illegal immigrants who like kate steinle's killer, are deported but illegally reenter the country which is a felon knee. this class of illegal aliens has a special disregard and disdain for our nation's law, and too often these offenders also have serious rap sheets. in 2012, just over a quarter of the illegal aliens apprehended by border control had prior deportation orders. that's an astounding 99,420 illegal aliens. and of the illegal reentry owe offenders who are actually prosecuted in fiscal year 2014, that's just 16,556 offenders, but a fraction of those who committed a felony.

the majority of those who were prosecuted had extensive or recent criminal histories, and many were dangerous criminals. but even though the majority of offenders had serious criminal records, the average prison sentence was just 17 months, down from an average of 22 months in 2008. in fact, more than a quarter of illegal reentry offenders received a sentence below the guidelines range because the government sponsored the low sentence. because we are failing to adequately deter illegal aliens who have already been deported from illegally reentering the country, i introduced kate's law in the senate. and you'd like to thank senators vitter and grassley for working with me to incorporate kate's

law, elements that have law into this bill. i also want to recognize and thank all of the original cosponsors who joined me in this bill, senators barrasso, cornyn, isakson, sullivan and toomey, and purdue. now, because of this bill, any illegal alien who illegally reenters the united states and has a prior aggravated felony conviction or two prior illegal reentry convictions will face a mandatory sentence of five years in prison. we must send the message that defiance of of our laws will no longer be tolerated. whether it is by the sanctuary cities themselves or by the illegal reentry offenders that they harbor. the problem of illegal immigration in this country will

never be solved until we demonstrate to the american people that we are serious about securing the border and enforcing our immigration laws, until we have a president willing to and in fact committed to actually enforcing the laws and securing the borders. this bill is just a small step, but at least it is a step in the right direction. and yet, mr. president, there will be two consequences from the vote this afternoon. the first, it will be an opportunity for our friends on the democratic side of the aisle to declare to the country on whose side they stand. more than a few democratic senators when they are campaigning for reelection tell the voters they support securing the borders. more than a few democratic senators tell the voters, of course, we shouldn't be

releasing criminal illegal aliens. more than a few democratic senators claim to have no responsibility for the 104,000 criminal illegal aliens released by the obama administration in the year 2013. these senators claim to have no responsibility for the murderer of kate steinle invited to san francisco by that city's sanctuary city policy. well, this vote today will be a moment of clarity. no democratic senator will be able to go and tell his or her constituents, i oppose sanctuary cities, i support securing the borders, if they vote today in favor of sending federal taxpayer funds to subsidize the lawlessness of sanctuary cities. you know, when the senate judiciary committee heard testimony from families who had

lost loved ones to violent criminal illegal aliens, one after the other after the other, children sexually abused and murders by violent illegal aliens, family members who've lost loved ones to drunk drivers, illegally in this country. at the time, i asked the senior obama administration official for immigration enforcement how she would look in the eyes of those family members and justify releasing murderers and rapists and drug drivers over and over and over again. indeed, at that hearing, i asked the obama administration head of immigration enforcement, how many murderers did the obama administration release this week? her answer: i don't know. i asked her, how many rapists

did the obama administration release this week? her answer: i don't know. how many drunk drivers? i don't know. none of us should be satisfied with that answer. with a president and an administration that refuses to enforce the laws that is willfully and repeatedly releasing violent criminal illegal aliens into our communities and endangering the lives of our families and our children. and for every democratic senator this vote today is a simple decision, with whom do you stand? do you stand with the violent criminal illegal aliens who are being released over and over again because, mind you, a vote "no" is to say the next time, the next murderer like kate

steinle's murderer comes in, we shouldn't have a mandatory five-year prison sentence, instead we should continue sanctuary cities that welcome and embrace them, until perhaps it is our family members that lose their lives. it is my hope that in this moment of clarity the democratic members of this body will decide that they stand with the american people and not with the violent criminal illegal aliens. and i.t. wort it's worth notinge way, the standard rhetorical device that so many democratic senators use to say that not all illegal aiillegal immigrants are criminals. of course they are not. we are a nation of immigrants, of men and women fleeing oppression and coming to seek freedom. but this bill doesn't deal with all immigrants.

it deals with one specific subset of immigrants: criminal illegal aliens. those who come to this country illegally and also have additional criminal convictions, whether homicide, whether sexual assault, whether kidnapping or battery or drunk driving. if it is the democrats' position for partisan reasons that they would rather stand with violent criminal illegal aliens, that is a sad testament on where one of the two major political parties in this country stands today. and i suspect the voters who elected them would be more than a little surprised at how that jives with the rhetoric they use on the campaign trail. if, as many observers predict,

democratic senators choose to value partisan loyalty to the obama white house over protecting the lives of the children who will be murdered by violent criminal illegal aliens in sanctuary cities if this body does not act, if they value partisan loyalty over that, and if they vote on a party-line vote, as many observers have predicted, that will provide a moment of clarity. but i will also suggest, it will underscore the need for republican leadership to bring this issue up again, not in the context where democrats can blithely block it, obstructing any meaningful reforms to protect our safety, to security the border, to enforce the law, to stop violent criminal illegal aliens from threatening our

safety but, rather, for republican leadership to bring it up in the context of a must-pass bill. to bring it up and attach it to legislation that will actually pass in law. i'm very glad we are voting on this this week. it is one of the few things in the last ten months we have voted on that actually responds to the concerns of the men and women who elected us. so i salute leadership for bringing up this vote, but if a party-line vote blocks it, then the next step is not simply to have a vote. the next step is to attach this legislation to must-pass legislation and to actually fix the problem. you know, mr. president, leadership loves to speak of what they call governing. and in washington governing is always set at least an octave lower. governing. well, when it comes to stopping sanctuary cities and protecting

our safety, we need some governing. we need to actually fix the problem rather than a show vote. so my first entreaty is to our democratic friends across the aisle, regardless of air' arease we different on partisan politics, this should be an easy vote. do you stand with the men and women of your state or do you stand with violent criminal illegal aliens? we will find out in just a couple of hours. but my second entreaty is to republican leadership that if democrats are partisans first rather than protecting the men and women they represent, that it is up to republican leadership to attach this to a must-pass bill, to actually pass it into law and solve the problem, not to talk about it but to do it. it is my hope that's what all of us do together. i yield the floor.

mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i rise today to speak out against a bill that is misguiding, a bill that stands against everything that america represents, a bill that suggests this it will protect americans when in fact it will protect americans less. now, from our founding, our principles have been guided by core values of equality and fairness, freedom and politics. and in turn we have honored the many, many ways that immigrants have contributed to this country since its inception. yet the other side of the aisle is once again engaged in a stubborn, relentless and shameful assault against immigrants. as a son of immigrants myself, i.t. hard not to take -- it's hard not to take offense at the anti-immigrant rhetoric we're

hearing from their presidential candidates. it is unacceptable, deplorable and should be renounced by every american. we are witnessing the most ove overtly xeno februaryic campaign in modern u.s. history. we've hit a new low with the extraordinarily hateful rhetoric that diminishes immigrants' contributions to american history and particularly demonizes the latino community by labeling mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals. the republican leading in the polls actually launched his presidential candidacy by attacking immigrants saying, "they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists." please! please, spare me. senseless and false. yet some of my senate colleagues have decided to jump on the fearmongering bandwagon seeking to blindly send millions of hardworking, law-abiding immigrant families as criminals and rapists.

that's really why we are here today because that anti-immigrant rhetoric has made its way to the senate floor, courtesy of donald trump, and some republicans eager to capitalize on this rhetoric for their own political gain. this is nothing more than an offensive anti-immigrant bill, another effort to demonize those who risked everything for a better life for themselves and their children, those who left with no choice but to flee persecution and violence or else face a certain death. that's what we are debating here today. those are the individuals this legislation seeks to brand as criminal. this bill does nothing more than instigate fear and divide our nation. now, supporters of this bill may say that it is in response to tragedy like what happened in san francisco and what happened in san francisco was a tragedy. but such tragedies will not be

prevented by this legislation, but real immigration reform. i'm happy to have that real debate, an honest and compassionate debate, a debate the country deserves. but that's not what's happening in this bill. the title of the bill asserts that it will protect americans. well, to be clear, this bill will not protect americans because it second-guesses decisions made by local law enforcement around the country about how to best police their own communities and ensure public safety. what's worse, this bill mandates local law enforcement to take on federal immigration enforcement duties by threatening to strip away funding from as many as 300 local jurisdictions from programs like the community development block grant, community oriented policing services, state criminal aliens assistance program, programs that directly help our towns and communities. the cdbg program grows local economies, improves the quality

of life for families. it has assisted hundreds of millions of people with low and moderate income, stabilized neighborhoods, provided affordable housing, improved the safety and quality of life of american citizens. the cops on the beat grant funds salaries and benefits for police officers who serve us every day by keeping our communities safe. and they deserve better than being dragged into partisan politics. now, my colleague from louisiana seeks to strip funding from localities that undertake the balancing of public safety consideration and refuse to act as immigration and customs enforcement agents, but this bill goes even further than that. the bill doesn't contend with taking discretion away from local communities. it takes it away from the judicial branch. it adds new mandatory minimums when as a nation we're trying to move away from that approach. the new mandatory minimum sentences would have a crippling financial impact with no

evidence that they would actually deter future violations of the law. they could cost american taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. and i think that deserves a serious, thoughtful debate in the judiciary committee with expert testimony on whether this really makes us safer or we're throwing away hard-earned taxpayer dollars. but we don't even get that debate because this bill was fast tracked as a republican priority and it didn't even go through the regular committee process. the united states senate cannot nurture an environment that demonizes and dehealth and humas latinos. senate republicans are saying it is okay to withhold funding to promote their agenda, it is okay

to cut cop funding, a one size fits all approach that pun nishes state and local law enforcement agencies that engage in community practices doesn't make sense. local communities and local law enforcement are better judges than congress of what keeps their communities safe. police need cooperation from the community to do their jobs. that's why over the past several years hundreds of localities across our nation, with the support of some of the toughest police chiefs and sheriffs, have limited their involvement in federal immigration enforcement out of concerns for community safety and violations of fourth amendment. they need witnesses and victims to be able to come forward without fear of recrimination because of their immigrant status. and fear of deep portation should never be a barrier to reporting crime or seeking help from the police. this fear undermines trust between law enforcement and the communities they protect and

creates a chilling effect. these policies were put in place because local jurisdictions don't want to do isis job for them. effective policing cannot be achieved by forcing an unwanted role upon the police by threat of sanctions or withholding assistance, especially at a time when law enforcement agencies are strengthening police-community relations. furthermore, why do my republican colleagues believe they know better than the local towns and citizens who live this day in and day out? they talk endlessly about decentralizing government, giving the power back to local communities. but not this time. it's no wonder that this bill is opposed by law enforcement, including the fraternal order of police, the law enforcement immigration task force, the u.s. conference of mayors, immigrant and latino rights organization, faith groups, domestic violence groups, among others. this bill is not a real solution

to our broken immigration system. bottom line is that we need comprehensive immigration reform. we passed bipartisan legislation in 20 p 13, but we haven't had a real discussion in congress for over two years. a recent poll found that 74% of americans overall said that undocumented immigrants should be given a pathway to stay legally. that includes 66% of republicans, 74% of independents, 80% of democrats who supported a pathway to legal status for undocumented immigrants. and that bipartisan support is not new. comprehensive immigration reform previously passed in the senate brought millions of people out of the shadows who had to prove their identity, pass a criminal background check, pay taxes, provide an earned path to citizenship so i.c.e. could focus on the people who were l true public safety threats. the bill also increased penalties for repeat border crossers.

it included $46 billion in new resources, including no fewer than 38,000 trained full-time active brother patrol agents deployed along the southern border. it increased the real g.d.p. of our country by more than 3% in 2023 and 5.4% in 2033, an increase of roughly $700 billion in the first ten years and $1.4 trillion in the second ten. it would have reduced the federal deficit by $197 billion over the next decade and by another $700 billion in the following. that's almost $1 trillion in is deficit spending reductions by giving 11 million people a pathway to citizenship. that was a real solution. that's the type of reform we need. that in fact is the opportunity that existed. unfortunately the other body in the house of representatives did not even have a vote.

and to the extent that americans are less safe, it is because of their inaction that we are less safe today. so, mr. president, tragedies should not be used to scapegoat immigrants. they should not be used to erode trust between law enforcement and our communities. we cannot let fear drive our policy making. so let us actively and collectively resist the demagoguery that threatens to shape american policy making for the worst. i believe a vote to proceed is a vote against the latino and immigrant communities of our country, and i hope that on a bipartisan basis we can reject that. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i'm going to discuss the bill on the floor in a minute, but first i'd like to take a moment to congratulate the newly confirmed district judge for the eastern district

of new york, ann donnelly. she just passed 95-2, nearly unanimous, and deservedly so. there are few more qualified for a federal judgeship than ann donnelly. she's dedicated her life to public service, having spent a quarter decade as a prosecutor in the prestigious new york county attorney's office. she accumulated a host of awards there and rose through the leadership ranks of the office. then in 2009, she became a state court judge hearing a wide variety of cases. and she has a stellar academic record, having graduated from the university of michigan and ohio state university school of law. i could tick off many more accomplishments and the list would be long, but judge donnelly is more than a brilliant resume. i know her well. she is at her core a kind, thoughtful, and compassionate person. anyone who knows her or who has interacted with her even briefly knows she is fair, hope minded and has exactly -- open-minded

and has the kind of temperament that will make her an exceptional federal judge. i congratulate ann donnelly and her family, particularly her mother, on her confirmation. i nope her mother is so proud of her. it is a milestone day in her career and a bright day for the eastern district of new york. and now to the issue at hand. mr. president, today the united states will turn its attention to a divisive immigration bill that has no hope of becoming law. today's vote won't be on a comprehensive bill like the one the senate passed two years ago, one that secures our borders, provides a jolt to our economy, creates a pathway to citizenship for hardworking law abiding immigrants who pay their taxes to get right with the law. i want to be clear with the american people on this. today's vote is nothing but a political show vote. senator vitter knows this bill has no chance of passing the senate or being signed into law and as stated by my friend, the republican junior senator from

nevada, here's what he said -- quote -- "you know we have votes because people are running for president. so i'm not surprised we have votes because people are running for governor." no other sentence sums it up better as to what a waste of time this is. that's nothing to say about the substance of the bill which has drawn opposition from nearly every important interest group. a broad coalition of major law enforcement groups, faith groups, labor, cities, elected officials, housing immigrants and immigrant rights groups oppose this bill. i suspect there are members of the republican caucus who oppose many parts of it. why? because it's a bill that would jeopardize hundreds of millions of dollars in the name of punishing immigrants in cities where they live. the bill would strip away community development block grants, cops grants to hire more cops, and scaap, a proposal that funds jurisdictions who are doing what many want them to do, many on the other side want them

to do: locking up unauthorized immigrants who commit crimes. everyone, mr. president, believes that if you commit a serious crime unrelated to being an immigrant -- not like crossing the border or forging a document -- but a serious crime, yes, law enforcement should be required to cooperate. and those folks should be deported, plain and simple. but in the name of trying to help law enforcement, this bill hurts law enforcement because it will take away so many of the grants that law enforcement needs. it will take away the grants that helped create the way of incarcerating those who commit serious crimes. all of these cuts, while also astronomically increasing the size of prison population and related costs without decreasing the deficit by a single dime. this will put a huge burden on our state and local taxpayers. their taxes will go way up if this bill were passed into law and implemented. to be clear, the death of kate

steinle was tragic. i mourn not only for her family but any family killed in gun violence and people like the killer of kate steinle, the government should cooperate and deport those folks. punishing cities and communities and yanking federal funding from cops will not get us to a better immigration system or safeguard our communities. the bill we passed in 2013 which i was proud to author with a number of democratic and republican colleagues is the opposite of this bill in every way. our bill was supported by a broad coalition of groups: business, labor, faith, immigrant, law enforcement. our bill paid for itself and went on to decrease the deficit by $160 billion over ten years and increase g.d.p. by 3.3%. our bill secured the border.

this bill doesn't do that. not only with more resources and staffing, but by cracking down on repeat border crossers and those who overstay their visas. it did it in a smart way. the goal of our friend from louisiana is not accomplished in his bill but it is in comprehensive immigration reform, the goal of making sure that those who repeat border crossers and overstay their visas are dealt with properly. our bill paves a tough and fair pathway to citizenship shielding law-abiding immigrants from deportation, and exposing criminals in their communities who would rather live in the shadows. and our bill was a bipartisan compromise. there's no compromise here. i dare say many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, when they look at provisions in that bill, they don't like them. but this is a show vote, a show vote as my republican colleague from nevada said, to help someone in his quest for political office. mr. president, there are so many

vitally important policy debates that we could be turning to today. instead the senate republican leadership insists on leading us into this dark, divisive place for nothing more than political theater. think of the urgent bipartisan issues we should be working on. the debt ceiling. we're about to default because of the shenanigans going on on the other side. the perkins loan program so kids can go to college. the land and water conservation programs has expired as is perkins. the highway bill. we don't have a highway bill and we're doing this? and if we don't take action by the end of the year millions of seniors will see a 52% increase in their medicare bill. how many americans would want us to do that and not a divisive show vote that has no chance of passing? so, i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. and just as importantly, i beg my colleagues to join us on this side of the aisle in turning to a serious debate on

comprehensive immigration reform, something they have so far refused to do. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. and the senator is advised that the senate is under an order to recess at this time. mr. toomey: i have four unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that the requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. toomey: and i ask unanimous consent that i be recognized for such time as i may consume and that senator hirono be recognized following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. toomey: thank you, mr. president. i rise to speak on senate bill 2146. that is the stop sanctuary and jurisdictions act which the senate will vote on shortly and which our colleagues have been speaking about, mr. president,

and first i want to recognize and thank my colleagues for joining in this effort, senator vitter, senator grassley, senator cruz and senator johnson in introducing this very important bill. i can't believe the way it is being mischaracterized, and i'm going to try to address some of those mischaracterizations. but let's be clear, this bill is about keeping our community safe from violent crime. that's what it's about, and it's necessary because of the sanctuary cities that we have across america. now, this is not a manufactured problem. this is a very real problem. there is one father who knows about it all too well. jim steinle is walking arm in arm with his daughter on a pier in san francisco. suddenly a gunman leaps out, opens fire, hits kate. she falls into her father's arms and pleads help me, dad, while she bleeds to death.

mr. president, what's so outrageous about this, among other things, is that the shooter never should have been on the pier that day in the first place. he was an illegal immigrant who had been convicted of seven felonies. he had been deported five times. and there he is on a san francisco pier, shooting and killing an immigrant woman. it's more outrageous than that. just three months earlier, the department of homeland security had asked the san francisco police department when they had picked this man up to hold him until d.h.s. officials could come and get him. they had made that specific request when this man was in the custody of the san francisco police department. but san francisco refused to cooperate. and knowing the d.h.s. wanted them to hold this man for a short period of time until their agents could get there and take him into custody, knowing that, having had that request from

d.h.s., san francisco said no, and they released him, so he could then go out and commit a murder. so why in the world would they release a man like this when the d.h.s. has asked them to hold him? well, that's because san francisco is a sanctuary city. and what that means is it is the policy of the city of san francisco, they have commanded their local -- their law enforcement, their police department to not cooperate with federal officials seeking to prosecute immigration issues. even when they want to cooperate, they are forbidden from cooperating. think about how absurd this is. if federal officials had called the san francisco police department about any other kind of crime, larceny, a burglary, a trademark violation, they would have been happy to cooperate, they would have cooperated, in fact. but because the crime was related to illegal immigration,

the san francisco police department's hands were tied. the police were forced to release the man who would then go on and kill kate steinle. mr. president, as a father of three young children, i can't even begin to think about the pain that the steinles just went through and what's so maddening is that it was entirely unnecessary. and sadly, this is not the only case, as you know. according to the department of homeland security, during an eight-month period last year, sanctuary jurisdictions, cities and counties that have adopted this policy of noncooperation, have released over 8,000 illegal immigrants. that they had in their custody, they released them. 1,800 of these were later arrested for criminal acts. and this includes two cities that refused to hold individuals who had been arrested for child

sexual abuse. and in both cases, the individuals were later arrested for sexually assaulting young children. this is how outrageous this has become. now, just for the record, let me make it very clear. i completely understand the vast overwhelming majority of immigrants would never commit such crimes. that's not what this is about. but the truth of the matter is any large group of individuals is going to have a certain number of criminals within it, and of the 11 million people who are here illegally, some are inevitably violent criminals. so the stop sanctuary jurisdiction act provides a solution to this. it does it in three parts. first, under our legislation, sanctuary jurisdictions will lose certain federal funds. in other words, if a city or a county or municipality decides that they will declare, they will forbid their law enforcement officials from cooperating and even sharing information with federal department of homeland security

officials, well in that case they will lose some federal funding. second, this legislation includes kate's law. this is a law that provides for a mandatory minimum five-year sentence for a person who re-enters the u.s. illegally after having either convicted -- been convicted of an aggravated felony or having been convicted twice before of illegal re-entry. and then finally, the third thing this legislation does, you know, across america, dozens of municipalities that were cooperating with federal immigration officials, they've really been forced to become sanctuary communities, sanctuary cities or counties. and that's because several federal courts have held that local law enforcement may not cooperate when d.h.s. asks them to hold an illegal immigrant. they maintain that there is not the statutory authority for local law enforcement to do so. and therefore if the local

police were to cooperate, as they should, they would be liable to damages, and this should apply even in dangerous criminal cases. so we solve that problem by making it clear that when local law enforcement is acting in a fashion consistent with what d.h.s. has requested and what d.h.s. has the authority to do themselves, then there would be no such legal liability. now, some of my democratic colleagues, i have heard them say we don't need this legislation. all we need is for greater cooperation between federal and local law enforcement. well, that's absolutely factually incorrect. it's not possible to have the level of cooperation that we need to have because of these court decisions, because these court decisions effectively, they have the effect of precluding the kind of cooperation that we need. and that's why congress needs to act. we need to make it clear that local law enforcement can, in fact, hold somebody that the department of homeland security needs to be held just as the

department of homeland security security has that authority themselves. so the stop sanctuary policies act provides this solution, it's a balanced solution. it confirms the local law enforcement officers are in fact allowed to cooperate when federal officials ask them to hold an illegal immigrant. it's carefully drafted to protect individual liberties if an individual's civil liberties or constitutional rights are violated, then that individual can still have -- can still file suit, can still seek a remedy. and that's as it should be. but, mr. president, this legislation, this stop sanctuaries policy act, really should have very broad bipartisan support. and let's keep in mind the people we're talking about here. as a practical matter, the only cases in which this applies are for that small subset of illegal immigrants that even the obama administration wishes to hold for deportation. only that small subset of people that the obama administration

believes is dangerous enough to warrant a removal. really? we can't even have local law enforcement officials cooperate under those circumstances? and president bush's own -- and president obama's own secretary of homeland security has declared that sanctuary cities are -- quote -- not acceptable. he has described them as, and i quote, counterproductive to public safety. so, mr. president, there's no real basis for voting no on this. opponents have turned to misrepresent this in many ways, but the facts are overwhelming. and by the way, there are three national law enforcement groups that have written a powerful letter addressing some of the misrepresentations that have been made about this bill, they have reaffirmed their support for this bill. they include the national sheriff's association, the national association of police organizations and the federal law enforcement officers association. and, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to submit their letter for the record.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. toomey: mr. president, let me finish by reminding my colleagues, the vote we're about to have is not actually a vote on this bill in its current form. if members object to a provision in it or they want to add a provision in it, then by all means, let's vote to get on the bill. let's open up debate, and we'll have amendments. we'll have a discussion. we'll have a debate. they are free to attempt to improve this bill, modify this bill as they see fit. this vote today is not a final passage vote. it's a vote on whether or not the issue of sanctuary jurisdictions is important enough to merit the senate's consideration. now, i was just shocked to hear one of our colleagues describe this bill as a waste of time. really? a waste of time. that's unbelievable to me. how could this? the lives of kate steinle and the other victims who have been lost because of this ridiculous policy, and this is a waste of the senate's time? when the courts are precluding

the cooperation between local and federal law enforcement officials because we have not acted, and it's a waste of time? there's a simple solution here, mr. president. it starts with passing a motion to proceed so that we can get on this bill and hopefully committee it successfully. so, mr. president, i think the lives of kate steinle and the other victims are not a waste of time. i think we should be addressing this issue. we should be addressing it today. and so i urge my colleagues to vote aye so that we can begin considering -- it's actually very important and should be broadly supported bipartisan legislation, and i yield the floor. ms. hirono: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: mr. president, i rise today to urge my colleagues to oppose s. 2146, the stop sanctuary policies and protect americans act. hundreds of cities and local jurisdictions across our country have financial, constitutional

and public safety concerns with using scarce local tax dollars to hold immigrants in jail when they otherwise would be entitled to release under the law. these cities and towns are being called sanctuary cities because they have made a local and fact-based choice to keep their communities safe rather than serve as an arm of immigration enforcement. this bill would create new criminal penalties for undocumented immigrants and make life even harder for them, most of whom are honest, hardworking people, not criminals. and the bill also takes severe steps to penalize these sanctuary cities by stripping them of critical community block grants and federal homeland security and law enforcement funding. while this bill purports to protect our communities, it is strongly opposed by law

enforcement, victims' advocates and local and state government leaders. why do they oppose this bill? because demonizing our immigrant communities and using them as scapegoats does not make america safer. decades of research shows the following -- that immigrants as a group are not a threat to public safety, that immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes than the rest of americans, that the higher rates of immigration are associated with lower rates of violent crime. law enforcement is clear. this bill would limit their ability to keep all people in their communities safe. good community policy requires collaboration and trust. our law enforcement officials want to be spending their time going after people who truly pose a threat to our safety.

this bill will have them spending limited resources, pursuing hardworking, though undocumented, members of their communities with no criminal history. community law enforcement should not be coerceed, because that's what this bill would require. it is a requirement on community law enforcement -- should not be coerced into serving as an arm of federal immigration and customs enforcement. that's what this bill does. nobody's talking about voluntary collaboration and support for our federal government's enforcement of laws. throughout this congress, my republican colleagues often rail against the federal government telling state and local governments what to do, but now when it comes to something as important as public safety and law enforcement, it is suddenly okay to second-guess state and local law enforcement. instead of turning hardworking immigrants into boogeymen, we

should be focusing on real solutions for violent crime in our communities. if my colleagues who support this bill are serious about addressing violence in america, then they should come to the table to talk about how we can strengthen our laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. and i have been saying along with many of my colleagues for over a year now, if my republican colleagues want to discuss immigration reform, we welcome that debate. everyone agrees that our immigration system is broken and needs reform. it has been 28 months since the u.s. senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill that had strong bipartisan support. even though it was not perfect, from my perspective, we nonetheless worked together to come up with a compromise bill.

but house republicans ducked the issue and refused to take up any immigration reform bill. the senate's comprehensive immigration bill would have reduced the federal deficit by $1 trillion in just two decades because of the broad economic benefits immigration reform brings and would have protected and united families, strengthened our border security, improved our economy and encouraged job creation in our country. the senate's bill would have brought millions of people out of the shadows, require them to pass criminal background checks and earn their path to citizenship. it would have let immigration enforcement officials focus on true security threats to our country. the senate's immigration bill included $46 billion in new resources to help our border patrol, customs and immigration enforcement agents. of this amount, roughly $30

billion was added to the bill to further secure our borders. but that is not enough for some republicans. apparently some won't be happy until we literally round up every undocumented immigrant, some 11 million of them in our country, and deport them, which would be catastrophic to our economy, not to mention impossible to do. the current statutory -- sanctuary cities debate is not the first time that some have tried to use myths about immigrants to scare americans. this rhetoric couldn't be further from the truth about immigrants and i urge my colleagues to oppose these scare tactics and to vote "no" on s. 2146. i yield back my time. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate the previous order, the senate

>> while we wait for that to get underway with more road to the white house coverage. the recent no labels conference in new hampshire featured a focus group with new hampshire voters. here's a look at that.

♪ ♪ >> good afternoon. thanks for coming. i'm editor-in-chief of the hill. we are nonpartisan obligation that covers politics on the hill.com. we are also proud sponsor of this event and i think this is going to be a very interesting discussion because the panelists asked me what exactly are we doing your? these are the most influential people of the 2016 cycle. they our new hampshire voters indicated cover a lot of d.c. politics and talk to newsmakers but it's great to get up washington, d.c. and talk to the people who will be deciding the next president of the united states. i think what we're seeing today in politics is extraordinary. it's the story. we don't know how it's going to end but what we're going to try to do today is get some reaction

from what we have heard, and what these voters who span the political spectrum from left to center to right, what they're looking for. we have a lot of undeclared voters so it's going to be interesting to see what they think of both the candidates and how washington can be fixed. so my first question is, is compromise, will also be taking your input and talking about that in the audience, and i want one volunteer to say does anyone think that compromise is a bad word? do you think that compromise is a good word, and why ask anyone. shine is not allowed. and please identify yourself and go with it. >> i live in hampstead new hampshire. i am from a family that had

ancestors that fought the british in boston which i'm very proud of but it does make any difference why we came here. we all came for the same reason, for freedom and liberty. one thing that i think was overlooked this morning not intentionally is a very important piece of legislation that the house of representatives got right, if i might take a moment. >> assured. >> i think you've all heard of a very important piece of legislation called the american screed. it was passed by the u.s. house of representatives on april 3, 1918. here we are nearly 100 years later and we're still talking about unresolved issues that have affected this country for decades. if you know the americans created, please read it. i believe in the united states of america, as a government of the people, by the people, for the people, whose just powers

are derived from the consent of the governed. i democracy and a republic, a sovereign nation of many sovereign states. a perfect union. wouldn't that be nice? one and inseparable, established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which american patriot sacrificed their lives and fortunes. i, therefore, believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies. we are here today i believe because we have unintentional enemies within our own country, who are sabotaging, perhaps

unintentionally, what our founders intended to be when they drafted our constitution and our bill of rights. so i applaud everyone in this room who have taken columbus day to make it a day for no labels. thank you. [applause] spee and we heard from a lot of the 2016 candidates today come at a wanted to get a sense, if you look at a macro in politics. we have a democratic way for 2006 in 2008. we've had republican waves of 2810 and 2014. what has led to is gridlock, sort of the last congress comes as congress again some stuff done thi but sort of not sweepig legislation. that's a big theme of the 2016 campaign. of the 2016 candidates, somebody, what did you think of, did anyone resonate with your? did they make a point that

you're like, that's pretty smart? because breaking up the gridlock has been something that george w. bush talked about. barack obama has talked about. they both about to change washington. they both admit they have been. to have a change washington for a variety of reasons, but was there any candidate from any of the panelists that thought, well, that's a really good point? >> i live in manchester, edited one of the things that struck me today was listening to bernie sanders and donald trump. and a number of different areas they were mirroring each other come at a that might got coming up with those guys in the room they might be able to solve it. of course, they have a lot to say so i'm not sure. i was kind of thinking that. >> that's interesting. do you lean right? >> i lean center-right.

>> what are you looking for for the candidates? one of the issues, something you want the candidates to say that maybe you haven't heard yet? >> when i hear one side, i have been describing half the issue. want to hear the other side i have been describing the other half of the issue. and what troubles me the most is that when they are saying what they are saying, they sound like they're being introduced at the world wrestling federation. speaking at the politics have gotten too ugly. >> very ugly. >> one of the questions when we were back in the prep room that was raised to me was are we going to talk about the media. and desolate in immediate if you're going to dish it you have to take it. site what it does not out. has been media participated in this deterioration of politics? someone who hasn't spoken yet. all the way at the end and then we can bring it down. >> i'm mark rubenstein, i am from amherst new hampshire.

something happened today that it didn't expect and that was when the woman got up here and turn to the media and said please don't turn this into a donald trump story. [applause] and the room just roared. so sure, the media is definitely playing a part. >> anyone else want to weigh in on that one? >> that was my point as well. i'm done from new boston new hampshire and just to add to that i feel sometimes like i have never heard him tha own alk before today. i think the media controls who we hear, but sound bites we hear on the news. i was very impressed with him as a candidate, and i've asked the media not to do that.

[applause] >> one other question is by a show of hands who has made up their minds the food they're going to vote for in the new hampshire primary, either republican or democrat, anybody? wow. the candidates have a lot of work to do then. rachel, how about you? what are you looking for? >> i have a few candidates who i'm interested in, you know, haven't quite start supporting it one is carly fiorina. one is lindsey graham, was here today. i really liked what christie had to say, governor christie, and he had not been in my roll book, if you will, before that. and john kasich i'm interested in hearing. and one of the things i think that's a theme and most of them is that they are clear about

looking at the issues and wanting to find a resolution to the issues. they want to fix things, and they are not talking about the issues that really can divide us. in the case of oath lindsey graham, you know, i think it was he who said that sometimes it's hard is to fight against your own party. and i think that's true, but because he was talking about issues that really, you know, sounded more like some of the democratic candidates, but i really applaud that. i think we have a lot of people who i think can work across the aisle and who are looking for solutions. i don't think that quite a few of these people are willing to have gridlock. they really want to be there to help our country and move our country a long. >> mark stolt from bedford, new hampshire. ai'm looking for basically three

things from a candidate. first of course is the ability to work across the aisle, work with the other side. and i think we heard a lot of positive things about that today. number two, is the ability to analyze and understand the issues, look at the data, understand the science. i was very impressed by the last two speakers we heard, senator bayh and governor pataki, their understanding of the energy issues and the costs of a different energy technologies, which is really critical to solving the problem. and then the third thing i'm looking for but i haven't heard at all today is the ability to manage the federal bureaucracy. the federal bureaucracy is capable combat does to a great extent, run the country. and it needs to do it

effectively, and we need managerial skill. we've had so many agencies, i don't think i need to name names. i think you know who they are. they used to do a very good job. they no longer do, and we need to get the agencies functioning again. >> bob, my name is doug smith, i'm a local barber here in manchester. back on the bureaucracy, i think it is become a four the second of government. it's way too powerful. i think that it's done well the way they want to do it, not the way we need it to be done. >> good news for all the candidates who were in single digits in new hampshire. cobalt powered by being polled, only 33% of those responded said they have decided.

33% said they would not decide, 33% are unsure. that can change very quickly. and certainly we've seen that happen in politics but we are getting closer servant to the beginning of the new year, and one of the things that's been a theme of the 2016 cycle is the insiders versus the outsiders. if you look at the rise of bernie sanders u.s. but house and senate member but he is viewed as an outsider. to look at donald trump, you look at dr. carson, carly fiorina. they are all so-called outsiders doing quite well. >> we will be this discussion to go live to the national press club to hear from democratic presidential contender former virginia star jim webb with an announcement about his effort to win the white house.

>> good afternoon. howdy. let me start by saying several years ago senator daniel patrick moynihan's wife elizabeth sent me a wooden shakes it up and put together to put together the old schoolhouse on the roof armory wrote his book. we've been talking about the kinship i felt with senator moynihan for his thoughtful approach to governance, his willingness to put our country ahead of party and the search for solutions rather than political expediency. she sent me this from the old farmhouse and had a note on it saying, to square pegs into round holes. some people say i'm a republican who became a democrat, but often sound like a republican and a

room full of democrats, our democrat and a roomful of republicans. and actually i take that as a compliment. more people in this country call themselves political independents than either republicans or democrat. and i happen to agree with them. our country is more important than the label. democrats in years past understood this, people like sam nunn, scoop jackson, mike mansfield, john kennedy among others. americans are disgusted by all this talk of republicans and democrats calling each other the enemy. instead of reaching out across the table and actually finding ways to work together. i know what an enemy really is from hard, personal combat. the other party is not the enemy. they are the opposition. in our democracy we are lucky to have an opposition in order to honest debate.

it's creative, it's healthy. there is no opposition party in countries like china because there are no elections in china, or in other nondemocratic authoritarian societies. over the years i've worked with democrats or republicans, and my basic beliefs, principles of leadership and love of country have never changed. i proudly served for four years in the reagan administration. as republican. i proudly served in the senate as a democrat. but we need to be honest, because the very nature of our democracy is under siege to the power structure and the money that finances both political parties. our political candidates are being pulled to the extremes. they are increasingly out of step with the people they are supposed to serve. poll after poll shows that a strong plurality of americans is

neither republican nor democrat, overwhelmingly they are independents. americans don't like the extremes to which both parties have moved in recent years and quite frankly neither do i. i know i'm going to do this so let me be the first to say it. i fully accept that my views on many issues are not compatible with the power structure in the nominating base of the democratic party. that party is filled with millions of dedicated, hard-working americans. but its hierarchy is not comfortable with many of the policies that i have laid forth, and, frankly, am uncomfortable with many others. for this reason i am withdrawing from any consideration of being the democratic party's nominee for the presidency. this does not reduce in any way my concerns or the challenges facing our country. may believe that i can provide

the best leadership in order to meet these challenges are my intentions to remain fully engaged in debates that are facing as. us. how i remain as a voice will depend on what kind of support i am shown in the coming weeks as i meet with people from all sides of america's political landscape, and i intend to do that. i hold strong views about what our country needs to go. i will never change those views in order to adopt to some party platform as a way of getting nominated. i feel strongly that if i were nominated, that we would win. and that if i were president, i could assemble an administration filled with great minds, good leaders and capable people from all sectors of our society who share my vision and who could bring this country back to get a revered position as a beacon of fairness at home, and a

principled commonsense in our foreign policies abroad. though are not going away, i'm thinking about all my options. 240 years ago the declaration of independence from our status as a colony from great britain was announced that its time for a new declaration of independence. not from an outside power but from the paralysis of a political system that no longer serves the interests of the vast majority of the american people. the presidency has gained too much power. that congress has grown weak, and often irrelevant. the president democratic and republican parties are not providing the answers and the guarantees that we rely on. the financial sector represented by the wall street bankers he is carrying less and less about the condition of the average american worker for the simple reason that there well depends

more on the global economy than it does on the american economy. our political process is jammed up. it needs an honest broker who respects all sides, who understands the complicated nature of how our federal system works, you will communicate a vision for the country's future here at home and in our foreign policy, and has a proven record of actually getting things done. i've worked with both sides. i have a lot of respect for many people who are members of both political parties. i know how broken our system really is. this country needs a new dynamic that respects and honors our history, our traditions, it is not a slave to the power structure your that are failing us. i love this country and all that it has allowed me to do, and my

family to do, over the course of the last several decades, even generations. i always have and always will, but country of a political party or personal ambition. so here we are. i am stepping aside from the democratic primary process, but i will never abandon my loyalties to the people who do the hard daily work of keeping this country great at home and secure abroad, and we'll just have to see what happens next. >> we will take questions do. please identify yourself. >> thank you. i am laurie with the ap. could you tell us all a bit about what kind of, how much support from what kind of support are looking for and by when, if it were to launch them for example, an independent candidacy? >> well, we intend to spend the next couple weeks talking to

people who i've not felt comfortable talking with as the democratic party candidate, that a number of people over the last year who have reached out and encouraged me to run either as an independent or a lot of people who never vote for democrat, hundreds and hundreds of people who never vote for democrat and said i will vote for you and if you were to run outside the party, i will help you out. there are a lot of people out there from across the political spectrum but i just want to talk to before but i'm going to do this, i want to listen and talk to the. i feel much freer now having cleared the air to do that. >> are you concerned about -- [inaudible] >> i care about the country, and issues that have been talking about for many years are still the issues that i believe need to be focused on in the country,

that's the most important thing. if i were to run we would go out. i know the history of independent candidacies. and i've had a number of discussions with people who are trying to encourage me to do this before, with a top out around 20% historically but have some very smart political people say that because of the paralysis in our two parties there is a time when conceivably an independent candidacy actually could win, and those are the questions we're going to be asking. >> cnn. your campaign has failed to gain any traction so far in the polls in iowa and new hampshire, pretty much anywhere. y. s. independent do think you could gain traction you couldn't in gaza democrats because i think it's been very difficult in the democratic party primary process with the dominance of one candidate, not only in her

candidacy but in the structure of the democratic party, the traditional finance structures, the hierarchies themselves, the dnc. so it's been a very careful process i have put forward here, and begin as i said, eye issues that i care about that maybe are not in line with that particular hierarchy. so we will see. and i'll tell you this but if you look at polls on with the american people are on these issues that i'm talking about, they are more in line with what i've been saying and are in the democratic party's hierarchy. >> do you still consider yourself a democrat? would use that term to describe your self? >> i'll think about that. >> senator, michael. you entered commuting out of the debates and he felt as if it was rigged, quoting you. t. feel like the whole process

is rigged? do you feel you a chance as a democrat at all? if so, why did you run as a democrat? >> iran as a democrat for the same reason that event as a democrat when i ran for the senate. and that is, if you look at the history of the democratic party, it is a party that is given the people who have no voice in the orders the power a voice. that is the reason that iran, -- i read. i've also said for a number of years the democratic party needs to get back to its traditional message. i am not seeing that in the way that it wished that i could see it, and so the outcome in terms of it being rigged, the debate, the point that i made in the debate was when you come to a

debate where you're supposed to have an equal opportunity to present your issues and you get 14 minutes, when the leading candidate gets 32 minutes, and the way that the questions were being asked were designed to do that, then i wouldn't say that that was a fair process. >> buzz feed news. over the course, what about a bit more about the idea of the democratic party being too extreme at the high levels. over the course of the campaign you struggle with the democratic party as it embraced the idea of taking down the confederate flag, struggle with the democratic party embracing the black lives matter move it. affirmative action. are those areas where the democratic party has gone too far and is too extreme, areas like that? >> well, you can look at a lot of the issues that i've talked about over the years. i've been consistent on them. with respect to the issue of the confederate flag, what i said

was that yes, the confederate flag should come down. but i am a historian and that we need to be very careful in terms of examining the fairness of our history. there are people who do not view, have not viewed the confederate battle flag as a symbol of racism. and so let's take them down from public places but let's not get carried away in terms of how our own history laid out during the period. i've talked about the need, by the way this is not just come on the pakistan to an attack the democratic party. i'm just saying these are areas where i think they were strong differences of feeling between the hierarchy and myself. the democratic party is heavily invested in the notion of interest group politics, and interest group politics, if you're not careful, can exclude

people who also need a voice in the orders of power. i've spoken about this a lot. the question i was asked by the way with respect to affirmative action, i gave a very careful answer to. i don't believe that it should bbe misunderstood when it's affirmative action was an african-american program because of the unique history of african-americans with slavery and with jim crow laws that came after that. but that once you extend that into what we call diversity programs for anyone who happens to be a person of caller, by definition, what you're actually doing in the long run is you are hurting poor blacks and poor whites. take a look at west baltimore. this is the example i used more than a month ago and take a look at the appalachian mountains in kentucky and you'll see two different cultures have not been held at action park on -- falling by the wayside with

poverty, educational opportunities. that's what the democratic party should be. that's where the cut should be, whatever party it is. we should be making sure we are serious we talk about having a level playing field, i think, still giving special consideration to the african-amers mrica. you've got the best shot in the world at having a great future. my wife is a perfect example of the. per family escaped from vietnam on a boat and the communists took over. they did know if they're going to let the guy. her parents never spoke english. she came here, study, learn the language and ended up graduating from cornell law school. that's what this country can do. that has been my frustration on those sorts of issues. we can do that we should be looking at that. >> on the debates do you plan on attending the next democratic

debate? >> no, i did not as of today i'm not involved in the democratic party's primary process. [inaudible] >> in addition to the poor climate perhaps between your platform and your goals and the democratic party he also suffered from poor fundraiser comp lack of infrastructure. if you were to do an independent bid, what would you be prepared to do to bolster fundraising, two ago against the machine to build an organization, to halt the message to be disciplined? >> first of all i can't tell you how many people have written to me over the last year and offered to help if i would run as a democrat or as republican. it was very difficult to find raised inside the democratic party structure whatever the reasons that i have mentioned. i have no doubt that if i ran as an independent we would have significant financial help.

>> from? >> on people who want me to run as something other than a democrat. [inaudible] >> we will see over the next few weeks but i've had so many people asking me to stay in distant to keep a voice out there. i think if we ran we would not have the same difficulty we had with the democrats, quite frankly. [inaudible] >> senator webb, my name is lee basel and i'm a professional firefighter atticus want to come today to say thank you for everything you have done for the firefighters. also the question would be in terms of organized labor, it seems like it really has not been that big of an issue in this race. my question to you would be, i also have something for you in this third of military, i brought you a going -- >> thank you. >> how do yo think we need to bg that back up into the forefront i've been working on the 9/11 health care bill and it just

seems like there's not to support complected uppercut to the events of 9/11. so how do they keep that in this presidential race? >> listen, i think that's a good point i want to start off by saying if i'm in a room full of democrats i think i'm a republican. if i'm in a room full of republicans i think i'm a democrat. the art issues that don't fit into either party structure. one of them, for the different positions that were just raised by the gentleman from the seed, the art issues that i care deeply about that don't align with th republican party the tht one of the best organized labor. i've said before i think i'm the only person ever elected to statewide office in virginia with a union card, two purple hearts and three tattoos. i feel strong about the need for collective bargaining in our country nor to help rehabilitate the well being of the working people. >> i want to give you this. >> thank you very much.

>> senator webb, bruce johnson, w. u.s.a. here in washington. should the polls hold up and hillary clinton becomes the nominee for democratic party, donald trump becomes the nominee for the republican party, could you see yourself supporting one of these two candidates speak with i honestly, if we ran an independent race that worked and got traction, i honestly didn't see us beating both of them. >> senator, buzzfeed. it's been difficult for reporters to obtain information about the day-to-day of your campaign -- >> excusing? >> it's been difficult to obtain information. how often were you out campaigning meeting with voters? >> we were working on every day. campaigning, there were times when we did and the times when we did not. >> where? where we decamping?

>> we were in iowa, new hampshire, south carolina. i went to the states. we can get a list for you if you would like. >> how many staffers did you have? >> we had a very small staff. i'm not going to carry that we didn't. we had challenges creating an organization inside the democratic party where, you know, the expected nominee have a lot of control, a lot of leeway. and that was a bit and talking about the future. >> will you be keeping your staff on payroll? >> we will get to that later. i mean, i am, we do a very dedicated staff, some of them on payroll and some of them are volunteers. >> mr. webb, nbc, in the back of the rim. >> there you are. >> i wonder if you could see yourself endorsing any candidate from either party in the primary or perhaps launching a super pac or the audit any other way to think of it getting involved

aside from running an independent bid? >> i don't see myself endorsing anyone, particularly at this point. i don't see that any future. we want to go out and talk to people and see what, a lot of people have made a lot of suggestions and recommendations. we will talk in more concrete terms this time around, then we will see. i have not been a fan of super pacs. in fact, i've been approached in the past about super pac. if you actually read the citizens united case, which i've read, it basically says anyone has the first amendment right to create a super pac. no candidate can stop them but at the same time candidates are not supposed to be directly cooperate with him and that's been the problem that i've seen in the campaigns. i think a violation of the decision even as it is written. >> senator webb, the guardian.

democrats in iowa, new hampshire said they had not seen the. what sort of campaign have you been mounting either not showing up in the states and grassroots democratic they are no idea what you're doing? if you run as independent when you actively campaign? >> we made visits. we did make as many visits as we could have it if i had had the financial resources to do it, or if i have made different decisions about traction. anyway, what we're looking at now is the reality that he mentioned in my opening statement, that there are differences in positions. i'm not running in the democratic primary not. >> have you mentioned the hierarchy of the democratic party being a factor, how do you explain that in nondemocratic -- in this hierarchy is -- >> bernie sanders is good friend of mine. i like them a lot. what i said on the stage if it is true. i think he is sort of a healthy,

venting apparatus for a lot of people who are worried in the country. i fed him onstage at the of the day, bernie, your revolution is not going to happen. what i have done during my time in government has actually get things done. actually get programs past, legislation passed, raise the level of public discussion on of things like criminal justice reform. so i'm not, i'm glad bernie is out there with a voice he has put the programs he's talking about, they are not going to happen. >> "mother jones." in terms of the financial support you talked about usage of certain people. are you speaking about on social media i know you have been referencing a lot of people who say that cross the aisle for use of their big fans. are you talking about those kinds of ordinary voters from smalltime sellers or had you had any contact with people who may

be republicans or independents are more involved and perhaps raising money bundling for you being more large-scale donors? >> i think about. and at the same time, let me clarify something else, and that is political commentators so often tend to view elections as an auction. you know, people go out and see what, they view campaigns surely by how much money has been raised. that makes them different winner. i don't think there's always attribute want to read the send i was outspent in primary and wondered how a spouse been agenda collection three to one. you see governor bush right now i think you raise $120 million he has got 4% 40. if you go out and connect with the right people who will support candidates from future money wisely, we can still have a chance. >> one more. >> emily atkins. writer in the front.

>> what are your? >> right here. hi. i think so far you talked about how you're not interested and extremist rhetoric on both sides that i think you detailed how different from democrats you are, but what policy and in what ways on different policies are different from republicans running in the field? i think i'm going to are closer to republicans because any specific policies that you don't align -- aligned with republican? >> you just saw someone from organized labor come up and thank me for my support of organized labor. that's from my heart. it's not transactional. it was, i felt that way before i even thought i would run for the senate. i began a friendship with richard trumka in 1989 when there was a coal mining strike in far southwest of virginia,

the piston strike him and i met with him and talked with him about how the organized labor people could get a better result. in that strike. the biggest difference i would have is in the area of how the financial sector has so dominated politics, actually in both parties, but it's a very strong issue in the republican party. so this isn't, you know, as i said i'm like most americans. i'm like 46% of americans. automatically exact fit in either political party. i care about the country. i care about the future of this country had a publication on the table without regard to whether i've been transactional with one party or the other. >> would you say you're more different on social issues like abortion, et cetera? >> i think i have my own feelings about those. they are probably, the whole country is evolving on those issues right now, but i have

been a supporter of roe v. wade and a issues lik like gay marriage in these sorts of things. i've been a support on those and i will continue to be. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> i've got copies of the text right here. >> from the national press club here in washington former virginia senator jim webb announcing that he's dropping his bid to pursue the presidency as a democrat. speculation that he will continue in the race as an independent but he is weighing his options for the candidacy. if you missed any of what it is a this afternoon you can see it in the c-span video library. go to c-span.org. >> all campaign long c-span takes on the road to the white house, unfiltered access to the candidates at town hall

meetings, news conferences, rallies and speeches. we are taking your comments on twitter, facebook and by phone. and always every campaign event we cover is available on our website at c-span.org. >> the u.s. senate is in today. the senate is in recess for their weekly party lunches. when they return at 2:15 p.m. they will hold 2:15 p.m. they will hold a vote to advance removing funds for sanctuary cities. live coverage here on c-span2. ..

>> and for problem solving. [cheers and applause] i'm delighted to be back. i was here just a month ago at the rudman center, so i'm very pleased to return today and to have the real privilege of introducing the united states senator and republican presidential candidate lindsey graham -- [applause] who has had a truly distinguished and impactful career in his service to his home state in south carolina and to our nation. since joining the house of representatives in 1994, lindsey graham has not lost a single election. that speaks volumes about his political skills, to be sure. but it also speaks to how he engages and handles himself engaging with the people around

our country and in his home state. he is a strong and thoughtful voice on the issues confronting our country today. he has done his homework on foreign policy. no one knows and understands the issues better. he understands about entitlement reform, securing social security, creating jobs in the economy in businesses large and small. and, i might add as a fellow southerner, he speaks with little accent, at least where i'm concerned. [laughter] but the real distinguishing characteristic about senator graham in the face of partisan pressure that we've heard so much about today, he has shown a consistent willingness to step across the aisle to get things done for the american people and to take difficult stands on difficult issues. [applause]

he has said what's wrong in washington is we don't do enough together these days. i'm a senator, he continued, in the sense the way senators used to be. and that's referring to building a consensus and principled compromise. with plenty of charm, an open door and authentic sense of humor -- which you'll be the beneficiary of this morning -- a gift for memorable quips, senator graham provides that conviction, substance and collegiality and proves they can still all go hand in hand. he's had a remarkable life story, and that reflects his values and his character. it reflects his career in public service both in politics and serving in our military. he represents the kind of

purposeful leadership that no labels problem solvers strongly supports, and i think most of you here, if not all of you, do as well. leaders who are determined to stop fighting and start fixing and to help lift people's lives and give our country a better future. that's the nicest introduction i have ever given a republican. [laughter] ladies and gentlemen, senator lindsey graham from south carolina! [cheers and applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> out of respect for people, i won't dance. [laughter] when i first announced for the senate, i took senator

thurmond's place, anybody heard of strom thurmond? we change senators every 50 years whether we need to or not. [laughter] so bob dole was my national chairman, strom thurmond was speaking, and james brown was the entertainment. [laughter] what's the moral of the story? no one knew i was there. [laughter] and seeing bob dole trying to keep time was sort of worth it all. [laughter] speaking of trying to keep time, i wanted to take some questions. i've enjoyed -- thank god for new hampshire. it's the last place -- [applause] it's the last place on earth where you can meet 20 people running for president you're lucky. [laughter] so keep south carolina in your prayers. it's been a tough year. the charleston shooting, i would like to just note the people in

the mother emanuel church did a better job of representing my state and mankind than i could have ever hoped to have done. [applause] if you're looking for a model to follow, go to that church. it has really been tough. eighteen inches of rain in 18 hours down in charleston. our governor and her whole team is doing a great job. so let's talk about our country a little bit. do you agree that america's worth fighting for? [cheers and applause] do you think it's worth dying for? [applause] is it worth compromising for? [cheers and applause] in many ways it's easier to go to afghanistan than it is washington. [laughter]

at least you know who the enemy is. [laughter] so i want to talk to you a little bit about trade-offs. anybody married? [laughter] i think you know what i'm talking about. [laughter] life at its best is a series of trade-offs. hey, paul. so the bottom line is here's what the next president needs to do, whoever he or she may be. they need to get us in a room in washington, come to the white house, have a drink -- maybe more than one. [laughter] get everybody liquored up and solve problems. [laughter] so this is what reagan and o'neill did. campaign finance reform. you want to get money out of politics? [cheers and applause] yeah. join my campaign. [laughter] we've accomplished that. [laughter]

citizens united has to be revisited, because it's going to be pretty hard to solve any problem with unlimited giving by unknown people. [applause] so it will probably take a constitutional amendment, but i think there's a way to get there, and that would be a priority for me because if you don't get this fixed, i think the days of problem solving are behind us. when you've got 158 families financing half, giving half the money -- i want to know who they are, by the way, call 'em up. [laughter] something's broken there. debt. do you all agree that debt is a no-label problem? [applause] the debt that we're about to

pass on future generations could care less if you're a republican family or democratic family. now, what drives the debt? >> spending. >> spending, well, that's pretty clever. what drives the debt over time? spending on what? entitlement reform. how many of you think social security is worth saving? [cheers and applause] me too. social security can and medicare are programs that people depend on for a quality of life when they retire. they're in jeopardy of being overwhelmed because 80 million baby boomers, of which i am one, are going to retire in the next 20 years, 25 years. anybody born from '46-'64. ms. yeah. anybody born after '64? [cheers and applause] good luck. [laughter]

you're gonna need it. so have you heard of simpson simpson-bowles? all right. here's what i would do if i were president. i would dust it off, and i'd use it as a template. because there's no way you can tax your way out of this problem. 80 million people are going to retire en masse, we're going to be down to two workers for every retiree in the next 20 years. in 1950 there were 16 workers for every retiree, in 20 years there's going to be two. now, strom thurmond had four kids after he was 67. if you're willing to do that, we maybe can turn this around. [laughter] if you think you can do that, you probably have a high preponderance of yourself. [laughter] high opinion of yourself. [laughter] and i'm not betting on you can deliver, so i'm going to plan b. [laughter] so what do you do? you've got a lot of people wanting their social security check and a medicare bill paid,

and you've got two people paying twice the taxes, social security and medicare taxes. simpson-bowles is a great trade-off. here's what republicans have to do. we have to eliminate deductions in the tax code that many of us enjoy. $1.2 trillion a year given away in deductions. we're going to have to bring some of that money back into the treasury, and we're going to have to put it on debt, and we're going to have to violate pledges that all of us have signed. have you heard of the grover norquist pledge? now, i like grover, and here's what grover says. if you eliminate a deduction, let's say second home interest deduction -- something that would be hard -- but if you eliminated that, under the pledge you'd have to take all the money to buy down tax rates. the problem with that is no democrat's going to get in the room to adjust the age of retirement or means-test benefits. so what simpson-bowles requires is for a republican to eliminate a deduction, take some of the

revenue to pay down debt, and what do our democratic friends have to do in return? we have to adjust the age of retirement because we're all living so much longer, and we have to ask my income level -- i make $175,000 a year. i'm not saying i'm worth it, but that's what we pay ourselves. [laughter] we're going to ask upper income americans to take smaller benefits. not draconian cuts, but some. smaller c.o.l.a.s to get the baby boomers through retirement in dignity without wiping out cup. now, that's simpson-bowles. [applause] so when you hear a, when you hear a republican say i won't do revenue, that means that you're not going to help the country. when you hear a democrat say we don't need to deal or mess with social security and medicare, that means you've got your head in the sand. we're $70 trillion short of the money we need over the next 75 years to pay the medicare/social

security bills. if you took the entire wealth of the 1%, including their dogs -- [laughter] everything, you're $30 trillion. you're half of what you need. you're not going to dow grow the economy enough to close the gap. and if you eliminate the defense department which is 20% of one-third of the budge, you don't even move the needle. so we know what to do, let's just do it. [applause] immigration. i had six primary opponents over this one topic. i've been working on this for a daled. i'm called lindsey grahamnesty and lindsay gomez. i'll try to honor the family name. [laughter] by -- my big sin was i would sit down with democrats and try to find a way forward to deal with a difficult issue. [applause] the trade-offs are simple. on the republican side, once we

secure the border -- which we all want -- once we increase legal immigration, which most of us believe we need because you're down to two workers unless you have a bunch of kids after you're 67, you better be looking around for workers. most all of us want to control the job from the national e-verify system, but we break down at the 31 million. here's -- 1 million. here's the problem on my side of the aisle. we cannot seem to embrace a rational solution to the 11 million. anytime you touch this, it's amnesty this and amnesty that. the one thing i'm here to tell you is that you can talk about immigration reform, you can vote for immigration reform in the reddest of red states, and you can still win, because i am still here. [applause] so we had, i had six opponents from mildly disturbed to

completely insane. [laughter] the insane guys are the ones i worried the most about. i won by 41 points, and here's what i told people in south carolina. tell me how you deport 11 million people, physically do it. tell me how you fix immigration without one democratic vote. to my democratic friends, if you'll meet me in the middle, i will meet you in the middle, and we've done it time and time again. [applause] so if i am president of the united states, we're not going to quit til we get this right. and my friends in the house, we have sent you three bills that got over 65 votes dealing with immigration comprehensively. it is time for you to up your game. [applause]

once you secure your border, once you control who gets a job, once you increase legal immigration, no one wants a felon as to the 11 million who are non-felons, you stay on our terms, you have to learn our language. i don't speak it well but look how far i've come. [laughter] you have to pay a fine, you have to pay taxes, you have to get in back of the line, and you have to wait ten years for a green card. but here's what i would never agree to. i hate the european model of second class citizens. if we're going to let you stay here all of your life, we're going to let you be part of the country. [cheers and applause] how many of you here believe climate change is real? [applause] i do too. [applause]

so here's the trade-off. for those of you who believe climate change is real, you're going to have to deal with a guy like me who will push a lower carbon economy over time in a business-friendly way. the great trade-off is energy producers and environmentalists in a room trying to find over a 50-year period a way to go to a lower carbon economy, in the meantime responsibly exploring for fossil fuels that we own and trying to create alternative energy in every sector of the economy. it is, to me, folks, a problem needs to be solved not a religion. so our -- my friends on the left who are making this a religion, you're making a mistake. to my friends on the right who deny the science, tell me why. i'm not a scientist. i made a d in science. you know why? because she'd never given an f. [laughter]

so, but i've been to the antarctic. i've been to greenland. i've been to alaska, and i've heard from people who live in these regions how the climate is changing. and when 90% of climatologists tell you it's real, who am i to tell them they don't know what they're talking about? [applause] so the trade-off is joe lieberman, john kerry and lindsey graham got close when we had the oil spill in the gulf. more nuclear power because it's a job-creating power of energy, exploring for oil and gas in a reasonable way, pushing low carbon technologies, having the government involved until we can get a foothold on a lower carbon alternative energy economy in setting carbon targets that would give america clean water and clean air. those are the trade-offs. finally, and i'll take questions, there's no foreign policy element to no labels. should there be?

let me tell you about a group who buys into no labels. radical islam is very much into no labels. they look out in this audience, and they don't see anything different. and if you spent two minutes, you'd see a lot of things different in this audience in terms of liberal, conservative, moderate, libertarian, vegetarian. [laughter] baptist, jew, you name it, we got it. they see us all the same. we're americans. we buy into the idea of worshiping god the individual way. not the group way. or maybe not at all. we buy into electing our leaders, not having them thrust upon us. we buy into the idea that young women have value. [applause] so here's the thought. if we can't agree that radical

us lammic terrorists -- islamic terrorists who crucify children, who sell women into slavery in the name of god, who slaughter everybody in the faith that disagrees with them, who throws gay couples off roofs, if we can't come together and say that we stand united against you, we're making a mistake. [applause] so i are tell you, ladies and gentlemen -- [applause] how to solve this problem with terrorism is a bit complicated. uniting against it should be as easy as wanting to solve the other problems i just described. let me just say this in ending: 3,000 of us died on 9/11 for one reason, they couldn't kill more of us. if they would, they could.

i've never been more worried about another 9/11 than i am right now. the enemies of mankind, not just this nation, are getting stronger and getting more lethal by the day. i hope that no labels could find some accommodation for a foreign policy plank that says the following: america should lead. we should be involved, we should help others deal with the problem common to mankind. and it is more than dropping a bomb. i am the chairman of the foreign operations subcommittee in charge of all the foreign aid in the federal budget. i believe that the pep far program that bush created in africa is making us safer, is making us better. [applause] i believe that foreign assistance will do more damage to radical islam over the arc of time than a bomb. i believe that educating a

young, poor girl in a remote region in the mideast is the ultimate antidote to terrorism. [cheers and applause] i believe that america at her best is the hope of mankind. let us be at our best. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> senator, welcome to new hampshire. my question to you is, it's a veterans' issue. and i know you're a veteran. you've been up there many years. you all passed the veterans accountability act, and a lot of people brag about it and used veterans as political pawns, and not one person was fired. there's a bill, 1082 on the veterans accountability act, where only a few senators have signed onboard. my question is, why have you and

the republicans and democrats come together that have been up there for years to fix the v.a. system where we got veterans dying? [applause] >> i want to thank you for your service. the reform that we did pass with senator mccain's leadership allows veterans a choice card if they live over 40 miles from a facility, they can go to a local doctor or a hospital. if you wait over 30 days, you can access a local doctor or hospital. in new hampshire your local provider is in vermont. so that was a pretty big deal for people in new hampshire. but your point is well taken. we're fighting a bureaucracy that's not going to give up without a fight. how about this idea? if you've served your country and you're eligible for health care, give you a card where you can go anywhere you want to go anytime you want to go. [applause]

that costs money, but money well spent. but you can't do that unless you deal with entitlements. by 2040 all the money you spend in taxes -- send in taxes goes to pay medicare, social security and interest on the debt. do you get where i'm coming from? there'll be no money left for the department of defense, no money left for the v.a. if you don't turn around the tsunami of entitlement spending by age-adjusting, means testing and flattening out the tax code to generate revenue, it is all talk. so count me in for helping the veteran. count me in for helping people overseas who need our help to reconstruct their lives so they can push back against radical islam. count me in for all this, but met me tell you, none of it's going to happen if the next president of the united states can't get us all in a room and do something like simpson-bowles.

[applause] >> [inaudible] >> can't hear you. [inaudible conversations] >> the crowd's turning on you. [laughter] >> as far as i know, the constitution requires congress to declare war. last time congress declared war, to my knowledge, is december of '41. we've been in a lot of wars, and we haven't won very many since then. so would you require a congressional declaration of war before we go? and then if we declare war, go to win it? >> all right. [applause] i think we've declared war five times in the history of the nation. one thing you can't have is 535 commander in chiefs. that's not a way to conduct military operations. so the bottom line is would i

seek congressional authorization to use force to destroy isil in syria? yes. i would. but i don't think i'm required to do so, because i think isil is a direct threat to our homeland. how many of you believe that isil wants to hit us if they could? [applause] how many of you believe the number one job of the president of the united states is to be commander in chief and protect the homeland? [applause] so let me tell you what i would do to destroy isil. you're not going to do it from the air. you've got to have a ground component. we have 3500 americans on the ground in iraq. general keane, who's the architect of the surge, says we need about 10,000. the good news is that's a fraction of what we've had in the past. a couple army aviation battalions with american helicopters flown by american pilots to take the fight to isil in ramadi and mosul more effectively, special forces on the ground.

if they picked up the phone, got in the car, we'd be on top of them to disrupt their operations. air controllers to drop bombs on the right people, 70% of the aircraft come back with the bombs on the ride. that's what i would do, and i want you to know that before you vote, that if you vote for me, whatever it takes as long as it takes until we destroy these bastards is my view of isil. [applause] as to syria, i don't know if there's anybody left to train, but a no-fly zone would be a great relief to the syrian people. [applause] establishing a place for them to go without being barrel bombed would be a great step. a safe haven enclave to start training people without fear of being killed, having the region buy into what we're doing. the good news is that every arab country in turkey is against assad being in power because he's a puppet of iran, and the real good news is the syrian people are not radical islamists. to say they are is a slander to

them. i have been there a lot, and they're not going to accept assad as their leader because he's massacred their families. what would i do? i'd ask for a regional force, create an enclave, train the free be syrian army more effectively and support them from a regional point of view. and i would ask congress to help me. and i would go in with the goal of winning. [applause] and when you bring them down, you better stay because if you leave too soon, it repeats itself again. this is a generational struggle. syria has been raped and decimated. the amount of money to reconstruct syria is going to be enormous, but it should come from the entire world, not just us. the arabs should pay for this war, we paid for the last two. [applause] none of that's possible unless you rebuild your military. we're on track to have the smallest army since 1940, the smallest navy since 1915. we'll be spending half of what we normally spend on defense, 2.3% in terms of gdp, by 2021.

given the threats, that's insane, and it's just not the defense budget that's being cut. the nih budget's being cut. the cdc's budget's been cut. so let's replace these defense cuts, nondefense cuts across the board with more rational ways of getting out of debt, and that goes to entitlement reform and tax code reform. so the answer to your question is that i would seek congress' blessing, but i would not let a decision functional congress -- dysfunctional congress keep me from defending america against an enemy that is surely coming here. [applause] and fighting to win. winning is my goal. [applause] destroying these bastards is my goal. >> thank you, senator graham, for being here. >> strong letter to follow. >> my name is kyle osteen, i'm the chapter leader at indiana university. [applause] i just want to say -- >> do you know anybody in new hampshire? >> do i know anybody in new hampshire? >> yeah. because indiana's way down the

road. >> i know, right. [laughter] >> i just want to say as a republican as well, thank you for running for president and for the being a voice of reason in this race. it's much appreciated. [applause] a few years ago wall street crashed, and they got a bailout while the middle class still crashed, and they haven't gotten a bailout. today wall street is doing greater than ever. what is, what is your plan specifically to make sure that main street gets their bailout? because it's long overdue. thank you. [applause] >> okay, thank you. rather than the government bailing out main street, how about creating jobs on main street? [applause] if you think the government is the salvation of the middle class, don't vote for me. if you think jobs are the salvation of the middle class, vote for me. [applause] a little about me. i grew u