vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: do any senators wish to change their vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 60, the nays are 40, three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. under the previous order, all postcloture time is expired. the question occurs on the jones nomination. is there a sufficient second? appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

officer anyone wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 53, the nays are 42. the nomination is confirmed.

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business, senators be allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each during this morning business hour. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, august 21, the senate proceed to executive session to consider now -- consider nomination number 96, that there be 60 minutes for debathe equally divided -- debate equally divided in the usual form, the senate the then proceed to vote o on the nomination, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, no further motions be in order, any related statements be printed in the record and that president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: the record should -- i said tomorrow but let's just make sure it's august 1. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask

unanimous consent that tomorrow, august 1, 2013, at 2:00 p.m., the senate consider executive session number 22, samantha power no nomination under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid reid: i ask unanimous consent that on thursday, august 1, that upon disposition of the chen nomination and the resumption of legislative session, the senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on s. 1243, the h.u.d. appropriations bill -- transportation-h.u.d. further, following the cloture vote, the senate recess until 2:00 p.m. for the bipartisan caucus meeting we're having tomorrow. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that senator brown have two fellows on his staff, andrew steinwald and catherine lebow, that they be granted floor privileges for tomorrow. the presiding officer: without objection.

under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid on the table, the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate will resume legislative session. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i would ask if i could speak for 12 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. grassley: they say that history has a way of repeating itself. that certainly came true in june when the senate approved a sweeping reform bill to revamp the nation's immigration laws. unfortunately, the u.s. senate failed to learn from mistakes created in the 1986 overhaul in. the 1980's, about 3 million people who were living in this country illegally were granted legal status.

today, 27 years later, the u.s. estimates 11 million undocumented immigrants living here. what should that tell us? it says that the 1986 law failed to stem the flow of illegal immigration. it sent the wrong signal by granting legal status to millions while ignoring the need to secure the border. i don't need a crystal ball to tell me what would happen on the road ahead if we repeat the mistakes of the past. i saw how legalizing before securing our borders turned out. it turned america's time-honored welcome mat into a time-worn doormat. america's immigration system is broken. it's time to fix it so that a legal flow of immigration can help the economy and bolster areas of the work force that are short of workers.

from low-skilled to high-tech. but immigration laws should not come at the expense of american workers or cause them to be disadvantaged, displaced or underpaid. rooting out fraud and abuse from many of our visa programs should be a priority. unfortunately, the bill passed by the united states senate won't fix what's broken and is chock-full of roo loopholes that make legalization fall from ideal. thankfully, our self of self-governance protects representation of, by and for the people with a bicameral congress. now the u.s. house of representatives has a chance to get it right. the house is moving on a number of bills. they're having very thoughtful discussions on how to improve the legal system while adhering to the rule of law. they also know that passing one sweeping bill is a recipe for disaster, one that inevitably

creates loopholes and allows special interest provisions to override good policy. so i'd discuss the house bill and its ideas and some that i want to give some suggestions on. first, the house judiciary committee approved the safe act, a bill that beefs up our interior enforcement efforts. it provides tools to state and local enforcement agencies to help the government enforce immigration laws. it enhances the 287-g program, which i helped author. it gives the states and localities the power to enact and enforce their own immigration laws as long as they're consistent with federal law. the bill would improve our country's ability to remove criminal aliens, dangerous individuals who would be detained. sex offenders would be made inadmissible and gang members would be both inadmissible and deportable.

these are provisions that are omitted from the senate bill. dangerous criminals are ignored in the senate bill, and it was apparent that the other side of the aisle didn't want to have votes that would bar these dangerous criminals from receiving legal status. securing the border is very important but so is focusing on individuals who violent our -- r laws, violate their terms of staying in the united states. if we're serious about being tough on sex offenders, domestic abusers, violate criminals and other offends, then the safe act needs to be passed by the senate and signed by the president. second, the house judiciary committee approved a bill that approves the existing everify program. this program is a valuable tool and should be made mandatory for all businesses. while the senate bill does make it mandatory, it does so over six years and provides exceptions for certain employe employers. the house bill would implement the program on a faster

timetable, which i have advocated. third, the house judiciary committee approved bills that improve the legal system for americans or for people who want to live and work in the united states. the committee approved a bill that focuses on high-skilled workers that are needed in the country and another bill that improves the legal channels for people who want to work in agriculture. if we want to ensure that we don't deal with millions of people here illegally in the future, then we have to focus on getting our legal immigration system in order. now i would talk about the border bill that was approved by the committee on homeland security in the house. this is a bill that i'm not ready to endorse and i'd explain why. the bill, known as the border security results act, is not a serious and comprehensive approach to border security. while it takes a good first step in requiring metrics to assess where the borders are scriewr,

there's nothing that ensures that results are achieved. the bill requires homeland security within six months of enactment to develop a strategy on how to secure our borders. the strategy includes an assessment of threats along the border. it will take into consideration cooperation of departments and foreign countries. the bill calls for an assessment of technology needed. but it doesn't actually do anything to give agents the resources they need. it does nothing to require fencing to be built. after the strategy is submitted to congress, the secretary develops an implementation plan and provides to congress and the government accountability office. but like the senate bill, there's no repercussions if the secretary doesn't actually submit a strategy and there's no verification or approval of the strategy by the congress. instead, it relies on this and a

future administration to make promises they won't keep. it relies on them to fulfill the law but we've seen time and again that the administration' administration's -- not just this administration but too many thumb their nose at bills that we send them. they not only refuse to implement laws they like, and, in this case, obamacare is an example, but they'll refuse to carry out this immigration bill as well. now, the bill requires the secretary to develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of security at the ports and between ports of entry. that's a good start. but there are no consequences if the secretary doesn't develop such metrics. the government accountability office would evaluate the metrics but, again, there's no real consequences if they are flawed metrics and the border still won't be secured. the secretary then certifies

that her department has achieved operational control. the defense of operational control is weakened from current lawsm thlaw.the bill defines it- quote -- "conditions in which there is not lower than 90% illegal border crossing effectiveness rate informed by situational awareness and a significant reduction in the movement of illicit drugs and other contraband through such areas." the government accountability office would attest if certification for operational control is truly done. what if the secretary never certifies this? what if the g.a.o. says the secretary's certification isn't accurate. if the department fails to achieve control of the border, then they have to issue a report to explain why. again, it lacks any true accountability for this or any future administration to actually secure the border. finally, i want to mention one

part of the house bill that is most concerning to me. during committee markup, an amendment in the house was accepted that would require a plan on the exit tracking system and unfortunately there's no beef to it. implementation of a biometric exit system was a key point with the senate -- when the senate considered immigration. the congress has passed several laws that require the executive branch to track entry and exit. those mandates have been ignored. the airline industry resists. and instead -- and instead of building upon current law and finding a way to make it happen, the house bill provides a way out if the exit system isn't deemed feasible by the secretary. the same secretary that has made no progress on the system. border security is not only putting manpower and technology along the southern border, it's

also about tracking people that enter this country. given that 40% of our undocumented population consists of visa overstays, we must address this problem immediately. this problem is highlighted by a g.a.o. report that was issued on tuesday. g.a.o. found that the department has lost track of more than one million people. we know that they arrived in the united states, we don't know whether they've departed. by statute, the department is required to report overstays. they claim they don't report the estimates because of lack of confidence that the data is reliable. after 17 years the law has been ignored. the government isn't sophisticated enough to match incoming and outgoing travel records, and that's a serious risk to our national security. over the years, the g.a.o. has

highlighted the challenges that the department faces in putting the entry and exit system in place. their new report casts more doubt on the department's competency. when the senate passed the immigration bill in june i was very clear in suggesting that the bill would have to be fixed by a conference committee with the house. if we ever go to conference. with the exception of the border security bill, the house has presented some very valuable ideas. while i want an immigration reform bill sent to the president, i want it done right. we can take our time to get it right. over the august recess the american people will get their opportunity to inform members of congress how they feel about immigration, but i can predict what many will say. i know from previous town meetings in my state the people don't want more laws that will get ignored.

they want laws that we have in place to actually be enforced. we need legislation that upholds americans' values of hope, freedom, and opportunity. we need immigration laws in place that welcome law-abiding immigrants to share their entrepreneurial spirit, build better lives for themselves and help make a -- make america a better place for generations to come. but we need legislation that upholds the rule of law and ensures that we don't saddle ug future generations with the same problems we're faced with today. it is my hope that congress over the august break will listen to the american people and work to enact the reforms that achieves real results and make good on the promises made in washington. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: i rise again for

now the 41st time to ask my colleagues to wake up to the threat that climate change. today i come to discussion the serious risks that climate change poses to our energy sector. it is no controversial idea that our climate affects our energy infrastructure. in the northeast, when we think about what causes power outages, we naturally think of bad weather. in fact, the american society of civil engineers reports that between 2007 and 2012, weather-related events were the main cause of electric outages in the u.s. that same report said the average cost of a one-hour power outage is just over $1,000 for a commercial business. just for one hour. so this takes a serious toll on our economy. a recent department of energy

report has highlighted just how sensitive our energy sector is to climate change and to extreme weather. in september, 2011, the department of energy reports -- and i'll quote -- "high temperatures and high electricity demand related loading tripped a transformer and transmission line near yuma, arizona, starting a chain of events that led to shutting down the is an owe innovative fray power plant with power lost to the entire san diego distribution system totaling approximately 2.7 million power customers with outages as long as 12 hours. earlier that summer, the report continues, consecutive days of triple-digit heat and record drought in texas resulted in the

electric reliability council of texas declaring power emergencies due to a large number of unplanned power plant outages and at least one power plant reducing its output. the brown's ferry nuclear plant in athens, alabama, the report says and i'm quoting again, had to reduce power output because the temperature of the tennessee river, the body of water into which the plant discharges, was too high to discharge heated cooling water from the reactor without risking ecological arm to the river. this happened in 2007, in 2010, in 2011, and in some cases, the power production was reduced for nearly two months. the department of energy reports that the cost of replacement power for this was estimated at

$50 million. it's not just power generation. energy exploration has been affected, too. the d.o.e. report explains last july and i'll quote, "in the midst of one of the worst droughts in american history, certain companies that extract natural gas and oil via hydraulic fracturing faced higher water costs or were denied access to water for six weeks or more in several states including kansas, texas, pennsylvania, and north dakota." it was a similar story in the fall of 2011. i'm quoting again. "due to extreme drought conditions, the city of grand prairie, texas, became the first municipality to ban the use of city water for hydraulic fracturing. other local water districts in texas followed suit by implementing similar restrictions limiting city water use during drought conditions."

in july of 2011, the report recounts that and i'll quote again, "exxonmobil's silver tip pipeline buried beneath the yellowstone river in montana was torn apart by flood-caused debris. spilling oil into the river, and disrupting crude oil transport in the region. the property damage cost was $135 million." senator vitter, our ranking member on the environment and public works environment and public works committee has told us that 18% of the nation's oil supply passes through his home state of louisiana at port fuchon. a recent government accountability office report found that the only access road to that port is closed three and a half days a year on average due to flooding. effect yiflg shutting down that port.

with sea level rise climbing due to climate change, noaa is now projecting that within 15 years portions of that highway will flood an average of 30 times each year. again, shutting down access to that port 30 times a year. vital infrastructure like power plants, power lines, roads, and pipelines are all designed to stand up to historical weather patterns. so what happens when the weather stops following historical patterns? according to the draft national climate assessment, i'll quote, "u.s. average temperatures have increased by about 1.5 degrees fahrenheit since 1895, more than 80% of this increase has occurred since 1980. the most recent decade was the

nation's hottest on record." oceans and other bodies of water are warming right along with the atmosphere. the seasons are shifting. research shows that in the last two decades, the frost-free season has increased in every region of the contiguous u.s. compared to the average between 1901 and 1960. in the southwest, the record shows the frost-free season has increased three weeks. and the western wildfire season has expanded by more than two months since the 1970's. precipitation patterns and the availability of water are changing throughout the nation. one study concluded that snow in the western mountains is melting on average one two four -- one to four weeks earlier now compared to the 1950's. the draft national climate

assessment shows that the amount of rain falling in what we call heavy precipitation events or more cloakially, downpours, is up in every region of the nation, up 45% in the midwest and 74% in the northeast. sea level is rising, about eight inches on average globally, but in some parts of the country it's much higher. noaa reports that mean waters off the gavelston, texas coast are rising more than two feet per century and at grande isle, louisiana the rate is nearly three feet per century. these aren't just projections of what's to come. these are actual measurements of changes that have already happened or are happening around us. the result is that we have an energy infrastructure built for a different climate than the one

which now exists and the one which is to come. and conditions are only predicted to get worse. the threat to our energy sector from changes in the climate should be neither controversial nor partisan. there are a lot of commonsense solutions here. adapting our infrastructure for climate change is smart, and it will save us from costly repairs. investing in energy efficiency by reducing the demand for power will relieve pressure on the burdened systems. investing in a diverse energy sector will protect against the unique vulnerablea builts of -- vulnerabilities of certain types of power course sources. rhode island is part of the regional greenhouse gas initiative nicknamed reggie along with seven other

northeastern states. our reej caps carbon emissions and sells permits to power plants to emit greenhouse gases which creates incentives to invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy development. they also reduce the load demand on the region's electrical grid. we're proud of the effort we are making in new england and i know a lot of states are working just as hard. but say to -- i say to my colleagues, our home states are hampered by the inaction here in congress. we have received credible and convincing warnings. we have received compelling calls to act. the overwhelming majority of the scientific community recognizes climate change is real, and

we're causing it. our national security and intelligence community, our faith leaders, major american corporations, including the insurance and reinsurance industry, and most americans all agree we need to act. it is time for congress to wake up and to do its work to slow the onslaught of climate change and to prepare for wash now unavoidable, inevitable effects. and yet here in congress we sleepwalk on. this is an issue, mr. president, that i know hits home in your home state in very different ways than it hits home in my home state. but in each of our own ways, our states are already

experiencing the hit from climate change. and it's caused by carbon pollution that we are putting up into the air, that our companies, that our smokestacks, are launching into the atmosphere, the changes -- that changes our weather, that changes our temperature, that that changes our seasons, that changes our oceans, that changes our waterways, that changes our weather, that changes our lives. and and the tragedy here is that we sleepwalk on because we're unwilling to address the special interests that are preventing us from taking the action that all americans need. this is the archetypal fight between the public good, between an important public security issue and a