ten years based on recent job creation numbers. meanwhile, economic growth remains sluggish. the most recent figures from the bureau of economic analysis indicate that the u.s. real gross domestic product, g.d.p., grew at a tepid 1.8% annual rate in the first quarter of 2013, this year. average annual g.d.p. growth was just over 0.8% over president obama's first term in office, the full four years. mr. president, we're experiencing the weakest economic recovery since the great depression and as a consequence, government dependency in this country is on the rise. under president obama, the number of americans on food stamps has increased by 47% to

47 million people. 8.9 million americans collect disability pay. that number is increasing by 70,000 people a month, unheard of in the past. these are alarming figures. so, mr. president, how did we get there? i will explain. overspending -- the current job crisis, i believe, is a product of the 2005 -- 2008 financial meltdown that we all went through. no one denies that president obama was dealt a tough hand coming into office. he was. but the question is, what did he do about it? presidenpresident obama's firstn office, you'll recall, mr. president, was to ram through a $787 billion stimulus package through congress. he promised the american people

that it would keep the unemployment rate from rising above 8%. instead, the unemployment rate hit 10% in october of 2009 and remained above 8% for the next 43 consecutive months according to the bureau of labor statistics. but president obama's spending binbinge was just getting start. the budget deficit in 2009 was $1.413 trillion. in 2010, it was $1.294 trillion. in 2011, another $1.3 trillion. 2012, $1.087 trillion. not billion, trillion. and although the 2013 deficit

we're in now is projected to dip below $1 trillion, it will still be $183 billion higher than any pre-obama deficit. mr. president, looking at the big picture, the national public debt now stands at just under $17 trillion, an increase of 60% under president obama. what has been the result of this spending spree, mr. president? taxpayers got more debt, but job seekers didn't get work. compounding our fiscal difficulties, social security and medicare remain on unstable, long-term footing. these programs alone already account for 38% of federal spending, but over the next 25

years, the congressional budget office projects that their share -- that social security and medicare -- of g.d.p. could increase by 40%. according to the trustees of the social security and medicare trust funds, medicare is expected to run out of money in 13 years, and social security will go broke by 2033. saving these essential programs requires presidential leadership. unfortunately, there's been none to speak of. president obama's spending binges have precipitated multiple budget showdowns and, as a result, mr. president, they've also presented many opportunities for spending and entitlement reform. but president obama has not risen to the occasion yet, despite brought consensus that we must take broad action to

saving social security and medicare. president obama used the power of his office to campaign pre- and post election for one thing: tax increases. mr. president, tax increases are not the solution to a spending problem. tax hikes do not create jobs. tax hikes will not generate growth. tax hikes kill jobs and allow president obama to spend more and for congress and the president to borrow more. mr. president, i believe what we need in this country is structural tax reform, not tax increases. according to the most recent data from the internal revenue service, the top 1% of taxpayers -- those making $369,000 or more -- pay 37.38% of all income taxes. i want to say it again. according to the i.r.s., 1% of

the taxpayers pay 37% of all income taxes. the top 5% of taxpayers -- those making $161,000 or more -- pay 59% of all income taxes. think about it. the top 10% of all taxpayers -- those making $116,000 or more -- pay 70% of all income taxes. the top 25% of taxpayers -- those making $69,000 or more -- pay 87% of all income taxes. and the top 50% of taxpayers -- those making $34,000 or more -- pay 97% of all income taxes. meanwhile, the other 50% -- those making $34,000 or less --

pay 2.36%, a little over -- not quite 2.5% of all income taxes. in addition, approximately half of all u.s. households pay no income tax. and despite these imbalances, mr. president, president obama increased taxes on the wealthiest americans by $617 billion in january of this year. still, a heritage foundation analysis of treasury department data finds that president obama's fiscal year 2014 budget contains an additional $1.1 trillion in proposed tax increases. this is a tax-and-spend administration. the size and complexity of the tax code adds to the tax burden on the economy. the code contains 55,600 pages,

i'm told, taking into account all explanatory materials and i.r.s. rulings, the standard federal tax reporter comprises 70,000 pages. mr. president, even the easiest tax form -- the 1040-ez -- runs 46 pages. the total cost of complying with the individual and corporate tax requirement in this country was $168 billion last year. and according to the i.r.s. taxpayer advocate, there has been approximately 4,680 changes to the tax code since 2001. the tax code, mr. president, is filled with various credits, deductions, and corporate welfare. analysis by the joint committee on taxatio taxation finds that e

so-called tax expenditures total $1.3 trillion. we could drastically simplify the tax code and lower individuals' rates by eliminating these provisions alone. unfortunately, president obama's approach to taxes is the same as his approach to spending: more, more, more. but no structural reforms that would help establish the conditions for job creation and economic growth in this country, which we desperately need. mr. president, overregulation of the economy further deteriorates the conditions necessary for job creation and economic growth. the aggregate regulatory burden on american families and businesses is staggering. a study by the competitive enterprise institute estimates that total cost for americans to comply with federal regulations

reached $1.806 trillion in 2012. this translates to nearly $15,000 per family or 23% of average household income. according to american action forum, the federal government so far this year alone has published regulations that will result in $61 billion in compliance costs and 80 million hours of paperwork. despite the failure of the stimulus package, president obama put the unemployed on hold for more than a year, while he forced government-run health care through congress. he promised his plan would reduce health insurance premiums by $2,500. instead, premiums have already increased by that amount, according to the kaiser family foundation employee health benefit survaivmen survey.

a recent "wall street journal" study finds that premiums could double or even triple for consumers even under obamacare. altogether, obamacare is 2,408 pages long and creates 159 new boards, commissions, and government offices. the and according to the congressional budget office, the ten-year spending estimate for obamacare is $1.88 trillion. analysis by the joint committee on taxation shows that the law creates or raises 21 taxes total, $1.1 trillion over the next ten years. mr. president, the impact of obamacare on hiring is not surprising. according to the u.s. chamber of commerce, the second quarter of 2013 small business survey, 71%

of small businesses say the health care law makes it harder to higher people. the same survey finds that one half of small businesses say they will either cut hours to reduce full-time employees or replace full-time employees with part-time workers to avoid the mandate. in addition, gallop finds that 49% of small business owners say they have held off on hiring new employees in response to obamacare. mr. president, i welcome recent news that the obama administration would administerial delay the employer mandate. but in light of the evidence that obamacare is increasing health insurance costs and making it harder for the unemployed to find jobs, we should delay the whole law permanently for everyone. we should repeal it. congress should start over and craft legislation that will

actually lower health care costs and preserve high-quality care without crushing businesses with unnecessary regulations. president obama's expansion of government did not end with obamacare. mr. president, in 2010, he forced through congress his purported response to the financial meltdown -- the dodd-frank legislation. we were told that the financial regulatory system needed to be streamlined to prevent future bailouts and that's true. instead, dodd-frank created more government agencies that it had eliminated. moreover, the law totals more than 2,300 pages and calls for 400 new rules. a study, mr. president, by scholars at the mercagus center at george mason university estimate that dodd-frank had already generated 2,109

restrictions in the federal code of regulations by the end of 2011, and there's more to come. at this rate, they project a 26% increase in restrictions in relevant sections of the code once all of dodd-frank rule makings are finalized in the future. mr. president, dodd-frank will create jobs only for regulatory compliance officers, not for people working every day in the united states. earlier this year, mr. president, i introduced legislation that would require regulators to perform rigorous cost-benefit analysis of new dodd-frank regulations. under the legislation, a regulation dies if its costs exceed its benefits to the economy. unfortunately, the democratic majority here in the senate has not brought this legislation up for consideration. some observers have subscribed to the cynical view that the

legislation is nothing more than an effort to undercut financial reform. mr. president, i'm the only current member of the senate who voted against both financial deregulation in 1999 and the wall street bailout in 2008. i subscribe to the view that regulation should protect taxpayers without harming job creators. president obama's regulatory zeal finds an outlet now in a war on coal in this country. aware that he does not have the votes to jam his carbon tax agenda through congress, he now will direct the environmental protection agency to implement it by way of regulation. we all know his environmentalist crusade will kill jobs. an analysis by the heritage

foundation estimates that drastically reducing the percentage of coal in our nation's energy portfolio would by 2030 kill more than 500,000 jobs and increase electricity prices by 20%. in contrast, a wood mackenzie study estimates that 1.4 million american jobs could be created if the government adopted policies encouraging u.s. energy exploration and production. mr. president, i believe that the obama environmental agenda will do more with family budgets in the red than it will to make the world green. instead of waging a war on coal jobs, i believe president obama should approve and expedite the keystone pipeline. this would create tens of thousands of jobs and increase energy and decrease energy bills for families and businesses. mr. president, this is the type

of clear-headed energy policy we should be pursuing in this country. but in light of the existing and increasing regulatory burden, it's not surprising that the federal reserve estimates that manufacturers, domestic producers and other nonfinancial american companies are sitting on a record 1.78 trillion stockpile of cash f. we are to create the conditions for real job creation in this country, we must start by streamlining the regulatory burden on the economy. the rules, restrictions and mandates facing those who wish to undertake an entrepreneurial endeavor or expand their businesses or investments in innovation is mind-numbs. i would also like to talk a few minutes on monetary policy. very dry, very complicated, but

very important to all of us. on july 13 ben bernanke told members of the house finance services committee -- quote -- "if we were to tighten policy, the economy would tank." what does he mean? he was referring to the federal reserve's aggressive use of nontraditional monetary policy to prop up markets since the financial meltdown in 2008. the implied message is striking. the fed is taking big risks through monetary policy because administration policy is not helping the economy. the federal reserve, mr. president, balance sheet quantifies how big of a risk chairman bernanke feels he must take with so-called monetary stimulus. the fed's balance sheet stands at $3.5 trillion and continues to grow at $85 billion a month under the fed's so call quantative easing

among the assets included in the fed's balance sheet are $2 trillion in u.s. treasury securities and $1.2 trillion in federal agency mortgage-backed securities. to put the access racial of the fed's -- the acceleration of the fed's balance sheet into perspective, it took 95 years from the fed's creation 100 years ago to reach $1 trillion. the fed added the second trillion in just six weeks followed by the third trillion this past january. under the current quantative easing program, the fed's balance sheet will reach $4 trillion in less than six months. where does it end? $5 trillion, $6 trillion, $10 trillion? as for fiscal policy, mr. president, we're in uncharted monetary policy waters. the fed's unprecedented measures

carry substantial risk and uncertainty to everyone in this country. should inflation increase, and it will, the fed will have to tighten monetary policy to contain it. however, should the fed tighten monetary policy it refbgz stalling an -- risks stalling an already weak economy. as weak as our fundamental challenges already are, the thought that one wrong financial policy move by the fed could cripple our entire economy is deeply troubling. in conclusion, mr. president, i think we face a serious confluence of economic challenges in this country. it's obvious to me that president obama's policies have not worked and that they will not create work or jobs. mr. president, real job creation is a result of entrepreneurship and innovation and risk in the free market. i believe that the government's

role is to establish conditions for that to occur. we can do this by stabilizing our nation's finances. simplifying our tax code and streamlining our regulatory framework. the more president obama and this administration clings to the tired liberal ideology that more government is always the answer, the longer this job crisis will persist. america deserves better. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa is recognized. mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. harkin: mr. president, tomorrow we celebrate the 23rd anniversary of the signing of the americans with disabilities act, the a.d.a.. the landmark civil rights legislation that will always be the highlight of my almost 40 years here in the congress. the americans with disabilities act is one of the landmark civil rights laws of the 20th century. as one once said a long overdue emancipation proclamation for people with disabilities. the a.d.a. has played a huge role in making our country more accessible, in raising expectations for people with disabilities about what they can achieve at work and in life, and inspiring the world to view disability issues through the lens of equality and

opportunity. in these times, it's valuable to remember that passage of the original americans with disabilities act was a robustly bipartisan effort. as the chief sponsor of the a.d.a. here in the senate and as the chair of the disabilities policy subcommittee at that time, i worked very closely with both republicans and democrats. at that time it was senator robert dole who was at that time, was the minority leader of the u.s. senate. we received invaluable support from president bush, president george herbert walker bush. key members of his administration, white house counsel, boyden gray, who just worked so hard on this, attorney general dick thornburgh, who was just magnificent in his support for the americans with disability act. transportation secretary sam skinner, other members of congress also played critical roles in passing the a.d.a..

first and foremost i wou senatoo was chair of the full committee at the time and who allowed me to take the bill through as the chair of the disability policy subcommittee. senator orrin hatch who played a key role at times to make sure that we got conservatives on the same page. representatives tony convey -- tony coehlo, steve bartlett. sometimes he's not mentioned a lot because he was not here in the senate at the time we passed it but who put in a lot of his life's work and who was chairman of that subcommittee before i took it over, and that was senator lowell weiker from connecticut. as a matter of fact, he was the first sponsor of a comprehensive disability policy bill here in the united states senate. and so i -- he became a great

supporter, a great personal friend of mine through all these years. and lowell weiker deserves a lot of credit for actually getting us focused on the issue of a civil rights, comprehensive civil rights bill addressing the issue of disability. before the a.d.a., life was very different for folks with disabilities in iowa and across the country. being an american with a disability meant you couldn't ride on a bus because there was no lift, not being able to attend a concert or a blaim or a -- or a ballgame or a movie with your family or your friends or loved ones because there was no accessible seating. not even being able to cross the street in a wheelchair because there were no curb cuts. in short, being disabled in america before the a.d.a. meant not being able to work or participate in community life. discrimination was both commonplace and accepted. now, since then, we have seen amazing progress. the a.d.a. literally transformed

the american landscape by requiring the architectural and communications barriers be removed and replaced with accessible features such as ramps, lifts, curb cuts, widening doorways and what you are -- anyone who is watching this right now on c-span, if they put it on the mute button, you get closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing. more importantly, the a.d.a. gave millions of americans the opportunity to participate in their communities. we have made substantial progress in advancing the four goals of the a.d.a. there were four goals -- equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living and economic self-sufficiency. the four pillars of the a.d.a. but, mr. president, i stand here today to remind my colleagues that we have not yet kept the promise we made 23 years ago with strong bipartisan support.

we still have too many americans with disabilities living in poverty, oftentimes in isolation and without control over the supports and services in their lives. for example, just last week, my role on the chair of the senate committee, we concluded an investigation and issued a final report on the state of the implementation of the part of the a.d.a. that provides for people to be able to live and receive services in integrated settings and that prohibits people from being unnecessarily separated, isolated from their family and friends and put in institutions and other segregated settings. what we found is disturbing. 23 years after that and after the 1999 decision in the olmstead case by the supreme court, after all that, we found

that over 200,000 working age with disabilities, many in their late teens and early 20's, remained trapped in nursing homes and institutions, separated from their families and communities, against their wishes. again, despite the a.d.a., despite the 1999 supreme court decision in olmstead v.l.c., that the disabled had a right to be integrated in their communities. a supreme court decision, 1999. our investigators found that only 12 states devote more than half of their medicaid long-term dollars to home and community-based services. and the number of working age adults in nursing homes has actually increased by more than 30,000 over the last five years. this is shameful. and unfortunately, many states continue to approach community living for people with

disabilities, they continue to view it as a social welfare issue and not as a civil rights issue. again, this is a failure of vision on the part of many state leaders. so how can we correct this injustice? well, we need to clarify that under the a.d.a., every individual who is eligible for long-term services and supports has a federally protected right to a real choice, their choice, in where they receive these services and supports, whether it's in an institution or in a community. and what that means also is at long last congress, we need to end the institutional bias in the medicaid system. right now under medicaid, states are required to pay for long-term service supports if you're in a nursing home, but if you don't want to be in a

nursing home and you want to receive those supports and services in an integrated community-based setting, medicaid has the option of covering you. that's the institutional bias that exists in medicaid. they have to pay for you if you're in a nursing home, and they don't have to pay for supports and services if you're in a community or in a greater setting. as long as it remains that way, the deck will continue to be stacked in favor of costly institutional settings, and we know from our investigations that home-based, community-based, integrated settings with support services for people with disabilities is cheaper, it's cheaper, more competitive than putting people in an institution or a nursing home, not to mention the quality of life and the fact that so many people with disabilities

want to be in an integrated community setting and do not want to be housed in a nursing home. i can say that in my remaining 17 months that i have as a united states senator here in the senate, i plan to hold hearings and introduce legislation that will accelerate the rate at which states move their long-term services and supports in the direction of home and community-based settings. another area where 23 years after the passage of the a.d.a. our work is incomplete is making sure people with disabilities take their rightful place in the american work force. 23 years after the passage of the a.d.a., it is shameful that two out of every three adults with a disability is not even in the work force. not working. that is shameful.

we say well, the unemployment rate in america is now -- what is it? 8%, 7%, something like that, 9%. think about if you're a disabled adult. it's 60% or more unemployment. well, next week in the help committee, we will mark up the work force investment act, the work force investment act, a critical law that has not been reauthorized since 1998. now, the work force has changed a lot since 1998, and a lot of the a.d.a. generation -- i will have more to say about that in a second -- have come of age during that period of time. so in the bipartisan draft that senators alexander and murray and isakson and i filed with the committee just yesterday, we include provisions that will improve how the vocational rehabilitation system partners with schools to deliver services that will result in more young people doing internships,

part-time jobs in competitive settings. the aim is to maximize the likelihood that young people with disabilities will leave school, college and career ready. a generation of young people with disabilities graduating from high school and college today. people like lily seagal who was my intern from the american association of people with disabilities. they provide summer internships. lily seagal has been my intern this summer. i tell you, lily and so many like her have high expectations for themselves. they want to be challenged. they want to work in competitive, integrated employment. they don't want to be shouldn'ted into sub -- shunted into sub minimum wage jobs with no future, no chance for advancement, no chance for challenging themselves or challenge themselves to do

better and take more responsibility. so we owe it to them to do everything in our power to help them transition to the kind of jobs and higher education experiences that will help them to build a career and maximize their economic self-sufficiency. i can tell you from my work in this area that this generation of young people that have come of age under the umbrella of the a.d.a., kids who were born in 1990, 1991, 1993, 1995, are now coming of age. they haven't been segregated. they have been integrated in their schools. they weren't segregated like my brother was and sent away halfway across the state to a state institution. and they have higher expectations. they have been -- they have had accessibility. they have seen what society has done to provide, to make sure

that they can travel, they can go out with their friends and their family, they can go to school in integrated settings, they can get jobs and the employers under the a.d.a. have to provide reasonable accommodations for that job. they don't deserve now to be frustrated by not having the opportunity to get that competitive integrated employment. so that's what we're doing in the work force investment act. to provide for young people in high school who have disabilities, to let them know that we -- they expect more of themselves, and we do, too. we do, too. no longer will it be acceptable for them just to leave school and go into some minimum wage covered employment where they are just wearhoused for the rest

of their lives. they want to get out there and show what they can do, and that's why we are changing the work force investment act, changing rehab to focus on getting these young people internships, job shadowing, mentoring, so that they know what their abilities are and what they can expect to do once they leave school. finally, in order to preserve and leverage our global leadership in the disability arena -- and i mentioned earlier that when we pass the a.d.a. -- passed the a.d.a., so many came here from other countries, legislators, parliamentarians, how can we now do this? people with disabilities from other countries, how can we get our laws changed? well, about 11 years ago, the united nations set up a committee to look at this, and out of this came the u.n. convention on the rights of people with disabilities, the

crpd, as we call it. now, that convention, that treaty was sent to our president, and under our system, the president sends it out to all his departments in the executive branch to report back what laws -- what things do they need to do to change to conform to the treaty? in other words, the treaty is the supreme law of the land. what laws do we have to change in order to comply with that treaty? guess what? after about a whole year of circulating through all of our departments of justice and labor and h.h.s. and agriculture and everything else, it came back, we don't have to change one law because we're the best in the world when it comes to the civil rights protection of people with disabilities. we don't have to change anything. so last year, under the guidance of then-senator john kerry, who is now our secretary of state,

it went to the foreign relations committee. they had hearings. i remember that senator mccain and i were the two leadoff witnesses. and we brought that treaty to the floor of the senate in december, fully expecting it would pass, and of course under the constitution of the united states, it requires a two-thirds vote to approve the treaty, but we thought we had the votes. we brought it on the floor, we fell six votes short of the 67 votes that we needed. so we had a number of republicans and democrats on the bill. so why did it fail? well, towards the end, right before we brought it up, former senator rick santorum and others began to talk about how this was going to prevent people from home schooling their kids. i thought i knew the treaty. i had read it, i looked at it.

i -- i thought did i miss something? is there something in there that i didn't find? so i went back to my staff. i got a hold of the people at the u.n. i said what's in here that would prevent people from home schooling their kids? nothing. absolutely nothing. that charge was just made out of whole cloth somehow. but i can tell you that at that time in my office, calls ran 50- 1 against adopting the treaty on that issue. so people were misinformed. because of a few people like mr. santorum and others who decided to whip this up. for whatever reason, i don't know. and there was also a lot of comments made on the senate floor by my republican colleagues at that time that we shouldn't be adopting a treaty in a lame duck session. even though we pointed out that

many treaties in the past had been adopted in lame duck sessions. and so i review that history to tell my colleagues that under the -- now the leadership of senator bob menendez, who is now the chair of the senate foreign relations committee -- and i might add that the person who succeeded senator kerry in his position in the united states senate, the present occupant of the chair, is also on the senate foreign relations committee, and there are going to be some more hearings, and we intend to bring under senator menendez' leadership, we intend to bring that back to the floor this fall, and we need, we need to get the 67 votes. we need to get to 67 votes. people say why is that so important? it's important for the united states to take leadership on this issue around the globe.

over 100 nations have already signed the treaty. they're looking to us for leadership, and i've talked to some of my colleagues, they've said why do we need to join that, we're okay, we're doing just fine. we're doing just fine with disability law in our country. we don't need to join this convention, sign this treaty. well, just seems to me that's an inherently selfish way of looking at who we are and what we're about as a nation. we have provided i think to the world guidance and direction on disability issues. if we are a part of the convention, we get a seat at table. when -- when countries come and say, you know, we want to conform our laws, we want to make sure that we meet the guidelines of the convention on the rights of people with disabilities, this commission

that's set up will be there to both guide and direct companies but also -- countries but also to see whether or not they're fulfilling their obligations. if we're not a signatoriy to the treaty, we're not at a table. and there's another reason why we should sign this convention. i just spoke to a group of people yesterday with disabilities, and i said, you know, there are a lot of people in this country who use a wheelchair, and guess what, they'd like to travel overseas. they'd like to go with their friends and their family. but in many of these countries, they don't have curb cuts. they don't have lifts. they don't have accessibility for people with disabilities. shouldn't people with disabilities in this country have the same right to travel and enjoy foreign travel as anybody else? well, if we're a signatoriy to

the treaty -- sig sigma alpha epsilon that tore to the country, we can help change their laws. veterans, i can't tell you you how many veterans i've talked to, people who came back from iraq and afghanistan disabled, disabled. and you know what they say? they want us to join the treat, too, because they want to travel overseas and they feel constricted because they won't have accessibility in other countries. for the life of me i cant understand -- cant understand why people are not supporting this treaty. i don't get it. i just don't get it. it's supported by the u.s. chamber of commerce, it's supported by every veterans' group in this country. it's supported by i think every faith-based group in this country. it's supported by everyone in the disability community.

it's supported by every former living president from the two bushes to the -- from clinton to carter. got broad-based support. you would think with that kind of support it would be a no-brainer to pass it in the senate. so we're going to bring it up again this fall and i'm hopeful that we can do it. no one worked harder on a lot of these issues than senator bob dole. we just had his 90th birthday party yesterday in statuary hall. it was quite an event. no, it wasn't yesterday. it was tuesday night. celebrate as 90th birthday. we fell six votes short. i look forward to working with senators st senators ayotte,

coons, to bring the treaty back to the floor and get the additional votes needed for it to pass. i can tell you this time around, people with disabilities, their family members, supporters and the business community, veterans community and faith-based, civil rights groups are mobilizing for this. they don't want to take another chance that this won't -- that this won't pass. so i urge my colleagues to take the time to look at the facts related to the disability treaty. it requires no changes in u.s. law, it has no budget impact. as i said, when we become a party of the convention we have a seat at the table with the rest of the world. we'll be well positioned to accelerate progress for the one billion people with disabilities around the world. our chance to be that shining city on the hill for the rest of the world. i might also add that this is supported by the high-tech business community in america

because their global leadership position on accessible products and services can be used by the rest of the world. so for all those reasons we need to pass this. let me just close with this one last thought. again, i'm struck by the fact that these days we're surrounded as i said earlier by a new generation of young adults with disabilities who grew up since the passage of the a.d.a. including many wounded warriors back from iraq and afghanistan. i've called these younger people the a.d.a. generation. they see disability as a natural part of human diversity. they reject the prejudices and stereotypes of earlier generations. and i can tell you this, they have high expectations for themselves. they want to be challenged and they want to challenge us. to make sure that our society is open and that they have the

opportunity to go as far as their talents can take them. and we can't let these people down. we passed the a.d.a., now we have to make sure that we take steps to make sure that it isn't just a promise, but it's a promise that we are keeping and that we will keep. we in the senate have a responsibility to keep fighting to ensure that they have an equal opportunity to be independent, fully integrated, fully self-sufficient. that at the heart is what the americans with disabilities act is all about. 23 years later, we can look at it and say without doubt it really is america at its very best. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah is recognized. mr. hatch: mr. president, over the last few years i've come to the floor many times to advocate

for comprehensive tax reform. i share the belief many in congress -- with many in congress that tax reform is a necessary step to ensuring economic growth and prosperity in the future and that is why as the ranking member of the senate finance committee i have made tax reform my top priority. we are now at a cross roads when it comes to tax reform. before us are two alternative paths. the first path is the one we took back in 1986, it is the path that former house democratic leader dick gephardt and former treasury secretary james baker advised the house ways and means and the senate finance committee to take. as you recall, they were two critical players in the last successful tax reform effort. and in 2011, one of our hearings they advised us to not mix deficit reduction and tax reform. this was a joint senate finance and ways and means committee hearing.

to paraphrase these two former leaders, each, you know, is a hard enough task by itself but doing them together is nearly impossible. so that is one path we can take. the path that separates our tax reform efforts from our deficit reduction efforts. in 2011 they both advised us not to mix deficit reduction and tax reform. they just basically said that each is a hard enough task by itself but doing them together is nearly impossible. so that's one path we can take. the path that separates our tax reform efforts from our deficit reduction efforts. the other path we can take is to condition tax reform on the raising of additional revenues. sadly, that seems to be the preferred path of many of my friends on the other side of the aisle. i'll never fully understand why. except their propensity to spend. according to many democrats in the senate there can be no deal

on tax reform unless they get a second significant tax increase this year. we heard just today from the senate democratic leadership that they want the senate finance committee to use the senate budget which included nearly a trillion dollars in tax hikes as the model for tax reform. essentially what they're saying is that unless they get a big be tax hike we have to keep the tax system as it is with all of its complexity, inequities and distortions. right now, this position held by many -- is held by many on the other side of the aisle and it's the biggest barrier to fundamental tax reform. today i'd like to take a few minutes to examine this position and to discuss the merits of conditioning tax reform on yet another significant tax increase. last october one of my friends on the other side put it this way -- quote -- "tax reform 25

years ago was revenue neutral. it did not strive to cut the debt. today we can't afford for it not to. our national debt today is approximately 73% of g.d.p., that's nearly double what it was in 1986"-- unquote. at first glance this argument may appear to be reasonable however it falls apart under further qtion extion. if my friends on the other side of the aisle were serious about deficit reduction, they would not focus their efforts on tax hikes. if they really wanted to get a handle our nation owe debt problems they would work with republicans to address the main drivers of our debt and deficits, our unsustainable entitlement programs. no one who has spent more than five minutes examining our nation's finances seriously disputes that the main drivers of our current debt and deficits and the source of the coming fiscal calamity are federal entitlement programs especially our health care entitlements,

medicare and medicaid. i have a chart from the bipartisan policy center that tracks the trend lines on federal spending. as the chart shows in the coming years health care entitlement spending will overwhelm our federal fiscal figure and picture and consume and outsized share of our economy. that is represented by the top blue line on the chart. all other categories of majority leader federal spending either -- federal spending teetheth either decline and stabilize. so security kind of levels off, discretionary spending we actually have made some both defense and nondefense, we've seen that go down. other mandatory programs. as you can see, mr. president, when it comes to deficit reduction and getting our debt under control, entitlement reform, that upper line that is going off the charts, is where

the bodies are buried. yet if you listen to my friends on the other side of the aisle, the problem is not our entitlement programs. the problem, they say, is that the american people simply aren't being taxed enough. of course, the actual numbers tell a different story. over the last 40 years, federal revenues as a percentage of the gross domestic product have averaged roughly 17.9%. while in recent years that number has decreased due to the struggling economy, tax revenues are at a pace to rise above the historic average and settle around 19% of g.d.p. let me repeat that. absent any changes in tax law, revenues are set to rise above historic levels relative to g.d.p. or the gross domestic product. so despite my friends' claims to the contrary, the root of our current fiscal crisis is not the lack of revenue, it is

unsustainable spending. more specifically, it is entitlement spending. and that's just health care. that doesn't include some of the other. and that, mr. president, is why all serious bipartisan deficit reduction discussions over the last few years have included structural reforms to our entitlement programs. without significant changes, programs like medicaid and medicare and social security will remain unsustainable. in ordered to strengthen and repre-serve these programs for future generations we need to reform them. if we don't reform them, we have a fiscal -- we face a fiscal disaster. and it would be a terrible disaster for all of our young people who are living today. who are going to have to foot this bill. all of the major discussions seeking to reach a so-called -- quote -- "grand bargain" on deficit reduction have come down

to a mix of different policies. while they've had different approaches, all have included structural entitlement reforms. when i talk about deficit reduction discussions, i'm referring to the bowles-simpson plan, the domenici-rivlin plan, the negotiations led by vice president biden, the g-8 senate talks, the negotiations between speaker boehner and president obama and the so-called super committee. each of those grand bargain discussions dwiet divided deficit reduction issues into into four categories, one, spending, two, nonhealth mandatory spending, three, health care entitlement programs, and four, revenue. these have been the agreed-upon areas of focus in our deficit reduction efforts. yet if you listen to what my friends on the other side of the aisle have been saying recently, you'll see that their focus is

entirely one dimensional. we don't hear much talk around here about addressing discretionary spending. we certainly don't hear much in terms of reining in entitlement spending. no, their own focus here on the other side of the aisle is raising taxes. more precisely, their most recent argument has been we've already cut so much spending over the last few years, we're now at a point where tax hikes are the only viable deficit reduction option. now, of course, with the exception of the sequester cuts that took effect this year, we haven't really seen any real spending reductions as of yet, just promises which future congresses can easily undo. even though in the small portion of the promised spending cuts have actually taken place, my friends on the other side of the aisle like to claim that they've all already happened. still, let's take a look at the record. let's assume for a few minutes that all of the recently enacted deficit reduction is real and

take a closer look at what's been done with respect to deficit reduction categories i referred to earlier. in the last two years, two bills have been enacted with the purpose of major deficit reduction. the first was the budget control act of 2011. the second was the fiscal cliff deal, or the american tax relief act of 2012. according to the congressional budget office data, in consultation with the senate budget committee, here's what's been done so far. the category that has been tapped the most is discretionary spending to the tune of $1.3 $1.36 trillion of promised spending reductions over ten years. now, remember, that's over ten years. once again, these are almost entirely promised spending cuts that have yet to be realized. if history has taught us anything, it's that future promises to reduce spending aren't likely to be kept. very unlikely to be kept.

if you don't believe me, just look at the efforts by my friends on the other side of the aisle to undo even the small amount of spending cuts that are actually in place this year. indeed, democrats in congress have been actively looking for ways to eliminate these cuts to discretionary spending and, if history is any indication, they may very well be successful, in spite of the promises they made. those who argue against these cuts typically do not want to merely provide greater flexibility over how the spending cuts occur. they don't want any cuts to occur, even though they are really only spending cuts relative to a bloated baseline that was supposed to be only temporarily elevated. still, if you assume that against all odds these promised spending cuts remain in place, we will have reduced discretionary spending by $1.3 $1.36 trillion relative to to a baseline of bloated spending. the next size deficit reduction category is revenues.

revenues have been increased by roughly $600 billion over ten years. that was part of the fiscal cliff deal. this includes only the revenues generated by the fiscal cliff deal. it doesn't include the trillion dollars in new taxes enacted as part of obamacare. unlike the promised discretionary spending cuts i cited earlier, this revenue number is very real and not just promises. while it may be a ten-year number that can theoretically be changed, history tells us that once tax hikes are in place, they always tend to stay there. so the four deficit reduction categories we've already taken significant steps with regard to promised discretionary spending reductions and actual revenue hikes, where are we with the other categories. like i said, health care entitlement spending is the biggest driver of future debts and deficits. no one -- no one -- who looks at

this honestly, seriously disputes this. and the trust funds in social security which are to finance retirement and disability payments are on clear paths to exhaustion with the disability insurance trust fund scheduled to dry up in 2016. yet to date, very little of our deficit reduction attention has been focused on entitlement spending. so far we've done absolutely nothing to deal with u unsustainable social security promises and we have done nothing to address insolvencies of the retirement and disability trust funds. and so far we have reduced health care entitlements by a mere $81 billion over the next ten years. that amounts to roughly 4% of overall promised deficit reduction we've enacted. that amount is minuscule relative to the amount of scheduled spending entitlements over the next 11 years. take a look at this chart. that amount is -- the one on the

right, you can just barely see the red line. that stands for $81 billion in entitlement cuts. you look at the ten-year spending. as the chart behind me shows, over the next decade, we'll spend roughly $22 trillion on our three major entitlement programs. that's trillion with a "t." yet, as i just said, despite monumental claim by cutting spending and reducing deficits over the last couple of years, we've only been able to reduce entitlement spending by a merely 81 billion -- $81 billion. look at that little red line compared to the ten-year spending on medicare, medicaid and social security, which is unsustainable. and yet nothing's being done by the majority. by the way, all of those spending reductions have quom in the form o-- havecome in the foo health care providers. they're cutting out doctors and hospitals and health care providers, as if that's going to

keep them to the job. a high percentage of doctors now are ready to retire and quil qud find other ways of living. all of those spending reductions have quom in th come in the forf consults to health care providers, not structural entitlement reforms. once again dwaish and they knoww that's not sustainability. once again, this is at odds with the grand bargain efforts we've seen over the last few years. all of those efforts, every single one of them, puts structural entitlement reform on the table. yet to date, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been unwilling to do the same. like i said, my friends like to brag about all the promised deficit reduction they've enacted thus far, even the deficit reduction they're actually trying to repeal. but they've refused to even entertain a seergs conversation about th -- a seriousconversatin sources of our future debts and

deficits. so, mr. president, where are we? the senate finance committee has engaged in a bipartisan effort to reform our nation's tax code and bring some sense of sanity to our nation's tax system. chairman baucus and i have asked our colleagues to assist us in this effort by sharing their views on what elements of the current tax code should be preserved. i want to thank my republican colleagues on the if yo finance committee for their inpit thus far. i have meevery one of them individually on this issue except for one, and he has -- is meeting with my staff and i've really appreciated their thoughtful comments and advice. and while i remain hopeful that we'll be able to move on tax reform this year, i am dishearts inned by comments i've heard from my friends on the other side of the aisle -- indeed, many of my democratic colleagues said they're unwilling to engage in tax reform without assurance that it will have to include

mass increase. once again, their message to the american people is we have to keep the current system which every ually everyone in the country agrees is a problem unless the republicans agree to lhigher taxes. they want to hold simplicity in the tax code hostage to demands for even more taxes.the they want to hold efficiency and the economy, which stimulates growth and creates jobs, hostage for demands for the second tax height of the year in order to pay for more of their spending. and more of their expansion of government even further. they want hold competitiveness of our businesses at home and around the globe hostage to demands that flow through businesses facing yet another tax hike even after having been hit already at the tar start ofs

year. my colleagues deman admit that r demand for higher taxes is all about deficit reduction. but let's face it, if def sit reduction were their entire goal, entitlement reform would have to be on the table. it would have to be on the table. after tall all, that is where ae money is. that is where we have a chance to really reduce the deficit. that is where the future of our young people is going to be killed if we don't track that problem now and do it i -- despite the stated desire of president obama and a number of congressional democrats for a grand bargain on deficit reduction, when the rubber meets the road, they simply are not willing to engage in a real discussion about entitlement reform. sure, they'll talk about cuts to providers and other cod met i can changes to these programs

and they're talk about modifying costs of living adjustments and social security. if they get hundreds of billions of new tax revenue in turn. but at the end of the day, structural entitle. reforms simply aren't part of the deficit reduction staiment. despite many claims to the contrary, republicans are willing to continue to engage as they have in the nast a bipartisan grand bargain for deficit reduction. ask senators crapo, coburn, and former senator gregg -- they voted for bowles-simpson. oddly enough, the remaining democratic senators who voted for bowles-simpson, has walked away from the entitlement reform sessions he made and has instead call ford more and more aid. as a result, foox reform is held hostage. republicans and democrats agree on the importance of tax reform. our sack system is in dire need of reform. it is quite frankly one of the

major objec obstacles and sustan economics growth. most democrats claim that they agree with this sentiment but their desire for more revenues apparently trumps this belief and the need for tax reform. something has to. change. as i've said before, we've been counseled by some of our former leaders not to mix tax reform and deficit reduction. i think that's pretty good advice. and these are the two leerdz that put through that 86 bill. both highly regarded by people on both sides of the aisle in the senate. sadly, in the democrats in congress ton their course, neither tax reform nor deficit reduction will be possible. indeed, if they continue to continue tax reform on additional tax hikes and if they continue to refuse to engage in a real discussion about entitlement reform, very little's going to be entitled on either.

mr. president, this spending game has got to be over. we have got to start living within our means. we on this side of the aisle, and i in particular, have seen every tax increase amount to more spending, not deficit reduction. so it's a phony argument. and that's what's going to happen if we're so dumb to increase the taxes in coordination with our leadership on the other side of the aisle just today. it's unbelievable that they get away with it. unit's believable that after all these years that we have to put up with that type of argument when they know that they're not going to use that money for the appropriate reasons. and they never have. one of our senators toll me the other day, he said, i just live for the day that we reform the tax code and it's not changed

four years later by our friends on the other side of the aisle for the worse. the 1986 bill was a good bill by any standard. it did a lot of good. but in about four years, our friends started to change t. and today we have the monday trossity that we call the -- we have the monstrosity that we call the united states tax code that nobody really believes in and everybody sns a detriment to our country. -- everybody believes in and is a detriment to our country. mr. president, i'm really concerns. i think we're going to have to have some folks stand occupy the other side of the aisle. we'll willing to stand with them. we're willing to solve these problems in ways that will preserve the entitlement programs. they're not going to be preserved in their current for form.if we keep going the way we're going. and tax increases aren't the arches either. -- aren't the answer either. we'll be spending so much until we'll be in the next category like the next "grease" if we

don't. it. we've got to overcome this. because there's no other entity in the world is going to bail ourselves out. we have to do it by doing what's right now, by not increasing taxes. it means resolving these problems in a structural reform basis. it's going to take good friends on both sides of the aisle to do it. and i call on my friends, get with it, get real. put the tax charade, you know that's not going anywhere, and you also know that it's a phony thing to begin with. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. stabenow: mr. president, i would ask suspension of the quorum call. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you very much. mr. president, when people across the country flip on the news tonight, they're probably going to see pictures of detroit. they aren't going to be flattering pictures. and they're not going to tell the whole story. there's no question that detroit city government is going through an extremely difficult financial crisis, and there are many, many causes for that. there are more than 20,000 people, retired police officers

and firefighters and teachers and city workers who have been loyal and hardworking employees their entire lives who are now worried about how they're going to pay the mortgage or put food on the table. the tv cameras are rolling when it comes time to show you bad news about detroit, but what aren't you seeing? mr. president, on tv, they aren't showing you the city that is the number one market in the country for tech jobs. number one. they aren't showing you a city that is one of the fastest growing in the country for new manufacturing jobs. on tv, they aren't showing you the city that is undergoing a massive revitalization with businesses and religious leaders and community leaders and neighborhoods working together every day.

they aren't showing you the quicken loans headquarters with 7,000 jobs in downtown detroit. a c.e.o. so committed to the city that he closed a beautiful building in the suburbs to bring people downtown, who is purchasing properties and investing in so many ways in detroit, along with a wonderful coalition of business leaders who are committed to the revitalization of this great city. they aren't showing you the beautiful renovations of campus marshes and the amazing things happening downtown on woodward avenue where you can go on any day now and see people that are there, younger people, older people, enjoying the beautiful surroundings. they aren't showing you the surge of innovative companies that are breaking new ground in creating opportunity in detroit.

on tv, they aren't showing you the new elijah mccoy patent and trademark office, the very first and so far only satellite patent office in the country that was put in detroit, why? because michigan happens to be number one in new clean energy patents, new ideas on clean energy coming from detroit and the surrounding communities. they're not showing you tech town and the venture capitalists and the 17 tech start-ups who are investing in technologies that are being developed in detroit right now that are going to change our lives in the years to come. on tv, they aren't showing you michigan's world-class research universities, an incredible collaboration that is going on with detroit businesses.

they're not showing you the rich depth of culture that we're known for in detroit, the city that gave the world motown once again has an exploding arts and music scene. in fact, last weekend, in beautiful traverse city, michigan, i was talking to someone who lives there who said his sister was coming back from colorado, she is an artist, and moving to detroit, and when he asked her why, he said that's where everybody is going because there are so many opportunities there in arts and culture. exciting things happening. we have the beautiful detroit institute of arts, one of the largest and most important collections of artwork in the country. jack white, the founder of the band the white stripes, stepped up and paid off with his own money the back taxes owed on the ma sonic temple in -- masonic

temple in detroit. story after story like that can be told of people coming forward and saying we're going to make sure that detroit is coming back. they're not showing you eastern market, the nation's longest continuously operated farmers market, and all the great things that are happening there with new test kitchens and local agriculture. in fact, as chair of the agriculture committee, i was so proud to learn that we in detroit have the national leaders in urban agriculture that are now creating jobs working with small business to create food entrepreneurs and healthy foods for families and neighborhoods. i'm so proud of the work that we have been able to do with the detroit public schools. not long ago, i stood at a school garden in a neighborhood that was put together by the

children of the school. we now have 46, 46 gardens at schools in detroit, and in the summer, the neighborhood makes sure that they can help get the work done for the garden so that the children can have fresh fruits and vegetables when they come back to school. last month, whole foods opened their first grocery store in detroit where they are featuring local foods like avalon bakery goods and mcclure's pickles and good people popcorn and garden fresh salsa and so many other things that are made right in the metro detroit area. you might just see a shot of the bridge to canada, but what you won't see is the more than $1 billion in trade that crosses that border every single day.

metro detroit, in fact, is the fourth largest city in america for exports, and we have the largest, busiest northern border crossing in the country. while the cameras are obsessed with showing you decay, we are seeing an auto industry that is roaring back. we are seeing the chrysler plant that the "new york times" called one of the most modern and successful auto plants in the world in detroit. that plant employs more than 4,000 people and added a third shift at the end of last year to build the jeep grand cherokee. ford motor company reported record north american profits in the second quarter and growth in every sales region. g.m.'s global sales are up, and they, too, are making record profits again, hiring workers and investing in new plants and

technologies. so while it's true that the city government is going through a table time and a bankruptcy and that process will be very painful and very difficult for many, many people in the city, many people who work very, very hard, it would be a mistake to count detroit out. it would be a mistake to think that there isn't opportunity in our great city of detroit. it would be a mistake to think that detroit isn't coming back. because if you're going to say anything about detroit, you have to say times may be tough but so are the people of detroit. times may be tough, but the leaders, the businesses, the

educators are tough. our people, our businesses are smart and talented and care deeply and are committed to make sure that this great city called detroit comes roaring back better than ever. thank you, mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session and it be in order to file cloture on calendar numbers 223, 104, further that the mandatory requirement rule be waived. finally, that the senate resume legislative session after the

final cloasms cloture motion is presented pursuant to this order. the presiding officer: without objection the senate will report. -- will move to executive session and the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: department of justice, james b. comey jr. of connecticut to be director of the federal bureau of investigation. mr. reid: i send a cloture motion to the desk on calendar number 208. lfer the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we and the undersigned senators in a reasonable doubt co- answer with rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, here to move to a close debate of james mccomby to be head of the federal bureau of investigation. signed by 17 senators as follow. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, that reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the next nomination. the clerk: national labor

relations board, kent yoshiowoza of new york to be a member of the national labor relations board. mr. reid: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of the standing rules of the senate, hereby to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of kent heworwza to be a member of the national labor relations board. signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask coaskconsent the reading of thes be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the next nomination. the clerk: national labor relations board, nancy jean schiffer of maryland to be a member of the national labor relations board. mr. reid: mr. president, there is -- my understanding is there's a cloture motion at the desk to be reported. the presiding officer: that is correct. the clerk will report cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules

of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debated on the nomination of nancy jean schiffer of mare to be a member of the national labor relations board. signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: the clerk will report next nomination. mr. reid: mr. president, there's a cloture motion. i ask that -- i'm sorry, it hasn't been reported. pardon me. mr. . the clerk:: national labor relations board, mark gaston pierce of new york to be a member. mr. reid: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the yurpd signed senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to a bring the debate on the nomination of mark gaston pierce of new york to be a member of the national labor relations board. signed by 17 senators as

follows. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. and under the previous order, the senate will resume legislative session. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s. res. 200. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 200, designating july 26, 2013, as united states intelligence professionals day. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, the senate proceed to s. res. 201. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 201, designating the first wednesday in september 2013 as national polycistic kidney disease

awareness day and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until monday, july 29, at 2:00 p.m., that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 4:15 with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each that followin.that following morning, the senate resume consideration of the transportation appropriation bill. further, that at 4. 30 p.m., the senate proceed to executive session to car calendar number 208, with the time until 5:30 p.m. equally divided and controlled in the usual form. that final, i'm sorry, mr. president, at 5:30, the senate proceed to a vote on the

motion to invoke cloture on the nomination. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, the next roll call vote then will be cloture on the comby nomination monday evening. if there's no further business is to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

>> house minority leader nancy pelosi says the behavior of anthony weiner as a candidate for a new york city mayor is in her words reprehensible and disrespectful of women. the california democrat was asked about it during a news conference today. he was a democratic member of the house. here is what leader pelosi had to say on the issue. >> as one of the most prominent democratic politician i am curious about your take on former congressman weiner's latest transgression having repeated the same action that occurred for his resignation congress. >> sort of a social issue kind of a guy here. we are legislators but i appreciate the question. i think i have spoken and acted in terms of anthony weiner and

in terms of when he was in the congress of the united states. in his case and in the case of maher film are clearly they both admitted they need therapy. i think maybe that therapy could better be accomplished and private. >> should he stay in the race? >> that's up to the people of new york. let me just say before a leave, let me be very clear. the concept of some of these people we are talking about here is reprehensible. it's so disrespectful of women and what is really stunning about it is they don't even realize it. they don't have a clue and it is really, if they are clueless get a clue. if they need therapy do it in private. >> i think interestingly the korean war and a sense sort of helped the south korean, the south koreans unify themselves in a way that was not there

before. when the communists came down, they were brutal and a lot of them turned against the communists in the north and that sort of solidified i think they are sort of sense of national cohesion and identity. but i think had he waited it's very possible that the south probably would have or it's possible that it would have disintegrated on its own. >> they would come up as close as they could and go into an assault which meant that they would send supplies and they

would come charging in as our first lines, and it didn't matter how many casualties they took. those who went down were followed by a new wave. many of the new wave had no weapons. they just picked up those who have been hit and they just kept , by force of numbers, trying to push us out of our positions. they say it was a hell of a fight.

senate democratic leaders held a press conference today urging the senate to pass the 54 billion-dollar government spending bill for transportation and housing program. other topics addressed at the briefing included the u.s. economy tax code reform and reaction to president obama's economic speech from wednesday in galesburg illinois. this is about 25 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> schumer will be in and the minute. he is just doing a mini-press conference on the way in. there we go.

senator durbin may show up. yesterday president obama gave a very clear message to the american people, one of optimism. also it's time to put politics aside and create jobs for the middle class. our economy is recovering ,-com,-com ma not well enough but is recovering and it's ready to take off if we will have some of those -- that republicans have placed on us. we could have an economy that would be comparable to the clinton years. our job in washington is to give our economy room to grow and making smart choices and avoiding more self-inflicted ones. the deficit has been cut in half in the last three years. they're still more work to be done but we should be making smart choices instead of pursuing meat axe approach is.

that is european-style austerity but even the european community has cited in the last few days that austerity is not the answer to their problems. they have to start creating jobs and that is what we have to also come to the conclusion. right now we are not making smart choices and that is an understatement. instead of closing these wide, wide tax loopholes during the president's campaign governor ronnie and all the people trying to help them said they agreed with closing some loopholes, tax loopholes. instead of doing that we are getting medical research, not leave that day. remember nih last year $1.6 billion in cuts, this coming year with sequestration republicans with cut it another $2 billion. as francis collins the brilliant director of nih said last week because of the sequester 700 families will be denied lifesaving services of one of

the institutes of nih. they take these young men and women who at this very difficult decision that they don't understand yet that they need to understand if that is what the institute is about. a curative processes for these people who have these diseases. within five years of the flu vaccine, why are we so focused on that? because as dr. collins said each year 35,000 people die from flu, each year and we are close to having -- i was there three weeks ago now and the person in charge is that institute talked about how close we were to having a shot that would take care of the flu with one vaccination and you don't have to come back every year. it will cover whatever the flu is that given year. but the first step toward making

smarter choices is to make sure that the senate legislature as it used to legislate on a bipartisan basis. i talked on the floor today about some choices that appear so evident. during the great depression they tried something very unique, social security, a way to take care of seniors in their golden years. that pass in a bipartisan basis. president eisenhower because of the expense and the military bringing in a bunch of troops and equipment across the united states decided back when he was a major something had to be done. when he became president on a bipartisan basis we created 50,000 new miles of highway on a bipartisan basis. under today's numbers that would be legislative worth a half a trillion dollars and then it was 50 billion dollars. medicare, the same thing. democrats and republicans joined together to do something that

even president truman talked about many years before. so we need to start doing good things as we have done in the past. i was encouraged to see 19 republican colleagues joined with senator murray on that very important bill dealing with transportation appropriations to advance the bill. 19 republicans broke away and decided to do that. republican leadership in both houses may be controlled by the tea party but it's encouraging to see more independent-minded republicans breaking away from the path. there is not a lot but i think it's going to grow. public -- republican colleagues are sick of gridlock, at least a few of them are as we are. they want the senate to the place where we work across the aisle with bipartisan compromise with the challenges we face in the nation. we are taking important steps passing a bipartisan transportation bill would be a

significant step forward. i hope my republican colleagues will join in making that possible. senator schumer. >> i didn't know you were here. sorry about that. >> okay, well thank you senator reid and first i want to say chairwoman mikulski has done a fantastic job in crafting our appropriations process and senator murray has done a great job in crafting a bipartisan transportation and housing bill. that would you pose to our economy and a boon to middle-class families that i want to commend both of them for their hard and good work. we are offering republicans a chance to pass a bipartisan bill that would create good paying middle-class jobs. now they should take us up on it. unfortunately a group of hard right republicans in the house have decided to take a different and extreme approach, cutting

funding for transportation and community development even lower than the sequester levels. the sequester was an economic punch to the gut for transportation, housing and development programs and doubling down now with the a knockout punch for our economy. by cutting another 9.4% on top of the sequester extreme house bill would grind to a hault the important programs that create middle-class jobs and update our infrastructure for the 21st century. and it's hard to fathom what's happening here in america. if such a small group of people that could have such large power when it comes to the hard right group in the house it's like the flea wagging the tail wagging the dog. the dog is the overall country. a majority of americans voted for a democratically-controlled house. but, because of redistricting,

drawing districts and very convoluted ways, the tale is a house controlled by republicans. but this week is the 50 or so hard right republicans who seem to have veto power over everything the house does and as a result everything our government does and they are determined to shut down the government if they don't get their way. we have seen this hard right group at work before. they believe so strongly that just about every government program is wrong and should be starved of funding, with airway and die. they are wrecking our economy and hitting -- hurting the middle class to radically. what they believe is not with the american people believe. for decades democrats republicans and independents back at strongly believe that government should fund transportation infrastructure. these bills were always bipartisan. but shuster was one of the leaders in the house house in creating such bipartisan bills. both parties have agreed that it's up to the federal

government to update airports, rebuild roads and bridges and modernize our transportation infrastructure. that is what's been going on for decades. this was never a partisan issue and yet this flea on the tail of the dog seems to be controlling what goes on in the whole country. if such a minority of the american people's viewpoint. now think god the senate stands in contrast, in sharp contrast to the house. we have seen that over the last several months when we have had bipartisan bills on so many different efforts. you saw yesterday, two days ago, you saw last week six republicans voted for the transportation bill in committee and you just saw two days ago 19 of them vote to bring the bill to vote on the floor. those on the far right in the house are calling or destruction not only on the hud bill but on the entire budget.

we beseech our senate republican friends. they cannot be allowed to carry the day. that hard right group cannot be allowed to carry the day. please resist them. here in the senate we have a chance to make smart investments that will grow the economy rather than cause another self-inflicted land on our country and on the middle-class so we hope that our republican friends will ignore the strident voices on the extreme right and do what's right in a bipartisan way for the country. >> the transportation and housing bill that we are now debating on the floor really is a perfect example of how well congress can work if we work together. senator collins and i have worked very closely together to write this bill. six republicans voted for it in committee and 73 members of the senate voted to begin debate. we are now having a great debate with amendments that are being

offered by both democrats and republicans and we have been very clear we are open to amendments that up improve the the bill which ever the bill whichever side of the aisle to come from. i'm hoping this bipartisanship continues and republican leaders crack their weapon push republicans to filibuster a bill that many of them do support. our bill is bipartisan because it is all about creating jobs. it's about investing in our families and our communities and laying down a strong foundation for long-term and brought based economic growth, something we all believe we have to work on. this is what the american people want us to focus on and that is exactly what this bill is doing. i have it rich class in my home state of washington a few months ago and that really i think put a spotlight on the infrastructure problems we faced across this country and our bill makes the investments that we need to have to address these critical issues. the bipartisan senate bill

stands in stark contrast to the partisan house bill. it would cut 15% below the current level. that will gut our investments in transportation and housing. it will hurt the economy and it will cause even more of their workers to lose their jobs. the house bill really locks and sequestration on steroids. it's going to be bad for families. it's going to be terrible for jobs and devastating for infrastructure and long-term economic growth. as we are proving down the senate, we do not have to live with these automatic cuts from sequestration. and we certainly don't have to make them worse. investing in our communities, investing in rfid structure does not have to be a partisan issue. there are of course serious differences between the house and senate budgets, differences that i would like to sit down and work in a conference committee bipartisan to work our

way out of but until that i am hopeful that we can continue working on a bipartisan basis to pass our appropriations bill. i think that as american people see the values and the priorities from our purchase written out and contrasted in the spending bills and the impacts of sequestration like the furloughs of 650,000 defense workers now keep piling up, the pressure is going to grow among republicans to come to the table , end this crisis and work with us to find a bipartisan solution because bipartisanship works like this should be the norm, not the exception. >> senator durbin. thank you very much. let me personally thank senator murphy for your work on the budget committee on the bus at at -- the budget resolution your work on on a bill that's on the floor. i hope is to say it will return point where we have a conference committee soon. president obama went back to

college in healdsburg illinois and made a speech about the future the economy. he returned yesterday to remind people we still have a lot of work to do. he made the point that it might we are in recovery. the economy that he inherited has dramatically improved. we have seen 7.2 million new jobs since he was elected president. businesses have much more confidence in rebuilding and we have seen deficits falling which is an important thing for long-term economic outlook that the president made it clear yesterday there is still a lot of work to do and that is why we are here today, because we have to be part of the solution. it starts with a bill that's on the floor. i'll make three quick points about it. first love me tell you this bill is senator bernie said inclusive community block grants for cuts in the house of representatives will bring this program's funding down to levels we haven't seen since 1975. these cuts alone if enacted into

law will eliminate over 40,000 jobs in the united states. that's the practical impact of this one program that cuts the republicans are pushing for. the second is the home program to help those who are in low income situations find a place to live. the reason i was late is i was out of rally for the community that come to washington today and at great personal sacrifice. these men and women world their wheelchairs up to the lawn outside the capital hill to ask for help. one of the things they need among many other things as an opportunity for decent housing. what we see in the proposal from the republicans is so dramatic that when it comes to the home program. this is a program a section 8 program for families living on an average of $13,000 a year. that's their income. 65% of those who were helped in this housing project are at those elderly and disabled and they are the ones who can be hurt by the cuts the house is

put in place. the final point i want to make is building on what chuck said on transportation infrastructure we understand understand infrastructure is the key to our economic future. one of the best and most popular programs in the obama administration is the tiger grants. this is a competitive program where you don't have to go through to your state department transportation. you can apply for federal funds and we have seen hundreds of recipients across america including the state of illinois. we have them facility built in downtown normal illinois which chuck visited just recently and it was built with a tiger grants. we created hundreds of jobs and breathes life back into this important community because of the tiger grants and the high-speed rail system. elimination of these tiger grants would be disastrous in terms of opportunities across america to create jobs. tiger grants created to know my that can create jobs again and

places all over this nation. we need republicans to join us. it isn't just about cutting the deficit. it's about spending wisely and investing in our future. >> questions? >> senator reid hillary clinton if she decides to run for president would be even a better president than president obama. how so? >> i hope she heard me. i think she is stunningly brilliant person. i have great affection for her. she would -- was an outstanding first lady, a tremendously important part of the senate and her job as secretary of state has been wonderful and i think president clinton knows that i was just trying to let everybody know how much i care about hillary clinton. >> senator baucus and senator camp want to move forward with tax reform. given the crowded schedule with

the crs are going to be time? >> i am in favor of tax reform. but i want everyone to understand this. i agree with the secretary of the treasury jack lew, that we have to have a target in a target and a test of your target and there a number of ways we can look at a target. we can see what happens in the budget burgess -- legislation we passed but i think there should be a target, significant revenue target and should be placed at the forefront of both senators prior to markup. i have asked senator schumer is a member of the finance committee -- but do you have any thoughts on this? >> i would say the overwhelming majority of democrats, not all on the finance committee, and the same in the congress and the senate believed believe that we have to have revenues as part of tax reform.

it has to be as senator murphy put together $975 billion in revenues and that would be a good target to aim for his part of tax reform. to just have 100 million or so that is not going to cut it. i agree with leader reid. we need significant revenues to, as a target for tax reform and i agree with him that we have to have a target before we actually start doing the details. >> senator schumer i want to ask you and anthony weiner question. what are your thoughts on that? >> any other questions? [inaudible] >> the answer is no. i reminded my of republican colleague i surprised if you them in recent days because i said do you really know what's in that?

do you realize that cuts defense at $21 billion? do you know what it does to non-defense? it increases it by $1 billion so they had better be careful. they may get what they wish for but i think the american people have indicated with dr. collins, senator hagel everyone recognizes that this is a mindless, mindless -- we have an economy as i mentioned my opening statement here that is remarkably vibrant not as we would like it to be but with just a little bit of help from a few republicans we could have this economy being the clinton era type economy. [inaudible] >> well i think that's fallacious reasoning here. we we are not shoving anything down. what we are doing is protecting the people so anyone that thinks that we are shutting down the government only needs to be

logical. steve. >> i want to ask about -- [inaudible] >> do we are working on that. the obama principles as he would like to have high-speed rail so we are working on that. [inaudible] >> no, no, no, totally separate and apart. it's never been contemplated and as i might remind you there was already a commitment to $5 billion from a fund that does take an appropriations. >> back on the tax reform question,. [inaudible] senator baucus and senator hatch has set a deadline of tomorrow. do you want to participate personally are given what you

said about the need for revenue you are not going to -- >> i want senator baucus and senator hatch to go forward. that's fine we need tax reform but it has to be under the total understanding that this can't be revenue-neutral. neutral. you can't beat done close to neutral. it has to be significant tax target and we have talked about that. i believe in that and i think it's important and i am a big believer in our committee system. it's up to the finance committee to bring to the senate floor what tax reform should be and i'm not willing to be involved in this. i am not on the committee and i'm not going to do it. i'm not even going to consider it. for one thing i haven't led -- read the letter. >> would you then not bring up the bill -- [inaudible] >> it has to be significant and the place to start would be with that budget -- budget resolution

that we pass. all right everybody, thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] senators are to continue work on the transportation and housing spending bill next week when they returned tuesday at

2:00 p.m. eastern. live coverage here in c-span2. meanwhile the house has finished legislative business for the week. they also returned tuesday at noon for general speeches before beginning work on their own version of the transportation and housing spending bill. as always you can see the house live on c-span. >> their role of the first lady, she becomes the chief, broad. she is really in a way the only one in the world they can trust so he unloads to her and talks to her. they have all done that. they are all strong women and of course they accompany usually a strongman to where he was but i would say that's the main role is confidant to the president.

now house speaker john's with a briefing with reporters. topics include suppressants recent remarks and economy as well as immigration policy. the speaker boehner commenting on iowa senator steve king's comments on iowa undocumented workers. >> house republicans are committed to fixing the broken immigration system. we are working on a commonsencommonsen se step-by-step approach to ensure that the american people have confidence that we are addressing these issues openly and honestly. our focus is on getting the policy right so we fix our immigration system once and for all and help our economy grow. i want to be clear.

there is no place in this debate for hateful or ignorant comments from elected officials. earlier this week represenrepresen tative steve king made comments that were i think deeply offensive and wrong what he said does not reflect the values of the american people or the republican party. we all need to do our work in a constructive open and open way. as i've said many times we can disagree without being disagreeable. the senate democrats finally joined republicans in passing a permanent market-based solution on student loans. this bipartisan victory is a victory for students and for our economy and a past entirely consistent with the house republican bill that passed in may. so i want to thank chairman kline and especially representative virginia foxx for their work on this issue and the bipartisan group of senators who

our members work with to come to this agreement. as for the democratic leaders in the senate all i can say is what took you so long? the president pivoted this week to jobs as he has been known to do on occasion and under the president's leadership our country has fallen into the new normal of slow growth, high unemployment and stagnant wages. i think it's unacceptable. his speech turned out to be all sizzle and no steak. that's assuming there is any sizzle left after you you have refuted this take so many times. i hope going forward he is going to learn from his experience on student loans and other issues where he would focus more on those issues where we can't find common ground. as you know house republicans have been focused on economic growth and jobs since day one.

the president says he wants their ideas. here they are. we have been added since day one we welcome any opportunity to work with the president on an acting things that actually look at our economy moving again. we want to expand american energy simplifier tax code, reduce harmful regulations and fix a broken government. if the president wants a better bargain i think it's a pretty good place to start. these are all common sense ideas where there is consensus and if the president works with us to find common ground like he did on student loans we can make real progress. so i hope he will reach out and continue to work with us. >> yesterday was the anniversary of -- [inaudible] what do you think of the criticism that after that incident this complex the

visitor center this room here to build in the most part because of that incident and there is no urgency among lawmakers to do anything against gun violence and basically you work in the safest office building in the country. >> well obviously the issue of gun violence is one that has been difficult to deal with. if you look at all the major incidents where you have had this type of gun violence you will find the perpetrator had a history of mental illness. and so the question is how do we take the guns out of the hands of those who should not have them? i think our committees have done a number of hearings and we are going to continue to work on this because it really is the link. how do we do this as we do these background checks? >> isn't that sort of sentiment among certain members of congress and other people who

support your party, isn't that indicative of the challenge of trying to pass any sort of immigration reform bill because there is a sentiment out there and you have to figure out a way to get past that somehow? >> we are going to go through this in a commonsense step-by-step way. we don't need to make this job more difficult. we have got a broken system. a broken illegal immigration system and a problem with those who were here undocumented that ought to be dealt with as well. and it does make it more difficult but i'm going to continue to work with members who want to get to a solution as opposed to those who want to do nothing. [inaudible] >> of course. >> is doing something -- [inaudible] >> there a number of things that need to be fixed with our broken immigration system. 40% of those who were here without documents came here

illegally and so how do we fix the legal immigration system, one so that it's more fair and secondly one that we can enforce since your hair is combed nicely and u-shaped and you have a tie on. [laughter] [inaudible] >> that would be a bit of an overstatement. >> there seems to be a rehashing possibly at the grand bargain on deficit reduction and the debt limit senators mccain and graham talking about having quote unquote productive meetings with president obama. >> i've made it pretty clear that i think it's time for congress to do its work. i will be happy to work with the president or anybody else that is interested in fixing a spending problem that has grown

entirely out of control. nearly $17 trillion worth of debt and another seven or $800 billion worth of debt this year. we have spent her family have brought in for 55 of the last 60 years. i hope someone is actually willing to talk about it but i think moving this to regular order is the right way. [inaudible] >> i think i've made that pretty clear. >> since you do not have to vote why did you feel the need to vote on the amendment? >> because i was opposed to it. >> wise so opposed? do you think any changes would be appropriate when the patriot act is reauthorized? >> i voted last night because these nsa programs have helped keep americans safe. there are in my view ample safeguards to protect the privacy of the american people

and i know how these programs have worked. i know how they have worked to help protect the american people and i felt very strongly about it. i also felt very strongly that the congress could and just avoid the debate. members wanted to have this debate. i believe you all know i believe in a more open process and i wanted the house to have this debate. we did. the amendment was defeated. i am proud of my colleagues who stood up for what i think they believe was a program that really is working to help protect the american people. >> do you feel that mr. king's comments are part of the rising level of -- the judiciary committee or any other steps? >> i think i have made myself very clear when it comes to

mr. king. >> you think it would be productive with the debt ceiling the negotiations over the continuing resolution to try and get the president to revisit funding or revisit obamacare? is that something -- does the obamacare in my view is driving up the cost of health insurance. it's denying people access to quality care and it's killing jobs in america. that is why we voted some 39 or 40 times to defund or repeal obamacare and i would remind you that the president has signed seven changes to obamacare into law that would never have happened had it not been for our continued efforts to defund this and to repeal it. as we get into the fall we are going to continue to point out

what i think our big flaws in the system. how can he provide subsidies to these health exchanges without verifying people's income? our job is to protect the american people and it's to spend their taxpayer money wisely. i think it's wide open for abuse. just want him for a number of issues i expect we will continue to work on as we do everything we can to make sure this doesn't really go into effect. [inaudible] >> we will continue to do everything we can to defund it, to repeal it and to make sure that the american people aren't put through this horrific experience. >> on the atomic -- topic. [inaudible] do you agree with senator

leahy's remarks that a mandate should be halted? >> no decision has been made about how we are going to deal with this er next month for september. less -- yes maam? >> are you ruling out the cr? others in the house are saying it's now or never to block funding for obamacare. see we have not made any decisions on how we are going to deal with this. thank you all. iowa congressman steve king said last week that for every illegal immigrant who is a high school valedictorian there 100 illegal immigrants were drug smugglers. in a speech on the house house for congress drinking challenge those who disagreed. >> by can sustain myself in debate i need to get more information and i need to get better informed or could it be

that i'm wrong? only two alternatives can come from not being up to sustain yourself in the debate and i will go back and get the information i can get that i will also reconsider and anybody should. that's why i challenge people to a debate. i will take it up and we will see who can sustain themselves. we may not get this all results in one discussion. in fact in this congress it's been a very rare thing over the last 10 plus years that i've been here to see anybody stand up and admit i was wrong, what you said changes my position, but i learned changes my position. they are too many egos involved in this congress or that happen very often. it will happen a little bit privately and it will happen incrementally but it doesn't happen publicly unless they're some kind of leverage brought to bear. so here's my point mr. speaker. and that is this. our southern border is porous. it's not as porous as it was seven or eight years ago mainly because the economy has grown in

mexico at twice the rate it has grown in the united states over the last born after five years. we don't have as much pressure on our border but i can tell you this, 80 to 90% of the illegal drugs consumed in america come from or through mexico. i can tell you that in mexico they are recruiting kids to be drug smugglers between the ages of 11 and 18. they have arrested and i believe incarcerated and a number of convictions but it's at least this, over 800 per year over the last couple of years of those who are kids who were smuggling drugs into the united states. we pick up some on our side of of the border and that adds to the number. many get away. every night some come across the border smuggling drugs across the border increasingly the higher value drugs methamphetamine cocaine in some form or another strapped to the body sometimes of young girls,

teenage girls. the media is replete with this. anybody there reads the paper should now especially those who live on the border should know that there are many many young people coming across the border unlawfully smuggling drugs into the united states. they should also know that now the drug cartels and i mean specifically the mexican drug cartels have taken over drug distribution most of the major cities in america. i think intel will tell you every major city in america and the numbers i've seen go from a little over 200 cities in the country to 2000. i don't know what population that dials it down to. i haven't seen a map but it should be appalling to a country and the civilization to see that that's taking place. when you understand according to the drug enforcement agency of every chain of illegal drugs distribution we have in the country they will tell you at least privately as they have to me on multiple occasions at least one link are illegal alien

smuggling drugs into the united states. it's important that we know that as the congress, as a country and as a civilization. if we deny those facts, if we denied information that comes out of the obama administration that certainly supports those, if you denied information that comes with a major media that is there, if you deny what we are told by law enforcement officers on the border of the united states that are continually interdicting drugs at the same rate they did six or seven or eight years ago when the population of illegal was flowing over the border at a faster rate than it is today. the illegal drugs are similar to that time. beth says there are still high demand in the united states and the high command means drugs are likely to come in. if we are enforcing our borders and tightening security the price of drugs should go up if you look at the price of drugs i think you'll find we haven't been very effective in the

interdicting drugs coming across our southern border. part of that is because they find new ways to smuggle in some of those reasons are because kids are being used to smuggle drugs into the united states. that's appalling to me that death across the arizona border is still there. this debate taking place in the middle of the summer is going to end up with more people being found out there in in the desert and the pressure of lost their lives trying to get into the united states of america. we need a secure border. we need to build a fence, a wall and another fence so we have to put throwing stones. we need to put century devices on top of the end-user boots on the ground of the most effective way possible. no nation should have an open borders policy. no nation should have a blind eye policy towards the enforcement of the laws. no nation can remain a great nation if they decide to sacrifice the rule of law on the altar of political expediency. no nation like the united states of america can continue to grow and be a strong nation if we are going to judge people because

they disagree with their agenda rather than the content of their statement. we have to be critical thinkers. we have to be analytical. we should understand the facts from emotion. let's pull together, let's understand that we do have compassion. we do have compassion or every human person who deserves dignity. you treat them without warmth, treat them with the love that the american people isaf just like the korean war veterans did when they give themselves for a country they never knew and the people they never met but we must not sacrifice the rule of law on the altar of political expediency. without mr. speaker i yield back the balance of my time. >> in a few moments a discussion on the status of the health insurance exchanges set up under the 2010 health care law. in an hour senators consider implications of closing the guantánamo bay -- closing the guantánamo bay prison.

and a hearing for the national park service. shortly after congressman king's speech on the house floor senator durbin spoke about immigration. he is the sponsor of legislation giving legal status to some immigrants who came into the country illegally as children. senator durbin called congressman king's remarks quote unfair, mean and hateful. >> returning to the issue of immigration and i was happy to be interrupted because news of progress in the senate is always worth interruption. but i will tell you that we have had a history of debating immigration and congress. when i read this book on the history of immigration itself a came up with some interesting quotes. since 1924 albert johnson a republican from washington state is chairing the house committee on immigration. this is what he said.

today instead of a homogeneous citizenry we have a body politic made up of all and every diverse elements element. today instead of the nation descended from generations of free men to the knowledge of self-government liberty and the low we have a heterogeneous population no small proportion of which is sprung from races that throughout the centuries have known no liberty at all. in other words congressman johnson said our compassion to maintain our church institution stands diluted by a stream of alien blood with all its inherited misconceptions respecting the relationships of the governing power to the government. it is no wonder congressman johnson said therefore that the myth of the melting pot has been discredited. the united states is our land he said. we intend to to maintain itself. the day of welcome to all

people, the day of indiscriminate acceptance of all races has definitely ended end of quote. that is a statement made by a member of congress in 1924. and you read it today and you think to yourself how could anyone possibly be talking about racial purity in the united states of america as he did? it just draws so many terrifying parallels to a debate which happened not many years later in europe over racial purity. but it happened. it happened in the united states congress. sadly that wasn't the end of hatred toward immigration and the united states congress. mr. president 12 years ago i introduced a bill called the d.r.e.a.m. act. the d.r.e.a.m. act was a response to a constituent case in my audience. a young woman, a korean woman in chicago called our office. she has a story to tell. she said that she had brought her daughter at the age of two

from korea to the united states, to chicago on a visitor's visa. along with her husband and they envision that her husband would open a church and they look forward to that day and it never happened. her husband continue to pray for that miracle for their family but the mother said i had to go to work. the mother went to work in a dry cleaning establishment in chicago. if you have been to that wonderful city you know that the majority of dry cleaning establishments are run by korean families, hard-working people who work 12 hours a day and don't think twice about doing it. this woman went to work but she wasn't making much money. her little girl as well as the girl's brother and sister grew up in the deepest poverty. the little girl tells the story that she used to go to school, middle school and high school and wait until the end of the lunch or when students were throwing away the part of the lunch they did not eat and she would dig through through the waste basket to find food.

that is how poor they were. something came along in her life that made all the difference in the world. in chicago with something called the merit music program. the woman decided 10 or 15 years ago to leave some money and she said use this money to provide musical instruments to children ,-com,-com ma poor children in public schools as well as the lessons they need so they can play the instruments. the music program is an amazing success. 100% of the students who are enrolled in that music program go to college, 100%. if this little girl, this korean immigrant girl was brought into the program and introduced at the age of 12 to 8:00 p.m. zero for the first time. she fell in love with the piano and she started working and practicing on it. she stayed late into the night and they gave her a key because it was warm and she wanted to practice her piano. she became such an accomplished pianist by the time she was in high school she was accepted into the school of music at the

conservatory of music. amazing that this poor korean girl and when she applied and went through filling out the application she came to align the said nationality and citizenship and she turned to her mother and she said what do i put here? her mom said i don't know. we brought you here at the age of two you here teach it to annoy never filed any papers. earl said what are we going to do and the mom said let's call senator durbin. they call their office and checked on the log and the law in the united states is very clear. the law and the united states said that little girl had to leave this country for 10 years and apply to combat. 10 years. she was brought here at the age of two. she was only 17 or 18 at the time. that is when i decided to introduce the d.r.e.a.m. act. the d.r.e.a.m. act said if you were brought here as a child to the united states and you complete high school, if you have no criminal record or any concern in your prepared to

enlist in our military or finish at least two years of college we will put you on a path to being a citizen of the niceties of america. that was the d.r.e.a.m. act introduced 12 years ago, called on the floor many different times for passage. it finally passed just a few weeks ago as comprehensive immigration reform. i might tell you the end of the story about this young girl. she qualified for any financial assistance because she was undocumented. two families in chicago and one woman who is an amazing friend of mine named john harris said they would pay for education. she went to the manhattan conservatory of basic and she excelled in piano. she played in carnegie hall. she married an american jazz musician that became a citizen of the united states and now she is working on her ph.d. in music. she just sent me her tape for her ph.d. and she is amazing. theresa lee is her name. she is the first dreamer and

it's because of her that i come to the floor today. you see mr. president, just yesterday it was disclosed that a member of the house of representatives congressman steven king of iowa spoke to the issue of the dreamers. i don't know how many dreamers students who would qualify for the d.r.e.a.m. act that congressman king has met. i have met hundreds of them. they are amazing. incredible. living their entire life in the united states undocumented fearing deportation any minute of any day wondering what tomorrow will bring, standing in the classrooms of america and pledging allegiance to the only flight they have ever known, singing the only national anthem they know and being told by so many people you don't belong here. you are not part of this country. they are completely conflicted and worried and uncertain about their future and they are nothing short of amazing. these young people have done things with their lives which

just are incredible. they are the valedictorians of their classes in many cases. they have gone on to college and pay for it out of their pocket in many cases. i came to the floor and 54 different occasions with color photos of these dreamers from all of the united states. when they gave us the permission to disclose their identity and told their stories every time i told their story about -- someone stopped me in the hall and they would say that's an amazing story about this young person who just wants to be part of the united states and its future. and so it was troubling yesterday to pick up and read the quote by steven king who was a congressman from iowa. mr. king is no newcomer when it comes to criticizing immigration. he introduced a bill through for weeks ago in the house of representatives which would have removed all the federal funds that are being used now to spare these dreamers from deportation in the united states.

in other words the president has issued an executive order so the young people who are eligible for the d.r.e.a.m. act can stay. he wanted to remove all the fun so they would have to be deported immediately. he called that for a boat. it passed in the u.s. house of representatives just a few weeks ago, overwhelmingly supported by his republican side aisle. so steven king as a record of opposing immigration and doing it as a very forceful way. they found the quote which he had made, a statement he had made on the issue of the dreamers and that is why i come to the floor today. in an interview with radio iowa mr. king said yesterday, it seems as though i have a few critics out there but those who've been advocating for the d.r.e.a.m. act have been trying to make it about valedictorians he said in a interview with radio iowa.

i don't disagree there were dreamers that are valedictorians but also would legalize those who are smuggling drugs into the united states. in his original comments congressman king of iowa said quote for everyone who is a the valedictorians there is another 100 out there who weigh 130 pounds and they have got cabs the size of cantaloupes exist they are hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert end of quote. congressman king doubled down on his comments according to "the washington post" and quote we have people that are mules, drug mules that are hauling drugs across the border. you can tell by their physical characteristics what they have been doing for months end of quote. mr. president if you're going to be part of this political business you better have a pretty tough spine and a pretty hard shell because people throw criticisms around all the time

and if you can't take it, do something else. i deeply deeply resent what was said by congressman king about these dreamers. it is totally unfair. it's mean and hateful. don't take my word for it. take the words of the republicans who responded to mr. king. house speaker john commenting on congressman's king's comments called the quote were wrong and hateful. that is what speaker boehner said. house majority eric cantor republican of virginia said they were quote inexcusable end of quote. during a house judiciary committee subcommittee hearing tuesday representative joseph garcia a democrat of florida described king's words is quote beneath the dignity of this body. representative raul ravenel republican of idaho who has been heavily involved in immigration reform expressed hope wednesday that king regretted his remarks. quote there is nobody in the conference they would say such a thing and i hope if he thought

about it he wouldn't say such a thing again". it is heartening to know that members of congressman king's own political party republicans have stated unequivocally how awful his statement was. it troubles me and it's heartbreaking to think that these dreamers, these young people who are simply asking for a chance to be part of the united states would be characterized as dope as in the muckler's and drug smugglers. august the congressman king is never read the d.r.e.a.m. act because if you have ever been convicted of a crime you can't be approved for the d.r.e.a.m. act for citizenship, not a serious crime. that is part of the law. he should know better but i'm not sure he cares. i am glad that members of his own party have stepped up and granted the -- branded these comments for what they are and what i have to say to him is take a moment away from the media meet some of these dreamers and hear their stories.

hear what they been through and hear about what they want to do with their lives and the united states of america's future. to the dreamers themselves, this is in the first criticism they have run into. they have taken a lot. the courageous young men and women. when i started this track ,-com,-com ma this 12 year track on the d.r.e.a.m. act i used to give speeches in chicago about the bill. there would be audience audiences full of hispanics usually, nothing much would be said and i would go out to my car afterwards and in the darkness they would be a couple of students waiting by the card. they will call me to decide looking both ways to make sure no one was around or they would say senator we are dreamers. we are counting on you to give us a chance. over the years these young people who waited to greet me in the darkness when no one was around have now stepped up. they are identifying who they are so america knows what is at stake and when you meet the dreamers you will realize how awful and wrong the statements

are by congressman king. there will always be critics of immigration in america. it's part of our national tradition but i do believe that the vast majority of americans are fair people. they're people who believe in justice. they do not believe that a child , that a child should be held responsible for any wrongdoing by their parent. if their parent brought them to the united states as a baby they had no voice in that decision. why should they be penalized for that decision? they should be given their own chance to become part of this nations future. i will close by saying that it wasn't the first dreamer in my life. my mother was brought here at the age of two and certainly didn't have much of a voice in the decision to come to america but thank goodness her mother and father decided to make that trip and my grandparents located

to illinois and gave me a chance to grow up in a great place with a great family. that is my story and that is america's story. mr. president, i yield the floor. ..