mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent notwithstanding rule 22, the cloture motions filed during yesterday's session of the senate ripen at 2:30 p.m. today. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, as today we mourn the loss of the

life of at least 17 people at the marjory stoneman douglas high school in fort lauderdale, florida, we're reminded that -- when we're asked to do something, that there are some things we can do to help lessen the likelihood of such terrible tragedies, recognizing that each of these circumstances are unique and we don't yet know everything there is to know or we should know about this particular shooter. but suffice it to say that he telegraphed on social media, according to reports, his intention to do what he ultimately did. and we here in congress, the policy-makers, need to come up with tools available to law enforcement and for the social media platforms to be able to monitor these sort of terroristic threats much in the same way that we monitor social media for al qaeda and isis and

other terrorists abroad who try to recruit people here in the united states to kill our fellow citizens in place. so we need to not only think about and pray for the families and teachers and support staff affected by this terrible act, i think we need to conduct hearings and talk to the experts and find out what kind of tools might be available to us. i'll mention another example of something we could do that would, i'm confident, save lives. only a few months ago in my home state of texas, we saw a mass shooting at a small town called suggest sutherland springs. that's near santonio. the gun man killed 26 people and wounded 20 more. he was a convicted felon. under existing law, he could not legally purchase or possess

firearms, but that didn't stop him from getting the weapons he used to murder those 26 people and shoot 20 more. part of the reason was because his criminal history was not uploaded on the national instant criminal background check system maintained by the f.b.i. so the begun retailer, when he came in and lied on the background check document, the gun retailer didn't know that he was legally disqualified from purchasing a firearm. well, i've introduced legislation to try to fix that specific problem. it's called the fix nics act, and the house has already passed it and it's awaiting action here in the senate. our churches and schools should be refuges, places where parents and children especially feel safe and secure. many of these shootings can be

prevented. perhaps not all, but we need to do everything we can. part of the way we can ensure that our children are protected is to enforce current law. that's not just our children, that's the adults as well, as we saw in sutherland springs. we can fix our broken background check system and prohibit dangerous individuals who have been convicted of serious crimes from acquiring firearms legally. as i said, we don't know all the facts of the florida shooting and the circumstances, as almost always is the case, appears to be a little cloudy right now. but it may be we will find out that there are some clues that this shooter had been sending well in advance of this terrible tragedy that might have prevented it from occurring. mr. president, there is no reason we can't advance this bipartisan legislation, the fix

nics legislation has already passed the house. i personally am unwilling to face another family member who's lost a loved one as a result of these mass shootings that could be prevented by making sure the background check system works as congress intended. mr. president, on a separate note, this week a group led by chairman grassley of the senate judiciary committee formally introduced a bill to address the deferred action on childhood arrival issue and border security. it is a good starting point because it could actually be signed into law and solve the challenge we promised to address, and to provide these young people who through no fault of their own, find themselves in a box because they can't become american citizens because of the fact their parents brought them into the country illegally. it would provide them a

predictable and productive future. i'm glad to be a cosponsor of this legislation which is called the secure and succeed act. it does, as the president has promised, provide a pathway to citizenship for an estimated 1.8 million people who are daca eligible. that is an extraordinary offer by the president of the united states. who would have ever thought that this president would say to these young people we're going to give you a chance to become american citizens. that number is far more than those covered by the executive order signed by president obama, because right now there are only about -- i say only -- 690,000 daca recipients. president trump would make that 1.8 million. just as importantly, this bill provides a real plan to strengthen border security, utilizing more boots on the ground, better technology and additional infrastructure and

enhance and modernize our ports of entry through which many of the illegal drugs that flow into this country from the south come. this bill would reallocate visas from the diversity lottery system which is just sort of like the roll of dice, but it will do it in a way that's fair. and it continues the family-based immigration categories until the current backlog is cleared. i know that other colleagues have been working hard on their own ideas, some of which were introduced yesterday and earlier this morning. but one group i haven't heard much from so far is our colleagues across the aisle that shut down the government over the weekend a couple of weeks ago because they insisted that we provide a time to address this issue. and indeed, in response, once they agreed to reopen the government, the majority leader offered them that time and that opportunity, and that is this

week. but so far none of our democratic colleagues have even produced a bill. rather the bill had been produced by senator grassley and his working group that i mentioned. another bill by senator collins and senator rounds, which we'll be voting on here shortly. and then i believe also senator gardner and nor bennet -- and senator bennet have another proposal. but the very folks who shut down the government over this issue have failed to come forward with a plan that they have produced in response to this demand that we have a debate and that we have a vote to try to address the problem. on tuesday the majority leader tried twice to open the debate and start voting, but both times there were objections heard by our democratic colleagues. this despite their repeated promises over the years to address the daca issue once and

for all. well, now the clock has run, so we can finally get started, and we'll start voting, as i understand the majority leader's unanimous consent request, about 2:30 today. we're just getting started voting due to the stalling and the lack of really much debate, certainly and no substantive offers up until this point from our colleagues across the aisle. i believe sincerely that republicans and democrats alike both want to provide certainty to these daca recipients, but we've got to address the underlying problems with our border security and our flawed immigration system as well. i know our colleague from pennsylvania has introduced an amendment to end dangerous sanctuary city policies. it's simply unacceptable for local jurisdictions to decide they're going to not cooperate with federal law enforcement agencies. we are a nation, and we are a

nation of laws. and the idea that some local group could decide not to cooperate with federal law enforcement authorities ought to worry all of us. even though this amendment has been endorsed by the federal law enforcement officers association and the national association of police organizations, many of our colleagues across the aisle will probably vote against it. that's especially odd since some of them voted for a similar sanctuary city measure themselves in 2015. even more of our democratic colleagues voted to advance what's known as kate's law in 2016. that's named for kate steinle, the young woman who was murdered in san francisco by an illegal immigrant who had been released from custody. kate's law would stiffen penalties for illegal immigrants caught entering the country repeatedly as her killer did. what's controversial about that?

well, if you break the law repeatedly and we find you, there should be very serious consequences. and perhaps kate steinle would be alive today were that the case before her untimely death. i don't know why our democratic colleagues simply refuse to vote for these and other related proposals. i really don't get it. but i do know one thing that's worth highlighting, their unwillingness to support reforms represents a stark departure from what they're said in the past. for example, in 2006, the senior senator from california said democrats are solidly behind controlling the border, and we support the border fence. we've got to get tough on the border. she was then joined by then-senator harry reid, who made similar statements. the senior senator from colorado has said that the democrats still believe in border

security. well, that's good to hear. i wish their actions reflected that. in recent years the junior senator from new mexico has said it's critical we have the personnel, equipment, and policies in place that focus enforcement on the most significant public safety threats along the border. i couldn't have said that better myself. but when it comes time to vote, strangely, our colleagues almost uniformly vote no. i agree with our colleague from indiana as well, who went down to the border awhile back and said he had, that he had seen for himself just how bad the situation is in certain areas. that's why he voted to hire more border agents, penalize businesses that hire illegal immigrants, and deport those who commit felonies. my point, mr. president, is that we should all remember that we're not as far apart as the press would seem to make it. and now it's time to advance the

bill to that effect. not next time, not next month, not next year. we know the clock is ticking. the president has given us until march 5 to get this done. but if this week is any indication, our colleagues on the other side don't seem to be in any particular hurry. as the majority leader said earlier this week, we need to stop making political points and start making a law. that means passing it out of the senate, pass it out of the house and get the president to sign it into law. that's how you make law. several weeks ago, as i said, the majority leader made a commitment to hold this debate and to hold it this week. he's lived up to that commitment, and now we can't let it all just go to waste and squander this opportunity. i am really shocked that after the president has made this offer of a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million

young adults who were brought into this country as children illegally by their parents, as i've always said, we don't hold children responsible for their parents' mistakes, and that's why we should embrace this proposal by the president. but i don't know how you tell these young people that we have the opportunity to address your anxiety and the uncertainty in your future by passing a bill that encompasses the president's proposal and gives you a pathway to citizenship. how do you look them in the face and say, we squandered this golden opportunity? maybe once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. that's what this week is about. there are about 124,000 daca recipients in my state of texas, and i will proudly cast a vote soon to ensure that they stay

here and contribute to our schools, our churches, and our communities. we are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. and you can't have one without the other. what this week is about is finding a bipartisan permanent solution for these young adults, but doing more than just that. i certainly respect that some of our colleagues have introduced thoughtful ideas, but we have to remember that ultimately we need to move a bill through the senate that can pass not only this body, but also the house. and be signed into law by the president. this is not about grand standing or making a political point. the idea is to produce a result, one that we've all said that we want. so let's not waste any more time. let's send the house and then the president something that can become law and provide certainty to these young people who are worried about their future and

to regain our legacy as a nation that believes in the rule of law and security for all. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, in the late 1980's congress debated and adopted amnesty legislation for three million people legally. it promised that in exchange for amnesty, the federal government would finally, finally, finally, secure the border. we all know what happened. that amnesty occurred and the border never got secured. at the time there were three million people living here illegally. today estimates are there is in excess of 12 million people living here illegally. five years ago in 2013, this

body again debated amnesty. the so-called gang of eight failed to secure the board but once again made the same promise for amnesty for those here illegally with a promise, never to come, to secure the border. the senate ultimately passed the gang of eight. as it was being voted on, senate democrats bragged on television that they had north of 70 votes. that now was the time to pass amnesty. the american people people said that amnesty is not what we want. it's inconsistent with the rule of law, and we saw senators at the last minute jumping ship. it passed with 68 have votes -- 68 votes and went nowhere in the house of representatives. so again today, we are having the same debate. i feel like bill bury in " --

bill murray in "groundhog day." i don't know how the votes will go this afternoon. it may be that nothing gets 60 votes. it may be that the senate embraces one of the various amnesty plans that is put on the table. if that is the case it will be every bit of a mistake as the gang of eight was a mistake as the amnesty in the 1980's was a mistake. mr. president, i am flabbergasted as where my own party is in this debate because every proposal that has republican support that has been submitted begins from a place marketedly to the left of that of president obama. president obama, as we all know, issued daca, which was otherwise known as executive amnesty. executive amnesty was illegal

and unconstitutional. the president has no authority to refuse to enforce the law and yet the president decreed -- president obama decreed he would not enforce federal immigration laws, and that's exactly what he did. at the time, virtually every republican denounced executive amnesty as unconstitutional, as lawless, as wrong. yet, today far too many senate republicans are staking out a place well to the left of president obama and daca on numerous axises. daca itself covered 690,000 people. 690,000, yet, what is the proposal being considered by this body? under the mildest of the proposals, we're considering a path to citizenship for 1.8 million people. mr. president, why on earth would we more than double,

nearly triple the daca population, if there are 690,000 people who received unconstitutional executive amnesty, it seems to me the most of the population that we should consider are those 690,000. the argument is made that they have relied on this promise -- even though the promise was illegal and unconstitutional, the people who relied on this promise are the 690,000, not the 1.1 million who never applied. i would ask why republicans and democrats are nearly tripling what president obama did in daca, but that is not the only regard. daca never included citizenship. nothing in it allows citizenship or a path to citizenship. it was nothing more than a work permit -- an illegal work permit, but it did not allow citizenship. yet far too many republicans are eager to embrace the democrats'

demands that one, two, three, four, five, ten million people here illegally should be granted a path to citizenship. mr. president, that is wrong. that is plain and simple wrong. it is unfair to the millions of working men and women, it is unfair to the steel workers, the truck drivers, mechanics and the millions of working men and women who faced stagnant wages under president obama. it is unfair to millions of legal immigrants whose wages are driven down by those here illegally. and it is inconsistent with the promises made by virtually every republican in this body. every republican who went out and campaigned against executive amnesty, who said we will not have amnesty, well, now is the time to choose. if this body chooses to grant citizenship to three two, three,

four million people, those promises will be broken. it is wrong. not only that, the legislation that this body is preparing to consider would not only grant citizenship, it would make those here illegally federal benefits. not only are they here illegally -- mr. president, every one of us has been asked by american citizens, why are we giving away vast sums of money? we are a nation of immigrants. my father came as an immigrant in 1957 with nothing. $100 in his underwear not speaking english, but he came here legally. we should be embracing legal immigrants rather than excusing and condoning illegal immigration. we should not grant citizenship

to anyone here illegally. nor should we provide welfare benefits to anyone here illegally. nor should we expand the pool of daca recipients beyond that in the obama program, and yet republicans seem eager to do so. it is possible that our democratic friends will save us from this foolishness. that even though republicans are proposing a profoundly fool hearty -- foolhardy immigration proposal, they may decide they want more. there is not enough amnesty the democrats can take. if this body gets 60 votes for one of the amnesty proposals, it is incumbent upon the house to stop it. much like with the gang of eight. in the gang of eight, the senate couldn't stop it. the senate has always, unfortunately, been very liberal on immigration, has been very

willing to make promises to the voters and come down here an vote very differently from how those promises are. but the house of representatives, the people's house, is designed to be responsive to the people, and so it is my hope that house conservatives facing the people, listening to the people will recognize, you know, we had an election in 2014 in response to the gang of eight. the american people said we don't want the gang of eight, elected the largest house majority of republicans in 70 years, elected nine new republicans in the senate and retired harry reid as majority leader. yet somehow the fluns in this -- the republicans in this body didn't hear them. we heard that the media was ready to call for hillary clinton in the -- 2016 election. my call to my colleagues, both republicans and democrats, is listen to the people.

there are many things we can and should be doing. we should be passing kate's law. i authored and introduced kate's law. it provides for an aggravated felon who has been repeatedly entering this country illegally, who has been deported repeatedly, that aggravated felon has a limited prison sentence. it is named after the beautiful young woman in california murdered on a peer by an illegal alien who had been convicted over and over again with multiple felony convictions. had kate's law been on the books, i think it is very likely that kate stein would be alive. that is the kind of legislation we should be coming together and passing, and yet the old adage, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. this body made a grieve --

grieves mistake. we may be on the verge of making the same mistake. it is almost as if elections don't penetrate. we need to be listening to the voters. i do not know a single republican, not one in this body, not one in the house of representatives, who was elected on a promise -- i will go to the left of barack obama on immigration. if one of us campaigned promising that, knock yourself out, vote for this. but if you didn't say, obama's executive amnesty didn't go far enough, we need to double or triple the pool, we need to grant citizenship because obama was too much of a conservative on immigration, if you didn't say that, the only thing do is vote no today.

we can find commonsense solutions on immigration. we can secure the border. we can triple the border patrol. we can end catch and release. we can use strong tools and technology. we can continue to embrace and celebrate legal immigrants, and we can do all of that while respecting the rule of law. what i urge my colleagues is very simple. ask yourself what you told the voters before election day and let your conduct after election day match what you told the voters. for the democrats, the democrats campaigned as the party of amnesty. they are at least being true to their promises. they promised amnesty, that's their priority, they are being true. but for republicans, we promised something different. we promised to stand with the working men and women, the union members, the steel workers, the men and women with calluses on their hands. and i urge every one of us to listen to the working men and

women, to hpt the -- to respect the rule of law and to vote against these misguided proposals. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for two minutes before we proceed to the cloture vote scheduled at 2:30. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. coons: mr. president, i was honored when my good friend, senator john mccain, reached out to me two weeks ago to suggest that we introduce behalf legislation here in the senate that would attempt tole solve two of our most pressing immigration issues and keep our country and congress moving forward. the bill we've introduced and which the senate will soon proceed to vote on doesn't solve every immigration we face and it doesn't try to. what our bill does is focus on the issue we can agree on. it's an attempt to break through the messy political debates and substantive disagreements here and find compromise. our bill would do two simple

things, move to secure our border and finally give dreamers the path to citizenship they deserve. to address border security, our bipartisan bill would ensure that we gain operational control of the border by 2020 with new investments and resources. it would also reduce current immigration court backlogs by funding new judges and attorneys while addressing one of the root causes of immigration from central america. second, our bill would give legal certainty to 1.8 million dreamers who are american in every way but the paperwork. young americans who have known no other country but this one. dreamers who continue to play by the rules by going to school, serving in our military, maintaining consistent employment can become lawful permanent residents in five years -- and five years later u.s. citizens. senator mccain and i aren't the only ones who think this bipartisan solution makes sense.

54 members of the house, an even split of 27 republicans and 27 democrats have cosponsored and led this effort championed by republican congressman will herd of text whose district hassle00 miles of the u.s. whennen mexico border and democratic congressman pete aguilar of california. our bill is more than just a set of policies. it's a way for us to agree when we can agree and not let our disagreements get in the way of making progress. there have been misrepresentations and half truths said in attacking this bill. i'll simply say this. what a true american hero and patriot like senator mccain have lent his name to this bill if all these attacks were true? i think not. mr. president, our message is simple. we may not fix every immigration issue right now, but we can take a historic step forward, and with new technology, new manpower, a new pathway to citizenship, address dreamers

and allow them to succeed in american schools, the american military and to enrich american communities without fear of deportation. these are tough issues, but the solution is simple. i hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the mccain-canes bill. thank you. with that i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. 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 amendment 1955 to h.r. 2579, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to allow the premium tax credit with respect to unsubsidized cobra continuation coverage signed by 18 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on amendment number 1955 offered by the senator from illinois, mr. durbin, for the senior -- for the senator from delaware, mr. coons, to h.r. 2579, an act to amend the internal revenue

code of 1986 to allow the premium tax credit with respect to unsubsidized cobra continuation coverage shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there any senator wishing to vote or to change his or her vote? seeing none, on this vote, the yeas are 52, nays 47. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the

motion is not agreed to. the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent there now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to each remaining vote in the series and, finally, any further votes in the series be ten minutes in length. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on senate amendment 1948 to h.r. 2579 an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to allow the premium tax credit signed by 16 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.

is it the sense of the senate that debate on amendment 1948 offered by the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, for the senator from pennsylvania, mr. toomey, to h.r. 2579, an act to amend the tax code of 1986 shall be brought to a close? there are two minutes of debate. who yields time? the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, kate steinly -- the presiding officer: the senate is not in order. please take your conversations off the floor please. senator. mr. toomey: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, kate steinly didn't have to be shot and killed on a peer in san francisco. a 13-year-old child didn't have to be raped in the city of

philadelphia by ramon. they were -- these crimes were committed by people who had committed previous crimes and after having been deported. in both cases the police departments had these criminals in custody shortly prior to the commission of these crimes, but in both cases when the department of homeland security asked for a temporary detention until they could take these people into custody and deport them, that was not allowed because these are sanctuary cities. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. please take your conversations off the floor. senator. mr. toomey: so the sanctuary cities systematically forbid the local police from sharing information or cooperating with federal immigration officials, even in the case of criminals. my amendment is a bipartisan amendment. i want to thank the senator from west virginia for cosponsoring. this is an amendment that will

ensure that any legal liability for wrongful detention is held by the federal government and nonsecurity funds, cbdg grants will be withheld from the sanctuary city. the presiding officer: who yields time. the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, the toomey amendment will withhold critical funding from cities, counties, and states whose police department refuse to deploy their police officers as immigration agents for the federal government. listen to what the two chief of police in storm link iowa wrote last week. most significant, the proposed bill would diminish the trust that keeps our cities safe in the first place. we depend on our residents, including residents, to come to us when they seeing is suspicious. if they hear of a looming crackdown that could affect their family and friends, they are less likely to come forward

to report crimes. iowa chiefs of police, midwestern, common sense. from eddy johnson, he said, undocumented immigrants are not driving violence in chicago and that's why i want our officers focused on community policing, not trying to be immigration police. vote for our men and women in uniform. vote against the toomey amendment. the presiding officer: time has expired. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the role. the clerk should call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there anybody in the claim br who wishes -- chamber would wishes to vote or change his or her vote? seeing none, on this vote the yeas are 54. the nays are 45. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on senate amendment number 1958 as

modified to h.r. 2579, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to allow the premium tax credit with respect to cobra coverage signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question, is it the sense of the senate that debate on amendment number 1958 as modified offered by the senator from new york, mr. schumer, to h.r. 2579, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, to allow the premium tax credit with respect to unsubsidized cobra continuation coverage shall be brought to a close. there shall be two minutes of debate equally divided. who yields time? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senate will please come to order. the senate will please come to order. please take your conversations off the floor. the senator shall proceed. mr. cotton: mr. president, i know there's some dispute about the name of this amendment. let's just call it the ollie ollie oxenfree amendment because

it says to the entire world, if you can get to our country in the next four months, ollie, ollie oxenfree, you can stay forever. this bill directs the department of homeland security not to prioritize enforcement action, not only against illegal immigrants here today but anyone who gets here for the next four months. second, it's an amnesty that's far broader than the daca program, not 700,000, not 1.8 million but over 3 million people. third, it's even worse than that because it includes their parents as well. now, the bill purports to prohibit parents from being legalized by it requires the federal government to show that those parents did not knowingly assist the entry of a minor into this country. how can the government show that? 15, 20, 25 years later? that's to say nothing of the fact that it out 's onerous conditions on the spending of money for border security. does nothing for chain my gaition and nothing to the diversity lottery. that's why president trump has issued a veto threat. that's why every one of you

should vote no. the presiding officer: your time has expired. a senator: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. a senator: thank you. while i enjoy the humor that my colleague from arkansas has expressed, this is an important bill. mr. rounds: what we have done is what the president has asked for. this provides $15 billion for a border security system. number two, it addresses the issue of dook. it takes -- daca. it takes care of 1.8 million young people who want to be citizens of the united states ten to 12 years from now. it does not provide a citizenship opportunity for their parents. i would yield at this time to my colleague, the senator from maine. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: on january 9, the president of the united states said we're going to come up with daca. we're going to do daca and then we can start immediately on the phase two which would be comprehensive. i think we have to do daca first. later that evening he tweeted and said, in addition to daca, we need to do the border.

this is that bill. much of the criticism are for things not in this bill. they weren't intended to be. this is a narrow bill dealing with daca and border security. this is what the american people want us to do and they're going to be puzzled if anyone in this body votes against a bill that will deal with daca and border security. the presiding officer: the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk shall call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: the presiding officer: is there any senator in the chamber who wishes to vote or to change her or his vote? seeing none, on this vote, the yeas are 54, the nays are 45.

three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, -- a senator: the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk: in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on senate amendment numbered 1959 to h.r. 2579, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, and so forth, signed by 16 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on amendment numbered 1959, offered

by the senator from iowa, mr. grassley, to h.r. 2579, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to allow the premium tax credit with respect to unsubsidized cobra continuation coverage shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are -- two minutes are equally divided -- who yields time? the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: mr. president, i hope my minute won't start until everybody shuts up. the presiding officer: the senator will suspend. the chamber will come to order, please. please take your conversations off the floor. mr. grassley: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator shall proceed. mr. grassley: we offer you commonsense reforms. more than half of that side just voted for massive amount of funding that we need for border security. we offer that as well, but we also make sure that authorities have the -- make it easier to

remove criminals. we end chain migration, we end diversity visa, and we have a path to citizenship for 1.8 million daca dreamers, this is it in a sense. only plan that can become law, because the president said he would sign it. this is it. this is your last chance to vote for a path to citizenship for all the people that we have been talking about giving justice to and being compassionate about and bringing out of the dark. so here we are, an opportunity to do it, and i hope you will vote yes and support it. the presiding officer: who yields time? mr. schumer: could we have order, please. the presiding officer: the senate should come to order, please. mr. schumer: could we have order, please. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: mr. president, we

have waited a long time and worked very hard for the chance to vote on a bill to protect dreamers. i regret that the only bipartisan effort of the group of moderate senators to come up with a bipartisan compromise couldn't get the necessary 60 votes, and i expect the grassley proposal will not get 60 either. i salute the eight brave republicans who voted for the bipartisan compromise. but, mr. president, there is only one reason why the senate will be unable to reach a bipartisan solution to daca -- president trump. president trump created this problem by terminating the daca program last august. since that decision, president trump has stood in the way of every single proposal that could become law. in conclusion, immigration is always a contentious issue. there are intense feelings on both sides of the aisle. if there was ever a time for presidential leadership, this was it. president trump has failed this test of leadership

spectacularly. i urge a no vote. the presiding officer: the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: