these battles for people defending either what they think a way of life or slavery, what have you, all of it, all that bloodshed to settle this contradiction. and we won. we have our country. and i like to go to gettysburg to say to my clerks are we, do we deserve this? do we deserve the sacrifice for the country that we have? and are we living up to that? >> the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. live all-day coverage from gettysburg national military park sunday, june 30th, starting at 9:30 eastern on american history tv on c-span3. >> senate finance committee chairman max baucus and ways and means committee chairman dave

camp sat down last week to talk about tax policy and some of the fiscal challenges facing the u.s. the christian science monotomorrow hosted this one-hour -- monitor hosted this one-hour conversation. >> everybody, please be seated. [inaudible conversations] >> okay, thanks for coming, everyone, i'm dave cook from the christian science monitor. our guests this morning in nonpartisan order are max baucus and dave camp. representative camp was our guest here two months ago, senator baucus' last appearance with the group was 14 years ago. i wasn't in the moderator's chair then, so it can't be something i said. anyway, a warm welcome to both of you. [laughter] senator baucus grew up on a 125,000-acre ranch in montana

and earned his undergraduate and law degrees at stanfordford. after working in washington at the securities and exchange commission, he returned to montana, and at age >> we'll try and get the air-conditioning ramped up. as always, we're on the record.

please, no live blogging or tweeting. in short, no filing of any kind while the breakfast is underway. this is especially important on a day when we have guests whose comments can, as they say at bloomberg, move markets. there's no embargo when the breakfast is over except that c-span has agreed not to use video of the session for at least one hour after the breakfast ends to give those of us in the room a chance to file. if you'd like to ask a question, please do the traditional thing and send me a subtle, nonthreatening signal, and i'll happily call on one and all in the time we have. our guests have decided to skip opening remarks, so i'll go right to questions. i'll lob a ceremonial softball or two, and then we'll move around the table. why don't i start with a question about your relationship. this seems to be bipartisan week here at the monitor breakfast. earlier this week we had senators bennett and flake talking about immigration. now we have the chairmen of the two most important financial

committees in congress here on a bipartisan basis. do you want to give us a brief explanation of how this all happened? >> well, i'll start. i believe that relationships are so important to getting legislation passed. a lot of this, a lot of passing legislation depends on trust and confidence. it's the glue when you can spend time working ooh 'em other. -- working with each other. i set up weekly meetings with chuck grassley, been doing that for about ten years when he was chairman, sometimes ranking member, met every week. same with senator hatch now today, and i felt that it was a good idea, and i think we did this together, dave and i, that we just meet every week, once a week to go over what our committees are doing, tax and trade. meetings last about an hour, and more than that, you know, it's,

we're friends. we like each other. [laughter] you know, it's chemistry. i mean, often two senators from the same state doesn't make any difference whether they're from the same party or different political party don't get along with each other. often they do get along with each other. it just kind of happens that way. it's personalities and chemistry. i think it's a bit presumptuous, but i think i can speak for dave and me together to say we have a great relationship, just great friends. neither of us want to be president. [laughter] we don't wear our egos on our sleeves. we just want to get the job done. we're practical, pragmatic, not so ideological, and it's working out well. >> max is right, we want to get things done. and i have to say he really is the one that suggested it, and i think part of it came about in 2010, sort of got thrown into

negotiations on extenders, and you really find -- and i often say to people who come visit we, this is still a face-to-face, people-to-people business in washington with all the technology and all the, you know, tools that we have, you still have to get to know one another, and we've tried to do that, and we are friends, and we do get along. i actually look forward to the meetings. and if you have an ongoing dialogue every week, you actually can deal with the issues as they come up. we're trying to find solutions. obviously, tax reform is the big issue we're working on. but there are others. and max mentioned trade and other things. there have been some really significant bipartisan victories on trade that we've been able to work through, and we hope to have more. >> let me ask you, chairman camp, you said earlier this week, quote: we have many chapter toss go, unquote, in passing comprehensive tax reform. and you and chairman baucus sketch out for us briefly what the next chapter is? >> well, i don't know if you want to do that first, or do you

want me to? >> [inaudible] >> i mean, obviously, we're continuing to have, i mean, there's a formal side of it in terms of continued hearings in the committee. we just had a hearing on tax havens yesterday. and i thought it was interesting in that hearing, you know, obviously, there were three witnesses, two sort of asked by the majority, one asked by the minority, many of them -- all three of them said the same things on many issues affecting that sort of policy. so we're going to continue that. there have been about 20, well over 20 in the house continuing the work in the bipartisan working groups. and for example -- >> do you see the window closing on you, sir, as 2014 approaches? >> no, i don't. the reason is that the debt limit looks like it's coming later. i think we have a little bit more time, actually, to do this. for example, in the house we had an education bipartisan working group with representative diane black and representative danny davis, and they are now working together the try and find a way to deal with the 15 tax

provisions that deal with saving for college education and trying to find a way to simplify that so that people actually use it. there's 90 pages of instructions for those 15 provisions. so those two as a result of the working groups are actually trying to come together on an issue. so i see us moving forward in that way. and i also expect that we'll continue to do some outreach, and i don't know if you want to mention -- >> well, yeah, the next chapter is dave's concluding his working groups. we have options papers in the finance committee. we meet weekly, thursdays ten -- number nine was yesterday. so we're reaching the point where we've done a lot of talking, a lot of learning, and the rubber's going to meet the road. we're going to have to start making some proposals here. so the next steps are more concrete nature of proposals which will be coming out fairly

soon. in addition, we are going to, dave and i are going to travel around the country. we're going to go to different cities, we're going to talk to people, families, consumers, business groups just to try to help get a better idea what people are thinking about tax reform all around the country. and we have the web site which is also helpful to reach people, or people can reach us more directly. so the next steps are, basically, end of the working groups and options papers and start coming up with some ideas here. and as dave said, the pressure point's going to be the increase in the debt limit. at that point i think we'll find other next steps, not quite certain what they are yet, but i

think they'll be there. >> last one from me, and then we're going to go to mark, and jim to start. chairman baucus, on the subject of the tax-exempt groups that figure in the alleged targeting by the irs cincinnati office conservative political groups, you said there are countless political organizations at both ends of the spectrum masquerading as social welfare groups in order to skirt the tax code. you continued, once the smoke of the current controversy clears, we need to examine the root of this issue and reform the nation's vague tax laws pertaining to those groups, unquote. do you see that reform coming as part of this overall tax package that you're working on with chairman camp, or do you see it as a stand-alone piece of legislation? >> i see it as part of a more comprehensive package. and i think that the irs revelations are, frankly, helping to spur and help people realize the need for reform. and, you know, those provisions

are clearly dated. 1986 brought the code up-to-date, and a lot's happened since 1986 which means the code now has to be brought up-to-date begin. clean out the barnacles, make some major changes. tax-exempt, the 501(c)(3), 4 and 5s, etc., were passed a long time ago but with respect to 501c4, the major reg was about five years ago, and since then a lot's happened. citizens united has unleashed a to have rent of dollars seeking a -- a to have rent of dollars seeking a home. it was not intended, in my judgement, to be a repository of dollars by and large spent for political purposes, although there's a primary test there. but the main answer to your

question is it's part of it. and there will be other, there are other developing events which show that the code so dated, and once that's better realized, too, i think that's going to be more impetus to help us get reform. >> is your view the same, chairman camp, part of the package or not necessarily? >> you know, i can't really jump to conclusions. i expect at the end of this we will have legislative proposals. we're still early on in the investigation, and i will say that we are working on this in a bipartisan way both in the house and in the senate together. so we've had some both bicameral and bipartisan meetings on this issue, and we're just going to try to uncover the facts and go where the facts lead. and once we get that concluded, yes, there will be legislation that will come with that, and this is one of the issues that had been raised. but we still don't know a lot of things about this, for example, who directed this and, you know, the extent of it.

>> if i might add, too, i just think a basic approach here that works is that everything's on the table. then after a while we can decide, you know, which items that we take off the table. but at the very beginning, we start out, you know, anything in the general area of tax reform should be on the table, let's just see what we can do. because different pieces we'll, you know, are somewhat interrelated, and but start taking items off, then other groups have a justification for taking theirs off. [laughter] and i just don't want to be in that position yet. >> mark heller. >> good morning. senator baucus, you mentioned 986. by now both of you have had a lot of time to think think backn history and the experience of tax reform. e wonder what lessons you draw from that. some things have, obviously, changed. some things remain the same. what's different now and what's the same? >> well, um -- i'll go, i guess.

basically, what's different -- what's the same as then, today there's, you know, the barnacles are built back up again. [laughter] i mean, there have been 15,000 changes to the code since 1986. 15,000. and it just, you know, each year goes by, we administer provisions, exemptions, correlations, modifications, so forth, and different groups want, basically, congress goes along wit. it's all built up. so that's the same. in addition, the public back then was quite upset with lots of sheltering of income, and today i think the prick -- the public is quite upset with something else. part of it is sheltering, but a lot of it is lost income from overseas operations, especially the low-tax jurisdictions and tax havens. so that sort of tops the list

of -- pop list, legitimate american concern is starting to build up. what's different? well, one, back then president reagan was the primary force pushing tax reform on a very reluck stand congress. and -- reluctant congress. and today it's the congress, at least at this point the chairman of -- and it's the tax-writing committees who are pushing, starting the ball rolling on tax reform, but the administration isn't opposed, it's just, it's a willing participant, and i think you'll find the president more directly engaged as we move along. it's -- i'll stop there. but it's, essentially, the basic need for a formula to get the economy going, and we haven't talked about that yet, but tax reform is going to help the american economy, help get jobs.

and in this competitive world of ours, we have to do everything we possibly can legitimately and reasonably to help american people, help american small business, help american multi-national corporations, american companies compete better and have less red tape and be less -- [inaudible] so they can focus more on jobs. so it's a come combination of sb stance and psychology. >> and i'd just say the tax code was broken in '86, and the tax code is broken now. actually, i referenced this hearing. the three witnesses we had, all three of them said the tax code is broken. and i would agree on everything max said, but the other thing i'd just add to that is the world has changed since '86. the ability to invest around the world with the click of a mouse is so much easier. so we have to look at what other countries have done as well, and they have modernized their tax systems. we haven't. certainly in the international business side. and the other thing, i think, is i think somewhat similar is you

have to be very per isn't. per isn't. that reform would not have happened without, you know, continual persistence and effort. but as max said, the economy isn't as strong as it needs to be. we need to get the kind of growth and job creation and wage increases that we haven't been seeing. and i think that is making a case. the code has been layered upon layer of change, and it's time to look at it again, and so that's what we're trying to do. >> let me do a little bit of timekeeping here, tell you where we're going next. kim dixson, alan -- [inaudible] jim landers, jonathan weissman, kevin hall, lori montgomery. gentleman here whose name i'm blanking on, i apologize. doyle mcmanus, david grant and jim -- [inaudible] that should take care of us. kim? >> hi. so, chairman baucus, you said the rubber is going to meet the

road soon after your next last option paper. can you be a little more specific? will you be sort of like chairman camp did, put out some proposals on specific things like international reform and small businesses? >> well, my mo is to not surprise my committee, but to work with my committee. i have sessions with, these option sessions are partisan, members only. and they're terrific. we're working together. and one advantage of no major reform since '86 is that a lot of senators need to learn a lot more about the code, what's in it, what are these provisions. and that's an advantage because as senators mutually ask lots of questions of staff at these meetings, it brings us together.

we're talking together in a nonadversarial manner. together jointly working to get it done. so i'm going to -- aye not done this yet -- i've not done this yet, i'm going to meet with my committee soon, next week. and we're going to go over all this. and i have some ideas, and i'll present the ideas to the committee, but i want to get some buy-in, if you will, bipartisan with the committee before i proceed. >> and i thought when he was referring to the rubber's going to hit the road, we're going on road trips. we're going to travel the country. and we are going to talk to business owners, as he said, families, individuals and really try to get a read from around the country. we've adopted a web site, taxreform.gov, and together we've had about 10,000 submissions on that web site. we've got about a thousand followers on twitter. if anybody wants to give us their ideas on tax reform in 140 characters or less, we're certainly welcome to get those. that's what we're trying to do.

the other thing that we're also going to do is begin a series of bipartisan lunches together with house and senate members. >> right. >> and to begin these discussionsing that are occurring in both of our committees. i'm meeting with every member of my committee be individually. obviously, as i mentioned, we've had these working groups, but we're also going to continue to do some other outreach in order to, you know, continue to move this very important issue forward. >> this all sounds very, a little vague. i mean, i know it's a process, and you have -- [inaudible] but what can you tell us -- [inaudible] more jaded people think that this is just not going to happen? >> we'd like a headline for the morning, is the question. [laughter] >> stay tuned. it's coming. >> alan? >> i wondered if you -- chairman camp the sort of relationship between when the debt limit is finished and that later

finishing date for that could give -- [inaudible] but i wanted to ask you specifically about the debt limit. et seems clear it won't be -- it seems clear it won't be enacted, increased before the august recess. what sort of time to you envision? what realistically would have to be attached to it? and do you think that that will be able to be -- how do you -- what do you see as the relationship between that and tax reform? would tax reform ride on that? >> well, initially it looked like we were going to hit the debt limit in august, so i think that would have meant congressional action sometime in july. but given that revenues to the government are higher than anticipated and other factors, it looks as if we're not going to hit the debt limit til october, maybe even mid october. now, this is information that treasury has, we just kind of are estimating based on ore things. and -- other things. so as a result, you know, in the house we started talking about

how do we address that issue, and i think given the fact that it's later, it's clearly now a post-august recess issue. but one of the items that certainly has been suggested in our meetings has been is there a process or is there some way to move forward on tax reform in connection with the debt limit? some have suggested spite element reform -- entitlement reform in relation to the debt limit. most of the time the debt limit is passed whether it's republican or democrat administration with some policy matters attached to it. so whether that's pay-go or other things. so i think that's what people are exploring. i don't think you're going to see, you know, sort of decisions made about that until after the august recess now because of the much later timing on that. >> i might add, you know, dave's seen every member of the committee. maybe i'm a masochist, but i'm seeing every senator privately, personally, both sides of the aisle asking their views, what do you think? what do you want? and in those sessions, and we'll

learn more in our joint breakfast -- lunches as well, you'll learn a hot. you learn where some of the little interest -- [inaudible] might be, the little seams that might develop and how to begin to find potential solutions, essentially, to the question that you asked. and the big question which has not yet been asked but is the 800-pound gorilla in the room is what are we going to do with all the revenue that's generated with base -- [inaudible] as we address overseas base erosion, low tax jurisdictions and tax havens. what are we going to do with that revenue? of course, many say that's all for rate reduction. others say, gee, rate reduction's okay, but we're going to need some revenue. but as we get to the point where we're starting to increase the debt limit, first of all, i want to make this clear, the president wants a clean debt limit increase. i, frankly, think that's good

policy. we should have a clean debt limit increase. but i'm also enough of a realist to know that this is a big country. we've got 535 members of congress, it's a democracy. different members of the house and senate have different ideas on that subject. we are the congress, after all. [laughter] and so as we make -- during these meetings i'm finding, gee, this senator on the other side of the aisle, he's, he can see a path toward more revenue. and i've found that a couple three times here. and i believe that there's going to have to be a compromise on that question. revenue from base broadening, where's it going to go? how much rate reduction, how much static revenue? it's going to have to be compromiseed. there's going to have to be some agreement. because each body defeats the other way if one goes one direction, and the white house clearly has to be onboard too. but to answer your question, since the process answers that,

a substance answer really, but by going around to all these meetings you get little clues and ideas, and you know where they are on some of the basic tax reform questions, and i think when we get close to the d-day, whenever it is, september or october, that we're going to be in a pretty good position to know what works and what doesn't work. >> with brian? >> hurricane sandy, will there be temporary tax relief for victims of hurricane sandy? if yes, when will it be? and if not, why not? >> i haven't addressed that question. i don't know. i can't answer that question. i haven't focused on it. >> it's not on the table? >> not right now. >> not on my table. might be on some others. >> not right now -- >> but you just put it on. >> is it on your table, chairman camp? >> can obviously, i'm aware of the issue. i don't, i don't, i don't see any immediate plans to move that. but that doesn't mean that that won't continue to be discussed. but there's no immediate plans

to move anything on that in the ways and means committee. >> you're aware of -- >> i am aware of it. >> would it, in fairness, be -- [inaudible] for new york and new jersey residents? >> well, a lot of that was done administratively, and what we want to make sure is there really need for legislative action, is -- are the problems going to be able to taken care of administratively as they were in other hurricane-type disasters? so that's what we're really trying to sort out. >> craig. >> there will be assistance, it's just unclear in what way. >> sorry. greg? >> especially after what we've learned about the management failures at the irs tea party affair, beyond policy reform is there need for fundamental restructuring of the internal revenue service? >> you know, i think there may be. i mean, look, this looks like a at best a complete management failure, and at worst

intentional. we just don't know that yet, and i do think before we can really conclude that kind of thing, really need to know all the facts. we're just really moving into the interview of witnesses. we've interviewed a few, there are going to be many more. we're just beginning, i hope by the end of this week to get some of the documents from the irs that we've been seeking. so i think we're going to get a clearer picture. but at least in the initial hearings we've had, clearly the management was either intentionally not looking, or i would say so how of touch almost rising to the level of wrongdoing. but, again, i want to make sure i know exactly what happened, and it's going to take some time to do that. >> i would agree. i would agree. our team's jointly interviewing irs employees. i got a report yesterday from my staff, basically concluding that, hey, there are real

problems here. it's, dave touched on it. cincinnati office is almost cut off from d.c. not entirely, but these different offices around the country, and it seems to me, you know, it's tough. they've got 90,000 employees. it's tough to manage them all. but it's not managed well, and there does need to be significant restructuring in the irs, and whether that means congress has to do it, i don't think -- i don't know. but clearly within the agency itself, there's got to be some major accountability changes and get, make sure people are held accountable, not just left to go in their own direction. >> we're going to get the truth. >> yeah. >> and we're going to hold people accountable when we get the truth. >> we don't have all the information yet. >> you both have, are the only people outside of the irs that have the power to get certain information under 6103. are you using that power?

have you found anything through that yet? >> are we're beginning to use it, yes. >> yes, we are. >> jim? >> senator baucus, is there a danger of a race to the bottom in terms of the corporate income tax rate? the last time the u.s. cut most of the rest of the oecd countries cut their rates, and in a situation like ours there are a lot of u.s. corporate income managed to find itself, they seem to be willing to trade foreign investment and job creation for income from taxation. i mean, if we cut, isn't there a chance that the rest of our competitors will take it one step lower again? >> well, it's -- first, i do think our nominal rate, our top rate from a competitive perspective is too high compared to other countries. there's no question, it should be lower. and the code does encourage many

u.s. companies to either invest overseas and build plants overseas, it does tend to cause jobs to go overseas. and i believe that there should be very significant base broadening; that is, eliminate or dramatically pare back a lot of the business tax expenditures, you know? there's a whole long list, as you know. ..

but which helps american competitiveness. it also addresses baser version overseas. and we are not deal the country concerned about this. as you know, oecd countries are themselves worried about this and that is the companies themselves are going to havens and tax jurisdictions in tax havens, so those countries that house boost corporate revenue because they are codes are not sufficiently dated. i noticed a month or two a cover story in the congress was about this very question. a long, long article about how this is happening worldwide. it's going to be on the list on the g8. what are we going to do about

this? i do believe the issue must be addressed as corporate reform including baser version that is stop companies from taking advantage of the current tax laws. deal that we would do that is the change allows to capture that income but that was not captured because so many assets intend to be digitized assets in ireland, cayman islands or whatever and that has to be addressed. >> i agree we do need to bring down our rate. i don't think you can sustain the highest corporate rate in the world, but also what we need to address in corporate reform is the transference of intangibles were intellectual property that is occurred around the world. much of the testimony we've got sets up wickenburg or wait staff come the incentive goes away, but we want a baser version provisions on that.

there's about $1.7 trillion overseas if we want to invest back into the u.s. under the current laws, we can't do that unless it is double taxed. as a result, they don't ring it back. we want that continual investment in the united states as well. so we are out of step. we are out of step with the world. it is easy to find viable investment around the world and that is occurring and if we want to rebuild our economy and create more jobs and get people back to work and increase wages, we have to address this issue. the president did put in his budget reform, so we look forward to working with him on that. >> chairman camp, at your first irs interview, you said the irs scandal was the latest in example of a cover-up of political intimidation of this administration. it seems like the truth is

getting with the american people want us to make it through the election. you still believe that, given what has happened? to sell taiwan have been to the irs to some broader culture of intimidation at this white house? sack and, i would like both of you to take, is there a single tax expenditure on the personal side that you are willing right now to say what to limit or eliminate? >> first of all, let me say the irs is part of the administration. we have been trying for two years to address this issue. and so, i was very angry and those comments about the lack of candor from high-ranking officials at the irs on several letters had come for me to chairman of the oversight committee, dr. pisani. we had a hearing a couple days before lois lerner responded to a planted question.

so we were trying to get at this. the evidence we have so far as donors were targeted as gift taxes because of their conservative political beliefs. conservatives curbside confidential information late as well as the targeting of hundreds of groups. i don't know if you had a chance to see the witness. we had, but it is compelling what has been happening to americans. i am not going to stop until i find out what the truth is. we know that two years ago, high-ranking officials at the irs do about this and didn't disclose this to the congress, even though we've been writing letters in the senate has as well. we know the treasury knew a year ago and didn't let us know. that's not going to happen again.

>> yeah, i do have those, but i'm not going to reel reveal it today. >> we both agree, we are going to get the facts here. we are still in the middle of that right now, both of us are. i talked to my office yesterday, update, uncovering and there's a lot yet to go. adding a mac [inaudible] -- can each of you state how you feel about the mortgage interest deduction and not by what%, but is that one that is an obvious low-hanging fruit that needs to be addressed? and the irs question as well, we are seven weeks into this roughly and we still don't know more than we did seven weeks ago, which seems rather unusual. how would you characterize which

you are learning? lois lerner in your hearing was to the good -- told someone who ran for office, dick durbin would never run again. have you gone any further on that? 's >> i will answer that one first. as i said, this is a painstaking process because much of this to prove it, you need to document. and we are just beginning to get those. i hope at the end of the week. we have just begun the interviews, so there is a lot more work to do. so yes, this is going to take time. having been involved in investigations a single year, in a different type, this is more of a white-collar approach, we really have to get the documents improve things and that is painstaking. i'm not going to try to jump to conclusions. with regard to the mortgage interest deduction and we often

talk in shorthand for their supposedly to close. i consider that not a loophole, but a policy. everything is on the table. we will look at all the items and again, if there is consensus that an item is going to be reformed or is going to stay as is, that is going to affect where the rate and set began and that is the kind of trade-off and discussion that i want to have and i am having with the members of my committee and numbers off the committee have been working with our whip, kevin mccarthy and meeting with members and general office the committee. this discussion we are going to have. i think it is an important discussion to have knowing that two thirds of americans don't itemize and what should google be as we go forward? we are going to look at it all. jesus this analogy that's a blank sheet of paper and we'll see what goes in.

it's not the current code to see what goes out. >> i agree. >> it seems the house seems a little more following than under grassley of his constituents asked to trade-off the rates they seem to be more courageous violation. any sense of how that policy has? >> as i said, we are in the middle of the investigation. we'll see what happens. staff told me yesterday there will be a few, not terribly impressive and wants more names, moore interviewed people. my style is let us get the facts first and publicly state some conclusions. sometimes i don't always get there, but that's the goal.

>> chairman bachus, you said a minute ago i got one it is a good policy, but you are realistic to know that perhaps it is not. my question is, do you agree with chairman camp that picked up on it is a good forcing mechanism for tax reform and do you intend to move a debt limit bill either before or after the august recess? >> well, i don't know the date for which ruled that the bill. i would like to move the bill to the committee. we in the committee have talked about it, got together, okay what do you think? would actually brought jack lew out and i was a very good session about increasing the debt limit and so forth. that is the question i have to determine what makes the most sense as we perceive. i don't have a tiny gnat. in consultation with people to see what makes sense.

was your other question? sorry, laurie. [inaudible] >> yeah, i think it does. you know when your business, it is run by deadlines. sometimes you need a deadline to force ourselves to do something. i'm moving ahead tax reform independent of everything else, independent of debt limit, sequestration, entitlement reform, et cetera. that may get legs and head and head of steam on its own, i don't know. maybe part of something else. still moving ahead tax reform. we've come to the debt limit, this congress has to make decisions. >> mr. becker. >> there was chatter recently about a carbon tax as there is

always a guess. can you say how or if and why the light fitting to the provision of reform? >> yeah well, my mantra in a minute, everything is on the table. we are going to look at that as well as some other alternative measures. frankly, that is what will be discussing in the committee next thursday. different sources of revenue. it's not professional, that's one of them. it's interesting, there are more members of the senate now who hopefully talk about that that i've experienced. it is creeping up a little bit. is that going to rise to the level where it's very strong, serious provision? i don't know. i'm not going to prejudge it,

but it's on the table. >> well, i try not to make many declarative statements about tax reform because we are trying to look at the whole thing in its entirety. i don't support a carbon tax. [laughter] >> what about using the debt limit as an enforcement mechanism? it wasn't something that got done in one session. so you are talking about something you can do this fall, corporate birkenau, but not comprehensive. number two is, have you talked about other ways you can help what your process could tie in with deficit reduction parties? >> well, first of all, you are

right. 86 took a little while, but we've been on this for a while, too. we've had 30 hearings. this is not something in the last several weeks and. we've been seriously about what reform should be for a couple years actually because we have a good number of hearings. second, your assumption is that tax reform has to be this session of this congress can and maybe this session of this congress may not be a session. 86 was an election year, so it's possible. in addition, i think it is going to be difficult to have corporate only reform for several reasons. one is the majority of business income in america today is generated through pastors and not see corpse.

by definition that is going to adversely affect pastors unless we address individual income taxes. small business really cares about reform, faster reform. so we've given some thought to your last question. it's a bit early, a bit premature to know how that's going to fit together. but what we do is base broadening revenue is going to be a very significant question. i probe that question every time i meet with senators. i find some significant gift with republican senators. it is private right now. it's not public and it may not

ever be public. but right now, the administration would like -- and many democrats would like to feel the sequester, or modify it and further deficit reduction, everybody does come even as the need for deficit reduction is less urgent than it has been in the past, which is my judgment, frankly. but when the rubber meets the road, different rows, then revenue was very much be discussed. in a lot of ways, to skin a cat. i've learned through life is almost always a solution.

got to keep looking for it. they may not be immediately obvious at first take. keep probing and looking until you find a way. i am looking for a way to find a compromise between republicans and democrats in how to deal with them without we get tax reform and find a compromise that a tax reform not stalled and bought down because we haven't dealt with it but the other questions as well. >> i would just say that i'm sort of that main point of your question is i am not trying to let that stop our discussions on the policy issues that make up a tax reform bill. obviously have many with every democrat in a committee. many say they would like to see more revenue. i said let's not go to our corners. let's move forward on the policy and see what we get.

clearly on our side, we think the revenue delivered at the end of last year was a significant amount. we see the deficit score reduced, revenue is expected to double over the next decade. i don't think it's productive to focus on where we disagree, but there are so many good simplification policies we agree on. one of the things 80% of americans agree with is the code is too complicated. the average person should for their own taxes. small businesses, 90% have two higher preparers because they will get audited, especially now. so i think we want to look at those issues and clearly at some point we will have to address that, but i think it is better to look at that and the context of what are the policies you're getting as opposed to opening night. and this is something that is as you mention, since in bowles has

looked at, the super committee which we both served in both of those commission families had 20 areas. the first. i had as chairman was on tax reform. we've both been working on this for a lot of years. i would say we've got a lot of years for the economy hasn't looked back as strongly as it should. i do think we have a lot of time to wait. when you look at a quarter of the kids coming out of college, can't find a job, the fact that there are highest level since the carter administration, people have just stopped looking for work. even if you had a job company may not head a wage in greece in a while. that is what is driving me on this is jobs in the economy issue in the complexity of the code with all the changes that max mentioned that have occurred. it really makes it -- what is being called into question is not only the integrity of the

irs cannot pull system, but does somebody get a better deal simply because they can figure out through some sharp lawyer or accountant how to lessen their tax burden? and the average guy and i don't know i don't know how to do that and i in pain at the top. i think there is a fairness issue and need to look at in the tax code as well and that is also driving miss and another terms of the business side is kind of mention those. >> there are 42 definitions of small business in the code, 42. i might make another point here. if we don't reform the code in this congress, we will, in my judgment, until 2015, 16 and so forth. beyond that, it will be 17, 18 because if we don't do this in congress during presidential election season, i think it's going to be very difficult to pass tax reform that context,

which means up to 17 or 18. just think how much we will have lost by that. >> we've got about eight minutes left. jim. >> chairman camp, i wonder what your view is on that and there is an interesting breakdown on the republican side of the senate, where the older republicans for the most part supported it. >> and tenure or age? >> age. younger for the most part supported. have you seen any signs of generational split in your party attack spending issues like transportation, farm bill, that of thing. >> that issue was not in the ways and means committee where jurisdiction doesn't quite line up. but we don't have jurisdiction of state tax issues that would be judiciary. i try not to tell other chairman what to do. you know, i think the

legislation has changed and i think we'll have to see what we actually look at in the house. i've always felt that the million is a little too low in terms of the threshold for where you have to comply with the almost 10,000 different tax provisions. again, i'm going to let the judiciary committee work that issue we will see what the committee reports out of mental take a position on it. >> tuesday in a savage generational split on the house side of monday's attack spending issues, farmville, transportation bill, younger members looking at this different than older members in any way? >> i haven't really analyzed it in that way. i guess i really can't answer that. >> chairman baucus, which are like to anger your members than comment on not? >> i don't see any generational split, frankly. there are fewer of us and we

tend -- i just don't see it. >> mr. graham. >> earlier this week, senator coburn wrote an op-ed and talked about among other things tax reform. he said in today's atmosphere of the best thing a president can do to help the administration is give the house ways and means committee and offer they cannot work on the same that would be a piece of litigation that would start the process moving forward. [inaudible] what can the president do to make this happen? is he doing what he needs to do to help with this at this point in time? >> well, i think you wastefully is looking at tax reform the same way he's approached immigration. that is carefully. in this climate, it might not be wise to be too upfront too soon,

too early because it may cause a bit of a storm, but he's very involved. i met with him on tax reform. i meet very frequently as chief of staff, who by the way i find is very good. he's going out of his way coming up to the hill, talking to members of the house and senate and engaging congress very, very deep on lots of different issues. the president clearly cares about a fiscal solution. clearly cares about tax reform because new revenue could only be generated in the context of tax reform. there's no other way really. we can't do it with further

domestic spending cuts and entitlement has been difficult. it's going to have to be some revenue somewhere. and they note that in the white house and are trying to figure out how to do with that. different personalities and different styles. president reagan had his own approach to the presidency and president obama has his. but i think he is wisely raise his profile on reform. >> and i will say that the president put in his budget revenue neutral corporate reform, which is quite a change from where he was two years ago with just sort of a working paper. i think that is the result of a discussion that has occurred. and when he came and spoke to the republican conference, he said and i don't want to quote him, but he basically said i may

not be where you are on the individual site, but i will work with you. i am paraphrasing there. and if you look at the testimony by secretary of the uk's post in the senate and the house, they've not slammed the door on ms. and i think at this particular stage it may be appropriate to see what can the committees do? is this real or not? we're both committed to working hard to make this reality because i don't take we can afford to wait. but time is now as i said in my other answers. >> there still would like to be a congressional budget conference, so-called particular order. they don't want to get ahead of themselves on reform because they are hoping there can be a budget conference. i don't know if there will be. i very much admired those trying so hard to get the conference agreement, but they are still not there yet.

>> last question. >> the question for both of you. since you mentioned the g8 at the beginning, there's two corporate tax issues being discussed. next week, one is beneficial ownership requiring companies to disclose their whole ownership change in order to stop tax evasion and tax avoidance and the other his country by country tax reporting, requiring multinationals to discuss tax payments to countries around the world. if the u.s. makes a commitment next week on these issues, do you support them and what they deal pass legislation congress along those lines, whether separately or within tax reform? >> those are two issues we haven't fully vetted in the ways and means committee. obviously the administration makes a statement, we'll have to rent up and take a serious look at that. some of that came up yesterday. they were mentioned tangentially

in our tax haven hearing yesterday. so i am aware of the issues. there is an oecd report coming out july 1st and it would be helpful to get that before we move too far on that issue. so i think we want to look at that as well. so i've say we haven't really dug as deep on those two issues as well if those are commitments made on behalf of the united states by the administration. >> that's where we are, too. >> on that chairman baucus, chairman trant three, thank you. >> yeah, thanks. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the u.s. senate will continue work today on the immigration bill. the measure would boost border security and work place

enforcement and not tens of thousands of new high and low skilled workers in the country a 13 year path to citizenship for the 11 million immigrants currently in the country legally. senators will recess for their weekly party meets from 12:30 to 2:15. at three easter, senators will vote on for amendment and all will need 60 votes to pass. a number of amendments have been proposed in those managers are negotiating over which of them is get a vote and win. and not to live coverage of the senate here on c-span 2. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal spirit, place your judgments in the earth so that the world's inhabitants will learn righteousness. today, give our senators a strong and vivid sense that you are by their side.

in their down sitting and uprising, make them aware of your accompanying presence. by your grace, let no thoughts enter their hearts that might hinder communion with you. and let any word leave their lips that isn't meant for your ears. surround them with the shield of your favor and give them mutual trust and loyalty for their relationships with one another. we pray in your merciful name. amen. the president pro tempore: 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. mr. reid: mr. president? the president pro tempore:ed majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks the senate will be in a period of morning business for an hour. the republicans will control the first half. the majority the final half. following morning business the senate will resume consideration of the immigration bill. the senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 today for week will you caucus meetings. at 3:00 there will be four roll call votes in relation to amendments to the immigration bill. mr. president, i would simply add on that i've had a number of calls already this morning saying you can't have the votes then. i've got this. we've got meetings.

we're going to have the votes at 4:00. this bill, we have to move forward on it. i was very happy we were able to get consent to have these votes starting at 3:00 today. mr. president, time is of the essence in this legislation. i have been patient. we've all been patient waiting to see what amendments people want to offer. i want to make sure that on some of these major issues that people have had the time to work through them. we know that some of the issues are difficult. i appreciate the -- i've been told that senator hoeven, senator corker are trying to work with the eight bipartisan senators to come up with something that they feel is important for them to vote on. i have no problem with that. but i'm just telling everybody, as i have now for quite a long time, that we're going to either file cloture on this on friday, saturday, sunday, or monday.

we have to move forward with this legislation. so people, i urge people to work together to come up with whatever amendments you feel that are important. and of course we're all looking at this major issue. i've talked to the republicans, gang of eight, democrats the gang of eight. they're working on something to deal with border security. i have no -- i'm not telling anyone what to do other than to do it as quickly as you can. the time has come to make decisions on this important piece of legislation. we say we've been on it two weeks. we've really been on it longer than that, mr. president. that first week of this break there were meetings going object all over this capitol on what we should do with immigration. so i would hope that people understand that this may not be one of our normal weekends where we shoot out of town to go back to wherever we come from. we've got to move forward on

this legislation. mr. president, i talked yesterday at some length on the budget. it's important. we're approaching three months where we've not been able to go to conference on this budget. this is so extremely important. i spent yesterday morning at the n.i.h., mr. president. i wasn't able to meet with all the heads of the institutes, but i met with four of them plus dr. collins, who runs the n.i.h., n.i.h. -- who runs the n.i.h., national institutes of health. i'll have more to say about this later. but south africa, england, france, india, china is increasing their spending by almost 25% for programs just like we have at n.i.h.. what are we doing at n.i.h.? we're cutting spending. we have basically -- they have been flat funded since about 2004. with the stimulus bill, which was now going on five years ago, we gave them a shot in the arm

because of senator specter. but that money has long since gone. they are headed downhill, and they have been for several years now. these wonderful scientists we have, they are leaving. one scientist at the university of michigan who, by the way, is best friends with my chief of staff, he's basically staying away from n.i.h. because you can't -- and he is an expert, one of, if not the leading expert in the world on melanoma and ease not making applications for n.i.h. grants anymore because you can't do scientific research when it's only available for a year or two. so i hope we can move forward on this budget conference and get something done on this to set the nation's financial problems in the right direction. we're not getting anything done unless we're able to get

something done on the budget. we can't do this. i'm proud of the budget that we passed. i think it's a very good budget. but i realize that if we go to conference, we may have to change some of the things we have in our budget. we're never going to get this done. -- mr. president, unless we sit down and work this out in a conference between the house and senate. finally, mr. president, and i see on the floor my friend from tennessee, the senior senator from tennessee, who has been a longtime governor of his state. he has been secretary of education. we have an issue coming up soon. if we don't work something out here in this body before the end of this month, student loan rates will go up a lot. if we do nothing, they double. 3.4% to 6.8%. if we do what the house wants to

do, if we do what the senate republicans want to do, student loans will be used to reduce the debt. i don't think that's what we should be doing with students. this isn't the time to debate this. mr. president, everyone should be aware as we deal with immigration in the next couple of weeks, we also have to keep this on the radar screen that we're going to have to do something about this. i have a number of meetings on this today, and i'm sure my republican colleagues have meetings throughout the day. we need to have as many as we can to work something out to get this done. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: day after day i've been coming to the floor to remind the majority leader of the commitments he made to the american people in 2011 and again just a few months ago that he would not break the rules of the senate in order to change

the rules of the senate, that he would preserve the rights of the minority in this body, that he would not try to remake the senate in the image of the house, something that could change our democracy in a very, very fundamental way. and so the question remains: will he keep his word? here's what he said on january 27, 2011 -- quote -- "i will oppose any effort in this congress or the next -- the one we're in now -- to change the senate's rules other than through the regular order." end quote. and here's what he said this year after i asked him to confirm that the senate would not consider any rules changes that did not go through the regular order process -- quote -- "that is correct. any other resolutions related to senate procedure would be subject to a regular order

process, including consideration by the rules committee." now look, mr. president, a senator's word, especially the word of the majority leader, is the currency of the realm here in this chamber. the currency of the realm here in this chamber. as the majority leader himself said, your word is your bond. if you tell a republican senator or a democratic senator you're going to do something, that's the way it is. end quote, said the majority leader. he is entirely correct. senators keeping their word, well, that's just vital to a well-functioning senate, but it's only part of the equation. we also need well-established rules that are clear, fair, and preserve the rights of all senators, including those in the minority, to represent the views of their states and of their constituents.

that's the other reason why i've been pressing the majority leader on this issue. as a matter of principle, holding a senator to his or her word is important. but so is preserving a senate that works the way it's supposed to. and we can't be assured of that until the majority leader affirmatively states that he will stay true to the commitments he has made. now, i understand my friend, the majority leader, is under a lot of pressure. i've known him for a long time, and deep down i know he understands the far-reaching consequences of going nuclear. i think he actually realizes how terrible an idea that would be. because once the senate definitively breaks the rules to change the rules, the pressure to respond in kind will be irresistible to future majorities. the precedent will have been firmly and dramatically set. some washington democrats say, oh, they just want to limit the

rules change to nominations. just want to make a little adjustment on nominations, which is why they have been hurtling the senate toward a manufactured fight over a couple of the president's most controversial nominees. but republicans have been treating the president's nominees more than fairly. at this point in president bush's second term, he had a total of ten judicial confirmations. and, by the way, the republicans were in the majority in the senate. president bush at this point, his second term, with a republican majority in the senate, had ten judicial confirmations. so far in his second term, president obama has had 26 judges confirmed. 26. 26 to 10. apples to apples, at this point in president bush's term with a republican senate, at this point in president obama's term with a democratic senate. and i know that just yesterday

the senate approved two more judicial nominees. that leaves just five -- just five -- available to the full senate to be confirmed. there are only five around here. think about that. of the 77 federal judicial vacancies, the president hasn't nominated anyone for most of them. and only five remain on the senate's executive calendar. moreover, only one of those nominees has been waiting more than a month to be considered. so it's hard to see this as anything other than a manufactured crisis. there's no factual basis for it. the manufactured crisis. so the question is: a crisis to what end? where does this lead us? well, one of the reasons the majority leader has refrained from changing the rules thus far is this: he fully understands,

he fully understands that majorities are fleeting, but changes to the rules are not. and breaking the rules to change the rules would fundamentally change the senate. future majorities would be looking to this precedent. i don't know what the future holds, but two years from now i could be setting the agenda around here. and once deployed, the nuclear option may have fallout in future congresses. actually, forever altering the deliberative nature of the senate which has made it the institution where enduring compromises between the parties have been forged. so, mr. president, it's time for sober consideration of the direction in which the senate is being taken. 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 for one hour 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 republicans controlling the first half. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: for the last few wicks i have been listening to the republican leader ask the majority leader not to turn the united states senate into place where a majority of 51 can do anything it wants. aim oi'm on the floor to suggest three reasons why i believe the majority leader will not do that. number one, he said he wouldn't. he said he wouldn't. senators keep their word. number two, in 2007, the majority leader said to do so would be the end of the senate. there haven't. mrbeen -- therehaven't been mann

the united states who would want to have written on their tombstone he presided over the end of the united states senate of the and number three, the majority leader is an leader. it won't be very long until republicans find a way if we're in the majority to use whatever we want to do. so let me take those three reasons one by one. first, the majority leader has given his word. the republican leader mentioned that at the beginning of the last two congresses at the request of the republican leader, i worked with several democrats and republicans to change the rules of the senate to make it work better and we succeeded in that. we talked about it, negotiated and we voted those changes through. we eliminated the secret hold. we abolished 169 senate-confirmed positions. we expedited 273 more. we reduced the time to confirm

district judges. we made it easier to go to conference. and in exchange for all that, the majority leader said he would not support changes in the rules in this two-year session of congress, except through the regular order. he said, the minority leader and i have discussed this on numerous occasions. this is the democratic leader. "the proper way to change the senate rules is through the procedures established in the rules, and i'll oppose any effort in congress or the next to change the senate rules other than through the regular order." i'd like to ask consent to include, following my remarks, the majority leader's comments. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: second, mr. president, i was a new senator ten years ago in 2003, i was absolutely infuriated by what the democrats did in the first few months. for the first time in history, they used the filibuster to deny

a president's judicial nominations for the circuit courts of appeal. it had never, ever been done before. so republicans threatened the so-called nuclear option. we threatened that we would change the rules of the senate so that we could work our will with 51 votes. senator reid said at the time, that would be the end of the senate. and he wrote that in his book called "the good fight" in 2007. it is the most eloquent statement that i have heard about why changing the rules of the senate to give a majority the right to do anything it wants with 51 vietnam1 votes isd idea. i'd like to read just a few sentences from senator reid's book. "senator frist had decided to pursue a rules change that would kill the filibuster for judicial nominations." sounds familiar. "and once you open the pandora's

box, senator reid said, it was just a matter of time before a senate leader who couldn't get his way on something moved to eliminate the filibuster for regular business as well and that, simply put, would be the end of the united states senate." senator reid continued, "it's the genius of the founders that they concede the senate as solution to the small state-big state problem. central to that was the protection of the rights of the minority. a filibuster is the minority's way of not allowing the majority to shut off debate. and without robust debate, the senate is crippled. such a move would transform the body into an institution that looked like the house of representatives, where everything passes with a simple majorityment. " senator reid continues, "and it would testimony pare dangerously with the senate' ses

advice and consent function. if even the most controversial nominee could be rubber stamped by a simple majority, advise and consent would be gut. trent lott of mississippi knew what he was talking about when he coined a name for what they were doing 'the nuclear option.' they knew it would be nuclear. they knew it would be a very radical thing to do. they knew it would shut the senate down. and there will come a time when we will be gone and the institutions that we now serve will be run by men and women not yet living. those institutions will either function well because we've taken care of them or they'll be in disarray and someone else's problem to solve. well, because the republicans couldn't get their way of nominating some radical scwhrudges to the federal bench,

they were threatening to change the senate this aso radially, they were trying to bloip the senate." this is senator reid talking. "senate rules could only be changed by two-thirds vote of the senate or 67 senators. the republicans were going do it illegally, with a simple majority of 51. vice president cheney was prepared to override the senate parliamentarian. future generations be damned." knows are the words of the distinguished senator from nevada in 2007 eloquently explaining why this body is so different than the house of representatives. i would ask unanimous consent not only to include those remarks but several more pages from senator reid's excellent seventh chapter entitled "the nuclear option" in his book from 2007. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: and fine amly and third, if the democrats can turn the senate into a place where a majority of 51 can do

anything they want, after 2014, some observers have said, we might even be in the majority. senator mcconnell might be the republican leader and the majority leader. maybe we'll even have a republican president. so preparing for that opportunity, i would like to suggest the ten items briefly that i would like to see on an agenda, if we republicans are able to pass anything we want with 51 votes, as the majority leader has suggested. number one, repeal obamacare. number woo, s. 2 -- that would be the second bill if i were the leader -- i would put up pell grantings for kids. g.i. bill for vents, pell dprantses, they follow the students to the colleges of their choice creating opportunity at the best colleges in the world. why don't we do the same thing for students in kindergarten to the 1t 2th grade.

take the vouchers we spend, it would be $2,200 for each one ever them, the money would you know spend would follow them to any school they choose to attend, any accredited school, public or private. number three on my list, complete yucca mountain. i've spoken often of the importance of nuclear energy to our country. it provides 20% of all our electricity, 60% of our clean electricity, for those concerned about climate change and clean air. since 2010, the majority leader has stalled the nuclear waste repository in nevada. that jeopardizes our 100 reactors. that jeopardizes our source of 60% of our clean electricity. if we had 51 votes? the senate, we could direct the north american electric reliabilit-- the nuclear regulay commission to -- and we could found the money to do it.

now, the junior senator from nevada who shares senator reid's opposition to that said "the day is going to come that either he is or here or not -- that's the majority leader -- "or the republicans take control and it's a 50-vote threshold. these kinds of issues are the ones that concern me the most, said senator heller. when you are from a small state, you need as many arrows to fight back on some of these issues that you can be overtaken by. and frankly the 60-vote threshold is what has protected and saved nevada in the past." i'd ask unanimous consent to include senator heller's comments. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: of all the democrats who et vod once upon a time for completing yucca mountain were to do so again, we could get a bipartisan majority of 51 votes today in the united states senate to complete yucca mountain.

so make no mistake, a vote to end the filibuster is a vote to complete yucca mountain. here's the rest of my list. i'll do it quickly -- that i would suggest to the republican leader if he were majority leader as priorities for a senate where we could pass anything we wanted with 51 votes. make the consumer protection bureau accountable to congress. that would be number four. number fiervetion drill in anwr and build the keystone pipeline. number circumstance, fix the debt -- number six, fix the debt. ought to be number one. senator cork he and i have a fix of the entitlement programs. number 7, reverse the presumption -- create a presumption of freedom, giving workers in every state the right to work. states would have the right to opt out, to insist on forced unionism, just the reverse of what we have today.

no e.p.a. regulation of greenhouse gases, and finally, repeal davis-bacon, safe taxpayers billions by ending the federal mandate on contractors. now, mr. president, the majority -- the republican leader and i have plenty of creative colleagues. they'll have their own top 10 list. and what word gets around or our side of the aisle that the united states senate will be like the house of representatives and a train can run through it without anyone slowing it down, there will be a lot of my colleagues with their own ideas about adding a lot of cars to that freight train. mr. president, john m meecham's book is one i have been reading. adams said, "no republic could ever last which has not had a cent strong enough to bear up against all the popular storms

and passions. trusting a popular aseemly for the preservation of our liberties is emplacable. quks quks alexis de tocqueville saw only two great threats for our young democracy. one was russia. one was the tyranny of the majority. and finally, as the republican leader so well stated, there's no excuse here for all this talk. the democrats are manufacturing a crises. to suggest that republicans are holding things up unnecessarily is absolute nonsense. in fact, over the last two congresses, we've made it easier for any president to have his or her nominations secured. "the washington post" on march 18, congressional research service on march 23 said that president obama's nominations for cabinet are moving through the senate at least as rapidly as his two predecessor's since then. the secretary of energy has been confirmed 97-0.

there may be another three up this week. then as the republican leader said, look at the executive calendar. only three district judges waiting. as for filibusters, according to the senate historian, the number of supreme court justices h.o.ve been denied their seats by filibuster is zero. the only possible exception is abe fortas. the number of cabinet members who've been denied their seats by a filibuster in the history of senate is zero. the number of district judges who've been denied their seats by a filibuster in the history of the senate is zero. this is according to the senate historian and the congressional research service. so what are they talking about? i know what they're talking about. they're talking about circuit judges. that's the only exception. and why is it an exception? because in -- when came to the senate ten years ago, the

democrats broke historical precedent and blocked five distinguished judges of president bush by a filibuster. republicans have returned the favor and blocked two of president obama's, by a filibuster, which should be a lesson for the future to those who want to change the rules. about half the senate, mr. president, is in its first term. they may not know about the majority leader's statements in 2007. they may not know about the history of the senate. they may have heard all these conflicting facts and not have the right facts. what i have given you is what the senate historian and congressional research service say is the fact. of course there have been delays. my own nomination was delayed 87 days by a democratic senator. i didn't try to change the rules of the senate. president reagan's nomination of ed meese was delayed a year by democratic senate. and no one has ever disputed our

right in the senate, regardless of who was in charge, to use our constitutional duty of advise and consent to delay an and, sometimes to call nominations to be withdrawn, or even to defeat nominees by a majority vote. and, yes, some subcabinet members have been denied their seats by a filibuster. the democrats denied john bolton his post on the united nations. senator rudman told me the story of how the democratic senator from new hampshire blocked his nomination by secret hold. nobody knew what was happening. i asked senator rudman what he did about it. he said i ran against the so and so in the next election and i beat him. that's how rudman got to the senate. the idea that we have a crisis in nominations is absolutely complete nonsense totally unsupported by the facts. sh-rbd -- it should be embarrassing to my friends for bringing it up. they should be congratulating us

to help make it easier for any president move nominations. advise and consent is a constitutional prerogative both bodies have always defended. there are three reasons why the majority leader will not turn the senate into a place where a majority of 51 can do anything it wants, in my judgment. one, he said he wouldn't, and senators keep their word. two, he said the nuclear option would be the end of the senate, and no majority leader wants written on his tombstone he presided over the end of the united states senate. and, three, if democrats turn the senate into a place where 51 senators can do anything they want, it won't be long before republicans do the same. and to be very specific, if senator reid and democrats vote to allow a majority to do anything they want in the united states senate and set that precedent, voting to end the filibuster will be a vote to complete yucca mountain.

so, mr. president, i come today with respect to the republican and the democratic leader, and especially to this institution to say let's end the threats. let's stop the nonsense. let's get back to work on immigration and the other important issues facing our country. i thank the president and i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that the senator from tennessee and i be allowed to engage in a colloquy. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i want to congratulate my opinion friend from tennessee on a brilliant presentation about the history of the senate and the current manufactured crisis that we face. and what i would -- the only thing i would add, just by way of reiterating the point my friend has already made, you quoted jefferson and adams about the tyranny of the majority. or was that -- de tocqueville.

washington, when presiding over the constitutional convention was according to legend asked what will the senate be like? he said it will be like the saucer under the tea cup and the tea will slosh out of the cup down on to the saucer and cool o. in other words, from the very -- and cool off. in other words, from the very beginning it was anticipated by the wise men who wrote the constitution that the senate would be a place where things would be slowed down and thought over. that has been the tradition for a very long time throughout the history of our country. until the first world war it was not possible to stop a debate at all. cloture was actually adopted by the senate in the late teens of the previous century. and then lowered in the 1970's to the current two-thirds. looking at the history of our country, it's pretty clear to me

the senate has done exactly what washington thought it would do. it slowed things down, moved them to the middle and been a place where bipartisan compromise was by and large achieved except in periods of time where either side had a very big majority, which of course our friends on the other side had in 2009 and 2010. the american people took a look at that and decided to issue a national restraining order and restored the kind of senate they were more comfortable with, that operates to use a football analogy, sort of between -- metaphor -- between the two 45-yard lines. there is not a doubt in my mind that if the majority breaks the rules of the senate to change the rules of the senate with regard to nominations, the next majority will do it for everything. and the senator from tennessee has pointed that out. i wouldn't be able to argue a

year and a half from now if i were the majority leader to my colleagues that we shouldn't enact our legislative agenda with simple 51 votes having seen what the previous majority just did. i mean, there would be no rational basis for that. and so it's appropriate to talk about what our agenda would be. and i would be, of course, consulting with my colleagues on what our agenda would be, but i don't think there's any doubt that virtually every member of the senate republican conference would think repealing obamacare would be job one of a new republican majority. and so i don't even have to guess what is likely to be the number-one priority. repealing obamacare. the senator from tennessee mentions a ruling on anwr. there has been a majority in the senate for quite some time, both when the democrats were the majority and the republicans were in the majority, to lift the ban against drilling in

anwr. i think that would certainly be on any top-ten list that i was able to put together as majority leader. approving the keystone pipeline, we've gotten as many as 57 votes for that. we've gotten as many as 56 votes for anwr. how about repealing the death tax? we've gotten as many as 57 votes back in 2006 to repeal the death tax entirely. there's a new bill being introduced just this afternoon by our colleague, senator thune, from south dakota, to get rid of the death tax altogether, to get rid of the dilemma every american faces that he has to visit the i.r.s. and the undertaker on the same day. the government's final outrage. these are the kinds of priorities that our members feel strongly about. and i think i would be hard pressed with a new majority, having just witnessed the way the senate was changed with a simple majority by the current democratic majority to argue that we should restrain

ourselves from taking full advantage of this new senate. from the country's point of view, it's a huge step in the wrong direction. and i'm not advocating that, but i'd be hard pressed to say to our members, precedent having been set, why should we confine it to nominations? mr. alexander: mr. president, i agree with the republican leader. and, of course, the distinguished majority leader agrees with you as well, because he said in his book in 2007 -- i read it but i'll read it again, when talking about republican efforts several years ago, republicans were so upset with actual obstructionism as opposed to made-up obstructionism which

is what we see here. this is what senator reid said, "if the majority leader pursues a rules change that would kill the filibuster for judicial nominations and once you open that pandora's box, it is just a matter of time before a senate leader who couldn't get his way on something moved to eliminate the filibuster for regular business as well. and that, simply put, would be the end of the united states senate." and what that means it would be, the senate would be like the house. a freight train could run through it. many senators have not visited the house rules committee. i have. it's an interesting place. the republicans can run the house by a single vote. but if you go up to the rules committee -- and i'm sure the distinguished republican leader has been there -- there are nine chairs. nine members. how many democrats do you suppose have those chairs? four. how many republicans have those? no, i think it's more than that. it's two to one plus one is the

majority in the house in the rules committee. but in the house of representatives, whatever the majority wants to do, it can do. and so, if we have a -- if we have a body with 51 votes to make all the decisions, and if i and others are deeply concerned about the nuclear waste sitting around some of these 100 reactors -- we've got several of us on both sides of the aisle working on legislation like that -- and we want it put in a repository that legally where it's supposed to be, we have 51 votes if they all vote the way they voted before to order the government to open yucca mountain and put the nuclear waste there. that's what you can do with 51 votes. so, the way our government is designed, the house can order that, which they have. but the senate hasn't because the majority leader has been able to make this body stop and think about whether it wanted to

do. i may not like that result, but i prefer that process for the good of the country to give us time to work things, work things out. hasn't it always been, i would ask the republican leader, hasn't it always been the responsibility, maybe the chief responsibility of the republican leader and the democratic leader to preserve this institution? newer senators may not know as much about it, may not have as long a view. but over the time you've been here, hasn't that been, i would ask through the chair to the republican leader, hasn't that been the responsibility of the leaders of the senate? mr. mcconnell: i say to my friend from tennessee, absolutely right. i mean, the one thing the two leaders have always agreed on is to protect the integrity of the institution. and for those who may be observing this colloquy, they probably wonder why it's occurring. and i want to explain to our colleagues and to any others who may be watching why this colloquy is occurring.

senate republicans are tired of the culture of intimidation. the culture of intimidation. we've seen it over in the executive branch with the i.r.s.. and we've seen it at h.h.s. with regard to obamacare. this feeling that if you're in the majority -- if you're not in the majority, you need to sit down and shut up and get out of the way. and that mentality, that arrogance of power, has seeped into the senate now. and the culture of intimidation is this: do what i want to do when i want to do it, or i'll break the rules of the senate, change the rules of the senate by breaking the rules of the senate. in other words, it's the intimidation, the threat that's been hanging over the senate as an institution for the last few months that needs to come to an end.

and so i believe that is why the senator from tennessee and myself would like the majority leader to answer the question: do you intend to keep your word? senators shouldn't have to walk on egg shells around here afraid to exercise the rights that they have under the rules of the senate. and there's no question that all senators have a lot of power in this body. this power operates on unanimous consent. that means if any one of the 100 want to deny that, it makes it hard. that's the way the senate's been for a very long time. i want the culture of intimidation by the majority here in the senate to come to an end. and the way it can end is for the majority leader to say my word is good. and we quit having this culture of intimidation hanging over the senate for the next year and a half. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i'd like to congratulate the republican leader on his remarks. and it's important for those watching to know there are plenty of us here who know how

the senate's supposed to work, and we're doing that. we passed the farm bill. we passed the water resources bill involving locks, dams, ports in this country. we did that the way the senate is supposed to work. we worked across party lines. we got a consensus, got more than a majority and did it. we have eight senators that have come forward with an immigration bill. tough issue but we're working together to resolve that. i'm a part of a group of six or seven senators trying to lower student loans for 100% of the students. we're not trying to ram through a vote. we're trying to get a consensus and then pass it, send it to the house and hopefully they'll do it. when the great civil rights bills passed they were a consensus and the country accepted them because they were important pieces of legislation. when the republican leader and i were young and i was here, he was almost here, we saw senator dirksen and president johnson work together to get a supermajority to say to the country it's time to move ahead

on civil rights. that's the way the senate is supposed to work. and let's stop the threat, stop the intimidation, recognize the progress we've made, get back to work on immigration. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i just want to conclude by thanking the senator from tennessee for a very, very impressive presentation and for his reminding us all what makes the united states senate great. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: are we in morning business? the presiding officer: we are. mr. franken: thank you. i rise to talk about medicare solvency. i know to many people the words "medicare solvency" which is the ability of the medicare program to meet its financial obligations, sound like an invitation to a nice nap. but you and i pay into medicare every month, and we need to know that the benefits that we paid

for will be there when we need them and not just that. i need to know that medicare will be around to cover my daughter and my new grandson. when they become eligible for it. that's what medicare solvency is about. a couple weeks ago we got some good news. according to the annual report released by the medicare board of trustees, medicare will stay solvent for two years longer than previously estimated. now, there are a lot of things that are contributing to medicare solvency, but one thing -- one big thing is health reform. in fact, medicare will be solvent for a total of nine years longer than before we passed health reform. i'll say that again. the life of medicare is nine years longer today than it was before we passed health reform. as h.h.s. secretary sebelius

said, "the affordable care act has helped put medicare on more stable ground without eliminating a single benefit." the poipts is tha point is heals not just about making it more comprehensive. it is not just about making sure that we can get the care we need when we get sick. it is also about making medicare more efficient, it is extending medicare's life so that medicare can keep spoutin supporting ours and we'll b will be able to supr kids. how exactly has had helped extend medicare's solvency? to start with, it stopped medicare from overpaying private insurers. as you might know, seniors can choose to get their medicare benefits directly from the medicare program or get them through a private insurance

program that gets paid by medicare, which is called medicare advantage. before we passed health reform, we were overpaying these private insurers by about 14%. so we reduced what medicare pays these private insurance companies. over the next ten years we're going to reduce these insurance payments by about 14%, which c.b.o. scored in 2010 as saving medicare $136 billion over ten years. now, i will note that we were told by some of our colleagues that if we did this, insurance companies were going to leave the market, that we weren't going 0 have medicar to have mee anymore. so far, enrollment in medicare advantage has gone up by 10%, and i'm gha glad about that bece medicare advantage serves an important purpose for millions

of seniors across our country. we are also adjusting reimbursements to hospitals on downward. now, why and how does that work for hospitals? well, when you insure 31 million people who previously didn't have insurance, hospitals are no longer on the line for uncompensated care when these 31 million people go into the emergency room. the hospitals aren't left holding the bag for all of those costs. and we didn't just extend the life of medicare by nine years. while we were at it, we expanded benefits for medicare beneficiaries. i go to a lot of senior centers and nursing homes in my home state of minnesota, and i have to tell you that seniors are

very happy about these -- their new benefits. they're very happy about the new free, preventive care that they get, the wellness checkups and the colongoscopies -- and the colonoscopies and the mammograms. they know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. and we're also closing the prescription drug doughnut hole, the g.o.p gap in cofnlg under ie seniors have to pay the full cost for their drugs. seniors are very happy about that. for more than one-third of seniors, social security provides tha more than 90% of tr income. for one-quarter of elderly beneficiaries, social security is the sole source of their retirement income.

so when medicare stops covering the cost of their prescription drugs, in the doughnut hole, that's serious. and sometimes these seniors have to decide between food and heat and medicine. well, because we have been closing this doughnut hole, many don't have to make that impossible choice anymore. when i was running for the senate back in 2008, a nurse in cambridge, minnesota, told me that when a senior would come into the hospital and be hospitalized, she'd be -- the senior would be treated by the doctors and nurses, so that she would be well enough to leave the hospital. and when she left the hospital, they'd make sure that -- give

her the prescriptions that she needed. and after a few days this nurse would call the pharmacy and ask, has mrs. johnson come in and filled those prescriptions? and the pharmacist would say, no, she hasn't. and why? well, because she was in the doughnut hole. and guess what? in ten days or two weeks, or whatever, mrs. johnson would end up back in the hospital because she couldn't take -- couldn't afford her medicine. and these readmissions, they cost our health care system a the although of money. but -- a lot of money. but now because we're closing the doughnut hole as part of the health care law, these seniors

are able to get their medicine. this is improving their health, and it's saving us money. so we've increased benefits and extended the life of medicare. that was done as part of health care reform. many of the provisions of the health care reform law will make our health care system more efficient and will lower costs in the long run. i want to touch briefly on one that i authored. it's already keeping costs down for families in minnesota and across our country. the provision of the health care reform law that i offered is based on a minnesota law, in a way. in 1993 minnesota decided -- wrote a law that insurance companies had to report their medical loss ratio -- the

medical loss ratio -- and that's what this piece i wrote in is -- not only do they have to -- now what is the medical loss ratio? the medical loss ratio is the percentage of premiums that a health insurer receives that go to actual health care, actual health care. not to administrative costs, not to marketing costs, not to profits, not to yo c.e.o. salar, but actual health care. so minnesota starting in 1993, health insurers had to just submit to the commissioner of commerce, the department of commerce in minnesota, their medical loss ratio. they had to compute it and submit it.

well, i took that and i made a little wrinkle to it. i said -- i wrote something called the 80-20 rule. and it says that insurance companies have to spend at least 80% of their premiums on actual health care for small group policies and individual polici policies; 85% for large group policies. and, if they don't meet that, the health insurer has to rebate the difference. well, thanks to the -- this provision of the law, last year more than 12 million americans benefited from $1.1 billion in rebates from insurers that did not meet the 80-20 rule, including 123,000 consumers in minnesota. and a new report from the kaiser family foundation estimates that premiums in the individual market would have been $1.9

billion higher last year if it weren't for the medical loss ratio rule. and that they would have been $856 million higher in 2011. that's more than $2.75 billion in savings over the last two years alone. and those savings are in addition to the rebates that consumers receive. they're estimating that insurers would have raised their rates that much more, $2.75 billion more, if they hadn't had to meet the 80-20 rule. that's another important way that the health reform law is keeping health care costs down. so my rule that i wrote as already saved americans nearly $4 billion in health care costs. in fact, after going up at three times the rate of inflation -- i would ask the presiding officer if i could have another minute. the presiding officer: is

there objection? without objection. mr. franken: thank you. in fact, after going up at three times the rate of inflation for a decade, over each of the last two years health care costs have gone up less than 4%, for the first time in 50 years. that's according to data released by the department of health and human services. i'm not saying we're done, not by any stretch of the imagination. we have more work left to do. in fact, one big thing that we could do would be to allow medicare to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical manufacturers on the price of their drugs. the v.a. does this, and they pay nearly 50% less for the top ten drugs than comi medicare does. i hope to work with my colleagues to bring this proposal to the floor. at the end of the day, my job is about strengthening what works in our country and fixing what

doesn't. medicare works. it works for seniors across the nation. it woks for grandparents from pipestone and i hope to work with my colleagues to protect medicare benefits for our parents and grandparents while strengthening the program for our children and grandchildren. i thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. durbin: i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. i ask that the requests be printebeagreed to and printed ie record. the presiding officer: without objection. -- you dur when president obama was first elected back in 2008 i can recall the transition period because his transition office was literally next door to my office in the federal building in chicago. i can't think of a more exciting time. there was my colleague in the united states senate who had just been elected president of

the united states. the whole world was beating a path to his door. security was at the highest level, and i made a point of not interrupting him, which i would have done regularly as my are senat--as my senate colleague, e prepared to lead america with the blessing and mandate of the american people. i didn't have a long list of requests -- i did, but i didn't exercise it. i just spoke to him once or twice about a couple things that i thought might be helpful to the country and to him. and i recommended to him one person to appoint to his cabinet, one person. i urged him to appoint ray lahood as america's secretary of transportation. i was confident that ray lahood would serve america with the same integrity and energy that he'd shown while sesqui as a member of congress -- that he'd shown while serving as a member of congress. as secretary lahood prepares to leave this important cabinet

post, i am pleased but not surprised to be able to say to the president that i was right. he was an excellent choice, one of the best whenever it came to the department of transportation. make no mistake, ray lahood is a proud republican. i remember meeting him first when he was a staffer for bob michel, who was the republican leader in the u.s. house of representatives. ray was a behind-the-scenes worker for the republican minority leader in the house, and i knew he was from peoria but little else about him. when bob michel announced his retirement, ray lahood said he would run for that position in congress. what surprised me was that some of my closest democratic friends in central illinois said that they were going to financially support and do everything they could to elect ray lahood. i thought, this is really amazing. these partisan friends of mine think ray lahood, a republican, is a good pen for -- a is good person nor this jofnlt so i started paying closer

attention to this new congressman. as it turned out, we became close friends. we worked together. we had adjoining congressional districts. when i was elected to the senate, we worked all through central illinois on common projects. and i was happy to do it. ray was not looking with a great appetite for publicity. he wanted to get the job done. and he didn't mind giving credit to democrats or republicans, if we could achieve our goals, the local goals, that we shared. when he became secretary of transportation, i saw that same spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship. any time i spoke to president obama or vice president biden about ray lahood, their secretary of transportation, they always said the same thing: he's the best and we're sure glad he's part of our team. the president couldn't find anyone better to carry out the transportation agenda for america in his first term. i believe history is going to record ray lahood as one of the very best in that position.

he put millions of americans back to work with the $48 billion in transportation funding that was part of president obama's recovery act. he oversaw the creation of the nation's first high-speed rail program, a program that illinois has participated in with great commitment and excitement. he also helped to create the tiger program, a $2.7 billion investment in america's future that has built some of our nation's most significant transportation projects. and he helped save lives by focusing personally on our national aviation system. he also had another safety campaign. he conducted what he called -- quote -- "a rampage" against distracted driving, people who are texting and talking on the cell phone and trying to drive at the same time. he traveled more widely and more frequently than many professionals pilots do. as a "washington post" reporter wrote, there are two kinds of states.

states where ray lahood has been to spread his gospel safety and to inspect transportation systems and those states he plans to visit soon. the people of illinois are grateful to ray lahood not only for his four historic years as transportation secretary but also for his many decades of service as staffer to bob michel and member of our illinois delegation. ray was born and raised in pea kwror i can't, illinois -- in peoria, illinois. he started public service as a teacher in a classroom. he cut his political teeth working for tom railsback, a republican congressman. then he went to work for bob michel. in 1994 he was elected to bob michel's congressional seat in the 18th district. the district stretches from peoria to the state capital, springfield. there is a history of an

outstanding congressman. i mentioned bob michel and can include everett dirksen. if you go back in history you will find a young congressman as a part that district named abraham lincoln. ray inspired the lincoln bicentennial petition. we observed president lincoln's 200th birthday in 2009 with suitable recognition across america. ray's work helped students everywhere learn a little bit more about president lincoln and his role in america's history. like his famous predecessors, ray lahood raised the standard for civility and kaorgs in congress. in the -- and cooperation in congress. in the darkest hours in the house of representatives, it was ray lahood who reached across the aisle to a democratic congressman and said why don't we get together on a bipartisan

basis with our families for a weekend. it seemed so obvious and weekend, nobody thought about it for ray. in illinois ray used to convene bipartisan meetings with local officials, state representatives and his dedication to the district and his service in the house earned him as reputation as wufrt best. when -- as one of the best. when president obama nominated him as transportation secretary, all of us in illinois knew he chose the right person. ray's dedication in the district will be substantial but it will be more in illinois. it was such a treat to be able to call the u.s. department of transportation to speak to the secretary of transportation about an illinois project and have him know instantly what you were talking about. the o'hare modernization program is a good example. there is hardly a more important economic engine in the northern part of our state than the o'hare airport. the modernization of o'hare was,

had reached a period of some difficulty and controversy. ray lahood stepped in, brought the parties together and kept the nation's largest airport expansion back on track. secretary lahood brought high-speed rail to illinois. last fall we rode the first 110-mile-an hour train between chicago and st. louis. he helped build a beautiful new terminal at the pea -- peoria international airport. people will be able to travel faster and mother safely because of his work -- and more safely because of his work. he will bring new businesses to the state by those transportation investments, creating the jobs we want to see. ray lahood is a leader with integrity and character. he's also such a good friend. i'm going to miss him as my partner in government when he retires from the secretary of transportation. "the washington post" article that i mentioned earlier had a wonderful line. the reporter wrote -- quote -- "perhaps the most telling tidbit

in lahood's life is he resided in washington for 30 years without once getting a haircut here. a man truly lives where he gets a haircut and for ray lahood that's peoria, illinois." as ray lahood prepares to leave to spend more time with his family, i wish the best to him. his wife kagt had i often at -- kathy often at his side will have more time with ray and more time with their children amy, sarah, sam and state senator darrin lahood and their wonderful families too. i look forward to working with secretary lahood and his very able successor, former charlotte, north carolina, mayor, anthony fox to maintain and improve transportation systems and networks, the backbone of america's economy. mr. president, i ask that my next statement be placed in a separate part in the record. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. durbin: mr. president, i rise to speak about the continuing toll of gun violence in america. this past weekend we lost too many americans, too many illinoisans to gunfire. last monday 18-year-old april mcdaniel was sitting on her porch in chicago. a masked gunman in a car opened fire, killing 18-year-old april and wounding four of her friends. last tuesday four members of the anders family in darian, illinois, including the family's two daughters aged 16 and 22, were shot to death in an apparent murder-suicide. on thursday 19-year-old robert allen was killed in a drive-by shooting on the south side of chicago. and over the weekend at least six people were killed and dozens more wounded in shootings across the chicago land area. this senseless violence is devastating. personally to the families involved, but to all of us.

our thoughts and prayers are with these victims and their families. the sad reality is that gun violence continues to be epidemic in america. over 11,000 -- 11,000 americans are murdered each year. if you count suicides and accidental shootings, the death toll from guns rises to more than 31,000 americans each year. you know, we've become almost used to this, haven't we? we hear about it every night on the news. we begin to think this is normal. it isn't normal in any other country on earth for so many people to die from the use of firearms. you get the sense of this grim toll by reading the daily gun report by "the new york times" columnist joe nocera whose report exiles shootings across the nation. yesterday's gun report describes shootings that took place outside chicago. a three-year-old in columbus and a four-year-old in wichita,

kansas hit by stray bullets. an 18-year-old girl in iowa accidentally shot and killed by her friday. a shooting spree in omaha, nebraska on saturday. a 70-year-old man who shot and killed his wife in new york after an argument. a man who walked into a catholic church in ogden, utah, and shot his father in the head during sunday mass. these are a few of the shootings mentioned in that gun report. each day the list grows. it is sad and appalling. last friday marked six months since the tragedy in newtown, connecticut, when a gunman murdered 20 small children -- first graders -- and killed six educators in the sandy hook elementary school. in the six months since that awful day which we'll never forget, over 5,000 more americans have been killed by gunfire. the new normal in america. now i commend my colleagues from connecticut -- chris murphy,

richard blumenthal. they have come to the floor frequently and talked about gun safety and about the tragedy of newtown and what it meant to them and to the people they represent. we need to listen to them. we can't simply shrug our shoulders and say there's nothing we can do. there is something we can do. there's progress to report when it comes to reducing gun violence. officials at local and state levels are taking proactive steps that are starting to show results. in chicago, for example, targeted policing strategies in community-based violence prevention efforts contributed to a 31% reported decrease in homicides this year compared to last year. the violence in the past week shows that more needs to be done, but the decline in killings is positive news and i commend the local officials who are working night and day, including mayor rahm emanuel, to do everything they can to reduce gun violence. the general assembly in springfield passed important legislation mandating background

checks for private gun sales, something we failed to do on the floor of the senate. they also require the reporting in my state of lost and stolen guns to law enforcement. that's a minimal requirement which should be a national law. there are steps that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who are mentally unstable. there are steps that will help reduce crime and save lives. other states are stepping up as well. colorado, new york, maryland, connecticut. state action alone isn't sufficient. we need to do our part here in washington. too often these guns cross state lines. too often states have weak gun laws next to states with strong gun laws. that's why congress needs to plug the gaping loopholes in our federal background check system by passing legislation like the bill that was drafted by senator joe manchin, a conservative democrat from west virginia, and senator patrick toomey, a conservative republican from pennsylvania. congress also needs to pass a bill with real teeth to crack down on straw purchasing and gun

trafficking. the bill that i worked on with senators leahy, collins, gym brand and my colleague -- gillibrand and my colleague from illinois mark kirk. members in congress need to take a stand on gun safety and gun violence. there should be no more hiding behind these empty sham reform proposals written by the gun lobby to accomplish nothing. and no more claims that all we need to do is just enforce the laws on the books, because we know that the gun lobbies put loopholes in those laws that you can drive a truck through. i want to mention a few things that congress should do to help reduce gun violence beyond the two items i mentioned. first, i'll introduce legislation to encourage more gun crime tracing by state and local law enforcement. crime tracing is a valuable tool for criminal investigations. when a gun is recovered in a crime, a police department can ask the alcohol, tobacco and firearms agency, known as a.t.f., to trace the crime gun

back to its first retail sale. this information can help identify criminal suspects and potential gun traffickers. and when all the crime guns in an area are traced, law enforcement can really start to define and identify trafficking patterns. a.t.f.'s crime gun tracing system is easy for law enforcement and it's free. several years ago i reached out and challenged all of the law enforcement agencies in illinois to submit the guns that they had seized in crimes for tracing through the a.t.f.. i'm pleased to report that 388 illinois agencies are now using the system called e-trace, but there are still thousands and thousands of law enforcement agencies across america that are not tracing their crime guns. the legislation i'm introducing is called the crime gun tracing act. it will require law enforcement agencies that apply for federal cops grants to report how many crime guns they recovered in the last year and how many they

submitted for tracing. the bill will then give a preference and cop grants awards to agencies that traced all the crime guns they recovered. to be clear, law enforcement agencies shouldn't just sit around and wait for a bill to pass before they start tracing crime guns. tracing brings enormous benefits at virtually no cost. agencies should not wait for this bill. they ought to start tracing today if they haven't done so already. but the reality is that many police departments, sheriff's offices haven't been doing this. my bill will create an incentive for them to start. let me say something else. the senate needs to confirm a director to head the alcohol, tobacco, and firearms agency. for the record, a.t.f. has never had a senate-confirmed director. the senate refused to confirm a director under president george w. bush and refused the second proposed director under president obama. now a third candidate is being

considered. since the director position began requiring senate confirmation in 2006, a.t.f. has only had short-term act the directors, temporary leaders. the gun lobby and their friends in the senate have objected to every nominee, whether from a republican president or a democratic president. and it looks like they're preparing to mount an effort to stop the most recent nominee by president obama, todd jones of minnesota. to be effective and accountable, federal law enforcement agencies need senate confirmed leadership but the gun lobby has done everything it can to keep this agency leaderless and weak. this is beyond hypocritical. after the tragedy in newtown, mr. wayne la pierre of the national rifle association appeared before our senate judiciary committee and said he opposed efforts to close gun loopholes because he said -- quote -- "we need to enforce the thousands of gun laws that are

currently on the books." well, the agency that enforces federal gun laws and refers gun cases for federal prosecution is the alcohol, tobacco and firearms agency. in fact, for the last 15 years, there has been a provision written in an appropriation bill called the gun lobby rider, that prohibits any of a.t.f.'s enforcement functions from being moved to another agency. so the n.r.a. is making sure that the a.t.f. is the only game in town when it comes to enforcing gun laws and then they're making sure that it never has a permanent director. i want to put the gun lobby on notice. if we can't get a senate-confirmed director for the a.t.f., then i'm going to move to repeal the rider and bring in another federal -- other federal agencies with senate-confirmed leadership, like the federal bureau of investigation, to make sure that gun laws are actually enforced in this country.

the national rifle association and the gun lobby cannot have it both ways. they can't complain that the gun laws are not being enforced and then stop any effort to put a permanent leader in place at this agency. the gun lobby has to make that choice. if they want to enforce gun laws on the books, they can work with us to confirm a director at the a.t.f. if they want to keep block the a.t.f. from having a director, we'll have to get other agencies involved to make sure laws are enforced. it's just that simple. in close, i want to again extend my sympathies and prayers to the victims and their families of gun violence. we have to do our part in washington to put an end to this. we haven't had the votes that we needed yet but we shouldn't give up. the american people are counting on us to make america safer. mr. president, i now ask consent that my last statement be placed in a separate part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i rise to discuss an issue i'd hoped i wouldn't need to bring up today but unfortunately i do. i'm referring to the continued

imprisonment of the former prime minister of ukraine,ulia temshenko, who's now sat in jail for almost two years in. the fall of 2011, he was imprisoned for a seven-year term to charges that she abused her office in connection with a natural gas contract with russia. i can't judge the wisdom of that contract, but it's deeply troubling to me is the appearance of selective and politically motivated imprisonment of a former political leader in the -- in that democratic nation of ukraine. ukraine is a promising, hopeful new member of the community of free market democracies, one with a solid future in the west. it has strong ties to europe and the united states. this photo shows police officers leading former ukrainian prime minister yulia tymeshenko, out of the courtroom after the verdict in her case in kiev on october 11, 2011. ukraine is a great nation.

it has helped nato and boz knee, libya, iraq and -- dozen knee a, libya, iraq and afghanistan. it's a major contributor and valuable in international peacekeeping. it was an early leader in throwing the shackles of the soviet union away and declaring its own independence. in 2004, miss tymeshenko and countless others organized an historic protest known as the orange revolution to protest fraud in those days. ukraine's future is clearly with the community of democracies. that's why the imprisonment of this former prime minister is so troubling. when you're a member of a community of democracies, you don't selectively throw your political opponents in jail for questionable policy decisions. if a poor policy decision was made, let the voters decide at the ballot box. in the neighboring dictatorship of belarus, where 2010 presidential candidate mikolai stakovic, who had the temerity to run against the strongman

dictator luke she lukashenko, ss in jail because he challenged a dictator in an election. i remind my friends in ukraine, they do not want to be compared with belarus. they should be democratic. countless international human rights groups in other countries have decried the charges against miss tymenshenko, calling for his reof lease. the parliamentary council of europe passed a resolution in january 2012 declaring that the articles urn which she was convicted were overly broad in application and effectively allow for ex post facto criminalization of normal political decision making. later that year, both the european parliament and our very own senate passed resolutions condemning the sentencing and calling for her release. the european court of human rights which settles cases of rights abuses after plaintiffs have exhausted appeals in their home country courts, recently considered this case and ruled that miss tymenshenko's pretrial

detention was unlawful, that the lawful of her detention had not been properly reviewed and that her right to liberty had been restricted. she no possibility to seek compensation for her unlawful deprivation and that is unacceptable. i had truly hoped this ruling would finally create the circumstances for a face-saving way out of this mess. unfortunately, regrettably, it hasn't happened. that's why i've joined my colleagues, senators rubio, boxer, barrasso, murvey and cardin -- murphy, and cardin in introducing a resolution on the matter. it's simple and straightforward, expresses continuing concern about her selective and politically motivated detention. mr. president, let me close by saying i was in ukraine last year. i met with prime minister izeryov and president yenokovic. they were generous hosts and very kind. they told me something would be done in a positive way about her imprisonment. that was a year ago. nothing has happened. i was optimistic then. i'll remain optimistic but i want the ukraine government to know we are going to hold them

to the standards of democracy. you don't imprison your political opponents. you beat them in an election, you move on to lead. you're held accountable by the people who vote. i hope the decision will be made in the near future to release miss tymenshenko, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. mr. durbin: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the

calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i ask to speak as if in morning business for seven minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: when i closed last night, i posed nine questions to secretary napolitano about the immigration bill. she said when she was going to be confirmed that she would answer questions that congress put before her. my questions came at the end of her hearing on the immigration bill and we have not received an answer now in 49 or 50 days. and i would appreciate answers to those questions. i want to speak about the entry-exit system in the legislation before us. one of the concerns that have

been made about the immigration bill before us is that it weakens current law in several areas. now, when i go to my town meetings, i invariably get somebody saying, we don't need more legislation; just enforce the laws that are on the books. those very same constituents of mine would probably be really chagrined at the fact that we have legislation before us that would weaken current law. well, we had a lengthy discussion during the judiciary committee markup about provisions dealing with criminal activity and deterring illegal immigration in the future. i found that many existing statutes in this legislation -- 1,175 pages -- have been revised and watered down, sending exactly the wrong signal that should be sent to the people who

seek to intentionally break our laws. the sponsors of the bill have claimed that the bill will make us safer. they insist that the people wi will -- quote, unquote -- "come out of the shadows," thus allowing us to know exactly who is here, where they are, and whether they're a national security risk. we've talked a lot about the need for border security in the last week. i think it's the most important thing that we can do for our national security and to protect our sovereignty. border security is what the people demand. this legislation has weak border security provisions. but amazingly, when i bring up border security, i'm told by proponents of the bill that we don't need to put our entire focus on the border. well, tell that to the people of

grass-roots america. these authors remind me that about 40% of the people here illegally are visa overstays or people that never return to their home country. i don't dispute that 40% figure. and i couldn't agree more that visa overstays need to be dealt with as much as people that are here undocumented, who did not come here on a -- on a visa. we need to know who is in our country and when they're supposed to depart and then do they actually leave. we realized this way back in 1996 when we created the entry-exit system. congress at that time and still today under the law calls for a tracking system to be created

and this followed the first bombing of the world trade center. we knew there were gaping holes in our visa system and that's why the entry-exit system was set up. now, unfortunately, and for the people of this country they probably don't believe this, we've had a system -- legislation calling for this system to be in place and it still isn't in place. administration after administration -- and that's democrat, republican, now democrat -- dismissed the need to implement an effective entry-exit system, thumbing their nose at the laws on the books. so here we are today, 17 years later, wondering when that system and that mandate from congress will be achieved. when introduced, the bill before

us did nothing to track people who left by land. it did nothing to capture biometrics of foreign nationals who departed. we approved an amendment in committee that made the underlying bill a little bit stronger but it fell short of current law. current law says that we should track all people that come and go using biometrics. it says the entry-exit system should be in place at all air, sea, and land ports. we already know that anything less than what is in current law will not be effective. the government account -- or the government accountability office has studied that a biographic exit system like the one set forth in the underlying legislation will only hinder efforts to reliably identify

overstays and that without a biometric exit system -- quote -- "d.h.s. cannot ensure the integrity of the immigration system by identifying and removing those who have overstayed their original period of admissions, a stated goal of u.sus-visit." if we don't properly track departures, we won't know how many people are overstaying their visas, we won't have any clue of who is in our country. some will say we can't afford it. some will say our airports just aren't devised in such a way to capture biometrics before people board airplanes. they will find anything excuse not to implement current law -- they will find any excuse not to implement current law and that's why this current law hasn't been executed in the last 17 years. this is a border security issue.

it's a national security issue. without this system in place, we aren't in control of our immigration system. senator vitter's amendment, which is pending, would ensure that the current law is met before we legalize millions of people. i encou -- i encourage our colleagues to understand how this bill weakens our ability to protect the homeland and encourage the adoption of the vitter amendment when we vote at 3:00. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of s. 744, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 80, s. 744, a bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform, and for other purposes. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i'm encouraged that later today the senate will vote on four amendments in the immigration bill.

i hope it's an indication bill that the senate is going to begin considering amendments in an orderly and efficient way. i would encourage senators to file their amendments, come to the floor, and offer them. i i share the majority leader's wish to make progress on this important legislation. we know the immigration system is sorely in need of reform and now's the time to do it. last week, we should have disposed of several amendments to the bill before us but in the senate, progress requires cooperation. instead of going forward and actually having senators take positions, vote up or down, we had objection after objection from the opponents of this legislation, who put the senate in the unenviable position of

having the public see us as voting maybe. we know why people get discouraged with congress. they don't realize it's a small number of people blocking any voting. they expect us to vote for or against something. now, there's going to be a political cost voting for or voting against, but they expect you to do that. it comes -- it comes with the job. and when people object to proceeding to comprehensive immigration reform, that cost us several days. again, the american public sees the u.s. senate as voting maybe. well, i'm one senator willing to take the consequences of voting for or against something and not voting maybe. i think most senators would

prefer vetting yes or no and not -- voting yes or no and not maybe. in fact, when we were able to end the filibuster, we were able to vote to proceed to the bill, 84 senators stood up and said let's proceed and voted in favor of doing so. they know they're going to risk some criticism from some for doing that but at least they had the courage to do it. we still have a tiny handful that keep on trying to say vote maybe. it is frustrating because that initial delay was not necessary. it didn't add to the debate. it simply hindered the senate's consideration of the bill. in fact, opponents of the bipartisan legislation have even objected to adoption of the judiciary committee substitute despite widespread praise from both republicans and democrats for how we conducted our proceedings and our overwhelming bipartisan vote to get the bill

to the full senate. this was a bill where all the amendments made to almost all of them were on a bipartisan vote. we had 40-some-odd amendments offered by republicans that were accepted by both republicans and democrats. so the votes against even proceeding to this bill indicate that at least 15 members of the minority are so dug in against comprehensive immigration reform they're unalterably opposed. they want us to vote maybe to duck the issue. they vote against the senate even taking up the issue. they want to duck the issue. well, that's not a profile in courage. when those few senators should not further obstruct the 84 senators who appear ready to go to work on this bill and vote for or against it. so the question is whether the other members of the republican party will follow those who seek

to delay these the senate's consideration or whether they'll work with us to pass a good bill. more than 100 amendments have been filed to the comprehensive immigration reform bill but over the last two weeks we've only voted once on the motion to table an amendment that already had been defeated in committee. i began this process in the spirit of cooperation. i offered an amendment on behalf of myself and senator hatch, the senior member of the republican party, to strengthen our visa program for visiting foreign artists who come to perform for nonprofit arts organizations. i was then, following the procedures and the cooperation that i've known here for decades in the senate, i was willing to give consent to senator grassley to set aside my amendment and offer his amendment relating to

border security. unfortunately, when we asked for the same courtesy so that other senators, republicans and democrats alike, could call up additional amendments, there was an objection. in other words, we're expected to -- i was expected to cooperate and following these normal procedures but the second we asked for the other side to do that, oh, no, can't do it. the rules have to be different. then when the majority leader offered a unanimous consent request to have both senator grassley's amendment and others in a manner that senate republicans, including the senate republican leader just a few days ago, had been insisting on with respect to amendments and legislation and nominations, the minority objected. then when the majority asked a group of amendments offered by amendments from senators on both sides of the aisle be offered, again there was an objection. it's with great effort we're trying to work through amendments but like the

minority's treatment of nominations, even consensus amendments are objected to and delayed. we've been unable to get an amendment by the republican senator from nevada pending because there is a republican objection to a republican senator's offering an amendment which is probably going to pass with overwhelming support from both republicans and democrats. so it's no wonder that public approval of congress in last week's gallup poll fell to just 10%. at time when so many americans are in favor of reforming the nation's broken immigration system, we in the senate should be working together to meet that demand and reflect what the people of america want. the president spoke again last week about immigration reform and what's needed. the president had with him a broad cross-section of those supporting our efforts, from businesses and labor and law enforcement, clergy, people from both sides of the aisle.

just as i worked with president bush in 2006 when he supported comprehensive immigration reform, i urged senate republicans to work with us now. senators from both sides of the aisle worked together to develop this legislation. senators from both sides of the aisle. then senators from the judiciary committee considered it, we adopted more than 130 amendments to improve it, almost all of them with a bipartisan vote. and then senators from both sides of the aisle now need to come together to defeat the debilitating amendments and pass the legislation. we had an amendment, we finally had a vote, a tabling vote on my friend from iowa's amendment. but i note that it was tabled by a bipartisan majority of 57 votes. five republicans also voted to

table. of course, this was an amendment, as most people knew on the floor, had been considered by the judiciary committee, it was defeated there by a bipartisan vote of two-thirds of the committee. and would have undermined and unfairly preempted the pathway to earned citizenship. it would have made the fates of millions seeking to come out of the shoodz and joining american life unfairly way beyond any control they might have. so i'm troubled by proposals that contain false promises in which we promise citizenship but it's always over the next mountain. we're going to give you citizenship but not quite yet. it's almost like sisyphus pushing that rock up the hill. i want the pathway to be clear.

it can't be rigged by some elusive, precondition. we should treat people fairly, not have their faith determined by matters beyond their control. no undocumented american controls the border or is responsible for its security. the things that are being set up to kill this bill would have blocked my grandparents from coming to vermont from italy and would have blocked the parents and grandparents of many of the senators now serving in the united states senate. so i don't want people to move out of the shadows only to be stuck in some underclass. just as we should not fault the dreamers who were brought here as children, we should not make people's fates and future status dependent on border enforcement conditions over which they have no control.

this legislation is far too important to be subject to needless delay. the votes today signal an end to the delay. we should have a vigorous debate on the judiciary committee's reported bill. and voting on amendments. one of the bright moments in american public's view of the senate was the way republicans and democrats alike worked in the senate judiciary committee to get this bill before us. we had public debate, it was followed on line by millions of people, we brought up amendments, we debated them, and then we voted on them. nobody voted maybe. they voted yes and they voted no. the american public responded overwhelmingly, saying this was

the way to go and i think republicans and democrats on the floor justly praised the way it was done in the judiciary committee. shouldn't we do that -- that was 18 of us working in -- and i compliment the distinguished senator from iowa for his work even though we disagreed on the outcome, we worked together to get that debate finished, we went into the evenings, we worked all day, over a couple of weeks, and we got it done. but now all 100 of us should stand here and do the same thing. and demands for different voting standards for republican and democratic amendments are wrong. a couple of weeks ago, the distinguished republican leader spoke at an event, i was sitting there, he knew i was following him to speak and he said on matters this important, all the amendments should be 60-vote amendments. well, i've had a different view

in the past but i aid okay, then we'll do that for both democrats and republicans but let's get it done. but having different standards for republicans and democrats is not how the judiciary committee considered this legislation. but it's also not how the majority of americans expect us to conduct the debate. the tactics of last week undermine the senate's work on this important bill. those who have already decided to oppose this bill at the end of the senate's consideration, well, then vote against it but don't dictate the work of 84 senators who are ready to go forward and vote. so i call on all senators, please follow -- file your amendments to this bipartisan legislation by thursday and work with us if need be on friday and saturday and through the weekend so we can make much-needed progress on this legislation without further delay.

mr. president, is there a division of time? the presiding officer: the time is equally divided. mr. leahy: i'd reserve the balance of my time. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i would yield ten minutes of my time to senator thune. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i think we all agree our immigration system is broken and that it needs to be 23eu678d. unfortunately, -- fixed. unfortunately, every time congress has thried tried to fix our immigration system promises of a more secure border are never upheld and the bill we have in front of us today is following the same path as past immigration bills. under this bill it's certain that 12 million people in this country who are here illegally will receive legal status soon after the bill is enacted. however, the border security provisions of this bill are again nothing more than promises

which again may never be upheld. and i know when i talk to the people that i represent in the state of south dakota, one of the questions you get over and over again, is when is our federal government going to keep its promises when it comes to the issue of border security? and the second question is, why do we need more laws when we're not enforcing the laws that we currently have on the books? mr. president, it's time that we follow through on promises of a more secure border. and actually, you have to go back to 1996, which is the first time when congress spoke on this issue. at that time, congress called, stipulated that we needed to have a double and even tripl triple-layered fence system on the border. well, you roll time forward into 2006, ten years later, the secure fence act. congress again passed a law requiring a double-layered fence, this time indicating very specific locations totaling around 850 miles, even above the current 700-mile requirement.

mr. president, 80 united states senators voted for that bill. let me repeat that, 80 united states senators, republicans and democrats, in a bipartisan way voted in 2006 under the secure fence act for 850 miles of double-layered fence. well, you go again forward to 2008, as part of the consolidated appropriations act, congress specified this time that not less than 700 miles of fencing would be required. and to date, of course, of this requirement, only about 40 miles of the double-layered fence has been completed. during debate on the department of homeland security appropriations act in 2010, an amendment was offered to require the completion of at least 700 miles of reinforced fencing along the southwest border and this time with the specific time line, a specific date in mind, december 31 of 2010. that amendment was agreed to here on the senate floor by --

there were 54 votes in favor of it, including 21 democrats, 13 of whom are still here today. but, mr. president, the fence has still not been completed. now, the amendment that i've offered, amendment number 1197, simply required that we implement -- requires that we complement current law, completing 350 miles of double-layered fencing prior to r.p.i. status being granted. the completion of this section of the fence would be a tangible, visible demonstration that we are serious about this issue of border security. after r.p.i. status is granted, the remaining 350 miles required by current law would have to be constructed during the ten-year period before registered provisional immigrants can apply for green cards. so 350 miles before r.p.i. status, 350 miles after. i think it's a reasonable way of approaching this issue. now, people have gotten up and said, well, you can't -- you know, this fence is old school. it's not the only answer, mr. president.

it requires a combination of technology and manpower and surveillance, but there is an important place for infrastructure to play in this. and a double-layered fence, which was called for by congress first in 1996, again in 2006, again in 2008, which there was broad bipartisan support for here in the united states sena senate, should be something that we follow through on. one of the other issues that's been raised is, well, there's not money to do this. well, there is money appropriated in this bill, $6.5 billion is appropriated, $1.5 billion of which is dedicated to infrastructure. well, if you look at what it would cost to build a double-layered fence, the estimates are about $3.2 million per mile. so the 350 miles that we call for before r.p.i. status is granted would get you -- run you in the range of a billion dollars. sufficient within the money allocated -- already allocated in the bill. but my point, mr. president, very simply is this, we have made promises and commitments to the american people over and over and over again in a

bipartisan way here in the united states senate which have not been followed through on. now, the senator from alabama, who offered an amendment like this, very similar to this at the judiciary committee markup, is here on the floor, has been a leader in terms of trying to secure our borders, an issue that i think most americans before we deal with any other aspect or element of the immigration debate believe ought to be addressed, and i would just simply ask him -- and i -- mr. president, if i might through the chair, because do you think that building 40 miles out of a 700-mile requirement is keeping the promise that we've made to build a border fence that's adequate to deter illegal cross sngz andings? and secondly, doesn't infrastructure, such as a double-layered fence, enhance the effectiveness of border control agents and surveillance technologies along the border, recognizing again it's not the only answer, it is combined with, complemented by other forms of border security?

but it is important, in my view, mr. president, that we have a visible, tangible way in which we make it very clear that this is a deterrent to people coming to this country illegal. we want people to come here legal. we are a welcoming nation. we are a nation of immigrants but we're a nation of laws and we have got to enforce the laws. we have not been doing that and we have not been keeping the promise as that we've made to the american people when it comes to border security and, more specifically, when it comes to the building of the fence. and so i would ask my -- my colleague, through the chair, from alabama about his views on this and whether or not we have followed through on a level that is anywhere consistent with what we promised to the american people. and, secondly, don't you think that this infrastructure component is an important element when it comes to the border security part of this debate on immigration reform? mr. sessions: mr. president, i thank the senator from south dakota. he's exactly correct. this has -- this is a failure of

congress and the administration. as soon as some discretion was given to the administration to not build a fence, they quit building a fence and very little -- we're so far behind what we promised the american people. and i remember being engaged, senator thune, in the debate in both of those years, 2006, 2008. we actually came up with the funds, we funded it sufficient sufficiently -- funded sufficiently the fence construction that needed to be done. we told the american people we were going to do it. we were proud of ourselves. actually, i remember giving a hard time to my colleagues because in 2006 we authorized a fence but there was no money. so it was later we finally forced the money to be appropriated. because the issue was, you say you're for a fence, you go back home and say, "i voted for fencing and barriers," and then you don't put up the money. so the money was even put up,

and it still did not happen as required by law. and, senator thune, i think you said it so clearly, that's why the american people are rightly concerned about amnesty first with a promise of enforcement in the future. even when we pass laws that plainly say a fence shall be built, we put up money to build that fence and it doesn't happen in the future. so what we are asked to do with this legislation is to grant amnesty immediately. that will happen. that's the one thing in this bill that will happen. but we need to ask ourselves, what are the american people telling us. and a recent poll showed by a 4-1 margin the american people said, we want to see the enforcement first. then we'll talk about the amnesty. do your enforcement first. and your question is, how will

it work? well, we have discussed that over the years. greatest example of how it works is at san diego. that area was in complete disarray -- violence, crime, drugs, economic disaster zone. it was a very grim situation in san diego, all kinds of illegality at the border. and they built a double-wide secure fence across that entire area. illegality ended totally, virtually. almost no illegality is continuing at that stretch of the border today. crime was dramatically reduced. economic growth occurred on both sides of the border. and it was highly successful. and so several things happened. first, you ends the illegality with a good -- you end the illegality with a good fence. and, secondly, it reduces dramatically the number of border patrol officers needed to

make sure that illegal crossings aren't occurring because they're -- they're -- there's a force multiplication of their ability and so you can save a lot of money by having fewer people. and when people see a real secure fence, they decide it's not worth the attempt so they don't even try to do that. and that reduces the stress on the border patrol, the number of deportations, number of people thethat have to be sent back reduces costs and saves money in the long run and really achieves what the american people have asked us i think to achieve. so, senator thune, i think your amendment is very reasonable. it's certainly -- puts us on a path to completing the kind of barriers that are necessary. and, as you said, it comes nowhere close to saying there's a fence across the entire bord border. it would just be at the areas where it would be most effective. mr. thune: and i would just say,

mr. president, to my colleague from alabama -- and again thank him for his leadership on this issue, both past and present -- that what we are talking about here is something that is a part of a solution. this isn't the totality. this isn't the entirety. people have come down here and said, well, you can't just build a fence, people will tunnel under it, they'll climb over it. of course they will. but coupled with additional border patrol agents, coupled with surveillance, dowmed with modern -- coupled with modern technologies, it is a -- a composite solution, if you will, but it still very clearly is a deterrent, it is a visible, tangible message and deterrent that, you know, we -- we want people to come to this country legally. we want to discourage illegal immigration and the fence i think is part of the infrastructure component of that border security solution and it's something that we've all made commitments on in the past. and i think it's very hard to ask people to vote for an immigration reform bill that

includes a legalization component to it if we're not going to follow through on the promises that we've made. because the american people have heard this before. promises, promises is something they've heard plenty of in the past when it comes to this issue of the we have yet to follow through on this with the exception of the 36 miles, as i mentioned, that's been built. but commitments were made in 1996 and requirements to do this in 2006, as you said, in 2008, the money was added. that was a 76-17 vote here in the united states senate. 76 united states senators from both parties voted to fund this in 2008. and in 2006, 80 united states senators, including now-president obama, who at that time was a senator, now vice president biden, who was at that time a senator, and then-senator hillary clinton, all voted, all voted for the secure fence act in 2006. so, again, i'm not suggesting for a minute that it is the only solution, the cure-all, the

panacea that's going to address this issue, but i think it is something that is very, very real, very tangible, very visible. it is something that we have made a commitment on to the american people and i think it's something that we ought to follow through on. and is t certainly ought to be a -- and it certainly ought to be a requirement, a condition, if you will, on this legislation before some of these other elements come to pass. because if it's not, it will never get done, as we've already seen going back to 1996. and so i hope that amendment 1197, when it's voted on this afternoon, that we will have the same strong, bipartisan support we've had in the past on this issue. and i hope again that, as the senator from alabama and i have pointed out, that we will follow through on a commitment that we've made to the american people and do something really meaningful on the issue of border security. and so, mr. president, i would, with that -- i say to my colleague from alabama that again i appreciate his strong voice on this issue and i hope that he and i will be joined by many others today.

mr. sessions: well, senator thune, thank you for your leadership in offering a clear legislative proposal that will work. and it's my observation that things that get proposed around here that don't work often are passed. things that will actually work are difficult to get passed. and i don't know if you realize, senator thune, that although the sponsors of the legislation have talked a good bit about fencing that might occur, having a report on fencing, what we do know is that it did not require fencing anywhere in the bill. but in case anybody had any doubt about that, senator leahy, the chairman of the judiciary committee, offered an amendment that explicitly stated nothing in the bill shall require the construction of any fencing at the border. so despite what others have heard about this being the toughest bill ever and it's going to do more for enforcement than we've ever had, it, in

fact, weakens and almost guarantees we will not have additional fencing, which would certainly be a component in my mind of a stronger, tougher enforcement mechanism. and fencing barriers do, i believe, help the president, who should lead on this, who should say clearly to the world, our border is secure, we're building fences and do not come and the number of people who would attempt to come would drop a lot if we -- we made that clear statement. thank you for your good work. mr. thune: and i would just say in closing, mr. president, again that this is not -- the border is 2,000 miles long. this requires 700 miles. and so it would be put in those areas where, as the senator from alabama noted, it is most needed. and, mr. president, with that, i yield the floor and i would ask when the time comes for support on amendment 1197. thanks.

the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, last week, i previewed an amendment that i will be offering hopefully as early as this afternoon on the underlying immigration bill. this is an amendment which the democratic majority leader and at least one or two other members of the senate have called a poison pill. i find that somewhat bizarre, especially in light of what others have said about this amendment which i'll talk about briefly, and it strikes me as unusual that any time anyone offers a different idea by way of an amendment that people don't like, they call it a poison pill, as if that was the only option. you either take it without the amendment or you accept the amendment and it kills the legislation. well, we know the truth is far