towers, fixed and mobile camera systems, helicopter, planes, and other physical surveillance equipment to secure the border. the plan also includes high-tech tools like mobile surveillance systems, seismic images, infra red ground sensors and other equipped with long-range they remember comblaging cameras. the secretary of homeland security together with the secretary of defense and the comptroller general of the u.s. must certify to the congress that this comp hebsive southern border security strategy is deployed and operational. that means in place and operating other than routine maintenance. that's the first requirement before the adjustment to lpr status. second, dhs must deploy and maintain 20,000 additional

border patrol agents on the southern border. that's in addition to the number of border patrol agents on the border now which is right about 20,000 now. so we'll double the number of armed border patrol agents to detect and turn back those individuals who would try to cross our border illegally. third, d.h.s. must build 700 miles of fencing, that's doubled the amount required in the underlying bill, which calls for 350 miles of fencing. 700 miles of fencing. that compares to about 42 miles of fencing we have in place right now. fourth, the secretary of homeland security must verify that the mandatory e

until these requirements are met. once again, simply put, we must secure the border first. that's what americans demand and that's what we must do to get comprehensive immigration reform right. that's what this legislation does and it does it with objective and verifiable methods. we ask our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with us and to pass this legislation. at this point i would like to turn to my distinguished

colleague from tennessee and again i want to thank him for his tremendous work which is ongoing but i just can't say how much i appreciate his good efforts and his good faith on a bipartisan basis and i turn for his comments as well as then to enter into a colloquy with our colleagues who have worked so hard and played a real leadership role with this legislation. >> i want to thank the senator from north dakota for his outstanding leadership. you would expect that from someone who served in such a distinguished way as governor of his state. he is used to leading. he has done an outstanding job. i want to thank him for being a great partner. i know we still have some work to do. we still have to introduce this amendment and work is under way right now. but i want to thank him, his staff and all around him for the way that he has dug into this issue, solved the problems that i think americans are

looking for relative to security issues, and working with us in the way that you have. thank you very much. and i want to thank the gang of 8 for the work they have done over the last multim months to bring us to the place where we are to have the opportunity to do something that america needs and that is to solve the immigration issue that we have and also to ensure that in doing so we have absolutely secured the border. one of my colleagues called this amendment -- again it is being vetted right now. we hope to introduce it a little later today. there is a broad agreement about what the content of it is. and it is again being vetted and will be introduced later today. some people have described this as a border surge. the fact is that we are investing resources and securing our border that have never been invested before. doubling again of the border patrol, 3.2 billion worth of technology that we took from the chief of the border patrol, the technology that he needs to have 100% awareness and to

secure our border. dealing with the exit program, dealing with e-verify so that all of these things are in place. i want to thank senator cornyn from texas who began the process of focusing on border security. i realize that his amendment earlier failed. but i think what he helped us to do is bimmed momentum towards an amendment that i consider to be far stronger and even better. but his efforts at looking at a border security measure i think helped us in this regard. so i want to say i'm not the kind of person who speaks for a long time. i think people understand that. i thing snample north dakota has done an outzanding job of laying out the many elements of this that hopefully will be voted on in the very near future. but i do think the american people have asked us if we pass an immigration bill off the senate floor, to do everything that we can to ensure that we have secured the border.

that is what people in tennessee have asked for. that's what people in north dakota have asked for. that's what people in arizona have asked for. and i think that is what this amendment does. i think this amendment has the ability if passed to bring a bipartisan effort behind immigration reform that would then set the bill in the house. i do wish this had other measures relative to interior security and i think that the house can improve this. i think a conference can improve this. and i hope that we have the opportunity down the road to see that occur. but you want to thank all involved in crafting an amendment that i think tries to deal with the sensibilities on both sides and at the same time secure our border in such a way that we can put this issue mostly behind us and we can have an immigration system in our country that meets the needs of a growing economy, the biggest economy in the world

that focuses on making our country stronger, not weaker, and hopefully will put this debate behind us. so i yield the floor. >> yield for a question. first could i say all of us who have had the honor of working with you and the senator from north dakota greatly appreciate the work that you've done. if there is going to be a broad bipartisan support for the final product it will be because of what you and the senator from north dakota have done. and i'm very, very grateful for that. and i think that it is important wouldn't you agree that people understand that this is a very tough bill. and it required a lot of cooperation from our friends on the other side of the aisle to go along and agree with this. i think that they've shown a great deal of compromise in order to reach this point and

agree with us on this legislation, which clearly we need bipartisan support for. but i would like to ask the senator again for a couple of specifics. because i think it is important we understand how tough this legislation is. we know isn't it true, that already we know that e-verify must be used by every employer the country before anyone urn this plan can be eligible for a green card. >> it's already there. >> and the electronic entry exit system has to be up and operational before anyone is eligible for a green card. >> that is correct. >> now, thanks to you and the senator from north dakota, isn't it true that additional technology must be deployed and operational in the field, and that includes a new system,

intzpwrate fixed towers, fixed cameras, mobile surveillance system to the point where isn't it true that the head of the border patrol has assured us that if these technologies are in place and operational, that we can have 1020% situational awareness and 90% effective control of the bord center >> that is correct. >> so in order to finally put the final piece of this puzzle together, isn't it true that you and the senator from north dakota have called for 350 miles of additional border fencing in addition to the 350 miles that is already there and 20,000 new full time border patrol agents are hired and deployed before someone is eligible for a green card? >> that is correct. i don't know of anybody that has proposed a tougher measure

when you look at it all combined than the measure that is -- that hopefully will be on the floor in the very near future. >> i wonder if senator from north dakota would like to respond to that. >> i appreciate the esteemed senator from arizona again emphasizing these points. that's what this is all about. this is about securing the border. all of the things you just identified are in the bill, they're requirements. the plan itself, this 3.2 billion comprehensive southern border strategic plan is detailed border sector by border sector. and again, this puts everybody in the same place saying we're going to secure the border first, because there's no green cards until we secure the border. >> isn't it true i would say to my two colleagues -- and i ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the senator from tennessee and the senator senator from north dakota.

>> wousm without objection. >> i say there is well-founded skepticism on the part of my friend from texas because we've seen this movie before in 1986 we gave amnesty to 3 million people and we said we would secure the borders. then in 2006 we pass add border security appropriations and there was going to be plenty of money and it was never funded. so for those of us in the southwest particularly but people all over america, isn't it true that this understandable skepticism that we would not pass legislation which is binding and isn't it true that you can't make this as far as border patrol and as far as miles of fencing any more binding than it is in your amendment? >> absolutely. >> i would like to add that it is not just all these things that we're putting on the border and that we are requiring that these things are in place and certified and

operating before you go to green card status, but also about eliminating the incentive to try to get across the border. when we put e-verify in place and we have a proper guest worker program, you take away the incentive to try to get across the border. so we secure the border but we also take away the incentive to come across because you can come across legally through the guest worker program and if you come across illegally, we're going to find you and you can't get a job. so it's both. that's what we mean when we talk about comprehensive border security and a comprehensive approach. >> i would ask my colleagues one more question. with all due respect to every member of this body, when you look at this legislation and you look at these triggers and you look at the technology that is going to be required, which if operational the head of the border patrol has said will give 100% awareness and 90% effective control plus this

increasing in fencing plus border patrol agents and the already exist in legislation e-verify -- and i think the senator from north dakota is very correct. you remove the incentive for people, if they know that they can't get a job in this country unless they have the proper documents then people will stop coming illegally. and it also addresses the issue of the 40% who are here who never crossed our border illegally but came ona and overstayed it. i would ask for maybe a subjective opinion. is it possible that you could ever argue against this legislation now by saying that it does not give us a secure bord center >> i think it would be very difficult and i thank the senator from arizona for raising this issue. if the issue that one has is securing the border with this immigration bill, if this amendment passes -- which i hope that it will -- i don't know how anybody could argue

that the reason they're not supporting this legislation is because we haven't addressed securing the border. we have addressed that. we have addressed that in spades in this legislation. i want to thank the senator from north dakota for his leadership on this issue. and the other side of the aisle for working with us. but i don't think that anyone who votes against this bill could argue that the reason, if we pass this amendment -- and we need to get it to the floor. we're still working out some issues and hopefully will be done in a few hours. but i don't know how you can argue that we haven't dealt with the issue that many people have been concerned about -- many people in tn -- and that is if this legislation passes in the form that it is, with this amendment as we've agreed, we have secured the border. could he finish answering this question. >> i would respond to the good senator from arizona and say, look, all of the ideas that

have been brought forward to secure the border, we have worked to include in this package. i mean, we have tried on a bipartisan way to listen to everybody and say, what can we do? what can we put on the border to secure the border? we've tried to bring all those resources to bear. and to the good senator from arizona i would say we want to bring in our senator from florida who has worked so hard along with you on this issue to provide truly the right kind of leadership for comprehensive can reform on a bipartisan basis. and i also want to reach out to the good senator from texas. a lot of the ideas in this bill came from legislation he put forward. look, this is about all of us putting our ideas into securing this border. we have tried to include everybody's ideas in this effort. >> will the senator yield for a question? >> i would yield to the senator from texas. rir thank the senator. i honestly respect and value the work that the so-called

gang of 8 has done on this legislation as well as the contributions made by my colleague from north dakota and from tennessee. i think they have moved this bill in a constructive direction to give people more confidence that we are actually serious about dealing with border security. but i want to ask them to distinguish if they will between the provision that they i know supported both of them, in my amendment, that was tabled earlier, which makes the progress from probationry status to green card contingent upon 100% situational awareness of the border and a 90% apprehension rate, which is defined as operational control. how does your amendment differ from that? my understanding just from -- and i know it hasn't been written yet or hasn't been completed yet. but my understanding is that

senator schumer and the democrats would not agree to that. i know they object to it. senator schumer has been quite clear in his telling me that. but i would just -- my impression is that this is a promise of future performance and there is no contingency in the same sense that there was a trigger that prohibited the transition from probationry status to legal permanent residence. could the senator please? >> if i may respond to that. i appreciate very much the question from the senator from the great state of texas. and i thank him for the work he did and the work we did together. and the fact that we absolutely tried here to build on concepts that you put forward. so it's not the same but we tried to build on those concepts. in terms of the actual border security plan, the comprehensive southern border security strategy, the 3.2

billion plan that includes technology, helicopters, planes, all these different things that i detailed, that is exactly what you were talking about in your legislation. so physically we do deploy all the thing that is you had laid out in your legislation and then we add to it 20,000 agents and an additional 350 miles of fence on top of the 350 miles of fence called for in the underlying bill. so we put all of the physical resources out there and then we add all the fencing and all the man power to make sure we accomplish exactly what you were laying out. and in terms of the trigger, all those things are triggers before going to a green card. so it's different in that the discussion was how do we set up verifiable metrics and that's what we're doing by clearly delineating all these things we're putting in and then we

actually add to what you had in the legislation. >> would the senator yield? >> i don't know who has the floor. >> one last question. >> because i know there are others who want to talk and it's not my intention to interfere with their colloquy here. but the 20,000 additional border patrol. here's an area where the movement has been pretty dramatic, because we started with zero additional border patrol. my amendment was disparaged by the distinguished senior senator from arizona and the distinguished senior senator from new york as being a bunlt buster, 5,000 border patrol. i was told we don't need more boots. we need more technology. now i find to my shock and amazing the distinguished senior senator from arizona say we need 20,000 more border patrol. how much is it going to cost? that's the question. >> and if i may respond to that. again, that makes my point to

the senator from texas i want to thank him for his work. that's a great example of how we built on the foundation you laid. that's a great example. you asked for 5,000 border patrol agents and we got 20,000. so this is a great example. and it is all paid for because, remember -- this is important. >> i repeat my question. how much is it going to cost? >> i will absolutely go to that. remember, in the cbo score, in the first 10 years, 197 billion. so we use about 30 billion to darned sure make that border is secure. but overall, this bill with this amendment creates border security and more than pays for itself. and here's the other point. remember, in that cbo score it showed 197 billion in terms of revenue creation. so you use 30 billion of that to add the border agents and secure the border. but here's the other thing we've got to look at in that

cbo score. it said that with the underlying bill -- without our amendment, with the underlying bill, we would have 7 million more illegal immigrants in this country in 10 years. without the bill we would have 10 million more. so what does that say? it didn't get the job done on border security and that is exactly why we're adding this amendment and it will get the job done. >> the senator from arizona. >> appreciation to the senators for their answer to the question. rir thank the senator from texas for his engagement. mr. president, as usual the senator from south carolina has a very busy schedule. so i would ask unanimous consent that he be allowed 10 minutes and then i will regain the floor. >> the senator from south carolina. >> i can do this. >> is there objection? >> is there objection? without ox. >> thank you, thank you, all or making this better.

the question about costs. i never objected to more border patrol agents. i didn't know how we would pay for the bill. i hoped it would be deficit neutral. boy, did my hopes come true. it's not deficit neutral. according to the congressional budget office we reduced the deficit in the first ten years by 190 billion and over a 20-year period $700 billion. so the reason i didn't want to agree to 5,000 agents without somebody showing me how we would pay for it, we're borrowing enough money from our grandchildren and great grandchildren to run the government. we don't need to do any more borrowing unless we absolutely have to. the good news is the bill that we have written will create economic growth in the country at a time when we need economic growth. it will allow employers access to labor they don't have today so they won't be tempted to cheat in the future. this bill helps the economy. don't take my word for it, take

cbo's word for it. if you had some more money to spend in this bill, how would you want to spend it? let me tell you what senator graham would like to do. he would like to hire 20,000 border patrol agents to let everybody in the country know i get it when you say we've got to secure the border. you're right. we've had two ways of illegal immigration. we don't need a third. and why are we doing this? why 20,000 border patrol agents? that's three brigades of troops. that's taking three brigades equivalent of army troops trained law enforcement officers to supplement the 20,000 we've got. you'll have a border patrol agent every thousand feet on the border 24 hours a day, seven days a week. it costs over $20 billion. but i can tell you this, it's money well spent because it makes the border more secure which helps us with our sovereignty. why are we hiring 20,000 agents on top of the 20,000 we've got? because our country can't

control who comes in. we cannot. maintain our sovereignty if everybody ten and 20 years 3 to 11 million illegal immigrants come into our country. and if you want the border secured like i do, your ship has come in. the 20,000 border patrol agents are now affordable and they're needed. the 700 miles of fence will be built because it's needed. the 3.2 billion of technology that has been proven to work in iraq and afghanistan will go tolt border because it will help back up the border patrol agents. as to my good friend from texas, how do we know all this works? the bill requires us to hire the agents and put them on the border before you can transition to green card. it's not talking about hiring the agents. it's not talking about training, hiring and deploy. the bill also says the fence has to be built. the bill says the $3.2 billion

of new technology that worked in iraq and afghanistan has to be bought, purchased, deployed and operational. here's my belief. if you hire the border patrol agents and you put them on the border they're not going to read a comic book. they're going to do their job. you don't need to prove to me they're going to do their job. you just need to get them on the border so they can do their job. and if you have the 18 drones versus the six, you don't need to prove to me somebody will fly them. they'll fly them. and if you have the technology deployed and operational in addition to the drones, the radar and the sensors, people will look at the radar because they want to protect our country what's been missing is capacity. this is a border surge. we have militerized our border almost. why? because we've lost our sovereignty. we've lost the ability to control who comes into america. so my belief is that if you can't get a green card until all this is bought, purchased,

deployed, that's enough. there will come a point to where it's enough. ladies and gentlemen, i've been working on this for almost a decade with senator mccape. i can look anybody in the eye and tell them that if you put 20,000 border patrol agents on the border in addition to the 20,000 we've got that's one every thousand feet, that will work. and if you buy technology that helps us fight and create success in iraq when we did the surge, that will help the border patrol agents. and if you build a fence that all helps. so i don't need any more than just getting it in place. and finally, to my good friends from tennessee, my good friend from north dakota, the bill when we wrote it i thought was good. but you've made it a lot better. and to anybody in america who believes border security should be robust and it is a national security priority, we have in every sense of the term

reasonable met that goal. we couldn't have done it without more people. to the gang of 8 members, it's been a joy to work on this bill. to our colleagues who have weighed in and tried to get the bill better and get to yes, you're doing this country a great service. so i hope that monday night we will pass legislation that will mandate that 20,000 additional border patrol agents will be on the border working before you can get a green card, that the technology that worked in afghanistan and iraq will be up and operational before you can get a green card, the fence will be built before you get a green card. and to me, ladies and gentlemen, that's enough. that is enough. the people that we're talking about deserve a hard earned process to get into america. they need to pay a fine. learn our language. get in the back of the line. they need to earn their way into good standing. but they are people.

so i am very pleased to support what i think is the most dramatic amendment in the history of our country to secure or border at a time when we need it secured. thank you very much to all. >> the senator from arizona. >> under the previous order, -- >> what is the order, if i might ask? >> the on the other hand was to recognize the senator from arizona after the senator from south carolina. >> i thank my friend from south carolina with his usual eloquent exposition of what this situation is all about. i have other colleagues who are waiting to speak but i just want to say again the senator from north dakota and the senator from tennessee have shown the best of what this institution can be all about. not only did they reach agreement between the two of them. not only did they reach

agreement with i believe a significant number of our colleagues. but they also reached agreement with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. that's in this day and age that's a signal success and i thank them for not only what they've produced but the many compromises that they had to make along the way. i won't try to embellish what the senator from south carolina said. except to say that i come from a state that has probably been torn apart more than any other state by this issue. we passed legislation in reaction to our broken borders where ranchers in the southern part of my state were actually murdered, where our wild life refugees wrr destroyed. where people died in the desert by the hundreds, their bodies were found months later. where coities bring people across the border and hold them in drop houses in phoenix and hold them for ransom under the most unspeakable conditions.

where drugs are brought freely across the border and guided by guides on mountaintops guiding bring rug cartles a they the drugs to phoenix. and people will tell you phoenix, arizona is still the major drug distribution center in the united states of america. so i take a back seat to no one even from the great state of texas of the enormous challenges and controversies associated with illegal immigration. we tried before and we failed. we tried before and we failed. and we i -- i won't go into why we failed and all the people who were responsible. ill take responsibility. i didn't do a good enough job in selling my colleagues on the absolute need of immigration reform. the facts are that 11 million people live in the shadows and they live here in de facto amnesty and they are being exploited er single day.

shouldn't it be a nation founded on judeo christian principles to bring these people out of the shadows? yes, punish them because they committed crimes. but -- by crossing our border illegal lifment but isn't it in our nation to come together and pass this legislation and not manufacture reasons for not doing that? isn't there enough of a penalty? isn't there enough border security now thanks to my colleagues from north dakota and from tennessee? isn't there enough now? so all i can say is i urge my colleagues to vote overwhelmingly in favor of this hard-fought well-crafted amendment and let's move on to other issues that face this nation and i believe that we can look back years from now and say to our children and our grandchildren that we did the right thing. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> the senator from new york. >> mr. president, i understand

that both my colleagues from new hampshire and florida wish to speak. so i would be happy to have each of them speak for 5 minutes and then me speak for 5 minutes, if that's ofpblgt >> is there objection? >> scuke five, five, and five. >> hearing no objection, the senator from new hampshire. >> mr. president, i want to thank my colleague from new york for giving us that courtesy. i rise in support of the amendment that will be offered by my colleagues from tennessee and north dakota. i appreciate the hard work that they have done to enhance the border security provisions in the current pending immigration bill on the floor. to all of us, securing our border is very, very important to preventing another wave of illegal immigration in this country. but what they have done is incredibly important. it's very, very strong.

strongest measures that i think this body has considered. 20,000 border patrol agents. essentially doubling those agents that will be along the southern border. in addition to that really significantly increasing the fencing in fact at least 700 miles of fencing will have to be completed along the southern border almost doubling what was already in the bill for fencing. specifying what types of technology that the department of homeland security will have to deploy including the best technology using sensors and drones to make sure that we can apprehend those who are illegally trying to cross our borders. and very much making sure that we prevent a further wave of illegal immigration along with the strong reforms in this bill to our legal immigration system

of making sure that we can keep the best and the brightest here to help us grow our economy to make sure that we have the workforce we need to ensure that we will create jobs here. let us not forget that we are a country of immigrants. i dare say that most of my colleagues here, that either their parents or their grandparents came from another country and worked very, very hard in this country. and so we need a legal immigration that works for our country, that makes sure that our economy continues to grow and that we have people here who want to work hard and live the american dream. but we also cannot ignore securing our southern border. that's why i'm proud to cosponsor the amendment that will be offered by senator cocker, senator hoeven. this doubles the amount of border agents, doubles the amount of fencing, specifies

the type of technology that is required and gives the resources to finally secure the border. to my republican colleagues, i think there was an op ed in the "wall street journal" today that is worth mentioning. i share their concerns about securing the border. but i hope with the strong enhancement that is have been put in this amendment to double the border security, to strengthen and double almost the amount of fencing, to make sure that the right technology is in place to secure our border, this will prevent another wave of illegal immigration that it will not use border security as a ruiz not to vote for a bill to fix an immigration system that is absolutely broken, the status quo isn't working for anyone. and none of us want to find ourselves here another five years from now debating this issue again and finding that we have a larger population of illegal immigration and we have

a legal immigration that isn't working for our country and isn't making sure that we have the right people here of people who are working hard, living the american dream to grow our economy and create american jobs here. so i think today the "wall street journal" had said that this border security issue cannot be used as a trick. not to want to support a strong bill tchs on the floor with this amendment will make it very strong on the border security provisions. and finally, work in a bipartisan manner to fix a broken immigration system that is not working for anyone and not working for our country. so i thank the president and i will turn this over to my colleagues from florida who i want to commend my colleague from florida who has worked along with the other members of the group, senators from arizona as well as the senator

from south carolina but the senator from florida i know how focused he is on making sure that our borders are secure. i appreciate his strong leadership in fixing this broken immigration system and making sure that we will not ve another wave of illegal immigration. >> the snample florida. >> parliamentary inquiry. >> the senator will state his inquiry. >> it's my understanding that we are getting equal time back and forth and it is my question is is this based on parties? so that democrats and republicans will at nate in their time? is that correct? >> we have no agreement for at nating. >> so that all i've heard is those who are in support of the bill. >> my question can be when can someone be heard? >> the time was equally divided between majority and minority not between opponents and

proponents. >> all right. >> is that by unanimous consent? >> it was. >> well that explains it then. >> the senator from florida. >> i appreciate this opportunity and i will be brief. my colleagues have already stated what this entails and the details of it and i think that's important. i got involved in this issue earlier in this year after spending the betor part of the first two years in the senate thinking about this issue not just being from florida but living in south florida i'm surround bid the reality of it every single day. when i started this effort i became deeply convinced that this is something that needed to be fixed and needed to be dealt with. but from the very beginning, from the very early days of my involvement i made clear that border security was an essential component. this is not against anybody. border security is not an ant-anyone effort. that's not what it is. we understand that america is a special country.

it's so special that people want to come here from all over the world. and they the. 1 million people a year come here legally every single year. we also understand that it's so special and unique that some people are willing to risk their lives to come here illegally. and as compassionate people we understand that reality and our heart breaks at the stories of what people have to go through to come here. but we also understand that the united states of america is a sovereign country. and every single soverp country on the planet, every single one, tries to or does control its borders and who comes into the country and who leaves. every country in the world does that. and the united states of america should not be any different. and so that's what this issue at the end of the day is about. it's that we have a sovereign right to protect our borders. and we have a crisis on the southern border of the united states. for many different reasons people have chosen to cross that border illegally, consistently for the last 20 or 30 years and the results are evident to all of us. that is why border security is

such an important part of this bill and of this measure. now, when we introduced our bill the bill said that basically the department of homeland security would be given some money and that they would get to decide what the border security plan looked like. many people in the public and many of our colleagues were unhappy with that proposal. they raised valid concerns that we were turning over border security and deciding what the plan would be to people that claim it's already secured. so what this amendment does is it takes that back. and it says that we instead, we here in the senate will decide what that plan is after we get input from border agents and others about what will work. and what this amendment reflects is what we know will work. we know that adding border agents doubling the size of the u.s. border patrol, that that will work. we know that completing the fence work that that will work. we know that an entry exit tracking system, since 40% of our illegal immigrants are those who overstay visas, we know that will work. we know that e-verify will

work. it's something that many of my colleagues in my party have asked for for the better part of 10 years will work because it takes away the magnet of employment. and we know that these new technologies that weren't available to us in 19r68 or in 2006 or even five years ago werks know that will work. and what this says is you must do all of those things and it is linked to legal permanent residence. in essence someone who has violated our laws cannot become a resident in the united states until all five of those things happen. that's a guarantee that this will happen. let me close by saying i understand the frustration. i really do. i know that these promises have been made in the past. in a moment the senator from alabama whose position on this is well state ld point out that these promises were also made in 1986. in 1986 i was is a years old and immigration was the last thing on my mind at that time. but here's the reality of it. the choices before us is to try

to fix this or to leave it the way it is. and what we have today is a disaster of epic proportion. ten or 11 million human beings living among us don't know who they are they're working but not paying taxes there are criminals among them. that has to be solved. a legal immigration system built on the 19th century, we need to fix this. and this is our chance to fix it. >> the senator from new york. >> mr. president, thank you. and first, i want to thank my colleague first from tennessee for the good work they have done my gang of 8 colleagues, the seven of the gang 068 colleagues who are my colleagues. we are working real hard to get a bill done and it is not easy. it is one of the hardest things i'ver done as a legislator. but we'll keep making progress and we keep improving. and today i think is a

break-through day. let me go over it. first, speaking on behalf of the democratic members of my bipartisan group, let's say this. there's still some drafting of the legislative language to be completed. we're continuing to inform all our aleas on our side about the contours of the proposal. but barring something unexpected, we're extremely enthusiastic that a bipartisan agreement is at hand. i know there have been a number of news reports this morning. it is accurate. we are on the verge of a huge break through on border security. with this agreement we believe we have the makings of a strong bipartisan final vote in favor of this immigration reform bill. from the beginning of the floor debate on this bill, we have known that there were a group of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who were incluned to vote for immigration reform but first wanted to see a strengthening of the bill's border security section. that made sense.

because most americans will be fair and common-sense towards the 11 million here in the shadows and future immigration if and only if they feel we won't have future flows of illegal immigration. we took those concerns seriously. our bill is tough on this stuff. we wanted it tough. the amendment makes it tougher still. st week, senators corker and hoeven emerged as leaders. my friends senator graham and mccain and i sat down with them. we began talking along with senator menendez. we began meeting with them ourselves this week. for us on the democratic side, it has been an important bottom line throughout this process that the path to citizenship not be put in jeopardy. the path is tough, as it should be, but must always be fair. so we could not go along with

efforts like in my colleague from texas' bill that would tie the path to citizenship to unachieveable benchmarks for the border. senator corn's amendment, which was defeated today, went too far in that regard. and i wasn't sure whether the new negotiations would produce agreement either. as recently as tuse night, senator hoen and i had an extended conversation would probably be best be described as spirited. but about 24 hours ago we had a breakthrough. the idea that broke the log jam is the so called border surge plan. the border surge is breath taking in its size and scope. this will deploy an unprecedented number of boots on the ground and drones in the air that would double the size of the border patrol. from its current level to over 40,000. it will finish the job of completing the fence along the

entire 700 mile stretch of the southwest border. and it will enumerate on a sector by sector basis lists of cutting-edge tools and equipment that will boost surveillance and apprehension efforts including sensors, survey, and towers and more unmanned dwrones. in other words, it calls for a breathtaking show of force that will discourage future waves of illegal immigration. this compromise will inundate the southwest border with man power and equipment. it not only calls for finishing a literal fence. it will create a virtual human fence of border patrol agents. under the border surge the border patrol will have the capacity to deploy an armed agent 24 hours a day to stand guard every thousand feet all the way from san diego, california, to brownsville, texas. we came wup this idea of the border surge wednesday morning after the c combnch o report was released.

my colleague from texas said why not a week ago? we didn't know we had the dollars. we have them now. and we still keep to our goals of not costing the treasury a nickle. the cbo report was a true game changer. it gave us the budgetary flexibility to consider massive new investments in border security that we didn't think we could previously afford. the surge shows the commitment to border security that our colleagues have been asking for. i was heartened to see that our friend the junior senator from illinois is already announced that based on this agreement he is prepared to support final passage of the bill. this is a significant development considering senator kirk initially opposed the motion to proceed. it is safe to say this agreement has the power to change minds in the senate. this agreement on border security continues the spirit of bipartisan compromise that has marked this legislation from the beginning.

and in fact, in the forthcoming amendment it will be a vehicle for accommodating some other compromises and other areas of republican concern as well. with this agreement, we have now answered every criticism that has come forward about the immigration bill. first, critics express worry about the process. it was closed. there would be no amendments allowed. the bill was available for prusele weeks before we went to committee. the committee under senator leahy's leadership was an open process with 300 amendments filed. and now we're spending weeks on the floor here trying to move as many amendments as possible and some on the other side have blocked that from happening as quickly as we would like. some on our side, too, but we're moving through these amendments. the next criticism was that it would cost a for tune.

cbo handled that one pretty well. this adds to the treasury, cuts the deficit $900 billion over the next 20 years, 175 billion over the next ten years. and finally, the last argument. we have to secure the border. that is vital. before anyone could support the bill or some could support the bill. we have answered that resoundingly with the amendment. we have much more work to do. but i am now confident more confident than ever before that the senate will pass a strong bipartisan immigration reform bill and that it will ultimately reach the desk of the president for signature. it is a great day for the cause of immigration reform and for the senate. thank you. yeefl i yield the floor. >> the senator from alabama. >> i would ask consent to be

able to speak for up to 15 minutes. >> any objection? > without objection. >> i know senator schumer and the gang of 8 have worked hard on this legislation. i respect their efforts and their goals. i share their goals. and share much of the principles that they have stated. but what we've learned is that the legislation came nowhere close to fulfilling those goals. and that's why here in the middle of the debate after the bill has been exposed after it's been hammered while failure after failure after failure they come up with a bill that says don't worry now, we're going to throw 20,000 agents at the border and now you all have got to vote for it because we've fixed it. now you got what you wanted. but i would say to my colleagues too often the phrase border security has been used

to include all legal and illegal activity that is occur. and what we know is not only do we have problems at the border that we have 40% of the people who are illegally here today are visa overstays and cbo's report that just came out indicates that's going to grow as i have predicted it would in the future because we're going to have twice as many people come to the country on visas. and they're coming to take jobs. jobs that americans need to be prepared for to take. and we need to get them prepared if they're not prepared. we need to get them off welfare and off dependency into self-sufficiency making good wages, making twhages allow them to pay their health care and have a retirement plan and have enough left over to take care of their families. that's not been happening. wages for average american workers has been declining since 1999. it's a serious problem.

i thought perhaps or initially with the republican agenda that this was a temporary thing that it might bounce back. we've seen that sustained. and what the congressional budget office score that senator schumer referred to but he didn't refer to this. concluded was this bill will accelerate that decline. wages will drop more than they would have if the bill didn't pass. and they found that unemployment would go up. and they found that although you would have some increase in the economy with millions of people coming, per capita, per person, the g.d.p. would decrease. so this is a real problem that we need to be honest about. how large flow of people can we sustain and create jobs for? do we want to invite good people to come to america to take jobs and then they not be here for them? do we want to bring in so many people that wages for american

workers declines? that americans can't get the jobs? and that somebody comes from a very low, poor country willing to work at the lowest possible wage won't that pull down the wages of americans who were hoping to get a pay raise instead of a pay cut? i submit to you this is a serious thing and this is why the professor voorhoss at harvard has said it will impact adversely the wages of american workers particularly american low income workers. they will get the most adverse economic impact and it's not been disputed so far as i can see. now, the senator says that the bill is paid for. you know what they do? they count the off-budget money. let me tell you what happens. under the score that the congressional budget office gave to us, they found that it

would increase the on-budget deficit by $14 billion. increase the on-budget debt of america by $14 billion over a period of ten years. but they have a surplus they say over 10 years in the off-budget account. some $200 billion and they have counted that up and said we have a net surplus. halleluja but what is the off-budget money? what are we talking about for the off-budget money? that is your social security and medicare money. and everybody that pays into social security and medicare, when they get ready to retire, are going to draw that money out. it doesn't add to the net financial benefit of america if a person illegally here now given a social security card, now starts paying social security, but they're going to raw the social security.

you can't count the off budget money. we've been using that for way too long. that's not correct. we shouldn't be doing that. it's not going to improve the deficit over 10 years. it's quite clear if you read the testimony. the report. and you know, it says some other things. in the congressional budget office. it says with regard to wages for american workers if this bill passes wages will go down. it says if this bill passes that unemployment will go up. that's their analysis of it. and it has a chart, a chart in there showing that it goes over ten years or 20-year-olds per

capita g.d.p. is below what it would gb if the bill had not passed. and wages are going to be low for years to come. why in the world would we here as americans want to increase dramatically the legal flow of immigration above our current generous rate doubling the guest worker program in addition to legalizing the 11 million people that would be legalized under the legislation and in addition to the 4.5 million that will be given speeded up allocation under chain mygration system. so you'll have 4.5 million accelerated under chained migration as a result of limiting -- lifting the limits on those individuals. and the people that are here illegally. and then in addition to that, you'll have a large flow of other workers.

i have an amendment, this is a number of pages of it. some 30 pages. that is very similar to what the house is working on today that deals with the visa overstay. it deals with people who get into the country leelly but don't go home. that don't cross the border. it's a growing percentage of the illegal galt that we see today and lit soon be over half of the ill legality and it certainly would if the legislation was passed. so does this legislation that senator schumer refers to fit that? does this legislation that senator schumer says with the amendment does it solve the complaints of the immigration and customs enforcement agents? they have written us multiple times. they've pleaded to be allowed to meet with the gang of 8, to be able to explain the realities of enforcement difficulties in america. and while we're having an

impossible o time of making enforcement work and why this administration is blocking them from actually enforcing the law as they are sworn to do. and they voted no confidence in their supervisor mr. martin. they filed a lawsuit against secretary napolitano. -- and they have asserted to her that she is blocking them through regulations and policies from enforcing the law that they are sworn to enforce. the matter has been in the courts considering this lawsuit. i have never heard of that. federal agents suing because they are not allowed to enforce the law. that is going on in america today. -- i say they said this will make it worse. they said this would endanger national security. and what about the other part of the immigration process that -- process that this group of

officers -- they have to review the amnesty amnestyions -- applications, review applications from abroad, and do those kinds of things. well, what do they say about it they say the bill will make the situation worse. it will make it impossible for them to do their job. they do not have anything like the capacity to process the 11 million people that are going to be asking for amnesty, and it is not going to work. it will make the system worse. they have not been listened to in this process either. senator schumer says -- i hope everybody heard it. we have a plan. don't worry. we are going to throw 20,000 agents at the border, and now you can quit complaining, you complainers. and just be happy" for our bill -- be happy and vote for our

bill. then he says something like, well, we don't have it written yet. we don't have it written yet him and were working on it, and we're sharing it with our yet, and we are working on it, and we are sharing it with our allies. trust us, it will work. that is what they say -- said originally. they said they had a sufficient fencing system at the border. we read the bill. there was no requirement in the bill to have a fencing -- build any fences at the border. it was totally up to the secretary. he seems quite happy, not having been able to run that passed the senate, having been caught on that deal, he is now willing to enhance some fencing. but current law we passed a decade ago requires 700 miles of hubble-layered fencing, which ,ould -- double-layered fencing

which would actually be very, very effective. this bill now, after having the bill endangered him a they said they will do 700 miles of single-layered fencing, which is quite less secure and not what 10voted on in the senate years ago with president obama voting for it and vice president biden voting for it. the former secretary of state, hillary clinton, voting for it. that has never been done. we promised to do that am a too. we passed a law. we even passed funding for it. only 30 miles of the 700 miles of the double-layered fences was ever built. this is a problem we have with the american people. iss corker amendment, who writing it? senator corker? oeven?r hoven -- senator have

you say you are sharing it with your allies, but not with those who have doubts about it. i would like to see this bill we have heard so much about. will it deal with other issues? we know the legislation gives amnesty first. theere told originally by gang of eight we were going to have border security first, right? they finally have acknowledged that was not so. pretty big promise. border security first, not so in the bill, not so in this amendment. toughest enforcement ever -- clearly, the bill was weaker than the 2007 bill. members of the gang of eight have acknowledged that. nowhere close. current law required on visas -- current law requires that under the visa policy of the united states, that we have entry-exit

visas, biometric at land, sea, and airports. what does this bill say? well, we will have electronic entry-exit visas at air and seaports, but not at land ports. and if you don't have the land ports in the mix come a then you never know who came in the country -- in the mix, then you never know who came in the country. incident shows that the system will not work. individuals would have to pay back taxes. that is so ridiculous. that is not enforceable. it is just a talking point, has no reality whatsoever. they said you have to look english. not so. you can be in the course of english six months before your time comes up. you don't have to complete it. they say there are no welfare benefits, but there are benefits as scored by the

congressional budget office, the lab -- largest of which is earned income tax credit. they said it would end illegal immigration. the congressional budget office report, amazingly -- i would ask consent to have one additional minute. >> without objection. >> amazingly, the congressional force office says the would only reduce illegal immigration by 25%. so, we are going to give amnesty for the toughest bill ever. they scurry around and get an amendment. they say 20,000 agents are going to be hired somewhere on the border in the future, we promise. we are going to give amnesty first. he promised these will all be hired and the problem will be fixed. they promised build the fence. 2008, never happened.

madam president, we are going to read this amendment. we want to evaluate it fairly. it seems to me it does not come close to touching all the issues necessary to have a lawful system of immigration that serve the national interest in a way that americans can be proud of. we believe in immigration. we want to be compassionate and help the people who have been here a long time, but we have got to have a system we can count on in the future. i would yield the floor. >> in this week's radio address, president obama called on americans to urge members of congress to pass the bipartisan immigration bill. education and workforce committee chairman john kline of minnesota gave the republican address. he talked about the gop bill to keep student loan interest rates from doubling on july 1. >> hi, everybody. right now, the united states senate is debating a bipartisan, commonsense bill that would be an important step toward fixing our broken immigration system

to it is a bill that would continue to strengthen security at our borders and hold employers more accountable if they knowingly hire undocumented workers, so they won't have an unfair advantage over businesses that follow the law. it would modernize the legal immigration system so that, as we train american workers for the jobs of tomorrow, we are also attracting the highly skilled entrepreneurs and engineers who grow our economy for everyone. it is a bill that would provide a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million individuals who are in this country illegally, a pathway that includes passing a background check, learning english, paying taxes, and a penalty, and then going to the back of the line behind everyone trying to come here legally. , a reportdays ago from the congressional budget office definitively show that this bipartisan, commonsense bill will help the middle-class grow our our economy and trained our deficits by making sure that every worker in america plays by the same set of rules and pays taxes like everyone else. according to this in the senate

report, reforming our immigration system would reduce our deficits by almost one dollars trillion over the next almost $1s -- ove trillion over the next two decades. this comes on the heel of another report from the independent office that monitors social security's finances, which says that this immigration bill would actually strengthen the long-term health and solvency of social security for future generations. because, with this bill, millions of additional people will start paying more in taxes for things like social security and education. that will make the economy fairer for middle-class families. that is what conference of immigration reform looks like, stronger enforcement, a smarter legal immigration system, a pathway to earned citizenship, and more vibrant, growing economy that is fairer on the middle class, and a more stable fiscal future for our kids. the bill is not perfect. it is compromise -- is a

compromise peer nobody is going to get everything they want, not democrats, not republicans, not me. but it is consistent with the principles that i and others have laid out for commonsense reform. that's why republicans and democrats, ceos and labor leaders are saying that now is the time to pass this bill. if you agree with us, reach out to your senators and representatives. tell them that the time for excuses is over. it is time to fix our broken immigration system once and for all. we aredo this because nation of laws and the nation of immigrants. a place enriched by the contributions of people from all over the world and stronger for it. that has been the story of america from the start. so, let's keep it going. thanks, and have a great weekend. >> hello, i'm john kline, chairman of the house education and workforce committee. as you may know, millions of student loan borrowers could soon see their interest rates doubled from 3.4% to 6.8%.

this rate hike, which will take effect on july 1, if nothing is done, would apply to new subsidized stafford loans issued undergraduates. with time running out, the house of representatives is the only chamber of congress that has acted to solve this problem. our students deserve better. we are in this big event because politicians put themselves in charge of setting interest rates, guaranteeing exactly this type of down to the wire uncertainty for students and their families. what we need is a long-term solution that gets washington out of the business of setting rates altogether. fortunately, president obama agrees, and in his budget, he offered a plan for long-term reform by tying interest rates to the market. heartened by that proposal, republicans put together a similar measure -- the smarter solutions for senate -- students act, and the house passed it last month, weeks before the deadline. but senate democrats have actively blocked the president's plant and refused to consider hours. in fact, they have yet to pass a solution of any kind.

if i did not know any better, i would say they are content to let rates double. still, republicans have pressed ahead in good faith. and what we need to move forward now is more leadership from president obama. this week, speaker john boehner sent a letter to the president, asking him to step in. i myself have reached out to my senate colleagues and am urging members of the obama administration to take action. because of our efforts, there are finally signs of progress towards a bipartisan plan for a long-term, market-based solution. but we need to finish the job and do so soon. this 11th hour scrambling is the perfect demonstration of why we need to take the politics out of student loans once and for all. we should now seize the opportunity before us. i urge president obama to get engaged so we can stop this rate hike and give -- deliver the kind of long-term solution our students and their families deserve. thank you for listening. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] , and now from this morning's washington journal," a

discussion of the federal reserve's on buying program. post them a anthony sanders is a senior scholar -- host: anthony sanders is a senior scholar and is here to talk about what ben bernanke had to say about the end being near on stimulus. the fed chairman earlier this week announced plans for winding down the central-bank stimulus policies starting this year. welcome to the program, sirg. uest -- sir. guest: thanks for having me. about whatus more the chairman had to say and what has the reaction been so far? , first of all, we are not going to do anything. we are not going to lower rates anymore. we are going to continue to buy mortgage-n worth of backed securities from fannie and freddie and fha. he said they might start curtailing this a little bit. the reaction of the market was

lethal and quick. the stock market plunged 400 points over two days. just a little friday, but it is still coming down. interest rates popped up words. it has gone up a lot. and in this morning's wall street journal -- 's ": and in this morning wall street journal," there is this article. guest: that is a good quote. the answer to that is that we don't know. we have never done this before. the fed is in uncharted waters. it is trying, but trying to

generate gdp growth through cheap money is a theory and we are not seeing a lot of evidence for it. ?e are, what five or six years into this recession. they claim it went away in june of 2009, but, let's face it, it is still with us. unemployment recession is still there. an employment is still doggedly high. they cannot bring it down. itt: talk to us about what was initially that the fed was trying to do regarding this stimulus. what was it called? why did they put it into place? >> they never called it -- guest: they never called it qe2 that is a slang term. it is monetary policy. everyone thinks monetary policy is just the fed's rate at which banks lend to each other. they have been controlling that for decades and decades. but what the theory was was that if they start buying long- term treasuries and mortgage-

backed securities, they drive the up in a drive the yield down. bonds and interest rates move in opposite directions. by making everything cheap, they thought they would jumpstart consumer demand. they thought businesses would go out and start hiring people. in a textbook somewhere, this is a great model. unfortunately, it has not panned out that way. not everyone reads the same textbook? guest: not everyone reads the same textbook. host: the fed has also used the word tapering. what does that mean? guest: right now they are buying 88 billion dollars worth of treasuries and mortgage- backed securities. tapering means he is going to slow that down. it does not mean we are halting it. it means we are going to cut $20 billion per month. that is tapering, slowing it down. will it get there?

that is the next question. host: we will continue to look at that as we continue with this conversation, but we want to try to get some of our viewers and listeners involved. so, the number, if you want to get in touch -- involved in the , (202)ation, republicans 585-3881. .emocrats, (202) 585-3880 independents, (202) 585-3882. we want to play part of the wednesday news conference with chairman ben bernanke. in the clip we are getting ready to show you, mr. but 90 -- mr. bernanke answered a question about where the optimism for the economy comes from. this is what the fed chairman had to say. it is the case -- [video clip]

have gone through a period in the first half of the year was pretty subdued growth. i would like to hear you explain where this optimism comes from and how confident you are that these expectations are going to be met. -- >> thedamentals fundamentals look a little better to us. the housing sector, which has been a drag on growth since the crisis, is now a support to growth. it is not only creating construction jobs, but as house prices rise, increased household wealth -- state and local governments who have now been a drag are coming to a position where they no longer have to lay off large numbers of workers who generally speaking, financial conditions are improving. the main headwind to growth this year is, as you know, the federal fiscal policy, which

the cbo estimates is something on the order of 1.5 percentage points of growth. given that very heavy headwind, the fact that the economy is still moving ahead at at least a moderate pace is indicative that the underlying factors are improving. and so we will see how that evolves. we have not seen the full effect yet of the fiscal policy changes. we want to see how they evolve as we get through that fiscal impact. clip]ideo host: your thoughts about what the fed chairman had to say and the thoughts that came from hilsenrath. hilsenrath always has interesting questions for the chairman. earning key's or sponsor was fine, -- bernanke's response was fine. what does he mean by the improvement in the housing market.

housing prices are skyrocketing. they are going way up all over the country. is that a sign of improvement? not necessarily. mortgage purchase applications, the number of people applying to buy a home mortgage is virtually flat since 1995. there is no improvement from the consumer side on this, which is really what he would like to do. headlines in of the "usa today" this week -- guest: i don't think anyone will sue bernanke when they try to decide prices. this is going to corporations, wall street, cash investors,

foreign investors. having said that, this rapid rise in housing prices is stimulating people to put their housing on the market finally, particularly underwater households. they might find themselves in positive equity position for the first time in years. the problem is the recovery. this might be a bubble. he could be creating a bubble. .verheated housing market the same thing that happened last decade. host: one more question before we get to the calls. if he wants to creep up the interest rates, coming from the fed, eventually, won't those rates go up for homeowners? guest: absolutely. this reminds me of the movie

"jurassic park." the market will have its own will. you can try to influence it. may 2 was a pivotal date. that is when rates started rising all around the world.that was before bernanke had his press conference. mortgage rates have been rising since may 2 and that will put it -- a dampening effect on the housing market. host: we are talking with anthony sanders, a senior scholar at george mason what fedy.regarding chairman ben bernanke had to say about nearing the end of the stimulus. our first call comes from ed in douglasville, georgia on our life for republicans.-- line for republicans. you are on the "washington journal." caller: thank you. i like to ask the gentlemen of what he thinks about the impact regulation has on economic growth and if he could comment on what he believes the true inflation rate is and whether or not there is an actual indicator -- not the c -- whether or not the cpi is an actual

indicator of that. guest: let's start with inflation. the fed has a very narrow definition of what inflation is. excluding things like energy and food. as we all know, energy is very volatile. it's one of the reasons why they excluded from the index. if you include energy and food, the inflation rate is higher, of course. personally, i think the true inflation rate is much higher than the fed is saying. that is number one. number two, regulation --oh, my gosh. common-sense tells you that if you regulate something more economic growth will slow down. the problem is the lead and lag of it is so large. let's take the environmental protection agency. they issue regulation constantly. as you know, they are trying to kill off the coal industry. you don't see it in real time

because these things do not happen overnight. this takes years to actually come to fruition. and so, regulation can distort markets terribly. there is a great theory out of the university of chicago on regulation -- basically sayingit is just one party ganging up on another group, industry, people just to get their way. there is nothing really to do with environmental fairness, etc. it is more about industries or people getting to beat up on someone else. host: our next call comes from henry,in michigan. pronounce the name of your town for me. fort who?are you there? let's move on to roberto in texas on our line for independents. caller: i am a huge fan of ben since he spoke

wednesday and the way the markets have reacted, i really think he should resign and have the president appoint someone else. i know the president cannot fire him.but i really think that he is just -- he saved the economy. now he is destroying it. that is my comment. i would like your guest comment on my comment. host: give me a specific on what -- on why you think he is destroying the economy. caller: there is a combination of things i think are going on. he is on his way out. second, he is -- i think there are no experts now. i think he is under water. he does not really know what to do. he wants to retract what he did and let the next person do whatever they want to do. there are lots of factors going on here. i am disappointed in him. host: anthony sanders?

guest: the markets, and james bullard, the president of the st. louis fed agrees with you. he thought it was premature for bernanke to come out and raise-- and declare victory, that is say that we are going to raise rates because everything else -- because everything looks a little better. go back to what i said a few minutes ago. on may 2, something weird happens. global investors are not paying as much attention to the central bank policy, such as the fed, as they were. what really stimulate my personal opinion -- bernanke does not talk to me except when i see him in today's ballgame. what happens -- happened was he knows the market is starting to detach itself from fed policy. the market wants to go one way. bernanke wants to suppress it. he thinks he is losing control. he almost, by admission, has to relax these things. the market will do it for him.

he does not want to have egg on his face. host: next up, aaron in pennsylvania on our line for republicans. go-ahead. caller: the federal reserve is creating huge bubbles in the they arethink artificially-created bubbles and they heavily distort the market. i think that the federal reserve is out of date and we should go -- we should create a banking board to replace the federal reserve altogether. and i think the federal reserve should be dissolved and have an open for hium between the treasy department and the new banking board so that the treasury department would have more control over the banking policies of the united states of america and have more of an open forum so that everybody knows exactly what is going on. host: anthony sanders?

guest: that is a very good question or point i -- or point. i almost got nervous shakes when you said give treasury more control. that could work badly for us. this is not a criticism of jack lew. they have their agenda. they are politicians.they are not really in it for all of us, even half of us. that may not be such a good idea. i certainly sympathize with the notion of abandoning the federal reserve system and putting something else in its place to reduce its impact. because they are the 800-pound gorilla in the room. they can be toxic. as robertoelp us out. said from houston. they are also causing some collateral damage. on bubbles, you are absolutely right.they are creating stock market bubbles, margin accounts on stocks have shot through the roof. this is the same as 1929. massive margin accounts. everybody jumping into the stock

market and now jumping out of the stock market coincidentally. and the housing market is a bubble. the federal reserve does not say it wants to create bubbles. bernanke is very scared of deflation, down were moving-- downward-moving prices. that was his doctoral dissertation.he studied the great depression. deflation is a killer to the economy. his solution is to try to create inflation. it is not even an imperfect sword. it is a dull sword that hits everything it touches.he cannot control homeownership rates through low rates. is that working -- it is not working. he is creating bubbles. partly, that is by design.i think it is bad, but it is by design. host: we have a tweet from sanders, writes -- mr.

historically speaking, after a collapse, does the economy recover painfully slowly? guest: john taylor at stanford has an interesting study. this is the worst recovery from a financially related recession in the history of the united states. generally, the markets are slow to recover. this is far worse. this involves the entire economy. it was not just a financial collapse. host: in the "financial times," they have a headline, fed signals sent investors running for cover. he delivered the clearest signal yet that the u.s. central bank was preparing to scale back or taper its monthly asset purchases as long as u.s. economic conditions improve as expected. he commented at a news conference on thursday.where far

less -- his comments at a news conference on thursdays -- after thursday's fed policy meeting were far less dovish than -- the response was speedy and brutal. anthony sanders from george mason university is here to talk to us about that. our next call is charles on our line for democrats. caller: it is nice to be able to speak this morning in reference to the economy. my issue is simply this. we have an economy with the laws are not enforced.-- where the laws are not enforced. the big bank ceo's have gotten away with murder and wrecked in -- wrecked this country. not just this country, but this world. when american citizens can start trusting our enforcement again in this nation, they will be able to trust the economy as far as purchasing homes and picking the economy up and making it strong again.

these ceo's need to be taken to task. america's laws in reference to our constitution need to be in-- enforced. i am a veteran. i thought for those laws. and i hate to see things torn apart the way they are today. guest: i appreciate your sentiment and i agree with you 100%. we have to obey the law.write a to attorneyail general eric holder and asked him why he is not enforcing the law on the banks. host: next up is al. you are on the "washington journal." go ahead. gentlemen.nk you, mr. sanders, the question i have directly relates to how mr. bernanke has been trying to prop up the obama tax policy and taxing businesses when they have no money to spend. how is this going to collapse down to nothing when the printing of dollars probably -- finally stops and the market

comes to reality of what it is guest: thisning out? is what we are concerned about. it is difficult when you have monetary stimulus trying to support the economy. the economy has to grow on its own volition. you cannot have this artificially-induced said said -- fed stimulus. itke any drug, it wears off. may have already started. it is not as effective, so we might see some corrections in the market going forward. the fed might come out like bullard came out and said, -- and say, he is only kidding. he is not kidding.the markets are already moving against it. we will see how far it goes. right now, raising taxes is a hotly-debated economic issue. most economists -- ic issuebated economy

among economists. you can imagine what site i am on. i am not in favor of tax hikes because it kills the timing. christina romer said that is true. the endgame said -- the end game is not going to be pretty. host: an editorial cartoon shows fed chairman ben bernanke pulling the rug on quantitative easing.stephen idaho falls, idaho. falls, idaho.aho good morning. caller: good morning. i was wondering if printing dollars is a flat tax that president obama and his administration could not possibly pass otherwise. you would not be able to tax the poor. it would be politically too difficult. but if you print dollars, does that end up working as a flat tax? guest: there are two issues. number one, do i like the flat tax?i think it is the best way

to go. tax.an have a fair you could have a flat tax and say everyone under $20,000 is exempted,000 from the tax. whatever congress agrees on. i guarantee you at the moment there is no sentiment in congress to do a flat tax. they should. it is economically much more efficient. we could scrap the entire tax code. we could have a tax code that is one page long. ,ight now, so many corporations special interest groups, and politicians are vested in having this distortionary progressive tax system that it will probably never go away. it should.but i cannot imagine them having the will to do this. host: in "the washington post," there is the headline, "fed official slams plan to end

stimulus." he said, "you should not make important policy changes based on the idea that you are optimistic about your forecast. data."-- you should wait until you see some data." what kind of data is fed -- and louis fed chairman james bullard -- st. louis' fed chairman james bullard talking about? guest: gdp growth. the federal reserve board economist say it will be the best economists -- economists say it will be above 3% soon. that is a model.it does not mean reality. let's wait until we see these numbers. the flip side of the coin. bernanke is just the chairman of the board. there are lots of other governors who are voting. their concern is that this is the problem of the sword that i was talking about.it is a very blunt sword. it hits everything. it is hard to control.

if inflation really starts to heat up, it takes a long time to cool down, unless you do what volcker did under carter. he tightened rates so much that it almost strengthened -- strangle the economy. host: tell us a little bit more about james bullard, the st. louis fed president. what is his relationship to chairman bernanke? guest: he is on the board. he is advisory. he votes. the problem is, i do not think he and bernanke sit down and go to baseball games. if you want to complain about bernanke, he is always at the nationals games. he is just one voice. lacker at the richmond fed is the most hawkish.-- not hostile, but hawkish. he really wants to start raising rates. he sees what the rest of the market sees.

it is a different theory on the purpose of the fed and what you host: government's role is. in response to what chairman bernanke had to say, thursday at the national association of manufacturers' 2013 summit, house speaker john boehner talked about the economy referencing what he called the new normal and said it is not good enough. we will take a look at what he had to say and get a response from anthony sanders of george mason university. [video clip] >> our economy is recovering at the slowest rate since world war ii. quarter after quarter, growth numbers barely moved. unemployment stays about the same. we are told, do not read too much into it. experts call this condition the new normal. some even argue it is good enough for now. it is not good enough for me, not nearly good enough. i know it is not good enough for

you either. how can any of us stay with a dash stand pat with growth that keeps nearly 2 million -- how can any of us stand pat with growth that keeps nearly 20 million americans out of work and threatens our children's future? we should be doing much better. we are not people who hobble along hoping down the line things will get better. we are people who chart our own course.who take matters into our own hand. that's why i'm here today, because the people in this room represent so much of our nation's economic success and our potential for the future. [end video clip] host: anthony sanders of george mason university, your thoughts about what house speaker john boehner had to say and what role does congress have in all of this? guest: what boehner was saying is that we have very french-like growth. there is a push to become more like europe. a lot more social programs,

safety nets, taxes, etc. that is what we are mutating into. we are becoming france. gdp growth under 2% or negative sometimes.it then comes what we -- it becomes what we call leviathan. such a huge, massive presence of government. extortionary taxes. unemployment never goes away. it remains artificially high. why? let's be honest. when you put in massive social programs and safety nets, some people may not want to work anymore. it is easier to be on the dole. that is what we have had and that is what he is saying. host: we are going to go back to the phones. gino from rhode island on our line for republicans in ohio. caller: thank you for letting

me speak. i question everything this gentleman is saying. he is almost a tea bagger, in my estimation. as far as i know, bernanke never mentioned the word taper. this has been a term from the-- from wall street used for the last three months. they have been saying that the present wall street -- up until two days ago -- was a bubble. i refuse to believe that. i think this whole decline in the market was something engineered by wall street and should be investigated. thank you. host: hey, gino, i believe the expression is tea partier. anthony sanders. guest: thank you for that offensive remark. i am not a member of the tea party.i'm not even really sure what it is. but having said that, does wall street orchestrate this? we have a federal reserve in place, which i don't necessarily agree with, but it is meant to protect the banking industry. again, if you go through

decades and decades of data looking at it, what you see is that the federal reserve was put in place under woodrow wilson to mute big bubbles in the market, banking failures.they are very cyclical. since we have had the fed in place, the number of banking crises has really diminished, although they still exist. very hard to control. it just depends on your point of view. you sound like a big-government type. they are probably doing everything you want. host: we are talking with anthony sanders of george mason university. he is a professor of finance and the distinguished professor of real estate finance. his primary research interests include financial institutions emphasistal markets with

on real estate finance and investment. our next call comes from richard in jacksonville, florida, on our line for independents. caller: good morning, gentlemen. good to talk to you. sir, how is it that if the american people realize we spent $1 trillion to prop up the markets? i think the american people have something to say about this.this is crazy. we cannot keep buying our own stuff and expect the whole world to change. it is not going to happen. how do we get out of this mess stand by and wait for an answer for that one. guest: i would like to know how we get out of that mess, too. they originally came out with the bailout under paulson. i traveled to the sea and met with treasury and said, a, don't do it. go to speedy, organized bankruptcy. let the banks talke what they bt

off and swallow it. bailouts are very distortionary and i don't think it is appropriate. congress does not call it a bailingonce you start everyone out, how do you stop? we bailed out gm.ok, fine. saved some jobs. we are bailing out the post office -- has not really been bailed out. but every time you get in a cycle of bailouts, hungers has to get to the point where they say, no more -- congress has to get to the point where they say no more. you have to basically stand on your own.we are not bailing you out. unfortunately, that is not where we are at.i don't know where this is going to stop. host: next up is nick from new york on our line for republicans. caller: thank you for the opportunity to ask your guest a question. i am intrigued by the notion of a flat tax.i was wondering what the impact -- if mr. sanders

might tell us what the impact would be on deferred tax liability, specifically income that is being held overseas by corporations. we read about apple holding over $1 billion. there must be billions of dollars held overseas and not brought back because of the taxes. i would like to know what mr. sanders' doctors thesis was on. -- doctoral thesis was on, if you would be so kind. either way, robert,, i love having these types of guests. but i think he would add more credence to the discussion if you had a counterpoint so that we could really in evaluating whether or not the points being presented have merit. thank you so much. i will listen off-line. host: thank you. we do have a great team of producers and we do occasionally have roundtable discussions. thanks for watching. mr. sanders? guest: my dissertation was onthe diversification on real estate and investment -- real estate investment trusts and how

interest rates impact real estate markets. i forget with the of the-- what the other question was. i can argue with myself, but i cannot think the host would like me to do that. host: we have a tweet. sequester raise taxes and said says economy is doing better. our debt is currently not increasing. guest: he sequester has been implemented. the good news is that expected tax revenues are up. i do not think you are right on debt not increasing.-- we are is notn that's -- debt increasing. debt is increasing. you will see the real time counter on the debt. we are still running big deficits. we are not running as large a deficit as we did last year. that is a mistake a lot of people make.the debt is still

going on. host: next up is max in illinois on our line for democrats. as we listen to the question or comment, we will be taking a look at the debt clock. caller: it is nice to talk to you, mr. sanders.what i was wondering -- if we had let this go and let it settle itself in the beginning, would we have all of these problem going on now with the rich engineering to get richer? how it went. see and i am wondering, how long before we will begin to get a little money on our own savings? that is mainly what i have wondered. the one hear you.on hand, the federal reserve has this low interest rate policy to stimulate growth and increase --

hopefully increase unemployment -- employment, etc.. on the other hand, there are -- people who have gotten so blown out by this are the sabres and people on a fixed income. so, why save? that is one of the dawning questions. people are saving, but the savings rate started to plummet again because rates are so low. it is the dull sword. it is difficult to help everyone out at the same time. having said that, who is benefiting more from the policies right now they would argue everyone is; i would argue the people in the stock market until last week. the wealthy did benefit differentially from the fed policy. host: this is a chart or graphic

that we have of the dow jones industrial average on thursday after the wednesday news conference with fed chairman bernanke. it has a fairly rapid drop through the day. it started out at 15,050 and finished around 14,750. after the weekend, people have had a chance to sort of digest what the chairman said, catch their breath. do you see the numbers going back up on the dow jones as rapidly as they came down, or is it going to be a slow, steady increase? guest: that is the whole " jurassic park" analogy. host: or have we finished going down? could it continue to go down on monday? guest: investors heard. somebody starts to do something -- investors herd. somebody starts to do something and they all rushed out to do it.i could see a positive big up next week.

we overreacted. let's jump back in, stocks are cheap. but i think the long-term trend will probably be coming down. host: our next call for anthony sanders of george mason university comes from bob on our line for republicans. caller: what i would like to know is who is the federal reserve and how can they print $85 billion a month in counterfeit money? and what would the consequences be of an audit of the federal if you go to my teaching notes site, confoundedinterest. i usually post a lot of information on the federal reserve, its structure, and their impact. who are they? basically a group put together to represent the banking industry and kind of consolidate policy.

it turns out they are on the federal government organization chart. to say they are independent and acting on their own is not right. the president gets to nominate the chairman of the federal reserve whether it is ben bernanke or alan greenspan or whomever. there it is. that was a particularly unfriendly one to the fed. what would an audit divulge?we are ready know what it would doubled. it would diebold that the -- it would divulge. it would divulge that they were -- americans might not appreciate that. on the one hand, if you are a believe that we are a global economy and we might have to bail out a german, dutch, and french banks to preserve economic stability, that is what the fed is doing. if you are more isolationist,or

believe it is none of our business, you might get very mad by that. what a fed audit would diebold's -- divulge >> the question can the fed stimulate the economy without creating asset bubbles? what are the asset bubbles and can the fed stimulate the economy without creating them? guest: the answer to that is the only thing that can stimulate the economy is economic growth and economic growth has to come from companies creating jobs or people creating jobs. the fed can set rates very low, it can try to maneuver and get everything in place. this is not firing up. this is like one of those movies where they have a flame throer and it is clicking and not lighting, that is what is happening right now. we had a gold bubble burst. we had a stock market bubble.

junk-bond bubble. is that because of the economy is in such good shape? host: let's see what jim has to say, jim is on the independent line. go ahead, jim. caller: i noticed when mr. boehner gave his comments you chose to ignore what he said, which i feel that the republicans are responsible for. unemployment, how poor it is right now. when all the republicans in the house have stood firmly against spending programs, even for our snurt. well, my understanding for other

economists they were quite successful. please respond. guest: i can't pay attention everything boehner said but i was focusing on one thing. snusht, of course, we need snurt. i don't like the language on either side of the aisle. i would say we have a debt .roblem it depeppeds what color glasses you're looking through. we need to get to infrastructure soon. we have crumbling roads and bridges are not falling out of the sky but we need to repair them. here's the problem, if you don't mind me saying so. i don't know where you were going with general electic. the fact that he doesn't pay taxes, is that your question?

host: he's gone. i wanted to get this question in regarding with chairman bernanke's successors. one is thought to be the current vice chair of the board of governors of the federal reserve. do you think she would be a good successor or who might be your favorite to succeed chairman bernanke? guest: i think president obama announced it might be janet and she is almost a carbon copy of ben bernanke. she's a berkeley professor just like bernanke was a princeton professor. they follow the same models. so i think it's very likely to be her. so if you like what bernanke is doing you will love janet.

it's big government or big fed hour, lacquer seems to be less than that. host: an thoneny sanders is a profession, any chance you will be the fed chairman? guest: i don't think obama will nominate me, i don't think any other president would either. host: thank you for being on the "washington journal" today. on "washington journal" robert rector and all lex nowrrasteh debate the mmigration policy. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. the senate returns on monday at

noon to debate on the immigration bill. senate majority leader harry reid has set a bill to debate the bill. that is at 5:30 eastern. the final passage of the bill is expected some time next week. live coverage of the senate when they return on monday on c-span2. the house returns on tuesday at 2:00 p.m. eastern. they are going to take up oil drill and agriculture spending. live coverage when they return here on c-span. friday president obama nominated james comey as the director of the f.b.i. he served deputy attorney general under president george w. bush. from the white house, this is ust over 10 minutes.

>> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states, accompanied by mr. bob mueller and mr. jim comey. >> good afternoon, everybody. these have a seat. for more than a century, we have counted on the dedicated men and women of the fbi to keep us safe. in that time, the fbi has been led by six directors and the second longest serving director of the fbi, for the last 12 years, an exemplary public ervant, bob mueller. by law fbi directors only serve for 10 years, but back in 2011, when bob's term was up, i asked congress to give him two more years. it was not a request i made

lightly, and i know congress did not grant it lightly, but at the time transitions were underway at the cia and the pentagon, and given the threats facing our nation, it was critical to have bob's strong leadership at the bureau. 12 years is a long time to do anything. and i guarantee you that bob's wife agrees. in addition to asking congress, we need approval from ann as well. today, as bob prepares to complete his service, this is a wonderful opportunity for all of us as a nation to say thank you to bob and ann, but also gives me a chance to announce my next choice for the fbi director, jim comey. every day their staff devotes their lives to keep us secure, from the streets of our cities

to the battlefield of afghanistan. they embody the core principles of fidelity, bravery, and integrity. bob mueller has embodied those values through decades of public service and lived them every day as fbi director during an extraordinary time in our nation's history. bob, some of you will recall, was sworn in just days before 9/11. bob not only played a key role in her response to those attacks, he began one of the biggest transformations of the fbi in history to make sure that nothing like that ever happens again. like the marine that he has always been, bob never took his eyes off his mission. under his watch, the fbi joined forces with our intelligence, military, and homeland security professionals to break up al qaeda's cells and their plots. i will say it as clearly as i can, many americans are alive

today and our country is more secure because of the fbi's outstanding work under the leadership of bob mueller. bob and the fbi had been tireless against a whole range of challenges, from preventing violent crime and reducing gang activity, including along our border, to cracking down on white-collar criminals. today, there are many in the fbi who have never known the bureau without bob at the helm, and like us, they have admired his tenacity, his calm under pressure, devotion to our security, and his fidelity to the values that make us who we are. it is a trademark attributed to his humility that most of you would not recognize him on the street, but all of us are better because of his service. bob, i cannot tell you how grateful i am to you for your service. i know everyone here knows you will be remembered as one of the finest directors in the history

of the fbi and one of the most admired public servants of our ime. personally, not only has it been a pleasure to work with bob, but i know very few people in public life who have shown more integrity more consistently, under more pressure than bob mueller. [applause] i think bob will agree when i say we have the perfect person to carry on this work in jim comey, a man who stands very tall for justice and the rule of law. i was saying while we were taking pictures with his gorgeous family here that they are all what michelle calls ormalites.

the grandson of a patrolman who worked his way up to leave the yonkers police department, he has law enforcement in his blood. he helped bring down the gambino crime family, as a federal prosecutor in virginia he led an aggressive effort to combat gun violence reduce homicide rates and save lives, and he has been relentless, whether standing up for consumers against corporate fraud or bringing terrorists to justice. and as deputy attorney general he helped lead the justice department with skill and wisdom meeting threats we know about and staying perpetually prepared for the ones that can emerge suddenly. so jim is exceptionally qualified to handle the full range of challenges a spy today's fbi, from threats like violence and organized crime to protecting civil rights and children from exploitation, to meeting transnational challenges

like terrorism and cyber threats. just as important as jim's experience is his character. he has talked about how he and his brother nearly lost their lives. they were at home when an intruder held them at gunpoint. he understands deeply in his core the anguish of victims of crime, what they go through, and he has made it his life's work to spare others that pain. to know jim is to know his independence and his deep integrity. like bob, who has been in washington for some time, he does not care for politics, he only cares about getting the job one. in key moments he joined bob in standing up for what he believed was right and was prepared to give up the job he loved rather than -- be part of something that he thought was fundamental wrong.

as jim has said, we know the rule of law sets this nation apart and -- its foundation. jim understands at a time of crisis we are not just solely by how many plots we bring to justice, we are judged by our constitution that we sworn to defend. this work of striking a balance with security, but also making sure we are maintaining fidelity to those values that we cherish is a constant mission. that is who we are. and it is in large part because of my confidence, not only in his experience and his skill, but his integrity that i am confident that jim will be a leader who understands how to keep america safe and stay true to our founding ideals no matter what the future may bring. so to bob and ann, thank you for your service. i want to thank jim, his wife, patrice, and his family who are

here -- maureen, katherine, brian, claire, and abby -- as he takes on this important role. he could not do this without you and he is extraordinarily proud of all of you, and i can see why. this is a 10-year assignment. i make this nomination confident that long after i left office our security will be in good hands with servants like jim comey, and so i urge as usual for the senate to act promptly with hearings and to confirm our next fbi director right away. i would like now to give both of them a chance to say a few ords, starting with bob. >> let me start by thanking you for those kind words. i also want to express my gratitude to both president bush and president obama for giving me the honor and a privilege of

serving as the fbi director during these last few years. i want to take the opportunity to thank the men and women of the fbi. it is through their work, dedication, and their adaptability that the fbi is better able to predict and prevent terrorism and crime of here and abroad. i want to thank my wife and my family for the support and their patience over the last 12 years, and i want to commend the president for the choice of jim comey as the next rector of the fbi. i have had the opportunity to work with jim or a number of years in the department of justice, and i have found him to be a man of honesty, dedication, and integrity. is experience, judgment, and strong sense of humility will benefit not only the bureau, but the country as a whole. again, mr. president, thank you for this opportunity to serve.