vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 72. the nays are 26. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the

adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to. under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 1208 as amended, offered by the senator from utah, mr. lee. the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, this amendment, if enacted -- the presiding officer: may we have order, please. mr. lee: this amendment, if enacted, would require fast-track congressional approval at the introduction of the department of homeland security -- department of homeland security strategies before the award of registered provisional immigrant or r.p.i. status begins, and at the certification of the strategy's completion before those receiving r.p.i. status become eligible for green cards. the basic point of this is we've got a trigger, a trigger that

needs to signal it is okay to open the r.p.i. process, a process by which illegal aliens will be legalized first. somebody needs to signal it's okay to pull that trigger, it's okay to proceed. i think that decision needs to be made right here in the united states congress. this would occur pursuant to a fast-track plan no more than 30 days. it would not be subject to a filibuster. it would subject only to a 51-vote threshold. a senator: mr. president? mr. president? mr. president? the senate -- the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will please to order. mr. baucus: the senator deserves the right to be heard. mr. lee: thank you very much. for these reasons i strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment, to preserve the right of the people to be heard. if we cut out congress, we're cutting out the right of the american people to be heard on this issue and the right of the american people to decide when and under what circumstances it's okay to continue the pathway to citizenship. for this reason, i urge my

colleagues to support this and i call for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is a sufficient second. mr. leahy: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i would -- and the senate is not in order. mr. president, i would oppose this. this amendment could significantly delay even the initial registration process. i've said the pathway to citizenship should not be a false promise. we either make the promise or we don't. it should be attainable, not something that's always over the next mountain. the drafters worked long and hard to reach a bipartisan agreement on this. we had similar efforts to this were defeated on a bipartisan basis in the judiciary committee's consideration because we did not want to make

legalization program inappropriately subject to partisan disputes. this would simply remove a real promise of citizenship. i do oppose it. the presiding officer: the question is on amendment number 1208 as modified. the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, theiation are 39, the nays are 59. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for adoption of this amendment, it is not agreed to. under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 1298 offered by the senator from arkansas, mr. pryor. mr. pryor: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mrs. boxer: the senate is not order. the presiding officer: could we have order, please. the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: mr. president, this is amendment 1298. it is the pryor-johanns amendment. i think the good news here is we have agreed to a voice voavment but what this does is it requires the department of homeland security, as they're doing their hiring to beef up

the border, to hire veterans of our armed services. this is really a win-win all the way around. our vets have, as we know, a higher unemployment rate. but also they happen to be the best-trained, most disciplined. they have that can-do spirit. and they make great employees, as many of us know. we also know that our veterans know how to complete a mission. with that, i'd like to yield the floor to senator johanns. mr. johanns: mr. president, i thank senator pryor for bringing this amendment forward. i very proudly support it and concur. it can be voice voted. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: is there anyone who expresses opposition? the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: inned that we're able to dispose of this amendment with a voice vote. so i ask unanimous consent that

the 60-affirmative vote threshold be waived on the pryor amendment. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the question is on adoption of amendment number 1298. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say nay. the ayes have it. the ayes appear to have it. the amendment is agreed to. mrs. boxer: that that on the table. the presiding officer: -- lay that on the tabling. the presiding officer: without objection. there will now be two minutes of debate in relation to amendment number 1277 by offered by the senator from nevada, mr. heller. the senator from nevada. mr. heller: thank you. mr. president, as i said in my remarks this morning, i hope this commission is never

required because if it is, it means that the border still isn't secure five years down the road. if that's the case, then the commission will need to fully be represented of the concerns and recommendations of all the states in the southwestern regions that are affected by our broken immigration system. should d.h.s. fail to gain control of the borders, should it be necessary to form a commission to ensure that we achieve that objective, it makes no sense to exclude nevada's perspective and recommendations. my state's unique location, growing immigration policy -- the presiding officer: may we have order. mr. heller: thank you. my state's unique location, growing immigration population leave it highly vulnerable to our nation's flawed immigration system. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and, mr. president, i yield the floor. i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second?

is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there appears to be a sufficient second. who he would i do notes time in opposition? all time is yielded back. the question is on amendment number 1227. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 9, the nays are 9. under the previous order requiring 60 votes, adoption of this amendment is agreed to. mr. leahy: lay on the table. the presiding officer: the majority leader.

mr. reid: for the information of all senators, following the disposition of the merkley amendment, the senate will consider --. the presiding officer: may we have order, please. mr. reid: for the information of all senators, following the disposition of the merkley amendment the senate will consider the froman nomination. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 1237 as modified offered by the senator from oregon, the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. colleagues, let me take you back in time to 2009-2010. the housing market had collaps collapsed, sawmills had shut down across our nation and thousands of loggers and sawmill workers were out of work. you can -- the presiding officer: may we have order. please take your conversations outside the chamber. thank you. mr. merkley: you can imagine how outraged those unemployed loggers were when they found out

that government contracts had been let for logging but the contracts were going to go to employees coming from mexico. that is the type of bypass that completely disturbs the fabric of our immigration system and it undercut the success of thousands of rural families across this nation. this amendment has a simple fix. it says that jobs have to be appropriately advertised so that our loggers will know how to apply. that's it. it will work for rural america, it will work for the forest industry, it will work for our loggers. and, mr. president, i understand that we're able to dispose of this amendment with a voice vote. i ask unanimous consent that the 60-vote affirmative threshold be waived on the merkley amendment, as modified. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. is there further debate?

if not, the question is on the amendment. all those n favor please say -- all in favor please say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. leahy: move to reconsider. mr. menendez: lay on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session -- mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. a senator: the senate is not in order. mr. reid: i apologize to everyone for not mentioning this before. we're very close to coming up with an agreement on the next batch -- mrs. boxer: the senate's not in order. mr. reid: mr. president, we're very close to coming up with an agreement the managers have developed along with our able staff to have a series of amendments in order and as things are now contemplated, we would debate those tonight and in the morning and have some votes starting at 2:15.

hopefully tonight and in the morning we will be able to add to what we're going to agree to later so we'd have even more amendments. it's my understanding that there's already contemplation of some important work in the morning and so in short, i don't think we'll have any more votes tonight after this one we're going to take up on fromon. we'll start votes tomorrow at 2:15 on four or five, and continue working on this important legislation. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, executive office of the president, michael froman of new york to be united states trade representative. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form. mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. a senator: the senate is not in order. the senate is not in order.

the presiding officer: senate please come to order. mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, the finance committee reported out the nomination of michael froman to be ustr unanimously. it's rare that i speak so highly of somebody. i can think of many top administration officials who are very good. michael froman will be another. he is very smart, he's very tough. he's the right person for the job as the united states begins to negotiate trade agreements with asia, the so-called t.p.p., as well as the trade agreement with the europeans. our economic future is -- is tied to -- to the economic growth tied to trade, and i strongly urge my colleagues to all vote for michael froman. give him a big, big vote so when he goes to geneva, when he goes

to other parts of the world to negotiate trade agreements, h he -- the world knows that he has our strong support. michael froman's a great man and i hope very much he gets that vote where everybody votes for him. he's a good man. the presiding officer: who yields time? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mrs. warren: i agree with senator baucus that trade issues are powerfully important to our economy. they involve public policy issues that range from jobs to the internet. many people are interested in following our trade policies and they need to have enough information to be able to offer real input into the process. i think the trade representative needs to be committed to transparency and democracy. last week i asked mr. froman if he would commit to making public the bracketed text for the trance pacifitrance pa -- transc partnership. i asked him to provide more

information about what trade advisors were receiving what information. each request that i made about commitment to public revealing information, he answered with a "no." so i rise to repeat my opposition to mr. froman's nomination as the next u.s. trade representative. we need a new direction from the trade representative, a direction that prioritizes transparency and public debate. i urge a "no" vote. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president, i've seen a lot of people come and go -- a senator: the senate's not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. hatch: i thank the senator from california and the chair. i've seen a lot of people come and go in this position and i can say this, that i have every confidence that this man's going to be an excellent leader in the position that he has accepted. i hope everybody on this floor will vote for him. he's for the trade promotion authority which any president

would want because it makes it easier to approve these free trade agreements and other agreements that really are in the best interest of our country. this man's competent, he's highly qualified. he -- he doesn't share my philosophy particularly but i think he does with regard to this position. and i have every confidence in him and i hope everybody who can will vote for him. mr. baucus: mr. president? mrs. warren: mr. president? mr. baucus: mr. president, any time remaining? the presiding officer: no time remaining. mr. baucus: i ask 10, 15 seconds. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: mr. president, i might say to my good friend from massachusetts, if she will work with us, we will work with mr. froman to answer all the questions. this iquestions. i plan to work with the senator to get answers to her questions. i was aware of this problem until the senator just mentioned it. mrs. warren: mr. president? may i have permission?

for ten seconds. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. warren: i have no doubt that mr. froman will be a highly qualified trade representative. there is a point of principle at stake here and the point of principle is that we should not be moving forward on trade agreements without making more of this information public. and that's what this is about. without that, i urge a "no" vote. the presiding officer: the question is on the nomination. a senator: ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the yeas and nays have been requested. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. votevote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their votes? if not, the yeas are 93, the nays are 4, one senator responded present, and the nomination is confirmed. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate will resume legy-- resume legis. the senator from pennsylvania. -- the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i'm not going to ask for any votes or try to call up an agreement so everybody can relax but i do want to speak for a moment. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: mr. president, we have now been considering a major piece of legislation for weeks. weeks. the chairman and ranking member

of the committee did a masterful job, even though there's some people that are still against the bill, there are people for the bill. we're want exactly sure how it's going to come out. but i want to say that senator leahy and senator sessions, but senator leahy particularly as the chair could not have done a better job getting the bill printed, printing all the amendments, staying here through the night, letting the members of the committee have a lot of time to debate the bill, to amend the bill, and the committee did a very, very good job. i am planning to vote for the bill. i've not kept that a secret or said anything to the contrary. of course the amendment process is important. i can't wait and see if an amendment gets on my bill that undermines some of the important principles i might have to change my mind.

but i don't think that's going to happen. hopefully something can be worked out. i'm not on the committee and most of the people on this floor aren't on the committee. the committee is representative of a minority group of republicans and democrats. the majority of us don't serve on the judiciary committee. so while we were interested and worked with our friends on the committee to suggest important changes that would improve the bill or correct the bill or fix the bill or save money -- what i am complaining about, you would think that the process would allow amendments to be debated so that members like myself, who i serve as chair of the homeland security appropriations committee. i'm not a distant third party to this debate.

my whole budget funds this bill. this is what i spend a good bit of my time on, and the people in my state and constituencies that i represent have a lot of interest in this bill. i am not a johnny-come-lately to this issue. i have things i want to say about it and i'd just like to have some amendments talked about and voted on. if people want to vote them down, fine. if they want to vote for them, fine. if they want to have 50 votes, fine. if they want to have 6660 vote. i just want to have -- if they want to have 60 votes, fine. i just want to have a chance to talk about my amendment so i'm going to do that right now. i also want to say there are some amendments -- i have a short list of eight or so. some of them are quite minor. one or two of them are fairly significant and might need a debate. but part of the group of my amendments are completely, to my knowledge, unopposed by anyone.

i've got senator coats as a cosponsor. i've worked openly. i've filed amendments. they -- the text of which -- -- what i'm strongly suggesting, mr. president, is that the staff and the leadership managing this bill try to identify of the amendments that have been filed, those that are noncontroversial that everyone would agree to. i think there are probably 20 or 30 such amendments. they don't change the underlying agreement. they don't spend any additional money. they fix or modify or improve sections of the bill. that's our job. that is what we're supposed to do. that is the legislative process, and you know what?

if it wasn't meant to be that way, then we should just have a rule that says the bill goes to committee and they don't even come here to the senate floor and they just go right over to the house of representatives. they committee works on it and they send it to et president. but that's not what our laws say. our laws say that we should have some debate on the senate floor. i've also been here long enough to realize that the leadership is trying its best and there are some amendments that are very controversial. i am not new to the senate. fine. but what i am talking about is when we get on a major bill like this and members work hard to build support and to get bipartisan support, our amendments that are noncontroversial should go first. and then controversial amendments could go less, but that's not what happens around here. what happens around here is the guys that cause all the trouble

all the time on every bill -- and i will -- i don't want to name their names because it's not appropriate, but there is a group on the other side and a few maybe on our side, they are never really happy with anything and so they file tons of amendments and we spend all of our time worrying about their amendments and those of us that spend a lot of our time building bipartisan support that offer amendments that have no opposition, actually never get to those amendments. this is really sad, and i have basically had enough. i have tried to be patient all week. i have come every day and said, you know, are any of these amendments going to get in the queue, but that's not the way we're working right now. we're taking the worst amendments, the most controversial amendments, the guys that cause trouble on every single bill, and we give them votes on their amendments. some of them have been defeated 99-1. and then everybody gets tired

and aggravated, and then everybody says we're tired, we're aggravated, we're calling cloture, and you know what happens when cloture is called? all amendments that are not pending, even ones that no one opposes that could actually help a human being, imagine that, an amendment that actually could help someone just crumbles up on the senate floor and everybody goes home and says well, that was a wonderful debate. and i'm just, you know, venting here but i'm saying this is one senator that's tired of it, and more importantly, my constituents are tired of it. it's not about me. it's about them. they look at this and they say well, why can't you get that amendment passed? there is no opposition to it. it's really good. we have worked on it. it would really help. that's a hard question to answer because i have to say i have no idea.

so we voted on all kinds of amendments that are controversial, that are very high-level kind of message amendments. when the authors offer them or sponsor them, they know they are never going to pass, but they are looking for a headline. i'm not looking for any headlines. i don't care if any reporter writes about these amendments. but i happen to know some things in this bill as chair of the small business committee, i have had some hearings myself. amazing, that other committees actually have hearings. and i have had hearings and have had dozens of small business owners say to me as chair of the small business committee, look, senator, you know, we're not getting any attention here because everybody's talking about all sorts of things like the fence, the border, the this and that. could anybody pay attention to the seven million small businesses that are going to have to, you know, abide by this everify? and by the way, we like the program, we're for the program. but we have some suggestions to make it better. some of that happened in the

judiciary committee, but the judiciary committee is not the small business committee. i have excellent members on my committee, and they have a voice, and this is an amendment that many of them support that i don't think the judiciary committee, either the republicans or the democrats, oppose. the small business community is for it, and i don't know what to say other than i can't even get in the queue, cannot even get in the list to be considered. and then i have got a small group of amendments because i'm happy to do it and i do it joyfully. i'm the chair of the adoption caucus. you, mr. president, have been wonderful. senator klobuchar has been wonderful. you know, orphans don't have lobbyists. i'm sorry, they just don't. they don't have any money to pay lobbyists. so through all the good people that volunteer to represent them, they come to my office, they ask for help, i try to do my best. i don't always succeed, but i

try. so amy klobuchar and i, because she is the senator that's been also terrific about this with others, not just myself, we have some amendments that have nothing to do with the english language or any language, the fence, any money, anything. just a few technical corrections that could help some american families trying to adopt. i was able to get one of my adoption amendments up, and i thank senator leahy, but, you know, we have got four or five. i'm not trying to be hoggish about it, but they are not controversial. so i have 15 amendments that are noncontroversial, maybe. i'm making that up. maybe there is an opponent. i can't get discussed, but only people that have controversial amendments, only people that have no chance of passing their amendments, only people who want headlines in newspapers, only people that have amendments that nobody over here's going to vote for, get to talk about their amendments, and the rest of us that work hard to get

bipartisanship and bring amendments that could actually help the bill, make the country stronger, we never get to talk. so i'm going to stay on the floor and object until i get an answer for that question. why is it that people that play by the rules, senators, that work across the aisle, that work hard to build bipartisan support, that work hard to get amendments that don't cost any money, that won't really cause too much trouble, why do our amendments get the last consideration? because i think it has ramifications for how the senate operates because then it's like behavior. the better behaved you are, the quieter you are, the more team player you are. you don't get anything. the only way you get something is to become obnoxious and to be, you know, get your

amendments that have no bipartisan support, that have amendments that cost a gazillion dollars or take away a gazillion dollars. that is not encouraging good behavior on the senate floor. so i want to be a good team player. the people that i represent want this body to work. we want bipartisan solutions to real problems. and even people that do not have lobbyists and even people that do not have a lot of money deserve time on the senate floor. and i intend to provide it, to orphans that i support and try to help and to parents that are adopting kids and don't ask for much, but they do ask could the senator from louisiana please have an amendment that nobody opposes to help us and our kids. and i'm going to stand here and support the small businesses that get overlooked all the time because they're not asking for much. they like the everify program. they had a few very positive suggestions.

i thought i'd put in an amendment and offer it. silly me. and then this eb-5 reporting is one of the worst-run programs in the government. everyone acknowledges that. everyone knows it's not working. so the committee does a really good job to fix it, but my staff and i worked pretty hard and we are very close with the immigration and we talk with them about some perfecting amendments, but, you know, silly me to think that we could make any improvements to the underlying bill on the eb-5 program which could create millions of jobs in louisiana, in texas, in the gulf coast, which is the area that i pay most attention to, but by the way, this program will also create lots of jobs in california, new york and rhode island and other places. so i'm going to sit here. i don't mean to -- i know other senators may want to talk, but sorry, until i get some answers about why some of our amendments, not just mine, but

other amendments, republican amendments, democratic amendments, that are not controversial, that are cleared on all fronts, i want those amendments to go first and then you can say congratulations to the members that worked hard to minimize opposition, to write their amendments in a way that people could be supportive. that's what senators are supposed to do. but we have not -- we have turned from a senate to a theater, and i'm tired of being part of a theater. if i wanted to be part of a theater, i would have gone to new york. not that anybody would have put me on the stage because i can't sing or dance, but i don't want to. i want to lead, but it's getting very difficult in this place to do any leadership. so i'm just going to sit here until maybe somebody that is a leader around here can come talk to us about what we're going to do with amendments on an

immigration bill that is controversial, the bill itself. let me not understate that. there will be people that don't want to vote for this bill no matter what shape it's in. i'm not one of them. but i want to know the answer to my question -- how many amendments of the 140 pending are noncontroversial that republicans and democrats will agree to? that is my question. i would like an answer. and my second question is when could we possibly vote on those amendments before cloture is called because cloture is going to be called on this bill, and the reason is because we can't get a lot of cooperation. and so what's going to happen is all these noncontroversial amendments fall by the wayside, and what a shame. and i'm just tired of it. and it's the same group around here that causes all the trouble, and the rest of us that try to be supportive, try to go

along, try to work in a bipartisan way get shut out, and that is just enough, and the people i represent have said we're finished. i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: first, i had the chance over the last few moments to listen to the senator from louisiana. i just want to applaud the tenacity with which she approaches her duties here in this chamber. she is a terrific colleague, and when there is something that she thinks is the right thing to do, she will fight very hard to get that done. i'm here to say a word in support of the bipartisan immigration legislation that we are looking at here. in the months that led up to this debate, i have met with people across rhode island to discuss our pressing need for national immigration reform. rhode island, like connecticut, perhaps even more than connecticut, is a state with a

proud tradition of immigration, and our many immigrant communities make our state stronger and more vibrant. i've heard from leaders of our latino communities who are the fastest growing share of our state's population and work force. i've heard from leaders of my state's other immigrant communities, including particularly members of our librarian -- liberian community, many of whom fled swar in their -- civil war in their home country but are unable to participate in the american dream because of the uncertainty of their immigration status. i have heard from leaders of rhode island's technology industry who often have trouble recruiting talented employees that they want to hire to fill a specific need that the people they are looking for can't obtain a timely green card. and i have met with men and women who are struggling to find work after losing their jobs to temporary foreign workers.

from all of those stories, one message comes through loud and clear. our immigration system is broken. 11 million people are living in the shadows. people who want to work to support their families and contribute to our communities. eligible legal immigrants can wait years, even decades, to gain entry to this country. and then we educate the best and brightest from around the world, but tobacco often we tell them they can't remain in this country after they graduate. the bill before us offers a bipartisan solution to these problems. it provides a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented immigrants already in this country, including the dreamers, the children who are brought here at an early age and who are american already, in every meaningful sense of the word. the pathway that is created by this bill is tough but it's fair. it prevents dangerous criminals from becoming citizens.

it requires undocumented immigrants to pay a fine, to learn english and to work. but for the vast majority of undocumented immigrants in our nation, it offers a way out of the shadows. that is why as this debate continues, we should reject amendments that would place further obstacles in that pathway to path to citizenship. this bill also significantly improves the security of our southern border, a border that is already more secure than at any time in our nation's history. under president obama, the number of border patrol agents has nearly doubled. border crossings are down. this bill will build on these successes by giving the department of homeland security tools to further strengthen boreborder enforcement. this bill makes real improvements to our legal

immigration system. it will allow spouses and children of permanent residents to come to this country without unnecessary delay. i recently heard a heartbreaking story from a woman in cranston, rhode island, who told me her husband might be forced to return to his native country while he waited two years to receive a green card leaving her to care alone for their disabled child. this bill will also make our nation more competitive by helping to attract the best and brightest from around the world. two years ago i met with a talent young man named luv sung who studied for his doctorate at boston university and then formed a company. but when he applied for a green card, he was denied, even though he had been educated at one of our universities, was creating jobs in our country, and was helping protect our health and

environment. more recently, i received a letter from charles in east providence who says, this issue is close to his heart. and it is. his girlfriend just finished her second master's degree program at johnson and wales university. but unless she finds an employer willing to sponsor her for a visa, she may have to return to her native china. these young people want to stay here and want to succeed, charles wrote. this bill will allow more talented individuals in the sciences and other fields to stay here and contribute to our economy. let me compliment the eight responsers osponsors of this ler their tireless efforts to find a middle ground. this bill is a compromise. no one can say they got everything they wanted. but enbalance, this bill is our

best opportunity to fix our nation's broken immigration system. it is our best opportunity in years. and as we now know, this bill will reduce our deficit by nearly $900 billion over the next 20 years. let me also compliment our judiciary chairman, senator leahy, for his leadership in getting us to this point. the markup of this legislation in his committee, led by chairman leahy, was thorough, fair, and transparent. the committee adopted 141 amendments, nearly all of them on a bipartisan basis, and the bill is stronger and better today than when it was introduced. i was proud that three of my amendments were adopted, all of them unanimously, by the committee. my first amendment provided both american workers and workers on

h-1b visas with a way of reporting h-1b program violations. at my community dinners back home, i've heard stories of rhode island workers who were replaced by foreign workers on h-1b visas. one day they're at work. the next day they're gone and a foreign worker is doing their jobs. some were even forced to train their replacements. these workers had nowhere to turn. my amendment creates a department of labor hot-line, toll-free hot-line, and a web site for american and foreign workers to report possible violations of h-1b visa rules. and an inspector general audit. my second amendment expands the bill's invest visa which is issued to qualified foreign-born

entrepreneurs so that they can come and create businesses here in the united states. my amendment added funding from start-up accelerators to the invest program criteria. as many of my colleagues know, start-up accelerators help entrepreneurs get off the ground by providing training and support and often initial funding. in providence, one such accelerator, called beta spring, has helped launch 57 different companies, creating jobs in our state and across the country. so they will now benefit from the invest visa. i also offered an amendment to allow scientists and researchers with unique skills who wish to serve our country by working in our national laboratories, our prestigious national laboratories, to obtain citizenship on an expedited basis provided that they pass the necessary rigorous background checks. i want to thank my colleagues on

the judiciary committee for working with me to include these important provisions on a bipartisan basis. i do believe that further improvements can be made here on the floor and i intend to offer several more amendments during this debate. i'm working on two amendments that would leverage our immigration laws to strengthen our nation's cybersecurity. one amendment would set aside some entry visas for potential witnesses in investigations and prosecutions of cyber crime. we allow visas to those who help our law enforcement agencies to bring cases against those who are hacking us and trying to steal our intellectual property and potentially even sabotage our critical infrastructure. another amendment would ensure that enablers and beneficiaries of hackers who steal our american intellectual property do not benefit from our

immigration system. it would allow our government to designate entities and individuals who are associated with criminal hackers and say, forget it. if you're involved in supporting criminal hacking of our cyber networks, you are not getting a visa, your employees are not getting visas, your organization cannot support visa applications. i also intend to offer an amendment relating to the everify system clarifying that employers need not reverify the employment authorization of workers retaining the same position under the new employers. as new companies take over existing service contracts, workers in certain low-skilled positions can find themselves working for dozens of employers over their careers without ever changing their job. they're not changing their job, the employers are changing and they should not have to reverify

every time. that is a needless burden on both the employer and the employee. in addition, i've filed an amendment to close what is referred to as the terror gap. right now, believe it or not, nothing in our laws prevents a suspected terrorist from legally purchasing a firearm. even if a background check reveals he is on the terrorist watch list my amendment would give the attorney general the authority to prohibit the transfer of firearms to suspected terrorists on the terrorist watch list. that seems like common sense. and this amendment was based on legislation introduced by our late colleague, senator franc lautenberg -- frank lautenberg, whose presence i am

very aware of as i stand here because with his departure, his desk moved over to the other side of the aisle and my desk moved in to fill the space so now i'm actually standing in frank's spot. he was a tireless advocate for protecting our communities from the scourge of gun violence. and i know that democrat and republican, we are divided on gun issues, but if there is a gun issue we ought to be able to come together on, it's that people who are on the terrorist watch list should not be able to buy firearms legally in this country. i hope that we can at least agree on that. finally, mr. president, chairman leahy has also put forward an important and worthy amendment that would provide for the equal treatment of all families under our immigration

laws. i was extremely proud with rhode island's governor lincoln chafee last month as he signed into law legislation making rhode island the tenth state in the country to provide for marriage equality. it is time our immigration system catches up with states like rhode island and i was pleased to vote for this amendment in the committee. i will say i also understand and appreciate and indeed, honor the position that the group of senators who put this bill together have taken that they need to vote to protect their bill and their agreement. so on our side senator schumer, senator durbin, senator bennet, senator menendez, they may have to take positions to make sure that this bill goes forward and passes, and i want to be on record as saying that i may vote different than they do on this but i certainly appreciate the position that they're in and i think it is

honorable on their part to stick with the deal that they have agreed to and to work hard to make sure that this immigration bill passes. chairman leahy, the chairman of our committee, has worked for years to ensure that all families are treated fairly under immigration law and i've been very proud to support his efforts. i see no reason why treating all marriages equally should be so controversial. much less a reason for blocking our best hope for comprehensive immigration reform. mr. president, i'll conclude by saying that i look forward to working in earnest with my colleagues toward an immigration system that is worthy of our great nation. it is time to come together, fix our broken immigration system, and make this a system we can be proud of. i urge all my colleagues to join in this important task, and i yield the floor. and note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i know that the staff is working hard --. the presiding officer: the senate is still in a quorum call. ms. landrieu: i suggest the absence of a quorum -- i mean dispense with the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection.

ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i know that the staff is working hard to kind of figure out the best way forward, and there are kind of lots of views about different amendments that may be controversial. but i'm going to stay here and work for the next hour or two tonight to see if we can just do one simple thing, just one simple thing. that we could look at the list of all amendments pending, and all of those amendments that are noncontroversial, no one objects to anything in the amendment, i would like that list put together, and it could be either voice voted tomorrow or all of those amendments could just get pending and be voted later. i'm not even particular about when the vote would be or under what circumstances the leadership can make all those decisions. but what i would like right now

is to stop this operation here until we can get the noncontroversial amendments out of the way. there are republicans that have amendments that nobody over here objects to. there are democratic amendments that republicans don't object to. and i think those sponsors which i would be included but i'm not the only one, could kind of be rewarded for our good work, for coming up with amendments that nobody's angry about, that people think, oh, that's a good idea, we should do it. why don't we do those amendments first? and then all the other amendments that people have filed for various reasons, some in goods -- you know, some in good fashion, people feel very strongly about them, they want to discuss them, they want to have convenient them, they know it might not pass but it's important for them to represent their position. i have no problem with that. i understand that. but what i don't understand and

my constituents don't understand is why we can't take noncontroversial amendments that everyone supports and get those passed. so until i get an answer to that, i'm just going to suggest the absence of a quorum and spend a couple hours trying to find the answer. thank you. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i'd like to dispense with the quorum call.

the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. in the last few minutes, we've made a little bit of progress and i'm doing the best i can to work with both sides of the aisle to simply get a list of amendments that are noncontroversial. there are approximately 230 amendments pending on the immigration bill. many of them are controversial. but there are some, potentially as many as 20, maybe even 30, amendments that are pending, that are public record, that have been filed that members on both sides of the aisle have worked on very hard. we have known about this debate. some of us have been following it more closely than others, but i dare to say there's not a senator, as a member of this body, that hasn't been focused on what our constituents want us

to do to either improve this bill or to fight against this bill. and you've heard a lot of that debate. i think this bill will probably pass, but who knows at this point? because there are 200 amendments pending. and what i'm suggesting as a way forward is to take those amendments that are noncontroversial -- republicans have not come up with their list of noncontroversial yet. the democrats are very close to coming up with our list of noncontroversial amendments. we think it's about 12 or 15. they could have 12 or 15 or 20 or 30 that are noncontroversial. no one on their side objects. no one on our side objects. and they could do some good on this bill in a variety of different ways. i'm suggesting that we take those noncontroversial amendments and make them pending and vote on them sometime -- any

time, tonight, tomorrow. we can voice them all as a package. we can vote them all individually. i don't -- i'm not trying to be overly prescriptive here. but what i am saying -- and i'm very serious about this -- is my days of working on a major piece of legislation and work your heart out for weeks getting ready for the debate, you're so proud of your amendment, you have worked with the other side, you have republicans, you have democrats, you've vetted it with all the different input and organizations, you have worked so hard on your amendment and then we come to the bill, we can't discuss any amendments that people have worked hard to work out the problems. we can only discuss the problem amendments. and it's not the right way to legislate. it's not the way the senate was created. it's not the way congress can function. and it is a disservice to every one of our constituents.

there are lots of arrangements and understandings and compromises that go on off this senate floor and that is what senators do all day long. and i'm proud to be a senator. and i work with my colleagues and we work throughout the day, late at night, in meetings and say, listen, i had this great idea. oh, i think that's a wonderful idea, it will improve the bill. can we work on it together? our staffs that work very hard, spend hours and hours on the phone talking with people, negotiating only to be told that those amendments that people have really, really worked on and really eliminated all opposition by being open-minded, thoughtful, and willing to compromise, those amendments go to the back of the line. and only those amendments that have no chance of passing, that do not have bipartisan support

get to be discussed on the senate floor. and you know, mr. president, that's not the senate i signed up for. so i'm not whining, i'm just saying i'm going to use my power to change the senate and i'm starting right now. i'm not doing that anymore. the people that i represent are exhausted by it. i'm getting exhausted by it. my staff is exhausted by it. and it is rewarding very bad behavior. so the worse your amendment is, the more controversial your amendment is, the least likely to get any votes on the other side, you get to go first and the rest of everybody that's done it sort of the old-fashioned way, the way we're supposed to do it, the way you learn about it in school, the way your parents teach you, the way you observe other great senators, we come here and can't even get in the queue. and then when you do kind of in

this new system of rewarding bad behavior, those of us -- and it's a big group of us; it's not just me, it's a very large group, and republicans as wel well -- we get told, all your amendments that are noncontroversial, that you've worked so hard to put together, great ideas that are, you know, middle of the road and really could actually solve a problem for someone out in america, which is why i thought we should come here, to help solve problems, you all can only get one amendment or you can only get two amendments because we have 240. that's not the way it should work. and i am not going an inch further, not one inch. this is the way it should work. a bill is brought to the floor and everybody files their amendments and senators work really hard with the other side to try to get amendments that both sides could agree to.

because that is a democracy. and then those amendments get identified and those amendments go first. all the other amendments that are like message amendments or controversial amendments, they should get votes. i'm not saying they shouldn't. i'm happy to vote on them. some of them are tough votes. i have no problem with that. what i have a problem with -- and i think if every senator was honest, they have a problem with it, too -- is the good amendments, the noncontroversial amendments, the ones that everybody works on never get a vote and all the bad amendments get the attention and votes. i just don't think that's right and we've got to get back to the regular order -- or not to regular order, we've got to get back -- it's not regular order. we have to get back to collegiality and commonsense and a trust. that is what the senate is best at. and that has been lost, and we better find it pretty quickly of

thquickly.so i'm going to stay . we're not going anywhere. we're not going to go to any unanimous consent until the list of noncontroversial amendments is produced. so the republicans can produce their list, we produce our list of noncontroversial amendments. then the leadership can say to me, senator landrieu, we will voice vote these and everybody will be happy. or they can say, senator landrieu, we have to vote on these individually and we'll do that at the end -- not the end, you know, at some time certain. i'm fine with that. or they can say, we're going to vote on them individually and they all need 60 votes, even though they have 100% of the body, i'd be fine. i'm not trying to be difficult but i am trying to be a senator. and i am trying to say that i, for one, am tired of the bullies on this floor and the -- and the

small group that thinks that on every single, solitary bill, they should get the first amendments, the biggest amendments and we spend all of our time talking about amendments that may be important -- they're not going to pass. that's okay. i don't even mind that. but what i do mind is, after all of us who try to work in a bipartisan fashion have to listen to this bill after bill, day after day but then we can't even get our amendments that are noncontroversial? that's where i draw the line. and, please, don't anybody write, "senator landrieu's on the floor and is pitching a fit because she can't get her amendment." this isn't about my amendment this is about the senate. this is about the senate, noncontroversial amendments cannot even get on any list. why? i don't know. why? why would that be?

how is this possible? no one objects. and i'm going to read just a few that we're talking about. and some of them are mine and i know two others that are by amy klobuchar. one of mine is amendment 1340. it simply reiterates in this bill that everything done with children and families will be done in the best interest of the child. best interest of the child is done in every state, in every court when you're making decisions about families, it's always in the best interest of the child. it is modern child welfare practice. it will just clarify this bill. i don't know of anyone opposing it. and you know what? if someone is opposing it, then take it off the list. just take it off the list. i'm not even opposed to that. i don't think anyone is opposing it. but if they do, they just have to call the democratic cloakroom

and say, "i don't think we should be making decisions in the best interest of the child," i'll take it off the list. but i'm not going to lose this amendment because the senate can't function. there's another amendment that i have with senator coats, and we've worked very hard on this amendment. i had a hearing in my committee as chair of the senate small business committee and our committee worked very hard, like most committees around here, and my members are wonderful. and i believe that when i call a meeting and they come and we spend hours looking at an issue and we actually all come to an agreement, well maybe this is something that we could do, it deserves a chance. but not in the system we have because, again, the amendments that really work, that are noncontroversial, never get discussed, never get in the queue. only the other ones.

so this one senator coats and i have, which is entitled "everify, early adoption for small employees" or the eease act. we even took the extra time to come up with a creative name because we like legislating, we think that's what we're supposed to do. so the eease act is one that i think small businesses will love. it directs d.h.s. to create a mobile app. wouldn't that be convenient for small businesses? picture yourself in your pickup truck out in your field, out in your garage, someone walks up to you and wants a job, you've got a "for hire" sign posted. and the guy comes up to you and says, you know, here's my driver's license, here's my -- my paperwork, and the employer

picks up their iphone, hits a button, goes to the app and it's everify. they know the person is legal, they hire them for a job. how wonderful would that be? that's one of our amendments. you know what? there is enough money in this bill to do that, but the bill doesn't say that now. our amendment would say make a mobile app for everify. small businesses don't have time to run back to the farm, try to dial in on the internet in a rural area, like you know, mr. president, in new mexico, not everybody has high-speed internet. not everybody can go run back to the farm in the middle of the day and then when they come back and they're tired. why don't they just have -- everybody is carrying a pocket communication system. that's an amendment. i don't know what single solitary person on this floor that's against it, but we can't even get a vote on it. and this idea came out of a

roundtable with 24 representatives of really important small business groups, and i tell my committee and i tell people in the congress, you know, my committee's going to be a voice for small business. i hear them. i take what they say, write an amendment and can't get it in the queue. even when no one opposes it. we have another amendment, and this one may be controversial. i don't know. and i would be willing again if somebody says we object because it messes up the compromise that we have. i would maybe even withdraw this amendment after i got to speak about it because i think it's important, or i would be happy to get into any queue any time any day to have a vote on it. this amendment provides an

access lane for small business for h-1b visas because it dawned on me after the bill came out of the judiciary committee and after we had our roundtable that, yes, we were increasing the number of h-1b visas, which i support and most people support in the bill, but it dawned on me and it became apparent to some of the small business advocates that there was no express lane for them. so the seven million small businesses who were, many of them, high-tech companies that are relatively small, some of them are start-ups, 40% of all the patents are held by small business, it kind of dawned on us about a week ago maybe we should have been paying more attention that the h-1b visas might go to all big businesses, and maybe we should have an express lane for the seven million small businesses that don't have a fleet of lawyers and a fleet of human resource people. they are just trying to create jobs in america.

how terrible. they're just the ones creating all the new jobs. could we please maybe help them? i don't think this is controversial, but you know what, maybe someone objects to it. take it off the list. senator klobuchar has two amendments, and i'm sure she has been fighting very hard to get them up, like everyone. these amendments have to do with streamlining and removing obstacles for intercountry adoption. now, you would have to be walking in your sleep to not understand that we have a problem in intercountry adoption. guatemala has closed, vietnam has closed, russia has closed. parents have gone to great expense, i have seen them weeping in the halls of congress begging their congressmen and

women and senators to please help them, they were in the process, in the middle of adoption, they have been matched with a child and the adoption is closed. you know, there are sad stories everywhere in this world, i wish i could fix every one, but you know, mr. president, we can't, but this amendment actually would solve a problem for some families -- not all, but some families that went through the international process, not to help with russia or guatemala, i'm sorry, we haven't come up with a solution for that. no one opposes this amendment. and, you know, it could help hundreds if not thousands of families to eliminate one or two more barriers to intercountry adoption. now, why would we want to do that? i'll tell you why -- because i think it's really important, and i would imagine 100 members of the senate would think it's a very important thing for children to be raised by parents. what a novel extreme idea, that children should actually be with

parents or with a responsible, loving adult. why would the united states sene united states spend any time at all eliminating barriers so that children could be with parents? i don't know. kind of think that's important. i have two children. i'm one of nine siblings. my family made a big impact on me to help me to be the leader that i am today, so i kind of think that's important. so amy files it, senator klobuchar files this amendment -- this bill because she has -- i'm very proud of minnesota, we're all proud of minnesota. minnesota adopts more children per capita internationally than any state in the union. minnesota has a very strong ethic when it comes to this. so do we help minnesota? no. we punish minnesota by not even allowing an amendment that's noncontroversial. so amy has -- senator klobuchar

has people in her state that could be helped by this amendment. i'm certain there are people in louisiana that could be helped. there are people in every state, from new mexico to new york. no one is objecting to it, but we cannot get it on the list. and then there is an interesting problem with some of these adoptive parents because i spend an awful lot of time with them, i'm happy to do it, and they do need champions in congress, and i'm not the only one. you know, senator blunt has been fabulous, senator coats has been fabulous, senator boozman has been fabulous from arkansas, senator shaheen has been terrific, senator klobuchar, senator gillibrand, senator lee lee -- senator levin. you don't hear the senators talking about it as much as you hear me because i am kind of the chairman, so i listen to them and i try to voice our opinions, but trust me, there are many members. these amendments are not controversial, and they will help orphans and they will help

families that are trying to adopt children. could we get on the list of noncontroversial amendments? and there is another amendment that i think is noncontroversial and has to do with a program that is absolutely dysfunctional today, and everyone knows it. it's the eb-5 program. not only is the program dysfunctional and expensive and it's not being operated correctly, the judiciary knows this, and in their bill, in the underlying bill, they have made some great modifications to the program. that is very good, and that's very good legislating. you know why? because if this program could operate correctly and efficiently and transparently and without fraud and corruption, it could create millions of jobs, and the last time i checked there were a few people in louisiana that needed

them. this is not a little thing. this is a big thing. there are people in my state that would cut off their right arm for a good-paying job right now, and that's true in many parts of this country. but instead of taking up an amendment that is noncontroversial, that actually could pass, that creates jobs, we can't take this amendment up because we have to take up the amendments that raise the most ruckus, that create the most firestorm, that satisfy the theatrical needs of some members on the floor, we can't do anything that's kind of boring and noncontroversial and bipartisan. so this amendment would strengthen the work that the judiciary committee did. i literally do not know, it's number 1383, do not know anyone opposing it. so i'm going to read these numbers out because again, i am

not agreeing to unanimous consent for anything until both sides get a list of noncontroversial amendments. and some of these numbers would be number 1338, 1383, 1340, 1261, 1297, potentially there is no opposition to 1406, and there are some others that i think might not be controversial but i haven't completely checked, so i'm not even going to put them on the list. now, the staff may have -- some of these are mine, some of these are other senators. the republican staff may have a list of noncontroversial amendments, and when we get those lists and we can get those in the queue first, then i'm happy for the queue to go on, and if not, we're just going to call cloture and, you know, it's

just not going to work. so i'm supporting the bill, i want my leader to know, and i have to say this but i know he is going to speak, and i most certainly would give the floor to him at this moment, but i'd like to say something about what a wonderful leader i think we have. senator reid, this is no criticism of you. you are the most patient person -- one of the most patient people i have ever observed in my professional life or in my whole life. i honestly do not know how you do your job, because even if the caucus elected me, i would have to decline. i do not have the patience, as you can tell, to do the job of the leader. it would not work. they would never elect me, but i wouldn't accept if they did. but let me tell you something, i hope i'm doing a favor here for the senate, because what i want to do is be a senator, and i have been here long enough to remember when we actually were senators, when we actually could come to the floor with a bill,

sort among ourselves what were really tough amendments, what were kind of sort of tough amendments and what were easy amendments, we would do the easy amendments because that's just the way you legislate and go ahead and get some things done that we all know to do. we have all graduated from college. some of us have master's degrees and ph.d.'s. we do not sit around eating bonbons all day. we're talking to our constituents. that is our job. and we write amendments based on those meetings and conversations because people come to us and say senator, i have a problem, can you fix it. what am i going to say to them? i'd like to, but i can't. i can't fix any of your problems because there is no way to fix them, because i can't even get a simple amendment on the floor on any bill, any day, any week, any month. mr. leader, i've had enough, and i know you have had, too. so i want you to know i am not trying to be difficult, but you know what?

i came here to be a senator, and i'd like to be one again, so i'm just sorry, but until i get a list of uncontroversial amendments, i don't care if they have 20 and we have five. i don't care if we have 20 and they have five, i have no idea. but the ones that are uncontroversial, i want to move forward. and then we can debate all day long how to put the other ones in any kind of list, and you can put mine last just to show how tried to -- i'm just trying to show how generous i'm trying to be here. you can take all of my amendments that are controversial and put them last, but i want the amendments that are not controversial to go first, and i'm not going to -- i'm not going to yield until they do. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i can remember when the senator first came here ten years ago, approximately, and there was an issue dealing with the military, and mary landrieu was a new senator, and she was

over here, she had her desk over on the other side then, and she went on, wow, it was quite an impressive speech. and so i called her for a long time after that military mary. and the reason that is such a memorable time for me is her good father, mo landrieu, was watching his daughter, and i called him and told him what a great job she had done, and of course he was very proud of all ten of his children but especially that night of his daughter mary. so i have no problem with mary landrieu coming to the floor and doing what she thinks is appropriate. she is absolutely right. we have a lot of trouble now getting simple things done. on a bill like this, it used to be that we would have the two managers whip through all these amendments that were just accepted. i listened to senator landrieu

talk about the best interests of the child. now, who in the world would oppose that? but the problem we have here, mr. president, we get a lot of amendments pending. it's hard to get rid of them. so senator leahy, a very experienced legislator, senator grassley, their staffs, maybe, i hope, i hope, what senator landrieu has done is maybe give the impetus to do what we used to do routinely and that is the amendments that couldn't be taken care of here on the floor, they would have what was called a manager's amendment where the two managers would agree on matters, most of which were noncontroversial, sometimes there was a little trading going on, this one is a republican amendment, this one is a democratic amendment, we really aren't totally loving this one, we don't totally love

that one, but let's put them together and have that part of the manager's package. but we haven't done that much anymore. we can't agree on some even simple things. she's right. so i hope, mr. president, that the night will bring the ability for us to either move to these amendments of hers or have a manager's amendment. so i'm here to inform the senate this: one of my goals is to work really hard to try to finish as much as of this bill as we can as soon as we can. i've told everyone many times, we are going to finish this immigration bill before we leave here on july fourth, for the july fourth recess. we're going to do that. i hope that we don't have to work this friday, saturday, sunday. i hope that's the case. but right now, we don't know. the odds are that right now that's where we're headed. i'm going to come here tomorrow morning at 111:30 and i'll get

recognized and i'm going to move to table one of the pending amendments. i'll get everybody over here and maybe in the light of the day prior to noon people will be more reasonable and by that time maybe i'll have a better idea as to how we're going to move forward. as i've said before, mr. president, i've said in the past we'd file cloture friday, saturday, or sunday. or maybe even monday. but right now it looks like we may have to move that up a day and may have to file cloture on something tomorrow. so i have really appreciated everyone's movement on this bill today, i think there's basically a good feel that there is an end in sight. we have a number of senators who have been working with the gang of eight to come up with some suggestions and hopefully they'll have an amendment that they can offer here tomorrow sometime that will put forth what they think they need to improve this bill. the forecast has been for the last several days, it's been on

border security. so let's see what they have to offer on border security. the one thing that everyone has to understand, i'm happy to look at anything that they think will help border security. but it cannot get in the way of the integrity of this bill, which is a pathway to citizenship, which the american people want. so we're going to continue working on this, the staff will work on it all night, the managers of the bill and others interested in this including the gang of eight will work on this, there's calls made to the white house tonight. so at 11:30 we'll see if there is 35 a path forward to getting this bill in a position where we can finish it next week without working the weekend. but if we can't, the weekend is still in play. ms. landrieu: if the senator would yield? i think that's an excellent

suggestion, senator. let me be very complimently, sincerely to you for your patience and i really appreciate the compliments because as you know, there are many other senators that feel just like i do. it's time to be senators again, and it's just time to trust one another to at least move amendments that are noncontroversial, that no one objects to and then we can then whittle the list down to those plead mr. leader, that do need debate and discussion and as you said, a little trading has to go on, that is normal. what's not normal is coming to this floor and those of us that have worked so hard to get cosponsors, to tap down resistance, to modify, to compromise, we just don't get any time at all because i don't know, i don't know who decided we don't. but i have enough power here to try to change it and i'm going to. i just want to say in closing, i have in front of me a list

which i'm going to put into the record of 24 amendments by begich, cardin, collins, hagan, heller, kirk:, klobuchar, landrieu, leahy, hatch, nelson, reed, stabenow, udall, udall, and a few others, about 24 that the republicans and the democrats think no one objects to. i would like to ask the leader if he would review this list tonight, ask the manager of the bill if they would review this list tonight and if we could just get these noncontroversial amendments agreed to, either by voice vote, individual vote, en bloc vote, it doesn't matter to me, it could be this week or next week. but these amendments have been worked on by members of both sides genuinely. we don't want any headlines, we don't want any press releases mr. leader, we would just like our amendments passed. there is no opposition to them and i would hope that i will

provide this list to you and hopefully tomorrow morning when everybody is calmed down a little bit maybe that's the way we can proceed. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i say to my friend from louisiana, i reiterate what i said earlier, i understand her concern. the only thing i would say in regard to her statement is that we ought to do things in the normal way. i'm sad to report that the normal way is what we've been doing the last six or eight months and that's a sad commentary. it's become the normal way. i would hope -- i'd be happy to review that list, i'll do it and looking at every amendment. there are some people who don't want this bill to pass. they don't want to do anything to improve the bill. and no matter what side you're on, who is offering the amendment, these are people who offered these amendments in good faith, that they want to improve the bill. understand, some people don't want the bill improved. they just want the bill to go away. i will work on this and i

haven't talked to senator leahy tonight but i will talk to senator grassley earlier today but i heard the senator loud and clear and island aisle do the best i can. i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with -- morning business with senators, with senators permitted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask the senate weed to calendar number 86, s. 795. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 579, a bill to collect the secretary of state to develop a strategy to obtain observer status for taiwan at the triennial international civil aviation organization assembly and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask that the senate proceed to the

consideration of the following bills: cremed cl 45, s. in 23, 46, s. 25, s. -- calendar number 47, s. 26, calendar number 48, s. 112, calendar number 49, s. 103, calendar number 50, 157, s. 157, calendar number 53, s. 244, calendar number 5, calendar number 56, s. 304, calendar number 59, s. 35 , calendar number, calendar number 62, s. 393, and calendar number 63, s. 459. the presiding officer: is there an objection to proceeding to the measures en bloc? without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the bills be agreed to, all of them that i just read into the record, and the motion to's re-consider be laid on the table

with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: see, mr. president, we can do some things. we just passed some bills. okay. i ask consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate proceed to s. 170. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 170, commemorating john lewis on the 50th anniversary of his chairmanship of the student nonviolent coordinating committee. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, we whipped right through this, but john lewis in my lifetime is one of the finest patriotic, courageous people i've ever known. i have so much admiration for this man, i've told him this personally, i want the record

to be spread with this. he is a person who has a very, very -- as a very, very young man wanted to change the world in his own way and in his own way, he's helped change the world. i so admire him. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. s. res. 175. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 175, observing juneteenth independence day, june 19, 1865, as a day on which slavery finally came to an end in the united states. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be frootd, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: okay. i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s. res. 176. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 176

designating july 12, 2013, as collector car appreciation day and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the senate proceed to s. res. 177. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 177, honoring the pren entrepreneurial spirit of small business concerns in the united states during national small business week which begins on june 17, 2013. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

mr. reid: mr. president, i ask consent the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: pursuant to the prefer order i ask the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 475, the bill read a third time and patched, and the senate proceed to vote -- i'm sorry, let's start over again, mr. president. we're going to h.r. 475. pursuant to the previous order i ask the senate proceed to consideration of h.r. 475, it be read a third time, the senate proceed to vote on passage as provided up under the previous order, upped. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 475, an act to amend the internal revenue code to include vaccines against influenza within the definition of taxable vaccines. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the bill will be considered read three times. all those in favor say aye.

those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the bill is passed. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 on thursday, june 30, 2013, following the prayer and pledge, the journal be approved, morning business be deemed spired, the time for the two leaders reserved for use later in the day and that the time until 11:30 be equally divided between the majority and minority. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: senators should be then prepared for a roll call vote at 11:30 tomorrow morning, i'm doing that in an effort to make progress on this bill. we'll try to work through additional amendments tomorrow.

additional votes are expected and that's an understatement. mr. president, i again tell everyone we're diagnose doing our utmost to try to make it as convenient as possible for people to have the amendments determined by a vote or some other matters --, some other manner, but we may have to be here this weekend. i hope that's not the case. i've alerted people for days now. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.