secure the border first. members of congress, members of the administration, business leaders, union leaders and advocates for all kinds of immigration people we need to be in the same boat to push that the border is secure. but if you have legalization before we know the border is secure, then you break up and balkanize the advocates for immigration reform and the promise that goes with it of border security. so we need to secure the border for several reasons, so we're not back in the same position 20 years from now. we need to protect united states sovereignty. we need to protect homeland security and improve national security. there are a variety of threats

to our border. there are potential terrorists and transnational criminals. foreign nationals use the porous border to import threatening goods such as weapons of mass destruction, illegal drugs, contraband, counterfeit products and other products meant to harm americans or hurt our economy. under my amendment the secretary would have to prove that we have effective control, and that effective control i not have changed that definition, it's as defined in the bill. and to do it for at least six months before applications for r.p.i. status are processed. i agree with at least one of the authors of this bill. if this border security title is not improved, this bill doesn't stand a chance of making it all the way to the president of the

united states. my amendment is this very necessary first step of fixing this issue. people don't trust the government, will get this right, or that this administration dedicated -- is dedicated to securing the border. we don't need a new bill to do that. all we need to do is prove to the american people that we're sincere and we'll really secure the border. and that's what's promised by the authors. i don't doubt their good intentions, but when you have a plan submitted and that's the basis for legalization, it seems to me we ought to have proof that the border is secure. so let's wait until the border is secure and then legalize.

before i yield the floor and i'm ready to yield the floor i ask this unanimous consent, that angela sheldon, a detailee in senator hatch's office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on s. 744. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. so ordered. mr. grassley: i thank the chairman for the courtesy of offering this first amendment, and i also, as the -- the chairman wasn't here when i spoke yesterday, but i said that he promised an open and transparent process in committee, and we had that transparent, open process, and i thank the chairman for doing that and seeing that it's done and i hope that process can continue on the floor. i yield the floor. mr. leahy: madam president, i

appreciate the words of my friend of decades, the senator from iowa. he and i work very closely to have an open, transparent -- whether we agree or disagree on an issue, we try to move it on. after all, it worked better that way because of the 18 members of the committee, we were the two that had to spend the most time there during it. mr. grassley: all the time. mr. leahy: all the time. and i appreciated working with him. we were able to pretty well decide when matters would come up and make sure that both republicans and democrats had a chance to bring up all their amendments, and we adopted 141 or so amendments, including second-degree amendments. and all but one or two of them were bipartisan votes. so i appreciate what he said,

and i enjoyed working with him on that. i'll have more to say at another time about his hamid but i just -- amendment but i'd just note that for the past several days senators have been discussing the immigration bill. i'm glad the senate's now turned to actually considering. we've had a lot of talk about getting to it, including of course the time spent in the judiciary committee. i intend to file a handful of amendments to the bill today. i would encourage others to do the same so we can get to work without further delay. the bipartisan immigration bill is a measure of the senators who come together to pass -- we should send to the house the best bill we can. and i think the large majority of senators want to do that. we should do what's right, what's fair, what's just, and

the house has to consider comprehensive immigration reform legislation without any further delay. madam president, this year one of the most important bills we enacted into law was the violence against women reauthorization act. from the outset i worked with my republican colleague, senator crapo, to develop that legislation in a bipartisan way. and we called in senators from both sides of the aisle. we had cosponsors, both parties. we took suggestions, amendments from both democrats and republicans. and then we built a majority of the senators in support. i worked very hard to keep that as a bipartisan issue when, frankly, we had some on both sides of the aisle who wanted to make it a partisan issue. last year we were able to have the bill considered, it passed the senate with 68 votes,

obviously a bipartisan majority and parenthetically i would note that yesterday we passed the farm bill with fewer votes than that, but "the new york times" described that farm bill and rightly so as having overwhelming bipartisan support. in fact, last fall when the house of representatives would not take up our vawa legislation, the violence against women legislation, we redoubled our efforts during the lame-duck session. had many meetings in my office between republicans and democrats to find where we could go. within -- we reintroduced the bill with some modifications in it at the beginning of this year. i sought to make it the first legislative priority of the new congress and with the strong support and leadership of the majority leader, senator reid, the senate turned to it, we considered it, we passed it as

one of our very first legislative matters in february. and we actually passed it with even stronger bipartisan majority this year than last, although many of those who now oppose immigration reform continued voting against reauthorizing the violence against women act. we passed a strong, principled, bipartisan bill. and i had people urge me to abandon my efforts in violence against women in order to protect all victims. i was glad to see they were proven wrong. i was told repeatedly the house of representatives would never consider, let alone, pass our bill that provided fairness for gay and lesbian victims, and that we'd never be able to provide meaningful protections for native american women being brutalized by non-indians on reservations. but i said my own experience

early as a prosecutor and since as chairman of the judiciary committee, a victim is a victim is a victim. when i go to crime scenes i never knew -- the police officer to see a victim of violence against women and say wait a minute before we can get involved, is this victim gay or straight? is this victim native american or not? a victim is a victim is a victim and let us see what we can do to protect not only this person but others. and in spite of all the dire predictions and political naysayers, our bipartisan group of senators stuck to our principles. the senate stood firm. we did the right thing. and what happened then? how are we able to enact this bill into law which was even tougher and stronger than the bill we tried to pass the year before? well, the american people spoke

up. they supported our bill. they demanded action. and there were some republican members of the house like tom cole of oklahoma who knew the right thing to do and were willing to say they wanted to do it and more and more house republicans came around to our view. and the house to its credit changed its stance, considered our bill, they passed it with no changes whatsoever. exactly as it came out of the senate and it's now law. i was proud to stand with president obama on march 7 in an emotional ceremony in which he thanked legislators from both sides of the aisle to protect victims of violence and human trafficking. in regard to the immigration bill, there was one part of the vawa bill to help immigrant

victims of violence. we sought to increase u-visas for immigrant women to help law enforcement go after their abusers. often immigrant women are afraid to go and report their abusers because they think themselves may be deported and, in fact, we've had evidence and testimony that people are being abused, immigrants are told you report what i'm doing to you, i'll get you deported. that provision, last year the house used ad as an excuse not to consider our bill. and i promised at the beginning of this year i'd continue fighting to enact that measure. we'd take it out of the vawa bill to avoid the technicality of having it blocked by the house. but i never forgot that.

never forgot my promise to those immigrant women. i'm happy to report that these important u-visas are now part of the comprehensive immigration reform legislation before us. so i tell this history, because some have argued the senate immigration reform bill has to be undermined from what we brought out of committee. we have to do that to conform to demands intended to appease some in the house republican majority. well, i disagree. i disagree. just as we didn't back off on vawa, i say don't do it now. let's consider not a partisan reason but let's consider america. the senate should pass the best bill for the economy, for our families, and for our nation.

we should do what we think is right. now, the house of representatives is clearly in a different place than those who support the senate bill. just last thursday house republicans voted to end president obama's administrative program to help dreamers, the deferred action for childhood arrivals program until such time as we can pass the dream act. well, the dream act is in our senate immigration reform bill. it recognizes that young people here without fault of their own who are in school or the military in good standing should not be deported because they're undocumented. they are americans. they should be part of this nation's future. senator durbin, i'm so proud of him for this, has been right to fight for them, as he has for years.

a national voice for those who want the dream act to pass and he's insisted, senator durbin has insisted on the dream act being included in our legislation, and president obama is right today to highlight the achievements, contributions these young people make to our country and will continue to make if the bill becomes law. so should we now abandon, shall we say strike those measures from the senate bill because representative king of iowa and other house republicans don't like them? of course not. the senate is a separate body. 100 people to represent over 300 million americans. and we should be the conscience of our nation. that means the senate should do what is right if we are to reflect the conscience of the nation. i was inspired by the young dreamers i've met over the last several years. the courageous testimony of juan

antonio vargas during our hearings this year. our bill should include the dream act, just as we would protect and include the fair but tough pathway to citizenship included in the bill reported by the senate judiciary committee. these provisions are at the core of our bill. let's not start negotiating against ourselves. let's not start backing off what we came together to pass. the vote by the republicans in the house of representatives to prevent dreamers from being able to stay in the united states is not the example the united states senate should follow, especially if we really want to be the conscience of the nation. a few days ago, "the new york times" had a lead editorial that accurately describes where we are. it cautions against making bad

modifications to the bill. it urges bipartisanship and courage, that we stand up to bad politics and bad policy. i hope the senate will heed this call. in fact, madam president, i'd ask that a copy of this past sunday's editorial be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: madam president, over the past weekend, i was happy to hear that -- from my neighboring state of new hampshire that senator ayotte pledged her support to this bipartisan legislation. i know how much i appreciated working with her and senator shaheen earlier this year to get the leahy-crapo violence against women act authorized. reauthorized, rather. senator ayotte, of course, was an important leader in her caucus on that bipartisan bill. i hope and expect she'll be on the bipartisan immigration bill

as well, especially since it also contains several protections for victims of domestic violence and human trafficking. just this morning, the president of the united states spoke to all of us in this country, to all of america about the need for congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform. he called our commonsense, bipartisan bill the best chance we've had in years to fix the broken immigration system. he urged us to do the right thing and do it now. he was joined by a cross-section of distinguished americans, republicans and democrats alike, from dreamers to former president bush administration officials to business leaders and law enforcement representatives and clergy and labor. it was interesting to see the coalition that oftentimes will not stand together on an issue but will be opposed to each

other were standing together in unity on this issue. i know i'm meeting later this week with the president, along with a bipartisan group of senators, as we work together to pass commonsense, comprehensive immigration reform. i'm going to encourage him to keep on speaking about this, because there are senators in both parties who want a real immigration reform. because it's an important economic issue but it's also a civil rights issue. it's an issue of fundamental fairness. it speaks to who we are as a nation. madam president, the other day when i was speaking about this bill, i made reference to the fact that something i never expected when i came to the senate, that i'd become the president pro tempore of the senate. it means i've been here a long time.

and the distinguished presiding officer that day, the acting president pro tempore, a colleague of ours, she herself was an immigrant, came to this country with her mother. she was explaining that they had all their possessions in one suitcase. mother fleeing an abusive spouse, came to this country. and now that mother's daughter is a united states senator. i think of my wife was born in this country but her parents came here from canada speaking a different language and became very successful in their careers, helped employ a lot of people in our state of vermont. my maternal grandparents came from italy not speaking the language, began a business, employed a lot of people and

became a very important part of our -- our country. they had their children, became one -- one of the highest decorated pilots in world war ii. others, distinguished careers. the one of course i'm closest to is my mother. and i remember her pride and my father's pride when they saw their son just one generation removed become a united states senator. there's going to be success stories all over this country if we stand up for true immigration reform, if we make it possible for people of different backgrounds and different races, different cultures come here and make this country a better -- a better -- country. they speak of us as being the melting pot but it's a melting pot that brings about a wonderful combination.

and we see that in a nation, not a nation of such unity of thought and religion and politics and appearance that becomes bland and not vibrant. instead, we are a country of different cultures and languages and backgrounds and we all become americans. and the sum of the whole is greater than the parts. we are a better country for it. so if we stand together, if we stay true our values and agreements, i believe that we can pass legislation will be a continuing renewal of our spirit, our creativity, our vitality as a nation which will uphold our great traditions of compassion and humanity as a welcoming nation. it's what i believe the senate should do. i believe our ancestors should

do. i believe generations before us that made this a great country should do. and i believe we will be a better country if we will because of the people who become citizens in this country. and i look forward to the day when we come together, we hundred senators come together and pass a bill that reflects the conscience of our nation, the conscience of the united states senate, a bill that will make us all proud and america proud. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. -- i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: madam president, let me first recognize the incredible work of the distinguished chairman of the judiciary committee, who worked through a very open,

transparent, fair process that led to 130-some-odd amendments being considered and voted upon and in many cases adopted -- almost all of them adopted, from what i understand, many were bipartisan. i think even those who oppose immigration reform acknowledge the chairman's evenhandedness and his willingness to have an open and free debate. and that got us to where we are today. and so he has my appreciation and my admiration for the way in which he conducted that process that brings us to today. madam president, as a member of the senate bipartisan gang of eight, i believe we come to this floor if not in complete harmo harmony, at least on the same sheet of music, with a very solid legislative product. let me take this opportunity to thank our staffs, who have worked extraordinarily hard to put all the pieces of this bill

together and make this day possible. you know, senator schumer calls leon fresco his genius and i like to think of my counsel, kerry talbott, as the conscience of the gang of eight. and i wanted to thank kerry for her dedication, for always thinking if we put our head on the yoke and pull hard enough that we can pull our way all the way to a workable compromise and we have. and i want to thank all those other staffers who put in so many hard hours, and who will, no doubt, put in many more until this bill is passed and put on the president's desk. madam president, this bill before us is the essence of compromise. during this long process, no one in the gang of eight got everything they wanted but everyone got a workable bill worthy of support, and that is the very definition in my mind of compromise. we did what we were elected to do -- that's democracy in

action. we may not all agree all the time, but all of us were elected to govern. and the hard work of compromise is the only way to get things done in a democracy. we all bring certain core principles to our jobs and those are the things we shouldn't compromise. but there's a difference between compromising your principles and compromising on issues. it's not about holding out for political or ideological gain but letting your core principles guide you to a compromise that benefits the nation. we were all elected and it's up to all of us to govern together. so i urge my colleagues to stand with us on this comprehensive reform package that is so critical to the national security of the united states, to the national economy of the united states, and to preserve our values as a nation of immigrants. let's come together, as we have in the gang of eight, and give

every american what they have been asking for, which is a way to fix our broken immigration system. now, we need to know who is here to pursue the american dream versus who is here to do it ha harm. that's what immigration reform will do. it will bring people out of the shadows, into the light, and they'll have to register with the government, go through a criminal background check, pay taxes, learn english and go to the back of the line of all of those who are waiting under the existing system so that they would be processed first before. so they're not going to break into the line and get to the top of the line. it's not only in the national security interests of the united states, it's in the economic interests of the united states to harness the economic power of millions of new americans. and let's be honest with

ourselves about who these new americans are. if you had food for breakfast this morning, it was probably picked in the hot sun by an immigrant worker with a bent back and sunburned skin. if you had chicken for dinner last night, it was probably plucked by the calloused, cut-up hands of an immigrant worker. if you have someone in your family who is infirmed and needs constant care, chances are it's an immigrant worker who works the third shift to attend to their needs with a warm heart and steady hand. if you're wondering who's spurring american innovation, chances are that it's an immigrant high-tech start-up entrepreneur, who according to the national venture capital association, have started 25% of public u.s. companies backed by venture capital investors. in fact, as of 2010, nearly

one-fifth, 18%, of all fortune 500 companies had at least one founder who was an immigrant. that's who the new americans a are. you know it and i know it. immigrant workers have been there everyday working hard, providing services, an integral part of our economy in tourism and farming and restaurant industry and small businesses and high-tech start-ups. the simple fact is, immigration reform is good for our economy. we want to be sure that every american who wants to work hard at any job has the opportunity in america to do it first. we also don't want to exploit an underclass in america that would suppress all wages of workers in the economy. and if, in fact, you have an underclass of undocumented individuals who can be exploited and very often are very much so exploited, you create a system

in which you suppress the wages of all workers. eliminating that is an opportunity to ensure that wages rise. the fact is that immigration reform will increase tax revenue. as you can see from this chart, as a direct result of this legislation, we will increase tax revenues over 10 years by $109 billion. that's $69 billion in federal revenue and $40 billion in badly needed increases in revenue to the states. our second chart shows cumulative economic gains over 10 years after passage of this legislation. and look at these numbers, just look at them. fixing the broken immigration system would increase america's

g.d.p., its gross domestic product, by $832 billion over the next 10 years. $832 billion over the next ten years. it will increase wages of all americans by $470 billion over ten years, and it'll increase the number of jobs created in america by 121,000 per year. immigrants will start small businesses, they'll create jobs for all american workers. in fact, small businesses owned by immigrants employ an estimated 4.7 million people in 2007 and created more than $776 billion in revenue annually. so i ask my colleagues, knowing that we have a broken

immigration system, knowing that millions of families are in the shadows, knowing that we have to address this problem now, can we, in good conscience, afford not to pass a bill that would increase g.d.p. over ten years by $832 billion? really, can we? can we afford not to pass a bill that will increase wages of all americans by $470 billion? can we afford not to pass a bill that will create 121,000 jobs every year for the next ten years, 1.2 million more years in the next decade, because we had the wisdom and the will to act? immigrants have been a silent force in this economy, working in the shadows. and it's time to bring them into the light. it's time to harness that economic power. they're working hard, providing

services, working in every industry at every level, even sacrificing their life to serve in our military. in wave after wave, season after season, immigrants have been the backbone of the agricultural industry, willing to work the fields and pull the crops that feed our families. that work is being done by immigrant workers, and god bless them for their willingness to do it. god bless men like lance corporal higeres, not even a citizen of the united states when he became the first american soldier to die in iraq. he wore the uniform of this nation. he died on behalf of a country he was not -- although h he aspired, he was not even a citizen of the united states. madam president, let's send a message to every american to stand with us on immigration reform in memory of this

corporal and every soldier like him. let's send a message that no longer will immigrant families be separated from loved ones. no longer will united states citizens and lawful permanent residents be caught up in immigration raids and detained unlawfully in violation of their constitutional rights simply because of the way they look, the way they speak, or the color of their skin. we have many cases of united states citizens and legal permanent residents who have been unlawfully detained in immigration raids until their citizenship was established or their permanent residency was established. now, who among us in this chamber would be willing to be a second-class citizen in this country?

i don't know about you, but right now i have nothing in my possession that says i am a united states citizen. i'm not carrying my passport, i was born in the united states but i don't carry my birth certificate, and i certainly don't expect to be stopped because, as some said in this chamber in 200, 7, i am one of those people -- one of those people, that i'm different, that i'm somehow not american. we know the history of this nation. history has taught us that when there's a story of one group of people becoming a suspect class, when one group of people is blamed for all the ills of the nation, that story always has a sad ending. we cannot let that happen again in the greatest country on the face of the earth. as the son of cuban-american immigranimmigrants, i understant

too many families have waited too long for commonsense immigration reform. too long to have the chance to raise their hands and take the oath that says they will support and defend the constitution and laws of the united states of america against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and bear true faith and allegiance to the same. too many have waited too long to say those words that will change their lives. they changed my mother's life, and in turn changed mine, giving me the chance to stand here today, one of 100 united states senators, one of eight who has spent months negotiating a very tough but fair proposal to fix our broken immigration system. i know what's at stake. we know what's at stake. we've lived it, we see it every day, and i believe that we can finally say today that there is some light at the end of the

long, dark tunnel that has been before us. this bill represents a lot of hard work. it is the essence of compromise. we've come a long way in the gang of eight, but there is still a long way to go. now, are there legitimate amendments that can improve this bill? of course. are there still those who would amend this bill solely to undermine immigration reform? absolutely. they may cloak their words in suggesting that they really want to see reform, but the reality is that they are dead set against it. are there those that still dedry as -- decry this as amnesty? we hear it every day, some of these roles are being reprised from 2007. amnesty meanings you did nothing wrong and are forgiven without having to make yourself right.

this bill is certainly not amnesty. this bill says that you must make yourself right by registering with the government, going through criminal background checks, and if you are a criminal or you're found to be a criminal in that background check, you'll get deported -- as you should. it says you got to pay taxes, learn english, and wait your turn, go to the back of the line. are there those who think we have not done enough -- there are those who think we have not done enough to control the border. yes, there are even those voices even though we have included $6.5 billion to increase technology and finish the job we have already started to secure our borders, even though the border provisions of this bill were largely written by senators representing border states. they live with it every day.

they had some of the biggest input in the gang of eight to say, this is when we feel we need to deal with border security. so much so on these provisions and with these dollars that "the new york times" reported on friday that defense contractors favor immigration reform because whaof what we've included for border security. the truth is here for all to see. let me show you our next champlechart.since 1986, spendir security has increased. as you can see from this chart, immigration enforcement spending adjusted to 2012 dollars has dramatically increased over the last 26 years, over two decades. border spending has gone from

$1.2 billion in 1986 to $6.2 billion in the year 2002, peaking in 2009 at $20 billion annually, and we are increasing it again in this legislation by over $6.5 billion. that's more than four times as much as 2002 and more than 20 times as much border spending as in 1986. and so no one can say we've neglected border security in this bill. here's another chart to put it in a different context. let's put this in this context: when we look at spending, as you can see from this chart, we now spend more on immigration

enforcement than all other criminal enforcement agencies combined -- all of them combined. as you can see, in 2012 we spent almost $1 8 billion -- $18 billion on immigration enforcement. that's $18 billion -- compared to about $14 billion, $4 billion less, on all other principle law enforcement agencies like the f.b.i. and as i said, we're adding over $6.5 billion to the immigration enforcement side of the ledger in this bill. that will put us in the position of spending twice as much on border security as we do on all

other law enforcement agencies in this country. but it's not only the money we spend but how we spend it. the fact is that border enforcement is at an all-time high. we're enacting a strategy to have 100% surveillance and prevent at least 90% of all illegal border crossings across the highest-risk areas of our southern border. but there are those who still say it's not enough. we're investing in new technologies to secure the borders and the number of border patrol agents has doubled over the past eight years, but there are still those who say, not enough. let's be clear. we're making significant additional investments in border security, in technology to make sure that at least 90% of all illegal border crossings are prevented. now, there are some who say, oh, we have to have 100%. you know, i don't know anything the federal government does

100%. do we catch 100% of all the criminals? do we collect 100% of all taxes? do we do 100% of anything? no. so those who try to invoke that type of standard are simply trying to undermine the pathway towards citizenship. let's be clear. we're making very significant strides, and this is very tough in all of the border provisions. i've only mentioned a few. there are a lot more. there are a lot more. on the flip side, there are those who believe we have done all we can on border security in this legislation but have not gone far enough in other areas. that there are too many obstacles to citizenship and that a 13-year path is too long. but a 13-year path, certainly not an easy road or anything

anyone could call a amnesty, isa compromise i am willing to accept so that we can finally bring 11 million people out of the shadows and give them a chance at a better life for themselves, their families, and to earn their way here in america to fulfill their hopes and dreams and aspirations as well as our hopes and dreams and aspirations as a country. the fact is, madam president, at the end of the day, when all the political posturing as subsided, we have an obligation to govern, and we have met in this proposal that obligation. we have come up with a good, solid, bipartisan product. the time has come and the moment is here. the opportunity is before us to make history, and i hope we don't miss that opportunity. let me urge my colleagues, let's not begin this debate with toxic amendments that would test the

basic values and principles of those on one side or the other, force us all to our respective corners. to lines ino lines in the sand. let's get the job done. let'that's about killing the bi. we do not need to retreat to draw lines in the sand on every issue covered by this legislation. we can either come together, both sides, both parties and govern, as the american people want to see us do, or once again blow it up and do nothing. and i believe we have come too far and the demands of the american people is rather clear. it is time to fix our broken immigration system, join us and make history. shadows in fear and hope that we

will one day, if they do all the right things, have a chance, however difficult it will be, to become american citizens, and this bill would give them that chance. citizenship will not be easy, but the rules are clear. it will take up to 13 years to complete after background checks, fines, penalties, paying taxes, working and learning english. they want to reunite their family, and this bill will finally, finally do what we should have done long ago to keep families together under a provision to allow immediate reunification of green cardholders with their spouse and minor child. how can we in good conscience not support the reunification of families who have been separated too far for too long? for those who come to this floor and proclaim their commitment to family values, this is a time to show it. this bill will clear the current

backlog for those already waiting in line, those who have been patient waiting in line, and put the additional 11 million at the back of that line. and it's a long line indeed. let no one come to this floor and misrepresent this compromise language as amnesty. it clearly isn't amnesty. this is not a free ride, but a pathway for undocumented individuals to earn. for those who have been here contributing to america's economy while living in constant fear of deportation, constant fear of exploitation, constant fear of waking up in the morning and wondering if you'll see your family at night. it provides a simple, fair opportunity for dreamers. these are young people who through no fault of their own came to america because their parents brought them here. the only country they know is that of the united states. the only flag they've ever

pledged allegiance to is that, the american flag. the only national anthem they know is the "star-spangled banner". how can we not give them a chance just because they were brought here by their families and just because they want to belong to the only country they have ever known? madam president, this has been a long, hard road to compromise, among hard work, hard negotiations. but that hard work has paid off with the support of the broadest spectrum of groups and organizations i have ever seen in nearly 20 years between the house and senate of trying to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. from the u.s. chamber of commerce representing business in this country to the afl-cio representing labor, from agrigrowers to farm workers, restaurant owners and every religious sector, the evangelical community strongly supportive of this as are

christians and jews and everything in between. people on all sides of every issue finding common ground to say this is the right legislation for america. we have a chance to make history, but we cannot make history without uniting behind a deep and abiding belief in the need to govern, the need to fulfill our responsibilities to the people we represent. the time has come. if we cannot come together on comprehensive immigration reform at a time in which the american people have clearly spoken, if we cannot push back against the extremes that will always prevent us from ever finding the center, if we choose only to obstruct and not solve, destroy not build, then we will have lost a perfect chance not only to make history but to do what is right by our country. this is a good bill. it is a fair compromise, a

chance for us to come together and govern and do what a majority of the american people are demanding we do. last year's national elections evidenced a new american demographic, and the new america spoke resoundingly about who they will support and not support based on how they vote on comprehensive immigration reform. let's listen to what that new america had to say and do the right thing. i have confidence that we can get this bill passed, and i hope, i sincerely hope our colleagues in the house will take our lead and pass comprehensive immigration reform this year. i hope they will join us in realizing that the time has come . yes, we can, madam president. and with that, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont.

mr. sanders: madam president, i just wanted to say a few words on an issue that is of deep concern to many americans. in 2001, in 2006 and in 2011, i voted against the u.s.a. patriot act. i voted against that legislation because i believed that in a democratic and constitutional form of government, that we can effectively combat terrorism without sacrificing the civil liberties and the constitutional protections which make us a free country. the president has said that he welcomes a debate on this issue, and i agree with him. there should be a debate, and the debate should center on whether the fourth amendment to the u.s. constitution is still relevant. if it is, let's abide by it. if it isn't, let us not be hypocrites and let us acknowledge that we live in a society, in a nation in which our freedom and liberty have

been severely compromised. but let us not pretend that protections that the fourth amendment guarantees exist when in fact they do not exist. here is what the fourth amendment to the constitution states -- and i quote -- "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." end of quote. that is the fourth amendment to the constitution of the united states. now let us talk about what we learned in the last week about the national security agency's activities. we learned that it is likely that virtually every phone call made by every american is being

collected and stored by the united states government. the time that you made that phone call, where you made that phone call, how long you were on the phone, and to whom you made that phone call is now part of the record of the united states government. every husband calling a wife, every businessman making a deal, every elected official talking to a constituent, every candidate talking to a campaign manager, every doctor talking to a patient, every lawyer talking to a client, every journalist tracking a story; all of that information and more is now on file with the united states government. what is even more alarming is that it is not just the government officials who have access to that information. it turns out that it is private contractors like booz allen, and

i assume many other contractors. a few weeks ago, madam president, you'll recall that there was a huge uproar in the media, including front-page stories, that the obama administration was tracking the phone calls made by reporters from the associated press. big deal, everybody was really concerned about that. while not listening to the calls, they learned who the reporters were speaking to, how long they were speaking, and where the reporters were located. well, guess what? it turns out that what the -- it turns out that what the obama administration was doing to the a.p. is nothing unusual. this appears to be exactly what the government has the capability to do to every single american. furthermore, we have also recently learned that the government has the capability to monitor every web site that we

visit, every video that we see and every item that we search for online. madam president, everybody understands that terrorism is a serious issue and that the united states government and governments throughout the world must do everything that we can to protect our people. we do not want another 9/11. we do not want another bombing like the boston marathon. we do, however, want our government intelligence agencies and law enforcement authorities to be strong and effective in combatting terrorism. but, madam president, it is my very strong opinion that we can do that without living in an orwellian world where the government and private corporations know every telephone call that we make, every web site that we visit, every place that we go. is that really the country that we want to be? and let us be clear, the

technology for monitoring every aspect of our daily lives will only increase in years to come as that technology becomes evermore sophisticated. madam president, opposition to the current n.s.a. policy is coming from across the political spectrum. representative jim sensenbrenner, a conservative republican from wisconsin and one of the authors of the original patriot act, said in a thursday letter to attorney general eric holder that he is -- quote -- "extremely troubled" by the national security agency's seizure of the phone records of millions of verizon customers through a secret court ruling. he also said -- and i quote, this is jim sensenbrenner, "i do not believe the released fisa order is consistent.

how can the phone records of so many innocent americans be relevant to a phone investigation as required by the act? seizing phone records of millions of innocent people is excessive and un-american" is what congressman, republican congressman jim sensenbrenner said in a press release that accompanied his letter to the attorney general. madam president, it is clear to me that the united states congress has got to take a very hard look at the u.s.a. patriot act, and specifically act section 215. the bottom line is we must be strong and effective in combatting terrorism, but it is absolutely my view that we can do that without undermining the constitutional rights that make us a free country. and with that, madam president, i would yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you,

madam president. i want to first thank the senator from south dakota for his indulgence for five minutes or so to do this, and the senator from indiana for yielding his time to me. we got a little bit out of order on the floor. but i really want to come before the night was out to speak about an incredible chance we have with respect to fixing our broken immigration system. over the next few weeks the senate has a golden opportunity to do something great, to do something important, to do something that shows that washington can actually work, that we're aligned to the priorities of the american people, that we can take on hard challenges and solve them. that's the opportunity before us, and i have to say thank you to all of my colleagues that served in this so-called gang of eight and worked, i would say not even in a bipartisan way. i would say in a nonpartisan way to fix problems that afflict our

economy and our democracy throughout the country in different ways. and i particularly want to thank senator john mccain and senator schumer for their leadership during good times, but particularly during the tough times during this negotiation. you know, a lot of people that i represent sometimes wonder whether washington is just irretrieveably broken, whether or not we can actually do something in the regular order instead of just in the middle of the night. and to them, i can come to the floor tonight and say finally we have a process that we can be proud of. we have a bipartisan bill, a dozen hearings on this issue, madam president, almost a month between the introduction of the bill and the committee markup. 37 hours of consideration in the senate judiciary committee. 300 amendments filed. 212 considered. i think 141 of these amendments from our colleagues were actually approved. even some of the harshest critics of the bill have

commended the open and transparent process. and i'm grateful to chairman leahy for his work and the members of the judiciary committee. in the coming weeks many more amendments will be before this body. voices on every side of the issue will continue to have the chance to be heard, which is the way democracy ought to work. and at the end of the day we can't squander the greatest chance in a generation. in 25 years to fix our broken immigration system. no one understands this better than the people of colorado, the people that i represent who even though they don't think of themselves this way particularly, a third democratic, a third republican and a third independent. from end to end, corner to corner of our great western state, people have said to me, "michael, when are these guys going to fix this broken immigration system?" with agriculture on the west slope in northern colorado and on the eastern plains, a $40

billion impact to our state. we have great high tech in colorado. people inventing the future as we stand here today, in biocides, aerospace. colorado's high-tech sector includes more than 10,000 companies. and my hope is that five years from now there will be 10,000 more. and five years after that 10,000 more than that. and 150,000 workers today that produce almost $3 billion of exports each year. as well as a new patent office opening soon. we have a huge tourism industry. hotels, restaurants and the ski industry struggle to find the workers they need. the ski industry alone brings in 57 million visitors to the country each year. many of these people traveling to colorado year after year after year. we have a growing latino population. it's almost 21% of our state's population. in places like the denver public

schools, a place i had the privilege to work before i came to the senate, over half our students are latino. so that's why we set out several years ago to have a conversation in colorado in the rural parts of the state, in the urban parts of the state, with our high-tech community, with our agricultural community saying what needs to be done? we brought together business leaders, farmers, faith leaders, law enforcement, advocates and community leaders, and we said washington's broken, we can't wait for them to act, but what can we do here in colorado? and we came up with seven principles for immigration reform which are now reflected in the legislation before us. and it turns out that actually for once we underestimated this place, that this place was willing to approach this work with the seriousness of purpose that colorado citizens were. i want to tell one colorado story to reflect this. i assure my colleague from south

dakota i just have a couple more minutes. wayne meninger, an onion farmer from greeley, colorado. he also represents onion farmers across the nation as head of the national onion association. growing up on his father's farm in california's san joaquin valley and now owning his own farm in greeley, colorado, he has witnessed farmers' struggles to find reliable labor his entire working life. the farmers he represents have long voiced their frustration with a visa system that results in serious delays hiring workers or not having enough labor altogether to harvest the crop. they are not interested in the politics in the nation's capital. they are interested in running their farms and their ranches. they are interested in knowing that they have got a steady supply of labor. and so wayne took the trouble to write a letter to the "greeley tribune" about why he is supporting this bill. madam president, since he said it better than i could ever say

myself, ski that it be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: thank you, madam president. some critics, and we'll surprise people around here, are using the same old tired talking points in an effort to kill this bill altogether, but the people of colorado know better and the people across this country know better. they know that passing this bill is critical to strengthening our country's borders. it will make us safer and our security, aligning our immigration system with the needs not of a 20th century economy or a 19th century economy, but of a 21st century economy our children are expecting us to build and honoring our heritage as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. that's why a growing number of americans support fixing our broken immigration system, and 70% support a tough but fair pathway to citizenship, and that's what's contained in this bill. so i look forward to working with my colleagues in the days and weeks ahead to find ways we can even improve this bill and

at the end of the day pass legislation that will make us stronger as a nation and better serve the next generation of americans and the generation after that. since our founding, there are a number of things that have made us spectacular as a country, but there are two that are hard to find anywhere else. we are a nation that subscribes to the rule of law, and we are a nation of immigrants. with this bill, we assert both of those principles, and i think we have a golden opportunity to come together again and say that washington isn't just about playing our own politics. it's about doing the people's business and that we can show this place could actually work together again to accomplish something very important for all america. thank you, madam president. with that, i thank the senator from south dakota, and i yield the floor probably considerably later than i should have. mr. thune: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: madam president, i also would like to thank the

senator from colorado for his generosity with his time and for giving me the opportunity to make some remarks. i have an amendment that i have filed which i don't think we're going to get an opportunity to get pending tonight. i hope that we can get that pending at some point. i hope we can get a number of amendments pending and debated and voted on. that is, after all, what the senate should be about, and clearly on an issue of this consequence for the american people and for those of us who represent states from all across the country, this is an issue that needs to be debated, which is why many of us voted to get on the bill today, and i think we can all acknowledge that we have an immigration system today that is broken and it needs to be fixed. as i come to the floor to discuss this particular amendment, i'm reminded that each time congress has tried to fix our immigration system, there have been promises and more promises of a more secure border. unfortunately, madam president, those promises are never upheld.

the bill before us is well intended, but it is following the same path as past immigration bills. under this bill, it is certain that 12 million undocumented workers will receive legal status soon after the bill is enacted. however, the border security provisions of this bill are nothing more than promises, which, again, may never be upheld. madam president, when i talk to my constituents back in south dakota, they asked a couple of questions, and the first one is when will our federal government keep its promises on border security? i think that is first and foremost the issue that most people see when they look at the immigration debate. they want to know why it is that we continue to talk about enforcing the border, securing the border, but we don't follow through on the steps that are necessary to do that. they also ask the second question, why do we need more laws? why do we need more laws if we're not enforcing the laws that are currently on the books?

madam president, it is time that we follow through on the promises that have been made in the past of a more secure border. the illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act of 1996 required 700 miles of reinforced, double-layered fencing along the southern border. this goal was reaffirmed when congress passed the secure fence act in 2006. to date, less than 40 miles out of the 700 miles of fencing required by law has been completed. my amendment, amendment 1197, simply requires that we implement current law prior to legalization as an indication that we are serious, serious about border security. as specified by this amendment, 350 miles of the fencing would be required prior to r.p.i. status being granted. the completion of this section of the fence would be a tangible demonstration that this administration is serious about

border security. after r.p.i. status is granted, the remaining 350 miles required by current law would have to be constructed during the ten-year period before registered provisional immigrants could apply for green cards. now, there are a lot of issues associated with this bill. it has a lot of moving parts. there are a lot of things as this debate continues that need to be addressed and hopefully amendments that will be offered here on the floor that can make this bill stronger and improve it as it goes through the process, but i would say to my colleagues here in the senate that if we are serious about wanting to show that we get this whole issue of border security and we're not just talking about it but actually making real changes to make our border more secure, then this amendment is one way to show it, because after all, madam president, i think first and foremost many of us acknowledge that of the many

components and elements of this debate, first and foremost is that we have got to address the issue of border security. it gets talked about, there is a lot of rhetoric surrounding it, there has been a lot of rhetoric here in the united states senate as i mentioned earlier in previous debates on this very subject and where promises and commitments have been made, promises and commitments that have never been fulfilled with respect to this issue of border security. and so this amendment, amendment 1197, as i said, is very simple, very straightforward, and only follows through on commitments that have been made by congress in the past and which i think the american people expect and frankly have a right to expect that we would follow through on. 350 miles of fence before r.p.i. status is granted and another 350 miles of fence prior to green card being issued. it's a -- it's not complicated, and i think in a lot of respects this issue isn't complicated, certainly not complicated in the minds of the american people who

think that first and foremost this is about border security, about border enforcement, about a nation that is able to control its very borders for so many reasons, many of which have been discussed and talked about and i hope will be talked about even more in the days ahead. and so i don't understand, i don't have the opportunity to get this amendment up and pending to where it can be voted on this evening, madam president, but i would certainly hope, at least as we get under way in this debate tomorrow, that those of us who have amendments that we think would strengthen and improve this bill will have the opportunity to put them forward and to get them voted on, and so amendment 1197 is one of those, and i certainly hope that tomorrow the managers of the bill will be able to allow us a pathway where we can get amendments voted on. i think this will improve the bill. i think it strengthens the bill, and it certainly -- it certainly follows through on a commitment that's been made to the american people many times over and has not yet been followed through

on. madam president, i yield the floor and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. flake: madam president, the senate has taken an important and historic step today by adopting a motion to proceed on the legislation reforming our broken immigration system. i look forward to nothing through this -- moving through this debate over the next couple of days and weeks in regular order. this bill received a thorough vetting in the judiciary committee, over a couple of

weeks, more than 100 amendments were adopted, i think more than 300 amendments were submitted, and i want to commend chairman leahy and ranking member grassley for offering a process that makes this senate proud. and for those who believe that the senate can't work through regular order and that all sides can agree to amendments being offered and a debate being had, i think they'd be heartened to see this process so far and to see this bill brought to the floor with the agreement that many amendments will be offered and considered and will have thorough debate, really leaves us in good stead for this legislation. this is important legislation. i hope as we move through it we can remember that we need not assign motives to people debating either side of this issues. this is an issue where passions run high. we see that among our constituents and across the country. but here in the senate i hope

that we remember that we're all coming to this debate with different perspectives, we represent different states, but that all of us want a better immigration system. and that if we can not question each others' motives throughout this process, i think we'll all be better off. arizona as everyone knows, is a state that has a large population of undocumented aliens. we rest on the border, a large border with mexico. and with all the issues and problems that that presents, and has over the years. a sizable undocumented population helps no one. it doesn't help those families living day to day with one family member or another out of status, it doesn't help state or local governments that bear the brunt of the cost, whether it's education or health care or criminal justice or incarceration. these are expenses that are borne more by the states than

the federal government. and it leads to a lot of frustration, certainly in arizona and elsewhere. it certainly doesn't help when businesses struggle to maintain a legal work force. that's the case in arizona. up until recent recently, the tucson sector of the border patrol was the busiest sector in the nation when it comes to illegal crossings. while there are claims the border is safer than ever landowners in the region continue to face the reality that would suggest otherwise. let me give you an example. earlier this year, the ladd ranch, 14 thigh acre ranch that shares 10 miles of the u.s.-mexico border near the is an pedro river had 14 breaches with 29 trucks over the past 12 months. these are taking place in the daylight between the border and the undocumented our current immigration system does little to ensure our economy has the

talent we need to ensure the u.s. competes globally. when you have issues on the border and all the problems aattend with that and then you have businesses that can't get access to the talent that end they they need, you have a problem that needs to be solved. in addition, the programs oriented toward providing adequate temporary or short-term workers are typified by caps that don't work and red tape that make them all but unusable. let's face it, you're current immigration system is irreparably broken. this legislation before us takes great strides with border security. i look forward to these provisions being debated and thoroughly vetted throughout this process. i'm sure that many amendments will be offered. i plan to offer some of them myself. to improve this process, and-term prove the border security elements of the bill. this legislation has a tough but

a fair process to bring the undocumented out of the shadows. people who come forward will be required to pay fees and fines. for those who raise the term amnesty again and again, let me assure you there is no amnesty in this legislation. amnesty by definition is an unconditional pardon for a breach of law. this is no unconditional pardon. those who come forward come out of the shadows, those who are undocumented will be required, as i said, to pay fines and fees. they'll be required to work, they'll be required to stay well above the poverty level. when it comes time to renew their status, they'll be required to pay any back taxes that have accrued and, again, show that they have stayed here and have maintained the status in a way that would allow them to be renewed. before they're able to adjust,

to get a green card. ten years into this process. there will be many other things required as well. again, they'll need to prove that they have paid taxes, that they have not been a public charge. they will need to learn english. right now the requirement is that you learn english to become a citizen. this requirement under this legislation is moved up to green card status, just to get a green card you'll have to be proficient in english. this legislation also dramatically modernizes our legal immigration system. it ensures u.s. businesses will have access to the best and the brightest around the world. i've been concerned about this issue for years. years ago i introduced what we call the staple act. i'd heard many, many times from businesses that we ought to staple a green card to the diploma of anyone who receives a graduate degree particularly a ph.d. in the so-called stem fields. this legislation accomplishes much of that by simply staying

that those who are here, educated in our u.s. universities, we'll allow to stay here, those with a master's degree or ph.d. in the stem fields and help create jobs. a big percentage of the jobs created and fortune 500 companies that are listed are -- were started or created by foreigners, those who are here who received an education here and were allowed to stay or by first or second generation immigrants. we need to make sure that those who are going to help us build our economy are allowed to stay and this legislation does that. we all know that the status quo is unworkable. if you run a business in this country, you are not given currently adequate tools to determine whether those presenting themselves for work are here legally or not. this legislation will make sure that those tools are there. i look forward to this process.

i look forward to the debate. i think that this debate can represent the senate at its best. where we can consider this legislation, consider amendments to make sure that the bill is improved and then send the bill on to the house and it can be considered there there as well. i want to commend those involved in this process, the so-called gang of eight members, my colleagues, the other seven, worked long and hard on this. our staff worked well into the night weeks on end to make sure that we have the legislation before us today. this has been a long, thorough, good process. as i mentioned before, those who have seen the congress, the house, and the senate in recent years, maybe not reach its full potential, to put it mildly, ought to be heartened by the process on this legislation. and i hope that we can congtd it. i look forward to debating it

with my colleagues and, madam president, i yield the floor and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask that we proceed to a period of morning business, senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes

each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk be -- appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning, june 12. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders -- sorry about that. be reserved for their use later in the day and that following any leader remarks, it i the see be in a period of morning business for an hour with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes during that time. the time would be equally controlled between the two leaders or their designees. the democrats control the first half, the republicans the final

half. finally, following morning business, the senate resume consideration of s. 744. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: thank you, madam president f. there's no furthe.if there's no further bus to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow. 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. tici i want to lay out a couple of many of the reasons my colleague

from alabama and rai of these problems that we face t with regard to our immigrationrs system here in the country.te nd let's take a step back and a analyze the issue a little bit.f for the people tuning in for tht first time visiting washington and listening to the talk aboutd it and a fundamental it understanding what we are addressing here. let us begin by saying the on. all americans understand i immigration because it's theirrs story. you you, your parents, grandparent.f one of the defining characteristic of the united states of america is it is literally a collection from people all over the world that t have come here in search of a better life. i think it's important to why it distinguishes us from the rest of the world.the res the rest of the world's attitude throughout human history. if you look at the countriestore organized throughout human history.na all are largely organized because people had a, you know, common ethnicity or common race or came fromam the same tribe,yn seam plan or what have you.ery e

te u.s. is very different. what we want is going to create a country here that believes fundamentally. people like me sometimes we take that for granted. i want you to understand throughout human history, that's a rarity. throughout human history people have been told by the leaders you can only go so far in your life that's what your parents did, that's where your family comes from. we were different, 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 your parents weren't well connected. we don't care you were born in another country. if you have a good idea, want to work hard, we want you. we want you. that's been the history of the united. a collection of go getters from all over the world who have come here and built this extraordinary country. the influence that the country

has not not just on human history but modern day is unbelievable. culturally, economically, in terms of ensuring peace. all is the result of a particular reality about who we are as a people and nation. we have always had immigration. we will always need immigration to keep the nature of who we are as a people. times change and the the immigration system has to change. we had 100 years ago, 150 years ago. what was the immigration system of the united states? not so so long ago? if you got here, you got stay. if you knead dangerous vai voyage across the atlantic you could stay. you got stay. we can't afford that anymore. no one is asking for that. we have to have a controlled system of immigration, especially in the 21st century. who measures why they are

coming, who is here. it may not worked 58 years ago. it's the way it has to work now. adding to that the reality. it wasn't so long ago the u.s. was a national economy. the people you traded with and sold with and competed against they lived in your own country. probably in your own state and community. today we are involved in global competition for business, client, and talent. we have to understand our immigration system has to reflect that. the way people immigrants and who immigrants here now has to reflect the 21st century reality. which is why this country needs immigration reform. all the attention is being paid to illegal immigration. that's a serious problem. i'm going to talk about that in a moment. issue number one, the fundamental reason why we have to do immigration reform we do

not have a 21st century immigration system. our immigration system is largely built on the idea if you have a relative here it's easier to come than a special skill or talent offering to the country. we don't have a merit-based system. we have a family-based system. i say that as someone who came on a family-based system. my parents came because her sister. the country is so different. the world is so different. so dpircht from 2006 not to mention 1956. the immigration system reflects that. it does not reflect the reality of the 21st century. the result is even if we didn't have a single illegal immigrant on the united we should be on the floor m of the senate debating immigration reform. we must modernize our immigration system. that's why my colleagues should be excited about the opportunity to have the debate. we have to modernize our legal

immigration system. it's a benefit to our country. and i give this ante-dote because i think it's appropriate. we are in the nba finals, the miami heat won game two in resounding fashion, and we're happy about that. we'll see what happens tonight. but imagine for a second if there was now the hottest basketball player in the country played at college in the united states, 6'10", never miss a shot. unbelievable player. do you think in your wildest dreams we would let that person play in italy or spain or some other country. there's no way in the world. we are going to allow the best basketball player in the world no matter where they came from, their immigration status. there's no way we're going let them play the basketball in some other some other league. they're going stay here. my question to you is if that's how we approach sports, which is important, i guess. but it's a game.

shouldn't that be the way we approach our economy? should we be deporting the best graduate of some of our universities world class scientists and technology and engineering and matt. that's the way our immigration system works right now. i'm not making it up. we heard the testimony and the people that come to our officers. there isn't a member who had a meeting in the office or staff hasn't with someone from the tech community and said we are going to college campuses and making job offers to the best and brightest. we can't keep them here not because they don't want to, not qualified, because we can't get them a green card. they are learning at the universities, at the expense of the american taxpayer, then leaving the united states to compete against us. that makes no sense. nor does, by the way, the system of getting workers for agricultural. i would argue is skilled labor. if you don't believe me walk some of the people in the field

as they work and the work they do. american agricultural. you taunt energy security. you want to cripple the country. cripple l food security. cripple agricultural security. it's an important industry in most of the states of the country and certainly for united states of america. that industry depends on a work force. and there is a demand for labor in the work force. the fact is and has been for over 100 years the only way to fully fill the jobs available in agricultural is seasonal and temporary labor from abroad. there's a demand for the labor. there's a real supply of people that want to do that labor. and supply and demand will always meet. but because we noted have a functional legal immigration system that allows the supply of foreign workers to meet the demand of domestic jobs and agricultural, supply and demand are meeting. they are meeting in a chaotic and broken way. that needs to be reformed. as well as a bunch of other things. the immigration system is very bureau rattic and complicated. in fact, our broken legal immigration system is one of the

leading contributors to illegal immigration. over 40% of the people in the country illegally today came legally. they didn't jump a fence. they didn't sneak in. they came on some sort of temporary visa and overstayed it. one of the leading reasons they overstay they think it's too costly, time consuming and bureaucratic and legally to come back in the future. even if we didn't have a single illegal immigration in the u.s. we need immigration reform. we must modernize our legal immigration system and it must reflect the 21st century. the second point, our immigration laws is only as good as our ability to enforce them. we don't have enforcement mechanisms that work. all the attention paid to the border and should be. it's not an immigration issue. it's a national security issue. that means the same routes to smuggle an imgrant can be used to snuggle in weapons and toeses

and other things and drugs. we must secure the border that. that's not easy to do. the border is broke ton nine sectors. some are doing better than ever have. others are not doing well at all. we must secure the border as well as immigration reasons. and i know it's hard to do it. i know, there's earths in the past that failed. i'm telling you i refuse to accept the idea that the most powerful country on earth, the nation that put a man on the moon is incapable of securing is its own border. our sovereignty is at stake in term of border security. it's not an anti-immigration or antimeasure. it's important teives -- deference 77 our conchty. we must protect our borders. like wise we have to understand even if you protect your borders the magnet bringing people to the united states is employment. we have to create system, which we're capable of doing in the 21st century. we must create a system that

allows employers to verify that the person they are hiring is legally here. hence all the talk of eer verify. 40% of the people here illegally entered legally we have to have a system that tracks when visitors enter and leave. my colleagues will tell you that's already required by law. it is. the problem is that the way it's required right now will never work. and that's why this bill deals with that. we have to have a system so when you're visiting the united states on a temporary visa, as a tourist, business. we track you, when you log in when you leave you log in. every hotel in america knows when the guests come in and leave. every hotel in network -- americas know this. we do it as a matter of rue mean our lives. the federal government should be able to do that. it must do that. the bill requires they do that. and it creates a incentive to do

that. i'll talk about it in a moment. basically the incentive the green card process for those legally in the country doesn't start until the system is fully in place. and e verify is fully in praise. they are significant security measures we must undertake. when you hear people say the bill weakens the status quo of the law, the problem is that the stoss titus quo isn't works. there's a reason why there are 11 million people here illegally. there's a flaw in the current law. there's a flaw in e verify. if you basically show up at the employer and show them a social security card. it may not be your social security card. that's all you have to show them. it's happening all the time. people are either false fying the document or borrowing someone else's and using someone else's legal documentation to get a job. we have to create a new one. one to verify that the person holding the card is actually that person.

arguing in favor of the status quo is arguing in favor of continuing the fraud. we have to stop that from happening. we have to have security elements as part of the bill. border security, e verify, and entry/exit tracking. the last issue, and the one that gets all the attention, is what to do with the people here illegally now. let me begin by saying i don't know who is happy about the fact we have approximately 10.57 million human beings living in the united states illegally. i would remind you that every one of the stories is different. i would caution people not to lump them all in to one basket. they are all different. some came legally and overstayed. others entered illegally and have been here ever since. some came as children and didn't know they were illegal until they try to go to college. three options. option one, ignore it.

pretended it's not there. i think if the bill fails that's what we'll have. for those oppose amnesty. that's the de facto amnesty. having 11 million people living among you illegally. they don't have documentation. they are working somewhere. they have providing for their families. they don't qualify for any federal benefits. they are all around us everywhere you look. whether you know it or not. they're here. most of them here for longer than a decade. we can ignore it. if we do, if we do nothing, if we do nothing, if the bill fails and we do nothing, that's de facto amnesty. the second option, we can make life miserable. put eer have verify in place. and make life so tough they'll leave on their own. i don't think that's a practical approach. i don't think it works. i don't think most americans would tolerate what we have to do in order for it to happen. i don't think most americans

would tolerate the humanitarian cost of approaching that way. at the end of the day, i still think many won't leave anyway. they'll figure out a way to survive and endure. i don't think that's a practical approach. if someone else thinks it's a practical approach i would encourage them to come to the floor and convince me otherwise. explain why we should do that. i'm not saying anyone is making the argument. that proves my point. what is the third option? the third option, deal with it. deal with it in a way that is reasonable and compassionate and responsible and good for the country. that's what we have endeavored go as parlt of the bill. let's be clear what the bill does. this bill, first and foremost, it says to the people here illegally come forward. we have with a process for you if you have to undergo if you want to be here legally. here is the process, number one, you have to undergo a background check. they have to fingerprint.

you. undergo for background checks for crimes. you're not going qualify for the legalization. you have to pay an application fee. you have to pay a fine because that's a consequence of having violated our immigration laws. when i hear amnesty. it means the forgiveness of something. i have seen them all the time. i was in the great state of hawaii. we had a great visit there on a personal visit. they have a box called amnesty box. it allows you when you get off the airplane if you have any banned agricultural to put it in the bucket no questions asked. that's amnesty. amnesty is turn it in, and nothing will happen to you. no price to pay. that's not what the bill does. this bill says come forward, and you're going to have undergo a background check for national security, a background check for crimes, you have to pay a fine. you have to pay an application fee. you have to get gainfully

employed and pay taxes, and not qualify for any federal benefits, no bureaucracy, no food stamps, no welfare, nothing. that's all you're going able to have for ten years. which leads me to my second point about the legalization. it's a notion that it's permanent legalization. once you get it you're legal fiver. not true. this is renewable. under the program we envision in the bill, every six years, you're going have to come forward and reapply. every six years you have to come forward and undergo the same things. another fine, another application fee, another background check. when you renew it the first time. you have to prove you have been gainfully employed and paying taxes for the previous six years. the legalization that people will be able to get the so called rpi the keyword is provisional. it is not permanent. and there are people that are going to qualify for rpi at the

beginning who when it comes time to renew aren't going to qualify. they weren't gainfully employed and paying taxes, they committed a crime, they can't pay the fine. it's going to happen. we don't think it will be pref lebt. it will happen. it's not permanent. it's provisional. the third aspect is that once you open an rpi for ten full years, after you have an rpi for ten full years. the first six years and reapply and qualify and been in another four years. here is the only thing happens, the only things that happens you are qualified to, you are eligible to apply for a green card. it doesn't mean on the tenth year anniversary of rpi you show up and say i'm here. give me the green card. that's not true. you have to apply for it. you have to undergo the same green card says with the same checks and balances. i filed an amendment to improve it even further. i'm saying when you apply for the green card, after the ten

year period and more has expired, you have to prove you're proficient in english. i think assimilation is important. i think assimilating to american society is important. because i think learning english is not just important for assimilation. it's important for economic success. you count flour rich in our economy and country if you're not proficient in english. we're going require that at the green card stage. what is the debate about over the next few weeks? a couple of things will have to happen. first, like any other bill, there's technical changes that have to be made. and those will be made. i think there will be improvement to the bill on other issues like what i talked about the amendment i have to make the english proficiency required at the green card stage. if we were to move on and have a debate about the cost of the bill and ensuring we truly tighten this. look, the american people are generous. and open especially through a process like this. but they want to make sure it's

not costing the american taxpayer. we have to make sure that people aren't qualifying for the federal benefits. we have to make sure that people violated our immigration law, one of the consequences they are not a burden on the american taxpayer. and if you talk to many immigrant groups and immigrants themselves they tell you it's not a problem. that's not what we're here for. good. you're not going qualify for those things. and we're going make that even clearer in some of the amendments that senator hatch and others are working on. .. now, i personally believe that more than half of my colleagues on the republican side, maybe a little more, maybe a little less, want to vote for an immigration bill. they want to modernize our immigration system, improve our enforcement mechanisms and deal with the 11 million people here illegally but they are only willing to do that if they can go back to their folks at home and say we took steps to make sure this will never happen again. we didn't repeat the mistakes of

the past. this isn't going to happen again. that's going to be the key to this bill passing. and i think that we can do that. and that's in our principles, by the way. the guiding principles before this bill was unveiled talked about border security. one of the ways i think we can improve that is not leaving the border and fence plan to chance. let's not leave it to the department of homeland security. one of the objections we heard from opponents of the bill is we don't trust homeland security to come up with a plan that works. fine. let's put it in the bill. let's put the specific plan in let's put the specific plan in to compensate the networks. find, but let's put the specific plan in the bill, the amount of technology, let's mandate the bills that were not leaving it to guesswork, so when you go come you vote for a specific security plan. i've heard people say they should be improved. let's fix it and put it in the bill. we think the entry exit tracking system can be improved. the when you go for the bill coming about for you plan on those things.

that's important and that's not unreasonable. i want you to think about this big immigrant illegally here comes forward, get legalized. if qualified because the machinations that are here legally, working, paying taxes. they're not in the shadows anymore. before that her green card, all we ask for as we ensure this never happens again. that is not an unreasonable request. not only do i think that's unreasonable, that the responsible requests. none of us want to be here five years from now or tenures are now saying they messed up in 2013. we've got to do it all over again. none of us want to be here five years turn out. it's another wave wave of illegal immigration. we can get it right in this bill if that happens i believe the legislation will pass an historic way out of this chamber

and strengthen the chance i could pass in the house and be signed by the president and that's the opportunity we have to get something like this right. i could talk about economic benefits of illegal immigration reform without name. just do what i tell you at low work on it to commit to it will be a net positive for america to have a illegal immigration system that works and that's what this debate is so important. i think we can be sent it good for the country are irresponsible at once and for all solve this problem so we don't continue to do what they don't hold us back, so be a nation of immigrants built on a heritage of illegal immigration cannot illegal immigration system that works and be proud of, that helps our country, takes a tissue at the table gets rid of her amnesty and protect our sovereignty and workers and security of our people are not doing the chance to do here. to the opponents of the legislation i say i respect your

view very much and you raise very valid concerns which we have attempted to address and will continue to address it has though. i'm not a take it or the very people. i matter what i.d. i have the more people exposed to it, and were in connecticut and suggestions and the better we can make it. i'm not interested in a messaging point coming aren't interested in the political calculations of this issue. but i'm personally interested in solving a problem hurting america. that's why a passionate about this be the reason is this is hurting america. the fact we have 11 million people living here we don't know who they are or where they are, they're not paying taxes, not incorporated in our economy is hurting america. it's bad for our country did the fact we can enforce immigration laws because the systems we have

don't work is bad for america. the fact we have illegal immigration system that hurts our economy and hurts our future is bad for america. we have an immigration america is bad. it doesn't work for anyone unless you are a human trafficker or someone benefiting at the extent of cheap labor appeared to us is helped by the status quo? the answer is nobody and leaving us in places not an alternative, not an option. this is a problem hurting our country and the only way i notice all this to get involved in solving it. that's why i came here. i didn't come to sign a bunch of letters and give a speech meant become the floor. i came because i believe i know with all my heart what we have here is a unique, exceptional and special place. to keep it that way requires us to take seriously not just constitutional charge for the

opportunity we have to solve historic problems and historic way. i think i spelled that right gives us the opportunity to do that and i look forward to the opportunity to be part of it. i hope my colleagues who are open-minded about it remain open-minded and give the american people something that helps our country solve our problem and mixes all pride. i yield the floor. >> the senate in recess now. they are back in session at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow to take up immigration overhaul. the bill cleared several procedural hurdles earlier today, bringing the bill to the floor to debate and while that happens, it is unclear if proponents will garner enough support to overcome a filibuster later on reported by congressional quarterly appeared rate leaning states up for reelection next year expected to

vote against it and thus far only one gop senator not involved in writing the bill, kelley ayotte of new hampshire has endorsed it. coming out from cq news, to top gop leaders have set a high bar for their support for a bipartisan immigration overhaul. senator john cornyn has an aunt that would require the federal government to gain full control of the border and catch 90% of all attempted border crosses before giving undocumented immigrants a green card on a path to citizenship. democrats have reject appointments amendment is a thinly veiled ploy to impose impossible conditions on immigrants seeking to legalize their status. some beefed up order language could help democrats rally support for the bill. charles schumer of new york the third ranking democrat member of the bipartisan so-called gang of

a called cornice proposal not acceptable but left open the possibility of amending the border provisions in legislation. if he has other suggestions to tighten the border, fine, but according to cq. the senate in recess back to take up immigration tomorrow at 9:30 eastern. see that here on c-span 2. >> one of the interesting aspects of the building's history is the fact it exists at all. and really much of the reason this building is still year is due to our governor at the time. when the civil war started to come to a close and needed troops camped outside, he was very concerned about the fate of the people of raleigh. he know what that happen in other southern cities when troops came through, so he crafted a peaceful surrender of

the city of raleigh. he agreed to the city of raleigh and have confederate troops leave peacefully and if the union troops would also take charge of the city of rally peacefully and specifically with bair the state capital with museum and library. we do have three representations of george washington at the state capital. one outside to inside. downstairs is a copy of the original statue in the house that burned and that was a story. that was made by an italian scope are named antonio canova who represented george washington and the way he felt really match his reputation as a military leader, a political leader and so he made him in a classical way, look like a roman general and that was not entirely a popular decision that the people of north carolina and probably the thing that shocked

people the most is his legs and feet are completely bare. many people thought that was disrespectful to show a president with his legs and toes showing. >> the name of this still resonates with the shattering in the hearts of the american people. more than any other name connected to civil war except lincoln, gettysburg reverberates. americans retain the knowledge that happened here was the crux of our terrible national trial and even americans who were sure precisely what transpired note that all the glory and all the tragedy we associate resides

most probably, most indelibly here. >> white house spokesman jake wright talked about the immigration legislation at today's white house briefing. he was also asked about nsa data collection programs. >> i have no announcements to make so we'll go straight to your questions. >> wondering if you had anything to tell us today were generally in hong kong or some other country and that the white house expectation is that country was sent back to the u.s. >> as was the case yesterday, i am not going to discuss the

subject of the recently open investigation. so the whereabouts of this individual, has taught us, any details about the investigation i would refer to questions about those matters, the department of justice and the fbi. >> if he is in a country or someone were to be in a country, would it be the white house expectation quite >> again, that goes to the case itself and were going to wait for the investigation to proceed before we way and with that kind of assessment. >> i'll try this one. it was the president aware this is an individual that the u.s. was looking, or his whereabouts, when he met with president xi during the china summit over the weekend quite >> i believe the answer is no. not that i'm aware of.

>> thank you. on a separate topic, can you explain the administration's thinking to stop pushing for changes on the morning-after pill availability? >> truly come on the last one i mentioned yesterday the president was made aware about the individual taking responsibility for staff aboard air force one after being appointed california. on the other question, on plan b, ask me again. >> i wanted to know the thinking behind the decision last night was. >> well, twofold. you know the president's personal views. he expressed them in this room and he supported the decision by secretary sebelius with regards to the use of this medication by young girls ages 10 and 11 and a lack of sufficient data in his

view and so he supported secretary sebelius decision having not played a role in making the decision. we've been through legal process in the court is wrote against the administration, an appeals court as you know. and that ruling means that or amends that plan b would immediately be available to anyone of any age and that was the decision to give that a court ruling that to proceed with making the simpler version of plan b available to us at the very least that addresses some concerns about the ability of younger girls to use that medication. the ruling came in against the administration, immediately made a formal plan b available unless a decision the president's supporters to proceed to making sure the fda approved the simpler version of plan b.

>> what steps has the administration taken to ensure what defense contract there is her work on intelligent issues that they are our adequate safeguards? >> well, they're a couple pieces to that question. some of which have been answer by the dni, director of national intelligence. first of all, there's the damage assessment that is ongoing. secondly, it is important to note when it comes to contractors, they swear an oath to protect classified secret just as government workers do. and that is important to remember. in terms of procedures in place, i would refer you to the various agencies that have contractors to do with classified information, department of

defense, nsa in terms of procedures in place or any procedures that may be engaged in now in the wake of these leaks. again, it is important to know individuals who take an oath to protect classified information are bound by it, whether they are government employees or contract employees. >> anything to the administration is doing in terms of seeking extra assurances were contractors in the wake of what's happening? >> a refer you to the agency that employed contractors that have access to they've gone background checks another procedures to give clearances they have and take the oath that they do for in a post-revelation measures they may be taking. >> if i could ask you about president putin today. there's no doubt about arends and what do you make with the

comments given russia's place in these discussions? >> i'm sorry, i haven't seen those comments, but maybe you can characterize them for me further. no doubt the pursuit is for military means. it's been our view iran is to abide by its international obligation. >> no doubt that iran is pursuing a for nefarious intentions? no doubt in terms that he said he had no doubts that iran is pursuing nuclear programs. >> that's the opposite of what i thought you were saying. our views haven't changed. i'm now aware of the russian president that she just relate to me, but i would say iran has failed to live up to its obligations under the

international law, to prove that their pursuit of neck country nuclear technology. there's ample evidence to the contrary and we are engaged with our allies to try to bring about a change in behavior by the regime in tehran and is part of that process we have instituted the most stringent and broad sanctions regime and has every of the world and that is both unilaterally and with our allies. enter the united nations and different means. we have said there remains time for a rant to choose a path of engaging with the international community and abandoning its nuclear weapons ambitions, but that time is not unlimited and

we obviously monitor the situation closely with our allies. >> thank you, jay. does the president believes keeping americans safe is more important than the information of americans deeper? >> as you heard the president say on friday, he believes we must strike a balance between our security interest and our desire for privacy. he made clear that you cannot have 100% security and 100% privacy and does we need to find that balance, he believes, as commander-in-chief that the oversight structures that iran plays to ensure that there is, you know, proper review of the programs we have in place

authorized by congress through the patriot act and thighs do strike that balance. he also said he understands and believes that is entirely legitimate that some may disagree. some may believe that balance not to be shifted in one direction or the other from where it currently has. and he welcomes the debate about that. he mentioned that very explicitly in his speech to the national defense university several weeks ago on the broader topics of counterterrorism programs, but he spoke specifically about surveillance in the balance we need to strike a train security and privacy, between security and convenience and that is a worthy to have in public. and he welcomes that debate because it's important.

it's important to know we've had this debate. every time the patriot act has come up for passage in reauthorization has been a spirited debate was strongly held opinions expressed by people opposed to the structures in place authorized by bipartisan majorities in congress that are overseen by the courts as well as internally by the executive branch. so that's import and haltingly should have that debate. >> isn't a true security will have to take a back seat or rather privacy will take a backseat to security? >> i answered the question that we have to find a balance between those two and we cannot have if we hope to successfully protect ourselves 100% privacy that there has to be some modest concession to the need for

information as we pursue terrorists who do harm to the country and take the lives of americans, but we need to make sure the programs we have in place are overseen, that they are legal, authorized by congress and authorized by the courts and that is the case here and has been the case with the discussion we've had in the wake of these revelations. again, i just want to emphasize the fact that these systems are in place in the other side exists and is significant does not mean the conversation in the presidency appear to need to continue to debate this. as i said yesterday, this goes to broader issues about our nation and the world in terms of the nature of electronic communications to broader issues of privacy. so this is an important debate for us as a nation.

it's in the presidency is we have to do we've had a congress over the patriot act that ensure there is oversight that had not existed prior to 2006 i believe in the measures taken to ensure there's judicial and executive branch and congressional oversight then. the president certainly does not welcome the way this debate has been earned greater attention the last week i will let classified for information about sent to the programs that are important in our fight against terrorist to do harm to americans is a problem and it is of great concern. it should be engaged. >> about the congressional picnic, what was behind -- [inaudible] >> now, so do the president

scheduled and is taking several overseas trips in june and had necessitated trying to postponements. >> senator corker of tennessee is urging the president at the earliest possible time. the president is facing a policy decision. >> the president has been evaluated as policy options on the area repeatedly for some time. there are a number of issues we discussed here that have to do with the use potential of chemical weapons by the assad regime and the evidence regarding accumulated that in fact has taken place. then there is the issue of how best to achieve our policy, which is a negotiated political settlement's to an authority and

stability and they can secure unconventional and it is conventional weapons and counterterrorist activity and keep the state and its institutions preserve to the extent possible. that's a policy goal we have with our allies and partners then we evaluate the options available to us in a challenging situation whether they bring us closer move us further away from achievement of the policy goal. the president as you know nse is said reassessing this option, one of the options he is not taken off the table and make to me to assess his potential of providing arms to the opposition. we are to provide an enormous amount of assistance to the theory of people who and humanitarian assistance as well as the opposition but the one exception to that all the while

options ran the table, the president does not proceed circumstance we would have american boots on the ground. >> what about the timing? is very policy decision? >> i don't have any announcements to preview for you or forecast except the situation in syria is areas and continues to deteriorate and that is a great concern to the president and everyone with an interest in syria in the region and we continue to discuss with allies and partners. >> has the president sent any messages to nelson mandela for his family? >> i'm not aware of any communications with the white house to where he is on the first lady is that we all are concerned about nelson mandela's health and wish him and his family well and hope he recovers. >> with the johannesburg trip

the president is going to take later this month, will he see nelson mandela. >> well april, i think that understates significantly the importance of south africa and the bilateral relationship we see. there's every reason to visit south africa on a visit to south africa, but i don't have any specifics on the schedule with the president trip beyond that would put out already. >> nelson mandela at that time mr. johannesburg. >> again, i've never specifics on a schedule coming together to provide to you except to say we're obviously concerned about nelson mandela's health and wish him well and a speedy recovery.

but we estimate their import relationship import relationship of south africa. >> person -- both of them really are the essence of the first black president for the united states and for south africa. >> i don't have an answer in terms of the last we spoke. they did meet when president obama was senator and the first lady was in south africa had met with nelson mandela when she visited south africa a few years ago i believe. but i don't know when the president last spoke with mr. mandela. >> and if you feel a kinship because of their historical placing in these two respective countries? >> i think the president has written about and spoken about nelson mandela in the past. so it what you do what said about this hugely significant figure in south africa income african and and global history.

>> just to be clear, does the united states want to prosecute mr. snowden? >> is an investigation underway for the investigators to determine whether or not crimes have been committed and decided what charges if any will be brought and i will not get ahead of that process. >> you have met so far. >> i appreciate the opportunity to quickly get ahead of an important investigation but i'll pass on it. we've made clear we are very serious concerns about the leak of classified information about programs that are very important to our national security. but on this specific investigation and the status of the individual who's being investigated, i was the comment investigators. >> speaker boehner today called

snowden a traitor. would you go that far? >> i won't comment on someone investigation. i will characterize him or his status. we believe it is the appropriate posture to take to let the investigation go forward and let the determination about where that investigation will go and what those charges might be if they are brought to the fbi and department of justice. >> is attacked by the states of the president welcomes the debate and refer to a speech at the national defense university. in his own words was it would be a huge mistake for the rest to stay on war footing, that it was self-defeating. isn't the lesson we've learned after that speech that we still are in a war footing? in fact, his experiment to prevent terror attacks. so when a site that speech, is there a contradiction there? we are ramping down. the expanded surveillance suggested we still are in a war

footing. >> you're conflating a number of issues here, ed, that was a long and detailed speech -- >> were not on a war footing. >> well, with regards to that, we have as a nation bentonite teapot warmers for more than a decade. and the president, keeping his commitment or when he ran for this office and of the war in iraq. and he is winding down the war in afghanistan. but it remains the case that we continue to aggressively pursue al qaeda and its affiliates and it is absolutely his obligation as commander-in-chief to do so and ensure we have tools necessary to do that. it is also his view and insistence that the tools we have any news are subject to

oversight and are carried out and used in a way that keeps faith to our laws and values. i don't think there's an inconsistency at all clear. we remain in conflict with al qaeda. even though it is greatly diminished, remains a threat than al qaeda's affiliates remain a threat. we certainly discuss that quite a bit, whether it is in yemen or elsewhere in the president is taking every action necessary as commander-in-chief to ensure we are adequately protected from that threat. >> one other topic, mmo from an official in the state department claiming that a special agent had determined ambassador gutman was teaching his detail to

engage and allegedly solicited sex with children. he is sharply denied that. is the president confident in its mouth to keep ambassador gutman in place and what is the president's reaction? >> these allegations are currently under investigation by independent inspector general. there's no final report on these inquiries by the independent inspector general and as is in keeping with the position we take what we are dealing with independent inspector general investigation surratt is, we will not comment until we seen the results of that investigation. there's a process in place for reviewing any allegation of misconduct, the likes of which you mentioned and we believe that process should unfold under regular order and we are not going to prejudge anyone are anything before facts are determined. that said, the president has zero tolerance for misconduct by

any government employee and his zero tolerance has been demonstrated amply throughout his presidency. we are not going to prejudge based on unfinished investigations by an independent ig. >> i appreciate that distinction. he said john investigation, the allegations. there's also kennedy who is a very high state department official suggesting a sort of blocked it to protect ambassador gutman and maybe others. my question is, does undersecretary kennedy's conduct here, is under investigation? >> all these matters eraser under investigation by the independent ig at the state department and will not prejudge the outcome of an ongoing inquiry like that.

>> is it appropriate to state department has gone so long since 2008 without a full-time inspector general? >> i don't have any information about the staffing of the ig process, but i can tell you this is related to the question as at mentioned, and backed investigation. >> the state department, labor department, homeland security for the agency for international intelligence all of which do not have full-time inspector general so to be a broader question. >> on a separate topic, julie got to it quickly. on plan b the situation has changed, but as the personal position on emergent the contraception changed? >> those are his personal views and he puts it into the context of being a father and he supported the decision secretary

sebelius made at the time, but the fact is this case has been litigated in his throat against the administration, making available a version of plan b immediately come in the view of the administration that given the availability is in the best interest of the country but the simple version be made available. i think that explains why we've taken a position we have. >> the democratic senator wyden said of the direct terror of james clapper that he didn't give straight answers on the nsa surveillance hearing that took place in march. the president has called for open and honest debate. the american people have the right to expect straight answers from intelligent leadership to questions asked by

representation. mr. president satisfy the american people are getting straight answers about leadership when it comes to american intelligence? >> he certainly believes direct or clapper has been streaming direct in the answers he's given an actively engaged enough for to provide more information about programs revealed to the leak of classified information. >> james clapper acknowledged it wasn't full truth. >> a statement in the march hearing where he was asked specifically whether the direct language the u.s. collects on all the millions of americans and he said the answer to that was no. he later amended it, but in the conversation with andrea mitchell, he acknowledged was the least untruthfully affair. >> director clapper has demonstrated in presiding as

much information as possible to the american people, to the press about the sensitive and programs authorized by congress under section 702 and 215 of the public patriot act, a much debated act reauthorize by congress with bipartisan majorities and i would point you to the statements and documents put out that demonstrate the effort he has undertaken to provide information given the revelation we've seen. >> what advice would white house give -- [inaudible] to an official with a top-secret clearance who seizes on doing

underway, what options do such an individual have to correct that? >> that's an important question and i appreciate it. the obama administration has demonstrated a strong commitment to whistleblowers. whistleblowers have an important they're established procedures that also protect rather ensure protection of national security interest. if you look at the history there, the president had the merit system production support have been widely praised. it issued an all-time high number of favorable action on behalf of whistleblowers and we can change the culture. on november 27, 2004 at her for years to reach a compromise the president and the whistleblower protection has not, which

provides federal employees clarifying and expanding penalties imposed creating new protections for security officers and scientists creating and strengthening the authority of special to assist whistleblowers. because it would not provide protections for intelligence communities, the president took executive action pics and whistleblower protections to the national security communities for the first time. it prohibits retaliation to report information through the perforated channels including a review panel of ig's of other agencies to ensure such retaliation does not occur. the commitment far exceeds that of past administrations to exist and in doing so have steered away from transparency.

>> or you want to say whether -- >> i'm not willing to comment on the status of the investigation. >> as secretary kerry are dissipated in the meeting with syria quick >> i was asked this yesterday. i can simply tell you we have meetings here on syria with some regularity. i'm not going to give a reading of every anyways had appeared in the news is that the situation and importance of syria, you can be sure we have regular meetings on these issues that involve both principles and deputies on the national security council. i don't have a specific meaning to announce them here because there's fairly frequent in routine. >> the white house is edging

closer towards a decision meaning. >> again, i don't have a decision to make except the president is constantly reviewing options available to him and tasking his team to review options with an eye towards what actions they might take to bring us close to the achievement of the goal we seek. >> can you describe the damage he has caused quite >> i think i would refer you to statements by the director of national intelligence in a position to better assess that idea to and note that more comprehensive damage assessment are being done. it is without question immoderate became concerned when we see leaks of highly classified information about sensitive programs that are classified for a reason, but they are important to efforts to

combat terrorists and extremists and those who seek to do harm to our nation and take the lives of the american people. for more specific assessments i would refer you to the odni. i would ask them. >> he reminded us that the president has konsyl or reviewing his options. his daring me nato option that? >> i don't have a list of options to review for you since they are on the table. i guess you could assume any option you might ask me about within reason and logic would be on the table. but we cannot talk about here are what actions may be taken in

response to assessment komar collaborated evidence about chemical weapons, for example, what actions may be taken with regards to further assistance to the syrian opposition given the circumstances and area in the assessments we constantly make about the impact of a decision like that would be. i'm not going to weigh in on specific options of whether they're considered because the president has said with a caveat on the exception of the option of putting boots on the ground, the president has said all options remain on the table. >> there's discussions also -- >> we talk about this all the time because it does such great concern to the president in american political leaders in general as well as leaders in

the countries of allies and partners who have great concerns about what's happening in syria, great concerns about the impact of the violence in syria on the region, concerns about the involvement of hezbollah and iran in the fighting in syria on behalf of the bashar al-assad. >> can you tell me if the state department report on the keystone maxell is what the president said quite >> again, that is a process operated out of the state department and i would refer to the state department for updates. you should take that question to the state department. >> considering the military again, what makes you confident it's altogether? second, the u.s. with jordan and 8000 personnel.

is this a plan the? >> let me refer first -- that's clever. first to the question about jordan. i militaries in particular have a long-standing relationship. in reference to your question, f-16s are supportive or annual joint exercise, eager lien. and that is, again, an annual exercise. so it is not related to syria or propose options in syria. on the first question as i noted earlier, there is the concern here and elsewhere about the deteriorating situation about the involvement of hezbollah and iran and the fighting syria on behalf of assad.

the president is reviewing the options available to him when it comes to american policies and working with allies and partners on ways that we can assist the syrian people and the syrian opposition in trying to achieve the goal we stated, which is a peaceful transition to a post-assad syria, authority in place numbers x and protects conventional and unconventional weapons that combats terrorism and terrorists and it is in pursuit of god or that we evaluate options available to us. >> what made you confident the government on the geneva -- >> , geneva question, we are working to convene a conference as soon as practical, as soon as

it is determined that the united nations that we've done the necessary preparations to bring the party together and move forward towards a political solution. we are pursuing this and a conference in geneva, but that is not the one job we pursued here. the political process cannot occur in a vacuum. this ongoing fighting in syria. that is why even as we continue discussions with allies, russia and, opposition about geneva, the situation means they continue to explore what they can do to support the opposition as it confronts the tyranny of bashar al-assad. >> the president is going to follow the summit with conversations with u.s. allies in asia and donilon himself

would have meetings in the country today. has this happened to? >> at how presidential interactions to read and i'll check about the national security adviser. >> i just don't know. i'll have to take a question. >> it's obviously a big deal. you've got questions about the dni said about this. there's clearly repercussions far more significant. isn't it time for the president to address the american people directly? is this a litmus of leadership to tell people when you take them a new and they are confronted? >> one, the president took questions on this specific issue on friday. he answered for a total of 14 minutes to multipart questions in the standards here and the

fact of the matter is he would discuss this and he is interested in and believes in a debate about these issues and believe it's worthy to engage in that debate. the president addressed the specific issue in a speech at the national defense university. >> you are interested until were -- >> most americans are not aware of this. >> the patriot act is a public statue. there's a spirited and animated debate every time it comes up for reauthorization, which includes in 2011 and the provisions under which the sections of the law these programs exist have been and are debated and have been in a way to make sure oversight that did not exist of programs in the

first years of the administration does exist and that was that the assistance of lawmakers including senator obama at the enhanced oversight by all three branches of government take place with programs vital to national security. >> the president not to have a fireside chat about this. why not do this? >> i think i just said although i appreciate yours and the attorney general's recommendations about modalities of communication, the president has and will speak about the subject. >> you just said and refer back to the national defense universe v. nowhere in that speech does the president specifically address intelligence or any other initiatives the president would address. the >> you kind of missed the big story here, but i grant a

question about contractors, but the focus -- a conversation we've been having here is the balance between our security interests and our desire for privacy. >> the reason i was trying to ask is that the president has an opportunity to re-examine the proportion private contractors have, including our intelligence community. the >> that is interesting and perhaps worthy of debate is part of the conversation we should be having. contractors have long been involved in defense and intelligence efforts and when it comes to security clearance is, there's object to the same system of checks and security clearance procedures that government employees. it is not about to miss is the question because that too is assuming a question that merits today. the issue is if your private

contract or any taken no to handle and protect classified information come here under the same obligation as i am the josh and others who have security clearances. the legal protection is the same and the obligation is the same. >> the president didn't specifically mention once. he say he has to have the conversation. >> i'm not sure what point you're trying to make. the president gave issues about the use of directive -- [inaudible] the president didn't mention contract in. in the vacuum of that omission, the snowden has filled the gap or does the conversation begin on the issue, which is up to 70% of intelligence gathering and

capacities. does not open a door the president is about to close clinics and >> no. that is an issue in answer to your partial questions to parents today. whether it's a private contractor or government employee, classified information that individuals protect is the same. it is certainly worth the discussion about the use of contractors and other parts of the government in moscow today. when it comes to protecting privacy and security, the balance we seek remains the central issue regardless of the employment status of individuals who take classified information. >> the president this morning

talked about potential changes to the bill. sonata mcconnell is looking for major changes in the areas of border security. as the president open to major changes to this bill? >> the president gave remarks about immigration reform a few hours ago and made the point those that emerge and represents an extraordinary amount of hard work by a bipartisan group of united states senators, a process in committee that allows consideration of numerous amendments and passage of amendments with a partisan support. it does not represent exactly what the president wants, nor does it represent letter for letter exactly what individual republican lawmaker or a democratic lawmaker wants, but it does rep resent a strong

consensus position on what the president laid out when it comes to comprehensive immigration reform and we strongly that bill. we look forward to a process that begins today of consideration and we sincerely hope as this bill is considered at the significant majority of lawmakers in the senate who support comprehends immigration reform, reflecting support of the american public and the views that the president prevail over any efforts to sabotage that when we have, as the president said, a unique opportunity to address this challenge for the first time in many, many years and we do not want to miss that opportunity, an opportunity that will be good for the middle class, be good for businesses, be good for

security. and she raised when it comes to border security, it's important to note is taken to advocate steps since president obama took office. we have the most on the ground that we've ever had as a nation that we've doubled the number of border patrol agents and in addition to that, the bill assault the senate passed out of committee represents the most significant border security bill in our history in terms of resources allocated towards further border security and that's very important. it also makes clear we have to have a clear path to citizenship for the 11 million illegals in this tree and that path has to be clear because it's the right thing for businesses and about class and for our economy. the president as you heard them say today looks forward to a

healthy debate in the senate as they can do this legislation, looks forward to bipartisan passage this bill and in consideration of the house and passage by the full congress. >> does the president believe the government is currently striking the right balance between piracy and security? is it getting it right? if so, why? if not, which way should it be more quick >> i will paraphrase them by saying yes the president believes -- thank you, glenn. the president believes that we are striking the right balance in his view through programs that are object, first of all, to debate, consideration and passage by congress and in

subject to an oversight regime that involves all three branches of government. you know again, it's important whether it's section 702-4215 to be fully aware of the oversight that exists when it comes to these programs. i would like to at this late moment in my briefing to remind you of some of not oversight that exist if i have it here, which i may not. >> while you search, let me on -- while this debate now is your position is -- >> president has made it clear he does not believe because he's come to the conclusion we start the balance that is the right balance, that that should debate. he believes this is a subject where well-meaning and

thoughtful people can disagree and we had to have that debate and we certainly are having it now and we should continue to have it. but i think is important to note as we've seen these revelations is that there is a system in place with regards to these two programs that insurers there is oversight by judicial branch, by the legislative branch and the executive branch to make sure these programs as they are implemented are done so in a way consistent with the law and the guidelines that exist to ensure they don't want to fall over laws and values. depending on the programs, the 215 program we talked about a subject to renewal every 90 days through the courts. it is briefed and reviewed by congress.

.. >> tonight president obama calls on congress to pass an immigration bill, and part of today's senate debate on immigration. later, the senate education committee considers revisions to the "no child left behind" act.