takes aggressive action. and we do think that while we're seeing green chute -- shoots or positive signs, given the risk on a management basis, you don't need to be adding to that in terms of tightened financial positions at this point. i think the time will be coming, but we just, we believe that the fed should are remain fairly cautious here as they see the continued improvement in numbers. we only have really come off of one strong quarter in the first quarter, and we've had similar slowdowns before, and we're predicting one this time. another 1.7% growth in the second quarter. so it's, you know, there's certainly mixed signals out there in the market. and that's enough, i think, to keep the fed on a cautious stance. >> [inaudible] wall"wall street journal." two questions. so you said the sequester impact will be noted primarily in the second and third quarter, it's a

little bit delayed. why do you think it's been delayed, and why do you think it'll really start to bite in the second and third quarters? .. >> which would've probably had a bigger impact on the economy. we also think, a big piece of the fiscal drag, we don't like to talk about this cluster alone, italy but 6% gd of gdp bt we have to talk by the overall fiscal drag and much of the tax

hikes that happen at the beginning. and the reason that has been more noticeable in consumer spending is because of the way employers pushed income for in the fourth quarter. we had a big spike and income growth, bonuses were paid ahead of time. and that helped sustain consumer spending the first half. we're not going to have that timing in the second or third quarters, and that would have more of an impact on consumers. >> how does that tie into the recovery? >> we do think the total drag from what's happened in terms of tax hikes and sequesters will please be 1.6 percentage points of gdp. there's varying views on that, but we think the big impacts, the timing of those impacts will be in the second and third quarter primarily and that will diminish to a variable of 1% by

2014. so, therefore, they will allow a little more growth in the economy, at least a half percentage point. >> was there any discussion on the committee about the debt ceiling and the fact there's really no progress on that? i mean, last time around the markets peaked out the closer we got. >> as you know, the question is on the debt ceiling, whether there's any debate around the debt ceiling, and yes, there's been discussion about that. obviously a deadline for getting the debt ceiling has been pushed back. from what we've heard here, it may even be october or november before we we hit debt ceiling thresholds. there wasn't a lot of concern. people thought it was more likely to be some action but we don't think that will happen is for the deadline. so until we get closer to that date i don't think we're really

going to have -- [inaudible]. we've been through a few times already so it might not have as big a market shock as we've seen in the past just because people get comfortable with the discussions going on here in washington. >> we will conclude today's event. thank you all for coming and we hope you will stay around. >> thank you. >> and 20 under -- [inaudible conversations] >> one of the interesting

aspects of this building's history is the fact that it exists at all. and really, much of the reason that this building is to hear is due to our governor at the time. when the civil war started to come to a close and union troops are camped outside raleigh, he was there he concerned about the fate of the people abroad and it's been. he knew what it happened and many of the southern cities when troops cancer and so he crafted a peaceful surrender of the city of raleigh. he agreed to leave the city of raleigh and have the confederate troops leave the city of raleigh peacefully. if the union troops would also take charge of the city of raleigh peacefully, and specifically they would spare the state capital with its museum and library. we do have three representations of george washington here at the state capital. one outside into inside. the statue downstairs is a copy

of the original statute within the state house that burned, and that was destroyed. that statue was made by an italian sculptor. he represented george washington in a way that he felt really matched his reputation as a military leader, as a political leader. and so we made him in a very classical way, looked like a roman general. that was not entirely a popular decision with the people of north carolina. and probably the thing that shocks people the most is his legs and feet are completely bare. many people thought that was a little disrespectful to sure what president with his legs and his toes showing. >> more from north carolina state capitol next week in this booktv and american history tv look at history and literally live in raleigh, north carolina. saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's booktv and sunday at five on c-span3's american history tv.

>> the senate yesterday resumed work on the immigration bill. senators have been debating whether to allow the measure to, to the floor. a vote is set for saturday and to limit debate on the motion to proceed. yesterday, the chair and ranking members of the judiciary committee, the committee overseeing the go, outlined their positions on the major. we begin with the committee chair. this is about an hour. >> mr. president, when the senate judiciary committee held the extensive market discussions to secure the border security economic opportunity and immigration modernization act, or as 744, the bill before us, we work late in the evening to debate the bill. we actually considered hundreds of amendments. but was interesting and what we heard the most about was the fact that the public was able to witness our consideration

firsthand your they saw all our proceedings stream live on the committee's website. it was broadcast on c-span. in fact, a week and a half before market begin we put up available on our website a proposed amendment to and there were hundreds of them. and then as we made changes or there were developmedevelopme nts, we reported it in real time. i knew this made a difference guess i was receiving e-mails and calls the all over the coun. people watching it, whether they agreed or disagreed to a particular matter, they said how much it meant to them to actually know what the senate was doing. and members from both sides of the aisle -- the significant improvement the bill made by the judiciary committee, and then the bill as we amended it, it

passed our committee by a bipartisan two-thirds majority. again, i think because everybody worked together, we set politics aside and said let's do something the american people can see what we are doing. in many ways that's the way we did when it first came to the senate, except we didn't have a way of streaming things like. we didn't have c-span, so it's even more available now. i appreciate president obama said this week about immigration reform. i agree with them. we have to move in a timely way. but, of course, the time is now for the senate to act. i hope we can take something steps in the senate that we took in the judiciary committee during the debate in this legislation to have an efficient and transparent process to after all look at the makeup of the senate judiciary committee. both parties, and it goes across

the political spectrum, as well as geographically, west coast the east coast, from southern borders to our northern borders. during our committee consideration last month, an editorial the montpelier times article turned our proceedings a lesson in democracy. our proceedings to shift american people and will have the senate can and should fulfill its responsibility despite our differences. the ranking republican at the committee of the senior senator from iowa and i were on different sides of legislation that were able to work well together. i hope we can continue to work here on the senate floor and a bipartisan way. although a vote against the bill, the senior senator from iowa said the vote had been necessary, report the bill to the senate, he would've voted to do so. i appreciate that, senator.

i look forward to his cooperation. i proposed a senator grassley, the ranking republican on the judiciary committee managing the bill for the minority, that would try to replicate here in the senate the fair and transparent process we are able to achieve in the committee. to that end, the senate is able to proceed to the i suggest we established a filing deadline for amendments that we did the onset for the outset of our committee consideration. ideally then we would be able to take these amendments, a group of them, work together by issue, by titles within the committee. makes it a lot easier for the public and actually for the senate to know what we are doing on the bill. it will help us with a senators

timely consideration in legislation. of course, in order for senators to file an amendment, to work with the bill, the senate has to proceed to the bill. republicans and democrats worked together. senators from both sides of the aisle, including the senate from alabama was over spoken at length about this legislation, had a menace adopted in committee. almost none of the more than 135 amendments adopted by the judiciary committee were adopted in partyline votes. we both democratic and republican amendments but they were all adopted in a bipartisan way. so we should be able to work together to ensure consideration of amendments, and then proceed to a vote and passage without

filibusters. the american people want us to vote yes or no, up or down. they don't want us delaying tactics that allow us to say well, maybe we would've been for it, maybe we would've been against it. they expect more. vote yes or no. i hope the senate will return immediately to consideration of amendments to this important bill. i regret tomorrow closure for procedural motion to allow use to begin --.net. the legislation before us is not a partisan piece of legislation. it's a bipartisan bill. it was initially a proposal for the so-called gang of eight. came through the committee process through a group of 18, supported by a bipartisan majority, each judiciary committee. senators come together to help developers build keep the commitments, i have no doubt we will be appleton and this unnecessary filibuster.

pass this fair but tough legislation, comprehensive immigration reform. there's broad agreement in immigration system is broken, is in need of a comprehensive solution. it's also broad agreement in this nation that people are tired of unnecessary delays in the united states senate. they would like to see us do the work that we are paid to do, the work we are elected to do, and vote yes or no. not continue voting may be vitally. this legislation will achieve this, and given the impact the broken system as on our a calm and our families, we can't afford delay. the measure the senate should come together, we should do what is right, what is there, what's just. comprehensive immigration reform was last on the floor such as ago. it was blocked by a minority

party, republican party, the former chairman of our immigration subcommittee, ted kennedy, said a minority of the senate rejected a stronger economy, that is fair to our taxpayers and our workers. a minority of the senate rejected america's own extraordinary immigrant history, ignored our nation's most urgent needs. but we are in the struggle for the long haul. we continue the battle. [inaudible] he was right. we are back in strength. i add, the privilege of serving a nice if senate with senator kennedy. the time i arrived until the time he died. i know passionate he felt about this. i also know both from then and

now, a small minority of the senate that continues to reject this measure should not prevail this time and close the door on so many people in our country. both those who are citizens and those who aspire to become citizens. i've taken inspiration from many sources. from our shared history's immigrants, with experience of my own grandparents when they came to vermont from another country, another language, another culture. from my wife's parents who came to vermont from another country, another culture, another language. and by courageous citizens,

senator kennedy knew then, the millions of american families would be more secure we enact comprehensive immigration reform. during his testimony before the judiciary committee, he asked the committee what do you want to do with us? what you want to do with me? poignant questions. but this legislation answered mr. vargas, sent the message that many others are looking assist to be true to her extraordinary history of tradition as a nation of immigrants. and i encouraged some on the other side of the aisle are signaling their support for this legislation. i welcome the support of those who support immigration reform in the past. who support this effort of those who join me and others in supporting what president george w. bush fought to do with comprehensive immigration

reform, and now president obama and but also what so many of us here in this senate want to do. i trust that those republican senators who helped draft this legislation and help is greatly will be with us for the long haul. be firm in the commitments, we defend the legislation, they asked 14 members of the judiciary committee to consider and approve. and i will hope and expect that they will not look for excuses to abandon what needs to be a bipartisan effort. because everybody had to give some in this bill. the bill now before the victim not the bill i would have drafted.

i voted for the judiciary committee that would reject it. and i voted against some amendments that were accepted, withheld an amendment what looked to be an issue, fundamental fairness in ending discrimination. after republican senators pledged their support for this bill, that amendment then offered. and i cannot begin to tell this senate how much it hurt to withdraw that amendment. but despite many shortcomings as a result of compromise, the bill before the senate is worthy of this chambers immediate attention and support. there's time for us to stop voting may be, and get to the business of legislating. after all, that's what the

american people, republicans and democrats alike, expect us to do. congress was unable -- during the last decade. now in the second decade, the 21st century, we again have the opportunity to make reforms we so desperately need that kerry's strength in our nation. as i said on the senate floor late last week, the maturity will stand together, if we stay true to our values and our agreements, i believe we could pass legislation to write the next great chapter in america's history of immigration, a chapter that is succeeding in generations will thank us for. >> as we look forward to a difficult and yet overdue debate about immigration, i want to share my thoughts on the legislation.

i want to speak about the committee process as well as the substance of the bill before us. i also want to share my personal experience from the 1980s and how we can learn from history, and finally i want my want to express my hope for what i think the bill should look like before it leaves the united states senate. i don't know of any senator that says the status quo is the way it ought to be. in other words, this issue being on the floor of the united states senate is very appropriate. but while we are here we need to concentrate on getting immigration right for the long-term. in 1986, the last time we had major legislation going to the president, i was there. i lived it.

i voted for it. and not acknowledge at what we did in 1986 we got it wrong. we can't afford to make the same mistakes of yesterday. from our national security to our economic security, too much is at stake. so don't repeat 1986. see that the borders are absolutely secure, no excuses from that point, no exceptions on that point. now, we are a nation of immigrants. but we're also a nation of laws. it's my solemn responsibility to respect law and ensure that law is upheld. do it the right way, not the easy way.

take what time is necessary to get it right. we know what happens in congress works and what doesn't work. and i think if we look back at health care reform as an example, we know that we did it in to greed of the way, and consequently questions about the for scaring at that legislation now are legitimate points of discussion. earlier in the year when a bipartisan group of eight senators released their framework for reform, i was optimistic that the authors were going to produce legislation that lived up to the promises. in their framework they stated, quote, we will ensure that this is a successful, permanent reform for our immigration

system that will not need to be revisited, end of quote. without a doubt this is a goal that we all should strive for. we must find a long-term solution to fixing our broken system. so i was encouraged. the authors in the framework released to the public before bill language was available said that the bill was quote, provide a tough, fair, practical roadmap to address the status of unauthorized immigrants in the united states, contingent upon our success in securing our borders and addressing these overstays coming in quote. now, who can argue with that point? that's exactly what we all believe a piece of legislation should do. at the time that this bill was put forward and the framework was put forward, i reserved

judgment until i saw the details of their proposal. i thought the framework held hope, but i realized that the assurances that the group of eight made didn't really translate when the bill language emerged. it seems as though the rhetoric was spot on, but the details were dubious. this is what, this is what the professed, was professed by the authors, that the border would be secured and that the people would earn their legal status. that was not what the bill actually did. the bill is drafted, is legalization first, borders secured later, and tracking visa overstays later, if at all.

in 1981, when i was a freshman senator, i joined the judiciary committee and was active in the subcommittee process. we sat down, wrote legislation. we had 100 hours of hearings, 300 witnesses before we marked up a bill in may 1982. hundreds more hours and dozens more hearings would take place before the 1986 passage. this year, we had six days of hearings. we spent 18 hours and 10 minutes of listening to outside businesses. we have a hearing on the needs of women and children, another hearing focused on quote building an immigration system worthy of american values, end of quote. the judiciary committee received a bipartisan bill at 2:24 a.m. april 17. we held hearings on april 19, the 22nd and the 23rd.

we heard from 26 witnesses in three days. we heard from the head of the immigration and custom enforcement agency. we heard from economists and employers, law enforcement and lawyers, professors and advocacy groups. we even heard from people who are undocumented, proving that only in america would we allow someone not right with the law to be heard by the american people. one of the witnesses was homeland security secretary napolitano. we attempted to learn about how the bill would affect the functions of the executive branch, and whether she saw the same flaws that many of us were finding. unfortunately, we have not received responses from secretary napolitano to the

questions we raised in her hearing april 23. we should have the benefit of hearing from the secretary certain questions raised about this legislation. particularly when it comes from someone in the executive branch that has to enforce what's laid before her. after those hearings, a committee was supposed to consider the bill through a markup process. our side of the aisle made it clear that we need to have an open and transparent process. so we started work on may 9. we held five all the sessions where members were able to raise questions, voice concerns, and offer amendments. hundreds of amendments were filed. i a loan filed 77 amendments. of those i offered 37. of those 37, 12 were accepted, 25 were rejected.

those on the other side of the aisle will boast that many republican amendments were adopted in committee. they are somewhat right. however, only 31 of 78 republican amendments offered where greek you get seven of those were from members of the group of eight. but get this. of the 62 democrat amendments proposed, only one of the 62 amendments was rejected. and even that one was just narrowly rejected. commonsense amendments offering real solutions were repeatedly rejected. those that were accepted made some necessary improvements. but, get this, the core provisions of the bill remain the same coming out of committee

as they were introduced into the committee. now, i respect the process that we had in committee. chairman leahy deserves the thanks of all of us on the committee, because he promised an open, fair and transparent process. and quite frankly it was. it's a good format, but what needs to take place on the floor of the united states the senate, is the legislation that is finally voted upon is going to have credibility. in that committee we had a good discussion and debate on how that moved the bills. it was a productive conversation, focused on getting immigration reform right in the long term. yet, i was disappointed that alliances were made to ensure that nothing past that would make substantial changes or improvements in the bill.

many of those same people gave high praise to the amendments being offered, but continue to vote against them. i have often spoke about the 1986 legislation, and how that law failed the american people. and 99 other senators are probably going to get sick of my remind them of my presence there in 1986 and saying that we screwed up. because at that time, promises were made and those promises were not kept. we said it was a one time fix, just like the group of eight says they have a one time fix. but that one time fix did nothing to solve the problem. in fact, it only made matters worse. and encouraged illegality. people came forward for legal

status, but many more illegally entered or overstayed their welcome to get the same benefits and chance at citizenship. in 1986 bill was supposed to be a three-legged stool. control undocumented immigration, illegal is a program, and reform of legal immigration. we authorized $422 million to carry out the bill, and even created a special fund for states to reimburse their costs. in 1986 bill included a legalization program for two categories of people. one, for individuals who have been present in the united states since 1982, and the second for farmworkers who had worked in agriculture for at least 90 days prior to enactment. a total of -- were legalized.

we also had enforcement in that 86 legislation. for the first time ever we made it illegal to knowingly hire or employ someone here that was here undocumented. we set penalties to determine the hiring of people here, undocumented. we wrote the bill that quote, one essential element of immigration control is an increase in the border patrol, and other inspection and -- in order to prevent and to deter the illegal entry of aliens into the united states and in violation of the terms of their entry, end of quote. unfortunately the same principles from 1986 are being

discussed today. legalize now, in force later. but it's clear that that philosophy doesn't work and proof of that is that it didn't work in 1986. so proposed a legalization today argue that we didn't get it right in 1986. and how true they are. i agree that the enforcement mechanisms of 1986 could have been stronger. there was no commitment to enforcing the law or making sure that we protected every mile of our border. knowing what i now know, and immigration bill most inshore that we secure the border first. the utilization should only happen when the american people have faith in the system.

there needs to be a commitment to enforcing the laws on the books, and as important, there needs, there need to be legal avenues that allow people to enter and stay legally in the country. now if you want to know how important securing the border is, just come to my town meetings in iowa. so far i've been in 73 of the 99 counties, and when immigration comes up and i talk about legislation, there's an outburst that we don't need more laws. why don't you just enforce the laws that are on the books? things like, put them down on the border then we won't have a problem. unfortunately, the bill before us repeats our past mistakes and does very little to deliver more

than the same promises that we made in 1986, which promises turned out to be empty. instead of looking to the past for guidance on what to do in the future, the bill before us incorporate the mistakes of the past, and in some cases even weakens the laws we currently have. now, those of us that are complaining as i just complained have a responsibility to put proposals before this body that will correct those things that we think are a repeat of the mistakes of 86, and we will do this. now, going to further explain this bill, the bill ensures that the executive branch, not the congress or the american people through their congress, have the sole power to control the

situation. first, the bill provides hundreds of waivers and broad delegation of authority. the secretary may define terms as she sees fit, and in many cases, the discretion is unreviewable, both by the american people and by other branches of government. now, can you believe that? unreviewable. the bill undermines congress' responsibility to legislate, and it weakens our ability to conduct oversight. now, we should learn a lot of lessons from past legislation. we should be doing more legislating and less delegating. you know, just think of the recent things that have come out that the irs has too much power. health care reform.

1963 delegations of authorities of the secretary to write regulations. now, you might think you understand 2700 page piece of legislation that the president signed four years ago, but you aren't going to know what that legislation actually does until those 1936 regulations are written. and i think we are waking up to the fact that we delegated too much and legislated to little. and we shouldn't be making that same mistake with this piece of legislation. and as is written, we are making that mistake. i wouldn't have such strong resentment about this issue if i knew that i could have faith in this administration, or any future administration. and by the time this thing gets down the road, that's going to be a future administration to actually enforce the law. but show me the evidence. the president administration has

curtailed immigration enforcement programs. it claims record deportations, but then what does the president say? he turns around and says the statistics are committees are his words, deceptive. the secretary says that the border is more secure than ever before. but she denounced any notion of securing the border before people here undocumented or given legal status. the administration implemented the dream act by executive fiat same congress refused to pass a bill so it decided to do something on its own accord. that, it did that one year after the president told a group of people he didn't have the authority to do it. and provided no legal justification for the actions and very few answers about how they're implementing the directive. so the refusal of any executive branch of government, republican

or democrat, to refuse we can ability, raises a lot of questions. they refuse to be transparent and forthcoming with congress on almost every matter. so when this bill was introduced i had to really question whether the promise for border security 10 years down the road would ever be fulfilled. no one disputes that this bill is, what i said, already, is a bill that legalizes first and enforces later. now, that's a corporal and. that's a core problem from the standpoint of everybody it's going to tell us on this floor and during this weeks of debate that immigration reform is overwhelmingly popular. i'm not going to dispute that. but understand that there's very

many things that are caveats, and number one is that we ought to have border security. so the core problem is that enforcement comments after, after legalization or so a core problem and the main reason i could not support it at a judiciary committee, that's the main reason. it's unacceptable to me and it's unacceptable to the american people. the sponsors of this bill disagree. if they agreed to their own legislation they would realize this fact, later in the bill i will discuss an amendment i plan later in the week i will discuss an amendment i plan to offer to change the central flaw that will allow me to tell my colleagues who are not on the

committee about this major objection i have to. we have millions of undocumented people in this country, under this bill congress would give the secretary of homeland security exposed to produce to reports, one on border security strategy, and the other on border fencing strategy. as soon as those two documents are sent to me, the secretary then has full authority to issue legal status, including work permits and travel documents to millions of people that apply. the result is that the undocumented population receives what the bill calls registered a provisional status, after two plans are submitted. regional provisional immigrant is rpi.

rpi status is more than probation. rpi status is outright legalization. after the secretary notifies congress that she believes her plan has been accomplished, newly legalized immigrants are given a path to obtain green cards and a special path to citizenship. without ensuring adequate border security or holding employers accountable, the cycle is destined to repeat itself. i use the committee process to attempt to strengthen border security. my amendment to fix the trigger so the secretary would need to report to congress on a fast-track system and show that the border was security to get congressional approval before legalization would proceed was defeated. we use the committee process to try and track who is coming and

going for our country. amendments would require a biometric exit system at all ports of entry, which is current law. we tried to hold employers accountable and stop the magnet for illegal immigration. my amendment to speed up implementation of an employer's verification system was defeated. at the end of the day, the majority argued against securing the border for another decade. the triggers in the bill that kicked off legalization are ineffective and inefficient. if we pass the bill as is, there will be no pressure on this administration or future administrations or those in congress to secure the border your there will be no push by the legalization advocates to get the job done. and this is what's so important

about windows legalization take place, before the border is secure or after the border is secured? because once the plans are presented, there will never be any pressure from advocates for legalization or anybody else that's interested in solving this problem to push to get the job done. moreover, the bill gives congress the sole discretion over border security, and fencing strategy, and implementation of these strategies without any input from congress. so we have a lot of questions. while the secretary who believes that the border is stronger than ever before be willing to make it even stronger? will a secretary who does not believe in biometric exit system

is feasible ensure that a mandated system is put in place? will a secretary who does not believe anything should stand in the way of legalization ensure that the triggers are achieved? proponents of the legislation claim that it includes the single largest increase in immigration enforcement in american history. proponents say that mandatory electronic employment verification is a solution to future illegal immigration. yet, it's concerning that the bill delays for years the implementation of a mandatory electronic employment verification system through which 99 and seven-tenths percent of all work eligible employees are confirmed

immediately today. i will speak later in the days ahead about how this bill weakens current law, particular laws on the books that the -- that deter krill behavior. it concerned me greatly the bill we're about to consider rolls back many criminal statutes but also that there's nothing in the bill that enhances the cooperation between the federal government and state and local jurisdictions. in fact, it preempts state laws that are trying to enforce federal laws currently in place. we have a lot of work cut out for us. i know there are some that don't want to see a single change in this legislation. for me, this bill falls short of what i want to see in strong immigration reform. because the fact is we need real reform, not gimmicks that failed

to fix the real problem and secure our border. and we need to be there to millions of people who came here the legal way. not by a system in favor of those who snuck in the backdoor. backdoor. we need to. we need a bill that truly balances our national security with our economic security. here is what we can do to improve the bill. i remain optimistic that on the floor we can vote on commonsense amendments that better the bill. serious consideration will be given to amendments that strengthen our ability to remove criminal gang members, hold perpetrators of fraud and abuse accountable, and prevented the weakening of the criminal law. we must seriously consider how that works to the detriment of the american workers, and find consensus around measures that require employers to recruit and hire from homegrown talent

before looking abroad. but also improving the mechanism by which people can come here when they are needed. close loopholes in our asylum system, prevent criminals and evildoers from gaining immigration benefits, and ensure that we're improving our ability to protect the homeland. i assure my colleagues that i have an open mind on this legislation. i want immigration reform. i want to get it right this time, not make the same mistakes they did in 1986. i want a bill that i can support, and to do that i need to see a stronger commitment to border security. i need to know the future lawmakers won't be rewarded, and that there will be deterrent for people who wish to enter or remain illegally in the country. a sickly and simply, i want the

words -- basically instantly, i want the words of this bill to match the rhetoric of those opposing the plan to the bill sponsors want a product that can garner around 70 votes in the senate. doing so they seem to think would send a message to the house that they should just rubberstamp a bill that passed the senate and send that bill to the president. i don't think that's going to happen. the house is prepared to move on its own legislation. there will be a conference, which is a rare occurrence around here by the way, a conference of two houses will ensure that the bill benefits from various checks and balances that we worship through our constitution. i'm not trying to jump ahead to the next step of the process. i'm simply telling my colleagues that this bill has a long ways to go through the legislative process. it needs to change before it's accepted by the american people, or sent to the president.

if they are serious about getting this done, more compromises will be made. allow me to end by echoing the words of president reagan. our objective, these are his words, quote, our objective is only to establish a reasonable, fair, orderly and security system of immigration into this country, and not to discriminate in any way against particular nations or people. future generations of americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby reserve the valley of one of the most sacred professions of our people, american citizenship. unquote of president reagan. the path that we take in the days ahead will shape our country for years to come. it's my hope that we can find a

solution while learning from our mistakes and ensuring that future generations don't have to revisit this problem down the road. thank you. i yield the floor. >> mr. president? >> senator from utah? >> mr. president, our current immigration system is a travesty. it's inefficient, uncompassionate and dangerous. it does assert america's economic or social interests, and undermines respect for the rule of law and for immigrant institutions. fundamental reform is both badly needed and long overdue. that's why i support immigration reform, and it's also what i initially joined a bipartisan group of senators to try to find common ground on this issue. but it's also why i left that group and it's why today i must oppose the so-called gang of eight immigration bill. at the outset of this debate,

again promised a grand immigration bargain, stricter border security in exchange for a pathway to citizenship for approximately 11 million illegal immigrants already here. even before the bill was introduced, gang members distributed talking points that a lot of the bells beefed up security provisions, new visa reforms and measures that would make a pathway to citizenship quote long and tough. but once the gang produce actual legislation and once centers, the media and members of the public began to read the bill comments clear that the talking points do not reflect the reality of the legislation itself. after pointing out glaring discrepancies between claims about the bill and the actual text, senators were told that they would have an opportunity to make changes during the judiciary committee's market. but the 14 members on the

committee banded together as a bloc with democrats to defeat virtually all substantive amendments proposed to improve the bill. congressional approval of the border security plan, no. improve injury enforcement and strengthen workplace verification? rejected. manage the flow of new illegal immigrants? failed. limit access to some of america's most generous welfare programs, blocked. as a result, the bill that will come to the senate floor this week is essentially the same huge complex and unpredictable, extensive and special interest driven big government boondoggle it was what first came to the committee. the build is not secure the border but it doesn't build a fence but it doesn't create a workable biometric entry-exit system for immigrants for this country. what standards and benchmarks it does suck, double simultaneous a grants the secretary of homeland

security broad discretion to waive. it will, however, immediately legalize millions of currently illegal immigrants to make them eligible for government services and put it on a pathway to citizenship many critics compare again bill to the failed 1986 immigration law which like this one also promised border security in exchange for amnesty. but did not deliver its promis promises. but the gang bill alice reminds me of a more recent piece of legislation, obamacare. like the presence health care law, the gang bill was negotiated in secret by insiders and special interest. within essential to offer it to congress as a single take it or leave it proposition eric into grants broad new powers to the same executive branch that today is mired in scandal for incompetence and abuse of power. total cost estimates are in the

trillions, according to some. and rather than fix our current immigration problems, the bill makes many of them worse. however, well-intentioned, the gang bill is just an immigration version of obamacare. that's why true immigration reform must be pursued on a step-by-step basis, with individual reform measures implemented and verified in the proper sequence. now, happily for immigration reformers, like me, this appears to be the approach being concerned in the house of representatives. it's the only one that makes sense. first, let's secure the border. let's set up a workable into exit system to create a reliable education system, one that protects immigrants, citizens, and businesses alike from bureaucratic mistakes. then let's fix our legal immigration system to make sure we are leading in the immigrants our economy needs and the numbers that make sense for our country. once these and others tasks

which are plenty big in and of themselves are completed to the satisfaction of the american people, then we can address the needs of current undocumented workers with justice, compassion, and sensitivity. since the beginning of this year, more than 30 immigration related bills have been introduced in congress between the house and the senate. by a rough count, i could support more than half of them. eight of which have republican and democratic cosponsors. we should not risk forward progress on these other bipartisan just because were unable to iron out each of the more contentious issues. they gang of eight bill is not immigration reform. it is big government dysfunction. it is an immigration version of obamacare. all advocates of true immigration reform, advocates on both the left and the right side of the aisle, --

>> house speaker john boehner says he thinks there's a good chance that legislation overhauling america's immigration system can be signed into law quote by the end of the unquote. he made those comments this morning. the senate will resume debate this morning i begin work on its version of the legislation and will have live coverage here on c-span2. >> today, defense secretary chuck hagel and joint chiefs of staff chairman martin dempsey testified before the senate appropriations subcommittee on defense. they are expected to face questions on the 2014th defense budget. sexual assault in the military and other issues. live coverage at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> the defense secretary and joint chiefs chairman will also testify on the 2014 defense budget on wednesday at 10:30 a.m. eastern before the senate budget committee with live coverage on c-span3. and at 1 p.m. eastern they will

testify before the house budget committee. live coverage also on our companion network c-span3. >> the name of this place still resonates with a shuddering in the hearts of the american people. more than any other name connected to the civil war, except lincolns, gettysburg reverberates. americans retain the knowledge that what happened here was the crux of our terrible national trial, and even americans who were sure precisely what transpired on these fields know that all the glory and all the tragedy we associate with the civil war resides most palpably, most indelibly here. >> the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg live all day sunday june 30 on american history tv on c-span3. >> the senate is about to gavel and to continue debate over whether to bring the immigration bill to the floor.

a vote is counted for this afternoon about 2:15 p.m. eastern to limit debate on the motion. if it gets 60 votes centers may vote later this afternoon to begin an official debate on the go. in the meantime negotiations are underway off the floor on amendments. now live to the senate. we welce feller, director for the upper midwest merkos-lubavitch house in st. paul, minnesota, who will lead the senate in prayer. the guest chaplain: almighty god, i evoke your blessing today on this august body, the united states senate. in their divinely inspired wisdom, the founding fathers of our blessed country, the united states of america, established a policy of separation of church and state. however, it was never their intention to separate our country from you, sovereign

ruler of all mankind. hence, both legislative bodies of our blessed country begin their daily sessions invoking your divine presence and guidance in their legislation. hence, in our pledge of allegiance we declare "one nation under god," on our currency is printed "in god we trust," and on the wall of this very senate hall in which we invoke your blessings is engraved in bold letters, "in god we trust." grant, almighty god, that the senators realize that in legislating just laws they are fulfilling one of the seven commandments which you issued to noah and his family after the great flood, as related in the book of genesis and its sacred commentaries. the command that every society

govern by just laws. almighty god, i beseech you today to bless the senate in the merit of one of the spiritual giants of our time and our nation, the lubavitcher rebbe, rabbi menachem mendel schneerson of saintly blessed memory, who passed away 19 years ago today. the rebbe labored with great love, dedication, and self-sacrifice to make all mankind aware of your sacred presence. may his memory be for a blessing and his merit be for a shield for our government and our nation, which he always referred to as "a nation of kindness." amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag.

i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, june 11, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable william m. cowan, a senator from the commonwealth of massachusetts, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks -- and today we'll hear from senator mcconnell first -- the senate will resume the motion to proceed to the comprehensive immigration legislation. the tile unti time until 12:30 e equally divided between the proponents and opponents of this

legislation. the senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15. at 2:15 there will be a vote to invoke cloture on the legislation. at 4:00 there will be a vote on adoption to proceed. and we can begin consideration of that legislation. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: at any given type in our nation's history, lawmakers have been faced with many pressing challenges, some by their very nature demand immediate action. others suml simile build over t. so forcing action on them includes some combination of foresight and persuasion. the great challenge of our own day, in my view, is figuring out how to reform government programs that are growing so big so fast unless w.

unless we act, they'll eventually consume the entire federal budget. this is an issue that i have dedicated a lot of time to over the years and that i would hope the two parties would resolve in a way that would win the support of the public and markets. as it turned out, the president wasn't as interested in that kind of agreement as i was, so last year i reluctantly concluded we wouldn't be able to do anything significant about entitlements anytime soon. without presidential leadership, something like that is just sumly impossible. hopefully the president will have a change of heart at some point on the most important issue of our time. but none of this means we can't try to do something about any other big issue we face and that includes immigration. there may be some who think our current immigration system is working, but i haven't met them. i haven't met anybody who thinks the current immigration system is working.

and as an elected leader in my party, it is my view that at least we need to try to improve the situation that as far as i can tell very few people believe is working well, either for our own citizens or for those around the world who aspire to become americans. everyone knows the current system is broken. our borders are not secure. those who come legally often stay illegally. and we don't know who or where they are. our immigration laws last change was almost three decades ago and they failed to take into account the needs of our rapidly changing economy. so what we're doing today is initiating a debate. we're all grateful for the hard work of the so-called gang of eight, but today's vote isn't a final judgment on their product as much as it is a recognition of the problem, a national

problem, one that needs debate. the gang of eight has done its work. now it's time for the gang of 100 to do its work. for the entire senate to have its say on the issue and see if we can improve the status quo. at the risk of stating the obvious, the bill has serious flaws. i'll vote to debate it and for the opportunity to amend it, but in the days ahead, there will need to be major changes to this bill if it's going to become law. these include, br but are not limited to, the areas of border security, government benefits, and taxes. i'm going to need more than an assurance from secretary napolitano, for instance, that the border is secure to feel comfortable about the situation down on the border.

too often recently we have been remiewnded that as government grows, it becomes less responsible to the american people and fails to perform basic functions either through incompetence -- incompetence -- or willful disregard of the wishes of copping. of congress. our continued failure to secure major portions of the border thought only makes true immigration reform far, far more difficult, it presents an urgent threat to our national security. now some have criticized this bill for its cost to taxpayers, and that's a fair critique. those who are here illegally, shouldn't have their unlawful status rewarded with benefits and tax credits. so the bill has some serious flaws. and we need to be serious about trying to fix them. the goal here should be to make the status quo better, not worse. and that's what the next few weeks are about. they are about giving the entire

senate and indeed the entire country an opportunity to weigh in on this important debate, to make their voices heard, and to try to improve our immigration policy. and what that means, of course and obviously, is an open amendment process. but let me be clear -- doing nothing about the problem, we all acknowledge, isn't a solution. doing nothing about the problem is not a solution. it's an avoidance strategy, and the longer we wait to have this debate, as difficult as it is, the harder it will be to solve the problem. we tried to do something six years ago and didn't succeed. we may not succeed this time either, but attempting to solve tough problems in a serious and deliberate manner is precise what i the senate, at et ceteras best, should be doing. and that's what we're going to

try to do had this debate. now, mr. president, on another matter, it's now been 138 days since the senate reached an agreement on the issue of whether or not we would violate the rules to change the rules. 138 days since we reached an agreement. in that agreement, the senate adopted two rules changes and two standing orders, and the majority leader made an unequivocal commitment not contingent on his judgment of what was good behavior, that the matter was settled for this congress. in fact, two years before that he had said it was settled for the next two congresses. so let's take a look at exactly what the majority's pledge was. this is become in 2011.

the majority leader said, "i agree that the proper way to change senate rules is through the procedures established in those rules" -- in thosees rules -- "and i will oppose any effort in this congress or the next" -- the congress we're in now -- "to change the senate's rules other than through the regular order." so the commitment on january 27 of 2011 was not just for that congress but for the next one as well. and then two years later on january 24 of this year, i said in a colloquy with the majority leader, "i would confirm with the majority leader that the senate would not consider other resolutions" -- we had passed a couple of resolutions, a couples of rules changes and a couple of standing orders -- "other

resolutionresolutions relating y standing order or rules this congress" -- that's the congress we're in right now -- "unless they went through the regular order process?" the majority leader said, "that is correct. any other resolutions relating to senate procedures would be subject to a regular order process including consideration by the rules committee." now, the regular order here, for change in ruleschanging rules, e parliamentarian would rule that it takes 6 votes t 7 votes to d. but the majority leader has consistently repeated that in spite of what i said in january of each of the last two years, if you're not on your best behavior, presumably, i'll do this anyway.

and so i mentioned to the majority leader publicly and privately for a long time -- and then public publicly the last few weeks, i asked him, does he intend to keep his word is this it is particularly important for the majority leader to keep his word, who has the opportunity to be, shall i say, more important than the rest of us, because you gets to set the agenda, he gets to determine what the senate will gaivment he ha debate. he has the right of first recognition, as he reminds me. he will always have the last word. so i think the currency of the realm here in the senate is your word. and so, mr. president, those are my observations today and will be my observations tomorrow, until we get this established, because i think the atmosphere

in which the senate operates with this threat of a nuclear option holding over it is not conducive to the type of collegial environment that we need in processing nominations and in processing legislation. we expect the majority leader to keep his word. i yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: it's important everyone keeps their word, mr. president. i'm pleased that the republican leader acknowledged that our immigration system is broken and needs fixing. and we'll have a full and open debate on this over the next three weeks, and i think that's very good. i'm glad to hear that the republican leader is going to vote to help us move forward on this legislation. mr. president, for 15 years, a man by the name of james courtney fought thor this country as a member of the united states army. he did that for a decade that. -- he did that for a decade and a

half. for most of those years, james' wife was back home fighting being deported. she has lived in america since she was a young teenager. she speaks fluent english, has three sons -- with her husband james -- and he's been her husband -- i'm sorry, for 13 years. she supported james through three tours of duty in iraq, where he was wounded significantly, suffered a brain injury, and because of his wounds had to retire medically from the military. because she's in the united states without proper paperwork, she's lived with the fear that she on any given day would be deported back to mexico and her family would be torn apart. service members and veterans of the united states military and their family members who support them serve a better life in worry and fear.

in march, just a few weeks ago, james and sharon keva washington, they came with hundreds of other immigrants who are concerned about being deported. they are concerned about immigration reform. they know the system is broken and needs to be fixed. this is what he said -- quote -- "i did what my country asked me to do. now i'm asking my country to keep us together for the sake of humanity and freedom. james spoke about keeping his three american children together with the mother of those three children and his wife. when i heard james' and sharon's story, i was recommitted to doing something to help them, and i did. not only is sharon a wonderful mother and wife -- sorry, mr. president.

she's also a caretaker to her disabled husband. her family really needs her. last month james and sharon learned that immigration officials had deferred her status, her deportation. she's no longer in immediate danger of being separated from her family. you see, mr. president, she was a dreamer, and that's what president obama stepped forward to help. while -- in fact what this did was allow her to stay, care for her husband and three children. her children are 16,11 and 8 years of abling. -- age. while i was happy to help them, it is unfortunate they needed help in the first place. when our men and women are fighting overseas they should be focused on the difficult job they face, not worried about their families member back home.

if she had been deported while she was overseas, what would the three boys do? dad's overseas. they're americans. they were born here. no veteran of the united states military should have to fight to keep his wife and caretaker of the children by his side. her story is compelling. their story is compelling. but there are millions of stories just like it. stories of mothers and fathers terrified of being torn away from their united states citizen children, stories of young men and women fearful of being deported from the only country that they know, that they have ever called home. stories of families forced to live in the shadows despite coming to america in search of a brighter future. mr. president, there are 11 million reasons to pass commonsense immigration reform that mends our broken system, 11 million stories of fear of being deported, fear of heartbreak,

fear of suffering and actual suffering that they have facing them every day, worrying about if can they go to the store? do they have to stay home? they certainly can't travel. but for this fine young woman that's been taken away because of president obama, these stories should motivate congress to act. the bipartisan proposal before this body takes important steps to strengthen border security. it's remarkable what we already have there, mr. president. we have drones, 700 miles of fencing. we have sensors. we have aircraft flying around. we have helicopters. we have 21,000 border patrol agents. but if there are ways that people feel we could do better to make security important,

isn't some reason to kill this, let's look at this. i spoke this morning with the chairman of the homeland affairs committee, senator carper. he has some ideas. he's preparing amendments. senator carper is very thoughtful and i'm sure he will do something that he feels will improve the situation on the border. he's gone as a member of that committee and chairman of that committee all over the southern part of this country looking at what's happening on the border. so, the bipartisan proposal before the senate takes important steps to strengthen border security. it also makes crucial improvements to our broken immigration system. so families like james and sharon's are never subject to this kind of anguish again. while this legislation isn't an instant fix for immigrant families, it does provide a pathway towards earned citizenship. it doesn't put them at the front of the line. it puts them at the back of the line. they have to stay out of trouble. they have to work, pay taxes. and focus on learning english.

that's what it's about. passing meaningful immigration reform will be good for our national security. it will be good for the economy. it will be good for james and sharon courtney and millions of families just like them. james, a veteran, sacrificed his time, his health to keep this nation safe from harm. he's now disabled. at least we can thank him -- we can at least thank him by keeping his family safe and together. would the chair announce the business of the day? the presiding officer: under the previous order, leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 744, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 80, s. 744, motion to proceed to calendar number 80, s. 744, a bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform, and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, i would ask the chair at this time

recognize the senator from hawaii, senator schatz, who replaced senator inouye. i understand he's going to give his maiden speech in the united states senate today. i would ask the chair recognize him. mr. schatz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. schatz: mr. president, today, june 11 marks a holiday in hawaii. king kamehameha celebrated since 1782. we hold a statewide festival and mark the day with parades, hula competitions and other festivities. it's a day to honor kamehameha the great, who unified the kingdom of hawaii and to celebrate the rich culture and traditions of the hawaiian people. i chose this day to come to the senate floor to talk about an issue of great importance to me and to the great state of hawaii. native hawaiian government reorganization. it was a top priority of my

immediate predecessors in this body, senators inouye and akaka. for more than three decades they worked together in the congress to advance priorities important to hawaii and to the nation. they made history at almost every step of their careers, securing dozens of firsts in the house and in the senate. but for the indigenous people of the united states, senators inouye and akaka will be forever remembered for their work as members and then chairs of the senate committee on indian affairs and for their advocacy on behalf of american indians, alaska natives and native hawaiians. i want to acknowledge their legacy and to thank senator akaka for the role that he continues to play in our great state and in the native hawaiian community in particular. and here's the reason that i've chosen to carry forward this fight on behalf of native

hawaiians. simply stated, it is right to seek justice. native hawaiians are the only federally recognized native people without a government-to-government relationship with the united states. and they deserve access to the prevailing federal policy of self-determination. opponents have argued that native hawaiians are not indians, as if the word applies to native people of a certain racial or ethnic heritage or is limited to indigenous people from one part of the united states but not another. this is misguided. our constitution makes it clear, our founding fathers understood that it was the tribal nation's sovereign authority that distinguished them from others. it was the fact that tribes were native groups with distinct governments that predated our own that justified special treatment in the constitution and under federal law. and what's now the united

states, european contact with native groups began in the 15th and 16th centuries on the east coast and the 16th and 17th centuries on the west coast. while in alaska and hawaii, european contact was delayed until the 18th century. throughout the centuries, a myriad of factors influenced how various native groups were treated, so the historical time frame when policies and programs were applied to native groups may have been different, but what was consistent throughout were federal policies and actions intended to strip native americans of their language, weaken traditional leadership and family structures, divide land bases, prohibit religious and cultural practices and break communal bonds. and these policies were as harmful and unjust to native hawaiians as they were to alaska natives and american indians. mr. president, there was a thriving society that greeted captain james cook when he landed on the shores of hawaii

in 1778. prior to their first contact with europeans, native hawaiians had a population of at least 300,000. they were a highly organized, self-sufficient society, and they had their own rules, laws, language and culture. in his journals, captain cook referred to the indigenous people of hawaii as indians because it was the established english term in the 18th century to describe native groups regardless of their race, ethnicity or their government structure. but just like many native americans in alaska, natives on the continent, the name native hawaiians chose in their own language meant "the people." from 1826 until 1893, the united states recognized the independence of the hawaiian government as a distinct political entity. we extended full and complete diplomatic recognition and entered into five treaties and

conventions with the hawaiian monarchs to govern commerce and navigation. these treaties are clear evidence that native hawaiians were considered a separate and distinct nation more than a century after contact. but on january 17 of 1893, a legitimate government of the native hawaiian people was removed forcibly by agents and armed forces of the united states. the illegality of this action has been acknowledged in contemporary as well as modern times by both the executive and legislative branches of our federal government. an investigation called for by president cleveland produced a report by former congressman james blunt. the report's findings were unambiguous. the united states diplomatic and military representatives had abused their authority and were responsible for the change in the government. as a result of these findings, the united states minister to

hawaii was recalled from his diplomatic post and the armed forces stationed in hawaii was disciplined and forced to resign his commission. in a message to congress in december of 1893, president cleveland described the events that brought down the hawaiian government as an act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the united states and without authority of congress. and he acknowledged that by such acts, the government of a peaceful and friendly people was overthrown. president cleveland concluded that a substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair. and he called for the restoration of the hawaiian monarchy. the provisional government refused to relinquish power and in july of 1894 declared itself to be the republic of hawaii. the provisional government

advocated annexation of hawaii to the united states and began to lobby the congress to pass a treaty of annexation. hawaii's monarch at the time presented a petition to the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee and a formal statement of protest to the secretary of state. the petition signed by more than 21,000 hawaiian men and women represented more than half of the hawaiian census population and was compiled in just three weeks. it also included the signatures of approximately 20,000 non-hawaiians who supported the return of the islands to self-governed rule. a petition against annexation was a powerful tool in the defeat of the annexation treaty, but in the next year proponents of annexation introduced the newland's joint resolution, a measure requiring only a simple majority. the annexation of hawaii passed with a much-reduced threshold of votes and was signed by

president mckinley in july of 1898. for almost two centuries after the founding of our nation, federal policies of removal, relocation, assimilation and termination decimated native communities and worsened the economic conditions for american indians, alaska nay teufrs and native -- natives and native hawaiians. the policy of banning language in schools was adopted by the territory. native children were punished for speaking hawaiian as indians were punished for using their own language in school. the policy of allotting land to indians began as way to break up reservations and communal lifestyles. in 1906 it was expanded to alaskan natives. mr. president, in an attempt to reverse the damage done by these policies since the 120's, congress has established special native hawaiian programs in

education, employment, health care, and housing. and congress has extended to native hawaiians many of the same rights and privileges, accordinaccorded to american ind alaskan natives. in 1993, the congress passed and president clinton signed legislation known as the apology resolution, a formal apology by the congress. this legislation recognizes that the overthrow of the hawaiian government resulted in the suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the native hawaiian people and the deprivation of the rights of native hawaiians to self-determination. mr. president, it has been 20 years since the passage of the apology resolution, but the federal government has not yet acted to provide a process for reorganizing a native hawaiian

governing entity. this inaction puts native hawaiians at a unique disadvantage. of the three major groups of native americans in the united states, american indians, alaskan indians, and hawaiiian indians. an extensive congressional oversight record created over the last two decades and dozens of congressional findings delineated in federal statutes establish these facts. indigenous hawaiians like tribes on the continental united states formed a native community with their own government and that this political entity existed before the founding of the united states and native hawaiians share historic allege and current bonds with their community. like tribes in the continental united states, native hawaiians have certain land set aside for their benefit, pursuant to acts of congress including 200,000 acres of hawaiian homes

commissioned act land and share an interest in the income generated by 1.2 million acres of public trust fund lands under the hawaii admission act. mr. president, although the congress has passed more than 150 statutes to try address some of the henegative effects, there income and health and education disspates. high rates of unemployment and incarceration, hawaiian children are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system. hawaiians face high rates of homelessness. mr. president, accept rat is not equal. that's why i urge the federal government to treat native hawaiians fairly. it is long past time for the native hawaiian people to regain their right to self-governance. two years ago the state of hawaii passed an historic

measure to splice utley acknowledge that native hawaiians are the only indigenous aboriginal population of hawaii and to establish a native hawaiian role commission. my good friend and the former governor of hawaii was appointed as chairman and is leading the effort to register native hawaiians. this landmark effort is widely supported by the state of had i i had, our congressional delegation, and our citizens. i want to acknowledge the commission, commend its vital work, and urge native hawaiians to take advantage of this opportunity to help reorganize a representational government. the acts and commitments of the state of hawaii and the rule commission are crucial but in order to reach our goal, we must all work together. that's why today on king kamehameha day, i call upon all of us to join in the fight for justice for any of hawaiians. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under

the previous order, the time until 12:30 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled by the proponents and opponents, with the senator from alabama, mr. sessions, controlling up to one hour. mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would yield to senator cornyn such time as he would consume. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, this afternoon we will have an important vote, some might say even historic vote, on the motion to road to the immigration reform bill. i was here in 2007 the last time that subject was on the floor of the united states senate, and it proved to be a divisive and tough issue that we could not get through. but i think if there's one that uni sense in terms of my constituents in texas and really sort of the impression i get

generally speaking, it is that the american people believe that the status quo on immigration is unacceptable. some of our colleagues have actually called the status quo de facto amnesty because essentially there's lawlessness in our broken immigration system and what we need to do is to restore law and order and predictability and to make sure that our immigration system works in the best interests of the united states. and that's true in a umin o numf ways that are included in the underlying bill that was voted out of the judiciary committee. so i will vote "yes" on the motion to proceed because i think it is important we take up this debate, the majority leader has indicated we're going to be debating this and offering amendments over the next three weeks. i think that's a good period of time for the american people to understand what's in the bill and to listen to pro and con

debates and to make their mind up how they want their elected representatives to proceed. yesterday i talked a little bit about an amendment that i will offer to the underlying bill which would ensure that the federal government finally makes good on its promise -- its perennial promise but its unkept promise to secure america's borders. now, this won't be any surprise to the presiding officer and my colleagues that coming from a state like texas with a 1,200-mile common border with mexico, this is a subject near and dear to my heart and that of my constituents, and it's something we need to get right. the democratic majority leader in an interview with the press called my amendment a poison pill. but i thought that was unusual and even curious because we hadn't shared the language of

the amendment with him or anyone else at the time he gave it that characterization. but i believe the opposite is in fact true. if we don't guarantee results on border security, if we don't guarantee to the american people that we actually are going to get serious about stopping the flow of people illega i illegay kraussincrossing our northern wr southwestern border, w that is e real poison pill. failing to solve the problem and guarantee the results that the american people deserve and i think demand when it comes to dealing with our broken immigration system. if by defeating sensible border security measures which guarantee implementation of border security, if by denying that bipartisan immigration

reform fails, then the opponents of these sensible border security measures will have no one to blame but themselves, and that is prove to be the true poison pill. for more than 25 years, the american people have been told by washington that it's actually serious about securing our borders, and of course this became more urgent after 9/11. when we finally realized that, although we were removed from places like the middle east, europe, and asia, that we were not insulated by virtue of our proximity or lack of proximity to these maces. mace -- to these places. so we are not safe in america just by ourselves, that we are vulnerable to attacks. so this has given great urgency to the importance of securing our borders and making sure we have a lawful immigration system that actually will work in the

interest of the american people. we've also heard since 1986, when ronald reagan signed the first amnesty for 3 million people, it was premised on a promise ofenc of enforcement, as would never, ever happen again. we will, the american people justifiably feel that the rug was pulled out from under them on that one when congress and others underlined the enforcement measures that would have made sure that any future am necessary citieamnestyies woe necessary. it is justifiable for the american people to be skeptical about congress when they it makes promises with no guaranteed results. back in 1996 congress and president clinton authorized a nationwide biometric entry-exit system to reduce visa overstays. why is this important? well, 40% of illegal immigration

occurs when people enter the country legally as tourists, students, or otherwise and they simply overstay their visa because we have not yet in the 17 years since president clinton and congress authorized, indeed demanded and entry-exit system, it still hasn't been implemented. in other words, the federal government has always said the right things when it comes to reassuring the american people, but it's never been able to translate those promises into results that are actually implemented. no wonder the american people are profoundly skeptical. don't take my word for it. as of 2011, the department of homeland security had achieved operational control of less than 45% of the u.s.-mexico border. that's according to a general accountability -- a g.a.o. report.

45% of the southwestern border with mexico is operationally secure, in the opinion of the g.a.o. more recently, radar surveillance by a new technology called vadar was reported in "the los angeles times" to have been successful in showing situational awareness along the border where it was tested but that in fact the border patrol detained less than half of the people crossing the border. that seems to be consistent with this idea of 45% operational control, where less than half of the people crossing were actually detained. a recent council on foreign relations report showed similar security results. -- or failures, i should say. members of the gang of eight, who i think have done the one a public service -- who i think have done the country a public service by bringing this matter to you believe that our goal should be 100% situational

awareness of the sorning border and a 90% apprehension rate of illegal border crossings. this may surprise my colleagues, but i actually dray wit agree we metrics. 1 coomembers of the congress oft who brought us this legislation also believe we should implement a national e-verify system so that employers don't have to play police and they can get a card they can swipe through a reader which will verify that a person who applies to work at their workplace is legally qualified to work in the united states. i think absolutely that's a good requirement and i agree with the gang of eight's proposal. so i wonder why it is, mr. president, why can't they take "yes" for an answer? if we agree on the standards that they set, why can't we agree on sensible measures that will guarantee the implementation and the success of accomplishing the very goals

that they themselves have set? well, the difference is simply that my amendment would require -- would require -- national e-verify and a 90% apprehension rate and full situational awareness along the border, a biometric entry-exit system before -- before -- immigrants transition from the registered provisional immigrant status -- you'll hear a lot about r.p.i. -- to legal permanent residency. this is the leverage that congress and the american people have that will demand implementation of these security measures at the border and elsewhere. meanwhile, while my amendment -- my results amendment would guarantee implementation of these provisions that have been long promised but never delivered by congress, the gang of eight bill would authorize

permanent legalization regardless of whether our borders ultimately are secured, according to their own standards. in fact, their bill requires only substantial completion of a plan whose contents we haven't even seen yet. this is something that's supposed to be proposed by the secretary of homeland security, but we don't know what that plan is going to be, and there's no lever, there's no means of forcing the department to actually implement it and to achieve the goal that the gang of eight themselves have set. my amendment contains a real border security trigger, while the gang of eight bill promises success but has absolutely no means to compel it, my amendment demands results while the gang of eight bill is satisfied with just more promises, promises that historically have never

been kept. i want to reiterate we agree on a number of things. we agree on the objectives for border security. we agree on the importance of work site verification of the legal status of people who apply to work, and that's an important part of immigration reform. we agree on 100% situational awareness for our southwestern border. and we agree that the department of homeland security should apprehend at least 90% of the people attempting to illegally cross the border. we agree on all of these realistic goals. the difference once again is that my amendment guarantees results while the gang of eight proposal does not. i would have to ask -- and i will ask -- my colleagues who have done, as i said earlier, good work bringing this proposal to the floor, why is it that if we agree on the goals, why is it

that you would disagree on the means to enforce those goals? it makes no sense to me. so we don't disagree about as much as i think some people might suggest. and another reason why i think this is not a poison pill. this is doable. the gang of eight said it is doable. i agree it's doable. but we need a leverage, the leverage to compel the bureaucracy and congress and everybody else to actually make sure the american people aren't fooled again and the results that are part of the basic bargain contained in this bill are actually delivered. let me just note a couple other issues that i think need to be fixed in the underlying bill. where the gang of eight would actually make it harder to prevent visa overstays by changing existing law, law that's been on the books since 1996, my amendment has a border security trigger that will require a fully operational

biometric entry-exit program at all seaports and airports. where the gang of eight bill would allow some criminals with violent histories to obtain immediate legal status, my amendment would prohibit such criminals from gaining the benefits of r.p.i. status or earned citizenship. why should we reward people who demonstrated their inability or unwillingness to comply with our criminal laws? why should we reward them with a pathway or a possibility of earning american citizenship? these people ought to be disqualified, and the hardworking otherwise honest people who want to come here and seek a better life should be granted the benefits of this bill while excluding violent criminals. the gang of eight bill would prevent law enforcement from

sharing information. my amendment would give law enforcement access to critical intelligence about threats to national security and public safety. one of the great failures of the 1986 immigration bill was that law enforcement was banned from gaining access to information in the applications of people who applied for amnesty that was clearly fraudulent, that would have reflected organized criminal activity and that would have rooted it out. unfortunately, this current bill, underlying bill, contains the same prohibitions against information sharing that were contained in the 1986 bill, which unfortunately resulted in massive fraud and criminality. we need to stop that and learn from the mistakes of the 1986 bill and not repeat that again, and adoption my amendment would address that. finally, where the gang of eight

bill would do absolutely nothing to bolster infrastructure and personnel at land ports of entry along the southern border, my amendment would make sure that resources are available to significantly reduce wait times, improve the infrastructure and increase the personnel at our land ports of entry. this is important because these personnel and this infrastructure serves a dual purpose. number one, it makes sure legitimate trade and commerce crosses our borders. why is that important? six million jobs in america depend on lawful cross-border trade. but these people are dual use. what i mean by that is they're also available to make sure that illegal crossing doesn't occur and that drug dealers can't move bulk drugs and other contraband across and that human traffickers are stopped trying to exploit our land ports of entry. one of the underlying premises

of this approach is that we need to separate the legal and the beneficial from the illegal and the harmful. when we do that, we can let our law enforcement personnel focus on the illegal and the harmful while allowing those who are complying with our laws and are engaging in beneficial commerce with america that creates jobs here in america and greater prosperity, law enforcement won't have to spend or waste its time focusing on them so much. mr. president, i don't know how any objective observer could look at my amendment and call it a poison pill. i think it's just, it's a mistake, again, because at the time the majority leader called it that, we hadn't even released the legislative language. i hope he and others will look at it carefully and work with us, because i think there's actually a path forward to bipartisan immigration reform that will secure our borders,

eliminate the criminality in our system and provide a legal means for america to get -- to be true to its values and to look to its own economic self-interest in providing a pathway for legal immigration from, for the best and brightest who we ought to welcome with open arms. so i don't know how any objective observer could look at my amendment and call it a poison pill, especially -- especially -- because it embraces so many of the metrics included in the underlying gang of eight bill. all my amendment does is to guarantee results rather than just be satisfied with more promises that will never be kept. here's the bottom line. americans are tired of hearing endless border security promises without seeing any realistic mechanism for guaranteeing results. my amendment would guarantee

such a mechanism and it would guarantee the results that washington has long promised but never delivered. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: mr. president, i rise today to speak to the bill that will soon be before us, a bill that will allow us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to tackle the complex challenges facing us in comprehensive immigration reform. immigrants have always played a is central role in america's history in our economy, in our culture and success as a nation. their importance cannot be overstated. but the system that makes it possible for immigrants to come here and contribute that role is clearly in need of fundamental repair. america's immigration system today is badly out of sync with our values, and i believe it's up to us in the current congress to fix it. the ernest work of the group of

eight senators -- the so-called gang of eight -- has given us, in my view, a once-in-a-generation opportunity we must embrace. we cannot squander this moment and allow partisan politics, fearmongering and mischaracteration of the underlying bill to get in the way of what we must accomplish to create a predictable pathway for legal immigration going forward. so, mr. president, i rise today to reflect on this historic opportunity to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill that will make our country stronger, safer and more vibrant for generations to come. the legislation soon to be before this chamber has earned such strong support in large part because it started as a bipartisan effort, with senators from both sides of the aisle and from different regions of the country drawing upon years of their own experience to produce a first draft that confronted a wide array of problems with our badly broken current immigration system. it wasn't perfect, but it was a strong start.

and i'm extraordinarily grateful to the group of these eight senators who put so much time and effort into laying that groundwork. but in the judiciary committee, chairman leahy and ranking member grassley then led a markup, probably the first in my nearly three years here as a senator, a full, robust and historically open markup that achieved its goal of making the bill that comes before us now stronger. they led an open and transparent process. they posted every proposed amendment online before the markup began so that each one could be thoughtfully considered by senators, their staff and outside groups concerned about the bill. the markup lasted five full days across three weeks during which each senator was permitted an unlimited opportunity to speak and offer amendments. this is the regular order of which so many more seasoned senators speak with fondness, something really more

characteristic of the senate's past than its present. it led ultimately on the judiciary committee to 37 hours of markup debate. a great many of the amendments offered were accepted. democrats amendments and republican -- democratic amendments and republican amendments. more than 300 amendments were filed. more than 200 amendments if you consider first and second degree were considered and disposed of. more than 100 by democrats and republicans and ultimately 136 of these amendments were adopted, all but three on a bipartisan basis. the bill was, as you know, ultimately reported out of committee with a healthy bipartisan vote of 13-5. mr. president, i am a member of the senate judiciary committee. i too, like all of my colleagues, proposed amendments, studied my colleagues' amendments, debated those amendments and ultimately i voted for this bill. i am proud of what the committee has accomplished. i'm proud that the bill is coming before us today and it is

stronger than the original bill exactly because of the hard work done by the judiciary committee and the great leadership of our chairman, senator patrick leahy of vermont. it is stronger on border security. it is stronger when it comes to efficiency and using taxpayer dollars well. and it is stronger when it comes to fundamental fairness. first, on border security, even the first draft of this bill offered by the bipartisan gang of eight contained historic levels of investment in improving border security. the bill's provisions to require control over the southern border and to mandate employment verification nationwide were already groundbreaking before the markup in judiciary committee began. still amendments were adopted in committee that strengthened these measures even further. and despite the protestations of some that this was a partisan or lopsided markup, let me just briefly detail some that were adopted that i think strengthened this provision of the bill. senator grassley, republican of

iowa, the ranking member, offered an amendment that expands the bill's border security goals and metrics to cover the entire southern border so that all border communities will benefit from the enhanced security investments made by the bill, not just those that are considered high risk. senator hatch, republican of utah, offered an amendment that will minute biometric exit processing at airports beginning at the ten largest international airports in the united states and soon thereafter 20 additional airports. the committee also adopted amendments to strengthen background check requirements in the bill, an amendment by senator flake of arizona required those in r.p.i. status to undergo additional security screenings when they apply to renew their status. an amendment offered by senator graham requires additional national security screenings for applicants from countries or regions that pose a national security threat to the united states or that harbor groups deemed to pose a national security threat. mr. president, some in this

chamber have claimed this bill does not do enough to strengthen the security of our borders. that is simply and clearly not the case. this bill will make our country safer and i believe it will make our country stronger. in terms of efficiency, something we talk about a great deal in the budget climate today, the amendments considered during markup also resulted in substantive changes to the efficiency of our immigration system and the implementation of the changes demanded by this bill. already the bill as drafted makes important steps to clear the long backlogs of immigrants waiting for green cards who have already been approved by the department of homeland security. removing the senseless current per-country caps is one part of the solution i'm proud to see in this bill. one of my adopted amendments will streamline, for example, discovery procedures in immigration court to cut down on the needless cost of responding to each and every discovery request currently done through the less efficient freedom of information act rather than a

discovery process more typical in court proceedings. senator grassley offered amendments that require audits of the comprehensive immigration reform trust fund established by the bill and of all entities that receive grants under this bill, these amendments will ensure the significant cost of enhanced border security is spent efficiently and appropriately. senator leahy and cornyn offered an attempt i was go the department of homeland security flexibility with respect to the fence strategy fund to leverage the best technology rat our disposal, to achieve that task. the amendment also requires consultation with relevant stakeholders and respect for state and local laws in the implementation of fencing projects. democrats and republicans, coming together, working together, made this bill stronger. we did it in the judiciary committee, and we can do it here on the floor of the senate. last, mr. president, america's immigration system should reflect america's fundamental

values, and right now, in my view, it clearly does not. this bill does make our immigration detention and court systems fairer and more humane, but it does not fix all of the unfairness in our current system. indeed, there are some painful sacrifices we've had to make in this bill, especially when it comes to families being united, families with their siblings or the recognition of mixed status l.g.b.t. families that receive no protections under this bill. but the judiciary committee did make progress in making the bill fairer on some fronts. an amendment from senator blumenthal will allow dreamers serving in the united states military to apply for citizenship on the same terms of those under current law much the committee also adopted an amendment which i cosponsored with senator lee to ensure individuals are notified when their name receives a nonconfirmation determination or further action notice in the e-verify system, a protection

for vital security concernings. and two of senator franken's amendments will make it fairer for small business by ensuring y won't be -- by ensuring they won't be penalized. what we have now before us is a bill that's been thoroughly vetted, substantially amended and supported by the broadest coalition ever before seen in comprehensive immigration reform efforts. this bill strengthens border security, this bill creates a path to legal status, it strikes the right balance to encourage those here who are undocumented to come out of the shadows, comply with law, pay a fine, pay taxes, and become full participating participants in our national society and restore the primacy of the rule of law. this bills makes advancements in worker protection. through enhancement employment verification, we strike at one of the most pervasive problems

-- the widespread hiring of undocumented labor at substandard wages and working conditions. and this bill will have immediate and significant benefits for our economy. we should always remember immigration has been and will continue to be a real boon, a life good to our nation's economy along all points of the labor spectrum. in addition to bringing millions out of the shadows and well coming them as pull participants in our society and coat economy, this bill will go a long way towards fixing our current backwards-looking policies toward high-skilled immigrants who want to remain in the united states after receiving their education. i'm proud of what this bill means for our country and what it has shown about our ability in the senate to work together to advance meaningful changes to improve our nation. there are no perfect laws, but considering just how broken our immigration system is now, it is unquestionably a giant leap forward. i'm confident if we can continue to work together on the floor

here, as we did in the judiciary committee, we'll be able to find more common can ground and continue to strengthen this bill in the upcoming weeks. we can make the most of this historic opportunity and. mrs. feinstein: -- mr. coons: thank you. #*mr. president, i also have 11 unanimous consent requests for committee to meet during today's session of the snavment they have the approval of both the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: i ask unanimous consent that time during the quorum calls be charged equally to both sides. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. sessions: mr. president? ferraro the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i appreciate my colleagues' views and discussions on this important issue, the issue of immigration. we have -- the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: so we have before us 1,000-page bill that's extremely difficult to read and to understand. we're being asked to vote on it, and i would just say that majority leader reid indicated that he wants to list amendments and presumably no more would be agreed to, and he is going to pick and choose which ones he would approve by the end of this week. and i believe that's very premature. i do not believe that that's the way we should be proceeding.

and we've got to have the time to sufficiently analyze all the complexities that are here. i have to say to my gang members who produced this bill, this tome, that you spent months working on it with special interest groups and lawyers and the obama administration staff people, and you produced a bill, and now we have to rush it through the senate. i don't think that's the right thing to do. let me just read from one of the sections in the bill. and i hope my colleagues know this. if you begin to read the bill, you know how hard it is, colleagues. this is not an easy bill to read. and you have to study it, and you have to have lawyers reading it, and you have to find out what the exceptions are and what the limitations are and what the

additions are. the lawyers who wrote it know. the gang of eight doesn't know, i sure you. they don't know all the details that are in this legislation. it is not possible for them to do so. so people who were writing at the special interest group, the ag business groups, meatpackers group, the la raza, immigration lawyers association, all of them were in the thing working on it. they know what the impacts are. but how about this section right here from the guest worker section? subparagraph (b): numerical lim- numerical limitation. subject to paragraph d, the number of registered physicians that may be approved by the secretary for a year after the

fourth year referred to in paragraph (1) (a) (4) shall be the equal of -- get this -- subparagraph (1). the number of such registered positions available under this paragraph for the preceding year. and (ii] the product of (i) the product of such registered positions available under this paragraph for the preceding year multiplied by subparagraph (2) the index of the current year calculated under subparagraph (c). now, you think that's easy to understand? it has meaning, and what it basically means is this bill is going to allow more workers to come into this country than we've ever allowed before at a

time when unemployment is extraordinarily high, our ability to reduce unemployment is down, wages are down, and we are falling -- our workers are falling below inflation rate in their wages for years. and how about the second paragraph. i am just reading this. so we're going to rush this thing through, really? subparagraph c -- index. the index calculated under this subparagraph for a current year equals the sum of -- subparagraph i -- one-fifth of a fraction. (1) the numerator of which is the number of registered positions that registered employers applied to have approved under subsection e-1 for the preceding year minus ther number of registered positions approved under

subsection e for the preceding year and subparagraph 2 the denominator of which is the number of registered positions approved under subsection e for the spreeing year. -- for the preceding year. i am a sure we all got that. i'm sure you all know exactly what that means. and it goes on. subparagraph iii -- three-tenths of a fraction. subparagraph 1 -- the numerator of which is the number of unemployed united states workers for the preceding year min minue number of unemployment united states workers for the current year. and subparagraph 2, the denominator of which is the number of unemployed united states workers for the spreeing year, sub-- and it goes ton subparagraph 4, three-tenth thrf a fraction. it goes on. somebody knows what that means. because you had special interests on top of writing this

big monstrosity. they were there. they wanted their deal. and i would say to my colleagues, when you say -- those in the gang of eight -- rched and i know they want to do the right thing and have worked hard, but they got off on the wrong track. the papers reported for weeks, well, the unions are here and the chamber of commerce is here and the ag workers and the ag industry people are here, and they want more workers for this and this one is demanding more workers thor that, and our senators over here somehow letting them all hammer it out. and that's how this writing comes up. that's how the -- it came from them. the senators didn't write this. they knew exactly what they were doing. they were putting in numbers to get certain workers that

businesses wanted so they could have more employees and they could keep wages down. that's what the scheme was. more workers, less competition for labor, loose labor market, less pay raises, less overtime, less benefits because the employer has options. and, remember, these are guest workers. these are people not on a citizenship path. they're not here to form corporations and hire millions of people and cure cancer. these are workers that come in and work for existing existing corporations. i just would emphasize that some thought needs to be given to that. we haven't talked about that yet. we're going to talk about it. the impact of this large of an increase in immigration into our

country has real impacts, and a lot of the numbers and a lot of the data that's out there has not been challenged. and the data indicates that we're already at a point where the flow of immigrant labor into america i is depressing wages, d it is a big factor in the cause of workers' wages today being 8% in real terms below what they were in 19 -- in 1999. wages haven't been going up. democrats used to talk about it. they used to hammer president bush on it all the time. now that president obama has been in office for five years, you don't hear them talking about it anymore. nobody is talking about, well, senator sanders talked about it on the floor last week. i give him credit for that. he is an independent. i haven't heard my democratic colleagues continue to repeat the fact that steadily we're not

-- we're seeing a decline in wage rates in america, making it harder for middle-class americans to get by. and what about even find a job? so the matter is not a little bitty matter. i know that. we're going to have to talk about it of the and we don't need to rush this through. it seems quite clear to me, crystal clear to me, that the gang of eight never discussed this. they certainly didn't call professor borjas at harvard. dr. borjas is the leading expert on immigration and labor and the impact of it in america. he's written books on it. he says that, i believe, 40% -- i believe it was his study -- of

the fall in wages for american citizens is attributable to the current flow of immigrant labor into america. it pulls down wages. it is free market. you bring in more cotton to america, the price of coughs cot on falls. you bring in more labor, the price of labor falls.ing that's the way market forces work. he says this is a factor right now. but we need to understand that if 15 million people are legalized, virtually immediately and the guest worker program appears to double anded number of people that will -- and the number of people that will come in and the permanent immigrant flow of people who want to become citizens will increase 50%, then we'll have one of the largest increases inflow of labor to america we've ever seen, and we can't get jobs at a decent pay for american workers right now.

that's real out there. people are worried about their families. they're worried about their children's ability to get a job. they're worried about their grandchildren's ability to get a job. about to graduate from high school, they don't have a college degree. maybe they don't plan to go to college but they're willing to work. jobs are not that plentiful. did you see the article in philadelphia, i believe it was, they said they had job openings to try to help people who have had a criminal conviction in their background. they expected 1,000 people. 3,000 showed up. they had to cancel it and reset the whole deal because they interviewed people who said you can't find a job in philadelphia. and i believe in new york, one of the boroughs of new york there was a very interesting article just two weeks ago about job openings for elevator mechanics, people waited five

days. they took tents out to stay in line to try to get those jobs. the number of people waiting in line was 20 times the number of jobs that were out there, or more. and so we're going to reward people who enter the country, we have to understand, in this bill right here, these people -- if the bill is passed, the people who come here that have been, many are in the shadows -- and that is correct, and that's a sad thing and it's a difficult thing. but those individuals also will be able to go apply for the elevator mechanic job. they will be also able to compete for employment in philadelphia that right now they may not be so able to contribute. it raises real question. i want to mention this.

this is last saturday's -- this saturday from "the washington post." you heard that those are good jobs numbers; right? the job numbers weren't so great. 175,000 jobs were created last month according to "the washington post" based on the new government data that was released friday, and the labor department said unemployment went up from 7.5 to 7.6. the unemployment rate went up even though the number of jobs was 175,000 created. what i want to point out is this is -- this fact that's in the report -- and i'll quote from "the post" -- "the bulk of the gains in may were in service industry, which added 57,000 jobs. still about half of those were temporary positions."

temporary positions. not real jobs. and i continue, "suggesting that businesses remain uncertain of consumer demand. missing from the picture were production jobs in industries such as construction and manufacturing." those weren't the kind of jobs being created. meanwhile, manufacturing shed 8,000 workers. american manufacturers reduced employment last month. and those are the better jobs with the retirement pay and with the health care benefits that come with a good manufacturing company. so we're creating more and more competition for lower-wage jobs. the article goes on to say this, "in addition, some economists have raised concerns about the types of jobs being created.

sectors such as retail, restaurants, bars have been adding plenty of jobs, but those positions tend to pay low wages. friday's report showed workers' average hourly earnings rose only one penny in may to $23.89 for the entire year wages have risen 2%." again, that's below the inflation rate. so, again, we continue to have this situation in which wages trail inflation, which means the average american is having a hard time getting by. and many of these jobs are part-time, not permanent. and they are the kind of jobs that a lot of people would look to advance from, whether working in a restaurant or something like that, they would be looking to move forward. and the kind of manufacturing jobs we'd like to see more of are nothe

so i mentioned the work visas in this process. despite a huge increase in the numbers of those that are going to be legalized and put on a path to permanent residence and citizenship, we have a large number of people in this total number. all right, for example, under the bill, it's widely conceded that we would legalize 11 million people. they would be put on a path to legal he permanent residence and into citizenship. 11 million all of whom are in the country illegally and are here in violation of the law. what's not mentioned is that there's another 4.5 million that's in a, they call it a backlog status. they are basically chain migration members, family

members who want to come, but under our current law, you have a cap, a limit on how many family members are allowed to enter each year. and as a result, a backlog they call it has moved up to 4.5 million. so now we have people say this: they have been saying well, you shouldn't give the 11 million here illegally an advantage over people that have been waiting in line. that was a problem for the gang of eight. i can see them sitting around dealing with that. how can we give somebody who was here waiting in line patiently and lawfully status behind that of somebody who had been here working in the country with false documents illegally? that wouldn't be right. so how do they solve that? like washington does, they legalize them too. they didn't want anybody to say the 4.5 here waiting -- so they just let them come in too. so really we'll be initially

processing 15 million people. and then, well, what about the annual future flow? now it's the most generous flow in the world. we admit a million people, a little over a million people a year under our legal flow into the country. what about that? in light of all this accelerated admissions and legal status, what's going to -- should we reduce the number of people that are coming here each year lawfully now for awhile? oh no, that's increased. 50%, according to "the los angeles times". it could be more. i'll accept that number. so that's, instead of a million a year, that's 1.5 million. over ten years that's 15 million. so that results in 30 million people in ten years being given lawful permanent status in america.

lawful permanent status in america. 30 million. 10% of the entire population of america -- and overwhelmingly this group is low-skilled. over half of the people here illegally don't have a high school diploma from their own home country, and they are not able to take the better jobs. they'll be competing with, for the lower-wage jobs in america. and if they're legalized, legal immigrants who entered the country a few years ago, they're going to find some way or another -- maybe they were legalized in 1986. maybe they have come legally since. that immigrant population is going to find their wages pulled down by this large amount of flow of labor into the country. i just don't think there's any doubt about that. we'll go more into detail about that as we go forward. but we're talking about 30 million be placed on -- be given

legal status on a path to permanent legal residence and citizenship over the next ten years. they will be given that status. we've not discussed that. so i ask senator schumer at the committee twice, how many will be admitted under your bill? he refused to answer. i'm not sure they know, because these numbers aren't all the numbers. there's an additional group of people who will come under the chain migration theory, family-based connections, and other special provisions in here that have no caps, no limit on how many would come. they refuse to answer. the sponsors that have producing legislation for us today will not say amazingly how many people they expect to enter into

our country if their bill passes. why not? you don't know or you won't say? either one is an indictment of this monstrosity. and that's why it cannot pass. even senator rubio is now saying he can't vote for the bill unless it's improved. he was in the gang of eight. this is legislation that is a flawed legislation, fatally flawed, and it should not become law. it shouldn't. and they said a lot of good things about what they expect the bill to do. if it did those things, we could be more interested in it. we'd have a framework that -- we'd have a framework of a bill that could actually do some good. i would say that for sure.

as we go forward, we need to ascertain with absolute clarity what the best economic data shows about how many people this country can absorb in a reasonable way and be able to provide a decent place for them to work and without pulling down the wages of an already stressed american workforce. we need to talk about that. so far as i can tell, that was never discussed in the groups. what was discussed pretty much in the groups, it seems to me, was businesses demanding more workers, la raza demanding more people and basically open borders. they were the ones writing the legislation in large part. there was some union objections to some of this, and it needs to be listened to.

republicans say, well, that's a union objection. they make a good objection, so be it. i think they made some points but went along with this in a way that's not effective. we've got to talk about the economic impact of it, and we will. and we need to ascertain the second aspect. 30 million people i just mentioned, those 30 million are people who become permanently, they are on path never to return to their country. they have a legal status that allows them to get legal permanent r.e.s. tkebs and then -- permanent residence and then get citizenship. normally we do a million a year which would be 10 million over ten years. this will increase it to 15 million over ten years, and that doesn't count the 11 million plus the 4.5 million that will be given legal status. it's pretty clear to me it's

indisputable that we're at 30 million people put on a path to permanent residence in america. and i ask my colleagues if they have a different number, they should share it with us. maybe in these bills, with these subparagraphs and numerators and denominators and fractions and all got a different number. i'd like to hear it. we think we've figured it out. "the los angeles times" agrees. other analysts seem to agree with it as best we can do so in the time since the bill was introduced. then you've got the worker programs. that's what i was reading about, reading about earlier. let me mention those programs. these are programs in which, have generally been referred to as the guest worker programs. we believe -- and i think data shows -- that the bill doubles the number of guest workers that

will be allowed into the country. every year we bring in a certain number of people, some work in agriculture, some work in landscaping, some work in other things. at a time of high unemployment with americans doing landscaping, americans are working in meatpacking plants and doing farm work, but temporary, seasonal jobs are often hard to fill, and guest workers can do that. and i'm not opposed to a guest worker pravment but at this point this history, should we double the number on top of the 30 million i just mentioned? this is an annual flow on top of that. for example, it adds four times more guest workers than the 2007 bill, that the american people and congress real estatejecteje- and congress rejected. at a time when 20 million more americans are on food stamps

today than in 2007, when teenage unemployment is 54% higher and median household income is 8% lower than in 2007. so we're so desperate now we've got to bring in twice as many guest workers? arwhere are they going to find work? are we going to disappoint them? what if they can't find work? will they then be able to say, well, i'll work for minimum wage. and the american young guy, he's 20, like to do some work, has got a child, perhaps, trying to get that job and get started and learn a skill as a carpenter, bricklayer, construction or equipment operator, would that make his ability to find away job harder? what if the young guy had a drug offense?

i used to be a drug prosecutor. you don't want to see a person who just because they had a drug offense, they could never get work again. we know that if people don't have a job, the government has transfer payments -- food stamps, medicaid for their health care, housing allowances, and other benefits. so is that how the taxpayers now have got to have even more people subsidized by the government because they honestly can't find a job? there's not enough out there. and some of my colleagues need to focus on this. and there's been almost no serious discussion about it other than what we hear from certain squeaky wheel special interests. but how many of our colleagues know the difference between the h-1b visa, the h-1b 1 visa, the

h-2a visa, the h-2b visa, and the h-4 visa? and how many will come in under each one of them and what tarnds will they use, and do you actually to make sure you've advertised and offered a job to an american first before you use this visa? and those are just the h visas, what about the w-1 visa, the w-2 visa? and the w-3 visa? and you also have the e-3 visa, the e-4 visa, and the e-5 vehicles and you got the "x" visa and the y visa and it goes on and on. and that's how we've got a doubling of the number of people that are coming in under the guest worker program. so our sponsors have spent four months bringing this up. clearly they should have spent

much more time because the bill is fatally flawed. the only thing that clearly works in the bill, the only thing that is guaranteed to work is the amnesty. it's guaranteed that people once this bill is passed, people that are illegally, will be given legal status. they have then be placed on path to citizenship, legal permanent residence and then citizenship. that's what's guaranteed. all we have, as in the past, as in 1986, a promise that we'll have enforcement in the future. and i have to say, we've been around here, a lot of us, for several years and we know that's not going to work. this promise is just that, a promise. we don't have the backing to make it sure. senator cornyn has got an idea that he thinks will strengthen that, understand i know it will

strengthen it. well, i appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts. i know senator cruz is on his waway. senator cruz, i know, is here, but he's now in the judiciary committee dealing with some other important issue issues, oh i'm glad that able lawyer is there. i'm sure he'll be speaking later. mr. president, how much time is left on this side? the presiding officer: there is 17 minutes. mr. sessions: so senator cornyn indicated that the bill fails with regard to enforcement

and enforcement at the border. i could not agree more. senator cornyn in 200 spent a lot of time working on this bill. he proposed an amendment then that would have improved the border enforcement, and he is an expert at that. he is a senator from texas, he's wrestled with this over the years, and he should absolutely be listened to. but we also know this: that people are out there every day enforcing the law, telling us that the system is not working and that changes and improvements need to be effected. and they are concerned that this bill doesn't do it. mr. president, the rockingham county sheriff's office on june 10 in north carolina issued a news release, "more than 75 north carolina sheriffs warn congress that the senate

immigration bill would endanger public safety." well, that's a pretty serious matter. they say this -- quote -- "in a short time, over 75 sheriffs from across north carolina serving counties both big and small across this great, great state have signed the attached letter opposing the current senate immigration plan." "our first responsibility and highest duty as sheriff is to provide for the safety of the citizens residing in our communities where we serve. unfortunately, this flawed immigration bill, which was produced by the gang of eight senators, puts the public safety of citizens across the united states at risk and ham percent the ability of law enforcement stories do their job. requestings "they go ton say, "this senate bill should be

opposed by lawmakers and instead congress should work with law enforcement on reforms that we already have and we're willing to propose that will enhance public safety." close quote. kenneth polincus, american federation of government employees, president affiliated with the afl-cio, wrote this letter. "there has been much public concern over the fact that the legalization occurs prior to any border enforcement. indeed, from what i understand, every amendment offered in committee, which made legalization contingent on achieving border security first, was defeated. history tells us that future promises will not be kept and that our border agents will be left high and dry by the executive branch, as they have so many times before, regardless of who writes the plan."

close quote. this is the head of a federal employees union that represents law enforcement officers. i think the biggest one. he goes on to say, "but even if you completely rewrote your proposes to resolve the many border security concerns and change the ordering to delay legalization, the legalization would still fail and would still endanger the public because of the fatally flawed interior enforcement components." he goes on to say, "if passed, s. 744 would lead to the rubber-stamping of millions of applications for both amnesty and future admissions." he goes on to say, "why should the senate pass a bill that makes it even more difficult for the uscis, the citizenship and immigration officers is who they

are, to identify, remove, and keep out public safety threats, people that are dangerous that maybe they are in danger krallly in their home countries. what do you do if you are about to go to jail in another country in the world. if you can flee the country and get to the united states, that's not a bad thing. we are seeing over the last decade more criminals as a part of the mix with very fine and decent people who come to the country because they are in effect fleeing maybe prosecution in their home countries. what about the i.c.e. officers, the immigration and customs enforcement council? they wrote a letter with pennsylvania sheriffs, the north carolina sheriffs and sheriffs nationwide on may 29, and they say this: "congress can and must take decisive steps to limit the

discretion of political appointees and empower i.c.e. and border patrol to perform their respective missions and enforce laws enacted by congress." this is a bold statement. these people work for the president of the united states, or at least part of the administration. the i.c.e. officers have already voted two years ago no confidence in their supervisor john morton because they say he spends more time dealing with pro-amnesty groups than directing them not to enforce -- and directing them not to enforce the law than doing his duty. they've actually sued secretary napolitano and mr. morton for blocking them from executing plain congressional mandates that they feel they have no other obligation than to enforce. they have to do it. but they've been told not to do it.

rather than -- they say this, "rather than limiting the power of those political appointees within the department of homeland security, s. 744 ploys them with nearly unlimited discretion which will serve only to further cripple the law enforcement missions of these agencies." i've talked to these officers. they asked to be a participant with the gang of eight in writing this thing. they were refused. they asked repeatedly. they warned that this was not going to work. they never wanted to hear from the people who enforced law every day. they wanted to hear from the amnesty crowd. that's who they met with. they wanted to hear from the big business guys who want more labor, cheap labor. and that's who wrote the bill. but they didn't listen to the people who deal with this, who put their lives on the line.

so this letter continues, "while business groups, activists and other special interests were closely involved in drafting s. 744, law enforcement personnel were excluded from those meetings. immigration officers, state and local enforcement working together with the nation's broken immigration system were prohibited from providing input. as a result, the legislation before us may have many satisfactory components for powerful lobbying interests and other special interests, but on the subjects of public safety, border security, interior enforcement this legislation fails. it is a dramatic step in the wrong direction." the wrong direction -- close quote. that's a pretty resounding condemnation. and i think that's fundamentally correct because i met with them.

i asked the group of people to meet with them, and they wouldn't do it. participants in the recent calls include -- to discuss this bill and how to promote it -- include the heads of goldman sachs, the business round table, everycorps, the u.s. chamber of commerce, as well as the heads of washington trade groups representing the banking industry such as the financial round table. they all had input into it. they all were involved. i guess they made contributions or something.

thomas wh hodson sheriff for bristol county, own june 10 wrote this, "no immigration reform without legitimate -- without legitimate security." he is from massachusetts. i believe that's the sheriff of massachusetts. he said -- quote -- "i have grave concerns about illegal criminals being eligible for citizenship and gang members being permitted to qualify for the provisional status, registered legal status once they renounce their affiliation. most troubling, however, is the fact that we do not have adequate systems in place, such as biometrics to verify identification for people entering and leaving the united states. announcing that biometrics will be available at our 30 busiest

airports serves only to limit illegal entry at those locations diverting illegal entry to those locations without the superior technology." i ask you to make it known to your senators and representatives that they vote "no" on passage of 744 until a security plan is in place, the sheriff says. pete nunez, former united states attorney in san diego, wrote this -- great united states attorney. he said this -- quote -- "but our greatest concern is the so-called trigger that we are told will delay the path to citizenship until the border is security. that's what they're saying, until you guarantee the border is secure, i think the legalization doesn't happen.

we've demonstrated already that's absolutely ineffective. so, mr. nunez goes on to say, "this is an illusion meant to fool the public into believing that amnesty will only take place after the border is secure. nothing could be further from the truth. because on day one, every one of the illegal 11 million illegal aliens will be eligible for a temporary document allowing them to stay and work in the united states, their two most important goals." close quote. so he was united states attorney on the california border, and he worked with these issues and understands it. he had the responsibility of prosecuting cases by the thousands. probably hundreds of thousands. former united states attorney

nunez is a very wise and experienced person. all county sheriff's office, florence, arizona, sheriff baboa said this" secure border first or you will repeat history." who he he announced his opposition to the proposed immigration reform offered by the so-called gang of eight officially titled border security economic opportunity and immigration modernization act, sheriff baboa said -- quote -- "we must secure the border first, prior to any discussion of green cards and path to citizenship offered to nearly 20 million illegals and their families. this plan gives everything to president obama up front while border security is promised once again on the back end. we are about to repeat history when in 1986 the president gave

amnesty to two million illegals. yet it seems we haven't learned our lesson. the failure to secure the border after the reagan amnesty got us to where we are today with 11 million to 20 million illegals in our country. this plan will repeat history." close quote. i think he's exactly right about that. chris crane, the head of the i.c.e. union, is so outspoken about this, he's testified about before the house. he's had press conferences here that i've participated with him. he's warned that this will make america less secure, not more secure. he warns that it makes the ability of the i.c.e. agents already handicapped, even more problematic. he says that the bill gives to the secretary essentially, he says, more discretion to violate

the law than they're using today. and in fact the orders and directives and the policies they're giving to the street officers, the i.c.e. officers about how to do their job are currently in direct violation of the law. this bill ratifies that by explicitly giving statutory authority to the secretary to make all kinds of waivers for other matters. that's not a way to give confidence to america. mr. president, i don't know what our time is. i see no one else on the floor. i don't want to take anybody else's time. but if i yielded the floor, i guess their time would run against them anyway. the presiding officer: there are 2 minutes remaining on the opponents' side. mr. sessions: our law enforcement officers are really

frustrated. so you've got three major law enforcement groups: the border patrol, which was given considerable funding after the failure of the 2006 and 2007 comprehensive immigration bill. and they have enhanced their efforts as a result of that. but we still are not where we need to be at the border. indeed, since the announcement of this possible amnesty, illegal entries have increased significantly at our borders. the number of people arrested is considerably higher this year than last year. and 55% -- 55,000 of the 90,000 people -- 90,000 -- that have been arrested this year since january were not from mexico. and this was primarily on the mexican border. but from other countries. and some of them from countries that have a history of

terrorism. senator cornyn has talked about that previously. so we've got a surge happening. and they're concerned about it and protecting their officers. the customs -- the citizenship and immigration officers, these are the people that will process the amnesty claims and the request to be treated as lawful residents that will occur after this bill passes, who deal with the people who make applications to come to the united states and process the pathway to citizenship for everybody. they have explicitly voted and opposed this legislation. they say it does not work. and i just read a quote from the head of their union as to why it won't work. the i.c.e. officers who deal with all the interior enforcement, they apprehend people who have been convicted

of crimes that are in state and local jails who are noncitizens are illegally here and they're supposed to deport them, they have been consistently, consistently out front pointing out how they have been constricted in their ability to do their job. and that if this bill passes and the vast majority of those here illegally are legalized, they're not in the future going to be placed in a position where they can do their job. they're not going to be placed in a position that they can effectively manage the interior enforcement in america. and they say the bill will make us less secure, not more secure. how wrong a direction could that be? so those are the things that we've got to get a grip on here. that's why the legislation cannot become law. and i don't think it will -- it won't become law as it's written today. that's for sure. one way or the other, it will

not become law because it's fatally flawed. mr. president, i thank the chair to have the opportunity to share these remarks as we begin the discussion on the great issue of our time, one of the great issues of our time: immigration. it's got to be done right. the american people rightfully, as are these law officers, concerned that we are about to do another 1986, that we're going to give immediately lawful status to millions of people that came illegally with and we promise that we'll enforce the law in the future. but when you read the bill, you can see that won't happen, and we'll be setting up another, sending another message worldwide that the united states is such that if you can just get into our country illegally and hold on for long enough, you too will be the beneficiary of the

third major amnesty that occurs. so that's where we are. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. mr. president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. rubio: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from florida. mr. rubio: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: thank you, mr. president. and i'm happy to be here on the floor today as we get ready to go on the immigration bill and we start to debate it. so i wanted to lay out a couple of points as we move forward on this debate which i fully anticipate we'll get to and we need to as a country for actually many of the reasons my colleague from alabama and others raised because of these problems we face with regard to our immigration system here in the country. let's just take a step back and kind of analyze this issue a little bit for the people tuning in to it for the first time or are maybe here in washington and listening to the talk about it and kind of the fundamental issue we're addressing. all americans understand immigration because it's their story. whether it's you, your grandparents, great-grandparents, great great-grandparents, one of the defining characteristics of the united states of america is that it is literally a collection of people from all over the world or the descendants of people from all over the world that have come here in search of a

better life. i think it is important to understand why that distinguishes us from the rest of the world. the rest of the world's attitude throughout human history, you look at the countries organized throughout human history, the nation-states, all these countries have largely been organized because people had a common ethnicity or common race or they came from the same tribe or same family plan or what have you. the u.s. is very different. the u.s. was founded on the notion that what we want is we're going to create a country here that believes fundamentally in the god-given right of every single human being to go as far as their talent will take you, as far as your talent and work will take you. you may say people like me that have been born and raised here, sometimes we take that for granted. throughout all human history that is a rarity. throughout human history where people have been -- what people have been told by their leaders is you can only go so far in life because that is what your parents did and so that's all you are allowed to do. but we were different and thank god we were. what we said is we don't care how poor you were the day you were born. it doesn't matter to us that

your parents weren't well connected and well heeled. tkwaoepbt care that you were -- we don't care you were born in another country. if you have a good idea and want to work hard and build a better life for yourself, we want you. that's been the history of the united states. a collection of go getters from all over the world who have come here and built this extraordinary country. and the influence this country has had not just on human history but even to modern day is unbelievable culturally, economically, in terms of ensuring peace especially in the aftermath of world war ii, all of it is the result of this particular reality about who we are as a people and as a nation. we have always had immigration and we will always need immigration to keep the essence and nature of who we are as a people. but times change and the immigration system has to change with those times. in essence, the immigration system we had 100 years ago, 150 years ago, people forget this, what was the immigration system of the united states not so long ago? if you got here, you got to

stay. if you made that dangerous voyage across the atlantic, if you found your way to this country, you would be processed at ellis island or somewhere else and you got to stay. we can't afford that anymore. we have to have a controlled system of immigration especially in the 21st century that measures who's coming, why they are here and who they are. that may not be how it worked 80 years ago but that is the way it has to work now. adding to that is the reality that the 21st century is so different from the 20th we are actively engaged in global competition. it wasn't so long ago like when my parents came in 1956 the u.s. was still a national economy. the people you traded with and solid with and -- and sold with and competed against, they lived in your country probably in your state or your community. no more. today we are actively involved in global competition for businesses, kphraoeupbts -- clients and talent. we have to understand our immigration system has to reflect that. the way people emigrate and who

emigrates has to reflect the 21st century reality which is reason number one why this country needs immigration reform. all the attention is being paid to illegal immigration. look, that's a serious problem. i'm going to talk about that in a moment. but issue number one, the fundamental reason why we have to do immigration reform is because we do not have a 21st century immigration system. our immigration system today is largely built on the idea that if you have a relative living here, it's easier for you to come if you have a special skill or talent you're offering to the country to contribute. we don't have a merit-based system. we have a family-based system. i say that as someone whose family came on a family-based system. my parents came here because my mom's sister claimed her in 1956. but the country is so different, the world is so different. so different from 2006, not to mention 1956. and our immigration system has to reflect that. the problem is we have a broken legal immigration system. it does not refle