if the immigration bill that cleared the senate but died in the house had become law, wages would be down for a decade. professor borjas estimates that current immigration rates produce a net loss, current rates, of $402 billion for american workers who compete with foreign labor. $402 billion. as documented by the center for immigration studies relying exclusively on government data, all net employment gains among the working age since the we're 2000 -- the year 2000 have gone to immigrant workers. net gains when you look at how many came in and how many jobs were created and how many jobs were taken, the number of people that came in matches the number of problems that have been created. this remarkable trend occurred even as the number of

working-age native americans increased by nearly 17 million. so the 17 million is a dramatic figure. so that's not a decline as native workers as some businesses try to say. oh, we have a demographic decline. we've got to deal with this. we're still growing in the working ages. 17 million since 2000 have increased in the age group. so here are a few more statistics. these are not temporary trends but prolonged trends. nearly one in four americans in their prime working years 25- 25-54, are not working. this includes 10 million american men and 18 million american women. two, real median weekly earnings are lower today than in

the year 2000. median family income is down $4,000 since november of 2007. our wages for families have declined dramatically. $4,000 is, what, $350 a month. so it's in this context that we must consider the economic fallout from the president's unconstitutional executive amnesty in plain violation of law and the expressed will of the american people, the president has ordered five million work permits to be issued for those illegally here p. these illegal workers will now be able to compete for any job in america. people say, well, they're already working. they're already in the labor force. well, many of them are not. many of them are working part time. in los angeles we found that half, more than half of those

who entered since 2010 are unemployed. one reason may be they're unlawfully here and they can't get a good job at the power company, the count commission, the city hall, working at construction companies, good-paying jobs out there. the president's order will give illegal immigrants the un fettered access to any job in america, presumably they're not hired at city hall because the mayor thinks he shouldn't hire somebody who entered the opportunity illegally they can file a lawsuit and demand to be hired. they've been given lawful status by the president of the united states and an i.d. card with a social security and a work authorization. they'll be participating in

social security and medicare, weakening those programs which are already in deep financial trouble. so this illegal amnesty is part of a broader immigration vision from the president. the legislation he endlessly champions. the bill written behind closed doors with billionaire activists and open borders enthusiasts and immigration activists. it surges immigration rates every year. that's his vision. after four decades of record immigration, the president's bill, supported unanimously by our senate democrats, stopped in the republican house, triples the issuance of permanent residency carped over the next ten years. over ten years if that bill had passed it would have tripled the number of people given permanent legal status in america. the center for immigration studies plains that this

legislation would in a mere six years from today increase the percentage of u.s. population born abroad to a level never before reached in american history. by 2003, nearly one in six residents under this plan would be foreign born. this is dramatic and historic change in our immigration policy. unsurprisingly, the nonpartisan congressional budget office projected that the result of such legislation would be lower wages, higher unemployment and reduced per capita g.d.p. all of this begs a simple question -- who's looking out for american workers? who's looking out for their interest, fighting to help them get a better job and better pay, working to help their communities climb out of poverty? who's looking out for their interest? the immigration debate in our

nation's capital has always centered it seems to me on the needs of lame immigrants, foreign -- of illegal immigrants, large employers. isn't it time after decades of open immigration that we focus on what we can do to help americans restore growth in their wages and their job prospects? so after 40 years we've seen declining wages and higher unemployment. is it not the sensible and rational thing to just slow down a little bit, allow wages to begin to rise some? assimilation to occur more effectively. and help those who are here today, foreign immigrants who have come to america who are struggling to rise into the middle class. won't this help them be more successful, more prospect --

prosperous and flourish better in america? the american people have begged and pleaded for a lawful system of immigration that serves the national interest, not special interest. but the politicians have refused , refused, refused. this summer alone the white house met 20 times, it was reported, in the white house with business leaders, amnesty lobbyists, immigration activists, to craft their orders to deal with and legalize people here unlawfully. actually they've been meeting for years with these groups. actually these groups have raised $1.5 billion according to one independent group, to spend on this activity to promote this legislation. but you know who wasn't invited

into that room? you weren't invited into that room, you you, the american citizen were than. did you not get a say in these secret meetings? we just had a meeting two days ago with sheriffs from all over america. they said do not allow this unlawful amnesty to occur. so the superelites in washington and wall street, they dream of a world without borders, a paradise, i guess, where pesky little things like law and rules and national bounds are not a problem -- bounds, are not a problem, they don't get out of the way of their vision. the only challenge these great global citizens face are these pesky people called the voters who cling to the old-fashioned idea of a nation as a home and a

border as something real and worth protecting. these elites see no better if you are worried about your wages or your job, if if you're concerned about the pace of immigration into your family is too fast and too large,if if you feel like your needs are not being considered, you're just a nativist, you see. you're selfish. we're making more money in the business level, profits are up. your wages are down? you think it's caused by immigration? oh, it's not. we know better than you. it's not the only factor in wage decline, but it's a factor. so when an election happens and the people rebel against this open borders agenda, there is really one thing for these wise elites to do.

they just impose their own laws. how congress answers this challenge will shape the future of this republic, will we defend and protect the people who sent us here, their laws, duly passed, the constitution, their communities, or are we just once again -- will we once again abandon them, give them lip service but no real action? so i pose that question to the body and i suggest there is no purpose to our being here if it is not to serve and protect and defend the loyal people who sent us here on their behalf. it's time for us to get busy. i am deeply disappointed that the majority leader is blocking an amendment that would deal with this matter. in the united states senate, a senator from any state should be allowed to have an amendment that deals with the crisis of our time, and we are being blocked once again.

it denies accountability, it's wrong, it's improper, and i think the american people are getting tired of it, and those who facilitate it in the future may well find that they will speak out even more clearly in the future. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: i appreciate this opportunity to speak on the floor tonight, people watching homage tonight, to the extent, but those in the gallery watching the senate, the senate

is debating a budget, the massive budget, the largest in the world in terms of any entity, i was about to say any government, but of any entity on the planet. and as of right now, that budget -- if that budget is not passed i believe by tomorrow night the federal government does not have authority to keep operating beyond the bare minimum. that's what the debate is about that you're watching. and we'll see what's going to happen over the next few hours in terms of ultimate apply getting a vote and what the leaders of the respective parties have agreed on. but what i want to talk about is related to the budget but goes much deeper and that is the state of america and the state of our economy. last night i had an opportunity to speak about foreign relations and the international situation we're facing but i wanted to speak for a moment because that's what is our budget is about, about our domestic affairs and a budget is a reflection of that. you've heard a lot of speeches about different things happening in our country. the senator from alabama spoke

about immigration, but in talking about immigration he talked about the constraints that are upon the middle class. before that we've seen others speak about issues at the end of the day as we talk about the budget increasingly the days debate is through the lens of those factors people are facing throughoutor lives in this country. i always tell the story of my parents because for me it's what's given framework to my vision of i this nation. my parents lost his mother when he was 9 years old and he had to go to work literally the next day, he would work for the next 70 years in cuba in havana. my mother was one of seven girls who remembers she never went hungry but is pretty sure her parents did. so that their children would have enough to eat. she was raised by her father, my grandfather was disabled disabled as a young man, had polio and struggled to provide for his girls. they came to america in 1956 in

search of a better life. they came here with nothing more than the dreams of that better life and the hope of a better life. they didn't know anyone, they barely had any money, barely had any formal education and they arrived in this country in 1956. and they never made a lot of money here. my father ended up settling into a job as a bartender at a hotel primarily. my mother was a cashier, a stock clerk at kmart, she worked as a maid at a casino in las vegas. my parents never became rich. but my parents achieved the american dream. because the american dream is never about how much money you make. the american dream has always been about achieving happiness as as you define it and while they weren't rich my parents were able to afford a home in a safe neighborhood, a neighborhood safe enough they would allow me and my sister to walk to school when we lived in

las vegas. they were able to retire with dignity and my parents just a generation removed from poverty and a lack of any formal education, lived to see all four of their children go to college and have a life much better than their own. they fully lived the american dream. i.t. the american dream that's been possible because this nation was founded on a powerful idea: that all people are created equal and that all people zev an equal opportunity -- deserve an equal opportunity to achieve happiness as they define it. that isn't just a talkingpoint. it defiance us as a people and a -- it defines us as a nation and a a people and make us better than any other nation that's ever existed. but today something that troubles success that american dream seems to be eroding in the minds of way too many people, and we understand why. there are people that they open up the paper every day and they read -- like today is a perfect example. the dow jones closed over 300

points. wall street is setting record profits. they keep reading about how the economy is rebounding and unemployment is down, but they don't feel any of this. they are working as hard as they ever have, yet their paychecks -- you are working hard, you're make being less than ever and you are frustrated to read that all these other people seem to be doing so great and everybody keeps telling you about how the commit is doing fantastic. meanwhile you're being scweesed in your own life. you can't get a pay raise. there's nothing you can do about t and everything costs more. your rent payment, your health care, your children's education. this queys is real. and the middle -- this scwiez is real and the middle class is feeling it. why is this happening? this is not just because after downturn. we had a very serious financial crisis in this country. we had a very severe downturn did you but what i have described to you is not just a function of that.

because if this was just cyclical it would go down, back up. our policies have not reacted to the structure changes that have happened in our economy. and even in this debate about the putting budget, you see evidence about that. and i didn't come here to be critical of the people who worked on it. i know they worked hard. but our policies do not reflect these structural changes. they're very real. in the 20th century practically anybody who wanted a job in america could find one. there was plenty of blue-collar jobs for people like my parents, and there seemed to be plenty of white-collar jobs for people like their children. but in the 21st century, many of those jobs are gone. they've been sent overseas, or been replaced because of technology or innovation. new jobs require skills that too many of our people still don't have. in the 21st century -- in the

20th city, our was a national economy. your competitors were halfway across town, maybe halfway across the country. in the 21st century, we operate in a global economy where your customers, clients, competitors and investors are likely to be halfway around the world. and that's had a dramatic structural change to ou our economy. in the 20th century, a barten bartender and a maid, they could afford to own a home, own a car, take a vacation once a year with their kids. if my parents tried to do today what they did in 196556, they couldn't. those jobs just don't pay enough. we have to respond to these structural changes. we have to turn the page on these old ideas and, quite frankly, on the leaders that have those old ideas. we cannot continue to confront

21st century challenges with 21st century strategies. we need new leaders and we need new ideas that respond to these deep structural changes and for four straight years that i've been talking about it here in the senate, the progress in that regard, unfortunately, has been slow. now, i didn't come here today to be overly part sarntion but i know this: in 2008, a lot of people thought that our current president would be that kind of new leader. but that's not what we've gotten. they thought he would be that kind of new leader because he talked about being a champion for the middle class. he talked about a modern agenda of 40e7 and change. -- of hope and chaifnlgt but that'-- ofhope and change, but t what we've gotten. instead of focusing on working families, we focused on things like the liberal dream of liberal-run education, of government-run education, i'm sorry. we focused on rail cad environmental shall did we focused on radical environments

a policies instead of focusing on the middle class. instead we've gotten old old-fashioned big government and conge knee capitalism. an example is how the big insurance companies have gamed obamacare. imagine if you were in a business and the government came in with a law that said, we are going to make people buy the product that you sell. we're going to give them money to buy the prot product that you sell. if you lose money selling this product, we're going it bail you out with taxpayer dollars. that's what big insurance companies were able to get out of obamacare. people are required to buy insurance. they get a subsidy to buy that insurance. and if they lose that money, they get a bailout. with taxpayer dollars. that's outrageous, and it's not surprising that the stock prices of big insurance companies have doubled since obamacare passed, and meanwhile working americans are paying more, higher deductibles, higher co-payments, higher premiums and thinker gating less coverage -- and

they're getting less coverage. that's an example of the corporatism. despite all this rhetoric that they're fighting on behalf of the middle class, the last few years have been a bonanza for big birks a bonanza for people who can hire the lawyers and lobbyists to navigate the complexities of government. so it is very simple. if you can hire lawyers and lobbyists, you get your plans like that's before us today. but if you're trying to start a small business out of your home, if you're a small business person who workers seven days a week, 16 hours day just to stay afloat, you can't afford to hire the best law firm in washington, d.c., to navigate the regulations. and you sure can't afford to hire a lobbying firm to write the regulations to your advantage. i would go further and say that big government is a competitive advantage for big businesses because they know that the bigger and more complicated the rules are, the harder it is for someone new to come along and

compete with them for that same business. and we've seen that time and again. i saw it during my time as a state official as a speaker of the house in florida and you see it here as well in washington, d.c. this is corporatism, and both parties are guilty of it. that's why it shouldn't surprise us that under the last six years of this presidency, the last six years of this presidency, 95% of the income gains in this country have gone to the top 1% of earners and 93% of americans have seen virtually no income growth in the last six years. and yet we continue to see an effort to push policies from this administration that keeps us on the same course. and here's the course that we're on: radical environmental groups, they're going to get their way. they're going to get their poms, executive orders -- their

policies, executive orders and rules written. mean w4eu8, peoplmeanwhile, peot factories, dependent on energy jocks, they get nothing. people employment unions, they get all the rules they want from the nlrb and the govment they get all -- they get their help. you know who doesn't? the ups struckers, the plumbers, pipe fitters, construction workers. and all these elites that are going around begging for more government spending, they're going to get their way in this bill from this administration. and middle-class americans that are working as hard as they ever had, they get stuck with the tax bill to pay for it. we can't keep doing this. if we keep doing this, we are going to lose the american dream. we are going to lose what makes us different, we're going to lose what makes us special. but i believe it with all my

heart that if we can turn the page on these policies, not only can we save the american dream, but we can have another american century. to do that i think there are three key things we have to do. i wish more of this was reflected in the bill before us. the first thing we need is we need better jobs, jobs that don't just pay more -- that's important -- but jobs that provide enough flexibility as well, so that you do have time, if you need to take time off to go take your kids to a field trip or a doctor's appointment. you know how many americans out there can't take their kids to a dental appointment because that requires them to take two hours off of quark? -- off of work in you know how many americans don't have the flexibility to be able to watch their son or daughter at the christmas pageant this year in school because their job doesn't have flexibility? these better jobs that i'm talking about are jobs that pay more, that also provide the flexibility so you have the time to be a better spouse, a better member of your community, and a

better parent. and jobs that won't disappear, by the way, with the next advancement in technology, jobs that give you an opportunity for promotion and upward mobility. these are the kinds of jobs we need. in order to have those kinds of jobs, we need to become globally competitive. we are engaged in a global competition with the rest of the world for these jobs. it is the economic elim olympics every single day and we can win that competition if we had a tax code that no longer made america one of the most expensive places in the world to create those jobs. we could win it if we reformed our regulatory code so we are no longer such a burdensome place to create the jobs. we could win if we got our national debt under control which scares people from creating the jobs here because they believe we're headed for a debt crisis in the future. if we fully utilized our energy

resources; we could create those jobs. you've already seen the benefits of america energy exploration, the jobs it creates not just in energy but in manufacturing. you've already seen the benefits of american energy production in the faulting price of gasoline at the pump, and that has real-world implications. being from florida, we expect that many more people are going to tighe take the drive to -- we expect that many more people are going to take the drive to disney world this winter. getting there is a lot cheaper than it was before. the other thing, we can't -- we can win that competition but we have to keep our edge on innovation. we are the world's greater greatest innovators. by the way, winning that global competition requires us to be globally engaged. we must remain involved in global affairs. strong american leadership on this planet is what allows the world, is a factor in allowing the world to have the prosperity

and the stability it needs for a rising global middle class, people that can afford to buy the things we sell, the products we offer, the services we offer. we will benefit from that. but creating more of those better jobs is not enough. the second thing we have to do is we have to make sure people have the skills for those new jobs because these new jobs in the 21st century are going to require a higher electrical of skill than ever before. the problem is, we have an archaic 20th century education model. we tell kids in high school that the only way you will ever be successful is you all have to get a four-year degree and there is nothing wrong with getting a four-year degree. but it is wrong to tell children and students in this country that that is the only way to get ahead when weigh know that in the 21st century there are going to be millions of middle-skill, quality-paying jobs that require more than high school but less than four years of college. we have a system that does nothing, absolutely nothing about that.

we don't offer nearly enough vocational programs in high school. why have we stigmatized jobs where you work with your hands when we know we need airplane mechanics and pipe fitters and high-tech welders and people that -- and machiners for 21st century factories? and we can teach people these skills when they're still? high school. we also need more aplentiesship programs so we can train and retrain americans in these higher-skilled jobs. we also need to help people out there that have to work full-time. imagine for a moment a single mother raising two kids on her own. she is a receptionist at a law firm. she's never going to get a significant raise working as a receptionist. the only way she is every going to getaway is if she can become a paralegal. she has to go to school.

how is she going to go to school under this current system? she wakes up at 6:00 in the morning and makes kids breakfast. drops them off at school, drives to work, works eight or nine hours, rushes to the day-care center or the after-school program before it closes, picks them up and brings them home. she's already tired but she is not done. she has to make them dinner and make sure they finish their home work. when is she going to go to school? at 4:00 in the morning? we need to have an education system that's flexible enough so she can acquire the skills to become a paralegal while she works full-time and raises that family. allowing her to package learning from on-line courses and work experience. if you're a receptionist at a law firm, you've worked there for eight or nine years, there are some skills you've picked up working there that should count for credit hours. instead of forcing you to sit through a two-year program so the college you're going to can make the money off of you. we need to create programs that people like her can the acquire

the skills they need for those 21st century jobs. we also need to, by the way, create alternatives to traditional college. it doesn't matter where you acquire the learning, you should be able to package all of your learning. and so take, for example, someone who's worked 10 years, served in the military, has extensive experience volunteering, has taken a number of courses at a community college and wants to get a degree in something. we should be able to package all of that lifelong learning, all of those sources of learning into the equivalent of a degree program. you know how many americans out there are sitting on 30 or 40 credit hours from a community college? but having 30 hours of college credit is the same at having zero because you don't get any degree certificate for it. and so the private sector looks at you and says, well, we're glad you went to class but where's your degree or your associate's degree? i wish we had a more concerted effort in helping people that are halfway there to get all the way there by using things like

on-line course work and giving them credit for life and work experience. we need to think outside the box on these issues. because if we don't empower people with these skills, they won't be able to take advantage of the opportunities of the 21st century. this is what a 21st century educational system looks like. i would just make one more point talking about schools. the most important school a child will ever attend is their home. we cannot ignore the fact that the breakdown of american families is having a dramatic impact on our economy and on the quality of life of our people. now, there's a reality here about this. a growing number of children are born into single-parent homes or are born into broken families and we have to help them because we know that statistically speaking, children being raised in broken families and in single-parent homes with low incomes are going to struggle to succeed. they will not have an equal opportunity unless someone does something to help them out. and we can help.

we can help by helping their parents acquire the skills they need for these better jobs, like that single mother i just talked about. but also by giving their parents the opportunity to send them to a school of their choice. it is immoral, it is un-american that the only people in this country that cannot choose where they children go to school are poor people. it's outrageous. rich people can send their kids to any school they want and that's their right. middle class, they'll move to a better neighborhood or they'll struggle to put just enough money together to put their kids in a better school. but if you are poor and the school in your neighborhood is a dangerous school that you're not learning in, there is nothing you can do. that is outrageous. the answer to that is, well, improve that school. i agree. but in the five years that it takes to improve that school, that child has gone from first grade to sixth grade and you're never getting those years back. so those parents, every parent in america, especially

low-income parents, deserve the opportunity to put their children in the school of their choice. there are other ways we can help families, primarily that's the responsibility of us as individuals and our communities. but we should have a pro-marriage tax code. pro-marriage government program. we shouldn't have marriage penalties. we shouldn't tell people, if you get married, your taxes are going to go up. or if you get married, you're going to lose medicare -- medicaid. we have to get rid of those things. we have to remove those marriage penalties in our tax code and in our ms practice. and, by the way, we should also protect our faith communities. they are an important part of instilling values. because you can all all the diplomas on the wall you want, if you don't have the values of hard work and discipline and self-control and respect for others and respect for the dignity of life of all people -- and of all people, you're going to struggle to succeed. and no one is born with those values. those values have to be taught to you by strong families an ina

strong home and they have to be reinforced by strong communities. and one of the pillars of strong communities is our faith community. whatever faith you choose. and that's why protecting religious liberties is so important. last but not least, restoring the american dream isn't just about better jobs and better training and better skills, it's also about dealing with the cost of living. and that's why i think in the coming year we desperately need a pro-family tax code. instead of all these loopholes that are designed to help big business or the cronies of the people that serve here in washington, we need a pro-family tax code. for example, let's increase the child tax credit because it costs money to raise children in the 21st century. and these working families are struggling to provide for their children. let's have a pro-family tax code like the one senator lee from utah and i have proposed. let's increase the child tax credit. we also have to deal with the cost of higher education. it's completely out of control. and you know who's getting destroyed by that?

the middle class. i have the honor of teaching a course at florida international university. many working-class students there. and here's their frustration, and they're right. their parents make too much money for financial aid but they don't make enough money to be able to afford the school. so you know what they do? they take out loans in the tens of thousands of dollars. and i know about this firsthand because when i swore in to the senate here four years ago, i owed over $100,000 in student loans. my parents could never afford to pay for my school. now, i was blessed to be able to receive pell grants and other assistance but i still had to use loans. when we first got married, it was the single largest expenditure. and i used to joke to my wife, you didn't just get married to me, you got married to sallie mae, because every month sallie mae came up with a $1,400, $1,300 bill. and there are thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of young people across america that are stuck with big loan

debt and degrees that don't lead to jobs. i hope we'll tackle that this year. and there are a couple of proposals that i think will help. the first is, we should make income-based repayment the repayment method for everyone unless you opt out of it. second, i think that people deserve the right to know before they take out a loan how much they can expect to make. before you take out a loan to pay the tuition to the school, that school should be required to tell you, this is how much people who graduate from our school make when they graduate from this degree. so you can decide whether it's worth borrowing $100,000 to be a greek philosophy major. because the market for greej philosophers -- greek philosophers is very tight these days. and last, but not least, i think we need alternatives to traditional student loans. one of the things i proposed is something called the student investment plan, which allows people to invest in your future. basically a venture fund in you. someone will come forward and say, we will give you the money to go to college. in exchange, you will pay us

back 1%, 2% of your income for your first 10 years. they're investing in you, it's a student investment plan. it's not for everyone. it's not a panacea but it is an alternative to student loans. one of the things that will help, by the way, to be an alternative to student loans is what i mentioned earlier, if you were able to package learning and turn self-directed learning into the equivalent of a degree. there are other big items of cost of living. health care, i don't need to tell you about. how many people out there today, particularly in the middle class, are standing to find out i have a higher deductible, i have higher co-payments, i have higher premiums and i'm getting less coverage than i used to. this is not a myth, this is not a rumor. this is happening to millions of people. we get the calls and so do you in your office about all these things. one last point on the cost of living is dealing with poverty. our antipoverty programs don't work. there are antipoverty programs in this cromnibus, a term, by

the way, none of us have ever used before. i don't know who makes these things up but, anyway.... there's antipoverty programs in this bill. our antipoverty problems, they alleviate poverty, they don't cure it. imagine if you broke your arm and you went to the hospital and they said, here's a lifetime supply of painkillers. i'm not saying you shouldn't help people with the pain of a broken arm but you've got to fix that broken arm. our programs don't fix poverty. they don't cure poverty. we need programs that will cure poverty, and that's why i believe we need what's called the flex fund, where we take all of our existing antipoverty dollars -- i'm not saying cut it, i'm saying tax our existing antipoverty dollars and put them in a flex fund and allow states and local communities to design specific plans that work in their communities. i can tell you just in the state of florida, urban poverty and rural poverty have different elements to them. and a program that might work

very well in the inner city of miami doesn't work at all with rural poverty in south dade. we should allow states and local communities to design programs that help cure poverty. and the ultimate cure for poverty is a good job, which means everyone who's on these assistance programs should either be in school acquiring the skills they need for a better job or should be working, improving their skills through experience. and let me just say this about that, and i've talked about one of the aspects of the reforms that we want, a wage enhancement. if the only job you can find makes $8 -- pays you $8 or $9 an hour but you need $15 an hour to provide for yourself, i would rather come in with government money and make up the difference through a wage enhancement than give you $9 or $10 an hour or the equivalent to $7 or $8 an hour in a welfare check. because while you're working, you're gaining experience and

we're also helping supplement your paycheck so you can pay your bills. that isn't forever. that can't become a way of life. but i'm telling you, if you've been unemployed for five or six years and you show up somewhere to get a job and they ask you, what have you been doing for the last six years and you say i haven't been doing anything? your chances of getting that job have just diminished dramatically. it is not good for people to be unemployed lon long term in terf their long-term job prospects. that's why i've talked about a wage enhancement program as well. i think if we do all these things that i've talked about -- make ourselves a globally competitive economy so that jobs are created here. give our people 21st century skills. help people deal with the cost of living. i think we have every reason in the world to be optimistic about our future. you know, i'll close by saying that i think sometimes we get confused here about how we measure the greatness of our country or the progress that we're making. we look to facts and figures

like the unemployment rate. we look at things like the g.d.p. of the country. these are important figures. we shouldn't ignore them. let me tell you how i measure the progress of this country. i mentioned earlier my father was a bartender. at many events throughout the years that i've been involved in public service, i'll go give a speech somewhere and there's a bartender standing behind a bar in the back of the room. almost every time i see that, it reminds me of my father, who stood for so many years behind a bar. he was happy for the work he had but that's not the life he wanted for us. he wanted something more for us. he stood behind that bar all those years so one day i could have the chance to stand here on the floor of the united states senate and talk about things like the american dream. that journey from behind that bar to where i'm standing here tonight, that is the american dream. that is the american dream. a few years ago, someone who had heard me give that speech -- i was in new york city -- and

after i was done speaking, employees there came up to me and they hand handed me this name tag. it said "rubio, banquet bartender." it was one of the most touching gifts i ever got from any one, but it was also a reminder that whether or not we remain a special nation will be determined by whether or not people today can do what my parents did, by whether or not people today can still make that journey that my father made from behind that bar to where i stand today. can the single mother provide her children the life she always wanted but never had? can that worker at that hotel open doors for their children that were closed for him? that's how we'll know if we're still special. if they can, then this new century is also going to be an american century. we do have real challenges but we also have real opportunities, and there is no time in history that i would rather be than right here, right now. i believe technology will allow us to collaborate and reach more

people than ever before. i believe innovation will solve problems we once thought were unsurmountable. i believe a rising global middle class will provide more prosperity to more people everywhere than we have ever seen. that's what i believe the 21st century can be about. i believe that you and i live on the eve of another american century. all we have to do now is reach for it and grab it. all we have to do now is do what our parents did for us -- whatever it took to leave for their children a better life and a better future. and if we do that, then we will leave behind for our children what every generation of american before us has left behind -- the single greatest nation in the history of all mankind. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, anyone watching congress right now would have little reason to think that an historic election occurred only a few weeks ago. washington, d.c., sadly continues to remain deaf to the american people. washington, d.c., continues to refuse to listen to the american people. even though millions of voters rose up just one month ago to

protest how president obama and the senate democrats were running washington, business as usual is continuing inside the marble halls of the united states congress. what's happening here? last night, we saw chaos in the u.s. house of representatives. as they were there till late in the night, voting on a bill that the vast majority of the members had never even sat down to read. yet somehow at the last minute, just in the nick of time, with an arm twisted here and a nudge there, it passed the house. and now it's here in the united states senate. before the senate today is a $1.1 trillion bill full of christmas presents for the

lobbyists and special interests here in washington. i know it's crimes mr. president -- christmastime, mr. president, but it's not our job to be playing santa to k street. this bill is not designed to help working americans. it is designed to pay off all the promises made to lobbyists who funded campaigns over the past year. it's designed to make sure that a whole lot of folks can fly home, sure that more campaign dollars will be coming in coming weeks. before the united states senate is a bill that continues to fund the train wreck that is obamacare and does nothing to provide relief to millions of men and women who are hurt,, who are everything is, have lost their jobs, have lost their health care because of

this disaster. and before the united states senate is a bill that does nothing, absolutely nothing to stop president obama's illegal and unconstitutional amnesty. that's why i rise to speak here today. the president's executive amnesty is lawless and unconstitutional. let it be clear, the dispute or executive amnesty is not a dispute between president obama and republicans in congress. it is a dispute between president obama and the american people. in this last election, president obama said something that was absolutely correct. he said his policies were in the -- on the ballot all across this country. the president was right. this election was a referendum

on amnesty. mr. president, i spent roughly two months on the road campaigning for senate candidates all over the country, one after the other after the other in race after race after race, front and center was if you elect republicans, we will stop president obama's amnesty. now, the american people's verdict on that referendum was not ambiguous. over and over and over again voters in states across this country decided not to send back the incumbent democrat but to elect a new republican. mr. president, i recall two years ago when you and i were freshmen, there were just nine, there were nine democratic freshmen that year and just three republicans. today there are 12 republican freshmen. 12 new senators, a quarter of

the republican conference elected as the result of a referendum on amnesty. the people have spoken loudly. and yet sadly, president obama has reacted to the voters in a way that, frankly, is unprecedented in american history. previous presidents, particularly second-term presidents have been repudiated by the voters and there's a way presidents typically respond to that. they react with humility. they react acknowledging the american people trying to course correct. but sadly, president obama didn't do that. instead, he came out angry and defiant. he came out and declared to the american people it doesn't matter in his view what the american people say, and it doesn't matter in his view what the congress elected by the american people says. he is instead going to unilaterally decree illegal

amnesty for some five million people who are here illegally. we're going to have a vote in time on this omnibus bill. but part of that vote, critical in that vote should be a vote on president obama's illegal amnesty. we should consider the constitutionality of his actions. every senator in this body should be put on record whether he or she believes it is constitutional for a president to disregard, to ignore federal immigration laws. and grant blanket amnesty to millions in defiance of both the laws on the books and the voters. you know, this president believes he can unilaterally alter laws he disagrees with. now, there is a form of

government where one man or one woman can make the laws, can change the laws, can enforce the laws. that's called a monarchy. there are countries on earth right now that have monarchies that vest the legislative and executive power in one person. i would notice americans historically, we are not unfamiliar with monarchy. we fought a bloody revolution to free ourselves from a tyrannical monarch. and the constitution when our framers drafted it, it was designed as thomas jefferson put it, to serve as chains to bind the mischief of government. the danger we are facing here right now is profound insofar as it concerns amnesty and is even

greater as it concerns the checks and balances in our government and the protection of individual liberty. because a president who can set aside the law, who can pick and choose which law to follow and which law to ignore, is no longer a president. that should concern all 100 senators here. because you know what, if president obama can decide i don't agree with the immigration law so i will not enforce them, i'll unilaterally change them, mr. president, i promise there will come another president, another president with different policy views and the next time it may not be immigration laws, it may be environmental laws or tax laws or labor laws. i believe we need labor form and environmental reform but there's a proper way to do it. the proper way to do it is this body debating and making legislative changes to the laws, not one president by dictat setting aside the law.

a presidential temper tantrum is not an acceptable means of discourse. you know, one of the characteristics of a monarch is he or she need not compromise. the president has justified this illegal amnesty by saying he told congress what he wanted, and congress refused to give it to him. well, mr. president, the relationship in our constitutional republic between the president and the congress is not the relationship between a parent and a child. the president does not get to demand of congress here is the policy i want, either give me what i want or i will decree it to be so and ignore the law. that is the president's bargaining position. the president wants to reform immigration and let me be clear clear, we need commonsense immigration reform. i support commonsense immigration reform but the way it works in our constitutional

system if you want to change the laws, you have to work with the other branches and that means you have to compromise. it means the president doesn't get everything he wants, and this is a president who is barely willing even to talk to congress much less to compromise on anything. as alexander hamilton explained in federalist 69, a monarch decrees, dictates and rules through fiat. which is what president obama's attempting to do right now. and when the president embraces the tactics of a monarch, it becomes incumbent on congress to wield the constitutional power this body has as the elected people's representatives to stop it. congress, representing the voice of the people who just spoke resoundingly in an election should use every constitutional tool available to prevent the president from

subverting the rule of law. when the president usurps the legislative powers and defies the limits of his authority, it becomes all the more imperative for congress to act, and congress should use those powers given to it by the constitution to counter a lawless executive branch or this body will lose its authority. if the president will not respect the people, congress must. secondly, let me ask a question. why are we here today in a lame duck? why is there a session of congress, is second week of december, some with so many members voting who the american people just said they no longer want to be represented by.

why are there so many members getting ready to land at cushy law firms and trade associations, all of our colleagues, a whole bunch of them we're going to see them again except they'll have more expensive suits more finely tailored and come with an army of lobbyist aides with them. both the house and the senate are filled with people who won't be here next year and that's not an accident. because these bodies are voting to fund a trillion-dollar spending bill and those members who were defeated or retiring aren't accountable to anybody. they won't have to answer for this but it's even worse. i mentioned this omnibus is a payoff to k street. well, that's where a lot of these retiring lobbyists, retiring members are going to go. so what a perfect way to start to get your job is to ensure that you come with goodies for the rich and powerful.

but the american people are disgusted by the way washington works. washington under the obama administration takes care of the rich and powerful, those who walk the corridors of power, and ordinary working men and women are left in the dark. people have been hurt the most under the obama economy have the most vulnerable, young people, hispanics, african-americans, and single moms. i'm sorry to say in this senate there are very, very few advocates for the people who are really hurting. let me give one example. one of the elements of this bill is the so-called expatriate health insurance plan fix. this exempts from obamacare. what is this about? american health insurance companies that sell insurance policies to expatriates, americans living abroad, are

subject to all of the oppressive mandates of obamacare. all of the mandated coverage, mandating things like maternity care for women who are no longer in childbearing years, all sorts of mandates that drive up the costs and they're also subject to the crushing and punitive taxes. what's happened? the insurance companies have come to congress and said hey, it's not fair, it is hurting our business, it's hurting jobs. obamacare is. and you know what's amazing, you get enough lobbyists together, and suddenly you get bipartisan agreement. this provision had republicans and democrats together saying we should carve a special exemption for the big insurance companies. now, there are a lot of things about this body that they don't teach in civics class. a lot of things in this body that woulder whoify -- that woulder whoify the typical

student learning how government operates. one is something called a hotline. an awful lot of legislation gets passed on a hotline. someone introduces legislation, sends an e-mail and says unless you object, this will be treated as automatically passed. a lot of things get done on the hotline without this body debating it, considering amendments, ever taking it to the floor. this expatriate insurance amendment was hotlined. senators, both democrats and republicans, wanted to shoot it through in the lame buck duck in the quiet of night. i think there are some good arguments on the merits for this bill. it's an -- the expatriate bill i mean. it's not unreasonable to recognize that obamacare is costing jobs, it is hurting. but i'll tell you the way a hotline works, any individual senator can object so i objected to this. i raised an objection to the

hotline and let me tell you why i did, mr. president. i said listen, this should make sense but we shouldn't do it with no amendments, no debate in the dark of night. we should do this on the floor of the senate with a debate and with amendments. and in particular i want to take the opportunity to ask my friends and colleagues who are democrats who are supporting this exemption, if you think these provisions of obamacare are so onerous, are so damaging, are killing so many jobs, why won't you provide an exemption for the people that live in your state? if it's right that these are harmful, why discriminate against the people living in your state? i want to take it up in the floor in a context this awhere you can offer amendments, say, listen, it's all fine to take care of the big insurance companies but how about somebody stand up for single moms, single moms who are in vast numbers

being forced into part-time work, forced to work 28, 29 hours a week because obamacare, the threshold that kicks in is 30 hours a week. how about somebody stand up for the ampleg working men an workie average working men and women? but i'll tell you what, mr. president ... the sim single moms, the african-american teenagers the legal aisle grants, they don't have -- the legal immigrants, they don't have fancy lobbyists. there is no provision that i have been more heavily lobbied over than this ex-patriot bill. i had an ex-insurance agent on the phone with me, senators, all saying to me, look, take care of this provision. i said, look, we can take it up in just a couple of weeks, in jng with a new congress. we can take this up. but if we're going to be making exemptions for obamacare, how about we not start with the

richest and most powerful corporations. how about instead we start with working men and women, put working men and women first because they're the ones paying the biggest price. and yet i'm sorry to tell you, this is a great illustration of how washington works. when it couldn't get hotlininged as its own bill, what happened? is it magically appeared on the omnibus, tacked on in the last minute because they knew it would go right through congress in the dark of night. how profoundly corrupt. listen, if you're a fortune 100 company, you should feel thrilled because you can martial armies of lobbyists to get a special carve-out for you. but if you're a steelworker out of work, if you're a single mom, if you are an hispanic teenager trying to get her first job to start climbing the economic

ladder and moving towards the american dream, you know what? you don't have a high-paid lobbyists, unfortunately this united states senate is not listening to your concerns. we need to change that. we need to change that. you know another provision of this omnibus is a special carve-out for bluecross blueshield, a very fine company. bluecross blueshield spent more than $15 million on lobbyists this year. now, it's all fine and dandy that bluecross blueshield gets a carve-out. what about working men and women? under the harry reid senate, you know how many bills we have debated on the floor to provide meaningful relief to the millions of americans who lost their jobs, who've lost their health care, have been forced into part-time work, who face skyrocketing insurance premiums, who've lost their doctors? zero, not a single one, because working men and women don't have

the $15 million to hire fancy lobbyists and the corrupt culture of washington listens to the lobbyists and not the people. and let me be very clear on this. this is a bipartisan ailment. harry reid and the democratic senate has shut this institution down, and it's ceased working for ordinary americans. but republicans share in that sin, share in that embrace of corporate welfare. enough with the corporate welfare. god bless big companies that provide jobs. we don't need to be providing corporate welfare. how about instead we have fundamental exik reform that brings back growth that helps small companies start and grow and create jobs? how about we stop playing favorites and picking winners and losers and instead how about

washington listen to the american people. another provision in this bill, another bit of corporate welfare is brand u.s.a., a travel promotion company. one of the majority leader's pet projects, because it helps promote casinos in his home state. the last i checked, casinos were very profitable endeavors that didn't need the taxpayers helping them out. didn't need the united states congress serving your hard-earned dollars and handing it out to promote casinos. another example is the overseas private investment corporation. it's also reauthorized in this bill. most people haven't heard of it, but let me tell you what it does. over the past few years opec has

approved a $20 million loan to help luxury cars be built in eastern europe. coincidentally, the man who owns the company is a donor to president obama and vice president biden. opec has also backed hundreds of millions of dollars for solar farms in south africa. it's also helped finance the ritz carlton in istanbul. i.t. backed $150 million in snurps for citibank to open brarchls in pakistan, jordan and egypt. how is it that one of the largest banks in the world can't get its own insurance? why should taxpayers take on that risk? they shouldn't. also spread throughout this bill are all kinds of provisions mandating what kind of vehicles the u.s. government may buy for use.

limits on how much the car can weigh, rules for how it must be powered, where the corporation is based, to be put together, all together work to give u.s. corporations the that produce expensive electric cars an advantage. instead of saving taxpayer money, this bill is pushing the government to purchase chevy volts and teslas instead of other more affordable cars. yet another problem in the lame duck was seen in a bill we considered earlier today: the national defense authorization act. now, the ndaa had a lot of good provisions in it. i serve on the armed services committee. i introduced eamentd that were accepted -- i introduced amendments that were accepted and included in the bill, including a provision that finally, finally, finally allows the 14 innocent souls who were murdered by nidal hasan at fort hood to be eligible for the

purple heart. it has been far too long that this administration has declared that to be workplace violence. there are other good provision in that bill. yet in the last minute, a giant chunk of legislation got added to the defense authorization that had nothing to do with defense. instead, it was a giant lands grab, and once again it was bipartisan. it was democrats and republicans coming together saying, let's have the federal government seize a bunch of lands. so the defense authorization bill added 250,000 acres of new wilderness designations. the defense authorization bill resulted in 400,000 acres being withdrawn from productive use. it added three new wild and scenic river designations, three new studies for additional designations. now, some of these provisions

may have been sound on their own, but there's a reason they weren't brought up on their own. there's a reason they weren't debated on the floor of the senate. because they couldn't withstand the scrutiny. so instead, the way sculpt washington works, they were stuck onto a defense authorization that was deemed "must pass" and the federal government takes a half million acres of land out of productive iewrks out of use by the citizenry. you know, that's disrespectful to the men and women. military. it is a disservice we shouldn't be using the defense authorization as a tool for congressional pork. i'll make an additional point about president obama's amnesty. in all likelihood, in a matter of hours or a matter of days, the senate is going to pass this

massive pork-filled mess of a bill, trillion-dollar-plus amnesty that is paying off lobbyists throughout this town. and yet leadership in both bodies, republican leadership in both the house and senate, have promised this bill is designed for congress in fact to stawngdz to president obama's illegal amnesty. they have said repeatedly that in just a few weeks help is on the way. in just a few weeks republicans will be the majority in this body. in just a few weeks we will have a new majority leader. the new majority leader, my friend, the senior senator from kentucky, has said -- quote -- "if president obama acts in

defiance of the people and imposes his will on the country, congress will act. we're considering a have a right variety of options, but make no mistake, when the newly elected representatives of the people take their seats, they will ac act." madam president, take the soon-to-be-majority leader at his word. speaker of the house has likewise said, "come january, we will have a republican house and republican senate, and we'll be in a stronger position to take actionactions." the speaker went on to say, the current planning is the most practical way to fight the president's actions. again, take him at his word. when the republican leaders promise this bill is all designed so come january and february -- just a few weeks from now -- we will see both houses stand together and make

clear that when the continuing resolution expires for the department of homeland security, this body will not appropriate money to d.h.s. to carry out president obama's illegal and unconstitutional executive amnesty. i take them at their word because the alternative would be that elected leaders were saying something to the american people they don't believe. and they don't intend to follow through on. and i very much hope that is not the case. indeed, i'm reminded of reagan's famous admonition, "trust but verify." so take them at their word, but i would note that a whole lot of citizens across this country feel a little bit like charlie brown with lucy and the football, wherein fight after fight leadership in congress

says, we'll fight next time -- not this time, no, no, no. the wise thing to do is to fight in a month, fight in two months, fight in thee months, not now. and it always seems to be that when this month or two months or three months happens, the same statement is made. you know what? no, no, no. not jn or february. really march. no, no no. not that. how about june? no, no, no. not that. how about september? there comes a point when charlie brown has kicked the football and fallen on his rear end one too many times. when our leaders say as a commitment we will fight and we will stop president obama's illegal amnesty, i take them at their word, but i am confident the american people will hold them to their word. the american people may not be quite so trusting as am i, because they've seen far too many members of congress say one thing and do another -- and we

will learn soon enough if those statements are genuine and sincere. we will learn in just a few weeks. if leadership intends to follow through on promises they have made over and over again. and i would note, the course of this election -- republican members of the house, republican members of the senate campaigned all over this country and they said two things repeatedly. they said, number one, if you elect you we're going to do everything humanly possible to stop the train wreck, the disaster that is obamacare. and they said, number two, if you elect you if you give us a republican majority in the senate, we will stop president obama's illegal amnesty. all over the country, that's what republican candidates said, tndz i.t. the reason -- and i.t. the reason they told the american people p to elect a republican majority. no simple add did -- a simple

admonition to m my friends is very, very simple: do what you say. simply do what you said. virtually every republican on this side of the chamber told the men and women in his or her state, if you elect us, we will stop president obama's amnesty. we must do what we said because it is profoundly unfair. this amnesty is unfair to millions of legal immigrants who followed the rules, who waited years in line and yet see those who came illegally being rewarded, nonetheless, by the obama administration. this executive amnesty is profoundly unfair to the 92 million americans who are not working right now. to all the working men and women

who are struggling, struggling to just put food on the table, to feed their kids, this executive amnesty is profoundly unfair, especially to the african-american community which is facing historic unemployment. and if congress acquiesces, if congress does not stand up and assert the prerogative of this institution to legislate, to pass laws, if congress does not prevent the president from ignoring the laws on the books, then we will have ceded our authority not just on immigration but across the fie field. it is incumbent on all of us to defend the constitution and it is my hope that the senators who take an oath to uphold the

constitution will honor that oath more than party allegianc allegiances. i would note in recent weeks no fewer than a dozen democratic senators have publicly criticized president obama's illegal executive amnesty. i welcome that criticism. it is nice to see that sort of candor coming from democratic senators. but, you know, as my wife is fond of telling me, talk is cheap. if those dozen democratic senators that have criticized president obama's executive amnesty as illegal and unconstitutional mean what they say, then the only responsible action is to use our legislative authority to stop it. i would hope that my democratic colleagues would put partisan politics aside, even some who may agree with president obama's

amnesty would say, the way to change the immigration laws is to work with congress to compromise. you may not get everything you want but we have a system of checks and balances. you know, madam president, it's striking. in many ways, the simplest and best explanation of what the president has done came from "saturday night live." "saturday night live," the week after the president's illegal amnesty, reprised the classic schoolhouse rock, how a big becomes a law. and they had a giant dancing, singing bill coming out, saying, first i go to the house, then i go to the senate. if i'm lucky, the president will sign me and i become a law. and then on "saturday night live," president obama walked out on to the steps of the capitol and pushed the bill down the steps of the capitol. four separate bills he pushed thtimes he pushedthe bill down e

capitol. and four times walked out with an executive order smoking a cigarette, as it so happens. simply said, "i'm an executive order. i pretty much just happen." you know what? "saturday night live" is exactly right. the president is ignoring the basic checks and balances of our constitution and trying instead to decree the law. that is unconstitutional. and a portion of this bill that has been sent over from the house of representatives funds the department of homeland security to carry out that unconstitutional action. therefore, madam president, i am now offering and raising a constitutional point of order against division "l" of this bill on the grounds that it

violates the following provisions of the constitutio constitution -- the separation of powers embodied in the vesting clauses of article 1, section 1, and article 2, section 1. the enumerated powers of congress stated in article 1, section 8. and the requirement that the president take care that the laws be faithfully executed, as stated in article 2, section 3. it is incumbent on this body to resolve those constitutional questions and to honor and protect the constitutional authority of the united states congress. the presiding officer: is there the senator raising the point of order at this time? mr. cruz: i am. the presiding officer: at this time, a motion to refer is

pending barring other actions on the measure. mr. cruz: madam president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i appreciate everyone -- i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i appreciate everyone's patience. you've all been waiting. i ask unanimous consent at 5:00 p.m. monday, december 15, the senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment h.r. 83. that if cloture is invoked, there be 30 minutes postcloture debate remaining on the motion to concur. the presiding officer: there objection? mr. lee: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: reserving the right to object, the american people have grave concerns with the president's decision to take action unilaterally with regard to executive amnesty. this is an action that is rather unprecedented and rather unsupported by the law, notwithstanding the president's insistence to the contrary.

it's an issue that's of concern to a great many people. right now we're being asked to punt all of our activity until monday at 5:00 p.m. i don't see any reason to do this. i don't see any reason why the united states senate should suspend its operations while the american people are waiting for us to act. i don't see any reason why we should wait until monday at 5:00 p.m. i certainly don't see any reason why we should agree to move forward then and not have any assurance that we would at least have an opportunity to vote on an amendment that would impose a spending limitation on the president's ability to implement his executive amnesty action. and so i would respectfully request, if the majority leader would modify his request and if he would modify his request to

assure us that we would receive a vote on a spending limitation amendment that we could have in connection with the c.r. omnibus when we reconvene. mr. reid: -- the presiding officer: mr. leader? mr. reid: i am unable to do that. mr. lee: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. ii.u.d. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate complete by the business today it adjourn until 12:00 noon tomorrow, december 13. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following any leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of the motion to concur in the house amendmen amendment to thee amendment h.r. 83. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. so ordered. mr. reid: madam president, let me just say that i understand the sincerity of my friend infrastructure utah. -- the sincerity of my friend from utah. so my -- i'm unable to agree with him, but it doesn't take

away from the sincerity of his q mr. president -- madam president, for the information of all senators, roll call votes are expected throughout the day on saturday, and this is really the way it is going to be. it appears that we're going to have to have a series of votes all day tomorrow startin startis soon as we get here and perhaps into the morning. if there is no further business to come behalf the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. we have tried our very best to work something out to move forward with a consent agreement. we've spent all time and having unable to do that. there's been a number of mixed significansignals to my members. a all being notified that we have to be here this weekend. it is inconvenient foyer for a lot of people. we're going to have to rearrange our schedules for the weekend. the presiding officer: senate standson for

fiscal year 2015.

mr. president, every year we have a particular responsibility that was mandated by the constitution, which is that the congress of the united states shall pass an annual revenue bill to fund the government. the power of the purse was vested in the congress. it was not vested in the executive branch. our subcommittee on appropriation is a constitutionally mandated, mandated committee. and the reason for that is if one reads the federalist papers, it says that if -- if the leader of a country controls the purse, they tend to be kings, but if the executive branch has to share power with the legislative

branch controlling the purse, branch controlling the purse, has to share power with the legislative branch. you have checks and balances. it had been the hope of myself and my vice chairman, senator shelby, that we could follow something here called regular order. with the 12 subcommittees 12 subcommittees we would have brought up one bill at a time. for a variety of reasons, most of all partisan politics, deep partisan politics, we were not able to bring up 12 individual bills. i regret that and hope now as one party takes it over we listen to the message of the voters, and gridlock, and deadlock, and the partisanship that is

crippling our country. one way to do that is to return to regular order. i look forward to continually working with both sides of the aisle to do that. tonight we are where we are. we are we are bringing the consolidated bill to the senate floor which represents the work of so -- 12 subcommittees, labor, education, health, foreign operations, the state department, homeland security. i i could call their names, but we we will be looking at a trillion dollar expenditure, which is the discretionary funding of the united states of america. 550 billion of that is in defense. department of defense only.

the remaining amount is an domestic agencies which is considered also the state department. we need to pass this bill tonight so that we can show that there is no government shutdown. the funding for the government of the united states of america expires at midnight. we want to be sure that there is no government shutdown. we also don't want to be on a continuing resolution. a continuing resolution simply says, take what you have done in 2014 and 2014 and put it on autopilot. if we pass the continuing appropriations, appropriations, which we hope we do government will be able to show we exercise thought and set national priorities. i would hope that today we we will be able to do our

job. the house the house passed the bill on thursday night by a vote of 219 2206. we now we now take up that bill. it is remarkable in today's era of slam down politics that we working on this committee have been able to set aside our differences, work across the aisle to find a way to compromise without capitulation. the american people wanted to do that him and that is the job we have done. my wonderful colleague from maryland explained a good part of the bill. so mr. president, this

agreement provides for our national security. it ensures readiness for our troops, provides training for the troops so that our military assets, like our aircraft carriers and our soldiers received the training they need. military leaders say that readiness is our top priority. 162.5 billion for readiness, including important funds for the national guard and reserve so that our units are ready for the job we asked them to do and for our national guard we have included $200 million more. we also include a 1 percent pay raise, cost-of-living,, cost of living, for the defens