>> 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.

[inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states; [applause]

[applause] >> good morning. >> morning. >> my name is toe olu and i'm a dreamer. when i was eight years old, i dreamed of being an engineer. at 14, i was brought from africa to the u.s. to live that dream. at 21, i graduated with a chemical engineering degree. and today, that dream still lives in the back of my closet, where hi diploma waits for immigration reform. i never set out to devote myself completely to advocating for immigration reform. nor did i imagine that out of the ashes of my darkest secret,

would arise my true purpose. and in 2006, my father passed away in nigeria. a final kiss goodbye, and fearing that at any moment i could be torn away from my family. i stand here today, as a direct result of the efforts of my father and bold action by the president. instead of living in fear, and well below my abilities, i have the privilege of spending my days advocating for immigration reform. and supporting efforts to achieve that more perfect union,

that we all desire. mom, dad, today i am hopeful and humbled to present the president of the united states. applause [applause] >> good morning, everybody. >> good morning. >> welcome to the white house. it is a pleasure to have so many distinguished americans today from so many different walks of life. we've got democrats, republicans, we've got labor and business leaders on stage. law enforcement and clergy.

americans who don't see eye-to-eye on every issue. in fact on some cases don't see eye-to-eye on just about any issue. but who are today standing united in support of the legislation that is front and center in congress this week. a bipartisan bill to fix our broken immigration system, and i have to say, please give tolu another round of applause. [applause] >> it takes a lot of courage to do what tolu did, to step out of the shadows, to share her stories, and to hope that despite the risks, she could make a difference. but tolu is representative of so many dreamers out there who have worked so hard, and i've had a chance to meet so many of them

who have been willing to give a face to the undocumented and have inspired a movement across america, and with each step they reminded us time and again what this debate is all about. it's not an abstract debate. this is about incredible young people who understand themselves to be americans, who have done everything right, but have still been hampered in achieving their american dream. and they remind us that we're a nation of immigrants. throughout our history, the promise we found in those who come from every corner of the globe, has always been one of our greatest strengths. it's kept our work force vibrant and dynamic. it's kept our businesses on the cutting edge. it's helped build the greatest economic engine then the world has known.

when i speak to other world leaders the biggest advantage we have economically is our demographics. we're constantly replenishing ourselves with talent from all across the globe. no other country can match that history, and what was true years ago, is still true today. who is beeping over there? you're feeling kind of self-conscious, aren't you? [laughter] >> it's okay. in recent years, one in four of america's new small business owners were immigrants. one in four high-tech startups in america were founded by immigrants. 40% of the fortune 500 companies

were started by first or second generation american. think about that. almost half. of the fortune 500 companies, when they were started, were started by first or second generation immigrants. so immigration just isn't part of our national, which. it's a driving fort in our economy that creates jobs and prosperity for all of our citizens. here's the thing. over the past two decades our immigration system has not kept pace with changing times. and hasn't matched up with our most cherished values. right now our immigration system invites the best and the brightest from all over the world to come and study at our top universities, and once they have gotten the training they need to build a new invention or create new business, our system too often tells them, go back home. so that other countries can reap the benefits, the new jobs, in

the industries. that's not smart. but that's the broken system we have today. right now our immigration system keeps families apart for years at a time. even for folks who technically under the legal immigration system should be eligible to become citizens, but it is so long and so cumbersome, so bisantine that families are separated for years, and because of the backlog, people who came here legal, who are ready to give it all to become an american, are waiting for years to join their loved ones here in the united states. it's not right but that's the broke system we have today. right now our immigration system has no credible way of dealing with the 11 million men and women in this country illegally, and, yet, they broke the rules.

they didn't wait their turn. they shouldn't be allowed to game the system and let off easy, but these individuals are not looking for trouble. they're just looking to provide for their families, contribute to their communities. they're our neighbors. we know their kids. too often they're forced to do what they do in a shadow economy, where shady employers can exploit them by paying less than the minimum wage, working without overtime, no benefits. that pushes down standards for all workers. it's bad for everybody. because all the businesses that do play by the rules, that hire people legally, that pay them farley, they're at a competitive disadvantage. american workers end up being at a competitive disadvantage. it's not fair but that's the broken system we have today. now, over the past four years we

tried to patch up some of the worst cracks in the system. we made border security a top priority. today we have twice as many border patrol agents as we did in 2004. we have more boots on the ground along our southern border than at any time in our history. and in part by using technology more effectively, illegal crossings are near the lowest level in decades. we focused our enforcement efforts on criminals who are here illegally some endangering our communities, and today deportation of criminals is at its highest level ever. having put border security in place, having refocused on those who could do our communities harm, we also then took up the cause of the dreamers. young people like tulo who were brought to this country as

children. we said if you're able to meet basic criteria, like pursuing a higher education. we'll offer you the chance to come out of the shadows so you can don't our communities legally. so my administration has done what we can on our own. we got members modify administration here who have done outstanding work over the past few years to try to close up some of the gaps that exist in the system, but the system is still broken, and to truly deal with this issue, congress needs to act and that moment is now. this week, the senate will consider a common-sense, bipartisan bill that is the best chance we have had in years to fix our broken immigration system. it will build on what we have done and continue to strengthen our borders. it will make sure that businesses and workers are all playing by the same set of rules, and it includes tough

penalties for those who don't. it's fare for middle class families by making sure that those who are brought into the system pay their fair snare taxes and for services. and it's fair for those who try to immigrate legally by stopping those who cross the line. it's the right thing to too. this bill is not perfect. it's a compromise, and going forward, nobody is going to get everything they want. not democrats, not republicans, not me. but this is a bill that is largely consistent with the principles that i and the people on my statement have laid out for common-sense reform. first of all, if passed this bill would be the biggest commitment to border security in our nation's history, and put another 6.5 bill on top of what

we're already spending towards stronger, smarter security along the borders. it would increase criminal penalties against smugglers and traffickers. it would fine finally give every employer a reliable way to check that every person they're hiring is here legally. and we'll hold employers more accountable if they knowingly hire undocumented workers. but strengthening border security, but also enforcement within our borders. i know there's a lot of talk about border security to let me repeat. today, illegal crossings are near their lowest level in decades, and if passed, the senate bill, as currently written, will be the toughest enforcement plan that america has ever seen. nobody is taking border enforcement lightly.

that's part of this bill. number two, this bill would provide a pathway to earn citizenship for the 11 million individuals who are in this country illegally. that pathway is arduous. you have to pass background checks. you have to learn english. have to pay taxes and a penalty, and then you have to go to the back of the line behind everybody who has done things the right way and tried to come here legally. so this won't be a quick process. it will take at least 13 years before the vast majority of these individuals are able to even apply for citizenship. there's no cake walk. it's the only way we can make sure that everyone who is here is playing by the same rules as ordinary families, paying taxes and getting their own health insurance. that's why for immigration reform to work, it must be clear from the outset that there is a

pathway to citizenship. we're asking everybody to play by the same rules. got to give people a sense of certainty. they to through all the sacrifices, too all this, that there's -- the end of the horizon, the opportunity -- not the guarantee but the opportunity to be part of this american family. and by the way, majority of americans support this idea. number three. this bill would modernize the legal immigration system, so that alongside training american workers for the jobs of tomorrow, we're also attracting the highly skilled entrepreneurs and engineers from around the world who will grow our economy, and this bill would make sure that people don't have to wait years before their loved ones can join them here in america. so that's what immigration reform looks like. smarter enforcement, a pathway

to earned citizenship, improvements to our legal system. they're all common-sense steps. they've got bipartisan support. they've got the support of a broad cross-section of leaders from every walk of life. so there's no reason congress can't get this done by the end of the summer. remember, the process that led to this bill was open and inclusive. for months the bipartisan gang of eight looked at eave issue, reconciled competing ideas, built a compromise that works. then the jew tissue -- judiciary committee had hearings, 100 amendments were added, often with bipartisan support. and the good news is every day more republicans and democrats are coming out to support this

common-sense immigration reform bill. and i'm sure the pill will grew a few more changes in the weeks to come, but this much is clear. if you genuinely believe we need to fix our broken immigration system, there's no good reason to stand in the way of this bill. a lot of people, the democrats and republicans, have done a lot of good work on this bill. so if you're serious about actually fixing the system, then this is the vehicle to do it. if you're not serious about it, if you think that a broken system is the best america can do, then i guess it might make sense to try to block it. but if you are actually serious and sincere about fixing a broken system, this is the vehicle to do it and now is the time to get it done. there's no good reason to play

procedural games or engage in obstruction, just to block the best chance we have had in years to address this problem in a way that is fair to middle class families to business owners, to legal immigrants. and there's no good reason to untoo the progress we have already made ex-especially it comes to extreme steps like stripping protections from dreamers that my administration has provided. or asking law enforcement to treat them the same way they treat violent criminals. that's not who we are. we owe it to america to do better. we owe it to the dreamers to do better. we owe it to the young people like tulo and diego sanchez, who is with us here today. where is diego? right here. diego came here from argentina with his parents when he was just a kid, and growing up america was his home. where he went to school, made friends, built a life. you ask diego and he'll tell you

he feels american in every way, except one. on paper. in high school, diego found out he was undocumented. think about that. all the stuff you're already dealing with in high school -- [laughter] -- and suddenly, oh, man -- [laughter] so he had done everything right, stayed out of trouble, excelled in class, contributed to his community, feeling hopeful about his future, and suddenly he finds out he has to live in fear of deportation. watching his friends get their licenses, knowing he couldn't get one. seeing his classmates apply for summer jobs, knowing he couldn't do that, either. when diego heard we were going to offer a chance for folks like him to emerge from the shadows,

he went and signed up. all he wanted was a chance to live a normal life, and to contribute to the country i love. and diego this year was approved for deferred action, and a few weeks ago he graduated from st. thomas university where he was student body president and student of the year. [applause] now he has sit his sights higher, and masters degree in law school so he can pursue a degree in public policy, help america shape its future. why wouldn't we want to do the right thing by diego? what rationale there is out

there that wouldn't want to make sure diego achieves his dreams, because if he does, that helps us all achieve our dreams. in the weeks to come, you'll hear some opponents of immigration reform try to gin up fear and create television and spread the same old rumors and untruth wes have heard before. and when that happens i went you to think about tolu and think about diego, and i want you to think about your own parents and your own grandparents and great-grandparents. and all the men and women and children who came here. the notion that somehow those who came through ellis island had all their papers right -- [laughter] -- checked every box and followed procedures as they were getting on the boat -- they were

looking for a better life. just like these families. and they want to earn their way into the american story. if you're willing to stan with them, and if 'er willing to stand with all these outstanding leaders up here, then now is the time to make your voice heard. you need to call and e-mail and tweet your senators and tell them, don't kick this problem down the road. come together, work together, do your job, not only to fix a broken immigration system once and for all, but to leave something better for all the generations to come. to make sure we continue to be a nation of laws, and a nation of immigrants. do the right thing. thanks. god bless you. god bless america.

[applause] publish >> after the president's comments, some of the immigration advocates in attendance talked to reporters. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. on behalf of the american business community, i would like to thank the president for his remarks today, and historying rouse support for a common-sense immigration bill, and for

gathering together the people that are behind me who represent a broad section of american society. we disagree on a lot of things but we investigate rousely -- vigorously agree on a bill that makes common sense and takes people out of the shadows and provides for our economy the people we need to move forward. it's going to be a vigorous event in the senate. we're all going to support moving forward. and we're looking forward to today's vote, and working through the summer to get this thing done, and i personally want to thank the afl-cio. we live in buildings not very far from each other and we drew an all kinds of issues, but on this one we're dueling together is important for our country, thank you very much. >> if you would, with unemployment at 7-1/2 percent, whoa does american business feel it needs more workers as far as

its? >> as you know unemployment is never below three or fours percent because the people are unprepared for work or not fit for work. so, we have today american business and manufacturing, for example, could hire two and a half million people that had the right skills. we educate all sorts of people in our universities and give them extraordinary talents and then send them home. and we are all of our businesses are becoming more technical, more demanding, and what has made this country great compared, as the president indicated today, many countries are short of workers. their demographics are strangling them. we have been positive in terms of replacements, workers, not only through expanding the birth rate but also through immigration, and a nature -- failure to have a positive immigration program will choke

this economy and it's not a good idea. thank you. >> just add to that, from the perspective of the entrepreneurial side of the business community, this is a startup nation. a couple hundred year ago we were a startup. people came here to create a better life. we're now the leading economy in the world. it's a work of entrepreneurs who built great industries that were based here. almost half of the fortunate 500 companies were started by first or second generation immigrants. so it's important we continue to be a magnet for talent and people want to start companies and industries. that's the best way to drive our economy and our economic growth and drive down our unemployment. make sure we're able too attract those risk-takers, pioneers who believe in america as the most entrepreneurial nation in the world and what the gang of eight has done deals with that issue and other critical issues such as border security and have a ban ban approach that deals with

all these different things in a comprehensive way was wise. the debate in the judiciary committee -- i had the pleasure of testifying a couple months ago, but senator leahy has been leading that effort. with 100 different amendments and now it moves moves to the se floor and hopefully will pass by a strong bipartisan margin. we're aiming for 70 votes by july 4th, which sends it to the house with terrific momentum. so at it time to think of immigration not just as a problem we need to solve but also an opportunity to continue to be the leading nation in the world. >> i want to very quickly -- the reason we need immigration reform is because we have 7-1/2% unemployment. for every 100 foreign workers we have we create 40 jobs for u.s. citizens. i'll give you an example. i met a restaurant owner who has three restaurants. he said if i could find enough workers i would have eight restaurants. you can multiply that by hundreds of thousands.

that is what is happening in our economy today. the single biggest thing we can do for our economy is to pass this immigration bill. this is first and foremost an economic bill. and to not pass this bill is to deny our economy the recovery and the growth and the prosperity that it warrants. [inaudible] [speaking in foreign language] [speaking in foreign language] >> do you agree at the same

level with at the principles being debated on the house at this moment? mr. donahue and you seem to be agreement on the senate side. what about the house? >> what you see here is probably the broadest coalition of american society that has been assembled. you have business, you have labor, you have law enforcement, you have entrepreneurs. we have groups from all over and we all afree on several things, one, that the system is broken, and, two, we need comprehensive immigration reform and we need it now. we understand that it will be good for not only newcomers or it immigrants but good for every worker here, good for business, good for the economy, and that is why all of us have come together to try to push and get this thing done this year, because every day that we wait is a day wasted and a day that we have lost, a day that the

economy won't grow. look, there's going to be some differences in the house and the senate version, and we're going to work through those things. tom and i have spent hours together. no -- days together, not hours. that's understating it. working together to try to form something that worked for everybody. this isn't a bill where anybody got everything they wanted, but this is a bill that is solid, will fix the problems, will secure our borders, will help every worker here and make sure that newcomers are not taken advantage of and workers don't have their wages driven down. so it's something we all support, and we'll work through the senate and the house process to make sure that we come up with a good bill. that what this coalition is all about. >> do you agree that with unemployment at 7-1/2 percent, america needs more workers from immigrant sources? >> look. i think you have heard several answers to that.

this bill will force people to offer those jobs to americans first. if there is a real shortage, we have created a bureau that will say there is a shortage. if there is, which in many cases there are, then we'll be able to fill it. if it's a ploy, that bill exposed and everybody is going to win. the american worker here won't have his or her wages driven down. they won't be displaced. it will be a system that, once again, works for this country, and everybody in the country. so, we're behind it. we support it. and we want to make sure it happens. >> let me offer a law enforcement perspective. i'm the sheriff of the largest county in the state of texas and the third largest in america. this bill is good for public safety. even from the standpoint of businesses. if you want to make sure that communities are safe and strong, you need to support the economic

standpoint and businesses need to stay strong to keep our communities safe. secondly, if you want to fight cartels, fight human trafficking, pass this bill. this bill is good for public safety and that's why i applaud the president for his leadership and applaud the gang of eight for their work in getting to us this point. now we're asking for leadership to stand up across this country and get this bill passed. >> immigration reform, the right time? right place. the right thing to do. as the former missioner of new york city and the former police chief of los angeles, the two largest immigrant populations in america, dealt first hand over many years with the issues that the community faces. this is a bill that needs to pass. for them and for our country. i i also applaud the efforts of

the president and hopefully the efforts of congress as they debate this bill and bring it to a successful conclusion. thank you. >> this bill represents the best opportunity that we have had in quite a long time to fix our broken immigration system. it truly is both common sense and comprehensive. i'm the mayor of san antonio, and at the local level we see every day what happens when people put aside their ideology and partisan labels and get things done and what we have here is for the opportunity for democrats and republicans, to actually get something done in washington, dc, that is going to boost america's economy and fix our broken immigration system, and they ought to get it done soon. >> margaret, the sheriff of fresno come, washington. we're the brett basket off our nation. we produce the food that feeds

all of us. immigration reform is very important. what i hear from our farmers is they have employees that are assaulted, robbed in the fields while they're working. their cars are stolen, but they're afraid to report crimes because of their immigration status. no matter what kind of message we try to put out there, with using our media, that we don't look at papers from victims of crimes. we don't arrest victims of crimes. the intrinsic fear is still there. this is necessary for public safety. also, the tools for law enforcement to positively identify people is built into this bill. and that's why it's very important. thank you. >> members of the fciu are proud to stand with people from all walks of life the insist that the time is now, just as the president said. that we need common-sense immigration reform. we want safe and security borders and a pathaway to

citizenship for 11 million immigrants and we want to be able to restore economic fairness across this economy, and we stand proudly with the rest of the sectors from all across the walks of life represented here today to insist that the senate needs to move this now. thank you. >> marlin hill, attorney from the state of florida. one of the most diverse states in the union. in this land of america, we do not find problems to solutions. we find solutions to problems. this is a moment. we cannot allow it to pass this summer. we need to act now. this month we're celebrating national caribbean american heritage mock where percentages from all over the world have come to america, fought in the american revolution, helped with building the renaissance. fought in the civil rights movement. we have given birth to hip-hop. we have contributed in every way

in level of american society, and it's time to integrate. we cannot afford to have an underclass of citizens or persons in our country anymore. it's time to act now. and i'm so proud to introduce my friend, tolu, who gave the remarks this morning. >> thank you. thank you very much. i am a dreamer. i have lived here all of my life. i've lived in the u.s. for the past 18 years, and this is my home. first and foremost. and i have a chemical engineering degree, one that is collecting dust and desperately wants to be used to support our economy, to grow our economy. i want to be all that i can possibly be, in this great nation that i love, and the way to get there for me, and for millions of others like me, is through immigration reform. it's good for families, it's good for me, it's good for dreamers, it's good for our economy, it's good for our nation as a whole, and it's

really important that we stand strong and stand together and pursue common sense immigration reform that really does speak to our american values. thank you. >> during senate debate on immigration, virginia senator tim cane gave a speech about the issue in spanish, becoming the first senator to do so on the senate floor. senator cane became fluent in spanish when he spent a year running a school in honduras. here's part of his speech. >> senator from virginia. >> i ask unanimous scent i be able to deliver a floor speech on immigration reform in spanish. >> without ox. >> i provide a translation of my remarks in english for the congressional record. [speaking in foreign language]

[speaking in foreign language] [speaking in foreign language] [speaking in foreign language] >> you can read his full speech in spanish and english at senator kaines web site. here's more of today's senate debate on immigration. this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> at any given time in our nation's history, lawmakers have been faced with many pressing

challenges. some by their very nature demand middle action. -- demand middle action, and others take time, and they usually involve a combination of foresight and persuasion. the great challenge of our own day in my view, is figuring out how to reform government programs that are growing so big so fast, unless we act. they'll eventually consume the entire federal budget. this is an issue i have disease voted a lot of time and -- devoted a lot of time and energy to over the past few years and i hoped the two parties could resolve to support the public and the markets. the president wasn't as interested in that kind of a agreement as i was, so last your i reluctantly concluded we wouldn't be able to do anything significant about entitlements

anytime soon. without presidential leadership, something like that is just simply impossible. hopefully the president will have a change of heart at some point on the most important issue of our time. but none of this means we can't try to do something about any other big issue we face. and that includes immigration. there may be some that think our current immigration system is working. but i haven't met them. i haven't met anybody who thinks the current immigration system is working. and as an elected leader in my party it's my view that at least we need to try to improve the situation that, as far as i can tell, very few people believe is working well, either for our own citizens orthos around the whole world who aspire to become americans. everyone knows the current system is broken. our boreds are not secure. those who come legally often stay illegally and we don't know who or where they are.

our immigration laws last changed almost three decades ago, and they failed to take into account the needs of our rapidly changing economy. so what we're doing today is initiating a debate. we're all grateful for the hard work of the so-called gang of eight. but today's vote isn't a final judgment on their product as much office it is a recognition of the problem. a national problem. one that needs debate. the gang of eight has done its work. now it's time for the gang of 100 to do it work. for the entire senate to have its say on the issue, and see if we can improve the status quo. at the risk of citing the obvious, the bill has serious flaws.

i look to debate it for the opportunity to amend it, but in the days ahead there will need to be major changes to this bill if it's going to become law. these include but are not limited to the areas of border security, government benefits, and taxes. i'm going to need more than assurance from secretary napolitano, for instance, that the border is secure, to feel comfortable about the situation down on the border. too often recently we have been reminded that as government grows it becomes less responsible 0 to the american people, and fails to proffer basic functions either through incompetence, or wilful disregard of the wishes of come. our continued failure to secure major portion office the -- portions of the border makes true immigration reform far more difficult, it presents an urgent

threat to our national security. now, some have criticized this bill for its cost to taxpayers and that's a fair critique. those who are here illegally shouldn't have their unlawful status rewarded with benefits and tax credits. so the bill has some serious flaws. and we need to be serious about trying to fix them. the goal here should be to make the status quo better, not worse. and that is what the next few weeks are about. they're about giving the entire senate and indeed the entire country, an opportunity to weigh in on this important debate to make our voices heard and improve our immigration policy, and what that means, of course, and obviously, is an open amendment process. but let me be clear, doing nothing about the problem, we all acknowledge, isn't a solution. doing nothing about the problem

is not a solution. it's an avoidance strategy, and the longer we wait to have this debate as difficult as it is, the harder it will be to solve the problem. we tried to do something six years ago and didn't succeed. we may not succeed this time, either. but attempting to solve tough problems in a serious and deliberate manner is precisely what the senate, at its best, should be doing. and that's what we're going to try to do in this debate. we have before us a thousand page bill that is extremely difficult to read and to understand. we're being asked to vote on it. and now we're just sorry that majority leader reeducated he wants to lift amendments and presumably no more would be agreed to and he is going to pick and choose which ones he would approve by the end of this

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

reading it, and you have to find out what the exceptions are. and what the limitations are, and what the additions are. the lawyers who wrote it know, the gang of eight doesn't know, assure you. they don't know all the details in this legislation. it's not possible for them to do so. so, people who are arriving at this special interest group are the union groups, the business groups, ag business groups, meat packers group, the laraza, the immigration lawyers association, all of them were in the thing. working on it. they know what the impacts are. but how about this section right here from the guest worker section. subparagraph b. numerical limitations. this is apparently has to do with the number of people that would be admitted, subject to paragraph d, the number of

registered positions that may be approved by the secretary for a year after the fourth year referred to in paragraph 1, parent a, parent iv, shall be the equal of -- get this -- subparagraph 1. so, number of such registered positions available under this paragraph for the preceding year, and subparagraph ii, the product of, the product of, subparagraph 1, the number of such registered positions available under this bill for the preceding year, multiplied by subparagraph 2, the index of the current year calculated on this subparagraph c. now, you think that is easy to understand? it has meaning. and what it basically means is

this bill is going to allow more workers to come into this country than we have ever allowed before, and at a time when unemployment is extraordinarily high, ability to reduce employment is down, wages are down, and we're falling behind -- our workers are falling below inflation rates in their wages for years. and how about the second paragraph? i'm just reading this. we have to rush this thing through. really? subparagraph c. index. the index calculated under this subparagraph for a current year equals the sum of, subparagraph i. one fifth of a fraction. subparagraph 1. the numerator of which is the number of registered positions that registered employers applied to have approved under

subsection e1 for the preceding year, minus the number of register evidence positions approved under subsection e for the preceding year, and subparagraph 2, the denominator of which is the number of registered positions approved under subsection e for the preceding year. i'm sure we all got that. i'm sure you know exactly what that means. and it goes on. subparagraph iii. three-tenths of a fraction. subparagraph 1. the numerator of which is a number of unemployed united states workers for the preceding year, minus the number of unemployed united states workers to the current area, and subparagraph 2, the denominator of which is the number of unemployed in the united states workers for the preceding year, and goes on, subparagraph 4,

three-tenths of a fraction and goes on. so, somebody knows what that means. you had special interests on top of writing this big monstrosity. they were there. they want their deal. and i would say to my colleagues, when you say -- i was in the gang of eight, and i know they want to do the right thing and worked hard, but they got off on the wrong track. they are -- the papers reported for weeks, well, the unions are here, and the chamber of commercees hire, and the ag workers and ag industry people are here and they want more workers for this, and this one is demanding more workers for that, and now senators over here, somehow letting them all hammer it out, and that's how this writing comes up. that's how the -- it came from them. the senators didn't write this.

they knew exactly what they were doing. they are putting in numbers to get certain workers that businesses wanted so they can have more employees, and they can keep wages down. that's what the scheme was. more workers, less competition for labor, lose labor market, less pay raises, less overtime, less benefits, because employers have options. and remember, these are guest workers. these are people not on a citizenship path. that are not here to form corporations and hire millions of people and cure cancer. these are works that come in and work for existing corporations. and i just would emphasize that some thought needs to be given to that. we haven't talked about that yet. we're going to talk about it. the impact of this large of an

increase in immigration into our country has real impact. and a lot of the numbers and a lot of the data that is out there has not been challenged and the data indicates that we are already in a point where the flow of immigrant labor into america is depressing wages and it's a big factor in the cause of workers' wages today being 8% in real terms, below what they were in 1999. wages haven't been going up. democrats used to talk about it. they used to hammer president bush on it all the time. now the president obama has been in office, for five years, you don't hear him talking about it anymore. nobody is talking about, well, senator sanders talk about it on the floor last week. give him credit for that. because he is an independent.

but i haven't heard my democratic colleagues continue too repeat the fact that steadily, we're not -- we're seeing a decline in the wage rates in america, making it harder for middle class americans to get by. and what about even find a job? so the matter is not a little bitty matter. we're going to have to talk about this. and we don't need to rush this through. it's quite clear to me, crystal clear to me, that the gang of eight never discussed this. they certainly didn't call professor borhoff at harvard, the leading expert on immigration and labor, and the impact of it in america. he has written books on it. he says that i believe 40% -- i

believe it was his study -- that fall in wages for american citizens is attributable to the current flow of immigrant labor into america. it pulls down wages. it's free market. you bring in more cotton into america-the price of cotton follows. bring in more labor, price of labor falls. that's the way the market forces work. and he says this is a factor right now but we need to understand that if this 15 million people are legalized, virtually immediately, and the guest worker program appears to double in the number of people who we come in, and the immigrant flow, permanent immigrant flow of people who want to become citizens, will increase 50%, then we'll have one of the largest increases in the of labor to america we have

ever seen and we can't get jobs that are decent pay for american workers right now. that's real out there. people are worried about their families. they're worried about their children's ability to get a job. they're worried about their grandchildren's ability to get a job. about to graduate from high school. don't have a college degree. maybe they don't plant to go to college but they're willing to work. jobs are not that plentiful. did you see the article in philadelphia, i believe it was, that they said they had job openings to try to help people with a criminal conviction in their background, expected a thousand people. 3,000 showed up. they had to cancel it and reset the whole deal because they interviewed people who said, you can't find a job in philadelphia. and i believe in new york, one of the bureau boroughs of new

york, there was an article about job openings for elevator maybe -- mechanics. people waited in line five days to get the job. the number of people waiting in line was 20 time the number of jobs out there, or more. and so we are just -- so, we're going to reward people who entered the country, we have to understand, in this bill right here, these people, if the bill is passed, the people who come here, that have been -- many are in the shadows, and that's correct, and that's a sad thing, and it's a difficult thing, but those individuals also would be able to go apply for the elevator mechanic job. they'll be also able to compete for employment in philadelphia. right now they may not be so able to contribute.

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

still, about half of those were temporary positions. temporary positions. not real jobs. ... for lower wage job.

in addition, some economists have raised can third about the types of jobs being created, sectors such as retail, restaurants, bars have been adding plenty of jobs, but those positions tend to pay low wages. friday's report showed workers average hourly earnings rose only 1 penny in my $223.89 for the prior year, wages have risen 2%. again, that's below the inflation rate. so again, we continue to have this situation in which wages trail inflation, which means the average american is having a hard time getting by and many of these jobs are part-time, not per minute and the kind of jobs that allow people to advance from other working on a restaurant or something like that, looking to move forward in

the manufacturing jobs we've seen more of are not air. so, i mentioned the work visas in this process. despite a huge increase in the numbers of those that are going to be legalized, the per minute resident shirt has a large number and the total number. for example, it is widely conceded we would legalize about the million people it would be put on a path to legal permanent residents in the citizenship. 11 million have entered the country illegally and arguing violation of of the law. what is not mentioned is there's

another 45 million -- 4.5 million a backlog scottish that gene family members who want to calm it under our current lot have a cap, a limit on how many family members are allowed to enter each year and as a result the backlog is moved up to 4.5 million. so now we have people as vegas, you shouldn't give the 11 million here at illegally of her people in line out of the problem for the gang of eight. you're not going to see them dealing with. how can we give somebody here waiting in line patiently unlawfully and status behind that as somebody who's been here working with false documents illegally. that would be right. so how do we solve that?

they don't want anyone to say the 4.5 -- so they just let them come in, too. so we will be initially processing 15 million people. and then, what about the annual future flow? now it's the most generous flow in the world. we admit a million people come at little over a million people a year under a legal flow into the country. what about that? tonight about the accelerated admissions and legal status, should we reduce the number of people come each year lawfully now for a while? has increased 50% according to "the los angeles times." it could be more pure than 30 million a year crumble over 10 years that is 15 million. so that results in 30 million

people in 10 years been given lawful permanent status in america. lawful permanent medicine america. 30 million. 10% of the population of america and overwhelmingly this group is low skilled. over half of the people here illegally don't have a high school diploma from their own country and they're not able to take the better jobs. they'll be competing for the lower wage jobs in america and if they are legalize, legal immigrants who entered a country a few years ago are going to find some way or another they were legalized in 1886, maybe they've come legally cents. but that immigrant population is going to find a wages pulldown that by this large amount of

flow of labor into the country. i just don't think there's any doubt about that. we'll go into more detail as we go forward. but we talk about dirty million even given legal status on a path to permanent legal residence and citizenship over the next 10 years will be given not that i is. and we've not discuss that. so i asked senator schumer twice, how many will be in it it undergo? he refused to answer. i'm not sure they know because these numbers aren't all the numbers. there's an additional group of people who come under the chain migration theory, the family-based connections and other special provisions with no cabs, no limits on how many would come. they refuse to answer the sponsors producing legislation for us today will not say

amazingly how many people they expect to enter into our country if the bill passes. why not? you don't know or you won't say? either one is an eight minute this atrocity and that's why it cannot pass. even senator rubio said he can go for the bill unless it's improved. he was in the gang of eight. this is legislation that is the fraud legislation, fatally flawed and should not become law. and they said a lot of the things about what they expect the bill to do. if it did those things, we could be more interested in that. we have a framework for a bill

that could actually do some good. i would say that for sure. as we go forward, we need to ascertain with absolute clarity what the best economic data shows about how many people of this country can absorb in a reasonable way and provide a decent place for them to work without pulling down the wages of an arty stress american workforce. we need to talk about that. so far as i can tell, that was never discussed in the troops, but discuss with businesses demanding more workers and more people basically open borders and they were the ones writing

the legislation in large part in sydney and objections to some of this and needs to be listened to. but the union objection. i think they made some plans, but a way that is not affected. we've got to talk about the economic impact of it way well donate to ascertain the second aspect, the 30 million people i've just mention who become permanently our paths never to return to their country. they have a legal status that allows them to get it a citizenship. normally we do a million a year, which could be 10 million over 10 years to increase of 15 million over 10 years and that doesn't count the

11 million plus the 4.5 million given legal status. it is clear to me it is indisputable we are at 30 million people from permanent residence in america and i asked my colleagues if they have a different number they should share it with us. maybe in these bills with generators and denominators infractions and also got a different number. we think we've figured it out. the los angeles times agree with it as best we can do so in the time since the bill was introduced. then you've got the worker programs and that is what i was reading about earlier. let me mention those programs. these are programs in which we've generally been referred to

as guestworker programs. we believe and i think data shows the bills doubled the number of guest workers allowed into the country. every year would bring in a number of people, some in agriculture, some landscaping, some in other things at a time of high unemployment with americans doing landscaping, americans working in meatpacking plants and doing farm work, but temporary, seasonal jobs are often hard to so in guest workers can do that. i am not opposed to a guestworker program, but at this point in history, should be double the number? this is an annual flow on top of that. for example, it has four times more guest workers in the 2007 bill that the american people and congress rejected four times

the number of guest workers in that bill. when 20 million american workers are on food stamps today than in 2007 when teenage unemployment is 54% higher in a million household income is 8% lower than in 2007. so we are so desperate now we have got to bring in twice as many guest workers? where they're going to find work? are we going to disappoint them? what if they can't find work? i work for minimum wage and a young guy is 20, like to do some work. he's got a child trying to get the job and started to learn the skill of the bricklayer or construction operator people

that make his ability to find the job harder? what if the young guy had a drug offense? i used to be a federal prosecutor. just because someone got arrested and prosecuted for drugs they could never get work again. who is going to take care of that quiet we know that people don't have a job. the government has transfer payment, food stamps, medicaid, health care. another benefit. so the taxpayer now has even more people subsidized by the government because they honestly can't find a job. there's some tough out there. so my colleagues they do focus on this and there's been almost no serious discussion about it other than what we hear from

cert squeaky wheel entries. how many colleagues know the difference between the h. one b. visa, the h. two b. visa and the h4 visa and bystanders will they use? and you actually have to make sure you advertise and offered a job in americans first before you are using visa? what about the wp says? the guy b2 visa? and you also have the e3 visa, e4 and e. five and the why of these and it goes on and on. and that's how we've got a doubling of the number of people coming in on the guestworker

program. so our sponsors spend months bringing a set. they should have spent much more time because the bill is fatally flawed. the only thing that clearly works in the bill, the only thing that's guaranteed to work is the amnesty. it's guaranteed once this bill passed, people here illegally will be given legal status. they will then be placed on a path to citizenship and legal precedents that it's guaranteed in all we have in the past as in 1986 is a promise i will have enforcement in the future. and i have to say, we've been around here several years and we know that's not going to work. this policy is just that, a

promise. we don't have the backing. senator cornyn has an idea he inks will strengthen not and it will string the net. well, i appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts. i know senator cruises on his way. senator cruz is done with other import issues of which i am glad that able lawyer is there. and i'm sure he will be speaking later. no matter how much time is left on the side. >> or 17 minute.

>> says senator cornyn % >> says senator cornyn indicated that the bill fails with regard to enforcement and enforcement at the border. i could not agree more. senator cornyn in 2007 spent a lot of time working on this bill. he proposed an amendment that would improve the border enforcement and he is a senator from texas who's wrestled with this over the years and he should absolutely be listened to. who else to know people out there every day enforcing the law, telling us the system is not working and it changes and improvements need to be affected and they are concerned this bill doesn't do it. mr. president, the rocking him county sheriff's office on june 10 on north carolina issued a news release that more than 75

north carolina sheriffs warn congress the senate immigration bill would endanger the public. well, that is a pretty serious matter. they say, quote, and a short time over 75 sheriffs across north carolina served in counties both big and small across this great, great state have signed the attached letter opposing the current senate immigration plan. our first responsibility and highest duties is to provide for the safety of the citizens residing in communities where we serve. unfortunately, this flawed immigration bill produced by the gang of eight senators with citizens across the united states that risk and hampers the

ability of law enforcement officers to do their job. they go on to say the senate bill should be opposed by lawmakers and instead congress should work with law enforcement on reforms that we heard he had a guy we are willing to propose that will enhance public safety. kenneth poulenc, american federation of government employees and present affiliated with the afl-cio wrote this letter. there has been much public concern over the fact the legalization occurs prior to any border enforcement. every amendment to be contingent to be defeated. history tells us future promises will not be kept in border

regions will be left high and dry by the executive ranches they have so many times before regardless of who writes the plan, close quote. it represents law enforcement. he goes onto say, even if you completely rewrote your proposals to resolve concerns and change ordering to delay legalization, the legalization would still fail and was still endanger public because of the fatally flawed in cheerier enforcement components. he goes on to say if passed, 744 would plead to the rubberstamping of a list of for amnesty and future admissions. he goes on to say, why should

the president passed a bill to make it even more difficult for the citizenship and immigration not sinners who they are to remove and keep up public safety threat, people that are dangerous, that maybe are in trouble in their own countries. what do you do if you're about to go to jail in another country in the world? to be completely contradicted the united states, that none of that thing. we see over the last decade because they are in effect slain their own countries. like the enforcement count vote. they wrote a letter with pennsylvania shares the north carolina sheriffs nationwide on

may 29 and they say this, congress can ms take steps to limit the discretion of political appointees and empower i.c.e. in border patrols to perform their missions and enforce laws enacted by congress. this is a bold statement. these people work for the president of the united states. they have are devoted two years ago john martin because it spends more time in direct to them not to enforce the law and doing his duty. they have sued secretary napolitano and mr. morte from executing plan congressional men is that they deal they have no other obligation than to

enforce. they have to do it, but they've been told not to do it. rather than limiting the power of those political appointees within the department of homeland security, at 744 provides them with nearly unlimited discussion, which will serve only to further cripple the law enforcement missions of these agencies, close quote. they has to be a participate to the gang of eight rating this thing. they asked repeatedly, they warn this was going to note her. they enforce the law every day. they weren't here for the big business who wanted more cheap labor and that's who wrote the

bill. he didn't listen to the people who deal with that, who put their lives on the line. so this letter continues while business groups, activists another special interest were involved in drafting past 744. law-enforcement personnel were excluded from those meetings. officers, state and local person working directly in the immigration system were prohibited from providing and as a result the legislation may have many satisfactory component for lobbying interests another special interest but on the subjects of public safety, border security, interior enforcement legislation failed it is a dramatic step in the wrong direction.

that's a pretty resounding condemnation and that is fundamentally correct. i asked a group of people to meet and they wouldn't do it. participants in the reason -- okay. participants in recent calls include and discuss this bill and how to run it, include the heads of goldman sachs, the business roundtable, silverlake, center bridge part of the u.s. chamber of commerce as well as the heads of washington trade groups representing the bank in industries such as the roundtable. they all had input into it.

they all were involved. i guess they made contributions are some pain. shared for bristol county on june 10, wrote to us, no immigration reform without legitimate -- without legitimate securities in massachusetts. he said qualcomm i have grave concerns about being eligible for citizenship in gang members prevented to qualify for the predation of data is coming legal status once they renounced their affiliation. the struggling is the fact we do not have adequate systems in place such as biometrics to

verify identification for people entering and he beat the united states. announcing biometrics will be available serves only to limit only: tree at those locations, diverting illegal entry to those locations about the superior technology, close quote. i asked you to make it known to your senators that representatives that they vote no on passage of 744 until a security plan is in place the sheriff says. pete nuñez, former united states attorney in san diego wrote this. i had the honor to serve with peter nuñez. but of greatest concern is the so-called trigger that we are told will delay the path to citizenship until the border is secure. that is what they are saying.

we've got this thing in place until you guarantee the border is secure, the legalization doesn't happen and we've demonstrated already, that is absolutely ineffective. so mr. nuñez goes on to say, this is an illusion meant to fool the public into believing they will only take place after the border is secure. nothing could be further from the truth because every one of the 11 million illegal aliens will be eligible for a temporary document stand work in the united states of the two most important goals, close quote. so he was united states attorney on the california border and he worked at these issues and understands that. yet the responsibility of prosecuting cases by the thousand.

probably hundreds of thousands frankly. former united states attorney nuñez is very wise and experienced person. but florence arizona said this, secure border first or you'll repeat history. quote, when he announced his opposition to the proposed immigration reform offered by the so-called gang of a officially titled the economic opportunity and immigration modernist nation that. we must secure the border first within a discussion of green cards and pat to citizenship that are nearly 20 million illegals and their families. this plan gives every and president obama for a bettis

promised once again on the backend. we are about to repeat history when in 1986, gave amnesty to 2 million illegals, yet it seems we have not learned our lesson. the failure to secure the border after the reagan amnesty got us where we are today with the leaven to 20 million in our country. this plan will repeat history close quote. i think he's exactly right about that. the head of the i.c.e. union is so outspoken about this he's testified before the house. he's at press conferences have participated within. domiciled make america less secure, not our secure and the ability has handcart even more

problematic. the bill gives to the secretary more discretion to violate the law then they use today and in fact, be treated to about how to do their job are currently in direct violation of the law. this bill ratifies by explicitly giving statutory authority to make waverers or other matters. that's not a way to give confidence to america. stir president, i don't know what our time is. i don't want to take anybody else's time, but if i yield the floor, i guess the time it ran against him anyway. >> two minutes remaining on the opponent side.

>> are law enforcement officers are really frustrating. you've got three major law-enforcement groups. border patrol which was given considerable funding after the failure of the 2006 in 2007 comprehensive immigration and made enhanced their efforts as a result of that. we still are not where we need to be at the border. indeed, since the announcement of this possible amnesty, illegal entries having priests at its exactly. a number of people arrested is considerably higher this year than last year. 55% -- 55,000 of the 90,000 people arrested this year since january are not from mexico and

this is primarily on the mexican border but from other countries and some of them have a history of terry's and senator cornyn has talked about that. so we have a search happening and they are concerned about protect in officers. the citizenship and integration officers are the people processed the amnesty claims to be treated as lawful residents that occur after the bill passes to deal with the people who make the application to come to the united states and process the pathway to citizenship for everybody. they have explicitly voted and opposed this legislation and say it does not work and i just read a quote from the head of their union as to why it won't work. the i.c.e. officers who deal

with all the interior enforcement, apprehend he spoke on the hood of crimes in state and local jails who are not that essensa legally here have been consistently outfront, pointing out how they have been stripped it in their ability to do their job and if this bill passes, the majority of those here illegally are legalized, they are not in the future going to be placed in a position where they can do their job. they are not placed in a position to take it effectively managing interior enforcement in america and they say the bill will make us less secure, not more secure. how wrong a direction could that be? so those are the things we got to get a grip on here.

that's what the legislation cannot become law. it won't become law as today. it will not become law because it's fatally flawed. i thank the chair and had the opportunity to share remarks as we begin the discussion on the great issue of our time immigration has got to be done right. the american people rightly as are these officers concerned we're about to do another 1986 delete it immediately lawful status to millions of people who came illegally and we promise we will enforce the law in the future. when you read the bill come you can see that won't happen it will be sending another message

worldwide that the united states is such if you can get in to our country illegally and hold on for long enough, you too will be the beneficiary of the third major amnesty that occurs so that's where i thank the chair and yield the floor. >> learn more -- >> we start to debate it, so i'm not silly lead a couple points as we move a forward, schaffel anticipate we'll get to in nature as a country for many reasons that collects about them and others have raised because the problems we face with regard to the immigration system. let's take a step back and analyze the issue for the people tuning in for the first time, and maybe are visiting washington and listening to them talk about it. thus began by the obvious and that as americans understand immigration because it is their story, whether you, parent, grandparent, one of the defining

care or estates is that it's literally a collection of people all over the world that have come here and search for a better life. in part to understand why that distinguishes us. if you look at the countries organize throughout human history, all of these have partial been organized because people have a common necessity or common race or came from the same tribe or family plan or what have you. the u.s. was founded on the notion that what we want is a country that believes fundamentally in the god-given right to go as far as the account will take you. you may say people like me born and raised when people have been told by their leaders you can only go so far because that's

what your parents did and that's all you are allowed to do. but we were different in thank god we were. what we said is we don't care. doesn't matter to rest yur parents were well connected. if you have a really good idea and you want to work hard and build a better life for yourself, we want you. and that's the history of the united states, a collection of go-getters who build this extraordinary country and the influence not just on human history that even hotter day is unbelievable, culturally, economically in terms of peace in the aftermath of world war ii is the result of this reality of who we are as a people and a nation. we will always need immigration to keep the nation. it has to change but those

times. the immigration system we had 150 years ago, people forget not so long ago the immigration system that the united states. if you got here come you got to stay. if you found your way through this country you'd be processed in a la salle and for some rouson you got to say. we can't afford that anymore. we have to have a control of immigration in the 21st century that measures he's coming by day here, who they are. that may not be how it works, but that's the way it has to work now. adding to that is the reality of the 21st century is so different from the 20th. we are actively engaged in global competition. it wasn't so long ago the u.s. was still a national economy. the people you treated with assault with a computer that can slip in your country, probably around cedar community.

today we are involved for business, clients and talent. we have to understand immigration system has to reflect that. the way people immigrate into immigrates has to reflect and this is why this country needs immigration reform. all the attention is paid to illegal immigration and that's a serious problem and i'll talk about that in a moment. issue number one, the fundamental reason is because we do not have a 21st century immigration system. our system today is both on the idea we have a relative living here it's easy for you to calm back of a special skill or talent you offer to the country. we have a family-based system and i say that as someone whose family came on a system. my mom sister claimed her in 1956. the country is so different, the

world is so different not to mention 1956 in our immigration system has to reflect that. the problem is a broken legal immigration system that does not reflect the reality of the 21st century and the result is if we didn't have an illegal immigrant in the united states, we should be on the floor of the senate debating immigration reform because they must modernize our legal immigration system. that is the reason that college should be excited about the opportunity to have this debate because we have to modernize their system so it is a benefit to our country and i give this anecdote because it's appropriate. we are in the nba finals which the miami heat one in round two and were very happy about that. but imagine if there is now the hottest basketball player in the country in the united states, six to 10, never misses a shot.

do you think in your wildest dreams would ever let that person playing italy or spain or some other country? there's no way in the world we allow the best basketball player in a matter where they're from coming no matter immigration status, no one in the world with a future in the a star go play bass quelled some other country in the makework weekly if they stay here. so my question to you is that that's how we approach sports, which is important i guess, but it's a game, should not be the way we approach our economy? should we be deporting the best graduates of some of our our universities for classes and says and engineering and math and yet that i wear immigration system works right now. we've heard the testimony. what are the people in our offices. there is no member who has any meaning in their office with someone from the tech community

and family are going to college campuses, making job offers to the best and brightest and we can't keep them near. not because they're not qualified, but because we can't get them a green card or legal status, so they learn that universities at the expense of the american taxpayer emily the united states compete against us. that makes no sense. nor does the system of workers for agriculture, which i would argue is a skilled worker. american agriculture, you want to cripple the country? cripple food security. crippled agricultural and certainly that depends on a workforce and there is a demand for labor in the workforce and the fact is and has been the only way to fully fill the jobs

available bicester seasonal and temporary labor from abroad. there is a real demand for that labor and a real supply of people that want to do that labor supply and demand will always meet. when a about a supply of foreign workers to meet the demand of domestic jobs in agriculture, supply and demand meet in a chaotic and broken way. that needs to be reformed. the immigration system is very bureaucratic and complicated. our broken legal immigration system is one of the leading contributors to illegal immigration. over 40% of the people in this country today came legally. they didn't jump the fence. they came on some sort of temporary visa and one of the leading reasons they overstayed if they think it's too costly, too time-consuming and to bureaucratic to combat illegal in the future. my point is if we didn't have a

single illegal immigrant in the u.s., we need to do immigration reform because it must modernize our system and reflect the 21st century. the second point is our immigration laws are only as good as the ability to enforce them and we don't have enforcement mechanisms that work. it's all paid to the border because it's not just an immigration issue. it's a national security issue. the same house used to smuggle immigrants can smuggle weapons and other things. so he must secure the border. there was no such thing as one border. the border is in nine different factors, some doing much better than they have, others not well at all. we must secure the border of the united states for national security reasons as well as immigration reasons. i know there's been a first set of failed, but i refuse to accept the idea of the most

powerful country on earth to put a man on the moon is incapable of securing its own order. our sovereignty is at stake in terms of border security. border security is not anti-immigration measure. it's also a defense of our sovereignty and we must protect our borders. likewise we have to understand if you protect your borders, the magnet bringing people to the united states as employment and we have to create a system which we're capable of of doing the 21st century. we must create a system that allows employers to verify the person they hire is legally here, hence the talk of the verify. last but not least because 40% of the people who enter the clay we have to have a system that attracts visitors enter and leave. my colleagues a player that's required by law and it is. the way it's required will never work and that's why the stills

at that. when neo have a tour of some business, whatever it may be, you login menu, and when you leave. every hotel knows america commendably. every hotel in america knows that. multiple businesses track people when they come in and leave. we do this every single day. the federal government must do that in this bill requires they do that and creates a real incentive to do that and i'll talk in a moment, but basically the incentive is a great card process doesn't start until the system is fully in place. by the way, it doesn't start until he verify is in place. these are security measures we must undertake. when you hear people say the bill weakens the status quo, the problem is the status quo is not working. there's a reason we have

11 million people here illegally. the current has a flaw in it. the flaw in a verify is to basically show up as an employer to show them security card. that's all you have to show @hem. that's all you have to show them. it's happening all the time. people are either falsifying the document or birds of analysis. we have to create a community verified, one that allows us that is actually that person. otherwise the status quo is arguing in favor of continuing the fraud. we've got to stop that from happening. border security, e-verify an entry exit tracking. the last issue, the one with all the attention is what to do with the people here illegally now. let me begin by saying i don't own it is happy about the fact we have approximately 10.5 to

11 million human beings in the united states illegally. i would remind you every one of the stories is different and i would caution people not to lump them into one basket because some came legally and others entered illegally and have been here ever since. some came in his young children, didn't know until they went to college. there's no diversity in that group of people. so we have three options. option number one is that the way it is, pretend it's not there. if this bill fails or upper second failed test will happen. for those that oppose amnesty, it is getting 11 million people and the only consequence is documentation, but obviously they were, or because they don't qualify for any federal benefits. they are all around us everywhere you look whether you

know it or not they are here. we can ignore it, but if we leave it in place in do-nothing, if this bill fails, that is a fact of amnesty. the second option is to make life miserable and basically put the verify place in me quite so tough on people to leave on their own. i don't think that's a practical approach. i don't think most americans would tolerate but we have to do for that to happen. i don't think most americans approach it that way and at the end of the day i still think many will leave anyway. i'll figure out a way to survive and endure. i don't think that's a practical approach. i'd encourage them to come from the me otherwise. come explain why we should try to do that. i'm not saying anyone is, which proves my point.

so the third option is to deal with it in a way that's reasonable and compassionate, but a way that is responsible and good for the country and us would ever to do as part of this bill. so let's be clear what this bill does. the first and foremost thing if it says to the people here illegally come forward. we have a process that should have to undergo if you want to be in this country legally. and here's what the process is. you have to undergo a background check. a background check for national security and crimes that he committed serious crimes are not going to qualify for legalization. you have to pay an application fee, a find that the consequence of how you violated our immigration laws. when the word amnesty is used, forgiveness is some pain. the scene and of time. i was recently in the great state of hawaii.

they have a box called an amnesty box that allows you to get off the airplane to put it in the bucket no questions asked. amnesty is determined and nothing will happen to you, no price to pay. that's not what this bill does. this has come forward daniel undergo a background check for national security, for crimes. you have to pay a fine, you have to pay an application fee. you have to take a fully employed and you're not going to qualify for any federal benefits. no obamacare, no food stamps, no welfare, nothing. that's all you have for 10 years, which leaves me to my second point, the notion this is permanent legalization that once you get this to legal forever. not true. like all other nonimmigrant thesis, this is renewable. under the program we envisioned,

every six years you have to come forward and reapply. you have to undergo another fine, another application fee, another background check. you have to be gainfully employed and pay taxes for the previous six years. the legalization that people get the register provisional immigrant, the keyword is provisional. it is not permanent and people will qualify at the beginning when it comes time to renew are going to qualify because they were gainfully employed because they committed a crime. we don't think it will be prevalent, but it will happen. it is not permanent. it is provisional. once you've been for 10 full years, after you've been in rpi for 10 full years, you've been

in another four years, the only thing that happens. you are not qualified to, all legible to apply for a green card. the 10th year anniversary of getting rpi you show up and say i'm here, give me recreant card. you have to apply for it. you have to undergo the same green card process with all the same checks and balances. i felt an amendment to improve it even further. when you apply for that green card it has expired you have to prove your proficient in english. it is important. learning english is not just important for assimilation, it's important for economic success. you cannot flourish in our economy and countries are not proficient in english and we require that at the green card

stage. what's the debate over the next few weeks? a couple things have to happen. like any other bill, this technical changes that have to be made and those will be made. there will be improvements to the bill and other issues like what i've talked about to make a proficiency required at the green card stage a noble move on noble move on and have a debate about the cost of the bill and ensuring we truly tightness. very generous and open to a process like this. they want to make sure this is the cost of the american taxpayer, so as to make sure people are qualified for federal benefits. we have to make sure people who violate immigration law, one of the consequences if they are not a burden on the american taxpayer. if you talked to democrats, they tell you that's not what we're here for. they're not going to qualify for the same summer going to make it

even clearer in some of the amendment said hatch and others work on. and then we have to get to the final point and not a security element to this bill. i personally believe more than half of my colleagues on the republican side, maybe more, maybe less want to vote for an immigration bill. they want to improve enforcement mechanisms in june with the 11 laypeople here illegally. they really want to do that if they can go 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. that is the key to the bill passing and i think we can do that and that's in our principles by the way. the guiding principles talked about voter security. one way we can improve this by not reading the plan to chance. let's not leave it to the department of homeland security. one of the objections is we don't trust homeland security to

come up with a plan that works. let's put it in the bill. let's put the specific than in the bill, not technology. we are not leaving it to gasworks that when you vote for this bill, you vote for a specific security plan. i've heard people say we can see verify portion should be improved. we think the entry i'd say tracking system can be improved. when you vote for the bill come you also vote for you plan on those things. that is important and not unreasonable. think about this for a second. the immigrant illegally here comes forward, gets legalized to the pretty difficult process. they qualify because they met these conditions. they are working, paying taxes and are not in the shadows anymore. before you move to, all we asked for his man sure this never happens again. that is not an unreasonable request not only do i think it's

not unreasonable, i think that's a responsible request because none of us want to be aired by five years in our tenure saying they must have been 2013 if you do this. none of us want to be here five years from now facing 5 million illegal immigrants more, another wave of legal immigration. we can get it right in this bill and if that happens i believe the legislation will pass in an historic way out of this chamber and strengthens the chances they could pass in the house and be signed by the president and that's the opportunity we have today something like this right. i can talk about the economic benefits of legal immigration reform and what that could mean. we have plenty of time. we will work on it to convince you it will be a net positive for america to have illegal immigration networks. that's why this debate is so important. i think we can do something good for the country and responsible

in once and for all solve this problem so we don't have to deal with it. so become a nation of immigrants build on legal immigration with a system that works that we can be proud of that helps our country, takes the issue off the table, because we have de facto amnesty and protects our sovereignty importers and security of our people and that's what we have a chance to do here. i respect their views very much. i think you raise very valid concern to which we've attempted to address in which we will continue to address in this bill. i'm not one of those take it or leave it people. i rethink the matter what i.t. i have the more people are exposed to it, the more input, my suggestions, the better we make it and ultimately that's what i'm interested in being a part of. i'm not in a messaging point.

but i'm personally interested in is solving a hurting america and that's how a close. the reason i'm passionate is because this is hurting america. the fact we have 11 million people living here we don't know who they are, where they are, not paying taxes, not incorporated in our economy is bad for them, the really bad for her country. the fact we can enforce immigration laws because the systems in place to work is bad for america. the fact we have illegal immigration system that hurts our economy and hurts their future is bad for america. but we have today is bad. it doesn't work for anyone unless you're a human trafficker for someone in a spinning at the expense of cheap illegal labor. this is the problem that's

hurting our country and the only way to solve a problem is to get involved in trying to solve it. that's why i came here. not to sign a bunch of letters and give a speech once a week on the floor. i came here because i believe i know, i know with all my heart that what we have here is unique exceptional and special place but to keep it that way requires us to take seriously, not just our constitutional charge but take seriously the opportunity we have to solve historic problems in and historic way. and i think this bill done right gives us the opportunity to do that. and i look forward to the opportunity to be a part of it. opportunity to be a part of it. and i like for to the opportunity and the hope my colleagues who are minded abouto it and remain open-minded as thn work to improve this product to give the american people something that helps our country , cells of problem, and makes us all proud. i yield the floor. >> the senate today passed two procedural votes on the emigration bill, placing the

bill formally before the senate and opening it to eminence. dissyllable continue debate on the emigration bill tomorrow. live coverage beginning at 930 eastern time. find out more about members of congress and our congressional directory. it has been updated for 2013 with new members, district maps, and committee assignments. palestine and fell on cabinet members, governors, and supreme court justices. get your copy for $12.905 plus shipping and handling at c-span.org / shop. >> coming up on c-span2, the senate education committee considers revisions to the notes of left behind act. president obama calls on congress to pass an emigration bill. that is followed by a part of today's senate debate on immigration. >> the name of this place still

resonates with the shattering in the hearts of the american people. more than any other name connected to the civil war except lincoln's. gettysburg reverberates. americans retain the knowledge that what happened here was the crux of a are terrible national trial. even americans who were not sure precisely what transpired knows that all the glory and all the tragedy we associate with the civil war reside most probably, most indelibly year. >> the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg live all day sunday, june 30th on american history tv on c-span three. >> members of the senate education committee today debated how to update the 2001 notes of look behind act. the committee is considering rewriting the law to grant states more flexibility in k-12

education. currently 37 states have a waiver from notes up behind regulations. this part of the meeting is an hour-and-a-half. [inaudible conversations] >> the senate health education committee will come to order. i am wondering, can we give more cheers with the back, people on the back? add on the losing charge shares. where is it? >> 428. >> there is an overflow room i'm told that for too late. our committee room.

that is being telecast of there. so if people want to sit down they can go to afford to wait and watch the session. well, we are here today to consider a critically important piece of legislation, the strengthening of americans collect. you'll take the time we need to give members their virginity to share their ideas and expressed their concerns will we will also try to move expeditiously to the process as there's a lot going on in the united states senate right now and members have made demands on a time. may i add that the immigration bill will be coming up. this has been a very smooth process so far. i appreciate everyone's continued cooperation as we move forward. my hope is that if senators can commit to being here so we can maintain a quorum we can proceed through amendments in time to rappaport, legislation hopefully tomorrow. & that senator alexander believes that this could be feasible also. in the interest of time we will all in that opening statements

to the chairman and ranking member. other senators are interested in submitting opening remarks and submit them. for planning purposes members should be aware that will move to the legislation title by title starting with title one giving members the opportunity to offer amendments on its title there are amendments that touch multiple titles, those can be offered in conjunction with any of the titles. i know that ranking member alexander has a complete substitute amendment, and that will be will be considered first. we haven't votes scheduled. we will plow through as many amendments as we can before we break for lunch. hopefully we can keep going until about 1:00 and then reconvene after the teefifteen vote. get as much as we can, but for the fourth part vote and then reconvene after that. for the convenience of members and ultimately expedia steve we might debate several amendments to the time and instead the votes at a time when most of the committee is present.

you will do that with an agreement on both sides if we have one. then in particular understand -- >> i'm fine. >> okay. but anyway, in terms of doing several amendments and stacking the votes, that will be done with mutual agreement on both sides. we will try to give people as much advance heads up as possible as we move along. those are just the logistics' the wanted to mention. now we will turn to the substance of our discussion. we will start with an opening statement and then recognize senator alexander. so again today we are marking a bill to reauthorize elementary and secondary education and the sca. the last area authorization expired in 2007. but this market, we have the upper to ready to approve of this is of the past and ensure a brighter future for children. but i think we all recognize that it is time to update the law to ensure that every child

in this nation receives a great education. this is a matter of basic fairness, critical to america's economic strength, and to the general enlightenment of our society for future growth. i want to speak briefly about the federal and education since the ncaa in large measure determine several. it is certainly true that education has been primarily a state and local function, the federal government also plays an important role. well-educated citizenry is clearly the national interest. if the essential role the federal government is to ensure that all americans, regardless of race, gender, national origin, religion, and disability have the same equal opportunity to a good education. likewise, the constitution expressly states that our national government was formed to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty. the general welfare is greatly

endangered and the populace is not adequately educated and education, i believe, is critical to liberty. the role the federal government education has been primarily about equity in excess it read access to the school house itself and equity in educational opportunity. the two most significant educational laws in the country, esea and the individuals with disabilities education act or ida of promote access and equity . it a seeks to insure students with disabilities can get into school and that they can have the appropriate education to meet their needs. and esca seeks to ensure that schools serving children with the greatest needs of the core resources to address those needs so that all students have the opportunity to achieve. but clearly we have yet to fully achieve those goals. the end of the bill will for us today is to do everything that we can to make this vision a reality.

the elementary and secondary education act was first passed in 1965 to provide aid to state that school districts to improve education for children from low-income families. for almost 50 years the federal government has trained its focus on the mission that all children should have the chance to fulfill their full potential. our challenge today is to build on this remarkable record a partnership among federal, state , and local governments by redesigning them a job left behind back for the new era. retaining the commitment to educating all children to high standards while overhauling elements of the law the proven ineffective. that no child look behind that represented a departure from previous real authorizations of ese8. lawmakers felt compelled to be more prescriptive with states to ensure that they improve their low performing schools and focus on closing pernicious student achievement gaps.

in cl be defined adequate yearly progress for schools and districts and require districts to put aside money to implement public school choice and tutoring for schools identify for a permit. including a list of vigorous intervention is for low performing schools. an additional category of restructuring for the most chronically low performing schools with even more severe consequences. in cl be reflected good intentions. however, as we have seen of the course of the last 12 years those good intentions have not always translated to give policy . the secretary of education is given schools a reprieve from a number of these requirements to reflect stability agreement as states have undertaken voluntarily. this reflects a positive change for the time being, it is no substitute for a new permanent law.

a different course than nclb and one similar to the flexibility ran its instituted by the u.s. to part of education. what we're asking for is a system of shared responsibility with states and local school districts. i believe that we are entering an era in which the federal government can work in partnership with states to improve our nation's schools while continuing to provide a backstop to avoid returning to always in which certain groups of students did not have access or opportunity. our bill does he rid of a yp but sets federal parameters for state and locally designed accountability systems. our bill also asks states to put greater emphasis on learning of children in early years because we know that so many of our children, particularly children from low-income families, have gaps in london before they even entered the school board.

our bill strategically consolidates programs and focuses grant funds on a smaller number programs to allow for greater flexibility. it's the poorest districts in extending the school day and year, strengthening their literacy, science, math or technology programs, fostering safe and healthy students and offering a more well-rounded curriculum and includes the arts and physical education. the bill invests in the affected programs to train and support principals and teachers for high-the school's. fosters innovation through new programs like race to the top, and investing in innovation and never its. and we recognize the central role parents in this bill. we make sure that they are integral partners in the children's education, providing parents with critical information so that they can make decisions about their children's education.

i believe that empowers families . our addition of an equity report card, an equity report card that allows parents to see what resources are available to a school and what educational opportunities such as advanced placement courses and a full day kindergarten that their children have access to. and believe this allows them to make informed decisions about their children's education. very strong emphasis on keeping parents informed of what resources are available. i believe this is a good bill. i am proud of our efforts. we owe it to our kids and our nation to produce a law that provides states and districts with certainty, support, and resources that they need to make meaningful strides in improving our schools, ensuring access to high-quality education and guaranteeing opportunities for all of our children. alan m. turn to our committee ranking member senator alexander for his opening statement.

>> and not sure it's working. i don't think so. >> it is now. >> okay. >> thanks, mr. chairman. as the chairman did, i would like to start with the word a process. my thanks to him for the way we are proceeding. i think we have shown that even though we deal with some pretty tough issues and has some pretty big deal of google differences, sometimes on this committee we can work together and sometimes we agree fundamentally at the beginning. for example, on finding a way to track and trace 4 billion prescriptions every year on dealing with accountability, compounding pharmacies on mental health, already this year we have improved bills and agree on an. here we have a disagreement at the beginning anyway. the chairman and i have agreed on no way to proceed because if we cannot agree at the beginning, maybe we can agree at the end of the process.

so what our goal today is to move forward with competing proposals having good amendments and good discussions to move the bill to afford whatever form it comes out of committee. if we can then bring it up on the floor and have the same kind of debate with amendments, i would be in favor of moving ahead to see what kind of bill we can get there. the house of representatives is moving ahead at the same time with this version. may be different than what comes out here, but we have a procedure called the conference that has not been used mostly. the idea is to throw ideas into a conference and then at the end we can make a final decision and see whether we agree. hopefully you can follow that because i agree with the chairman. this time for us to do our job and reauthorize notes out left behind for elementary and secondary education. six years late. so i think him for this process. second, if i could just mention particularly my republican colleagues about how amendments will work. the chairman said we will go through the titles. we have given him a suggested

list of the first amendment's that we would like to offer and to go quickly over those, i will offer a substitute. that will be the first republican amendment. amendments will alternate back and forth. that will take a little time. as i understand from the chairman, any senators are free to talk on any amendment, although we would like to move on as expeditiously as possible. i would encourage our colleagues to be involved in more than just the amendment that they offer. the senator has the second republican amendment on state and local control. i have one of teacher evaluation then i have one on title to funds following the child to public schools. senator scott has one of standards and tests. flexibility. title one money following children into public and private schools. flexible standards and tests. senator isaacson on burdensome reporting requirements. senator roberts on the

secretary's waiver authority. so that is the order in which we will start. there could be other amendments after that. does that sound correct? thanks. that is what we will do. if you have to leave or come back we will work around that and try to make time to suit your schedules. mr. chairman, over the last decade the united states department of education has become so congested with federal mandates that it has become in effect a national school board. if you remember, the avid game other man, you have a pretty good sense of how the process works today. states must come to washington for approval of their plans to educate 50 million children in 100,000 public schools. during this discussion you will hear me mention those 100,000 public-school many times because every time we make a rule here in our wisdom it affects 50 million children and 100,000

public schools. it takes a lot of wisdom to be able to justify that. dick ingestion of mandates that i mentioned is caused by three things. one, no doubt left behind, too, race to the top. three, the administration's use of waivers. first, no doubt left behind impose the federal standards for what children had to know in reading and math as well as federal definitions for whether schools or teachers were succeeding or failing. second, raced to the top which was a competitive grant program, but the secretary used to be essentially mandate that 46 states that applied along with the district of columbia adopt common core standards and tests for their students in reading and math. also mandated turnaround models for failing schools and prescriptive teacher and principal evaluation plans. third, congress's failure, our failure to fix the problems with the job look beyond and to restrain the secretary has

allowed this administration to turn its waiver authority where states are supposed to ask relief from unworkable requirements of law into a conditional process where the secretary tells states what they have to do to obtain relief. so, to obtain a waiver states had to adopt common core standards and measures for student performance in reading and math. federal definitions of how states should measure school performance and prescriptive teacher and principal evaluation systems. so far 47 states plus the district of columbia have applied for these waivers, mostly because notes tab left behind requirements have become so unworkable that the secretary literally has had states over a barrel. so you have mandates for no job but behind. you have had the effect it mandates factories to the top. and in 47 states are over a barrel and apply for waivers and received a number of mandates. senate democrats have offered at

1150 page plan which is before us here that would not only frees these mandates in place but double down creating more than 25 new programs as well as more than 150 new reporting requirements for which states and local school districts must secure approval from the secretary of education. republicans propose to move in a different direction. we offered 220 page plan. here is our plan, to help children and older schools learn what they need to know and be able to do the restore responsibility to states and communities in giving teachers and parents freedom, flexibility, and choice. we call it every child ready for college or a career. our plan emphasizes state and local decision making. puts washington out of the business of deciding whether local schools are succeeding of failing, freeing all schools from meeting the adequate yearly progress mandate. it rejects the federal mandate to create a national school board copper have been the education secretary for prescribing standards or

accountability systems for states. continues the requirements that states have high standards and quality tests but does not prescribe the standards from washington. our proposal makes it easier for states to offer low income parents more choice in finding the right public school for their child. gives teachers and principals more freedom by encouraging the expansion and replication of successful charter schools. it encourages states to create teacher and principal evaluation programs free of federal mandates. tougher states more flexibility in spending federal education dollars while cutting waste by consolidating 62 federal programs into block grants. this is not a proposal just four republicans. we believe this proposal represents the views and will attract the support of governors leading the charge for education reform, teachers to value their freedom. parents who want more choices for their children and state legislators are working for

better schools. our proposal builds on 30 years of work by governors, legislators dollars schoolboy's, teachers, and parents, especially over the last eight states have works to raise the standards. parents and communities have more information than ever before about how their students are performing things to reporting requirements in the java beyond. the democratic proposal is another man proposal. it establishes an effective national school board. such a proposal release says that they don't trust parents, don't just classroom teachers and states to care about and help educate their children and what someone in washington to do it for them. we completely reject that. our proposal places responsibility for helping our children learn squarely where it ought to be, states and communities, and it does that by giving teachers and parents more freedom, flexibility, and choices. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thanks you, senator alexander and as i said, we will proceed

as agreed to in the first amendment. >> to lead to. >> i have agreed to let senator alexander of for the first amendment, and then i will have an amendment. i would say just for a heads up, what my amendment does is to clarify, clarify that this is not a mandate. i keep hearing about mandates. no state has to do one thing we say in this bill as long as they don't want to take any money. if they don't want to take the money, they don't have to do one single thing. so states cannot doubt. the state cannot doubt. and that is your prerogative. that is not a mandate. a man they would be where we say you have to do this no matter what. we are just saying that in our bill we said these parameters. if you take title one money we are -- those of us who are here

as senators, the arbiters of what happens to federal taxpayer dollars, not state taxpayer dollars. that is a different -- the state legislature and as that. but our federal taxpayer dollars that go out for title one and other programs, focused mostly run title one, it would seem to me that we have an obligation to say how those dollars should be used. i suppose some believe that we should just like all that money am black back to the states. as a philosophical view that some people might have. it's all right. but most people, we have an obligation to be good stewards of federal taxpayer dollars and to say, well, if you're going to collect this, you're going to put the money and we just don't want to discriminate any longer and not to make sure that kids with disabilities and poor arne duncan equal opportunity, equi. so that will be my first amendment. double follow after senator alexander. and now we as a substitute, and

we will turn to that at this time. >> i would like to call up alexander amendment won the title one. >> without objection. >> i call attention. houses think this is compared to the 1150 page proposal from the chairman. while we will be emphasizing our differences a lot in this discussion, let me point out some things that we do agree on. both senator harkin's bill and the substitute set annual. the words are important. collagen career. the words used in the bigger bill. our bill. we say college your career because only 70 percent of high-school graduates go to college. we want to recognize the importance of those who go straight to careers. both bills reaffirm their

requirement for states to set high standards aligned to the goal light just mentioned. both bills continued testing students in states three through eight. these are state tests in reading and math and high-school reporting the results of those tests by school for each student subgroup. that is common. both bills establish a new secretary report card reporting on our national progress. senator harkin and i discussed that included in this bill. we have included an hours. a sort of consumer report. that seems to me to be a very appropriate role for the secretary rather than mandates. encourage the expansion of high-quality charter schools. number of us on both sides of the aisle agree with that. and a democratic bill also includes the senators -- centers of excellence as star program which i recommended a few years ago it would already is lock as a way of getting at the need to expand and make more efficient federal funding for early

childhood education, so those are similarities between this bill and a substitute. the big differences on the following. they are -- there are six. one is performance targets and school accountability. now, both bills replace the attic with yearly progress provision that was in no doubt left behind. that is a provision whereby the federal government's sets up a system of performance to judge whether schools are succeeding or failing. states do it subject to the federal government approval. the democratic bill in our view replaces adequate yearly progress with another form of adequate yearly progress which is called performance targets subject to the secretaries approval. our substitute give states control over their own accountability system. number two, school term

requirements. the larger bill requires the district's intervene in roughly 20,000 schools using federally defined turnaround strategies and of 5,000 of those. our bill does not. the highly qualified teachers. the larger bill continues the federal definition of what a good teacher is requiring that all the teachers make the federal definition. our bill eliminates this requirement. number four, a teacher evaluation. i have a history in this. we can talk about it and we will later with an amendment. our state became the first day 30 years ago to the pass a law paying teachers more for teaching well. and it required a year-and-a-half for the national education association and worked pretty well for several years. senator harkin's bill requires districts to develop teacher evaluation system subject to the secretaries approval. our bill encourages teacher

evaluation systems by allowing states to use tile to money which we all seem to agree is not well spent right now on those systems which states define what they mean by a teacher evaluation. my own view of that is it is much too complicated. let me just speak of tennessee. the last thing we needed tennessee is someone in washington looking over our shoulder after we spent 30 years trying to develop a system of teacher performance and evaluation and making some pretty good progress. number five, i know senator bennett cares a lot about this. it is called comparability. it sounds very obtuse. i guess it is. takes awhile to get your brain around it. basically title one money which is 14 and and a half billion dollars. about $1,300 per low-income child. supposed to benefit the low income children and schools that they tend.

but because of a formula that has developed over the years, it ends up in the wrong place lots of times. in schools that don't benefit those children so much. to put it most simply it is because of the teacher -- the performance, that puts some high-value on the amount of teachers in the wealthier schools. i think we agree on that. but our suggestions for solving the problem is a pretty simple one. just let 14 and a half billion dollars flow directly to each -- to this school that each port child attends. that is $1,300 to the school that the child attends. as the public school. the senator later as an amendment which i support which would include any school public or private, but in this substitute only talking about public dollars. we hope you will consider that. the democratic bill creates a least 27 new programs. our bill consolidates 62

existing programs to provide states and districts in the use of federal funds. if i may just take one more minute. this is the substitute bill. i want to talk about that there is a little history here on what states have been doing. i have been around long enough. that probably should not say. participating in much of it. when we say restore the responsibilities, we are talking about is looking at states that have been enormously active over the last number of years in improving test standards and accountability. probably started in 1983 with a nation at risk. there was a better report. remember, i was governor at the time. all the governors, clinton,

riley, many of us were working to try to taking advantage of that and make our schools better . that led to zero series of actions, 1985, clinton and i were head of the governors' association. we devoted a whole year to higher standards and better schools. and president bush, first president bush held a conference of governors in 89 and said some national goals. all through the 90's governors and school officers worked to create higher standards and better tests and accountability systems that were tailored to the needs of the students. and they worked together to do that and came up with common standards which all the five states have adopted. they did that without the federal government making them do it or telling them to do it. what has happened since then has been the combination of notes out behind, the race to the top

and then the waivers have, in effect, impose those standards on states and made it not possible for them to changes in a practical way. so that is what has happened in history. the we are trying to do is free states to take this 30 years of work and move in the next five years during the reauthorization of this act to help children 100,000 schools meet their needs and their individual and particular ways. they have the benefit of this work this states have done. the state of tennessee should be free. senators got to man the will talk about this. if it does not like the common standards it contains and more men than or to adopt the more to improve them or to make standard tire or to make standards lower. senator harkin mentioned this is

my last comment that states could take it or leave it. well, i don't think that is a realistic proposal. i mean, what if republicans were in charge of congress and i said , i really do think that we ought to take all the federal dollars that are spent which are 10 percent of the funding and use that to require states to take every single bit of their money, all their money, that 90 percent that they spend, 10 percent we spend and turn in the vouchers and let it follow children to the school of their choice. that used to be a big idea on the left. remember when ted was a brown in the 60's. he proposed a poor children's bill of rights and did just that , took all the education money and just gave it to the poor families and ticket to the schools. i would do that because even though i am for that, i don't think the federal government

should be able to mandate that. and recently the supreme court address that when it held the health care law constitutional. i mean, governor -- chief justice roberts said -- i will see if i can find exactly the words here. chief justice roberts -- thank you. a year ago chief justice roberts explained in the decision upholding the health care law that ruling that the requirement of medicaid expansion amounted to a gun to the head of states

across the line between encouragement and abortion. the chief justice said the threat in loss of over 10 percent of the state's overall budget is economic recruiting that leaves the state with no real option but acquiesce in the medicaid expansion. convenient that the 10 percent figure was used in the supreme court case because that is about the amount of money that the fed rogue government spends on k-12. it seems to me exactly analogous that if we were to say that we could say just because we provide 10 percent of the money we could make states to anything that that would be economic for getting in violation of the tenth amendment. mr. chairman, i offer this substitute of 220 pages respectfully to the 1100 plus page bill authored by the majority. and i ask for its consideration. >> thank you very much, senator

alexander. we will begin discussion on the substitute. we will recognize people as they want to be recognized. trying to go back and forth on this. is the type the same size? >> we may have -- >> actually, i think it's pretty close. >> i'm just kidding. i know you are. well, i think my friend has correctly summarized that there is a philosophical difference. obviously there is. although i think that i will respond to some of his comments by just saying that it is sort of a philosophical difference. should we just say this states go in the narrow, river you want to do, going on around. are we going to strike above partnership with the states?

that is what this bill is. trying to set a partnership with states and local governments. i have often said that the greatest health care crisis in america. i've come to believe it is not what most people think. the greatest health care crisis in america is something called an asia. we forget what went before. as far as i am concerned, what the substitute does is basically texas even way back before notes up behind. again, we all have those parts in our path that got us thinking one way or the other about certain parts of our society. i think what was the symbol for me in terms of thinking about education was a savage inequalities, when i read that book and get to thinking about the disparity between what

happens with low-income families , kids of color, kids with disabilities in terms of their access and equity in education. we have been struggling for a long time to try to address those issues. go back to the 80's. sure. ninety-seven notes up behind. now as we do this obviously sometimes society changes. we began to see different ways of doing things. i think aren't valid what knowledge we have of the past, i think the proper way forward is through a partnership. again, mandates, center alexander talks about performance. i would point of the 37 states have already adopted performance targets. we are doing nothing.

we're not saying you can't do that. fine. about the performance targets. and we're saying to the other states, you adopt performance targets. we did not say exactly what they were. we're just saying to my dog performance targets. genies and performance targets by which you can judge our progress. thirty-seven states have already done that on their own. we blessed that. thirty-seven states a doing turnaround models. we don't disrupt that. we are saying fine. we will join with you in helping you with those turnaround models we are just saying to the other states, set up turnaround malls. thirty-seven states have adopted teacher evaluations. we don't disrupt that. tennessee has an evaluation system. fine. we are just saying, we will join with you and support that. and we're asking the other states to set up teacher evaluation systems.

again, i think what this bill does is it just really recognizes the reality that exists out there. again, it tries to make the federal government a partner. at think the hard truth is that we cannot ignore that the federal government is in the education space. states and districts have repeatedly and over a long time consistently failed low-income children in this country. if someone has evidence to the contrary, please bring forward. if we had an education system that was successful for every child and every child and accommodations are made for children, disabilities are low-income kids, fine. that is that the reality we face that is not the reality facing

guest today. they want the same chance to succeed as they're more affluent peers. and don't think we should abandon them. the comparability. we will get into that. senator bennett is expert and is led the charge for a long time. he can speak more directly to why we have the system now that is perverse. more money goes to more affluent schools unless might solicit funds schools. what sense does that make? simply because a loophole. this bill addresses that. again, i recognize that there is a philosophical difference, but i want to make it clear. once again, this is not the heavy hand of the federal government telling you is exit -- exactly what you have to do. we recognize that what has happened with states coming forward with a common core standard, 37 states stepping

into the region doing good things we're saying, let's be a partner. let's be a partner. let's work together to make sure we have access and equity for our kids that are disadvantaged. that is really the essence of the federal role in elementary and secondary education. anyone else? >> mr. chairman. >> a think it is. >> that they may be notice. >> this bill has grown from what we worked on last time. at that that it should have gone the other direction. we kind of had a compromise that we thought maybe we could give fix on the floor.

they have some difficulties with the bill. i think the alexander version is fixed. one of the areas is the annual performance target much like a nutshell left behind and it has added getting from minorities and children have disabilities which means that it says different targets for proficiency for those minorities . the states are given three options. strive to get all schools up to the level of the highest achieving school. or they can submit another equally ambitious half. that is a pretty high bar. the gaps.

one of the problems we have is with the teacher and principal provision because the states will be required to move good teachers throughout the district solo performing schools as well as moving below performing teachers to hire performing districts. i am not sure how that goes over with the teachers. many of them via house located near where they're going to teach. they don't anticipate that they're going to have to sell their house are take on another one-hour commute as we move people to other areas. when we talked about the compare ability we talked about gathering the data to see how well they compared, but we did not impose anything at that time on exactly how would be used. i anticipate that some of we either increase the pay to low performance was provided it became better performing, but i don't think we anticipated moving the teachers unless we

give them an economic incentive to move which meant paying higher performing teachers considerably better to be willing to commute. the turnaround models, we always had difficulty that, particularly those of us in a row since. the schools and wyoming a 1-run schools or one best teachers. and that teacher might be the principal. she's probably under principal who handles for five different schools. so if one of those schools does not perform then you have to fire the principle because it is been there for two years, how'd you get another principle that is going to be a soccer writer like that? t have to fire 35% of the teachers? 35% of the teachers give. so there are some difficulties with the turnaround of.

the biggest thing that that child up behind did, the animation. a first time that they get to see another child in their economic or social group were doing. it was so disturbing that there were some losses that came out, some corrections that were made. that is an extremely important part of the bill. one of the things that we have done with this bill, the bigger bill, add all bonds more data reporting. a new data reporting requirements, and then it requires that both reported by major subgroups and that requires that there be further cross tabulating which could lead to almost 500 new data reporting requirements and calculations. now, this 1-run school teacher is the one that is going to have to collect all that the bottom and pass it on up the line. that think that is a pretty big burden to put other teachers.

already complaining about how much testing may have to do, and now they will complain about how much reporting that wrong to have to do. those are a few of the areas that this bill i think has ever reached in. think we ought to have a little bit of confidence in the states and their capabilities and their state schools operation and the pressure that is put on from parents and legislators let them have a little bit of flexibility. and i really like this segregating. think that may difference, but i don't want to make it so complicated that we won the book stated that does not make any difference. my first year in the senate i had a school principal and wyoming you wanted to come back and then turn for a semester because he had been filling out federal reports already. and he wanted to know what happened to them. it was free. i had to come back to washington and spend it all down at the department of education.

and when the semester was overeat came back and reported to me and said, you know, every single report that i have sent in and everybody else's report is scrutinized in detail. a huge staff that does that. they make sure that it is film that completely. phil left correctly. if it is incorrect or incomplete descended back. then make to redo it. they get back to check it again. and when they're done with it the filing. nobody looks at it again. so, lot of worthless reporting is done with the federal government in order to get the 10 percent of the money that we provide for them. and one of the things that may happen with this bill is there may be states that will say a lot more work than 10 percent deserves and will be spending more than 10 percent of our money. i don't think that's our goal. our goal is to get the schools

to be better. think there's a better way to do it. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. i just want to recognize the senator. go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just express my hope that some point we will come together on a bipartisan effort to fix this legislation. as you mentioned, mr. chairman, we are -- maybe the 19 member said we are six years overdue in terms of the reauthorization here. and i just want to talk for a second about why i think this is so important to find a way to bridge this so-called philosophical difference here because i share a lot of the fuse with the ranking member on the question of compliance. having been a school superintendent, i have seen how much time and effort is put into

compliance with rules. in. >> reporter: the teacher, most importantly the child in the classroom. one asks the question, why we year having this conversation about what the federal list? i think the reason we're having that conversation is that this country has essentially made no progress on outcomes for children since the nation was written. double the amount of money we're spending in our classrooms. nine out of 104 children as country can have a reasonable expectation that they're going to graduate from college. think about what that looks like. we have 100 shares in the united states said, hundred guests, 100 senators. if we were children living in poverty only nine of those desks would be filled by people who had a college degree.

when george bush this son became president of the united states will lead the world in the production of college graduates. today we are 16th in the world . and we cannot even reauthorize this act. why -- what is the federal? at think it is to represent children that are in cities and rural areas in this country that have no school anywhere close to them that can provide them with a realistic opportunity and that never. or out of and apply one. for the children that are in the 91 of 100 today that have no reasonable expectation of ever getting a college degree or the equivalent of a college degree, somebody needs to raise the alarm. for them this is a civil-rights issue and this is a question about whether or not they're going to be able to participate in this democracy or in this economy in a meaningful way.

for the rest of us is going to mean the difference between recognizing our democracy in recognizing this economy in the middle of the 21st century. if you extrapolate the academic outcomes that we have for children in the united states against the changing demographics in this country and assume that we are never going to change the delivery system of k-12 education we will not recognize as the united states of america. that is the conversation i think we should be having here. i don't think we should be telling people at the local level up to deliver cadenced of education. but i think we should be telling people all across the country that we expect a set of outcomes that is different than the ones that we're seeing today in our schools. and that is why it is important for us to reauthorize the legislation. board for us to work together as democrats and republicans to do it, but i think we need to get focused on what is you're

actually trying to solve here which is to create an opportunity for children that today in this country don't have . i look forward to working with people in both parties try to do that. think you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. >> response to my friend from wyoming on the issue of flexibility for rural areas. obviously a represent a lot of small towns and rural areas. we kept a provision in the bill that says flexibility for certain local education agencies notwithstanding any other appropriation this paragraph, local education agency that is eligible for services under sub-par one or two or be entitle six as determined by the secretary may modify not more than one of the elements are activities required under sub paragraph a of a school improvement strategy for the school identified under paragraph four in order to better meet the needs of students.

what that languages is the same language that i say to my friend that we had in the bill two years ago. providing for world flexibility. back in this bill. same language. so that one room schoolhouse does not have said -- they can under this bill modify one of those things. not 35%. impossible. they can do something else. they all have to do that. so this is exactly the same language that we add in the bill two years ago. >> mr. chairman. >> yes, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i have a deep affection for you. i do for senator bennett. but i have big disagreements in what i think is the solution. in part of the institution here for the last eight years in the

congress for the last 19. i remember when republicans and democrats both considered in the red area of the bull's-eye was no child left behind, it failed. it was misguided. but today we are here with the choice of providing additional local and state flexibility or doubling down on notes out beyond. now, let me ask unanimous consent that i enter into the record letters from the national school board administration, the school superintendents association and the council of great city schools. letters that say they are not supportive of this legislation. they go into great detail about the expanded federal of the secretary appealing -- appearing to be involved in the design programs directing the specifics for example in addressing

parents, community engagement by extensive data collected. the bill calls for multiple cross tabulations, wide ranges of academic and nonacademic student data it. we believe we will be overwhelming for many school systems to produce. and i am not going to read all of them. will that my colleagues read them. they're very specific. let me just say this. here is what i think we are debating. who is in control? or ensuring that every child is prepared for college career track now, maybe i am being a little too simplistic, but i believe that if we are all looking at it from a standpoint of every child being prepared for college and career, then the partnership would not look as much like the dictatorship as much out live behind was crafted work, in fact, the bill is

drafted. the chairman is 100 percent correct. none of this applies to you if you're willing to give up all the money. well, you know, the same was true in higher education. one school of thought it was probably good enough to take them up on that offer in hillsdale college. dropped out of taking federal money. they have never regretted the decision. they have prospered. they have produced students at a high academic level. you know what, they have been able to do it their way. quite frankly, thing senator alexander and the substitute for trying to do is to say, maybe we do need to trust states and localities. maybe we are not the ones to make a decision. okay. you're in the bottom 5% of love performing schools, so the first thing we're going to make you do is fire 35% of your teachers.

hal in the hell did we come up to something like that? if that teacher did not qualify they ought to be fired whether they are in the bottom 5% of the top 5%. but to say this is a remediation before the performance of that schoolhouse quite frankly take a breath. stop and think about this for a second.

in the absence of trust we decided we're goit going to create a may ticks that would be impossible for us to report on. now what does senator alexander substitute? it empowers states and educators to set their own accountability systems. interventions, remove washington knows west micromanagement in favor of state and local responsibility and saves taxpayer money by eliminating wasteful and dupetive programs. i can't say it any simpler than that. senator harkin's bill, i believe is no child left behind on steroid. it promises to build future complexity and federal accountability for schools in hopes of