdp by the end, it may not. in that case there's a real possibility china may never catch up with the united states. >> host: a call from china. john, independent line. >> caller: hello, greetings. good morning. thank you so much for c-span. my wife and i have been living in china for 20 years. we work in the field of education. i encourage americans to dig a

little deeper to do their homework and not be swayed by sensationalizing articles because the truth is much more positive than often we hear in these horror stories. hello? >> host: specifically, what do you mean. give an example. >> host: >> caller: people are afraid of the competition, the future belongs to people who learn to cooperate together and the founding fathers, when they were forming the 13th colonies, they were afraid -- the rich were afraid to cannot put the floor. but when they did, they became very strong and we have a similar situation with china and the u.s.

it is not a competitor. it is a cooperator. that's within the hearts of most people in both countries. >> host: was the perception of the average chinese air? >> guest: is next. generally quite positive, there are others that wonder why the military is so strong it makes them worry. in the heart of most chinese people, they have a very positive attitude and opinion about america. they admire their effort. >> host: with the average perception of this government? >> guest: is much more positive than often you hear in u.s. press. they are not a current people. they see the problems that want to work on. but if you stop and think china has the most populated nation

that's the most challenging to educate, holliston feed them. if you look at how much they correct instead of all the problems, you start to appreciate there's a lot that's going right. and this is true of both cultures that country. >> host: mr. cheng. >> guest: i would agree with the caller that important for folks to learn more about china, that china is a country of 1.3 billion people is inevitably complex. there is no question there's people in china who support the government, but it is interesting to note that cheng li news here before us talking about over 500 incidents a day. there are a lot of chinese who

are unhappy with what is going on. we see growing splits between rich and poor, the coast and land, between urban and rural. these are problems the chinese leadership is to address them at this point in time, unfortunately it is not at all clear that xi jinping in the chinese leadership are going to address them, certain knotted ways to relieve the more repressive measures received. >> host: we celebrate tenements care this week. >> guest: was a huge number of search terms that were banned from the chinese internet. even the words today were actually basically edited out for a 403 or 44 area. it's rather striking that reflects a leadership that is insecure about how it is perceived by some people. >> host: mike from california,

democrats find. >> caller: good morning, mr. trent green. my question is if you did respond to this earlier, what influence do you really think china on north korea to behave themselves? second part is if north korea did attack south korea, what do you think china's response would be? >> guest: too good and important questions. china essentially has a giant sledgehammer, which is useful if all you do is crack nuts but it's a lot less useful to do brain surgery. china is worried about the possibility of north korean collapse which would unleash millions of refugees into china. the last thing china wants to do with her millions of other people in a country that it would now have to deal with. that being said, north korea depends on china for fuel, food, a lot of other things.

china is walking a fine line between influencing north korea in bringing down the government. that also been said, china does he north korea is a friend, so it has little interest in collapse in north korea. if north korea decided to invade south korea, the chinese would be horrified. south korea is a better source of technology and frankly it is your country to deal with. so probably china might sit it out. if on the other hand for whatever reason north korea was perceived as being attacked by south korea, china might choose to intervene. in all likelihood, the chinese might choose this summer is fitted out. >> host: messman says kenya, not turning refugees to north korea off into their executions. >> guest: almost hurt enough. this goes back to two things. china desk receives a friend and

ally. the second of all this goes to the chinese attitude they don't interfere in the quote unquote internal affairs of other countries. refugees and the like are seen as an internal problem for north korea. north korea chooses to execute them. that's not their problem. post go just for me utica, michigan and the republican line. >> caller: hi, thank you for taking my call. one thing i've often thought what the trade imbalance with japan and not a trade imbalance with china regardless of this, is it possible the american government is allowing a trade imbalance has a type of foreign aid rather than cash payout to allow this imbalance? thank you. >> guest: the idea of the u.s. government allows an imbalance denies the reality that it is

american consumers, not the government to chooses to buy, whether it's t-shirts, washing machines, big-screen tvs or computers in china. so unless the government is able to somehow influence what the average american buys at wal-mart, target, pottery barn, by center of decision-making as individual consumers, not that of the u.s. government. >> host: does china consider freedom of the press? >> guest: china is very, very o'leary, very wary of a free press. the chinese press in china is state run. should one news agency is to people's daily. there are some interesting experiments at the edges, things like that that are semiprivate.

fairfax and corporate ownership, but they get directives from the ministry. it used to the ministry i believe they change the translation, but not the chinese name. you will cover the story en masse important you will not cover this story. for the foreign press, chinese issue few press visas. they keep those people under tight control. breaking stories about cheng escape of china will crack down every foreign correspondent a sickly ugly videos of some of them can beat not a chinese police and plainclothes. >> host: to their television internet extensions when it comes to news? >> guest: the internet is interesting. there are chinese versions of them read a chinese companies and as a result the chinese government can pull the plug on these things at any time.

many of the riots and things are not covered in social media for precisely that reason. there are nine chinese television channels. some are quite interesting. one is dedicated to agricultural news, for example, but always run by the state. there are nope private tv stations in china. >> host: this as well from franklin, tennessee with dean cheng. go ahead, please. >> caller: thanks, both of you. earlier you were talking about the trade between china and the united states and it's pretty obvious the economy in the united states and considering how fast the economy is growing in china, does the united states or any other country have been a

national security concerns concerning a fair economy were to collapse? >> guest: yes, esophagus that the only thing more worrisome than a china that succeeds as a china that fails. china is a country of 1.3 billion. if the economy collapsed or shrink significantly, we be seeing several things. population movements of potential refugees. we see a lot of internal unrest. china has nuclear weapons. but there's also the larger issues to have refuted that you would be disrupting the global supply chain. if you consider many of the microchips have been everything from cars to computers are made in china. if you disrupt the factories that make them, they will have ripple effects throughout the world. after the japan earthquake had

trouble getting spare parts for toyotas and hondas and that is one small example of what would be global in much larger in scale if china were to come apart. >> host: richard from pawtucket, rhode island, in dependent line. >> guest: >> caller: at what to make a comment that it's absolutely ridiculous that if an american based company moves to china, they should be considered a chinese come any. just having an office in rhode island, it is absolutely ridiculous that the way that china is charging 25% tariff tax and we basically just charge them a 2.5% tariff tax. so there's no way we compete with that. on top of that, the prices they put pay for waiver, there's no way we can compete.

these problems are not the problems you mention. it's a trace of the people that have decided these problems were having. it's corporate america. corporate america is able to get as much money as they want two peoples can gain contribution plans and that is resulting in corporate america dictating whatever they want a scene together. >> host: the prospect of other opinions make its way out. whether or not a company that has facilities abroad should be considered a foreign company is one of the sorts of things that really has to be addressed by our congress and presumably our president, too. but i think that it does provide a reality they much more

globalized economy and i guess we'll leave it at that. >> host: you did a brief on the summit today and this is what she wrote about it. he said it is another in a series of extensively in my stepson and increasingly rocky past. could you expand on that when it comes to today's summit? >> guest: let me be blunt. i don't expect much out of this for two reasons. there's limits to what leaders can achieve if you want to improve the mood to take the measure of counterparts. these are great opportunities. in terms of substantively changing or influencing the relationship is very hard. it really requires an awful lot of detailed work that neither president is qualified to do or not the people, the presidents of major countries. they have a lot on the agenda. president obama in particular

comes as secretary of state, secretary of defense hadn't felt in positions necessary to do this stuff work. so that's six hours or so at meetings where you can air a bunch of concerns, but if you think the chinese will agree to and cyberchurches or we are going to add our commitment to taiwan because of six hours of talks, that's hopelessly optimistic. >> host: what does that mean on the diplomatic front and defense secretary haeckel of the military fun? >> guest: both need to get their payments on the table and congress needs to approve or not approve subordinate to the strategic economic dialogue will have real substantive agreement, initiatives to move the ball forward. again, if you think the tone will be set in the summit,

that's all well into the good. >> host: you're talking asia's support that? >> guest: both. who will be the assistant undersecretary of defense with the east asia portfolio? who is working for secretary haeckel with regards to cyberand the same applies to secretary of state kerry. these are the people working on a day-to-day basis up to their elbows and cyberissues, lance relationship issues. there are lots of equities that need to be balanced out. it's not like state or dod or treasury can say this is america's policy. i have to agree with each other and that's important for going to negotiate with china. we do have a single sheet of music. >> host: one more call, mary

ann from wisconsin. were running short on time, so go ahead. >> host: let's talk about what the trade imbalance can do. when people this country could no longer go to wal-mart and buy a teacher for $4 i have to now pay $29 for the same t-shirt, we're not talking about a trade imbalance anymore. we're talking about a civil war. >> host: the caller identified a key point, which is average american standard of living has improved. we do need to recognize the broader macroeconomic issues, the deficit in the debtor things that effect the availability of money and that in turn affects our economic strength, which is the key thing that influences u.s.-china relations. security is partly inoperative consideration. >> host: dean cheng steadies

asia issues. we want to spreading, go to the website link to her c-span website. thank you very much. >> the sunnylands essay played host to president obama's meeting with chinese president xi jinping today. we visited this estate is a retreat or seven u.s. presidents. >> sunnylands is the historic

estate as annenberg. they built this as a president and is completed in 1966 and they lived here until their deaths in 2002 and 2009. sunnylands has been referred to as the camp david as the last and that is of course because presidents came here to relax and take it away from the hustle and bustle of washington d.c. during the annenberg lifetime. walter annenberg's father owned a company called triangle publications inc. and not company published in the daily racing form in the "philadelphia inquirer" and his father had been involved in business for decades. his father 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. 17 magazine was launched in the early 1940s, the first magazine in america cares specifically for young women. he pulled together this idea and launch tv guide at a time when they're only 10% of american households own televisions. that of course became the most popular magazine in america, had the highest circulation for decades and made the bulk of the fortune of triangle publications. walter annenberg had a genius for recognizing future trends in the stable to use his company to get ahead of those trends. leonore annenberg was a

delightful, hospitable woman who is very typical of her generation. she was the woman behind the man. very often walter would be the person who received the first recognition and he was the one who certainly was the business man, whose money funded their lifestyle. walter had a speech impediment and so he practiced every day to make certain he could form his words and speak clearly. and so, he was very careful about his language and his present haitian. said he was more reserved and mrs. annenberg was instead the more lighthearted and more engaging conversationalist. this is the room that you would

have seen as you are welcome to sunny lands. president, queen of england, major political figures, gray celebrities came to the front doors. the space is used for reception for the new year's eve parties. much of the furniture was removed and the messiah said they could have up to 110 people for a seated dinner and dancing. jimmy stewart might say that the pml and play. both entertained frank sinatra of course. walter annenberg knew ronald reagan going back to the 1930s, so had this really long personal history. when ronald reagan was an actor in hollywood. so over time, that relationship, which was deep and personal continued and when ronald reagan was governor of the state of california, he came here and of

course after he been elected president, he continued to come here. he came every single year for eight team that he and burke new year's eve parties. so that was a moment every year, where hollywood and that government came together in a large social gathering. otherwise, the annenberg center came in small groups. they would invite these individuals who are their friend to spend time here and then they would determine who those friends might enjoy meeting and create these connections that perhaps -- jones use these elements admitted century modern architecture to create a space that was informal from place to place and at the same time took

a huge space. as is actually 6400 square feet, which was the size of five average american homes in the 1960s and yet it doesn't feel overwhelming. it has a very comfortable quality to it and that is the combination of the architecture and the furniture group gains that william haynes design. write a feature on the living room is there enough nunneries, a very special room at sunny lands. so is actually named by the end ergs. they made this determination that they wanted a space where they could keep the memories of the important friends and family and other individuals that come into contact with during their lifetimes. there's a portrait of winston churchill signed by winston

churchill. he met walter annenberg in the late 1940s. we have a photo with prince charles. this one from 1986. the annenberg study really important relationship with the royal family, so you see walter and queen elizabeth. because he was the ambassador to the court of st. james and lived in london for five years, they continued the rest of their lives to correspond and connect. he's the walter actually getting out of the carriage as he was going to be presented in london to the queen as he took on the job of ambassador. down here you actually see a photo of the bushes, signed with lasting appreciation friendship

too. here here is george w. bush much later in the annenberg's life. the clintons with gratitude for your friendship from hillary rodham clinton and though clinton. this wall is full of individual memories at record numerous conversations over a decade in an ergs life. clearly those individuals who are important to ban over time made it to this wall. so it isn't generally an individual who they know and interacted with only once, but people who became their friends. 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 speech to the soviet people was being broadcast. this important topic was critical in changing world political dynamics and for us it makes this a very historical spot in sunnylands. the annenberg search of another republican a lifelong republicans. however, they crossed the aisle and so actually walter in her pad the philadelphia endorse lyndon johnson when he ran for president. so he didn't only support republicans and the republicans he does support tended to be more centrist in relation to

what we may see today. this is the yellow room. it is one of five historic guestroom here at sunnylands. this was the preferred presidential room. so the reagan so we stayed in this room. it has a beautiful view and so did the bushes. margaret thatcher was here, colin powell with his wife and i were here. so really a prestigious list of room resident and like all the rooms in the guest weight, this is differentiated by its color. we have a pink room and a peach any green and blue room along with this telegram and if you are saying here come the wet color-coordinated jellybeans and specially selected books to read. this room is one of the earliest rooms also had twin beds.

we have it set up that way. today if you visit sunnylands and our retreats can we change the site and provide current retreat participant with king-sized ads, more comfortable with contemporary lemons and all of that. you would have the opportunity to join that is long list of import people who have slept here before you. the annenberg's many gift of this property to the nation for the purpose of continuing its history by dynamic and relevant conversations amongst people today. an interesting mission, the mission is both exclusive and in clue says, 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 retreat, but at the same time,

it is preserved and maintained so it can be open to the public for a broader public access that they can appreciate the history of the place and experienced the uniqueness and beauty of sunnylands. >> next, the senate debates immigration. >> in order to raise money outside an application with the iris in january 2011, seeking to obtain a 501(c)(3) status as an educational organization. as of today, i've been waiting for 29 runs with that status. >> many agents and agencies of the federal government do not understand they are servants of the people.

they think they are masters and they are mistaken. i'm not interested in scoring poetical points. i want to protect and preserve the america that i grew up and, the america people cross oceans and risk their lives to become a part of and i'm terrified it is slipping away. thank you. >> purpose of b.c. three or c. for tax exemption is to enable easier promotion of public good, not political work. it is the responsibility to determine which groups are choosing the correct exempt status and which are trying to manipulate the system to avoid taxes and high political organizations and campaign donors.

>> today the senate began work on immigration reform considered a proposal by a bipartisan group of senators known as the gang of eight. the bill provides a path to citizenship for foreigners currently residing in the u.s. illegally. here's part of the debate on the bill with senator patrick leahy and jeff sessions. >> mr. president, i want to thank the majority leader for his comments, but i should also note that throughout the markup and debate on the immigration bill, his advisers counsel was always fair. we discussed it many, many times

and i appreciate the fact that he's very clear the bill would, to the time he said and we would not have it here without his strong support, so i appreciate senator reid's very nice comments this morning and i yield the floor. >> mr. president. >> senator from alabama. >> the legislation immigration bill and i was able to have a discussion with senator reid yesterday and he was moving forward on a motion to proceed to the bill, which required considerable debate and i ask for it and insisted on the opportunity of to have some time today to talk about it and he agreed to that. i think that was a good step and i thank him for that agreement.

we've just got a lot to talk about. the matters are complex and important and i would urge my colleagues to begin to pay real attention to the legislation. this is the bill is printed. front and back of each page. reporters are going to be a thousand pages. he said of was 1800, but it's now back over a thousand pages again. it's very complex and certain key points making multiple references to other code sessions that are an existing law. they're very difficult to read. it takes a considerable amount of time and i don't even suspect that the gang of eight has had to read and digest and understand fully the legislation. we are a nation of immigrants. the people i know that are concerned about this legislation

in congress are not against immigration. i certainly am not. we admit about a million people a year legally into our country. that is a substantial or by any standards. indeed, it is the highest of any country in the world. it's important we execute that policy and effective way. it impacts the whole nation. immigration has enriched our culture. it's boosted our economy and make a tremendously wonderful all who've come here, people who've contributed to our art, toward business and economy, science and sports. we just had a good time, he could run with immigration in a lot of ways, but we need to ask ourselves at this point in time, is a work in the limits?

or the american people happy with what we're doing? and are we moving in the right direction? we know that our generous policies have resulted in a substantial flow of people into the country and our challenge today is to create a lawful system of immigration that serves the national interest and it's those people into our country who are most likely to be successful, most likely to prosper, most likely to flourish, therefore most likely to be beneficial to america. surely we can agree that is a good policy. and it's not been our policy really prior two days. we have enormous political flow of people into the country as well as a legal flow that is not evaluated in the way that other

advanced nations do when they execute their policies of immigration. for example like canada. we should establish smart rules that benefit america and rules that must be enforced. they must be lawful. we can't reject a beautiful good person to america and then turn around and allow someone else who came in illegally to benefit from breaking our laws to the disadvantage of the good person who went cold though have to accept that answer. it's just the way we are. establishing the smart rules for admittance, rules that benefit america and these rules have to be rules that are enforced. they just have to be and that's not happening today.

so the current policies that we have are not serving our country well, therefore an immigration system, a reformed immigration system should spend some time in depth on public analysis of how and why it we should consider as we decide who should be admitted because we can't admit everybody and then, when that time, we need to create a system that we can expect to employers the standard that we have. so i really believe we can make tremendous progress and fix this system. it needs to be fixed. the legislation that's been offered by the gang of a says they fixed it. don't worry, we're taking care of all that is needed. you've got a plan that will be

compassionate people who've been here and we've got a plan that will work in the future and the illegality. well, it won't do that. that's the problem. i'll definitely give give and receive today. it will definitely give immediate legal status to some 11 million people today, but the promises of an portion of future. the promises will focus on the way that enhances the success into america is not in the legislation. you just have to read the bill. we will talk about in the days and weeks to calm what's in the though and i will share with you how we had a strong go donate to

understand understand that as we go forward. i'm amazed the gang of eight how aggressively they defended the judiciary committee. we did have a market in in the judiciary committee. you're allowed to offer amendments and has some debate there, but it was an odd thing and repeatedly members of the gang of eight would say i like this amendment, but i can't go for it because i understand it upsets the deal. so we need to ask ourselves who made the deal, whose deal is this? how is it that the deal is such that members of the united states senate to approve the amendment is set against the amendment because it upsets some deal. who is in this room, who was in the dealmaking process.

so i think that was a revealing time in the committee. they had agreed openly they would be no substantial changes in the agreement at the gang of eight had made and there it stays together and vote against any changes in that they did accept any changes. there were a number of amendments accepted, republican amendments accepted. many of those for a second grader altered by the majority in the committee, but none of those fundamentally altered the framework and the substance of this legislation. i don't think that's disputable and we'll talk about that. so this is the problem that we are working when it's. how does the legislation become

must affect events it is? it was because it was not written independent members of the senate and a more open process, but was written by special interests and the bike to share some on that subject right now. i think it goes to the heart of the difficulties we have. the continual meetings over a period of quite a number of months that got this bill up to the wrong track in the beginning. powerful groups that, 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 draft didn't have it. some of the group said the

drafting. a lot of the language came from the special interest groups that would engage in a secret negotiations. of course what is the special-interest group? a special interest group is a group of people that have a commitment, and entries they want to advance, but they don't pretend to share the national interest. so maybe it's a legitimate special interests. it is not a legitimate special interests, but they have a particular interest they want to advance. so this is what happened. big labor and big business for active drafting this legislation but the entire deal of hanging on was reported their negotiations. for example, "wall street journal," march 10th, the headline, competing interest

abound. .. and our trading proposals with leaders of the afl-cio, the chamber of commerce to try to get a deal, close quote. try to get a deal.

they're working on a deal. how about this, roll call, march 21st. quote: talks led by the chamber of commerce and afl-cio over a new guest worker program, are stalled. prompting members of the bipartisan group of eight senators to get personally involved. to try to nudge the negotiations on to resolution. senators were not in there discussing. senators were -- when it got to be tough and things weren't moving along, they come in to try to egg it on, to get the agreement. and what is the agreement? between the unions and the big business. who is representing the american worker effectively? "new york times" reached an agreement on low-skill immigrants, a person knowledgeable said.

senator schumer convened a conference call on friday night with donohue, the president of the u.s. chamber of commerce, and richard trump, the president of the afl-cio, the in nation's main federation of labor unions, in which they agreed in principle on a guest worker program for low-skilled, year-round, temporary workers. and we know there was one group not included in the talks and that is the group that is given the duty to enforce the laws involved in immigration. the national i.c.e. union, the customer enforcement organization, pleaded with the gang of eight, they urged the gang of eight, they wrote letters to the gang of eight. i sent information to the gang of eight. asking them to consult with the officers who have the duty to enforce this law, and -- but to no avail. they were shut out of every

meeting and never really been consulted. so, it's interesting to know, however, that others weren't shut out of the meeting. they weren't left out. "washington post," april 15th. quote: while obama has allowed senate negotiators to work on a compromise that can win approval, white house staff member attends each staff level meeting to monitor progress and assist with the technical aspects of writing the bill. so there's been an attempt to suggest this is purely a congressional action. that the white house is just sort of hands off. but we know the white house is deeply involved in this, in approving every aspect of disapproving aspects they don't approve of. the question is, who is influencing this? who is influencing the white

house? president obama. the daily caller on february 6th notes this, quote: on february 5th, obama held a white house meeting with a series of industry leaders, advocates, ethnic lobbies, including laraza, to boost support for his plan that would provide amnesty to 11 million illegal aliens, allow immigrants to get residency for their relatives and elderly parents, and establish future flow of skilled and unskilled worker, the invitees included the ceo of goldman sachs. motorola. mariott, and the like, close quote. so they're in the meeting. also we know that participating in a lot of these discussions was the american immigration lawyers association. this group obviously was

involved in writing it, and i have to tell you they will be the biggest winners of the legislation. time and again, rules that were fairly clear today, and probably show have been made clearer, are modeled provisions of -- that will create litigation and encourage lawsuits, delays, and costs. for example, hardship is being given as an exemption in many cases. exemptions for family problems and other kind of things of that nature. well, when i.c.e. says you should be deported. then the detortee has he ability to a i have a hardship. my mother is here, or i have a brother that is sick. i need this or that. and what is hardship mean? it means a trial is what it means. so the immigration lawyers association was substantially

involved in the meetings. politico, on march 19th said. in a bid to capitalize on the shared interest in immigration reform, budget deal and a new trade pact, the white house has launched a charm offensive to corporate america since the november election, hosting more than a dozen conference calls with top industry officials which have not previously been disclosed, along with a flurry of meetings at the white house. continuing the quote: participants on the recent calls include the heads of goldman sachs, business roundtable, silver lake, central bridge partners, the u.s. chamber of commerce, as well as the heads of washington trade booths representing the banking industry, such as financial services, and roundtable. and they've been involved in these discussions. even foreign countries have had

a say in drafting our law. the hill, on february 7th, report it, quote: mexico's new ambassador to the united states medina mora, has had a number of meetings with the administration where the issue of immigration has come up since he took office last month, said a mexican official familiar with the process. he is expected to meet with lawmakers shortly as legislation begins to take form. probably like no other country, we are a player at this -- on this particular issue, the source said, close quote. well, the law officers weren't in the room. we know that. people who questioned economically the size and scope and nature of our immigration system weren't in the room. so in case anyone doubts the role of special interests in

drafting legislation, pay attention to this quote by frank sherry, executive director of the liberal pro-amnesty group. >> the triggers are based on developing plans and extending money, not on reaching that effectiveness which is really quite clever, close quote. in other words, the sponsors of the bill were telling everyone they had triggers in the bill that would guarantee enforcement of laws in the future about immigration flow into america and that if enforcement didn't occur, the triggers would stop people from being legalized and end the process. that's not so. we started the language, and we know the triggers are ineffectual and are not

significant, and won't work, and that will be explained in at the days to come, and mr. sherry acknowledges it. he said, that was really clever to have these faux triggered that won't work, because we can tell everybody, don't work, the legality will occur if the enforcement doesn't occur in clever ways they drafted a bill that won't work. they'll say it works, but it won't work. again, what all the slush funds in this bill -- and there are a number of them that go to private activist groups, community action groups. it's easy to see who has special interest at the table. the national review on may 29th reported, quote: a number of immigration activist groups, such as the national council or laraza, would be

eligible to receive millions in taxpayer funding to advise illegal immigrants applying for legal status under the bill, close quote. so, money will go to these active groups like laraza, who bass haas basically advocated not enforcing hour laws. so laraza is in the meeting. laraza is an open advocate for not enforcing laws involving illegal immigration. they're there participating. they're greg to get money out of the deal with the grant programs and the law officers who have the ability to tell the committee, the gang of eight, how to make the system work, are shut out of the process. prosecutors, were they involved in the process? no. they've not been. the national immigration forum, a pro-immigrant group has been involved in these discussions. some people said the bill had to be drafted in secret. that's a markup. process in the judiciary

committee would be open and transparent. that is only partially so. we did have a markup. we were allowed, those who had objections to the bill to offer amendments, as did those who support the bill have the opportunity to talk and offer amendments, but at every turn, in the committee, the members of the gang of eight expect support on occasion for certain amounts but only to vote against the amendment. due to the agreement they said they had to vote together against significant amendments regardless of the personal feelings. the gang influenced other members on the committee to do the same. "huffington post," head line, quote: senate immigration group turns to keeping fragile agreement intact. close quote. goes on to quote senator mccain assaying, quote: we

will pledge to oppose, all eight of us, provisions that would destroy the fragile agreement we have. so they have an great. they have an agreement with the unions and the big business and the agribusinesses and the food prossers and laraza and immigration lawyers. they got agreement with them. and they going to defend it even though they acknowledgeds were offer would improve the bill. this is no way to serve the national interest, in my view. in discussing an amendment that would require workers to make a good-faith effort to hire american workers first, senator whitehouse said this. is in is what happened in the committee. quote: i'm in a position where i'm being informed that this would be a deal-breaker to the deal. i frankly don't see how that could be the case, but i'm not privy to that understanding. and so i'm going to vote in support of the agreement that

has been reached, close quote. in other words, senator whitehouse says i don't understand this. i'd like to vote the other way but i'm told y he says i don't want to be a deal-breaker in discussing an amendment that would increase family-based immigration, senator feinstein noted, quote, i think it's been a unique process because those people who are members of a group that put this together have stood together and have voted against amendments they felt would be a violation of a bipartisan

agreement that brought both sides together. i'm not sure that's always good. i'm not sure that's the right thing to do. set public policy in america to have some secret agreement reached with a group of people we hardly know who they are, trump the ability to do the right thing for the american people. so, i just want to say that 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 interests, laraza, the unions, the corporate world, the big agriculture businesses, the food processors, they are the ones that made the agreement in this process, and the senators just

sort of ratified it and they can't agree to a change because they've promised these special interests groups things. so, if laraza would accept point a, that somebody wanted accepted, and the unions say they would accept point b, and they would both agree that i'll do a if you'll do b, and then the bill gets to the floor and somebody says, a is wrong. and we should not put that in the bill. let's change that. oh, no, we can't agree. we have an agreement. agreement with who? laraza? agribusiness? the chamber of commerce? microsoft? zuckerberg in that's what happens here. i'm just telling you. and the people who drafted this bill, we shouldn't be surprised. businesses, groups, organizations, have special

interests. there's nothing inherently wrong with that. what wrong is that members of congress, members of the united states senate, need to be representing the national interests, the people's interest, the workers' interest in america. that's what we need to be doing. not the special interests. and i got to tell you, this is breathtaking to me. who is protecting the national interest? did they have any of the top ranked economists in at the country asking -- being asked what would be the right number of low-skilled workers to bring into america? did they have any of the top experts say, how much advance -- how many of our college graduates are unemployed. what's the right number? none of this was apparently discussed by our colleagues who allowed this process to go.

i would say, finally, we regard to the special interests, they have no interest, virtually none of them that were involved in the process, of guaranteeing in the future we don't have illegality. that's the saviour here. 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 in how many computer people could be admitted or how many agriculture workers or how many low-killed factory workers or construction workers or other workers. they're all worried about that. they fought over that. that's what these negotiations were about. internal discussions and disagreements. but nobody was investing any time or interest in the second phase of this. if you have an amnesty, you have

legality of millions millions oe that came here illegally, what are we going to do to ensure it doesn't happen in the future? i was a federal prosecutor. i personally tried an immigration case myself. but nobody else here can say that. but -- so i'm aware that you have to have certain legal processes and certain investments and investigative and enforcement mechanisms to make the system work in the future. and so as we go forward with this debate, we're going to show, and it's going to be clear, that this has not been fixed, and in fact, the standards of current law with regard to what ought to be done, requirements and current federal law are being weakened, some of them eviscerated by this bill.

this bill is far weaker, mr. president, than the 2007 legislation. i don't think thursday any doubt about -- i don't think there's any doubt about that. it was rejected by the american people, the 2007 agreement, and it's actually weakening current law in quite a number of significant areas. weakens current law. while we're being told, don't worry, this is the toughest bill ever. so if i'm mistaken, i'm sure we're going to hear about this, this is a great democracy we're part of and i'm expressing mill view -- my view. i was involved in this in 2006 and 2007. i'm a federal prosecutor. i've done this over the years. i know how i.c.e. agents work, border patrol agents work, customs and immigration service people work. i've worked with them. i've tried cases for them. i know them personally.

they've been left out of the process. the i.c.e. union has voted no no confidence in john morton this, supervisor. what dramatic event. i'm not aware of that ever happening in my 14 years plus as a federal prosecutor. actual employment unions declaring their supervisor is -- they have no confidence in him? what did they say? they said he spends all his time advocating for amnesty, and not enforcing the laws. he is directing us to not follow legal requirements that we took an oath to follow. and get this. the i.c.e. officers have filed a lawsuit in federal court, attacking secretary napolitano, for the conduct of her office, and they have asserted she is not above the law. she is not authorized to direct

them not to follow plain requirements of federal law, and the federal judge initially seemed to -- accepted the validity of the lawsuit. i've never heard of that before. this is really an incredible event. nobody is even talking about it. so, it's been the position of this administration, everybody has to know to see that the law is not being effectively enforced, particularly in the interior of america. and that is basically been -- acknowledge de facto amnesty because you're directing your law officers not to do their duty, basically eliminated the law, and the administration shouldn't be doing that. congress has refused to change these laws. time and again. if anything they've they sometimes increased them.

strengthen them, and now we have our agents blocked from doing it. >> the u.s. customs and immigration service, who deals with the visas, who deals with the application for citizenship, cis -- citizenship and immigration service, they deal with the citizenship processes and pappwork -- paperwork. they have written in opposition to this legislation. the head of the ofs association has written a powerful letter in detail condemning this legislation, saying it will not work, it will make matters worse, and it will endanger national security. and the customs and immigration -- citizen and immigration group that deal with the paperwork and the citizenship processing and the visa work, they have likewise

written saying this bill will not work, and they oppose it. well, i just got to say, somebody needs to be thinking about what is going on here. amnesty, done. the promise of enforcement, the toughest bill ever in the future, no, sir. not there. not close. that's why we have a problem. i can't understand it really. why people wouldn't want the legal system to be complete to be effective or be followed. so we as americans could be proud of it. well, you know, there's a lot of power behind this legislation. i can feel it.

i raise questions, pushed back time. you're not critically correct. you don't like immigrants. that's offensive to me. i believe in immigration. we have a million people come in here every year legally. i don't oppose that. i don't oppose doing something responsible and compassionate for the people who have been here a long time illegally but we have to be careful about it, but we can do that. but we -- the american people are so right on their basic instinct about this matter. just have to say how i believe the american people's hearts and souls are good about immigration. a lot of people think, well las

vegas to meet in secret and 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 our members of this body and the house need to note. 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 illegally or are you angry at the government officials for allowing it to happen? 12% said they were angry at the people that entered illegally. 88% said they were angry at the public officials for not creating a legal system that will work. now, isn't that a good -- didn't that speak well of the american people? you could be angry about somebody who came into our country in violation of the law, and what i think american people understand that people want to come here, and it's our duty to

stop it. and they have been pleading with congress for over 30 years to do something about it, to create a lawful system, to end the lawlessness, to do the right thing, to create immigration processes that we can be proud of. like canada has. and other countries around the world have. so we believe in immigration. we want to do the right thing. but it needs to be lawful. we have more applicants for admission into america than we can possibly accept. i was in peru with senator specter a number of years ago, and a 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 at peru told us, they had a poll around here that said 70%.

well, you just can't -- everybody can't come to america. we're not able to assimilate, and we all know that. we all agree with that. and so therefore you set rules and processes that we can be proud of, that are fair and objective and that people who want to come meet those standards and they wait their turn and they come lawfully. but we have had from this administration and previous administration-president bush also -- not seeing the laws enforce and we have loopholes and processes need to be fixed and we can do that with a good immigration bill, but this one doesn't get us there. my friend, karl rove, president bush's political advisor and man of great talent, and back to the

day when we were in college together. he quotes a lot of polls that say the american people are willing to accept legal processes and status for people in this country. i acknowledge that. they are. but he does not quote the polls that say overwhelmingly that they want the illegality ended first. they want border security first. long enough to know, they're smart enough to know, if you don't get border security new, you may never get it. in fact, won't get it because history tells us so. didn't quote a recent poll, i see rasmussen, the so-called -- this is what was in the rasmussen polling report. the so-called gang of eight

proposal in the senate legalizes the status of immigrants first and promises to secure the border later. by four to one margin, people want that process reversed. my good friend, karl rove, didn't quote that. and in addition, voters think highly of immigrants, which speaks well of us as american people. they don't trust the government. and that skepticism is growing. in january, 45% thought it was at least somewhat likely that the federal government would work to secure the border and prevent future illegal immigration. today only 30% have that confidence. why? because they began to learn that this bill doesn't do what they were told it was going to do. the growing awareness of the

border control issue has led to other shifts in public opinion as well. early in the year, democrats were trusted more than the republicans on the issue of legislation. we're not interested in politics. we're interested in doing the right thing. we do the right thing, the people will affirm us. so, mr. rove goes on to say, now, don't say amnesty. not fair to call -- don't say amnesty. that's a bad thing for you to say. well, let me just say, under the legislation, before us now, we would have a circumstance immediately when people are given legal status. they'll be able to get any job and they're here safe and sound unless they get arrested for a felony or something very serious like that. and they put on a path that

guarantees them the ability to go all the way to citizenship, and mr. rove says they have to pay a thousand dollar fine. over six years. what is that? $170 a year? 1512 dr. a month? so this is the punishment. $12 a month worth of fine that allows you not to have to go home, even though you're in the country illegally, didn't wait your turn, and you're guaranteed a path to citizenship, and at the end you have to pay another thousand dollars, some ten or 13 years later. so that's -- this is the punishment in the legislation. but the people who came illegally get exactly what they wanted immediately. which is to stay here, the ability to work here, social security card, and they'll get a

ability to go to any job in the country. have an i.d. that will allow them to do that. so, they'll be able to compete with any job in america, be able to compete for the jobs of our husbands and sons and daughters and grandchildren might be competing for out there. 11 million would be in that position. so i don't think -- my friend karl is making a very strong point there, that this is some sort of punishment. and he says you must -- they must pay taxes. well, hallelujah. shouldn't you pay taxes? and, quote, they are, quote, barred from receiving any federal benefits including welfare and obamacare, close quote. that's a flat statement and at

it flat wrong. the first group -- the dream act group will be some two and a half million, maybe three million. they'll be citizens in five years and will benefit -- get any of the federal welfare programs in five years. many of the ag workers will be in that position in ten years. and immediately any worker who qualifies for the earned income tax credit can get that immediately. now. other provisions are put off for ten, 13 years, and that makes the cost score look better. but over the long term, once the group is given legal status and citizenship, they will then qualify for every program, and since overwhelming number of the workers here today are lower skilled that are illegal, lower

skilled, and you can expect the incomes to be low. they'll qualify for earned income tax credit for medicaid and program after program. food stamps and others, and the score goes up tremendously in the out years. the harris foundation, the only group that has done an in-depth analysis and say over the lifetime of the people that are here illegal he, if they are legalized under the bill, it would add $6.3 trillion to the deficit of the united states. that's a lot of money. almost as much as the unfinned liabilities of social security, which is 7 trillion. so this would be 6 trillion. so i'm afraid that number is too high but i haven't seen anybody say that number isn't in the ballpark, and nobody else has done a study to refute it, and it's going to be trillions of dollars in the out years, and it's not true, there will be no government benefit to people who

are in the country who get legalized under this. just not so. this is sort of a fundamental point and it up sos to good when you have a political guru like my friend karl. he says, to renew the temporary status after six years, those waiting to become citizens must prove they have been steadily employed, paid all taxes, and aren't on welfare. so, let's take what happened. we have an individual that has been in the country three years. they get the provisional legal status immediately when this bill passes, and in six years, they have to have, we're told, to show that federally employed,

paid taxes and aren't on welfare. well, who is going to investigate that first? number one. and so they've already been here three years. as long that's came before december 31, 2011, they're given legal status, whether they have a job or not. no matter what. they're given this legal status, without a family, have no roots in america, other than having been here, they claim, before december 31, 2011. but we're not willing to deport them. we're not willing to deport them. so now six years later, they worked intermet tently and they're unemployment and we have a recession and don't have enough jobs for people. we're going to send out the fed and uproot them and their children are now a junior in high school and send them back home? give me a break. that is one of the most bogus

claims ever. that won't be enforced. and it already -- there are labor authorities in the bill so waivers will be issued. nobody is get to out to enforce this so they shouldn't even say it. get the american people to believe that we're going to actually go out and deport what could be millions of people who are out of work in the six-year period when they have to re-establish themselves. that just bothers me. and they say these individuals, karl rove says, quote, must stand at the back of the line behind everyone who is waiting patiently and legally to immigrant here, quote clothe. now, that's not so. give me a break. these people are here illegally now. they do not want to be deported which is understandable. they're going to be given permanent status, social security number and a right to

work anywhere in america, and they're not ahead of somebody in honduras, waiting in line to come here? not ahead of somebody in china or indonesia or italy or spain? of course they're ahead of them. so, i'm without words to express my concern about that. we need to be accurate about what the legislation says here. and so what about this amnesty? people say you shouldn't call it amnesty. i think that's a legitimate word. the legislation right here before us would immediately give

legal status, allow people to move to legal permanent residence, and citizenship later, and they have to pay a few thousand dollars in fines. well, i think that's amnesty. in my opinion. some say, pay a thousand dollar fine, paid a penalty, therefore you can't call it amnesty. i don't think so. this legislation basically said everybody here is given legal status, and put on a guaranteed path to citizenship, just don't get convicted of a felony. so, i really don't think that thought is a good argument. that was continued a bit. i think the sponsors gave up objecting back in 2007 when the legislation was before us at that time. but i would just note that in 2007, the initial fine that

people paid had to be paid initially $3,000. under this bill you pay a thousand dollars over six years. then to get a green card, the legal permanent resident you had to pay an additional $4,000, and an interim review period calls for a fine, a payment of $1,500. totaling 8500 tuesday. so in 2007 the payment required for somebody to move forward citizenship was at least 8500. this bill is 2,000. in and really 1,000 to get -- to be able to stay here and work here, and that is payment stretched over time. so this would have to say it's difficult for me to accept that this is a -- people are earning their citizenship.

and they're paying a price for it. then mr. rove mentions they have to pay their taxes. but one of our washington publications, politico, did an article about that june 3rd, and said, with regard to tax payment, quote, after all, it was one of the gang of eight's main talking points when it unveiled the immigration in january, sponsors vowed their proposal would include a back tax requirement to ward off the claims the bill would be amnesty. citizenship would come at a bryce, they said. but the gang has all but dropped that talking point. the immigration legislation currently moving through the senate includes a scaled-back provision that relies almost entirely on the immigrants

coming forward to the internal revenue service voluntarily. critics call it toothless, close quote. it is toothless. my friend karl rove, still out here spinning, claiming got some great advantage, we're going to collect all these back taxes. nobody is going to investigate these cases. the law was clear. we don't have the money, and the ability to do so, and it's not going to happen. that's just the fact. and let's talk about in general some of the other issues that will come before us. i know my colleague, senator lee will be joining us on the floor in a little bit and i yield to him if and when he comes, but i wanted to talk about these promises we were given by the people who wrote the bill.

that the path to citizenship would be, quote, contingent upon securing our borders and tracking whether illegal immigrants have left the country when required. that is needed. that is fundamentalry correct. that was the promise. i'm quoting. that one of the gang of eight principles they published. our bill, they say, does that. i wish that were so. quote, that a path to citizenship would be, quote, contingent upon securing our borders and tracking whether legal immigrants have left the country when required. but in truth, the bill is amnesty first, and a promise of enforcement later, and with regard to tracking immigrants who have left the country when they're required to, it

devastates and weakens current law. so that can never happen effectively. it's unbelievable to me. they would pass a bill that directly contradicts current law. on "meet the press" senator schumer, one of the gang of eight, said it flat out, acknowledged that promise of enforcement first is not going to happen. he said, quote, first people will be legalized. then we'll make sure the border is secure. close quote. so, instead of enforcement first, it's legalization first. that's plain as day, not even disputed any longer. the illegal immigrants will be legalized immediately and not a single enforcement measure has

to be in place then or ever. and what all the secretary napolitano needs to do is submit two reports to congress, illegal immigrants will then begin receiving legal status, work permits, social security accounts, driver's licenses, travel document and other state benefits, financial benefits that come from the states. nothing requires that any border security be in place, any fence be built, before this amnesty is ever accomplished. ...

to develop a plan the secretary of homeland security. so he said, triggers are based on developing plans and spending money, not overreaching the effectiveness, which is really quite clever he said. some of mr. sherry and he is thirsty kind of let the cat out of the bag. it's a paratrooper is not real and he said it was really quite

clever. it's now becoming clear, what's been promised is not happening. don't be taken in on that. we can see it now. make your voices heard, followed this debate at the promises for this bill are not father and let your voice be heard in congress, tell your congressman you're not happy and you've got to do better because the whole gist of days, the work arcs of this is if we have and am this d. between a very generous treatment of people who violated our laws to come here, shouldn't we have a policy in the future? that's what the american people have demanded for 30 years.

they are good and decent. that's an absolutely did for that to demand that congress were not doing that. it's heartbreaking we are here through this process and the ennis best buy will talk more about it. i see my friend, senator from utah, senator leahy's fabulous new addition to the senate judiciary committee whether his legislation in many, many able ways to the discussion offering amendments or a skilled lawyer and deeply committed for the principles of law is a major country great. i yield the floor, mr. president. this had to be the distinguished

presiding officer and now we have another distinguished residing office or. not an president, it is good to see you here as a member of the senate judiciary committee as the presiding officer gnaws immigration modernization not worked late into the evenings we considered hundreds of amendment that the public considers firsthand every stream everything we did and bypassed on television. to call the proposed amendment

of light, we put them on our website we updated the committee's website to include the.if amendments in real time. i've heard from people all over the country they thought they actually had involvement in what were doing. i appreciate the fact that the republicans and democrats, members of both sides of the help raise the transparent process, also praised the significant improvements in the judiciary committee. the markup process treated additional hearing with 26 witnesses in the bill as amended with bipartisan two thirds majority.

on the judiciary committee i'm proud that the reports are valuable resources for senators. it explains not only the underlying history and the amendments adopted in also those who check it. so in order for all senators to file an answer work on this though to proceed to the bill. i hope it would not infect these preceding. senators were to develop dislodges lucian. senators from both sides now have amendments atop by the judiciary committee. almost none of the more than 135 amendments adopted by the judiciary committee or party

line vote in which nearly every member of the republican party conference stood to get her to dreamers and one thing that i united all of us, these young people are here through no fault of their own. they've enriched our nation. we are considered inclusive legislation that supports it. i hope a fair process in the senate, action and the other chain are. i don't know how anybody who professes about family values, professes to care about other people can sit down with these young people, the dreamers and not be moved and not want them to have the same advantages that

our children and grandchildren how. it affects all of us. it long-time pass for reform. as members of the senate judiciary committee from both parties said at the conclusion of our proceedings, this is a matter of great significant to the american people in the senate should debate it, but it's too late from doing so by a small minority of the opponents. to have a tiny hand full text the debate. modern president, we senators, there's only 100 of us, 99 now with the loss of a dear friend white -- ladenburg -- lautenberg. we represent 300 billion americans. they tell us not to use sewing

type x, the standup to vote for or against a standup wouldn't install, it's an easy way to sin voting may be. you can go back home and be on everybody's side. whether people are puerto rican, i'm on your side because nobody can point that she voted one way or the other. it's not lower looking for. root for them to stand up and issue. yes or no, not maybe. legislation we seek to bring before the senate was resolved by senators of both sides of the aisle who came together and made an agreement, what was initially a proposal for the so-called gang of a king to the committee process the product of a group of 18. now let's have a product of the group of 100 representing all

states in this country. amendment suffered by 17 of 18 members were to it into the bill. 17 of the team members at the senate judiciary committee had been adopted, a bipartisan majority of two thirds voted for the bill hit the senate is being called upon to consider. i'm honored to serve as the chairman of the senate judiciary committee and the president pro tem for the united states senate as an office established in article i section three of the constitution of the united states. but in per lucius are the people of vermont for more than 45 years from the last 38 as their senator. the one thing i learned many years ago was stacked in a that

the majority leader at that time and i came here, senator mike mansfield. how important it is for vendors to keep everett to stay true to agreement. senators come together to develop this bill do those things i have no doubt: this filibuster and stop voting may be, but vote up or down and passes fair, that tough legislation on comprehensive immigration reform. our history, values, decent fee to take action without the partisan that policies. we need an immigration system that was set to american values. this is the time we are called upon to come together. few topics are more fundamental to lee harrison nations and immigration. the statue of liberty has long

proclaimed america's welcome, give us your tired, your poor come here masses yearning to be free. that's what america stood for. associates continue to resent. the maternal grandparents in italy to vermont. my paternal great grandparents of ireland to vermont. immigration history has been an ongoing source of renewal of economic strength. it established it 11 million undocumented immigrants to this country and addresses the lengthy backlogs of our current immigration system. backlogs are kept apart sometimes for decades.

it prints a faster track to the dreamers through no fault of their own in the agriculture workers and makes an important changes and my immigrant investors creating jobs in our communities, addresses the needs of law enforcement for immigrants to witness kind in human trafficking. it includes refugees that are silent seeker that the united states remains a beacon of hope in a world to make us all safer. the senate should come together to consider and pass. we should do what is right, what is fair, what is just. immigration reform is an important economic issue, the

civil rights issue. if a majority of us stand together, we stay true to our values and agreements. i believe it can pass legislation, the next great chapter of the american history of immigration. those of us are in the senate are immigrant. those of us who are children or grandchildren of immigrants understand it. just as my wife's family came to this country and a better state of vermont. i gave a speech at the distinguished presiding officer is better than anybody in here. she knows what it has to come to

the country it can, send immigrant and then become a united states senator and as president pro tem, i'm delighted to see the president pro tem in the chair and i will suggest the absence of a quorum and that can be divided the lead. >> we talked to a reporter with the cq rollcall. >> humberto sanchez is with "cq roll call." desk at the upcoming week is the senators were two camps here and we heard a lot from senator sessions to sit in the

opposition, making a case issued a done analysis supporters want to do and also may indicate this could hurt low-wage workers and could ratan. he believes they can while he says he believes that it should be done, something most comprehensive come as something were piecemeal is the way the senate should take this on. on the parasite community gang of eight, made up of four republicans and for democrats who have drafted a compromise and are putting the fourth to make the case the current system is broken, need to be revamped. they've gotten sign-on from labor, from the chamber of commerce and they believe they have the past chance of the best compromise to move forward for

immigration system. >> host: with the bill came out of the senate judiciary committee would have bipartisan support. who are some of the key players in the game of faith? >> guest: interesting enough, senator john mccain who is one of the members of the gang told me in casual conversation in the senate that he thinks they're 60 votes for the bill. go here for marco rubio is making the case that more republican brian needs to be done and is asking people to and ideas to strengthen border security, which not only will they pass the senate, but will help pass the house. he believes the border security portion of the bill is in hand and stands a greater chance of passing.

posts over the next couple of debates, when the amendment, come a couple key proposed changes that we are likely to see debated or to pass. >> guest: senator rivero right now is talking to republican colleagues to solicit ideas and input on the bill and this is a way for him to get by in from other republicans who are more likely to support the bill if the event that is passed. he's actually hinted that if it's not enforced or fifth amendment or whatever comes out that he may walk away from the bill. so i think that is the key issue right now. other possible things that could throw a monkey wrench in this hour -- you for treating same-sex couples, better benefits under this bill. also senator bloom mentioned he

might want to revisit the gun-control debate, which could also be explosive. >> host: is the president weighed in on the legislation? >> guest: he's taken a very hands-off approach. he's very much in favor of the passing and impart is why he's given descenders room to negotiate and discuss this. as one of his top priorities going forward. it's hard to say when the right time will be for him to step in. he's been very careful to state that because he's concerned he may alienate conservatives if he makes -- if he campaigns too much so to speak. >> host: what was the house immigration bill anytime soon? >> guest: that's the $64,000 question. the house right now is made up of four democrats and four republicans. one has since stepped away from the group over concerns about whether the bill they're

developing would allow immigrant student health care benefits. so while he said there's no animus in his decision to leave, there's a couple competing bills. the remainder will still go forward and write a bill. representative labradors going to write his own ill and also it's not clear what house leaders will do, whether they'll go on a piece by piece approach or do a bill. there's a lot of open questions they are. a lot of momentum to get sent them done and a lot pressure and that's what the senate hopes to pass a bill and was such an overwhelming vote will pressure the house into dealing with this issue. >> host: joining us, humberto sanchez with "cq roll call." read more procol.tom. thank you for the day. >> guest: thank you very much.

>> host: >> when you put on a uniform for a job within the start if you are building the core sanitation worker, you are subsumed by the roll to the point where it is almost like you're just a part of the background, almost like a machine, so they you are a human been wearing that uniform. the general world gets to overlook you and sort of not see you. it's like a romulan cloaking device, those people who are "star trek" geeks will recognize that. or harry potter's cloak of

invisibility, which is very frustrating and also an interesting privilege because when i'm wearing a sanitation worker uniform, i can observe people in ways they don't realize i'm observing them. >> this is the first democratic change of power in the country's history. sharif's party received an overwhelming thick during the may 11 election, when a 244 out of 342 seat national assembly. the new prime minister's inaugural speeches half an hour. [speaking in native tongue]

[cheers and applause] >> translator: please keep quiet. let me proceed further, please. please let me proceed further. that may allow to continue the proceedings further. [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] [chanting] >> translator: please do not disturb the proceedings. let it continue.

now i get the floor to the honorable prime minister of pakistan. nate todd [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: mr. speaker, first of all i think all a comment that he is giving me an opportunity to serve the people of pakistan and pakistan. allah gave me the courage to deal with the responsibilities

that have been imparted to me. i have seen the people of pakistan that they have shown -- that build this confidence. i believe that people have shown their love towards me. they will assist in shoulder to shoulder to me and my mission. i pay tribute to the entire nation despite the conspiracies to uncertainty that came out about and wrote the chapter

democracy. people deserve congratulation. for their parodies and international role. mr. speaker, i also thank the honorable members of the house who have given me the honor of the house today. and those who express the opinion. god willing, i will try my best to the expert patients at the palace.

the decision has moved their ability and democracy in the time has proved that pakistan democracy go to gather. there is no alternative to democracy. we have witnessed the events of despotic rulers. related for democracy, then the constitution and other values are disturb. whenever there is to tatar ship, it was a great damage to pakistan, disturbed, more shake

and lawlessness was there in the respect of the nation, the dignity of the nation caught the community of nations and the dictatorship. pakistan's existence sovereignty and the nation is certain democracy and superiority of constitutions and should be stopped forever it is a matter pleasure that will not tolerate.

the authority paid a heavy price for this. there is no room for any such circuits in the country. the house has to play a very important and strong role. the real masters of power should come and go with their roles. our cooperation, our differences, whatever they are, they should be for pakistan. whatever party we belong to, our identity should be pakistani, so that after five years when we

leave, we leave a prosperous and self-respect in pakistan and let packets can be seen as a shining star of the of the world. mr. speaker, i have been telling that the time has come for the politics not as powder vat foundation. our journey we can from kpk, where despite the majority without defeat for the most men's for justice. another milestone was laid in the province of baluchistan,

where we left the place and governor further parties for which we are tried to. we will cooperate other provincial governments. mr. speaker, during the last five years as an opposition party, we have given a new democratic culture. the politic for a positive amend

ends in the constitution and the government should complete despite a family opposition, we played and served as an ideal opposition. god willing, they lay on the foundation for new tradition. it is faced with problems, bloodshed and poverty, despair among the young people, extremism, corruption and

pakistan's beginning place in the world. there is a jungle of challenges. my government is except in the challenge. i will not paint a rosy picture. the nation should know the economy of the nation is facing big problems. i assured the nation that i will not spare a single moment to change the fate of the country

to change the fate of the people and my team also did the same. as this responsibility is on my shoulder, every moment is precious to me and i will not spare any time to solve the issues facing the country. the focal point of the policy will be in the feel of agriculture, industries, commerce.

it is the strong infrastructure at the reliability of my government. initial steps have started. my government will not tolerate corruption. corruption will have to face accountability. we have a chapter favoritism and nepotism. we have devised a transparent system for the people who will be appointed in high positions and will only be made on

marriott. i recommend the post will be for these posts. and the capital overseas practice and will also serve the country. the purpose of this chain is to ensure that only meritorious people should have the reins of the countries in the sands. every step will be an avid and other desperate sincerity.

with many comprehensive plan for distortion of the problems facing the country. at this time, i was a too only say that the job has started, the process has started for a shining pakistan. my eyes are witnessing a pakistan. they are laborers, farmers, women, youth and everyone will have an opportunity to prosper. majorities are in deed.

we try to build a country, which will be known as the country was good governing, clean democracy. and mom is a country facing poverty and despair. we need the support of parliament of the media. we all have a role. we have to play the role.

mr. speaker, i've been telling quite often the problems pakistan is facing today that we have to be on the same page. all of us in all this encoders impacted than have to unite, we have to assemble together in face the problems facing the country with a number of problems in a single party cannot solve them.

if this unite together sitting in his house, but can solve other problems facing pakistan may have mentioned and in no time we can raise their hat and march forward. i will again reiterate today unless assemble together in the interest of the country. they get in touch with other parties so that we sit down across the table and share our ideas and vision and their

desperate common agenda. let us make a common agenda to ensure that how come they get the country out of this problems ? in the urban area, whether it's karachi or sindh, and replays as similar poverty. some of him forward. some are very depressed. and backward.

we have displayed a unity. we have the governor to the party and baluchistan. this is not a theater. from the election day, i have said that whenever any party has been in it, we will expect that. and keeping that in mind, i've offered their own government. the kpk, karachi or punjab.

whatever they expect, we will provide that. karachi is a dear to me as to the people of karachi it's karachi employed. we are also excited about it. we work for the restoration of peace and karachi. similarly, in the tribal areas there is no peace and nobody seeks comfortable and will distort peace everywhere. similarly in religious sand, the

first step is taken in a new chat to your has been written in the history of pakistan. this is the first time the teacher leadership of baluchistan has been given the opportunity. i am very happy. this is a great step. let us give opportunity to them to play their role in sitting right the situation in baluchistan. when there is peace, everyone would be up. whether it's for a sindh, pop

tune, or any other place. i want to share one more project. the details i will provide greater. i met the chinese minister in disgust they project and myself in the chinese are both agreed that we will build a railroad on the road from punjab. other branches of this project will go to karachi.

we have agreed to this project and he has told me that when you take over the office, said the task force and i'll do the same in china and there should be people who can go fast and they should be in here divisibility instead should be taken, solid steps should be taken to complete the project. i have just mentioned the broad outline of the kpk, good job, baluchistan and will greatly

benefit from this project. the last administration and pakistan handed over the administration to china. this is a great day of the former government. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: i've talked with bob mode -- that my desire

is that given the location, the center point should be a three boat and it should have a special status and about not only benefit of baluchistan, but entire pakistan. rerun the foundation and powder. of these projects should he completed during the five-year tenure. we will take all the steps that will benefit everyone in the country this is not the party of

along. this is the desire of everyone sitting in this house a pakistan showed progress the burden of debt should go. they should be prosperity. there should be peace. children go to school. they should not worry about their children going out and going out to work and on the other hand, they should have peace. pakistan has become a passionate peace and tranquility.

come and let the pakistan. karachi, kpk, proven job -- punjab. we have extremists and i'm always miss. let us consult together steps they should be taken how to address these issues. the attacks of drones should stop. this chapter should be close now. other countries is the

responsibility of other countries to accept our controversy. this has been going on for quite a few years now. let us sit down together and try the common strategy. mr. speaker, once again i thank you and all the members vote to guide me with titans. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: i also want to say i would like to complement non-speaker. i am very, very happy the way she can did the whole

proceedings. this is the democracy. the way she picks out the speaker was really encouraging issue to have happened 60 years ago. and we have not seen this in speefour. this is really delightful. during the last five years, we learned the lesson that while not allowed any commandment to

go through undemocratic means. we will follow the democratic means. we have also a role in all of this, along with the government and these are the steps that will take pakistan to associating destiny. i'm very happy to watch and what i saw this means in practice strength to take sort. and even in parliament there should have discussion.

mr. speaker, i will not take much time in a can think everyone. long live pakistan. >> from today's "washington journal," and the u.s. relations with china >> i thought an application with the irs in january 2011 seeking to gain the 501 c. three status as an organization. as of today i've been waiting for 29 months with us that is. >> many of the agents and agent sees do not understand they are

servants of the people. they think they are our 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 that people across oceans or risk lies and i'm terrified it is slipping away. thank you. >> the purpose of a tax exemption is to enable it easier promotion of public good, not political work. is responsible in the irs determine which groups are using the correct exempt status amateur trying to manipulate the system to avoid campaign donors.

>> on from friday's "washington journal" with a tip is not promise him with his chinese counterpart in u.s. relations with china. our guest for dean chang to discuss national issues and cheng li from the brookings institution attacked about the chinese economy. this is an hour and a half. >> president obama and the chinese president xi jinping only for two days in what is a bird issuers a summit. it will take place at the annenberg center in santa ana california. a picture today in the "financial times." shirtsleeves indicating it is

more casual in nature. a conversation about of variety of topics focusing on these topics over next two segments on this morning's program. cheng li joins us for the conversation. he's a senior fellow at the thorton china center. thank you for joining us. but our leaders and countries looking from the summit? >> guest: there's three levels of obt? >> guest: there's three levels of object is. first are the concrete issues, especially north korea and cybersecurity and economic relationship between the united states and china. they concern about the regional security and tennessee, particularly american position in these areas. also come the second level is the relationship whether it can and mutual respect and the third

level, both leaders called the new type of the major power relationships should be cooperative rather than conceptual. these are the three levels of object days. >> host: aside from the specifics, how does the economies of the two countries factor in? >> guest: the most important concern for both leaders because both countries facing economic challenges in her china, particularly economy slowed down. both countries understand the importance of trade and the market access and also many other issue areas in both countries are the engines of global economy and the should be the spot light in the entire world. >> host: you said china's economy is slowing down.

why is that? ..

>> talk a little bad -- a little bit matt has the china. >> therein is concern of intellectual property rights and intellectual property rights is an issue because of the violations but at the same time china is also concerned about the

trans-pacific partnership headed believes that excludes china from free trade so it wants to know the real intention for the free-trade agreement. >> host: and the host of the tpp? >> there will be discussion but at the same time china is the organization that both leaders have that. but also with the chinese investment with an interest group or from congress for the united states also american companies invest

with china's market. they had our with the economic team it is a marketable plan and also deregulation with other issues that have a strong implication for other companies in particular american companies. >> what comes up is about trade deficit the united states has with china china, 315 billion highlighted in 22 -- 2002 and 2011 april this year is 93 billion so it is an amount. >> that's right. but china they argue this is

the chinese position. >> host: our first caller is from north carolina on the republican line. >> caller: how're you doing this morning? thank you for taking my call. i want to ask the gentleman gentleman, we have a code dependent symbiotic relationship with china because we have put herself in the position the largest segment of our economy is retail. and we really cannot compete with china and india because of the cost for the tremendous gap with the cost of labor but what is really hurting the ability to have a much better relationship between the countries, is the absolute disregard of the rule of law to violate patents, spying on us

us, stealing technology technology, what can wade do to make it where we can continue with consumers not wanting to buy chinese goods but it is not good for both countries. >> guest: i agree with a general assessment that the general issues in the u.s.-china relationship and business community constantly raises that issue and they understand that but they would blame local government and then from their own interest but but

in this area 90% so with the of violations occur among the chinese companies or between them. but at the same time i fully agree with them. and also with the manufacturing industry with challenges and first queeney to bring the manufacturing back to america and second, the international property rights to raise the issue very seriously.

>> host: we have the republican line. >> caller: good morning. i am questioning the reason i was actually born in germany and i have been here 67 years but of this time we hear the chinese people are so far advanced and has been forever. why on earth would you stoop down and steal our secrets that our people here in america have worked so hard to get? why do you do that? i don't think it's very nice or very professional. you have enough people that you can find out your own industrials. >> guest: i am chinese but now i am chinese-american and i became a citizen so i

did not want to defend china but you raise the issue but cyber security is not just american or the west but increasingly for the english markets such as china but now the western media media, american media dominated of fear of the china security violations. because it touched a very important part of our lives of privacy is an issue, a security, and physical safety. is not just the only thing but not just intellectual property rights but and

china could be a victim. so we could miss the opportunity with china and the united states. and with sabotage it could be an act of four. this is very serious. so we need to establish a code to deal with a new challenge like nuclear proliferation. it is a new challenge and a new issue between leaders and the public domain that it would be much better that if we only point* a finger to some extent as the chinese argue it is out of context. >> host: is there any indication xi jinping may be

open? >> guest: it is highly unlikely because they are a major country so to this certain extent all of the things that our government has conquered but some of it could be individual. i think the government chinese leadership makes a strong statement that i think xi jinping will be very important but we do not expect an agreement but it is at the top of the discussion to be but to the important announcement. >> host: it takes place today and tomorrow at a resort in california to discuss a wide range of topics this cyber security and is that the driving force talking about this

segment today. chicago, illinois, a democrat line. >> caller: we have the media that feels they are entitled to know everything and they want to know everything. that is the way it is. if you don't want anybody to know about it, don't let it happen. there are no secrets. >> host: independent line. >> caller: have a bite to comment there are certain obvious differences i see americans involved in wars 60 years and china has been at peace if corporations in america, a control of the government in china, and china is oriented to the people but there is no real orientation in america that

i see except profit. chinese economic development to expand influence but america uses development with guns and this cyber spying and every nation on earth that can do it does it. that is my comment and i appreciate you giving me the opportunity. thank keogh. >> host: what about development? >> guest: chinese people probably like that comment and believe through the years china was not in a war but the united states has been at war for many decades. with the economic integration or globalization. and sever security is a global issue to the extent

that it creates a sense of fear with the international code of conduct and had to prevent this whether be a nation state to take advantage of the new area that is so powerful and so impaired -- important so i think the caller raises questions also should be humble to looked at these issues. >> host: the nature of the economy is changing in china. what does that mean for the worker? >> guest: with the previous opportunities will become more difficult the cousin of the side effect of

the economic miracle including economic disparity, corruption, so the government has a need to address these issues. but the quality of growth so what is the point* when people are due to disease? so the chinese are also searching for a better model of development so this is the way of the chinese people. many joined them middle-class lifestyle but at the same time the issue of the environment and social justice of political democracy becomes increasingly of the public

discourse. >> host: from twitter what is the wage differential between the u.s. and china? >> guest: it is a huge. may be 20 times but again the data has not been reliable but with the real living standard but it is a huge gap but also look fat for a lifestyle in the country was 1.4 billion people. >> and the cost of living in china? >> guest: put the property price increase dramatically in major cities. >> host: republican line. >> caller: i was just thinking god help us our country will only suffer after this meeting.

if it was donald trump negotiating not this week like-minded american socialist president obama. >> host: next let's go from the republican line. >> caller: i as a citizen i want to offer two items on our international discussion of china and the united states that should be put on the agenda. one. making a good life for people in the country so we have some young people who want to work dan at agriculture a set of the city in the gadgets we develop good programs for the young people and have friends work with us so they can be the leader for europe and for north and south america also to help

citizens understand how much government goes into making guns and butter. ralph nader has a new book called the 17 solutions and the one citizens to ask questions how much is our money going into making better and how much making guns? we want the citizens of china to understand that citizens can inquire to ask questions and put things on the record. >> guest: this is a concern of china's budget increase over the past few years but compared to the united states it is very small. but is a serious plan for the military budget and what they call pivotal or rebalancing after the iraq

war the military relocation to the asia pacific particularly of the east china sea and south china sea the united states supporter of its allies like japan or countries that they think it is a deliberate effort. so is an opportunity for obama to express the rebalancing and hopefully it is a dialogue with the new arms race. >> host: we will talk about in the next segment and what is the effect of the currency we have on china? >> those that believe if it is the currency manipulator but it is not defined that

way in the past couple years. know over the five or six years they continue to do that over days or weeks but china's exports have slowed down for the chinese government to continue to do that it is a high percentage when you think of the export slowdown but the chinese government but for the long run in china's interest to make the currency convertible of a floating currency but it will take a few more years to complete the process. >> the co-chair of the manufacturing caucus talked

about what china does with its currency and he gave his explanation i want you to hear it and then respond. >> you can go into the market to buy and sell currency to keep your price at a certain level and the chinese have done that to keep the price of the currency artificially low. so when they export products to the united states it is a lot cheaper than they normally should be. we have a company in our area in eastern ohio so the chinese make a similar product and when it lands on the shores of the united states coming it is the same cost as the raw material cost of the american company that is how significant advantage you can get to manipulate your currency. by forcing the chinese to make sure the currency reflects the actual market value it would level the playing field to support u.s. manufacturing.

>> so the likelihood is? >> it will be very slow to have a major job that this is a disaster for china. if the economy collapses it would be a disaster for everyone including the united states economy so again the currency is the way to go. >> host: new york independent line. >> caller: how are you? every betty seems to forget china is a communist country. the chinese corporations are owned by the government. that is my comment. >> host: how does that play into the economy on a larger scale?

>> guest: we need to buy it made in america only. >> host: cheng li, the story that broke about china's companies purchasing in the united states here of smithfield foods here in virginia but is there any connection? >> this is a huge demand in china and the companies are happy but i know think it is right to call china's communist yes it is from a communist party but the economy is diversified more than 50% of state-owned enterprises is just a small portion of the economy. to research and extend american companies do business in china but because of china's own concern of its own companies lack of safety concerning food safety so they merge

like the meat so you will see more development in that area. >> host: like the amount of purchases from the chinese energy is a big factor with $3 billion investment and then the automotive industry about 355 million and other categories as well. >> this is part of the globalization we should make sure that china has the norm of the trade agreement and is sometimes good the american relative decline over the years again it is

unfair to blame china and the business community is welcome to do business with china. >> host: the democrats line. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. mr. li i have been listening to you but my call is about our trade agreement we have that is lopsided and i don't think we even had to do that but it is because of the rise of china but you being a communist party getting into than name calling saying like the lady who called the said the president is this and that but this has to stop. i was born and raised here in america and i am proud to be a citizen but i do know that we are in immigrant country.

but we should be fair with the currency and trade policies and china has to come forward i believe with honesty to put these things on the table. that is what i have to say. >> guest: i just want to agree with the general sentiment. china contributes to the consumption of the united states particularly early on after the expensive products. ikaros of the with the relatively high and product including technology so that is a major development. without that contribution contribution, the price in the united states will be very high but now china can

be met that also can provide jobs. of course, if we take that approach but if we believe the economic revitalization it is a win-win. >> host: uc from the new president in china opening products into china? >> guest: certainly that is with the reform agenda and this will be another great opportunity. so therefore now to talk about the investment companies whether military, energy, fiscal, all of the implication to the global economy of europe and

the united states. >> host: the republican line. >> caller: good morning. i have a couple of questions. why does the president of china realize the people of tibet? he does it because he is the leader so he could stop it. is their social unrest between the ruling class and other people of china? because it seems i heard the ruling class are pretty corrupted and they get all the cars, and eyes closed. -- nice clothes. >> guest: china will never become a respectful great power if it cannot handle its own ethnic tensions with any minority group. this is a human rights issue and a new president's position on that is not clear because he just

becomes the top leader of humans ago. to talk about social unrest, yes. it is not a secret it is happening all the time across the country and it is with 80,000 social protest which means 50 people or more. so that is 500 per day so there is a serious tension and the corruption that is a very serious issue in china so one of the top leaders they also release his corruption but now they will be tried but so also and consultation and now there

is an opportunity for president obama to argue you need to do with the issue not just the crackdown of media censorship but only through the rule of law and to achieve long-term stability that means democracy rule of law. >> host: aaron guest is from the brookings institution, a cheng li to talk about the u.s.-china relationship with the today's summit taking place in california. talk about the way it is designed. casual, not formal activity a church sleaved summit. >> guest: it is a conducive environment to establish mutual respect and understanding and maybe even french share. both of them will have seven

hours including dinner, breakfast come up walking around the resort. it really is extraordinary coming from so much time with the president. . .