it's our job to go through it to process it. it's a vast amount of information. 80 terabytes. so the quantity of our e-mails alone equals more than every other presidential library collection combined across the country. you have a real challenge in terms of quantity for processing. i never meant to complaint about it. it's a great resource for students and scholars going down the road to understand the issues, the events of the bush administration. these electronic records will be a tremendous resource for everyone. >> are we still learning things about past presidents like roosevelt and reagan that were not made of able to the public which gives you a sense of what this bush library winning 20, 30, 40 years down the road? >> the unfolding of that record adds to the understand how the administration, a president come a time in history. i'm a believer in archives of the raw materials history. as you study more you give our interpretations of it and more things open then you see all the levels of an event or an issue or development. so i'm a real believer in that. over time you get a much deeper

and richer understanding of the presidency and individual president as well. >> what about the bushes themselves? are they part of this process? did they provide oral history's? >> they have been very much a process of building, putting the museum together. really great supporters off our staff here. we work closely with them, with the foundation, with her office staff members so they been very involved in that way, throughout the entire process. >> what is your biggest challenge is? >> there are a few challenges when you open a new library. our biggest challenge is to make sure we keep our eyes on the goal of excellence, of making sure that in the midst of all these other details you have of opening records and designing opening museums, doing all these other things that we focus on our customer and kind of keep that only of excellence in everything we do despite the big challenges we have a head of us right now. >> thank you very much for being with us. >> thank you very much. >> and again the library dedication happens this month at

11 eastern. you can see live coverage on c-span3. we are live on capitol hill this morning as house judiciary committee chair bob goodlatte and immigration voters security security chair trey gowdy are trying to hold a press conference this morning to discuss progress on immigration reforms. [inaudible conversations] >> hello? hello? >> [inaudible conversations]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> we are live on capitol hill waiting for house judiciary committee chair bob goodlatte and immigration and border security subcommittee chair trey gowdy. they're holding a press conference discussing the way forward on immigration reform. expected to get underway just a moment. live coverage here on c-span2. big topic in the news and here in washington this week. the impact of delays of the nations airports.

because of the furloughs for air traffic controllers. that went into effect on monday. each of the federal aviation administrator's 47,000 employees including about 15,000 controllers will be furloughed in order for the agency to meet over $600 million in savings by this coming october. the cuts are a part of the sequestered that went into effect earlier this you. and white house press secretary jake kearny responded to questions about the delays at the white house briefing. >> decrying the sequestered that he decried in the past and been supported. this is a result of the sequestered being implemented. we made it clear that there would be these kind of negative effects if congress failed to take reasonable action to afford the sequestered. policy that everyone who was involved in writing it new at the time and made clear ever

since was never designed to be implemented. it was designed to be bad policy and, therefore, to be blocked. >> good morning and thank you for being here. i'm bob goodlatte, chairman of the house judiciary committee or this is trey gowdy, the chairman of the immigration subcommittee. america is a nation of immigrants. everyone among us can go back a few generations or several generations to find relatives of our own who came to america to search for a better life for themselves and their families. we are also a nation of law. it's important that any immigration reform bill honor both our history as a nation of immigrants and our respect for the rule of law. unfortunately, our immigration system today is broken. past legislative efforts have failed and today we have 11 million people living in the shadows. this issue is not about abstract statistics and concepts, but rather about real people with real problems trying to provide

a better life for their family. while we all agreed we need to fix our immigration laws, there are many ideas about how to get to a solution. regardless of one's position on a larger debate, the way forward is for congress to pass immigration reform through regular order. in addition we need to take a closer look at immigration reform and over to avoid making the same mistakes of the past again in the future. by now we are all aware of the failures of the 1986 immigration overhaul. while politicians assured the american people that they would fix our immigration system, promising tougher enforcement in exchange for the legalization of roughly 3 million people come it has created more problems than it fixed. the american people want to know how congress plans to avoid a similar outcome in the current debate surrounding immigration reform. the house judiciary committee intends to examine immigration reform in a step-by-step approach. we welcome the ideas of all the

members of the house. we have been reaching out to those members with briefings and educational meeting sessions, i think now close to 100 house republicans have participated in those briefings, where we take them through what legal immigration is, what the law is, what the challenges are with regard to enforcement of our immigration laws, and we take them through a discussion of a different ways to address the needs of the country as a whole and the fact that we have 11 million or more people who are unlawfully present in the country. we are at this point in the process not drawing any conclusion about the best solution to move forward. we are very interested in what the senate gang of eight has written, and are watching senate

process closely. and while we have many concerns about aspects of the senate bills, at this point we believe that the appropriate thing to do is for the house to begin this process. and so starting this week we will be introducing individual pieces of the overall immigration puzzle. we are also very interested in what the house gang of eight produces. they are working on this office for a long, long time and we are very hopeful that they can reach a bipartisan agreement on what will be done to address these three major aspects of immigration reform. legal immigration reform, enforcement, and what to do about the legal status of the 11 million more people who are not here lawfully. once we see what the house group produces, we will also be

focusing in the committee on that and we will be looking at how the individual bills that we're going to start introducing this week, and we'll have a number of other individual bills as we move forward in the coming weeks, how those work with what the gang of eight produces, and see what the will of the house judiciary committee is. and we look forward to this process, but we are going to take a positive, affirmative action at addressing our broken immigration system in this country. it is in bad need of reform, and the committee intends to examine all of the various aspects of that. this process can be long, but it allows every representative and senator to have your constituents voices heard. and by taking a fine tooth comb through each of the individual issues within the larger immigration debate that will

help us get a better bill that will benefit americans and provide a workable immigration system. members of the house judiciary committee will soon introduce a series of stand-alone bills that tackle there is issues within our immigration system. one that creates a new temporary agriculture guesagriculture guer program. another requiring all u.s. employers to use either five, will be introduced this week -- e-verify. and we will follow with another issues on this week at following the raid order we plan to hold legislative hearings on these bills soon so that members can ask questions of the legislation and look for ways to improve them. i want to especially emphasize that that is what we have decided and agreed to do at this point. we have made good decisions about how to proceed forward in terms of a legislative markup, whether it would pertain to individual bills or whether it would pertain to a larger bill. but at this point in time we think we can help move the

process forward by beginning to examine the legislative details of various ideas that members have brought forward. and it's important to note that this is only the beginning of the process, and we welcome comments from all interested parties. other bills will be introduced soon and will have hearings on the legislative language on those again to allow members to carefully that didn't get immigration reform is not an easy task. but a solution is not out of reach. we must make sure we get immigration reform right this time so we don't have the same problems in the future that we've had with past immigration reform bills, like the one passed in 1986, or immigration reform efforts like the one that failed in the senate in 2007 because it was driven from the top down and not broad from the grassroots. the house of representatives is the people's house. the house of representatives is where each member of the house listens to their constituents, brings their ideas forward and then in a good legislative

process works together to find common, acceptable solutions. there's no doubt that the ultimate solution to this process will have to be bipartisan, and will have to address a number of different issues. so no one should take the limited bills that we are introducing here this week to be in any way an indication of our overall interest in solving all of the various aspects of immigration reform that are before the house and the senate. thank you, and i now want to yield to the chairman of the subcommittee, trey gowdy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm not going to belabor the points made by chairman dodd lot, except to say this. the result of the process to me at least are inextricably intertwined. the best result or product in the world is sometimes mitigated by a process that is less than confidence inspiring.

that's true in the civil justice system. that's true in the criminal justice system and it's true in the legislative system. even ideas that enjoy broad support need to be examined in the public square. it's more time-consuming. it can be argued that it is more fraught with peril, but with those of us that are interested in a remedy that will sustain us for a lifetime, i'm convinced that the extra time spent examining all aspects and subjecting them to cross examination, if you will, will be well worth it. so with that, mr. jim, thank you for letting me be a small part of this process and i would yield back to the gentleman from virginia. >> thank you. would be happy to take questions from members of the media. >> [inaudible] >> we are not to that point yet but obviously if we talk about

addressing the three aspects of immigration, you have to get to that point. so we are looking with interest to see what the senate is doing with that. we are interested in what house members arnica shooting in bipartisan fashion do with that. we have some of our own ideas about that as well, but we are in no way able to tell you how that will unfold at this point. >> [inaudible] is there an expectation you will market up -- [inaudible] >> it is our hope to be able to accomplish that. at this point in time because we're taking a step-by-step approach because we're spending a lot of time old and hearings, listening to members, making sure that we hold hearings on specific legislative language and ideas, and because we are waiting to see what the house

gang of eight produces, it's not possible to at this point do you a legislative markup schedule. but we are very, very intent upon getting ourselves to the point where we can do that. >> [inaudible] if it doesn't get done this year it's not going to happen. you are emphasizing the need to sort of go slow and do it right rather than do it fast. but do you agree with that assessment? is it this year or not at all? >> let me just say that election years are more difficult than on election years, but i will also say that it is far more important that we get this right this time. the american people expect us to get it right, then wouldn't by any particular timetable. so i'm going to be very cautious about sending any kind of arbitrary limits on when this has to get done.

if -- >> [inaudible] >> we have been speaking with members of the gang of eight for quite some time now, and i have come in every instance, encouraged them with their work what they can agree upon in a bipartisan fashion will be very helpful and very informative. but again, no decision has been made regarding how we would proceed without legislation, or with the individual pieces of legislation, which members of the committee will be introducing over the next few weeks. yes, sir. >> give us a number. >> there will be several. >> ten, 15? >> we don't know yet, but several. >> senator grassley this week brought up the point that -- only a small percentage of those

coming into the country legally under the act stayed in agriculture, many of them went to other, more lucrative jobs. do you expect to offer any specific controls to limit the problem? and also, separately, they use territories, their ideas to cover them, d.c. inclusion, more permanent status? >> the legislation we're introducing is for the purpose of getting input, getting ideas, getting to it. we do not use anything we're introducing as a final product. it is a work in progress, and each one of these will be considered that way. we will be informed, for example, what the bipartisan negotiators do and asked if we will be looking with interest to see what is done in the senate, but i will also say that the

agricultural worker program that follows the 1986 act did not work. and so our first goal is to make sure that we have a worker program that works for agriculture. because if we are to address all aspects of immigration reform, the issue of people staying in agriculture will be an important one. and i would expect that if we had a legalization program, and this is just speculation, but if we had one, that is not going to restrict people to where they work. if you are lawfully present in the united states you can work in a lot of different places. some of the people who work in agriculture today who may not be your lawfully may not continue to work in agriculture. so one of the key components of an immigration reform bill will be to have a good agriculture worker program. we think that is fundamental to the overall process. >> [inaudible] >> we will look at that but that

is something we will have further discussions about. >> [inaudible] >> i think the valley of introducing individual bills allows us to carefully examine not only each aspect of immigration reform but how those pieces will interact with other pieces. and then how they can fit together if something large, if we are able to find something that could have the kind of supporting the house that would be necessary to pass it were not passing any judgment on how that will all work out indian but we do believe that for process needs to move forward, and as the process moves forward we will be looking at lots of issues. i would imagine that people are working on this from both the senate and the gang of eight will be entered -- interest in seeing what is introduced by

members of the house judiciary committee just as we're interested in seeing what they produce in the senate and in this bipartisan discussion going on in the house. >> [inaudible] >> i'm not stating any preference at this point or i'm simply stating that this is a way for the committee to move forward on fixing our broken immigration system. >> as chairman of house judiciary committee, can we get your thoughts on the boston bombing suspects? has the judge stepped into early? >> this is really about the immigration forum process, and if you'd like to speak with documentation director, be happy to talk to you about that at a different time, but we don't want this to become too far ranging. jurisdiction of the judiciary committee is very fast and there's lots of issues we're working on right now but i think we should limit this to immigration. >> [inaudible] >> i think there are some things

that we can take from that that are related to immigration. for example, the question arises, what kind of information was used in the vetting of the naturalization applicants, applications of both of the brothers. as you know, one succeeded in getting naturalization. the other was held up, and i think it would be very worthwhile knowing more about the process and what's the considerations were by the immigration service, uscis in terms of making the decisions about that. and i also think that it is instructive to note that immigration reform should include consideration of how, not just the fbi, this was a criminal case involving a bombing and not an immigration case, but how law enforcement at all levels working together can help to make a legal structure

work better than just relying entirely upon the federal government to carry out in force immigration laws. that's not included in any other bills that we're introducing this week but it is certainly something that is a matter of discussion and what took place in boston where i think it was widely viewed as very successful cooperation between local, state and federal law enforcement that led to the speedy apprehension and getting out of control of the situation in boston. yes, sir. >> follow on to that question. do you think granting asylum, the asylum process should be reformed the? >> we will review the other part of overall comprehensive immigration reform. we have made no decisions yet, and none of the bills that we have at this point deal with asylum but that is certainly possible that it should be addressed and we be looking to see, again, what ideas the

bipartisan groups have and we will be discussing this on most ourselves and listening to other ideas. because obviously when you talk about the issue of political asylum, people are being persecuted elsewhere in the world, asylum is assigned to give them safe haven in the united states, a good purpose, but if they are people getting asylum because they are in the minority but engaging in aggressive tactics in their home country, that may cause them to be susceptible doing the same thing elsewhere, that obviously ought to be a part of our consideration in granting political asylum to avoid situations like boston. yes. >> [inaudible] >> thus far, these are people of legislation -- pieces of legislation that will have bipartisan support and they will not always necessarily -- we

were going to have cosponsors of legislation, but the primary sponsor, the introduce of the bill will be members of the committee. and so far the house republican committee members but we expect that there will be bipartisan support. >> [inaudible] >> we welcome bills from anyone who wants to introduce them, and some democrats have introduced bills already that have been sent to the committee. and so we certainly would welcome their legislation, and depending upon what it does and how it fits with what the house gang of eight is doing and how it fits with what we are doing on the committee, we will certainly be willing to look at those as well. yes, sir. >> [inaudible] >> i have stated previously that there's a wide range of solutions to what to do with 11 people who are not lawfully here, and that i prefer not to see a special pathway to

citizenship, but a status that were to give him some kind of legal status. it's certainly something we should consider, but it's going to very much depend upon the enforcement mechanisms that can be included in legislation, and what is done about legal immigration reform. because all of these things very much in a related to each other. so what exactly can be done there remains to be seen. >> how do you respond to critics that say, who -- [inaudible] take all these individual piecemeal bills. >> we are certainly not doing there. we've been working very hard on this, and we respect the effort of others, but we encourage all of them to be careful, examine the legislation very closely, understand how each component of immigration but let's to every

other piece so we don't get the law of unintended consequences taking hold in this matter. and i would point out that the house group, the bipartisan group that's been negotiating this, has been negotiating it for about four years. so we want to see a product from that group, but we recognize and i'm sure they recognize how difficult it is to work on this issue and, therefore, making sure that we take our time is an important part of this process. as i said before, it is not whether you do it fast or slow. it is that you get it right that's most important. and i think that's going to be the hallmark of the work that we do on this legislation. david? >> [inaudible] >> could you talk about, being from south governor -- >> we will leave this briefing at this point. you can see the rest of in the

c-span video library. go to c-span.org. the u.s. senate is gaveling in in just a moment beginning with an hour of morning business. then at 10:30 senators will recess for a meeting with federal officials investigating the boston marathon bombings. when they return there will be more work on the online sales tax bill. and no live coverage of the u.si senate here on c-span2 today's opening prayer will be offered by reverend john edgerton from the old south church this boston, massachusetts, who will lead the senate in prayer. the guest chaplain cloven along of the heartbrowning of borrowsston, let us pavement o god, remember this assembly, which you acquired long ago. have regard for your covenant, for the dark places of the land are full of the haunts of violence. your foes have roared, they have

roared within your holy place; they set up their emblems there. they said to themselves, "we will utterly subdue them". but it is god who executes justice, putting down one and lifting up another. for in the hand of the lord there is a cup with foaming wine, well mixed. god will pour a draft from it, and the wicked of the earth shall drain it down to the dregs. lord, you were favorable to your land. restore us again, o god of our salvation. will you not revive us again, so that your people may rejoice in you? let me hear what the lord will speak ...peace. god speaks peace to the people, to the faithful, to those who

turn to the lord in their hearts. steadfast love and faithfulness will meet. righteousness and peace will kiss each other. faithfulness will spring up from the ground, and righteousness will look down from the sky. it is you who have said so, o god. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, april 25, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby

appoint the honorable william m.cowan, a senator from the commonwealth of massachusetts, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:30 this morning, the republicans will control the first half. at 10:30, the senate will recess for a senators-only briefing. yesterday i filed cloture on this legislation. the filing deadline for first-degree amendments is 1:00 p.m. today. senators should expect a cloture vote on friday morning. mr. president, it was a wonderful prayer. i appreciate it very, very much. i yield it my friend, the senior nor from massachusetts. ms. warren: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: thank you, mr. president. and thank you, mr. leader.

every april a large blue-and-gold banner flies above the entryway of old south church with the words of isiah, "may you run and not grow weary, walk and not faint." old south church sits on the finish line of the boston marathon, a distinguished and historical spot that has earned the name "church of the finish line." today i welcome ref rinds john edgerton of old south church, the church of the finish line, to thank him for coming here to share his faith, resilience, and fortitude. less than two weeks ago on the sunday before the marathon, old cannesouth church welcomed frie, family, and marathon volunteers into the church for the annual premarathon blessing of the athletes. on marathon monday, just after 12:00 p.m., the bells of old south church rang in the men's winner circle for the boston

marathon. later that day, two blasts from hidden bombs rock the crowded final stretch of the boston marathon. one explosion occurred near feet from the front of the church and in an instant old south church, the marathon church, the church of the finish line, joined the rest of the boston in helping, comforting, and praying. the old south church was first gathered in 1669 by a group of colonists who wanted to create a more inclusive and welcoming congregation, and since then it has played an integral role in boston's history. meetingmeetings that led to then tea party were held in the church and in the 19th century, church members are active in the abolitionist

movement. though old south church was closed pour more than a week following the explosions, their ministry remained open. this past sunday i attended an interfaith service jointly performed by old south church and other local religious institutions at the corner of boylston and berkeley streets, a flew blocks from the site of the bombings. i stood with hundreds of worshipers praying, singing, remembering. this perseverance and dedication to faith and community is why boston has not grown weary. it's why boston has not fainted. it is why boston is strong. reverend edgerton, thank you for the blessing, thank you for this blessing you brought to the senate today. i join you in praying for our hometown and for our nation as we face the challenges ahead.

the qualities you and your church exemplify, the spirit of openness and inclusiveness, the power of healing and prayer, and the strength of community are what will bring boston through these difficult times. i am honored that you join us today. i yield my time. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: s. 799 is at the desk and due for a second reading; is that right? the presiding officer: the senator is equity cr. correct. the clerk will read the title of the bill. the clerk: a bill to provide for sequester replacement. mr. reid: i'd object to any further proceedings with respect to this bill at this time. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. reid: i'd now yield to the junior senator from massachusetts, senator cowan. mr. cowan: mr. president, i am pleased to rise this morning to join senator warren in honoring

our guest chaplain from boston, reverend john edgerton, and i thank him for his words this morning. in the wake of the recent tragedies in massachusetts, i am glad to welcome a representative of boston's spiritual mustn't to deliver our invocation today. reverend edgerton's church, the old south church, is located on boylston street not more than 100 yards past the finish line of the great boston marathon. since the first marathon 117 years ago, the old south church has been known as the church of the finish line. every year the sunday before patriot's day, the old south church holds a service to bless those running the marathon the very next morning. the service this year included the theme music from "chariots of fire" and the olympics as well as a prayer for the athletes. marathoners from around the commonwealth,ation, and world congregate at the old south church seeking community, faith, and strength.

for the upcoming race. last monday explosions rocked the finish line at boylston street and brought chaos to the front door of the old south church. for over a week the church's doors remained closed, as did much of the neighborhood, as investigators scoured the block for evidence. but today, as we pray here for those lives lost and those still recovering, the old south church opens its doors once again and prays for our city, our commonwealth, and our citizens. and as we do in times of hardship and heartbreak, we rely on the guidance of community leaders like reverend h edgerton and take comfort in their words. it is through their guidance and wisdom that we find the strength to rebound from tragedy and to find hope to move forward. in churches all across massachusetts this week, from the back bay to dorchester and

from medford to stoneham, bells will toll and worshipers of all faiths will gather to honor the lives of those lost and to pray for the scores who were injured. and again next year we look forward to the sunday before marathon monday, when runners will again gather at the old south church to receive their blessing, once again before the running of the 118th boston marathon. we will always remember and we will recover, and we are thankful to have leaders like reverend edgerton to guide us as we do. i yield. ms. warren: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of senate resolution 115 submitted

earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 115, commending the heroism, courage, and sacrifice of sean collier, an officer of the massachusetts institute of technology police department; martin richard, an 8-year-old resident of dorchester, massachusetts; krystle campbell; lu lingzi, a student at boston university, and all those recovering from injuries caused by the attacks in massachusetts, including richard donohue, jr., an officer of the boston metropolitan police department. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the mairchlt. ms. warren: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection.

so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: the united states senate operates by cooperation and consent. so it is unfortunate that we could not reach an agreement yesterday to consider amendments to the marketplace fairness act, a measure that would provide parity between brick-and-mortar retailers and online stores. a few senators held up this important legislation, and i mean "a few." legislation for which proponents have advocated for 11 years, the able sponsors of this bill, enzi, durbin and alexander, are continuing to work to get a list of amendments upon which the senate could vote. three quarters of the senate support this measure. and a number of those that don't vote with us on this don't oppose this legislation, are doing it for other reasons. this is overwhelmingly important

legislation. but as we saw with the background check measure and the other gun matters last week, here in the senate a minority of senators can block even measures with overwhelming support. we found that on background checks and with we found it on concealed-carry. this bill is no exception. despite 75 votes to proceed to the marketplace fairness act, just a few individual senators are vowing to derail this legislation. absent consent, we're voting cloture on this measure an hour after we convene tomorrow. i remain open to an agreement to consider amendments to this legislation. the proponents of this legislation have worked for a long time to move forward on this. they worked all day yesterday and the day before to come up with a list of amendments. no one is trying to prevent amendments except a handful of

senators. i'm eager to conduct an open debate on this bill, but time is winding down. one way or another we're going to finish work on this measure of about we leave for our in-state work period, even p it takes the weekend. and those people, a handful of people, that understand that. -- should understand that. the calendar is simply too full to allow this important measure to hold over until next month. the senate must complete work on job-creating water resources legislation and a farm bill during the may work period, so we can move forward on the immigration debate in june. we've had eight senators who have spent days, weeks working on an immigration bill. we have a bipartisan bill coming to the senate with a system to fix our broken immigration system, just like we have a bipartisan bill on the senate floor today. the only way we get things done around here is senators working together. the immigration bill is a good example of that, and this bill is a good example of that.

we cannot let a few people stand in the way of fairness, and that's what this is all about. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: last week one of our most senior democrats, a primary author of obamacare, referred to the law's implementation as a train wreck. small businesses have no idea what to do, he warned. they have no idea what to expect. he also expressed concern that the health insurance exchanges for consumers and small businesses could turn into a fiasco. well, i agree with i am had. i think just about everyone in my conference agrees with him. but here's the difference:

this is not some grand revelation to republicans. we've been saying this since day one. we said a government takeover of health care would raise health care costs and premiums. we said it would raise taxes on the middle class. we said it would force millions of americans to give up insurance plans they liked and wanted to keep. we said it would bury families and small businesses in a literal mountain -- mountain of regulations. and we said it would cost our country jobs. we shouted these things from the rooftop throughout the health care debate. a few of us have even said it would be a train wreck. until now the president's allies mostly ignored or brushed off our concerns. but, you know what? with each passing day, it appears clearer and clearer that we were right to sound the alarm. only now are washington

democrats starting to come around to the reality of what they passed. perhaps they thought a "yes" vote on this bill would somehow magically cure our country's health care challenges, without any cost increases, without hurting the middle class, without the massive, unnavigable bureaucracy that's being erected literally as i speak. but really that's the problem. that's why we're snuck thi stucs mess. our constituents did not send us here to robotically fall in line with bad legislation and then pat ourselves on the back for -- quote -- "doing something." they sent us here to eventually elevate public policy and to think about the medium- and long-term consequences of our actions. look, obamacare's mounting challengers shouldn't come as much of a surprise.

i.t. not jusit's not just that republicans have warned about this them for so long or experts have echoed our keynes. a lot of the problems in this bill should have been pretty self-evident right from the start. in some ways i'm glad to see more and more washington democrats and their allies come around to the reality of what they've done. earlier this year democrats helped us repeal the class act, fofor instance. last month the senate voted 79-20 to repeal the job-killing medical device tax. and just last week we saw a union reverse course and come out for repeal of the law. i hope more will come out and join us to repeal it root and branch. i'm optimistic we'll see more common sense take foot in the

days to come as the country learns more about the harm it is causing businesses and taxpayers. because when administration officials are reduced to hoping that the law's implementation will not amount to -- and i will i'm quoting here -- a third world experience, then you know there's trouble on the way. and that's why i've also called on the prosecute ease to address the nation and give an honest accounting of what many, many americans can expect as this law starts to come online -- the higher costs, the premium increases, the taxes, the loss of health care plans they like and want to keep -- all of that is happening. we ask them to do this in his state of the union speech. he really should have because the longer he waits to lay out the truth for the american people, the more people are going to get blindsided by all of this and that's simply not right. so the president shouldn't waste anymore time. in the meantime, americans are

rest assure that republicans will keep working to repeal this law. i hope more of the president's allies will join us in this fight as well because we all -- all of us -- owe our country better than this. so for the sake of my constituents in kentucky and for the sake of americans across the country, i urge my friends on the other side to join with republicans and stop the train wreck -- stop this train wreck -- before things get even worse. now, on the matter currently before the senate, i'd like to just make the following observation about the internet sales tax bill: earlier this week i announced my opposition to this bill which i don't think is in the best interest of kentuckians or taxpayers in general. but, look, i know everyone in the chamber doesn't feel that way. this bill may pass. there are members on both sides who support it, but before it

does i hope the senate will at least have some chance -- some chance -- to offer amendments. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. donnelly: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the

quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. donnelly: thank you, mr. president. i would like to take time to speak about an important issue that needs immediate attention -- suicide among our service members and veterans. last year we lost more servicemen and women to suicide than we lost in combat in afghanistan. in 2012, approximately 349 members of the united states military, including active duty, guard, and reserve, committed suicide. more than the total number of service members who died in combat operations. this number does not even include the more than 6,000 veterans we lost last year to suicide. this is unacceptable. this has to end.

today i'm introducing my first bill as a united states senator, the jacob sexton military suicide prevention act of 2013. we're doing this to address this pervasive issue. this bill seeks to better identify service members struggling with mental health issues and to ensure they receive the assistance they need before resorting to this tragic act. i named this bill after a member of the indiana national guard, jacob sexton. a native of farmland, indiana, who tragically took his life in 2009 while home on a 15-day leave from afghanistan. his death came as a shock to his family and his friends as well as his fellow guard members. this is a picture of jacob while on duty.

he's an american hero. he did everything he could to serve his country and to try to help the people from another country, help people around the world to live a better life. a couple of months ago, i heard from jacob's dad, jeff, and i have since learned about his childhood in indiana. jacob's service to our nation, and the big heart he always showed through his dedication to bringing winter coats to all the kids he met in afghanistan during his deployment. jeff, along with his wife and jacob's mom, barbara, have since become advocates for suicide prevention. they want to make sure what happened to jacob doesn't happen to anyone else. they helped inspire this bill and i thank them for their dedication to preventing these tragedies for other parents and loved ones of men and women in uniform. this is a collage that was made

in honor of jacob by his mom barbara. it is a reflection of who he is, the things he did, the people he served, and the wonderful spirit of can-do and how can i help my country that permeated who he was. my hope is we can help men and women like jacob who are struggling with mental health issues to get them the help they need before they resort to taking their own life. the facts, mr. president, on military suicides are stark. according to the department of veterans affairs and the centers for disease control, at least 30,000 veterans and military members have committed suicide since the department of defense began closely tracking these numbers in 2009. it is important to note that suicide is not necessarily linked to deployments abroad. since the defense department's

suicide prevention office began keeping detailed records in 20 2008, less than half of suicide victims had deployed and few were involved in combat. most of d.o.d.'s existing suicide prevention programs do so within the context of deployments. as we draw down in afghanistan and away from the strain of multiple deployments, it is time to find a more integrated solution that does not rely on the deployment cycle to assess a service member's mental health. instead, research has shown that other risk factors, such as relationship issues, legal or financial issues, or substance abuse play a larger role in suicides than a service member's deployment history. we have heard this firsthand from crisis intervention officers right in my home state

of indiana. further, many of these suicide victims did not communicate their sphwoant take their own life -- their intent to take their own life, nor did they have known behavioral health issues. given the facts before us, what does the current mental health system look like? the current mental health systems for both active and retired military rely on a service member's or a veteran's willingness to self-report suicidal thoughts and to seek out assistance. the backup to the system is if family members, peers or coworkers identify changes in behavior and then recommend that their loved one or friend seek assistance. so how do we improve this system? the jacob sexton military suicide prevention act of 2013 would establish a pilot program in each of the military services

and also the reserve components to integrate annual mental health assessments into a service member's periodic health assessment, or p.h.a. that's an annual review designed to track whether a service member is fit to serve. the pilot program would expand that review to include a more detailed mental health review and to identify those risk factors for mental illness so that service members can receive preventive care and help. by building on the system that monitors the member from induction to transition into veteran status, an expanded review, including a mental health assessment, will create a wholistic picture of a service member's readiness to serve. the service member can carry this record with them as they leave the service and it could help inform any future claims

for veterans benefits. the jacob sexton military suicide prevention act would also integrate a first-line. the presiding officerfirst-line supervisor's input. that supervisor plays an important role in a service member's life and may be aware of relationship or financial problems but not able to address them unless the service member speaks up. sometimes these problems affect performance. the supervisor's input would help identify potential triggers for stress and suicidal tendencies or problems in work performance. then the results of the whole questionnaire would be reviewed by mental health specialists. if problems or risk factors are identified, service members would be referred to behavioral health specialists for further evaluation and medical care. i included in this legislatio legislation -- and this is critical -- privacy protections to ensure information collected

through the surveys is used only for medical purposes. it cannot be used for promotion, retention, or disciplinary purposes. i strongly believe a service member should not bear any consequences for reporting on their mental health or trying to seek out mental health assistance. finally, as i think we should expect of all government programs and proposals, my bill would require an assessment as to whether or not it is actually working. to determine the effectiveness of the program and the ways to move forward, this bill would require a report from the department of defense to congress on the impact of the program in identifying behavioral health concerns and interventions in suicides. we have lost far, far too many men and women like jacob.

let us come together in a bipartisan fashion to honor the memories of jacob and all those americans that we have lost by working to improve our ability to spot warning signs before it's too late. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation on behalf of those who sacrifice so much for our nation every day. mr. president, i yield back. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: mr. president, i ask that the quor be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. fischer: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, a recent "washington post" headline has grabbed national attention. it reads, "the united states government spends $890,000 on nothing." it almost sounds like a bad joke, but, mr. president, this is no laughing matter. the post reported that this year, the government will spend at least $890,000 on service fees for bank accounts that have nothing in them. at last count, uncle sam has 13,712 such accounts, each with a balance of zero. now, mr. president, the american people are no strangers to

reports of excessive government waste, from robotic squirrel research to moroccan pottery classes. this latest example, however, comes at a particularly frustrating moment, as thousands of americans are stuck waiting for hours in airport terminals with delayed flights. the result of the federal aviation administration's decision to furlough thousands of air traffic controllers due to sequestration. if you are a federal worker on furlough this week or an airline passenger delayed by federal furloughs, you might want to save your blood pressure and go read another story, "the post" astutely noted. federal law requires the government to reduce overall spending by 5% in each agency, totaling $85 billion for the remainder of this fiscal year. while the $890,000 currently

spent on unused bank accounts may seem like a drop in the bucket, it, nonetheless, proves there is plenty of fat to trim in federal spending. we can do that and we can do it without directly impacting essential government services and jobs. the same holds true with the f.f.a. like many nebraskans, i remain concerned about the federal government's failure to effectively target these required but necessary budget cuts. of particular concern is the f.f.a.'s complete mismanagement of the cost reductions which has resulted in unnecessary travel delays all across this nation. since 1996, the f.f.a.'s operations budget has grown by an astounding 109%, from $4.6 billion to $9.7 billion.

a merely 9 -- a mere 5% budget cut would simply return the f.f.a.2010 funding levels. despite two years to prepare for these budget reductions, the f.f.a. chose to provide congress and the airline industry less than a week's notice regarding its plans to furlough its work force, showing complete disregard for the traveling public. the f.f.a. has insisted on targeting air traffic controllers rather than solely focusing on lower priority personnel to ensure morale. i wonder, mr. president, if anyone has checked in with the folks waiting in airport terminals and waiting in those terminals for hours in order to determine their current morale. yet the f.f.a. has 47,000

employees of which 15,500 are air traffic controllers. while i appreciate the hard work of many federal employees, air traffic controllers should be the last ones on the f.f.a.'s budgetary chopping block. rather than selectively ratcheting up the pain of federal budget cuts on american citizens with these long delays, the f.f.a. should instead focus on cutting its $500 million consultant slush fund or the $325 million spent on supplies and travel. for months, the administration has argued that it lacks flexibility to target the required budget cuts in a smart, responsible manner.

in a smart, responsible manner that mitigates the impact on the public. to that end, i have cosponsored several legislative efforts to provide this administration with tools to ensure that the essential federal employees continue to provide these vital services, such as our control tower operations. most recently, i cosponsored the essential services act which would simply require each federal agency -- each federal agency head to identify and exempt essential employees from any furlough policies using the same standards that were created by multiple administrations during previous government shutdowns. unfortunately, the president and my democrat colleagues continue to oppose any of these measures to both achieve needed savings

without tax hikes and preserve our important government functions. notably, the f.f.a. administrator, michael weirthen, recently testified at a senate hearing that he does, in fact, have discretion to prioritize these spending cuts. if that is true, then it appears that the f.f.a. is more interested in scoring political points rather than cutting its $2.7 billion in nonpersonnel operation costs. i am very, very disappointed in administrator weirta's lack of forthrightness with this congress. when asked at the same hearing about the f.f.a.'s possible furlough strategy, mr. weirta provided only general statements. but yet just hours later, f.f.a. officials provided detailed furlough plans to airlines, a

disturbing move to hide the ball from lawmakers who were left without the opportunity to mitigate the impact of these extensive furloughs. i stand here and i stand here ready to work with the president and any of my colleagues who are committed to making these budget cuts in a smart and in an effective and efficient manner, a manner that preserves essential government services. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to discuss a serious problem confronting the american traveling public and our economy and later today i will be introducing a bill to remedy this problem.

i'm very pleased to be joined by several of my senate colleagues as original cosponsors, including senator mark udall, senator risch, senator roberts, senator isakson, and i expect several other cosponsors in the course of the day. as the ranking member of the transportation appropriations subcommittee, i have followed the issue of f.a.a. delays and furloughs very closely. in fact, first thing this morning, i met with secretary of transportation lahood and f.a.a. administrator weirta to discuss this problem and my proposed solution. mr. president, the challenges the f.a.a. faces this fiscal

year are daunting. not only is the agency operating under a continuing resolution but sequestration compounds the problem. it's important that sequestration be implemented in a way that ensures safety and minimizes the impact on travelers as well as on jobs in the hospitality and airline industries. f.a.a. recently announced its plans to achieve its sequestration savings by implementing furloughs of air traffic controllers, by closing contract towers, by eliminating midnight services, among other cuts. now, i personally believe that the f.a.a. had other choices and could have avoided many of these

disastrous outcomes, but there is no doubt that personnel does make up a great deal of the agency's budget and that some furloughs undoubtedly would have been necessary. whether it was necessary for f.a.a. to concentrate so many of the cuts in the area of air traffic controllers is an entirely different question. but in any event, my bill would restore funding for these essential programs and would do so, mr. president, and this is an important point, without increasing the funding for the f.a.a. or for the department of transportation. let me give a little bit of background. the f.a.a. began furloughing

47,000 employees this past sunday, including nearly 15,000 air traffic controllers. this is essentially 10% of its work force, which equates to one furlough day per biweekly pay period for approximately 11 days through september 30. f.a.a. also plans to eliminate midnight shifts in more than 70 control towers across the country and to close more than 149 air traffic control towers at airports with fewer than 150,000 flight operations or 10,000 commercial operations per year. in addition, the agency is slated to reduce preventive maintenance and equipment provisioning and support for all

national airspace system equipment. mr. president, these are simply irresponsible cuts that have real and detrimental impacts on the traveling public, on the airline industry, on the hospitality industry, and they will cause widespread delays to the air traffic system. it's estimated that as many as 6,700 flights could be delayed each day, more than double the worst day of flight delays last year. in fact, there is one estimate that just since sunday, 5,800 delays have occurred because of the actions taken by the f.a.a.

this reduction in staffing of air traffic controllers has been the primary cause of at least one out of every three delays since the furloughs began and the problem is only going to get worse. just to give you an example, on monday, there were 2,660 delayed flights of which 1,200 were due to the furloughs. what is even more troubling is that this is only the beginning and soon we will be approaching the peak travel season. some airports may experience delays of up to three hours during peak travel times. and we know that these delays cause a ripple throughout the entire system.

and what is going to happen, mr. president, is that air travelers are going to decide to cancel trips, to not bother to go on brief vacations because they don't want to spend three hours sitting on the tarmac waiting for their flights to take off. the f.a.a. acknowledges that these service reductions will adversely affect commercial, corporate and general aviation operators. the agency expects that as the airlines estimate the potential impacts of the furloughs, they will be forced to change their schedules, cancel flights and lay off employees. mr. president, at a time when our economy is already fragile, that is the last thing we need

to happen. so the legislation that i'm introducing with several of my colleagues, including senator mark udall, is called "the reducing flight delays act of 2013." here's how it would work. it would provide the secretary of transportation with the flexibility to transfer certain funds to prevent the furloughs of essential employees at the f.a.a., and certainly air traffic controllers qualify as essential employees. specifically, it would give the secretary the authority to transfer an amount not to exceed $253 million to prevent the furloughs of the air traffic controllers and other essential

employees in order to reduce flight delays and at the same time to maintain a safe and efficient national airspace system. our bill would accomplish this goal by allowing a one-time shift of unused moneys in the airport improvement program to the operations accounts. now, i first raised this idea of using the a.i.p. carryover balances as a solution at our republican policy lunch on tuesday. since that time, many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have indicated interest in this approach. i want to emphasize that our legislation has been vetted by the general counsel offices at

both the f.a.a. and the secretary's office so we know that it works. secretary lahood told me this morning that it is an effective, workable solution. now, i want to explain further exactly how this would work. each year, funds are distributed according to a formula under the airport improvement program to airports across the country, but each year there are moneys that cannot be used by these airports by the end of the fiscal year. those moneys come back to the f.a.a. in washington and they are then usually reallocated through a competitive grant program. last year, it was as much as $700 million that came back to

washington to be reallocated. this year, the amount of unused funds is estimated to be approximately $400 million to $450 million. so we would take $253 million of that $400 million-plus and use that funds -- those funds to avoid these very damaging furloughs. the rest of the funds would, as usual, be reallocated to airports that need them through a competitive grant program. i want to be clear -- this is the discretionary portion of the airport improvement program. it in no way affects the entitlement funds that airports are guaranteed to receive.

the program has sufficient funding to support this effort. moreover, this is a one-time shift. it does not in any way provide a permanent change in this progr program. mr. president, there would also be sufficient funds to fully fund and continue operating the contract tower programs which so many of our colleagues, particularly senator moran, have supported and been concerned about. this is a commonsense solution. it doesn't involve additional money. it is a one-time shift of unused moneys. it does not make a permanent change in the airport improvement program. it will solve the problem, avoid the need for these delays, for

layoffs, and for harming our economy at a time when we can least afford to do so. the airport improvement program is a very important program. it does support infrastructure in our nation's airports. we are taking simply the unused funds that are generally realoe caughted and instead using a portion of these funds to avoid these disastrous implications of the direction that the f.a.a. has chosen. our bill should be recognized as a one-time solution in order to avert these serious national impacts. i urge my colleagues to support this bill, and i hope that we can act very promptly to solve this problem. thank you, mr. president.

the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate stands in recess for one senate stands in recess for one

the museum is meant to help a visitor relive the first eight years of the 21st century. the museum explains the decision making process that i went through as president, and we hope the museum inspires people to serve, want to serve their community or their country in

some way. we really didn't want to be a school. we wanted to be a do tank. i don't know if there is a lesson there. i do know that laura and i decided to go in a different direction with, you know, apart from the museum of with a component of programs from which programs would emerge. >> watch the dedication ceremony of the george w. bush presidential library from the university in dallas at 11 a.m. eastern on c-span3, c-span radio and c-span.org she mary's at the age of 16 and helps teach her husband to be a better reader and writer. during the civil war she seeks to the tennessee mountains but by that time her husband assumes the presidency she is in poor health and secludes herself to a second room in the white house. mead johnson, wife of the 17th

president, andrew johnson as we continue the series on first lease with your questions and comments on the phone, facebook and water. monday life easter on c-span and c-span's treen also c-span radio and c-span.org. senators john mccain and chuck schumer, to members of the so-called gang of eight speak about the immigration proposal the bebb group unveiled last week. it includes a pathway to citizenship for 11 million authorized immigrants and tightened security along the nation's southwest border. hosted by the christian science monitor, it's about an hour. >> our guest this morning and non-partisan alphabetical order are senator john mccain and senator charles schumer. both gentlemen have been our guest in the past and we are delighted to welcome them back. senator mccain has long specialized in national security issues and is a member of the armed services and homeland security committees. he graduated from the naval

academy and then served the nation in combat and captivity. he was looked at the house and 82 under the senate -- >> barely graduated. [laughter] >> senator schumer is vice chair of the democratic conference and chair of the senate democratic conference center. he graduated first in his class at james madison heights, went on to harvard college and harvard law and at age 23 he won a seat in the new york assembly, the youngest person to do that since teddy roosevelt. he was elected the house in 1980 -- >> [inaudible] >> yes, and in 98 elected to the senate. so much for biography now. i want to monday mechanical matters. as always, we are on the record. please, no live blogging or tweeting come in short, the filing of any kind while the practice is under way so we can pay attention to what they are saying. there is no embargo when the breakfast is over except c-span

agreed not to use video of the session for one hour after the breakfast ends to give those of us in the room a chance to file. if you would like to ask a question, please do the traditional thing and send me a subtle nonthreatening signal and i will happily call on one all the time we have. start by offering our guests the opportunity to make opening comments and then we will have discussions around the table. with that, senators, the floor is yours putative >> okay. i will be very brief and make a couple points. first come on the immigration bill i guess being the number one reason we are here. i want to salute john mccain, who has done just an amazing job of leadership. it wouldn't have happened without him. he stepped up to the plate early on. just one more point not related to immigration. harry reid has this idea of having a joint caucus where john would tell what happens to him during the vietnam war. it's never been talked about

before. it's an experience i will never forget. his candidacy and humanity justin presses every member of the senate who was there. it's one of the amazing experiences i've had since i've been in the senate party likud. on immigration i think those of you reporters who have a little bounce of cynicism running in their bloodstreams -- i know it is and many of you come optimistic, positive and looking forward to the future. but you would have been impressed by our meetings, hour 24 meetings many of which went into the night our. for eight people of different viewpoints, of different states and different needs if you will all trying to reach common ground to come together in the middle. and was an amazing thing to me. and it gives you a lot of faith both in our bill which i think is -- there are many words to describe it but one word i think

is valid. every time asked tough questions on the bill there is such balance and it isn't that hard to answer. so, it's a very e p d i'm optimistic that it will pass. i won't get into the details. i'm sure you'll laugh about it. the point i would make there is a lot of talk now how did boston affect our bill? some of the taxes that have come out in the last day sure that our bill would have strengthened security. we require the machine reading of any past person who leads the country or comes back into the country. as you know, he's name was misspelled could yet he was on a customs watch list and that is why janet napolitano mentioned when he left the country that was a customs thing that even though he was on the list that wouldn't show up because his name was misspelled. under our bill the name would

have been read by either a passport or something else and they would have known exactly who he was and that someone on the tide west was leaving during the country and it might have made a difference. so, anyone, our bill actually strengthens security and the events of boston to lead the status quo and go to a proposal like ours. for any suggestions to improve the bills those who say in my judgment what is weighed on the bill because we have to see anything that happened in boston and see all of that. it's an excuse. the only people who were saying that were against the bill long before boston occurred. john? >> i would just like to thank chuck schumer for the leadership that he has displayed and getting together different views even within the group and

priorities, and by the way, chuck and i also worked on this attempt to avert a 51 boat in the senate because of the dissatisfaction some of which is understandable on the part of the harry reid, and we have worked on other issues together and by appreciate the opportunity to be associated with him since the american people are very interested in seeing some results from the congress of the united states. i'm sure you saw that favorability aspect of our lives we would like to get above and i would like to elaborate just a second of what was said about the tragedy in boston should somehow impede the progress but

still we are having hearings and we will have a marked in the judiciary committee. we will then move to the floor where there will be weeks. i hope not too many of debate amendments, and we will have ample opportunity if there are lessons to be learned about the boston tragedy to incorporate in the legislation. this is not the final product. on the issue of the final product, we have agreed if we feel the bill can be improved by various amendments, we will support those amendments or feel free to support or oppose. but if it is an amendment is designed to kill the bill as happened in 2007, we will probably showed together to prevent the bill from going down because this is a -- these are fragile compromises that have been made.

we think that america will be more secure with the passage of this bill. we will have a more secure border. we will use technology such as a radar which was developed in iraq that will help us identify people as they come across. sooner or later self of the border or around the world that even if you get to the united states of america, you will not have a job when you get here because of this to the employer sanctions and e-verify come and i would also point out that the accident free will help us with our national security as well. at a press conference that we had the other day, i would like to conclude with one of the reporters asked what makes you optimistic now, whereas in 2007 you failed. i pointed to the group of people behind us.

we have a coalition that has been assembled. we didn't assemble what necessarily. they assembled from labor to business to the chamber of commerce to evangelicals to the catholic church. when you look at the broad spectrum of support that has been expressed for the passage of this legislation, it is a coalition and we did not have in 2007. i believe that those people are extremely active. 70% of the american people support it halfway to citizenship as long as the people are here is illegal to pay back taxes and pay a fine, learning question get in line behind everybody else who came to this country legally, and that is an important factor in american approval or disapproval. that's what this legislation is about. thanks for having us. >> thanks for coming to let me

ask one or to myself and then we will go to david kelly, michael boreman and alex to start. we were talking about how this is in the final build debate the bill, the bill would have made the boston situation better. let me ask if you have anything so far that tells you you need to make further improvements in the bill. senator gramm, your friend, senator mccain has talked about an amendment requiring immigrants were deemed potentially higher risk to undergo more checks. are you seeing anything as a result of boston where you want to have stuck to an already built? >> i think it's way too early. we don't all lessons. something we are finding out new information on a daily basis. but, i am sure that by the time this bill reaches the floor, we will be able to reach conclusions, and we will include provisions like that if we feel they are unnecessary. working with the administration by the way and some of the people at the fbi and other

agencies. so, we are completely open to amendments that would in any way prevent what happened in boston. i hope nobody has any illusion about that. >> let me offer one on immigration and that is the sequester and flight delays. there is a dispute how to handle the airline the lady in caused by the sequester. the journal reports this morning some democrats want legislation that would deal with just the air travel sequester. the majority leader is working to have a sequestered itself repealed. can both of you speak to what you think needs to be done if anything about the air travel delay? >> my best solution is to replace it with more rational types of cuts coming and that would be he has an amendment which got a lot of support on our side, not on the other side.

having said that, i noted that last night, the president spoke person said that he would be open to a solution just for the faa as we know the transportation department has probably the worst squeeze on sequestration because so many of their employees are not effective because they are funded in good part by trust funds come in other words the highway trust funds isn't subject to sequester so all of the other employees are not subject there. savitt squeezes the air traffic controllers. i know that senator rockefeller along with senator john thune was meeting yesterday with the faa to try to come up with a solution, and i would certainly be open to it. >> we've had hearings in the senate armed services committee, and we've heard from everybody that the navy because the kind of hearings that we have. every one of our uniformed chiefs have said they can't

defend the nation if we continue this sequester. i'm terribly uncomfortable with the delay of the faa. i think it's a terrible thing. i've been subject to make myself but when we are looking at a virtual threat to national security, we have our priorities upside down. and supply and hell bent if we are going to take care of airline passengers, why don't we take care of our national security? the world is more dangerous place than i have ever seen ever in many respects, and every one of our uniformed chiefs say they aren't going to be able to defend the nation within a year. we have our priorities upside down. so i will go along with whatever it is, but it's criminal and scandalous that we are ignoring

the effective sequestration on the national security. now we can believe if you don't believe the uniform service chiefs that's fine. i happen to and they are presenting graphic illustrations of the problems that they are facing. if we have to wait longer or there are flight delays but i wish to god the congress of the united states to focus on the nation's security coming and by the way, keeping good and qualified in and talented young men and women in the military who are all considering now getting out because they have seen no future, at least predictable future which is at least we owe them. >> one other point. because john is right on this that it is causing problems, i don't think that it's just traveler inconvenience. it causes economic loss. but we have lots of other cuts.

cancer research and stuff like that which is vital. i certainly agree it would be better to figure that a way to undo the whole sequestered as opposed to giving it piecemeal. having said that, certainly would be open to a solution because the transportation department is under an undue amount of immediate squeeze. >> do you talk about the growing recognition that they need to repeal the voters and am i hearing that from republicans in terms of the general election that there is still a lot of fear i'm hearing from the right and the immigration reform how do you suggest then? >> first of all, i believe if we pass this legislation it won't gain a single hispanic vote

right now we cannot compete i will authenticate that statement. all i can do is. i try to show friends like mine in the state of texas and others where the demographics are and should be convincing. by six or eight years from now, we will have if not a majority, the near majority hispanic population in my state. and so it is a demographic certainty that if we condemn ourselves to 15, 20, 25% of the hispanic vote we will not win

elections but i have no illusion about whether this legislation will gain the hispanic voters. it won't. but it will put us on a playing field where we can make an argument, as i do with chuck every day from a lot smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, pro-life, pro defense etc. that's the argument. with marco rubio and two conservative leaders they say you were just doing this to get more democratic votes because these 11 million people will be allowed to vote. the first one will be allowed to vote and 13 and a half years. and if you republicans haven't solved your problem within the hispanic community in 13 and a half years. >> i called paul ryan to thank him for his son spoke in support of the immigration reform. >> senator mccain, can you tell us what paul ryan told you?

>> he said i think my comments are important and agrees with what i just said and i should thank you. [inaudible] to get the votes in the senate -- >> we need that and i think it is doable. over 50 democratic votes which i do think is possible, it has widespread support on the democratic side and eight or nine republican votes.

it would bode poorly for the house. it's getting a larger republican vote and we did some very interesting things. senator hatch and rubio, feinstein and benet were a part of the accent and there was a point where basically most of that agreed with our proposal, but southeast didn't. we knew there were a lot of republican senators who might vote for our bill but if they were very much against the bill that might push them over. their agriculture is a little different with cotton and all that. we are working not to get 61 votes and the minimum. i would like to get this

wishful, maybe this is hopeful that will be wonderful if we can get a majority on both sides. >> david grant. can you sort of describe if you had spoken to your colleagues in the house on how they are working on their bill and when we might be able to do that, the chairman are talking to both and just a separate thing for senator schumer. you just discussed. what happens with that [inaudible] >> we have had conversations with. we will continue.

but i think the time to do that is after we finish on the floor we can go over specific points with them. we've had several conversations with him and we will continue, lindsey graham and i went over to the republican policy committee not too long ago and had conversations with them. we have encouraged their negotiations, which in many ways are particularly given the makeup of that group somewhat encouraging. we have the republican group of colleagues on our gang of eight as well as the house republicans was a nonstarter. they were designed to bring immigrants from the countries that couldn't get them through family connections because right now the 86% of the immigrants to come into the country are 84 or

86 family related, only 16% or so our job really is of the diversity is an effort to raise a majority of the americans can't get in because it was their fifth cousins who could come and it was successful. the majority of people come i don't know the majority but certainly the plurality from central asia and no longer europe or africa, and given that in the opposition of the colleague. they cared a lot about them and on the system that we have, it is a point system which lindsey graham pushed very hard in the future which does make future

illegal immigration more java oriented. there's plenty of room for family, too. because the of decreased under the diversity visa they will increase and that is an to mention the number of caribbean americans who will first become rpi is it is a fair and in balance the bill in that regard. >> and the point system under the countries that are the underrepresented get some points >> [inaudible] 1.8 americans with insurance to you give to parents and students

to not drive down the wages and increased competition and make it harder to pay back debt. we are talking about the university system we need a whole new group to come in and straighten things out. those people ought to be given an opportunity to remain in the united states. there are job requirements for those people those are not being filled. if the united states of america is going to remain a number one nation and the world, we better be able to keep the highest and the best talent in the world come and those people that are

attending the best universities have the best hours. >> a couple things in there. first, unemployment leel. it's the high school graduates but certainly in double digits. second, because of senator durbin's work, they have to be paid a very significant wage. the level to. and so that is going to be a deterrent to anybody that wants to bring in somebody, not stem, college graduates and use of their professions and finally they have to post the job. >> it is a nonstarter and that being the case, i'm wondering if

you think that is going to be a big problem and if you see any other pathway to getting this bill done. >> it's not getting it passed to citizenship and a lot of our friends in the hispanic community when they look they are not very happy, they are talking about 13 years, when we are talking about a $500 fee and another one after five years and the troops that are required including border security it's going to be pushed back from that side as well. the legal status is not something that someone should have to remain unless they want to add to say if you can have a legal status, but you can't ever

have a path to become a citizen of this country, i just don't think it offends our fundamental principles of fairness in our society. so, i understand -- i don't understand i know that opposition is there and valid and i don't think that it is held even by a majority of republicans certainly not in the senate to. if people don't feel they have a chance to become a part of society there is huge discontent the american dream is you can become an american you have to follow certain rules and work hard and pay your taxes and obey all to get we even say for the first time you have to learn english. but, you should be able to achieve the american dream come symbolized by the beautiful lady

in the city i live. it's important not for any political reason that a substantive reason and politically i will say two things. most americans support it, the majority of republicans support it. >> as long as -- >> you ever met. >> as long as you earn it. second, i would say this. for the hispanic community, it is a nonstarter. i would say for most democrats it is a nonstarter. the one thing that the four of us have said is there has to be passed to citizenship. john and all the other three said it has to be qualified earned path to citizenship. they insist people go to the back of the line and not gain any benefit from crossing the border and we have achieved that. but any attempt to say in the house to say we wouldn't have a kafta citizenship would be a

non-starter and i say that unequivocally it will not pass the senate. i do not think you would get a space vote. >> [inaudible] the border security benchmarks [inaudible] >> and remain in the status until we comply with all of the requirements that they have to comply with personally. i voted for simpson under the beloved ronald reagan and we would give them all amnesty and never faced the problem again. now we have 11 million people who are here in a legal. i'm not going to stand for the third wave. so that means we not only have to have a secure border, but 40%

of the people are here in illegal under state their visa so we have to track that down and we also have to have the most important aspect of the bill to be honest with you is if they are here illegally will be penalized for doing so, and we will have their ability to of them to conduct in the tamperproof documents. that is what drives up the magnet. the one thing that bothers me is there's a demand for drugs and drugs will continue to come across our southern border as long as there is a demand and that to me is a problem that we haven't even addressed but it separate from illegal immigration. we cannot have a third wave. we owe it to the american people and the only way you do that is a combination of e-verify come exit and entry, secure border

and penalties for employers who hire people who don't have the proper documentation. >> i've always said the american people will support common sense balanced solutions to the illegal immigration and the 11 million who are here if and only they are convinced there won't be a third wave, future wave of illegal immigration and our bill is stronger it's much stronger than anything that's been envisioned. it was a revelation to me, and we passed the bill actually the two of us in 2000. several years back there were $600 million into the border and people said i got some of my constituents that said we don't need anything on the border. well, that 600 million raised effective rates across the whole 2,000 miles southern border from 68 to 82% of everyone who

attempt to cross. they either catch or turn back 82%. now we're spending an extra, you know, another 4.5 and another to if that doesn't work and that doesn't achieve 90%. and the one thing that we insisted on that these metrics not be spaghetti, that they would be achievable concrete metrics. but i will tell you something, was into this spigot on the border in arizona they only have to planes come and they can only fly them eight hours a day because they don't have the personnel. and here is what i learned. it's nothing like new york for better and for worse, and in any case you don't have to tax them right at the border. they can follow people cross the border and they catch everything. they see everything that crosses and they can follow them for 20, 25, 30 miles inland and catch them in there.

the one lady that we saw trying to cross the border they didn't everyand he she was climbing over a fence. they said we know exactly where she is going to go and we will catch her in 20 minutes and they did so these metrics are going to be more effective than people think. we are going to secure the border, and they are achievable. let's say a president comes in his anti-immigration. they can to gain the system to say we aren't creating the kafta citizenship. >> technology it will be about 120 degrees on the arizona border. it's very tough on people sitting in a vehicle in that heat, and the desert is very debilitating. if we develop a radar and capabilities in iraq i'm confident that if we deploy it

correctly to be able to survey of the entire border and be able to intercept people as it was said maybe not right at the border with some miles we develop a radar that not only identify people at the time that the track them back to where they came from. it is a fascinating radar so i am convinced of the technology and a surveillance capabilities as well as the drones will allow us to have effective control of the border which might have been impossible ten, 15 years ago. it is after five years, remember this is a ten year path. after five years if we have not met those requirements then we would be in the convention and they will spend additional money. if we do it right, i am totally confident coming and this goes

as i mentioned before, 40% of the people never can across our border. they just came on a visa and overstayed and we are addressing that side of the, that aspect of it as well. >> we are about 15 minutes away from the end. a lot less people what questions. >> make your answer shorter. [laughter] >> no, no, so they don't rise up and throw things at me. brian, karen, no relation, the lady in the striped top who i don't know. another senior moment strikes. that is probably as far down the list as we are going to get and we also have david. >> [inaudible] unhappy with the cap on the visa from the construction workers.

>> everybody is unhappy, but they signed up. everybody is unhappy, but they have signed up. they have to show me a major group that is in opposition. on the other side they are very unhappy as well with provisions of the bill. that is what the compromise is. >> next question. >> would you accept a 50% increase in the number of the visas or a percentage of h-1b visas? >> it is a carefully negotiated package. at the bottom line is i talked to tom i great deal and he is from brooklyn, too. >> they speak a different language. >> that's what jeff said. the lady we saw at the border

heard my new york accent and thought she was already in new york. [laughter] but anyway, so basically we said we are going to be quite generous on high-end college graduates and all that because those jobs there is a consensus that there is not a -- there's a shortage. lockheed martin tried to hire 500 engineers in syracuse. the of 100 miles to the west of the rochester institute of technology, 100 miles to the east and it is the largest successful engineering school in the country and they couldn't get the engineers. so, it is on the high end but we are tougher on the low skill with the exception of agriculture because we know americans don't do that work. and yes it is a pretty tough bill on the low end pitting it provides the needs people have, but it is kind of tough and to

their credit, the business community went along. even to construct a smaller construction industry, the smaller folks, the home builders and stuff. they have said we want to change, but we are not going against the bill because nobody really is. john said nobody really wants to go against the bill, but i think that we, you know, the bottom line is it is a carefully balanced situation and i think everyone is going to go along with it. >> one of the reasons they went along with it is the status quo was totally unacceptable in america today. it's unacceptable to have 11 million people, human beings, god's children in our society without any of the rights and protections of citizenship or at least a legal status. >> it sounds like you would vote against it. >> i'm not going to be on anything specific. i don't envision us changing the balance in the visas issue.

>> could you speak up little bit? >> sure. [inaudible] >> my view is we decided we can't view the individual bills because the problem is people say what about me? i tried that in the last congress. high-tech has more broad support than anybody else. but they put it in the house bill and it got no other in the senate because the hispanic community said what about us? the agricultural community said what about us? and what we found is ironically it may be a little counter intuitive that the best way to pass immigration legislation is actually a comprehensive bill because that is going to achieve more balance, and everybody can

get much but not all of what they want. and so, i think that the idea of doing separate bills is just not going to work. it hasn't worked in the past and it's not going to work in the future. >> to his credit, to his everlasting credit the advocacy they always want to bring up the dream act. >> fine, let's secure the border and have an amendment on that. it's got to be a comprehensive approach. >> changing the subject of the marketplace [inaudible] california has an economic

presence, amazon is also concerned that some states would retain the current calls not often to the national system. what do you do to solve that potential problem with some states retaining the state law? >> when it came to the committee, i was reluctant to support the bill because it didn't allow for the different systems within the states, particularly our own state of new york. and i negotiated with new york state, senator durbin and senator enzi, and they have made changes in the bills of the states that have a different system but still collect the sales tax as we do in new york would be allowed and now new york state can foot the bill but they do not have to change the system. it is just going to have to adopt a different state systems. attwell -- the bill will allow the new york state system and others to continue as is. >> [inaudible]

>> i wondered if those of you could comment about the gun legislation the obama administration did all they could to get that passed in the situation where the president or the administration can't [inaudible] >> look i've been involved in gun legislation since 1994. i was the author of the bill and i carried the house assault weapons ban when it was in the senate. it's a very large issue. i think it is totally unfair to blame the president. the president worked really hard on this issue. he put political cattle on the line. he made one of the centerpieces of his state of the union address and he went all around the country to try to rally support. my view of the way to change the vote on gun issues is aside from relying on the conscience of people to do what they think is right which obviously plays a

larger role than many of you give the senators and congressmen credit for, but it is to change the underlying table. what has to happen is how were we able to pass the bills in 94? the metal rose up and said we want a rational all on the gun. why? because [crying] was reading a part america and the police and a devotee of said we have to do something. and that past. the 1994 elections occurred right or wrong those two bills or in part blamed for democrats losing control of the house and the senate, and for 20 years not much happened. and these mass shootings caused them to rise again canadian like we are at the turning played. this is my own view. i think we are at a turning point. i think the average person, you

know, we have always known that these folks have the propensity, but the gun control people have the numbers. i think the numbers are getting a little more intense. for instance, when i went around my state last weekend for the first time i not only heard from the pro nra people you were taking away my rights, but also i heard from people who said keith added. i've never heard it in those areas before. and i think that is going to happen. so, i would -- this is my own little prediction. we are going to bring the bill back before the end of the year and i and you may find some changes. we may change the bill a little bit but we may find some changes out there in the public. lots of senators who thought it would save to vote against it because of the intensity. i'm not so sure anymore. >> welcome i would like to as i did on the floor of the senate applaud the senator who had the courage to come forward with the bill that i felt was very common

sense. it was not exactly as i had wanted. i think we need to define the internet aspect of gun sales a little better but i do agree that i think the issue is going to come back. but we also have to address the fact that we are not putting criminals, prosecuting criminals who failed the gun checks coming and we are also not addressing the issue of crazy people who are doing terrible things whether it be tucson arizona or colorado or new town connecticut. that is probably the toughest part of this issue, where do the individual rights and and the obligation to protect the population began? we really need to have the national discussion i think in more depth. >> the first part about the administration's role. is their anything they could

have done [inaudible] >> i don't know what the administration could have done. i don't know what more -- whenever one of these things fails, we point the finger of blame, but i don't want to do that. both to me and mansion have influential second amendment defenders. >> back on time for the last question. >> this is a segue back to immigration. could i ask both of you, senators, at this point what do you think is the most useful role president obama could play in this immigration debate? >> i think the role that he is playing now, and that is that he is encouraged the group of us that came up with this

legislation come he's expressed his public support, and at the same time he's not tried to dictate the terms of it, and i think that his role has been very appropriate and if we get it through the senate i think that he will again way in to try to convince our colleagues in the house to move forward with it. so i think that his role has been exactly appropriate. >> i agree with that completely. we were coming up with a bipartisan compromise and obviously the president's view on some things or some things i probably would agree with personally, but we couldn't get a bipartisan compromise and it

is terrific. it's a pretty strong deadline. that is what we will meet again. i think that this has come from a bipartisan group. it's not everything the president wants p.m. arrested that and he is playing the role exactly right. >> i sense a slight change in the environment in the senate. i think there is a willingness to maybe address some important

issues in a fashion i was not the case in the last four years. we ever to the 51 votes in the filibuster moving forward with the gun legislation there is every opportunity i think i emphasize opportunity for a grand bargain. and so i do for the first time in some time harbor some optimism about the chance for a bipartisan approach for some of the really compelling issues to be the >> i agree. there is a different mood in the senate. both sides want to meet -- we hope or i hope and i think john does, too our immigration bill sets the model for doing this coming to the bipartisan agreement on other major issues. and there is a desire among the majority of people in both parties, not everybody, the majority of people in both parties to actually do that. so i think this session is going to be a lot more productive on

the whole bunch of issues putative >> which is not a high bar. >> i think the reflection -- part of it is a reflection of the extreme dissatisfaction at the american people have expressed in the polling data and we all seek approval. that's part of the reason why we do the things we do. and to serve the people effectively. when a majority of americans think we are not doing that, sooner or later that does happen -- have an impact. the approval ratings are at an all-time low. i predict if it continues along this path, you are going to see a third-party in the united states. the overwhelming increase in the voter registration is the independent registration, and those people are voting

independently because they don't find a home in either party. sooner or later that dynamic is going to affect the political landscape. >> thank you again pitted appreciate it. >> thank you. >> u.s. senate to gaveling back in and about five minutes to continue work on the online sales tax bill. why is on c-span freak the dedication ceremony for the george w. bush library is under way. laura bush is speaking to attendance. also coming up, remarks from former presidents jimmy carter, george h. w. bush, bill clinton and also president barack obama. watch live coverage now one c-span's three. more on the library we spoke to its director, alan lowe. >> the director of the bush presidential library and museum. what is your job?

>> i oversee all of the operations, so it's been a fantastic job the last four years on helping design the building and helping design the museum, during a wonderful stuff, overseeing all of the archives and artifacts and now that we are getting ready to open, overseeing operations of the museum, the research and all of the public programs. so, a lot of responsibilities in that job. >> later this month he will take this over formally. explain what that means we estimate at this point i've been working with the private foundation as a work to design. we've moved all the archives and the staff members in here now but on april 25th on the dedication day it is given over to the national archives to run as a presidential operating museum. >> wind historians come here what will they take away, what is available to them? how does it all come together? >> it is a very rich archive. around 70 million pages of just paper records from the bush white house. but on top of that we have about

88 terabytes of electronic information including over 200 million e-mails, which totals about a billion pages if you would print them out, which we never will. we also have around 42,000 artifacts and a body of of fissionable materials as well. over time those are processed and made available to the researchers could get >> how do you sort through all of that? >> you have a processing plant. what should we process first, what should the priorities be? what can be open early on in that type of thing working with our staff and colleagues in washington, working with the president and his office kind of putting those priorities and starting to nibble away at this vast wealth of information that we have. >> you are no stranger to this city if you have a couple of the presidential libraries. what do you take away from your work at the reagan library and apply the to the bush library? >> when i started at the reagan library years ago i didn't know the presidential library is more. i learned to love the mission of

the library and i really wanted to try to apply those lessons as i went up the ladder in washington. i was at the central office for a while and our job was to oversee and to advocate for the libraries are not the country so it taught me what worked and what didn't work in the presidential library system so i tried to apply those lessons in terms of how we build the archives and what kind of programming we do, how we think about museum operations and all those kind of things and how we think about partnerships as well. those are important to us. >> what works and what doesn't work? >> the biggest thing that works is having a great staff. second, establishing those partnerships. so making sure that your partnership is through a foundation is excellent then you find good community partners. those are things the work and i want to apply here and make the bush library the best there is. >> can the students come here? how can people access the information? >> it will be open to the

general public. we will open the museum on that day and also opened a research room. some records could be open on may 1st. in january of 2014 all of the records can be requested to the freedom of information act. but we want to open some of the materials early so when we open this building also in the research room and have some materials open at that point on may 1st. >> as the president has pointed out, he is the first true internet presidents use of e-mail and access to web sites. so, how does that change the dynamics and trying to research and archive and collect all the material in those eight years? >> it's a major change. the archives thought about this and created the electronic records archive so a vast amount of electronic information and the bush white house was ingested into the system at the end of the administration. it's now our job to go through to process it. it's a a vast amount of information. the quality alone equals more than any other library

collection combined across the country. so you have a challenge in terms of quantity for processing but never complaining about it. it's a resource for scholars and students coming down the road to understand the issues, the defense of the bush administration on a consequential administration. these electronic records will be a tremendous resource for everyone. >> are we still learning things about past presidents like roosevelt and ronald reagan that were not made available to the public that gives a sense of what the bush library will mean 30, 40 years down the road? >> unfolding the record on the road has a level of understanding can and administration, president, time in history to give a dime a believer in archives in the material, as you study more you get more interpretations. as more things are open, then you see all levels of and even british your development. so i am a believer in that. over time we get a deeper understanding of the presidency and the individual presidents as well. >> what about bush themselves, are the part of this process, do they provide a history, what can

we get from them? >> they've been a process of putting it together, they've been great supporters of our staff here. we work closely with them, with their foundation, with their office staff. so they've been very involved in that way through the entire process. >> what is your biggest challenge? >> there are a few challenges in the library. our biggest trouble just make sure we keep our eyes on begole of excellence, but making sure that in the midst of all of this other details of the bunning records and designing opening museums, doing all these other things the we focus on our customer and kind of keeping that quality of excellence in everything we do despite the big challenges that we have ahead of us right now. >> alan lowe come thank you very much for being with us. >> the u.s. senate gaveling back and and they will continue work on the online sales tax bill

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, pending on the floor is senate bill 743. this is a bill in its simplest terms will allow the states to ask internet retailers when they sell in the state to collect sales tax. currently, every state requires consumers to pay the sales tax but it's not collected at the point of purchase. so this will respond to a 20-year-old supreme court decision which said to congress, you have to write a law to do this. this is the law. senator enzi and i, senator heitkamp, as well as senator lamar alexander, we've all worked together on this on a bipartisan basis. this measure was before the senate last week. it's not a long bill. it's 11 pages. it is certainly within the grasp of any senator to secure this and read it and understand it. it is very straightforward.

we have had efforts made on the senate floor to delay consideration of this measure. we have taken three votes on it over the past month or so. first vote under the budget resolution was a generic vote, do you support the idea or not? 75 senators voted in the affirmative. a dramatic commitment from the democratic side and a majority commitment from the republican side to this measure. we then faced a vote on cloture, in other words, closing down the debate on the motion to proceed. we had that vote on monday. 74 senators voted to proceed. yesterday on the actual motion to proceed, 75 senators. so this is clearly an issue where a substantial majority of the senate believes we should move forward and pass this legislation. now, we have invited our colleagues, senator enzi and i have, if they have amendments to file their amendments. they have had six days, six days

to prepare the amendments and file them. the deadline is an hour and a half from now for filing amendments. so far we've received 31 amendments. we sat down last night and said, let's pick a good number of these amendments, call them. let's debate them, let's vote on it. let's act like a united states senate. let's see how that works. and we started to do that. we came up with a list. included in that list are amendments being offered by people we know are going to vote against this bill, so they're not friendly amendments, they're adversarial amendments, but that's all right. isn't that what we're here for? debate it out, express your point of view, we'll express ours, let's vote? i think that's fair. no one can criticize us for not being open to that. we're not trying to fix the outcome. we're ready to bring this to full debate. but when we contacted the senators who are opposed to the bill and said, call your amendments, they said, we're not ready.

i wish those senators who said they weren't ready could meet the senators we run into in the hall who say, when is this going to end, when can i go home? because the two of them need to get in conversation. we want to do this in a timely, thoughtful way because it's a critically important issue, but we can't do it unless our colleagues will come to the floor of the senate and offer their amendments. now, yesterday we had one amendment we thought was simple and easy. it's an amendment which said we will not impose across america a tax for you to use the internet. internet freedom act, it's called. bipartisan. senator mark pryor of arkansas, a democrat; senator blunt of missouri, a republican came together and offered to extend the current policy of the united states on internet freedom. senator enzi and i looked at that and said, we could put that on this bill. that's something we agree with. we are not imposing any new taxes in this bill, none.

so that's certainly a statement of policy we would agree with. we brought this to the floor and a senator from oregon came and objected to considering that amendment yesterday. so yesterday, no amendments. now we're told that any amendments we bring to the floor today, there will be more objections. i don't think this makes the senate look very good. i don't think that this is in the best interest of this institution nor in our government. we were elected to roll up our sleeves and go to work and address the problems facing this country. we understand with a hundred people there will be differences of opinion. we are supposed to engage in civil debate on the floor and then vote. but to lunge from one filibuster to the next and have members coming to the floor and objecting to amendments puts us in a terrible position. i've served in the minority, as senator alexander and senator enzi do at this point. the one thing you really want in

the minority is a chance to offer an amendment, to express your point of view even if you lose. now we are offering that opportunity and unfortunately there's a resistance to it. well, we're going to try it. we're going to test it. and if the people who are going to continue to try to block any debate on this bill want to come forward, i hope they will face questions from colleagues as to what their intent is. ultimately we will finish this bill before we go home. if it means staying through the weekend, if that satisfies some members, we'll do it. but it's a terrible waste of opportunity. we've gone two straight days with no votes on amendments and senator enzi, alexander and heitkamp and i believe it's time for the senate to be the senate. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. enzi con: mr. president? mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: thanks,

mr. president. three times 75 senators, one time -- three times senators have voted either with 74 or 75 votes in favor of this legislation. a majority of democrats and a majority of republican senators. on monday we were ready for amendments but the small group of senators who oppose it objected. on tuesday, we asked to have time given back so we could begin amendments. there was an objection. on wednesday, the senator from arkansas asked for a ten-year moratorium on internet taxes and there was an objection. and we're ready today, as we'll -- as we'll see. sometimes we republicans feel like democrats keep us from offering amendments. whether that is ever true, this is different. in this case, democrats and republicans, a small group, are blocking the majority of us, democrats and republicans, who

want to go forward with the bill and who've been ready to consider amendments since mond monday. so i would hope that we -- we respect the points of view of our -- of those 24 or 25 senators who -- who disagree with us, but with three votes of 74 or 75 votes, can we not have our amendments, bring this to a conclusion, send it to the house of representatives, let it go through the process that it needs to go? so this is different. this is both sides, a small group, blocking amendments that the large majority on each side want to move forward with. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i have an amendment at the desk number 771, offered on behalf of myself and senator kaine and i

would ask for its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: is there objection to laying aside the amendment? mr. wyden: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: and, mr. president, i'm only doing it, i would advise my -- my colleagues, who i know feel strongly about it, chairman baucus wanted to be able to address this issue. so that -- that's the purpose of my reservation. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, let me express my frustration and dismay over the objection that has been lodged against considering a very reasonable amendment to this bill. this is a bipartisan amendment.

it is offered by the independent senator from maine, senator king, and myself. it hasespridd support. it is a very reasonable amendment that simply gives businesses more time to comply with the provisions of this bill. it is consistent with the purpose of this bill and does not undermine it in any way. it simply recognizes that 90 days is simply too short a period of time for implementation of the software and other changes that would be required under this legislation. i think that there is, however, a broader issue here. this is a bipartisan bill, a bill that i am a cosponsor of, a bill that has widespread suppo

support, a bill that the governor of maine strongly supports because of the revenue that it would bring in that is now lost to the state even though it is owed to the state. it is a bill that has widespread support among main street retailers who see customers come into their store, take up the time of their clerks and then whip out an iphone to order the exact same merchandise on-line solely for the purpose of evading these sales tax that is due on the item. so this bill is a matter of fairness. it imposes no new taxes. it does -- in fact, there is a prohibition on taxing the

internet. and as senator alexander has pointed out and senator durbin has said and senator enzi, who has worked so many years on this bill, this bill has widespread bipartisan support. and here we are stymied somehow by a small group of members on both sides of the aisle who won't even allow us to debate and consider a bipartisan amendment that simply delays the effective date of this bill by a year to allow businesses more time to make the software changes that they need to make in order to ensure that they're in full compliance with the bill. we've reached a very disappointing and unsatisfactory

result if that is where we are. now, if there is opposition to our amendment, i am sure that the opponents would have every opportunity to speak against our amendment and to vote against our amendment, but to not allow our amendment, which is completely relevant to this bill to be considered, an amendment that simply alters the date of implementation is beyond my comprehension. i just don't understand it. i think it's wrong. i think it is what frustrates the american people, and it's an example of the kind of gridlock that is very frustrating to the american public. the only good thing i can say

about this gridlock is it's bipartisan in this case, but that is -- that is very small comfort indeed. so again, all our amendment would have done had we been allowed to consider it is put a one-year delay in the final implementation, and also to say that implementation could not begin during the retailers' busiest time of the year, and that is the holiday season. so this was intended to provide adequate lead time for retailers to undertake the complex steps that may be needed, the software changes, the training, et cetera, and retailers are going to have to begin early anyway, but with this one-year delay, we

know they will be prepared to fully implement the marketplace fairness act. again, it is very disappointing to me that this commonsense amendment that is designed to improve the underlying bill cannot be considered at this time. i have been very pleased to work with my colleague from maine, senator king, on this amendment. he may have some comments as well. thank you, mr. president. i also want to thank the sponsors of the bill for working very hard with us on this legislation. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: i just want to rise to associate myself with the comments from the senior senator from maine on this amendment. it is -- i consider it virtually a technical amendment. it simply changes the

implementation date under the bill so that companies will have adequate time to be sure that they integrate the software supplied by the states into their systems and also integrate the definition of which items of their -- in their inventory are covered and not covered, according to different definitions across the country. as we know, the software is to be supplied by the states, and this is simply, as i say, a change in the implementation date in order to ensure that our online retailers are able to serve their customers adequately and without any interruption of service or otherwise have problems. mr. president, i, too, am puzzled by what's going on here. when i came to washington in january, i knew that in many cases, the senate had to get 60 votes in order to move forward with legislation under the --

under rule 22. this is a piece of legislation that has actually had three votes so far. each one has been between 70 and 75 votes, and if we can't do anything here with a 3/4 majority, then i just -- i think the public, the american public is going to say what gives, nothing is going to happen even on a piece of legislation that gets over 70 votes on three consecutive votes. i have listened to the debate, i have listened to arguments from senators from three of the four states. i think it's interesting, there are four states in this country that don't have sales taxes. three of the four are strenuously objecting to the bill. one of them isn't. in fact, one of the senators from the state of delaware indicated that he felt this could be an advantage to his state so -- because people would come to delaware rather than buy something online and avoid the sales tax in a neighboring state. there is nothing in this bill that will compel the citizens of

oregon or montana or new hampshire to pay a sales tax, and there is something that has been argued that it is somehow coercive on companies in those states to -- to collect the sales tax. i would respond to that that if they don't want to collect the sales tax, they don't have to sell into those states that have sales taxes. there is no coercion there. they are voluntarily marketing into maine or vermont or texas or wherever there is a sales tax. if they want to avoid the strictures of this bill, then they can do so just voluntarily. but to me, this is -- this just makes total common sense. and i will conclude with a story that was in our portland newspaper just this week with regard to this bill of a real-life company that i, in fact, shop at, johnson's sporting goods. the pro pyritoress talking about people coming into her store, looking at items, feeling them,

trying them on, decide federal government they like it, and then they walk out and buy the wet suit or the scuba equipment, whatever it is online. she said we have become a show room for internet marketers. she said the problem is if this keeps up, we're not going to be here anymore. it's just fundamentally unfair to our retail communities in our tunes which make up the backbone of every commercial district of every town in america that they are being put at a disadvantage, 5%, 6%, 7%, whatever it is, disadvantage with regard to the sale of products. i -- i am frankly puzzled. i just don't understand the vehemence of the opposition from the nonsales tax states. i guess in those states, you can't even utter the words sales tax, let alone do something that will not burden their citizens in any way, shape or form except for the companies that will collect the sales tax under the software that's provided by the state. so i would -- i don't understand

also why we can't move forward with these amendments. we are here, i thought, to do the nation's business. i think we should -- we should do so. so i rise to support the amendment and hope that we can move to the consideration of the amendment and other amendments that will come forward and move this bill through the process. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i have six unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate, approved by the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent they be agreed to and printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, i rise in support of the amendment by the senators from maine. i think it makes a lot of sense. and it's symbolic, too. i mean, here we have a bipartisan amendment. we have a republican senator, an independent senator. the incident senator is a former

governor, as i once was. the reason i support the amendment is because it gives some more time for anybody who might be affected by this amendment to adjust to it. that's never a bad idea, almost never a bad idea in the united states senate. it gets us to our goal a few months later than we had thought, and it makes sure that those who might be affected can adjust. of course, many people who call my office are surprised to learn that it doesn't affect anyone unless they have revenues of more than a million dollars a year. so about 99% of people who sell things online or in catalogs aren't affected by this. and, of course, it doesn't affect internet taxes. we have a law against internet taxes. in fact, the amendment yesterday by another bipartisan amendment

by the senator from arkansas and the senator from missouri was to put a ten-year -- extend the ten-year moratorium on internet taxes, and that was objected to. but the collins-king amendment is eminently reasonable. i think it strengthens the bill. it's offered in a good spirit. some may wish to go faster, but i think it's sensible and reasonable, and i fully support it. and i would reiterate that we were ready to accept amendments on monday, but there was an objection -- not a partisan objection but by democrats and republicans, a small number. we were ready on tuesday to go ahead with amendments, but there was an objection, a bipartisan objection to going forward. we were ready on wednesday with a bipartisan proposal to put on the ten-year extension of the internet tax, but there was an objection to that. now, this is like -- i have used this before, but this is like

joining the grand ol' opry and not being allowed to sing. i mean, this is what we are supposed to do here. we are supposed to bring these bills up, consider reasonable amendments and vote on them. we're at noon on thursday and we haven't been allowed to do what we could have finished on tuesday. so i greatly respect the senators on the other side. i know their feelings. there are strong feelings. we have strong feelings, too. as a former governor, i don't think it's any of washington's business to continue to keep us from making decisions about our own taxes and tax structure. somebody said i don't trust the states. most people in my state don't trust washington to make decisions about spending. we do a heck of a lot better job of making decisions about taxing and spending and collection than people do up here. so we have pretty well made our minds up. three times now, we have had 74, 75 votes for this bill. we're ready to receive -- we have several amendments that have been filed here, some by those who oppose the bill. that's fine. bring them up, let's vote on

them. they make -- they may make good sense, just like this amendment makes good sense. so i thank the senators from maine for being constructive, for making a commonsense proposal to the bill, and i -- i pport it and i hope that very soon we can debate it and vote on it and finish this legislation. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, i objected to the last amendment for a very simple reason. the author of the amendment is making my case. this amendment makes my case. what's my case? my case is this bill should go to committee. it has so many problems, unthought through, unintended consequences. this amendment recognizes that. this amendment says delay, delay for a year. why delay? because there are so many problems. because there are so many problems. the way to solve the problems is

for us to deal with the problems in committee. that's the solution. i have made that point many, many times, many different places. the floor of the senate, different private meetings. finally people are starting to realize all the problems in thid it. slowly they are starting to think about it. slowly it's starting to sink in. oh, my gosh, we didn't think of that. oh, that problem, too, is it affects businesses. not just businesses in nonsales tax states. businesses across the country, all across the country. this amendment makes my case. this amendment seeking a one-year delay makes my case that there must be problems. we have got to delay this thing. and that's the basic reason why i think that we should not pass this bill. we should send it to the

committee. i pledge to members, my colleagues, my friends that the finance committee, which i chair, will hold a markup on this bill in the next work period. i have made that pledge. i have made that pledge. we can work on all the problems that this bill creates and solve them the best we can during the markup. i have heard no good reason why we should not -- should not go to the committee. this bill that was placed object the floor calendar here, no committee consideration, none whatsoever, none, none. committee jurisdiction had no opportunity to look at this bill, none. i think it should, especially when i make a pledge that we'll mark it up in the next work period after this next recess. what reasons have i heard why we shouldn't do that? i have heard none whatsoever. the only reasons i have heard are well, gee, senator, we asked you to do this a while ago, several months ago. that's no answer. that's no answer.

i'm saying now we'll do it, now we'll do it. i for the life of me cannot understand why we don't solve this in the right -- this. the right forum is the committee of jurisdiction. we can't do this on the senate floor without hearings, without consideration. senators who have been here a couple of years know that the good legislation we have passed around here is legislation in committee where the staffs go over different amendments, they work things out, the senators work things out and try to find compromises and solutions. not for the first time on the floor when senators make speeches. they don't think, you don't look for solutions on the floor of the senate, they just make speeches. and i'm suggesting a good place we don't just make speeches is in the committee of jurisdiction, the finance committee, then we can work out some of these problems. and that's the reason why i've been objecting and will continue to object, because this is a travesty the way this bill is being consideredn