goals early childhood education, a grade k-12 school, affordable college might seem obvious and even unimaginative to many in this chamber but that might be because we take them for granted for our own children. of course we want high-quality early childhood education. of course we would want a high-quality k-12 school. of course we would want to have our young people have access to college without bankrupting our family and that's the experience of a lot of people in this chamber. the terrible reality for most poor children in america in 2015 is that these simple goals these simple goals are as out of reach as flying to the moon. all over this country. some say we can't afford to change and i say we can't afford not to. the cost of failure as we know

is simply too high. since the industrial revolution, we have had the greatest economy the world has ever known and if we are to remain so in the 21st century we must educate our people. we have no other choice. they are our greatest asset. and we can do it.we can do it. i'm not proposing today a new federal program of any kind. however, i will say that if it were left up to me we'd have a standing committee in the senate focused exclusively on our children and their future. such a committee would, for example, examine every funding stream in the federal budget related to kids and ask what's working, what's not working what redundancies exist and how -- how are we going to align every single taxpayer dollar or tax credit to support the health education and well-being of our children.

i suspect that in addition to increasing efficiency, we would decide to spend more of our resources in and around schools. that is where our kids are after all and that's where the people who serve them in our communities need to be. instead of tied up in the red tape of compliance and outdated and unmanageable federal rules and regulations. in addition to that, we need to explore more efficient ways to finance social welfare programs promote more creative ways to weave our social safety net in our country reform our criminal justicely is is. justice system. a good start would be to graduate our children from high school since about 80% of our prison inmates are high school dropouts. that would help a lot. and better engage with the private and nonprofit sectors when government isn't working well enough.

this is all part of a broader but essential conversation one that this body continues to avoid while it wanders from one phony conflict to the next. and one that becomes more difficult and more expensive the longer that we wait. our kids are waiting for us to have this conversation. we're wasting their time. it's one thing for us to waste our own time, although the capacity for doing that around here is beyond belief. but we also stop wasting our kids' time. and as i said, it's only going to become more difficult and more expensive the longer we wait. in the meantime, we have before us the potential to rewrite the elementary and secondary school act. fixing so-called no child left behind is only one piece of the puzzle and given where we are

this is all pretty modest stuff. but there are some very encouraging signs mr. president, although the law has plenty of flaws -- plenty of flaws -- in fact, i've said many times that if we had a rally out in front of the capitol to keep no child left behind the same, that that was what the rally was for, not a single person in america would show up for that rally. incidentally while we have this reauthorization in front of us, it is a reauthorization that should have happened seven years ago. that's when it expired. seven years ago. we are running education policy in this country by waivers from the department of education because this congress can't do its job! almost 40 of 50 states have waivers from the law as it exists today. let's change the law! let's write it properly! let's do our work around here!

instead of spending our time on things that the american people don't want to spend our time us. now, though everybody loves to hate no child left behind -- i put myself in that category -- it has some good things. it required us to face the facts about how our kids in poverty are doing in our schools. it shed light for the first time on the achievement gap -- the brutal achievement gap -- that we have in this country. and some school district stepped up. thethe denver public schools is one such district. over the last decade denver public schools has implemented a number of changes and has seen real results. i would be the first to say and my school board and my principals and my teachers and our kids would be the first to say we have not yet gotten to a place where you could say that the zip code you're born into

doesn't determine the education you're going to get but we're a lot closer in denver -- a lot closer there than we are in a lot of other cities in this country. we've seen some real results. almost 30% more students graduated and went to college last year than in 2005. that's not enough. that's not enough. we're not satisfied with that. but if you could say that about every single city in this country that we were graduating and sending to college 30% more students than we were in 2005, that might give us some hope for the future. that might suggest that some outcomes other than the ones we've been seeing were with the result of 9 out of 100 poor kids getting a college degree, isn't where we have to end up, it's not where we have to land. and i am here to tell you not as a united states senator but somebody who was a center intendent of denver -- superintendent of denver public

schools -- this is possible! it is possible to change these outcomes in urban districts and in rural districts for children that are unlucky enough to be born into poverty in the greatest nation on the planet. unlucky enough to be born poor want and not born rich. denver has recognized the importance of providing access to high-quality early childhood education and now an estimated 70% of denver's four-year-olds are enrolled in preschool. that wasn't true in 2005. we live in a state as the president knows that doesn't require or pay for five-year-olds to go to kindergarten. that's a shame! that is a shame! but because of changes we made in denver our five-year-olds go to kindergarten full day if thupt it,they want it, which most

of them do and 70% of the fourth graders in denver have had all early childhood education. not all delivered by the denver public schools but by other providers as well as the denver public schools. and this seems to be having an effect as kids who attend the denver preschool program track higher in school readiness. they know more about the alphabet. words and books. have a higher vocabulary and are able to comprehend basic math. and in kindergarten, first and second grade they show better literacy and math skills than their peers. the dropout rate in denver has decreased since 2005 by 60%. by 60%. incidentally the teen pregnancy rate has also fallen by 60%. denver public schools has gone from being the district with the

lowest rate the lowest rate of academic growth among major districts in the state to the highest for three straight years. three years in a row. i'm not taking responsibility for that. i'm here, not there. last year d.p.s. students from low-income families had stronger growth in math and writing than nonfree and reduced-lunch kids statewide. and denver's non free and reduced-lunch kids showed more growth than their state counterparts in math by nine points. this was once labeled the failing school district in our state. but because of the data that we have as a result of no child left behind, we can actually see what's happening which kids are growing, which kids are not; which schools are driving growth

among kids and which schools are not. you can look at a map of our city and find a school that looks just like your low-performing school and find a school just like it with the same percentage of free and reduced-lunch kids where kids are succeeding beyond their wildest dreams. and then what a parent can do is say "i want that school, not this school for my kid." and because we have a robust system of choice in denver parents are able to take advantage of that data. and we would not have had -- we simply wouldn't have had the proliferation of high-performing charter schools if it hadn't been for no child left behind. and in addition, denver's gone beyond that. we have 33 innovation schools where teachers and administrators have the flexibility to modernize their teaching practices and have more autonomy to make decisions at the school level to better meet the needs of individual students.

and it's not just denver mr. president. we've seen progress all across the country. not enough. not remotely enough. but we've seen progress, and we cannot go backwards. in the three decades prior to no child left behind being passed, 30 years -- 30 years -- the average nine-year-old's reading score on the national assessment of educational progress increased only four points. four points. four points in 30 years. is that acceptable? contrast that to the gains from 1990-2012 which is roughly the life of no child left behind. during that span, nine-year-olds gained nine points in reading about seven times as much annual progress. we've seen similar progress in math.

nine-year-olds only increased two points from 1990-199but9 but from 1999-2012, they gained 12 points. in that same span, african-american students improved by 15 points and latino students by 21. in the achievement gap shrunk as well. in reading the gap between white and african-american nine-year-old students dropped from 35 to 23 points. still too big but moving in the right direction. this represents progress as i have said. in the face of stiff competition worldwide, it is nowhere near enough. since 2000, we have dropped from second to 12th in the world in the production of college graduates. since the year 2000, we have dropped from second to 12th in the world in the production of college graduates. we need to write a bill that builds on our successes and turns us away from the failed practices of the past.

and we can't do that if we're constrained by the typical politics, the small politics of washington. we can't afford to have the same tired fights. we won't always agree on everything but i know we can find a way to pass a bill that helps our schools and school districts to make the decisions they think are best for the kids they are educating. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. we're under 10-minute time limitations. mr. bennet: i would ask unanimous consent for seven more minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. bennet: i appreciate the indulgence of my colleague from louisiana. thank you. in a significant demonstration of leadership around here, you stopped me right when i was about to praise people so here we go. in a significant demonstration of leadership around here chairman alexander and senator murray have told us they intend to write a bipartisan bill.

their process has the potential to be a rare exception to the gridlock that has gripped this senate. along with our bipartisan work on the farm bill and immigration immigration. senators alexander and murray have both expressed a willingness to work together because they appreciate the importance of this task. they understand the consequences of failure. they know enough about this issue. they care enough about the it. in january of 1941, during one of the nation's most difficult times the height of the great depression and on the eve of our entry into the second world war franklin roosevelt declared that there were four universal freedoms that all persons possessed. freedom of speech. the freedom of worship. the freedom from want. and the freedom from fear. today in the 21st century some of these freedoms may be obtainable but an honest assessment tells us that it would be impossible to achieve

all of them without something additional and that is freedom from ignorance. in the end freedom from ignorance is the surest relief from the shackles of poverty. so mr. president where does this leave us as we begin this important but long overdue national conversation on the reauthorization of the elementary and secondary school act? first, for all the reasons that i've mentioned america's children would benefit if we treated our work less as legislators than as parents and grandparents with a real stake in the outcome of what we decide. second we must be clear-eyed about the federal government's proper role in american education and what is not. as a superintendent i learned that there there are many things the federal government cannot and should not do when it comes to educating our children and above all else, washington cannot and should not micromanage our

schools or our school districts or cultivate systems driven by compliance rather than creativity. i believe the evidence of our failures and our successes over the last 15 years suggest three primary federal responsibilities -- equity, accountability and innovation. after all the deep and intractable ininequities that persist along the lines and race and class and geography in the 1960's drove lyndon johnson to pass the first elementary and secondary schools act creation of title 1 specific funds targeted to kids who needed the greatest support. sadly for all the reasons i said half a century later the data reveals these profound inequities persist and our students need our help now more than ever. but there's also reason for hope in this data, mr. president and maybe that's the most

important message i can bring. we have evidence that sustained support can make the difference in closing the pernicious gaps that remain for low-income kids around the country. our deep commitment to equity therefore is as important today as it was in 1963. this means not just committing title 1 resources but continuing to expand efforts to open the best schools and attract the best teachers and principals to our community in the greatest need. in particular we must help teachers who are saying they want better preparation an excellent principal in their school, they want a better compensation system and opportunities for leadership that allows them to continue working with students. at d.p.s. we've made strides created the denver teacher residency program and reduced differentiated pay. creating leadership roles for teachers who demonstrate results with their students, we survey our teachers every year and

their satisfaction rates are higher than the national average but still much more for us to do. second those of us working in the field know that we must have a clear shared system of accountability, a system that allows us to monitor understand and improve outcomes for students. this requires annual assessments that monitor progress and growth across all our cities and states. it requires breaking down data to show how and if we're closing the gaps for all students in our school districts and it means requiring states take action to turn around those schools that consistently fail our children. that is not just about paying attention to how we're serving our low-income students in detroit or denver. it means examining how well we serve our historically disadvantaged students even when they live in some of the most advantaged neighborhoods. as we do this, weaned to work would to reduce the amount of testing in our schools. as the father of three daughters in the denver public schools i'm

concerned about how much they're tested. but as their father i want to know every year how they are doing against a set of rigorous standards and compared to kids in denver across colorado, and around the world. will they be ready for college do they have the skills they need to succeed in this global economy. third, we've learned over the last decade that there is a vital federal role when it comes to innovation in our schools. week help -- provide incentives for educators on the ground to apply creative thinking to address our most persistent educational prisons problems. i say to my colleague from louisiana i am coming to the end and i owe him ten minutes whenever he'd like it. i thank him for his indulgence. we will never solve the challenges our teachers and students face from washington, period. we will not do it from here. but we can help local leaders

break agree free from a status quo that will never succeed for enough of america's children. we should should identify the challenges provide resources to educators to overcome them in the context that works best for their communities and their students and we should continue to be the clearinghouse that gathers these stories of successful innovation, provide the resources to invest in scaling what works and sharing these practices across communities and states. equity accountability, innovation. that is our charge and the commitment we must keep if we're to build an america where we treat every child as if she were our own. as a parent myself, i am well aware that the first responsibility any parent has is the education of her child. i'm also aware many people believe that a bad education is just one more outcome produced by corrosive poverty in this country fix poverty and you'll fix education. maybe so but that's cold comfort

for millions of children in our schools today. in the end we have a duty as a nation to ensure that education liberates our children rather than reinforces the circumstances into which they were born. in that sense, mr. president in that sense america's children are our children, our responsibility not someone else's. can you really accept an america in which your little girl has just a one in five chance of being able to read well or a nine in 100 chance to graduate from college? can you really demand heroism as a precondition for success if this were your child would you still be in the senate or would you go home and solve the problem? it's been said the future has no lobby in washington, d.c. are we really content to have that depressing observation be the ultimate verdict on our leadership? i doubt we are -- i doubt we are. so i raise this as a bipartisan challenge as i close and i know

the senator from louisiana knows a lot about what i came to talk about today i look forward to working with him on the help committee. so here's my bipartisan challenge. let's forge a lobby for the future. let's agree that the obligation we owe the founders is to create more opportunity, not less, for the children coming after us. let's pledge that every child in america is our child. and that our future wrests with her. as it most aissuedly does. -- assuredly does. i thank the president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. cassidy: i rise in support of the house-passed department of homeland security bill, a bill not about whether we should fund the department of homeland security but whether we will provide northwest to missouri here illegally.

first let's establish the constitution says that congress has authority over our immigration and naturalization laws. the president does not have the authority to waive legal requirements, the supreme court has upheld this on numerous occasions. the president has admitted more than 20 times that he does not have this authority. that said, now his suspension attempting to block the ruling of the judge recently -- the judge made in texas and protect his amnesty plan. as has been reported in the papers judge hainen in texas has put an injunction against proceeding with the president's amnesty bill. it's reported the department of homeland security at the president's direction is moving forward with plans to seal large contracts with companies to process deferred action be applications for millions of illegal immigrants as soon as possible. mr. president, american families have seen

president obama rewrite the laws many times and the outcomes of the recent elections show that they do not support president obama's executive overpreempt the president tends to grand -- intends grand amnesty to five million people not on a case-by-case basis as the law suggests it should be, it's going to be a rubber stamp at the expense of those who are legally attempting to come to our country and it will take longer for those attempting to come legally to gain admit answer under the law. i support those coming to the united states to make a better life for themselves and their family. we all believe in immigration. we just think immigration should be legal. the president's rewrite the hall law to allow illegal immigrants to have the ability to receive social security number. after a certain period of time they'll be eligible for social security. this goes far beyond his legal authority. by the way many of my

democratic colleagues have expressed concerns about the president's action whether or not he had the constitutional authority to take the action he has clearly he does not. while the president says his legal status is temporary the reality is once work permits have been issued, social security cards given folks will be allowed to stay. they will not be deemed a priority for removal. on top of that, temporary status may be renewed. in 2011 the president took executive action for the department of homeland security to start prioritizeing illegal immigrants for removal. in april 2014, several months before he took his most recent action the "los angeles times" reported former i.c.e. director john sandweg in an article if you're a run of the mill immigrant here illegally your odds are getting deported are close to zero. the associated press reported in 2014 that the department of

homeland security admitted to a group of immigrant advocates during a confidential meeting that about 70% of illegal immigrants traveling as families failed to report back to i.c.e. as owedded after they were released at the border. mr. president, a few weeks ago louisiana school administrators and i met. they expressed concern about how the president's immigration policies have stressed our school systems. classroom sizes have grown there are associated costs to hire more teachers, buy textbooks with required resources to educate these students all having grown. president obama's given executive amnesty to suit his agenda but is teaching limited local and state resources and by stretching them making it tougher on americans who were born here. again the administration says only -- only -- five million people will be impacted by the president's executive order. the reality is with numerous

options for illegal immigrants to remain in this country people will hear about it and they will attempt to come. this wig a magnet for others to come illegally. now, illegal behavior is being rewarded. yet if the president's supporters feel compelled to block the funding bill, it must be that they see how executive amnesty is legal regardless how the courts have ruled. they believe protecting the president's illegal action is more important than providing our men and women with the resources to protect our border. we must fund the department of homeland security. as i've said, many of my colleagues who express serious concern with the president's executive actions in november are now voting to protect these actions. it is unfortunate they have voted for times to prevent this bill the homeland security funding bill from coming up for debate. they won't even allow debate. folks say they want funding of

the homeland security department but won't allow debate. mr. president, this is unconscionable. i believe it's important we move forward to avoid a shutdown of the department of homeland security. i urge my colleagues to please stop blocking this important legislation that we must pass to protect our country and to give the men and women at homeland security the resources they need and most importantly to protect the constitution. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. president, i suggest there is an absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. carper: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: ware in a quorum call. is that correct? the presiding officer: yes. carbon monoxide. mr. carper: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: mr. president in three and a half days -- three and a half days -- the department of homeland security may well shut down.

i speak as the senior democrat on the committee on homeland security governmental affairs and for the last few years along with dr. tom coburn, a former colleague from oklahoma who chaired the committee that he and i led. but in three and a half days, three and a half days if congress fails to act responsibly 78 hours i think from right now the department of homeland security may shut down. i have spoken on the floor a number of times in recent weeks about the complex consistent, and very real threats that our country faces. we're familiar with a lot of them maybe not all. but over the past several months we've seen horrific images of beheadings of mass murders brutal executions at the hands of the islamic state. some of our nation's largest companies and federal agencies have been victims of massive cyber attacks. they continue to this day.

this weekend another terrorist group, the al qaeda-linked group in somalia called al-shabaab vowed that they would seek revenge against the united states and decided the mall of america in minnesota as a potential target. ans i.t. not just these-- --and it's not just these groups or the lone wolf terrorists that we need to worry about. ebola ravaged several nations in africa and even came to our shores as well. threats to communities in some parts of our country are trying to get through a winter that's already broken snowfall records and more records are likely to fall. yet today in the united states congress there are some who are questioning whether to even fund the very agency charged with keeping us safe from these and other evolving threats. that goes beyond being

irresponsible. the department of homeland security social security jeh johnson nailed it recently when he said what it was. here's what he said. he said, it's bizarre and absurd that we're even having this discussion. i could not agree more. is this really the message we want to be sending to all those folks across the world who wish us harm? god, i hope not. but here we are just days before this key agency could be forced to shut down, preparing for the worst. some of our colleagues have said that it isn't a big deal if the department shuts down. i could not disagree more strongly. and here's why. if we continue this behavior and fail to pass a clean department of homeland security funding bill by midnight on friday, this is what will happen at the department of homeland security: much of the department's workforce, up to 200,000 people,

will be expected to show up for work but work without pay. that includes border patrol agents who protect our borders that includes coast guard crews who patrol our waters, that includes t.s.a. employees who keep our skies safe and make it safe to fly on airplanes in and out of our airports. many of these courageous men and women put their lives in harm's way every day. we expect them to continue doing that. we just aren't going to pay them. that's right. we want you to keep doing your job of protecting our nation. eventually those in congress will get around to doing our job and when we do, you'll get paid. let me just ask you how would we like to be treated that way? how would we like to be treated that way? well we wouldn't.

i think it's shameful that we'd even contemplate treating some of our bravest federal employees like that. shameful. even worse treating our people like this doesn't make america any safer. in fact, it makes us less safe. even if we did avoid a shutdown but keep the department running on a stopgap continuing resolution we'd prevent the men and women from doing their jobs as efficiently and effectively as they could be, should be, and would like to be. as secretary johnson striebd it, putting the department on another continuing resolution is -- this is his words -- "is a little like trying to driving cross-country with no more than five gallons of gas in the tank at a time, and you don't know when the next gas station is." you can't plan, you can't plan except days and weeks at a time. for example if we pass another stopstandpoint continuing resolution the department won't be able to replace obsolete

surveillance technology along high-risk areas of our border. we need to replace. in addition, our nation will have slig fewer resources to respond to any future surges of unaccompanied minors alopping our southwest border. -- along our southwest border. we will put construction of badly needed national security cutter for the coast guard on hold. why does that matter? it matters because our coast guard fleet is aging and needs to be modernized. ships are essential to stopping illegal trafficking off our coasts like drug trafficking and human trafficking and illegal immigration. some of our vessels travel at speeds greater than 50 knots. that'sknots if that's not enough, try this: it's widely known that employee morale at the department of homeland security is the lowest of all major federal agencies. passing yet another continuing resolution i promise you won't make it any better.

quite the opposite. it will only get worse and in doing so threaten to degrade the performance of the people we rely on perhaps more than any other to keep americans safe. so let me say this again, this is not the way that we should be treating the public servants who in many cases risk their lives to keep our nation and all americans safe. it's no way to run a key national agency. furthermore, as we've learned over the years this kind of crisis budgeting costs taxpayers millions of dollars in lost productivity in hiring freezes in contracts that will have to be renegotiated, not at a lower cost to taxpayers at a higher cost. now, i understand why some of our colleagues are concerned about the policies and procedures set forth in the president's executive action on immigration. i get it. they have every right to express those concerns. but the department of homeland

security's budget is not the place to have that debate. the federal district court in south texasriesly examined what the president put forward and blocked its implementation. why can't we just let the judicial process play out and meanwhile do our job by funding the department of homeland security? for the balance of this fiscal year. some of our republican colleagues agree with this approach. one of our colleagues, lindsey graham said earlier this week, "i hope republicans will come together and back the court case file a friend of the court brief for the court and fund the department of homeland security." he added "i'm willing to pass a d.h.s. funding bill and let it play out in court. the worst possible outcome for this nation is to defund the department of homeland security, given the multiple threats we face to our homeland." our friend -- lindsey's friend

john mccain also said recently -- and these are his words not mine -- "it is not a good idea to shut down the department of homeland security. now we have the perfect reason to not shut it down because the courts have decided, at least initially, in our favor" -- our favor being that of the republican governors who filed the lawsuit in the south district texas court. mr. president, i want to urge my republican colleagues to go ahead and pursue this potential judicial remedy to address the concern that they have. while they're doing that, for god's sake, let's bring a clean fiscal year 2015 appropriations bill for the department of homeland security, the same bill the same bill that both democrats and republicans agreed to last december. let's bring it to the floor so we can give the department of funding and the certainty -- the department the funding and the certainty that it needs. regardless of what happens in the courts, mr. president, at the entdz of the day -- at the end of the day comprehensive

immigration reform is the only way we can fix our broken immigration system for the long term. it's the only way we can address the issues the president was trying to resolve in his executive action in a straightforward way as we did the last congress when we passed it by a big bipartisan vote, right here on this floorks 2-1 margin comprehensive immigration reform. we owe the american people an honest and thorough debate on immigration reform, but let's do it the right way. we did it a year and a half ago. let's do it again. and let's do it this year after approving a clean four-year funding bill for the department of homeland security. i might just add the comprehensive immigration reform that we passed here by a 2-1 margin a year and a half ago was priced out by the congressional budget office, which is not democrat or republican, and they looked at it, did all the numbers and everything, and they concluded that rather than increasing the budget deficit that comprehensive immigration

reform bill reduced the budget deficit for the next ten years by $200 billion. and, further for the second ten years, reduced our budget deficit by $700 billion. a different study further suggested that the impact on our nation's comirksnation's economy, on our gross domestic product by the implementation of that same comprehensive immigration rhea sun suh form, would not diminish diminish. mr. president, those of us who are privileged to serve in the senate were sent here by our constituents with a critical responsibility to work together and pass laws that help our nation and help our economy to grow and thrive. this debate or any other debate, for that matter, shouldn't be about one political party winning or losing, because right

now the only people who are losing are the constituents we're supposed to serve. and as long as we din continue to spend our time on these manufactured crisis, our constituents are going to continue to lose. and we as a congress i think lose as well. i believe american voters a midit clear in last fall's election. they're tired of all this kind of behavior. i don't blame them either. but it's simple. they want us to do our job. they want us to do our job. they want us to work together, across these aisles, they want us to get things done, that need to get done, they want us to find ways to strengthen economic -- could i ask unanimous consent for two additional minutes if i could, please. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: thanks very much. let me just note that i'm encouraged to know that majority

leader mcconnell seems to be moving toward alog a clean vote. i hope this ends the crisis for the department of homeland security and for our country. whatever we do it's critical that we consider and pass a clean department of homeland security funding bill first and at this point every hour that goes by without one creates more uncertainty and more waste. after we do that let's roll up our sleeves and let's get back to work on a thoughtful 21st century immigration reform bill, reform policy for our country. a policy that is fair, a policy that will significantly reduce our nation's budget deficit and a policy that will strengthen the economic recovery now under way. and i want to thank my friend from iowa for the kindness in allowing me to proceed for an extra few minutes. i yield the floor to him. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: many of my

colleagues know that i have been fighting for years to end the abuse of the h-1b visa program and help disadvantaged u.s. workers who are harmed by that program. so today i would like to draw my colleagues' attention to a recent incident that highlights how some employers are potentially using legal avenues to import foreign workers lay off qualified americans and then export jobs overseas. i was shocked by the heartless manner in which u.s. workers were injured in the case i am about to describe, but first i'd like to remind my colleagues about how the h-1b program is supposed to work. under the terms of the h-1b program, u.s. employers may import into the united states each year up to 65,000 so-called

specialty occupation workers. the jobs being filled must be a job for which a bachelor's degree is necessary even though the annual cap is 65,000, the actual number of foreign workers being imported is much more because of numerous exceptions and exemptions. in fiscal year 2012, for example, u.s. citizenship and immigration services approved a total of 262,569 h-1b petitions way above the legal limit of 65,000 -- or i should say the supposed limit of 65,000. about 60% of h-1b workers come to fill computer-related

occupations. every year, the list of the top ten h-1b employers is dominated by foreign-based companies offering information technology or i.t. consulting services to the clients. under the law h-1b employers are also required to, one pay the worker the greater of the prevailing wage for that job in that area or the wage that the employer pays to similar qualified u.s. workers doing the same job and at the same time, or number two condition provide working conditions that will not adversely affect other similarly employed u.s. workers. additionally the h-1b employers may not displace a u.s. worker within the period beginning 90

days before and ending 90 days after the date of filing any h-1b petition by that employer. now i would describe what the program lacks. most people believe that employers try to recruit americans before they petition for an h-1b worker, yet under the law not all employers are required to prove to the department of labor that they tried to find an american to fill the job first. that's right. american workers do not get the first chance at these jobs in the united states, and if there is an equally or even better qualified u.s. worker, the company does not have to offer him or her that job. i have pushed for changes in the legislation -- in that law. in fact, i offered several pro-u.s. worker amendments

during consideration of the immigration bill in 2013. every amendment i offered was defeated. the majority at that time, meaning the democrat majority -- and it was a bipartisan majority that helped defeat it -- they defeated these pro-american worker amendments. they pushed through s. 744 the 2013 immigration bill without this significant much-needed change. now let me describe to you the appalling instance referenced above. i know. i'm going to let him speak if you will just let me get to the right point. i would ask that i retain the floor while the majority leader speaks and i'd like to have my remarks not interrupted by what the majority leader says at this point. the presiding officer: is there

objection? mr. mcconnell: mr. president i thank my friend and colleague from iowa. i will be very brief and his remarks, as he indicated will not be interrupted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president i ask unanimous consent the foreign relations committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 65 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 65, supporting efforts to bring an end to violence perpetrated by boko haram and urging the government of nigeria to conduct transparent, peaceful and credible elections. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection the committee is discharged and the -- discharged. mr. mcconnell: i further ask the menendez objection to the resolution be agreed to. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i know of no further debate on this measure. the presiding officer: is there further debate? hearing none, all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it.

and they do have it. mr. mcconnell: i further ask that the menendez substitute amendment to the preamble be considered the rubio amendment to the menendez amendment to the preamble be considered and agreed to, the menendez substitute as amended be agreed to the preamble as amended be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: further mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the appointments at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president now i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. wednesday february 25,. following the prayer and pledge, the morning business 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 leader remarks the senate be in a period of morning business for up to one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the majority controlling the first half and the democrats controlling the

second half. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now mr. president, i ask if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of my colleague from iowa who graciously gave me an opportunity to do this close before he was finished with his remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: up to this point i described what the h-1b law was, how i have tried to in the last time we had an immigration debate tried to amend it and improved it, and i wasn't successful. i started my remarks tonight by talking about the abuse of h-1b, the law not being followed

overseas companies bringing workers in here for an american company to employ and then in turn these jobs were going to be shipped overseas. so now i want to describe this appalling incident that i referenced earlier and just now gave you a brief reminder of. last august, southern california edison started laying off 400 american workers from its i.t. department. the company replaced them with foreign h-1b workers. according to the company 100 additional american workers who will also be replaced by h-1b workers will leave supposedly voluntarily. according to computer world the final major batch of layoffs is

scheduled for march 6. the foreign workers who are replacing the american workers at edison are employees of two overseas-based i.t. consulting companies that are also two of the largest users of h-1b visas. in 2013, one of the two companies paid the largest immigration fine in u.s. history. that company paid $34 million in a civil settlement after allegations of systemic visa fraud and abuse. the jobs being filled by h-1b workers are manifestly not jobs for which americans are unavailable. i say that because the jobs are currently filled by skilled american workers. it's not only disturbing that

these american workers have been laid off but also that some of them have reportedly had to train their very own replacements. a columnist of "the los angeles times" writes that by laying off hundreds of its american i.t. staff and replacing them with the relatively low-wage foreign contract workers edison stands to save as much as 40% in wage costs per laid-off worker. one laid-off edison worker told the columnist that the company supervisors told a group of workers last year -- quote -- "we can get four indian guys far cheaper than the price of you." worse yet most of the 500 jobs that had been held by americans

will the eventually just move overseas. according to "the los angeles times," edison admits that eventually about 70% of the work will shift overseas and overseas permanently. edison describes the 400 layoffs as a transition. the word "transition" in quotes. to the foreign i.t. consultant companies that will -- quote -- "will lead to enhancements that will deliver faster tools and services that customers rely on." then it adds further -- quote -- "through outsourcing edison's information technology organization will adopt a proven business strategy commonly and

successfully used by top u.s. companies that edison benchmarks against." with respect to replacing american workers with h-1b workers, edison says that the company -- quote -- "is not hiring h-1b workers to replace displaced employees." edison's cynical defense is built upon a very shameless exploitation of a loophole in the h-1b law. that loophole says technically edison isn't the h-1b worker's employer. the two foreign consulting companies are that employer. the h-1b workers are just contracted out for extended

potentially multiyear periods from the foreign consulting companies to the american company, edison. thus edison argues that it is not subject to the requirements under the immigration laws that i spoke of earlier. they argue that because they are not the employer who petitioned directly for the h-1b workers they edison don't have to abide by the working condition requirements of the 90-day rule. the condemnation of this attack on american workers has been very quick and quite frankly bipartisan. on february the 10th over 300 members of the international brotherhood of electrical workers rallied in irvine, california in support of their fellow edison employees. several members of congress have expressed concern about this situation. on february 17 the economic

policy institute sent a letter to secretary of labor asking him to investigate the edison layoffs. specifically the institute asked the secretary of labor to determine whether edison the foreign consulting companyies, or any of the parties involved in these layoffs violated the requirements that the hiring of h-1b workers not -- quote -- "adversely affect the wages and working conditions of u.s. workers comparably employed." i echo the request of the economic policy institute. the prohibition on adversely affecting u.s. workers can reasonably be applied to situations such as in the edison case where the h-1b workers are contractors at a work site rather than employees.

i also draw your attention to a powerful february 16 "los angeles times" editorial entitled "ending h-1b visa program abuse." the "los angeles times" calls edison's actions -- quote -- "part of a year's-long trend among companies of misusing h-1b visas to undercut wages and offshore high-paying american jobs." "the los angeles times" concludes, then, that the h-1b program through though perhaps well-intentioned is broken and that congress needs to fix it. and, of course, i could not agree more, as evidenced by all the amendments that i offered in 2013 on the immigration bill.

this situation was with southern california edison is not new. it's happening time and time again. american workers are losing out because the law is not strong enough to protect them. so it needs to be fixed. any proposal to reform the h-1b program must include substantially increased protection for u.s. workers such as i have proposed many times in the past. these protections must, at a minimum, include the requirement that companies first recruit here at home before they import more foreign workers. we also need to reform the h-1b wage requirements so that u.s. workers' wages would no longer be undercut by h-1b workers'

wages. there also needs to be more oversight of the program including random audits of those who use the program tightening the law to ensure that u.s. workers have the first opportunity at paying high -- at high-paying, high-skilled jobs in this country is a no-brainer. yet, there is no much opposition to this philosophy that i just cannot believe the opposition. as i stated earlier the majority in the last congress -- and that happened to be a bipartisan majority -- pushed for changes to the h-1b program but voted against every single amendment that i offered to ensure that u.s. workers were given priority. and now there is a lot of fanfare and a lot of talk about

a high-skilled bill that has been reintroduced in the senate that would increase the annual number of h-1b visas. the sponsor of the bill -- i should say sponsors of the bill claim it will -- quote -- "boost our competitiveness in the global economy." this bill only makes the problems worse. it doesn't plug the loopholes. it doesn't make sure that american workers are put before foreign workers. it doesn't ensure that employers don't use the programs to pay cheaper wages which then, in turn disadvantages the u.s. workers. the h-1b program could be a very worthwhile program. according to the original intent, i obviously was supportive because we want workers to do the jobs that need

to be done in america. but it should first be people that are already here. our employment-based immigration programs have served and could again serve a valuable purpose if used properly. however, they're being misused and abused. they're failing the american worker. reforms are needed to put integrity back into the programs and to ensure that american workers and students are given every chance to fill vacant jobs in this country. so i'm putting my colleagues on notice, to know that i'm committed to this effort as chairman of the judiciary committee. i don't intend on allow legislation to move through this body without reforms to the h-1b program that protect american

workers. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.

[inaudible conversations] >> hello. good afternoon everyone. as all of you know i have put on the calendar last night what we call the collinsville, which

would if an active prevent the president's executive from last november from going into effect. procedurally a vote on that will occur friday. it would be cloture on the motion to proceed to that bill. in the meantime i have indicated to the democratic leader that i would be happy to have his cooperation to advance the consideration of a cleaned dhs bill which would carry us through until september 30. with democratic cooperation on a position they have been advocating for the last two months we could have that vote very quickly. but in any event we will have the vote on the collinsville on friday. without let me turn to senator cornyn.

>> so over the last week recess a very important decision was handed down by the federal court in brownsville texas ruling in a case brought by 26 states including texas claiming that the president's executive action was illegal. the court wrote a lengthy opinion in excess of 100 pages long and issued a temporary injunction barring implementation of the executive action. as you know, the administration now is seeking a stay of that at the federal district court and if they don't get it there which they want they will then go to the fifth circuit court of appeals in new orleans. but the most important point i think we need to acknowledge is that with this federal court injunction in place any money

that the united states congress appropriate for the department of homeland security will not go to fund the president illegal executive action because it's barred by a federal court injunction. subject to at contempt of court finding if that was attempted that is why the administration has stood down in seeking this stay. what we need to do this week as the majority leader has said we need to make sure the department of homeland security is funded. we will do that. we are going to have some important votes. we would have artegon it if it hadn't been for the filibusters on for occasion by her democratic colleagues but at the end of the day once we found the department of homeland security under the current temporary injunction that is an in place no money can be used to implement the president's illegal executive action. >> i know there's a lot going on this week but i wanted to draw your attention to something that maybe has flown a bit over the

radar. thursday morning the federal communications commission on a partisan line vote will vote out something that is called an order in support of net neutrality and the thing that concerns me about that is that this will be the first time that the fcc and 332 pages and of course this was not a transparent process for the internet is going to be subject to the heavy heavy-handed regulations opposed to the -- the life so far. i hope every 26 doesn't go down in history as a time when the internet moved from something that was driven by free-market innovation to something driven by bureaucratic decision-making. that is essentially what we are looking at. it's going to be a very partisan non-transparent way in which the fcc has carried out their business and there is a much better alternative. i've been working with my colleagues on the house side on a piece of legislation that is

only six pages long that prevents many of the things that the fcc says they want to prevent paid privatization blocking throttling explicitly present -- prevents those things but doesn't have and the fcc cart blanche authority to do whatever they want when it comes to the regulation of the internet. even if it survives in the courts it could be changed by a future fcc commission and so this a very bad precedent and one that doesn't have to happen. we told the president and the white house and we told the fcc we have told democrats on capitol hill that we want to work with them on a solution to this that addresses the concerns that people have and enough problems that could be out there but that doesn't cede to the fcc unlimited authority for them to do whatever they want him put at great risk and jeopardy something that has been an incredible success story for this country in the world and that is the internet.

>> today with strong support of the american people a bipartisan bill has been delivered to the president, the keystone xl pipeline. after six years of delay and obstruction the president is finally going to have to decide where he stands. does he stand with the american people, the great majority people who support this bipartisan bill in the energy and jobs that come with it or is he going to stand with special interests in washington lobbyists? the president likes to talk but it's really time for him to listen. he should listen to a state department to have said said this a safe and it provides jobs as well as energy to the american people. he should listen to american voters and people across the country who want the jobs and energy but the president does have his pen and by choosing to veto this piece of legislation he is choosing washington lobbyists and special-interest over their needs and desires of the american people. i will tell you the republican

party will continue in the house and the senate to put bipartisan bills on the president's desk to focus on energy, focus on jobs and help america move forward. >> and a potential of the house splitting the bill? >> our friends in the house have been saying it fits up to the senate and they are right because senate democrats have been preventing us from going forward on the dhs bill. my hope is that the senate will act. i don't know what the house will do but i do think we have a responsibility to act here. we have the solution to the problem that deals with both things. number one giving senators an opportunity to express their disapproval of what the president did in november and some democrats as you know have announced they agree with me on that and the other gives senate

democrats an opportunity to have what they have been saying for two months they wanted which was to fund the department of homeland security through the end of the year. i don't know what is not to like about this. this is an approach that respects both points of view and give senators an opportunity to go on record on both funding the department of homeland security and expressing their opposition to what the president did last november. >> i would be happy to do that. that will depend on some level of cooperation from the democrats in going forward to pass what they have set said for two months they wanted to pass. so you might ask them whether they intend to prevent us from achieving passage very quickly and before friday of a bill they

have been saying that they wanted for the last two months. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> i am not sure what your question is what i think the issue before us is this. do you want to fund the department of homeland security through the end of the fiscal year so we are fully up and running and capable of dealing with all the threats we have around the world including those against us here at home and would you also like to express your disagreement with the president's overreach last november? this gives us an opportunity to

do both. to give senators an opportunity to have said they are in favor of funding for homeland security bill to fund it and it give senators who have said they object to what the president did last november the opportunity to express their objection and as i said earlier i know there are number of democrats who have said publicly some type of the bill on the calendar last night that they agree with me. they appreciate the opportunity to go on record and we'll have that opportunity on friday. thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> i had a pleasant meeting with senator mcconnell this morning. he has announced to his caucus that he is willing to have an up-or-down vote on dhs full funding and some kind of a boat on collins. the problem is everybody i'm waiting to hear from the speaker speaker. you know we have to make sure that people understand the bicameral nature of this congress that we serve in. so to have senator mcconnell just pass the ball over to the house isn't going to do the

trick. i'm waiting to hear from the speaker. he has indicated to me and through his staff and he will be in touch sometime soon and until that time comes i think we are where we were and that is we are willing to debate anything they want dealing with immigration after we fund homeland security. this is extremely important. we talked about it today on many different occasions. we need to protect our homeland. we have people being people being stacked in cages. one of them has been burned in a cage. we have a direct threat to our malls around america and we have to be as prepared for these bad people as isis is prepared and these other terrorist groups to do harm to us. senator durbin. >> it's hard to believe we are talking about another government

shutdown. think about that. in less than four days the prospects of shutting down the one agency that is supposed to keep america safe. how did this new republican majority reaches this point? frankly they forgot the obvious. first defend america. protect america pass the homeland security bill. second is within their power to call anything they wish for us to consider next. if it's immigration, so be it by their first responsibility is to protect this country and to protect against the threat of terrorism to the department of homeland security can do that only if it's fully funded. why they decided to choose this department as the whipping boy when it came to this whole immigration debate is beyond me but now we know how dangerous this strategy is to the security of this country. if we are going to avoid a government shutdown on the department of homeland security winning a commitment from speaker boehner that we have a bipartisan bicameral approach to end this deadlock.

>> our position stays the same. we are happy to debate any immigration bill that senator mcconnell wants when there is full funding of homeland security. as any 4th-grader in his civics class can tell you it takes two houses to fully fund the department as well as the president's signature so where is the house? where is speaker speaker boehner? is he willing to fully fund homeland security or will he stick to a position of code no we are going to hold my homeland security hostage unless we get her way on immigration. so now all eyes are on speaker boehner. will he fully fund homeland security in a separate bill send it to the president for signature in both houses can debate immigration as long as the majority in each house wants to or is he going to go back to his old way and say i will do this better be the thing that i won't fully fund homeland security. without speaker boehner saying

that he will fully fund homeland security senator mcconnell's offer does not get the department funding and we need the department funded. we don't need a bill. we need money to go to our police, our firefighters and the people protecting us especially during these times when security is at risk. >> a year year and a half ago the republicans shut the government down. the entire government down because they were holding the funding bills hostage to a political issue. they found out how that works for them not well. we need to do today what we did last time fund the government only this time it is a critical agency that protects every single american that they are holding hostage to a political issue. we are willing to debate political issues that we are not going to hold funding bills hostage to those issues like we did last time or this time were in the future. the issue is very simple.

fully fund the department of homeland security and now it's up to speaker boehner to make sure that he does just what he did a year and a half ago, fund the department of homeland security. >> if the speaker says he can get the votes he will let the senate get on -- >> let's be very clear, we want to make sure as we have and there was a consent agreement on the floor. they rejected it. the president signed a bill and we will come back and start debating immigration in 10 minutes if they want so the answer to your question is yes. he says he will agree to full funding, we will be happy to debate anything he wants to with immigration. [inaudible]

[inaudible] >> unless the speaker is in on the proposal of course we have to make sure we get a bill to the president. not that we send a hot potato to boehner. that doesn't do the trick. [inaudible] we are being very hypothetical here. we have said for four weeks now we must fund homeland security. we can't do it alone. it's a bicameral legislature. in less boehner is on the dealer won't happen. >> but would you like to see in the dhs bill? >> is speaker boehner says that is what he will do i will take his word for it. >> is your band is gone now now and is this a sign you are getting better?

>> we are working on my beauty here. i have got these on and tomorrow we are going to try some other things. i can see out of my right eye, just not very well. it has not healed and i have to be patient patient so i appreciate your interest but it's the best i can do. [inaudible] >> what project? he said what? you are making things up. what the judge in texas has said is the administrative procedure to that was not passed. he never ever said that anything the president did was unconstitutional. i'm sorry, what? [inaudible] i don't know what is popular. i just know the right thing to do in my mind in the right thing to do is to make sure that we

don't run up another on the collins amendment it increases the debt by $7.5 billion. we want to continue moving forward improving the economy of this country. [inaudible] >> we are going to do a lot of he says they say who says people in speaker boehner wants to talk to me i will talk to him and with his permission i will share his conversation with everybody here. until then we are where we are. we need homeland security fully funded. remember we are a matter of hours away from not being totally shut down. unless there is an agreement there is no way we can get that done by saturday at noon. there is no way. procedurally there's no way can get done unless there's an agreement to get it done. and we are waiting to hear from the speaker to make sure the government security protecting

our homeland is funded period. >> thank you. >> mr. president as my colleagues know for weeks now senate democrats have repeatedly blocked the united states senate from even considering a $40 billion funding bill for the department of homeland security that would extend through the end of this fiscal year to the end of september. they have done it not once, not twice, not three times but four times. four times they have filibustered this department of homeland security funding bill that would pay the salaries of the men and women who protect our ports, our airports and our border.

meanwhile our friends across the aisle are telling the american people no it's not us that is blocking this funding. it's the republicans. i beg to differ. the house of representatives has actually passed a homeland security appropriation bill the bill that we have tried to get on four different times and the democrats don't seem satisfied with the ability to offer amendments to change it or modify it in any way that they can't command the 60 votes to do. their attitude is we are not even going to consider it unless we get everything we want right up front. well i guess i can kind of understand why they are of that frame of mind because over the last few years the united states senate has become completely dysfunctional where under the

previous majority leader there wasn't any opportunity to offer amendments and get votes on those amendments on legislation. it was either my way or the highway proposition. but what i'm saying in another word says that the senate was broken. after years of running the senate as an incumbent protection program voting on only poll tested messages and blocking amendments, the american people said last november that enough is enough. no more dysfunction. let's have a senate and a congress that represent our interests, not the interests of protecting incumbents against taking tough votes. so i think our colleagues who had blocked consideration of this funding amendment should be frankly ashamed of themselves. it doesn't seem like they have gotten the message.

the senior senator from new york, my friend senator schumer a member of leadership, told the hopping pose -- "huffington post" recently that quote it's really fun to be the minority. i guess he means by that it's fun to block homeland security appropriations bills not once, not twice, not three times but four separate times. filibustering this critical funding for the men and women who protect us every day is not my idea of fun nor is it i suspect for the thousands of men and women who work in the department of homeland security from the coast guard to the border patrol to all of the people that work day in and day out to try to help keep us safe in the homeland. when given the opportunity for times over the last few weeks to fully fund the department of homeland security while rolling

back the president's unconstitutional executive action for times senate democrats have taken the low road and continued to obstruct. now we have pointed out over the last several weeks the tough talk that came from some senate democrats last fall when the president issued his executive action on immigration. .. on people running for the senate, he went ahead and did it anyway. as i've noted before, some of our colleagues on the other side expressed their concerns at the time. some said it made them feel uncomfortable, and some said i wish he wouldn't do it. well no kidding.

when the president usurps the authority given under the constitution to the legislative branch of government and seeks to arrogate to himself the power to unilaterally change the law they should feel uncomfortable. one one >> >> have come down to the floor and voted in lockstep in effect to reaffirm the president's actions now justifying the votes we hear the common refrain we don't necessarily agree with the president's executive actions but the appropriation bill is not the proper vehicle to address them. that is what they said time and time again. so now we have a simple and

straightforward message to those that were so concerned and uncomfortable. we should a president had it got around congress on immigration we're here to say here is your chance. the senate will take up the bill that will address the executive actions from last november. the majority leader made clear that this bill is not tied to the department of all land security funding and under the regular rules of the senate the process he said an order last night will come to fruition on friday and that will be the time for all colleagues on this side of the aisle those expressed disapproval of the executive action for the bill that expresses that disapproval.

my strong preference would be to pass the house bill that has been filibustered four separate times by democratic friends while rating in the president's overreach. but the democrats have refused on four different occasions to allow it to come to the floor with the excuse it is tied to the department of homeland security funding we will give them an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is horsey if they can take yes for an answer. and for all occasions my colleague said they were uncomfortable with the president's actions with the 22 times the presidents themselves said he did not have the authority to issue this executive action, we now know during the recess from last week that a federal judge in texas has

given us one more reason. one week ago u.s. district judge from brownsville texas ruled in a lawsuit brought by 26 different states that what the president did was illegal. and issued a temporary injunction blocking implementation of the president's executive action. if that were the end of it any amount of money appropriated could not legally be used to fund the president's executive action because there is an injunction and place issued by the federal court to say you cannot do it and indeed the administration has acknowledged that they have stood down but now they have come back to ask for a stay that if they don't get that they will go to the fifth circuit court of appeals to

ask the appellate court tuesday the temporary injunction. there really reinforces what i and others have been saying for a long time now that the president acted outside of the law when he went around congress unilaterally change the nation's immigration laws. but the ruling gets to a broader issue in there is one part i found important that writing this opinion to explain his ruling you looked at the obamacare administration's case to a mention how you take their argument to apply it across the board it is easy to overlook an overreach by the president if you agree with what he accomplished that is

to give legal status to 5 million people if you think that is the good idea you will turn a blind eye to the way the president did it. with the courts established the precedent that this president or any future president republican or democrat can pick and choose which losses to enforce, what could end up happening? it doesn't take imagination. the judge writes with a laugh every sources which is the argument made by the is administration would be an acceptable reason to cease to enforce environmental laws of the voting rights act or various laws that protect civil rights and equal opportunity. that is what the judge said in his opinion repudiating

the argument made by the administration that the president had this authority to talk about the dangerous precedent it would set with accepted by the courts as legal. i am sure i am not the only one who would hate to see our country go down that wallace pass but they don't make a difference is just the preference of whoever is president that determines the direction the country should take. that is a dangerous path completely inconsistent with who we are with a country that believes in the rule of law. so now the actions have been settled in the court of public opinion and ruled upon by a court of law my friends from the other side of the child need to take notes because they have the clear choice to give excuses why they filibuster the

$40 billion home and security appropriation bill or put their money where their mouth is and vote to stop the executive action separate and apart from any issue of funding of the department of homeland security forgot the end of the day the senate will make sure those the protect our borders and our ports and skies get paid. because that is the responsible thing to do. but senate democrats that are so concerned and uncomfortable with what the president did last fall are out of excuses and will have a chance to vote on the colins amendment on friday or another time mutually agreed upon. i yield the floor.

>> mr. president i listened carefully to the remarks of my friend and colleague from texas and if we have a moment did he would join me to take a sharp left outside the door to stop at the staircase and look up you will see an amazing portrait that has been copied and referred to over and over a painting that shows president abraham lincoln signing the "emancipation proclamation" in the midst of a civil war surrounded by his cabinet. this freed 3 million slaves in america from involuntary servitude. 3 million the president signing a bill passed by congress? no. an executive order. this same type used by president obamacare to address immigration.

okay senator you found one moment in history but let's fast-forward. the late 1940's with president harry truman after world war ii decided to finally end racial discrimination in the ranks of military. how? by signing a law passed by congress? no. an executive order ending the discrimination of segregation taking place with military. i don't argue that presidents could 60 -- exceed their constitutional powers but to argue those that have been used after president after president are apparently caught - - unconstitutional is not accurate. of the immigration system is broken terribly to the point we may have twelver 30 million undocumented

people in this country but the borders are stronger now than they have never bend to still have to be fortified so that we don't have the unnecessary migration into the united states with the legal status. there are so many things we have to do to break this system -- fix this system. democrats and republicans came together and we sat down and wrote a comprehensive immigration reform bill. we brought this before the united states senate and it passed off the floor with 68 positive votes with democrats joining the republicans supported by a the chamber of commerce coming afl-cio and the liberals across america. pretty good work for congress that is blamed to be obstructionist. passed with 68 votes goes to

the house were in the anguished for almost two years never been called to a vote. never. at that point the president stepped forward and said i have to do something to do with the problems of illegal immigration. said he proposed to things. if you are the parent of a child that is a u.s. citizen or a of legal resident alien you can come forward to pay $500 as of p.m. subject yourself to a criminal background check and if you clear it then we will give you a temporary work permit we want to know who you are and where you live that is what the president proposed and that is what they want

to stop some continue that current situation with those working with background checks or within the registration to this government. that is what they want to end. to set of the process with the republicans had a chance to pass a comprehensive bill and they refused so he tries to make sense of a broken immigration system for those to achieve that the last point to one to make is one of the most heartless things i have seen in my time in the house is the effort by the republicans to end daca that is what the president gave to dreamers, children brought to america, infants or toddlers brought by the parent saying corrupt in

america have no serious criminal issues in their background but simply want the chance to be part of america's future. the executive order gives them that chance and republicans want to eliminate that order. if they take the time to meet these young people to realize what a waste it would be of great skill and talent and love of america. i will close to say we are a nation of immigrants our diversity is our strength those who are willing to risk everything to come to this country to be part of the great american experiment have an opportunity for the next generation to have a chance for the better life is what defines us and is who we are. the son of an immigrant mother who was brought here the age of two was the first

dreamer in my house and raised a son to serve in the united states senate. that is my story, my family's story in america is story it is time to fund the department of homeland security to have an honest debate on immigration policy consistent with american values. i yield the floor. >> mr. president thinking thus senator for his passionate remarks that ring true to all of us and saying camphor all his work on the tree and act to make sure people who are raised here have the opportunities all of us do. thank you. as the countdown the final days of what to take the few minutes of how we got to the point because we have been down this road before and it

is the manufactured crisis no different than others we have faced in the congress because what is happening right now is not a debate over government spending policies and priorities it is not a debate over how the department of homeland security should function or the national security. pure and simple a political fight republicans are having with them solves across the chambers of the capital. , and isn't the case for every republican here in the senate and some has said clearly we can fund the department without any strings attached. but the fact remains that some of our making it clear they're willing to hold hostage the basic operation of our government over right-wing politics and nothing else.

in the process may seem complicated but it is very simple. democrats with national security experts experts, law-enforcement experts, a state and local officials and three former secretaries of komen security including two republicans want to do nothing more than funds the department of homeland security cleanly. no strings or political amendments attached. but mr president there so a greek about the president's actions, some are demanding to pass the bill that will tear apart family is to put security at risk can seriously threaten all of the work we have done recently including the budget agreement i reached with congressman paul ryan to keep the government functioning.

the bill passed would be devastating to families across the country to make day-to-day operations needlessly difficult. for example, the tsa agents that keep airports safe would be forced to be work without pay. these men and women should not worry about doing their job and not whether if they can pay their bills are put food on the table. but because of the political pressure that is what leaders are demanding this shutdown of department of homeland security has become of nothing more than collateral damage. the national impact of not funding the department of homeland security has been distressed -- discussed for

weeks now. but it comes down to the individual fire departments and local communities. right know-how -- right now one hour north of seattle they are applying for assistance that is funded through the department of homeland security. a very rural fire district of one paid employee belong with of volunteer force of 16 and volunteer e and t force of six. they have applied for $24,000 grant to replace the heavily used and outdated equipment from boots and helmets to gloves and fire hood's letter over 11 years old. i have been working with them to get that equipment that protects the volunteers to put their lives on the line to save others.

if congress does not fund this in their risk and that is unacceptable and it is proof this mess is not a high both bon dash hypothetical but will have a real impact in every community across the country. my colleagues will not give in to let us play politics with the department of homeland security. i am encouraged the majority leader has said they're willing to bring up the clean appropriations bill to the floor and we need the same commitment from the speaker of the house. time is running now the country is waiting we need to fund homeland's security. thank you. i yield the floor. >> what goes through the events of the day and worth

things stand this evening. >> the majority leader mcconnell has offered did deal to do democrats and will vote on the bill funding the department of homeland's security for the month of september if democrats will allow a quick vote if he makes this announcement with the change in the way things are going to the shutdown and then harry reid comes out to say no deal of less jon peters says he will pass the same bill. we are still had a stalemate with a little bit of movement but we don't have the sense of the appetite so right now there is no resolution to the stalemate that has been a sore big energy for more than a month. >> is say quintessential issue as it goes back and forth with both parties said in a house has said they

have already done their work with the president's policy to the funding bill and mcconnell is trying to find a way out and is very adamant there will not be as shutdown said he is working actively to find the way. i am not sure rehab the great sense this is encouraging. >> the house republicans are more of the conservative group and want to take off hardline on this. to override the president's actions projector the the 2014 sheltering of millions of immigrants from deportation and they were able to pass the bill. the senate could not for

those so they are more reticent to do a clean bill like mcconnell said he would do because they want to take this to the break -- to the brink but the calculuses to show he to be a good steward new york he is holding to the democrats to acquiesce for a clean bill end this is something they have been asking for four weeks. give us the clean bills now they have it but they will bon vote for it. >> if you had to guess who will blink? >> we have not discussed the other option which would-be short-term funding that would be everybody blinking

but only partially and i think that is the most likely option right now. >> something did dhs secretary says he does not want. >> nobody does but it is slightly better than a shutdown of the sun makes the argument if the funding lapses over the weekend said republicans will emerge stronger pricey now indications of an touche support that idea but there are many conservatives that believe that is the case. >> and "politico".com. dray is from capitol hill thank you for your time mr. everett.

>> with the opening of the suez canal ships most had the blow with that opening they had a shorter route to the far east to india but the sailing ships a to make their own living so they started to carry a lower value cargo like cotton or whale so she found her niche to carry any cargo that does not require getting to market at a fast pace. the connection to go listed is unique that she sailed and arrived here about 100 yards from where we're standing right now 1883 with a cargo full of bananas then

came later and it was important to find a day vessel the had a connection and the fact she was a sailing vessel was even more important.

>> we're going to do get started. if you have a cell phone please turn it off for putting on to vibrate. good morning welcome to the president's task force on 21st century policing. today we have a distinguished and final panel all bills were outstanding but we save the best for last there will be the to the cochairs to explain the purpose of the panel and the thought process while we will close it out this way. and as you know, december 1st 2014 president obama announced his intent to create a president's task force with 21st century policing to deal with the issue of trust

between police and many communities in the task force will be led by two distinguished cochairs was also a former assistant attorney general and to her left charros ramsey not only the philadelphia police commissioner but the police chief of washington d.c.. but to put this together to ask them to come up with concrete recommendations. . .