what do you plan to do as the trade representative? >> thank you, senator. we are concerned about the innovation and the the invest at the moment. patent issues, preferential market access and localization. these are issues we need to pursue at every opportunity. the secretary will be there later this month at the highest level in india. i'm sure it will be brought up there. ..

will you commit if confirmed on carefully and assume every available remedy and they are treated fairly by the e.u.? >> yes, senator. >> are you familiar with the somebody. >> i am. my understanding is they are reviewing the methodology they used in the case.

>> okay. and i want to ask one other question. it's in the news this week. earlier this week the president recommended a number of legislative action to strengthen the enforcement patent. these recommendations included reforms to the process by which the itc issues exclusion orders, we know there have been high profile itc decisions repeatedly. without commenting on any particular decision, the question is do you believe. >> i'm not an expert on it. i would appreciate it. if you could. and to address some of the regulatory standards issues that

create unnecessary costs and obstacles to trade. we spent the last year and year and a half working with the e.u. working with the key outstanding issues. we think there's a lot a momentum and political will to address the outstanding issues. once we finish the ninety days and finish the mandate -- to launch the negotiation. include any considerable -- extremely valuable asset to american companies. unfortunately theft of trade conservative for foreign entity is dramatically increased due to global competitiveness and increased access through the digital infrastructure that drives our information economy. i'm wondering for you can

comment on that and what might be able additional steps might be able to taken to protect americans. >> thank you, senator. it's an important issue. it's the next-gen -- next generation of ip rsh. r. and siesher threat. part of the trade talks and by lateral. go after the practice it will be a focus going forward.

reinvigorate. it particularly look at the global value chain. research considerations all of the issues that go to the global value chain to define the operations of so many brands. if confirmed, will you make sure that as part of that process as part of the transpacific partnership negotiations you look at some of the key areas relate to the concern like the rule of origin and the tariff for consumer goods. >> yes, senator. we'll look at all the issues. >> good. the other question i had deals once again with the internet. my view is that the internet is a shipping lane of the 21st century. it has enormous benefits to people on a day-to-day basis. it's also reshaping the manner in which commerce is conducted. there aren't any as of today distinct global trade rules to ensure the digital raid doesn't

vase protectionist kinds of policy. there's a lot of concern, for example, about the big win that was won on the pipa, soap pa issue being unralphed as part of the discussion. what can you all do to make sure that the digital economy gets the attention it needs to ensure that the internet is free and open and global markets. particularly for american producers of digital goods and services. >> well, senator, when we talk about the tpp being the 21st century agreement and trying to introduce new discipline. tinge digital economy is clearly one of the areas one of the new areas we have been focusing on. the tpp negotiations while in the midst sobering the free flow of data. seeking discipline around restrictions might have in term where they put the data center and how it effects cloud

computing. it's on the e hers and the digital economy on the tpp agenda. >> last question on the tpp renewal question, are you all going to send to us a proposal that represents your views on what tpa is all about? or how do you envision that unfolding? >> well, senator, obviously i'll need to consult with usgr. our contention is to engage with the committee and the house ways & means committee as you work through tpa issues. >> you would send the chairman, chairman baa cuss -- bachus so you can get a sense of the priority. >> we have to work through and happy to engage with you. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

distorting behavior state-owned enterprise. we know that's an increases problem in terms of deeply entenched state capitalism model, if you will and the impact on u.s. competitive. it's a big issue, one that congress didn't think much about when we considered fast track 11 years ago. and one we should think about now. can you assure me there won't be backtracking on the issue of state owned enterprise the phut we get to tpp. we have strong rules in the tp pressuring -- tpp context to address it. >> it's one of the new areas of trade we are trying to address. putting discipline on soe that compete with private entity they must do so on a commercial basis. it's part of our bilateral

dialogue in particular outside tpp about the reform effort and how important it is to leveling the playing field for our companies. >> you are an ongoing way bilateral investment in disowtion -- discussions in talk can china. it's a main part of the agenda. >> yes. >> i want talk about the steel industry for a moment. the company called rt steels in plants in ohio, west virginia, and new york closed about year ago. several thousand people lost jobs. it's the streel industry. it's a industry more than most operating on thin margin, 2 or 3% profit. partly because of a trade decision made by the administration, itc commerce department over the last three or four years. there's a new steel parent now -- plant. there's $100 million expansion of u.s. steel which i visited with the ceo last week. there is other steel

investment. the problem is the negative business environment is we're seeing that the narrow mar -- margin resulted from government sub sky and unfair trade practice is. often chinese sometimes others. if confirmed would you file a case with the wto against china steel subsidizes. >> senator, i think we need to look at the whole issue. i don't know whether there's a case to be brought. i would say we brought a case against china in the steel sector when they put on our green oriented electrical steel duties. and inappropriate way. thank you. my fear is this that so often the damage by the time we go

through this process if we don't act a little more proactively or preemptive. we saw to the paper industry in southern ohio and across the paper manufacturing generally. where the damage to the industries was so great by the time the wheels of government and trade enforcement can operate that the companies and the industry really has a -- probably never fully recover and hasn't recovered appreciably anyway. i'm hopeful you will look at it in a more preactive way as you decide. lastly, i just want to make the invitation to you. my colleague from ohio and the phenomena committee, senator portman, would like you to come to ohio. i think you are seeing steel being made. and the porn in the -- importance in the economy and making things and being a leader and everything from national

security to security of families that make steel would matter so much. i would end with this. there's an a plan in cleveland, which is the first time in world history where one person produced one ton of steel. it never happened in world history anywhere. and it happened first in clef land ohio. you -- cleveland, ohio. you it's under a lot of pressure because of dumps and illegal sup cities to chinese steel. >> i look forward to taking you up on the invitation. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator. you've heard a lot of concerns here, mr. froman. generally reinvolve around a level playing field, intent yule property infringement. unfairly taking advantage of u.s. companies. our question really is i know you try to address a lot of this and other matters.

what are the limits on your power? again to address this? what are the limits? what are the political limits? what are the legal limits? what is prevented you from more forthrightly and aimpressively address -- aggressively all of these issues in an expeditious way. if you can categorize what they are. i'm interested in the potential legal limits. the united can bring unilateral actions before we joined the wto. that's ability to do so restribilit -- restricted. other countries have joined they have to ensue the discipline. other countries haven't fully joined wto, and participate thed in the discipline. i think one might be have to do with -- i forgot.

it's when companies go to other countries, products -- [inaudible] but what are the limits? i'll start first with the legal limits. what can you do? what can't you do? >> well, first of all. what are the limits if you can do everything. if you could bring any action on any subject to address all talked about here. what are the limits? >> well, mr. chairman. that's a great question and deserves a more thoughtful an. i'll start today. i would love to continue the dialogue with you and others. i think we benefit greatly, we, the u.s., benefits greatly from the rules based trading system. the wto may constrain our ability to bring unilateral action. it constrains everybody's ability too. the dispute resolution mechanism have generally been open and fair and we have aggressively pursued our interest.

i don't know if we need additional than we currently have. i think we need to get with the trading partner and build coalition. it's two things that help underscore for the global trading system as whole it will be better if countries all play by the same rules, and that those rules are the sort of rules that the current wto system. that's what we need to bilaterally with the emerging economy and play an increasing role in the global economy. it's what we hope to do through the transatlantic. work together with the rest of the world to raise standards and ipr and other areas. so a lot to be done in that regard. >> you don't think you need anymore legal authority? >> i'm happy to think through it. i should be my own lawyer on this one. >> we need to discuss this. i urge you to think about it. you know, my belief, and i think

it's american's beliefs on the effort of the committee. we're not -- we have trade barriers too. other countries aren't i darth vader. they don't have black hats. i think it's also true a shade of gray our hats is lighter than the shade of gray of their hat, by large. the playing field is really not level. do you want other countries to play -- a lot of countries won't do that. they're not as much rules based as we as country. we're rooted in the founding fathers come over and the constitution and the bill of rights is based in justice, fairness, and procedure. and transparency. and the assumption of the democratic companies work with the govern mans we have. that's not true in most other

countries. they don't have that same foundation. they don't have the same basis. they come from different perspectives. many countries are much less process-oriented. they are more results-oriented. the united states is process-oriented. we believe in resumes and being fair. it's not true with other countries. and they will not be fair in the u.s. view because that's not where they come from. and the only way to address those issues, in my judgment, is leverage. you have to figure out some way to make a choice of words, some ways they want to play fair. if they don't, we have to adjust to another world order. where justice and fairness may to the be the global underpitting and not be the premise or assumption of the forward trend to accomplish here. i'm worried about rut -- results

very much. world process, the americans regard ourselves as fair. a right process, and separation of power, independent judiciary. we also need results. and the world changed so dramatically in the last ten, fifteen, to twenty years with globalization and advances in communications technologies and just t undermined, i think all institutions. and it's we have to think a lot differently than the past if our kids and grand kids have the same life we enjoyed as americans. i'm worried about it. i know, you are too. >> yeah. >> you can sen here the senators are going to ask you follow-up questionses in the future. to what degree have you performed in the area they have addressed. they don't want just to hear more talk. they don't -- they talk to you again about this, and one of

them come back and say we talked about a lot of this. we didn't do very much about it. it's not much better, really. that's why i ask the question. what are the limit to your power. what do we address so that you have more power, actually with respect to trading parking lot -- partner so we can get better results. i enjoy you to think deeply about that. we'll have discussions about it. i think it's one of the central questions facing this economy is economically is how do we make sure that we're not being taken advantage of by some other countries. and how to we make sure that the americans -- [inaudible] even higher plan than we had in the past. >> well, i agree completely. i very much look forward to working with you and your colleagues on that. >> i wish you very well. it's a huge challenge. i sometime think that only the

paranoid survive. and i hope you are paranoid. [laughter] so that you can help american for life. thank you very much, mr. froman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the meeting is adjourned. this morning defense secretary chuck hagel and joint chief of staff chairman will be on capitol hill to talk about the pentagon budget and military policy. we'll is live coverage of the senate budget committee beginning at 10:30 eastern time on c-span 3 and c-span.org. >> army chief of staff said preventing sexual assault in the military is the top priority. his remarks came at the u.s. army sixth annual sexual harassment and assault prevention summit held at joint base andrews in maryland. this is ten minutes. >> good morning, everybody. >> good morning.

how are we doing? [inaudible] it's good see everybody here. put this on here. i want to welcome everybody here today. it's a very global conference. we have it once a year, and i think it's important for us to have a discussion, that's what i want to do it's not commanders but leaders. might not have commander after the name. because of who you are, what you do, we have to set the tone for our civil began leaders as well. and make sliewr -- sure we're doing what is right. so because of many factors, i believe we have -- as you heard me say in the public, we have a huge issue. and the main thing i want everybody to unis that this is not just the passing issue.

whatever reason this is one that we've had for a long time. and we have not been to be defeat it. i use that term because that's the term we are all familiar with. we have not been successful in solving this problem. the issue become z as women take on greater role in the army, it, even more important that we ensure that they have the environment they canning a axel in. it's about creating an compliment that everyone everyone can excel. i realize it's creating an environment we do not tolerate sexual assault. but i will tell you from the things i see, we still have people out there who tolerate

sexual assault and sexual harassment. until we solve that problem, it's going get worse. so i bet if i go around to everyone in here, you're going tell me, i got it no problem. i understand the importance, but lately the major and myself have been out to some units, and although we get it at the level. as i get further and further down. we are still not there yet. the an is i don't have a problem here. there's no problem in my platoon. there's no problem in my company, there's no problem in my battalion. that's baloney. that's the problem. we're not seeing ourselves. i'm in all-male unit. i don't have a problem. that's not right. in fact you probably have some perpetrators, you probably have

some predators, and you probably have some males who have probably been sexually assaulted or sexually harassed. this isn't i don't have a problem because i don't have females in my unit. it's about getting down to sergeant, staff sergeant, sergeant first classify, major, lieutenant colonel, they take it on seriously. because we are not doing that today. for the way i want us to do it. we were talking -- i was talking earlier. we were talking about we have an ied every soldier knows what to do. they have a battle plan. they know how to react to it. once we start figuring out we started getting ied in war we start going to the left of the ied and all the analysis how we can stop it from exploding.

so it doesn't kill or maim or soldiers. guess what? sexual harassment, sexual assault is maiming our soldiers. we have to have the same thought. every soldier needs to understand what their role is. what is their battle drill to prevent this. what do they do to the left of the incident? what do they do when the incident occurs? and what to you do after the incident occurs? we put in military term we have no problem. we can deal with it. it's something we understand. what we have to understand better what it is here. we have to do the same type of thing. so i want to go over the five impartive that i put out. i want to make sure i tun. one, first, is protect victims and prevent offenders. provide care, provide rights,

and privacy of survivors. that's number one. number two, professionally investigate and take appropriate action. number three, create an appropriate and positive command climate are trust and respect are the corner attorney of what the command climate is about. all our soldier trust, the actions will be taken appropriately by the chain of command. that we have an attitude of respect for each other who wear the uniform. that's who we are. itthat's who we are supposed to be. respect each other. we need trust. i talk about it all the time. it's critical everything we do. the things we are asked to do

require trust. the ultimate trust. the tru trust where you can believe in anybody that wears this uniform. you have to be there to save each other's lives under very chaotic conditions, but if we can't solve this problem, would you trust this uniform? if you think you can be retaliated on if you make a complaint? if you don't think the chain of command will react properly. it's he said, she said, forget it. that's not trust. that's not trust. that's what we have to work on. just a couple of minute left in the conversation. you can see the rest in the c-span video library. two to c-span.org. the senate returns today to continue debate on the immigration bill.

it allow ten of thousandses of new high and low skilled workers to the country and create a 13-year path to scoich for the 11 million immigrants here illegally. live to the senate floor. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. strong deliverer, you are our strength and shield. use your powerful arms to help those in need and to prepare us to be instruments of your purposes. lord, listen to our longings and hear

our cries, as we intercede for this land we love. bring to america the righteousness that exalts nations, as you lead us away from those sins that bring reproach to any people. use our lawmakers in this endeavor, so that they will plant seeds that will produce a moral and ethical harvest. may their lives provide exemplary models of moral excellence, so that people can see their ethical congruence. teach them to hate pride and

deceit, as they strive to treat others as they want others to treat them. we pray in your sacred name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, june 12, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable william m.

cowan, a senator from the commonwealth of massachusetts, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks, the senate will be in a period of morning business for an hour. the majority will control the first half, republicans the final half. following that morning business, the is that the will resume consideration of s. 744, which is the immigration bill. so we'll work through amendments today on the bill. senators will be notified when votes are scheduled. mr. president, last night the united states senate advanced a

bipartisan immigration reform bill that willing good for national security and really good for the economy. it will be good for american citizens as well, as well as those who aspire to one day become citizens. it's truly gratifying to see the momentum behind this commonsense reform proposal. 84 senators voted to adopt the motion to proceed to this legislation, a very, very strong vote. by comparison, the senate failed to advance the immigration reform bill just six years ago when only 46 senators voted to end debate on that measure and allow us to proceed. it is a sign of progress that the legislation now before the senate has not been stopped procedurally. i hope, mr. president, that we're allowed to proceed on this legislation without being blocked by some arcane senate rule; that we can finish this legislation and send it to the

house of representatives. i applaud the gang of eight. that'it is a bipartisan proposad that's how the senate used to work. they've worked hard, they've worked through hundreds of different proposals. in the committee alone, after the gang of eight finished and wenit went before the judiciary committee, there was over 100 amendments -- many more than 100 amendments. they apartisan d adopted 46. and many republican amendments were adopted. so chairman leahy conducted a fair markup. no one disputes that. so i commend the gang of eight for allowing the bill to get to the judiciary committee and the judiciary committee for giving us now this proposal on the floor and now democrats allowing us to proceeding on this legislation as well as republicans. our goal now is to pass the strongest legislation possible with as many votes as possible while staying true to our

principles. then await what the house is going to do. the speaker has said he wants a bill that would allow the democrats to vote. mr. president, that is really good news, because in the house for the last two congresses there were very few opportunities for the democrats to vote on substantial legislation. the speaker has said he will only allow legislation to pass over there that has the majority of the majority. that means only republicans. if they don't have enough republican votes, they're not going to bring a bill up for a vote. so i'm very pleased that the speaker would say that. it's important that we understand the procedures we've used for 230-plus years in this body. you pass something here, you pass something in the house, we go to conference and work out our differences. so i understand, mr. president, that we have a long road before us and more work will be necessary to get this bill

across the finish line. i truly understand that, and i know some of my republican colleagues will support this bill, as they feel confident what's in the bill adequately addresses the need to secure our borders. and i agree that the legislation focused on border security a lot. i think that's important. i'm glad it did. reform that takes significant step to stop illegal crossings is important, and reform that does not take significant steps to stop illegal crossings will fail. that's why i so admire what was done by the gang of eight and the judiciary committee in regard to this, mr. president. they've done really a terrific job on border security. and we should also acknowledge the progress president obama's administration has already made to secure our borders. illegal border crossings are down 80%. that's no small accomplishment.

and yesterday i received a letter from my colleagues, the chairman of the judiciary committee, pat leahy, and th tom carper detailing the tremendous strides we've made towards a more secure borders. illegal entries nationwide are at a four decade low. we have less crossings now than we've had at any time during the last 40 years. and the number of illegal entrants who sneak into the country through the southern border and allud elude law enfot is down 86%. smarter technology, physical barriers, and double the number of agents at the border have made this achievement possible. we must ensure those who come to america seeking a better life do so in compliance with our laws. the measure before the senate

builds on the progress we've made by allocating even more resources to border security infrastructure, and that includes patrol bases, unmanned vehicles -- yes, mr. president, drones; helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, sensors, x-rays, and cameras and more. and it also includes, this legislation, additional funding for prosecution of those who are caught crossing illegally. the legislation also establishes two strict but attainable statutory border security goals: to prevent 90% of illegal i entrants and to monitor the entire southern border, not just sectors, the whole border. chairman le leahy and senator carper agree. this legislation will make it virtually impossible for undocumented people to work so

they'll no longer have an incentive to enter illegally. this is what my two colleagues said in their letter. "we need to stop focusing our attention on the symptoms and start dealing with the underlying root causes of illegal immigration in a way that's tough, practical, and fair." that says it all, mr. president. this bill does that. but there's one thing this bill does not do and should not do. it does not and should not make the path to citizenship contingent on attaining border security goals that are impossible to measure. that would leave millions who aspire to become citizens in indefinite limbo. we've got to move past this. six years ago we tried to do something about it and the situation only got worse. this legislation is critical. mr. president, if we made those goals impossible, the legislation would be a failure. this would give opponents of

citizenship both in the senate and an opportunity to meet our border security goals to be blocked. we must be very careful in recognizing people who are trying to do this with this bill. i commend senators, democrats and republicans, who sincerely want to make this proposal stronger by enhancing its border security provisions. so i look forward to hearing the ideas in the next few days on amendments, and ideas to make our country safer and more secure. if that's the intent of this legislation, we'll certainly look at it and i hope we can

move forward as expeditiously as possible. i'm glad colleagues, both democrats and republicans, are engaged in this debate and interested in offering amendments. but i hope those amendments will be constructive in nature. we have come too far and the country needs this legislation too badly to lose sight of our purpose now. as martin luther said, "everything that is done in the world is done by hope," and there's no better example of that, mr. president, than that legislation. because hope is what it's all about. as martin luther said, "everything that is done in the world is done by hope." i certainly believe that with this legislation.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i'd like to send my sympathies to the many families in kentucky affected by a terrible bus accident that occurred yesterday afternoon. a group of wagner high school students was returning to louisville after a visit to eastern kentucky university when their bus crashed on interstate 64. of the 42 people on board, 34 were taken to area hospitals. thankfully, news sources report no loss of life. i'm going to continue to closely follow the details of this accident. the people of kentucky are always generous of spirit and have already responded with an outpouring of support for the crash victims. i am grateful toker tha for thad grateful also that this situation was not much worse. now on an entirely different matter, mr. president, senate democrats are not content with

the additional powers they have; powers greater than those enjoyed by any previous majority. so they intend to manufacture a crisis over nominations as a pretext for a further power grab. yet the senate is treating president obama's nominees very fairly. for example, let's just look at how the senate has treated his judicial nominees. over all, the senate has confirmed 193 lower court judges and defeated only two -- defeated only two. that's a .990 batting average, a .990 batting average. after this week, the senate will approve 24 of the president's lifetime appointments compared to just nine -- nine -- for president bush at a comparable point in his second term. and i would mention that my party actually controlled the senate then, so we could have

arguably, you know, confirmed a lot more. president bush got nine at this point i. in his second term, president obama 24. in last congress, obama has more district court confirmations thank in any of the previous eight congresses. the previous eight congresses. he also had almost 50% more confirmations -- 171 -- than president bush -- 119 -- under similar circumstances. to support an unprecedented power grab, the administration and its allies in the senate have resorted to truly outlandish claims about how the president's judicial nominees are being treated, sort of making this stuff up. "the washington post" fact checker gave the president two pinocchios for extreme claims about republican delays of his judicial nominees, noting that in some ways the president's

nominees are actually being moved along better than bush's. "the washington post" cited c.r.s.'s conclusion that from nomination to confirmation, one of the most relevant indicators, according to to brookings scholar, obama's circuit court nominees are being process about 100 days quicker -- 100 days quicker -- than president bush's. 350.6 days for bush to 266.9 for pwo*pl. -- for obama. factcheck.org says his nominees were confirmed more quickly than bush's measured from the dave nomination to the day of the confirmation vote. politifact, the average wait for george w. bush's circuit court nominees with a actually longer from nomination to confirmation. as you can see, mr. president, this is a manufactured crisis, one that does not in fact exist. in order to try to justify a

power grab to fundamentally change the senate. at the beginning of each of the last two congresses, we've had this discussion at length. at the beginning of the previous congress, here's what the majority leader said back in january of 2011. said "i agree that the proper way to change the senate rules is through the procedures established in those rules, and i will oppose" -- i will oppose, he said. this is january of 2011. "any effort in this congress or the next to change the senate's rules other than through the regular order." i will oppose any effort in this congress or the next -- the one we're in now -- to change the

rules of the senate in any other way than through the regular order. and the regular order, mr. president, is you take 67 votes. not even 60, but 67 votes, to change the rules of the senate. not being willing to keep the commitment he made in january of 2011, we went around and around again at the beginning of 2012 -- 2013, this year. and the senate this year, after considerable discussions joined by a number of members of the senate on both sides of the aisle, passed two new rules and two new standing orders, and in the wake of that action an additional commitment was made. and here was the exchange on the floor january 24 of this year. i said "i would confirm with the majority leader that the senate would not consider other

resolutions relating to any standing order or rules this congress, unless they went through the regular order process." we had just done that. we followed the regular order and we passed two rules changes and two standing orders. the majority leader said "that is correct. any other resolutions related to senate procedure would be subject to a regular order process, including consideration by the rules committee." now, mr. president, that wasn't a promise made based on the majority leader's view of good behavior. but, of course, by any objective standard, there hadn't been any bad behavior anyway even if that would justify breaking a commitment that was not contingent. my friend the majority leader has taken to leaving the floor in the hopes that somehow this would go away if only he were not here. what won't go away is the unequivocal commitment made at the beginning of this congress, so we would know what the rules

are for the duration of this congress. and colleagues, i think, on both sides of the aisle have a right to know whether the commitment made by the leader of this body, the leader of the majority in this body, is going to be kept. that's the only way we can function. our word is the currency of the realm in the senate. and as you can see from the facts, this is a manufactured crisis. there is no crisis over the way the senate is functioning. in fact, except for these periodic threats by the majority leader to break the rules of the senate in order to change the rules of the senate, we've been operating much better this congress than in recent previous congresses. bills have been open for amendment. we've been able to get them to passage. they have been bipartisan in large measure. the senate these days is not

broken and doesn't need to be fixed, particularly if your judgment of fixing the senate is to not keep a commitment you made at the beginning of the year. so, mr. president, i would just conclude by saying i'm going to bring this up every morning, and the majority leader not being here or not responding doesn't make it go away. what my colleagues in the minority have on their minds is whether the commitment will be kept. and at some point the majority leader is going to have to answer that question. because it's not going away. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half. a senator: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, this past weekend president obama met with president c hi of china in california for a summit meeting between the two leaders. it was an opportunity for a personal relationship between the leader of china and the leader of the united states in order to improve the trust between the two countries. china is important to the united states. china, as we know, is a member of the permanent council of the security council of the united nations, a key player in developing international policies that are important to the united states and global security. china is very influential in the policies concerning north korea and iran. china is a key trading partner of the united states. we know the amount of products that go back and forth between china and the united states. president obama has correctly

identified asia as a region of particular interest, has rebalanced asia policy because the importance of asia to the united states. we are a pacific power, and asia is critically important for regional security as well as for global security. i have the opportunity of chairing the subcommittee on east asia and pacific of the senate foreign relations committee. and in that capacity two weeks ago i visited china, the republic of korea and japan. and china, i was able to observe firsthand the progress that is being made in that country and to meet with key leaders of the chinese government. and i did see much progress. i saw economic change in china as to how they're becoming a more open society from the point of view of entrepreneurship. i saw rights that have been advanced. people do have more freedom than they had several decades ago. and i saw an opportunity where

the united states and china could build a stronger relationship between our two countries. it starts with building trust. there's a lot of mistrust out there. that's why i was particularly pleased about the summit meeting this past weekend. we have common interests. china is critically important to the united states on making sure the korea peninsula remains a nonnuclear peninsula. china has tremendous impact over north korea and does not want to see north korea continue its ambition to become a nuclear weapon power. they can help us in resolving that issue hopefully in a way that will help us in a peaceful manner. i can't help but observe when i was in beijing that china has a huge environmental challenge. the entire time i was there, i never saw the sun, and that was not because of clouds. it was because of pollution, which is common in beijing. it is not only a problem that china needs to deal with, it's a

political necessity. the people of china know that their air is dirty. here is an opportunity for the united states working for china, the two large emitters of greenhouse gases to come together and show international leadership about what we can do in our country to encourage not only progress but international progress on this issue. while i was in china i had a chance to advance areas of concern. i want to talk about that. our security interests with china go towards their military, yes, but also goes towards their economic conditions and their respect for human rights. i raised throughout my visit to china my concern, and i think america's concern, the international concern about china recognizing universally accepted human rights. the right to dissent is not there in china. on june 4 we celebrated another anniversary at tiananmen square

where student protests turned very deadly. it is still dangerous to dissent in china. civil rights lawyers can lose their right to practice law and can be physically intimidated if they are too aggressive in representing those who disagree with government policies. china has a policy to this day of detaining people, putting them in prison for their -- quote -- "reeducation." that could be for up to four years without trial and without being questioned as to why they're being detained solely because they disagree with the government's policy. if you are born in a community, you're registered in that community. there may not be economic opportunity there for you. you might want to move to a big city in order to explore additional economic opportunities for you and your family. in china, that's not possible for the great majority of the

people. they're registered in their community, they're expected to live in their community, they're expected to work in that community. so you have the haves and the have-nots. there are many people in china that are doing very well. the vast majority are not. and then there's the issue of religious freedom. i think we all know about tibet and the buddhists in tibet and how they have been harassed. we know about the muslim community. what shocked me was talking to the protestants who have their house churches. they explained to me that if their churches get too big, maybe over 25 or 30 members, they lose their right to meet. the government is worried about too many people getting together to celebrate their religion. that's certainly unacceptable. it violates international recognized 450u man rights standards -- human rights standards. then they block full access to the internet. sites such as "the new york times" or bloomberg are considered to be too difficult

for the chinese people to accept, and the government blocks those sources. perhaps one of the most difficult challenges that china has today is that it doesn't trust its own people to innovate and create. instead they use the cyber to try to steal our rights, our innovation not just in america but throughout the world. we are very concerned about the proper use of protecting intellectual property, and i raised that during my visit to china. we're also concerned about the enter -- cybersecurity issues. and we would urge process to be made on acceptable standards when we use cyber. then there is the issue of corruption. because so much is determined by where you live and your local government, corruption is widespread, and that needs to be changed. these are important subjects we raise in a country that is

critically important to the united states, but these issues must be debated. when president park was here, the president of the republic of korea, she mentioned on the floor to a joint session of congress that she wants a security dialogue in northeast asia, when i met with her when i was in seoul, we had a chance to talk more about it. and the more that she talked about the security dialogue, the more it reminded me of the helsinki commission, the organization for security of operation in europe which was established in 1975 as a security dialogue between all the countries of europe, not central asia, the united states and canada. that security dialogue deals with all three baskets of concern. yes, we're concerned about military actions. and we have serious military issues that we need to take up in the northeast. maritime security issues are very much of concern to all the countries of northeast asia. but you also need to deal with

economic freedom and opportunity, and you need to deal with human rights. this type of a dialogue would allow us in the north to participate with the major countries in the northeast asia to work out and know the concerns of each of the countries. it would include not just china and the republic of korea but japan, north korea, the united states and russia.i would urge o either adopt a security dialogue similar to the helsinki process or to look at becoming a part of the helsinki process. we do have regional forums. and there is a regional forum for asia. so it is a possible that they actually could work under the helsinki framework. this my visits to both japan and the republican of korea, i no he that we have two very -- i no he that we have two very close allies. we have u.s. troops in both korea and japan and we're working out ways to make our

troop presence more effective, consistent with the political realities of both of those countries. both japan and the republic of korea strongly support our policies in iran and afghanistan and the korean peninsula. their relationship between these two countries must improve. there are sear jus serious issue and the issue during world war ii is a matter of major concern to the korean population. i certainly support and understand that. but it is important for those two allies of the united states to become closer allies and to move forward in areas of mute aol interest, and i -- of mutual interest and i urge them to do that. i had meeting on the tran transpacific partnership in japan, an area we can clearly make advancements in. it's not a pivot to asia.

we use that term originally. it is not. we've been active in asia for centuries. it is a rebalance because we recognize the importance of asia. and i think we can do that by enhancing our relationships with all the countries in asia. it is an opportunity to advance u.s. security interests through military cooperation, and i did talk about military-to-military in china. i also talked particularly in japan about more of their students coming here to the united states to advance good governance and economic relationships and to have a --d to have responsible environmental programs. the committee that i chair has already has two hearings on military issues and good goneance. we're going to hold future hearings dealing with environmental issues. clearly working with the president, i see a major opportunity to advance u.s. interests through our rebalanced asia policies. with that, mr. president, i am

going to ask consent to proceed and have these comments appear in a different section in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, we all lost a dear friend when frank lautenberg passed away just a little over a week ago. he was a friend, he was a colleague, he was a mentor. in the last congress i had the opportunity to sit next to him on the floor of the united states senate. our desks were back there in the last row, and i had the chance to sit next to him. and, i tell you, you've heard this many times, but when we would have those vote a a mass - those vote-a-ramas, frank kept me engaged. his sense of humor kept us going. i also sat next to him on the environment and public works

committee. i am certainly going to miss his advocacy. he was there to protect clean air. he chaired that subcommittee and took on every special interest mured to protect our children and to protect our communities. he was a fierce defender of the environment recognizing that we all have the responsibility to pass on the environment in a better condition to future generations. his story is really a story about the success of america. here we have a child of an immigrant family who came to this country and started new with virtually no resources. and it is very appropriate that i'm talking about frank lautenberg on the day in which the immigration reform bil bills on the floor of the united states senate. i know if frank were here, he would be talking about his own family, his own experiences, and why the passage of this immigration bill is so important for america's future. yes, we're going to do the right thing fores values of america,

but -- for the values of america, but we're also going to help america's economic future. so he grew up in a family of poverty. his father died when he was very young. he really had no choice after high school but to enter the military. but h he wanted to enter the military because he wanted to serve his country. as you know, he wase he he was t surviving member from world war ii he came back to the united states and this country offered him the g.i. bill opportunity for education. but for that g.i. bill, frank lautenberg never would have had those educational opportunities. he took advantage of it and went to business school and used that for -- to develop a business that was innovative and creative. there was a need out there to deal with personnel costs by

businesses, and frank lautenberg developed, with his partners, a way in which that service could be provided in the most cost-effective way. now, what did that do? that made this country more efficient, more effective. what that did is create a lot of jobs for this country, and it also made frank lautenberg a fairly wealthy person. that's the american way. innovation to grow our economy, to create jobs, and to benefit by your own innovation. frank lautenberg took advantage of that and succeeded in a great way. but he wasn't satisfied with that. he wanted to give back to his community, so he served his community, he served his community in many ways. there is a whole list of community organizations that he provided leadership, his own personal time, in order to help people. he did that. the jewish federation -- he became a national leader to help communities all over the world. frank lautenberg did that as a

private citizen because he thought it was the right thing to do. but then he decided he wanted to serve his community in a more -- in a different way, so he ran for the united states senate, got elected to the united states senate, served two different terms in the united states senate. he's the only senator that was both a junior and senior senator twice for the same state, but he never forgot his roots. he never forgot where he came from, and he has a long list of accomplishments, from helping refugees come here to america to helping keep air safe on airlines. he will be missed by all. our thoughts and prayers are with bonnie, who we all know so well, and his entire family. the family of new jersey and the people of thisation. frank lautenberg was an

extraordinary person who will be missed by all. we all know that we're better because of having served with him. with that, mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. casey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: thank you. i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: i would first ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i tries address two issues this morning, but starting with the issue that is confronting us here on the senate floor, and it is a great challenge but it is also a great opportunity -- that's

immigration -- and the opportunity that we have to come together in the senate, democrats and republicans, to fix a broken system and to hispanic our economy. -- and to help our economy. i think along the way, as we're working on the immigration bill over the next days and weeks, i think we cannot only get issue on the right track, but we can also send a very strong mog to the american people that on major consequential issues for the american people we can come together, work together, and get a good result for them. and i think that in and of itself is worthy of a lot of attention. even as we're working on immigration, of course, we have to concern ourselves with a whole range of other issues. one that i'll speak to just briefly this morning is the issue of our policy as it relates to syria. we are confronted this morning with a headline in "the washington post" -- i'll hold it up, but it reads "iran on assent

as syria churns." i'll just read the first graph of the story. "as fighters with lebanon's hezbollah movement wage the battles that are helping syria's regime survive, their chief sponsor, iran, is emerging as the biggest victor in the struggle for influence that the syrian conflict has become." this is one of the reasons why i and others have for not just weeks but months now urging the administration and the congress to come together on a more focused and more effective strategy, as it relates to syria. we had a good bipartisan effort in the foreign relations committee. we were able to pass out of the committee legislation that dealt with syria, that would provide a whole range of supports and efforts that will lead to a better result in syria.

i know the white house is spending -- has spent the last couple of weeks and will be spending even more time today to come up with a policy that makes sense. but i don't think we can any longer pretend that this issue is not an issue that concerns our that the security because every day the iranian regime and hezbollah plot against us. and anything that results in the regime in iran being strengthened, as "the washington post" points to today in this story, is bad for our national security. so we have a the although of work to do -- so we have a lot of work to do, and again this should be bipartisan, but the administration needs to focus on syria and come to a conclusion about the way forward that will be in the best interests of our national security and also in the best interests of the people of syria, who are fighting valiantly against the assad

regime, which we all agree should not be in power, but we can't just wish that; we have to take the steps that will lead to that result in a concerted fashion with allies in the region. i'd ask consent this story entitled iran on ascend from syria from "the washington post" this morning be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: thank you, mr. president. i move to the second part of my remarks which is to talk about two of our judicial nominees who will be coming from the senate today. both of these nominees will be voted on today to be members of the united states district court for the eastern district of pennsylvania. i want to give senators the benefit of a little bit of biographical background on both of them. first i'll start with knits --

with nitza i. quinones alejandro. she is recognized by her colleagues as being very well prepared as a judge and conscientious as a judicial official who exhibits outstanding judicial temperament and fairness. mr. casey: since 1991 nitza i. quinones alejandro has served as a trial judge for the first judicial district of the pennsylvania court of common pleas in philadelphia working on criminal and civil trials in all of the diversity and difficulty and challenge that cops with that. she runs a good courtroom. she treats lawyers and litigants fairly and renders that you feel decisions. -- and renders thoughtful decisions. she was first nominated for judicial appointment in may of 1990 by governor robert p. casey, my father, when he was serving in office in pennsylvania. at the time judge -- not quite then a judge but judge quinons

became the first latin state court judge in pennsylvania in the early 1990's. prior to her judicial appointment she was an arbitrator for the police from 1980 to 1981. she worked as staff attorney with the department of veterans affairs and attorney advisor for the office of hearings and appeals at the department of health and human services. she was also a staff attorney with community legal services in philadelphia. judge nitza i. quinones alejandro has been active in the hispanic bar association for the past 20 years. she has recruited students from local law schools and hired numerous hispanic attorneys as full-time law clerks and served as a mentor to countless students and professionals. she's a native of puerto rico and she graduated from the university of puerto rico school of business administration cum

laude in 1972 and acquired her juris doctor degree from the university of puerto rico school of law in 1975 her commitment to public service and her substantial judicial experience will make her an outstanding federal judge. it's also, i should note, a remarkable america story that judge quinones brings to us today. we appreciate the work that has been done to bring her nomination to the floor. i enjoyed working with senator toomey on both judge quinones nomination as well as the second nomination i'll review now. it is jeffrey l. schmehl. judge schmehl will as well bring an extraordinary experience of knowledge to the federal bench.

he is well regarded by lawyers and litigants who appeared before him as well as the people of reading and burkes county, pennsylvania. since 2007 he has served as the judge for the berks county court of common pleas since 1998. prior to joining the bench judge schmehl was a partner at rhoda, stout and bradley. he served as the county solicitor for berks county from 1989 to 1997. he owned his own law firm from 1981 to 1986. he served as an assistant district attorney in berks county as a prosecutor and as an assistant public defender for the berks county public defenders office, a rare combination both as a public defender and as a prosecutor. he received his bachelor of arts degree from dickinson college 1977 and juris doctorate degree

from the university of toledo law school in 1980. we look forward to judge schmehl's confirmation as well. and i think with both of these individuals, they are two individuals about whom we can be very proud and vote for and support with enthusiasm. and it always helps when you have two judges who are the result of a, working together of a democratic senator and republican senator, in this case senator toomey and i working together, to bring their nomination to this point and to get them confirmed on the floor of the senate. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today to talk about the advise and consent duties of the united states senate. as you know, our constitution gives the senate the responsibility to advise the president on high-level executive positions and judgeships. the senate is also asked to consent on those appointments to ensure that only those who are worthy of the public's trust hold positions of such great power. the confirmation process is a way to protect the american people from nominees who simply aren't up to the job or to the times that we're in as a country. it's also an important opportunity to the senate to exercise oversight over the agencies and the policies of an administration and to do this on behalf of the american people. let me repeat that. it's about exercising oversight on behalf of the american people. that's one of the most important roles that we play as senators.

that's one of the reasons that our nation's founding fathers intentionally made the pace of the senate deliberate. they wanted to make sure -- wanted to make sure -- that there was free debate on important subjects so that we could give appropriate consideration to policies, to laws, and to nominations. the father of our constitution, james madison, explained the senate's role was -- quote -- "first to protect the people against their rulers." first to protect the people against their rulers. that was the point of this body. that's why over its long history the senate has adopted rules that provide strong protections for political minorities. well, lately some in the majority have decided that the american people shouldn't ask so many questions and that the minority shouldn't have so many rights. here's a little perspective on the conversation that we're

having today. over the last six years majority leader reid has taken an unprecedented stand against the rights of the minority in this body. he's done it through procedural tactics like filling the amendment tree on bills and bypassing committees using something called rule 14 of the senate rules. those techniques may make it easier for the majority leader to get what he wants, but they shut many senators out of legislating and they shut out the americans that we represent. democrats as well as republicans. at the beginning of the last congress and again at the start of this congress, there was an attempt to use the so-called nuclear option and to use it to radically change the rules of the senate and to strip the rights of the minority. back in 2011, majority leader reid made a commitment not to use the nuclear option. it's what he said on the floor. he said "i agree that the proper way to change senate rules is through the procedure established in those rules," and

he added, he said, "i will oppose any effort in this congress or the next congress to change the senate rules other than through the regular order." this congress or the next congress, so that includes the congress that we're in right now today. well, it didn't stop some of the members of his caucus from trying to force the nuclear option again earlier this year. i was one of a bipartisan group of senators, eight of us worked together and negotiated i thought reasonable and responsible changes to senate procedures. our goal was to avoid the rush to take drastic steps that would damage this body and our country forever. it was a fair agreement. it was also an agreement that we were told would rule out the use of the nuclear option. so republicans agreed to support two new standing orders and two new standing rules of the senate. those changes got overwhelmingly supported by republicans as well as democrats in this body. in return, the majority leader

again gave his word that he would not try to break the rules in order to change the rules. here's what he said just a few months ago right here on the senate floor. he said "any other resolutions related to senate procedure would be subject to a regular order process." he even added this included considerations by the rules committee. there was no equivocating in his statement by the democratic leader. there were no ifs, no ands, no buts. this was january 24 of this year. so here we are again less than five months later, and we're having this same argument all over again. some senate democrats want to use the nuclear option to break the rules to change the rules and do away with the right to extended debate on nominations. this would be an unprecedented power grab by the majority. it would gut the advice and consent function of the senate.

it would trample the rights of the minority. it would deprive millions of americans of their right, their right to have their voices heard through their representatives here in washington. the nuclear option would irreparably change this institution. republicans have raised principled objections to a select few of the president's nominees. in other cases such as the d.c. circuit court, we simply want to apply the standard that the democrats had set, that the court's workload don't justify the addition of three more judges. the president claims his nominees have been treated unfairly. even "the washington post" fact checker said what the president's comments were were untrue. the other day the "post" fact checker gave the president not just one but two pinocchios for his claims about republican delays on his judicial nominees. the white house and the majority leader don't want to hear it. they want the senate to rubber stamp the president's nominees. the democrats aren't happy with the rulings by the d.c. circuit court and they want to avoid any

more inconvenient questions about the obama administration. democrats claim they want to change the rules just to make things move more quickly. but that's no excuse. remember when the majority leader threatened the same drastic step a couple of years ago? well, one of the democrats who stood up to oppose the current majority leader -- oppose him at the time -- was former senator chris dodd. in his farewell speech in this body in late 2010, this is what senator dodd had to say. he said -- quote -- "i can understand the temptation to change the rules that make the senate so unique." he said "and simultaneously so frustrating." he also said "but whether such a temptation is motivated by a noble desire to speed up the legislative process or by pure political expedience," he said, "i believe such changes would be

unwise." that was a democrat senator with 30 years of service in the senate. the reality is that the pace of the senate can be deliberate. extended debate and questioning of nominees is a vital tool to help ensure that the men and women who run our government are up to the job and are held accountable. under the system, some in the majority want to impose, there will be less opportunity for political minorities to question nominees. there will be less government transparency. the faith of the american people in their government will get smaller and smaller. mr. president, i believe it would be a terrible mistake for democrats to pursue the nuclear option and an irresponsible use of power. from the beginning the american political system has functioned on majority rule but with strong minority rights. democracy is not winner take all. senator reid gave his word. we negotiated in good faith earlier this year. we reached a bipartisan

agreement to avoid the nuclear option. using the nuclear option on nominations now would unfairly disregard that agreement. if democrats break the rules to change the rules, political minorities and all americans will lose. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i just had a chance to listen to my colleague from wyoming, and he states it very well. and i have come to the floor for roughly the same reason. i don't know how many times you have to say it because basically i think what the senator from wyoming was saying and what i want to say is, you know, it's very difficult to reach agreements in the united states senate. but when you reach an agreement,

particularly if it only involves two senators, but particularly if they're leaders of the senate, a person's word is their bond. and that bond ought to be kept. and as far as i know, always kept. at least that's been my relationship with fellow senators. you say you're going to do something, and you continue that until it's successful. so here we are, no senator has not kept their word yet, but we hear this threat. so i come to the floor to give my comments on it. at the beginning of this congress, the majority and minority leaders reached an agreement to how to proceed with rules changes. an agreement was reached. we agreed to two rule changes.

one change to the standing rules and one to the standing order. senate republicans gave up certain rights and protections in those rules changes. that was the first part of the agreement. in exchange for these rules changes, the majority leader gave his word to republican senators that he would not utilize what's called around here and around this town, "the nuclear option," and not use it during this congress. let me review the exact wordings of that agreement, as it's recorded for history in the "congressional record." this year on january 24, 2013, the following exchange took place in the senate: senator mcconnell stated -- quote -- "finally i would confirm with the majority leader that the senate would not consider other resolutions

relating to any standing order or rules in this congress unless they went through the regular order process?" end of quote. the majority leader replied -- quote -- "this is correct. any other resolution related to senate procedure would be subject to a regular order process, including consideration by the rules committee." end of quote. in fact, the majority leader gave his word at the beginning of the last congress as well. he stated -- quote -- "the minority leader and i have discussed this issue on numerous occasions. i know that there is a strong interest in rules changes among many in my caucus. in fact, i would support many of these changes through regular order, but i agree with the proper way to change senate rules is through the procedures established in those rules," and

the majority leader said, "and i will oppose any effort in this congress or the next to change the senate rules other than through regular order." let me just say that when a united states senator reaches an agreement and gives his word that he will stick to that agreement, that should mean something around here. and, as far as i'm concerned, it means something all the time. and i don't think i've been subject to any in an agreement with a colleague that hasn't been kept. and let me emphasize something further. there was no contingency on that agreement. republicans agreed to a change in the rules, and the majority leader gave his word that he would not invoke the so-called nuclear option. that was the extent of the agreement, period. i trust the majority leader will keep his word and his commitment.

if he pulls back on that commitment, it will irreparably damage the senate. moreover, the notion that there is now a crisis that demands another rules change is completely manufactured. the minority leader has spoken about the culture of intimidation. i'm troubled that it is finding its way into the -- it' senate. for the record, with regard to why there's some talk around this thugs o institution of chae rules, something to do with nominations -- in particular, judicial nominations -- not moving fast enough, i'm ranking member of the judiciary committee. so far this year we have confirmed 22 lower court nominees with two more scheduled for this week. that is more than double the number of judges that were confidence at this point during the previous president's second

term, and that was president bush. with the nominations this week, we have confirmed 195 of president obama's nominees as lower court judges. we have defeated only two. that's a batting average of 9 99%-plus. i don't know how much better you can get, unless they expect the senate not to raise any questions about anybody appointed by any president to judgeships of our country. the claim then that we're obstructing nominees is plainly without foundation. i have cooperated with the chairman of the judiciary committee in moving forward on consensus nominees and on the national floor there's been a -- and on the senate floor, there's been a consistent and steady progress on judicial nominations. yet it seems as if the majority is intent on creating a false

crisis in order to affect changes in longstanding senate practices. they're not even threatening to break -- they are now even threatening -- can you believe it n. -- to brea? -- to break to change the rules. we certainly have upheld our end of the bargain. can i inquire how many minutes are left for the minority for morning business? the presiding officer: the republicans control 15 minutes. mr. grassley: and how much -- 15 minutes more? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. grassley: okay. in regard to this whole issue about -- in regard to this whole issue about the senate as an institution and where i said, if this nuclear option holds, it's going to destroy the senate, i

think it's very appropriate for us to remember that the senate is the only institution in our political branch of government that -- where minority views are protected. and the house of representatives, a majority of whether it is a republican majority or a democratic majority, as long as they stick together, they can do anything they want to, and they can ignore the minority. but in the united states senate, when it takes a supermajority of 60 to get something done, whether you have a republican or democrat minority, that minority is protected. because today when you have 55 republicans and 45 democrats, nothing is going to get done here unless it's done in a bipartisan consensus way. and that's what's so very important, that we don't destroy that aspect of the uniqueness of the united states national. i yield the floor. -- of the united states senate.

i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: i thank you for the opportunity to speak. i want to continue speaking about what my good trend from iowa was speaking -- my good friend from iowa was speaking about. there's been a lack of activity in the last couple of years, but that has very little to do with the rules of the senate. it has a lot to do with the senate not following its regular order, its regular procedures and in fact when we've done that, whether it was the highway bill or the federal aviation act or the farm bill, we have always produced a successful piece of legislation. the senate works, whe when you t the senate work. the senate works when people are allowed to bring differing points of view to the senate floor and, frankly, one of the reasons to be in the senate is to have the ability to not only

bring those ideas to the floor but to have to vote on those ideas, to let the american people know where we stand, to let the people in the states we represent know where we stand. the idea that the senate is now afraid of the amendment process is a great obstacle to the senate getting its work done. but another obstacle is constantly talking about changing the senate rules. the senate rules have served the senate well for a long time and served the country well. the senate rules are what define the senate in giving individual senators abilities they wouldn't otherwise have. you know, this is the only body like it in the world where a bare majority can't just do whatever it wants to do. if that's the way we want to govern the country, we have one of those bodies already.

it's called the house of representatives. that's where the majority absolutely rules, where the rules committee has nine members representing the majority and four members representing the minority. i was the whip in the house for a long time, the chief vote counter in the house. and i can just tell you, nine always beats four. it is not just 2-1. it is 2-1 plus one. that's a body where the majority has incredible ability to do whatever the majority wants to do. that is not the way the senate is supposed to work. we started off this year trying to agree on how to move the senate forward in an agreeable and effective way, and then we're right back every day now hearing that, well, we're going to have to think about changing the rules. when you think about changingingchangingthe rules, i-

when you any changinges rules, it usually is not a good sign that you're wanting to get anything done. the first thing you would have to do to change the rules is break the rules because the rules, once the senate is constituted, can't be changed by just a majority of senators. it takes more than that. we just created two new ways for the majority leader -- not the minority leader -- but for the majority to expedite senate action. that gave new powers to the leader. one of these rules changes passed 78-16. the other one passed 86-9. these gave the majority ways to consider nominations and legislation and go to

conference, and the minority agreed that under certain circumstances that the ability to engage in debate could and would be limited. but now we're back here again having the same discussion, and the only way the majority leader would be able to get what he apparently wants would be to break the rules. there are enough rules being broken, in my view, in washington right now, and one of the problems that the country faces right now is, frankly, they don't trust their government. and when you look across the board, from the i.r.s. to what happened in benghazi to the n.s.a. and the answers about retaining records, we don't need to yet do another thing to convince people that there's a reason that they should not believe what people in the government say. let's just look at a few things

that the majority leader said right here on the senate floor over the last couple of years. in january of 2011, january the 27th, to be exact, mr. reid said, "i agree that the proper way to change the senate rules is through the procedures established in those rules and, went on to say, "i will oppose any effort in this congress or the next to change the senate rules other than through the regular order." that was january of 2011. mr. mcconnell in january of this year said on the senate floor, january the 24th, "i would confirm with the majority leader that the senate would not consider other resolutions relating to any standing order or rules in this congress unless they went through the regular order process." that was senator mcconnell's quote. and in response, senator reid said, "that is correct.

any other resolutions related to senate procedure would be subject to a regular order process, including consideration by the rules committee." now i am a he on the rules comm, madam president, and we're not talking about any rules changes on the rules committee, which senator reid said in january of this year would have to be part of looking at that. now, of course a lot of the discussion is, well, the nominations are taking too long. these are important jobs, and there's a reason they take so long, particularly the judicial nominees serve for the rest of their life. they're going to serve well beyond, in most cases, the president that nominates them. and they have taken a long -- ta long time for white a while. i would think that the facts are

clear that the senate is treating president obama's judicial nominees fairly and in some ways even better than they treated president bush's nominees. already in this congress, the senate in this congress, the one that began in january, the senate has approved 22 of the president's lifetime appointments. 22 people on the federal bench for the rest of their life, and that's already happened this year. at a comparable point in president bush's second term, the senate had approved only five of his judicial nominees. in the last congress, the president, president obama had 50% more confirmations than president bush. 171 of his nominees were confirmed. his predecessor had 119 under similar circumstances, a time when the senate was also dealing with two supreme court nominees

who, by the way, also served for life. i think the first term of president obama, the senate made the kind of progress you would expect the senate to make on these important jobs. in fact, president obama has had more district court confirmations than any president in the previous eight congresses. you'd think that would be a pretty good record on the part of the senate doing its job. the constitution says that the president nominates, but it says the senate confirms. and in my view, those are equally important jobs. in fact, you could argue that the last job, the one that actually puts the judge on the bench, is even more important than the first job. overall, the senate has confirmed 193 lower court judges

under president obama and defeated only two. "the washington post" cited the congressional review conclusion that from nomination to confirmation, which is the most relevant indicator, president obama's circuit court nominees were being processed in about 100 days, about 100 days quicker than president bush's. president bush's nominees took about a year, 350 days. president obama's take about 100 days less than that. and then let's look it the other side of nominations. now there is a difference in the executive nominations, i believe, because they only are likely to serve during the term of the president and not exceed that. i think that creates a slightly different standard. but the process on these nominations has been pretty

extraordinary in any view. if anything, the obama administration has had more nominations considered quicker than the bush administration. the secretary of energy was recently confirmed 97 on -- 97 to zero. the secretary of treasury, 71-26. those are substantial votes done in a substantial time. the commerce committee that i'm on just this week voted out three nominations the president had made with no dissenting votes to report that nomination to the floor. the director of the office of management and budget was confirmed 96-0. the secretary of state was confirmed 94-3 only seven days after the secretary of state was

nominated. now, members of the senate knew the secretary of state pretty well, and it was easy to look at that in a quick way. but it's pretty hard to imagine a secretary of state that can be confirmed quicker than seven days after that person was nominated. the administrator for the centers of medicare and medicaid services was confirmed 91-7. the chair of the securities and exchange commission was confirmed by a voice vote. yet, in spite of all of that, we're being told by the white house and by others that somehow the senate's record on these nominations is worthy of an unprecedented rules change. and that that would -- that rules change would shut out the rights of the minority to fully review and debate particularly lifetime judicial nominations, the very essence of the

constitutional obligation the senate has is to look at these nominations and decide whether these people should go on the court for the rest of the federal bench for the rest of their life or not. i'm hopeful, madam president, that the majority leader will keep his commitment to the senate and to the american people and ensure that we move on from this debate that should have happened and did happen in january. and instead of changing the rules, we do what we're supposed to do and do it in a way that meets our obligations as a senate and our obligations to the constitution. let's not break the rules to change the rules. let's get on with the important business that's before us rather than going back to the business that we have dealt with months ago. and i would yield the floor.

the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 744, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 80, s. 744, a bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes. mr. leahy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, i have eight 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 these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: madam president, what is the parliamentary situation? the presiding officer: the senate is on s. 744. mr. leahy: is there a division

of time? the presiding officer: there is no such division of time. mr. leahy: thank you. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the call of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. grassley: i want to visit with my colleagues about border security. it traoefrs an amendment that i have pending -- it refers to an amendment that i have pending to enhance the provisions on border security. i'd like to take a few minutes to discuss why i think my amendment is a good first step at restoring the faith of the american people in government, and that faith has to be restored on the issue of immigration because we promised so much in the 1986 bill of border security and stopping undocumented workers from coming to this country. and so consequently now the institution of congress and the executive branch both, because we aren't enforcing exist law, the credibility -- aren't enforcing existing law, the

credibility on immigration is at stake here. on this issue the american people have lost faith about whether we're really, at least from the immigration point of view, are we really a nation based on the rule of law? it's no secret that we here in washington, particularly in the congressional branch, have low approval ratings. a lot of people, especially in recent weeks, wonder about the trust of government. you know, benghazi, i.r.s., a.p. investigations, all that stuff. they have also lost confidence then in the leaders. they question our ability to protect their privacy. they question our capacity to protect their security. this is especially true when you talk about border security with average americans. they don't think that we're doing enough. they say we don't need to pass another law.

they just don't understand why we cannot stop the flow and simply enforce the laws on the books. to them, it's that simple. it comes up in my town meetings in iowa, but the bill before us complicates things. it takes a step backwards on an issue that americans care deeply about. it says we'll legalize millions now. that means millions of undocumented workers. and we'll worry about border security down the road five or ten years. the authors of this document that's before us, this group of eight, say that they're open to improving the bill. well, my amendment now before the senate does just that. my amendment improves the trigger that jump starts the legalization program. it ensures that the border is

secure before one person gets legal status under this act. now, i think the american people have shown that they're very compassionate, not just willing to deal with this issue of 12 million undocumented workers here, but in a lot of other ways so numerous and well known we don't even need to mention them. and we've proved that many can come here, can come to terms with the legalization program. but what would say that a legalization program should be tied to border security or enforcement? that's what's very simple for the american people. secure the borders. let me give you some examples. bloomberg recently released a poll in which they asked the following question -- quote --

"congress is debating changing immigration laws. do you support or oppose a revision of immigration policy that would provide a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants in the united states?" 46% said they would support. the poll then went on to ask the same respondents about elements in the immigration bill. 85% said they favored -- quote -- "strengthening border security and creating a system to track foreigners entering and leaving the country." end of quote. so you have 46% saying that they support immigration, but 85% of the same group say it's very necessary to strengthen border security. in iowa, a poll by the "des moines register" found that 58%

of the respondents were okay with a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants after -- and i emphasize the word "after" -- the border is secure. almost every poll shows the same results. sure, people would consider a legalization program. but it's almost always tied to the condition of border security. but the american people don't think that we're doing enough to secure the border. in a poll conducted by anderson robbins research and sean company, 60% of those polled said that the current level of security at the country border is not strict enough. is not strict enough. also, 69% of the respondents also said that they favor requiring completion of a new border security measures first before making other changes in

immigration policies. unfortunately too many people have been led to believe that this bill will force the secretary of homeland security to secure the border. in fact, it does not guarantee that before legalization. that's why we need to passion my amendment -- that's why we need to pass my amendment on file now. it's a good first step to ensuring that we stop the flow of undocumented workers coming to this country. we need to prove to the american people that we can do our job. we need to show them that we're committed to security. the bottom line, nobody says the existing immigration system is as it should be. people support reform, but they support reform if we have border security first. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

mr. leahy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. leahy: you know, madam president, it's good that the nation is having this debate on immigration, but i think we ought to talk about what is really involved here. for the last several months -- actually even before a bill was even drafted -- people were saying, we can't proceed with immigration reform until we do more to secure our borders. now that we have a bill, a about i will that takes extraordinary -- a bill that takes extraordinary steps to secure an already strong border, we continually hear that we must wait. madam president, it is so easy to wait. oh, let's wait until next year ... or the year after ... or the year after that ... because then the 100 members of the united states senate don't have to vote. we can be on everybody's side. well, that's not why we were elected. we were elected to vote "yes," vote "no." let's start moving forward and

stand up to vote, because when you say we have to wait for more security, that ignores the facts. we have been pouring billions of dollars into border security for years -- billions. keep this in mind: sometimes we argue billions of dollars to help educate our children. that becomes a big issue. we put billions of dollars into border security. since the senate last considered immigration reform in 2006 and 2007, we've made enormous strides on border security. and this bill takes even more steps to prevent and deter illegal immigration. let's-- you know, we can talk about philosophy and we can talk about things people have heard. i'd like to just talk about facts. they may be inconvenient to some who don't want to have immigration reform, but the facts speak for themselves.

the border patrol has doubled in the past ten years. it now has more than 21,000 agents. that's more than at any time in its history. in the obama administration, that was 21,000 agents, more thank they've ever had under either democratic or republican administrations. the department of homeland security has deployed additional technology and aircraft, hundreds of miles of fencing along the southern border. and then we talk about illegal crossings. here is a fact: illegal border crossings are at near 40-year lows during this administration because fewer people are trying to cross. in 2005, border patrol operates more than 1.1 million individuals who unlawfully crossed the border. in 201, that number is down --

in 2012, that number is down a third. at the same time, deportations are at record-high levels. but here's one of the things we should talk about: people ignore the fact that we spend more money on enforcing our immigration and customs laws than we do on all our federal law enforcement agencies put together -- put together. that -- for those who care about law enforcement, that is kind of a striking number. so we have done enforcement first. but this legislation goes even further to build on what's been a successful record. as chairman carper of the homeland security committee, relaid in a letter trelayed in s yesterday -- i ask that the letter be placed in record at the end of my statement.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: we point out the bill appropriates up to another $6.5 billion to secure the border. it authorizes another 3,500 cuss customs and border protections officers. it expands border security technology used at the border. so this is not a bill that ignores enforcement. it expands it. it increases the already strict criminal penalties against those unlawfully crossing the border. it provides additional resources for their criminal prosecution and it sets clear statutory goals. the prevention of 90% of illegal entries and persistent surveillance of our entire border. if d.h.s. doesn't meet these goals within five years, the bill establishes a bipartisan

commission to develop further concrete plans and provides an additional $2 billion to carry out these plans. now, some say, well, i've got a better plan. come on ... borders and the needs change all time. we build in flexibility to meet these needs. the bills sets tough border security triggers. in fact, before d.h.s. can register any undocumented individuals for provisional status, it has to provide congress with two detailed plans laying out exactly how it is going to meet statutory goals: a comprehensive strategy and another specific to fencing. i mean, this is the toughest piece of legislation on security of our borders that has ever been before the united states senate. and the department of homeland security can issue green cards to these individuals for ten

years. and even then, only after four triggers are satisfied: comprehensive border strategy, fencing strategy is deployed, the mandatory electronic employment verification is established for all employers, and electronic exit system based on machine-readable travel do i documents is in place at airports and securities and even then we added more during the judiciary committee's markup of this bill. we adopted an amendment offered by senator grassley that applied it not just to high-risk sectors. so those who say they want more security, what we've got here -- first of all, it is virtually impossible to have more

security. are you saying you don't want any immigration bill? this is like debates we've had -- and i use the example of the work we did to bring about peace in northern ireland during the clinton administration. the former senator, former majority leader of this body, senator george mitchell, did heroic efforts, along with others, on both the product stan-- on both theprotestant ann northern impleted there arnorth. there were some who said we couldn't do anything until we did not a single act of violence? so you're going to let a disgrant led person on either side veto any peace agreement? let us not say that we'll have no immigration bill until not one person crosses our border

illegally. that is making the perfect then mi of the good. that means we'll never have it. i was pleased that the committee also looked at two border-related amendments that i offered with tho senator cornyn. i mention this because there are tens of amendments that were bipartisan, democrats and republicans alike. i offered this with senator cornyn. it prohibits land border crossing fees. but another that provides d.h.s. with the additional flexibility on how it spends the bill's fencing fund, knowing that what we do today, what we want today may be different a few years from now. incidentally, the -- i might say parenthetically, the amendment that i offered with senator cornyn to stop border crossing fees on either the southern

border or the northern border, say we're going it turn our customs agents into toll collectors? well, i live an hour's drive from the canadian border. we go back and forth like it is another state. the distinguished presiding officer lives in a state that borders canada. she knows what it's like going back and forth, and she also knows how important that is to the economy of her state and my state, just as it is to canada. we ought to luxuriate in the fact that canada is such a friendly neighbor. and the relationships we have with them, why, some of us are even related to people who have canadian an sses ancestry. i have been married to a woman whose parents came from canada.

she was born in the united states. i'm delighted that canadians come across our border and several in vert. -- an and settle in vermont. but i am also working on another amendment regarding the use of vehicle checkpoints in the 100-mile border zone. given all of this, i don't know why we're talking about border security. we do that in this bill. we massively increase the money directed to the border, and this is in addition to the billions, billions of dollars we already spend each year. some of the same people that want more security are the same people that say we're spending too much money in the federal government. well, short of putting up a steel wall it is hard to imagine what more we can do to stop people from crossing. as senator carper said, you build a 25-foot wall, they'll

build a 26-foot ladder. we know people will still come. let's be serious for a moment, madam president. a fence does not address the root causes of illegal immigration. people come here looking for jobs. the american businesses hire them because they'll do the jobs nobody else will. and, yes, some come here to join their families because the current backlogs for family-sponsored green cards otherwise force them to wait years. if we're serious about stopping illegal immigration we have to do more than building a bigger, longer, higher fence. that won't work. we have to create legal ways for people to enter the country who want to come here for work and to join family members. and then we have to make it harder for people to find work if they do not use legal avenues by requiring a nationwide employment verification system, everify. some will call this a virtual

fence and by increasing penalties on employers who hire undocumented workers. this bill does exactly that. the distinguished senior senator from new york, senator schumer, talks about riding his bicycle around brooklyn and seeing people who are probably undocumented and contractors coming up to them and saying, "i'll hire you for $15 a day," and they have to take the job. if we had real, real teeth, as our bill does, real penalties of employers hiring undocumented workers, they would instead have to hire those who are legal, would have po -- to pay at least minimum wage and put money into social security and so on. it makes a big difference. as grover norquist said in his

testimony, our bill, if adopted, would improve the finances of our nation. but more than that, this legislation provides workable, flexible, affordable humane solutions. it's tough, it's fair, it's practical. now i welcome additional ideas to enhance border security public safety. i'd like people to bring up their amendments and vote them up or down. but our goal must be to secure the border, not seal it. and as chairman of the senate judiciary committee, i will oppose efforts that impose unrealistic, excessively costly or inhumane border security efforts and oppose efforts to unduly delay the path. we've waited too long already. and that includes the amendment offered by my friend from iowa, senator grassley, which would significantly delay even the

initial registration process for the 11 million undocumented individuals in this country. the bottom line is this, madam president. the pathway to citizenship must be earned, but it also must be attainable. citizenship must be earned but it also must be attainable. and let's not forget that bringing 11 million people out of the shadows is not only the moral thing to do, it helps keep this country safe so we know who is here and we can focus on our resources on those who actually do pose a threat. i don't often quote the "wall street journal" editorial board, but i will quote it here. they said "those who claim we must secure the border first ignore the progress already made, because their real goal isn't border security. it's to use border security as

an excuse to kill immigration reform." we need immigration reform. it's a moral issue. it speaks to the greatness of our country. but it's also a national security issue and a public safety issue. attempts to undermine immigration reform may come under the guise of promoting border security, but i'd ask the united states senate don't be fooled by that. 76 former state attorneys general recently wrote "put simply, practical comprehensive reform to our federal immigration laws will make us all safer." these are 76 men and women who had to enforce our laws. we must fix our broken immigration system once and for all. as i said many times on this floor, i think of my maternal grandparents tkoplg -- coming to vermont from italy and making

vermont a better state with the jobs they created and their grandson became a united states senator. i think of my wife's parents coming from the province of quebec, bringing their french language but also learning english. and my wife was born in vermont as a result of that. but i think of her family, expanded family -- father, uncle, others -- creating so many jobs in vermont and making vermont better. and every one of us can tell stories like that. let's not forget those people. let's not say that work for our ancestors is no longer available. let's speak, let's speak as the conscience of the nation. 100 senators can be the conscience of the nation and sometimes are. when we were on the violence against women act. we can be now on the immigration

bill. i ask unanimous consent that my full statement and additions be placed in the record as though read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: madam president, i see my good friend on the floor, and i yield the floor. mr. coats: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: madam president, i thank the senator from vermont and appreciate what he has said about all this. this is a debate that we need to undertake, and we are doing so. and we're doing it in a way that the senate in my previous experiences has essentially dealt with legislation. we have brought it to the floor. it has come through the regular process. the committee has held extensive hearings on the issue. there is a national debate going on. we're hearing from our constituents back at home. we are following. i'm not on the committee that has jurisdiction here, but we're

following it carefully in terms of what has been presented, the bill that has been drafted. the amendments that have been offered, which ones succeeded, which ones haven't. this is a major issue which deserves and is getting, unlike most of what has happened here in the last couple of years, is getting a thorough debate with opportunities to offer amendments, with opportunities to work to find ways to address concerns about the current legislation that is before us. and that is why i voted for the motion to proceed. this is an issue that needs to be discussed and hopefully a system that we know is broken. i think there's pretty much unanimous consent on the fact that our current immigration system is full of flaws. ithas not achieved what was promised when the initial legislation was passed, and it needs to be fixed, because the

status quo just simply perpetuates and adds to the problem that we have with illegal immigration and all the impact on our country, and the distrust of the american people that we're going to come forward with a credible legislation this time to address the real problems. so i'm pleased that we are having this debate. now we are a nation of immigrants. it is part of what has defined our country from the very beginning. it's a rich history. while all of those who have come to our shores over the decades may have different stories and a different journey, most share a common goal. they want the opportunity to live in a free society. they want to advance economically. they want to pursue the american dream. they want to provide for their children and their children's children the freedoms and the opportunity that exists in america in a way that exists in

very few, if any other places. the american dream is a reality that is available for people to achieve, given the opportunity and given hard work of success. i'm a son of an immigrant. my mother's family came here to the united states legally in search of a better life and better opportunities not just for themselves but for their children and their children's children in generations to follow. but my mother learned and passed down to her children with these freedoms granted to us as american citizens come responsibilities. we have the responsibility to cherish and defend our constitution. we have the responsibility to be engaged citizens in our communities. we have the responsibility to vote and take part in the electoral process. and hopefully we have people agree that we have the

responsibility to come to the aid of our neighbors in need. we have been and hopefully will continue to be a compassionate country, a country that believes all human beings are created equal and that our rights are endowed not by a king, not by a president, not by a government but by god. in america, it doesn't matter where you come from or what your last name may be. if given the opportunity and the chance, you can succeed. and that's what sets us apart from so many other countries. that is what makes us a shining light, a beacon to the rest of the world. and it is that light that attracts so many to our shores with hopes and dreams of a better future. during my time as ambassador to germany, colin powell, then secretary of state, made many visits. one of those visits was a stop on the way back from a trip to india.

as we were riding from the airport to his first appointment, he shared with me something that i think pretty much says it all about the world's view of america. we see people holding demonstrations, protests against america for this or that. he said, "but you know, as i was traveling in the motorcade down the street, main street, there was an indian citizen there with a huge sign and big bold letters that said 'yankee, go home.' . in parenthesis underneath those bold letters it said 'and please take me with you.'" i think that little story illustrates how much of the world views america, a place they would like to get to. and so as we address this issue, it's important, i think that we understand that this country is

a magnet and it's a magnet for people to come and fulfill their dreams, to make their lives better and their children's lives better. but if we're a country that cannot have an orderly process of legal immigration, we are going to lose the support of the american people, all of us immigrants at one point, for bringing people into our country if they continue to learn that those who come the right way, the legal way have to stand in line for 10, 12, 15, 20 years hoping to win the lottery, hoping to be those select people that are chosen. those opportunities dwindling simply because we are being overrun through an illegal process. and so that's why it is important that we reform -- we address this issue and we make the necessary reforms. as i said earlier, it is an indisputable fact that our current immigration system has failed.

it's failed the citizens of this country and it's failed those who have been standing in line for years trying to become eligible for immigration through the legal process. today we have roughly 11 million undocumented individuals living in our country, approximately 40% of those who are here illegally arrive legal, on a legal basis for a temporary time. but once having come to our shores, they have kind of melted, absorbed themselves into our citizenship and country and not returned. that is an issue. that is a problem. and this bill addresses that, and we need to address that. we need to have a certified system in place that works, not promises, not words on pieces of paper. but a system that has the credibility to work that when we grant people temporary status to come here to study, come here to

visit, come here to see relatives, come here for whatever reason on a temporary basis, we know who comes in and we know who goes out, and we know those who stay, and we take action on that. that is simply a logical, legal way of having a system that the american people can trust and believe in. now, one of the major issues here is our southern border. and securing those borders. i had the opportunity to spend three days on the border all the way from the pacific ocean where the borderline hits the pacific ocean in southern california all the way across the southern california border, all the way across the arizona border, and so i had a pretty good look at this. as ranking member on the homeland security subcommittee of the appropriations committee, i wanted to find out how we were spending our money, what kind of

success we were having, what the problems were, how we should better address our resources in terms of addressing this problem, and it was instructive, and i urge my colleagues to take the opportunity to do the same. as a result of that, despite efforts to make that border secure, secure is not the right word to define where we are now. so an issue before us is what do we do to make us more secure in a way that can convince the american people and the people we represent that this time, this time we have in place a process which will secure that border. we went through this in 1986. ronald reagan proposed immigration reform. i voted for it. at the time, we had three million illegal immigrants. the promise in that legislation was that we would secure the border, we would solve the

problem of illegal immigration. obviously, we didn't, and today we have 11 million and perhaps counting. now, it is appropriate, i think, to say the border is more secure than it was then. we have over the years and particularly in later years here with a surge of illegal immigrants coming into our country, we have taken significant steps. border patrol agents, sophisticated technology, a whole range of things that we have invested, money we have invested, people we have invested, policies we have invested to make that border more secure, but you can't right now truthfully come down here and say the border is secure, and you can say we're going to make it secure, here's how we're going to do it, but i think we need something that is credible so that the american people simply say well, what -- how do we believe you're going to be here five years from now, ten

years from now and say well, i know we told you it was going to be secure, i know we still have a significant problem, but we'll get it better next time. we don't want to repeat that mistake. if that happens again, i think it will be a long time before we are able to come down with a sensible reform proposal. so clearly, there is work to do there, and it's going to be difficult for me to support a bill that doesn't put in place something that is credible relative to our ability to secure that -- that border. we cannot ignore this problem. we can't ignore the fact that people continue to stay in a country illegally or cross our borders illegally. the status quo is not working. it encourages illegal immigration -- immigrants to come across the border, which is why we need this debate, why we need reforms to our current broken system and why we need to assure the american people that we're going to work to repair this broken system. it's critical for our economic

growth. it's critical for securing our borders, and it's critical for strengthening our national security. that is why i supported the motion to proceed to this debate on this important issue. immigration reform needs to take place in an open, fair and thorough debate with the input of the american people, and i'm certainly hearing from many of them in my state. i do have to say i have serious concerns with the current text of the legislation that has come out of the judiciary committee, and i believe this bill needs to be improved before i could support it. i'm particularly concerned about the focus on improving the border security measures, making sure, as i said, we don't make the same mistakes we made in 1986. we must take steps now to secure it before we consider granting legal status to illegal immigrants. additionally, i want to work with my colleagues to improve the employer verification

program which i think is essential to dealing with the problem, and also our exit system measures which i just discussed before about the people who come legally for a temporary stay and then we don't know where they are because we don't know that they go back home. so that i hope over the days ahead, as we live up to -- that we can live up to our reputation of being the most deliberative body in the world. people say why don't you get more things done. well, it's either one of two answers to that. one is we don't bring bills to the floor and offer opportunity to debate in an open way. the second is that this is exactly what we -- what we need to do, and on an issue of this importance, we clearly need this and i'm pleased that that process is going to go forward here. but let's not rush to a

decision. let's do it right. let's not stand up and declare that every amendment, if it doesn't fit what the current bill before us addresses, is a poison pill that is simply being offered because members don't want anything to pass. i don't fall in that category. i don't think we should have poison pills either, but a lot of these amendments that i think go to addressing the problem that we face in terms of the inadequacies of the bill before us, a lot of those need fixing and a lot of those are genuine and a lot of those are offered by people who would like to get to a credible, workable, necessary immigration reform legislation. but if the sponsors of the bill or the supporters of the bill are simply going to declare every amendment that potentially has the ability to pass as a

poison pothole and the only -- poison pill, and the only intent of the members offering the amendment is to kill the bill, that's not constructive and that's not how we should go forward. so, madam president, let's make sure that what we do delivers on the promises that we are making to secure our borders first, to deal with employer vair if i -- verification, the exit strategy, and to provide the important provisions to -- to ensure a legal immigration system that can benefit our country and which is the story of america. i'm looking forward to working with my colleagues to improve this legislation. i would like to see legitimate, real effective border control, a number of other features, but i'd like to get our system reformed because the current system is not working. madam president, with that, i

yield the floor. mr. mccain: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: madam president, i appreciate the opportunity for all members of this body to participate in a debate and amendments and discussion of the bill that was reported out through the judiciary committee in the regular order, and if my colleagues have any doubt about what i and my colleagues on this so-called group of eight, i want to assure them that we are continuing to look for ways to improve the legislation. in fact, i have a couple of amendments myself that i believe would help improve the legislation and make it better and stronger, but the fact is that this legislation is absolutely needed. it's needed for a whole variety of reasons, most of which i

won't go into at this time, but right now i hope my colleagues and the american people understand and i think they do because recent polling overwhelmingly supports this legislation, i hope they understand that the status quo is totally unacceptable. the status quo is de facto amnesty. the status quo is 11 million people living in the shadows, and they aren't going home, and anybody that thinks that we're going to round up 11 million people and send them back to the country that they came from, most of them from south of our border, obviously are unacold air of the logistics that would be required there. so if the status quo is unacceptable, don't we all share the same goal of a secure border of addressing the issue of these 11 million people who are in this country, living in the shadows, and by the way being

exploited in incredible fashions because they don't have the rights of citizens, and they did break our laws by coming here, and we are making them pay a heavy price for doing so, including a fine, including learning english, including paying back taxes, including waiting ten years before they would be eligible for a green card. and most importantly to many americans, they get in line behind everybody who waited, who waited legally, either inside this country or outside of it, they have to get in line behind them, and they have to be working for those ten years and they have to pay fees of $500, another $500 after five years, another $1,000 as they apply for a green card. they have to undergo a background check. anyone who has committed crimes in this country is going to be deported. and most importantly, this legislation dries up the magnet

that pulls people into this country where they believe they can find work. over 40% of the people who are in this country illegally never crossed a single border. they came to this country on a visa and it's expired. so that's why everify which we don't hear a lot about in this debate is so important because once the everify system, which is a document that is identifiable that verifies the individual, then that employer who hires someone who does not have that documentation can be subject to prosecution and heavy fines and even more if they are repeated offenders. so -- and once the word gets out all over the world and especially south of our border where living conditions are far worse than in the united states of america, then they're going to say i'm not going to come because i can't get a job once i'm here. today in the street in nogales,

sonnorra, mexico, you can buy a birth certificate for about $40. so that person comes and shows it to the employer and they're hired. well, the everify system will make that impossible, and that is one of the key elements of this legislation. now, madam president, i have been on the border in arizona for the last 30 years. i've seen the border patrol grow from 4,000 to 21,000. i have seen the national guard deployed to the border. i have seen drones flying along the border. i have seen fences built. and we have to do more. we have to do a lot more, and those are provisions in this bill. but to somehow say that our board is not secure -- is not -- that there hasn't been significant advancements in border security defies the facts on the ground. now, the border is still not

secure despite what you might hear the secretary of homeland security say. it is not secure, but the provisions in this bill, i am confident i can tell my colleagues from 30 years of experience, i am confident that it will bring this border secure as much as is humanly possible, remembering that there is an aspect of this issue that we don't talk about, and that's the flow of drugs, because my friends, as long as there is a demand in this country for drugs, drugs are going to find a way into this country. it's just a fundamental of economics. and we haven't had nearly the discussion nationally much less in this body about the issue of the drugs that flow across our border, and believe me, if there is a demand, they'll find a way, whether it's an ultralight, whether it's a tunnel, or whether it's a sub submarine. but the fact is that we can get this border secured, and the answer, my friends, as is proposed in the cornyn amendment that we hire 10,000 more border

patrol is not a recognition of what we really need. what we really need is technology. we need to use the evader radar that was developed in iraq where we can track people back to where they came from. we need to have more drones. we need to have more sensors on the ground. and i have gotten from the border patrol, not from the department of homeland security, but from the border patrol a detailed list of every single piece of quilt that they believe is necessary in all nine sectors of our border in order to make our border secure, and it is detailed. it talks about one -- for example, at the tucson and yuma sectors, 56 towers, 76 fixed camera systems, 28 mobile surveillance systems, 685 unattended ground sensors, 22 handheld equipment devices. the list goes on and on and it

is detailed, and i will be proposing this as an amendment on this bill. to let my colleagues know that this is the recommendation of the men and women who are on our border, who are taking this issue on every single day at their work, in fact under very difficult conditions. i noted the temperature in southern arizona is over 110 degrees today. it's very tough on individuals as they are patrolling our border. but we need helicopters, we need vader radar, we need a whole lot of things and that will be paid for with approximately $6 billion that we provide for in this bill, over $6 billion. you can purchase a lot of equipment that way. and we're going to use the army. we're going to use the united states army to tell us how we can best surveil and enforce the border because of the experience they've had overseas in iraq and afghanistan. so i say to my colleagues, i'm

not only apologizing for this legislation that we have proposed and is sent through the judiciary committee, i am proud of it. i am proud of the fact that -- i am confident that we will secure this border by taking the measures that will be required in this legislation. and i also have to say in all candor, my friends, there are amendments which will be proposed which will assist and make this bill better and improve it. there are also amendments that will be designed to kill it. and i intend -- and i intend to do everything i can to reflect the will of the american people. i will be entering into the record poll after poll after poll that shows that over 70% of the american people if they are confident that we are going to secure our borders and if they are confident that these people will be brought out of the

shadows but they'll have to pay a fine, back taxes, get in line behind everybody else, they support this pathway to citizenship after a ten-year period of having legal status in this country. why is it important for them to have a legal status if they haven't committed crimes and they qualify? my friends, today on street corners all over america particularly in the southwest there's men and women who are standing on a street corner waiting to be picked up by someone and taken to repair their roof. or to cut their grass. or to do menial labor. and you know what they're getting out of that? they're getting below minimum wage because they have no recourse. they have no recourse to any mistreatment they might suffer. so we want to bring these people out of the shadows and yes, they broke our laws and that's why they have to pay such a big penalty. i doubt member of

this body that at one time or another didn't break a law. but we paid a penalty for it, hopefully, and we moved on with our lives. these people have broken our laws and they have to pay a heavy penalty. and there has been pushback, frankly, from our friends in the hispanic community this is too tough, this is too hard. this is too demanding. and i understand that. and i pushed back against them. but to somehow base this opposition on the fact that we cannot get our border secure respected, frankly, is in defines of a -- defiance and in a belief of what the united states united states can do. there was a $170 million failure, s.b.i. net that was the name of it that was supposed to secure our border. but i am confident that we have the technology and we have the

ability and we can get this legislation through with confidence. i see the senator from louisiana is waiting so i'm not going to take too much longer, but the other key to this is workers. and i wasn't, frankly, happy nor were my friends we didn't raise the cap higher than we did for guest workers that come into this country. but i would remind my colleagues, anybody who is in -- graduates from a united states college with science, technology, engineering and math degree and have an offer of employment will be eligible to have a green card to stay in this country. today in postgraduate schools in the stem, science, technology, engineering and math, the majority of the students are from foreign countries. if they want to stay here and work in this country and they have that degree which we all know there's a shortage of, we'll let them. high-tech companies would be able to bring in and keep more

highly skilled workers through h-1b. the bill would raise the cap to $110,000 a year. so all i'm saying is that one of the keys to this is if we secure our borders and we dry up the magnet, then we have to have a way of attracting workers that we need to keep our economy going. and let's be honest, it's pretty tough picking lettuce down in yuma, and they're not a lot of american workers that want to do that. and that's been the history of this country. immigrants have come to this country and they've grabbed the bottom rung and they've moved up. and the bottom rung is pretty tough. and we're going to have these people as guest workers and if they want to become citizens then they apply for a green card, etc. finally, i just want to say that the grassley amendment would -- quote -- "prevent anyone currently illegally in the country from earning r.p.i.

status until effective control." sounds good. let me give my colleagues the testimony of michael fisher, the chief of the u. border patrol who testified in february about this re very issue. first of all, 90% really wouldn't make sense everywhere. we put 90% as a goal because there are sections along the border where we have not only achieved, we've been able to sustain 90% effectiveness. by the way, that's the case in yuma sector on our border, the arizona border. so it's a realistic goal but i wouldn't necessarily and just arbitrarily say 90% is across-the-board because there are other locations where there's a lot less activity and there won't be a lot of activity simply because of terrain features, for instance. where it makes sense we want to go ahead and stars parsing that out within the corridors and within these specific sectors. that's exactly one of the things my amendment does that has

specific provisions of our hardware and capabilities that need to be installed in each section. i thank my friend from louisiana for her patience. i just want to say again to my colleagues, i've seen this movie before. i've been through it before. and we failed in the past. we failed for a variety of reasons. this is our opportunity. if we enact this comprehensive bill now, we will remove a very huge stain on the conscience of the united states of america. we need to bring these people out of the shadows, but we also must assure all our citizens that -- especially in the southern part of my state who live -- that they will live in a secure environment. we can do that. we can send the message to employers that they can't hire someone who is in this country without paying a very heavy

price for doing so. that's what this legislation is all about. i want to thank the distinguished chairman of the judiciary committee for the way he took this bill through his committee, and brought it to the floor of the united states senate. i am in favor of vigorous debate and discussion. we will have plenty of time for amendments and votes on those amendments. this is not a perfect bill that i'm proud of and there are many ways that we can improve it. but fundamentally, we have the basics of a package that i think is violately needed -- vitally needed for the good of this nation. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: while the distinguished senior senator from arizona is still on the floor, i just want to note that during the process of putting this bill together in the committee and having the votes, we had a number of quiet meetings, bipartisan meetings and the president pro tem's office. it was extraordinarily helpful

to have the senator from arizona, senator mccain, there because i feel very knowledgeable about the northern border living an hour's drive from it. his expertise on the southern border, but more importantly, he's -- he and i, senator kennedy, president george w. bush worked for hours and hours, days and daisuke dairs, weeks and weeks, months and months, trying to get a comprehensive immigration bill through once before. we have the possibility before. he said something every one of us could echo. it's not exactly the bill any one of us individually might have written but by the time we get done we could have legislation that will make america better and be true to our principles and be realistic. you could use a whole lot of other adjectives but i wanted to personally thank the

distinguished senior senator from from arizona. and the senator from louisiana is about to speak. police department i would add before she does she's going to talk about an amendment which i strongly support, and i mention that support because we have a number of amendments, both republicans and democrats would support, and i would hope after the other party has their noon caucus we know get to the -- we can get to the point where we can start voting on these. there are a lot of amendments republicans and democrats will vote for together. there are some that will be opposed on one side or the other. but either way, vote on them. vote them up or vote them down. now, as the manager of the bill i could start calling up amendments and move to table. i don't want to do that. we have a lot of good amendments. a lot of good ideas from both republicans and democrats, but

they can't be in the bill until we vote on them. the distinguished senator from louisiana is one that i would hope that the other side would let her amendment come up soon and i yield the floor to her. ms. landrieu: thank you. madam president, and i thank the chairman and the manager of this bill for his support of this particular amendment which i hope is going to be noncontroversial and has to do with really clarifying some technical parts of the law dealing with adoptees and how they are able to claim citizenship. it doesn't have anything really to do with the larger pieces of this bill but it's an opportunity to provide help and support to thousands of children, young people, and even adults that come to this country through the process, the wonderful process of adoption, just to clear up a couple of matters. i'll talk about that in just a minute. but i want to associate myself with the extraordinarily

powerful comments of the senator from arizona, senator john mccain, who without his leadership and without his strong knowledge of the issue that we're dealing with, i don't think the bill with would be on the floor of the united states senate, i don't think we would have a chance to be voting on this important piece of legislation. he particularly along with senator rubio and senator graham but particularly senator mccain, who has spent his adult life on the border in arizona, who has been in public office and has served this country so admirably in so many ways and fashions, understands this issue just about as well as if not better than anyone on the floor. i've had the pleasure of working with him over many years to secure the border as the chair of the homeland security appropriations committee. i can attest to what he says is actually true and factual. the border is not as secure as it could be, but it is

significantly stronger and more secure than it was just five years ago, let alone ten years ago. and he is also correct that we can make improvements on border security and hopefully we will as this bill moves through, but the underlying bill itself takes huge steps in that direction by applying new resources, madam president, to the technologies that are going to help us secure the border. anyone that has been to the border -- and i have traveled there to see with my own eyes at the invitation of senator mccain, which was today great eye opener to me as a senator from louisiana, the only border i'm aware of pombg are water borders. we don't have land borders like arizona and california, and other states, texas. so it was the first time i had seen such a thing. i was absolutely amazed and

somewhat taken aback by how quickly a person could scale the fence, how quickly tunnels can be built under the fence. i don't think some of my friends that are on the republican side that are really concerned -- and we all are, but they talk a lot about it, i'm not sure they do as much as as they talk about it but that's my view, but they talk a lot about spending taxpayer money wisely -- putting more agents on the border and building a higher fence is not going to do it. senator mccain is absolutely correct. what is going to do it is smart technology, leveraged with the resources that he has written in his bill. so if you want to secure the border more which is my intention and as chair of this committee i intend to continue leading in that way, boaft our southern and our northern border as well as providing the coast guard with the resources that they need to interdict strugg

drug smugglers coming into this country. i learned the other day and i'd like to share with this with people who potentially could be listening here that the coast guard has intersented more illegal drugs than the entire land operation last year because they intercept drugs at a wholesale level before they even get to the country. this is about creating a perimeter that secures us against things that we don't want to come into this country, either illegal workers or illegal drugs or illegal human trafficking which is also concerning many people in louisiana and around the country, but it's also important, madam president, to have a border that allows for trade and commerce. we cannot lock ourselves away from the world. so what senator mccain is saying is so true. we have to be the smartest nation on the earth to protect our borders, because we're the most