of this committee. and one of the main things is the extent of liability protection, the importance of the domestic portal of entry for cyber attacks. i would like to ask that you describe what is meant by a civilian portal for senators assembled here today and, also, a rationale why this is important for privacy and other reasons. ..

>> i think many members feel companies won't share unless they have a nearly from liability. could you comment on that? >> so the two different aspects as you stated. one is how do you share with the government what action to take. here's where i think my personal thoughts on this or, that if the government asks the company to do something to protect the network or to do something and mistake is made and it was our fault, then they should have liability protection for that. and they shouldn't stand up to

be sued. i think there is case to that but if ago company to company or if they're sharing data back and forth as they do today i'm not sure the government needs to provide liability insurance that way. sigh think there's two different things. this is something that i think the administration, your folks and we are to bring everybody together, if that's the key point, and i am that. i think we want to get it right. there are subtleties to what we just said. so there are different cases and conditions upon when we would act and how we would act on what level of liability you would have. and so i think those are the ones that we truly we've got to get exactly right. from my perspective we just can't grant everybody gets liability protection. and on the other hand we don't want to say do something for the government and if it goes bad you are on your own. sigh think there's something in the middle that we have to get right. from my perspective is when the government asked to do something

we ought to have at least part of that liability protection. >> thank you. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, madam chair. and thank you all so much for being here. i do have some questions about the situation we're in, but i think what i would like to do is wait until we get into classified. i think you've said about as much as you can say in a setting like this. i do think that the senator from nebraska though raises an important consideration, probably not talking about enough. i think by any standards this is a very far-reaching program that really does have tremendous implications to the general public. and having the military, as he said, your record is exemplary, you're a tremendous american. my dad did 20 years active duty. i'll do anything i can to help you all in that regard.

but i do think that the idea of having a military control, we've had those firewalls in the past, and that is a discussion at some point that i think we need to have. and would appreciate, again, at some point your contribution in that. but i do think that that's very, very important. we're not talking about that. in regard to cybersecurity, secretary mcfeely, what are the top countries, and you can chime in on this also, gender, one of the top countries that are paying? who is involved in this? >> we do have an answer for that. i believe that would be a more appropriate discussion in our classified setting. >> so it's not okay to decide who is getting after a? >> i don't believe in this setting based on the fact that our information and our assessment is based on our classified work are i don't

believe that, i think i would be overstepping the line. >> okay. you mention in your testimony fbi's collaboration with state and local law enforcement. again, it's hard for them to deal with this. this is something that they are not most of the times equipped to do. do you feel that the federal government specifically fbi is doing enough to eight our state and local departments when they're faced with a cyber attack? >> you mean specific governments, or we're working with state and local law enforcement -- >> state and local law enforcement. >> so i think the short answer to that is no, but it happy to report. we have i believe a working plan moving forward. about two months ago we met with various association, associations representing police and sheriffs and investigators at the state and local side. and through conversation going

through really a discussion about where law enforcement is with the cyberthreat, we realized electively that information is not flowing down to the state and local departments, and even in the institute where it was, they did not have the capability or the level of competence to even address it. we decide that we need to address that. we have worked a pilot plan out, and it's going to be the centerpiece of this will be the internet crime complaint center where we literally get thousands of complaints in a year from people who have been a fraud over the internet. most of the complaints that come in do not meet federal prosecutor guidelines. in other words, it's not something that a united states attorney's office will routinely prosecute, and it's not something, and because this is, these are frauds that complaints, either the fbi or secret service would routinely

investigate. but because state and locals confidence level is not at the level it should be, it simply falling off. >> i couldn't hear your words. competence? i couldn't hear you. are you saying confidence or competence? >> competent. technical capabilities. so what we've worked out is a pilot project where we are going to package up these types of threats come and actually disseminate them direct to the major departments where the victims are located. at the same time we're going to increase our outreach to stay of local law enforcement and give them the tools and the training that they need to get them up to that level of technical competence that they need. >> thank you. >> could i add to that please? >> jerk. >> so, our secret service work with the fbi in a number of cases as mr. mcfeely,

indicated in the joint task force, we have a national computer forensic institute in alabama. we've trained over 1500 state and local law enforcement prosecutors and judges are in order to be able to deal with this. what we are dealing with is mostly their competence or the part of, not the national sturdy threat but a criminal fraud threats, is the stealing of credit cards and other personally identifiable information and using that to take money out of banks around the world. you heard about the $46 million that was taken out of to banks from the middle east, including a large amount in this country. that's the kind of training where we can give them their competence and we can work with them, and that's something that we and the fbi are trying to do very much, outreach that we've had to the various police

associations and other things are part of it. but the main thing is to get the training and then to work together. a lot of this happens overseas and that's where we have to be involved. in order to be able to trace those activities overseas, which state of local law-enforcement don't really have the ability to do. but it's a joint program and really quite successful. >> thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, madam chair, and i want to thank you all for being here, particularly general alexander. i want to thank you for coming today. thank you for your service for country. i ability of the slides the committee has provided and they're very helpful. we will span over 13 billion unclassified cyber activities, seven agencies are involved. the network defense that every agency must do. according to my notes wikileaks incident in 2010, a presidential executive order directed agencies to improve classified network security. and create a committee to oversee those improvements.

so we've had three years to improve the control of classified networks and information. what everyone thinks of edward stout and looks as if we have a big problem that is internal, not external -- edward snowden. so you tell me that the president is requested 13 billion in cyber spending for fy '14. and yet a contractor, not even someone who is accountable to your chain of command or anyone else in the government is able to get his hands on a copy of the fisa court order allowing the collection of metadata from verizon. how on earth does this happen? and why does a contractor have access to information that we are spending $13 billion to prevent outsiders from getting their hands on? >> so that's one of the great concerns we both have in that in our networks assistant administration of is that works, the i.t. infrastructure was outsourced about 14 years ago to

move more, to push more overworked out to contractors. as a consequence, many in government, not just us, have assistant administrators who are contractors working and running our networks. they don't have total visibility of the network but they did key parts to it. and in this case this individual was an assistant administrator with access to key parts of the network. so we've got to address that. that is of serious concern to us and something that we have to fix. >> i mean, from your perspective you anticipate a recommendation coming forward that this work be done in house, contract? >> senator, i'm not prepared to make that statement yet. i don't want to react because there are good contractors out there that are doing a good job. i think what we have to do is come back and perhaps look at the oversight mechanism that we have. the checks and balances that are

in the system, the automated checks and balances that exist, and what we can do to improve those. as you may know, what the department is going through in the joint information environment would greatly assist in protecting the state exit going to what we call jit is a huge step in the right direction. i think those cloud security and encrypting data things we can and should do but that's going to take time. i do want to mislead you. this is a significant effort for the defense department to move to. but it's one that i know i personally talked to secretary on, and the chairman. we are pushing this. it is the right way to go. i wish we had a. i wish we'd go back in time. nsa is doing the same. >> financial services, i'm told by folks that i deal with on the banking committee that almost every night someone is trying to hack their system. do you have the mechanism by which you can follow-up if the

bank gave you an ip address if they think that is doing the problem? and if it's not the right question you can shape it anyway you want. or do you not have the mechanism to be able to follow-up? >> we do as a team, the team here, almost if it's a criminal or other, start with the fbi being the team, we may have people on the team. at the fbi saw this as a foreign one they would get that over to us so we act as a part. dhs has a key role in that team to see what he does. we've made great progress in bringing the team together. bottom line to your answer is someone on this team would take it. normally that leadership would probably be in the case as you described, fbi with dhs and us. >> just -- >> on that we gave the 200,000 ip addresses to individuals within this country to the banks. excuse me, to block windows -- some of those are overseas but

we also sent them to friendly governments overseas. so as a matter of course we do this on a regular basis as part of this team. >> so let me ask you this but if the bank comes to you with an ip address that they believe is trying to hack their system, do you guys follow up on that? >> in exactly the same way. the three of us, the three agencies that we represent, go and provide some forensic assistance with respect to that particular incident. and then we provide a larger mitigation message out to the rest of the communities. that can't be replicated. >> then to go back to the bank that has initiated this investigation and tell them what you have done? >> we do. when we put out the information we don't necessarily indicate which bank was affected. we anonymize that information unless the particular firm once it public. >> okay. so when the bank comes up to me and says, look, we give them a

ip addresses and they don't follow up on it, you classified as being blown? >> sir, i guess be to each and every one of those instances but what i'm telling you is what the proposal, the way we work as a team in order to try to do that. and if there's a bank that is spoken to about this, we'd be happy to give back to them and they're prepared for you to tell me about that. >> i don't know if they are but maybe are, i can't say. it's multiple, multiple banks have talked to me about it. so i just want to say thank you very much but i would say that there's been a lot of come if i might editorialize just for a second, madam chair, there's been a lot of concern about what's happened in the last couple of weeks. and i served on the intel committee. i do survive home and stupid to serve on intel and i will tell you i think it's positive for this country to be having the discussion we're having. there maybe some negatives involved here but i think it's positive to have the discussion so that we are thinking about civil liberties and we're

thinking about freedom as it revolves around a fascist duty to you guys all have a tough job but we will get through this and hopefully we will secure both, our security under freedoms when this is done. thank you very much. >> madam chairman, thank you very much for having this hearing. is baloney a montana firm? >> i was being nice but i was going to refer to how excrement. >> thank you so much for having this thing. let me start by saying that i think our nation's most important factor security research is its cyber workforce. without the right people using it even most sophisticated technology is really only of limited use. that's what i think it's important that we successfully identified recruit and train cyber workforce to form the foundation of any of our national security plan. dhs and nsa then of academic excellence are important tools in this effort, in my state,

washington, hosts a number of these centers of excellence. we have the information insurance education, we have the information insurance research center in seattle and information assurance two-year education center at washington committed to college. and together those programs really offer cybersecurity education and training at the two-year undergraduate masters and ph.d level. if you could comment on how you think these centers of excellence plan to your respective cyber hiring pipelines and workforce development programs, i would love your comments on that. >> let me go first on that. we absolutely are dependent upon that form of education as a way to get qualified individuals into our workforce. we come at dhs, haven't outreach program to kenya to college generally but also to the

centers of excellence as well as the university. the only comment that i would make is we don't have enough people around the country trained to do all the jobs that we in government and the private sector need to have done. i think actually one of the educational frontiers for this country is to create that kind of a workforce. for all of us. so that certain something that we support very much at dhs. dhs. >> general, do you want to comment? >> that is a huge program that we do with over 140 different schools, collectively between dhs, and as a, and the creek as we set up there with those schools. this is not just to get a thing, you go do it. you set up a curriculum. it helps ensure that the students that are going to that will have the background we need in information assurance, and now in cyber operations is a new one, so there is double credentials that they can get. and i would just encourage your schools, under a u.s. look at

that and we're getting tremendous pressure. these are very difficult to get into. this is not something we just grant. it's interesting because we've got a number of schools to bring this forward. some of them do not meet the qualifications and delicate that accreditation. so they work through the. we work with them. we have a great outreach. i think this is great for our country to build these kinds of -- >> we have to have that workforce, i agree. also i know that a coherent national cybersecurity strategy really requires some cooperation. you've got a collaboration between government, private industry and academia. as we saw with the development of the information economy and the internet, clustering these universities and companies in the appropriate government agencies together offer some really great benefits. within the savage could industry, that region have sort of emerged as leading cyber cluster, if you will. you need to national recognize

research that has to offer, from the great a great environment for cybersecurity to really flourish. they have some reall really gret stakeholders to think of the center for information insurance and cybersecurity at the university of washington. we have great influence with technology and defense companies, microsoft, amazon, blowing. and we have two military installations jointly. and i really think personally how those relationships have really benefited that region. secretary gallagher, i would love it if you could talk about the importance of the so-called cyber clusters. like the one we have in my state and what steps nist and comments are taking to really promote those. >> the notion of clusters as way of greeting this amplification effect that you talk about is broader even a just cybersecurity but, in fact, it is a key part of our strategy and others like advanced manufacturing. what tends to happen is you get sort of a critical mass we have

enough expertise that it creates attracting and pooling and that taliban is really starts to create wins, attract the right kind of companies and government agencies and academic programs. i've taken has to be a key part of the cybersecurity education effort as well. because an injured talk about workforce development. so you're going to have to bring together, ma one of the reasons the public-private partnerships are going to be such a key element here. we are seeing some of that already. senator mikulski provided a program funded through nist, the national side history center of excellence, which leverages maryland and virginia which have also been looking at these sort of effect to bring in companies to work collaboratively on cybersecurity and create this tipping effect that you so eloquently described are part of

clusters. >> great. i'm a big proponent of that. i of that. i'm out of time but i did want to send a question about the national guard. i think as we move forward we're going to have to make sure that they are coordinating with them. they will be our boots on the ground if there's ever an issue, and i'm hoping that we're doing the right thing. madam chairman, i would like to submit that question. >> thank you very much, senator. and we hope there will be follow-ups that will go even deeper to this. in terms of your clustering, we are at the epicenter of cybersecurity because with the national security headquarters there. where the national institutes of states headquartered there. we'll have the fbi headquartered there. we have university -- >> we will take the outside of the country. >> thank you very much. i think senator shelby, do you want to say something?

>> one last observation. i just want to thank the panel, all of you, for your service to the country. the way you conducted yourself before you got here today, and what you have done here today, for america. and i think it has to be said, we worked together. thank you. >> well said, senator shelby. if there are no further questions this afternoon, senators may submit additional questions for the committee official record, and we will request the witnesses response within 30 days. as previously announced, and as part of our practice on security issues, we will now move to a closed briefing. before we do i would like to make some general closing comments. first of all i really do want to thank the witnesses for participating. the hearing hasn't been quite the way we originally thought but it was a good hearing. people do have a right to know. people have a right to say their voices. that's why we responded.

but i think the big national debate started after 9/11 is the inherent tension between security and privacy. it is time now for you, a fresh national debate. it is beginning the usual committee structure. the second thing is, is that many of us are concerned about what is the access to people and businesses information? now, there are those with the snowdon revelation wonder about government access to that information, whether it's through the nsa or whether it's through the irs or whatever. before asking what is the government doing? the purpose of this hearing, however, is who was waiting the information that we have picked some maybe people are concerned about what is nsa doing, but i'm

concerned about the people every single day that are trying to get access to somebody's social security number, their medicare number, their checking account number, their smartphone information so they can either steal from them or lead to other access to the bank account, to the other kinds of assets. so we are worried about that. i'm concerned every day about the number of people out there trying to come up with a great intellectual entrepreneur of our country that are coming up with new ideas and new products to create a new jobs for the 21st century. and they are being stolen and the greater cyber espionage heist. so why find a cure for cancer when you can try to steal it from fda or the patent office? i'm worried about that. then i worry about things like the great. and i worry about access to those were trying to wait agree. tonight there's a babbling

storm. may be hitting maryland washington area. we know when the great be shut down it is a terrible consequence in terms of our society. i don't want ever to be a great shut down here in the greater capital region or anywhere in the united states. for the purpose of this hearing, to go after those who have predatory intent, predatory, premeditated intent against either an individual or business or our critical infrastructure. there are those who also are concerned about is government now passing beyond a red line and civil liberties. i think we got to have that debate. i think we ought to have that discussion. it could be the subject of another hearing here. there will be a feinstein hearing. they will be the judiciary committee hearing, and i'm sure. but, you know, what? this is america. this is america, and people have

a right to know. they have a right to have their public officials to explain it. so i think it's been a great hearing. so, therefore, this committee will now stand in recess. after the closed briefing until the morning of thursday june 20, where we will vote on their spending allocations, and also take up the very important legislation of veterans affairs and our agricultural appropriations. this committee now stand in recess. [inaudible conversations]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> coming up in a moment a hearing on cybersecurity and government surveillance progra programs. >> on weeknights watch key public policy events. every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and their schedules at our website. you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> the u.s. senate continues debate today on the immigration bill. the measure would boost border security and workplace enforcement, allowed tens of thousands of new high and low

skilled workers into the country a great a 13 year path to citizenship for the 11 million immigrants in the country illegally. a number of amendments are being negotiated, however, no votes are scheduled. live now to the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the chaplain, retirel barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal spirit, we trust you to order our steps. show us your path and teach us to follow you. lord, guide us by your truth and instruct us with your wisdom. today, help our senators to give you their challenges, as they

remember that you have promised to make them more than conquerors. infuse them with a spirit of peace, and may they find new strength in your gift of quiet confidence. may they trust you above all and through all, as you pour into their hearts a greater love for you and humanity. use us, o god, to bring healing to those this pain, hope to those this despair, and peace to those in war. we pray in your awesome name.

amen. the president pro tempore: 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. mr. reid: mr. president? the president pro tempore: the majority leader. mr. reid: following my statement, the republican leader will be recognized. i ask unanimous consent that i be recognized when he completes his statement. the president pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, following leader remarks, the senate will resume consideration of s. 44, the comprehensive immigration bill. following the remarks of senator mcconnell and the reporting of the immigration bill, i ask that

i be recognized -- but i'm sure that'll be the case anyway, so ... the president pro tempore: without objection. mr. reid: does the bill need to be reported? at the teethe president pro tem: 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 about i will to provide for comprehensive immigration real estate form and for other purposes. -- comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president? the president pro tempore: the senator from nevada. mr. reid: when alfredo costenado crossed the border into the united states two decades ago, he didn't climb over a fence, he didn't swim across a river, he didn't try over the border, he didn't walk

through the desert. when alfredo crossed the border, he was a little boy, two years old, perched on his father's shoulders. the choice to leave mexico was an easy one for alfredo's father, but the rumble of hunger in his belly and his son's belly convinced alfredo's dad to leave behind the world he knew for a hopeful, better life in america. he wrote me a letter addressed to me. here's what he said: "i lived in a shack with one wall of my house leaning on my neighbor's. the other three were made of sticks and mud bricks. i wanted to give my family a better life and so i hear the land of united states is the land of opportunity. all i want is to have a sliver of that opportunity for my feavment and sfamily. and so with his wife by his side

and his son on his shoulders, alfredo's father came to america illegally. alfredo was a 2-year-old boy, as i mentioned, at the time. he's conscience of the opportunities available only to united states citizens, opportunities that aren't available to him because of his immigration status. when his friends applied for parttime jobs in high school, alfredo knew he could never work legally. when he was researching a paper for a class, alfredo was deny add library card because he had no identification. when he filled out an application for his dream school, selecting noncitizen on the online form, alfredo received an error message in bold red letters that said, "noncitizens cannot apply for entry in this institution." alfredo's life in nevada bears

little in common with the shacks of stick and mud he left behind, and for him america truly is the land of opportunity his father envisioned. yet until recently alfredo could not get a social security number, a driver's license, or even a full-time job because he is an documented immigrant. -- an undocumented immigrant. but that hasn't stopped him from reaching for his dreams. this when he wrote in addition to what we've already heard: "my parents constantly told me to volunteer whenever possible and be a good citizen. he said it would pay off in the future." soal tray dough worked hard in high school, volunteered at a local hospital, enrolled in the college of southern nevada. since he can't find steady work, it has been difficult to afford tuition while he helps his family. but he believes things are about to change for the better.

thanks to a directive by president obama, alfredo and 800,000 dreamers just like him won't be deported and will be able to work and drive legally. alfredo has already applied for several jobs. he even has gotten a few interviews. he looks forward to learning to drive, going back to school, completing his associate's degree and one day owning a business. president obama's directive isn't a permanent answer. the republican majority in the house of representatives voted last week, mr. president, to resume deportation of outstanding young people just like alfredo who were brought to this country through no fault of their own. remember, this boy got here on his dad's shoulders much the directivdirect -- who live in td states without the proper paperwork. it is more important than ever that congress pass a permanent fix for this nation's broken immigration system. alfredo believes in us. he believes we will succeed.

he believes we will find the political will to pass commonsense bipartisan immigration reform and do it now. his letter contained a reminder of what's at stake. "it's not just a piece of legislation. that piece of paper holds our dreams, ambitions, and potential in it." i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, it is my you understanding that the immigration bill was reported. so we're on that bill right now, is that right? the presiding officer: that's correct. mr. reid: okay. and the pending amendment is? it is my understanding -- the presiding officer: the pending amendment is grassley number 195 -- 1195. mr. reid: mr. president, in

just a brief moment i am going to move to table that amendment, but i want everyone to understand that i have talked to senator grassley yesterday and told him i was going to do this, and the staffs have been advised this is the case. so my unanimous consent request is that i'm going to move to table grassley, and i have just done that but i ask unanimous consent that the vote on the motion to table occur at 10:00 a.m. and the time following senator mcconnell's remarks be five minutes for the opposition and five minutes for those supporting the motion to table. and so it may run a little after 10:00, but that's according to how long senator mcconnell speaks. ferraro is therthe presiding ofs there objection? without objection. the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, the obama economy has been

pretty rough on our nation's young people. if you are a teenager looking for work over the summer break or a high schooler looking toker a part-time job -- looking for a part time job at school, good luck with that. the unemployment rate for 1 16-19-year-olds is 25%. 25%, which is near historic highs. if you are a college graduate, things don't look much brighter. in fact, the unemployment rate for 20-24-year-olds is over 13%. it hardly needs mentioning at this point that many americans are likely to se to see their hs cut or their jobs disappear altogether as obamacare continues to come online. we know the president's new health care law will impose about 20,000 pages of onerous regulations and probably many more than that when all is said and done. many of these regulations will hit small businesses, which

create the majority of new jobs in our country. many of these regulations will hit part-time workers very hard. for instance, the law punishes businesses if they allow employees to work too many hours. so it's no surprise when we read any of these stories about companies slashing hours. and it punishes businesses if they dare to give jobs to too many people, so of course it will probably lead them to slash jobs or actually limit hiring. i'm sure the washington democrats who drafted obamacare thought they were striking some blow here for -- quote, unquote -- "fairness" with these job-crushing ideas. well, now the youth of our country are finding out what democrats' so-called fairness means for them, what it actually means for them. it means smaller paychecks or no paychecks at all. it must seem pretty unfair from

wither they stand. but it actually gets a lot worse. many experts predict that obamacare will also cause health care premiums to skyrocket, especially for younger americans. some studies show that young men in particular could see rate increases of 50% -- 50% -- or more. think about that. you work four tail off in high school just to get into a good college, you spend four years pulling all-nighters and cramming for finals, all for the privilege of putting 0en a gown, accepting your degree, and potentially spending who knows how long fishermahow long frantr work. and then if you get lucky, your hours get cut or maybe your job gets cut altogether. you get a letter in the mail saying, sorry, your premium is going up by double digits. can't pay the higher premium?

too bad. if you don't, uncle sam slaps you with a penalty tax and for all the talk of subsidies, these payments from taxpayers might not even make up for the higher cost. i would be pretty disillusioned if i were in that position, and i think everyone else would as well. well, it could get worse if washington democrats don't start get serious about working with republicans on student loans, too. as imane i mention the last wee, president obama and republicans actually agree on the way forward for student loan reform. as the secretary of education told "politico" yesterday, "my preference a would be for a longer-term solution and not to just keep solving it this year and then next year and then the next year." soy it's timso it's time for see democrats to stop blocking us from enacting permanent reform because student rates are set to

double if we don't act soon. several senate democratic leaders have basically already admitted to the media that they'd rather have a failed bill they can perform orph into a campaign issue than a signed bill that can help 100% of students. it is time n.r.a. t time for th. these young men and women may be drown in the obama economy but it's not because they're dumb or lazy or apathetic. it's because of policies dreamed up here in washington during the years of the obama administration. and as the days go by, these young americans are discovering just how unfairly washington democrats have treated them in the past few years. finally, mr. president, on another matter, we've been discussing on a daily basis whether the majority leader will keep the commitment he made at

the beginning of the last two congresses that no rules changed would be made other than by following the rules. in other words, the commitment was i won't break the rules of the senate in order to change the rules of the senate. my friend, the majority leader, has made that commitment on two occasions. he made it in january of 2011 for the next two congresses -- we're in the second congress now. at the beginning of this congress we had an extensive discussion about rules changes after which the vast majority of senate republicans supported two rules changes and two standing orders. and in return for those changes that we made, the majority leader committed once again that for this congress he would not pull the nuclear trigger, as we call it around here. use the nuclear option. in other words, turn the senate into the house. so the majority leader will be confronted with his promise, his

commitment on a daily basis until we understand fully that he intends to keep his commitment to the senate and to the american people. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, leadership time is reserved. mr. leahy: i suggest the absence of a quorum and the time equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. until 10:00 a.m. the time will be equally divided on the motion to table the amendment offered by the senator from iowa. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the proponents be given five minutes and the opponents be given five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: and then we vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i rise to speak against the amendment offered by my friend and colleague, the ranking member of the judiciary committee.

what does this amendment do? it's very simple. it says that the 11 million people living in the shadows cannot even get r.p.i. status, the provisional status by which they can work and travel, until -- until -- the secretary of homeland security says the border is fully secure. now, we all know that that will take years and years and years, and that is why an amendment very similar to this came up in the judiciary committee and was defeated 12-6 with two republicans joining the democrats in voting against it: mr. flake and mr. graham, who were part of our so-called gang of eight. the problem with the amendment is very simple whafplt do we do -- what do we do for five or six years in the border is fully secure? we need to bring equipment there. we need to build fences there. we need to all of the kinds of things that are in our bill.

we provide $6.5 billion to build $1 billion worth of border fence, to deploy sensors, towers, radars, drones that will cover the entire border. so what are we telling those 11 million? if you hide successfully from the police, then maybe five years from now you can stay here and get the right to work and the right to travel. this clearly would undo the entire theme and structure of the immigration bill that has such bipartisan support that is before us today. and again, let me repeat, as i understand it, it is opposed by all the members of the gang of eight, the four democrats and the four republicans, for the very reason that it will take years and years till the border is secure. and to wait that long, we'll have millions more come across the borders illegally. the number of illegal immigrants in america will increase, and we may never get to real

immigration reform that is needed, so desperately needed by the country. so i would strongly urge that this amendment be defeated. the american people made it resoundingly clear they want us to move forward with immigration reform in a careful, balanced and bipartisan way. they want us to secure the border and they want us to be reasonable about the 11 million who are here and about future immigration so we can grow the american economy. that's what our bill does. this proposal would undo much of that without proposing any real solutions as to what we do before that. it has bipartisan opposition. and i would strongly urge that it be defeated. and i yield the rest of my time to the chairman of our judiciary committee, senator leahy. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, first i have six unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate with the approval

of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that the request be granted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, this amendment my friend from iowa would significantly delay even the initial registration process for the 11 million undocumented individuals in the country. we believe the pathway to citizenship has to be earned. it's also got to be attainable and this would further delay a process that already would take at least 13 years. bringing 11 million people out of the shadows is not only the right thing to do, it's the best thing to do to keep our country safe. we would know who is here. we could focus our resources on who poses a threat. it's also necessary. we've been pouring billions of dollars into border security in recent years. we made enormous progress in the last immigration bills in 2006 and 2007. and this bill takes even more.

and i will have, as i said yesterday on the floor, i'm going to have to oppose this amendment. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: now, i want to remind my colleagues that we were promised -- we were promised an open and fair process in this legislation. the fact that the majority is moving to table my amendment proves that this so-called open and fair process is a farce. the majority is afraid to have an up-or-down vote on my amendment. they're apparently afraid to have an open debate and vote on a provision that ensures true border security before legalization, and that's what the people of this country want. they claim to be open to

improving the bill, but this motion to table shows that they're not ready to fundamentally change the bill. by tabling my amendment, the majority is stifling progress on this bill. they are refusing to have an amendment amendmen process to i. this is not the right way to start off on a very important bill. we only do immigration reform once every 25 years, so what's the hurry? surely we need an amendment process in which true immigration reform can succeed. there's a lesson to be learned from the 1986 legislation that's now the law of the land. then we legalized first and thought we were going to secure the border later, which we never did. so this amendment is the first of many that will improve the

bill and do what the authors of the bill say that they want to do -- secure the border -- and do what the american people expect us to do. the american people are being asked to accept legalization program in exchange for that compassionate approach, they'd be assured that the laws are going to be enforced. but as we read the details of the bill, it's clear that the approach taken is legalize first, enforce later -- the same mistake that was made in 1986. my amendment would fundamentally change that. the amendment that is now pending would require the secretary to certify to congress that the secretary has maintained effective control over the entire southern border for at least six months before processing applications for legalization. it's a commonsense approach. border security first, like

promised; legalize next. if the bill passes as is, the secretary only needs to submit two plans before processing people through the legalization program. we don't need to pass anymore legislation that tells this administration to do a job that's already required of them that they're not doing because people want laws enforced. nevertheless, the bill would start legalization even if the strategies that the secretary submits to congress are flawed and inadequate. what if this secretary isn't committed to fencing? what if this secretary believes that the border is more secure than ever? well, in fact, the secretary told the committee she thought the borders were secure. that should concern all of us. legalization status is more than probation. this r.p.i. status is in fact

legalization. once a person gets r.p.i., they get the freedom to live in the united states. they can travel, work, and benefit from everything our country offers. r.p.i. status is de facto permanent legalization. we all know that it will never be taken away. and people that say that 10 years down the road if we don't have the borders secure that you can have -- that you're going to take back and make these people -- classify them as illegal again, that's naive. given the history of these types of programs, we know it will never end of the my amendment improves the trigger and fulfills the wish of the american people. my amendment ensures the border is secured before one person gets legal status. if we pass this bill as it is, there will be no pressure on this administration or future administrations to secure the border. there will be no push by the legalization advocates to get that job done. we need to work together.

we need to secure the border for several reasons so that we're not back here in the same position 25 years ago saying we made a mistake 25 years ago, like we now know we made -- like we know now we made a mistake. we need to protect sovereignty and protect national sciewmplet the secretary would have to prove that we have effective control for six months before the applications for immigrant statistic us are approved. this bill doesn't stand a chance at getting to the president. so my amendment is a first and necessary step to fixing this issue. i yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, my dear friend -- and we've served together in the congress for more than three decades; i care a great deal about him; he is a

fine man, a good legislator -- but i think -- the only criticism i have is he must be reading my speech. the speech he just gave is almost a carbon copy of what i have been saying. that we shouldn't have this 60-vote threshold. for him to say that we're going to have 50 votes, he should go back and read my speeches. i move to table the grassley reading of the amendment grassas and nays. the clerk: the question occurs on amendment 1195 offered by the senator from iowa. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 57, the nays are 43. the motion is agreed to. the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to reconsider that. a senator: lay on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: for the benefit of members -- the presiding officer: could we have order. the senate will be in order. mr. reid: mr. president, we've had a umin of amendments filed -- we've had a number of amendments filed. and i would like to move forward on trying to move this legislation along. that's what this is all about. so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be in order and they be called up in the order that i offer them here:

thune 1197, landrieu 1222, vitter 1228, tester 1198, heller 1227. that the time until 11:30 be equally divided between the it would managers or their designees for debate on these amendments, that at that time -- that is, 11:30, the senate proceed to vote on the amendments in the order listed. there be in second-degree amendments in order. all amendments be subject to a 60-affirmative vote threshold. there be two minutes equally divided between the votes. all after the first vote be 10 minutes in duration. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. grassley: mr. president, reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: the no rt from iowa. mr. grassley: -- and i have an suggestion that we can agree for the first four amendments on the list. mr. reid: all right, i would just ask -- mr. grassley: i object. i object.

mr. reid: you object to the whole thing? the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. reid: i thought we had a deal there. mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i therefore ask, because of the objection, i ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be in order to be called up: thune 1197, landrieu 1222, vitter 1228, tester 119, heller 122. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. grassley: reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i suggest to the majority leader that we can agree to what you have requested except for heller amendment 1227. mr. reid: okay, i'm disappointed that my colleague's amendments is not going to be part of this. but maybe we can work on that at a subsequent time? mr. grassley: yes. the presiding officer: is there objection to the request, as modified? mr. grassley: no objection to the request, as modified. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. reid: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: while we're trying to determine the best way to move forward 0en thes one theses -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. reid: while we're trying to determine thousand proceed on these four amendments that are in order, i would ask unanimous consent that the senator from new mexico, senator heinrich, being allowed to speak for 15 minutes to give his maiden speech before the senate. during that 15-minute period of time, we'll try to get a way to proceed on these matters.

that's my agreement i ask. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask that i be recognized after he finishes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heinrich: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. heinrich: mr. president, i will ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heinrich: thank you, mr. president. thank you, mr. president, for the opportunity to address this chamber today. mr. president, i am a strong believer that innovation is what america does best, that ban boundless wonder abc news curiosity can lead to revolutionary discoveries. that diligence an optimism can break down barriers.

the presiding officer: there will be or. -- there will be order. mr. heinrich: mr. president, i am a believer that technology abc news, more importantly, the scientific method are how we can best meet many of our 21st century challenges. abc news this is indea time of great challenge for our nation. there's no question that it's easier to legislate in a time of peace abc news prosperity than in a time of economic recovery and global conflict. but americans, mr. president, are no strangers to adversity. time abc news again we have shown our ingenuity an perseverance. the very characteristic of our nation has been shaped by hard work an inmoivation. that is america's story. and i am certain that our capacity to deal with the challenges that we face rests heavily on our ability to make policy that is driven by facts, by data, and, yes,

mr. president, by science. historically america has respooned to challenges with transformative innovation innov: electricity, radio, television, transistors, silicon computer processors ang and the rise of e internet. in my own state of new mexico, we have built our economy ashes some of the greatest innovations of the modern era. new mexico tech, the university of new mexico, abc news new mexico state university, offer advanced grease in quell century abc news engineering as early as the 1890's. after world war i, curtland and cannon military bases in our state provided supreme training bases for the new flight wing of the army that would eventually be call the united states air force. during world war t-ii, new mexico was home to the manhattan project which installed loss

aloe most national labs abc news sansia national laboratories. through the collabo ravings its major defense abc news research installations, new mexico has become the birthplace of technologies that have changed the world. and over time our national labs, our universities and intends installations have proven to be invaluable to research and development, not only for our state but for the entire nation. they led key research efforts during the space race abc news continue to develop modern defense abc news computer technology. the presiding officer: members, please take your conversations out of the will. mr. heinrich: often,

mr. president, privating with -- partnering with private sector corporations. as technology transfer, sansia labs abc news intel came together on the development of radiation processors for defenseances space applications. with the help of our state universities, new mexico will continue to lead the way in low-carbon energy technology. the university of new mexico as to campus is a prime example of the public abc news private sectors working together to employ cleaner energy. they are campus is home to a project in partnership with loss aloe most lab. sang at that fay community college and new mexico state university are developing boy yow fuels as a source of liquid renewable energy. in addition to our universities

benefiting from energy transperfection loss aloe most university is will you promoting growth in our private sector. this program encourages future entrepreneurs to start businesses using technologies first developed within our national labs. so far the lab-to-market strategy has brought $20 million in revenue for the 19 companies that have started under this issue in. today the technology industry both public abc news private supports nearly 50,000 jobs in our small state at over 2,000 technology establishments throughout new mexico. it is our history of innovation abc news new technology that drive new mexico's economy abc news our contributions to this great nation. as our country faces the challenges of bringing our economy back from a devastating recession abc news reversing the effects of climate change, we must embrace the challenge abc news lead the world in

innovation abc news clean energy. using science as our guide to setting public policy. yet during my time in washington, mr. president, too oftentimes i have seen scientific integrity yuns mine and scientific research politicized in an effort to advance ideological or even purely political agendas. mr. president, i have watched as too many of us in elected office moved from being entitle to our own opinions -- something which our democracy relies upon -- to embracing the belief that somehow we are entitle to our own facts. mr. president, none of us are entitled to our own facts. as someone who began my adult life studying engineering, i believe we must better use science as a guiding tool in our deliberations on how to set public policy. whether for our national security,ure energy independence or nation's ability to compete

in the global economy, our efforts and our solutions should be rooted in fact and driven by the best available science. but also, mr. president, with a keen eye to the innovations that are transforming our nation before our very eyes. by investing in education, in research, in engineering, in our teachers abc news in our professors, we will lead the world in scientific abc news technological innovation. even in this challenging fiscal environment, we must make the investments that have paid dividend for our nation time abc news time again. my own path, mr. president, to scientific inquiry began in the first grade. i had a teacher named mrs. taylor who saw in me a thirst for knowledge and discovery. she fed that desire even when it meant considerable extra work and planning supplemental curriculum that wasn't part of

her normal work plan. she was that cines of teacher that could take the extra time to make sure that a student hungry to read never ran out of new books to explore or that a student interested in fossils abc news dinosaurs had extra projects and materials to feed their interest. i can honestly say, mr. president, that if it weren't for mrs. taylor, my own life would have taken some very different turns. when we ensure that every student has a mrs.s taylor, we ensure that our children won't just speans their afternoons playing on tablets abc news smartphones, but that they'll have the education to grow up designing abc news building the next generation of technology and devices. we shall harness their natural intellectual curiosity to solve humankind's greatest challenges. from the classrooms of our elementary schools to the

research labs of our universities to the grounds of our national laboratories and research institutes to the offices of venter capital firms and innovative tech start-ups, the frontiers of human knowledge can be bansless abc news if we harness them we'll continue to fuel our nation's prosperity. no area of innovation abc news science will be more important in the coming years than our nation's ability to tackle climate change abc news to lead the world in clean energy technology. america can angz must become truly energy independent abc news we must move from traditional carbon-intensive energy sources to ever-cleaner alternatives. investing in cleaner energy will create quality jobs and protect our nation from the serious economic abc news tree genetic risks associated with our reliance on foreign energy. abc news i must take the opportunity to say how impressed

i've been with the current bipartisan efforts to embrace energy efficiency. the whether your genome is job creation, economic vitality, saving consumers money or lower your carbon footprint, conservation is not only conservative, it is effectivement. getting the most out of every unit of energy we use should be a concern for all levels of government: state, federal, local, and for community organizations as well. mr. president, i've spent a lot of time traveling across my home state of new mexico highlighting how innovation and investment in new energy technology can help create good jobs and grow our economy. new mexico is home to innovators like import corporation, a leading provider of compound semiconductor based components who recently deployed a solar system but the conversion efficiency of sunlight to

electricity of 39%, a remarkable feat. sapphire energy in columbus, new mexico whose producing drop in crude oil from algae, sunlight and co2. and energy storage projects in los alamos and albuquerque that are demonstrating mart red technology with solar p.v. storage fully integrated into the utility grid. these are just a few examples. it's clear that new mexico is already capitalizing on a diversified but rapidly changing innovating energy sector. to help the nation transition to cleaner sources of energy, i'm supporting efforts to streamline permitting for renewable energy projects while still protecting access to our public lands for family and sportsmen to enjoy. another key to further development of clean energy is to alleviate the bottle necks in the electric power grid.

new mexico is an energy exporter and i'm working to spur substantial renewable energy development by adding the transmission capacity that will allow us to export clean energy to markets in arizona and california. through american ingenuity we can unleash the full potential of cleaner homegrown energy and put americans to work while we're at it. at the same time we can and we must lead the world in addressing our climate crisis. climate change is no longer theoretical, mr. president. it's one of those stubborn facts that doesn't go away simply because we choose to ignore it. in new mexico, we're seeing bigger fires, dryer summers and less snow pack in the winter. and as i speak these words, too many of our high-elevation forests are burning. and with humidity levels lower and temperatures higher, we are dealing with fire behavior that

is markedly more intense than what we've seen in the past. over the last three years alone we have seen two of the largest fires in new mexico's history. with elevated temperatures studies at los alamos national labs predict that three-quarters of our ever green forests in new mexico might be gone by as early as 2050. at the same time we're experiencing our dry test two-year -- driest two-year drought since the mid19th century. flows in the rio grande are less than 20% of normal. since the first of the year central new mexico where i live has seen less than one inch of rain. this is a tragedy and we must start taking active steps to reverse it. we owe that to our children. we owe that to the next generation. in 1961, president john f. kennedy made a bold claim that

an american would walk on the moon by the end of the decade. eight years later, mr. president, neil armstrong did just that. today we face a similarly audacious challenge when it comes to addressing climate change. we need to think big, mr. president, and we need to execute that. we did that when president kennedy said we'd go to the moon, and we made it happen as americans. climate change is our greatest future challenge, and we must commit to solving it within the decade. i am by nature, mr. president, an optimist, and i have seen this great nation defy the odds again and again and again. and, yes, i believe that compromise and even bipartisanship are still possible. our country is strong because of rigorous debate. but debate doesn't mean endless gridlock. despite our differences there are issues where both parties

can come together and find common ground. using science to rise to our nation's challenges, whatever those may be, should be one of those areas. it's one i'm committed to, mr. president, and i look forward to working with my colleagues so that our nation and so that my home state of new mexico can achieve the greatness and future that all of our children deserve. thank you, mr. president, and i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority leader. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i'm going to ask consent that we have a vote on some judges this an hour. but rye to saying that i want -- but prior to saying that i want to say this: this is a very, very important bill. people want to offer amendments on this bill. and we have five amendments that are now pending. there are ways we could move forward exspi expeditiously, but sometimes tha that's not the rit thing to do. we have a number of issues issi want to focus on. we have a storm coming. we all know about that -- in a couple of different waves. we have meetings going on today at the capitol with different groups of people, trying to figure out a way to go forward

on this important legislation. so i think what we should do is have these judges votes, have people go ahead and do their meetings. there was one in the white house this afternoon with some senators, late this afternoon. but i do say this: we're going to finish the work on the floor here soon on this bill. but we're going to come back monday and we're going to be on this bill, and i want to alert everybody -- everybody -- that next weekend we will be working on this bill. we are going to finish this bill before the july 4th recess. everyone should understand that. everyone has had adequate warning, notice that we're going to work next weekend. that means friday, monday, and that includes saturday and sunday to get this legislation done. if something comes up, we don't have to do that, good. bur as things now stand, i --

but as things now stand, i just want everybody to know. well, i don't know. well, they know because we have to move forward on this legislation. we have a lot we have to finish during the july time period that we're going to be on this legislation. i had a couple senators say, could we be next is this so, mr. president, i just -- everyone is alerted. we're working and both sides are working in good faith to try to get this bill done. and we're going to continue to do that and hopefully that we don't have to terminate all of these amendments with procedural votes. if we have to do that we will. but i'd rather not. i hope everyone will continue working to come to an agreement on how we can improve this bill. i kind of like it the way it is. but i'm not the one going to make this determination. so i ask the ranking member is here -- we'll have plenty of time for speeches this afternoon

on this legislation. but so having said that -- and i also appreciate everyone being reasonable. my friend, the senator from south dakota, he's always very easy on the one hand pleasant to work with. and i talked to him about how we should move forward on his amendment and we had a good conversation. so who feelly, mr. president, what i've said -- so hopefully, mr. president, what i've said will pacify everyone from the time-being. and hopefully for a long period of time we can get this done. i ask unanimous consent that at 11:30 today, the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar numbers 4 and 49, under the previous order, that we would have -- the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: under the order, the senate would have one or two votes beginning at noon on confirmation of nitza alejandro,

and jeffrey schmehl, to be united states district judges for the eastern district of pennsylvania. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: we hope -- so people can plan, we hope the first one will be by voice. mr. president, this will be the last -- these votes -- this one vote after noon will be the last vote of the week. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i thank the majority leader for trying to work with us in a

fashion that would allow us to get to some votes on amendments. we have several amendments pending, one of which is the amendment that i've offered, amendment number 1197. i spoke to this subject a little bit the other evening, as we commenced debate on the immigration bill. but i'd like to, if i might, just elaborate a little bit further on why i think this amendment is further, why i think it strengthens and improves the underlying bill. and i said the other evening, mr. president, that i'm very convinced, as i think we all are, that we need an immigration system that works. the immigration system that we have today is broken, and it must be fixed. unfortunately, each time that congress has tried to fix our immigration system, promises of a more secure border are never upheld. the bill in front of us today is well-intended, but it's following the same path as past immigration bills. under this bill, it is certain that 12 million undocumented workers will receive legal status soon after the bill is

enacted. however, the border security provisions of this bill are nothing more than promises, which again may never be upheld. and i've said this before, but when i talk to constituents back in my state of south dakota, mr. president, there are a couple of questions that they ask. the first question is, when will our federal government keep its promises on border security i? they also ask a second question. that is, why do we need more laws when we're not enforcing the laws that are currently on the books? mr. president, it's time that we follow through on promises of a more secure border. the illegal immigration reremain to and immigrant responsibility act o required 700 miles of doue reinforced double-pensioning along the southern border. that was reaffirmed when congress passed the act back in

2506. today less than 36 miles of the fencing has been completed. my amendment 1197 simply requires that when we implement current law prior to legalization that it is an indication that we're serious about border security. so, as specified by this amendment, 350 miles of the fencing would be required prior to r.p.i. status being granted. the completion of this section of the fence would be a tangible demonstration that we are serious about border security. after r.p.i. status is granted, the remaining 350 miles required by current law would have to be constructed during the ten-year period before registered provisional immigrants can apply for green cards. now, mr. president, there are still many problems with this bill that need to be addressed, and i think that's what the amendment process is all about. but i would say to my colleagues here in the united states senate that if we want to show that we

are serious about border security and not just talking about it but actually making real changes to make our border more secure, then this amendment is one way to show that we are serious. and, mr. president, there's been a lot of discussion about the various costs associated with building a fence. if you look at the different estimates about border fence costs, there are quotes from private contractors suggesting that the cost of contracting constructing a double-layered fence is about $3.2 million per mile. so if you're putting that into terms of a 700-mile fence, you're looking at about $2.2 billion. remember, it would cost a lot less than that if you reached the 350-mile mark, which is what my amendment calls for prior to r.p.i. status. it is a reasonable cost, and there are dollars allocated in the legislation that are designinged to strengthen border security. i would simply suggest to my colleagues that one of the best,

simplest, plainest, most straightforward ways of doing that is to build the fence, the fence that is required by law. it was required in 1996 act, in the 2006 act, and which to date only 40 miles of that has been built. and so i think this makes a lot of sense, mr. president. i would suggest that it, as we talk about the careious other elements -- various other elements of the immigration debate and the legislation in front of us, that we start with this. if we start with this, i think we can convince the american people that we are serious. i.t. difficult, i think -- it's difficult, i think, for americans to trust congress, trust the government to do the right thing on the border when past promises have been been fulfilled. if you go back to the 1986 immigration legislation, there were promises made that were never kept. here we are many, many years

later were the same set of circumstances front of us, trying to figure out how to deal with the undocumented workers that are currently here but absent anything have been happened that would ensure to the american people that the border security requirements are being met. so i want to encourage my colleagues here in the united states senate to express our commitment to the american people that before r.p.i. status is granted, that we are serious about -- in securing our border, ensuring that the commitments that have been made with regard to i would abouting a fence there are fulfilled and, again, 350 miles of which would be constructed prior to r.p.i. status. the other 350 miles of that 700-mile fence would happen subsequent to a green card being issued and moving into the next status that's allowed for in this legislation. mr. president, again, this is not something that is complicated. i think it is very -- if you're an american citizen in this corning you ascountry, you ask f

questions: why do we have to pass new laws if we're not going to enforce the laws that are already on the books? the 750-miles of border fence is on the books. in 196 when it was first called and then in 2006, subsequent to that, it was again stipulated that a fencing requirement be completed on the southern border. and interestingly enough, i would add, mr. president, at that time when that vote was held in 2006, then senators obama, biden be, and clinton supported that bill. along with a lot of the current members -- authors of the legislation that's before us today. so it makes perfect sense to the american people. i think it is a necessary and i think essential, actually, requirement to be met, not only for us to move on the other elements of the immigration debate but, more importantly, to rolely secure the border, wheys the american people want to see a mr. president, i would -- i'd call up and ask that the amendment -- amendment number

1197, be made pending. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from south dakota, mr. thune, proposes amendment numbered 1197. mr. thune: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with and with that, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i'm going to ask unanimous consent to call up amendment 1222 to have p pending, the citizenship for lawful adoptees. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from louisiana, ms. landrieu, proposes amendment number 1222. ms. landrieu: thank you. mr. president, i'm going to speak about this amendment for just a minute, but i'd like to respond to senator thune, and i wish that we could get a vote on his amendment as well as this one because i would like to strongly vote and strongly express objection to his amendment. and i'd like to comment for a minute. i chair the homeland security appropriations committee that is

actually building the fence. the money to build it comes through my committee, so i've actually gone down to look at the fence that we're trying to build. it was shocking to me and would be shocking to everyone in america if they would see it. that no matter if you build a single fence or a double fence with space in between, how easy it is for people to be very ingenious about getting over it or under it. so i would be voting against senator thune's amendment because i'm not going to waste taxpayer money on a dumb fence. and that's what his amendment would be. we need to build a smart fence. and a fence is not just a physical structure which could be built out of a variety of different materials with or without barbed wire on the top. a smart fence which is what senator mccain and i want to build -- since he's from arizona, i think he knows more about this than the senator from south dakota who only has a

border with canada and that is quite different. i think senator mccain would say if he were on the floor that we want to build a barrier of security, and that will be a combination of a physical structure that is built to the great standards that we can with the technology that will actually shut down illegal immigration. it is not correct for anybody listening to this debate to think that people on the democratic side of this aisle or people supporting this bill do not want to secure the border. nothing could be further from the truth. but i can tell you -- i may be overridden. people may vote against it, but i'm going to hold the position that we cannot waste billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars building a fence that doesn't hold anybody on one side or the other. we have wasted enough taxpayer money, and so while i didn't come to talk about this at this moment, i am going to talk about it for just a few minutes.

this immigration bill is about fixing a broken system, not dumping taxpayer money down a rat hole. and some people want to talk about building a fence. i went to look at the fence. i've been in tunnels that go under the fence. i've watched people climb over the fence, and so has anybody that actually lives along the border, which is why senator mccain's voice is so important in this debate. no one should think that senator mccain, who has been the leader on border security in this senate for 20 years, is not interested in building a strong fence. his state gets affected just like california and texas more directly than any of us, mr. president, as you know your geography well. so for people, other colleagues to come to the floor and suggest that the eight people that put this bill together are not interested in border security is

just truly false and it's misleading and it's unfortunate. that's what this debate is going to be about. i have respect for my colleague. i absolutely oppose his amendment. but i'm going to come back and give some more facts about how we're building a smart fence, how we're going to keep using new technologies to keep people out that we don't want out and get people in that we want in, because i want to say one thing about this immigration bill as well. we are the most open society in the world. it is a great source of pride to our country. we are an open, transparent democracy that is trying to create a broad middle class not only here in america, but around the world in trade and commerce are essential. we need secure borders that open up for trade that can create jobs. and i am not, as chairman of this committee, going to waste

more money building something that doesn't work just as some people can get a headline in their local press. not going to happen. so we're going to put money in this bill to build a smart barrier that's going to have all the new technology that we need to track down illegal immigrants and to close that off. then we're also, which is in this bill, going to get the 40% of immigrants that came here under visas that have overstayed, we're going to use new technology like you kind of see on television in some of these fancy shows to find people and, you know, get them in the queue to pay their taxes, learn english and become citizens. i'm going to come back and give more, something to the record. and i'm sure the senator from south dakota will want to respond to this. but let me talk about my amendment, the citizenship for lawful adoptees. happily, mr. president, i don't think there's objection to this amendment, and i'm very happy

that i have the cosponsorship of senator coats, senator blunt and senator klobuchar. this amendment does not go to the heart of the immigration bill, but it does touch the hearts of many parents and many children who have been caught up in a very unfortunate situation. a couple of years ago senator mick kels from oklahoma -- senator nickles from oklahoma who i had the great pleasure of working with across the aisle on many adoption bills, he and i passed a bill very important to the adoption community, with many others, that basically said when a child is adopted overseas -- and we do mostly domestic adoptions in america, but we have anywhere from 10,000 to 20,000 adoptions internationally. that when someone adopts a child overseas, instead of them, which is very expensive, very time-consuming and more bureaucratic than it needs to be, our bill several years ago said once that process is over,

once the adoption is finalized, that children will become automatic citizens. it was a great step forward because now at least we have 10,000 to 20,000 kids that come in, all various ages -- infants, teenagers, all the way up to 18. they then have to come to the united states tkpwapbd through through -- and go through another process for citizenship because we have a backlog of millions we're talking about. this gives the adopted kids a little express lane which we wanted to do, and we did. but unfortunately when we pass bills sometimes, many times the bureaucracy gets a hold of our law and they start interpreting it in a different way than we want it, and they start throwing barriers in the way. so simply put, my amendment, which is supported by the members that i said, is going to fix three important provisions in that law.

first, it says that if you were adopted into this country and you committed any kind of misdemeanor or felony, just like biological children commit, misdemeanors and felonies, that you would not be deported. deportation is not an option for adoptees. it may be an option for illegal immigrants but not children who have been adopted by american citizens. so we're going to correct that. they're going to have the full penalties against them. they can go to jail for a long time, they can do whatever the law says, but deportation is not one of them. and there have been very sad circumstances where adults who were brought here but the parents failed to get their certification had been deported back to a country they never lived a day in, don't speak the language, and as far as they know, in their mind they're completely american even if they did know their country of

origin. it's very unfortunate. it's happened. this is going to bring help to maybe dozens, hundreds. it's not going to be more than that, families and prevent any deportation of adoptees in the future. secondly, it will clarify the residency requirement. over time the child citizenship act has been misinterpreted so that the adopted children of americans living abroad particularly from military, diplomatic and other reasons do not receive automatic citizenship upon entering the united states. and we intended when we passed our bill for this to apply to our military families and our diplomats, many of whom are serving in a country, they have the opportunity to take in a child that's completely homeless, has no parents, and they're doing god's work, obviously doing this, and they have been caught up in some bureaucratic haggling. we're going to try to correct that.

finally it clarifies that when parents are required to travel overseas to adopt a child, some countries require two parents. some countries require one. whether the country requires one or two, one will be sufficient to meet our standard. if two are required, then two have to go. but if only one is required, one is enough to meet our standard. there have been again after months and months and years and years, parents go through all of this trouble to do something they really believe god's called them to do to adopt a homeless or unparented child or sibling group only to come home and find that their own government, which would be our government, is, you know, nit-picking, i would say, this law to prevent them from getting an easy path forward. so i hope that there will be no opposition to this amendment, and i'm happy if we have to take

a vote at 51 votes or 60 votes. i'll take any vote of any number for this bill. i hope that the members will support it. and i'm sorry that i have to oppose senator thune's amendment, but i will be opposing all amendments that i don't think really support the underlying nature of a smart barrier, a fence that is both physical and virtual with new technologies that will actually do the job. because otherwise, we will -- i could not even tell you how shocking it was -- i'm switching subjects now -- shocking it was to go down to the border and see the number of tunnels that were built under the fence. you could build three fences, and they will still build tunnels under these fences. you could build four of them.

i'm not going to waste people's money on that; i'm very sorry. so we're going to figure out a way to use technology to find these improper entrances to our country and close them down. it might not be -- it may be an actual fence in some places. it's going to be a virtual fence in other places. it's going to be special technology, lasers, helicopters, infrared, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. senator mccain actually had a list of the equipment that we intoned buy with this taxpayer money -- that we intend to buy with this taxpayer money. and i'm going to come to the floor and maybe spend some hours reading off the list so people know that we most certainly aren't saying no to a fence because we don't want to secure the border. we're saying no to the fence because it's a waste of money, and we don't have any money to waste around here. we need to do smart technologies. now, i'm going to read senator

thune's entire amendment because i have not read the details of it. i do believe that i will be opposing it. it may be that his words did not appropriately say what his amendment does. but if it's an amendment that requires a complete fence, not a virtual fence, i will oppose it. if his amendment says that we want a smart fence and we need to build more of a smart fence, then i will support it. and i just want everybody to know that's going to offer amendments about the fence that this is going to be the position that i take. i'm going to try to encourage as many people as i can to assume the position that i have because i think it's the right position, and i think the taxpayers will support this. we want a secure border that's smart, with the smartest technology possible. not one that just spends untold amounts of money decade after decade and fail and fail and fail and fail again. so i yield the floor and i see the senator is still on the

floor. the presiding officer: the senator from south daggett. -- from south dakota. mr. thune: i understand there isn't going to be any barrier that is going to be 100% effective but the type of double-layered fencing mandated by the law would be a significant deterrent demonstrating that we are serious and it would prevent some of the pedestrian traffic, not all. but in the legislation of the fence that was required, we really don't know all that much about how effective it's been. i think it's been somewhat effective in states like arizona. but we've only built 36 miles of it. and i would say in response to my colleague from louisiana that we all voted for this. i mean, this is not -- she described it as a dumb fence. she voted for the dumb fence. i voted for the dumb fence, i guess. i didn't realize it was a dumb fence. i thought it was a commitment we made to the american people to get serious about skraourg the border. there are other ways -- i would

certainly concede -- other ways in which we can combine manpower, technology, infrastructure along the border to make it more secure. however, a border fence is a cost-effective component, and i would say to my colleague from louisiana, there are dollars in this bill. there's $6.5 billion for border security, some of which is dedicated, $1.5 billion is dedicated to fencing, infrastructure and those sorts of things. and the costs that i mentioned in my earlier remarks, if you look at it on a per-mile basis to build the fence, $3.2 million per mile, you would be looking at somewhere around a billion dollars, less than the amount that's allowed for and allocated in the bill for fencing and infrastructure and those sorts of things. but this is not a new issue. we have been here, you voted for the fence. i think many of us here in the senate at that time, and i mentioned earlier at that time,

senators obama, clinton, bidden all voted for that fence. i think we made a commitment to the american people that we would get serious about doing this. we need to do it in the most cost-effective way, and there are many components of that. i fully understand that. but i also think that a fence is a very serious and important deterrent in the commitment that we made to the american people. so the amendment again is very straightforward. it just simply asks congress, asks us to follow through on the commitment we made in 1996, in 2006, and do more than 36 miles, which is what has been built so far out of a 700-mile commitment that was made to the american people. ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i would just simply respond by saying i know the senator is quite sincere, but you are correct, i voted for the dumb fence once, i'm not going to do it again because i learned miamis take. when i went down there to look at it and realized that we could build two dumb fences or three

dumb fences and it's not working. so i am simply not going to waste the money to do something that i know will not work. so if somebody else wants to go and vote for the dumb fence for the second or third time, go right ahead, but i was raised when you make a mistake, admit it and then fix it, so inintend to -- intend to fix it. the fence we're going to build, senator carper, senator coburn, senator mccain and i is a real and virtual fence that's actually going to work. and we will have this debate further. i have got to yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations which the clerk will report. the clerk: nominations, the judiciary, nitza i. quinones alejandro of pennsylvania to be united states district judge for the eastern district of pennsylvania. jeffrey l. schmehl of pennsylvania to be united states district judge for the eastern

district of pennsylvania. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be 20 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form. ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: may i ask unanimous consent that we go into quorum call and the time be allocated equally as previously agreed to? the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will call the roll. ms. landrieu: thank you. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you very much. i know we are going to be voting in a matter of minutes on two judicial nominees for pennsylvania. this would be the eastern district of pennsylvania, the eastern side of our state, and obviously these appointments are critically important to justice and critically important to

litigants who come before these courts whether they are in civil or criminal matters, and these candidates go through an exhaustive review process. that's probably an understatement. the process through the nomination, through the white house under any administration and then through the senate. all kinds of reviews. so for them to get to this point, it's been a very long road. we're grateful for that. and i know that one -- one of the votes will be by voice potentially and one will be a roll call vote, but i wanted to talk about both candidates, and i -- i did yesterday but i will just do it a little more briefly this morning. first of all, judge nitza quinones alejandro who has served in the city of philadelphia, the common pleas court in the city of philadelphia since 1991, what's known as the first judicial district of pennsylvania.

that's the -- the trial court in the city of philadelphia. you can just imagine in a big city like philadelphia, all of the matters that a judge like judge quinones would deal with over the course of more than two decades now, dealing with civil and criminal cases, all kinds of difficult and complex matters that come before a judge. in essence, performing the same functions as a -- as a county judge in a sense that she would on the federal district court. and so i think she is more than prepared to take on this assignment. this is also i think in her case a great american story. judge quinones was born in puerto rico, was educated there, came to the united states, and as i said since 1991 has been on

the court of common pleas in philadelphia, but prior to that she was an arbitrator for more than a decade, she worked in the department of veterans affairs, she worked in the department of health and human services, she was -- she did a lot of work in the 1970's, community legal services in philadelphia, so that speaks to a broad range of experience and expertise. dealing with litigants representing clients, which is so important in our system, someone who takes on the responsibility to represent someone in court, to have their day in court, which is one of the foundational principles of our -- of our government. then, of course, later serving as a judge, as i mentioned. so it's not only a resume and a life story that speaks to experience and knowledge and insight when it comes to dealing

with complex matters that would come before the federal courts, but it is also in a very personal way a great -- a great american story. so we're -- i'm particularly grateful that her nomination is now coming to the senate floor and that we will be able to -- to have a vote on her nomination today. and i -- on both of these nominations, i have enjoyed working with senator toomey. both of us representing a big diverse state, one democrat, one republican, working through this process to get the federal judges appointed. and then also we'll be voting as well on a second judge in the eastern district of pennsylvania, jeffrey schmehl. i could say a lot of the same things about experience. judge schmehl is now the present judge of the burkes county court of common pleas since 2007, so

many years now in the trenches, so to speak, or to use an expression from the bible, laboring in the vineyards of dealing with cases and complex matters. burkes county is north of philadelphia, but on the eastern side of our state and is a big county, a county that has a lot of matters that come before it that are particularly complex. he has served, as i mentioned, as a president judge of the court of common pleas, but then prior to that was a judge on that same court from 1998-2007, so these are long periods of time in both instances, both judge schmehl and judge quinones to serve on a court. and for those who know something about our judicial system and know a bit about the difference between an appellate court where we're dealing with appeals and legal arguments as opposed to a

trial court, the trial court is where the -- where the -- kind of where the action is in terms of litigants. trial judges have to be not just presiding over a trial but have to deal with and rule on evidentiary matters, they have to deal with witnesses and lawyers and all the complexities of a trial. as we all know, when your case is on trial, it's the most important case in the world. these judges have tremendous experience as trial judges and we're so grateful they're willing to put themselves forward, not just to be nominated and today confirmed as judges, as i'm sure they will be, but to put themselves forward for that kind of public service in a difficult environment where the scrutiny and the review and the long road from nomination to confirmation can be very challenging. so, again, i'll pay tribute to the work that senator toomey has done working with us, he's on

the floor and i want to thank him for that good work and obviously the chairman of the judiciary committee, senator leahy, who is on the floor as well, we appreciate him working with our offices to move these nominations forward. with that i'll yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: did the other senator from pennsylvania wish to say something? mr. toomey: i lieu would like to speak for several minutes principally -- principally about the two judicial nominations. mr. leahy: i just want to make sure that i have time prior to the vote at noon. how long did the senator from pennsylvania wish to speak? mr. toomey: i think i could wrap this up in less than ten minutes. mr. leahy: okay, then, mr. president, i would simply ask consent that there be four minutes for the senator from vermont at the conclusion of the

senator from pennsylvania's comments. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and because it is from his state, i will step aside and let you go forward. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: i want to thank the chairman of the judiciary committee, and i do want to speak principally about the two nominees from pennsylvania both of whom i strongly support and i'm delighted they're going to get their vote today. before i do that, i want to put a little bit of context on judicial nominations and confirmations as a general matter because i think it's important we understand this. in my own experience in the two and a half years i've been in the senate i know i've voted to on confirm the vast majority of judicial nominees that president obama has proposed for us. and, in fact, since president obama became president, the senate has confirmed 193 district court nominees and blocked two. that is a confirmation rate of about 99% and the last

congress, the 112th congress confirmed more judges than any congress in 20 years. so by any reasonable measure, we are confirming judges at a terrific rate, republicans are cooperating and confirming the nominees of a democratic president, and this is as it should be when the nominees are competent as they have been. so president obama is enjoying a rate of confirmation of judges that is far greater than the rate that president bush, for instance, enjoyed or most other previous recent presidents. which is part of the reason why i am concerned when i hear persistent rumors that the majority leader is considering invoking the nuclear option and changing -- breaking the rules so he can change the rules as to how nominees get confirmed. i don't understand why there is

a problem that would require this, and if he were to do this, this would be in direct contradiction to a commitment that he made to all of us, very publicly, that he would not do this. so i really hope that senator reid will keep his word and that he will not break the rules in order to change the rules. he stated very clearly in january of 2011, and i quill quote senator reid, "i agree the proper way to change the senate rules is through the procedures established in those rules and i will oppose any effort in this congress or the next to change the senate rules other than through the regular order." and i would remind my colleagues earlier this year republicans went along with a rule change i had real reservations about, i personally couldn't support it but most republicans did, changed the rules, forfeiting some of the power that we have as a minority, granting the majority great are flexibility to go to a bill without assuring us that we'd be able to offer the amendments we would like.

we granted that to the majority in part because we got another explicit commitment that there would be no nuclear rule change if we made that agreement. we did, as a party and as a body, and so again, i certainly hope that senator reid will honor the promise he made that was part of that understanding where he said in january of this year in an exchange with senator mcconnell, senator reid said any other resolutions relating to senate procedures would be subject to a regular order process including consideration by the rules committee and i would add that means a 67-vote majority in the senate because that's the way you change the rules in accordance with the rules. so having said that, i wanted to also make a brief mention of some terrific news that we got in pennsylvania, and that is the opportunity for a little girl named sarah murn ahan to

have a lung transplant. a federal judge in the eastern district of pennsylvania issued a temporary restraining order forbidding a rule that was keeping her off the list of potential donor -- transplanted lung recipient list. fortunately by virtue of that restraining order she was able to go on the list and receive the lung, she had an emergency surgery just yesterday that seems to have gone very well and we're all gliet dlieted for that and -- delighted for that and wishing for her speedy and full recovery. having said that, as i indicated to the chairman, i wanted to come down principally and say how pleased i am that we're going to vote today and i believe confirm both judge schmehl and judge nitza quinones, nominees for the eastern district of pennsylvania, both imminently qualified, terrific individuals who come highly recommended. i want to commend senator

casey, he and i have worked together -- since i've gotten here, he's been terrific to work with. eve looked to identify some of the -- we've looked to identify softd most capable and talented people. i wanted to mention a couple of the things, i know senator casey mentioned. judge schmehl, present judge of the berks county court of common pleas. he's a graduate of dickinson college, has his j.d. from the university of toledo law school, has served as a public defender, has served in private practice, he after serving for nine years he was elected to the court of common pleas where his colleagues made him the president judge. he is a very, very bright individual, he's got a keen intellect, a great judicial temperament, he's done a great job on the berks county court and he will make a great federal judge. i hope my colleagues will support his can district

attorneys. nitza quinones, a graduate of the school of puerto rico business administration, at the university of puerto rico she got her j.d. she has really demonstrated a terrific commitment to the legal community and beyond that in philadelphia. she's been very active mentoring young people, law students in particular, and as a great advocate of civic education for high school students. she has served on the philadelphia court of common pleas since 1991 presiding over a very large number of very diverse cases. she has extensive experience in the courtroom, she's demonstrated her ability, her commitment, her judicial temperament. she'll be the first latina judge on the eastern district of pennsylvania court. it's terrific that we're able to vote today to confirm both of these judges. i look forward to continuing to work with senator casey to fill

the remaining vacancies across pennsylvania. i want to thank chairman leahy for his work in advancing these nominees and urge my colleagues to support their confirmation and, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i appreciate the words of both senators from pennsylvania. i would note there are currently three nominations pending for vacancies in the eastern district of pennsylvania, all three of the bipartisan support of the home-state senators, all three are reported unanimously three months ago, but we talked about how things move here, senate republicans are permitting votes on only two of them. they are forcing judge luis res ?rep strepo to wait -- restrepo to wait for a vote even though

he is filling a seat that has been vacant for four years. we talk about how things move during this president's tenure as compared to that of his predecessor. at the end of president bush's second term, i was chairman of the judiciary committee, and i expedited confirmations of three of nominees to the same court. three. not just allowing two to go through as my friends on the other side of the aisle are today. and not having to wait for months and months. those three were confirmed by voice vote and so you know how long it took, we had reported them out of the judiciary committee the day before. so they were confirmed along with seven other of president bush's district court nominees, for a total of ten on that day.

we got them out of committee and voted them by voice vote. but now we have seven judicial nominees on the calendar. republicans are only allowing us to vote on two of them. so it really is insisting that president obama played by a different set of rules than they have for president bush. it's perfectly fine to expedite president bush's three nominees to the eastern district of pennsylvania and confirm them all on the same day along with seven others. and democratic controlled congress, and we moved them that way. but now with president obama, they refuse to proceed with the seven nominees awaiting final senate action. they won't even proceed with the flee judicial nominees needed in the eastern district of pennsylvania. so let's not talk about how

presidents are treated. i'm not sure what it is that's difference about president obama, but his nominees get delayed and delayed and delayed, unlike -- and i use pennsylvania as an example -- where we vote out three unanimously of president bush's nominees on one day, confirm them by voice vote the next day, along with seven others. and here they're refusing to proceed with the seven nominees awaiting final senate action. they won't even proceed with all three of the judicial nominees in the eastern district of pennsylvania. there are currently seven vacancies on that court, seven. the eastern district of pennsylvania needs judges. now, like the two nominees we're going to be voted on today, judge restrepo has the

support of his republican home-state senator as well as every single republican member of the judiciary committee. so let's not make them wait. before the recess the minority leader asked with gregory phillips the nominee to the 10th circuit said we need a vote. the majority leader said let's take a vote, but they said we're not ready. i'll put my statement in the record. 's we have have the nominees. they ought to be voted on today. we ought to do it. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i urge my colleagues to vote for the nominees that are before the senate today. at this point in the -- in president obama's term, when we get done with these two today, we will have approved 195 of the president's judicial appointments, and we have only

disapproved two. that's 99%-plus voting record. it would help if the president would speed up getting his nominees up to -- up to the senate. there are 81 vacancies now. the president has only submitted 29. that means that there's 52 vacancies that could be filled by the white house that the senate would have an opportunity to work on as well. i also am going to take a couple minutes here to discuss something that i would have discussed in the judiciary committee meeting this morning, but because of our vote i wasn't able to do it. first i want to talk about the nominations -- hearing that we have earlier this week on b. todd jones. there is an open investigation in the office of special counsel regarding very troubling

allegations that mr. jones retaliated against whistle-blowers in the u.s. attorney's office. he's now up for confirmation for the agency, alcohol, tobacco and firearms. may i ask, how many minutes before we vote? the presiding officer: [inaudible] mr. grassley: last week we received a letter explaining the status of the matter. she wrote that the parties had agreed to participation in mediation. she also wrote -- quote -- "if mediation's unsuccessful, the case would return to the office of special counsel's investigation-prosecution division for further investigation." on monday she wrote us another letter confirming that the case was still open. now we were told that the reason we had to move forward with the hearing was because an april letter from the office of special counsel was made public