has been used to pay for pell grants. if we want to pay for pell, we need to pay for pell as part of an entitlement. then let's figure out what we want to do with loans. and i think sort of the problem with loans is, you know, we talk about the different actors who were, who are poorly incented with our federal financial aid policy, and the federal government is one who's poorly incented by our loan processes. so when we're, you know, and i say we. when the federal government is sort of looking for money to pay for pell or to pay more this, what can we do? oh, let's raise loan limits, and that will generate money that we can use to pay for pell which is craze i because it ends up sort ratcheting up the cost of education. so we're just sort of throwing money into the water. it's not really making any difference. so i think you have that. i think, you know, institutions respond to loans in very particular ways. i mean, i think they're seen as, they're basically seen as grants. i think a banker said this

recently, loans are basically grants to institutions that students pay back, and i think that's -- at least for me, that makes a lot of sense, and we don't think about them that way, and there's sort of a big controversy that way with some changes the department of education recently made to its plus loan program, and some institutions are up in arms because they feel like they are sort of entitled to have these loans even though they end up saddling the parents and the students with tons and tons of debt they can't afford. so i think there are a lot of issues, and we need to -- it sort of gets back to a theme that's been emerging over the course of the information which is we need to start seeing institutions as being culpable for some of this and having them on the hook for some of this stuff. >> where well, let me start with a comment both on something amy said and something richard said. skin in the game is a very interesting concept. but if there is one area where you really better think about the incentives you are creating,

that's it. because you go to skin in the game, you expect institutions to put money in, you are certainly creating incentives. and my guess is because we can never get these things right, my guess is we'll create lots of incentives that a panel ten years from now will say that was a bad idea. on amy's point, yeah, i believe anything a banker tells me. [laughter] i'd treat that as gospel. so i'm sure that that's right. so in light of your time, i'll just leave it at that. [laughter] >> um, the last time i was in this chair was for a conference here on student loans, and alex was there and dick george. so, you know, i think there are a number -- i think what we need to do on loans is to, essentially, turn the trend around -- can reverse the trend

and not have it keep going up over $100 billion and get down to some more manageable amount of loans that are being made and how they get repaid. i had a set of, i think, six suggestions at this last aei session, and one was we need to limit the amount that people need to borrow for living expenses. i think that's one of the things we didn't really think through, and that's a big problem. we need to finance remediation in a big way so people are not borrowing large sums of money to do it. we need to figure out a more provider-based system for that. the comment that was made about moving subsidies to the back end, that's something dave brenneman talked about 30 years ago. i do think institutions should have some skin in the game in two ways. one is i think they should have to pay for every loan that defaults, they should have to pay a fee -- every loan for a student that they, that borrowed for them, they should have to

have a fee as well, as well as the lender in the case of a private lender. i also think we can't continue to use sticker price as the measure of determination for eligibility for loans. i mean, the only people that pay sticker price at this point are people who borrow and the wealthiest, and i don't think that's the right system. so i think we need to restrict who can borrow. as a direct lender, i don't quite understand why all the schools who have bad records are allowed to be direct lenders. it just doesn't make any sense. and, you know, i'm a big supporter of direct lending, but not for everybody. and this came out of the aei meeting discussion, the last one, i think we need a more compassionate loan policy. i think we need some sort of triage at the point where somebody gets into repayment and say, look, you know, if you borrowed and you got an education, you don't have the income, income contingency is fine. but if you borrowed and you never saw the money and the

school closed and the government didn't do due diligence in terms of its responsibility, you know, the notion of sort of branding that person as a deadbeat, it's the same person who got a pell grant, and we don't say it about them i don't think the is wise. if we have to write off $5 billion of loans because somebody didn't get what they were told they were going to get, i don't think that's a big cost. it's a fraction of what we pay for pell grants. >> it seems to me that art's laid out a number of ideas, but one of the challenges in the question as posed is that it's a very open-ended problem. and i think right now we've got three basic problems in the student loan program; defaults, overbarrowing and -- borrowing and repayment. and i think the solutions differ depending on which of those problems you want to solve. i don't think there is a magic bullet that solves all of them. the bill to move everybody to an income-contingent loan program, i think, makes great sense.

i think the collection mechanism he proposed is very good. that doesn't deal with overborrowing. the second issue that hasn't been touched on with respect to overborrowing is private label loans. a lot of students who get in trouble with overborrowing do it because they get private label loans. and it seems to me that we need to think about getting our arms around student borrowing. many times students aren't counseled before they take them out. a good number of private label loans don't go through the institution, so the institution can't say to the student, hey, you ought to think twice before you sign that. so i think we ought to require private label loans to be run through the institution so at least there's some chance for counseling. and i think private label education lopes ought to be discharge bl in bankruptcy because that will change the incentives for lenders dramatically. i think art raised a fundamental question in one of his comments. this is one of the things we

don't talk about very much. do we want to eliminate eligibility for student loans for some borrowers? are there some borrowers who come so ill prepared for college that we should not let them borrow to pursue an education until they've reached a point where they've, say, passed through all their developmental or remedial work? idea's been discussed before. congress has never been willing to do it. but i think it's very much the sort of idea that we ought to be talking about. because when you look at institutions with 20 and 25 president default -- 25% default rates over three years, we are not doing students a favor if we give them a student loan that they default on or leaving them worse off than they would have been otherwise. >> rich and then art. >> the burden of a student loan on the student is related, it's a function of the ratio of the amount of debt to the amount of

income coming in. and we've been talking about the debt part of this, and appropriately so. but there is also the income side of the equation. there is a decent argument that can be made that we're actually massively overinvested in higher education given the mismatch between the current labor markets and not just the current labor markets, labor markets in general, and the skill sets of the students that we're turning out. the skill sets required for the jobs and the qualifications of the students we're turning out. we are in the area -- era where we have literally a million or more retail sales clerks with bachelor's degrees. 115,000 janitors with bachelor's degrees. 8,000 janitors, by the way, with master's degrees. and i'm waiting for the first master's in janitorial studies program to begin. financed by student loans, of course.

so i'm wondering if in our zeal to maximize the number of students to go to college -- which is, essentially, what these programs are designed to do -- we are actually turning out people who perhaps would be better served if they went an alternative route or at least a hoer cost route than the traditional four-year program or even maybe the traditional two-year program. and i think that this is a serious issue that it needs to be addressed. an average statistic on the average earnings of college graduates versus the average earnings of high school graduates is highly imperfect. i would say grossly inadequate statistic to use to make that comparison. because averages themselves are the wrong statistic to be used in this case. >> with art wanted to jump in. >> small amendment -- >> sure. >> in terms of default risk and having risk sharing, you know, part of the real issue, one of

the disappointment, i guess, is that we haven't had the kind of sophisticated kinds of discussions, and we kind of reach for whatever policy is currently on the shelf, and we say, okay, let's apply this. and in particular the notion of a default rate cutoff where you're just basically saying if a school has above a certain rate they're terrible, and if they're below that rate somehow or another they're okay, you know, a school with a 20% default rate not okay in my book. and so we -- that's one of the reasons that i suggest, you know, we raul ought to risk share on every loan. it would be helpful for them to say, look, there's a cost here, and we shouldn't just rely on these i'll call them across-the-board kinds of policies which do have consequences. >> terry, you want to jump in? >> risk sharing is not a new policy proposal. in the 1990s congress imposed

default risk sharing on states. you may not remember this because the department of education decided they couldn't implement it, and the idea went away. i don't know where it went. congress passed it. it was signed into law. they stopped doing it because they couldn't figure out how to handle risk sharing on a student who was from one state and went to school in another state. or a student who borrowed from a national guarantee agency, which we had at the time. so we've tried it before. it will be equally complicated if you want to put it in place for 5,000 institutions. i'd also point out that, again, the incentives you're creating if you go with risk sharing are pretty incredible. i think it's a law of economics, and if it's not, it should be, that externally-imposed costs of

doing business, that increase the cost of doing business get passed on to consumers. so who do you think will pay for risk sharing? and if we think that's a problem, how do we prevent it? do you tell institutions they can't pass the cost on to consumers? good luck trying to straighten that out looking at an institution's books. so we have been through some of these things before, and they didn't work out as expected. >> amy, i want to -- i think that's a great segway to talking in more detail about institutional accountability. that's come up over and over and over to again. it's come up in every panel i think, as far as i can tell. so how do we deal with the potential fallout of institutional accountability? i mean, i hear from -- i hear this sort of veiled threat from institutions a lot about perverse incentives, right? it's almost a self-fulfilling prophesy, right? they tell us, they tell accountability people that if you implement that policy, we

will, we will do the following things to sort of thwart some ore goal, right? -- other goal, right? so how do we think about dealing with those -- >> so i think some of it is -- some of it, almost all of it -- is a political question, right? you have a very powerful industry which is the higher education industry represented nicely by the most-quoted man in the chronicle of higher education right here. and i think -- not that you are the problem. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> somewhat. but i think the, i think with the exception of the for-profit wars, i think we haven't seen higher education as an industry, right? we sort of see it as the this sort of benign, you know, it's this benign entity, you know? it's my institution. it's where i went to school. i have warm fuzzies thinking about it. we're talking about most of the people who are, you know, staffers or members of congress.

very few of them went to two-year institutions, very few of them were nontraditional students. they all have this sort of idyllic idea of what higher education is and what it meant for them and how good it is. so i think we have a real political problem in trying to tie any sort of accountability onto institutions. if you look at when the president proposed in his state of the union two years ago just tying some of campus-based aid to outcomes, there was this sort of outcry. i mean, it was interesting. there was the same sets of people or were saying two complete my different things. on the one hand, like government overreach, get your government hands off my title iv, right? like very sort of intense and angry. and on the same hand saying, well, it's just a small amount of money, it wouldn't really do anything. so to me, i think when we think about a lot of the reaction that we have, that we hear is some of it, i think, is genuine, but a lot of it, i think, is trying to avoid accountability. again, going back to a favorite

hobby horse of mine which is the student record system that was killed, essentially, by the higher education institutions that would have allowed us to know in the much greater detail how students of all types especially those who receive financial aid, how they are doing. and i think that that's unconscionable, and i think i'm a little bit hopeful that as, unfortunately, as the cost of higher education has gotten so much more, you know, sort of risen to the level of national attention that the tides are turning in that, but it's unfortunate that it's taken so long for that to happen. >> actually, i agree very strongly with the last point. we've been battling the unit record system for, i don't know, since 1789 or something. [laughter] and i was on the spellings commissioning, when was that, seven, eight years ago, and that was our big hobby horse. terry managed to kill it. [laughter] he had some help. in fact, he had a hell of a lot

of help. but let's face it, we in higher education those of us who teach teach 2-300 hours a year. at the university of wisconsin where sarah is, they teach 100 hours a year, and i'm not meaning that against sarah. that's what i was told when sarah invited me up there. the students work 30 hours a week or less on average for 30 weeks a year. that's what the data show. adult use -- department of labor data. the buildings are even underutilized. and so we have underutilization of existing resources, and we have misallocation of resources. the faculty are always complaining there are too many administrators. i think by and large there's some evidence to support that and so forth. so the incentive system within institutions is highly perverse and highly opposed to

efficiencies. that's why we have an academic arms race, that's why u.s. news has more influence on what goes on in terms of cost structure than anyone in this room. and so i think to depend on institutions -- this is going to get to a question you probably were going to ask soon anyway relating to sarah's idea -- well, let's give more money to the institutions rather than the students, i don't see how we can trust the institutions. by the way, i am the oldest teacher here except for lee hanson over here who i think maybe beats me a year. but i was teaching 50 years ago in this year. actually teaching. well, i didn't have my ph.d. yet, so some of us have been around a while even when the higher education act was passed, i already had my ph.d.. >> [inaudible] >> i was afraid that terry and i were going to agree on,.

on everything. i guess i'm an incrementalist. in some sense i think we often overthink these things. on the default thing, we know how many people default for an institution because we have the default rate data. so, i mean, it's not a big deal to say, you know, pay up something for that to discourage them from doing it. similarly, in terms of the campus-based programs, i mean, the distribution of the campus-based programs is awful. i mean, the grandfathering and everything like that, it's -- and we're asking questions of institutions that they make up the answers to. so, i mean, the notion of moving to a performance-based, campus-based system in which you basically bay institutions on the basis of number of low income students who graduate, i think, is not all that complicated and would be certainly better than what we're doing now which is to give rich schools, you know, a disproportionate share of the funds. >> so i want to shift gears just a bit.

rich, you talked about students working an average of 30 hours, is that what you said? >> yeah, well -- >> so i want to know -- >> who knows? >> right. we know the risk of using central tendency, right? so one of the papers on the grant panel discussed sort of incentive-based grants for students. and so one of the things i want to ask is should we have higher expectations for students that receive federal aid? both -- we have already talked about the front end talking about college readiness, but also once they enroll. are our criteria for things like satisfactory academic progress and the number of credits you have to take to be considered full time, are those where they need to be? >> they aren't where they need to be. but even going beyond the student loan program, although it relates to this, is the fact that standards in academia have declined in terms of expectations of student performance. look at the -- i don't want to sound like an old fuddy-duddy,

but i don't think there's anything wrong with a student getting a c or a d. and i think the grading system is supposed to provide some incentives or disincentives, a carrot -- a stick, if you like, to make the students work a little harder. that's a fairly simple idea. it worked pretty well for thousands of years. i don't know if socrates graded his students or not, but we've been doing it for a long, long time. well, the average gpa at american colleges has gone from 2.4, 2.5 on a four-point scale to 3.1 or something today. we are, students don't work hard precisely because they don't have to work hard. this is in general beyond the expectations with respect to what we expect in terms of student loans. and i think, indeed, i would use -- this is one area where the student loan program and the financial aid program could be used as a lever to achieve even

broader educational reform in a positive direction. why don't we make colleges who want to have students borrow money have at least minimal levels of performance of their student body in general? of course, you can do this different ways. not just gpa kind of stuff, but we can have a national exit exam and so forth. why don't we move to something like that and accreditation which is now like pregnancy, you either are or you're not -- [laughter] should be put on a different basis. someone talked earlier about continuums. we should have a continuum approach to accreditation and use that as a lever with respect to some of these loan and grant issues. >> art and then amy, amy and then art, either way. >> truth in advertising, we were given these questions beforehand, so -- [laughter] let me answer with what is a

related question which is, is student aid the best mechanism for promoting student completion and academic quality. and i guess my answer is, no, i don't think so. i mean, i think it's not, it's not the midwest mechanism -- best mechanism, and i think, again, we need to be much more cognizant in terms of institutional behavior in terms of what's going on. for example, improving completioning rates, i think getting the institutions involved in a major way is a better way of going at it than trying to jiggle the student aid. in terms of history, some of you have will remember fred fisher who before his untimely demise wrote a paper that said, basically, we should have graduation-contingent student aid. and it was a very interesting, i mean, you would forgive loans for the people who graduated, essentially, and, you know, the problem is what is already a great disparity between those who finish and those who don't

would become even greater under, i mean, i think that's why it didn't make it. so i just think it's hard to create a major student aid program. you could have a boutique one, but a major student aid program that basically focuses on completion as opposed to getting them in. >> so i guess you would agree with art, and i would say that it makes me nervous of, and the reason is because i think it's easiest thing on -- if you're trying to change, if you're going to go after anything politically, it's much easier to go after students than institutions. so if we're going to talk about outcomes but nobody wants to upset their home institutions, nobody wants to upset one dupont, well, let's go after students, right? and let's make sure that sap is stronger and high higher. i was watching a few weeks ago the house held a budget hearing, and arne duncan was talking about the fiscal year '14 budget. he was sort of trotted up, and it was just sort of your

standard fare. the republicans said, you know, why are you destroying education, and the democrats were like you are a here hero, i mean, it was that sort of thing. and one of the members, congressman roe from tennessee, he asked a question that, to me, really illustrated this point that we don't hold institutions accountable at all in postsecondary education. so he said, you know, secretary duncan, i want to work with you on two things. so they were literally concurrent -- not concurrent, but sentences that followed one another. first, i want to work with you on the dropout factor. so those are the k-12, the 1400, you know, schools that have really high dropout rates. it's unconscionable and terrible that these institutions are failing our students, right? so institutions are failing. second, i want to work with you on outcomes for pell. and i'm like, all right, so you're going to get some institutional action here. and be then he said something like, you know, i have community colleges in my state that just say they have like these lazy students x they're just not

doing their work, and why should they be, you know, on the hook for giving them this money that they're not going to do anything with, and instantly it switches from calls are -- schools are failing students to the same students are failing. and i think that's a real problem, and i think that if we go down the, if we talk about outcomes and we allow it to go sort of on the student route, we're going to punish the students who need the most help, the most support and the ones who institutions are most responsible for getting through. i mean, i think if we believe that higher education makes a difference -- which presumably we all do because we're here -- then their behavior can influence student outcomes and it should. >> i think institutional behavior certainly influences student outcomes, and there is increased interest in holding institutions accountable for this either through accreditation or through some oh mechanism -- other mechanism. but i hasten to add we ought to be very careful from moves for a situation where institutions

have a responsibility to provide an education to a point where institutions have an obligation to educate. student motivation is a factor. we all know people who didn't complete their education because they couldn't or didn't want to do the work. so i'm a little anxious about the willingness of some folks who want to hold institutions accountable to say the students aren't actors in this. the students don't have a central role to play. >> sure. >> so i, i absolutely hear that. i think that's a good caution. but, again, reiterating the point of politics. i think it's much easier if you're sort of, you're a member of congress and you're choosing between two actors who you're going to hold t accountable. it's much easier to hold students who likely aren't going to be voting on sap. they might be voting on -- they might mobilize around don't double my rate, but it's very

unlikely they're going to mobilize on these in the weed changes to the higher education act whereas the institutions certainly will. that's where the danger comes in. i do think students are actors and important actors, and clearly there are different motivations and effort and all of those things, but i think you have to create a situation in which institutions are held accountable first and that's in place before you then add the student piece on top of the it. >> let's play around a little bit more with sarah and lauren and jacob's idea to fund institutions directly, get rid of the voucher and fund institutions directly. i would guess that there's some differences of opinion among you all. what's the, what do you see as the biggest pitfall of that approach? and, terry, let's start with you because i think sarah's last slide or the second to last slide said the interesting question will be how hard the institutions fight, what was it, to prevent a national investment

in them? so, terry, how hard will today fight? [laughter] >> we will fight phenomenally hard for increased investments that are good ideas. [laughter] >> art, go ahead. >> he took my line away. [laughter] a new idea or a new old idea is not necessarily a good idea. first of all, i think we need to differentiate between two types of institutional aid that were talked about today. one is what institutional discounts are, and the other is institutional support. and they've kind of been used interchangeably. but in terms of the proposal on the table, that's really more on moving back, i'll say, to a much more institution-based support program. and changing the mix between vouchers and what institutions get.

my view is vouchers are still the right way to go. i mean, i would be glad to argue that if you had a system in which the states set reasonable levels of tuition for public institutions, i would say based on general economic measures and essentially you have a voucher system to make sure that people who can't pay those reasonable prices have a chance to go to school, that that's superior to sort of shifting the whole thing around in terms of giving institutional support. so i would say let's get the voucher -- let's redesign or let's tweak the vouchers so they work better which they don't work well, they're not well targeted, etc., etc. rather than just say, okay, let's throw it all out and go this way and rely on institutional behavior which, you know, institutions will behave in ways that meet their needs and expectations, i think. i do want to raise one issue with regard to state disinvestment, and i dealt with this in an inside higher ed article the other day.

.. this whole conversation about

the investment. >> i am not sure how going out and getting more stimulus to make ends need to just work for institutions where the cost of providing the education exceeds tuition revenue. >> we have to have a difference between average cost and marginal cost. in economics is going to be if your marginal revenue from the tuition is greater than marginal costs it is worthwhile to do it. the funny part about it is when you look at the long-term trend prices in the public sector pushed through in real terms of gone up less than enrollment over the long term. institutions say the only thing they can do is increase prices but the fact is most of them have increased their enrollment over time. >> a few random thoughts.

one piggybacking on your idea you don't trust institutions, neither did the first secretary of health education work force, welfare, welfare. back in the day. basically said i don't trust institutions, bureaucratic, poorly managed organizations on earth. a year ago i heard a banker or a consultant, have blind faith in those folks say something, somebody who had audited, tried to get into the weeds of an institution, into their finances and said this is the money laundering's dream. like it is just completely opaque and crazy. that is true but not trusting institutions, the way you combat that is trying to use -- pay institutions directly and support them if you tie it to outcomes. you say here are the outcomes we expect for minimum outcomes for

these types of students and let it up to the institutions to figure out what to spend money on in order to get there and that helps deal with some of these issues. related problem, if we are thinking about ten years from now the problem with all these is talking about institutions, talking about does the money go to a student to see what accredited institution no matter how for the learning outcomes or does it go to institution a matter how poor the outcomes or can the money flow to not accredited providers who are providing students with the skills that they need in order to be successful in the work force without too much debt. in all of our conversations that should be in our heads, to the next stage of what will look like. >> it seems to me if you want to give money to and accredited institutions, the incentives you

are creating for people to open fly by night schools are pretty clear. we have done that before. the cost to the student aid programs goes through the roof and student defaults go through the roof. you need some mechanism to ensure that any institution meet basic standards. historically the federal government has used a three part strategy to do this. states had a role, a creditors had a role and the department of education had a role. what has happened is the department of education has not played its role and the states haven't played their roles so more and more responsibilities have been dumped on to the a creditors. the list of things creditors have to do to the judge eligible or recognized by the department of education covers an 88 page form. this is a long way from looking at academic quality. somewhere in the reauthorization

debate someone will get up and think it is a very good idea to make a creditors' look at financial aid expenditures on the campus of. is a terrible idea. acreditors don't know anything about financial expenditures. that is with the arms of education has to do. when we talk about making people eligible we ought to recognize we have been down that road and it was a complete disaster. >> i agree with terry hartle on that but i also agree with arthur hauptman going back to the original question about vouchers versus institutional aid. i start with a philosophical argument, even though an 18 or 19-year-old person is not the most mature and responsible person, one reason they are in college is they and their parents probably have a better sense what will serve their well-being than some institution which has its own objectives but

go beyond that or the individuals. vouchers can be made, can be tailored in many ways, we aren't now and are taking full good vantage. we don't give students vouchers. what we do is give financial aid offices a sum of money which represent an estimate of the pell grant money that will be needed for that campus in a year and the kids march into the financial aid office, not bake about college is saying we are giving u.s. if it is their money, rather than an alternative approach which could never get the people of maryland avenue to even understand much less say it could be done to send the money to the kids and what the news it, walk in and gives them a sense of empowerment and increased changes the dynamics of a good bit and students have a greater say. maybe they will get out of a few

fewer classes in the process of gradually little faster in the process so that is one thing we could do. another thing is we could make vouchers performance based if we wish. if we wish. we could cut them off. we could give you a bonus if you graduate early. if you graduate in three years we will give you half of what the four year voucher would be as cash and government saves money and taxpayer saves money and we get people through. we could put incentives in vouchers which would work in a way that would improve educational outcomes, could do the same with gp as or a variety of different ways. i don't have time to go into it now. vouchers could be tailored in ways that improve educational outcomes and efficiency. >> let the record show i entirely agree with terry hartle and i agree with you on

vouchers. we need to have -- i think aaccreditation needs to be strengthened and the notion of selling out for non-traditional providers is an invitation to disaster. and i agree about vouchers. >> amy laitinen. >> i would like to disagree with the disagreement. clearly there has been a huge, a past history of fraud and abuse when you have allowed new entrants into the market. the rate was -- came out of that. if we are talking about something new it cannot be based on provider tight or you are not an institution so you must be providing a great service to students. should be outcome based, entirely outcome based and we don't know what that looks like. that is part of this whole trying to look forward. we don't know what the answer, where the answer is will look like unless we experiment. we tried. i don't think we should do

wholesale open up hd a and say any non accredited providers have money and go to town. we can, however, start to experiment with what that would look like it if you look at the president's fyi 2014 budget there is the paper's success program which basically would pay -- it doesn't have to be -- not accredited providers who are able to provide basically a free associate's degree to a student with demonstrated outcomes, at the very end of which you assume good employment can transfer to another institution where there is something of value. there is nothing on the front end, you won't have fly by night because they're not going to get anything back unless they can demonstrate outcomes for their students of again what would it look like? we are not sure but the truth is

unless we experiments we won't know. on both sides of the aisle there is real interest in trying to do something different so let's do it in a contained way where we can learn lessons and figure out if we want to do anything different or not and achieve reauthorization whatever happens. >> seems to be a question how do they get to the outcomes if they don't have the argument that to give them eligibility before to get started so how do you know the outcome is? the notion of provisional accreditation, is that -- whatever the -- has got to be strict to say you got produced pretty quickly and there has to be some financial guarantees, staying after school to make it and kids just borrow. >> one of the democrats about

for profit schools. the move will be in the direction of tightening rather than listening to bring providers into the network. to richard said so everybody is clear it is not like federal offense and cash to institution and spend it wisely. and sending money to the institution in the name of an individual student finding it over to the institution, and any money over that is given to the student. the reason the federal government doesn't send multi thousand dollars checks to students is they don't make it to campus. and the g i bills gave the money to the g is and they paid the bills directly. and congress decided in the post 9/11 g.i. bill they didn't want to do that because the amount of

money they were giving people was so high they were certain not to make it to a college campus. institutions at that time said we don't want to deal with the the a but given directly to the veterans, institutions were fine with it. congress wasn't because they realized a lot of it would be used for other purposes and once that happened there is no getting it back. >> the one place we haven't spent a lot of time yet, we touched on it, the states and how can federal systems leverage state participation more effectively. the reference risk, hearing idea that went nowhere and the idea on the books, week programs been around, how can federal policies rethink that equation, seems they have not done a very effective job over the past 40

years? >> because the money would go to students, not institutions except for the campus based programs and not to the states except in the case of the leap program. federal government at present at relatively modest leverage over states and institutions. the economic stimulus act in 2009 congress did put maintenance of effort requirement in place which did lead to to the unusual event to the governor writing the department claiming the state flagship university is not really a public institution and therefore they should be exempt from the main federal requirements. you can do that man when money is flowing into the institutions, you can do that when money is flowing through the states. is hard to do it otherwise unless you want to eliminate the ability of students to spend

their money at certain schools or whether you want to disenfranchise entire states. something we very much want to do. if you go to institution type program instead of a student voucher program we celebrate this trends, a federal government is giving federal agencies in states are not going to continue to do too. they will cut their share. i don't know what leverage we have unless we give money directly to states and institutions, something the federal government has not wanted to do previously. >> andrew, you are raising an important question we have neglected. i would hypothesize, this was a hypothesis, the vast expansion of the federal student loan and grant programs lead to a very

significant decline in state support for higher education. it is my hypothesis which has not -- is not popular in this room but is among most of the human race. at least higher education -- higher educated america, is as student loans programs have expanded it does enable university to raise their fees more than they otherwise would. it has provided more incomes for universities and relieved in the eyes of state legislators the need to provide this money, life was full of all sorts of defect, need based aid versus merit based, so on and so on that occurred in this area. the unfortunate part of it is we are a laboratory of democracy, we have different experiments in different states, different

states are doing things and that is somewhat reduced, the interstate competition, interstate vitality, multiple approaches to higher education has diminished as a consequence of that to the detriment of the nation. >> we are going to open up the panel. involved with discussions about this for a long time and don't have a great set of answers. and incentivize the leap program, and how we're doing in terms of completion and in terms of the team and tried to encourage -- i don't think race to the top for higher education will be helpful. we could have the same way without suggesting in terms of student loans and not having the institution be able to use its

sticker price to be eligible for lunch, the private institutions at a different level and it is ok if you want to charge large amounts, we are not going to go along, to borrow all that money. >> richard's point about federal student aid and college prices, folks have been studying this for a long time. is not a new question. when you look at this you either find clear, consistent evidence of a relationship between federal student aid and impact on institutions or you don't end there is no clear, consistent evidence. what we have is the equivalent -- it must be. there's no evidence of a clear, consistent relationship. arthur hauptman is exactly right that you could incentivize

states but you probably have to be willing to put more money and then the beat program did. i don't think that was enough money for states to fundamentally care. why have states been cutting support? states have to balance their budgets every year and every state spend their budget primarily on four things, elementary, secondary education, medicaid, correction and higher education and at the end of the day higher education, a lot of people around look like paying customers and it is much easier than taking money from medicaid or corrections or elementary secondary education particularly as in the last five years when the states have reduced their support for higher education by 25%. institutions either provide less the education educating fewer students or raise tuition to make up the difference. in many cases the decision is explicit to state legislature, cuts funding for higher education and in the budget they specify how much tuition will go

up. when there is a majority of public college in universities do not set their own tuition it is set for them by someone else. >> we have time for four or five questions if they are long winded. so look around for the mic. the age-old rules apply. identify yourself, affiliation, ask questions. >> diane jones, career education. two questions. my first might be a rhetorical question and that is why is it that so many of the people who are so quick to come down, open up institutions because of the perceived outcomes never work at them. we have all these people who seem to profess all this expertise and wants to hold everybody accountable but i rarely see those people actually go and work at one of the open enrollment institution they are so quick to condemn. why is that? why don't people who know so much leave their jobs at think tanks and research institutions to go to those institutions and,

quote, fix them, that is my rhetorical question. i actually do want an answer. the second is, and i have to save myself this early in the morning, i made a comment about being the mother of a kid who dropped out of college. i want to go back and say it was the smartest decision he ever made. he left college and did an apprenticeship and opened his own business and at 21 he has an income most college graduates would envy. that brings me to the question of what do you propose we do as a nation for all of the people who are not going to get to go to college when we impose this system of outcomes that are going to this incentivize institutions to take in high risk students. what do you propose we do with students who aren't high risk who may be higher ed is not the right fit? what should we do for those students? >> great set of questions.

>> i have worked -- to get a job there. in terms of the incentives i am arguing you should give more incentives. the notion of cost of education for poor students is a great form of institution. i am not disagreeing. >> it is an important point. where the rubber really will meet the road is in community colleges which i notice folks at this meeting love to praise, find themselves caught between federal mandated standards and state mandates to ed met anyone who applies. that will be when we get to an interesting situation. >> i never worked for community college attended one, went to community college, and thought

about attended community college to address the stuff on the ground. that is all i can say about that question but in terms of outcomes, performance based funding and the way you structure it will determine our institutions swung. >> you care about is completions the easiest way to achieve completion is to be much more selective but if you wait in tennessee, performance based funding formula gives you more wait for adult students to do more for low-income students so you design it so you are actually competing the students you care most about and institutions to spend those dollars they might be spending on the sexy stuff you were talking about and get back to basics and get students support, we need to spend money on helping the students get their success to the point of the aid program. it is -- you have to be nuanced about how you talk about outcomes. it is not just completion. at what price and all those

questions. >> we should be spending a lot more than we are, more intentions and we are on non degree granting career colleges, trade schools or whatever you will, programs, maybe three month programs, two year programs, arguably we should be spending more on high school, vocational education programs that went by the wayside, declined in importance over time. we should be doing a lot more of that because we do have this mismatch in labor markets and the area where they're showing up, shortages in electricians and plumbers and welders. i hear welder's can make -- go into welding. there is money in welding. we should be doing a lot more of this stuff. >> take one more question for the end of the day if there is one. >> the center for college

productivity. actually not. hy taught him what to do. anyway, the first panel, we had some discussion over the suggestion whether a highly selective institution should be shut out of the title 4 aid programs and get a comment on whether that is a good idea. >> no. we do need different rules for different institutions, part of diane's comments, the first part of your comment is more differentiation which i agree with, the notion of applying the same rules to selective institution, i don't see why. should have different standards and different rules and recognize diversity of students and institutions in our

policies. >> i agree with part, if you don't allow students to take title 4 funding to certain institutions those students won't be going to those institutions, have a fairly predictable outcome. i do think arthur hauptman touched on an interesting point, differential the administration. should we treat all institutions alike or should we have different standards for different colleges and universities. historically we treated the mall all like which probably means we make a lot of schools do more than they should do, we watch the much more carefully than we need to and there are schools that are not watching us closely as we ought to be. higher education is not monolithic. what works in one sector or in one set of institutions doesn't always work very well in another and often times it is not desirable because you are diverting resources from a

better use. arthur hauptman raised an interesting observation whether we ought to have different standards for different types of institutions, what they would be and how we would determine them on outcome measures, would obviously be a complicated discussion but one worth having. >> i think it is a provocative and interesting question i want to chew on but one of the things it is not so much about open access but what we could do for institutions that serve a low percentage of students who are needy is reduce or cut off their funding. one of the papers is demonstrating their resolve this crowding out, institutional aid to supplant federal aid to the extent we try to capture some of that so that we are enabling the

institutions to serve more needy students, that would be a positive thing we could do financially. >> i don't think we should treat kids differently or schools differently on title 4 kind of grounds but i think that is a very interesting question because if you look at a school like princeton university i estimated princeton university got 50 to $100,000 public support, the nearby college of new jersey eight miles away, public-school, got something like 3,000 from a state in new jersey and virtually nothing else, maybe a little more with all the student aid is granted to students but the reality is research grants, tax exempt factor is a huge. absolutely mammoth and never gets discussed. for people worried about excessive elitism in higher education and you want to become more egalitarian, your barking

down the wrong tree. you ought to look at that. >> the topic of the next conference, minutes after 5:00, let me thank the panel and thank everybody. [applause] >> thanks for coming and being such great participants, thanks to my co editor sarah and the gates foundation for making this whole thing get off the ground. please stick around and enjoy yourselves. [inaudible conversations] >> the supreme court term comes to close at the end of the month. next week we will have more arguments and some high-profile cases. tuesday, july 2nd at 9:00, worrell arguments in hollingsw r hollingsworth vs. perry, u.s.

versus windsor challenging affirmative action in texas universities, the supreme court said that the specter lower-court. that oral argument at 5:00 eastern. >> you are watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. weeknights what key public policy events and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our website and join in the conversation on social media sites. >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in to continue work on the immigration bill, the measure creates a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and allows additional high and low skilled workers. yesterday the senate voted to move forward with what is being called the border search amendment to double border boards and sensing along the southern border. the senate will vote tomorrow on

including those provisions in the immigration bill. number of other amendments awaiting action, managers continue negotiations over which to bring to the floor for of votes and votes on -- the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. holy god, from whom alone all good proceeds,. let the graces of fate, hope and love be felt today on capitol hill. lord, you rule all things by your wisdom. may our lawmakers therefore look to you for guidance and strive to manifest complete

subservience to your will. continue to shower our senators and their loved ones with your daily mercies as they grow in grace and true holiness throughout the seasons of their lives. may they show their love for you by loving others as you have loved humankind. help them to continue to expect great things from you as they continue to attempt great things for you. we pray in your merciful name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag.

i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. reid: mr. president? the speaker pro tempore: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks, the senate will be in a period of morning business for an hour. the majority will control the first half, the republicans the final half. following that morning business, the senate will resume consideration of s. 744, the immigration bill. i now ask unanimous consent the filing deadline for first-degree amendments to s. 744 be 12:00 p.m. today. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: the filing deadline for all first-degree amendments, both the substitute amendment and the bill is today at noon. the senate will recess today from 12:30 until 2:15 for weekly caucus meetings. the senate will be notified when

votes are scheduled. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presidingthe speaker pro tee clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, law enforcement officials who made the arrest and looked at this called it a modern day plantation. what happened is a string of very profitable convenience stores, they had undocumented immigrants from pakistan and philippines routinely working up to 100 hours a week for very, very below minimum wage, and although their employers made $180 million over a dozen years while pocketing much of their employees' wages, these workers lived packed into apartments unfit for human habitation.

but because they lacked the proper immigration paperwork, the workers were simply too afraid to speak up for themselves. it happens all the time. they were the -- these were the circumstances at more than a dozen 7-eleven stores in long island, new york, and in virginia. they were raided last week by federal immigration officials, but the unfortunate conditions exposed by this high-profile bust were all too common. the busts don't come very often. they were able to get to the bottom of this. most of the time, these people are so abused and nothing happens except the abuse continues. more than one half of undocumented day laborers say they have been cheated by employers. a quarter of undocumented workers polled in new jersey say

they have been assaulted by their employers, a crime they rarely report. a lot of times, they have language barriers and they are simply afraid that they're going to lose their job and maybe being deported. and in one survey, virtually every undocumented female farm worker said sexual violence in the workplace is a very serious problem. 11 million people living in america without the proper documentation are particularly vulnerable to abuse by these employers who are very unscrupulous. the system under which people can be forced to live as indentured servants under substandard living conditions and the threat of violence hurts all workers and is wrong, it's immoral. the bipartisan immigration bill before the senate will eliminate the kind of exploitation seen at these rogue 7-eleven stores and other dishonest employers in a number of ways. first, it will reduce illegal immigration by strengthening our borders and fixing our broken

legal immigration system. we all acknowledge before going into the debate that our system was broken and need to be fixed. that's what this bill does. the bill will also make the electronic employment verification system known as everify mandatory within five years. that will make it virtually impossible for people without the proper immigration paperwork to secure jobs, removing the incentive to come here illegally and removing the incentive from these unscrupulous employers from taking advantage of these people. the legislation will allow temporary workers to change jobs without losing their visas, making it possible for them to escape and report exploitive employers without fear of deportation. they haven't been able to do that. they won't until we pass this legislation. this measure also offers more visas for victims of crime, including employer abuse. these protections will be good for honest workers, helping them stand up for the rights without fear of retribution. they will be good for honest employers whose unscrupulous

competitors have an unfair advantage. this legislation also recognizes that undocumented workers play an important role in our economy and need an earned pathway from the shadows to citizenship. the path won't be easy. it wasn't intended to be. undocumented people will have to go to the back of the line, pay penalties and fines, work, pay taxes. they will have to work, pay taxes, learn english and stay out of trouble. mr. president, the alternative to the report 11 million people isn't practical, inhumane and just plain wrong for our economy. helping millions of immigrants get right with the law will boost our national economy over $800 billion over the next ten years and it will reduce the deficit by almost a trillion

dollars over the next two decades. pretty good deal. last night, strong bipartisan vote on the corker-hoeven border security compromise was a huge step forward for this legislation. the opponents of immigration reform can no longer hide behind false concerns about border security, and that's an understatement, mr. president. it can't be an excuse to oppose immigration reform. if it is, it's really transparently obvious that they are just trying to figure out a way to vote against this legislation. i hope those who have stood in the way of this legislation will instead join us to do the right thing for our economy and the humane thing for immigrant families. it's really time to crack down on crooked employers, and that's what they are, who exploit and abuse undocumented immigrants. it's time to give hope to 11 million immigrants who want nothing more than to become citizens in the place they call home.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: in advance of the president's big speech today, i read this morning that one of the white house climate advisors finally admitted something most of us have suspected all along. he said -- quote -- "a war on coal is exactly what's needed. a war on coal is exactly what's needed." that's one of the president's advisors. it's an astonishing bit of honesty from someone that close to the white house, but it really encapsulates the attitude this administration holds in regard to states like mine where coal is such an important part of the economic well-being of so many middle-class families, and it captures the attitude it holds with regard to

middle-class americans all across the country where affordable energy is critical to the operation of so many companies and small businesses and to those businesses' ability to hire americans and help build a ladder to the middle class or their families. declaring a war on coal is tantamount to declaring a war on jobs. it's tantamount to kicking the ladder out from beneath the feet of many americans struggling in today's economy, and i will be raising this issue with the president at the white house later today. one of the sectors the president's war on jobs would hit is manufacturing. ironic perhaps because just a few months ago it was president obama himself who said i believe in manufacturing, i think it makes our country stronger. well, of course, that's correct. manufacturing does make our country stronger. just look at kentucky. we're the first in the nation in

aluminum smelting. we're third in the production of auto parts. and kentuckians know these types of businesses strengthen not just the bluegrass state but our entire nation. they provide well-paying jobs, economic growth and tickets to prosperity for workers and their families. and yet, in the global economy of the 21st century, retaining much less expanding our manufacturing core has never been more challenging than it is now. we face relentless competition from all corners of the globe, so policymakers have to be careful about the types of policies they enact. obviously, americans' success in this hypercompetitive world is strengthened when we keep taxes low and regulations smart. and perhaps most importantly, it's strengthened when we ensure energy is abundant and affordable. these are energy intensive industries, after all.

if the white house moves forward with this war on jobs and raises the cost of energy, that would almost assuredly raise the cost of doing business, and that would likely put jobs growth and the future of american manufacturing at risk. that's one of the many reasons why americans rejected the president's attempt to impose a national energy tax in his first term. even with overwhelming majorities in congress including a filibuster-approved 60-vote majority in the senate, washington democrats were unable to pass the president's energy tax. here in the senate, the democratic majority wouldn't even bring it up for a vote. think about that. they could have pushed it through on their own without a single republican vote, and yet they couldn't. why? well, for one, the constituents we serve are a lot smarter than some here in washington might like to believe. they know you can't impose a national energy tax without cutting jobs and significantly raising energy costs, not just

on their families but also on their employers, and the data seem to bear out such concerns. i remember some projections showing that by 2030, the waxman-markey proposal could have decreased the size of our economy by about $350 billion and reduce net employment by 2.5 million jobs, even after taking job creation into account. so americans made their opposition to this tax abundantly clear to members of congress, and in the 2010 midterm elections, they ousted a good number of those who voted for it in the house. and house of concerns about job losses, higher utility bills and reduced competitiveness, congress today is even less inclined to vote for an energy tax than when the president commanded such massive majorities in the first part of his first term. it's fairly self-evident to say there is no majority for such an

idea in the 113th congress. but the president still wants to push ahead and ignore the will of the legislative branch, the branch closest to the people, whether the american people want it or not, he says he will do it by presidential fiat, by presidential fiat. i'm sure we'll find out more details in his speech later today. he'll ally out a plan through executive action -- more czars rs more democrats. this should worry anyone who cares about constitutional self-government, that the president can simply ignore the will of the representatives sent here by the people because he wants to, because special interests are lobbying him, because he wants to appease some far-left segment of his base. but what i'm saying is this: he cannot declare a war on jobs -- cannot declare a war on jobs

-- and simultaneously claim to care about manufacturing, and he cannot car claim to care about states like mine where an energy tax would do great damage to countless americans employed in energy sectors like coal. look, for many wages are already failing to keep pace with rising costs. for many people already. many families have seen their real median income actually decline in recent years. and a survey released yesterday showed that three hft quarters of americans -- that three-quarters of americans are living paycheck to paycheck. this is the reality of the obama economy. even in the best of time, imposing an energy tax would be a bad idea. but in an era of unacceptably high unemployment, a an era whee americans are desperate for the president to focus on growing the middle class rather than thoag scrapthrowing scraps to hy

support irrelevance, ideas like this border on being absurd. absurd. he may as well call his plan a plan to ship jobs overseas. basically it's unilateral economic surrender. and to what end? to what end? many experts agree that a climate policy that does not include massive energy consumers like china and india is essentially meaningless -- meaningless. but the damage to our economy would be anything but meaningless. and ironically, those are the very types of countries that stand to benefit economically from our loss. so nations like these will probably just take our jobs, keep pumping more and more carbon into the air, and what will we have to show for it? what will we have to show for it? that's a question the president needs to answer today. americans want commonsense policies to make energy cleaner and more affordable.

the operative phrase being "common sense" because americans are deeply concerned about jobs and the economy. that's what the president should be focused on. incredibly, it appears to be the furthest thing from his mind. mr. president, i have been mentioning on daily basis the ongoing concern i have about the institution in which 100 of us serve, an institution that served america well since the beginning of our country. the sphu was frame constitutionk in 1770. george washington presided over the senate during that time. the founders of our great country believed that the senate would be a place where things slowed down were thought over

and obviously where bipartisan agreements would be the way to move forward. and over the period of our history, the idea of unlimited debate has had a lot of support in this body, from both parties. during world war i, it was agreed that there ought to be some way to stop a debate. prior to that, there was no way actually to stop a debate. and they agreed to create a device called cloture that would allow a supermajority of the senate to bring debate to an end. and over the years there have been flirtations by majorities of different parties to fundamentally change the senate. and those temptations have been avoided. those temptations rose again at the beginning of the previous congress and at the beginning of

this congress, under the current majority and the current majority leader. and there was a lot of discussion about the way forward for the institution that would benefit the institution and not penalize either side. in january of 2011 the majority leader said the issue was settled for the next two congresses. the previous congress and this wufnlt in spitone. in spite of that, we entered into a lengthy discussion at the beginning of this congress on a bipartisan basis and as a result of that, the senate passed two rules changes and two standing orders, and the majority leader once again gave his word that this issue was concluded. just this last january, i asked the majority, i said -- the majority leader, "i would confirm with the majority leader that the senate would not consider other resolutions relating to any standing order or rules this congress unless they went through the regular

order process?" and the majority leader said, "that is correct. any other resolutions related to senate procedure would be subject to a regular order process including consideration by the rules committee." now, the regular order process, mr. president, is -- takes 67 votes to change the rules of the senate. we did that with the two rules changes earlier this year, thereby confirming again that's the way you change the rules of the senate. but the majority leader, despite of having given his word -- not once but twice -- continues to suggest that that may not be a word that's going to be kept and has continued to flirt openly with employing what is called the nuclear option. now, my party, when it was in the majority some time ago -- eight or nine years ago -- flirted with it as well but good sense prevailed and we moved backward. and we moved into a position

where we are today, which is that it takes 60 votes when you have a determined minority to get an outcome. now the threat has related to nominations and nominations only, as if somehow breaking the rules of the senate to change the rules of the senate would be confined to nominations in the future. the way that would be done, of course, is the parliamentarian would say that it was a violation of the senate rules to change the rules the senate with 51 votes. the majority would simply appeal the ruling of the chair and do it with 51 votes. if that is ever done, mr. president, the senate as an institution that we have known is finished, and it would not be confined to nominations in the future cht and senator alexander and i laid out a few days ago the kind of agenda that we would probably pursue -- almost certainly pursue -- were we in the majority, and it was an

agenda i think that would in many respects horrify the current majority. such things as completing yucca mountain, such things as repealing obamacare, such things as national right-to-work -- i mean, things that i believe probably every single people of the majority party would mind abhorrent. but that's the point much the supermajority threshold is inconvenient to majorities from time to time. it requires them to engage in negotiation in order to go forward. and it's frustrating from time to time. but it's important to remember, i think, every senate majority should remember that the shoe will someday be on the other foot. and that the institution has served our country well. we've had some big debates this year in which we've had

amendments, discussions on a bipartisan basis and bills move forward. we saw it on the farm bill. we have seen it on other bills. we may see it on the bill that's on the floor now. but the fundamental point is, we need to know if the majority leader intends to keep his word, because in the senate your word is important. in fact, it is the currency of the realm here in the senate. and so i'm going to continue to raise this issue because we need to resolve it. senators need to know that words will be kept. the word on the ground rules on how we operate here in the senate needs to be kept. and we're not interested in a majority that says the definition of advise and consent is sit down and shut up. do things that i want to do when i want to do it or i'll threaten to break the rules of the senate to change the rules of the senate.

this is no small matter, and i'll continue to address it until we get it real estate solved. mr. president -- until we get it resolved. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: mr. president, in deference to the presiding officer, i'm going to forego my speech on the stanley cup playoffs until another member is presiding later in the day. until, i would like to address -- instead, i would like to decrease thaddress the speech jy the minority leader. senator mcconnell comes and tells us if we are going to discuss the state of our environment in america, it is a war on coal and a war on jobs. i think he's wrong.

i think the republican approach to the environmental issues is a war on science. it is denial of the overwhelming scientific evidence that the weather affecting us on this earth is changing. we know it. storms, extraordinary storms are more frequent and more violent than they have been. we know that the polar ice cap is melting. we know that glaciers are disappearing. we know the impact this will have on humanity as well as wildlife. and yet from the other side complete denial -- complete denial of science. this is a war on science. their position is also a war on public health. 30 million americans suffer from asthma. it is the number-one-reported cause of children being taken to the emergency room in america -- asthma of the and t.

and to ignore the state of air pollution and the public health challenges that it presents is to ignore the reality of the state of our environment and its impact on public health. and, finally, the republican approach, when it comes in this issue, is a war on this earth that we call home. unless and until the united states shows leadership when it comes to the environment, it is difficult, if not impossible, to convince other nations to do the same. today the president is going to make a speech which will be controversial about what to do with our environment. but i think he's on the right track to engage us in a national debate, a debate about the legacy we leave our children and grandchildren when it comes to this earth that we live on. senator mcconnell's state of kentucky is just south of mine. he has coal reserves in his state. so do we in illinois. and we've seen those reserves, because of some of the contamination and chemicals that are associated with that coal,

diminish dramatically over the last several decades. i haven't given up on coal, if it is used responsibly. this administration has invested in clean coal projects, and let me tell you one. it's called future gen2. it is a project to capture the emissions coming out of smokestacks from coal-fired plants and bury them deep beneath the earth. it is capture of the emissions. it is an energy research experiment which we are engaged in right now in central illinois, which i believe holds promise for the use of coal in the future in a much more responsible way. well, how much can you store below th the earth in central illinois? we can store the emissions of 50 electric power plants fueled by coal for 50 years. let's engage in that research. let's find responsible ways to use coal.

and this notion that moving toward energy efficiency and reducing pollution is going to cost us jobs just isn't borne out by the evidence. we are seeing dramatic investments being made in manufacturing for solar and wind and geothermal. we are seeing dramatic investments creating new american jobs because we are setting new standards for more fuel-efficient cars, for example. that's good for every family, every business in america. it's good for the environment, and it creates jobs. so to suggest that dealing with the environment costs us jobs, exactly the opposite is true. let me also say a word about the republican leader's concern about working families living paycheck to paycheck. time and again on this side of the aisle, we have offered to that senator and his colleagues a chance to reduce the tax burden on working families in america by asking those who are doing quite well to pay a little

more, and they have consistently said "no." time and again, we have asked the republican leader and his colleagues to join us in raising the minimum wage, and they have said "no." so this concern about families struggling paycheck to paycheck should be borne out by some of their votes. that, to me, is essential. let me close by saying this. i believe that the environment is a challenge we must face head on. to ignore it is to ignore reality. lake michigan, when measured just a few weeks ago, was at its lowest depth in any measured time in recent history. what we're seeing in global warming is the evaporation of our great lakes. it's a scary thing, to think about what this will ultimately do to us. the president is going to face the issue head on. there are some who want to run away from it. they can do that if they wish, but their war on science, their war on health, their war on

those destructive forces that are affecting this earth is shortsighted. we need leadership on this, bipartisan leadership. mr. president, let me close by saying i'm going to yield to my friend from maryland. i'm going to come back shortly after morning business to speak about this historic immigration bill. the 67-27 vote on the floor last night, bipartisan vote, is an indication that we have finally come up with an historic measure, one that's important for the future of this nation. we'll do many things around here and important things, but hardly anything is important as fixing this broken immigration system. the fact that we can do this in the senate on a bipartisan basis is a tribute to this institution getting back on its feet and putting aside some of the political battles of the past. i only hope that our friends over in the house are watching this and understanding that only through bipartisanship can we really cure and solve some of the problems our nation faces, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from maryland. mr. cardin: before my friend from illinois leaves the floor, i just want to congratulate you on your incredible leadership on the immigration bill. you brought many issues to the compromise that was reached, but i particularly want to thank you on behalf of the children, the dream act that is incorporated in this legislation that will help so many young people. i told the story on the floor of the senate about a person who lives in maryland who was offered a scholarship and had to turn it down when he found out he didn't have legal status here in the united states. what a disappointment it was to him. i also told about a lot of other young people who had the courage now to step forward. your legislation will give them hope in a very relatively short period of time to really be able to accomplish a dream of being here in america. i just want to applaud you. i want to applaud all the senators who were involved. senator schumer just left the floor. his incredible work, senator bennet, senator menendez, the republicans. you have worked with senator mccain, senator graham,

senator flake and senator rubio. you're absolutely right. the bill has to be done in a bipartisan way. it's not the bill you would have written, it's not the bill i would have written, but you have done i think a great service to this country. thank you. mr. president, i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have been approved by the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: i have also cleared with our side, i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, yesterday was good news. it was good news on behalf of the passage of s. 744, the comprehensive immigration reform bill. this is good news, that the senate is on the verge of being able to act on this legislation. 11 million people who live in the shadows, they will now have hope that they will be able to stay here in america, work in america and one day become citizens of this great country,

but the real winners of immigration reform are the american people and our government. we have a broken immigration system today, and this bill will allow us to replace that broken immigration system with a balanced approach on how to deal with immigration in this country. it's balanced by first recognizing border security is important. we have to make sure that people come into this country lawfully, come in through a door, not over a fence, and this bill clearly deals with the issues of border security. it also deals with everify for employers to make sure employers only hire those who are legally present in this country. and it also provides a way in which those who are presently here can come out of the shadows, get legal status and earn the pathway to citizenship. i say earn a pathway to citizenship because those individuals have to comply with our laws, pay our taxes, learn english, and then, mr. president, wait for the

entire work backlog within the immigration system to be cured before they can apply for citizenship. so it's a way in which individuals who are currently here who are law-abiding, who are prepared to comply with our laws have a reasonable pathway to citizenship. it also deals with realistic numbers for people who want to come to america, who want to make america their home. family reunifications, as well as those who want to work in this country by having reasonable numbers so that we can get the skilled workers we need, we can get the seasonal workers we need. and it replaces a badly broken immigration system, and as i mentioned to senator durbin, it includes the dream act so children who have been here most of their lives within a relatively short period of time have a pathway to citizenship here in america. mr. president, i regret that the border surge modifications were

added to this legislation. do i that for many reasons. i thought the bill reported out by the judiciary committee, although it was not the bill that i would have written, was well balanced on border protection. i think the additions that will be added later today will spend a lot of money with little results for the taxpayers of this country. i think we have thrown money at a problem rather than trying to look at what should be done in the most cost-effective way. the cost benefits of these billions of dollars that are being spent to me are very marginal. most of the problems deal with employment, the everify system i think is an important improvement in the bill as reported out by the judiciary committee, and when we look at who is likely in the future to be illegally in this country, it's likely to be people who entered the country lawfully than it is someone who was sneaking over the border. so i think we could have used the money in a much more

effective way and we are micromanaging border security which in the long run will not be in the benefit of this country. i couldn't agree with senator leahy more in the statement that he gave. we are waiving contractor rules by the amendment that is currently on the floor, and that's going to cause waste, fraud and abuse. there is no question in my mind about that. what i find hypocritical is the same senators who are on the floor day after day complaining about the size of government and government spending when it comes to educating our children, when it comes to dealing with our most vulnerable, when it comes to dealing with our health care system are the ones who propose spending more money on border security than anyone thought was necessary. so to me, we could have done this better, and i am disappointed, and i think if you take a look at it, the amount of money that's being spent here exceeds any of the earmarked funds that we were complained of wasting in the past. i thought there was some benefit to earmarks and we talked about that, we got rid of earmarks,

and now we have a bill that's spending billions of dollars in an effort to deal with border security when we could have done it in a much more cost-effective way. i'm also disappointed by the amendment process that has been used in this legislation. i don't blame the majority leader at all. what i do is blame those who have been obstructionist in considering amendments on the floor. republicans have complained about amendments being offered on the floor of the senate in the past. when given the opportunity on this immigration bill for us to consider amendments, it was the same republicans who objected to us considering the bill. senator leahy offered a group of noncontroversial amendments. mr. president, it was a large group. senator landrieu has talked about this frequently. she offered her amendment to deal with children. in that group of noncontroversial amendments was an amendment that i offered. i still hope we'll have a chance to deal with this, the rush act.

now, what does that deal with? that's amendment 1286, bipartisan. i'm pleased that senator kirk and senator portman have joined me in cosponsoring this bill -- this amendment. it deals with holocaust survivors. some of our most vulnerable citizens. on average, they are over 80 years of age. many live alone. many live below the federal poverty level. and they are desperately concerned about being institutionalized, as i think everyone here can understand. this amendment makes it easier for them to access services under the older americans act. noncontroversial. it was before us. rejected by the republicans why we couldn't offer that series of amendments. that's not what we should be doing. we should be considering these amendments in the orderly way. that was not allowed. let me mention one other amendment i hope we will get a chance to consider, s. 1469 offered by senator mccain, and i join senator mccain on this.

it deals with gross violations of human rights, internationally recognized human rights. someone who has violated the basic international standards for human rights shouldn't be given a visa to come here to america. we took action last congress dealing with the magnitsky circumstances in russia, denying gross human rights violators in russia the opportunity of coming to america and getting a visa. at that time we talked about that should be an international standard. senator mccain and i have led the charge on this and with other senators. i want to thank senator wicker for his work on these issues. we should now have the opportunities noncontroversial, no one has raised an objection to it, should be considered. and yet, because of the obstructionist policies, to date we have not had that opportunity. i want to mention a few other issues that are in the underlying bill that i think we

can improve upon if we have the opportunity to consider reasonable amendments. one deals with profiling. i have introduced legislation that would ban profiling. when we profile the law enforcement profiles based upon race, religion, national origin or ethnicity, it's bad police policy, it's bad law enforcement policy. it leads to sloppy work. it leads to waste of resources. and resources are very scarce. and it causes a community to turn against working with law enforcement rather than working with law enforcement. all of us have said we want to get rid of racial profiling, and yet this bill does provide a way -- a statement against profiling, but it is not as strong as it should be, and there are some unintended consequences as a result of the language that's included in it. i think it is very appropriate i'm talking about this today as

the trayvon martin case starts in our courts, the youngster who as a result of racial profiling lost his life. i have introduced an amendment 1267 which would add to the basic bill against profiling, profiling based upon religion or national origin and would remove a broad exception to the bill that is included here that's well intended but i think really compromises the purpose of the underlying bill, which is to prevent profiling. i have also offered amendment 1266, which deals with additional security scrutiny and screening given to certain individuals. the bill underlining bills as it can be done by country or region. that's profiling. if we have specific information, let's use specific information. otherwise, again we're going to be erasing the resources of

the -- of our security system. the best use of resources would -- would have us have information that we use for additional screening rather than just saying from one region of one country. my -- by the way, if you can get a visa from those countries, then there is obviously a reason for you to be here. unless you have additional reason for screening, you shouldn't be doing that by reason or country. the two amendments that i referred to are supported by many, many groups, are supported by our leadership council on civil and human rights, by the naacp, by the afl-cio, and other groups that urge us to modify with these changes. i held several town hall meetings in maryland on the immigration reform bill. they were well attended. i thought the discussions were very positive. they were focused on how we could make this bill a better bill and eliminate some of the unintended consequences. several at these town hall meetings talked about the

registered provisional immigrant status, and certain requirements in order to stay in that status and have a pathway to citizenship. one is you have to be regularly employed. we understand that. that's a good requirement. however, there are times when you have to understand that may not be practical during an economic downturn, when someone's in school. the bill recognizes that school is an acceptable -- education is an acceptable substitute for regular employment. but if you're unemployed for a 60-day period, you run the risk of losing your legal status in this country. i offered an amendment that said volunteering and community service would be an acceptable substitute. now, this is a win-win situation. someone who volunteers helping our community, also learning more about the needs of our community. this has the support of the afl-cio. they understand the reasonableness of our labor circumstances, and i would have hoped that we would have a chance -- i hope still we will have a chance to consider that

modification. i also was in discussions dealing with -- that came out of these town hall meetings, those who had violated our laws perhaps many years ago maybe not a very serious issue, there should be at least some flexibility in the law for extenuateing circumstances so someone is not jeopardized to be deported because of something that is not really relevant to today that person being law-abiding. i would hope you could consider that. i offered amendment 1264 which deals with private prisoners. may colleagues were surprised to find out that i.c.e. detention, 14,000, about half w. are detained in private penal facilities, not federal facilities. this law provides for accountability for those who are detained. but an application where you can get information only applies to federal prisons.

well, i offered a scwns amendment -- i don't think -- well, i offered a commonsense amendment that would apply to private prisons as well as federal prisons. we all talk about accountability. i think that amendment makes abundant sense. so as you can see, this is not the bill i would have drafted. i would have done other things. i would have spent money a little bit differently than spent here. certainly not as much money. i would have taken conveyor of i would have taken care of some of the problems of profiling. and i still have hope that many 10 of these amendments can be adopted. i hope we can work on a package that will improve the bill, particularly the noncontroversial amendments. i spoke on the floor a couple weeks ago as to why i supported this bill. i talked about a high school student who found out he was eligible for a scholarship only to find out he couldn't take it

because of his legal status. i talked about young people who were separated from their parents who have been deported. i talked about employers who have workers that are well-trained, seasonal needs, highly skilled needs, scientists who are desperate for immigration reform so that they can meet their economic needs. i've talked at great length how this bill will help the american economy, help us be more competitive internationally, a understand how this bill is -- and how this bill is compassionate as to what america should stand for on its immigration policies. so, mr. president, this the not a difficult choice for me to make. i support this legislation and will be vote voting for this legislation. because i do think it is in the best interests of our cufnlt i -- of our country. i hope we can adopt some these noncontroversial amendments. but i do hope that we will send this bill to the house of

representatives. i urge my colleagues in the thousands follow the example of the senate, to listen to each other, work across party lines, so that we can pass comprehensive immigration reform, send it to the president of the united states for his signature. with that, mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. cardin: mr. president, i would ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i would ask that during quorum calls the time be equally charged to the majority and to the republicans. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a

quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. johanns: i ask that the quorum call be set aside. the presiding officer: wowcts. mr. johanns: i rise today to speak about long-standing rules, procedures, and traditions of the united states senate. i have watched with interest over the past few weeks as

members of the majority have continued to threaten to break the senate rules in order to impose a majority rule at the expense of minority rights. we tif continue to hear threatsf the nuclear option, by which the majority would break the rules to change the rules. despite passed assurances from the majority that rules changes would only occur through regular order, they continue to threaten the exact opposite. make no mistake, this is not some inside-the-beltway squabble over parliamentary procedure. the long-standing rules alog for a limited debate and amendment protect every american whose voice is represented by the minority in the united states senate. these protections are especially important for americans who live

in rural and less populated states. that would include my home state of nebraska. the constitution specifically designed the senate to function in a manner that was very different and very distinct from the house of representatives. the threat of the nuclear option clearly abandons this intent. the majority leader has affirmed the importance of filibuster rights to small states arguing they are -- quote -- "a unique privilege that serves to aid small states from being trampled by the desires of the larger states." unquote. i continue to be astounded by the insistence by some that we trample over these rights, especially given the significant nominations and legislation the senate has recently considered. it has been noted by many

metrics, the senate has more rapidly confirmed president obama's federal judicial nominations than it did during the time of president bush's administration. in addition, over the past few months, the senate has passed significant pieces of legislation: the farm bill, the water resources development act, and the marketplace fairness act. we have considered bills i have supported and bills i have opposed. but the fact is, we have given these pieces of legislation due consideration that would be required of the world's greatest deliberative body. at the beginning of this congress, the senate agreed to a new standing order to expedite senate consideration in exterior circumstances. but the majority leader has not even attempted to use the expedited procedures -- not once.

so i ask, why then threaten the very fabric of how this institution was created? i have served in the senate just four years, all of which i have been a member of the minority. mr. president, i would caution my colleagues whose experiences have been conversely limited serving only in the majority: sh -- should the majority go down the road of the nuclear option, then there is no turning back. and there will come a day, perhaps soon, when control of this chamber will shift and the current majority will not like what it sees when it is in the minority. my colleague, the senior senator from tennessee, recently outlined a number of priorities he would pursue should we find ourselves in that situation where a republican-controlled

senate could use majority rule. now, i'm not going to be here in the 114th congress, but i thought i would outline some policies i would support should the current majority take us down that road. perhaps my list of priorities will give some ideas to my colleagues who will be serving in the next congress. here are just a few policies that i would highlight, many of which have already received majority support in the senate but have fallen short of the 60-vote threshold. first and most importantly, the repeal of the health care law that promised everybody but delivered only chaos, confusion and higher costs. you can bet the senate would repeal all 2,700 pages with one 15-minute roll call vote.

in addition, without having to worry about the opposition of the current majority, we could enact responsible reforms to rein in debt and deficit, reforming our entitlements would of course need to be center stage. that's where the money is spent. another priority would be to prevent regulatory overreach by heavy-handed executive agencies such as the e.p.a. very specifically, we could overturn the e.p.a.'s pursuit of cap-and-trade through the regulatory process just announced today by the president and force e.p.a. to back off regulations with more cost than benefit. next we would pro motor investment job growth by immediately improving the construction -- approving the construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline. we could further support energy independence by continuing development of the yucca

mountain nuclear waste repository which has been stalled by the majority leader despite substantial support. this is critical to nuclear plants across this nation, including two plants in nebraska. another focus would be to provide transparency and reform, the consumer financial protection bureau. i would require legislative oversight of its budget and replace the unelected head of the cfpb with an accountable board. why stop there when we could just repeal the entirety of the dodd-frank act and replace it with a more responsible approach. the republican-controlled house of representatives which the senate would essentially mir or passed 270 bills that the current majority declined to

even consider last congress. should the current majority irrevokably alter the rules of the senate, a new senate majority could just railroad all 270 bills through the process, and all those treasured policies the majority puts in place will get repealed, perhaps before they ever get implemented. ping-ponging from the whims of one two-year cycle to the next is not a way to govern. it's the very reason our founders designed the senate as a counterweight to the house. i say to those colleagues who would so quickly disregard the senate rules be careful what you wish for. under this approach, your procedural right to debate, to amend, to raise points of order, all of that would be useless. your vote, your voice, the voice

of your constituents would be effectively silenced. that is not the senate that the framers envisioned when they brokered the agreement that established our constitutional approach. mr. president, i leave you with the words of senator robert c. byrd with whom many of us have the pleasure of serving and whose love and knowledge of the united states senate remain unsurpassed to this day. he said this -- the senate has been the last fortress of minority rights and freedom of speech in the republic for more than two centuries. i pray that senators pause and reflect before ignoring that history and tradition and political priority of the moment, unquote. i hope the majority heeds his call to place history and

tradition and our nation over the political priority of the moment. mr. president, i yield the floor . a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, today president obama is supposed to unveil a national energy tax that will discourage job creation and increase energy bills for americans' families. this announcement about existing power plants comes after the obama administration has already moved forward with excessive red tape that makes it harder and more expensive for america to produce energy. it also comes as a complete

surprise to the members of the senate, especially since gina mccarthy, the president's nominee to lead the environmental protection agency, just told congress that it wasn't going to happen. now, she is currently the assistant administrator of the e.p.a. here's what she told the senate about regulations on existing power plants. quote -- "the agency is not currently developing any existing source g.a.c. regulations for power plants. as a result, we have performed no analysis that would identify specific health benefits from establishing an existing source program. so, mr. president, i would say it is clear with today's announcement by president obama about existing power plants that gina mccarthy is either arrogant or ignorant. she either didn't tell the truth to the senate or she didn't know

what is going on within her own agency. either way, such a person cannot lead the e.p.a. and to the point that this morning's "national journal daily" with a picture of her on the front page says obama's efforts could make e.p.a. nominee gina mccarthy's confirmation more difficult." in this economy, the last thing we need to do is have a national energy tax that will discourage hiring and make energy even more expensive. also, i'd like to point out to the white house that they continue to say that the main objective of the president's plan today is to -- quote -- "lead the rest of the world." well, based on the news of the last week, it is clear that the rest of the world, including china and russia, isn't following president obama's direction or his leadership. that brings me to my next topic. last week, president obama gave

a speech at the brandenberg gate in berlin. in that speech, he said he plans to cut the number of america's explode strategic nuclear weapons by up to a third. this would be a drastic cut and would be on top of the drastic cuts in the new start arms control treaty from less than two years ago. president obama's latest defense cuts are shortsighted and his approach to making this important announcement has been far too hasty. first of all, in the president's speech, he repeated what has been sort of a mantra for people who want to eliminate all nuclear weapons. he said -- quote -- "so long as nuclear weapons exist, we are not truly safe." well, in 1987, president ronald reagan went to the same spot at the brandenberg gate in the shadow of the berlin wall. he gave a speech in which he urged the leader of the then-soviet union to -- quote -- tear down this wall. in that speech, president reagan

also said that freedom and security go together. in contrast to president obama's idealism, president reagan grounded his beliefs in history and in facts. we have experienced a world without nuclear weapons. great powers went to war with each other repeatedly. they caused unthinkable amounts of death and suffering. the estimated number of dead from world war ii generally ranges from 45 million to 60 million. we haven't had a war with that kind of global death toll since then. nuclear weapons and their deterrence power are a critical reason for that. ronald reagan knew that america's nuclear deterrent helps keep americans safe and helps keep our country free. i think it's important that we recognize that essential truth. president obama seems to base his plan to cut america's defenses on this false notion that we are safer without

nuclear weapons. mr. president, this is a serious problem. now, second, i think it's important to recognize that a vital part of the deterrent is what's called the nuclear triad. this is the idea that we as the united states have three ways that we can defend america. we have nuclear weapons on bombers that they can fly -- that can be flown to where they are needed. we have nuclear submarines that can be -- where nuclear weapons can be launched from the ballistic missile submarines stationed around the world, and we have nuclear weapons in the ground that can launch when intercontinental ballistic missiles. all of these have different uses, and together they create a flexible, survivable and stable nuclear deterrent. the triad ensures other major powers are never tempted to go too far and threaten america's security or that of our allies. so that the second threat of president obama's plan is that it could require substantial cuts to the icbm force across

the country. that means a weaker triad, a weaker deterrent and a weaker defense. now, the secretary of defense gave a speech the other day, too. he committed to actually keeping the triad of a.r.c. and land-based deterrents. so if the president is serious about protecting americans and our allies, he should immediately announce that he agrees with what his defense secretary said the other day. the president needs to reassure the american people that he will take no steps that could weaken the triad or any of the parts of it. so the question is why now? the senate just ratified a new start about a year and a half ago. that treaty set new levels for nuclear weapons and for delivery vehicles but we haven't even had time to implement these new levels and the president goes ahead and makes this next statement. why the big rush to say that those levels are all wrong and we need to cut even more nuclear weapons? in 2010, the senate held hearings about new start. the head of the u.s. strategic command at the time was general

chilton. he was asked if the treaty allowed the united states -- quote -- "to maintain a nuclear arsenal that is more than is needed to guarantee an adequate deterrent." general chilton said -- quote - "i do not agree that it is more than is needed. i think the arsenal that we have is exactly what is needed today to provide the deterrent." exactly what is needed. a former secretary of defense testified at the same hearing, james selesinger. he said the strategic nuclear weapons allowed under start are adequate, although barely so. so what's changed from the system in 2010 where since the senate ratified the treaty -- or since the senate ratified the treaty at the end of 2011? the level was barely adequate a couple of years ago. it was exactly what was needed then, so how can we now cut another 33% off of that level? that's what the president is proposing. the only thing that's changed since then it seems to me the

threat of hostile nuclear programs has become even greater. as countries that are not our friends go closer to modernizing their nuclear weapon program, it would be irresponsible for us to weaken our own program. we haven't even had chance to confirm that russia is complying with its obligations under new start. now, russia has a long history of not complying with treaties. president obama set out to reset relations between our two countries. well, there is no evidence that anything really has changed. even "the washington post" admitted the failure of the so-called reset. they ran an editorial last week, obama's starry-eyed view of put in, they titled it. they said in touring europe this week, president obama has portrayed russia's vladimir putin as a ruler with whom he can build a constructive, cooperative relationship that moves us out of a cold war

mindset. they go on to say in a blinkered view, that willfully ignores the russian president's behavior. willfully ignores the russian president's behavior. "the washington post" got it right. finally, the president seemed to be laying the groundwork in his speech for a new round of cuts that he could do unilaterally. that would be a mistake. any further reductions in america's nuclear defenses should be done through a negotiated treaty with russia. that means a thorough process, open to the scrutiny of the american people, and subject to full consideration by this body. the new start included a ratification of an dpreamen an t that says future arms cuts can be made only -- only -- thraw a treaty. negotiating in public is difficult. they would prefer to strike backroom deals. that is not the political system

that our framers designed. they specifically required two-thirds of the senate to ratify treaties. such important decisions should not rest in the hand of the president alone or with his selected advisors. under the president's plan, he would cut our nuclear defenses 55%. russia continues to modernize its nuclear arsenal. china is expanding its nuclear stockpile. iran is accelerating its nuclear efforts. north korea continues its nuclear threats. we already have the new start treaty. it would be irresponsible to move forward with these sorts of cuts that the president is talking about without extensive discussion with the american people and congress. the world remains a very dangerous place. instead of drastically weakening america's defenses, the president of the united states should focus on stopping countries like iran and north korea from expanding their nuclear programs. america can't afford to lose the full deterrent effect of a strong nuclear defense. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i want to start by thanking the senator from wyoming for his comments this morning. i think they are right on the mark. we've tried in world history appeasement of those who would seek to use their power to bully other people in submission, and i worry that the president is taking a naive approach here and unilaterally disarming the united states in the face of a rising threat from russia and other parts around the world. so i think -- i thank the senator for his very important comments on a very important topic. mr. president, now that cloture was invoked on the underlying leahy amendment, i think it's very important that the american people and members of congress look more closely at what

actually is in the immigration bill that we will be voting on during the course of this week and presumably, if the majority leader has his way, will see past this chamber and head over to the house of representatives. but it was just three years ago when the majority leader of the -- or the democratic house leader, formerly the head of that chamber, nancy pelosi, nameously said that we would have to -- famously said that we would have to pass obamacare in order to find out what was in it. i bet -- we've all said things we regret. and i bet if she had it to say all over again, she would not say it that way. but indeed it seemed to strike such a responsive chord in people because the public realizes what we should acknowledge, which is 2,700 pages of legislation passed through without adequate deliberation and understanding of what's in it, purely on a

partisan vote. you're bound to make mistakes. and, unfortunately, we know how obamacare turned out. we've seen now votes -- bipartisan votes -- to repeal certain portions of it, the 1099 requirement. we've seen an overwhelming bipartisan vote that would suggest that sooner or later we will repeal the medical device tax, which is a gross receipts tax on the people who are innovating and creating jobs right here in america and creating access to high-quality health care, which is -- which makes us second to none. we saw how it turned out in obamacare and now once again we're being urged to enact a massive piece of legislation before the american people are fully aware of what's in it. indeed, some supporters of the immigration bill are hoping that some of its more outrageous elements will go unnoticed.

well, that's not going to happen. we're going to be spending the next few days until this bill passes this chamber to point out some of the more indefensible provisions in the underlying bill. so today i'd like to talk about what i think is arguably the most indefensible portion of the bill, the part that grants immediate legal status to immigrants with multiple drunk driving or domestic violence convictions. as we know in the underlying bill, those who apply for and qualify for registered provisional immigrant status can stay in the united states, work for up to five years, providing they meet the terms of that probationary status. and they can actually reapply for another five years and then eventually after ten years they can qualify for legal permanent residency, which is the pathway to american citizenship as early

as three years from that time. but under the provisions of this bill, immigrants who are out of status, undocumented immigrants, can get access to probationary status and get on a pathway to legal permanent residency and citizenship, even though they've committed multiple incidents of driving while intoxicated or domestic violence. most americans aren't aware of these provisions, but i can assure you that everyone will suffer the consequences if this ill-considered provision becomes the law of the land. in fiscal year 2011, immigration and customs enforcement deported 36,000 individuals with d.u.i. convictions -- that's driving under the influence convictions. nearly 36,000 people. that gives you an idea about how big this problem really is and what the consequences of turning a blind eye to this provision in

the underlying bill, what impact it might have on the public. last week i shared a few stories from my state, texas, including the story of the sheriff's deputy in harris county named duane polk who was killed last week by an illegal immigrant drunk driving who had previously been arrested for driving drunk and, number two, carrying a weapon. in august 2011 an illegal immigrant drunk driving crashed his car killing four other people all of whom were under the age of 23 years old. we subsequently learned that the driver of the car had been arrested just weeks before that deadly accident for, you guessed it, drunk driving. and yet because his initial defense was tec technically a

class-c misdemeanor, he was not taken into custody and deported. another illegal driver crashed his car into an apartment building killing a 7-year-old boy and leaving a 4-year-old boy with severe burns on half of his body. the drunk driving had been arrested for d.u.i. before in 2008 and in 2011 he had been attacked with attacking his wife by punching her in the face. mr. president, we know that drunk drivers and domestic abusers tend to be serial or repeat offenders. in other words, it's rare that people who engage in domestic violence only do it once and people who drive while intoxicated only do it once. by offering r.p.i. to illegal

immigrants with drunk driving or domestic violence convictions, we're guaranteeing that more innocent people will lose their lives or become victims of violent crime. that's unconscionable, and it is indefensible. last week i challenged any member of this chamber to come down to the floor and defend these provisions, and i repeat that challenge today. i don't think we'll find any takers because you can't defend the indefensible. granting legal status to drunk drivers and violent criminals is just that -- an indefensible policy that will inevitably have tragic circumstances. provisions like this one are just one more reason why this bill is "dead on arrival" in the house of representatives. mr. president, just one final point. many critics of my border security amendment called it a poison pill, which of course is ridiculous because it used the same criteria that were used in the underlying framework written

by the gang of eight. but leave that aside. here's what i would say to those critics: if you want to know what a real poison pill is, all you have to do is read through these provisions with regard to criminal justice in the gang of eight bill. we should not be supporting legislation that grants immediate legal status to drunk drivers and domestic abusers. i can understand why the american people are asked to extend an act of uncommon generosity for people who enter our country in order to work and provide for their families, but for those who've demonstrated their contempt for the rule of law and for the legal standards which govern all americans, i don't think they deserve this sort of extraordinary treatment. so i hope there's somebody who will come down to the floor and explain why these provisions are in the bill. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: mr. president, we have an historic opportunity here in the senate. it doesn't happen very often. bipartisan bill, how about that? yesterday we had 67 votes in favor of this immigration reform package. we would have had 69 but two democratic members were held up -- their flights were delayed and they couldn't make it. 69. it basically means that we had somewhere in the range of 17 republicans joining with the democrats. that's amazing on an issue this controversial. i've been engaged in meetings on this measure for quite a few months. eight of us -- four democrats, four republicans -- all over the political spectrum set down and said, we're going to come up with a bill, and it won't be perfect, and not one single individual senators is going to like it, but together we're going to agree on something. and we did. there are parts of it that i

don't like at all. there are parts of it that i think are great. that's the nature of a compromise. that's what we're expected to do. it is a long bill. this is the bill, as we voted on it yesterday. even though many members are complaining about the size of this bill, most of that bill has been out there now for almost two months. even a slow-reading senator should have been able to get through it. 100 pages new broad in yesterday, i'll concede, over the last four or five days. but at least 100 pages can be addressed by most senators and their staff. why do we need to do this? why don't we take the easy way: find something wrong in here and vote "no." i guarantee you, i'll point to five or six sections that i would rewrielt. -- that i would rewrite. if we do that we leave i 11 million people living in the

shadows, living for below minimum wage. we don't know who they are, where they live or what they do. so for the security of the united states, for the competitiveness of american workers, this is a bad situation. what we do is say to these people, come forward. come forward and register with the government. that's the first step. if you were here before december 31 of 2011, you can qualify. but you have to go through a criminal background check. now, the senator from texas raises questions about whether that background check should be modified this way or that way. i could certainly argue one way or another as to how it should be modified. but in a 1,200-page bill, that is one very small section. an important one but only one. what i am suggest something we are better off as nation to have 11 million people come forward,

register with the government, pay their taxes, pay a fine, submit themselves to a criminal background check before we allow them to stay in this country. that's certainly better than the current situation. on the other side, this bill also creates an opportunity for them. after ten years -- ten years -- of being monitored by our government, they have a chance to move into a status where they can start working toward immigration in a three-year period of time -- working towards citizenship in a three-year period of time. 13 years. this is no a amnesty. during that period of time, before they become citizens, they will pay some $2,000 in fines, pay their taxes every single day they work, learn english, and of course submit themselves to this continuing background check. we're a better nation when that occurs. in addition to that, there are

provisions in here that relate to a group of undocumented that mean an awful lot to me personally. it was 12 years ago that i introduced the dream act. the dream act said, if you were brought here as a baby, an infant or a child, and you have been educated in the united states, graduated high school, have no serious criminal problems, you have a chance to become a citizen by completing at least two years of college or enlisting in our military. we have been trying to pass that for 12 years. i think it was two years ago we had the last vote on the senate floor on the dream act. every time we have called it, we got a majority, but we couldn't pass it because of the republican filibuster. the last time we had this debate, those galleries were filled with young people who were undocumented in caps and gowns. they were sitting there to remind us that they were graduating from our schools. among them, valedictorians, many who had been admitted to

college, accepted in college and couldn't afford to go because they were undocumented. this bill deals with these dreamers as we call them today and gives them a chance to become citizens. about 500,000 of them have come forward already under the president's executive order. their supports are amazing and inspiring. at a meeting with president obama two weeks ago, we talked about the dream act, and he said when the dreamers came into my office and told their stories, he said there wasn't a dry eye in the room. the sacrifices that they're making and the hope that they can become part of america's future, i have the greatest faith in them and i know they're not going to let me down. their supports are going to continue to inspire us, and they're part of this bill. can i find one section in this bill that i disagree with? sure i can. can i turn my back on 11 million people being given a chance to come forward, register, and become part of america with some strict conditions? can i turn my back on a million and a half dreamers -- that's an

estimate, but a million and a half dreamers that will finally get their chance to be part of america's future? no, i'm not going to turn my back on it. i will work to improve this bill but i'm not going to walk away from it. walking away from legislation, voting no may be an easy thing for some, but when it comes to this, it's not easy for me. it's something i won't do. i want to stand by it. let me say a word about the rest of the bill. there are provisions in this bill that deal with things that we don't think about. here's the reality. if you happen to be a grower growing fruits and vegetables in america and you put on a sign help wanted, would you like to come and pick strawberries in salinas valley in california? would you like to come pick apples in southern illinois? there aren't a lot of local kids who sign up. it's hard work. some say dangerous work, and i believe it is. those who do these jobs, the migrants who come in and work do it for a living, hard, tough labor. without them, these crops don't

get picked and processed, and we suffer as a nation. well, this bill has a provision on agriculture workers that is extraordinary. michael bennet of colorado, dianne feinstein of california were two who sat down with marco rubio of florida and others and they worked out an agreement that has been signed onto by the growers and the unions representing the workers. how about that? a business management agreement when it comes -- and labor agreement when it comes to ag workers. that's in this bill, too. should we walk away from that? and there is a provision as well to try to tap into the talent that is educated in america that can help us create jobs. now, let me say that one of the things i insisted on in this bill was that before anyone is brought in to fill a job from overseas, you first offer the job to an american. that to me is the bottom line. that's my responsibility, as a

senator who represents many of the people who are unemployed today. but this bill takes it a step beyond that. if you can't fill that position, you have an opportunity to fill it with someone brought in from overseas. i will give you an illustration. the illinois institute of technology, which is an extraordinary school for engineering and science in the city of chicago, their commencement a few weeks ago when i spoke, virtually every advance degree was awarded to someone from india. today, virtually every advanced degree is awarded to someone from china. i have met some of these graduates, and i said to them with this education, the best in the world, would you stay here in america if you were offered that chance, and they said yes. why would we educate them and send them off to compete with american companies? if they can be brought into our companies and create american jobs and opportunities with them, it's good for all of us, and that's part of this bill as well. so, mr. president, as i look at this bill, this is an historic

opportunity to solve a problem which has not been addressed seriously in 25 years, a problem which we know confounds us as we deal with 11 million undocumented people within our borders and one which really reflects on our values as a nation. i gave a speech last week to a group in chicago, and i talked about this diversity group, the group that was gathered, black, white and brown, young and old, men and women, and i said if i asked everybody in this ballroom to write their family story, their personal story, each would be different, but there would be two chapters in that story that would be the same. the first chapter you might entitle out of africa because that's where we all started. it was 70,000 years ago when the very first immigrants left ethiopia, crossed the red sea into the arabian peninsula and literally populated the world. how do we know that? because we can find chromosomal d.n.a. that dates back to those

original immigrants in every person on earth. we all started in the same place. 70,000 years ago, emigrating out of africa. the second chapter would be entitled coming to america, and every single one of us has a different story. my chairman here, proud of his irish and italian heritage. his wife proud of her french canadian heritage. i stand here proud of the fact that my mother was an immigrant to this country from lithuania, brought here at the age of 2, and now it's my honor to stand on the floor of the senate and represent 12 million or 13 million people in the great state of illinois. as i've said before, that's my story, that's my family's story, that's america's story. we've got to get this right because immigration isn't just a challenge. it is part of the american heritage. it is who we are. the courage of senator leahy's family, the courage of my

grandparents to pick up and move and come to a place where many of them didn't even speak the same language is part of our american d.n.a. that's what makes us different, and that's what make us better, i guess, i might say with some pride where i came from. we have to honor that tradition with this immigration reform bill, and i believe we do. to walk away from it at this point in time, to find some fault or some section that you disagree with, it's just not good enough. we have got to accept our responsibility. yesterday, 67, maybe 69 senators why ready to do that. by the end of the week, stay tuned. we have a chance to pass this bill and make america a stronger nation, be fair and just to the people who are here and honor that great tradition of immigration. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i want

to applaud the senior senator from illinois for his statement, and i will say publicly on the floor of the senate what i have said to him privately, what i have said to him in our leadership meetings and what i have said to him in our caucus, caucuses that he is a champion of the dream act. that act when it finally passes, i think these dreamers will have a better life because of it, but there would be one person they can thank. it would be senator dick durbin of illinois, because from the time i have known him -- and it's been years -- this has been front foremost over and over again, i just want to state my admiration for the senator in doing that. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous orders, the senate will resume consideration of s. 744, which the clerk will

report. the clerk: calendar number 80, s. 744, a bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform, and for other purposes. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, yesterday the senate voted to adopt an amendment offered by senators corker and hoeven relating to border security. i had some misgivings about the policies contained in that amendment. i have spoken to him on the floor. i commend these senators at the same time for engaging on this legislation and taking the steps they feel it necessary to gain broader support for the underlying bill. we are now one step, one big step closer to a senate vote on comprehensive immigration reform legislation. i'd like to take just a few moments to reflect on why this legislation is so important, and

to remind the senate as we consider the bill, which remember that at its core it is about people. it is about families seeking the promise of america. it is about children whose parents want what any parent wants for their child, the opportunity to succeed, to prosper, to live in a free and open and welcoming society. to me, the bill is less about numbers and metrics an border fences and technology than it is about human beings. the natural desire we all have to better ourselves, our families and to give our children the lives we wish for them. the measures in this legislation will give those affected by it the freedom to get on the path to becoming americans. our history of immigration is one that honors our free and open society and strengthens it.

immigration is in part the story of enlarging a society made up of individuals who no matter their vast differences all believe in the promise of american democracy and the values given to us in our constitution. when we welcome those who yearn for these values, we strengthen and renew them. of course we're a nation of immigrants. past immigration has helped shape this country and deepens its economic and cultural vibrancy, touching every state and every community. the far western state of the presiding officer, hawaii, to the northeastern state, my own in vermont. after the revolutionary war and into the early 1880's, for example, vermont had been the slowest growing state in the union. old growth forests had been stripped, farms had been worn out, but immigrants helped

reclaim forsaken farms and a bill -- and to build and operate budding new factories and new centers of industry across the green mountain state. the united states has been made stronger by the diverse cultural background that has been woven into our national fabric. this vermonter is the grandson of immigrants to vermont from ireland and italy and our heritage is one of which my family and i are fiercely proud, and to appreciate the values inherent in the immigration policy, i need only to look at the experience in my own family and the family of my wife marcelle. marcelle's mother and father emigrated to the united states from the province of quebec in canada. marcelle is a first generation american born in newport,

vermont, and of course to me is the greatest contribution her mother and father made to vermont and america. but marcelle's mother and father contributed much to vermont and to america in business, in music and enriched their own community. members of her family went on to establish successful businesses and become leaders in their communities, and they have given greatly to vermont. marcelle grew up to serve the communities in which she lived as a registered nurse, caring for others in burlington, vermont, and washington, d.c., and arlington, virginia. and like many young immigrants in our country, marcelle grew up in a bilingual household, knowing two different cultures. but this is america for so many where young people grow up in families where multiple languages are spoken, where traditions from multiple cultures are observed, and this enriches america. my maternal grandparents came to

this country from italy. my grandfather, like many others who came to vermont from italy, was a granite carver. he opened a granite business in southern vermont. and the hard work and determination of my maternal grandparents who did not speak english when they arrived and settled in this country to lay the foundation for my mother and our family. my paternal great grandparents came from ireland and my grandfather who was named patrick leahy, and i'm named after him, worked in a stone quarry as well. they worked hard. they had a family. i grew up the son of printers in montpelier, our state capital. but nearly every american family has a story like mine and marcelle's. we are more alike than we are different from today's immigrants and first generation americans. the majority of new immigrants will continue this proud tradition of hard work, the

drive toward prosperity and embracing the values that make america great. and they will someday tell their children and grandchildren of their own immigrant histories. as marcelle and i learned from our parents and our grandparents. and the bill we consider will continue to cycle growth and renewal. it will improve many aspects of our immigration system. the bill before us contains measures that are important to many vermonters. i had a provision that takes an important step toward restoring privacy rights to millions of people who live near the northern border by injecting some oversight into the decisionmaking process for operating federal checkpoints and entering private land without a warrant far from the border. the bill contains significant measures to assist dairy farmers. and other vermont growers who

have long relied on important workers and are going to need them in the future. it continues a youth jobs program proposed by senator sanders to help young people gain employment. it contains a measure i proposed to make sure that no canadian citizen traveling to vermont to see a family member will ever be charged a fee for crossing our shared and long and wonderful border. it contains an imriewsm to the visas used by nonprofit arts organizations around the country like the vermont symphony orchestra, and invites talented foreign artists to perform in america. it contains measures to improve the lives and futures of refugees and asylum seekers who call vermont home. it contains improvements in h-2b program to help small businesses, and it contains a measure to ensure that the job-creating eb-5 program remain

permanent. this is a bill that will help vermont families and businesses alike. so i discussed this legislation today in the context of my personal history. i do it to take a moment to remind all of us that immigration is about more than border security; it is about more than politics; it is about the lives and hopes and dreams of human beings, of human beings. it is about those who go on to do great things in america. it is about american communities that benefit from immigration. that has been our history. it should also be our future. as i've said before, the legislation before us will help

write the next great chapter in america's history of immigration. mr. president, i see the distinguished ranking member on the floor, and i yield the floor. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: as we've seen over the past two weeks, immigration is a very emotional issue, and it's an issue that engenders strong feelings from both sides of the aisle and maybe out at the grass roots of america even stronger feelings than are exhibited here on the floor of the united states senate. everyone wants reform here in the united states senate. i haven't heard anybody say that the present situation is a-okay. but everyone has their own ideas and different solutions. now at the grass roots of america, there are people that

say we ought to give citizenship yesterday. there's people on the other side that say 12 million people ought to be rounded up and shipped out of the country. neither one of those are very realistic today. but those are even stronger views than you hear on the floor of the united states national. -- of the united states senate. now we're trying to find some reasonable solution. i don't think that the bill that's eventually going to pass is a reasonable solution, but i won't know whether it is a reasonable solution until we get through the entire legislative process, meaning the house of representatives and the conference. but i think down the road we can do much better than is going to be done here in the united states senate. now, as i said, everybody has their own ideas and different solutions. unfortunately, the process hasn't allowed us to fundamentally improve this bill on the floor of the united states senate.

like we were able to have that chance -- not too successfully, but at least we had that chance in committee with that fair and open process. so out here on the floor of the united states senate we haven't been able to vote up or down on commonsense amendments or very many amendments at all. i think to this point, about nine, 10, 11 amendments are all we've considered out of 451 that have been introduced. despite the fact that the american people want the border secured before we provide a path to legalization, this bill appears to be a majority in the body that legalization must come before border security. i ought to say that again. despite the fact that the american people want border security before we provide a path to legalization, there appears to be a majority here in

this body that legalization must come before border security. now, the polls around america show just the opposite. border security first, everything else after. -- everything else after the border is secured. this approach of legalization first is concerning, not only because the border won't be secured for years down the road but, more importantly, because it devalues the principle that's very basic to our country and our constitutional system of government: the rule of law. the rule of law means that the government will follow the laws, and we expect the people to do likewise. people need to be able to trust their government and trust that

that government will be fair. i emphasize with people who come into this country to have a better -- i empathize with people who come into this country to have a better life. who is going to blame them for doing that? we would do anything to give our kids a better life. some people see no other choice but to cross the border without papers, to find work, and sacrifice everything they have to do it and to take a chance that they're going to run up against the law and be deported. but they do it because they want a better life. that's very basic to the american way of life, but it's a natural right of most people around the world, a natural right that most of them aren't able to bring to fruition. now, the american people happen to be very compassionate. i know that they're just trying

to find a better opportunity and live the american dream, these people that come here undocumented. we're the best country in the world. we should be proud of it. we're an exceptional nationment, bu.-- we're an exceptional nati, but we're a great country because we've always abided by the rule of law. the rule of law is what makes all opportunities that we have possible. in 1903, president theodore sent a message to the congress, the state of the union message. he talked about how men must be guaranteed their liberty and the right to work, but so long as a man does not infringe upon the rights of others. he said this -- quote -- "no man is above the law and no man is below it, nor do we ask any

man's permission when we ask him to obey it" -- meaning the law. "obedience to the law is demanded as a right, not asked as a favor." end of quote. theodore roosevelt. i'm a believer just like everybody else in this body -- in the rule of law. despite what some say, including the majority leader, that does not mean that we want to deport 11 million people. i want a humane and fair process for them to live, work, and remain here. i have said many times -- and i've said it many times particularly in the past few months -- that we don't necessarily need more laws but, rather, we need to enforce the laws that are already on the books. and that's what i hear at my town meetings when people come

to them and i start to explain about immigration, somebody pops up -- rightly so -- "we don't need more laws; we just need to enforce what we have on the books." i agree we need to enhance and expand legal avenues for people that want to enter, lirvetion and work in this -- enter, live, and work in this country. but we have laws that have gone ignored for 17 years. we have laws that are undermined and disregarded. the country will benefit if we have sensible immigration laws. one of the failings of the 1986 law was that it didn't do enough to create avenues for people to work here. advocates for reform claim that they want a long-term solution, but what we have before us is nothing but a short-term band-aid. really, what the bill does is

clean the slate. now, that word -- those words "clean the slate" were phrased -- a phrase that we used in 1986. that was the goal, clean the slate. and we would start all over again. i've referred many times -- probably sickening a lot of people in this body -- when i refer to the mistakes we made in 1986, not to repeat that. but here we are. we want to clean the slate again and start over. the problem is, know, if we just do the same thing we did in 1986, we'll be back here in 25 years or less wanting to do the same thing. so some senators are going to say, in 2038, all we need to do is clean the slate. well, we said that in 1986 and we're back -- we did clean the slate. and we're back here in 2013

sleencleaning the slate again. we should have a long-term solution to these immigration issues cht we shoulissues. we should pass true and meaningful reform and in doing so we shouldn't be ignoring the very principle on which our country was founded: the rule of law. we shouldn't have to in any way be apologetic for taking this position either, and you get the opinion by hearing some speeches on the floor of the united states senate that some people have more respect for people that violated our law than they have respect for the rule of law or people who have abided by the law. you know, we have people all over the world at our embassies standing in line for long periods of time to come to this country legally. those are the people that we ought to be respecting.

now, i don't mean we disrespect people that come here to work. but it is one thing ... they did violate our laws to come here. and we don't have to apologize for not accepting the fact that it's not okay to violate our laws. why should we have to apologize for wanting to ensure people that live by the law that we set? we won't survive as a country if we allow people to ignore the law and be rewarded for it. we just can't be a country of lawlessness. why is wanting to secure the border anti-immigration? it is not. we're a sovereign nation, and it is our duty to protect the

people of this country. that's the first responsibility of the federal government is to guarantee our sovereignty because it is basic to our national security. it's our right to create procedures whereby others can come to this country and make a living for themselves. this does not mean that we don't want other people from other countries. after all, except for native americans, we're all a country of immigrants; some first-generation, and some, i suppose, five- and six six-generation. we want to ensure that we protect our sovereignty. we want to protect the homeland. so i ask my colleagues to really think about how our country's immigration laws will survive the test of time. if this bill passes as is, will it be a temporary fix or

something that we can be proud of for generations to come? now, it's my understanding that so far 449 amendments have been filed to this underlying bill, including second-degree amendments. we started off the debate on the senate floor with my amendment that would have required the border to be -- quote, unquote -- "effectively controlled" for six months before the secretary could legalize people that are already present here. we would call them under this bill registered provisional immigrants and we refer to that as r.p.i. status. clearly, the other side was afraid of the amendment that i offered because it would have fundamentally changed the bill by requiring that the border be secured before granting 11 million undocumented workers a pathway to citizenship. but not contrary to what the polls