but would that is the most efficient way because it does allow waste to screen cargo as they pack it in boxes or allow a way to screen that cargo, collecting it from various shippers from anywhere else. efficient. so those are two of the overseas. the same challenges of 54 how that cargo is screened.

>> we think that's a very effective tool for usage going forward. if we can get, i say we, the u.s. government can get more information and center in the process and it is certainly a challenge on air cargo side, a lot more different from a time standpoint than on the maritime site. current requirements are carriers have to turn in, get the full manifested at all the shipment for hours before touchdown in the u.s. that doesn't become a tool for targeting screen from a security standpoint from our method of physically screened by actually or anything else, because the flight is already in the air. it's an instant in yemen pointed out we need to see much earlier in the process. we fortunately, and i say we

collectively, we are working on a project for well over a year on how we can work with the carriers to get that data earlier in the process. so we had a good framework and foundation build prior to the incidents at the end of october towards starting heating up that process. since october we've really moved quickly forward, and we have a couple of pilot projects that we are moving jointly with industry, both working with integrated carriers, they express operators who have information really almost at the point of somebody dropping off a partial. they can start getting that information, getting into the system and getting elements that we can then look at and possibly target something for targeted screening based on intelligence and the latest information that we have. the other side of the equation, which is still the environment using of shippers going to the airlines is a little bit different scenario. because that information

currently, most of that does not get into the system, the manifest system, until it's in the hands of the airlines. while trying to make, so that cargo may only be in the hands of the airlines 45 minutes, and our prior to departure. so it doesn't give you much time to do anything with that. in a case of departure -- larger pieces coming over, a voter want to consolidate 45 to shippers into three, we don't get the information until an hour nap before the flight departs, we want you to look more closely at this point, then the airline is burden to going out and find that piece, dealing everything press. that's not the environment we want to do. our preference is to work with industry, as we are, on a second system. how quickly can they get it in as they are collecting fares and shipments through the process, get back into the system so it can be viewed, observed come and make a decision going forward.

so that really is the ideal goal for us is to get information in so we can make a determination on targeted screening based on current risk and current intelligence in the future. so we are working with that, working collaboratively with industry to get that done. hopefully as pilots will give us much better effective information to use over the next three, 60 days and we can start making effective usage of that going forward. so that's really the state of the union is, with regard to airfreight right now, particularly inbound. that's a hot topic right now. let me answer questions later. thank you. [applause] >> good morning. ken konigsmark with the boeing company. i had a bit of a challenge in trying to represent industry in general today. i'll do so with bowling blinders on. but i do so with a lot of input

from the rest of industry as to the challenges of a lot the supply chain security issues. i've heard in many conferences and discussions with fellow manufacturers, other industries, the difficulty and the desires we have with regards to the supply chain security. first, i think it's important to note its december 7, pearl harbor day, and this whole discussion is about how to not let another pearl harbor happened in the united states as a result of something happening in a supply chain or a piece of cargo coming in. so, in my case i have been to probably 30, 35 countries over the last five years looking at supply chain to come in at the security. like everybody, i don't think we worried about those issues too much until after 9/11, until after that program can.

and when she started looking you do see, there are issues, there are challenges. and yet there are ways we can go forward to address this. a little bit about us. wide is this matter of concern are important to us. well, with the word leading aerospace company. a lot of people and a lot of countries, pretty good revenue. were the largest u.s. exporter. and a lot of people don't know that but in terms of dollar value, boeing is the largest exporter. we make a big impact to the overall trade deficit issue. we are a major defense contractor. now if you put the two of those facts together, that also makes us a target. and as she recalled, 9/11 it was for boeing aircraft that were used. we don't think that was by accident. so we do take very seriously, probably more so than the other companies because as a large economic target and defense target, we consider ourselves to

be at risk. we are also -- were the top importers with over 60,000 imports annually. hundreds of different supply chains. about 6 billion in the value of those imports, interestingly 80% by air cargo. most of which is on passenger aircraft. wide? because we are a just and to manufacture. we don't have the luxury of extra inventory and extra time in our supply chain to enable the shipment to be either stuck in an inspection, or in some other sort of delay. what does that mean? if you like row seven and the case of the iceland volcano, we had to scramble in trying to get shipment out of your to sustain production to the point of chartering one of the few available aircraft we could find, and then prioritize which

imports needed from europe would we put on a plane to get our production lines going. so when you start talking security, there's that thin margin of production capacity and inputs needed to keep your supply chain and your production going. as you would guess, like many of you we have a huge ramp up in imports over the last few years, that will continue significantly as we grow our seven program, if you're not aware, we are increasing production rates on every other one of our airplane programs as well. so the volume of imports and shipments will increase significantly in the years ahead. another issue, challenge. 20% of our imports are non-procured. these are things like customer returns, parts, tooling, being sent back and forth. these are not regular supply chains. they are not referring ongoing shipments. that's a significant volume, and how do you secure these, we call

them anomaly shipments, effectively? that's something we're working on and others will need to work on as well. doug mentioned we to have participate in the c-tpat program. we've certified to different boeing facilities to screen cargo. that's on the outgoing mode because one of the challenges to, is we are obligated to provide a spare part to a customer anywhere in the world when they have a broken airplane within 24 hours. off our shelf, on a plane, do whatever it may be on the ground within 24 hours. again, we can't afford to go shipments delayed in screening are getting on board the first available aircraft. so we did certify two different sides, had a very good experience with working on tsa on that. well, there. so now let me jump into what i

think i can say on behalf of all of us from industry, that are in this room, and in the broader community. we do want to be a willing partner in securing the global supply chain. we are all in this together. we are all americans. we are all appalled at what happened on 9/11 and don't want to see anything like that again. so we want to be partners. the second vote then comes into play. find the proper balance insecurity in the flow of commerce. based on what the commissioner said, balance may be the wrong word and it said the word is finding integration of security and facilitation of the flow of commerce so that we're all working together effectively in costs, delays, but also provide security. there is a concern about cost increase. as a result of the 100% air cargo screening requirement. those of us in michigan community have seen forwarders

and carriers impose additional security screening fees. those are not insignificant. so there is a cost. there has been concern about potential delays due to lack of capacity, screen, steering and capacity in the system that has not materialized. and we hope that doesn't in the future. some concern as we go international in that realm as well. but then again i had mentioned are increasing imports and interdependency. when you think about something like the bp oil spill and how, the mistakes of one partner in the process with other partners, and a lack of communication and ability to respond cohesively to all those issues cascaded into catastrophe. and essence that's what's happening in today's global supply chains, that we are totally dependent on suppliers in far, far places. if they don't get something done

on time to the right quality, on that plane or on that ship when we need it, we are at huge risk. we are totally dependent on that. we have seen some of that, the 787 program which as you know is behind schedule but seem to fly and soon-to-be passionate in his line but soon to be delivered to paying customer. these are the issues of risk and security and potential for cost increases and delays factor into all of that. so what's the answer? sounds easy. a risk-based multilayered approach versus 100% screening. we have heard this repeated throughout the morning. perhaps something like a global known shipper program, advanced shipment data and analysis that identifies the week from the chap. and in targeted and some random screen to make sure the system is honest. in the global system, when you've got a range of modernity

from i.t. systems and the capacity in the u.s. or japan or korea, to other places, again, i will use no give you as an example example compound people altogether? much easier said than done. especially with jurisdictional issues. screening sanskrit. 100% screening. but that isn't the answer. it's both impractical, hugely impacting on industry and also is not guaranteed to find the0 problem. my understanding is that the0 human cargo packages were both screened by extra, but they slipped through. so one of% screening may not be the answer. and i think we all need to take on the task of ensuring our policymakers in congress understand how business operates, and the technological limitations of screening, and the better preferred approach is

exactly what's been described from commissioner bersin to all her other speakers this morning of advanced shipment data, leading to targeted screening and analysis of that data. another point we've heard repeated is harmonization, or just choose cooperation amongst international partners, a mutually recognizing programs and ensuring that we are not doing multiple different types of security processes, depending on the country you are doing business in or with. ideally, they would be one global standard. and that we could assign a risk status based on a global standard on either a supply chain, a manufacturer, or a country. but for those that may know or don't know, customs organization has been working on such a proposal for years, and has reached a point of having a framework of international cargo security standards, but the

devils into details and it's been years in trying to turn the framework into an actual set of standards. another issue that's come up for us, and i suspect for others of you in industry who have a similar concern is, what happens if there is an incident? how do we sustain our business? how do we get our goods across the border? who gets priority? we think there needs to be a coordinated incident response plan that takes into account things like you are the identify critical manufacturers of the united states, and how do you get their cargo in to keep those critical manufacturing operations going. our case, you know, i can talk about f-15 or f-18 production, if there were a major attack on the united states. had we sustain those production lines in the event of a respond when we would need a surge in the capacity of those products? those are the kinds of things we need to talk about. having said all of that, the

last thing i wanted to say is that the agencies involved, our partners are coming to deserve a great deal of credit. i have never seen a worse band if you do, damned if you don't situation than tsa finds themselves in today. i mean, on one hand, they have to stop every possible incident of somebody blowing up a plane or getting something into this country. and on the other hand they are told don't touch my junk. so what are they to do? [laughter] is a very difficult situation. and i want to give them credit. doug in particular, i worked with for over two years in deploying the tcs the program. great industry. great partnership. great adapting of the program to the needs and realities of industry. and doug came with the right background to understand that in the first place. there's a lot of good people, both in tsa, cbp, commerce, and

all these departments doing really good work. and we'll continue to work with industry, going four to help find the right answers to find that integration of security and facilitate a trade. thank you. [applause] >> great, ken come and join us. naked for your thoughts and comments today. i think we have time for questions and answers. if you want to grab these, they're on the back of your tears. if folks have questions, question up here. >> i with american shipper magazine. i had a question for mr. britvic you mention a couple of pilot programs and how to get some of those advanced air shipment information to do the targeting before departure.

how long to anticipate those pilots come are the close to getting started? how long do you anticipate them running before you have enough information to lead to some kind of ruling, and when might we see a rule of some kind? >> good question. we are actually starting this week the express consignmeconsignment by networking with a couple of the larger entities in that environment. we are looking at them kind of in a 30 day increments to determine how fast we can get information, what information sets may look like and how quickly we can turn that around. the other one, working with the heavier air cargo, working with the frank keener the and so forth, we've identified the partners that will be in that pilot project. probably won't be up to i now until early january to get set up and running. the same thing applies there. probably looking at those and 30 increments to determine what is what information we can get, how

quickly we can act on it and put the rule sets around that today look at the longer-term aspects of it. >> other questions? in the back. >> i'm bob edmonds and i'm with the journal of commerce. doug, did the incidence from a month ago with a laser printers, has that given any kind of impetus to bilateral negotiations as far as screening rules with other countries? >> well, as i said before, we have been engaged with the various foreign governments for some period of time now, actually for several years, working towards joint recognition of their programs. but i think it's been interesting to see the dynamics that's happened since the october 29 incident, as far as

the global security community, our counterparts, tsa of the other countries have kind of responded working with us to set more common frameworks going forward. and i think that's given us a lot more impetus towards moving those things more quickly going forward. >> actually, one more as a moderator, i have one, and one question. the comment as i know we're talking export your. both the finished product as well as production retail, one in five workers in the american workforce so it's just as important to focus on import as was export. the question i have, commissioner bersin talked earlier about the grand mart, the additional benefits. a lot of oak is was the process. but i think it's more than just the clitoris itself.

to the other issue, the other agency, you've heard this numerous times. but also some of the other entry procedures in the cbp when you does that mesh at giving you advanced data? looking at isf, getting data where it's not, it's best available time, how do you match that up with your entry and potential panel? i know that's where my members have a great concern is how it's useful for those kind of issues. if you want to comment on those. >> sort of two issues there. what is the other government agency, and i think as we have addressed incidence, i've looked into the air cargo. i know our ability and incentive to share data so that we are making consistent data, consistent decisions across the government is a priority for, not only dhs, but for the other agencies that we work with. on one of the areas that we have

done a lot of work in outside of the security realm has to do with import safety which is another security issue. some of you may know that we established an interagency targeting center. we called it to see tech center for targeting, i'm not going to get right. and another acronym. i can't define. but it is modeled on the cbp targeting centers but i think the strength of is the other agency participation. fda, other agencies that can have a huge impact on these decisions being made together, not only in a consistent approach but using the same data in coming to an agreement over what is important, what is not so important, as opposed to having cbp make one decision, fda making another decision. so you think you're home free but then you are not.

or you get stopped but in you are way down. so we are looking to really integrate those targeting and decision-making processes. the second issue of the use of advanced data, i would say that cbtb generally recognizes the value of advanced data. we also recognize its flaws. internally we are not looking to ding the trade for providing data that is best available may be coming know, how many days out is one set of data, but then as you get closer, your quantity gets perfected or your value gets perfected because you have a technical issue that you then have better data on as you get closer to the actual time of importation. we are not looking as and enforcement initiative to nitpick the differences between early data and a little data

that is provided a little bit later. and i think that you can see the commitment to that from cbp. we've had extensive conversations, with the assistant commissioner for field operations has actually pulled all penalties related to the import security funding into headquarters to make sure that of the however many people are involved in the cargo processing and penalty process, do not send a message that we're going to nitpick your data. that is not the intent. so i would say that's a pretty good faith effort on cbp's part, and should signal that we are looking to work with the data, not to penalize your report. >> and just quickly, that's exactly what i think industry wants to hear, it's what we want to hear. and the whole idea of you mentioned two, brenda, by the agencies, the top 12 and 10 of them being together. that's exactly what we're hoping is that there can be this

collaborative effort to approach the whole importation process as a whole, and help facilitate it across board, whether retail, aerospace, or whatever the industry may be. >> i think final question. >> thank you. i'm with general motors. a very interesting discussion but i guess certainly i would encourage all parts of the government, when looking at advanced data, whenever possible data can be provided on an account bases well ahead of a shipment to reduce transaction by transaction information. i would certainly encourage you to look at that. specifically with tsa in looking at these needs for security, the need for additional data. a lot of industries are truly just in time. some cases industries that are just in time use a lot of truck, rail, ocean, as well as the often used when it is a critical shipment.

i need to get it as quickly as i can. again come encourage if there's any way to look at accounts or data that can be preset out that might help lower that time period i had that tsa, cbp, whatever the government agency is needs the data, certainly we would all appreciate that. because the farther back on those critical time sensitive shipments the data needs to be provided, creates more difficulty in actually getting it to where we need it. so again, i know that paradigm for the ballot, but obviously there is very real need for those security information at the same time trying to keep that trade moving. thank you. >> i think we still have some time for questions. >> i just have one. well, actually to real quick. david gunn you talked a lot about the national export

initiatives, and, you know, the chamber has allowed small members, small, medium-sized businesses that would love to take advantage of what you guys are doing in trying to help them. what can they do to kind of the plug-in and take advantage of this initiative? the second question is for ken. commissioner bersin talk a lot about transfixing taking to the next generation. and i know the other, you know the system better, look at recommendations would you have to kind of take it to the next level? >> let me just a few words about the expert initiative. on that there are plenty of opportunities. just call us. we have people, we are adding people portrayed advocacy, trade promotion. will be folks who can help identify could target market, provide market research -- research that we have partnership with something larger transport countries including our sponsor fedex today to help identify people, potential markets, and provide data that will help people get

started into exporting or take existing businesses they have an expanded them. for larger companies there are also opportunities to be some of those partners as well. we have the people are ready to help, and we're staffing up to do that very project. >> taking c-tpat to the next level, a tough question. but a couple things come to mind. commissioner bersin mention increasing the number of participants. therefore, increasing the volume of imports that fall under the c-tpat umbrella and then you can separate out the ones who you focus the spotlight on more. that's one approach that would help separate the wheat from the check. and again, you find a needle in haystack, as we keep saying, although c-tpat as a program, you have to trust industry. and industry has to take it seriously and do their part, too, which is why i've been to

30, or 35 countries. and you do find problems. you do find manufacturing facilities that may not have the desired security. you particularly find some of the inland trucking, in other countries it may not have the security needed. and it's up to us in industry to make sure that the standards are being met and that they are securely -- secure. i think we do need to look at additional benefits for c-tpat members, two or three in particular, but even if you're doing the minimum, you meet the standards, other things like potentially waiting penalties if you inadvertently mess up in some other area of your importation process, but you doing everything possible on the security side. things like melding data and other data that we may provide you tsa on their cargo because that somehow will be used or can you get credited with the c-tpat

compliant member to somehow high all these pieces together so they are not all separate. if we have they manufacture in another country program that is certified in their program, and we certify on our end and where using a certified forwarder, let's get a green lane in place to get that import right into the country and right into our hands immediately. those are the kinds of things that popped in my head right away. that we can talk all day about these issues but at least that's a start. >> as this broke them comes to a close, we will go live now to the u.s. senate as the senate is gaveling in to wrap up the judge porteous impeachment trial. he is at the louisiana federal judge accused of corruption and line. the house impeached him last month. the senate is considering whether to remove him. him from public office. and now live coverage on c-span2.

blessings new to us. thank you for the blessing of your presence that brightens this day. restores our faith, and fills us with peace. thank you for the blessing of friends who support, encourage, and sustain us. lord, thank you for the blessing of families who nurture and forgive and undergird us with love. thank you for the members of this body for their love of liberty, for their desire to make a positive impact on our world, and for their commitment to you. guide them today so that your

will may be done on earth even as it is done in heaven. we pray in your sacred name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., december 8, 2010. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules

of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: the majority leader's recognized. mr. reid: following leader remarks, there will be a live quorum to resume the impeachment of the trial of g. thomas poart jr. porteous jr. senators are encouraged to come to the floor immediately. once a quorum is present there will be a series of five votes on the impeachment and articles related to the impeachment. on the conclusion, the senate will recess to clear the chamber. when the senate reconvenes, they will resume motion to proceed to s. 3991, the public safety employee-employer cooperation act with the time until 12:30 p.m. equally divided and controlled between the leaders and designees. the senate will recess from

12:30 until 3:00 p.m. at 3:30 the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to 3391, there will then be a period of 30 minutes of debate that will be equally divided and controlled between the leaders and their designees. upon the use or yielding back of that time, the senate will proceed to a series of up to four roll call votes. mr. president, as to how we're going to schedule those votes, i've had inquiries from both sides. there's some issues tonight as to time. we'll do our best as cooperatively as we can. we have a lot of votes we have to complete today. and i'm likely going to move to my motion to reconsider on the defense authorization act this evening. allowing, as i will indicate at that time time for amendments to that piece of legislation. we'll be meet -- meanwhile i will meet with the republican

leader. there's work being done on the tax issue. it's further along than most people would think. i don't think there's a great deal more work to be done on that and then people can decide what they're going to do on it. i have a meeting contemplateing with the republican leader sometime later today to decide how we'll proceed on that. the votes this afternoon will be on the public safety matter that i've just spoken about, the emergency senior citizens relief act, the dream act, and the motion on the zadrod act. if cloture is invoked on the motion to proceed there will be 30 hours of debate as we know. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president, is a quorum present? the president pro tempore: a quorum is present. will senators take their seats. the president pro tempore: under the previous order, a quorum having been established, the senate will resume its

consideration of the articles of impeachment against judge. g. thomas porteous, jr. the sergeant at arms will make the proclamation. the sergeant at arms: hear ye, hear ye, hear ye, all persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the house of representatives is exhibiting to the united states articles of impeachment against g. porteous jr., judge of the united states district court for the eastern district of louisiana. the president pro tempore: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: mr. president, the senate deliberated yesterday evening for a long time on the articles of impeachment against judge g. thomas porteous, jr. and the related motions. we meet today to vote on the articles. before proceeding to vote on each of the articles, however, the senate has agreed to vote on the motion filed by judge

-- a motion notwithstanding impeachment, the senate will hold preliminary votes on individual allegations in the articles. mr. president, can the chair confirm for the benefit of senators that a yes vote is a vote to desegregate the articles as sought -- disaggregate, pardon me, the articles sought by judge porteous, and a no vote is a vote to proceeding directly to voting on the four articles of impeachment. the president pro tempore: before i proceed, will the panel be seated? the majority leader is crengt. the senate will now vote to disaggregate the articles. the question is on the motion. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the president pro tempore: the motion is not agreed to. the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, i move to reconsider that motion. the president pro tempore: so ordered. mr. leader. mr. reid: mr. president, before proceeding on the final vote on the articles of impeachment, i ask unanimous consent that senators may be permitted within seven days from today to have printed in the record opinions or statements explaining their and that the secretary be authorized to include these statements along with the record of the senate's proceedings in a senate document printed to complete the documentation of the? 's handling of these impeachment proceedings.

the president pro tempore: hearing no objection, it is so ordered. the majority leader. mr. reid: thank you, mr. president. i'd like to remind all senators to remain in their seats during the voting on all four articles of impeachment. under impeachment rule number 22, once we've begun voting on the first article, voting will proceed on each of the following articles of impeachment. when their name is called, senators shall rise from their seat and cast their vote. this will ensure that the decorum of the senate is maintained while these grave proceedings are underway. these proceedings affect not only judge porteous but also the senate and our system of government. the chair will shortly instruct the members of the senate on the question to the put and the manner of response. the president pro tempore: the clerk will read the first article of impeachment. the clerk: article i. while a federal judge for the united states district court for the eastern district of louisiana, engaged in a pearch conduct that is incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him as a federal judge as follows.

judge port, while presiding -- judge porteous, while presiding as united states district judge in life mark hospitals of louisiana incorporated versus liljeberg enterprises, denied a motion to recuse himself from the case. despite the fact that he had a corrupt financial relationship with the law firm of amato and creely p.c., which had entered the case to represent liljeberg. in denying the motion to recuse, and in contravention of clean cannons of judicial ethics, judge porteous failed to disclose that beginning in or about the late 1980's, while he was a state court judge in the 24th judicial district in the state of louisiana, he engaged in a corrupt scheme with attorneys jacob amato jr. and robert creely whereby judge porteous appointed amato's law partner as a curator in hundreds of cases and thereafter requested and accepted from amato and creely a portion of the curatorship fees which had

been paid to the firm. during the period of this scheme, the fees received by amato and creely amounted to approximately $40,000 and the amounts paid by amato and creely to judge porteous amounted to approximately $20,000. judge porteous also made intentionally misleading statements at the recusal hearing intended to minimize the extent of his personal relationship with the two attorneys. in doing so and in failing to disclose to lifemark and its counsel the true circumstances of his relationship with the amato and creely law firm, judge porteous deprived the fifth circuit court of appeals of critical information for its review of a petition for writ of mandamus, which sought to overrule judge porteous's denial of the recusal motion. his conduct deprived the parties and the public of the right to the honest services of his

office. judge porteous also engaged in corrupt conduct after the lifemark v. liljeberg bench trial and while he had the case under advisement in that he solicited and accepted things of value from both amato and his law partner creely including a payment of thousands of dollars in cash. thereafter and without disclosing his corrupt relationship with the attorneys after mat toe an amato and creef cash and other things of value, judge porteous ruled in favor of their client, liljeberg. by virtue of this corrupt relationship and his conduct as a federal judge, judge porteous brought this court into scandal and disrepute, prejudiced public respect for and confidence in the federal judiciary, and demonstrated that he is unfit for the office federal judge. wherefore, judge george thomas porteous jr. is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and

should be removed from office. the president pro tempore: the chair will read for the benefit of everyone present in the chamber and in the galleries paragraph i of rule 19 of the standing rules of the senate, which states as follows: whenever confusion arises in the chamber or the galleries or demonstrations of approval or disapproval are indulged by occupants of the galleries, it shall be the duty of the chair to enforce order on his own initiative and without any point of order being made by a senat senator. the chair would deeply appreciate the cooperation of everyone in the chamber and in the galleries in maintaining order. the chair reminds the senate that each senator, when his or her name is called, will stand in his or her place and vote guilty or not guilty.

under the constitution, conviction requires a vote of two-thirds present on any article. the question is on the first article. senators, how say you? is the respondent, g. thomas porteous jr. guilty or not guilty? the roll call is automatic, and the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the president pro tempore: on this article of impeachment, 96 senators have voted guilty, no senator has voted not guilty. two-thirds of the senators present having voted guilty, the verdict on article i is guilty. the chair now asks the clerk to read the second article.

the clerk: article ii. g. thomas porteous, jr., engaged in a longstanding pattern of corrupt conduct that demonstrates his unfitness to serve as a united states district court judge. that conduct included the following: beginning in or about the late 1980's while he was a state court judge in the 24th judicial district court in the state of louisiana, and continuing while he was a federal judge in the united states district court for the eastern district of louisiana, judge porteous engaged in a corrupt relationship with bail bondsman louis m. marcotte, iii, and his sister lori marcotte. as part of this corrupt relationship, judge porteous solicited and accepted numerous things of value, including meals, trips, home repairs, and car repairs, for his personal

use and benefit, while at the same time taking official actions that benefitted the marcottes. these official actions by judge porteous included, while on the state bench, setting, reducing, and splitting bonds as requested by the marcottes, and improperly setting aside or expunging felony convictions for two marcotte employees, in one case after judge porteous had been confirmed by the senate but before being sworn in as a federal judge. in addition, both while on the state bench and on the federal bench, judge porteous used the power and prestige of his office to assist the marcottes in forming relationships with state judicial officers and individuals important to the marcottes' business. as judge porteous well knew and understood, louis marcotte also made false statements to the federal bureau of investigation in an effort to assist judge porteous in being appointed to the federal bench.

accordingly, judge g. thomas porteous, jr., has engaged in conduct so utterly lacking in honesty and integrity that he is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, is unfit to hold the office of federal judge, and should be removed from office. the president pro tempore: the question is on the second article of impeachment. senators, how say you? is the respondent, g. thomas porteous, jr., guilty or not guilty? the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the president pro tempore: on this article of impeachment, 69 senators have voted guilty, 27 senators have voted not guilty. two-thirds of the senators present having voted guilty, the verdict on article ii is guilty. the chair now calls upon the clerk to read the third article. the clerk: article iii. beginning in or about march 2001 and continuing through about july 2004, while a federal judge in the united states district court for the eastern district of louisiana, g. thomas porteous, jr., engaged in a pattern of conduct inconsistent with the trust and confidence placed in him as a federal judge by knowingly and intentionally

making material false statements and representations under penalty of perjury related to his personal bankruptcy filing and by repeatedly violating a court order in his bankruptcy case. judge porteous did so by: one, using a false name and a post office box address to conceal his identity as the debtor in the case; two, concealing assets; three, concealing preferential payments to certain creditors; four, concealing gambling losses and other gambling debts; and five, incurring new debts while the case was pending, in violation of the bankruptcy court's order. in doing so, judge porteous brought his court into scandal and disrepute, prejudiced public respect for and confidence in the federal judiciary, and demonstrated that he is unfit for the office of federal judge.

wherefore, judge g. thomas porteous, jr., is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office. the president pro tempore: the question is on the third article of impeachment. senators, how say you? is the respondent, g. thomas porteous, jr., guilty or not guilty? the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the president pro tempore: on this article of impeachment, 88 senators have voted guilty, 8 senators have voted not guilty. two-thirds of the senators present having voted guilty, the verdict on article iii is guilty.

the chair now calls upon the clerk to read the fourth article. the clerk: article iv. in 1994, in connection with his nomination to be a judge of the united states district court for the eastern district of louisiana, g. thomas porteous, jr., knowingly made material false statements about his past to both the united states senate and to the federal bureau of investigation in order to obtain the office of united states district court judge. these false statements included the following: one, on his supplemental sf-86, judge porteous was asked if there was anything in his personal life that could be used by someone to coerce or blackmail him, or if there was anything in his life that could cause an embarrassment to judge porteous or the president if publicly known.

judge porteous answered "no" to these questions and signed the form under the warning that a false statement was punishable by law. two, during his background check, judge porteous falsely told the federal bureau of investigation on two separate occasions that he was not concealing any activity or conduct that could be used to influence, pressure, coerce, or compromise him in any way or that would impact negatively on his character, reputation, judgment, or discretion. three, on the senate judiciary committee's "questionnaire for judicial nominees," judge porteous was asked whether any unfavorable information existed that could affect his nomination. judge porteous answered that, to the best of his knowledge, he did "not know of any unfavorable information that may affect his nomination." judge porteous signed that

questionnaire by swearing that "the information provided in this statement is, to the best of my knowledge, true and accurate." however, in truth and in fact, as judge porteous then well knew, each of these answers was materially false because judge porteous had engaged in a corrupt relationship with the law firm amato & creely, whereby judge porteous appointed creely as a "curator" in hundreds of cases and thereafter requested and accepted from amato & creely a portion of the curatorship fees which had been paid to the firm and also had engaged in a corrupt relationship with louis and lori marcotte, whereby judge porteous solicited and accepted numerous things of value, including meals, trips, home repairs, and car repairs, for his personal use and benefit, while at the same time taking official actions that benefitted the marcottes. as judge porteous well knew and

understood, louis marcotte also made false statements to the federal bureau of investigation in an effort to assist judge porteous in being appointed to the federal bench. judge porteous's failure to disclose these corrupt relationships deprived the united states senate and the public of information that would have had a material impact on his confirmation. wherefore, judge g. thomas porteous, jr., is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office. the president pro tempore: the question is on the fourth article of impeachment. senators, how say you? is the respondent, g. thomas porteous, jr., guilty or not guilty? the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

the president pro tempore. on this article of impeachment,

90 senators have voted guilty, 6 senators have voted not guilty. two-thirds of the senators present having voted guilty, the verdict on article iv is guilty. the chair directs judgment to be entered in accordance with the judgment of the senate, as follows: the senate, having tried g. thomas porteous jr., u.s. district judge for the eastern district of louisiana, upon four articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the house of representatives, and two-thirds of the senators present having found him guilty of the charges contained in articles i, ii, iii and iv, it is, therefore, ordered and adjudged that the said g. thomas porteous, jr. be, and he is hereby, removed from office.

the majority leader. mr. reid: it's my understanding, mr. president, that judge porteous is forever disqualified to hold and enjoy any office or honor, trust, or profit under the united states. is that true? the president pro tempore: that is correct. mr. reid: mr. president, i have an order at the desk. i would ask that it be stated. the president pro tempore: the clerk will report. the clerk: ordered that the secretary be directed to communicate to the secretary of state as provided by rule 23 of the rules of procedure and practice in the senate when sitting on impeachment trials and also to the house of representatives the judgment of the senate in the case of g. thomas porteous jr. and transmit a certified copy of the judgment to each. the president pro tempore: without objection, the order will be entered. the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: thank you,

mr. president. mr. president, i move as the senate sitting for the articles of impeachment for g. thomas porteous jr. adjour adjourn sin. and i ask that senators mccaskill and hatch be recognized for fif five minutes each. the president pro tempore: the ordered is agreed to. and the senate sitting as a court of impeachment is adjourned sine die. the senator from missouri is recognized. mr. reid reid: mr. president? mr. president? can we have order, mr. president. mr. president, i, therefore, move that this man, judge porteous, be disqualified from holding office at any time in the future of the united states. the president pro tempore: it is so ordered. the president pro tempore: the senate, having tried g. thomas

porteous -- the president pro temporethe prs there debate on the motion? approximate if not, it is so ordered. the clerk will call the roll. mrs. boxer: the senate is not in order. i can't hear you. i can't hear the leader. and are we now going to vote on something else at this point? the president pro tempore: the motion is on to disqualify judge porteous from any future office. 34rs boxermrs. boxer: so there'l call vote at this point? the president pro tempore: the senator is correct. mrs. boxer: thank you. the president pro tempore: can we have order. mr. durbin: mr. president, the senate's not in order.

mr. president, with rein a roll call vote? the president pro tempore: the senator is correct, we're in a roll call vote. it has started. vote:

the president pro tempore: we are still in session. vote:

vote:

the president pro tempore: on thisssociate the yeas are 94, the nays are 2. the senate, having tried g.

thomas porteous jr. u.s. district judge for the east district of louisiana, upon four articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the house and two-thirds of the senators present having found him guilty of charges contained in articles i, ii, iii, and iv of the articles of impeachment, it is therefore ordered and adjudged that the said g. thomas porteous jr. be and is hereby removed from office and that he be and is hereby forever disqualified to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the united states. mr. reid: mr. president? mr. president? the president pro tempore: the leader is recognized. the chair will clarify that it

requires a motion that the convicted official be disqualified from ever holding office of honor, trust, or profit under the united states. the senators just aadopted such a motion. mr. reid: i send a motion to the desk. the president pro tempore: the clerk will read. the clerk: order that the secretary be directed to communicate to the secretary of state as provided by rule 23 of the rules of procedure and practice in the senate when signature on impeachment trials and also to the house of representatives the judgment of the senate in the case g. thomas porteous jr. and transmit a certified copy of the judgment to each. the president pro tempore: without objection, the order will be entered and the leader is recognized. mr. reid: mr. president, i renew the request i made previously that this court -- this senate sitting as a court of impeachment for the aferls against g. thomas porteous jr. adjourn sine die and as soon as

we go to legislative serks senators mccaskill and hatch be recognize the. the presiding officer: without objection, the motion is agreed to. the senate signature as a court of impeachment is adjourned. sine die. mr. reid: mr. president, we ask that -- mr. president, i ask the order that was previously entered be vitiated directing that the senate recess subject to the call of the chair. the president pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. mccaskill: mr. president? the president pro tempore: the senator from missouri. ms. mccaskill: mr. president, our constitution is a glorious thing. it is in fact the envy of the world. and one of the most effective and elegant elements of the foundation of our government is the provisions that provide for the checks and balances of our three branches of government. it has been an incredible honor to participate in this process

that was devised by very wise people very long ago that actually provides the american people the reassurance that the constitution is working the way it was designed to work when it comes to the checks and balances of the three branches of government. the responsibilities of the modern congress, both house and senate, are extensive. i don't need to spend much time, mr. president, talking about how busy we are right now. but the fact that we set aside everything that we were doing and came together and sat as a senate and listened to the arguments and deliberated extensively about this impeachment should be reassuring to every american. i think the results are interesting in that it reflects that each senator made an individual decision about the articles of impeachment.

there was some unanimity on some of the counts but on others it was republicans and democrats, conservatives, progressives on both sides of the questions, and i think that shows the extent to which everyone made an independent judgment and took their responsibilities very seriously. i want to take just a few minutes now to thank some people that really are unsung heroes here. obviously i thank the distinguished vice-chairman, the senator from utah, for his support, his experience, and his wisdom in discharge the committee's duties. he was essential to this process and a great rock for me to lean on and many turns -- at many turns during this process. i also want to thank the ten other members of the impeachment trial committee for their devotion and diligence and commitment to this important work. and then i would like too take just a couple of minutes to talk about the staff.

i want to begin with darren parks who is seated with me here on the floor of the senate. darren walked into my office and was hired to be a legislative assistant for health care. in the middle of some pretty difficult times on health care. and then i said to him, oh, by the way, could you run an impeachment of a federal judge also? so as a brand-new member of my staff, he took on incredible responsibility. and all of the thanks i've gotten really belong to him. because he worked hard, he worked smart, he was a great leader, and did a remarkable job of marshaling a bunch of senators, a bunch of staffs, a bunch of witnesses, a bunch of evidence, a bunch of legal research and did it in a way that i think the senate can be very proud. i also want to thank tom

jipping, who is senator hatch's staff person who helped with this, as the deputy staff director for the impeachment committee, less put in an incredible amount of work and gave a very valuable crifntle and justin kim, counsel. justin was very important because whenever there was a disagreement about what was the right road to take in terms of historical precedent, rule of law, decisions on motions, he was always a good sounding board. there were always more than one smart lawyer in the roornlings so that the ideas could be bounced back and forth and somehow we could come umwith the right answer based on the law, the constitution, and historical precedent. rebecca sivment dell, who was also very valuable to the committee, another counsel who was essential in this process. aaron johnson, the deputy counsel and chief clerk who did frankly some of the most difficult work and that was makerring sure we had a quorum

during the trial, which was hard, as you can imagine, mr. president. keeping senators in one seat for an extended period of time? that's tough. and she managed to make sure that we always had a quorum that the law demanded. and lake dishman, another member of the staff that did a wonderful job. susanna vair row smeltzer, from c.r.s., did wonderful work for us in terms of allowing us some help on the research of the historical precedents and decisions that guide our way. morgan frankel, who was here on the floor for the conclusion of this impeachment matter. the senate legal counsel, like senator hatch, this wasn't his first time to deal with impeachment matters. so he was a wealth of information and a wonderful help to us. and pat mcbrian, she also did great work.

grant vivment nich and tom cavarro were also from the senate legal staff. and then all the committee members had the staff people that helped on this. i will not put all of their names on the record now. but they will be made part of my entire statement. i will have more extensive comments on the impeachment proceedings, which i will insert in the record. i just want to conclude by saying, i'm very proud to be a senator today. there are days that that's not as easy to say. there are times there th place is pretty dysfunctional. but i am very proud of the united states senate and how we conducted ourselves during this very important and grave proceeding. i think the responsibility was handled just as the founders would have want the us to handle it and i think we all should be proud of that. i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, that the full text of my statement appear in the record at this point followed by an appendix which is referred to in the body of the statement. and i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i want to personally thank the distinguished chairwoman of this committee. i've been in the senate a pretty long time, and she has done one of the best jobs i've ever seen done. there aren't very many impeachments, or should i say trials of impeachment. but the ones that i've had, she ranks right up there at the top. and all i can say she ran a very good committee, she made very good decisions, she wasn't afraid to rule, she treated everybody with dignity and respect, she expected a lot of the members of the committee, which has to be the way. and she's a very intelligent and articulate and knowledgeable person. and it's been my privilege to be able to serve with her and under her as vice chairman of this

committee. this is when you realize how important the senate really is. when all of the senators come together and they make decisions like this, pro and con, nobody should misjudge no votes -- i think every senator voted the way he or she thought they should vote, and that was important. i think much of the credit for the way this was all handled should go to the distinguished chairwoman, senator mccaskill. she's an excellent human being, a wonderful leader on this committee, and frankly, i'm very proud of her for what she was able to do because this was not easy and it does take a lot of time and it is like herding cattle to be to* get all these

busy people to be able to do business on the committee. and she was able to do that. and i want to compliment every member on the committee. every member showed up and did a lot of work on this committee. some more than others, of course. but every one of the members of this committee worked to try and be fair and do what's right and to do justice in this matter. having said all that, i want to pay tribute to tkar -- to darrin parks myself. this young man deserves a lot of credit. to be thrown into an impeachment committee when his main job is to work on health care really tests the legal acumen of this young man. and i have to say he was one of the kindest, most decent, most honorable, most knowledgeable and most intelligent people that i've worked with in the united states senate. he's a terrific person and i'm very proud of him. tom jipping on my staff, there are very few people around who

have the experience tom has. he's a very, very good lawyer. he was a constant guide and help to me. i just -- i don't think either senator mccaskill or i could have done this without these two leaders on the committee. the others were equally important to us and did very, very good work. justin tim, wonderful human being. rebecca sidel sp-rblgs -- rebecca sidell is a very experienced lawyer and did a good job. eric johnson, susan smelzer were both critical to the committee. mike michelin, on our staff, very fine young man who was willing to go every extra mile he could as all the other folks on this staff to do what was right. morgan frankel and pat bryan from the senate legal counsel's

office, we couldn't have asked for better people with more knowledge and more ability to help us and to assist us. impeachment committees are, should i say, the trial committee here, this is a very difficult thing to do. you're dealing with people's lives. you're dealing with people's reputations. you have to do this in a completely fair and honest way, which i believe we did. this is one of the most important tasks national united states senate does -- tasks that the united states senate does. extremely important. and i think the senate acquitted itself very well today. every senator voted his or her conscious here today. and in some instances that wasn't easy, and nobody should misjudge anybody's vote here. i think the -- judge porteous was convicted on all four counts, all four articles, and

the vast majority of our members here felt that that was proper. i just have to say that i want to compliment the attorneys for the house. they were terrific. i've complimented them personally and they know how much i feel towards them. and the counsel for the house were very respectful, very knowledgeable, tremendously articulate in what they did. and, frankly, accorded themselves with great dignity and deserve all of our respect. we should respect the house of representatives. it is not easy to impeach somebody in this day and age. but they did, and these folks did a terrific job, and their counsel as well. and i would ask unanimous consent that all of their names be printed in my speech at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: now having said that, the defense counsel, they did the very best job they

could. jonathan turley is an eminent professor at george washington university. i've known him for a long time. he's very innovative, very creative and some thought in this particular matter was quite innovative and creative as well. let me say, he's a very intelligent, very knowledgeable man. and his other cocounsel deserve great recognition for what they did here. i feel sorry for judge porteous. to rise to the dignified position of a federal district court judge and then have this happen after 30 years in public service, or more, i'm sure it's just an absolute, absolute pain and problem and damage to his reputation. i wish him well. i hope that he will analyze these things and make some

changes in his life that will be better for him, for his family and others. he had a lot of friends down there in louisiana, and i think probably earned a lot of friendships. but the senate has ruled properly in this matter, and the impeachment should be upheld. and he should have been convicted of these -- of at least one of these articles, if not all four. i don't believe he should have been convicted on two of them, and there were good legal reasons for not going that far in the case of the chairman and myself. but nevertheless, i respect the votes of all of my colleagues here on the floor. i know that they paid strict attention, sat through almost all of the proceedings and the closed session as well. i really commend them. finally i want to commend our two leaders. the two leaders conducted these proceedings with dignity and with respect and in the highest

standards of the united states senate. you can't ask for more than that, and i'm very proud of both of our leaders and others as well. mr. president, it's been a privilege for me to serve on this committee. i've tried to do the best i possibly could. i believe the result here today is an honest and just result. and i just hope that this sends a message to all of our judges on the federal bench and others as well, that it's important to live up to our responsibilities and to do the things that we know we should be doing. having said all this, i want to again thank the staff on this committee. what a tremendous bunch of young people who did a terrific job and who deserve really the bulk of the credit for any credit that is due. and i'm just grateful to have been able to know them, work with them and to love them for the work they've done.

mr. president, this is one of the most important things that the senate can engage in. i want to thank our parliamentarians. people many times don't realize how important the parliamentarians are in the united states senate. we couldn't function without them. i'm got to -- i've got to say we're very blessed to have the parliamentarians that we have helping us in the united states senate. many times they go unrecognized, but not by me. i really have a great deal of admiration for them. and they keep us out of a lot of difficulties. sometimes they get us into difficulties because of the rules, not because of them. i just want to pay tribute to them as well. mr. president, this was a just result. it's what i think had to be done. the country will be better for it. it does send an appropriate message, or messages i should say. and i feel blessed to have been

able to participate on this committee and on this senate floor. this is a great honor to serve in the united states senate. it's days like this that help bring that home to me. and i want everybody to know it. mr. president, i want to again thank the distinguished chairwoman and tell her how much i appreciate her work. with that, i yield the floor. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, i have two housekeeping motions that the majority leader asked me to put to the senate. i have two unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to, that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. mccaskill: thank you. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 3991, which the clerk will report.

the clerk: h motion to consider calendar number 662, s. 3991, a bill to provide collective bargaining rights for public safety officers employed by states or their political subdivisions. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 12:30 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: i would allocate to myself such time as i might need. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: i rise today to voice my opposition to s. 3991, the public safety employer cooperation act. i have a number of policy and constitutional concerns about this bill, and i've expressed them over the years, but i have never had the opportunity to work with the bill's supporters to address those concerns.

even though this legislation falls within the "help" committee's jurisdiction, the committee has never held a hearing on the bill and has only marked it up without amendment or written report, and that was done years ago and is not the same bill that we're debating today. an objective consideration this have bill reveals that it's based on poorly reasoned policy. over the last seven years the proponents of this bill have only brought it directly to the floor and purposely circumvented the regular order of the senate and its committee processes. perhaps because the scrutiny of that process would expose the multiple flaws in this legislation. rather than addressing this bill on its merits, its proponents have decided once again to plate sound bite tkpwaeufplt their calculation -- game. their calculation is simple. since this bills involves unions that organize among police and firefighters, they'll continue to claim that anyone opposes this bill is against police and firefighters. let's address that calculated

untruth first. there is no one i know of, republican or democrat, supporter or opponent of this bill, who does not respect and value the work and dedication of our police, firefighters, first responders and other safety people. their contributions to our communities are immeasurable and our support of them is unwavering. however, this bill provides no direct benefit to any police officer, firefighter or first responder. it doesn't provide a dime in federal money to any state, city, town to hire, to train or to equip any additional public safety personnel. in fact, it simply imposes costs that will make that result less likely. it's arguably one of the biggest and most dangerous unfunded mandates the federal government has ever imposed. in fact, there are a number of law enforcement groups opposing this bill. the national sheriffs association, the international association of chiefs of police, and the fraternal order of police have all come out against

s. 3991. i think we have to ask: if all these law enforcement groups oppose the bill, is it really a good idea to pass it in the last days of a lame-duck congress? plain and simple, the only direct beneficiaries of this legislation are labor unions. while unionization in the private sector has been on an historical down trend, unionization in the public sector has been increasing. in 2009, 37.4% of public-sector employees were unionized compared to 7.2% in the private sector. government workers are now five times more likely to belong to a union. for the first time in our country's history, the majority of union members are public-sector employees, not private-sector employees. public-sector unions have been the only area of growth for unions for many years. and as we all know, organizations need to grow to