quorum call:

ao quorum call:

quorum call: ms. warren: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. rein reason madam president, i ask that the quorum call be lifted. officer without objection. ms. warren: it's been 18 days since the interest rate on new direct student loans doubled from 3.4% to nearly 7%. students will head to have college in just a few weeks and congress still has not found the way to keep their interest rates low. in massachusetts, our kids, our parents, our schools are worried. i just want to go over the history so that we're all clear about how we got here. you know, for months, democrats have argued that we need to keep interest rates low. we've made at least three attempts to do this. for example, i introduced a bill that would have dropped interest rates on direct loans for one year to the same level at which banks borrow from the federal government, which is currently less than 1%. i introduced that proposal because i believe that the federal government should invest in our students, not just in our

biggest banks. now, we also proposed to extend the current interest rates at 3.4% for two years, paid for by closing tax loopholes. and senator reid and senator hagan offered a bill to keep rates low for one year. all three proposals had two features in common: they cut costs for students, and they gave us some short-term breathing room to take on bigger problems, including how to refinance $1 trillion in outstanding student loan debt and how to reduce the overall costs of college forral of our students. -- for all of our students. when we brought the last two froams a vote -- proposals to a vote, they won by a majority. but they didn't pass because the republicans filibustered both bills. we could have kept rates low, but the republicans -- every single one of them -- voted to

block that. instead, republicans put together their own long-term plan. it was an amazing plan. according to official government accounting, it would have generated $184 billion in profit that the government is already projected to make by doubling interest rates on student loans over the next ten years, and then the republicans would have added another $16 billion in new profits. now, that's billions in pure profits, profits after we've accounted for the cost of money, after the cost of administering the loan, and after the cost for bad debt losses. all those profits would be made off the backs of our kids who are trying to get an education. so here we are -- 18 days past the july 1 deadline, and

students are being hurt because republicans filibustered these reasonable plans, even though the plans had support from the majority of the senators. chairman harkin, who has been a leader on this issue from the very start, has been doing his absolute best to find a solution that the republicans would not filibuster so that when students start taking out loans in a few weeks, they won't be the ones to pay for republican obstruction. others, like senator jack reed, senator stabenow, and the majority leader, have also worked very hard to find a solution. here's the problem: from the very beginning, republicans have dug in their heels and insisted that any new student loan proposal maintain the same $184 billion in profit that the government will make on

new student loans over the next ten years. they insist that whatever we do, the government must make the same profits off the students that they will make now by doubling the interest rate to 6.%. 6.% -- 6.8%. they say, whatever you do, make sure that the government makes $184 billion off our students. and many senators who care deeply about this issue, like chairman harkin, senator durbin, senator manchin, senator king, have been doing their best under these circumstances to help the students out. and i applaud their commitment to our students. they have succeeded in getting at least some republicans to support a proposal that will result in lower interest rates for some students for a couple of years. but in the end, this is a simple math problem.

if republicans insist that we continue to make the same amount of profit in the student loan program, that just means that students in future quleers haven few of years will have to pay even higher rates to make up the difference. in other words, kids who are sofsophomores in hid high schoot now will end up paying even more so students in college today can pay a little less. i don't believe in pitting our kids against each other. i would think high school sophomores should pay more so college sophomores can get a little break. in fact, i think this whole system stinks. we should not go along with any plan that demands that our students continue to produce huge profits for the government. this is wrong. making billions and billions in

profits off the backs of our students is obscene. the republican position is that they refuse to give up a single dime of these profits. in fact, the latest proposal adds another $715 million in additional profits. the republican position is that we don't need to close tax loopholes or to ask wealthy americans to pay their fair share because we have ready-made profit center for fund being the federal government: middle-class families who are struggling to pay for college. i have the deepest respect for the senators who have tried so hard to come up with a deal for our students under these republican conditions, and i have no doubt that their intentions are honorable. but i can't support this proposal. i have fought hard for working

families and middle-class families for nearly all of my grown-up life. i fought back against credit card companies that put out zero-interest cards, planning to make all their profits in the fine print. i fought back against teeser rate mortgages that promise low rates in the first two years but then shot up to rates that pushed millions of people into foreclosure. and now the u.s. senate is offering its own teaser rate loan program. a great deal for students this year and next, but every kid who borrows after that gets slammed. that's not the business the united states government should be in. i understand that compromise isn't always pretty, but there's no compromise in this bill. with the student loan rates now at 6.8%, if congress does

nothing, the government will make $184 billion in profits. under the new proposal, the government will make the same $184 billion in profits plus another $715 million in additional profits, and that all comes directly off the backs of our students. i want to see these profits go down. i know we may not be able to do it all at once, but we need too take a step now to lower the profits we make off the backs of our kids, not lock them in for the next ten years. at a minimum, i would urge my colleagues to support senator jack reed's amendment to cap the interest rate under this plan at current law. that amendment is the only way to ensure that no student ever endleends up paying more than ty

would than if congress did nothing. and long-term, we need t to do three things. first, eliminate government profits from new student loan programs, period. second, refinance existing student loan debt to reduce the profits that are crushing our people. and, third, reduce college costs so that american families can pray for college without burying themselves in debt. that's what we need to do, and no matter what happens www.this -- what happens with this current proposal, that's exactly what i'm going to keep fighting for. i appreciate the hard work that my colleagues have done to try to tweet the republican filibuster on keeping student loan rates low. but our students are drowning under a trillion dollars in student loan debt, and i cannot support a compromise proposal that squeezes even more profits

off our kids. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: madam president, i wanted to come to the floor while the senator from massachusetts just finished her remarks and was still here to say a few things about the bipartisan student loan bill, and a couple things that i'd like to point out for the record. she has made a point about our student loan proms and how much they cost students, and she's right. there's not been a single proposal brought by either party to change that, the basic $168 billion that the government is going to generate over ten years in this program. i would support t in fact, i would like to so that version. we've not seen it. and here's the reality: we're talking about this issue with a divided congress. we're talking about this issue where the house of representatives is controlled by the other party and doesn't see this issue at all the same way.

-- that the senator from massachusetts and i i do. and secondly we're up against the filibuster rule in the senate requiring 60 votes. we have 54 democrats. so this global change that she's spoken of and referred to is one that she and i could probably agree on in a hurry, but it's not going to happen. the question is, what can we do now to help students? july 1, because we did nothing, the student loan interest rate on subsidized loans went from 3.4% to 6.08%. students are now facing 6.8% interest rates on subsidized loans. i think that's just plain wrong. what can we do about it? one version says nothing. do nothing, don't change anything. let the students right now continue to pay 6.8%. what's wrong with that? it is obvious. basic interest rates in this country are dramatically lower

than that. you can mortgage a home, get a mortgage interest on a loan for p3% or 4%, maybe even lower some places a in addition to that, we have students that have to make some life decisions pretty quickly. they need some certainty about what's going to happen heemplet what what i've set out to do is to tribring that interest rate down as quickly as possible as low he's possible. that's the bipartisan proposal before us. those who vote against the bipartisan proposal are voting to keep interest rates now at 6.8%. the interest rates that have doubled from 3.4% to 6.8%. and the senator from massachusetts can tell you, that will generate many millions of dollars to the treasury at the expense of these students. so a vote against any change, a vote for the status quo is a vote to charge students an extra $37 billion in interest over the next five years. i don't think that's right.

i don't think that's rievment i think i.t. far better for us to try to 3wreu9 these student interest rates down as quick lib as we can and hold out the possibility that we'll revisit this again and bring them down even further in the future. maybe things will change politically. but to step away from this whole conversation and say, because we can't change the global problem of student loans, because we can't bring them down to the level we want, we'll just leave them at 6.8%. i don't think that's a good outcome. i don't think that really is in the best interests of the students and their families. they're going to be facing more debt for the next five years with approach. and that's the one thing i would like to correct for the record. i believe the senator mentioned that students would be paying more than 6.8% in two or three years. under the proposal before us, based on projections on interest rates, the same projections everyone is using here, it isn't

until after the fifth year that students would pay anything near 6.8%. it would be 6.29%, 6.3% that fourth year and then 7.0% the fifth year. so doing nothing means that students who would be protected with lower interest rates for four out of the next five years by this projections are going to pay more. how is that a victory for students? how do they come out ahead in this deal? they didn't. they're paying higher interest rates at this point. there are some who want to hold out for something different. i'd like to join them but i've watched the votes here. the senator from massachusetts and i both voted the same way. we voted with senator jack reed, let's keep that rate at 3.4%. and we lost. them he came back and said, wait a minute, let's try it again. and we lost. now he's going to propose a 6.8% cap, which i can vote forks and

we will lose -- can vote for, and we will lose again. then you face the reality. are you going to say at that point, i don't want to talk about that this anymore, i just want to go home, that's the end of the story? students, pay 6.8%, story we couldn't solve it? or do you accept this bipartisan compromise which brings the rates down for the next four years below 6.8%? i think that's a pretty easy choice. i think it's one that may not be what i want to see but i'm dealing with the reality of congress as it currently is existing. and what we're currently faced with. in terms of the cost of education, though, the senator from massachusetts and i do agree on this part of it -- kids pay too much for college today in virtually every place they go. virtually every place they go. and the interest rates are too high. but it's a dual problem. simply addressing student loan interest rates, even for four years, still leaves the overall arching issue of the cost of

higher education. i've had several conversations with the president over the last several days. i know that he is going to come back quickly with a proposal from this administration to deal with the cost of higher education. i'm going to support him, too. i don't know the particulars. maybe i'll disagree with one thing or another. but i'll sure support his effort to bring down the overall cost of higher education. that's an important part of this conversation.i just was on the phone with him a few minutes ago talking about this student loan program and what we're faced with. he doesn't like the choices we're faced with but he wants to keep interest rates below 6.8% if we k. th if we can. the bipartisan approach keeps them below 6.8%. voting against it means that students for the next four years will pay higher interest rates on their student loans than they have to. so i would encourage my colleagues, don't dismiss the bipartisan plan. vote for the alternatives -- jack reed may offer one, bernie sanders of vermont may offer one. vote for those. we know what we will, we won't

get enough votes. but then make the cold, hard choice. do you want students to face 6.8% this year, next year and the two following years? or a lower interest rate, which is what this bipartisan plan will produce? now, we went through a lot of negotiations on this. the republicans, many of them, have a much different view than we do on this whole subject. i was lucky. i guess i'm old enough to have benefited from the first student loan program. it was a student loan program that came about because the soviets launched a sputnik at that time light and scared the world out of the united states. we didn't have one. they sent a rocket up in space and launched the sputnik satellite and we thought oh, my goodness, they have a bomb, now they have a satellite and we're doomed. and congress in a bit of a panic called something called the national -- create something called the national defense education act. the senator presiding may remember that. i benefited from it. so did the senator from

massachusetts. i borrowed money, if i remember correctly, to go to college and law school. 3% was the interest rate. i think it was a fixed interest rate, if i'm not miss staifnlt and a year after i finally graduated from school, i started paying it back in ten installments. they divided it by 10. paid 3%. pretty good deal. i paid my money back thinking now the next generation can bet fit from it. my personal point of view, education's worth a dub say. when -- worth a subsidy. when jack reed comes to the floor and says 6.8% as a cap for three or four years, he's got my vote. but he won't have everybody's vote. what happens? we do nothing. and the 6.8% interest rate stays in place even though under the alternative they wouldn't have to pace that for the next four years. i think in four years we can do better. i think within that four-year period, protecting they want from 6.8%, we have a chance to do even better and i'd like to work to achieve that goal.

congress may change. maybe it will change with a more positive viewpoint towards student loans. but at the moment, we have to make a choice and the choice involves buy-in on the republican side. what they're looking for -- not unreasonable but different -- is to have a long-term approach rather than a short-term approach. i'd rather have a short temple m approach. they prefer a long-term approach. they want it based on some basic interest rate that we can calculate, a 10-year treasury rate, as applied to virtually every option we've considered save one. all the others have had a 10-year treasury rate as a basis. they say you can take -- you can add to that 10-year treasury rate what it costs for defaults on loans and administration of loans. we've tried to do that. and we've said to them it, at the end of the day, we don't want to add more money from the students and their families to pay off the deficit. this isn't be viewed as a tax on students. here's where i would disagree

with the senator from massachusetts. 750 million over ten years is a lot of money. it's a huge amount of money. let's put it in context and here's the context. each year student loans amount to about $140 billion. over ten years, $1.4 trillion. what percentage of $140 billion is $71 million? that's $715 million divided 10. i did the calculation and it is something like .0005%. it's decimal dust. $71 million a year out of $1.4 billion in loans. i'd like to get it down to nothing. but here is the bottom line. this tiny fraction of decimal dust, $71 million a year, is no reason to protect -- not to

protect these students from 6.8% increase. by my calculation, if you accept the nothing we're going to 6.8% interest and stay there, as our solution for the time being, students are going to pay about $100 more a month, as i understand it, on the baisk loan -- basicloans that they're. that, to me, is an unacceptable alternative. $170 million a year for $140 billion in loans. this tiny, tiny fraction of a percentage is no reason to walk away from a loan package that is much more generous to stiewns and thei -- to students and ther families f. we can get it down to zero, let's get it down to zero. but, please, walking away from that just doesn't make sense. here's what students will face. if this bipartisan proposal goes through, the interest rates the students pay now on their student loans, subsidized and

unsubsidized, will go down from 6.8% to 3.8%. that's the immediate savings this year for students who are enrolling in college. 6.8% to 3.8 peft. students who were born with money, it's a locality. lot. and to walk away from that and say, if i can't get a better deal, students are just going to have to pay that extra 3% interest? i don't know i don't think that's a good outcome. it's better for us to take this, give this relief to the students and their families, and work to improve it. and i'm work with the senator from massachusetts and haw how far to do that. but simply saying 6.8% forever is a victory, it's not. it's a penalty. it's a penalty on a lot of hard-working family and the students that come from their families. let me juls always add if i can one particular footnote and chapter to this. the worst defenders when it comes to students loans and

student loan defaults or the for-profit colleges. i always ask people to remember three basic numbers about the for-profit schools. what are the for-profit schools? let me give you the big names. university of even if six the biggest one. more than the combined enrollment of all the big ten schools, university of phoenix. kaplan university, which owns the "washington post." devie university out of -- devry university out of chicago. those are the three big ones. now, as a category, for-profit colleges educate 12% to 13% of all the high school graduates in this country. so stick with the number 12% high school grads go to for-profit schools, for-profit schools receive 25% of all the federal aid to education. they are soaking up the dollars for stiewngtsz by a major inof 2-1 of th -- forstudents by thee

taking. and here's the kicker. 40% of all the student loan defaults comes com from students in for-profit schools. what does it tell you? they're being charged too much for their education, they can't get a job to pay it back, and they default on the loan. and the bottom line on student loans, they are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. a student who can't pay that loan still has that debt and burden for a lifetime. and the parents who cosigned, they're on the hook as well. not dischargeable in bankruptcy. it is a lifetime debt. so we've got a lot to do to clean up higher education and i hope we go after for-profit schools as part of it. they need to be held accountable. so i'll close by saying this. i accept the premise of the statement made earlier by the senator from massachusetts, we can do better on student loans. i'm for it. we don't have the votes to achieve it. we don't have them in the senate. we don't have them in the house. so the question is: will we do nothing? doing nothing means that

students and their families will pay 6% 8% interest on their loans for the foreseeable futures, a year, two years, three years or four years. taking the bipartisan compromise reduces the interest rate on student loans for both subsidized and unsubsidized loans 23r-6.8% to 3.8% immediately. 3% saving right now for students and families. and it doesn't reach 6.8% until the fifth year from now. between now and then, we can do better. walking away from this bipartisan approach is going to mean more debt for students, higher interest rates, and i don't think that's fair. so let's do the best we can to change the system, accept the political reality and come up with the best yowrt come for students and families. i see around? sanders from vermont on the floor. i know he has a different point of view as the senator from medicare advisory commission masses z. but i hope at the end of the day that we can see some change in the exrotion of congress and move closer to a

model that we all accept. and i yield the floor. mr. sanders sanders: madam pres? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: let me thank my friend from illinois for all the work that he's done on this issue and so many other issues. he knows i disagree with him on this and do not intend to vote for this bipartisan agreement. he makes a good point in saying that we don't have the votes. we don't. we don't have the votes because we have a political party here that could careless about the needs of working families and about college affordability. and i would say to my friend from illinois that if we are going to win this fight and protect college students, we have got to take the fight to the american people. and whf we work with -- and when we work with republicans to make college an fordable, then the american people are going to say, what is

the alternative? so from a polit ca political st- and i would say to my friend from illinois -- we have the people on our side, we have parents on our side, we have young people on our side. our job is to bring forth a proposal. that they can demand be accepted. and if we collapse on this issue, then they are going to be looking out and sighing, what is the ation active. now, the senator from illinois makes a valid point is that in the next few weeks, in fact that, it is not a bad deep. not as good as ifsz like. not a bad deal. that is why, as i mentioned to the senator a few moments ago, i'll be bringing forth an amendment to say let us sunset this agreement in two years. we are bringing up the higher education authorization bill. there give us an opportunity to deal with thissish ru this issut

loans and the higher costs of college in general. why do we need a permanent bill right now when we're going to be working fairly -- in the fairly near future on the higher education bill? so my view is a two-year sunset of this bill. not everything i want. but it will protect students and let them take -- if we're going to talk to about variable interest rates, at least take advantage of lower interest rates. what c.b.o. is projecting is that in years to come interest, rates are going to go up, that according to the c.b.o., under this legislation, the good news is interest rates would only be for stafford subsidized 3.86, in 2014, it will be 4.6% -- not so good -- 2015, 5.4% -- really not good -- 2016, 6.29 -- worse --

2017, 7%; 2018, 7.25% and by the time you goat 2023, it will also be a 7.25. we have a crisis right now in terms of student indebtedness. why in the -- why would we want to make that crisis even worse? the second point that i would make is that right now, it is estimated that the federal government will earn about $180 billion in profits over the next ten years on student loans. madam president, i would suggest to you that while i have no problem with the federal government making profits on this or that endeavor, this is not a particularly good area to be making profits, because you're making profits off of low and moderate income people who want to send their kids to college. i could think of a lot better

ways to make money to help us with the deficit than by forcing low and moderate income parents and students to be paying more than they should be paying. if we want to do deficit reduction, maybe we ask the one out of four corporations in america that pays nothing in taxes to start paying their fair share of taxes. may we address growing wealth and income in equality in a way that brings us more revenue. but it is almost a form of regressive taxation to say to low and moderate income students and families you want to go to college, you want to make something of yourself, you want to make it into the middle class, you want to help make our nation more competitive and in a ten-year period, we're going to make $180 billion in profits off of your desire to go to college. i think that that is wrong.

i would point out, madam president, that if you look around the world in an increasingly competitive global economy, what you find is that we are at the very bottom in terms of the kind of support we give our young people and their families in terms of going to college. right now, in vermont, which is a little bit higher than the national average, our young people are graduating from a four-year school $28,000 in debt. that is on average meaning lower income young people who graduate deeper in debt. what does it mean in a difficult economy, challenging economy to start off your adult life $40,000 or $50,000 in debt, go to graduate school, that number goes way up. i talked to a couple of young debtors in vermont last year. over $200,000 in debt starting

off their professional career. over $200,000 in debt, dentists, doctors, people in graduate school. a couple of months ago, i had the ambassador from denmark come into the state of vermont, doing some town meetings with me. madam president, do you know how much debt young people who graduate college, graduate school, medical school in denmark have? they have zero. they have zero because that country and many other countries have made what i think is the rational conclusion, that it is important to invest in our young people. we need their intellectual capital. we need the best-educated work force that we want, that we can get, and that we want to encourage people to go to college, not discourage them by high college costs. so, madam president, i think we can do a lot better than this bipartisan bill.

the danger with the bipartisan bill is that the c.b.o. and virtually all economists tell us that interest rates are going up, and if you beg your student loan to a variable interest rate and those interest rates are going up, then the proof is in the pudding, according to the c.b.o., that in a number of years students are going to be paying very, very high interest rates. so given the fact that we are going to be dealing with the higher education reauthorization within a year, which needs to tackle a whole lot of years within the issue of higher education, including student loans, my suggestion will be and my amendment will be let us sunset this legislation at the end of two years. let's take advantage of the low interest loans and give us the time to come up with a long-term plan, and i look forward to my colleagues supporting that amendment. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor and note

the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. stabenow: madam president, i would ask for suspension of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you, madam president. it's my pleasure to ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar 136, h.r. 2642, that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of s. 954 as passed by the senate be inserted in lieu thereof, that h.r. 2642 as

amended be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that the senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the house on the disagreeing votes of the two houses, and the chair be authorized to appoint conferees with a ratio of 7-5 on the part of the senate, all with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. ms. stabenow: thank you, madam president. let me just take a moment to thank my ranking member, senator cochran, and to indicate we are, in fact, now officially sending back our senate bill to the house and requesting a conference on the farm bill. this is a very important step. this evening, i want to thank the senior senator from north dakota, senator hoeven, who has done yeoman's work this evening

and today, and the senior senator from georgia, senator chambliss, who has been very involved as well as other members of the committee for working hard to bring us to this point. as everyone knows, we have been working very hard on a bipartisan basis in the senate. we have produced a product that is comprehensive, bipartisan, balanced, that addresses the agricultural needs and concerns of our country and of a five-year farm bill that addresses food security and conservation of our soil and land and water, bioenergy, rural development. we could go on and on with all of the pieces of the farm bill that are so important. we also do this on behalf of the 16 million men and women who in america work hard every day in some part of agriculture or the

food industry. the riskiest business in the world. nobody has to worry for their products or services about whether it's going to rain or not today or be too hot or too cold. there are folks that do that every single day, and because of them, we have the safest, most affordable food supply in the world. so on behalf of all of them, and -- i truly want to thank my committee, our committee that has worked incredibly well together. as i said, we have had tremendous leadership shown as we have moved to this process to go to conference, and i would thank every member of our committee, but i do feel that i need to one more time indicate that senator hoeven, senator chambliss have been invaluable in this process. senator hoeven is spending a lot of time as everyone else is getting on airplanes to help us be able to get to this point and

certainly could go down the list. i hate to always not mention someone i may have missed here because we certainly had a strong committee presence and a desire to continue to do great work in the senate on the issue of supporting farmers and ranchers. this is a very important step as we move forward in what i am very confident, despite the twists and turns, will result in a bipartisan farm bill. i want to commend despite terrific odds and challenges the chairman in the house and ranking member in the house for their efforts, and i'm confident that working together that we will be able to get this done for the american people. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: is the senate in the process of having a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. reid: what is the business -- i ask consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: what is the matter before the senate? the presiding officer: the motion to proceed to s. 1243. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion at the desk. i would ask the chair to report that, please, order it reported. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we

the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 99, s. 1243, a bill making appropriations for the department of transportation and housing and urban development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other purposes, signed by 18 senators as follows -- mr. reid: madam president, i ask consent that the names be waived -- reading of the names be waived, not the people. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum required under rule 22 be waived, the vote op the motion to invoke cloture and the motion to proceed occur at 12:00 noon on tuesday, july 23. after cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be yielded back an the senate proceed to vote on the motion to proceed, the motion to proceed to calendar number 99, 1243 is adopted, the text of h.r. 2610 as reported by the house, begin the house-passed text for the purposes of rule 16. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate now proceed to a period of morning business, senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the following bills be considered read twice and placed on the calendar. mr. reid: the matters that i wish to be placed on the calendar is s. 1334, 1335 and 1336. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid:: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 12:15 on friday, july 19, for a pro forma session

only with no business conducted. that following the pro forma session, the senate adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tuesday, july 23. following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the majority leader be recognized, that following the remarks of the two leaders, the time until noon be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. further, the senate recess from 12:30 until 2. 156789 to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: the next roll call vote then will be tuesday at noon. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate is adjourned until 12:15 tomorrow.

>> so much of it comes from the contact with him. and he serves not only under mckinley, but after mckinley's assassination he was the secretary of state for teddy roosevelt. so you have this wonderful iconic individual and then we look deeper you realize all of the chapters in between from the civil war to the beginning of the 20th century is someone who has fingerprints on all of these pages. in many cases, these are written in the pages of american history. >> sunday at 8:00 p.m., john oliver. on c-span "q&a". >> we do not know enough about our first ladies in the fine

lines that often surpass their husbands in drama and fortitude. presidential historian richard norton smith and the first lady's influence and image. >> max baucus and dave camp and the ways and means committee took their efforts to reform the tax code on the road today. i spoke with community leaders to update the tax code. this runs about 45 minutes.

>> for those of you who are still eating, please do it quietly. we would appreciate some quiet eating. thank you so much. we are very honored today to have the chairman of the senate finance committee and the chairman of the house ways and means committee here today at the economic forum in washington. for those who might be watching on c-span or others who may not be familiar, senator max baucus is the senior senator from montana. he is has been a senator for about 35 years, the third most senior senator in the senate now. he is in his sixth term and he served previously two terms in the house of representatives and he is a native of montana, educated at stanford and has a law degree at stanford and went back to montana after he got his law degree.

he announced not long ago that he will not run for a second term. so he will be retiring at the end of this congress. i think that he will feel the joys of liberation at that point. [laughter] but he has done an extraordinary job of the senate finance committee and is now in the middle of all the things we are going to talk about today. we have congressman camp, who is the chairman of the house ways and means committee, he is from michigan. he represents the fourth district of michigan. and he has been a member of the house of representatives for several terms and the chairman of the ways and means committee sent 2011 when he first became the chairman. we previously -- he previously served in january 2011. is that correct?

>> yes in that capacity there is a term limit. >> so he would be term limited unless there was an exception and he would be serving as the chairman of the ways and means committee unless there is a change for the end of this congress. he is a native of michigan, a graduate of university of san diego law school and he returned after law school to michigan. then he became a member of the united states house of representatives. so you don't see that much so to be realistic about it, is there any chance contentions between the democrats and republicans in

and the president of the united states getting a comprehensive tax reform. what would you rate as the chances of a comprehensive tax reform? >> welcome everyone knows that the code is dated other countries have modified and modernize their coast 97% of americans fill out their tax returns themselves. they do a turbotax or software.

they feel as well but somebody else is getting a break that they are not giving in and starting to erode confidence. it is definitely political. this is not partisan. >> if you were a betting man, i assume you're not, would you say 5050 -- >> above 50%. >> okay, about 50% or chairman camp, what would you say? your committee or the house of representatives? >> i think that max baucus is right on the point that he made. in washington would try to

obtain a lower rate. some feel that they are getting a special deal because of the complexity that we have made the tax process over the last several years. even if you have a job, you may have your hours reduced, your salary may increase and there is this need for growth and jobs and the complexity is just -- it is enormous. obviously people are afraid they are going to get audited in the current situation in a very well maybe, but the concern is that people have a huge stack of papers i have man who had tax preparations and he had $9000. so the costs of compliance was just enormous. over $160 billion a year and 6 billion hours to comply there

is the senate and house working together and it is so important. i have to tell you that the response i get from the members of the house, i think they believe as we do that the country needs this. many friends have that so when

we get on the road to prosperity and success,, whatever their choices akamai for its all-important. >> some people think the tax reform means that they are corporate and individual and you're talking about not just one or the other. >> that's right. some people think that tax reform means raising revenue and some people think it means revenue neutral. so what is it going to be. revenue neutral or the something else? >> both. [laughter] >> okay. >> okay, so it's the same deal. so the democrats generally would like to raise revenue, which it is often said in tax reform and republicans often say over to my dead body are we going to raise revenues and you think that we will work that out in the conference.

because how are you going to deal with that. >> i think that we meet weekly, we have been for a long time. we have the same broad goals. great reduction, very significant base broadening and the house, republic, the senate democrats, therefore the senate bill will have some evidence. the house bill probably will not. revenue raising those are supposed to go first in the house we meet regularly and we

are both graduates. [laughter] >> i think we have been talking about this for a long time. but you know, we think it is regular order in the bill to build from the ground up. so i have met with every member of the ways and means committee individually and lots of freshmen's on the bipartisan working group's and we have the hearings together in 70 years, between the senate finance committee and the ways and means committee and so there has been a lot of work done and the idea is how do we get the policy right. is their there revenue, is there not revenue, how can we develop

the policy along the way. and i think that in that area, a lot of this is simple petition. >> okay. so you don't agree? >> well, we do agree on the results. for example we could go first and put it in the house with a revenue bill and you know, i was just thinking that it does make sense for us to look at this rather than going first. especially dave makes a judgment. will that help the success?

it will not. >> we both agreed that whatever avenue it takes to get this done, we are willing to try it. >> they definitely care. >> if it is different than 1986 when reagan reform tax reform, you know, i don't think it is the absence of it so i don't think it's a problem.

so i think it's good that he is where he is we spoke with jack lew today. people working their way through this. >> they move forward and they will not send us this. we have had grassroots hearings. are you planning to have any more of those around the country >> yes. [laughter] >> next we're going to philadelphia. they are not formal hearings.

one approach is to so -- this approach is to receive both initiatives and now we're going around the country. we are trying to go to the twin cities and visit 3-m, larger companies as well. we are going to spend some time with him. >> in washington we call the tax expenditures now and the biggest tax expenditures are things like mortgage interest directions and charitable introductions or a municipal bond reductions, state

and local types of things, those are probably the big four. which of those is going to go away? [laughter] >> did you have a preference? [laughter] >> well, i have some, but to be completely serious, obviously you can't eliminate all of them, you might moderate them, but you might think that the pain should be sure among all of those where you are likely to go a little bit more with one or the other? >> not to cause nervousness in the room, but not everything in the code is a tax expenditure. so there items that are not tax expenditures for and we are going to look at that. we do not want to take the current code and try to amend this. in order to see what fuel we need to put into this,. >> with the respective

committees wanting to add submissions are how is that going? >> not only are dave and i working together but the republicans and i working together, which is an approach that starts with a clean slate. it is to get rid of the tax expenditures and it's a very rough number. we must pay attention to what we want to put back into it. without the revenue will be great reduction and it is probably almost entirely a rate reduction. we are starting to do that now and i expect that we will get a flood of them. >> just to be clear, senator

hatch and i are working together with these submissions and we're keeping them confidential. because we want a candid conversation of purpose. >> is leadership set in the senate, they will make time for a bill for this. they will bring it to the floor. >> i have full support and i told them tell me what you want us to do. >> how can i help you. >> wanting that we talk about is the value added tax and is a value-added tax something that you need to consider is that not even in the ballpark? >> honestly there is a senate vote on and i don't think you want to have another taxation in the code. but what i said to the house members is if you have something

that is scored and raises the revenue described in the budget and so there is another type of taxation, a value-added tax, fair tax, some other ideas of taxes that are out there. as long as the joint committee scores it, and meets the benchmark we will honestly consider that in the committee and we have done a bipartisan process the working group and the senate. we have had either from groups and other members and honestly we have compiled this and the joint committee report. >> part of this is sitting down with the numbers. >> in the last congress, the lame-duck part of it, congress agreed to increase the capital gain from 15 to 20% and the dividends rate as well.

another that has increased, do you think it is likely that we'll ever go up again in this reform bill, or are you kind of ... or capital gains could go up or down? would you like to say that as capital gains, that is not likely to be changed? >> well, i can try. [laughter] >> using marginal rates could go up? >> everything is on the table. >> okay. >> i think that growth and simplicity, i always say revenue neutrality that is a benchmark that we are trying to look at, those are kind of the parameters. >> lets you to the affordable care act. your committee dealt without the fourth and the president has announced that he will postpone implementation for one year. is that of concern, or do you

think that is a good decision? >> i think we have to codify this with regard to the employer mandate and also the concerns that are needing to be addressed. if you're going to do this for business, even though we have assurances that will be implemented on time, there are lots of problems with this. this is clearly an indication. basically said this will destroy the ability to do this. these problems need to be clearly part of it. the only bill that actually reduces this is the republican version that was debated during the how scared and health care

debate. medicare is often said to say it is part of the federal government at a very large array. are you planning to do a anything on medicare? >> i may go back to the last question. we are on track with tax reform. >> especially when it comes to implementing their portal care. >> this includes part of the employer mandate. i supported and it is more of an integral part of this because

that is actually really important. so that the health care system provided. so i have spent a lot of time on limitations and i just want this to be implemented correctly. it is here and it is not going to be repealed, so let's make it work the best way to we possibly can. and that is what the course is that i think we should take. >> you think there is a solution to that in the congress. >> this includes social security and medicare and a discussion of the draft on some parts with the language in terms of social security and a lot of this has been discussed for many years, whether it is reverend domenici

order bowles-simpson or the super committee or eric cantor and his thoughts, now we are going to do is talk about really building the backdrop. i think that we have a traditional view on how to approach unclearly pretending then clearly intended to be part of the discussion, especially with issues that have to be resolved by the end of the year with government or others and those might have an opportunity to come forward to help its result in those areas. >> it is not too difficult of a conception of dave and i will have told you. bowles-simpson in the super committee and the like. >> but this is an interesting point. because those efforts failed in part with the deficit reduction

because two thirds of the members have no knowledge and they were not on the appropriations committee. two thirds of the time is educating this on the committee as to the appropriations and we have been having these meetings now and we tend to know what the major cases are with entitlement reform. so if there is a role there, and he's put together very quickly and the important point of the jurisdiction involved, because the committee knows the ins and outs of the trade-offs involved. >> most of you have served on the super committee and since the super committee could not come to an agreement on sequestration, and is in effect

nine seems it will be in effect. but they would try to come up with a solution because they do not like sequestration would become over the same solution? >> it is interesting. >> i let you do that one. >> it is very impressive. two thirds of the way it is served. it can be very difficult. a couple of them have never met each other. >> i'm eating i am eating every single senator on tax reform.

back in the super committee, the committee said let maxtor. they turned it over to us. and we sat down, the staff sat down and we came up with a solution. >> yes. >> this idea with a small group of people i think that one of the things that was important to do, it is really involve members. so i don't think reconvening the super committee would be helpful because of that dynamic.

your chances of succeeding are a lot better if you have that. you have a build from the ground up. and you have people involved and have stakeholders. >> that is a really good point. we have different parts of the code, so many are new and it is wonderful as a learning process. that is a double-edged sword. experts explain different parts of this by asking how to get the

facts and bring this together psychologically telling building trust and even most members know throop for provisions that are important and that three or four districts have interesting when you are doing that entire tax code, known as an expert on that. so obviously the recommendations had been adopted by their congress. you think he would be better off or worse off today? >> bowles-simpson has a terrific service. we are addressing the debt problem of this country faces.

it has changed a lot over time. many members don't know what is in bowles-simpson. in addition to details to get really hung up. i believe that it takes a lot of their word to her. >> as dave has said, the ways and means committee is building us this up there and these are the committees of jurisdiction and they also want to be involved. >> the chairman of the senate finance committee was russell long. how did the committee operate in those days, and how is congress

really different than when you first came. we are quite collegial, that has not changed much. it is the congress and the town that has changed. that does have some influence on the committee. we have worked together with these numbers to try to figure out how to put these pieces together with the judiciary portioned. >> when he first came to congress, so we have this private room that we have for

senators only just off the senators hall. this includes senators kids and families in attempting him. no one goes there now because they are doing other things. what are they doing? they're going to olive garden tuesdays and wednesdays on thursday. they are having lunch together and they are terrible fundraising at noontime, there is a part to it that is symbolic of how we just don't talk about

this now you're saying that's not a big deal. [laughter] >> so was the house much more partisan than what you imagine? >> so there is a big difference. but it was not exactly completely bipartisan then. we had proxy voting and we were able to go back and write it how we wanted to. i do think that there was more kinds of discussions that were included. but we were friends on the committee and there were lessons that were less than that. and it was such a great response from our members on the bipartisan working group. the actually were scheduled to call each other and actually

found that they enjoyed working together. so i do think that we need to get back to that overtime and it has eroded. and how typically including how the government is structured. i think this includes the bill to be signed and it doesn't take a scientist to figure that out. so that is what i think is important on this and other issues. and we have had seven bipartisan trade bill signed into law. max and i have worked very closely and i think that as a model for how we need to do some of these other things. >> at the senate went to the republic and somebody said to

senator kohl you'll be senatechairman of the senate finance committee. unless there was a waiver, let's just assume that neither of you will be in the current position in the next congress. does that make it easier for you to get tax forms through or harder? >> easier. >> because i am much more apt to have time to devote to it. and psychologically it is helpful because i'm doing what i came here to do. not to campaign but to legislate and i like doing stuff. what is helping a lot. >> when you retired you intend to do teaching or business or law or go back to montana or run more marathons of marathon so what would you like to do?

>> nice try. [laughter] >> but you do run marathons? >> just. >> and you run ultramarathon. >> yes. >> was it like to run 100 miles or something? >> i've only done 50. [laughter] >> okay, only 50. [laughter] >> congressman, are you interested in having a waiver, or would you think of maybe running for the open senate seat of michigan? >> we have to year cycles all the time and there is no guarantee that you will have the majority after two years. i think in the house we tend not to have served that with a longer view. you make the most of the two years that you have and that's what i'm going to do. >> don't give them away but. [laughter] >> okay, all right. >> let's talk about trade for a moment. the administration would like to trade agreement back to asia and to do t-moment. the administration would like to trade agreement back to asia and to do that, it we think that we can get the fast track authority

through? >> yes. >> we are introducing a bill hopefully by the end of this month. >> yes. >> before listening on issues and we are close to getting it done. >> we have been working on us. this. we had a good time. >> yes. >> today there was a chairman of the finance committee and we have lots of people, lobbyists lobbyist the cumin, business people and so forth. what is usually a persuasive argument for something? what you find is persuasive when you hear people talking? >> like anything else, yes, is

it considered as relevant points of view? not just that, but thoughtful. >> well, i think that when you get out and we suffer a real-life situation and the great things that americans are doing and you heard about how the code includes four generations of a family running this bakery and if you take the issue and personalize it, you can make it understandable. so that is why i think the troops trips that we are going to take going out as well.

>> a problem that they have is the u.s. tax code. it is a complexity and a higher rate. especially during businesses in the states that let me address this issue. right now we will have more cash to create jobs and support that we do that. select end it comes back at 35% tax rate. so is it fair to say that it's never going to come back, and therefore is there any way out of this dilemma? because i know you're assuming that it's coming back, but it will probably never come back. you probably never get this money. how do you solve that problem?

>> you know, i have put out three discussion drafts. companies are able to bring back those dollars that they earn overseas without a double tax. >> not on a regular basis. there is an ability to do that. we are obviously working through that. so it is an area that is very complicated and it is essential for us to complete in the world. it is now almost $2 trillion. how can we get that here in the united states to create jobs.

we want them doing business around the world, the jobs that are here, they are incredible job. >> we are on the same page. >> we are going to set up a system where those dollars not trapped overseas in a writenow qe-3 has been something that we have talked a lot about. whether the federal reserve will taper off. you have a view on whether it's a good thing or not a good thing or not? you have a view on whether ben bernanke should have another term? >> well, that's up to ben bernanke. i think he's done a good job. i think quantitative easing has been very helpful. it's been helpful to the u.s. and it is helpful when it comes to potential long-term

inflation. so i think that he has done a good job. he's doing the best that he can but monetary policy. >> congress and the president can be held to that as well. ..

there is a lot for us to do. i think we have a lot of quantitative easing for my opinion that summit was necessary but i think we are at a point where i am very concerned about the long-term inflationary aspects of that. >> so if people are watching on c-span or people in this audience are interested in tax reform what is the best way to communicate with you or your staff if they want to keep or the ones they want you to add or how they would change your staff or send e-mails or what is the best way to communicate with you? >> all of the above. we have a web site tax reform that have. call us up and we are both very accessible. >> tax reform.gov for somebody watching around the country and

that's easiest way to get there. we are going through those. >> congressman you just celebrated her 60th birthday last week. >> thank you for that. [laughter] >> when you turn 60 yes i did a few years ago people come up to you all the time and say you look good today. [laughter] you had a health issue a while ago and people were watching that would be interested to know you have dealt with non-hodgkin's lipoma. you were treated and in complete remission. >> thank you for asking on that and just completed the treatment and obviously their 24 different kinds of lymphoma but the one i had was treatable and i successfully completed it so i have a lot of encouragement and support and if and support and if you know anybody going through something like that don't hesitate. some send them back texts are written that card because it really does help if you're going to do that to know that there are people out there thinking about you. >> a final question for both of you. you have served and

distinguished careers in the senate in and the house and now knowing everything that it is to be a member of congress would you have decided in this career and is it a career you are happy with in fulfilling and are you satisfied with what you have accomplished and what's been the most frustrating thing about having this job? >> well, i would not have it any other way. i think it's the best job in the world. i feel so lucky to serve montana in the state senate and be involved in these issues we have been talking about to try to make a difference. there are frustrations obviously with everything but there are rewards. just public service to me is more than outweighs it. i would recommend it to anybody and everybody. >> you have had your last election? >> i've had my last election and now looking at this next chapter

but i wouldn't change anything. >> i may not have had my last election so i may look at it a little differently but i think probably the thing that is the most interesting is just the quality of people and the things they are doing and where you are exposed to so many different industries and people from different walks of life and they think you just come away with this huge respect for the freedom in this country offers people and what they are able to do with it and i realize not everybody is successful and i don't come from a wealthy district. but it is really important to see what this country can offer. i come back with a great respect for america and the people who have made this country great and most of them are not in the u.s. congress. but you do get an opportunity to see all of that. >> is important to remember we are americans and we sometimes take that for granted.

we are so incredibly lucky. people in other countries want to live in america and that is why we have immigration legislation but we are really lucky. as americans we have been given so much and we have an application to get back and it's wonderful giving back. >> senator thank you for distinguished service over many years in washington obviously you have several years to go and chairman camp thank you very much for what you are doing and thank you very much for being here today. >> thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

a group of senators introduced a proposed media shield law yesterday. it will codify the justice department's recently announced policy on treatment of journalists. this news conference begins with the bill's two main sponsors democrat chuck schumer and republican lindsey graham. this is 25 minutes. >> okay. good afternoon everybody and thank you all for coming.

i'm proud to be joined by lindsey graham who worked on this legislation together a long time ago and our other colleagues. we have four democrats and for republicans introducing this legislation and they are blumenthal amy klobuchar johnny isakson john tester roy blunt is on his way and kelly ayotte could not make it today. so yesterday we enjoyed a nice big bipartisan breakthrough in the senate as democrats and republicans came together and reach an agreement to allow the presence nominees to go forward. we saw the senate at its best. reasonable people from both parties willing to come together to find common ground. that is how the senate should work and that is the way things get done. that is why i'm very proud to be standing here with another group of colleagues from both sides of the aisle to announce that as a group we will be pushing for tough new media shield bill that will make the department of justice guidelines the law of

the land and go even further than the guidelines to ensure the proper balance between national security and freedom of the press. the administration has done the right thing and putting the rules of the road in place to find that balance that our bill will ensure that any of these now or later can't make a u-turn in abandoning these new guidelines. in many ways are bill is tougher than the new guidelines that the doj has smartly proposed new ideas that would offer additional protections to journalists while carefully balancing that need against national security. when the bill is marked up later in january we are going to -- sorry, when the bill is marked up later this month in the judiciary committee we are going to add new provisions to ensure that the proposals doj has issued aren't simply suggestions that are followed at the limb of an attorney general an attorney general that allow the land.

first we are going to make sure the justice department can't delay notifying the reporter or news agency when their records are being sought for more than 90 days. the doj guidelines would make this records cases but the next attorney general and the next president could always change their mind. our bill won't let that happen. second we are going to make sure that the department of justice guidelines and their bill's provisions regarding record requests cover situations with all types of records are sought. the original bill would only apply to cases where the government was seeking records from third-party communication providers, cell phone companies and e-mail providers. our new and improved bill will apply if the government seeks other records as well business records credit card company records. we are going to continue to work with news organizations and the administration defined in this legislation as it moves to the floor to codify the new guidelines into law and make sure our media shield laws are as strong as they can be paired with this bipartisan group standing here today i'm

confident that the bill will be passed in the senate this year. there's a similar bill working its way through the house are the chances of this becoming law this bipartisan legislation becoming law are high and with that high and with that of the bike to turn it over to my friend and colleague lindsey graham. roy, you have to go somewhere. >> this is something we have been working on with senator schumer and myself are a couple of years and i guess i will say this is the protect fox news from eric holder act. so the bottom line is we need to codify the rules of the road not for notice purposes. when you cover political people it's okay if we get upset but it's not okay for use the power of the government unfairly against those who cover us so having a court involved they

think is a necessary check and balance. this doesn't allow the first amendment is not a license to kill. you can publish anything and everything. there is a balance between national security and the need to control the government and inform the people about what their government is doing at this bill makes it much harder for a political appointee to use administrative subpoena. they have to have a check and balance for the court. free media is essential to any democracy with. with freedom comes responsibility so i would urge my colleagues in the media to try to be better at their responsibility part. the guidelines are not going to cut it in the it in the 21st century and i think we need a law that transcends the administration. i think we have struck the right balance here between protecting national security and protecting those who cover the government. reporting on what happens in the government and telling the people about what your government is up to do something that a lot of people in this world would love to have.

we have it and we need to protect it and quite frankly cherish it and i think this bill does that. >> thank you very much. thank you senator schumer and senator graham and our group that worked together on this bill. this is incredibly important as senator graham said putting in some guidelines are one thing but we never know what the next president will do in that wet the next administration will do and that is why we devoted to get this into love. i was a prosecutor for eight years. my dad was a journalist having interviewed everyone in his life from mike ditka to ronald reagan to ginger rogers and then my daughter who just turned 18 was the editor of her little cross sabers newspaper at her high school supervising in a newspaper journalism writing staff of 24, something some of you may and the i think. and in any case i have that part of my family life and my work as a prosecutor where i always understood the need for strong

law enforcement and good investigations. what i like about this bill is that i think it strikes that balance of making sure that journalists are able to do their job and it really changes the presumption over what we have seen in the last year, to make sure that when the justice mentooks at this, that they look at other ways to get the information first and they exhaust other ways of getting the information, that they make sure is essential to the investigation, that they obtain a subpoena that is narrowly tailored and senator graham points out that they go to the courts and the notice period doesn't go on forever and ever and ever. that's the essential parts of our bill and i'm proud to work with this great group varied as a prosecutor i don't always like to use the word gang but it's another good gang have come up with so thank you very much and happy to answer to questions when we are done. >> thanks to our colleagues were

were -- i wanted to be here as part of this. i think senator schumer and senator graham and those of us who joined them have joined a good piece of legislation they put together. i was involved in 2007 and 2009 and legislation like this that the house passed by the senate was never able to deal with and frankly this is better legislation. a lot has happened since 2009 and there are a lot of things that we have realized now that are the realities of today that weren't necessarily the reality is a handful of years ago. this treats nonclassified and classified material and a slightly different way and protects journalists who are doing their job but also provides pathways for justice. in a civil case or a criminal case and all other things have been exhausted and it's clear there is information available would make a difference in the life of a person in those cases there is a way to get there but there is a very prescribed way to get there.

it still recognizes very much the importance of journalists in our society and are allowed to do if they are supposed to do. just because i'm not supposed to answer question doesn't mean you are not supposed to ask it and this begins to once again clarify that and how that would work. i think it's an improvement over what we have tried to do in the past and the records access. it's much different situation than it was a handful of years ago and having the same safeguards that prevent access to various kinds of records are there so i'm pleased to be part of this and again i am particularly glad to associate myself with the work that was largely done by senator graham and senator schumer in drafting this legislation and proving i think on the debates we have had in the last handful of years and legislation that passed the house that i was part of. i think this is a better alternative and hopefully we can pass this in the senate and combine it with the ever made in

the house and make this permanent long as others have said, not just guidelines that will be established by one administration and changed by another and no longer have the opportunity to change her mind after you have a problem. there will be guidelines that will prevent that from happening. >> i do not want to thank chuck and lindsey and the co-sponsors of this bill. when it comes to the first amendment we are talking about something that is very important in this country and i think it's important congress steps up to the plate and sets the rules of the road. we have done this with this bill as it's been explained earlier. i think what's also very important as the folks in the sermon the whole lot of other folks do their job. we also need to make sure the security of this country is what it is. that is secure. it holds the government --

accountable. >> i want to thank lindsey and chuck for what they have done. my comment is very simple. we have a country because of our constitution and we have a constitution because of the bill of rights and the first one is freedom of speech. as the cornerstone of this republic of this republic and the cornerstone of our country. this is an appropriate shield for for the president is not mapped blue shield that is lindsey said it provides a way for the court to make a judgment upon request so it's not absolute privilege but it's a privilege amp protects the free flow of information transparency that makes all of us do a better job. >> last but not least senator blumenthal. >> i want to add my thanks to senators graham and schumer and all of my colleagues, a broadly based ideologically and bipartisan group and i think that speaks to the underlying rationale for this legislation.

there's nothing democrat or republican about it. it's simply good constitutional practice. the aim is to it avoid any chill on freedom of expression and the chilling effects, the failure to signal irrevocably and certainly the press will be protected from unwarranted intrusion is fundamental to avoid that kind of chilling effect. it shouldn't be a matter for rules or guidelines. it ought to be in the law and that is why what it means to be codified. i feel very deeply about this legislation. it may sound strange coming from someone who has spent the better part of my career law enforcement. i was a united states i was a united states attorney for four and a half years and attorney general for 20 years and like senator klobuchar i am committed to this legislation not only as

a citizen and a lawmaker but also as a law enforcement official. in fact i conducted a major investigation of improper disclosures while i was united states attorney. i did so at the request of the attorney general and we had one rule, which was no approaches, no subpoenas, no requests to the press. it was an investigation that involved improper disclosures that threaten not only the potential organized crime investigation but also the safety and well-being of certain members of the government law enforcement establishment that was investigating. and we have regarded this improper disclosure with the severity that was merited, which brings me to the point that senator tester made, which is

the burden is on the government. to investigate and punish improper disclosure on the part of government officials that have been entrusted with the most solemn of responsibilities which is to protect the public trust and never to betray it and that kind of trust when it is violated should be enforced and protected. so, i hope that we remain true to that principle and this legislation certainly is important and necessary step in that direction. >> senator schumer have you spoken with the administration about codifying the -- [inaudible] are there going to be penalties

involves? >> yes. on the first question, the administration is supportive, was supportive of the previous bill introduced. this has a few minor changes, while some significant changes as well as codifying the guidelines. i believe that they are obviously reviewing it right now i hope the lead they will be supportive. in terms of penalties, the legislation -- though i don't think it changes in terms of penalties from the previous legislation so it's exactly the same. anyone else. [inaudible] >> i hope so. it was an incredible meeting we had, three hours long and many of us have heard this in smaller groups that you don't always hear, really strong support

moving forward together. this is an example of that and certainly the immigration bill in the farm bill in the water resources development act, all these bills were strong bipartisan bills in the senate and i think it's been going on actually with a few tips for a number of years now where the senate is functioning votes on amendments and things like that. so my hope is and i said this at the meeting that we can get through these nomination so that we can go on to the real work that we need to do. which is working on a long-term solution to the debt and working on conference of tax reform. we have some immediate things we need to do but that can't bode well for the future and i think senator schumer and senator mccain and senator mcconnell and particularly senator reid who worked so hard to get this done. [inaudible]

>> well i would say with 51 votes obviously there is less of a need for bipartisanship. so one of the reasons we have these groups is the only way he can get things done in the senate at this point is a bipartisan coalition and i think we welcome it. if you were in that room which you obviously weren't, i hope. that yearning from just about everybody who spoke of working together and legislating and meeting each other in the middle was so, so strong and was so, so clear that i think it's given us momentum. we were planning this bill frankly before that happened but it should give many people momentum and put greater importance on this.

>> senator ayad is not a co-sponsor. i gave chuck some bad information there. she is looking at the bill but she is not a co-sponsor. the big things in life when you can find consensus you are better off so when it comes to legislation i have no desire to change the 60 vote rule because the big items that we deal with the need to find consensus and the few times we haven't found it hasn't worked well for republicans. as for this legislation i think roy is right. this passed the house but momentum does exist to get things done. that would have been a real tragedy so i hope there is smooth sailing ahead. the president deserves his --

but we need to have a say about how the team works and the results of the work product. we need to have input as a minority but i think better days lie ahead for the senate. >> just one word. i am the least senior of any of the members here. in the last two and a half years from day one i've heard the verbiage and rhetoric about how we need bipartisan cooperation, and for the most part it has been more in word than in action and what i've sensed more recently is an awareness that there has to be action, otherwise the rhetoric is completely empty and not only yesterday but with the immigration bill where again senator graham and senator schumer and others, senator mccain, really stepped forward and took some risks and that is what i see in the change ,-com,-com ma the willingness to take risk and support the

bipartisan act. [inaudible] seeing no, it's a vote that something as important as this the freedom of the press versus national security and other means of security and the government that there ought to be -- i mean it was a morass before. one of the reasons the administration ran into so much trouble as there were no clear paths and each prosecutor more or less, it was up to his own, her own to go forward. this not only sets a path that puts that path than concrete so it has the imprimatur of lawsuit can be in her. by the courts far more easily and requires that go to an independent arbiter. the key problem has always been that when the government decides

for itself when and how to deal with the press in terms of finding out who leaked something , it's unfair by definition. you always need an independent arbiter. we try to create a balance. we are all very aware of national security. the bill is balanced and it took years for a year or two to negotiate between the american public newspaper association and the administration both which supported the original version of the bill and i expect both will support this one as well, to come up with that but that is the key here. so it's not a of confidence. it's a need for a balanced path. that is what the bill does. [inaudible] senator leahy has said he wants to mark this up as quickly as possible. i think it will move beyond the committee thursday or it has

already. anyone can ask for a weekly over pet we will be able to market up a week from thursday before the recess. we will take one more. >> are some of you the ui is going to be -- senator graham and senator schumer seem to be in the game. >> we reject the word gang. group. group. see everything just to say senator schumer and senator graham, the gang has been going on for a while. a while back there was one on energy but the differences senator blumenthal was referring do we are starting to see action with them. we have always gotten along in the senate and done a lot together but this is getting things done and i think finally the american public people are starting to realize that courage is an just going into the chamber chamber in may kenya speech by yourself and having your base here. courage is whether you're

willing to stand up next to someone you don't always agree with for the betterment of this country and that is what is changing in the senate. >> senator schumer seldom has a good idea but when he does i jump on it. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> what we do teach here at the museum on a typical two or it is we do start with how the music industry started with edison and the cylinder machine and then we go forward with the invention by berliner of the flat disc machine which is called the gramophone. and if we go ahead throughout that story and tell about johnson's very important inventions to improve this machine. mr. johnson and his engineers went to work to try to keep the

customers very happy and what they did, they came up with a style referred to as a victrola. the word victrola was coined when the horn was removed and it was put in a concealed area within the cabinet itself. now they also decided and this was a very clever idea to put doors on the front which allow them to modify the sound so now you had volume control doors. you also could take the lid and close the lid which would give you the ability to soften the sounds but also sometimes if you had a very scratchy record it would also hide that sound as well. ♪ ♪ >> learn more about the founder

of the victor hola talking machine company in 1901 as booktv in american history tv look at the history and literary life of dover delaware saturday on c-span2's booktv and sunday at 5:00 on c-span threes american history tv. the agency wrongly delayed conservative groups applications for tax-exempt status. much of the questioning focused on whether the improper conduct was the fault of agents in the cincinnati officer