message right now. and i'm wondering to what extent do you think now that your exit strategy is going to be that much more challenging? because even in this small period of time when you haven't done all that much, you've seen this kind of reaction. >> well, it is important for us to communicate. it's particularly important when we have an unusual economic situation where i think the standard relationships are not applying the way they have, where we're using unconventional tools, where we're using forward guidance. so i guess i agree with you that our communication is going to be very important. we hope that the, again, the key point i've tried to make today is that our policies are tied to how the outlook evolves, and that should provide some comfort to markets, because they will understand -- i hope -- that we will be providing whatever support is necessary. if the economy does not improve

along the lines that we expect, we'll provide additional support. if financial conditions evolve in a way that's inconsistent with economic recovery, we will provide support. but -- and in that way we hope to increase confidence both among market parts, but also among investors and private consumers and other people in the economy. so, but, again, your point is well taken that we are in a position where the simple adjustment by 25 basis points to the federal funds rate seems like a long-ago experience, and we are in a more complex type of situation. ..

>> it is certainly true that it has taken time to do these regulations. number of reasons for that. the first is they're inherently, many of them are quite complicated, the volcker rule involves little distinctions between hedging and marketmaking and proprietary trading. many of them involve rules to coordinate and cooperate and agree on language. the q r m rule, six agencies are involved in making that rule and the third fact, the third and basic issues we have to do our homework, we have to get these

right and that means extended comment periods, lots of information from the public and reviewing those comments and doing everything we can and make sure there are concerns are okay. it is unfair to is a 30% of rules are completed and most of the rules even if they are not completed our powered vans and that is true for major rules. they are very close to completing basel iii. ltd. the deal of progress on local rules and that do anticipate that being done this year, we are making the additional progress on 165-66 advisory rules on capital surcharges, these are coming relatively soon, at least during the current year.

and once they are -- and so on. even as this is going on, we are not ignoring the health and safety of the banking system. since 2009 we have been doing these rigorous stress tests which are part of the dodd-frank rules and the amount of capital u.s. banks hold has roughly doubled the largest banks since 2009 and indeed the largest banks, most of them appear to be basel iii compliant so we are working with the banks to assure their safety and help them move in the directions they know they have to be going even as the rules themselves are being finalized. is an ongoing process, but i expect to see more rapid completion going forward in the next few quarters.

>> we go to steve next. >> peter barnes, fox business. one of the highlights of the conference in jackson hole every year our remarks by the chairman, you, you are not going this year because you have a conflict in your personal schedule, but some have taken that as a sign that you may not be staying on the job for another term. could you comment on that and give us more explanation as to why you are not going to be in jackson hole for the first time? >> i won't comment on my personal plans but i will say there's a perception that the jackson hole conference is the federal reserve system conference, it is not. it is sponsored by one of 12 reserve banks, anyone of the 12 reserve banks as conferences, meetings and this is the one i have gone to most of any reserve bank. is not inappropriate to go to

different conferences, different meetings and essentials meet all the constituents that i have in these different banks. that is one reason certainly. >> mr. chairman, a number of your colleagues reflected in the new projections expect the unemployment rate to get down to 6.5% next year, which is your threshold for considering raising the funds rate and yes the fomc has also said it expects to keep rates very accommodative for a considerable time after purchases and recovery has strengthened and yet here we are in the middle of 2013, have not even begun to scaled-back asset purchases. you personally addressed this but could there be a conflict

between on the one hand the asset purchase program, on the other hand the funds rate guidance policy. could they conflict? could you elaborate? >> i hope the unemployment rate comes down so fast that this becomes a problem. i would point out a couple things. one is there is a range of estimates all based on each individual's idea of optimal policy so policy assumptions may not be the same. some are as low as 6.5 but as i said in my earlier answer the threshold is not a trigger so evidently if you look at the policy expectations given in the diagram you will see the strong majority of fomc participants expect rates to below at the end of 2015 so that is not inconsistent. just saying people looking at a

variety of factors including inflation which is predicted to be quite low, and other labor market factors thinking when it would be appropriate to increase rates. >> over to greg. >> thank you. cnn money. first of all i should tell you your analogy to landing the economy on an aircraft carrier worry to me a little bit because from personal experience i find it is always a bit jarring to land on an aircraft carrier. i want to talk about mortgage-backed securities. you mentioned during your comments here at that if i understood correctly you are not going to dispose of the mortgage-backed securities you have on the book during this period of normalization. i have heard many people on wall street and elsewhere say it right now the federal reserve is the market for mortgage-backed

securities. which means that it is kind of a warped market right now and i am just wondering how focus are you on mortgage-backed securities and is larger world market, what used to be a world market for mortgage-backed securities and what i am saying is has the ground shifted from under his in terms of mortgage-backed security world on a permanent basis or at least a long-term basis because of the devastating nature of what happened a few years ago? >> we're still only a fraction of the total holdings of mortgage-backed securities but more relevant, as part of our assessment of ongoing assessment of potential costs of various asset purchase programs we pay close attention to market functioning and our assessment is the m b s market is quite healthy market in terms of the

spread and execution times and number of people on both sides of the market, there are reads now that are building up there and be as portfolios, plenty of real money investors holding and the s. so if the market was breaking down in some when that would be affected we would have to take into account but our assessment and we're in the market quite a bit so we have a lot of information about it our assessment is the market is still working quite well and our purchases are not disrupting the normal price discovery and liquidity functions of that market. i think that the events of five years ago have a long-term effect. the bills in congress that would change reform, g s es for example and ultimately would change market for

mortgage-backed securities decreasing the amount of private placements or changing the institutional structure so we may hold up some securities which in some sense are left over from a previous era at some point, but nevertheless for the time being they are the mortgage-backed securities market, that is basically it. we are legally allowed to buy and own those security so we found it useful to do that and we believe it contributed to a mortgage rate and a stronger housing market. that has been our rationale. to come back to your question we do not see any significant deterioration in market functioning. the things you can point us to would be very interesting. >> in terms of government backing to the dncs of mortgage-backed securities is

there a concern, a legitimate concern that without government backing of this market in some way that because the private market seems to move with much more rapidity than the government backing and government purchases that moving the government out of this backup role on mortgage-backed securities would be a real problem, really change the nature of getting a mortgage in america. some said the government wasn't behind it it would be the end of the 30 your mortgage. >> these issues are being debated. number of bills in congress would eliminate them in some cases or place them with backstop government's support as opposed to 100% government credit guarantees. these are debate we are all having about the future of the

u.s. mortgage market. is entirely possible if there is major change in the government's role in the mortgage market that we might see a different structure in mortgages. other countries have different structures and they have in many cases the same war similar rates that we do so is possible we may find a different structure is better for some people. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was wondering if you could go back over what you said about plans later this year, why isn't capering tightening, it seems many people in the market as soon as you push forward, when facing the first rate hike? thank you. >> as i tried to explain in my

opening remarks, our plans depend on the economic scenario and how it evolves and i tried to to explain how our asset purchases would evolve if the most likely forecast where to take place. something else will no doubt happen. the basic forecast is one which is basically as we pointed out earlier, moderately optimistic forecast, both picked up as we passed through period of fiscal restraint where unemployment continues to fall and a gradual pace that has been since last september and made some progress since last september and inflation rises slowly towards 52%, those of the conditions that define his baseline forecast. in that case as i described it we would expect probably too slow moderate purchases later this year, through the early

part of next year and ending in that scenario from the middle of the year, important to understand if we do that, that would basically saying we had a relatively decent outcome in terms of sustained improvement, and would be less. to answer your other question, the federal reserve at normal times at the federal funds rate, some traders expect 50 basis points and might -- fighting somewhat but nevertheless we would say the funds rate by 25 basis points, by the same token we head to our holdings, we do believe there is room for debate

that the primary effect of our purchases is through the stock that we hold, stocks are withdrawn from markets and prices of those assets have to adjust supply and demand and the yields go down so that seems to be consistent with the idea of adding liquidity and accommodation to the system. >> the economist. >> mr. chairman, i am trying to understand the view, a little surprised about the committee's needs about accepting, inflation is remarkably low, the headline on ecb, euro projections rising

to at most 2%. expectations with a couple of high percentage points. and the expectations in the real range. and the recovery they were concerned about, wouldn't you say the other things are equal on the accelerator. and low inflation -- and it is slowly. there are issues about there are

a few reasons that are not that meaningful economically, temporary movement in medical prices, temporary movement in non market prices, things of that sort and a fomc is somewhat higher so we expect inflation to come back up, that is our forecast. it is entirely wrong to say we are not concerned about it, we are concerned about it and we would love to get inflation of to our target and that will be a factor in thinking about asset purchases. and the employment and price stability and why we d flying price stability is zero. and we need to have enough inflation that there is some real interest rates to move. i don't disagree with your basic

argument. >> a question we all have. and it is designed for economic yields close to the economy. in the beginning of this with the radius of a commodity front that is subdued but it is around $99 and domestic production and a signal to bring prices back and people on the street to what degree is it actually inflating commodity prices have been able to filter is that out, filters

on why that is so flat in the economy? >> as i recall when we introduced the second round of qe2 in november of 2010 there was a lot of increased in many prices at that time and a variety of complaining that said it was pumping up commodity prices and that was negative for people around world and we argued at the time that the effects of the federal reserve policy was pretty small hand operated through an effect, operated through growth expectations, stronger commodity prices and this time around we purchased and are in the process of purchasing a lot more than we

did in qe2. we have not seen much increase in commodity prices. they are way off from last year. it is different from others which is kind of hung up but a lot of commodity prices have fallen further and the reason i would give for that is the emerging markets, china, the rest of asia and other parts of the world plus europe are softer so global commodity is weaker and that explains the bulk of why commodity prices have not risen so much. that is consistent with our story that the defect of asset purchases and money prices are not zero but i don't think it is nearly as big as some folks have suggested. in terms of wages i think that is consistent with our view that unemployment at 7.6% is pretty

far from where we should be satisfied, maximum employment again between 5%, and 6% though these difficult numbers to estimate so weak wage growth except in a few places and narrow occupations is indicative to me of l.a. market that remains quite flat where that justifies together with low inflation justifies why we are maintaining highly accommodative policy. >> the money market proposal is as comprehensive as the plan you and the financial stability oversight council endorsed and the think they should defer to the sec or press for more? >> i am glad to see the sec has taken up money market reform.

it is by far the best outcome for the sec to do it, the area where they have the expertise and the experience. in terms of the actual proposal they put out, just a proposal for comment, one of the key proposals they are floating is qualitatively similar to one of the proposals that was in the f stock suggestions. we have not yet reviewed this in enough detail to give a view but i know for sure by putting on a floating in a the proposal they are moving in the right direction and i am hopeful what comes allen will be something that is sufficient to meet the important need of stabilizing money market funds.

>> nick daniels paper, thank you, chairman. we have seen great brevity in japanese markets, liquidity, j.t. be and foreign-exchange. some say this is due to uncertainty to price exemption. others say this is due blank -- lack of confidence in banco japan's monetary policy. how do you view the bank of japan's efforts to? support bank of japan policy and another question is how much do you pay attention to the international market when you consider the strategy? >> i think the volatility is linked to the bank of japan's efforts. it would seem logical since in earlier episodes when the fed

was doing asset purchases and the be o.j. was not doing anything there was no volatility so it seems logical the change is the change in the o.j. --boj policy, deflation is the problem in japan for many years which means that expectations are very much public expectations of a continuing deflationary, takes very aggressive policies to break those expectations and that inflation up to 2% target the bank of japan should be set. that aggressiveness in the early stages of this process where investors are still learning about the reaction function is not all that surprising there is volatility. also the j t b markets are less volatile. there is something they need to pay close attention to but on

the hole, it is important for japan to attack deflation and i agree with three arrows, the idea that besides breaking deflation is important for fiscal and structural issues as well so i am supportive of my colleague and what japan is doing even though it does have some effects on our economy as well. there are a lot of reasons why emerging markets and others and volatility, some of them have to do with changes in growth expectations, and the emerging markets, some has to do with a risk on, risk off behavior. it has to do with monetary policy, advanced economy which includes the united states. we pay attention to that. i frequently meet with

colleagues in emerging markets at the g 20 and we discuss these issues. the right way to think of it is the g-7 and the g 20 have noted when u.s. monetary policy is out of japan, trying to help this economy grow. global recovery and strong global growth depends on vote u.s. growing at a reasonable rate. there is some defect, the net effect is strong u.s. economy and the emerging markets recognize that. anything we do through communication and other means, and overflow effects or side effects we will certainly do.

>> mr. chairman, bankrate.com. you talked about being an uncharted territory with policy and these news conferences that began two years ago as well, there is that mix of communication and policy. insofar as the fomc decided not to include information about adjusting the asset purchases today how do you walk that fine line and why did the fomc decided to lead it to you to describe that as opposed to putting it down in some words? thank you. >> we don't think of this as a change in policy. what i was deputized to do was to make somewhat clearer implications of existing policy and try to explain better how the policy would evolve in various economic scenarios and that is difficult to put into a

very terse fomc statement. going forward, some of these elements, we can make some useful, will begin to appear in the fomc statements, entirely possible, it seems the right tactic in this case to explain these fairly subtle contingencies in a context where i could answer questions and respond to any misunderstandings that might occur. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> you are watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs, weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate, on weeknights watch keep public policy events endeavour we can the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules on our web site at you conjoin in the conversation on social media sites. >> for the u.s. senate continues

work today on the immigration bill, it increases border security and workplace enforcement and allows additional high and low skilled workers into the country and creates a 13 year path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are already in the country. at 11:30 eastern senators will vote on tabling one of five amendments lined up for floor action today. just which amendment has yet to be announced. now for live coverage of the u.s. senate live on c-span2. the chaplain: let us pray. o divine redeemer, who stands outside the closed doors of human hearts, knocking repeatedly; give our lawmakers the grace to open themselves to you. may they open their ears in order to receive your wisdom and

to follow your plan. may they open their eyes so that they can see the unfolding of your loving providence in our nation and world. lord, may they open their minds to welcome creative strategies of making america a shining example of your purposes. may they open their hands, sharing their blessings to enrich humankind. may they open their hearts so that you can keep them from deviating from the path of integrity. we pray in your merciful name. amen.

the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., june 20, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable brian e. schatz, a senator from the state of hawaii, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks, i ask consent that the senate resume consideration of

s. 744, the comprehensive immigration bill. aeupbd ask that the time -- and i ask that the time until noon be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees and i be recognized at noon. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i indicated last night that i was going to create a vote at 11:30 this morning, but senators mikulski and shelby have asked that we put that over a little bit, so we're going to do that at noon because they're having important work on the appropriations committee. we'll continue to work through amendments on the bill today. hopefully we can have a, at that time at noon have a path forward on this legislation. we have a number of amendments that are now pending. we hope to have a way of disposing of those. i hope there's something that can be worked out. senator landrieu and others have indicated they want some amendments. i hope we can work that out so we can move forward on the bill. so, we'll continue to work through the amendments, as i

indicated, today. the first roll call vote, as i've indicated, will be about noon today. excuse me, mr. president. we've made some significant advances on the historic immigration legislation that's now before us. i'm confident, i'm hopeful that we can pass this bill. i've indicated on a number of occasions that we're going to do everything within our power to finish this bill before the july 4th recess. i've had conversations with the republican leader and other republican senators, and of course my democratic senators, and i think that's the goal. and i have no reason that we shouldn't be able to meet that goal. we've made progress on amendments. i expect and i hope that a group of republican senators working with the gang of eight will come

forward with a way that they think we'll move forward on this bill dealing with the border. as i said, i'm willing to look at any reasonable amendment as i think we all are. i hope something can be worked out with my republican colleagues and the gang of eight. i've said before and i say it again, i appreciate very much the gang of eight for their diligent work both in crafting this legislation and shepherding it through this transparent and thorough process. and it goes without saying that the chairman of the committee, senator leahy, has been remarkably focused on how to get this done. mr. president, one of my favorite senators who i've had the opportunity to work with over the years has been chuck grassley, the senator from iowa. he's the ranking member of that committee. even though we disagree on occasion on how to move forward,

i've never -- i never remember having an unpleasant conversation with chuck grassley. so i appreciate his working on this. as i've indicated, he and senator leahy don't agree on parts of this immigration bill, but that's the way things are and should be in this legislation, on all legislation. but he's been cooperative in helping us meet his expectations and move forward. mr. president, a century ago a person born in the united states could reasonably expect to live to their late 40's. i repeat: 100 years ago a person born in the united states could reasonably expect to live until their late 40's. today most people born in the united states can live till their late 70's, early 80's.

that's the way it is. look how things have changed over these last 100 years. imagine adding more than three decades of life expectancy just in this period of time. this gift is due to a number of things, but the most significant reason is that we've had 125 years of research done by one of the great institutions of america, the national institutes of health. due to their research, fewer people die of cancer, for example, each year than the year before. it's stunning, mr. president, the advances we've made. if one looks at their personal life, the things that have happened in your families, think what it would have been a few years ago.

a terrible automobile accident or a dread disease like cancer, think of the work that's been done by these scientists to help us advance the cause of curing people. over the last half century deaths from heart disease and stroke have fallen by 60%. that's just in 50 years. because of the work done there, the national institutes of health, scientists understand the heart about as well as any part of your body. now these wonderful scientists are now beginning to study the brain, much more complicated than the heart, but still the heart is very complicated. they're going to begin a study on this to find out everything they can about the brain. the most extensive research project in the world is dealing with the brain.

it's already started at the national institutes of health. mr. president, antiviral therapies developed by n.i.h.-funded projects and researchers, now they have diagnosed hiv-aids to the extent that when i was out there last -- on monday, and i talked to them. when i first came to the senate if someone was diagnosed with aids, that was a death sentence. not anymore because of the work done there. they can count their life expectancy in multiple decades when in the past it was months. it would be impossible to count the lives that n.i.h. innovation has already saved, and

researchers are not close to realizing that limits the modern medicine. i was fortunate to have the opportunity, as i indicated, to visit the facility on monday morning. these facilities in bethesda, maryland, are stunningly important to visit, to witness the fascinating work that they do there. i toured the clinic, one of the clinics where the best medical researchers in the world are trying to solve the world's most elusive medical mysteries. there's 27 different institutes that make up the national institutes of health that are studying diseases that have yet to be identified, let alone be cured. they have one institute; that's what they deal with, on diseases they don't know what the cause of them is. they have -- i met a little girl there seven years old, beautiful

child. they're trying to figure out why she has the problem she has. they have made some progress, but they don't know yet. and once they identify and they have -- they found reasons in that young lady and others that have certain things that are missing. i'm not a scientist. i can't probably do justice to this. but there are certain things in the body, gene sequencing in the body, that something's missing or something is added like a protein that shouldn't be there. they can identify this, and that's tremendous that they can do that. but on a number of these diseases, even though they have identified what causes it, they don't know for sure how to fix it. that's what they're doing there. in addition to the work being conducted by the nearly 6,000 scientists that work there, these are labs located on their campus.

and it is a huge campus. they award not only the work they do there, but they award thousands of grants each year to more than 300,000 researchers across the country. most of them are university based, but not all of them. these scientists look for the next breakthrough for treatments they can do with drugs and even cures. they're reaching out for the next advancement to, borrow abraham lynn -- abraham lincoln's words, add years to our lives as well as life to our years. the arbitrary across-the-board cuts of the mean sequester have hit n.i.h. very, very hard. the institutes have cut $1.55 billion from their budget this year alone. think of the work that is not

being done there because of that. the little girl that i met there, think of the work that is not going to be done with little girls and boys like her because there's a, this year alone $1.5 billion cut from their program. what this means, among other things, is that n.i.h. will award 700 fewer grants this year than last putting the next revolutionary treatment at risk, whatever it might be. faced with diminished funding opportunities and uncertain future promising young scientists abandon the research field altogether. a person that is the director of the national institutes of health, dr. francis collins, the father of the gene sequencing that we now look in the future to treat literally every disease, this wonderful man who,

mr. president, could make a fortune by moving out of scientific endeavors, has decided that's his life's work. but not only does dr. collins feel that way, but everyone that works there. they're doing things to help us, our families, our friends, america, and literally the world. and it's very, very sad to me that these wonderful people are dedicating their lives to not how much money they can make, but how much better they can make people feel and what they can do to cure diseases, are looking for other places. mr. president, my friend -- i'm sorry. one of my -- someone that works for me here in washington, his

best friend is one of the leading experts, if not the leading expert in the world on a disease called melanoma. cancer. and he's not applying for grants anymore at n.i.h. because you can't do this work on a one- to two-year basis. it has to be a long term so you can do the research. not only that, mr. president, people that work there are leaving the institution. n.i.h. researchers are currently studying cancer drugs that zero in on a tumor with fewer sickening side effects. and i say that -- sickening side effects. the capitol physician is a wonderful man, dr. brian monahan. he was a professor, taught medicine. he is a navy admiral, and he is board-certified in hematology,

internal medicine and oncology. and as some know, my wife has been through a very brutal bout with breast cancer. he told me that -- and landra was really sick lots of time, really, really sick. but he said just a few years ago, they had to admit women to the hospital because they couldn't stop vomiting because of the medicine they were taking. we've made progress there. that doesn't happen often anymore, mr. president. as sick as my wife was, she wasn't as sick as she would have been a few years ago. at this wonderful facility, they're developing a vaccine to fight every strain of influenza without a yearly shot, saving money and lives. on a green board there at the institute, a man drew a picture

and showed me and my staff what happens when influenza strikes, and the reason we need now yearly shots for flu. but we're very close to having one shot to take care of flu all the time. this flu isn't anything to not worry about. in 1918, 118 million people died because of flu. 100 million. we have a couple brands of new right now that are potentially very, very damaging. and she i these scientists are , very close to having a vaccine that will take care of flu shots -- take care of flu with one shot for all of us. they're conducting clinical trials that help identify and treat those at risk of developing recallly infordevelot

alzheimer's. mr. president, many, many years ago i was at an event in las vegas. next to me was a physician, and i was a new senator, and he said, you and congress need to do something about alzheimer's. otherwise you're going to bankrupt america. and with people living longer, there's more alzheimer's coming all the time. we've made progress. we still have a long ways to go. these innovations have the possibility not only to save lives but to save us all billions of dollars each year on medical care. the n.i.h. has made an intellectual and economic leader the world over. everybody looks at n.i.h. as the premier research facility for disease. but the senseless meat ax cuts that we call sequester puts all

n.i.h. does at risk. as we, this wonderful great country of ours, is slashing investments in medical research, lashinslashing, our competitorse redoubling their efforts. china -- 25% increase in medical research. we're cutting billions. in just two years with the sequester deal we will cut almost $4 billion. china is increasing theirs by 25%. india by 20%. south korea, germany, brazil -- 10%. and we're whacking ours, cutting. these wonderful, wonderful scientists -- he's these countries -- and all they're trying to do is try to duplicate our success, replicate our success.

we're banning -- while they're doing that we're banning developments. but it takes years of trial, and years of air frankly, years of process of elimination. one of the directors talked about spinal cord injuries. we're making progress. something they thought a few years ago worked really well, further tests said it works only a little bit, not like they thought it would. even when sign tiforts know the cause -- even when scientists know the cause of a disease, it takes an average of 13 years to develop a drug to treat that. these shortsighted cuts in research fund willing cost us vbvaluable cures tomorrow. while these costs may not be felt this year, or this decade,

their long-term consequences may be devastating. the scientists are going to feel it really quick because some of them are leaving, mr. president. imagine if we had neglected our commitment to finding treatments for cancer, heart disease or stroke a few years ago. imagine if we had abandoned our commitment to treatment for hiv-aids. think of the people that are sick and burden, but think of -k and dying. imagine, mr. president, lives cut short. we can all agree that reducing our deficit is a valuable goal and we'vedon a good job -- $2.5 trillion. but we should reduce the deficit by making smart investments, not by making shortsighted cuts that cause pain, suffering, and death. there's simply no price tag you can put on that, mr. president.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: a few months back one of our democratic colleagues warned of a huge train wreck on the horizon. the implementation of obamacare. and yesterday received another warning as obamacare speeds down the tracks. this one came from the government accounting office, which highlighted a number of missed deadlines that cast doubt on the ability of the administration to even get the law up and running by october 1. of course, the g.a.o. is not the first to issue such warnings.

some of us have been sounding a similar call literally for years. what we've said is that obamacare is set to become a bureaucratic nightmare. most of the law's key provisions haven't even been implemented yet. not a single american has signed up for an exchange. and already it's turning into one big mess. it wasn't hard to see this coming. we're talking about a 2,700-page piece of legislation. we're talking about a law that's already generated more than 20,000 pages of regulations, literally a red tape tower seven-feet tall. and we're talking about an edict that proposes to alter one of the most personal, private aspects of our lives in a fundamental way. so it doesn't take an expert to understand what that leads to.

reams of paperwork, a massive, new bureaucracy, the coordination of numerous government agencies, including, of course, the i.r.s. and it can't be done without the people the government is attempting to regulate -- the doctors, the hospitals, states, small businesses, hundreds of millions of americans actually having a clue how to comply. nobody knows how to comply with this thing. the law is just maddeningly complex. so, of course, obamacare is going to be a mess -- it is going to be a mess. we said it would be, and actually it already is. and yet earlier this month the president said that obamacare was -- quote -- "working the way iter-- "working the way it's supposed to." that is literally what he said.

maybe that's why just yesterday a survey of americans showed only 19% -- fewer than one in five -- believe that obamacare will make their family better off. only 19%. and it found a much greater number -- roughly half of americans -- worried about losing the health care coverage they already have. now, there was another survey released, too, a survey of small business owners. it found that 41% of small business owners said they'd frozen hiring -- literally quit hiring people -- because of obamacare. 41% of small businesses. about 20% said they'd already reduced their workforces because of it. 40% quit hiring people. 20%, reducing workforce because of obamacare. and, remember, this is a law that's still being implemented and that many businesses already seem to be laying people off. i hope that's not a preview of what we'll see once obamacare

actually comes online p. but given the evidence thus far, it's hard to draw a different conclusion. the kentucky retail federation recently cited obamacare as the thing having the most impact on their businesses' ability to grow. as the leader put it, the companies in his federation are hesitant to take on new staff or to invest in their own business growth until they know how much health care is going to cost. so if this is the law that's working the way it's supposed to then it's obviously a very bad law. and it's congress's duties to repeal bad laws, and i hope that it will. i hope my dream democratic fries will finally work with us to do that -- to do just that, because we can't do it without them. they have the majority, and if they can muster the will to admit their mistake, i hope they can also find the will to work

with us to start fresh on health care. this time i hope they will work together with republicans to get something done for the american people. in my view, that means pursuing effective, step-by-step reforms that cannot only lower costs but that can also be implemented effectively and understood completely by constituents we were sent here to serve. i know my constituents back in kentucky would expect as much of us, and frankly they should expect that much of us. now, mr. president, on another matter that i've talked repeatedly about over the last few weeks, there is a cloud hanging over the senate, an unease throughout the senate, entirely on the republican side and some on the democratic side as well. and that is this: we had a discussion at the beginning of this congress about what the rules of the senate would be for this congress -- this year and next year. after that bipartisan discussion, we passed two rules

changes and two standing orders, and the majority leader said we had determined what the rules of the senate were going to be for the next two years. he gave his word that we would not break the rules of the senate in order to change the rules of the senate, the so-called nuclear option. and yet he continued to hint that maybe that was not what he had in mind. and so what i and my colleagues are asking the majority leader to do is to stand by his word. your word is the currency of the realm here in the senate. we expect the majority leader to keep his word. his word was given, unequivocally, in january of this year. in fact, it was given in january two years before that for the next two congresses. so it's time to lift this cloud that's hanging oife hanging ove,

for all the members of the senate to understand what the rules are for this congress because we already made that decision back in january. and we await the majority leader finally addressing the matter and making it clear that his word is good. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 744, by the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 0, s. 44, a bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes. sphir officer under the previous order sht -- the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until noon will be equally divided between the minority and majority. .

the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 45 minutes between now and the time that our vote is scheduled this morning on my amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: thank you,

mr. president. i won't be taking all that time right now. i'll reserve some of that time and hopefully colleagues will come down to the floor and engage in discussion. as you know, mr. president, i've been talking about the importance of border security in this immigration bill. and just to remind anybody who happens to be listening, i come from a state -- texas -- that has the longest common border with the country of mexico, 1,200 miles. and while many of our colleagues, or some of our colleagues come from states like california, where san diego they like the fence that they have there, that they view as restricting illegal immigration into the country. tucson and arizona has a different situation because much of the land is federal land. in texas our 1,200 mile common

border with mexico is largely private property on the texas side. and it also is enormously diverse. you can go out to west texas near alpine, where big ben national park is, where you'll see huge cliffs that go some 1,000 feet down to the rio grande river. and while some have said we need a fence across the entire border, i dare say that putting a fence on a 1,000-foot cliff is not going to enhance border security much. so what i've argued for from the beginning is the need for a comprehensive border security plan and for congress to make a sincere and enforceable commitment to follow through on that plan. i do believe that in the six years since the last time we debated immigration reform in 2007, i do believe there is an emerging consensus in the

country. now many people are mad, and they deserve to be mad, about the federal government's failure to live up to its promises when it comes to our broken immigration system. you can go back to 1986 when ronald reagan, the father of modern conservativism in the republican party, he signed an amnesty for three million people and his rationale was we're going to enforce our immigration system so this will be the first and last time any president will have to sign an amnesty. we know the enforcement kphoepbt of that didn't -- component of that didn't work. that promise was not kept causing a lot of deeply seated skepticism in the american people, whether congress and washington can be depended upon to keep its commitments when it comes to enforcing our laws and securing or borders. but my amendment that we will be voting on perhaps as early as

noon today is designed to turn border security rhetoric into reality. more specifically, what it adds is a trigger. we've been talking about triggers to the gang of eight bill, the underlying bill. but it would require the federal government to have 100% situational awareness of our border, the southwestern border. and we can do that from border patrol, radar, ground sensors, using all of the magnificent technology the defense department and our military has produced, amazing american inknow varieties have pro -- innovators have produced that our military has used effectively in places like iraq and afghanistan. and i don't believe there is any doubt -- and i know the gang of eight, the people who wrote the underlying bill believe -- that 100% situational awareness of

our border is possible and it is attainable if we have the political will to make it happen and if our law enforcement authorities are provided the appropriate resources to do it. so 100% situational awareness is one of the requirements. the second is operational control. right now we don't have control of our southwestern border. the latest general accounting office estimate is only about 45% of our southwestern border is under operational control. for example, just a couple weeks, a few weeks ago i was in south texas in brooks county in deep rio grande valley in the rio grande valley sector of the border patrol, visiting with them on one day -- one day -- they detained 700 people coming across the southwestern border in the rio grande sector. 400 of them came from countries

other than mexico. some of the rescue becons that they have down there for people who are in distress -- these are immigrants coming from central america, coming from around the world through our southwestern border into the united states. the rescue beacons they have down there that i saw with my own eyes where if people get in big trouble and they realize they may lose their life unless they call the border patrol to come help them, are in english, spanish and -- get this -- chinese. chinese. this is in the rio grande valley in texas. i asked the local law enforcement authorities, i said why chinese? they said for awhile we got a whole lot of chinese immigrants coming across the border, being smuggled across into the united states. i said what is the going rate you have to pay the coyotes, as they call them, the smugglers? they said about $30,000.

for $30,000, somebody from china can get somebody to smuggle them into the united states, which is the reason why those rescue beacons were in english, spanish and chinese. and indeed, the appropriator statistics reveal -- the border patrol statistics reveal we had people come across the borders from 100 different countries around the world. a couple years ago i had the opportunity to ask the director of the national intelligence, james clapper, and the head of the defense intelligence agency, whether this porous border was a national security issue. both of them said it was, which is pretty obvious. because we know that if people from 100 different countries can penetrate our southwestern border because of a lack of appropriate security there, they can come, if they've got the money and they're determined enough, they can come from anywhere in the world, including countries that are state sponsors of terrorism.

so operational control of the border is very important. third, my amendment offers a real trigger that requires a nationwide biometric entry-exit system. that sounds a little obscure. basically what happens when you come to the united states from another country, you're required to get fingerprints. that is a biometrics identifier. you can't use fuzzy documents to claim to be somebody you're not. the importance of the biometrics entry-exit system was noted particularly by the 9/11 commission because several of the people who were involved in the plot to kill 3,000 americans on september 11, 2001, entered the country legally, but they never left. hence, the importance of a pw*ebg entry-exit system -- a

biometric entry-exit system to document not just when people come to america as tourists, students whatever but they actually leave when their visa expires. now 40% of immigration is the result of the failure of the entry-exit system because people come, stay and melt into the great american landscape. unless they come in contact with our law enforcement officials, they commit a crime, driving while intoxicated, domestic violence or the like, they're never going to be caught. and then fourth, my amendment requires nationwide everify. everify is the name given to a system that all federal offices have to comply with. for example, when somebody wants to be hired in my senate office either in texas or up here in d.c., we're required by law to run their name through the everify system to verify that this person is legally eligible to work in the united states.

and that's an important part of the provisions in my amendment that provide real triggers. now let me talk a moment about triggers because you're going to hear a lot of discussion about a trigger. a trigger is more than a promise. we know that there's a litany, indeed there's a trail of broken promises when it comes to our immigration system that dates back to at least 1986. what a trigger means is that there is an enforceable mechanism that will prevent people from transitioning, in the case of my amendment, from probationary status to legal permanent residency until the objectives set out in the underlying bill, 100% situational awareness and operational control, are met. together with a biometric entry-exit system and nationwide everify. i want to emphasize that my amendment uses the same

standard, metrics, and targets as the underlying bill. the difference between my amendment and their bill is that their bill promises the sun and the moon when it comes to border security, everify, entry-exit. but it has no enforceable mechanism. and i ask the question: why should the american people trust congress, why should the american people trust washington to enforce this part of the essential bargain, the security part of the bargain if it has failed to do so in the past? and i would suggest to you that given the current trust deficit here in washington, with scandals everywhere that we can't reasonably expect the american people to rely on "trust us." we need something enforceable which is what my amendment provides. the trigger in my amendment is

not designed to punish people. but what it is, it is designed to realign incentives. so everybody from conservatives to liberals from people in the middle of the road, republicans, democrats, you name it, everybody is incentivized to hit the standard set out in the underlying bill, 100% situational awareness and operational control. over the past few days i've been -- i've cited a number of experts, and we in the senate have a lot of experts. we have people from different states, some of whom, to be honest, know more about the subject than others. but i've cited a couple of experts, including the former head of customs and border protection and the former under secretary for border and transportation security at the department of homeland security, all of whom believe that the border security requirements in my amendment -- and again, i stress in the underlying bill --

are reasonable and realistic. and no fewer than three members of the gang of eight -- senators bennet of colorado, a democrat; senator flake from arizona, a republican; and senator mccain a republican from arizona -- all said the 90% apprehension rate for illegal border crossers is a perfectly attainable goal. senator mccain two days ago said he talked to the head of border patrol and said this is a perfectly realistic goal. 100% situational awareness and operational control. and i agree with that. so if the goal is attainable, why not make it mandatory? why not go beyond the usual promises and platitudes and demand actual results? that's what my amendment does. it demands results and it creates a mechanism that ensures that those results will be delivered.

and again, this is designed to realign all of the incentives so all of us are absolutely focused like a laser in ensuring that the executive branch and the bureaucracy will do what the bill promises will be done. if we are able to accomplish that, i believe the american people are a compassionate people. they understand that we have a very difficult hand to play here because we have not enforced our immigration laws for many years now. if they believe sincerely that this will end the illegality in our broken immigration system, this will return law and order to our broken immigration system, i believe they will accept dealing with the 11 million people here in a humane and compassionate way. if you think our immigration system is broken, as i do, and if you think the status quo is

unacceptable, that doing now is not the answer, then i strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment because it's the only way i believe to get truly bipartisan. and even more important than that, truly effective immigration reform. mr. president, i want to -- if i may ask the chair how much time i have remaining? the presiding officer: 0 minutes. mr. cornyn: i thank the -- the presiding officer: 30 minutes. mr. cornyn: thank the presiding officer. i am going to spend time talking about a portion of my amendment that hasn't been spoken about. indeed, i think most americans would be shocked to learn that the underlying bill would allow the people eligible for immediate legalization under the gang of eight bill, would include people with multiple drunk driving convictions. indeed, the bill even legalizes

drunk drivers who have already been deported, amazingly enough. just for perspective, in the year 2011, immigration and customs enforcement deported nearly 36,000 people with d.u.i. -- driving under the influence -- convictions. the problem is especially bad in houston, texas, where i was born. just last month a harris county sheriff'sheriff officer had beed by someone who had previously been arrested for driving under the influence and illegally carrying a weapon. after his earlier arrest, he was deported. but he eventually came back to houston and, once again, drove while intoxicated with tranlic results. -- with tragic results. sergeant duane pope lost his life. in may of 2011, houston police

officer kevin will was killed by a drunk driver who had been deported to mexico on several occasions. on in 2007, a drunk driver with the blood-alcohol level three times above the legal limit killed three people on a houston area freeway, including a husband, wife, and their two-year-old son. the driver who killed them was out of bail -- out on bail at the time of the accident, after having been arrested for domestic violence. for that matter, not only does the underlying bill legalize immigrants with multiple drunk driving convictions, it also legalizes people with multiple domestic violence convictions. domestic violence convictions. that's min mind-boggling. i realize that some people when they hear the word "misdemeanor," they think you're talking about, you know, jaywalking or a speeding ticket,

or something like that or draifg a car without a function -- or driving a car without a functioning taillight. but the truth is -- and the former prosecutors in this chamber know -- that the technical difference between a misdemeanor and a felony can be as little as one day additional time in prison. typically, a misdemeanor is punished by no more than potentially up to one year in jail and anything over that is traditionally called a felony. more clearly, felonious conduct is over pleaded down to a misdemeanor, particularly in instances like domestic violence where the victim is either married to or lives with the assailant, and there's difficulty getting cooperation. and sometimes the only thing the prosecutor can do, even in the case of very serious physical or other assault, is to get a misdemeanor conviction, even though the underlying circumstances are very serious

indeed. there are unanimousious states that classify certain domestic violence crimes as misdemeanors. a and there is a lot of variety in this. by my count, 23 states have specific misdemeanor domestic violence offenses. these include california, hawaii, illinois, iowa, minnesota, rhode island, and south carolina. minnesota, for example, defines it this way: whoever against a family or household member commits an act with intent to cause fear and another of immediately bodily harm or death or intentionally inflicts or attempts to inflict bodily harm on another. so i'm sure my colleagues from minnesota know that crimes that qualify as misdemeanor domestic violence under minnesota law include domestic abuse with a

deadly weapon, even domestic abuse with a gun. and while it is called a misdemeanor in the statute books, it is obviously a very serious underlying offense. i'd love it if some member of this chamber would explain why conduct like this should not be a bar to the generous opportunity afforded in the bill to obtain probationary status and earn eventually a pathway to citizenship? why should we include people like this who show so much contempt for our laws? we're not just talking about people who have come here to work in violation of our immigration laws. we're talking about hemowho've come near in violation of our -- who've -- we're talk about people who've come here in violation of our laws with serious offenses. we should have zero tolerance for anyone who comes into our country and commits such a heinous act. america has always been a deeply compassionate and understanding

society, and nothing has changed. but when it comes to granting legal status to people who violated our immigration laws, our criteria should be very clear: no drunk drivers and no violent criminals. period. my amendment guarantees that, which is just one more reason why this chamber should embrace it. mr. president, for now i just want to conclude by saying, i read in the press, including "the new york times," there's a story by ashley parker dated june 19, 2013, says "two g.o.p. senators are clees to clos closn border security." and it cites efforts by senator hoeven who has been trying to improve the border security component of the underlying bill. i applaud him for his efforts and applaud him for moving the

underlying bill in a more positive direction when it comes to border security. i'm going to wait final judgment until we actually see language, because the devil is so often in the details on things like this. but i would just point outer that just before -- but i would just point out that just before their efforts, which now reportedly would include an additional 20,000 border patrol agents, i would point out that the original bill had zero additional boots on the ground. my amendment adds 5,000 border patrol agents, and now reportedly -- and again we need to see the details -- the proposal by senator corker and senator hoeve hoeven would add 0 additional border patrol agents. just to show what a dramatic change that's been, senator schumer, one of the chief architects of the underlying bill, in a speech on june 12

said, "whenever -- whatever c.b.o. say, 6,500 border agents is a multibillion-dollar proposition unpaid for, which is why i know my colleagues on the other side rue the day when we vote for unpaid obligations." again, he said, this is on june 12, "how can you manufacturer 3,500 new personnel and say it doesn't add to the cost and will be reallocated? i want to know where its he's going to be reallocated from?" similarly, my colleague, senator mccain said, but those who think that we need more people, we do need more people to facilitate movement across the ports of entry. but we have 21,000 border patrol. today there are in the mexico-arizona border people sitting in vehicles in 120-degree heat. he said in a speech on june 18, he said, "what we need is not more people." he went ton say, "but the fact

is we can get this border secured and the answer, my friends, is as proposed in the cornyn amendment, that we hire 10,000 more border patrol. that's not a recognition of what we really need." finally, he said, "no expert i've talked to says the best way to prevent people from crossing the border illegally works best with a huge amount of personnel." so i point those comments out by senator corker and senator mccain, their comments on june 12. so if it's true, as reported in "the new york times" and elsewhere, that senator corker and hoeven will moved them off the zero additional border patrol to doubling the size of the border patrol, that's a substantial movement in terms of boots on the ground. i'll just conclude by now by saying this: i am looking forward to seeing the language that's being proposed, the alternative

language. but for now, i believe my amendment deserves the support of the members of this chamber. it is the only way we have available to us to ensure our constituents, to be able to look them in the face and say, we know we've broken promises in the past when it comes to border security. we know we promised 17 years ago there would be a biometric exit-entry system, but we didn't do t we're serious now and in fact we've put a provision in the bill which will guarantee it. and that's what my amendment will do. so, mr. president, i would reserve the remainder of my time. i note the absence of a erm quo. the presidin -- i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. cornyn: mr. president, scad that the quorum be resnded.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: i'd ask that the time in quorum calls be equally divided between the democrats and republicans in the chamber. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: and again i'd note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, we are looking at a lot of amendments right now and i just want to call your attention to one i have i think is really significant. it's one of those things when people find out about it, they're just outraged that something like this could happen and it's something that could be corrected with a very simple amendment. now, my amendment addresses the 2001 u.s. supreme court decision of salvedes there. the court held that immigrants admitted to the united states and then ordered removed couldn't be detained for more than six months. so something has to happen after a six-month period. four years later the supreme court extended the decision to people here illegally here as well and that's what we're talking about today. as a result, the department of justice and homeland security have had no choice but to release thousands of criminal immigrants into our neighborhoods. the problem with these decisions is that the criminal immigrants ordered to be removed can't be deported back to their country

if that country refuses to issue the necessary travel documents for them. in other words, if the country doesn't want to take them back, they don't have to take them back. and yet we have to -- have to release them. more importantly, these decisions have a serious impact on public safety, as recent cases have illustrated. six years ago, a vietnamese immigrant was ordered deported after serving time in prison for armed robbery and for assault. now, he -- he was never removed because this supreme court decision handicapped our authorities. our immigration officials couldn't deport him without the cooperating -- cooperation of the vietnamese government, which they did not. and his deportation was never processed. now, this same immigrant it's ben ty luk, is suspected of killing five people in san francisco in a home in march of 2012. now, the story of kion wu puts

this situation in perspective. kion wu felt a little safer after the man who had stalked, choked, punched and pointed at knife at her was locked up and ordered removed from the country. the man, wang chen, was a chinese citizen who had illegally entered the united states, as has been the case of at least 8,500 times in the last four years, mr. chen's home country refused to let its violent criminal return home. frankly, you can understand how this could happen. and it did happen. while handcuffed by the supreme court decision, immigration officials released mr. chen back into the community when they had nowhere else to send him. so that's back into the community here in the united states. as you can imagine, this story also does not have a happy ending. upon his release in 2010, wang chen murdered kion wu, the very

person that was all concerned during this time, murdered her. as you can see, this is a real problem with serious consequences. there are others like these people out there. according to statistics provided by the department of homeland security, there are many countries that are not cooperating or -- or that take longer to repatriate their nationals. countries like iran, pakistan, china, somalia, liberia, they're on the list. the supreme court, in making their decision, says that congress should clarify the law. so my amendment that i have, it's amendment number 1203, mr. president -- and i think it's going to be voted on in -- in -- in the next short while, at least i hope it will be. that amendment, 1203, does exactly what we need to do by creating a framework that allows immigration officials to detain dangerous criminals, immigrants like ben ty luk, and wang chen.

specifically, immigrants -- immigrants can be detained beyond six months if they're under orders of removal but can't be deported due to the country's unwillingness to accept them back. and -- and if several conditions are met, including if their release would, one, threaten national security or, two, threaten the safety of the community and the alien either an aggravated flof felon or has committed a crime of violence. i understand that the aclu is scoring against my amendment. i view that as a badge of honor and an additional reason to support my amendment. it seems that the aclu's only concerned with protecting the rights of criminals. it's time we stop this nonsense. and, again, mr. president, all you have to do is go out in public and tell people that we have this situation where we are forced to release these criminals into our society merely because their country

won't repatriate them. so anyway, that amendment's coming up, amendment 1203, and i ask for support of that amendment. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. yes, i yield the floor. i withhold my motion. a senator: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be lifted if it has been called. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you. i have nine unanimous consent requests, mr. president, for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. king: i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 12 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. king: he has endeavored to prevent the population of these states, for that purpose obstructing the laws of gnarlization to foreigners, refusing to pass others to encourage their migration's hither and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands. mr. president, those are the language -- that's the language of the declaration of independence, one of the grievances against king george

iii in the immortal words of thomas jefferson, was limitations on immigration. endeavoring to prevent the population of these states. that was an original formation, an original idea at the heart of the united states. looked at in the context of our history, this debate that we're having this week is somewhat disappointing but not surprising. it's serious in its particulars but it's amazing in its totality. here we have a room full of descendants of immigrants arguing about the conditions of immigration. sure, most of our ancestors in this room entered the country legally, but that was because there were virtually no laws about immigration for the majority of our history. for most of our history, if you could pay the cost, you could enter the country. that's the fundamental premise

of america. what are we afraid of? are we afraid of people with courage, people with imagination, people with initiative, people with perseverance? before coming to this body, i taught at boden college and a course on leaders and leadership and we attempted to define the qualities of leadership. and at the end of a course each year, we took an analysis of what we'd seen and people with courage, imagination, perseverance are leaders. those are the people we want in this country. that's what it takes to come here. that's what it's taken to come here throughout our history. and why are they coming? they're coming for opportunity. they're coming for freedom. they're coming for a better life for their children, the same reason our a ancestors came her. isn't this what we all want?

opportunity, freedom, and a better life for our kids. does this discussion affect the state of maine? well, yes it does. we have migrants and immigrants picking our crops in northern maine -- blueberries and potatoes and broccoli. we have a vibrant refugee and asylum-seeking community in portland, maine, and in lewisston. many in africa, and they come here from different countries. we have 52 different languages spoken in the portland schools. we've strains and difficulties adjusting one culture to another, but we're making it work and it's making our state richer. spiritually, culturally, intellectually, and, yes, financially. and it's working. but isn't this discussion all about amnesty? i keep hearing about amnesty. the mail i get says, don't let them get amnesty. no, it's not about amnesty.

in my book, amnesty is a free pass. amnesty is a get-out of-of jail-free card, it is a forgiveness. if you're convicted of -- in maine we call it o.u.i. -- other states call it d.u.i. if you're convicted of driving under the influence, you pay a fine, lose your license, sometimes spend a few days in jail, and you're under a suggestion suspension or probearingsary period or several montes or years. but when it's all over, when you've made your fine, had your suspension, you get your license back and you move on with your life and go from there. nobody calls that amnesty when you get your license back at the end of that period, after you've paid your debt to society. i would argue, mr. president, that a fine, which is contained in this bill, and 13 years of what really constitutes probation isn't amnesty.

it's not amnesty in anybody's book. and people who are talking about it and calling it amnesty, that'sious not accurate. -- that's just not accurate. why is this debate so important, why is this issue so important, why is this bill so important? in my view, immigration is the main spring of america. it is our secret sauce, it is what has made us who we are. no other country in the world has built the way this country has been built, except for the african-americans who were brought here against their will and the native americans who were here when the europeans arrived, everybody else here came by virtue of immigration. and that immigration has really, i believe, separated us from the rest of the world. i.tit's the constant flow of energy, ideas, different cultures, different religions,

different backgrounds and different creative energy that has really made this country what it is today. if we unduly limit or cut it off, we're sunk. we're living in a negative demographic time bomb. last year, i believe, for the first time in american history we had more deaths than births. you don't have to be a mathematician to know if that continues, we'll shrink and sh rifle and shrivel as a society. we need population to add to add to the ideas and creativity. what would we lose? i'm standing in the shoes of olympia snowe, the daughter of greek immigrants. before olympia snowe, the holder of this office was george mitchell, the son of immigrants. before george mitchell it was ed muskie, one of the great legislators of the 20th century in america, the son of an immigrant polish tailor.

and we have among our number now a brilliant young senator from texas who himself is the son of an immigrant. immigrants are always going to be different and a little scary, and that's been true throughout american history. we've had waves of immigration -- italians, scottish people, chinese, irish, and it's hard for us to believe, but a lot of the same sort of uneasiness about new immigrants was applied to those groups. in new york in the 1800's if you went to apply for a job, there might be a sign in the window of the story that said, "employees needed cht jobs available." and then in pair rein they sis it said "nina" which stood for "no irish need apply." so uneasiness and fear, and, yes, some prejudice against immigrants has been a part of our history. but in the end, those people are

the very people that have built this country, literally, and who have made this country what it is. it's who we are. now, there's also talk i've heard about wages and how all these new people are going to depress wages. and indeed a couple of weeks ago i had a meeting on my schedule in maine with a union group. all it said was "union group to discuss immigration." i said, uh-oh, these folks are going to be worried about wages and are going to tell me this is a bad idea. just the opposite. what they said was, we support the bill, senator. we want immigration reform because now we've got millions of people in this country who are in the shadows who don't have the benefits of the labor protections, and that's what's drawing wages down. that's what's providing a downward motion on wages and benefits. when an employer knows that he or she has that kind of leverage over an employee, if you don't

take the low salary or sometimes no salary at all, i'm going to report you, you're gone, you're going to be deported ... that's an inhawrntsly and uneven -- inherently and uneven playing field. that's why i i believe -- and i think the c.b.o. report has can confirmed -- that fixing this problem, putting the people that are here on a pathway to earned citizenship will actually be a gigantic stimulus to our country. so what we're doing here is very important. and, yes, i know we need controls. we need border controls. we need to control terrorism and criminals coming into our country, and, yes, i know that we shouldn't reward breaking the law. but 13 years of probation and a fine is not rewarding lawbreaking. and, again, we have to ask, why did these people break the law?

they broke the law for the same reason that our ancestors came here and the only reason they didn't break the law was that there was no law to break at that time. but they came here for opportunity and for a better life for their children. i've quoted mark twain before on this floor, and i will probably do so repeatedly again because he captures so many thoughts so succinctly and in this case what he said was "history doesn't always repeat itself, but it usually rhymes." this discussion that we're having here today is nothing new in american history. it's arisen time after time, and it arose in the 1840's and 1850's when indeed a whole political party came up that was designed to keep people out. it was called the no-nothing party. the reason it was called that was people asked the members of the party, well, what do you stand for? and they'd say, well, i don't know anything about that because they didn't really wnts to talk about it.

but it was antiforeigner and anti-catholic and it was designed to lock in the ethnic and cultural society as it stood in 1850. abraham lincoln was asked when he was a member of the illinois legislature -- i wish he had been a member of the maine legislature -- he was asked how he felt about the no-nothings and whether he himself was a no-nothing. he said "i am not a no-nothing," lincoln wrote. "how could i be? how could anyone who abhors the oppression of negros be in favor of degrading other people? our progress appears to be pretty rapid. as a nation, we began by declaring all men are created equal. we now practically read it, all men are created equal except negros. with the no-nothings in charge it will read 'all men are created equal except negros and foreigners and catholics.'

when it comes to this, i should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty, where despotism can be take taken pure and without the base lure of i had poo crasscy." i do think this is "no" not a new debate. we can't fear new people coming into our country. i believe this bill represents a fair-minded resolution of the current conflict over immigration. control of the border to stem the tied of illegal immigration, penalties applied to those who broke the law but an opportunity to earn citizenship after paying the penalty and a lengthy period of what amounts to probation. i don't think this debate, mr. president, is about fences and fines and learning english. it's about america itself.

confusing, chaotic, creative, at times unsettling, but always erring on the side of freedom and opportunity. we have young people coming to this country who want and will achieve an education, and then we send them home. in my view, mr. president, we should staple a green card to every diploma of every foreign student the moment they walk out of that -- walk through that graduation line so they can bring their ideas and creativity to our society. the constant infusion of new blood, new people, and new ideas isn't a threat, mr. president. it is who we are. and it's what made us what we are. again, in the words of abraham lincoln, "it made us what we are -- the last best hope of earth." i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: i'd ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be resnded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i'd ask notice from the chair after i've spent 10 minutes of my 12 minutes of time. mr. president, i've been here several times over the last couple of weeks to talk about my -- the presiding officer: the senator has eight minutes. mr. cornyn: thank you. i'd like to get a two-minute notice, please. the presiding officer: the senator will be notified. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i've been here numerous times over the last couple of weeks to tractalk about why the essential bargain that needs to underlie this bill has to be one that's not based on phony promises like the ones that have been made in

the past about restoring legality and order to our broken immigration system. it actually needs to be on a mechanism that will compel results and realign all of the incentives for people across the political spectrum -- republicans and democrats alike -- to make sure that congress and the executive branch in particular keep their promises when this comes to border security. that's what my amendment is about, and that's what we'll be voting on here perhaps in the next half-hour. the underlying met striction that are contin -- metrics that are contained in my amendment are derived from those in the underlying bill. 100% situational awareness and 90% apprehension. now, some people may question that and say, well, how can you have 100% situational awareness? well, the fact of the matter is using the technology that's currently deployed in places like afghanistan and iraq, technology like that that was

featured in a "los angeles times" article a few weeks ago called the vadar, a type of radar that was being pilot-tested in the western part of our country -- the western part of the border, we can do a comprehensive job of seeing the border. i'm not talking about a border patrol agent seeing three people coming across the border and he doesn't see a handful of others who scam per across in some other place. i'm not talking about that kind of embryo significance. aim talking about using the technology that's available, like that, for example, of at&t recently came in and demonstrated in my office the use of fiber optic cable. to create in essence an acoustic system which will identify people crossing the board and which you then will trigger cameras to focus on the individual coming across to make sure it's not a deer or a

javalina, what the border patrol should be focused on, that is, people crossing the border illegally. they could basically lay that cable down the entire u.s.-mexico border for i think they told me somewhere on the order of $80 million. it's a lot of money but it's not too much when it comes to securing our border. likewise, i mentioned the vadar technology, i know that there are fixed towers and radar systems and camera systems that are being used by the military that need to be used by the department of homeland security when it comes to protecting our border and keeping our commitments to keeping america safe. there are dirigibles, i will call them, blimps used successfully in places like afghanistan, and which provide an ability to see for a huge stretch of the border. using, again, radar and

cameras, this idea of situational awareness that that's somehow not possible simply ignores the technological advances that have been made and deployed by our united states military in afghanistan and iraq and which could be deployed if we had the political will to make it happen along the southwestern border. and i don't think it's too much to ask of the people you actually see that the border patrol ought to detain 90%. right now, according to the general accountability office, 2011, our border is only 45% operational -- under operational control. 45%. so that means if you do the rough arithmetic out of the 350,000 people who were detained coming across our border last year, maybe the border patrol sees and detains half of the people, maybe it's -- who knows what it is, we're

guessing. we know what the numerator is but not what the denominator is. we need to deploy the technology and assets we have in order to meet that goal. and, again, i would refer to "the new york times" article i talked about a moment ago, june 19, headline, two g.o.p. senators are close to a deal on border security. this refers to the efforts of my colleagues -- our colleagues, senator 0 corker and senator hoeven and i have applauded them publicly and i'll do so again in making sure under their agreement which we have not yet seen and we understand we'll see language maybe tonight, they've -- they've helped make sure that we focus more assets on the border security issue and they've added, i think very constructively to this process. but the problem i think and we'll have to wait until we see

the language is that under this pending agreement it says they've agreed to -- grate to make the 90% apprehension rate a goal rather than a requirement. a goal. well, the american people will not be fooled. when congress says to the american people on something as important as border security, trust us, you know, it reminds me of the old sort of lame joke that the most feared words in the english language are "i'm from the government and i'm here to help." what we're saying in essence on border security is we're from the government, trust us, we're -- we have an aspirational goal to actually secure the border but you have no guarantee it will be done. that's why my amendment is so important because what it does, it doesn't create any sort of punitive effect but what it does is it realliance -- realigns

all of the incentives for people across the political spectrum, republicans and democrats alike, to make sure that the executive branch and the bureaucracy keeps its dmiments when it comes to -- commitments when it comes to border security. then i believe the american people demonstrating their typical generosity and compassion will say yes, we need to find a humane way to deal with the 11 million people who are here. mr. president, i have a sheet in front of me that -- entitled "what are they saying about border security metrics." and this sheet has excerpts from a number of experts in the border security area that talks about the importance not just of measuring inputs, how many border patrol, how many drones, how many radar, i call those inputs, but they say you actually need outputs, you need results and you need metrics or

measuring sticks to be able to show that you're making progress toward the intended goal. mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that this document citing these experts be made part of the record at the end of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: so, mr. president, i hope my colleagues will vote to take up my amendment. i understand the majority leader will likely move to table it in short order, and i hope my colleagues will vote no on that motion to table because i think this is important building block in terms of restoring congress' and the federal government's credibility when it comes to our broken immigration system. mr. president, i would yield the floor and reserve the balance of my time. may i ask, mr. president, how much time remains. the presiding officer: your time is expired. mr. cornyn: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i ask consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, this legislation has been pending on the floor since the beginning of last week. we actually should have started disposing of amendments during the first week the bill was on the senate floor, but we have seen objection after objection of those who are opposed, and they are very much in the minority, to this legislation, the objection to proceeding to comprehensive immigration reform, that cost us several days, to show that the minority finally ended that filibuster so we could proceed to the bill. 84 senators voted to proceed. now, i realize we would rather not have any votes one way or

the other. it allows you to go home and say whether somebody is for or against it, yes, i'm working on that because i voted maybe. well, is there any wonder why we are in such a low level of approval in the american people's eyes, the whole congress? they expect us to vote yes or no. sometimes you have to vote for something unpopular. we're elected to six-year terms. we're supposed to do that. we're supposed to represent over 300 million americans, the 100 of us. the american people don't want us to just delay and delay so we don't have to vote so we can go back home and say i'm on your side, no matter what your side is. no, they expect us to vote yes or no, even though it may be controversial. last week and this week, i have been working closely with the majority leader and senator grassley and others to make

progress when we start voting on amendments in an orderly fashion and we still faced objection. there have been 250 amendments filed to this bill. so far we have considered 11 of them. 11 votes, endless delays. we could be spending months on it. the american people expect us to have the courage to vote yes or no. so a lot of senators on the judiciary committee who have amendments here, they are noncontroversial. many have widespread support. there ought to be a way to just adopt those. some are controversial. well, then let's vote on them. in the committee, in the judiciary committee, we considered a total of 212 amendments over an extensive

markup, 35 hours of debate. more than half the amendments considered were offered by republican amendments -- republican members of the committee. we adopted 135 amendments to improve this legislation. all but three were passed with both democratic and republican votes. so i hope that republicans will join me in making an evident to dispose of the many noncontroversial items. the amendments include the managers amendment are noncontroversial. they have widespread support. let me just talk about some of them. the noncontroversial technical amendments that have been agreed to by the ranking member and by authors of this bill, the chair and ranking member of the committee on homeland security, senators carper and coburn. the amendment by senator cochran

, senator landrieu. i mean, i could go on and on. i see the distinguished majority leader on the floor, and i'm going to yield the floor. i'm going to speak on this further, but my whole point is we have all kinds of noncontroversial amendments cosponsored by republicans and democrats alike, both republicans and democrats on the scene of amendments. we ought to be just adopting them and not the stall, because the stall says i want to vote maybe. i don't want to vote yes or no. i want to vote maybe. mr. president, i have served longer in this body than any current member. i have served here when nearly 1/5 of the senators who had the privilege of serving in this body since the beginning of the country. i have known great republicans and great democrats who must be

wondering in the past what are we doing. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president, i haven't heard all my friend's statement, but i was -- i hope i don't get his staff in trouble. we have been visiting here while he has been talking, and we have a list of 27 amendments here that the chair has come up with that are noncontroversial. one of them, i was surprised that you couldn't put on the list because a republican senator objected because they thought it was controversial because that we should do things in this bill, this immigration bill, for the best interests of the child. that's controversial, which kind of surprised me. mr. leahy: i hear a lot of speeches about we should support family values, as both the senator from nevada and i do, but when you try to put in a bill that's obviously a family value, protecting children, then we have an objection. well, if you don't like the

amendment, vote against it. let's vote on it. mr. reid: while senator landrieu was here on the floor last night, we had a colloquy back and forth a little bit. my friend, the chairman of the committee and i can lament about the days when we would bring a bill to the floor and energy and water appropriations bill. the two of us have been long-time members of the appropriations committee. we would do the -- senator bennett johnson and i, pete domenici, when he was the ranking member with me, we would do the energy and water bill in a couple of hours, a bill that was extremely important for the country. it provided the security for our nuclear weaponry. but now any more, we don't do that. we -- these 27 amendments here, it's a sad commentary on things, but these things would be accepted not in a managers amendment, mr. president, not in a managers amendment. they would just be done by unanimous consent. but anyway, we can't do that.

mr. president, i call for regular order with respect to the cornyn amendment number 1251. the presiding officer: amendment number 1251 is now pending. mr. reid: i move to table the cornyn amendment, ask unanimous consent there be two minutes equally divided prior to the vote on my motion to table. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, the majority leader has moved to table my amendment which provides a guarantee of actual results rather than false promises which have been the sad litany of most of our history when it comes to immigration reform and border security. starting in 1986 when ronald reagan signed an amnesty for three million people premised on

enforcement, the american people in their typical generosity and compassion accepted that based on the representation that it would never happen again. in 1996, 17 years ago, president bill clinton signed into law the requirement for a biometric entry-exit system which would address the 40% of illegal immigration that occurs because people enter illegally and simply overstay and melt into the great american landscape unless they happen to commit a crime or are otherwise caught by law enforcement. we cannot ask the american people trust us because of this litany and sad story of broken promises when it comes to immigration reform. that's why we need real enforcement. that's why my amendment needs to pass and not be tabled. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i support the tabling of it. there may be some good parts in it but most of it is bad. the b