Over 43 million americans provide direct care to older family members, with women serving as 66 of all primary caregivers. And as we baby boomers, as our generation ages, the number of Senior Citizens requiring care will likely spike. Less takehome pay for those caregivers means tighter finances, more stress, and lost opportunities. All at a time when families are confronting Health Crisis or dealing with unique challenges of starting a new family. With such events often coinciding with high medical bills, the last thing a stressed family needs is a smaller working budget. Senator king and i have offered a proposal that would enable working families to have continued access to pay while they are meeting necessary family obligations. Our plan would create a tax credit to encourage employers to voluntarily offer paid leave for workers. To be eligible for that tax credit, the employer must at a minimum offer four weeks of paid leave. But they could offer more. Paid leave would be available on an hourly basis and would be separate from the other vacation or sick leave. For each hour paid leave is provided, the employer would receive a 25 nonrefundable tax credit. The more paid fmla time the employer offers, the greater the tax credit. This tax credit would be available to any employer with qualified employees, regardless of size. Importantly, our bill is reasonable. Its a balanced solution that can make a real difference in the lives of working families. When we do this without new mandates or new taxes, it creates an incentive structure to encourage employers to offer that paid leave. Specifically targeting those who hire lowerincome, hourlypaid workers. Mr. President , this should not be just another electionyear issue. This is a middleclass issue, and our bill takes the partisan politics out of it. And it really offers a meaningful solution that we can pass. Frankly, i would like to thank my friend from maine, senator king, who joined me in offering this bill. Once again, this nowfamous, surf and turf caucus is working together on a commonsense proposal, and its a proposal that can help american families. Im grateful for the senators input, for his hard work and his friendship. And i look forward to closely working with him in the future so that we can advance this measure in the United States senate. Thank you, mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. King mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from maine. Mr. King mr. President , im delighted to join my colleague from nebraska to introduce what i think is an important and commonsense and workable bill that could be passed in the next several weeks. And i think we would find broad agreement across the political spectrum. The question were answering today is what does suriname, papua, new guinea and the United States have in common . The answer is they were the three countries in the world weve been able to turn up that dont have any provision for paid maternity leave. Every country in the industrialized world except the United States has coverage for paid medical leave. You see red is the United States, suriname and papua, new gunea, thats it in the world. This is something we can do that wont effect our competitiveness, wont be a problem for Economic Growth and in fact i believe it will contribute to it. Today a family that has a Health Crisis with an elderly parent, a child or has the joyful issue of a new child in their family has a terrible dilemma. The dilemma is do i stay home to take care of the child or the elderly parent in a Health Crisis, or do i have to put food on the table by going to work . If every hour i miss work, i lose an hour of pay. Thats a dilemma that we should not put our people through. I believe that this is, as i say, a productivity issue. All of the discussion that weve had in recent months about pay and gender inequity often comes down to the issue of workplace flexibility, particularly in the case of women that are often the ones that are put into this dilemma that i mentioned of choosing between their earnings and their familial obligations. Its women who are often trapped in this dilemma, and they are the ones that are asking for and seeking quite reasonably the same type of flexibility that virtually every other working person in the world already enjoys. I like this bill and agree with my colleague from nebraska to join in it because its voluntary. Its not a mandate from washington. Its not something that says every employer in the country has to do this, and there are going to be rules and a bureaucracy and adjudications and all those kinds of things. No. This is a voluntary incentivebased program that says to every employer, not just those 50 or above or 100 or above or 500 or bofer, every employer in the country will have available to them this tax credit for offering paid leave to their employees. I think this is the way we should approach this, not, as my colleague says, with a onesizefitsall mandate emanating from washington. I think incentives are always better than mandates. The other thing thats important about this bill is that it really focuses on the people who are currently least likely to have some kind of paid leave available to them, and thats people that work on an hourly basis. Thats who this bill is focused on. The interesting thing on the data is that as you go up the income scale into salaried employees, there already is more than twothirds of American Workers in this category already have paid leave policies. And as you go but its when you get down into the working people, the hourly workers, thats where the real problem is. And thats why i think this bill has an important focus on hourly work, people who are covered by the fair labor standards act and people who otherwise just arent going to have this kind of protection. This, mr. President , is about flexibility. And as ive talked to, listened to womens groups and advocacy groups, flexibility is always the first thing on the agenda. And thats exactly what were talking about here. So people, men or women, dont have to make that agonizing decision. People who are living paycheck to paycheck dont have to make the agonizing decision about between being able to put food on the table and pay the rent and staying home to take care of an ill child or an elderly parent or to stay home a reasonable period after the joyous occasion of the arrival of a new child. Its also about productivity. I believe that we will see an increase in productivity because people wont be preoccupied when theyre at work. They know theyre going to be there and they know theyre going to have this protection. And it takes away that agonizing worry and anxiety. And it also, by giving people paid leave, will enable them to continue to contribute to the economy. And i believe it will be actually a positive stimulus to our economy. Of course everybody says were in competition with the rest of the world. Not on this. Not on this. Everywhere else in the world provides this level of benefit, so were really in a catchup situation. And i believe, as i said, i think well see an increase in productivity and in economic activity. Then finally, its about fairness. And frankly, mr. President , its to some extent about gender fairness. Its about fairness to working women who are expected in our culture to be the ones to take care of the sick child. That may not be the fairest thing and that may not be the wave of the future, but thats the fact today. And its about fairness to those working women who today have to make a choice between putting food on the table and taking care of a sick child or taking the necessary time off after the birth of a child in order to have that event be a happy one and not an economic strain on the family. So, mr. President , im delighted to join my colleague from nebraska, the leader of the turf and surf caucus, in her, i think, brilliant bill that i think can really its something that we can come together on in a bipartisan basis and actually do something and not just talk about the problem of income inequality and not just talk about the problem of fairness, not just talk about the problem of flexibility in the workplace but actually do something about it in a practical, commonsense way that i think will have tremendous ramifications across the country. So i am delighted to be able to join in this bill. I compliment the senator from nebraska for her work in bringing this forward and look forward to what i hope could be an expeditious consideration of the bill in the senate and in the congress. This is a change we can make that will make a real difference in peoples lives across america. Thank you, mr. President. Mr. President , i suggest the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call quorum call mr. Sessions mr. President , i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Sessions mr. President , the people of the United States have truly begged and pleaded with their lawmakers for years to create a lawful system of immigration, one that works, one thats fair, one that serves the National Interest, one that we can believe in. Theyve been justly and rightly convinced of that fact, and they have demanded that of their elected officeholders to secure their communities and protect the integrity of our national borders. Some say that theres something wrong with that. I say theres shewel nothing wrong with that. That is the right thing. Thats the moral thing. Thats the responsible thing. Thats the decent thing. Thats what any great nation should have is an immigration policy that serves its National Interest and its fairly and lawfully conducted. But these pleas have fallen on deaf ears. Our border is absolutely not sure. It is in secure. It is in crisis. Our communities are not safe. Preventable crimes occur every day because our laws are not being enforced. And our sovereignty at its base level is not being protected. And we have a president planning to issue sweeping executive amnesty in violation of law in ways he has no power to do and threatens the constitutional separation of powers. Congress passes law. The president must execute the law. The president is not entitled to make law, to conduct actions contrary to plain law. The president simply cannot say well, congress didnt act so i have to act. But congress decided not to act in a way he wanted. They considered legislation, rejected it, and now he is going to, it appears from article after article go forward and carry out an action anyway. It would be fundamentally wrong. This cannot stand. This will not stand. My opposition has been and remains that congress should not pass border legislation that does not foreclose the possibility of these unlawful executive orders. As an institution, this congress has a duty to protect this institution and our constituents. Currently, the president has issued approximately half a million work permits to individuals unlawfully present in the country up to 30 years of age. Now the president wants to issue another five million to six million work permits to Illegal Immigrants of any age despite clear prohibition in the immigration and nationality act. Not entitled to do that. Plain law says that you cannot employ someone in the country unlawfully. People think well, its one thing to say you wont support somebody, but colleagues, what was done previously was to provide under the daca legislation an i. D. Card with the words work permit across the top. Work authorization across the top. So the president is providing in violation of plain law the ability of people in the country to work who are not entitled to work. He will be able to take jobs from any american today and we have a lot of americans today struggling for work. At a time when millions of americans are out of work. The president s plan is a direct affront to them, to every single unemployed american, to people around the world who have applied to come to the United States and have not been admitted so they didnt come unlawfully. What do we say to them when this happens . It is particularly damaging to those in the poorest and most vulnerable communities in america. So who is speaking for them . Who will give them a voice in congress . Will members here, will we hear their pleas . I have been shocked that we have not seen a willingness in the congress to resist more effectively than what we are seeing today. So lets consider a bit more deeply for a moment what the president s executive action would do to enforcement in america, and let me just say clearly, colleagues, were not just making this up. Were not having some idea that he might do something to five million to six million to more million people. It has been repeatedly leaked from the white house. Not leaked, they have discussed it. The president has promised it to activist groups like la raza and aclu that he intends to do this. Its only a question of how and time. The latest article yesterday in the wall street journal, a big article said it would happen shortly after labor day. This is not something we are making up. Its a direct threat, a direct promise, statement, it appears, from the white house. I hope they will not go forward with it. Surely cooler heads in the white house will push back. Surely his attorney general will say mr. President , you cant do this. His Legal Counsel in the white house will say mr. President , dont do this. This is not lawful. Department of Homeland Security, they need to be saying this would be devastating, mr. President. How can we enforce any law . Please dont do this. So i dont think its its absolutely certain to happen, but it seems to me that by every indication its an absolute intention right now of the president to go forward with this so they wouldnt have had at least a half a dozen articles on it. National journal, Time Magazine and others. So i have spoken many times with a Great American by the name of craze crane. A former marine. He is also an i. C. E. Officer and the president of i. C. E. Officers council, immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. He has explained and told me and publicly stated how his officers are ordered not to do their jobs. They have been they have even sued the secretary of Homeland Security for blocking them from fulfilling their oath to enforce the laws of the United States of america. Can you imagine that . I have been a Law Enforcement i have been in Law Enforcement a long time, federal Law Enforcement 15 years. I have never heard of a situation in which a group of law officers sue their supervisor, saying mr. Judge, in federal court, federal judge, my supervisor is is causing me on a daily basis, ordering me not to do what my duty and my oath requires. Thats a stunning development. Their morale for years has been one of the lowest in the federal government. Now i think it is the lowest because they have been demeaned and rejected in the duty they believe is worthwhile for them to carry out. So one of the things mr. Crane explained is that the president s previous executive amnesty for the socalled dreamers basically halted enforcement for anyone who asserted protections under that new administration policy. So mr. Crane would report that i. C. E. Officers would come into contact with individuals unlawfully present in the country, individuals they would encounter in prisons and jails. They will be called by the local police department. They have arrested someone for a serious crime. They tell the i. C. E. Officers routinely youre supposed to go and pick them up and deport them. So they encounter people in jail. Thats one of the big jobs that they have. And they would be forced to release them simply because they assert i came here as a youth. And nobody is going to do an investigation on this. How do they investigate it . The effect is to demoralize and make it difficult, almost impossible to enforce the law. You can now imagine then what would happen if the president expands this amnesty and worked the Authorization Program to cover millions of unlawful immigrants of all ages. Everyone i. C. E. Comes in contact with will assert these protections. I am qualified under the president s amnesty and a claim in any failed application will say they are eligible for this immigration, this amnesty. So what then . Will the f. B. I. Open investigations, check when they entered the country or who they entered the country with and where they came from . Theyre not going to do that. Of course not. The officers are going to be totally unable to resist false claims from applicants, the people they have arrested. Its going to demoralize immigration. I. C. E. Officers will again be issued orders basically to stand down, no enforcement is going to occur. It will be the effective end of Immigration Enforcement in america, in my opinion. You cannot maintain an effective, lawful, consistent, fair Immigration Enforcement policy with these kind of regulations occurring and these kind of orders from the white house, who is the chief executive officer of america, who is empowered and directed to ensure that the laws of the United States are carried out. Not empowered to violate the laws of the United States. So we have also heard from officers who process immigration applications. These are people who receive applications to come to the United States in a lawful way. These dedicated folks at the United States citizenship and Immigration Services, these are the people who would have to process all of these millions of applicants if the president issues his order. So let me read at length from a statement from the president of the uscis council who represents these c. I. S. Officers. We have an awesome duty. He wrote last year, this is what he said quote the uscis adjudications officers are pressured to rubber stamp application instead of conducting diligent case review and investigation. Close quote. This is the officers saying that their bosses are pre