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 crafting mouse traps

states won't inevitably gain. they're going gain them. we know that. it spends more on clever programs tailored to individual constituencies in washington and mandates on improving reforms nationwide without acknowledging state individuality and and -- limitations. let me stress mandates unproven nationwide reforms. senator harkin's bill establishing perform targets. it's no different than no child left behind. in effect it would set different target for proficiency and blacks and whites. again, splitting america. this is a wrong direction. this is absolutely the wrong direction. one states could either accept their current waiver accountability structure what they've complained about.

we've all heard that. they could strive to get all school to the highest achieving school in the state by a reasonable date and include some for some groups. they could submit another equality ambition plan to the united secretary of session for approval, which i would remarking it's very similar, if not more burdensome than no the child left behind ayp and perform target structure. it then requires states to identify 15% of schools, 10 percent that have not greatest achievement gap with the lowest performance and institute improvement plans just like no child left behind. states would then have to identify a new 15% every year. senator alexander's bill tells states to develop their own accountability system.

without any requirement on percentage or turn around strategy. tells them to improve their low performing schools and continue to report on the performance of their students publicly. i want to stress this part. question is can we do things that make more public and understandable to the community's whose children are in these schools the perform of these schools? are they the ones that make the correct teacher evaluations? is in fact a parent one that better understands whether a teacher is good and performs at high heart attacks, or doesn't meet that standard? where is the greatest influence on that principle to make a teaching change in a mandate that come by us or in a parent who feels their child is going

get left behind with a current teacher. school turn arounds is the bottom 5 percent. they have to adopt to one of four turn around models under the harkin plan. one tran formation requiring firing the prin. if they served in the school less than two years. not a very good job certainty for principle. or a turn around requiring firing 35% of teachers and principal if they served in the school more than two years. or a whole school approach which would require a model with a level of evidence so high no one could perform it. or restart which would require school to be closed and then reopened as a different school or a charter school. those are the four options for

the 5 percent at the bottom. our proposal would put forward no turn around model. only a list of possible examples that states can do to reform these low performing schools. i would like to get to one more thing. i'm sure we're going have time over the next days to talk about it, but my account, the harkin bill creates 23 new brand new programs. over and above what we've already got. and i think it's safe to say that there's a sizable cost that comes with it. which i'm willing to spend if in fact works. now, i have to tell you it's quite a departure from what i believe is something that senator alexander was gracious to put in on my behalf, and

that's a consolidation of programs. understand we don't touch title i one money. title i is there. it's designated for low-income, at-risk kids. we shouldn't monkey with that. it's going the right area. then you have all of these other pots of money. 62 different pots and programs. teachers and principals, school safety, and climate. what i'm doing is taking automatic 62 programs and throwing it in one pot. and acknowledging that the success of one school may be different than the success of another school. north carolina may just happen to be different than colorado. and that to say to a direct or to a school where you can have

this none this pot if you do this. what if this is not what they need. then they forego the money. wouldn't it be novel to throw all the money in a pot and say all so you to do is prove that for the use of this money you're furthering the academic advancement of your students? you come up with the program that is in need in your school, in your school system. in your state, and no longer will limit the money from you or make the money valuable. to a school in colorado, the challenge may with how do we increase technology? to a school in rural north carolina, it may be how do we get kids out of trailer and in to brick classrooms. you know what? they're not going to have the choice in colorado or in north carolina if in fact they don't fit in the box we created to get that money.

so i would tell you that how we treat that pot of money is, i think, crucial to the success of not just the lowest 5 percent, but even to the top 5% we want to strive even higher. and, mr. chairman, i lied. i want to mention one other thing. by my account, the bill creates 80 new data requirements. ranging from discipline procedures such as suspension, expulsion, arrest, pregnancy rates among students and the academic achievement, the rate of school violation, bullying, drug abuse, average class size, the number of students that take advancement placement, the number of athletic programs and coaches and many other data points. the bill then requires that all of the current data points in law as well as the new data point that i've just discussed

under the harkin bill be supported by major subgroup broken down minority. children with disability, english learners. and creating a matrix within i.t. it goes on to further cross tabulate all of these data point by gender and type of disability which could include autism, blindness, hearing impaired and so forth. in some it could lead almost 500 new data reporting requirements and calculations all collected but schools and supposedly use by the federal government for accountability purposes. i rest my case. we're not making it easier for schools to succeed and to raise the standards and the lowest 5% or the lower 10% or the lower 50%. we're not even providing in this bill the accountability for the top 10% if to find a new level they can get to and our students

to axel to compete with people all around the globe. what we're doing is tieing their hands and devoting their resources not classroom or the education of kids. but to further report to washington, d.c., to justify just how we are in control of k-12 education. i only say this to my colleagues for the last several years. most, if not all, on the committee you have to get away with no child left behind. we have to change the things we know don't work. we're not getting rid of anything. at least we kept some of the stuff we thought did work in the alexander substitute. we're not getting rid of anything that didn't work. we are doubling down. we're adding program, hoping it has to fix. i, for one, i trust parents, i trust principals, i trust superintendents. a lot better than i do my own

judgment up here to craft something i think will solve a problem in colorado or iowa or massachusetts or any of the states represented at the substantial. i thank the chairman. thank you, mr. chairman. i would say to my friend from north carolina that the chairman's bill actually does make a huge change in no child left behind. right now it applies to 100 percent of schools, and what the chairman's mark said it will no longer apply to 95% of schools. for all the reasons you said, which is that these decisions are made, many of them much better at the local level than here. but mark said brpt to the bottom 5% of schools in the country, we expect people to make changes for the benefit of the children that are there. as i said earlier i would rather

have a decision made by peopled at the local level huge change to in fact doubling down on no child left behind. i don't think it's a fair characterization of where we are. if we had a reality today, in the capitol, in this nation's capitol, to keep no child left behind the same as it is, there's not a single person that would come to that. i think there's a real opportunity for us to find a way to work on a bipartisan basis to try to change this law so it allows us as a country to have a set of expectations that says the fact you're born in to poverty shouldn't mean you are signed to a horrible school. at the same time, says that we believe that the people that are

actually going deliver the education are teachers. and the people that are going consume it are the kids. and they're in a better position to figure out how to do that than we are. >> could i ask the senator a question? >> sure. >> would i be incorrect to believe dhat that reporting if not apply to 100% of the schools, or annually all schools system listen required under the accountability -- which would make up the 10% for the largest gap and the lowest performance? does it apply to all schools? >> i think it does apply to all schools. i think that -- and i'm -- believe me. of all the people around the table, as sensitive to anybody to the idea that we adopt want to have more data request than absolutely necessary to understand what is actually going on in the systems, but i think just as the ranking member

said that the secretary should publish a consumer report in effect on schools for him to be able to do that. he's going need dated that that that -- data called for in the bill. are there places where we ask for too much? i'm sure there are. it's one of the reasons senator alexander and i are working on a frojt see which regulations are required by the federal law, which are just have been laid on in top of everything else. again, i think there's important work for us to do together here. i think the idea that somehow the federal government has no role here is a mistake. that's not -- that doesn't even have to do with the money part of this. it has to do with the fact we are the united states of america, and a kid born in chicago is a chicago kid, and illinois kid, but they are also an american kid. we need to care about the outcome for that kid.

>> senator isaacson? >> i promise i'll be brief. i agree with senator bennett and others that no child left behind has lived out the usefulness. it lived out the usefulness and the time to change. i commend both you and the ranking member for doing so. i want to say something on behalf of local boards of educations were saying. i represent a county that has their third highest wealth per child or tax base of any county in the state of georgia as 27th largest public school system in the -- the last five years they put five day furlough on every schoolteacher in the classroom. people teach ratio are back to were they were in the '80s. they have been under financially in my state. i think the state have been tremendous. with every mandate there is a cost with every minute date you have someone date candidating time to compliance and not to education. the chairman and i share a

passion for the individual disability and education act. passed in 1978, a important peats of legislation that mandates 40% per fde expectture. the federal government is only a 17% of meeting shared that match and now some 40 years later or 35 years later. every time we put another mandate on, we have another cost and forcing states to pay for thing we're making them do that lowers the amount of classroom dollar going to the student and increases the amount to the administration. when people talk about too much mandate and too much regulation that is a cost component that every school system that would be glad to luckture about. we have to be careful to not put bigger burden on cost than they already have. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i would respond to me. >> every time i hear about this

idea mandate, i have to correct -- i take a misperception. the mandate on schools to provide free and appropriate education for kids with disabilities is not a federal mandate. it is a constitutional mandate. i have to -- i have digress a little bit here. there's a terrible my perception that people have. you have to go back to the case of park v. pennsylvania. -p-a-r-k. that court case decided that just -- for example, dowsht found that there is no constitutional -- no u.s. constitutional requirement for any state to provide free public

education to any student. that comes as a shock to some people. the u.s. constitution does not say to any state you have to provide free public education. some state constitutions have that. not the federal constitution. what the federal constitution does say is and an equal protection clause, if you do, use taxpayer's collar -- dollars to provide a free public education, you can't say, okay, we'll provide a prepublic education to white males. or people of certain religions or an excluding others. they said no, you can't discriminate on the basis of race, sex, national or orientation. and you can't discriminate on the basis of disability. so it's constitutional mandate. if we had no idea whatsoever, a

local school district would have to provide a free, appropriate education for kids with disabilities. that is a u.s. constitutional mandate. what we did, i was in the house at the time, we came through with idea to that look, it's education of all handicap children -- you know that as well as i do. we said, look, okay states you have to meet this requirement. we will help. we'll provide federal monies to help you do that and here are, again, some of the things that we would ask that you have to do if you want to access that money. no state has to take a nickel of idea money. they have to meet the constitutional mandate of providing a free appropriate education to every kid with a disability. now i've heard about the 17% -- yes. we said at the time that our

goal and federal was to provide, i think, up to 40%, if i'm not mistaken. 40% of the additional cost of what it might cost to provide the supports necessary to educate kids with disabilities. it was never written the law -- that was our goal. the only time we met it during the recovery act when we put the money in there to do that for a couple of years. i agree with my friend that we should do more than that. but it is not a federal mandate. to get us the partnership. i want to make that clear. i keep hearing all the federal mandate and kids with disability. it -- it is a constitutional mandate. it is not a federal mandate. i want to respond to any prend

friend from north carolina. we have six turn around models. the turn around model in the department of education. we added two two around models to that one of which was the amendment that senator alexander put on the -- in 2011, that a state can do a local designed model improved by the secretary. we incorporated that in to the -- in to the turn around model. also. and on the 35%. i would point out the 37 states, 37 states have already agreed to 50%. in other words if they choose that model, then you are at the 50% of the teachers. we actually said that maybe a little too strict we'll back it down to 35%. we are looking more lenient than the states themselves have already agreed to. they can agree to 50%.

we just said under the federal system if they choose that model, they have do at least 35%. some say thirty seven states agreed to 50%. not 35%. actually we're being a little bit more lenient. that not only applies to the bottom 5% of schools. the bottom 5%. senator scott? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i certainly have enjoyed and listened intently to the debate around the table that is related to education. i find it quite inspiring, frankly, we have so many folks interested in the outcome of education for the kids who desperately need a path forward. a path to prosperity. i believe that both sides of the i'm have reflected heart behalf we should have on the committee, which is chow we improve the education for the kids? i'll tell you that one of the reasons that senator alexander's

institute is really because of the portability of education funds title i. i'll tell you as a kid who grew up and somebody in the neighborhood we don't refer to, there's so many issues we can't deal with. so many issue we can address. there are a few we should address. and some we can do legislatively. most we cannot deal with. there are so many unintended consequences that come along with a child that doesn't get the education that is appropriate. i'll tell you the one reason why supporting the substitute is because of that portability factor, which focuses on kids in poverty. for myself, as i look back over and sat there and counted the number of elementary schools that i attended, i attended five elementary schools. you can transfer teachers for a long time to try to catch up with the kid and poverty because a transient nature of kids in poverty can't be reflected in the legislation. with what we can understand if

we had a way for the money to be backpacked and taken with the child to the school. i believe we can very quickly improve the outcome of the students. at the end of the day, the reality of it is when you're a poor kid living in a tough neighborhood, the likelihood of a move is pretty strong. and while i think we are well intentioned in our objective of finding a way to fix the problem. sometimes the easiest way to fix the problem is simplify the solution. and the simple solution is that the child who needs the assistant is able to have the money follow that child to the five school they went to. i think you would find that that student comes away with a better education and a better outcome. while there are many complicated and complex problems that we are going digest and debate over the next several hour, i believe, one of the simple solutions is to empower the parent with the

resources necessary to make the best decision on behalf of that child as that child may have to go to one, two, three, or as i did, five different elementary schools. and so when we focus our attention back to the student, back to the kid who is already dealing with distractions and single parent household and looking for once self. if we can focus the attention on the student and providing the resources, perhaps the outcome that has been going in the wrong direction in in spite of the explosion of funding in the arena government well intentioned. it has not met the . >> i'm dplieghted here and

participate in the remarking up of the elementary secondary education act. i'm sorry i wasn't here for the kind of the opening. the full dutieds of appropriation committee have taken that. i ask unanimous consent my full statement be in the record. i think you have done a great job in trying to focus, first of all, bipartisan effort. in looking how we can help our children follow the best they can and follow the talents that god has given them. i look forward to supporting the bill now in the committee, or in the senate floor when you pass it. and in the appropriations bill when we've got the authorization. >> thank you very much, senator mor cow sky. and senator murphy? >> thank you. thank you. mr. chairman, thank you and committee staff for all that fantastic work you put to the

bill. i think you effectively having the guts of the argument here with respect to the alexander amendment which is really what is the appropriate federal role with respect to providing oversight over local schools and state educational systems. and i can completely agree with senator bennett's supposition that our mandate maybe first and foremost is to stick up for the five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10% of kids that have fallen through the cracks. one of the things i may have the chance to talk about later is new provision in the bill to look at kids who have been effectively been pushed out of our public school measure through disciplinary measures that trick toll the juvenile justice system costing our state and country more than it would have to educate them. and frankly giving up on an entire subset of kids. but i would also suggest there's something better at work here. 50 years ago or 100 years ago, you know, there was a reason for

the federal government's detach las say fair approach to local education. we were really just committing among ourselves when it came to growing jobs. we weren't in a global economy, and so the difference between educational outcome was the difference between jobs were created in yu or texas or connecticut or new hampshire. that's not the world we're living in today. we are not competing with ourself. we know it. we are competing with the rest of the world. and by almost every measure, we're not keeping up. the study is come out every single week with new and stunning news. the most recent says country like chilly and brazil are getting educational gains three times the gains of those in the united states. we all know how far we have fall in to 25th and math and 17 in

science and 14th in reading. the overall numbers are in the aggravate are just as amazing. by the time my 4-year-old and 1-year-old graduate from high school. china will graduate more kids from college than the united states has workers in our work force. india will five times as many graduates on annual basis than the united states. and so we have a reason as a united states senate and united states congress to protect the quality of local education. because this is now about trying to compete globally and when you have one out of every four kids graduating high school, not ready for college when 40% of kids show up to a community college have to take remedial classes because they're not even ready to get that level of education. it suggests that we're not doing the job we need to do to remain economically competitive

internationally. so i completely agree that part of our mandate here is to stick up for those kids who have been pushed to the sideline of our educational system. but as stewards of the u.s. economy, now more than ever, before if we want to be able to grow jobs in this new global context, we need to have a federal economic strategy that doesn't tell school districts what to teach. but at least expect they're going to do better than they have. thank you very much. >> yeah. i think both sides had adequate exposure on this. i recognize senator alexander. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the comments of all the senators and senator scott's reminder that our focus should be on the children. let me emphasize again that we're talking about 100,000 public schools and 50 million children. and how do we best help them

succeed in the kind of world that senator from connecticut is just described. reminds of the discussion we had we were successfully putting together the compounding pharmacy bill. i used the -- who ran nuclear submarine program in the 1950s and the question is how are we going make sure the reactors work? what rick did was tell the captain that if the reactor failed, their career failed. and so we have never had a death on a navy sub reactor because of the consequences. ting has to do with the question of accountability. whose job is it to help children succeed? it starts with parents. we don't know how to pass a better parents law. the next is teachers. i think we all e agree on that. the holy grail of improving schools, i think, is to find a fair way to reward outstanding

teachers and pay good teachers more and teachers who take on extra assignments more. probably we greed -- agree on that. the real difference between the chairman's bill and our bill is whether we think the responsibilities here are whether we think it's at home. and we believe it's at home. i think it's an exaggerated notion of our wisdom think we can sit here and around the table in a few hours and handful of well mining people and the yieghts department of education where i used to work can envision the circumstances better than a good supertend or a good governor or legislature. who wants children to succeed. it's been my experience that any community or wants children to succeed can do that. but the answer obviously is what about those communities who

don't. well, my answer to that is look at our colleges and universities. we have a completely different system there. we have 6,000 antonymous institutions. okay. we allow students to choose among thement. the money we have from here goes to the students and they choose the school. so it's senator scott's example a kid from a low-income family and south carolina would get some money. and as parent or her parent can help them go to a better school. as i mentioned earlier, that used to be the idea of the lift in the country. it was ted's idea. brown and later harvard. the poor kid's bill of rights. if i were king, it would be my solution to what we should do. i'm not. and i'm in washington. and i'm at the distant place. so the difference between is do we think a national school board can help these children more than we do placing the responsibilities squarely on the

backs of parents, classroom, teachers, legislators, and others closer to the child. i've spent the last thirty years on the other end of the program, at least before last ten i've been up here. trying to help our state exceed. it wasn't easy. and i have superintendents who say to me and governors who say to me. you have to help us because we can't get done unless you makes do that. it makes -- i don't except that idea. i don't know why a senator from tennessee should to create and make more teaching. we did. i believe we have a role to create a national environment to which parents, teachers, states can succeed. i believe that has been

happening for thirty years. our state had a long way to go we took most of the steps before race to the top. and before all the waivers. and i fear that making it look like accountability is up here rather than there was slow things down and not speed thing up. make no mistake, this bill does create a national school board. that's not a majority -- it's not meant to insult anybody. it's a fact. when you take the combination of no child left behind and race to the top and the waivers and you freeze them in the law for five years, you're putting the decisions of washington that ought to be with a local school board and local government and i don't know why senators of either parties from states would want that to happen. because many of us come from schools and states that have better schools than. so why would you want us running your local schools? well, it doesn't really do that. yes, it does. it says that the standard have

to be approved by the secretary. the tests have to be approved by the secretary. the -- whether a teacher is qualified it has to be defined in washington. and a teacher evacuation system which is a complex thing to do. which teachers need to buy in direct by direct. the definition of that and the approval of that has to be here. i also says you can take 10% of the money we spend here and requires states to completely change the federal -- the funding formulas and the name of comp aren't. these are all decisions that the local or state school board makes. they are not bad idea. they shouldn't be made here. and i think they'll retire progresses for not help. so, mr. chairman, there's been some questions. couldn't we trust? we trust the state. i think we if take a survey of americans and put on a list of people. teachers, parents, state

legislatures, governors, congress, washington, who do we trust to help our children? i think we come out last. i think we would come out last. so the alexander substitute, which republicans offer which we believe people of all parties, we hope, will support. creates a national environment in which parents, classroom teachers, states and legislators have a better opportunity to succeed but doesn't till them how to do it. and i would hope that during the time we'll not be talking about past each other but thinking of ways to create that environment rather than freeze in the place a national school board. i negotiate the againous amount of time the chairman allocate farred full discussion of the amendment. >> coming up next on "washington journal," congressman joe wilson of south carolina, chairman of the arm service subcommittee on

military personnel discussing military issues and foreign policy. then representative loretta sanchez of california talks about nsa data collection programs. later, our spotlight on magazines features jo ann molar. forbes magazine bureau chief on the car of the future. washington garble is live every moral starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. during the years of william mckinley's political years, the house served as william's residence. they had living quarters on the third floor of the house, which was originally a ballroom. it was turned to living quarters with a bedroom and sitting room and entertaining area and also off that room and that was william used to conduct business. right outside the ballroom,

which later becomes the living quarter of eye data and william while they are there. this is set up they had everywhere they went during his political years. always when he conducted business, the door stayed open to the living quarter and eye data stayed in the living quarter. she was a some silent political health mate. they would discuss thing. she would never take part in fact meeting. she would never express her political opinion or join in. the type of set upthey had when they were in columbus there was no governor's mansion then. also in washington and then here -- our conversation on ida is now available on our website. c-span.org/first ladies. president obama today called on congress topaz a comprehensive immigration bill by the end of the summer. he was joined at the white house

by advocate of immigration reform. [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible] the president of the united states. [inaudible] [applause] [applause] [applause]

[inaudible conversations] good morning. >> good morning. >> my name is i'm a dreamer. when i was 8 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 my diploma wait for immigration reform. i never set out to devote myself completely to advocating for immigration reform. nor i did imagine that out of the ashes of my darkest secret would arise my true purpose. in 2006, my father passed away

in nigeria. he fought for 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 prayers of my father and bold action by the president iran -- instead of living in fear, and well below my ability, i have the privilege of spending my dais advocating for immigration reform and supporting efforts to achieve that more perfect union that we all desire. that we all desire.

mom, dad, today i am hopeful and humbled to present the president of the united states. [applause] >> good morning, everybody. welcome to the white house. it is a pleasure to have so many distinguished americans today from so many different walks of life. we have got democrats, republicans, we have laborer and business leaders on stage. we have law enforcement and clergy. americans who don't see eye to eye on every issue. in fact some cases don't see eye

0 to scare -- eye to eye on any issue. who are today stand 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 her another round of applause. [applause] [applause] take a lot of courage to do what she did to step out of the shadows and share her story and hope that despite the risks she could make a difference. but i think she represented so many dreamers out there who have worked so hard and i 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 the debate is all about. it's not an ab strablght debate. this is about incredible young people who understand themselves to be americans, who have done everything right, but have been hampered in achieving their american dream. they remind us that we're a nation of immigrant. 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 kept our businesses on cutting edge. it helped to build the greatest economic engine the world has ever known. one of the biggest advantages we economically is our demographic. we constantly replenishing

ourselves with talent from all across the groab. the country can match that history. what was true years ago is still true today. who is beeping over there? [laughter] [laughter] you're feeling kind of self-conscious, aren't you? [laughter] you know, in recent years, one in four of america's new small business owners were immigrants. one in four high-tech start-ups in america were founded by imgrants. 40% of fortunate 500 companies were started by first or second generations americans. think about that. almost half.

of fortunate 500 companies when they were started were started by first or second generation immigrants. it's not just part of our national characteristic. it's a driving force in our economy that creates jobs and prosperity for all of the citizens. here is the thing, over the past two decades, our immigration system hasn't kept pace with the changing times. and hasn't matched up with the most cherished values. right now our immigration system invites the brightest from all over the world. -- to reap the benefits, the new jobs, the new industry. that's not smart. that's the broken system we have today.

right now our immigration system keeps families apart for years at the 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 that families end up being separated for years. because the backlog of visa people who came here legally. we're ready to give their all to earn their place in america and end up situating for years to joined their loved ones here in the united states. it's not right. but that's the broken system we have today. right now our immigration system has no credible way of dealing with the 11 million men and women who in this country legally. they broke the rules. they didn't wait their turn. they shouldn't be let off easy. they shouldn't be allowed to game the system. statement they're not looking

for any trouble. they look to provide to their families and communities. they are our neighbors. we know their kids. too often they are forced to what they do in a shadow economy when shady employers can exploit them. making them workout overtime. not giving them any benefit. it pushes down standard for all workers. it's bad for everybody. -- they end up being at the disadvantage. it's not fair. over it's 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 agencies as we did in 2004. we have more boots on the ground along our southern border than at my time in our history. today deportation of criminals is at the highest level ever. having put border security in placing, having refocused on those who could do our communities harm, we are also been up the cause of the dreamers. young people like here brought to the country as children. if you're able to meet basic criteria like pursuing a higher education. we consider offering you the change to come out of the shadow

so you can continue to work here and study here and droibt our communities legally. my administration has done what we can on our own. we have members of my 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.

in our nation's history. it would put another $6.5 being on to. what we're already spending toward stronger and smarter security along our borders. it would increase criminal

penalties against smugglers and traffickers. it would finally give every employer a reliable way to check that every person they are hiring is here legally. and hold employers more accountable if they knowingly hire undocumented workers. it strengthens border security we also enforcement with our borders. i know there's a lot of talk about border security. let me repeat illegal crossings are near the lowest level in decades. if passed, the senate bill as currently written and on the floor would put the toughest border enforcement plan america has ever seen. nobody is saying border enforcement lightly. it's part of the bill. number two, the bill would provide a pathway to earn earned

citizenship for the 11 million individuals in the country. so that pathway is arduous. you have to past background checks. so you to learn english. you have to pay tax and penalty. it you have to go to the back of the line who has done things the right way and come here legally. it won't be a quick process. it will take at least thirteen years before the vast majority of the individuals are able to apply for citizenship. it's no cakewalk. 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 there's a pathway to citizenship. we're asking everybody play by

the same rules. you have to give people a sense of certainty as they go through the sacrifices. do all of this. there's on the horizon the opportunity the guarantee that opportunity to be part of this american family. and, by the way, a majority of americans support this idea. number three. this bill would modernize the legal immigration system. alongside training american workers for the jobs of tomorrow were attracting the highly skilled europeers and engineers from around the world who will ultimately grow our economy. this bill would help make sure that our people don't have to wait years before their loved ones are able to join them near america. that's what immigration reform look like. smarter enforcement, a pathway to earned citizenship and improvement to the legal system. there are all common sense steps.

they have got bipartisan support. they have 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 lead to the bill was open and inclusive for months the bipartisan gang of 8 looked at ever issue, reconciled competing idea, built a comprise that works. then the judiciary committee held numerous hearings. more than a hundred amendments were added often with bipartisan support. the good news is that every day that goes by more and more republicans and democrats are coming tout support this common sense immigration reform bill. and i'm sure the bill will go through a few more changes and

the weekses 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 the bill. a lot of people democrats and republicans have done a lot of good work on the 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 it do, i guess it might make sense to try to block it. 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 for procedural games. or engage in obstruction, just to block the best chance we've had in years to address this problem in a way that is fair to

middle class families, business owners, to legal immigrants. there's no good reason to undo the progress we have already made. especially when it comes to extreme steps like stripping protection from dreamers my administration provided. asking law enforcement to treat them the same way they can treat violent criminals. it's not who we are. we owe it to america and treatmenters to do better. we owe it to the young people and key yai go sanchez who is with us today. here he is. he caiment here from argentina with his parents when he was a kid. growing up in america was his home. this is where he went to school and made friends. this is where he built a life. you ask him and he'll tell you he feels american in every way except one. on paper.

at high school he found he was undocumented. think about that. all the stuff you are already dealing with in high school -- [laughter] -- and suddenly, man, -- [laughter] he has done everything right. stayed out of trouble, excelled in class, contributed to his community. feeling hopeful about his future. and suddenly he finds out that you have to live in fear of deportation. watching his friends get their licenses, knowing he couldn't get one. ..

[applause] so now he's set aside masters degree, been to law school, so he can pursue a career in public policy, help america shape his future. why wouldn't we want to do the right thing by diego? what rationale is there out there that wouldn't want to make sure diego achieves his dreams?

because if he does, that helps us all achieve our dreams. so in the weeks to come, you'll hear some immigration reform tried to create division and spread the same old rumors and untruths we've heard you for. and when that happens, i want you to think about diego and i want you think about your own parents and grandparents and great room parent and all the men and women and children who came here, the notion that somehow came through ellis island of other papers rate. [laughter] and checked every box and follow procedures as they were getting on the boat.

they were looking for a better life, just like these families. they want to earn their way into the american story. if you're willing to stand with don and with all these outstanding leaders appear, 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 take this problem down the road. come together, work together, do your job not only to fix the broken immigration system once and for all, they too 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. to the right being. thanks. god bless you, god bless america. [applause]

>> after the president's comments come as some and attended talk 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 in his vigorous support for a common sense immigration bill and for gathering together the people behind me who represent a broad section of american society. we disagree on a lot of things, but we vigorously agree on a bill that takes common sense and takes people out of the shadows

and provides for our economy people we need to move forward. it's going to be a vigorous event in the senate. were i'll going to support moving forward. we are looking forward to today's vote and working through the summer to get this thing done and i want to thank mr. trumka from the afl. we live in buildings not very far from each other and draw malkin the dishes, but this time it is important for our country. thank you very much. >> why is that american business filled it needs more workers as far as immigrants? >> as you know, unemployment is never below 3% or 4% because of people are prepared for work or not safe for work, so we have today american business and

manufacturing that can hire 2.5 million people that have the right skills. we give them extraordinary talents and send them home. we are all of our business is becoming our, more demanding and what has made this country great is many countries are short of workers. their demographics are strangling them. we have been positive in terms of replacement. not only through expanding the birth rate, but also through immigration and a failure to have a rational and positive immigration program is not a good idea. thank you. >> just about to die from the that the entrepreneurial side. this is a started nation. people came here with the idea of creating a better life. we now have a leading economy in

the world. it's a work of entrepreneurs who build great companies, great industries based here. almost half of our fortune 500 companies are first or second generation immigrants. it's important for a magnet for talent and really become the place people want to start companies and industries because that's a sweet to drive our economy and economic growth and our unemployment. we've got to make sure were able to attract those risktakers, the pioneers who believe in america is the most entrepreneurial nation in the world did with the gang of eight has done also deals with other critical issues such as border security and a path to citizenship but have a bipartisan approach that deals with all these different things in a comprehensive way was wise. the debate in the judiciary committee had the pleasure of testifying. with senator leahy did was terrific, 100 different and it's approved. so hopefully it will not just

pass, the pass at the bipartisan margin aiming for terrific momentum. you can think of immigration not just is a a problem or need to solve, but the opportunity to prevent the leading economy the world >> the reason we need immigration reform is because we have 7.5% unemployment. for every 100 foreign workers we have a career 40 shots your citizen. i'll give you an example. i'm not a restaurant owner who has three restaurants. if i could find enough workers at heavy restaurants. you can multiply that by hundreds of thousands. that's what's happening in our economy today. the single biggest thing we can do is pass this immigration bill. this is first and foremost and to deny our economy the recovery

in the growth and prosperity that it warrants. [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] >> do you agree on the same model with the principals debated on the house at this moment to be an agreement on the senate side, but what about what is debated at the house? >> what you see here is probably

the broadest coalition of american society assembled. your business, labor, law enforcement of entrepreneurs, groups from all over the place that majolica you several things. we all agree the system is broken on many comprehensive immigration reform and we need it now. we understand it will be good for not only newcomers are immigrants, but it will be good for every worker here. it will be good for business, good for the economy and that's why all of us have come together to push and get this thing done this year because every day we wait is a day wasted in a day that we've lost some idea that the economy will grow. there's going to be some differences in the house done and will work through those things. tom and i have spent hours together, stays together, not

ours. working together to form something that works for everybody. this is in a bill will anybody got everything they want, but this is a bill that is solid cover will fix the problem, is securing our borders, will help every worker can make sure newcomers aren't taking advantage of and workers don't have their wages driven down. it is something we'll support them are working on the senate and house process to make sure to come up with a good though. as said this coalition is all about. >> america needs more workers for marker workers? >> i think you've heard several answers to that. this bill will force people to offer those jobs to americans worse. if there's a shortage. a staircase, which which in many cases there are, then we'll be able to fill it. if it is safe boy, that will be

exposed as well and everybody's going to win because 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 are behind it, we supported him and want to make sure that it happens. >> let me offer a law enforcement is. on the sheriff of the largest county in the state of texas in the third largest in america. this bill is good for public safety. even from the standpoint of businesses, if you want to make sure communities are safe and strong, you need to support the aspect for an economic standpoint and businesses need to stay strong to keep our communities safe. secondly, if you want to fight cartels, human trafficking, pass this bill. this bill is good for public

safety and that's why i applaud the president for his leadership and i applaud the gang of eight for their work in getting us to this point. now we are asking for leadership to stand up across this country and get this bill passed. >> immigration reform, is this the right time, the place, the right thing to do. as former commissioner of new york city and police chief of los angeles, the two largest immigrant populations in america first-hand of her many years with the issues that community faces. this is a bill that needs to pass for them for our country. i also applaud the efforts of the president and the efforts of congress as they debate this bill and bring it to a successful conclusion. thank you. >> this bill represents the best opportunity we've had in quite a long time to fix our broken

immigration system. it truly is both common sense and comprehensive. and 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 this done. but we have here is the opportunity for democrats and republicans to actually get something done in washington d.c. is going to boost america's economy and fix our broken immigration system and they have to get it done soon. >> margaret mims, sheriff of fresno county, california. the bread basket of our nation produced a food that feeds all of us. immigration reform is very important. what i hear from farmers if they have employees that are assaulted, robbed in the fields while they're working. their cars are stolen, but they are afraid to report crimes because of 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 as both into this bill and that's why it's very important. thank you. the members are proud to stand with people from all walks of life to insist that the time is now just as the president had that we need commonsense immigration reform. we want safe and secure borders and a pathway to citizenship for 11 million immigrants and we want to be able to restore economic fairness across the economy and we stand proudly with the rest of the sectors from across the walks of life represented here today to insist

the senate needs to admit this now. thank you. >> marlon hill, attorney for the state of florida, one of the most diverse in the union. in a sign of america, we do not find problems to solutions. we find solutions to problems. this is our moment. we cannot allow it to pass the summer. we need to act now. this month we celebrate national caribbean heritage month were people from all over the world come to america. we've held with building the harlem renaissance. we find in the civil rights movement. we've given birth to hip-hop. we've contributed in every way bubble of american society and it's time to integrate. we cannot afford to have an underclass of citizens or persons in our country anymore. the time is to act now. i'm proud to introduce my friend

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. the past 18 years and this is my home first and foremost and i have a chemical engineering degree, one collecting dust and desperately wants to be used to support our economy, grow our economy. i want to be all that i can possibly be in this great nation i love in a way to get there for me and millions of others like me is through immigration reform. it's good for families, it's good for me, good for dreamers, good for our economy, good for a nation as a whole it is important we stand strong and together and pursue commonsense immigration reform that does speak to american values. thank you.

>> virginia senator tim kane gave a speech about the issue in spanish becoming the first senator to do so on the senate floor. the senator became fluent when he spent a year running a school in honduras. here's part of his speech. >> senator from virginia appear to >> ask unanimous consent i plovers for a speech in spanish? >> without objection. >> i will provide a translation my remarks for the congressional record. [speaking in spanish]

[speaking in spanish] >> you can read his full speech in spanish and english as senator cain's website. here's more of today's senate debate on immigration. this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> at any given time in our nations is great, lawmakers have been faced with many pressing challenges. some by the very nature demand immediate action. others simply built over time, so for his inaction usually

involve some combination of foresight and persuasion. the great challenge of our own day in my view is figuring out how to reform government programs that are growing so big, so fast and must react, they will eventually consume the entire federal budget. this is an issue of devoted time and energies to over the last few years and hoped the two parties could resolve in a way that would win support of the public in the markets. as it turned out, the president wasn't as interested in that agreement as i was comest olestra reluctantly concluded we would really do anything significant about entitlements anytime soon. without presidential leadership, something like status is simply impossible. hopefully the president will have a change of heart at some point on the most important issue of our time.

none of this means we can't try to do some thing 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 a selected later come to view idea that obviously need to try to improve the situation and as far as i can tell very few people believe is working well for us citizens or those around the world who aspire to become americans. everyone knows the current system is broken. our borders are not secure. those to come legally often stay illegally and we don't know who or where they are. our immigration laws changed almost three decades ago and they failed to take into account the needs of our rapidly

changing economy. so what were doing today is initiating a debate. we're grateful for the hard work of the so-called gang of eight, but today's vote is in a final judgment on their product as much as it is a recognition of the problem, a national problem. one that needs to be. the gang of eight has done its work. now it's time for the gang of 100 to do its work for the entire senate to have a say on this issue and see if we can prove the status quo. at the risk of stating the obvious, the bill has serious flaws. i look to debate it and for the opportunity to amend it, but in the days ahead will need to be major changes to this bill is going to become law.

these are not limited to the areas of order security, government benefits and taxes. i'm going to need more than assurance from secretary napolitano that the border is secure, to feel comfortable about the situation down on the order. too often recently we've been reminded that his government grows it becomes less responsible to the american people and fails to perform basic functions either through incompetence or willful disregard of the wishes of congress. our continued failure for major portions of the border model mimics to immigration reform far more difficult, it presents an urgent threat to our national security. some have criticized this bill for its cost to taxpayers and that's a fair critique. those here illegally shouldn't have their unlawful status reworded with benefit and tax

credit, said the bill has some serious flaws and we need to be serious about trying to fix them. the goal should be to make the status quo better, not worse. as with the next few weeks are about. they are about giving the entire senate and indeed the entire country an opportunity to weigh in on this port may be to make their voices heard and try to improve our immigration policy. what that means of course that obviously is an open amendment process. let me be clear, doing nothing about the problem bialik knowledge is in 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. attempting to solve tough problems in a serious and deliberate and are is precisely what the senate at its best should be doing in that sober going to try to do in this debate. >> we have before us a thousand page bill that's extremely difficult to read and to understand. we been asked about on and an hour dissent majority leader reid indicated that he wants to lift amendments in prison and nomar would he agree to and is going to pick and choose which ones he would approve by the end of this week. i believe it's very premature. i do not believe that's the way we should be proceeding and we've got to have the time to

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

know. they don't all the detail and it's not possible to do so. the union group, business groups, meatpackers group, and immigration lawyers association all wherein working on it. how about this section right here from the guestworker section? sub f. b. numerical limitation is apparently has to do with the number of people being admitted. subject to paragraph d. of registered positions that may be approved by the secretary for a year after the fourth year referred to in paragraph 1,

roman numeral for shall be the equal of, subparagraph one. the number of such registered stations available under this paragraph for the preceding year and a numeral two, the product set paragraph 1 and under this paragraph for the preceding year multiplies by subparagraph two, the index of the current year calculated and subparagraph c. you think it's easy to understand? it has meaning and what it basically means is this bill is going to allow more workers to come into this country than they've ever allowed before at a time when unemployment is extraordinarily high, ability to reduce unemployment down, wages

are down and we are following below inflation rate in their wages. i'm just reading ms. we have to rush this through. sub paragraph c. the index calculated under this subparagraph for a current year equals subparagraphs roman numeral one. one fifth of a fraction. subparagraph one. the numerator of wage register privations register employer apply to have approved under e1 for the preceding year merits a registered positions approved under subsection e. for the preceding year and subparagraph

two the denominator of which is the number of positions approved under subsection e. for the preceding year. i'm sure we all got back. i'm sure you know what that means. and it goes on. roman numeral three. three tenths of a fraction. sub paragraph 1, the numerator of which is the number of london played united states workers for the preceding year minus the number of united states workers for the current year. subparagraph two, of which is the number of united states workers for the preceding year and goes onto subparagraph fourq-quebec pretense of 30 fraction echoes on. somebody knows that that is. with special interests on top of readiness that monstrosity. they were there.

they want a fair deal. i would say to my colleagues, when you say for those in the gang of eight i know they want to do the right thing and have worked hard, but they got off on the wrong track. the papers reported for weeks. well, the unions here in the chamber of commerce is here and they had workers in that industry people and want more workers for this and this is demanding more workers for that. the senators so if senator zoster here's some how all hammered out and that's how this writing comes up. it came from then. the senators did write this. they knew exactly what they were doing. they're putting in numbers to get certain workers at businesses wanted so they can have more employees can keep wages down.

that's what this scheme wise. more workers, less competition for labor, loose labor market, less pay raises, less overtime, less benefits because employers have options. and remember the circus workers. these are people are not a citizen ship passed to form corporations and higher millions of people and cure cancer. these are workers that come in and work for existing corporations. i just would emphasize that some thought needs to be given to that. we haven't talked about that yet. we're going to talk about the impact of this large of an increase in immigration into our country had real impacts and allow the numbers and a lot of the data that have their has not

been challenged. and the data indicates were already at a point where the flow of immigrant labor into america's depressing wages and it's a big factor in the cause of workers wages today via an 8% in real terms below what they were in 1999. wages haven't been going out. democrats used to talk about it. the cm or president bush all the time. not a president obama synopsis for five years come you don't hear them talking about it anymore. nobody's talking about senator sanders on the floor last week. i give him credit for that because he's an independent. but i haven't heard in a democratic colleague continued to repeat the fact that steadily we are seeing a decline in wage rates in america, make it harder

for middle-class americans to get by. and what about even finding a job? it is not a little bitty matter. we're going to have to talk about this. it seems quite clear to me, crystal clear to me that the gang of eight never discussed this. they certainly didn't call professor borjas at harvard, a leading expert on immigration and labor and the impact of it in america. he's written books on it. he says that 40% -- at the labor was his study, that fall in wages for american citizen is

attributable to the current flow into america. you bring mark cotton into america, britain and more labor come price of labor false. as with the market forces work. he says this is a factor right now, but we need to understand that 15 million people or legalize, virtually immediately, and the guestworker program appears to double in the number of people who comment and the democrat club, permanent immigrant flow will increase 50% we'll have one of the largest increases in flow of labor to america with every scene and we can't get jobs that are decent paid for american workers right now. that's real out there. people are worried about their families, worried about their

children's abilities to get a job. they're worried about their grandchildren's ability to get the job. about to graduate from high school and don't have a college degree, maybe they don't plan to go to college, but they're going to work. jobs are not that plentiful. did you see the article in philadelphia though? they have job openings to help you with a criminal conviction in the background. they expected a thousand people. 3000 showed up. they had to cancel and reset the whole deal because they interviewed people who said you can't find a job in philadelphia and i believe in new york, one of the boroughs of new york was a very interesting article just two weeks ago about a job opening for elevator mechanics. people waited five days. they took 10 sat to stay in line to try to get those jobs.

the number of people waiting in line was 20 times the number of jobs out there. so we've got to reward people who enter the country and we have to understand this bill right here, these people if the bill is passed, the people who come here with men in the shadows are not correct and that's a sad day and it difficult to, but those individuals also will be able to apply for the elevator mechanic job. they will 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 is the last saturday -- this saturday from the washington post company

there's good job numbers. well, job numbers aren't so great. 175,000 jobs were created last month according to the "washington post" based on the new government data that was released friday in the labor department said unemployment went up from 7.5297.6. unemployment rate went up even though the number of jobs were 175,000 created. what i want to point out is this fact is in the report and i quote from the post, the bulk of the gains in may were in service industry, which added 57,000 jobs. still, half of those are temporary position, temporary positions, not real jobs. and i continue, suggesting

businesses remain as certain of consumer demand, missing from the picture where production jobs in industries such as construction and manufacturing. those are the kind of jobs being created. meanwhile come the manufacturing shed 8000 workers. american manufacturers reduce employment last month and those are the better jobs with the retirement and health care benefits that, to get manufacturing company. so we create more and more competition for a lower wage jobs. in addition, some economists have raised concerns about the types of jobs being created. sect do such as retail, restaurants, bars have been adding dynamic jobs, but those

positions tend to pay low wages. friday's report showed workers average hourly earnings rose only 1 penny in may $223.89 for the entire year wages have risen 2%. again, that's below the inflation rate. so we continue to have the situation in which wages trail inflation, which means average americans have a hard time goodbye and many jobs are part time, not permanent and they're the kind of jobs a lot of people at the advance from while they were in a restaurant or something like that in look to move forward in the of construction, manufacturing jobs is like to see more of are not there. so i mention the work visa is in

this process. despite a huge increase in the numbers of those that are going to be legalize and put on a path to permanent residence in the distant ship that we have a large number of people in this total number. for example, under the bill is widely conceded me with legalize 11 million people and they would be put on a path to legal permanent resident. $11 million for a whom entered illegally and you're in violation of the law. what's not mention is there's another 4.5 million a backlog that is to basically change migration members, family members who want to come under our current law you a cab, a

limit on how many family members are allowed to enter each year and as a result the back august august 34.8 million. now we have people say this, they say you should get the 11 million here illegally advantage over people waiting in line. i was a problem for the gang of eight. now you see them sitting around dealing with that, how can they give somebody here waiting in line status behind not as someone who's been your work and in the country with false start and so legally? that would be right. so how did they solve that? didn't want anyone to say the 4.5 -- so they just let them come in, too. will be initially processing

15 million people and then what about the annual future flow? now it's the most generous flow of the world. we had a million people a year under our legal flow into the country. what about that? and might evolve the accelerated emissions and legal status, should we reduce the number of people coming here each year and lawfully now for a while? has increased 50% according to "the los angeles times." it could be more. all except that number. so instead of a million a year, that is the million five over 10 years is 50 million. so that results in 30 million people in 10 years been given lawful permanent addison america. lawful permanent status in america. 30 million. 10% of the population of america

and overwhelmingly this group is those scale. 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. i'll be computing for the lower wage jobs in america and if they legalized, legal immigrants who entered the country a few years ago are going to find some way or another they were legalizing 1986. ibid. it can't legally cents. but that immigrant population will find their breeches pulled down by this large amount of flow of labor into the country. i just don't think there's any doubt about it. will go into more detail as we go forward. were talking about 30 million been given legal status on a

path to permanent legal residence and citizenship of the next 10 years. we've not discuss discussed that, so i asked senator schumer and the committee twice, how many will be admitted under your belt? 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 provision that have no cop, no limit 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 their bill passes. why not?

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

as we go forward, we need to ascertain with absolute clarity with the best economic data shows about how many people of this country can absorb in a reasonable way and be able to provide a decent place for them to work without pulling down the wages of and are distressed american workforce. we need to talk about that. so far as i can tell, that was never discussed in the groups, but we discuss pretty much in the groups it seems to me with businesses demanding more work errs and more people and basically open borders and they were the ones writing the legislation in large part. they were singing in objections to of the entities to be listened to. they can say that the unit injection.

i think they made some points, but went along with this in no way that is not effective. so we've got to talk about the economic impact of it and we will do we need to ascertain the second aspect. the 30 million people i've just mention are people who can't permanently on a path never to return to their country. their legal status in his citizenship. we do a millionaire which is 10 million that doesn't count the 11 million were given legal status. it's pretty clear to me is in indisputable or on a path to permanent residence in america

and i asked my colleagues if they have a different number they should share with us. maybe in these bills are set paragraphs enumerators infractions and all they got a different number. we figured it out. other analysis have seen them to do so when it was introduced. and you've got the worker programs. that's what i was reading about earlier. i imagine most programs. these are programs in what should be generally been referred to as the guestworker programs. we believe and i think data shows the bill doubles the number of guest workers allowed into the country. every year we bring in a certain number of people in agriculture,

landscaping, some work and other things. the americans doing landscaping, the americans working in meatpacking plant and new fire mark. temporary cease all jobs are often hard to fill in guest workers can do that. i'm not opposed to a guestworker program, but at this point in history should be double the number on top of the 30 million i just mentioned? for example, it has four times guestworkers in the 2007 bill that the american people and congress reject four times the number of guest workers in that bill at a time when 20 million americans are whose pants today they had 2007 when teenage

unemployment is 64% higher and median household and travis 8% lower than in 2007. were so desperate now is go to bring in twice as many guestworkers. where are they going to find work? are we going to disappoint them clicks what if they can't find work? will they then say i work for minimum wage and the american young guy who's 20, late to do some work. he's got a child perhaps trying to get that job and learn a skill as a carpenter, bricklayer, construction equipment operator. will that make his ability to find the job harder? what if the young guy of a drug offense? i used to be a federal prosecutor. you want to see because someone got arrested for drugs they could never get work again.

he was going to take care of them clicks we know if people don't have a job the government has transfer payments, food stamps, medicaid for health care, housing allowances and other benefits. they have even more people by the government because they can't find a job? there's not enough that they are. so my colleagues need to focus on this and not been almost no serious discussion about it, other than what we hear from certain squeaky wheel special interests. how many of our colleagues that the difference between the h. one e. visa, the h2 a visa, the h2 b. visa and the h. for visa?

how many will come in under each one of them and what standards will they use? was out for a job before you use this visa. what about the debt b1 visa? the w-2s visa? and you also have the e3 visa, e4 vsat and e. five vsat and ex-visa and a wide vsat and it goes on and on. that is how we got a doubling of the number of people coming in on the guestworker program. so our sponsors have spent four months bring in the senate. clearly they should have spent much more time because the bill is fatally flawed. the only thing that clearly

worked in the bill, the only thing guaranteed to work as the amnesty. it's guaranteed that people once this bill passed, people here illegally will be given legal status. they will then be placed on a path to citizenship and legal permanent residents of that citizenship. as was guaranteed. i would have in the past as in 1986 is a promise that we'll have enforcement in the future. i have to say, we've been around here for several years that we know that's not going to work. this policy is just that, a promise. if we don't have the backing to make it shorter, senator cornyn has an idea he tensile strength and not and i know it will strengthen it.

wow, i appreciate the opportunity to share these guys. i know sanner cruz is on his way. okay, senator cruz is now in the judiciary committee dealing with some other import issues of which i am glad the able lawyer is fair. and i'm sure he will be speaking later. mr. president, how much time is left on the side clip >> their 17 minutes. >> says senator cornyn and decayed and 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 then that would have improved the border enforcement and he's an expert with the senator of texas. he's wrestled over the years and he should absolutely be listened to. we also know people are out there every day enforcing the law, telling us the system is not working and changes and improvements need to be affect dead and they are concerned this bill doesn't do it. mr. president, the rockingham county sheriff's phase on june 10th, north carolina issued a release of more than 75 north carolina sheriffs warned congress that the senate immigration though would danger public safety.

wow, that's a pretty serious matter. they say this, quote, and a short time over 75 sheriffs across north carolina certain counties but they gave mall across this great state have signed the attached letter opposing the current senate immigration plan. our first responsibility and highest duties as sheriff is to provide for the safety of the citizens residing in a community where we serve. unfortunately, this flawed immigration bill, which was produced by the gang of eight senators puts the public safety of citizens across the united states at risk and hampers the ability of law enforcement officers to do their job. they go want to say, the senate bill should be opposed by lawmakers and instead congress should work with law enforcement on reforms to we heard he had

and are willing to propose that will enhance public safety. american federation of government employees president affiliated with the afl-cio wrote this letter. there has been much public concern over the fact that the legalization occurs prior to any border enforcement. indeed from what i understand, every amendment offered in committee which made legalization continue -- contingent on achieving border security first was defeated. history tells us that future promises will not be kept and that our border agents will be left high and dry by the executive branch and made so many times before regardless of who writes the plan, close quote. this is the head of the federal employees union.

they represent law-enforcement officers. i think the biggest one. he goes on to say even if you completely rewrote your proposals to resolve the many border security concerns and change the ordering to delay legalization, the legalization but still fail to instill in danger the public because of the fatally flawed enforcement component, close quote. he goes on to say, if passed, 744 would lead to the rubberstamping of millions of applications for both amnesty and future admissions. he goes on to say, why should the senate passed a bill to make it even more difficult for the u.s.'s eis, the citizenship and immigration offices to identify, remove and keep out public safety threats, people that are

dangerous, that baby are in trouble criminally in their countries. what do you do if you're about to go to jail in another country in the world? if you flee the country and get to the united states, not mounted that name that we are seeing over the last decade were criminals as a part of the next with fine and decent people who come to the country because they are in effect fleeing prosecution in their own countries. what about the i.c.e. officers, immigration and custom enforcement council? they wrote a letter with pennsylvania shares the north carolina sheriffs nationwide on may 29. ..

>> they have no other obligations then to enforce. they have to do what they have been told not to do it. rather than limiting the

power of those political appointees within the department of homeland security provides them with their the amended discretion which will serve only to further cripple the emissions of these agents. i have talked to them they ask to be a participant with a gang of eight. they refused and warned that this would not work and never wanted to hear from the people who enforce the law every day they wanted to hear from the amnesty crowd that is to the mat with they wanted to hear from the big business guy who once cheap labor. that is who wrote the bill. , the dylan to deal with the people who put their lives on the line. so this continues business

grew an activist and other special interests closely involved to draft s744. a law-enforcement working with the system were prohibited from providing input as a result the legislation before us may have many satisfactory components for powerful lobby interest and other special interests but on the subject of public safety safety, border security security, interior enforcement, and this legislation fails. it is a dramatic step in the wrong direction, the wrong direction''. that is a pretty resounding condemnation. and that is fundamentally correct. i asked the group of people to meet with them and they

would not do it. participants, okay. participants in reset calls to discuss this bill and how to promote debt with the business roundtable silver lake, u.s. chamber of commerce as well as the heads overhaul washington trade groups as well as the financial roundtable. they all had in point*. they all were involved. i guess they make contributions or something.

the chair from bristol county on june 10th wrote this note comment no immigration reform without legitimate and security. i believe that is the for massachusetts and he said aicher said'' i have grave concerns of criminals being eligible for citizenship and dane members being able to qualify for the provisional legal status once they renounce their affiliation. most troubling is the fact that we do not have adequate systems in place such as biometrics to verify identification for people entering and leaving the united states. announcing biometrics will be available at the airport's only serves to limit illegal entry at those

locations but not those without the superior technology will be diverted. i ask you to make it known to your senators and representatives they vote no on passing s744 until a security plan is in place for mayor united states attorney in san diego wrote to this. >> i had the honor to serve with him. he said one of our greatest concerns is the so-called trigger that we are told will delay the past to citizenship until the border is secure. that is what they're saying. until you guarantee the border is secure, the legalization doesn't happen. we have demonstrated that is absolutely ineffective.

so then he goes on to say say, this is an illusion ned to fool the public to believe amnesty will only take place after the border is secure. nothing could be further from the truth. because on dave number one, every one of the illegal aliens aliens, 11 million, will be eligible for a temporary document allowing them to stay and work in the united states. '' he was united states attorney on the california border and he worked with these issues and understand and have to prosecute cases by the thousands. probably hundreds of thousands frankly. the former prosecutor nunez

is very experienced and the share of said secure the border first he announced his opposition to the immigration reform proffered by the so-called gang of 8 officially titled border security and in immigration model act. so the share of said womack we must secure the border first without any discussion of green card for past due citizenship with 20 million illegal and their families it is everything to obama up front with border security promised once again on the back and we are about to repeat history when there is amnesty given to 2 million now the stakes are higher

but we have not learned our lesson. the failure to secure the border after the reagan amnesty got us to where we are today with the levin and 20 -- between 11 and 20 million illegal so this will repeat history''. icing he is exactly right about that. -- i think he is exactly right about that. and he is so outspoken he has testified and he has warned this will make america less secure and warns when the i.c.e. agents will be even more problematic and the bill kids the secretary essentially more discretion to violate the law than what they're using today and the

orders and directives and policies to the eyes officers how to do their job are currently in direct violation of the law. this bill ratifies that by explicitly giving statutory authority to make all kinds of waivers for other matters. that is not a way to give confidence to america. mr. president, i don't know what our time is. i see no one else on the floor but i don't want to take anybody else's time but i guess if i yielded it would go against them anyway. >> there are two minutes remaining on the opponent's side. >> our law enforcement officers are really frustrated we have groups of

border patrol which was given considerable funding after the failure of the 2006 and seven immigration bill and they enhance their efforts as a result of that. but we are still not where we need to be with the border and to set the announcement of this possible amnesty to illegal entries have increased significantly at the borders and a number of people arrested is considerably higher this year than last year. 55%, a 55,000 of the 90,000 people, 90,000 arrested this year since junior a, who are not from mexico. this is primarily on the mexican border, but from other countries. some from countries that have a history of terrorism. senator cornyn has talked

about the previously. so we have a surge happening and they are concerned about it to protect their officers. customs and citizenship and immigration officers are the people that would process the amnesty claims and the request to be treated as lawful residents that would occur after the bell passes to do with the people to make application to come to the united states with the pathway to citizenship they have explicitly boded this legislation they say it does not work with i just read a quote from the union why it won't work because the vice officers -- vice officers deal with all the interior enforcement, apprehend people with the crimes in the state and local jail and

they have been consistently, consistently of front pointing out how they have been constructed in their ability to do their job and if the bill passes passes, and the vast majority of those here illegally are legalized, they are not in the future going to be placed in a position wray they can do their job. they will not be placed in a position to effectively manage the interior enforcement in america they say will make us less secure, not more secure. how long of a direction could that be? those of the things that have got to get a grip on here. that is why the legislation does not but, what and i don't think it won't today. that is for sure. one way or other it will not become law because it is fatally flawed.

mr. president i think the chair to have the opportunity to share these remarks as we begin the discussion on the great issue of our time, immigration. it has got to be done right. the american people rightfully, and so law officers are concerned that we are about to do another 1986. and we will give immediately lawful status to millions of people who came illegally. we promise we will enforce the law in the future but when you read the bill, you can see that what happened. we will be sending another message worldwide that the united states that if you can just get in illegally and hold on long enough you also will be the beneficiary of this third major amnesty that ochers.presiding ficer:

that is where i think the chair to yield the floor. todays >> mr. president i am happy to be here on the floor asrt they get ready to go on the out immigration bill to start tord debates and to go for word count what we need to many of the reasons that my colleagues from alabama have raisedfhese because of the problems thattemr we face with regards to thetep immigration system in the country. let's take a step back to analyze this issue as peopleor are tuning in for the first mayi time or listening to the talk and a fundamental the fundt understanding.ssing. ioen he began by saying theat obvious all understand americans to understand immigration because it is their story. eat-gran parents coming grandparents, greatistics ohe great-grandparents' one of characteristics it is a collection of allr people all over the worldhere in are desc sendants who have come here in search of a i thi better life. it is important toguishess from understand why that

distinguishes us from the rest of the world been theughoum other attitudes basically look at the country that has been organized with the nation's states they have peoe all been organized because com people had a common er sam ethnicity this same race, a tribe, a family than.ed on the the u.s. is founded on theng toe notion what we want is to create a country that believes fundamentally in a god-given right human being to go was off you t far as your talent and work s will take you you can saythat people who have been bornere, and raised some times retakeant. that for granted but rarity. throughout human historytory that is rarity.e of the people have been toldn you c by their leaders you can so lily go so far in life because that is what your parents did in your familyhat'sl comes from so that is all you are allowed to do butare think god we were but we said we don't care how poorhat you were that your parentsere --

were not well-connected or born ifat you were born in another country but if you want have a good idea and want to a work hard to build a better life we want you. and that is the history of wld o united states and a collection of gohe getters toust tild an extraordinarystory b en country and the influences eluntry has not just on unb human history but modern-day it is unbelievably especially it culturally, economically to o insure peace in thf e i all aftermath of world war ii all of this is a result of nation realize that the w migration and you always need to immigration to keept tid our essence as a people butin times change and the system has to change with it.ears the system had 150 years this, ago, people forget this.tes noto what was the immigration system?if you got h not so long ago. if styou got here, you've got to stay.

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

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

immigrant in the united states, we should be on the floor of the senate debating immigration reform because we must modernize our legal immigration system. and that as much as anything else is a reason why my colleagues should be excited about the opportunity to have this debate, because we have to modernize our legal immigration system so that it is a benefit to our country. and i give this anecdote because i think it's appropriate. you know we're in the nba finals, which by the way the miami heat won game two in resounding fashion, and we're very happy about that. we'll see what happens tonight. but imagine for a second if there was now the hottest basketball player in the country, played at some college in the united states, 6'10", never misses a shot, just an unbelievable player. do you think in your wildest dreams that we would ever let that person go play in italy or spain or some other country? there is no way in the world that we are going to allow the best basketball player in the world, no matter where they are born from, no matter where they came from, no matter their immigration status, there is no way in the world that we're

going to let a future nba star leave the united states and go play basketball in some other country, in the european league or the greek league or whatever. they're going to stay here. and so my question to you is if that's how we approach sports, which is important, i guess, but it's a game, shouldn't that be the way we approach our economy? should we be deporting the best graduates at some of our universities, world-class physicists and scientists and people in technology and engineering and math, and yet that's the way functionally our immigration system works right now. and i'm not making this up. we've heard the testimony. we have heard the people that come into our offices. there isn't a member in this office who hasn't had a meeting in their office or their staff hasn't or someone from the tech community who will come to you and say we are going to college campuses, we are making job offers to the best and brightest, and we can't keep them here. not because they don't want to stay here, not because they are not qualified, not because we don't have a job opening, but because we can't get them a green card or legal status. and so they are learning at our

universities at the expense of the american taxpayer, and then they are leaving the united states to compete against us. that makes no sense. nor does, by the way, the system of getting workers for agriculture, which i would argue to many respects is skilled labor. if you don't believe me, go watch some of these people in the field as they work and the work that they do. but american agriculture, you talk about energy security, you want to cripple a country, cripple their food security, cripple their agricultural security. agriculture's an important industry in most of the states in this country and certainly for the united states of america. that industry depends on a work force, and there is a demand for labor in that work force, and the fact is and has been for over a hundred years that the only way to fully fill all the jobs available in agriculture is through seasonal and temporary labor from abroad. there is a real demand for that labor, and there is a real supply of people that want to do that labor. and supply and demand will always meet. but because we do not have a functional legal immigration system that allows the supply of important workers to meet the

demand of domestic jobs and agriculture, supply and demand are meeting but they are meeting in a chaotic and broken way. that needs to be reformed. as well as a bunch of other things. i mean, the immigration system is very bureaucratic and complicated. in fact, our broken legal immigration system is one of the leading contributors to illegal immigration. over 40% of the people in this country illegally today came legally. they didn't jump a fence, they didn't sneak in. they came on some sort of temporary visa and they overstayed it. and one of the leading reasons why they overstay is they think it's too costly, too time consuming and too bureaucratic to come back legally again in the future. so i guess my point is even if we didn't have a single illegal immigrant in the u.s., we need to do immigration reform because we must modernize our legal immigration system and it must reflect the 21st century. the second point that i would make to you is our immigration laws are only as good as our ability to enforce them, and we

don't have enforcement mechanisms that work. all the attention is paid to the border and it should be because the border is not just an immigration issue, it is a national security issue. that means the same routes that are used to smuggle in immigrants can be used to smuggle in weapons and terrorists and other things and drugs. so we must secure the border. and that's not easy to do because there is no such thing as one border. the border's broken up into about nine different sectors. some are doing much better than they ever have. others are not doing very well at all. we must secure the border of the united states for national security reasons as well as immigration reasons. and i know that it's hard to do it and i know there have been efforts in the past that's failed, but i am telling you that i refuse to accept the idea that the most powerful country on earth, the nation that put a man on the moon, is incapable of securing its own border. our sovereignty is at stake in terms of border security. border security is not an antiimmigration or an anti-immigrant measure. it is an important national

security measure but it is also an important defense of our sovereignty, and we must protect our borders. likewise, we have to understand that even if you protect your borders, the magnet that's bringing people to the united states is employment. and so we have to create a system which we are capable of doing in the 21st century. we must create a system that allows employers to verify that the person that they are hiring is legally here, hence all this talk of everify. and last but not least, because 40% of the people that are here legally -- illegally entered legally, we have to have a system that tracks when visitors enter and when they leave. now, my colleagues will tell you that's already required by law, and it is. the problem is that the way it's required right now will never work, and that's why this bill deals with that. we have to have a system so when you're visiting the united states on a temporary visa, as a tourist, on business, what it may be, we track you, you log in when you come in and and you log in when you leave. every hotel in america knows when their guests come in and

when they leave. every hotel in america knows that. multiple businesses track people when they come in and when they leave. we do this every single day as a matter of routine in our lives. the federal government should be able to do that, and it must do that, and this bill requires that they do that and it creates a real incentive to do that, and i'll talk about it in a moment, but basically the incentive is that the green card process for those who are illegally in this country, that doesn't start new mexico that system is fully in place. by the way, it also doesn't start until everify is fully in place. these are significant security measures that we must undertake. when you hear people say well, the bill weakens the status quo of the law, the problem is that the status quo isn't working. there's a reason why we have 11 million people here illegally, and it's because the status quo, the current law, there is a flaw in it. there is a flaw in everify. the flaw is you basically show up at your employer, you show them a social security card. it may not be her social security card, but that's all

you have to show them. it's happening all the time. people are either falsifying the document or borrowing someone else's and using someone else's legal documentation to find a job. we have to create a new e-verify, one that allows us to verify that the person holding that card is actually that person. otherwise, arguing in favor of the status quo is arguing in favor of continuing the fraud. so we have got to stop that from happening. so we have to have security elements as part of this bill. border security, e-verify, and entry-exit tracking. the last issue -- and it's the one that gets all the attention -- is what to do with the people that are here illegally now. i want to begin by saying i don't know anyone who is happy about the fact that we have approximately 10.5 million to 11 million human beings living in the united states illegally. i would also remind that you every one of their stories is different. i would caution people not to lump them all into one basket because they're all very different. some came legally and overstayed, others entered illegally and have been here

ever since. some came in as very young children, didn't even know they were illegal until they tried to go to college. the point is there is real diversity in that group of people. so we have three options. option number one is we can ignore it, leave it the way it is, pretend it's not there, and i think if this bill fails or efforts like it fail, that's exactly what will happen. and for those who oppose amnesty, i will tell you that is de facto amnesty. de facto amnesty is having 11 million people living among you illegally. the only consequence to it is they don't have documentation, but obviously they are working somewhere because they are providing for their families, they don't qualify for any federal benefits. they are all around us everywhere you look, whether you know it or not. they're here. most have been here for longer than a decade. we can ignore it, but if we do, if we leave it in place, if we do nothing, if we do nothing, if this bill fails and we do nothing, that's de facto amnesty. the second option is we can make life miserable.

we can basically put e-verify in place, continue to secure the borders and make life so tough on people that they'll just leave on their own. i don't think that's a practical approach. i don't think it works. i don't think most americans would tolerate what we would have to do in order for that to happen. i don't think most americans would tolerate the humanitarian costs of approaching it that way. and at the end of the day, i still think many won't leave anyway. they'll figure out a way to survive and endure. i don't think that's a practical approach. if someone else thinks that's a practical approach, i would encourage them to come to the floor and convince me otherwise, come here and explain to us why we should try to do that. i haven't heard anyone make that argument. i'm not saying anyone is, which proves my point. so what's the third option? the third option is to deal with it, to deal with it in a way that's reasonable and compassionate, but also in a way that's responsible and good for the country, and that's what we have endeavored to do as part of this bill. so let's be clear what this bill does. this bill, the first and

foremost thing that it does, it says to the people that are here illegally come forward, we have a process for you that you're going to have to undergo if you want to be in this country legally, and here's what that process is. number one, you're going to have to undergo a background check. they're going to have to fingerprint you, you are going to have to undergo a background check for national security and for crimes. if you committed serious crimes, you're not going to qualify for this legalization. you're going to have to pay an application fee. you're going to have to pay a fine because that's a consequence of having violated our immigration laws. when i hear the word amnesty used, it reminds me amnesty means the forgiveness of something. we have seen amnesties all the time. i was recently in the great state of hawaii. we had a great visit there on a personal visit. they have a box called an amnesty box. it allows you when you get off the airplane if you have any banned agriculture, plants, fruits, whatever, to put it in the bucket, no questions asked. that's amnesty. amnesty is turn it in and nothing will happen to you, no price to pay. that's not what this bill does.

this bill says come forward and you're going to have to undergo a background check for national security, a background check for crimes, you're going to have to pay a fine, you're going to have to pay an application fee, you're going to have to get gainfully employed and start paying taxes, and you're not going to qualify for any federal benefits. no obamacare, no food stamps, no welfare, nothing. and that's all you're going to be able to have for ten years, which leads me to my second point about the legalization. there is this notion out there that this is permanent legalization, that once you get this, you're legal forever. not true. this is -- like all other nonimmigrant visas, this is renewable. under the program we envision in this bill, every six years, you're going to have to come forward and reapply. every six years you're going to have to come forward and undergo all the same things over again. another fine, another application fee, another background check. and, in fact, when you go renew it the first time, you're going to have to prove that you have

been gainfully employed and paying taxes for the previous six years. the legalization that people are going to be able to get the so-called r.p.i., registered provisional immigrant, the key word there is provisional. it is not permanent. and there are people that are going to qualify for r.p.i. at the beginning who when it comes time to renew aren't going to qualify because they weren't gainfully employed and paying taxes, because they committed a crime, because they can't pay the fine. it's going to happen. we don't think it will be prevalent, but it will happen. it is not permanent. it is provisional. the third aspect of it is that once you have been an r.p.i. for ten full years, after you have been an r.p.i. for ten full years, which means the first six years and then you reapplied and qualified and you have been in it another four years, then here's the only thing that happens. the only thing that happens is that you are now qualified to, you are eligible to apply for a green card. it doesn't mean on the tenth-year anniversary of

getting r.p.i., you show up at some office and say i'm here, give me my green card. that's not true. you have to apply for it. you have to undergo the same green card process with all the same checks and balances. and i filed an amendment to improve it even further. i'm saying that when you apply for that green card after the ten-year period and more has expired, you're going to have to prove that you're proficient in english because i think the simulation is important, -- because i think assimilation is important, because i think assimilating into american society is important. i think learning english is not just american for assimilation, it's important for economic success. you cannot flourish in our economy, you cannot flourish in our country if you're not proficient in english. and we're going to require that at the green card stage. now, what's the debate going to be about here over the next few weeks? well, a couple of things are going to have to happen. first, like any other bill, there are some technical changes that are going to have to be made, and those will be made. i think there will be improvements to the bill on other issues like what i have just talked about, this

amendment that i have to make the english proficiency required at the green card stage. then i think we're going to move on and have a debate about the costs of this bill and ensuring that we truly tighten this. because, look, the american people are very generous and open, especially through a process like this, but they want to make sure this isn't costing the american taxpayer, so we're going to really have to make sure that people aren't qualifying for these federal benefits. we we have to make sure that people who violated the law, one of the consequences is they are not a burden on the american taxpayer. if you talk to immigrant groups and the immigrants themselves, they'll tell you that's not a problem, that's not what we're here for. good. because you're not going to qualify for those things and we're going to make that even clearer in some of the amendments that senator hatch and others are working on. i think we have to get to the final point and that's the security elements of this bill. now, i personally believe that more than half of my colleagues on the republican side, maybe a little more, maybe a little less, want to vote for an immigration bill.

they want to modernize our immigration system, improve our enforcement mechanisms and deal with the 11 million people here illegally but they are only willing to do that if they can go back to their folks at home and say we took steps to make sure this will never happen again. we didn't repeat the mistakes of the past. this isn't going to happen again. that's going to be the key to this bill passing. and i think that we can do that. and that's in our principles, by the way. the guiding principles before this bill was unveiled talked about border security. one of the ways i think we can improve that is not leaving the border and fence plan to chance. let's not leave it to the department of homeland security. one of the objections we heard from opponents of the bill is we don't trust homeland security to come up with a plan that works. fine. let's put it in the bill. let's put the specific plan in the bill, the number of fences, the amount of technology, let's mandate it in the bill. so that we're not leaving it to guesswork so when you goat for this have it you are voting for a specific security plan. i've heard people say we think

the everify portion should be improved. let's fix it now, put it in the bill. we think the exit/entry tracking system can be improved. let's put it in the bill. so when you vote for the bill you're voting for a plan on those things. that's important and that's not unreasonable. yapt ypt you to think about this. the immigrant who is here comes forward, get legalized, they are now here legalley i. they met the conditions, they're here legally, they're paying taxes, not in the shadows anymore. but before we can move to a green card which is permanent residency, all we're asking for is we ensure this never happens been again. that is not an unreasonable request. not only do i not think it's unreasonable, i think that is a very responsible request. because none of us want to be here five years from now or ten years from now saying boy, they messed up in 2013. we got to do this all over again. none of us want to be here five

years from now facing five million illegal immigrants more, another wave of illegal immigration. if we can get that right, i believe this legislation will pass in an historic way out of this chamber and it strengthens the chances it could pass in the house and be signed by the president. that's the opportunity we have. to get something like this right. now, i could go on and talk about the economic benefits of legal immigration reform and what that will mean for our economy, we'll have plenty of time to have that conversation. trust me when i tell you and we'll work on it to convince you, it will be a net positive for america to have a illegal immigration system that works. that's why this debate is so important. i think we can do something smoog here that's good for the country and responsible and once and for all solve this problem so we don't have to continue to deal with it so it doesn't hold us back so we a nation of immigrants built on a heritage of legal immigration can have a legal immigration system that works, that we can be proud of

that helps our country, that takes this issue off the table, gets rid of de facto amnesty that protects our sovereignty and our borders and the security of our people. that's what we have chance to do here. to the opponents of the legislation, i respect your views very much. i do. you raise valid persons which we have attempted to address and which we will continue to address in this bill. i'm not one of those take it or leave it people with regard to legislation. i think no matter what idea i have, the more people are exposed to it, the more suggestions i get, the better we can make it and maltly that's what i'm interested in being a part of. i'm not interested in being a part of a talking point or a messaging point. what i'm personally interested in is solving a problem hurting america and that's how i'll close. that's why i'm passionate about this. the reason why i'm passionate about this issue is because this thing is hurting america. the fact that we have 11 million people living here, don't want

know who herb or where they are, they're not incorporated into our economy, it's bad for our country. the fact we can't enforce our immigration laws because the systems don't work, that's bad for america. the fact that we have a legal immigration system that hurts our economy and hurts our future, that's bad for america. what we have today in immigration america is bad. it doesn't work for anyone, unless you're a human trafficker or someone who is benefiting at the expense of cheap illegal labor. who else is being helped by the status quo? who else likes what we have right now? the answer is nobody. and leaving this in place is not an altern pif you tiff. it is not an option. 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. and i hope my colleagues, those who are open-minded about it will remain open-minded as we work to improve this product and give the american people something that helps our country, solves our problem and country, solves our problem and

[inaudible conversations] >> the committee will come to order in the executive session. can we get more chairs for the people in the back? that and know who is in charge of chairs. [laughter] there is an overflow room in for 28 the normal committee room that is being telecast up there so if people want to sit down they can go to room number 428 to watch the

session. we're here today to consider a critically important piece of education the strengthening of america's school act to take the time any to give members the time to share concerns and express ideas but move expeditiously to the processes there is a lot going on in the senate right now and members have many demands of their time. need i add the immigration bill will be coming up. this is been a smooth process so far in i appreciate everyone's continued cooperation as semaphored. my hope is of senators can commit to being here to maintain decorum we can proceed in time to wrap up work on the legislation hopefully tomorrow and i understand senator alexander says it could be feasible so. in the interest of time you will live in opening statements to the chairman and ranking member. other senators interested in submitting remarks can do so. member should be aware we move through the legislation

title by title to give members the opportunity to offer amendments in order. if they had multiple titles they can be offered in conjunction with any titles they amend. no ranking member alexander has another amendment and we will consider the first since it covers all the titles. we have goats a schedule that to 15:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. so we will clouthier as many as we can before we break for lunch, hopefully we can go and tell about 1:00 then we will reconvene after the to 15:00 p.m.'' coming get as much as we can and break for the four cockboat and then reconvene. for the sake of expediency we might debate several boats at a time then stack the boats when the committee is present in may will do that with agreement on both sides. and particular vendor stand

in terms of doing several amendments that is done with mutual agreement on both sides. will try to give as much it advance heads up as possible for the logistics' i will turn to the substance of the discussion and i will start with an opening statement then recognize senator alexander. today we are marking a bill to reauthorize the elementary education second deck -- secondary act with this marco eppley are improving on the lessons of the past to ensure a brighter future but we all recognize it is time to update the law to ensure 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 role of education since esca determines that role or it is the nature of education has been primarily a state and local function. the government plays an important role in a well educated citizenry is in the national interest. the central role of the federal government is to ensure all americans americans, regardless of race, gender, national origin, religion and disability have the same equal opportunity to a good education. likewise the constitution expressly states a national government was to promote welfare and the blessings of liberty and it is greatly endangered when the populace is not adequately educated that i believe is critical to liberty. the role of the federal government and education is primarily about equity and

excess, access to the schoolhouses self and equity in educational opportunities. the two most significant laws in the country, esca and one idea promote access and equity. idea asher's students with disabilities can get into school, have the appropriate education to meet their needs. and esca insurers schools serving children with the greatest needs have equal resources to address the needs of students have the opportunity to achieve. the we have yet to fully achieve those goals. the aim of the bill is to do everything we can to make this vision a reality. the elementary and secondary education act was passed in 1965 to give aids to school districts to improve

education for the low income family. for almost 50 years the federal government has strained its focus on the mission that all children should have the chance to fulfill full potential among local governments by redesigning the new child left behind act to retain equipment without children is to high standards to overhaul elements that have proven ineffective no child of behind act is a departure from previous authorizations of esea lawmakers felt more compelled to be more prescription to make sure the approval performing schools and focus on closing the student achievement gap. ncl be defined progress for schools and districts require districts to put aside money to implement

public school choice and tutoring including a list of rigorous interventions for low performing schools and an additional restructuring for the chronically low performing with even more severe consequences. nclb had been intentions. however as we have seen over the course of the last 12 years those good intentions did not always translate to good policy. the secretary of education has given schools a reprieve through flexibility agreement the states of undertaken voluntarily. this reflects a positive change for the time being but not a substitute for a new and permanent law. the bill we are marking up follows a different course of nclb and one similar to the flexibility agreements instituted by the u.s. department of education. what we're asking for is a

system of shared responsibility with states and local school districts. five believe we're 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 for old ways in which certain groups of students did not have access opportunity. our bill does get rid of ayp the sets parameters over the accountability system. and also asks states to put greater emphasis of the children in the early years because we know so many of our children particularly from low-income families have gaps in learning before they even enter the school doors. our bill strategically consolidates programs and focuses grant funds on a smaller number of programs to allow for greater flexibility.

it supports districts to expand -- extend the school day and the year to strengthen literacy literacy, science, math, or technology programs. posturing safe and healthy students and offering a more well-rounded curriculum that includes the arts and physical education. the bill in fast and effective programs to train and support principals and teachers for i need schools and fosters innovation through new programs like grace to the top, investing in innovation and promise neighborhoods. and we recognize a central role of parents in the bill. we made sure they are the integra partner in their children's education providing parents is critical information so they can make decisions about their children's education education, i believe empowers families. our version of the 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 fold a kindergarten that their children have access to a belief allows them to make informed decisions about their children's education so a stronger emphasis to keep parents informed of what resources are available. i believe this is a good bill and i am proud of her efforts. we owe it to our kids and their nation to provide them with certainty and support and resources they need to make meaningful strides to ensure access to high-quality education to guarantee opportunities for all of our children. i will now turn to the ranking member senator alexander for his opening statement. >> as the chairman did alibi

to start with the word of process for the way we are proceeding and i think we have shown that even though we deal with tough issues and the ideological differences on this committee we can work together and sometimes we agree fundamentally at the beginning. for example, to find a way to track and trace 4 billion prescriptions every year on dealing with the accountability of compounding pharmacies and mental health already this year we have approved bills and agreed on them. but here we have a disagreement at the beginning anyway but the chairman and i have agreed on a way to proceed because of weak cannot agree at the beginning maybe we can at the end of the process for powerball is to move forward with competing proposals having good amendments and discussions to move the bill to the floor whatever form

it comes out of committee to then bring it up to have the same kind of debate with amendments i would be in favor to move ahead to see what bill we can get there. the house is moving ahead with the same time with their version may be different than what comes out of here but we have a conference that has not been used much slavey but the idea is to throw both ideas then at the and make a final decision to see if we agree. i hope we follow that because i believe it is time to do our job to reauthorize elementary and secondary education act we are six years late and i think can for the process. second, if i can mention to my republican colleagues our amendments will work, we will go to the titles. we have given him a suggested list of the first 10 amendments we would like to offer and to go quickly over those i will offer a substitute first and they

will alternate it back and forth so that will take time and as i understand it, any senators free to talk on any amendment although we would like to move on as expeditiously as possible so i would like our colleagues to be involved more than the amendment. senator nancy has state and local control i have one and teacher evaluation. and then i have one on entitled to fund through public schools and senator scott has won on standards and tests, then there's one for flexibility then title one money following children to public and private schools and flexible standards, and then burdensome reporting requirements and another for the secretaries waiver authority that is the order in which we will start there could be others after that

does that sound correct mr. chairman? that is what we will do and if you have to leave work, back we will work on that to try to make time around your schedule. mr. chairman over the last decade the ted is states to permit of education has become so congested with federal mandates that it has become ineffective and a national school board if you remember that child a good game mother may i you have a good sense of how the process works today. states was come to washington for approval of their plans to educate 50 million children in 100,000 public schools and during this discussion you will hear me mention those 100,000 public schools many times because every time we make a ruling here it affects 50 million children and in 100,000 public schools and takes wisdom to testify. the congestion of mandates that i mentioned is caused

by three things. one is no child of behind behind, raced to the top and the administration's use of waivers first in a child left behind has standards for what children should know in reading and math and federal definitions the school's third teachers were succeeding or failing. second, raced to the top which was a competitive grant program but the secretary used it to mandate that 46 states that applied along with the district of columbia adopting common course and also had for a turnaround models for failing schools and prescriptive evaluation plans and third congress's failure to fix the problem with no child left behind to restrain the secretary has allow this to administration to turn a the waiver authority to where they are supposed to ask relief into

a conditional process for what they have to do to obtain that it wavers states the federal definitions of how they should measure its performance and a prescriptive so far 47 states have applied for the waiver because the requirement has become so unworkable the secretary literally has states over a beryl's you have mandates from no child of behind, the effective mandates through race to the top in 47 states are over a barrel so they apply for waivers and they received a number of mandates. said to offer a 750 page plan would not only frees the mandates in place but double down to create more than 25 new programs as well

as 150 new reporting it requirements for which states and local school districts must require approval. so they oppose the move and a different direction we offer a 220 page plan to help children in public schools know what they need to do and by restoring responsibility and giving teachers and parents freedom, flexibility and choice and we called it every child ready for college or career. our plan emphasizes state and local decision making and puts washington out of the business to decide of local schools are succeeding or failing freeing all schools from meeting the progress mandate and rejects the federal mandate to create a national school board prohibiting the education secretary for the accountability system for states and continues the requirement that they have quality tests but not from

washington and it makes it easier for states to offer low income parents were choice to find the right public school for their child and his teachers and principals more freedom by encouraging the expansion and replication of successful charter schools and encourages states to create evaluation programs free of federal and mandates and to spend federal education dollars while cutting waste by consolidating 62 federal programs in to comment to block grants it is not just a proposal for republicans. . .