workers on unemployment, it would have reduced the reliability of our electricity, it would have increased energy bills for american families and small businesses. the results would have been dramatic. dramatic increases in electricity bills all across the country. the plan would have devastated communities, certainly in my home state of wiej, -- wyoming, raising electricity bills by 42% in the state of wyoming, but they would have gone up in every state. wyoming is america's leading producer of coal. it supports thousands of good-paying jobs all across the state. across wyoming, the punishing power plan would have put hardworking men and women out of work. the rule was a massive roadblock for states. instead of working collaboratively with state governments, it put the e.p.a. in the driver's seat of setting a national energy policy. states would be told what energy sources were allowed within

their borders and how to regulate them. worst of all, the so-called clean power plan would have barely reduced carbon emissions. it would have crippled our economy and done very little, if anything, to help the environment. president obama's plan wasn't just bad policy, it was illegal. 27 states, including wyoming, filed a lawsuit to stop the regulation. the supreme court ruled that obama's e.p.a. went way beyond its legal authority. the court blocked the overreaching rule. now president trump has put forward a commonsense replacement to protect america's air. the affordable clean energy rule follows the law and is good news for the people of wyoming and the rest of the country. it recognizes that the e.p.a. is not supposed to pick winners and losers. under the new rule, power

plants can make reasonable changes like improving efficiency. the rule promotes the use of clean technologies, cleaner technologies to generate electricity so energy companies can modernize their power plants without having to shut them down completely. the rule also respects the role of states under the clean air act. it gets rid of washington knows best, which is an approach we deal with, top-down approach of heavy-handed unelected bureaucrats. states understand how to protect the air their citizens breathe. they know it's an important thing to do. the end result will be cleaner air and more affordable energy for america's households. now senate democrats want to play politics once again and uproot the affordable clean energy rule. democrats want to resurrect a rule that the supreme court took unprecedented action to stop. spald -- that would be bad

for our environment, bad for our country and economy. if congress repeals the affordable clean energy rule the administration couldn't replace it with a similar rule. the administration put forward a commonsense rule to protect our air quality, and now democrats want to kill it. that's the proposal on the floor today. democrats have become hostages to the far-left agenda, madam president. even when it doesn't make any sense. it's not good policy, and we've seen this before. the environment and the public works committee, which i chair, recently passed legislation to help reduce the amount of plastic pollution in our oceans. the bipartisan bill follows up on the previous bipartisan save our seas act that passed and was signed into law last congress. instead of supporting the legislation, extreme

environmentalists opposed the bill, a bipartisan bill. we got it passed, we're going on the next level now. now the environmentalists, extreme environmentalists of course, oppose the bill because we're not banning all plastics. can you imagine something so ridiculous? that's what they want. working together in a bipartisan way even when we're doing things that to me make sense, to others make sense, the bipartisan senators makes sense, the members in the house say members, these extreme activists want to do the same thing with our air. instead of finding common ground, their goal seems to be to shut down our economy because that's what they're promoting. democrats in the house of representatives regrettably have followed a similar pattern. house democrats refuse to work with republicans to pass commonsense bills to protect our air and address climate change which we're promoting an effort to actually address it. apparently it's not going far enough for the extreme democrat

environmentalists. bipartisan legislation to support carbon capture technologies which we passed in this body sits in the house of representatives waiting for a vote. the use it act, which i introduced along with senator whitehouse, who gives speeches each week on climate change on the floor of the senate, we have worked together. it has passed our committee unanimously. it's passed the senate unanimously. and yet with bipartisan overwhelming support in the senate, it's still being blocked in the house. the bill has bipartisan support in the house as well but it hasn't gone anywhere. it's being stopped because democratic leaders in the house refuse to move a commonsense bill that would lower carbon emissions and help address carbon climate change. they're climate alarmists. they want things done drastically, unilaterally, immediately when we're trying to take commonsense steps in the right direction.

killing commonsense policies like the affordable clean energy rule and the use it act make no sense to me, madam president. president trump's rule respects the law and it helps the environment. it is a win-win for our country. americans deserve clean air. they also deserve clear rules. and the affordable clean energy rule gives us both. i urge every senator to oppose the resolution that is coming up to the floor. and, madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: l all time has expired. the clerk will read the title of the joint resolution for the third time. the clerk: s.j. res. 53 providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 title 5 united states code of the rules submitted by the environmental protection agency relating to repeal of the clean power plan, and so forth. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the passage of s.j. res. 53.

is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? seeing none, the ayes are 41, the nays are 53. the joint resolution fails on passage. the clerk will report the pending business.

the clerk: veto message to accompany s.j. res. 54, joint resolution relating to a national emergency declared by the president on february 15, 2019. mr. schumer: madam president, reserving -- the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: i ask -- i'm going to speak for a minute before i do my unanimous consent request. now, we have a crisis here in this -- in this world and here in america. because of the president's precipitous action to take a small number of american troops out of northern syria and greenlight erdogan's invasion, we are in real trouble. we're in trouble in a whole lot of ways. most importantly, we in new york

know that a small group of bad people can cause terrible terrorism with huge loss of life, even when they are 7,000 miles away. there are about 70,000 isis prisoners and their families now being guarded by the kurds, but because of the president's action, it will no longer be guarded. when we went to the white house yesterday and asked the president and his military folks what's the plan to prevent these isis would-be terrorists, many of them, from escaping, they didn't have one. they didn't have one, because the kurds have left, and the only people who might guard them are the syrians or the turks, and neither of them have a great interest in stopping isis. in fact, i asked the defense secretary, secretary he is per per -- secretary esper, is there

any intelligence that shows that either the syrians or the turks would do a good job at guarding the isis prisoners and prevent them from escaping? no, there was no intelligence to that effect. and so as a result, isis prisoners are escaping, will continue to escape, and america will pay an awful price, an awful price. the kurds will pay an awful price. they have fought alongside our soldiers. they are our allies. my friend, i talked to my friend from kentucky. he said the kurds are better off with the syrians. well, the kurds sure don't think so. they would rather be back to the status quo, talk to their leaders. and certainly, america will not be better off at all. with isis prisoners escaping. who did this? the president. the president's incompetence has put american lives in danger.

simply, starkly put, but accurate. in new york, as i said, we know how well -- we know well how a small group of fanatics halfway around the world can do incredible damage and kill thousands of americans here on our soil. it should shake every member of this body, regardless of their ideology, regardless of their views on turkey, that the president made this decision so abruptly without heeding the advice of our commanders on the ground and now has no plan to manage the consequences. after meeting with the president yesterday, it was clear to both democrats and republicans in the room that he does not grasp the gravity of the situation. he doesn't understand it. the most important thing we can do right now is send president trump a message that congress, the vast majority of democrats

and republicans demand he reverse course. and i'm asking this as a unanimous consent not to go through a long regular process, because the bottom line is the longer we wait, the more courage will die our allies, the more isis prisoners will escape, and the greater danger hour by hour, day by day america falls into. so we should move this resolution. we need unanimous consent. i spoke to my good friend from kentucky. he said he wanted to put a resolution on the floor about military aid to turkey. something many on my side would be sympathetic to. and i offered him the ability of moving his resolution. we have to, of course, get permission of our members, but i would work for that, in return for us moving our resolution.

he still said no. he still said no. i think that is a horrible decision. i think it could well risk the lives of americans down the road. i think it will certainly risk the lives of many more kurds who are our allies. we will return to this issue. i wish we could pass it now, the same bill that passed the house with a vast majority of republicans, 2-1, with leaders mccarthy and scalise and cheney voting for it and go forward. i understand the motivations of my friend from kentucky are sincere and real. he's had these positions consistently. they are not the positions of a majority on his side or on our side on many issues. on some, we have worked together and agreed. but i think it is so wrong not to move forward. it is so wrong to let the man

both democrats and republicans saw in the white house yesterday stay in control without pressuring him to do better, without pressuring him to do better. there is no better, quicker, or more powerful way to pressure the president to undo the damage he's caused than to pass a bipartisan joint resolution that will go directly to his desk. we will come back to this issue. it will not go away. it cannot go away for the safety of america, for the safety of the kurds, for some degree of stability, not chaos in the middle east that the president, president trump precipitously caused. so i plead with my colleague from kentucky and anyone else who might object to let us have the vote. let us make our arguments and prevail. we're willing to do debate time. let us not say it has to be my way or the high way when so many

lives and such danger is at risk. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 246, h.j. res. 77, that the joint resolution be read a third time, and the senate vote on passage with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: madam president, reserving the right to object, the constitution is quite clear on this subject. if the minority leader wishes to engage in the civil war in syria that's been going on for nearly a decade, we should obey the constitution. he should come to the floor and say that we are ready to declare war, we are ready to authorize force, and we are going to stick our troops in the middle of this messy, messy, five-sided civil war where we would be ostensibly opposed to the turkish government that has made an incursion. we would then be opposed to our

nato ally. it would be the first time in history that we would be inserting ourselves militarily against a nato ally. none of this is to excuse turkey's action. in fact, today i will offer a resolution that would actually do something. the resolution that's being offered is simply a way to have petty partisan criticism of the president infect this body. mine actually would have the force of law and would prevent any arms from being sold to turkey, which would be a serious rebuke to what they're doing in syria. but the constitution is quite clear. no authorization has ever been given for the use of force in syria. no authorization of declaration of war, no permission to be there at all. so if they want to insert themselves into the civil war, by all means, let's have a debate. let's have the constitutional debate. but i for one am not willing to send one young man or one young woman, one soldier over there without a clear mission.

there is no clear mission. there is no clear enemy. and in fact, the war is largely over. assad is going to remain for better or worse. so we have a despot on one side, erdogan. we have another despot on the other side, assad. and here's the deal. the kurds have to live there. it's despairing that they have to live there. but you know what? their best chance for survival is having an ally inside of syria. if they become allied -- and it appears they are -- if they become allied with assad, do you know what? there is a possibility of a kurdish area within syria. there may well be an opportunity for a kurdish area similar to what has happened in iraq. so i object to this resolution because this resolution does nothing to fix the problem. my resolution would stop arm sales to turkey, and so i will object to this resolution. the presiding officer: objection is heard.

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the minority leader. mr. schumer: i believe history will show that the country, the senate, and even the senator from kentucky will regret his blocking of this resolution. i yield the floor. mr. paul: mr. president? the presiding officer: the snow shower for kentucky. mr. paul: sit i would like to ask unanimous consent that we introduce senate bill 2624, turkey arms sales, which would eliminate any further sale of arms to turkey and instead of sending a fake message or a senate -- sense of the senate resolution, would actually be binding legislation and would tell the turks, yes, we are serious. we object to your incursion into syria. you need to respect the territorial integrity of syria, and we are, therefore, no longer going to be selling you arms. i ask unanimous consent that this be passed. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator for idaho.

mr. risch: reserving the right to object, mr. president, our colleagues -- this is a very fluid situation, as we all know, and certainly people -- americans who are watching this from home are confused about the parties, and then when you overlay the politics on top of it where you have a level of aminos towards the commander in chief that there is at this point, it becomes very difficult to sort this out. so, as chairman of the foreign relations committee, i want to try to lay out some fundamentals here that we need to deal with. as has been pointed out by everyone -- and i think everyone agrees that the situation on the ground in syria is an incredibly complex situation. it is difficult to understand and impossible to manage at some point because of the fact that there are dozens and dozens of tribal entities that share

religious or cultural or tribal affiliations, either together or in opposition. the result of that is the mess that we've had in syria for so long. now on top of that in northern syria, we have a situation where the kurds and the turks are at odds with each other. this has happened just recently. and as everybody in this body, house and senate, republicans, democrats now, it is a very serious situation. but this is not new. the animosity and the fight between the turks and the kurds has been going on for centuries. let me say that again. this fight between these two groups has been going on for centuries. who are these two groups? we have the turks on the one side, north of the border, who are members of nato and are at the very least theoretical

allies of the united states, though in recent years that alliance has been strained, and that's an understatement of what the situation is. recently they negotiated a deal with the russians to buy s-400 missiles, which is a horrendous problem for a member of nato. nato was formed of course to push back against the russians. now you have a member of nato that is engaging with the russians in this fashion. those of us that deal with it, have dealt with it for months. we've been pressing the turks as hard as we can about the mistake they've made ant consequences that it's going to have. they have an order for f35's. they make about -- they make a number of parts for the f-35. we have told them clearly in no uncertain terms for months, they can have the f-35's or they can have the s-4000's. but they can't have both. they have insisted that they can

and it is simply not going to happen. i think maybe they're starting to believe that. fast-forward to the point we are now where the turks amassed 30,000 troops on the border with syria ready to come in and take on the kurds who had moved into the northern part of syria due to the failed-state status of syria. to say that the president of the united states is responsible for this is simply a political statement that isn't true. you can dislike the commander in chief, you can dislike the calls that he makes. but this is a war that's been going on for two centuries. it was going to happen. the fact that erdogan had amassed 30,000 troops on the border was a clear indication that it was going to go forward. we had about 028 troops between the two standing armies and

admittedly the president of the united states pulled those 28 troops out of harm's way. in any event, you can argue about what got us here, what the triggering factor was, whether it was or wasn't going to happen anyway, but what you can't argue about is what the situation is today. there isn't anyone in this body that would disagree that this is a very serious situation. turkey is alone on this, by the way, with the possible exception of the qataris, they are alone on this. the world has been watching this, condemning it what turkey is doing. they have done a cross-border incursion and are facing their age-old enemy, the kurds, inside of syria. so what do we do about this? well, the house has passed a matter that the minority leader has talked about and wanted to pass. senator paul has brought his idea to the floor. i want to tell you that the foreign relations committee has been working on this since it

blew up. i want to thank my staff, and i want to thank senator menendez's staff, the ranking member, who pulled on all-nighter last night putting together a piece of legislation and an all-morninger to get to the point where we are. this piece of legislation is going to be dropped very quickly are issue-menendez is a bipartisan -- rx isch-menendez is it a bipartisan piece of legislation that addresses all the issues we're concerned about. it addresses the issues with turkey, with the kurds, it addresses the issues that the minority leader addressed regarding the prisoners that are being -- the isis prisoners that are being held. it is a good piece of legislation. it is going to have numerous -- and i mean numerous -- cosponsors to the bill from both sides of the aisle. so with that in mind, i am going to enter an objection to senator paul's piece of legislation, not

because i object to it as it stands by itself, but because we have a comprehensive piece of legislation that does address this, that has -- is the result of consultation between both the majority and the minority and the administration to get us a bill that could actually become law. and i -- from my own standpoint, i'm always at a point where i want to reach an objective. i want to get to a result. senator paul's and the other legislation cannot become law. this bipartisan piece of legislation, risch-menendez that addresses this very, very serious issue, can become law. so, as a result of that, mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator for utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i applaud president trump for the restraint, the resolve, and the commitment to constitutional

principles. he demonstrated when he decided not to have the u.s. go into syria, not to continue to involve our troops in a looming conflict in syria. i agree, it is a horrible situation. i agree, we've got people running both syria and turkey who are not our friends and who have shown significant hostility toward us. it is precisely because of that, mr. president, if not in spite of it, that we shouldn't be there, especially when you take into account that we do not have a declaration of war relative to syria. we do not have an authorization for the use of military force with regard to syria. and under our system of government, the u.s. constitution places the power to declare war -- or otherwise authorize of use of military force -- in congress. this was no accident. it is the branch of the federal government most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals. this was a significant break from our previous system of government, the one that was based in london.

in federalist number 69, alexander hamilton explained that this was no accident. under the british model, the king, as the chief executive, had the power to take the country to war. it was parliament's job to follow along and figure out how to fund it. this would not be the case in the american republic. this is not the case under our constitution. and yet, mr. president, sadly, for decades we've had a congress consisting of republicans, democrats, senators, and representatives, who have allowed the legislative muscle to atrophy, who have refused and declined to exercise the power to declare war. in that contention i've heard -- in that contention i've heard -- in that context, i've heard democrats and republicans say let the president decide what we do there. and through our own inaction, we have essentially relinquished the power to declare war. why does this matter? this is the only connection the american people have to the power to declare war. when we send their brave sons

and daughters into harm's way, we owe it to them to have an open, public, rebust discussion in which we make a deal with them, in which we outline the terms of our engage piments. we don't have that in syria. there are those who are is up set that we don't. it is not as though we are a victim. we are the ability actor, not the acted upon. we have the power to bring up a proposal, if they want to declare war with regard to syria, let's have that discussion. now, i'm not a fan of war. i am not a fan of war starting on behalf of the united states anywhere in the world right now. but if someone wants to make that discussion, let's have it. people shouldn't be criticizing president trump, who has shown restraint, who wants to protect our sons and daughters who would be protecting us. and he's saying, us know, maybe, just maybe, when you've got a bad guy in turkey wanting to do

some things in syria with regard to the kurds, maybe, just maybe, when you take into account the fact that turkey is in fact a ally, that's going to lead to full-blown war. we should therefore respect and we should be grateful to him for taking that step of restraint. this president has been unique in modern history-and-in mott blindly -- in not blindly deferring to the military complex. i thank him for that and salute his willingness to stand behind our brave men and women. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator for indiana. mr. braun: i rise today because i just finished up visiting all counties in my home state. every one of them have backed about what we've been doing here, especially following the lead of president trump. when it comes to the particular issue of syria, i think it begs

the question, when people say it green-lighted what occurred there, what would the reaction have been had we not gotten out of harm's way? i'm guessing it would have been a bigger fiasco in many different dimensions. the minority leader indicated that rand's idea was horrible. i want to make the point that collectively over the last 40 to 50 years, we've been engaged in -- all the way back to the vietnam war, where we've been add venge toursome, done it, where we've not paid for it and we're noe now in a pickle and that's why i was for what the president decided to do. you cannot continue being engaged like this when you're running trillion-dollar deficits, $22 trillion in debt. hoosiers understand that.

most americans do as well. so i am going to support rand paul's amendment. i'm glad that the president finally had the guts to do what most americans have been for and am disappointed that the other side in any other situation would have been for that exact action. i yield the floor. ms. baldwin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator for wisconsin. ms. baldwin: mr. president, i rise today on behalf of nearly 24,000 workers and retirees in wisconsin who have paid into the central states pension fund. more than four years ago, thousands of wisconsinites started receiving letters in the mail telling them that their pensions that they had worked for, planned on, earned would not be paid out in full. as was promised to them. but instead their letters said

their pensions would be slashed by 50%, 60%, some as high as 70%. since then, those retirees have organized. they've organized at home. they've called on their members of congress. they've come to washington countless times all to remind us of the promises that they were made when they earned their exceptions. -- pensions and to fight for a solution to the pending crisis. i have been proud to work side by side with these wisconsin workers and retirees and with my colleague, senator brown, to introduce the butch lewis act. this legislation will put failing multiemployer pension plans, including central states, back on solid ground. and it does so without cutting

the pensions that retirees have earned. this is not just good policy for workers and retirees, because putting these pensions back on strong footing would also protect the small businesses that employed them from the threat of closing their doors if these plans are allowed to fail. compounding this looming crisis is the reality that the pension benefit guaranty corporation known as the pbgc, the government's insurance for multiemployer pension plans like central states, it is on its own path to insolvency by 2025. this week i reintroduced legislation to help address the financial challenges of the pbgc. the pension stability act would

add funding to the pension benefit guaranty corporation's multicomplier -- multiemployer program by imposing a fee on financial firms convicted of financial crimes. this weekend i was in endeavor, wisconsin, with retirees who meet once a month at the fire station to update one another on our progress here in washington. i've been to many, many such meetings like that across the state. in the months since the house passed the butch lewis act, there hasn't been much other progress to speak of. the senate hasn't taken up the bill. no other proposals have been offered. and all the while retirees and workers in the central states pension fund continue to doubt their retirement security. today i'm asking my colleagues

in the senate to join me to pass my pension stability act and to help generate new revenue to help safeguard the retirement security of millions of americans. if washington does not act, workers and retirees face massive cuts to the pensions that they've earned over decades of hard work. i've come to the floor many times to remind this body about the retirees, some of whom stand to lose more than 50% of their pensions. and still nothing has been done. and so i'm here once again to remind my colleagues that this is about a promise that must be kept. so i ask unanimous consent that the help committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 2598 and the senate proceed

to its immediate consideration. further, the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for utah. mr. lee: mr. president, reserving the right to object, i thank and commend my friend and distinguished colleague, the senator from wisconsin, for her work on this effort. i'm not familiar with this legislation. i don't serve on the committee on help, education, labor and pensions. i have friends who do and friends who couldn't be here today but who have asked me to voice objection on their behalf. so on behalf of the senior senator from tennessee, senator alexander, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. ms. baldwin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for wisconsin. ms. baldwin: my message to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle today is simple.

if you will continue to object to my proposal to help shore up the pbgc and the proposals from me and other democratic colleagues to put failing multiemployer pensions back on solid ground, then please bring up your own plans, bring your ideas to the table and let's work together to solve this pension crisis and protect the retirement security of americans. because just objecting to our plans is not an option for the 25,000 workers and retirees that i am representing here today. doing nothing is not an option. and if we don't act, we will be breaking a promise made to 1.5 million workers and retirees nationwide. pension promises must be kept. and so once again i'll say

washington needs to act, and we need to do it now. i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator for utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i rise yet again today to speak about an issue near and dear to my heart and an issue that has become the focus of many of my passions here in the united states senate. that is about the fairness for high-skilled immigrants act. this is an important and overwhelmingly bipartisan piece of legislation. it's a piece of legislation that passed the house in july by an overwhelming vote of 365-65. two of these things should strike the american people as remarkable, one that something with that much of a bipartisan margin passed in the house of representatives. number two, that it deals with immigration, and it was still that overwhelming and that bipartisan. as i've explained in this chamber before, the concept of

this legislation is simple. our current method for allocating green cards caps the total number of green cards that nationals of any one country may receive. in practice, this results in de facto, severe de facto discrimination on the basis of country of origin. you see, because immigrants from countries with large populations are restricted to receiving the same number of visas as immigrants from smaller countries. their wait times have ballooned, in some cases stretching out literally for decades. the problem compounds over time and it becomes even more unfair than it was many decades ago when this was first enacted into law. and i repeat, this happens for absolutely no reason other than

the country in which the immigrant was born. so let's say that two immigrants, one from india and the other from germany, with the exact same skills, the exact same degrees, and the exact same job experience apply at the same hour of the same day for an employment-based green card. the german might wait maybe 12 months to receive a green card. the indian applicant will almost certainly wait a decade or far more. this kind of system is antithetical to american values and to the interest our country has in recruiting the very best and the very brightest from around the world, irrespective of race or religion or country

of origin. it is simply unacceptable that in 2019 our immigration system still contains country of origin discrimination as a defining feature. the per country caps, mr. president, simply must go. they're wrong. they were never a good policy. whatever policy they might have had in mind decades ago, it escapes me except in fact that the policy itself was at the outset wrong. and it has become more wrong over time as these problems have compounded. the obviousness of the moral error embedded within this legislation is more profound and easily visible today than it ever has been. if you were to describe this to anyone, they would scratch their head and say why would you want to do that unless you're engaging in some type of

discrimination that we as a country understandably have abandoned a long time ago and should no longer embrace. the harm inflicted by any kind of invidious discrimination whether on the basis of race or sex or country of origin does not simply exist in the abstract, in the ether. the human suffering caused by it happens to be real and heartbreaking. although the time that we have here this afternoon to discuss this, i'm sure i can't come anywhere close to doing justice to all the people who are being harmed by the per country cap system, i'd like to share at least a few of their stories so that you understand how this law operates. i find that when you tell stories about a law, people understand the law and they understand what needs to change about the law a lot more than they would have otherwise. ugna hin is a registered nurse

who lives in south jordan utah currently working at a nonprofit health organization in utah. she received her bachelor's degree in this country. she's lived in this country for the past ten years, languishing in the decades-long backlog she's now being forced to consider leaving the united states due to the continuous uncertainty of her immigration status and the incessant renewals of temporary visas. if she leaves, she'll take her talents and her training with her, depriving utah's residents of a smart, skilled, kind and caring nurse. ashish patell first came to utah legally in 2005 on a temporary high-skilled work vis. since that time he worked hard at his job, followed the law, paid taxes, had two kids both

of whom were born as american citizens. in february of 2011 mr. patell's petition to earn a green card was approved. despite this, despite the fact that eight, going on nine years have now elapsed, his green card remains unissued. why? well, solely because of the arbitrary wrong dis crim fla torrey -- discriminatory per country caps. ashis patell is still in the backlog even immigrants applied years and years after he did and received approval have already received permanent status. if mr. patell immigrated from country in the world other than india he would already have had his green card today. dr. chitonia is an endcocrinol

endcocrinologist is in illinois. he came to the united states in 2007 and will likely not receive his green card for at least another decade. his daughter was one year old when she came to this country. in a few years she will age out of her temporary visa and dr. dr. mumai halili will face a decision that has many people stuck in the backlog community. does he separate from his daughter as she loses his temporary status or does he abandon his life in the u.s. in order to keep his family together. dr. pria shamugnan lives in louisiana and is an aerospace engineer who studied at the

university of alabama. she dreams of working at nasa. after 13 years in the backlog she's still waiting for a green card. as a result of that she cannot fulfill her dream of joining america's space team and helping put the first person on mars until she finally gets her green card, our country will continue to lose out on her talent. dr. krisnendu roy is the head of department of computer science at valdosta state university in georgia. he studied for his degree in louisiana and has lived in the united states for over 16 years. during that time he shaped the lives of countless students in georgia through the classes he teaches by organizing computing camps for k-12 students and by mentoring the robotics team in his community. he's followed the law and he's done exactly what's required of him under our immigration system in order to earn his green card. yet he remains stuck in the

backlog with no end to his wait in sight. dr. shri obolarte is an encolings working just -- oncologist working outside dickenson, north who came to the united states in 2006. she moved to north dakota because the area has a specialized of these physicians. her impact has been invaluable. recently she tried to return from a trip to india but approval was delayed for six weeks forcing her patients to travel as far as 100 miles as they scrambled to find a temporary physician. the pain this caused her patients would never have come about if she hadn't been subjected to an arbitrary cap, an arbitrary discriminatory cap based on her country of origin and had already received her green card.

ashkunan lives in oklahoma. her story is a heartbreaking example of the devastating effects of the long wait for a green card and the effects that a family can endure under this system. ash and his wife lost their toddler son to a congenital disease. the illness could have been treated had they been able to move to a closer home, one to a medical facility that provided the needed treatment, but they were unable to do so and their son was thus unable to receive the care he required, he needed because ash was forced to remain with the same employer while he waited in the green card backlog and consequently was unable to move. these are just some of the names and some of the stories of some of the people, the hardworking,

law-abiding immigrants who have come to the united states to build a life and contribute to our communities, but who have been told that because of the country in which they were born, they have to wait decades in the green card backlog before they can start living the american dream. these stories stir us to action and they darn well should. they should remind us that while policy making is often messy and complicated it is sometimes simple and straightforward because sometimes you stumble across something that is a good idea, sometimes you stumble across something that was a bad idea and should be taken out of the law. sometimes the solution to our problems is clear and beyond question. in those cases all we need is the will to act. i have yet to hear someone offer a reasonable defense of the per country caps as meritorious and

oir -- on their own terms and that is because there is no such defense, at least not one that anyone would be willing to defend in country. country of origin discrimination, whether it is in the justice system, employment context or housing is wrong and it's inconsistent with the values upon which our country was founded. it becomes even more repugnant when its human consequences are as obvious and tragic and focused on people of a particular country of origin as they are here. what if, mr. president, there had been something in place with respect to the ancestors of people serving in this body arbitrarily discriminating against people from england, ireland, scotland, wales, denmark, other countries where people have been immigrating to america for centuries?

we should think about that for a moment and think about how we would never have been able to enjoy the blessings of america. i think it's equally wrong for us to identify a single country that we punish, that we exclude uniquely against countries of origin. i understand and recognize that while the per country caps themselves are completely indefensible, and they are, some people have concerns about how eliminating the caps might impact fraud and abuse within the h-1b system. that is a legitimate concern and to address those concerns in this congress, i negotiated an amendment to the fairness for high-skilled immigrants act with senator grassley to include some new protections for american workers and how we process

applications for h-1b visa. the grassley amendment would strengthen the department of labor's ability to investigate and enforce application condition requirements, in addition it reforms the labor condition application process to ensure -- ensure complete disclosure of information, and finally it closes off loopholes by which employers could otherwise circumvent the annual cap on h-1b workers. these are important and worthy reforms, reforms that i was happy to add to the bill. indeed, we saw an example just last month of the positive impact these reforms would have. in september the immigration and customs enforcement announced a $2.5 million settlement with an indian consulting firm for h-1b visa fraud, they were exploiting

b-1. one of the provisions in this congress would close that loophole. the grassley amendment, like the underlying bill, consists of provisions that long enjoyed support from members of both sides of the aisle. they are drawn primarily from an h-1b reform bill that has been championed by senator grassley and senator durbin. they are modeled on the fairness to high-skilled immigrants act that was negotiated in a previous congress. i'm grateful senator grassley was willing to come to the table and work with me and others in good faith on a reasonable compromise to the bill. i believe the deal we struck is a fair and even-handed way to address concerns about the hb1 bill. as i said in the past, there's

no question that immigration is one of the most politically fraught issues in congress, if not the single most politically fraught issue, that makes it all the more important to come together to get something done in those areas where we can find common ground. it's a little like eating an elephant, you can't swallow the whole thing at once, either the elephant or donkey. so you have -- the fairness for high skilled immigrants act is an important step toward common ground. unquestionably there are broader debates on immigration policy being had in congress and across the country right now. some wish to reform our immigration system by increasing the number of green cards we issue while others wish to move to a more merit-based system. that debate is almost certainly not going to be resolved this day today or this month or this year or perhaps even during this

congress. notably, however, many senators on both sides of that debate, ardent champions of liberal and conservative immigration reforms who ordinarily could not be farther apart when it comes to immigration policy are cosponsors of fairness for high-skilled immigrants act. the reason why this is the case is that they recognize that regardless of what else we might do to reform our immigration system, country of origin discrimination is outdated, immoral and morally indefensible and not consistent with our values and it is a problem that we can solve right now. the other reason the fairness for high-skilled immigrants act has been so successful in attracting support from both sides of the aisle and every end of the political continuum is because we scriewpusly --

scrupulously avoided ending immigration reform. we also carefully avoided this becoming about so many things that it's going to become controversial no matter what. this bill is not comprehensive immigration reform. it's not anything close to that. and that is, in fact, why this bill is something that we can get done right now. it's a reason -- the reason why it was able to pass the house of representatives with 365 votes. well, it does not fix many of the other flaws that plague other components of our broken, outdated, out motive immigration system. it is great and important step toward reform if we're ever going to have a chance at modernizing and repairing our immigration laws, we need to recognize that we cannot

necessarily solve all of our problems at once. the fact that this is the case should not stand in our way of starting the work the american people sent us here to do. mr. president, i therefore ask unanimous consent that the committee on judiciary be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 1044 than the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i ask unanimous consent that the lee amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for illinois. mr. durbin: reserving the right to object. we have six minutes until the roll call and i don't want to inconvenience my colleagues.

i ask, with permission from the senator from utah, unanimous consent request to make my unanimous consent request to be the first item of business after the roll call is announced. the presiding officer: is there objection to the senator for illinois' request? mr. lee: reserving the right to object, i want to make sure i understand. you want to do your live u.c. request after the roll call vote. mr. durbin: that's correct. mr. lee: without objection. the presiding officer: is there objection to the original request? mr. durbin: reserve the right to object, i would say as follows, i've been on the floor of the senate more than any other system asking for immigration reform. our system is it broken. the galleries are filled with people following this debate personally because it literally affects their lives, their families and their future. this senator has been willing to move forward on comprehensive

immigration reform, sadly the senator on the other side has not supported that. i hope he will consider doing that. in the meantime, though, what are we going to do about the current issue of an annual quota of no more than 140,000 eb-2 visas and 25,000 applicants of indian descent asking permission to move forward with eb-2 visa. the senator from utah suggested that we shouldn't increase the 140,000 annual cap. i think that's wrong. following his bill, doing exactly what he said, giving these visas only to those waiting in line from indian descent, doing that and no visas for the rest of the world, if you follow the senator lee proposal, in ten years there will still be 165,000 people of indian descent waiting in line and the rest of the world would have been excluded.

this is unfair. it doesn't make sense. i'm going to offer unanimous consent to lift that 140,000 cap and within five years everyone waiting in line will get their chance for a green card -- five years, but not at the expense of the rest of the world. let's do this in a fair fashion. and while we're at it, it's unfair that your spouses and children are being counted when it comes to the 140,000. my bill exempts them. they will not be bound by a quota. if you're children are aging out, reaching the age of 18 or 21, new legal status, new worries for you and your family, i eliminate that problem completely. my approach is one that will solve the problem by lifting the legal immigration for talented people like many who have gathered here today. the senator from utah says he can't support that. i hope he'll reconsider. lifting that cap is what we need to do. lifting the country quotas,

making certain that those in line finally get their chance all within five years, something that the underlying bill does not do. i hope the senator from utah will agree to my bill, which i will offer as an alternative after this roll call, i object to his bill. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the senator for utah. mr. lee: mr. president, how much time remains? the presiding officer: two minutes. mr. lee: mr. president, i'll be brief. look, just as the per country cap system is a quintessential example of the poorly designed broken system and what a poorly designed broken system looks like. the objection that we've heard today is, i fear, emblematic of the blocken state of affairs that we face when it comes to the immigration process. i mentioned earlier one of the reasons why this bill has been able to achieve as much support and had the cosponsors as it has and passed the house of representatives with 365 votes

is because we avoided poison pill efforts. the adjustment of the overall numbers that my friend, the distinguished colleague from illinois, has proposed, would doom this bill. he knows that it would doom this bill, and to what avail? to what end? what good does it do to doom this bill? it still remains at the fact regardless of where we put the overall number for employment-based green cards, we have a problem that we are treating people from india unfairly. in illinois today there are over 40,000 green card applicants plus their spouses and children stuck in a green card backlog that is moralely indefensive. we must change this. i hope, i encourage my colleague to change his mind. we could pass this today. we could make our country a

better place as a result. thank you, mr. president. mr. durbin: mr. president, my time remaining? the presiding officer: there is no time remaining. the question is, shall s.j. res. 54 pass? the objections of the president of the united states to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays are required. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote: vote:

vote:

vote: