southwest border were up 67% from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2013. we know that some of the other than mexicans include terrorists who enter the united states via the southern border. secretary napolitano has testified before congress to that very fact. we also know that a majority of "other than mexicans" fail to appear for their immigration proceedings and simply disappe disappear, lost here in this great country, the united stat states. increasing bonds for these nationals would deter absconders, assist the -- assist i.c.e. and the customs border police in covering detention and removal costs, or, at a minimum, provide a disincentive to cross.

unfortunately, and amendment during the judiciary committee markup to raise the bonds for other than mexicans failed. many commonsense amendments were defeated during the committee process and many amendments to beef up the border will be considered in the days ahead. as i have said before, the bill before us only requires that the secretary of homeland security submit a plan to congress before millions of people are legalized. there's little regard for the need to better secure the border. in other words, when a plan is presented, make sure that that plan works. so some of them say that we've done enough. the secretary says the border is more secure than ever before. they say that border security shouldn't stand in the way of legalization. my amendment is a good first step to stopping the flow of

illegal immigration. it sends a clear signal that we're serious about getting the job done. for the secretary to simply submit a plan to congress is only worth the paper upon which it is printed. we need to take action, and we need to make it a priority. i yield the floor, and does the senator -- is he senator going to take the floor? i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. may i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for perhaps up to 20 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you very much. i rise today for i think the 35th time to again bring the message to my colleagues that it is time to wake up to the threat of climate change. there is simply too much credible evidence that climate change is occurring, and there

is too much at risk for us to continue sleepwalking. our oceans face unprecedented challenges from climate change and carbon pollution. oceans have absorbed more than 550 billion tons of our carbon pollution. as a result, they have become 30% more acidic. that is a measurement; that is not a theory. ocean temperatures are also changing dramatically, again driven by carbon pollution. sea surface temperatures in 2012 from the gulf of maine down to cape hatteras were the highest recorded in 150 years. that's another measurement. fish stocks are shifting northward, with some disappearing from u.s. waters as they move farther offshore. fishermen coming in to talk to

senator reed and myself have noted anomalies, that things aren't making since out there is the way they've described it. in my home state of rhode island, the ocean state, we put our lives and hearts into our relationship with the ocean. the day-to-day life on the coast is a proud and rewarding tradition, but it is one that is now threatened by climate change. the waters of narragansett bay are getting warmer, four degrees fahrenheit warmer in the winter just since the 1960's. long-term data from the tide gauges in new port, rhode island, show an average level in sea level of three inches. sea level rise is contributing to erosion and allows storm surges and waves to wash farther and farther inland.

last year hurricane sandy really sped up that erosion, driving down beaches and dunes and tearing up coastal homes and roads. the ecosystem damage, erosion, and storms are just part of the price that rhode islanders pay for unchecked greenhouse gas pollution. and we're not alone. every region of the united states is facing similar costs. economists are working to calculate the costs of carbon pollution by adding up those damages of climate change. it is called the social cost of carbon, because it's the cost of pollution that the big polluters offload onto the rest of society. when consumers and taxpayers are forced to shoulder those costs, that is a market failure, and it's flat out simply unfair. the obama administration recently revised its estimates

of the social cost of carbon. the new calculation does a better job at capturing the most recent projections for sea level rise and agricultural productivity. this is a good step toward recognizing the ma magnitude ofe harms of climate change, and i hope it's an indication that the president is going to do more to address this problem. economists and administration officials are not the only ones looking at the cost of carbon pollution. among those weighing the evidence that our climate is changing are the cold-eyed professionals of the property casualty insurance industry -- insurers and the reinsurers. their industry depends on getting this right. politics has no place in their calculations. this is how they make their living. the insurance sector has created a complete data set for natural catastrophes worldwide from 190

up to -- from 1980 up to 2011. here's what they see -- the annual level of natural disasters is going steadily up. the top three colors of each of these bars show the number of events that are related to weather. on the bottom -- this set in red shows the events that are not related to weather: volcanoes, earthquakes and so forth, not climate-related. so while the overall number of catastrophes is increasing, you can see that the number of these nonclimate catastrophes is constant. it is the climate change-driven catastrophes that are increasing. here is the chart without the nonclimate catastrophes. these are the catastrophes just related to climate-driven weather. insurers and reinsurers are looking more closely at the

increase in weather-related catastrophes and are now starting to include climate change costs in their risk models. so pricing carbon properly is necessarily. representative henry waxman, representative earl bloomenhower and i have recented a draft of legislation to make the big carbon polluters pay a fee to cover the cost of dumping their waste carbon into our atmosphere and oceans, a cost they now push off onto the rest of us, and to return all that revenue to the american people. but, mr. president, at present the political conditions in congress are stacked against us. the big polluters and their allies hold sway, and congress refuses to wake up. while congress sleepwalks through history, states like my home state of rhode island are acting to mitigate and adapt for climate change.

this week i welcomed dozens of rhode islanders to washington for our annual rhode island energy and environmental leaders day. this event brings together rhode island, renewable energy, and sustainable development businesses, community development nonprofits, state and local officials, environmentalists, experts agencies on we were joined by my terrific rhode island delegation, jack reed, jim langevin and david ciselini. but the highlight was hearing from former vice president a.p. gore. vice president gore declared that we are on the cusp of a fantastic revolution in green energy, but, he warned, there is still ferocious resistance from legacy industries that have built up wealth and power in a previous age. that's what stops congress. that's what keeps us sleep if --

that's what keeps us sleepwalking. that's why we don't waning. we were also joined by energy secretary moniz who asserted the obama administration wanting to double it by the inked of the decade. henry waxman, the ranking member on the house committee and my fellow cochair of our bicameral task force on climate change also came to address the group, as did senator elizabeth warren of massachusetts at rhode island energy and environmental leaders day. we're a leader in the development of offshore wind energy. this month the federal bureau of ocean energy management announced the first-ever auction for renewable energy leases off the coast of rhode island and massachusetts. our state's special area management plan -- or samp -- has balanced commercial and military marine interests through a first of its kind

project. this cooperation has protected rich fishing grounds and sped up wind energyvestmen energy devel. rhode island is part of reggie along were eight other states, including the state of the presiding officer. our region caps carbon emissions and sells permits to power plants to emit greenhouse gases, creating economic incentives for both states and utilities to invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy development. rhode island's climate change commission identifies risks to important state infrastructure and reports on the effects of catastrophic events like hurricane sandy and the 2010 flood. places like north kingstown, rhode island, the city planners have taken the best elevation data available and they have modeled various levels of sea

level rise and storm surge. by combining these models with maps showing roads and emergency routes, water treatment plants, andesandand estuaries, the towne better plan. there is a grant to help the state prepare for and address health effects associated with climate change. and most of all, rhode islanders are calling for action, especially young rhode islanders. when i spoke at a climate change rally on the national mall earlier this year, busloads of rhode islanders had driven down to show support for action on climate change. right now students at brown university and the rhode island school of dn are pusng thr great universs to divest their endowments of coal holdings. i'm proud of the effort we're making in rhode island, and i know a the although of states

are working -- and i know a lot of states are working just as hard. i say to my colleagues, our home states are hampered in these efforts by inaction in congress. even the government accountability office known as congress's watchdog has pointed out repeatedly that the federal government should be a better partner to states that are trying to adapt to and plan for climate change. t, sadly, congress seems determined to be the last holdout against gooense. some in this body choose to ignore the science and put special interests before national interests. they stifle policies that would be economically inconvenient to their special interests. the obstruction may be well-funded by the polluters and their allies, but the majority of the american people understand that climate change is a problem, and they want their leaders to take action. many in washington do recognize the need for climate action and ocean stewardship. president obama declared this

june to be national oceans month saying, "all of us have a stake in keeping the oceans, coasts, and great lakes clean and productive, which is why we must manage them wisely, not just in our time but for generations to come, rising to meet that test means addressing threats like overfishing, pollution, and climate change." last week the national marine sanctuary foundation hosted the 12th capitol hill ocean week, bringing marine professionals, government officials, and ocean advocates to washington to discuss strategies for keeping our oceans and coasts healthy. also last week, secretary of state john kerry hosted a round table discussion about the challenges and opportunities for ocean sustainability under climate change. responsible people are calling for action, like rhode island's energy and environmental leaders, like the insurance and reinsurance sector, like virtually every major reputable

scientific organization, like nasa whose scientists had a buggy the size of an s.u.v. to mars and are driving it around on the surface of mars. they may know something when they can do that. like major u.s. corporations, apple and ford and nike, like the u.s. conference of pweurb -- bishops and president obama's deputy for science and environmentallal change said congress has not delivered a commonsense market-based solution. if congress will not act, then the president will. mr. president, it's time to wake up and to meet the challenge of our time. there is a lot at stake for every state and there is a lot at stake for every generation. it is time to wake up and to take action. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor because i've been listening to some of my colleagues' discussions about the immigration reform bill that we have before the senate. as i have said before, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but they're not entitled to their own facts. i've heard references time and time again to 1986, the last time that an immigration reform legislation was passed. this is not 1986. selective memory loss seems to be at work in the senate today, and i'd like to respond to some

of these claims by my colleagues. on one hand, critics of the immigration bill keep hearkening back to irca saying we haven't learned the lessons. on the other hand they insist on securing the border first before a legalization process can begin. but if there are lessons to be learned from 1986, there are just as many to be learned from the last ten years in which enforcement first has been the mantra of congress's immigration policy with disastrous results. first, with respect to 1986, the overriding lesson was learned from that bill was that if you don't deal with the reasons people come to the united states, you don't solve the

problem. a promise to end illegal immigration ultimately couldn't be fulfilled because the 1986 law did not address the question of future immigration flows. the migration policy institute and the immigration policy center have identified one cause of future illegal immigration after irca to be not legalization -- not legalization -- but the failure of the legislation to address future flows of immigration. s. 744, the bill that we are debating, however, does not follow in the failed footsteps of the 1986 act and addresses future flow in real and meaningful ways. but we have learned other lessons in the intervening years. most notably that the, quote unquote, enforcement first policy does not serve our country well.

despite an extraordinary, an extraordinary allocation of resources and personnel, the flow of illegal immigrants has steadfastly been affected more by the economy than by enforcement efforts. as deportations have gone up at the same time the tragic impact on families and children have been well documented and the impact on the economy continues to grow. so if one of the pull factors is the opportunity to earn money to send back to your family, s. 744 undermines that opportunity by mandating a universal -- a universal -- employment verification system and provides for a reasonable implementation schedule. what that basically means is that every employer in america virtually is going to have to make sure that regardless of who

you are, that when you come forth and you seek to be employed by an employer who has a job available, they're going to go through the system and verify whether you have the legal status to be able to work in the united states. that undermines that factor of drawing people to this country for employment opportunity much more than anything else about interdiction. if anything, the growing outrage over a broken immigration system helped to change the political dynamic last year. it was a rejection of both the enforcement-only strategy and the idea that we must secure the border first. finally, the migration policy institute explained that the 1986 act limited legalization program left many people in the shadows, which led to substantial backlogs in

family-based immigration categories. illegal immigration did not decrease dramatically until after the passage of enforcement-only bills started in 1996 that trapped many in an undocumented status despite their family or employment ties. so our legislation learns from the mistakes of the past and creates a balanced 21st century immigration system. now despite what many have said, our legislation, in moving forward with legalization, does not, however, abandon border security but rather addresses it in tandem with the significant problems that face our immigration system. we can, for example, reap enormous benefits from legalizing the undocumented both in terms of of their economic contributions, making sure that they fully pay taxes and are

law-abiding in every other respect. and in terms of creating a more secure and accountable system. as we will know who is in the united states and who can lawfully work here, but we can't do it if we have to wait years -- years -- under some of the amendments our colleagues are offering to begin the process of transitioning undocumented people into a legal status. now, i've heard a lot about national security. well, i would prefer to know who is here in the united states, let them come forth, register with the government, go through a criminal background check. and those who can't pass that background check, maybe they don't think their background is going to come up, they get deported. but then i know who is here to do harm to america versus who is here to pursue the american

dream. but my colleagues would continue through their amendments to keep these people in the shadows. millions. and, therefore, i don't know how you promote national security if you don't know who is here and for what purposes. so we reap enormous benefits both in terms of economic benefits as well as security by bringing those people out of the shadows into the light, registering with the government, going through a criminal background check, paying taxes, learning english and earning your way to make your situation right in the united states. now, certain impossible border security standards must be seen for what they are which, in my view, is a cynical attempt to deny a pathway to legalization. you can flower it all you want, you can cover it up all you want, you can put all the

lipstick on it you want, but it is still what it is. it is a cynical attempt to ultimately undermine a pathway to legalization. standards that some of my colleagues are trying to propose cannot -- have not been met by the federal government in virtually any other responsibility that the government has. pretty amazing. tying the two together as so many have tried to do is simply instutionalizing the status quo. what does the status quo do? the status quo allows millions to be in this country without knowing what their purpose is here. the status quo allows families to be divided. the status quo allows u.s. citizens and permanent residents, legal permanent residents of the united states to be unlawfully detained at immigration raids, treated as second-class citizens of this country because of the

happenstance of where they live, who they are, what they look like. who among us is willing to be a second-class citizen in america? the status quo permits an underclass to be exploited and create downward pressures on the wages of all americans, and that exploitation takes place. the status quo doesn't allow for the challenges even in a tough job economy to be fulfilled so that our economy can grow because i listen to all different sectors of our economy -- the agricultural sector. i listen to the seafood industry. i listen to the hospitality industry. i listen to the restaurant industry. i listen to the high-tech industry. and they clamor for individuals to do these critical jobs that

very often support the high-paying jobs above them but are essential in order to be able to produce that product or deliver that service. we would have the status quo be preserved because that is what in essence the amendments that are being offered that are unattainable, standards that simply my colleagues know cannot be met that are really not about border security but about undermining the pathway to legalization. so let's look at what this bill does do, however, about border security, among many other provisions. it includes $6.5 billion in addition to the greatest amount of resources, money, border patrol, custom enforcement, physical impediments on the border, aerial surveillance that

already exists. it adds $6.5 billion to bolster our border security efforts that is in addition to the annual appropriations for border security. effective border controls? yes. as a matter of fact, these provisions in the gang of eight were largely drafted by the senators who came from border states and who had a real sense and a real conversation with those who secure the border every day about what was needed. it requires all employers to verify their workers are authorized to work in this country, which cuts off the job magnet. another effective control. perhaps the most effective control. it has a whole entry-exit system that is far more advanced than that which exists today. and before any legalization can

begin, before any legalization can begin, the secretary of homeland security is designated to come up with a plan for how to deploy $4.5 billion of those $6.5 billion on infrastructure, technology, fencing, personnel such as the border patrol, to be able to catch nine out of every ten undocumented immigrants that might attempt to cross the border. so there's more border patrols. only after this plan has been presented to the congress and the everify system, which is that employment correct is ready for nationwide implementation and that the deployment of the resources has commenced may the legalization program begin to adjust undocumented individuals to that provisional status. and before anyone in that provisional status can ever be granted a green card, which basically means permanent

resident, all of the resources of the plan must be deployed on the ground and be working. it's not enough for some of my colleagues because they create standards for which you in essence could never ever have even a provisional status in the country. some senators have also claimed that our bill allows immigrants to receive welfare and other public benefits. that just simply is not true. s. 744, the bill before us, bars individuals granted even provisional status and blue card status, which are ag workers and v nonimmigrant visas. they will not, will not be eligible for the following federal means testing public benefit programs for the duration of their provisional status. nonemergency medicaid, supplemental nutrition

assistance program otherwise known as snap or food stamps, temporary assistance for needy families, supplemental securities income. in fact, when most of these individuals adjust to l.p.r. green card status, they will be forced to wait at least five additional years before becoming eligible for these programs, all the while while they are paying taxes, which is a prerequisite. as a result, an individual with r.p.i. status who is otherwise eligible for public benefits would not be able to enroll in programs such as medicaid and snap for 15 years. now, during the duration of their provisional status, individuals will not be eligible for the affordable care act's premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions that help make health insurance affordable for low and

middle-income working families. they will not be eligible for that. individuals granted r.p.i., the provisional status, blue card or nonimmigrant visa status will be able to purchase public -- excuse me, private health insurance at full cost. at full cost. without subsidies, without tax credits, through the insurance marketplaces created under the affordable care act. and we certainly want to give them the opportunity out of their own pocket and full cost to be able to do so if they can because that means that we lessen the burden on our health care system, particularly in an emergency room segregate. which is what happens right now. this doesn't give tax credits, doesn't give subsidies but does say to the individual if you have the wherewithal, go by insurance and protect yourself.

this bill denies benefits to legalized immigrants. it's a tough bill. and frankly, for many of us, some of these provisions, because we say to someone come forth, register, pay fines, pay fees, pay your taxes, and by the way, for a decade or more, even though you're paying taxes like anybody else, you have absolutely no right to any of it. that's virtually what we're saying. so i wanted to clarify the record so the american people understand the truth about this bill. it's a tough and fair compromise that respects the american taxpayer. finally, i'd like to clarify the record about taxes and the economic benefits of this bill. this bill increases the gross domestic product of the united states by a cumulative $832 billion over ten years.

$832 billion over ten years. and that's only by virtue of looking at the legalization aspect. if we look at the totality of all of the elements of the bill, it exceeds a trillion dollars. it increases the wages of all americans by $470 billion. and it creates an average of 121,000 new jobs each year for the next ten years. that's an additional 1.2 million jobs over the next decade. the senate bill says that individuals who don't pay their taxes can't, cannot renew their legal status or obtain green cards. legalizing immigrants can be required to pay assessed taxes going back as far as ten years before legalization. this requirement is tougher than the back tax requirements in the

2006 and the 2011 bipartisan senate immigration bills, which only required legalizing workers to pay back taxes when they obtained their green cards. under this bill, workers are held responsible for back taxes at three points -- when first transitioning to legal status, when renewing their status and when obtaining a green card. on top of the back tax requirement, legalizing workers will have to pay significant penalties and fees at registration and renewal and when obtaining their green cards. everyone who works, regardless of their immigration status, is liable for the payment of taxes. assessed liability simply means that legalizing workers will be held responsible for all the back taxes the i.r.s. says they owe. all the back taxes the i.r.s. says they owe, going back as far

as ten years before legalization. the back tax requirement is written in the way that is most extraordinary for the i.r.s. to implement and enforce, saving resources and making sure that individuals with past-due liability can actually be blocked from adjusting their status. it provides an efficient way for the department of homeland security to confirm that individuals have satisfied their tax liabilities. it's much easier for the department of homeland security to work with i.r.s. to confirm that individuals have paid all their assessed liabilities instead of sifting through tens of millions of tax returns which would not reflect taxes that may have been assessed by the i.r.s. you know, i look at the congressional budget office, we'll await their score, but they and other experts in the

past have found that undocumented workers will pay billions of dollars more in taxes once they come out of the shadows and work legally. so, mr. president, you know, i had thought that in poll after poll after poll where both democrats and republicans and independents said they wanted to see this broken immigration system fixed, where, in fact, we had a national election last november for the presidency, for the congress in which this debate raged on quite a bit and ultimately a new demographic in the country showed in those election results as they marched to the polls that they were looking at how this congress would deal with the question of reforming our broken immigration system, that in fact we have a

different day here in the senate, that instead of voices that are seeking to undermine the very essence of reform that includes border security, that includes a pathway to legalization, that includes provisions in our economy that are incredibly important both to grow and not suppress the wages of americans, that improves the protections to make sure that american workers have the first shot at getting any job that exists in america, first and foremost, that looks at the future in terms of flows and says this is how we're going to deal with this to ensure that our economic vitality grows by the virtue of who we allow in this country, but that still preserves a very core value, an american value, a value i often

hear my colleagues talk about, which is family values and the family unit. that still preserves the very essence of that value, even as it reduces it somewhat, and at the same time preserves our history as a nation of immigrants, the greatest experiment in the history of mankind which has made us the greatest country on the face of the earth, that we would hear a different approach by some of our colleagues, but i have heard the same tired refrain, and it may sound good but when you read what the amendments are all about, you understand what they're really trying to do. and i believe that those efforts will be rejected. legitimate efforts to improve this bill as they were improved in the senate judiciary committee in which 136 amendments were offered and passed, many of them republican amendments, many of them

bipartisan amendments were passed. and they in fact refined, improved, made more specific elements of the bill that were great additions. those opportunities exist here as well, but what we can't allow is to jul phi the hopes and dreams and aspirations of millions of people in our country. who are waiting for this moment. we cannot nullify the opportunity to really move toward securing our country in a way far beyond the status quo. we cannot lose the opportunity to grow our economy, get more taxpayers into our system and strengthen our overall revenue sources. that's what this bill is all about. that's why i believe at the end of the day that it will prevail and receive the votes necessary to move forward and send to the house so we can finally get this broken immigration system fixed.

with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: thank you. good evening. glad you're still here. i want to start tonight by saluting our gang of eight. i won't call them by name. we know their names. but four democrats, four republicans. i want to thank them for their tireless efforts to bring this bipartisan legislation to the floor. i also want to commend senator

leahy and the judiciary committee that he leads for -- for their efforts to bring the committee together and to bring to the floor what i think most of us agree is -- is important, very important legislation. in delaware, mr. president, we just celebrated the 375th anniversary of the arrival of the first swedes and fins came right through what is now wilmington, delaware. and those just south of that spot, about five miles to the south, william penn first came to america as well. those -- those immigrants came to our country all those years ago for a lot of the same reasons that people come here today. they came to live what we now call the american dream. the remarkable idea that regardless of our background or station in life, people can still come to this country, work hard, build a better life for themselves and for their families. and today some 400 years later after those first immigrants settled in my own state, we're blessed to live in a thriving

and prosperous nation in no small part because of millions of immigrants who came together to build this nation. and we can all be proud of -- of that history. as a nation of immigrants, we in congress have i think a special responsibility to ensure that our immigration system is effective and it reflects our values. those values are what inspire brave, hardworking and committed people to take great chances to come to this nation. they're often seeking to escape violence, to lift themselves out of poverty or simply to live a better life. these immigrants renew and enrich our communities, they enhance our economy, but we cannot and should not open our doors indiscriminately to everybody what want that wants e here. we need an immigration system that is practical, effective and in the send fair. fair to us, fair to the people who want to come here. fair to the people who've been in line to become citizens of this country some time down the road. today, however, our immigration system is by most standards

broken. it's not effective in bringing the talent that we need and no not -- and to maintain a strong and vibrant economy. our immigration system does not give employers the assurances that someone that they want to hire is actually here legally and eligible to do some work. that system has not always focused our security efforts on the real risks from those who come here with the intent to do us harm. and, finally, our immigration system does not address in a pragmatic or a fair way the fate of more than 11 million undocumented people living in our country right now, many of whom who came here as children and, like us, know no home other than america. so with that said, how do we modernize our immigration laws in a way that's fair, in a way that's practical and that makes our nation more secure? physically and also economically. i have always said that the key to immigration reform is border security. the last -- you'll recall the last major comprehensive effort

this body made to reform our broken immigration system was about six years ago, fell apart because a number of my colleagues here claimed, with some justification, that our borders were not secure enough. and many of my colleagues, claimed justly or not, that the border is still too porous and that we'd be having the same debate 20 years later because of border control, or the lack of those. people ask themselves, are our borders secure enough to ensure that we don't end up having this debate 20 or 30 years down the line? and the answer for many of our colleagues and a lot of americans was, no, they are not. that was then. this is now. six years later, a number of people will still argue i guess that our borders are not secure enough to even try to move forward with these reforms. i just disagree. and when i hear our colleagues ask, are our borders more secure? i'm often reminded of a friend, mr. president, who says, when you ask him how he's doing, he says, compared to what?"

compared to what? well, some say that our borders won't be secure until we stop every single person who tries to get across them illegally. i think it's clear that this is not a realistic goal or expectation. let's go back a little bit in time. take, for example, the border between east germany and west germany, most famously the berlin wall. this was perhaps the most secure border that our world has ever seen. roughly a hundred miles of concrete, electrified razor wire, and a 100-yard-wide kill zone guarded by some 30,000 soldiers. 30,000. but still, people made it safely across this highly-secured border every year. in fact, a recent report by the council of foreign relations concluded that east germany only stopped about 95% of those who tried to cross the border and enter west germany. so even a ruthless, ruthless regime, willing to kill its own citizens, couldn't stop

desperate people in search of a better life. i don't think any reasonable person believes that we should try to replicate the east german border strategy. so what is the right comparison? well, i'd suggest that maybe the right comparison is what our borders looked like in 2007. are our borders more secure today than they were then? are they a lot more secure or just a little bit? i think they're a lot more secure. and how do i -- how do i know? i had the privilege, mr. chairman, chairing now the senate committee on homeland security and government affairs, we held a number of hearings this year on border security. i think even more importantly, i've had the opportunity to visit the borders with mexico and actually up in canada, along with senator john mccain, congressman michael mccall from texas, secretary janet napolitano. met with all kinds of local officials, sheriffs, police, mayors and other folks.

three years ago i visited the california border this year, arizona and texas in michigan. my goal was to get a firsthand look at what is working and what is not and what more we ought to do to skaor -- secure the border further. based on what i've seen there is overwhelming success that our borders are more secure than they have been and probably ever been and certainly more secure than they were in 2007. i saw parts of our border, mr. president, that were overrun with undocumented immigrants as recently as 2006 when the border patrol agents i met with told me they used to arrest more than 1,000 people every single day, trying to get in this country illegally. think about that, 1,000 people a day. today those same agents told me they have a busy day if they arrest as many as 50 people. is 50 too many? yes, it is but it is not 1,000 people a day. the rest of the border -- the arrests at the border reached

their lowest levels since the early 1970's despite putting massive investments in personnel and technology we're arresting significantly fewer people. it's not because we're not on the lookout. i've got a slide of our southern border from the pacific to the gulf of mexico from california into arizona to parts of new mexico and texas all the way to the gulf of mexico. divided into four states divided into nine different quadrants. we have here some interesting numbers. if you look here at 1992, the number of people that were arrested looks like about 565,000. this is just south of san diego. we had in 2000 in the center area of california, about 238,000.

initially the numbers in the west were huge. the numbers were huge. it's kind of drifted this way. the borders here south of san diego and new mexico remarkably secure. the challenge now lies all the way over here and other places as well but it really lies over here. we have not just mexicans trying to get across. maybe the majority of people trying to get across in south texas today are from guatamala, honduras and el salvador. in 2005 just before, a year or two before we debated last time the immigration reform proposals border patrol was arresting in this yuma sector 138,000 people. today the number is 6,500. think about that. from 138,000 down to 6,500. and come on over here let's look

at the tucson sector. in the year 2000 we were arresting over 600,000. today about 120,000. and here in el paso sector, 1993 arresting close to 300,000. now right around 10,000. again it's not because we're not trying, not because we don't have a lot of more people there, lot better technology. the number of folks coming across significantly diminished. still in texas, 1997 about a quarter of a million coming across and arrested. today about 97,000. still a good number, too high a number trying to get across and we're arresting a number of those. but the changes in these numbers, dramatic reductions from 1997 to today is not an accident. this precipitous drop in arrests is a direct result of the unprecedented investments we've made in securing our borders over the past decade. here's what several of our

border officials and residents who are true experts have to say about the progress we've made in securing our borders. i'll talk about a few. i've talked to a lot more. i'm sure colleagues have talked to a bunch of local officials in those states. here's what the mayor of san antonio said earlier this year before the senate -- rather the house judiciary committee. mayor julian castro of san antonio said in texas we know firsthand that this administration put more boots on the ground along the border than any other time in our history which led to unprecedent success in removing dangerous individuals with criminal records. the mayor of nogales, arizona, one of the places we visited earlier this year with secretary napolitano, here's what the mayor there says. we used to have street chases all the time. he said now all those things are gone. something you don't even hear about. that was from two or three months ago.

a woman named veronica escobar said those of us who live along the border know otherwise. el paso, the largest city along the u.s.-mexican border is one of the country's safest cities in the heart of a vibrant national economy. the truth is we spend more on border security each year, about $18 billion, according to a recent migration policy institute report, $18 billion a year. we spend more on that than we spend on the rest of federal law enforcement activities combined. just think about that for a moment. we spend more on border, enforcement, border security than we spend on the f.b.i., drug enforcement administration, bureau of alcohol, firearms and the u.s. marshals combined. since 2000 the border patrol alone has more than doubled in size. its funding has almost

quadrupled. we built more than 650 miles of fencing along the border. tphaofs roughly a third of -- that's roughly a third of our mexican border. where the fence might not be as effective we deployed a number of force multipliers and i'll talk about those later. i'm talking about technology that will help the border patrol do their job more effectively. in some parts of the border it might be radars, it might be drones. in others it might be cameras, towers or hand-held systems. for example, in the past couple of years we deployed roughly 350 land-based towers, vehicle-based towers with advanced cameras and radars. we fly more than 270 aircraft and helicopters to monitor the border regions. that's a 2,000 mile border and utilizing drones. you don't have to take my word for it. i think a picture is worth a thousand words. i've got a couple of pictures here to take a look at what the

border looked like in 2006 and what it looks like today. this is my favorite. this is one of my favorite pictures, mr. president. it is a picture of a ranch. it's a ranch, i believe this is not a ranch in texas. where is it? arizona. here it is. look at this. it looks like, almost like a junkyard. it looks like a place where people come to drop their trash. that's really what happened. every day hundreds of people would come through here, through this ranch across the border and this is what they left behind. this is the same place. this is the same place today. and it's not because folks trying to get into our country have somehow gotten an environmental conscience and they don't litter as much. that is not what's going on here. they are just not coming through as much. if you ever -- is it making a

difference? go down to that ranch and take a look. what do you have next? we spent a lot of money on infrastructure. this is a shot, this is a shot, where is this? douglas, arizona, we're there along the southern border of arizona. what we have, this is a before shot. and this is the same landscape. and what you see today actually looks like we've got a couple of fences, a road in between them. probably detectors. this is what it looked like before. huge investments were made for miles and miles and miles. see what we've got next. we have something next from the yuma sector in arizona. the yuma sector was out of control. i think we had the most illegal border crossings of any stretch of the border in 2006. starting in 2006 the border patrol built more than 100 miles of fencing. just in this one sector along in the yuma sector.

they built access roads so the border patrol could get to where they needed to go quickly. deployed a bunch of cameras as well. today yuma is the most patrolled part of our border tker. dramatic, dramatic reductions in the number of folks coming through. some place we were in arizona, nogales, met with a bunch of local officials as well. this is a lovely piece of landscape right here. this may not be as lovely but what it has is an access road. we can't put a border patrol agent every 100 feet along the border but what we can do is get them to where they need to go more quickly. one of the ways we do that is access roads. this is one of them near nogales, arizona. here is another shot of deming in new mexico. what it does is shows what the area looked like in 2007 on the border. it doesn't look very hard to get across and it wasn't. this is what it looks like

today. lighting, walls, a away -- a way for the border patrol to move quickly if they need to. a different place today and the numbers will demonstrate that's made a difference. we are in texas, del rio, texas. in 2008 there was literally no infrastructure whatsoever in del rio, texas. this is before, right around 2008. this is about a couple of years later. the difference, you can literally walk across the border. you didn't know it. you didn't know if you were in the u.s. or mexico. today you know it. and we built significant fencing and all-important access roads. far more secure border than it was. a place called marfa, texas. this is a border in the western part of texas near big ben national park. in 2006 the border was wide open. this is lovely, isn't it? there are some people,

particularly some of the locals were opposed to fencing. the reason why is because this now looks like this. the problem with this is people would literally walk across, wade across in substantial numbers. they don't do that anymore. we've given up scenic beauty but at the same time we have a lot of security we never had before. here's har harlingen, texas. a month or two ago. this is the eastern part of texas closer to the gulf of mexico. we see a part of the border that as recently as four years ago literally right here you could walk across it and you wouldn't know it. a lot of people walked across it. this is what it looks like now with fencing and access roads. they don't walk across without them knowing it and frankly oftentimes without us knowing it. this is one of my favorite pictures, mr. president. this is a fence and this is a fence that in this case police stopped his vehicle. but a friend of mine likes to

say let me build a 20-foot fence, someone will build a 21-foot ladder. somebody tried to be clever here and find a way to get this vehicle -- i'm not sure if that is a jeep or what -- tried to get it across. didn't quite make it. but it is a good example. people trying to get across, pretty ingenious. they will try to build that 21-foot ladder or in this case a different kind of ladder. sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. but in this case it worked. i also want to show some of the multipliers that are helping to enhance security efforts at our borders and ports of entry. these pictures are just a small sample, mr. president, of the massive improvements we've made along the southern border from california to texas. they show i think what any fair-minded person who has debated border in recent years can tell us and that is the investments we made paid off. i hope so.

as much as money as we spent you would hate to think we spent without any kind of result. one of the investments, drones. we don't have a huge number of drones but we've got about four of them in arizona. we've got a couple in texas. i think they got a couple along the northern border, maybe north dakota, a couple over in florida. but we'll talk a little bit more about these. let me just say, you've heard of drone up? vadr system on it. they can fly high altitudes. they can fly day, night. they can see in the rain. they can see in the dark. they can see when the sun is shining. and they are incredibly effective asset when they fly. the problem is they don't always fly and they don't fly when the wind is more than 15 knots. we have four of these in arizona. only one of these has a vadr system.

of the four we have only two are actually flying most of the time and they only fly five days a week. i think one of the keys here is if we're going to use the drones let's make sure we have vadr's on all of them. let's make sure they are able to fly more than five days a week, more than 16 hours a day. and let's properly resource these aircraft. what do we have next here? old technology. the drone is pretty new. this is an old technology. blimps have been around forever. some of you may recall seeing a video of blimps like this from kabul, afghanistan. i talked on the phone this week with a fellow who is now ambassador to mexico. he used to be the number-two guy in our embassy in afghanistan. i talked to him about how do we use blimps in kabul? he said the great thing about

blimps, we put them up in bad weather, we put them up when it is windy. these go up, they stay up, they don't run out of gas. you can have more surveillance systems on these than you can on a lot of the other aircraft that we're flying. they don't run out of gas. we use them to great effect in kabul and kandahar and other places and in afghanistan, and we ought to be able to do better with them on the border of mexico. we're doing something. we need to do more. they can be a great force multiplier as well. this is a little bitty plane. this is called a cessna. it's called a c-206. it has enough room to carry two people. we have got i think about 17 of them. we saw one in -- i think in arizona. we saw a bunch more in texas. the -- it's really not cutting

edge technology. it's just cost-effective. you can put these planes out for a while. they don't use much gas. they are a good platform for surveillance. unfortunately, out of the 16 or 17 that we have, only one of them has a surveillance system. you can actually look at and find out what's going on on the ground. it's like sending out an airplane doing maritime surveillance, mr. president. occasionally we do search and rescue missions. we send out to the vast ocean with binoculars to look for somebody maybe in a little skiff or a life preserver. it's like finding a needle in a haystack. when we fly these planes, we ought to have them fully resourced, withed modern surveillance equipment and people operating this stuff. what do we have next? we have boats, we have helicopters, and we have boats that will go fast along the rio grande river. we need boats that go fast and off the coast of california, we need the same thing. fortunately, we have got them. we don't have enough

helicopters. one of the problems with their helicopters, talked to some folks in east texas, and they said basically they fly three different kinds of helicopters. one is fairly modern, a couple others are not. the only one that the border patrol really are interested in is the one that is fairly modern, reliable, has good surveillance equipment. what we are told by some people, if you're going to send us the other older, less reliable helicopters without the technology, don't send them. and what we need to have is more of the successful helicopter, the one that is in demand, that will actually be a real force multiplier and fewer of the ones that aren't. i thought this was an interesting slide here. this is night vision i think goggles. we also have the ability to use the evaders, the systems we put in our drones. the c-206 we fly, our cameras

are ground-mounted cameras along the border. this is what we can see today. i mean, this is nighttime. this is what we can see. and it's pretty easy to pick people up. if we're going to ever be able to figure out who is getting across, not getting across, we need this, we don't need this. fortunately we have this. it's a force multiplier. we need to make sure that we use it well. and i'm just going to show us quickly a series of -- these are cameras, these are resource, but they are ground based, in this case we have be a operator here. let's look at a couple more if we could. again, this one is mounted on a truck bed. it can be moved around. some of them are more permanent. here's one that is more permanent. you have the border patrol here. the fence and the ability to look north and south, east and west.

is that -- okay? thank you. the reason why i -- i wanted to show -- these are just a couple examples of force multipliers. we have got all these men and women on the border. they have basically doubled the border patrol. how do we make them more effective without adding more and more bodies, our bodies between the ports of entry? we do it with this kind of technology. that's what we do. we can do it effectively, and i think we do it in a cost-effective way. and it's what we ought to do. now, the bill that we are going to be debating this week, the next couple of weeks sets aside an additional $6.5 million for border security on top of the $18 billion, $18 billion we already spend today, every year, $18 billion. the money in the bill, the $6.5 billion in the bill will be used to add some 3,500 officers not between the ports of entry. we're not talking about water ports. we're talking about land-based

ports of entry where there is a lot of commerce, cars, trucks, pedestrians getting through, big commerce going through those ports of entry as well. but the -- this legislation wisely would use some of that $6.5 billion extra to hire another 3,500 officers to work in our ports of entry to build some new infrastructure in these ports of entry, make them better to procure new surveillance systems and the aerial support for the border patrol. also for the first time in our nation's history, we have set a statutory goal for the border patrol in this legislation to arrest or turn back to mexico some 90% of all those that are trying to get across illegally. so if you have got 100 people trying to give in at any given day at a particular spot, the idea is to know how many are actually trying to get in and how many we detain or actually turn back. the idea is to make sure that we have a 90% success rate, at least a 90% success rate.

it's tough and it ensures accountability. remember what i said about germany? with all the hundreds of miles of concrete, 35,000 soldiers, their effective rate was 95%. we're talking about something very close to that, 90%, without doing the kind of stuff they did in east germany. lastly, the bill that's before us calls for achieving persistent surveillance over the entire border, so we can know with a high degree of certainty how many people are trying to cross it illegally, given the length of our borders and how rugged and how varied it is, this goal will be a challenging and costly one to achieve, but it is not impossible, it is not impossible. as i learned from my trips to the border, there is simply no one size that fits all solution for securing our border. it really depends on the terrain, which varies widely along the border region. that's why we need to systematically identify the best technology that allows us to use our front line agents, the border patrol more effectively, gives them the tools they need

or they tell us they need to be successful. one specific thing that i have seen on the -- on my trips along the border, i have already talked about it, that c-206. just think about it. you have got an airplane. you put it up to fly for three or four hours. you could send it with or out with one person looking through binoculars or send it out with a surveillance system that works with lights out, rain or light, and it gives us great images, great capability. we also need to make sure the department of homeland security has the flexibility to deploy resources when and where it makes sense. for example, as we talked earlier about the blimps, the dur eligibles that are tethered, they have proven to be enormously successful in northern afghanistan. for anyone who doubts that, i urge you to give our ambassador to mexico a call who is our number two guy in afghanistan

last time, was there a couple of years ago. but as i said earlier, those blimps, they are old in terms of the technology, but we can hang a lot of stuff, a lot of surveillance equipment on them and they do great work. in some places, they will make a lot of sense. in other cases, maybe not so much. but the department of homeland security needs to be able to swiftly put in place tools like blimps, factors on the ground that change when they see the need for new approach to securing certain portions of our borders. i don't think that we ought to be hamstringing them with mandates that make them less effective in carrying out their missions, including requiring additional fences in the area where the fencing really doesn't make much sense. in a lot of place it is does. 600 miles or so it does. and there are some more place that is it does, but there are also some places where the more spence tiff drone, the land-based cameras, they have helicopters with the right kind of surveillance equipment on it and be able to move people

along. i also want to mention some -- some other cost-effective technology. we saw something really interesting on these handheld devices that allow the border agents to see in the dark. i also saw something at the -- i think it was one of the ports of entry. this is my blackberry. it was actually about the size of my blackberry. i remember standing at the points of entry where we have literally thousands of trucks and vehicles and pedestrians coming across a day, many thousands. and the gal who was the officer there, as the people and trucks and vehicles came through, before the truck or vehicle got to, we have license plate or meters or all kinds of stuff, but she had a device that would tell her the truck was coming through, the history of the truck that was coming through, the driver that was in that truck and the history of the driver coming through. so kind of what should be in the

truck and what is coming -- is the cargo in that truck in recent weeks moontsd. -- and months. one of the officers -- we saw this up in detroit, too, but one of the officers this said this is a game changer. now, as i mentioned earlier, this bill that we're debating is going to appropriate about $6.5 billion to continue to build on the progress we have made and achieve the ambitious goals it sets for the department. that's good news. my goal is to make sure that much of this funding is devoted to these force multipliers that can help our boots on the groundwork smarter, be more effective. i don't think we need to micromanage the process. we don't need 535 of us. we have been joined here by the majority leader. mr. leader? whenever you want me to yield, i'm happy to yield to you. i could go on forever, and i just might.

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i appreciate my friend for yielding, the usual courtesy. i would ask, though, that his statement not appear interrupted in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i have read into the record in some detail today a letter that he wrote with senator leahy talking about what has gone on in recent years about border security. that country is very fortunate fortunate -- our country is very fortunate to have this good man leading the homeland security committee. i have -- one of the senators i don't know as much about as i do know about this man, but we have been together since 1982. he had a sabbatical he took for eight years to run the state of delaware as a governor, but other than that, we have been locked in arms moving forward. so i appreciate very much his yielding on this matter. i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s. res. 168. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 168, designating june 2013, as national afasia awareness month and increase efforts to increase awareness of afasia. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the motion? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table and there being no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask we move to s. res. 169. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 169, designating the month of june, 2013, as national posttraumatic stress disorder awareness month. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, that there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent that s.

954 be printed as if passed -- i'm sorry. be printed as passed by the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the appropriations committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 2217, that the papers with respect to the bill be returned to the house of representatives as requested by the house and when the bill is received back in the senate, it be referred to the appropriations committee. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning, thursday, june 13. following the prayer and the pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of s. 744, the comprehensive immigration reform bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i therefore ask, if there is no further business to come before the senate, that following the remarks of the distinguished senator from

delaware, that the senate adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: mr. president? picking up where i left off, i just want to say that i don't think we need -- we the congress need to micromanage this process. we don't need 535 congressional law enforcement officers, so to speak. rather, we need to spell out the goals, the priorities for border and port security, which this bill does. we need to give the department of homeland security the tools, the resources, flexibility it needs to get the job done, which this bill also does. then we need to let d.h.s. do its job, but while at the same time providing -- continuing to provide responsible and robust oversight. not just here, not just here from washington, but along the border itself. it's what i now do and what my committee on homeland security attempts to do and what my colleagues and i will ensure we do as this bill is implemented strongly and effectively.

still, as strong as our border defenses have become and how stronger this bill will make them we cannot defend our nation entirely at the border. one of the witnesses earlier this year noted that we often look to our borders to solve problems that originate elsewhere. in other words, we're so preoccupied with the symptoms we're missing the underlying causes. which can make finding a solution all the more difficult. we've got to address the root causes that are trying people to our country illegally in order to fully secure our borders and ensure that we're not embroiled in the same debate again 20 years from now. i am pleased to say this bipartisan legislation addresses the root causes in a way that i believe is tough, is practical, and is fair. my friend and former deputy secretary of the department of surety, jane hall-loot, told me we have to strike the right balance between enforcing security at our borders and

ports of entry to keep bad actors and while encouraging commerce to our neighbors to the north and south, two of our biggest trading partners. this provides 3,500 officers at the ports of entry, not ports on the water, but land-based ports where a lot of commerce moves through. and 3,500 additional officers actually will make a big difference. we need them. we also need to modernize our ports so these additional officers have the resources and tools they need to process legitimate travelers and trade while focusing on bad actors. and here are some of the examples of what we have done to upgrade our ports of entry. and i'm not going to -- i don't know if we'll use all of these but we'll use a couple of them. this is a before. this is a shot, it's probably about six years before but we had limited, i think very

limited percentage of traveler queries, we had limited technology, and we had minimal signage. this is today. and we have nearly 100% -- 100% travel queries on land border, expansive use of rfid enabled documents, we have new ready lanes to encourage the use of these rfid documents as well. and here's -- it's harder, this is like, this is signage, simple, a lot of printed stuff, here we've gone electronic and we can stop in -- we have the ability now when the trucks are coming, vehicles are coming and to read the license plates before they get close to the officer. we have the ability if people are coming across to use devices that read their passports and

give us some idea who is actually coming up to the officer at the customs and border patrol officer. we have gamma rays to look inside trucks. we have detection, the ability to detect. the radiation, on any of the vehicles that are coming through. it's just a massive change. just a massive change. our ability, we don't just do it because we want to secure the vehicles and make sure what's supposed to be in them is actually in them, not some contraband or drugs or whatever but we want to be able to expedite the movement of these vehicles, have a better through-put because of the huge economic consequences for us and for mechanic mexico. we want to strengthen our borders and one of the reasons we're making these investments, it's a twofer. we keep bad people out, bad stuff out, and do a better job of facilitating trade. it's a ?art way to do business. we'll be do more with a smart way to do business. i think that's all we'll look at

in terms of these ports of entry. but i could move along, mr. president, i think properly balancing commerce and security is critical because facilitating strayed-trade with our neighbors to the south and also to the north not only strengthens our economy but also the economies throughout north, south and central america. why do we care about that? we want their economies stronger so they won't all want to come up here and live with us and to come up here illegally and try to be a part of this country although we appreciate their desire to do that. we want to make sure their countries are stronger economically, too. for those of those who live in the u.s. illegally though what draws them to our country and enables them to stay here without legal status is as we know, are jobs. and we need obviously a system that makes it easier for employers to do the right thing and to verify who is eligible to work, too often today that's not the case. we need to hold employers who

knowingly break the law and hire undocumented workers gill bill for doing that. -- accountable for doing that. i believe the legislation that's before us come close to achieving those goals, requires all employers to use an electronic verification system starting with larger employers down to smaller employers over time. but an electronic verification system designed to give employers quick assurance that the new employees are eligible to work, that they're considering hiring. for many workers the system would include a photo tool that lets employers verify that the person applying for a job is indeed the same person who applied for the worker eligibility document. the bill increases fines for knowingly hiring undocumented workers and increases them by more than tenfold and includes significant penalties for those who systemically abuse our workplace laws. these new penalties including jail sentences up to ten years will provide a strong deterrent to unscrupulous employers who

seek to exploit undocumented workers for their own gain. we also need to convince those who want to come here for a better life that the way to do that is through legal rather than illegal immigration. while we crack down on the bad actors who try to hire undocumented workers we need to mike sure employers who are playing by the rules have ample access to the talent they need to keep our economy growing and encourage others to come here legally when we don't have the talent in this country that's abler willing to do some of the work that needs to be done. this legislation does that by modernizing our outdated visa systems to supply sufficient workers in critical areas such as high skills and agricultural employment. these improved illegal pathways for workers and their families will shrink the throw of undocumented migrants and force us to concentrate on the most serious threats at the border. now, ultimately i believe the

most effective force multiplier as much as i like these -- the idea of drones fully resourced with the vader systems on them, with the aircraft with the right kind of surveillance system on them, as much as i like having the blimps with all the technology that they can carry, as much as i want to have helicopters to move our border patrol up and down the border and have all kinds of surveillance equipment, as much as i think fencing helps and access roads and all those investments help, i still think maybe the most effective force multiplier for securing our border is to take away the need for people to come here illegally in the first place. but as we address the root causes of illegal immigration we've got to address another immediate challenge and that is the face of about 11 million people that are here without proper documentation who are living in the shadows today. ironically some 40% of the -- of them came in a legal status, on

a student visa or a tourist visa, maybe on a work visa, they've overstayed their welcome and overstayed what the law allows. some critics argue that the bill before us grants immediate amnesty to those 11 million undocumented people. i just don't think that's true. and what they get is not amnesty but rather, a long, i think a hard path toward possible citizenship one with many hurdles and no guarantees. kind of reminds me of the trek that a bunch of them took through mexico just to get to the borders, getting across the borders without getting caught, trying to escape in many cases these coyotes who took advantage of them, robbed them, in some cases raped them, and once they got into this country had to avoid being detained, a bunch of them got detained, ended up in detention centers. that's not an easy path and i don't think the path that lays ahead for those here undocumented today is an easy

path. and just to reach the first step in become what's equaled a registered provisional immigrant, individuals would have to clear multiple background checks, and pay a hefty fine and if they commit a significant crime they're disqualified from pursuing legal status. once an applicant has cleared the first hurdle registered provisional grants frants must remain employed, learn english, fines and demonstrate that they're living not below the poverty line but above the poverty line, they're gainfully employed. most importantly they have to go to the back of the line, not ahead of people waiting to get ahead who have played by the rules but behind them at the end of the -- at the end of the line. and behind the folks that are here legally and are going to get processed as they should, first. it's going to take about -- by our account here about ten years

before those folks that are undocumented are going to have a chance to even qualify for a green card. three years after getting a green card they would be able to apply for citizenship. we're not talking about 13 weeks, we're not talking about 13 months, we're talking about 13 years. and once again, they have to pass extensive background checks to successfully move forward in that process. so to our colleagues suggesting this bill would immediately begin legalizing the 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country right away, i'd simply ask does that sound like an immediate process to you? and -- interest doesn't to me. this is not an easy path and frawrnlt a lot of people won't -- frankly, a lot of people won't make it like a lot of people trying to get into this country haven't made it either. but the process we've laid laid out over the next 10, 13 years is a tough, it's a fair and a practical approach and it's something, call it a lot of things, i would not call it amnesty. we need to make sure the men and

women around the world, though, know that this nation is making unprecedented investments to improve and modernize our legal immigration system in addition to making it very difficult for folks who.com try to come here illegally. there's a messaging that's required if you will. we're dedicating significant resources to detaining and deporting those who try to go around the rules, about $2 billion a year on this effort. in fact, i think since president obama took office, removals have increased from about $291,000 -- 291,000 people in 2007, that's just understand 300,000 folks to more than 400,000 last year. when we returned a record number of people to their home countries. our nation must work with our neighbors to improve the process and decrease the time it takes to return our deans to those countries of origin. in texas recently i learned we have an agreement with guatemala where they issue electronic travel documents to their citizens, people almost as soon as we apprehend them along our

border. mostly texas. this process cuts down the detention times for guatemalans from 30 days to roughly seven days. it has a real positive effect on the guatemalans that we arrest that we take into custody because they spend les time in detention, not a pleasant experience and saved us millions of dollars because we have to hold and feed them, give them a place to stay for a shorter period of time. we need to take that guatemalan model where we reduce dramatically retention and detention time and see if we can't replicate their program with other nations especially other nations other than mexico. and finally, mr. president, i would conclude by -- this legislation is not perfect. on the other hand, i've not seen really a perfect piece of legislation, even the constitution that we adopted first in delaware, december 7,

1987 -- 1787, rather, to become the first 125eu9 that wasn't perfect, we've amended it again and again over 30 times. while there is room for constructive criticism and debate about this bill and i'm certain this legislation represents and improvement over our current system i believe we can make it even stronger in the coming weeks. i plan to offer some amendments, i guess the presiding officer will offer amendments. we ought to offer them, debate them and vote them up or down. but we must come to this debate with the understanding that the status quo is unacceptable. if we don't modernize our fraigdz to allow -- immigration system to allow our price to fill the jobs our economy needs and citizens are unable or unwilling to do, we're making our nation less secure. and as a nation founded on the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness we simply can't tolerate a shadow economy of 11 million people who are scared to live freely, generate black markets to

produce false identity documents who drive down the wages of u.s. citizens. my colleagues still uneasy with legalization i'd ask this. what is the alternative? it is simply not practical to find and support 11 million people. most of the undocumented immigrants have lived here more than ten years. many have children who are u.s. citizens. they have deep roots in our society, contribute meaningfully to our national interest. the american people want us to be tough, they want us to be humane and realistic. i believe this legislation offers us that path, that balance and now is the time to take that path. and, again in closing, mr. president, i'm reminded of something that binds all of us together. if we actually look above the -- above where you're sitting, there are some words in latin. and if we look up there, we'll see the latin phrase that says e plural buepluribus unum, and wht

means, as we know, is "out of many, one." "out of many, one." it's a phrase that adorns our nation's seal, suggests that while we all come from many different places, in the end, we're one nation. with that thought in mind, mr. president, i would simply say to our colleagues and to those who are following this discussion tonight, we have a choice. we can work together to make this bill better and adopt it in a bipartisan manner, or we can remain in gridlock and let the american people down. i know what i want to do. i know what the people of delaware want us to do. they want us to legislate and i want us to legislate as well. i want us to make our immigration system better. i want to show the american people that congress can come together, democrats, republicans, a couple of independents, on an issue of great importance to our country's economy, great importance to our national security. we need to get this done. and i'm encouraged that with the

grace of god, we will. and if i could, mr. president, make one short unanimous consent request. i would ask unanimous consent, mr. president, that gohar sedaia, a fellow in my senate office and susan carper and shannon taylor be granted the privileges of the floor for the remainder of the first session of the 113th congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: mr. president, you'll be glad to know, i'm done. but our work -- our work remains to be done and i look forward to working with you and 98 of our colleagues to get -- to get the job done for the american people. thank you so much. and with that, i think we're done. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 tom

votes are scheduled. mr. president, last night the united states senate advanced a bipartisan immigration reform bill that willing good for national security and really good for the economy. it will be good for american citizens as well, as well as those who aspire to one day become citizens. it's truly gratifying to see the momentum behind this commonsense reform proposal. 84 senators voted to adopt the motion to proceed to this legislation, a very, very strong vote. by comparison, the senate failed

to advance the immigration reform bill just six years ago when only 46 senators voted to end debate on that measure and allow us to proceed. it is a sign of progress that the legislation now before the senate has not been stopped procedurally. i hope, mr. president, that we're allowed to proceed on this legislation without being blocked by some arcane senate rule; that we can finish this legislation and send it to the house of representatives. i applaud the gang of eight. that'it is a bipartisan proposad that's how the senate used to work. work. in senate to house of representatives. i applaud the gang of a. it's a bipartisan proposal. they've worked hard or hundreds of different proposals and the committee allowed half of the candidates finished before the

judiciary committee. it was over 100 amendment. they adopted 46 and sum 40 republican amendments were adopted. so chairman leahy conducted a fair markup. no one disputes that, so i commend the gang of eight for allowing the bill to get to the judiciary committee and for getting us to this proposal on the floor and that democrats received as well as republicans. our goal now is to pass estrada's legislation possible with as many votes as possible a standing trigger principles. then await what the house is going to do. the speaker has said he wants a bill that would allow the democrats to vote. that is really good as. in the house for the last two congresses there is very few

opportunities for the speaker would only allow to pass what the majority of the majority. that means on the republicans. if they don't have enough republican votes, i'm very pleased the speaker would say that. it is important that we understand the procedure reviews for 230 plus years in this body to pass something here, pasadena house i got a conference work out differences. so i understand we have a long road before us and more work will be necessary to get this bill across the finish line. i truly understand that and my republican colleagues support the bill as they feel confident adequately addresses the need to secure our borders. i agree the legislation focused

on more security. that's important. to take significant steps to stop illegal crossings is important and reform that does not take significant steps to stop illegal crossings will fail. that's why admire was done by the candidate. and the judicial committee in regard to this, mr. president they've done a terrific job on border security. we should also acknowledge the progress president upon this administration has done. illegal border crossings are down 80%. that is no small accomplishment. yesterday received a letter from my colleagues, pat leahy and the chairman of the homeland security committee, tom carper detailing a tremendous trousered nature of humor secure border. as described by "the wall street

journal," entries nationwide or at a four decade low. we have less crossings now that we had at any time in the last 40 years and the number of illegal immigrants to sneak into the southern border successfully elude law enforcement, so-called getaways is down 86%. smarter technology, physical barriers and double the achievement possible. we must ensure those who come to america seeking a better life in compliance with our laws. the measure before the senate bill said the progress we've made by allocating more resources, border security infrastructure that includes patrol bases, unmanned vehicles, drowns, helicopters, fixed-wing

aircraft, sensors, x-rays, cameras and more. it also includes this legislation, funding for prosecution of those caught crossing illegally. the legislation establishes too strict of attainable border security goals to prevent 90% of illegal immigrants and monitor the entire southern border, not just the whole border. chairman leahy and schumer carper agree this legislation will reform our legal immigration system. this legislation will make it virtually impossible for undocumented people to work so they no longer have an incentive. this is what my two two colleagues said an insider. we need to stop focusing our attention on the symptoms and start dealing with underlying root causes of illegal immigration in a way that's tough, practical and fair. that says it all comes

mr. president. this bill does that if there's one thing this bill does not do and should not do, it does not and should not make a path to citizenship contingent in obtaining security bills that are possible. that would leave millions who aspire to become citizens indefinitely know. we've got to move past this. six years ago we try to do something situational makeovers. this legislation is critical. mr. president, if we made those goals impossible, the legislation would give opponents and in citizenship of the senate an opportunity to block the path to citizenship. i'm concerned some who opposed the very idea of reform see the stricker said a backdoor way under legislation regardless of

how it's amended, amendments at the sole purpose of this vital reform. i commend senators, democrats and republicans who want to make a proposal stronger by enhancing border security provisions. i look forward to hearing the ideas in the next few days on amendments and ideas to make the country safer and more secure. if that's the intent of the legislation will certainly look at it. i hope we can move forward as expeditiously as possible. poker colleagues, democrats and republicans are interested in offering amendments, but i hope those amendments will be constructed nature. we've come too far to lose sight of our purpose now. martin luther said quote everything done in the world is done by hope and there's no

better example of that, mr. president dennis legislation because hope is what it's all about. everything done in the world is done by hope and i certainly believe that in this legislation. >> cq rollcall meredyth shiner is covering the senate debate on immigration. what can you tell us about the key amendments we should be watching for quite >> right now, everything is about the amendments coming out because you have an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote on this bill. the only 15 who didn't know were actually republicans, so you'll see a lot of those on particular issues that either cater to the writer left and it's going to be the delicate dance of which amendments can you pass to make the bill more suitable for republicans potentially to vote

for final package and how many can you do before you alienate the democratic side? the big issue is order security. marco rubio of the gang of eight promisingly do need to enhance the border security provisions of this bill. senator cornyn has introduced a provision and senator majority harry reid has said this to be a poison pill. it's a lot of back-and-forth rhetorically. whether it's health care or dodd-frank, this is a lot less dramatic and intense. it seems like this inevitable conclusion of the senate. it's all a matter of what will happen in the house. the other debate is how many do you need for the bill to make a politically viable. procedure indicates he would meet 60 to break a filibuster, however some senators including

chuck schumer was the lead negotiators saying they should have at least seven in order to put more political pressure on the house. >> host: what do you hear about picking up in terms of what they're doing to ensure it on the process moves along smoothly? >> guest: we've been talking about regular orders and the beginning. if you look at the judiciary committees of market this bill, they consider more than 200 amendments. they make good about hearing cases on those that don't look like they're destined to succeed. something i meant to say is pat leahy to senate judiciary has wanted to vote on a provision that would've expanded the rights guaranteed by the bill two members of the community providing green cards to spouses or partners as american citizens who are foreign-born.

in the country and marry someone foreign-born, that is the case where someone who is gay or. she pulled it because he thought maybe or he was told at least by democrats and republicans it would disrupt this delicate balance on the bill. so you have democrats in a situation like chuck schumer and dick durbin who would normally support gay writes because it might take a larger effort on it. particularly because they have a stake in its come always been so much to negotiate in the bill, they are careful about wanting to control the amendment appeared the question is whether they can. particularly with republicans lindsey graham. is up for reelection in south carolina this year has put a lot of political capital into this. you don't want it if you're involved in this bill.

you don't want the effort to be undercut by amendments could make it unpalatable for others. >> host: you mention the number of those pivot about the timetable senator harry vsat? >> guest: they wanted to be too wrapped up before july 4 recess. >> host: you mention the u.s. house. where are they in terms of legislation? don't they have a similar innovate on the house side? >> guest: it's funny because the reports -- what's the word, almost like poehler at this time. monday may progress the next they're totally stalled. the speaker of the house john wagner has said he would like to build a county committee within the next few weeks pay whether they can do that i don't know, but they have to try because the amount of pressure on the house

and republican party at the senate could approve the bill to get something to be out of the or negotiate further. right now they don't have one. any sort of look you do any sort of legislation. they need to come up with something to come to the table with the senate on. >> host: traders covered immigration debate on capitol hill for "cq roll call." thanks for joining us. >> guest: thanks for having me. >> defense secretary chuck hagel testifying on capitol hill about the budget for next year. in the hearing, florida senator ben nelson as the defense secretary about plans to deal with harassment in the military. here is their exchange. statement later today in the armed services committee were going to consider a sense of congress that i assume most people will agree with,

mr. secretary that commanding officers are response to ball for establishing a command climate in which sexual assault allegations are properly managed, fairly evaluated in a victim can report criminal activity including sexual assault without fear of retaliation, including ostracism and group pressure from other members of the command. mr. secretary, i am given to believe that a survey was conducted among victims and 50% say if they report the assault, they don't think it does any good. are you aware of that survey

collects general dempsey is shaking his head yes. is that correct, general? >> it is. >> then my question to you, mr. secretary is, do you think i removing the chain of command in order to prosecute sexual assault in the military, will that give the incentive for the victim, will that give more incentive for the answer come forward? >> senator, thank you good first let me respond to your point about the resolution you will be presented in the markup. i would fully support every word of that obviously. >> i'm sure that will be unanimous. as to your question, i said first in its look at every option come every possibility.

as 26 pieces of legislation on this and we are listening to people comanches spin outcome of pages of things we are doing and started doing the last three months. it's not enough to have to do more, but things have to change. we all accept that. to your specific question, anything we do needs to be done very thoughtfully because there'll be consequences to anything that comes out of this as to how we handle this in the future. i don't personally believe you cannot lemonade the command structure in the military from this process because it is the culture. it's the institution. it's the people within the institution of how to fix the problem and that's the culture. i don't either disconnect that the accountability of command. as i said i'm a to change some

things. we'll have to. i think we've got to be very careful when we talk about taking the command structure out of this process. >> certainly it's pointed out that cultural changes such as integration in the military, such as "don't ask, don't tell," the command structure is absolutely essential. in this case, we talk about the reporting of a crime. do you see a distinction as to why the command structure should still be a place? >> first, we'll except that it is a crime and it needs to be treated as a crime. the things that senator murray and others have been doing on the constraints, special

counsel, all the things going forward me to be done. all that has to be done. to your question, i don't think you can fix the problem, senator or have accountability within the structure of the military without the command involved and not. i believe like everything in life accountability matters. if you want siege accountable. that's where i think we've had a disconnect among all of it. there's a lot of things involved here. but if you don't hold people accountable come you're not going to fix the problem. pass all the less you want. so that would be my response to your question.

>> one of the interesting aspects of the buildings history is the fact that it exists at all. and really, much of the reason this building is still year is due to our governor at the time, governor zebulon dance. when the civil war started to come to a close indian troops are camped outside raleigh, he was very concerned about the fate of the people of raleigh. the unit would have been in the southern cities and troops came through tomaselli crafted a peaceful surrender of the city of raleigh. he agree to that the city of raleigh and have the confederate troops leave peacefully. the union troops would also take charge of the city of raleigh

peacefully in what spare the state capital with museum and library. we do have three representations of george washington here at the state capital. one outside to inside. downstairs is a copy of the original statue analysis to repair the statue is made by an italian sculptor named antonio canova who represented george washington and the way he fell matched his reputation as a military leader, a political leader. said he made him look like a roman general and that was not entirely a popular decision but the people of north carolina and the thing that shocked people the most is his legs and feet are completely bare. many people thought that was disrespectful to show a president with his legs and toes showing.

>> british prime minister david cameron said the british government has decided to supply a nonlethal and technical support to syrian rebels. opposition leader david miller band if the country decides do a nonlethal weapons in its thursday that do about vote of parliament. from the british house of commons in london, the prime

minister question is about 35 minutes. >> order. questions to the prime minister? >> thank you, mr. speaker. this morning i had meetings with others in additional to a dude is in the house i shall have further meetings later today. >> alex cunningham had >> thank you, mr. speaker. stop 10256 were put in the back of ambulances. why does the prime minister think he can do with this to find hospitals 90 million pounds for his government's failure. [shouting] >> this government is spending 12.7 billion pounds extra, money by the party opposite him because of the extra money and the reforms, waiting times are down, waiting times or in patients, outpatients are both

down. they've almost been abolished. that's a record we can be proud of. >> thank you, mr. speaker. [inaudible] [inaudible] -- to be negotiations and referendum? [shouting] >> on behalf of the laws cover my welcome my honorable friend back? good to see him making such a strong recovery and being in such strong voice today as well,

mr. speaker. he makes a very important point. in this party where committed to every negotiation and an nl referendum before the end of 2017 when there has been a staggering silence from the party opposite. apparently half of the shadow cabinet support the referendum and the other half don't. they will have their chance on the fifth of july to turn up about for a referendum in the united kingdom. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, they have support to use pgas from members to provide humanitarian assistance to alleviate the terrible crisis happening there. on the arms embargo he said last week and i quote, if we help tip the balance in that way, there's a greater chance of political transition succeeding. giving russia seems ready to supply more weapons to syria, does the prime minister think

it's in any sense realistic for a strategy of keeping the barrel forward? >> first of all, can i thank him for raising this issue and say he's right we should use the g8 bring pressure on all sides to bring what we all want in this house, which is a peace conference, peace process in new jersey transitional government in syria. i'm delighted to tell the house president putin will come and advance on sunday when we can discuss this. would have recognized legitimate spokespeople for the syrian people. it's important we help them, give them training in price and assistance. yes, that does help tip the balance to make sure president assad can see he cannot win the salon and he should be taking place for a transitional government.

>> mr. speaker, my question was specifically on the lifting of the arms embargo to the syrian rebels. last week he also told this house there are clear safeguards to ensure any such equipment would only be supplied for the protection of civilians. it's also safeguards the start and how they would be enforced. >> first of all, about the arms embargo, the point about lifting the arms embargo which applied originally to the regime in official syrian opposition jesus on a clear message about intentions and views to president assad. we have not made a decision to supply the syrian opposition with weapons. we are giving them assistance, advice and technical help and we have systems in place to make sure that equipment like transporting things like that doesn't get into the wrong hands. of course we do.

>> first of all, will support the i.t. we should focus on the peace conference and make the peace conference to have been. the government put its energy into the arms embargo, not into the peace conference. secondly, i quoted is where it's not about nonlethal equipment but the supply of lethal equipment. and the circumstances of supplying equipment would be and you safeguards. the question is what the safeguards be? i didn't hear an answer. maybe when they get that he can tell us that. foley also confirmed that he takes a decision to mark the rebels and area there will be a vote on this extensive motion in government time with the recall of parliament are recessive necessary. [shouting] >> on this issue we all want to see peace conference.

the question is how we most likely put pressure on the parties to attend that peace conference. going back to the first thing he said about the russian decision to run the regime, the russian regime has been arming for decades and is naïve to believe anything else. that is important. i miss you safeguards, we are not supplying the opposition with weapons. we supply with technical assistance and nonlethal equipment. we made no decision despite the opposition with weapons. [shouting] as the foreign secretary made clear, as i've made clear, i've always believed an ally in the house of commons to say on all these issues that was right when it came to iraq in the right when we made the decision to help the opposition in libya and it would be right in the future as well.

let me stress again, we've made no decision to arm the rebels in syria. >> sidney harvey. >> thank you, mr. speaker. has the prime minister consider the role -- many have said to me they would welcome an ongoing connection with the british army but there is no traditional. when he authorized an initiative to recruit? [shouting] >> my honorable friend makes an excellent suggestion. one way we can best thought of the larger reserve would want to see fully funded and fully equipped at 30,000 is to make sure those who served in the regular army have better opportunities to serve in the reserves and the point he makes i'm sure my widowed friend to look at that and see what can be done. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i don't know if they watch monday night, but to prove what

many of us may already know that people would be subjected to. it's been compared to mccarthyism. behind closed doors many people don't even know. can i ask to call for not mccarthyism -- [inaudible] >> to answer directly did not see the printer and the monday night. the government not only doesn't support that, but has taken action against it. [shouting] >> the prime minister for his recent visit to support the sandwich making and mr. does he

occurred to me that hard-working help in these times i protect and cutting benefits rather than by protecting benefits and cutting pensions as the party opposite wishes. [shouting] >> i remember my visit to my honorable friend's constituency. what people want to know us were going to cap off her and get on top of welfare bills and protect those who work hard all their lives and save for retirement. i done a bit of due diligence because last week they wanted a welfare cap and i thought that was interesting. when you look at a common with a cap the welfare bill? now, they wouldn't. the one thing they want to cap its pensions. so there we have it. protect welfare, punish our burgers target pensioners. for the same something for

nothing culture. [shouting] >> edward miliband. >> mr. speaker, today is unemployment of 5000 is welcome. can the prime minister explain why today's figures also show three years into his government, living standards are continuing to fall. >> first of all, it is worth announcing to the house that the unemployment figures today show because they show employment, the number of people and work in our country going out. they show unemployment going down. [shouting] i know the party opposite doesn't want to hear good news but i think it's important. a number of people claiming unemployment benefits has fallen for the seventh month in a row. what else is interesting as over the last year while we've lost

100,000 jobs in the public sector, with game five times that amount in private sector employment. the figure shows an increase in wages, but obviously real wages under huge pressure ever since the calamitous boom and bust -- [shouting] what is good for people under this government would cap their income tax this year. >> mr. speaker, has excuse for living standards is don't blame me. i'm only the prime minister. it's simply not fair and he doesn't understand because it is tailored to get growth in the economy, wages are falling for all three people. he wants to tell them better off but they're worse off. can he confirm today's figures show since he came to power

peoples wages on average arab or 1300 pounds a year? you might've noticed the figures by fiscal studies are from 2008 when he was sitting in the cabinet. it is worth remembering while he was energy secretary sitting in that cabinet, the economy got smaller. they shrink a month after month under this government would see number 1.25 million more private-sector jobs, good growth in private sector employment this year. that is what's happening. of course living standards under pressure and that is why we freeze the councils out. [shouting] >> excessive noise in the chamber. do not shot at the prime minister and a more anyone should shot at the litter the opposition. but the answers be heard.

>> the answer is 1.25 million more and that is a good public record. [shouting] >> no answer on the livingston of crisis facing families up and down the country. this is what the honorable member wrote about him over the weekend. he said i know they don't want here, mr. speaker. it's like being an airplane. the pilot doesn't know how to land it. we can either do something about it or sit back, watch the in-flight movie and wait for the inevitable. the reality is day in, day out, what people see, what people see -- [shouting] calm down, calm down. day in, day out all people see as prices rising, which is fine

with the prime minister tells them they're better off. he claims the economy feeling, but ordinary families life is getting harder. they are worse off under the tories. [shouting] only someone who wants to talk down our economy would pick a day like today. unemployment down, youth unemployment down. not one word of respect for that good agenda on jobs. [shouting] he talks about aero planes. the former secretary mr. sheffield nevermind getting on aero planes. here's what he said about the leadership. we are literally going nowhere. [shouting] he has been and gone on the airplane because he hasn't got a clue. [shouting]

>> the whole structure welcomes government support for a new direct link from stock shyer to london. this week network rail sub. virgin spirit. does the prime minister of greece and you should not get in the way of the well structured people on the way of economic progress? >> well, we want to see more direct railings and there's also the need for better links to land custard. one of the issues that real mystery is battling what is the shortage of capacity. one thing hse will bring us afraid that the capacity to make more direct links possible. we should be making some progress. >> thank you, mr. speaker. lacerate the prime minister could confer taxpayers are not subsidized foreign buys properties in the u.k. with his scheme was the taxpayers fund purchases of

second homes. >> let me try and get the honorable ladies and satisfaction. first of all, this game is peoples only home. we'll have a mechanism in place to make sure that is the case. the second thing which is important is in order to take part, you have to have a credit record and you have to have a credit record in this country. >> mr. speaker, the former pensions manager was proud this government introduced a new formula. the honorable gentleman should be treated like every number with courtesy. >> thank you, mr. speaker. is a former pensions manager, was proud of this government introduced a new triple lock formula on our state pension

increase by 234 pounds in its first year to every pensioner in the last. is a prime minister share my concerns under the shadow chancellor's plans to cut or cut pensions, all of those standard of living? >> my honorable friend is absolutely right. what was done under this government has put a cap on welfare that families can receive but it been as generous as we cannot pensioners who are character of their lives to have dignity and security in old age. that's why we have the triple lock and because we now know the party opposite wants to cap the pension because they put a cap on pensions but not while fast, just this morning the foreign secretary was on television challenged about the trip a lot and said it was their policy i present. [shouting] given all the u-turns behind

outthink the present president will last. >> with the prime minister congratulate the football club for doing the right thing while protecting sponsorship? will he also join in and do the right thing and give authorities the power to find a -- [shouting] >> i hear what he says and i wonder as well for the future. we need to get more support to credit unions in our country and that is one of the best ways of addressing the whole problem of payday loans online game. i hope you'll welcome the fact over the last year unemployment has fallen fastest in the northwest of our country.

[shouting] >> order, order! if the session has to be extended to accommodate the democratic likes of members, it will be expanded. the honorable gentleman well, i repeat will be heard. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. with a prime minister journey paying tribute to a huge commitment thousands make him day in and day out for l., for nondisabled members, friends and partners? people who make recommendations? >> on this one i can say we speak for the whole house and whole country and raise the the amazing job that they stop caring cause would be to make sure they get the proper breaks they need to do the wonderful

work they do. >> graham jones. >> thank you, mr. speaker. what is the number of supply teachers in secondary school is increased by 17%? >> add-on at the figures for that. we have protected the amount of money that goes into schools per-pupil so the schools have the money to employ teachers they named. >> mariam a cloud. [shouting] >> unemployment has fallen by 6.9%. youth unemployment on may 19%. [inaudible] is it not show it is working? [shouting] >> he honorable ladies absolutely right. we see today the growth in employment and most important

orders, guests are losing jobs in the public sector because we have to make cuts to the public or while they last over 100,000 jobs in the public sector, we've gained five times as many in fact in the private sector. >> he wants to give a running commentary. this is not the most important questions in years of politics. do i think the government spent too much combat too much national data? now, i don't think there's any evidence to that. [shouting] that phrase will be hung around his neck forever. >> thank you, mr. speaker. >> five homes reported november residence in my constituency identified their homes and businesses are now worthless because this government has failed to replace the insurance scheme. it's also over 2 million pounds

of defense work. why is this prime minister sold my constituency down the river? [shouting] >> i could give the honorable gentleman some quite welcome news that we have to extend it. to continue negotiations. i'm confident we'll put in place a proper success to the scheme an announcement made quite soon. >> thank you, mr. speaker. [shouting] >> they've been making him for 60 years. the export to germany. they've run into problems with reclassification and i wonder if i could -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> am very happy to receive the information from my honorable friend. it's important to get the next

words up to it if we move from one side of our exporting to one of four, that would wipe out our deficit altogether. i'm happy to get our office to look at information she has. >> thank you, mr. speaker. one of four in north west london. i welcome the home secretary with waiting times a nine year high, ambulances diverted in the risk of unnecessary deaths, but he acknowledged these closures are not a serious option if it is safe in advance. >> the point i make is the health secretary has asked the irp to conduct a full review of the proposals. the panel submitted no later than mid-september. let's let's be absolutely clear these proposals are not to do

finding because northwest london will receive 3.6 billion this year that is 100 million pounds more than a year before and of course if we listen to the labour party he said more nhs spending was irresponsible, than his hospitals that be have been 100 million pounds less. >> thank you, mr. speaker. with the prime minister join me in congratulating the china britain business council on this inspirational for organizing many seminar i attended last friday about exporting to china and they should be congratulated on this initiative. >> i'm happy to extend my praises to the china business council if we look at the evidence over the last few years, there's a significant increase to china had a big increase of chinese direct investment into the u.k. all of us is welcome a way to go even further.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. will the prime minister confirm he understands the importance of the industries to this country and they need to be buttressed by intellectual property rights? but is he also aware of his intellectual property minister, the fifth -- the younger of the key recently told the culture media for a select committee in relation to grupo that i am very aware of their power, but i'm also where they have access for whatever reason -- [inaudible] saps jan

[shouting] >> order, order, order! >> they suffer the disadvantage of being too long. >> first of all, i agree creative industries are critically important for britain's future. the music industry has had an absolute record year in terms of sales. one in every four outlets in europe and something that can be proud of. we have to get the intellectual property regime right. party taken action to extend the life of copyright protection to 75 years which is welcomed across the music industry and i don't accept what he says about my ministers. the honorable member was a novel by howard wilson. >> cheryl murray.

[shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker. for the prime minister join me in praising the honorable member in the government secretary for ensuring that decision with wind turbines remain local. however, many legislatures are becoming increasingly content -- [inaudible] should decisions be the subject -- [inaudible] >> i join her in praising the excellent work done by the right of member in the meeting. on by the minister. i think they've both done a very good job of bringing sanity to the situation with onshore winds. on the issue solar panels, this government could substantially

reduce the to make sure the industry was not over subsidized because all the subsidies and upon consumer spells and we should think very carefully about that. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the hospital has the second-best survival rates in children surgery in the country. will the prime minister assured her including survival rates for what matters most essential to any decision about the future of the services. >> the honorable ladies absolutely right. secretary will make an announcement shortly about the issues of safe and secure children's heart operations. we have to be frank that we can't expect technical surgery to be carried out at every hospital in the country. as the parent of desperately ill child wanting to get the best care company need to know you're getting something world s. for technical operations. you can't have it everywhere,

but clearly the conclusion is this process started in 2008, has been carried out sunni to make a restart. >> claire bellingham. [shouting] >> last year britain became a net export, first time since 1996. at this tank continues commend u.k. will reduce an all-time record in 2017. it's a really good example of the great manufacturing exporter. [shouting] >> my honorable friend is absolutely. it's a good example of the industries succeeding the lookout toyota, land rover, there's really good news in our automotive air. we need to get behind the sector and encourage them to this much supply-chain onshore as

possible. that is beginning to happen in industries and am hoping for further progress in the months ahead. >> catherine mackinnon all. [shouting] >> they've increased over 550,000 pounds since he was introduced in april. 60% -- [shouting] [inaudible] >> we in a despairing subsidy because we don't think it's fair to give a subsidy to people in council houses that don't have it in private rented accommodations. i have to say there's no question for the labour party and if they're going to have the welfare cap, can they tell us are they going to reverse this change? are you? is that know?

about the last two weeks, the discipline were going to hear about, the welfare cab is one failure. [shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker. tax avoidance is right at the heart of the agenda. can my right honorable friend told the house would've a few that have received on this issue for the leader of the labour party called the international shadow chance lawyer. >> is this government putting aggressive tax avoidance at the heart of the agenda of what we hear from the labour party? bigger tax avoidance of eyes to their donors. tax avoided because of what labour adviser to do. frankly i can't comment on because this is the money in the health service.

in order to gain the training of young people. [shouting] when you get the money back. yes so now? will you? it's very simple. this is what the labor leader said. in the guardian, there must be truth. tax avoidance is a terrible thing. if everyone approaches their tax affairs for some companies have approached their tax affairs, we wouldn't have a health service. we wouldn't have an education system. that is the shameful state of the labour party today. [cheers and applause] across the country, investing

22 billion pounds last year and understand into social care. [inaudible] [shouting] >> we could start with the money from labor tax avoidance. that's money that should be going into the care system. that's money that should be going into the national health service. this government has the 12.7 billion pounds extra into our nhs. that is how we are supporting terrorists. but she can have a word with the chancellor. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, as we approach the 25th anniversary of the alpha disaster, while the prime minister join the knee and recognizing the challenges we face in continuing to spring oil and gas ashore for the season the skills and dedication in the paramount importance of safety and ensure they continue to exploit the judiciary.

>> i certainly join my honorable friend in praising the north sea oil and gas industry. it is a real jewel in the crown of the united kingdom economy. what is encouraging as this year we see a growth in production as a number of fields and projects, stream. ..

privacy issues and customer data. he spoke at an event on the future of global technology along with arkansas senator mark pryor. from the brookings institution, this is