going to do it all, right? we're not focusing on the need to push for change. and the 21st century workplace, as you have pointed out, it's very different, you know? women are working more, men are understanding their value as caregivers, women are primary breadwinners. i mean, we could go on and on and on. things are different. so we can't keep operating like everything's the same. and that's what many of us have done. and i think it's up to us to change the conversation. and this ultimate, hopefully, is -- summit, hopefully, is the beginning of a shift in dialogue we can't just wait for politicians to do what they, what you think they should know you want to do. they have to feel the pressure. ask that's -- and that's the job of all of us. and it starts here.

but these conversations have to continue at the regional level. i know many people have been working -- absolutely. [applause] this is just the beginning. and it has to be a movement. and there has to be momentum. and it has to continue to the point where the pressure is too real and that this is the conversation that we're having at every socioeconomic level within every race and every community, that we are now demanding that we can have the resources to do it all. to be good workers, to earn a decent living and to raise your families so that they're whole and healthy. that is the american way. that is the american way. [applause] and it was said about how there are more women that are in law school and medicine and ore fields, but -- other fields. but when it comes to the s.t.e.m. field, you know, science, technology, engineering and mathematics, that's where the growth is, that's where women can make even more money

than any other field. but women, even though there are more of us on college campuses, we're not in those fields. >> yeah. >> and there seems to be a stigma still attached to that. how do we rad candidate that? >> well, we have to start very early on. and more and more resources are being put into encouraging more women and girls to enter s.t.e.m. fields. but, you know, as you all know, it starts very early on. you've got to create that pool because so much of that field requires, you know, the stairsteps of math and science, and you can't sort of skip a step because everything builds upon everything else. and so many girls shy away from math and science, they automatically say i'm not good at that. i was a victim of that, you know? i didn't go to medical school because i thought i wasn't good in sciences. my mother told me i talked a lot, so i went to law school. [laughter] but we've got to get girls when they're young. >> right. >> before they, you know, move away or sort of buy into the,

you know, the mythology that women can't do these things. so we have to start very early. >> you had said in, i think it was "parade" magazine. that you and your husband would like your daughters to get a minimum wage job to build character, to understand what it's like. >> uh-huh. >> what kind of job would you like? >> i don't care. just a job that pays 'em, you know? [laughter] it really doesn't matter what it is, you know? i think the whole point is that they, you know, learn how to roll up their sleeves and work hard and understand what the vast majority of folks in this country have to do to earn a living and thatst the not -- that it's not glamorous, and not fun all the time. and there are people who get up every day for their entire lives and go to a job that's not fun. and they do it to put food on the table. my father was one of those folks, one of those men. and just watching him get up every day and go to work at a job that didn't, that wasn't

exciting and glamorous, but to go to a job that paid the bills and sent us to college, it motivated me to never take my education or my opportunities for granted. and i want my girls -- [applause] to understand that. so -- >> and when you and your husband, when you leave washington -- >> uh-huh. >> let's see, malia will be in college. >> i know. [laughter] >> sasha will be in high school. >> uh-huh. >> there are many people that are wondering what's your next act, will it be political? >> me? no, it will not be political. [laughter] yeah, no, it definitely will not be. it will be, it will be mission-based. it will be receives-focused. -- service-focused. [applause] >> not in that regard. >> yeah. >> well, here we are, we're talking, you know, we have nancy pelosi that was up here, we have women at the supreme court -- >> uh-huh. >> and there are many feeling that if we're going to talk

about leadership -- and that's what we're doing here -- that a woman president is part of that. and what an example it would set for young girls and young boys and all of us. >> absolutely. >> do you perceive that happen, and when should that happen? >> that should happen as soon as possible. [cheers and applause] and, you know, i think this country is ready. this country is ready for anyone who can do the job. [applause] and what we have learned is that the person who can do the job is, you know, doesn't have a particular race or gender or background or socioeconomic status, you know? [applause] the person who should do the job is the person who's the most qualified. and i think we have some options, don't we? [laughter] [applause] >> you sure you're not getting into politics? because that answer was really good. [laughter] >> i am positive.

[laughter] >> in the time that we have remaining, as i said, you're the closing act. there has been a whole day of just great dialogue. a great day. and is people want to feel, and i was talking about this because the last time i saw you was dr. angelou's service. and we had all said and it was up there in the chapel about how people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. and there is a sense of how people are going to feel when they leave this day, this summit. what is it that you want them to know? >> you know, people should feel energized and empowered, you know? [applause] that's what, you know, and i sense that in the room today. i was backstage saying hi to some folks, and you guys were, you know, feeling it. that's a good thing. [laughter] that's the word on the street, is that -- [laughter] you know, this was a very uplifting day. but this is just a day, right?

and movements don't happen in the span of 24 hours. they take a while. you know? which is why we want to really empower the next generation. because the young folks coming into the workplace now are the ones who can really start pushing for a whole new type of paradigm. but it's going to take time, and it's going to take persistence and consistency. and there will be bumps in the road, and there will be losses. but we have to is celebrate every small -- we have to celebrate every small victory. and we can't be our own worst enemies and get down on ourselves because we lose a battle or we didn't get 100% of what we want, you know? change can come in increments of 20% victories. but we have to celebrate those victories and keep pushing forward. so this is just the beginning. and it has to be, because this is going to be a long road. you know? we're going to have to see changes in the way society

perceives this issue. that's going to come from people in this room. we're going to have to change the way congress sees these issues. that's going to come from the people in this room. and we have to build on this movement because it affects everyone. this is one of -- this should be one of those issues that galvanizes this nation. because, again, it knows no race, no socioeconomic background, no religion. [applause] it's something that we all should be able to pull around. but we've all, you know, we all have to be out there pushing this forward. and that is my hope for today, that this is just the beginning of an important conversation that's going to continue for years and years to come until we're finally up there with other leading nations who have had amazing work/family policies for much longer time. there's no excuse for america to be following on this issue. [applause] we should be leading on this issue. [applause]

>> your husband just today was talking about how this great country, that we are the only one of the developed nations that does not have a paid leave for maternity. >> yeah. >> and i think when you see that and when the president expresses that, that there is a feeling that this time has come. >> yeah. >> and so what with, again, when we're going to leave here, what is it that you want us to do? >> vote. [applause] continue to use those voices. for those of us who have the leverage to be, you know, sort of the trailblazers within our companies, we should be the ones doing it. you know? if we have seats at the table in companies across america, if we're sitting on boards, if we're, you know, leading organizations, then we should be taking the lead. we should be pushing our

companies. we should be taking the risks of making somebody mad, making somebody feel a little bit uncomfortable, you know? we have to be leaders. if we own a business, we should be trying to figure out the data and how to make it work for our bottom line. we should be looking at research. we should be asking those tough questions. we should be looking at best practices. we have to be leaders on this issue, and this group is not an accident. i mean, we picked the top advocates, the top business owners, the top policymakers. you guys are the ones who are leading on this issue. but, you know, remember, trailblazing can hurt sometimes,? and some of it may not feel so good, but you're doing it for the men and women who don't have that voice and who can't take the risk. [applause] so we have to be the ones to do it for them. >> and you have consistently done that.

mrs. obama, thank you very much for this opportunity to sit down with you. [cheers and applause] >> a great conference. >> and that's it. [cheers and applause] >> house and senate negotiators are meeting today to start working out differences between their respective veterans health care bills. the house version allows the va secretary to fire department officials, and veterans could get private care if they experience wait times or live more than 40 miles from a va medical facility. the senate's bill would create more veterans health centers around the country. live coverage starting at about 2:50 p.m. eastern time on c-span3. well, voters in several states today are going to the polls to

select candidates for the november general elections. in mississippi incumbent senator thad cochran is in a runoff with chris mcdaniel, and in new york's 13th district, excuse me, representative charlie rangel is running for a 23rd term. we'll also bring you results from other states including oklahoma where republican voters are choosing a successor to senator tom coburn who is retiring. live coverage of victory and concession speeches and other events tonight here on c-span2. >> religion is a powerful identity-forming mechanism. it's, you know, part of human society is figuring hot who's us and who's them, right? who is my group and who is the out group. well, religion answers that question pretty easley. if you pray like me, if you eat like me, if you go to the same, you know, church as i do, then you're us. and if you don't, then you're them. and you can see very easily how

that kind of us/them in group/out group mindset can very easily lead to extremism, to marginalization. after all, as i remind people, religion may be the most powerful form of identity formation, but just as pawferl is violence. -- powerful is violence. how do you know who's us and who's them? well, be you're fighting alongside me, you're us. if you're fighting against me, you're them. so far from religion and violence being these two things that are at odds and should have nothing to do with each other, they have -- as everyone knows throughout history -- been much more aligned than we would like them to be. >> best-selling author reza aslan is booktv's july "in depth" guest live starting at noon eastern sunday, july 6th. and in the months ahead, august 3rd former texas congressman and republican presidential candidate ron paul, and september 7th, mary frances

berry. and this month on our online book club we're discussing amity shlaes' "the forgotten man." start reading and join others to discuss the book in our chat room at booktv.org. booktv, supervision for serious readers. television for serious readers. >> c-span2, providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy events. and every weekend, booktv. now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2, created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provide err. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> the senate resumes its session in a moment. they'll be debating the nomination of leon rodriguez's nomination to the homeland security department's office of u.s. citizenship and immigration services. just before recessing, senators

advanced his nomination to the final debate stage with a vote scheduled for 4:30 today. at 5 p.m. senators will be in a closed door briefing about iraq. later today the senate may also start work on a bill authorizing federal jobs program with a final vote on that expected tomorrow. meanwhile, the house is in session right now. they're working on a bill dealing with derivatives and another dealing with permitting of oil and gas facilities. live coverage of the house on c-span and the senate is back now to live on c-span2. the clerk: nomination -- department of homeland security, leon rodriguez of maryland to be director of the united states citizenship and immigration services. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 4:30 p.m. will be equally divided in the usual form. mr. cornyn: madam president?

the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: madam president, there are two things i would like to address here briefly on the floor of the senate. the first, strangely enough, has to do with an editorial that appeared in "the new york times" this weekend. now, i remember one of my -- one of the people who were influential to me when i was coming up through the political system in behr county, texas, and austin and now working here in washington and back home in texas. one of my mentors said don't ever get into a fight with somebody who buys ink by the barrel. well, that seemed like pretty sage advice, but maybe it's a little dated these days because so much of what we see printed in the news is not on the written newsprint itself, but the point is the editorial in "the new york times" this weekend that i am referring to was talking about criminal justice reform. a topic that in recent months

has produced some genuine bipartisan legislation. i'm proud to be the cosponsor of one of those reform bills, along with my colleague, the junior senator from rhode island, senator whitehouse. our bill would allow low-risk federal prisoners to earn credit toward completing a portion of their sentence outside of prison walls. for example, through home confinement, through halfway houses or community supervision. now, strangely enough, the "times" editorial praises our bill as an example, and i quote, of significant progress toward a legislative solution." close quote. unfortunately, it then proceeds to blame senate republicans, including me, for stalling progress on the bill and preventing a vote on the sentencing bill introduced by the distinguished majority whip, senator durbin of illinois. well, the strange thing about it

is, as every senator knows and everybody who can -- within the sound of my voice knows, that it's the majority leader, majority leader reid who determines what legislation comes up on the senate floor, and this editorial didn't mention him at all. an amazing oversight. so the last time i checked, the majority leader was the only person in the chamber with the power to schedule a vote on any legislation he wants, and he can do so whenever he wants. so for the record, i'd like to correct the error in "the new york times" editorial. i strongly support criminal justice reform and including sentencing reform. my concerns about the sentencing reform bill that are cosponsored by senator durbin and senator lee is that i believe the criteria it uses are excessably broad in deciding whose prison terms to shorten.

but i think those are the sorts of things that can be worked out through an open amendment process on the senate floor, and i want to make sure and i'm sure we all agree on this, we don't want to prematurely release dangerous higher level drug traffickers, and that's my concern that the bill is overall broad and would include them. those kinds of concerns should not be taken lightly, and i'm sure they're not, and i look forward to working with my colleagues to address them, but just to reiterate, my opinions about the sentencing bill have nothing to do with the majority leader's prerogative to schedule a vote. he can schedule that vote any time he wants. and i'd like to think the "new york times" editorial board is knowledgeable enough to know that, but apparently they need a reminder. shifting gears, madam president, in the last week, i have come to the floor a number of times to talk about the humanitarian

crisis in south texas. this, of course, is caused in large part by 52,000 unaccompanied minors, mostly from central america that have shown up on america's doorstep on our border saying they want to live in the united states. well, it's estimated that those numbers could rise to as much as 60,000 or 90,000 this year alone and maybe double next year unless something is done. i have to say i'm somewhat encouraged that the obama administration is finally acknowledging, what belatedly, but finally they are acknowledging that their policies may have contributed to this crisis in the first place. this past weekend, department of homeland security secretary jay johnson published what he called an open letter to the parents of children crossing our southwest border. this letter ran as an op-ed in spanish language media outlets,

and it warned parents of the extraordinary dangers facing central american migrants who travel through mexico, including the danger of kidnapping, sexual assault, torture and murder. secretary johnson also made clear that the children who have been pouring into south texas will not, i repeat not be eligible for the obama administration's so-called deferred action program. this is what he said about it. he said -- quote -- "there is no path to deferred action or citizenship or one being contemplated by congress for a child who crosses our border illegally today. that's the secretary of homeland security. in other words, secretary johnson's op-ed implicitly acknowledged that obama's -- president obama's policies have created a perception that children who make it across the border will be allowed to stay.

i must say it's a very dangerous perception and one that simply has to be corrected, not only for the sake of u.s. border security but for -- and for the rule of law but for the sake of the very children who now constitute the humanitarian crisis on our southwestern border. you know, in discussing this matter with a number of our colleagues on a bipartisan basis, it's been observed that the drug cartels who used to just traffic in drugs now traffic in people. they have changed their business model. and so essentially they control the corridors by which drugs, people and weapons traverse mexico and in many -- in this instance come from central america, and the fact of the matter is that there should be a lot of concern on our part that this flood of unaccompanied children will prove to be a distraction from the interdiction of dangerous drugs

coming across the same borders. in fact, in the rio grande sector of the border patrol in the rio grande valley, as the distinguished chairman of the homeland security committee knows, there has actually been a drop in the number of drug interdictions coming across the southwestern border, in part because the border patrol and other law enforcement have been diverted to deal with this humanitarian crisis. and i see the chairman on the floor. it looks like he has a question on his mind. i will yield to him for a question if he has one. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: i thank the senator from texas for his thoughtful comments. i have -- as governor and long before that certainly in the senate, i like to focus on underlying causes, not just the symptoms or problems, but how do we solve the underlying challenge that is before us. in this case, we focus so much on the border, what we're doing on the border, we have tens of thousands of people arrayed there, drones, all kinds of technology to stop people from coming in.

it's important for us to defend our borders. you have been a champion for that. i like to think i have as well. also having been to guatemala, el salvador just in the last couple of months and mexico and colombia to try to understand what is the underlying cause here. as you know better than probably most of us, a big part of the underlying cause is the lives the folks are being forced to live in guatemala, salvador and honduras. as we squeeze that bubble in northern mexico to try to go after the narcodrug lords, they squeeze that bubble and they head south. they made life miserable for a lot of people. as we send a strong, clear message like secretary johnson has said to the parents of those in guatemala and el salvador, it's important how we partner with those folks who improve the hellacious lives that many of them are living with a lack of hope, a lack of safety, lake of public safety, lack of an

education, lack of a job, lack of an opportunity. and we can do that. we can do that but at the same time we can secure our borders. we have to do both. but underlying cause is important. i have no question, but i really just want to thank you for your thoughtful statement, for yielding to me, giving me a chance to join in here with you today. thank you. mr. cornyn: madam president, the chairman is -- of the homeland security committee is exactly right to say that we can't just look at the border in dealing with this crisis. my friend, henry quart, a member of the house of representatives from texas, likened this to a football game. said you can't only do goal line defense. we need to find ways of deterring people in the first place from leaving their homes and coming to the united states. and i know that vice president biden was in guatemala this last week and secretary johnson was in the rio grande valley, and i know they are looking at all this. it's not -- there is no

question, single shot answer to it, but the fact of the matter is that there are a lot of people who want to come to the united states for obvious reasons, but i look at it even though we are a nation of immigrants, we are a nation of legal immigration, one of the most generous in the world. i think we naturalize roughly 800,000 people a year now because they want to become american citizens through the legal system, but to have this mass of humanity come in such a great flood and in such a short period of time, particularly as unaccompanied minors threatens to capsize the boat, and it creates a lot of hardship in local communities and in states and places around the country you wouldn't expect to be dealing with this because they are going to have to be taken care of. we're committed to making sure that these children are taken care of but we have to send the message very clearly that you should not -- if you're a parent contemplating this circumstance, you should not send your

children, particularly on the perilous and dangerous journey leading from central america. i have mentioned in recent days a book written in 2013 called the beast by a courageous salvadoran writer named oscar martinez. mr. martinez is a journalist, obviously, traveled, i think, eight different times with the migrants from central america and wrote in this book about their experiences, and unfortunately the unspeakable brutalityies that these -- brutalities that these migrants encounter on a daily basis. again because they are traveling through a smuggling corridor controlled by the cartels, in this instance, the zetas, which are a spinoff of the simaloa cartel, and what they are doing is they used to, as i said, traffic in drugs, but now they realize they can make money off

of these migrants, and they do in terrible sorts of ways. of course they are lawless and the brutalities that they exact on these migrants is shocking. for example, mr. martinez in his book "the beast" tells the story of one migrant woman who was raped on the dirt and straw floor of a cardboard shack before being strangled to death in a mexican town along the guatemalan border. this woman's picture was subsequently published in a local newspaper on a half page with two other pictures of tortured bodies. in the meantime, an epitaph was written on a small cross that read the young mother and her twins died november, 2008. now, i realize this is shocking and really horrible and we prefer not to even think about it, but i think we need to acknowledge and certainly the parents who send their young children unaccompanied on this long, perilous journey need to

understand what they are vulnerable to. well, the dangers of the transmexican migration journey have become far worse over the past decade as powerful drug cartels have effectively taken over the human trafficking business. kaitlyn dixon in "the daily beast" reported just yesterday, she said while the journey north has always been treacherous and costly, in the hands of the cartels, it's become more deadly than ever. the entire border and the routes leading up to it are controlled by some combination of los sitoa, knights of kemplar cartels, along with a few smaller groups making it impossible to cross without their permission. what you have to pay to exact their commission is a -- their permission is a tax or a fee, basically protection money to allow you to pass more or less

safely through their territory. as i have said many times, there is nothing at all humane about encouraging mothers, daughters, fathers and sons to put their lives in the hands of such vicious criminals, and y yet when the president has talked as he has over the years about dealing humanely with migrants he acts as if the decision to demonstrate more and more leniency or deferred action when it comes to enforcing our immigration laws is itself a humanitarian act. yet perversely, what it does, it encourages this sort of illegal immigration and encourages mothers and fathers to subject their children to these tremendous brutalities. so i can only hope that the ongoing crisis that we're seeing now along the southwestern border will dispel any illusions

somehow by saying we won't enforce our immigration laws as to this class of individuals, we're going to pick and choose or we've deported too many people so we're going to quit deporting people, these have consequences and this is the sort of consequence that that sort of action produces. i hope it will dissuade the president from announcing yet another unilateral suspension of immigration enforcement later this summer. their stories written and rumors told that if immigration reform doesn't pass this year in the congress he's going to act unilaterally through an schiewfd. he's -- executive order. he's encouraged that saying i have a pen and a phone and he's issued a number of executive orders in a number of areas. i hope the president doesn't compound the problem by further sending the message he's going to unilaterally suspend enforcement of our immigration laws because the consequences

will be big and they will further jeopardize the health, welfare, and well-being of the very people that he thinks he's trying to help. i would ask the president what's more important, is it political posturing trying to show to an important constituency that you are sympathetic to their concerns, or are we going to focus primarily on people's lives and their welfare? given all that's happened in this humanitarian crisis, how on earth could the president possibly justify another change, unilateral change in immigration enforcement that will likely lead to another surge like we've seen on the border. it's pretty simple. unless we send a clear message that our borders are being enforced and that our laws are being upheld, we'll continue to face crisis after crisis after

crisis. meanwhile, untold numbers of migrants will continue suffering and dying in central america and mexico just trying to get here or get here showing up on our doorstep and overwhelming our capacity to deal with them in a responsible way. madam president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: colleagues, today there's --. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. sessions: i would ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: colleagues, today there's an unprecedented crisis unfolding on our border. it's -- it really is. the crisis threatens the very integrity of our national borders. our laws and our system of justice. it's something that i've been talking about for a number of years, but it's reached an unusual and dangerous proportions. it's the crisis of this administration's own making and a crisis that the administration's policies continue to encourage. america deserves leaders in the

executive branch who will stand up and say clearly the crisis must end now, the border is closed, please do not come unlawfully to america and if you do come unlawfully, you will be deported. this is what we expect from our chief executive, the chief law enforcement officer in america, and for that pat, the head of homeland security, the office in charge of border patrol and i.c.e. officers. but the president -- president obama and secretary johnson at homeland security refuse, just refuse to plainly make this statement. how can they not? it's their duty. it's the law of the united states. and it is causing people around the world, particularly in central america, to believe they can come unlawfully to america.

it's encouraging this to happen. they're getting wrong messages from the leadership in our country. so let's review the evidence. on march 20 of 2014, the university of texas el paso did a study that was funded and supported by the u.s. department of homeland security's science and technology directorate and it states -- quote -- "both border patrol and i.c.e. officers agree that the lack of deterrence for crossing the u.s.-mexican border has impacted the rate they have apprehended u.a.c.'s. u.a.c.'s are unaccompanied alien children. officers are certain that u.a.c.'s are aware of the relative lack of consequences they will receive when apprehended at the u.s. border." get that. officers are certain that the u.a.c.'s are aware of this.

the university -- utep was informed that smugglers of family members of unaccompanied alien children understand that once a u.a.c. is apprehended for illegal entry into the united states the individual will be reunited with a u.s.-based family member pending the disposition of the immigration hearing. there will be some sort of hearing set forth. this process appears to be exploited by alien smugglers and family members in the united states who wish to reunite with separated children -- i'm quoting now that from the report. it was observed by the researchers that the current policy is very similar to the catch-and-release problem that the department of homeland security faced prior to the passage of the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 2004.

so you would catch somebody in the united states unlawfully, they would be given some minimal process and then released on bail and told to return back to court in so many weeks or months. well, in some cases 95% never showed up. they entered the country unflawflfully against the laws of census, apprehended but released and why would they show up for court? recently border patrol agents in the rio grande valley questioned 230 illegal immigrants about why they came. these are particularly related to children. and 95% said they believe they would be allowed to stay and -- quote -- "take advantage of the new u.s. law." that grants a free pass or permiso being issued by the united states government to adults traveling with the minors

and unaccompanied children. so this is what they said, 95% of the people who came illegally believed. this memo that leaked out of the department of homeland security continued -- quote -- "the information is apparently common knowledge in central america and is spread by word of mouth and international and local media. a high percentage of the subjects interviewed stated their family members in the united states urged them to travel immediately because the united states government was only issuing immigration permisos until the end of june, 2014. close quote. so on june 10, 2014, newspapers in honduras and guatemala quoted secretary of homeland security jeh johnson as saying -- this is what he's quoted as saying in central america, honduras and guatemala. almost all agree a child who

crossed a border illegally with their parents or in search of a father or a better life was not making an adult choice to break our laws and should be treated differently than adult violators of the law, close quote. this conveys a message. isn't it clear that people who are not students of the aspects of american law would hear the secretary of homeland security basically saying if you're a young person, if you come, you're going to be treated differently and then you hear you're going to be given a permiso and allowed to stay and taken care of and there's no danger and risk of coming to the united states unlawfully. so on june 13, "the washington post" published an article entitled "influx of minors across texas border driven by belief they will be allowed to stay in the united states."

how hard is it to reverse that belief? we've not done it. so on june 19, democrat congressman henry cuellar of texas said -- quote -- "as long as they know they're going to be released and allowed to stay here, they're going to keep coming" -- close quote. isn't that true? "the new york times" quoted one teenager from honduras whose mother had sent for him -- quote -- "if you make it, they take it to a shelter and take care of you and let have you permission to stay" -- close quote. records show the administration knew that this surge that we're seeing at the border today which is unprecedented in our history, was coming. and they knew it some time ago and did nothing to stop it. did nothing to send message, don't do this, do not come to america unlawfully. make your application if you feel you're justified in coming, and it will be

processed in regular order. indeed, the administration sought rather than to stop this dramatic surge, to accommodate to it. and even before the public became aware of the beginning of the surge of this nature, at our border, on january 29 of this year, the federal government -- get this -- posted an advertisement seeking bids from a contractor to contract to handle 65,000 -- quote -- "unaccompanied alien children crossing the southern border." this was in january. now, in 2011 we had 6,000 coming into the country unlawfully. so in january of this year they posted an advertisement to handle 65,000. so this raises serious questions.

why would the administration claim to be surprised by the current influx of unaccompanied minors when they were taking bids in january for a contract to handle the exact situation, almost the exact number that we're seeing? so this year's expected to hit about 90,000 children coming, whereas in 2011 it was six. projections from official sources say we would hit 130,000 next year. so how did they anticipate the very number, it seems we've had at least to date. in march of this year the department of health and human services estimated in its fiscal year 2014 budget proposal that the number of unaccompanied illegal alien children apprehended in 2014, this year, would rise to 60,000, up 814% from the 6,500 who were

apprehended in the united states only three years ago. so over the weekend secretary of the department of homeland security published an open letter to the parents of children crossing our southwest border on a spanish language wire service. i had demanded of him in the committee that he send a clear message, and he actually refused to do so. i had to ask him about three or more times before he would finally say it's unlawful to come here and that's the reason you shouldn't. he said you shouldn't have come because it's dangerous. he said you couldn't come -- was not a good idea. but he was not just simply saying do not come unlawfully. so in the newspapers in central and south america and on univision's web site, the

letter noted that the senate bill -- the senate comprehensive bill provides for an earned path to citizenship but only for people who came into the country on or before december 3 1, 2011. that was correct. the senate bill has decide dyed in the house and will not -- died in the house and it was not to have done that very thing but it wasn't passed. but the very fact that johnson is advertising in foreign countries an earned path to citizenship for illegal immigrants really undermines his primary responsibility, which is to enforce the law. and really the more primary responsibility for someone like mr. johnson is not to see how many people you can apprehend and actually go through the costly process of deporting. the primary job is to deter

criminal activity to begin with, some send a message and back it up that you can't come successfully illegally, don't come. and then you'll see a large drop-off instead of this 800% increase that we're seeing today. so human beings are rational actors and if they believe the united states is granting citizenship to illegal aliens who arrive before 2012, well, it stands to reason that the united states government will move that date back if more illegal aliens arrive in the years to come. why don't they think they will be given amnesty, too? that's what happened in 1986, amnesty was given. we had what? three million people given legal status, and then the message was heard. we now, some say, have over 11 million illegally in the country. so even a 2009 internal

department of homeland security report on approaches for implementing immigration reform recognizes this fact. this 2009 report said this -- quote -- "virtually all immigration experts agree that it would be counterproductive to offer an explicit or implied path to permanent resident status or citizenship during any legalization program. that would simply encourage the fraud and illegally border crossings that other features of the program seek to discourage. in fact, for that reason and from that perspective, it would be best if the legislation did not even address future permanent resident status or citizenship." close quote. so that was an official government report. so contrary to the administration's claims that illegal immigrants are acting on mere rumor and misinformation, a

sad reality of lax enforcement plus the lack of a clear message is what's driving the surge. the reality is if you get into the country today, you're not being deported. that's true. so a leaked may 30 internal memo written by the top border patrol chief, this is our guy, the border patrol officer in charge of the border said this -- quote -- "current, only 3% of apprehensions from countries other than mexico are being repatriated to their countries of citizenship, which are predominantly located in central america." i repeat -- only 3% of the people coming into the country illegally, including these children, are being repatriated back home. according to the former head of enforcement and removal operations for i.c.e., the

immigration and customs enforcement agency, gary meade said this -- quote -- "it's taking a year or more in some places for these people to come up on a -- for a hearing, and many times they don't have an attorney or they have lost an attorney and they get an extension and maybe it's two years before they have a hearing and in the interim period, they enroll in school or they get a job or they are reunited with family members and then they are no longer an enforcement priority." close quote. it's significant, colleagues. so even if after two or three years a hearing judge finally orders removal, assuming the individuals show up in court at all, and many won't, many illegally immigrants simply ignore that order, and having now been here for a period of years, no one is going to -- no one makes them leave.

as former i.c.e. director john sandwig said -- quote -- "if you are a run of the mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero." close quote. so yesterday, byron york published in the washington examiner the findings of jessica vaughn, director of the policy studies at the center for immigration studies which show that the united states deported a total of 802 minors to guatemala, honduras and el salvador in 2011, 677 in 2012 and down to 496 last year. weighted against the tens of thousands pouring in, it's clear that once again the reality on the ground, not merely rumor, talk or policy, the reality of lax enforcement has influenced

decisionmaking in central america. it just has. it's obvious to me. i was a federal prosecutor for many years. you have to send a message, and if the message is heard that if you violate a certain law, discipline will occur. the number of people who violate the law drop. if you never enforce speeding tickets, people will speed. if you enforce them systematically, people will slow down. york quotes ex-i.c.e. official gary meade -- quote -- "if you're getting $90,000 a year or $50,000 a year -- 90,000 a year or 50,000 a year or 25,000 a year and you only eliminate 1,200, you are not eliminating the backlog." close quote. additionally, those illegally here have taken advantage of an asylum system that is easily open to abuse and that the

administration has sought to widen rather than narrow. this asylum question is very serious. house judiciary committee chairman goodlatte stated recently -- quote -- "many of the children, teenagers and adults arriving at the border, are able to game our asylum and immigration laws because the obama administration has severely weakened them, and many thousands have already been released into the interior of the united states. what does president obama plan to do with those who have already been here released from custody? close quote. that's a good question. so we have a situation now where illegally immigrants seek out and turn themselves into the border patrol officers. they come across the border and go straight to them and turn themselves in. this is a fact. so what happens then? they are taken further into the united states to be reunited with family members, perhaps, to

apply for jobs, attend schools, have children go to hospitals and stay in the united states, whether through skipping court hearings, receiving asylum or simply ignoring orders to leave. and we can all expect five or ten years from now -- correct me if i'm wrong, but five or ten years from now, politicians in this very body will probably be saying these illegally immigrants -- quote -- "came here through no fault of their own and are entitled to citizenship now." is this a policy of a great nation? it's a policy of a nation that believes -- that advocates for open borders, but it's not a policy that's compatible with a system of law, duty and order. and if people apply and wait in line, why should people be able to come outside a line, break in line and move ahead of them

unlawfully and then receive ultimately the very thing they sought unlawfully. and the chaos continues. indeed, the president actively continues to incentivize even more illegal immigration. that's the effect of what it's accomplishing. so he reauthorized his daca probe, a bill that would not pass the united states senate or the house for two years, which is a policy just not to enforce chunks of the law of the united states for young people. he held a white house ceremony in the white house honoring ten daca recipients. daca recipients are people who enter the country illegally. he recently unilaterally authorized an additional 100,000 guest workers, and now the justice department is hiring lawyers to represent unaccompanied alien children in

immigration court to maximize the number in effect of those who will receive permission to stay in the country. claims that daca, this policy of nonenforcement unilaterally carried out by the president of the united states, according to his own directive, not to enforce the law, claims that daca does not apply to the new arrivals today. technically that would be true, but it's a distraction. daca is a unilateral action that established the precedent that those who come to america at a certain age will receive special exemptions from the law. that's what it says. i.c.e. officers report that they are often forced to release even high-risk individuals of unknown ages and dates of entry who simply assert dream act, d.a.c.a., privileges. in the internal border patrol

memo, democraty border patrol chief, mr. vitialla, stressed that the only way to stop the flow is to show potential illegally immigrants that there will be real consequences for their action. he says -- quote -- "if the united states government fails to deliver adequate consequences to illegal aliens attempting to enter the united states, the result will be an even greater increase in the rate of recidivism and first-time entries." close quote. so our immigration system is unraveling before our very eyes. it's unbelievable. the american people have been denied the protection that is they are entitled to under our immigration system. washington is failing the citizens of this country in a most dramatic, open way. laws are passed by elected

representatives of the people. we have passed laws that says you can't come to america without permission, and you need to file your papers and follow the steps, and it's unlawful to just walk across the border because you would like to come. that's not acceptable in a lawful country. so i'm calling on all the leaders and officials in this town to take the firm, bold and decisive steps that are necessary to restore order and restore our borders, and this is important for these children. they are at risk. many of them are having a difficult time. they have run out of money. and the coyotes and haulers and smugglers have taken their money and mistreated them. and we have heard a lot of horrible stories. how is the best way to fix this? the best way to fix it is have the president of the united states and the secretary of

homeland security say we are not going to accept you coming unlawfully. do not come, please. don't do it. make your application like everybody else. wait your turn like everybody else. we're not against immigration. we're not against young people. but it is unacceptable to have a -- a lawless system as we have today. a system that is placing children at risk, overwhelming our enforcement officers. one tv program today said the border patrol officers, instead of doing their duty, are changing diapers. and again, we have gone, we have gone from 6,000 to 90,000 this year to 100,000-plus next year. the cost, the budget item last year for these kind of things

was about $700 million. i think they are now saying they need $2.8 billion a year just to handle this flow. we don't have money to do that. it's not the right thing. it's dangerous for children. it's corrosive of the law. so the president must send a clear message -- do not come, please follow the law, and if you come anyway, contrary to law, you will be apprehended, you will be deported and you will be required to return home. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: today i want to discuss with my colleagues the nomination of leon rodriguez to

be director of u.s. citizenship and immigration service. mr. rodriguez was appointed on december 19. he was approved by our judiciary committee april 3 by a vote of 11-7. so i want to explain my opposition. first and foremost, mr. rodriguez lacks adequate immigration experience to lead this agency. i only say that because his nomination comes on the heels of a potential sweeping immigration reform legislation. when you read his responses to my questions, it becomes clear that he has little appreciation for what this job as director entails. he basically says that he has a lot of studying to do. i think with the situation of

immigration in this country, the need for immigration reform, that we need to do better than have a director of the agency who says that he has a lot of studying to do. second, his previous experience with casa de maryland is a concern as well. he was a member of the board of directors there from 2005 to 2007. the mission of casa de maryland is to help improve the quality of life and fight for equal treatment for low-income latinos. there's surely nothing wrong with that. that's a very noble cause. but if you peel back their mission statement, you'll see that the activities they're involved in are a lot greater than just improving the quality of life for low-income people.

they aid people here illegally in finding employment and gaining legal status in this country. they provide legal services to do so, and they fund day labor centers that focus on ensuring undocumented workers can find work on a daily basis. and of course that entails the use of taxpayers' money to accomplish that goal. their efforts are in direct conflict with the mission of the united states customs and immigration service -- citizens and immigration service. that agency has to ensure the integrity of the immigration programs and benefits. casa de maryland believes that anyone, even those who are here in contravention of our law,

should be eligible for benefits. the organization has pushed for drivers licenses for people here unlawfully. they have worked to undermine the real i.d., a federal law that needs to be fully implemented by the states. chef organized rallies and promoted legal status for people who have broken the law. they have trained undocumented workers to understand their rights and published a cartoon pamphlet advising people not to speak to law enforcement when approached. they go so far as to encourage them not to even provide their names. mr. rodriguez claimed that he had no knowledge of this pamphlet put out by casa de maryland. yet, he was on the board at the time that this was published and disseminated. mr. rodriguez doesn't disavow their work or their contempt for

law enforcement. in fact, he stated in one response that he was -- quote -- "supportive of the use of local tax measures to support the day labor centers" that casa de maryland established." so it is disconcerting he could have the same philosophy whose mission is to oversee illegal immigration in the united states. and we all know that we're a welcoming nation of immigrants because about a million people come here every year legally, and they're welcomed, and our laws allow that. now a third reason to oppose, i'm concerned about mr. rodriguez's commitment to responding to congressional oversight, and you know how strongly i feel about congress doing its constitutional job of

oversight. in other words, to be a check on the executive branch of government, to make sure that the laws are faithfully executed. despite assurances given during his hearing, mr. rodriguez reportedly -- repeatedly failed to provide responsive answers to many of my questions. mr. rodriguez was not responsive to the questions that i posed even in writing. while he repeatedly stated that he would review the programs and policies if confirmed, mr. rodriguez claims not to be privy -- that's his word -- to internal functions of have knowledge of how the agency works. he refused to provide his opinions on very critical matters facing the agency. so i'll give you some examples. in his initial responses, he

stated the following response not once, not twice, but 17 times -- quote -- "if confirmed, i will certainly commit to a careful study of this program to determine any additional appropriate steps forward, including any possible changes to address this matter." end of quote. you're talking about a person that gives that response, and he's directing an agency of 18,000 people, and he's not going to be ready to go to work on day one, and they needed somebody that was ready to go to work yesterday. the second time around asking questions, he responded a bit differently in each question, but always alluded to the fact that he that he was -- quote -- "not privy to the internal factors upon which the uscis and its

leadership base its decisions." end quote. i want to give you one example. i asked about whether drunk drivers or sex offenders should be eligible for legal status and immigration benefits. he responded in both instances saying that -- quote -- "in most cases, individuals who have been found guilty of a serious crime should not receive immigration benefits." well, that's a big question mark. what does he mean by "in most cases"? i would read that this way: so when these individuals be allowed to receive benefits and legal status? that's a question that's unanswered by his answer. by not answering the questions

about felons, drunk drivers or even gang members, he is essentially towing casa de maryland's line that no one should be deported. he couldn't offer an opinion of his own or elaborate when such people should guest benefits. he said -- should get benefits. he sailed be forthcoming with congress, but his repetitive answers show, one, that he's avoiding the questions. and, two, that he has a lot of studying to do before he takes this job. a fourth reason: he wasn't forthcoming with his views on what we call around here daca, the deferred action for child arrival program. that program grants work authorizations and stay of

deportment -- stay of deportations for anyone under the age of 31. one of the most pressing items on the agency's plate right now is whether or not we're going to renew the president's daca directive. in his hearing, and twice afterwards in questions for the record, i asked about mr. rodriguez's plan with daca and whether he would expand the program. now, i couldn't get a straightforward answer from him. i asked if he had any discussion about the program, and he stated that he was only, quote unquote, generally aware of the renewal process. he clearly knew the agency's published a renewal form for public comment, yet he claimed to have little knowledge or opinion on the matter.

what's more is that i'm told by employees within the agency that he has a person at the table who was reporting to him directly on the agency's decisions. i'm told that he has a conduit during discussions on the deferred action program. it's not clear how much he is driving the policies, but it concerns me that he claims no knowledge of this matter. had mr. rodriguez been more forthcoming, we'd also know what's in store for the president's directive. will he simply renew it or will he expand it, as many believe is the plan? congress should know this man's view on those very important matters. in connection with daca, i asked about information sharing with uscis and other federal

entities. now, you folks know that i rely on whistle-blowers for a lot of information. just recently a whistle-blower brought me a case in which the f.b.i. asked for information on a daca applicant. the f.b.i. agent in an e-mail said this -- quote -- "i'm checking to see if there was any information available regarding fugitive john smith? we would love to get him in custody. i was interested in knowing where he submitted his fingerprints and if he left a home address." end of quote. now that's the federal bureau of investigation doing its work. here's what the uscis provided, the following response to the f.b.i. -- quote -- "we cannot confirm that a daca request has

been filed without reason to believe that the requester would represent an enforcement priority. however, according to your e-mail, the agent can see what form was filed. as such, you could also direct him to our web site for additional publicly available information regarding immigration forms." end of quote. uscis's response to the f.b.i. was essentially this: sorry, we can't help you. we must protect the confidentiality of the applicant. end of quote. well, that's not quoting anybody. that's the hypothetical answer that i think our immigration

agency gave to the f.b.i. but this isn't the only case that we have like this. i've been informed about the lack of information sharing by the uscis since daca began in 2012. i asked mr. rodriguez about his commitment to provide law enforcement with information on people who apply for immigration benefits. now i didn't ask about the statutory or regulatory hurdles in information sharing, but he refused to answer. i asked about his commitment to making sure people who defraud the government or who are lawfully denied benefits are turned over to law enforcement for removal. in one instance, he said it depended upon the person's circumstances.

the immigration agency is part of the department of homeland security. their core mission is to, like you'd expect, to protect the homeland. yet, this agency has a culture that i call getting to ask. in other words, cut a whole bunch of red tape. don't worry about what the law says. just get people approved to be in this country. mr. rodriguez's nonresponsive answer on this matter of getting to "yes" concerns me because i.t. not consistent -- because it's not consistent with the mission of the department. i wanted a firm commitment that he would change that culture, and i couldn't get that from him. let me also address his connection to mr. perez, former head of the civil rights division at the department of

justice, now the secretary of labor. mr. perez, of course, was involved in the department's decision to decline the prosecution of the new black panther party voter intimidation case. remember that in philadelphia? during his hearing, mr. rodriguez admitted that he was aware of e-mails between political employees and career prosecutors discussing the decision to decline to prosecute that case. now, at that time mr. rodriguez was serving as mr. perez's chief of staff and personally assisted in preparing mr. perez for his testimony before congress. yet, after mr. perez testified that the political appointees were not involved in the decision when mr. rodriguez said

that they were involved in that decision, mr. rodriguez made to effort to correct the testimony after the fact. the u.s. citizenship and immigration service can be a very powerful agency. they grant benefits to foreign nationals and are implementing the president's weak prosecutorial discretion initiatives. this agency will have a lot of responsibility, if an immigration reform bill is passed by congress. we're talking about 12 million to 30 million undocumented people amig for benefits -- applying for benefits if this legislation is passed. and they will carry out an administrative amnesty, if a bill isn't passed. under president obama, this agency has implemented very controversial policies and practices.

many of the policies this agency has undertaken were included in the july 2010 internal memo that i obtained entitled -- quote -- "administrative alternatives to comprehensive immigration reform." that sounds a little bit like, i've got a pen and a phone, and if congress won't, i will. the purpose of the memo was, to -- quote -- "promote family unity, foster economic growth, achieve significant process improvements, and reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the united states without authorization." end of quote. the memo highlighted creative ways to achieve -- quote -- "meaningful immigration reform

absent legislative action." remember when the president said, i've got a pen and a phone, and if congress won't, i will? that's a perfect example of it. while the administration suggested this memo was only an internal deliberative document concocted by some bored bureaucrats, the department has undertaken already many of these proposals. they will do even more under the new director's leadership, if the president decides to act unilaterally regarding immigration. remember the president who said, i have a pen and a phone, and if congress won't, i will? the agency's culture of getting to "yes" must change before any legalization program is carried

out. the homelan homeland security ir general has reported on this culture. their own internal watchdog, the i.g., admonished the leadership for appearing to pressure lying adjudicators to get to "yes." their report clearly shows that the immigration service has a lot of work to do to get rid of the "get to yes" cul culture tht has pervaded this agency in recent years. a the fact thathe fact that a qe immigration officers felt pressured to approve questionable applications and 90% of the respondents felt they didn't have sufficient time to complete interviews of those who seek benefits certainly wa warrs significant changes be made immediately, and it doesn't appear that mr. rodriguez is

inclined to do that. this culture stems from the leadership, suggesting that lying adjudicators leaning towards approval and focus on eligibility and less on fraud. unfortunately, i didn't get any sense from mr. rodriguez that he was committed to changing the culture. so mr. rodriguez's appointment to this agency concerns me a great deal, and i hope my colleagues, before voting this afternoon, will take -- have that same concern. i question his experience and his managerial judgment to lead an agency of 18,000 federal employees. and, unfortunately, i doubt his sincerity in working with congress on oversight requests. i wish that he had been more forthcoming.

for these reasons and others, i oppose the nomination and yield the floor. mr mr. flake: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: later this afternoon, the senate will vote on the nomination of leon rodriguez. this is a prime time to raise some of the issues that are happening on the southwest border. i ask unanimous consent to insert my full statement in the record. and -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. flake: thank you. i'll summarize some of my

remarks here. we have an incredible situation, as we all know, happening on the border today. we've had thousands and thousands of kids cross the border. in fact, from may 1 to -- the 1st of may, there were 108,000 apprehensions of those. the significant number -- and this is just the rio grand valley in texas -- a significant number were unaccompanied minors. in fact so many, we didn't have the capacity to deal with them there. many, to the great chagrin of many in arizona, were shipped to arizona to process and then released into the custody of a guardian or someone. the border patrol and others are trying to make the best of a very tragic and unfortunate circumstance. and i don't think anybody faults them for, you know, the big burden that they have. and i think they're doing the

best they can. but what this situation really ponts up is that -- points up is that not only do we have insufficient resources on the border itself to deal with those trying to cross, but once people get here, we have insufficient resources, infrastructure, policies to actually deal with them in a timely fashion. they're actually released, most of them, and asked to appear at a later date. it's estimated that quite a few don't. in fact, very few will show up at their court date. what are we to do here? we've -- obviously, those of us who have dealt with this situation for a long time -- those of us from border states -- have advocated broad legislation to deal with border security, guest worker plans, mechanisms to deal with those who are here illegally now, employer enforcement, many items. but if we can't get to that yet,

i wish we could, but if we can't get to that yet, then we need to have better policies to deal with those who have come across the border and that we're going to hold. if we're going to grant them asylum -- or some of them -- then that needs to be done. if not, we can't just assume that we're going to release them and assume that they'll come back into -- at their court date or their appointed time. so this is the situation we have to deal with. one thing we need to address immediately is to try to stem the tide for those that are coming. interviews suggest overoverwhelmingly -- in fact, e were 250,000 crossers during a two-week period into texas. i believe 95% of them indicated that the main motivation for them coming now, coming across the border -- and this is largely unaccompanied minors --

www.thattheywouldbegrantedsome-- www.thattheywouldbegrantedsome-d of thisiscontrarytothepresident's de thisiscontrarytothepresident'sde thisiscontrarytothepresident'sdo rthatprogram. legislation has been passed by either body. the legislation we passed in the senate does not allow those who come now to stay. you will have had to have been here since, i believe, december of 2011. but what is happening is cartel members, human smugglers, others are misinterpreting or willingly telling people that they will receive some kind of legal status when they come. and too many people believe that, particularly in the countries of el salvador,

honduras and guatamala. some suggest that it's just economic conditions or violence in those countries that are driving people northward. that, no doubt, has some truth to it. there are some who come for those reasons. but we've seen a massive spike just in the last couple of months that can't be explained by economic conditions or violence in those countries. it's because they believe they will be afforded some legal status. myself, senator mccain and many others in this body have raised this with the administration and have asked the administration to make it clear that those who come now will not be allowed to stay, and i have a letter that has been, i think this is an advertisement or has been translate d into spanish and was being circulated in the affected countries from secretary jeh johnson of the department of homeland security. it's a good letter. it says the right things. i'm glad that we've taken that step. vice president joe biden was in

those countries telling the, those in charge and others that those who come now will not be allowed to stay. they will be deported. that's a good thing. we need to keep that up. but what we really need right now is for the president, for president obama himself, to make such a statement. in all deference to the vice president and the secretary of the homeland security, they simply don't carry the weight of the president of the united states making a statement and then following up that statement with a concerted effort in those countries to let people know they shouldn't come north. that would make a tremendous difference. so i would call upon the president to make such a statement and to follow up that statement with efforts in these countries to make sure people understand this. first and foremost, we need to stem the tide of those coming. it's estimate that had this year there could be as many as 90,000 unaccompanied minors come across

the border. that figure may be higher next year. we've got to stem that tide. and then quickly figure out how we can deal with those who cross the border and that we apprehend, because we simply don't now have the infrastructure or policies that allow us to deal with them in a rational, humane way. so i would call upon the president to make such a statement, and i yield back the balance of my time. be be. mr. walsh: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. walsh: i rise today to talk about our public lands. growing up in butte, montana, woke up every day under the shadow of the continental

divide, part of the deer lodge national forest. as a kid my dad would take me fishing on the big river. on the living room wall on my parents' wall there were three pictures of three people: a picture of jesus, a picture of j.f.k. and a picture of george beaney. i carried the values my parents instilled to me to this day. i grew up in a catholic home similar to montana rider norman mclean who wrote in "a river runs through it" that his father a presbyterian minimum store -- and i quote -- "told us about christ disciples being fishermen and when we were left to assume that all first-class fishermen on the sea of galilee were fly fishermen and john, the favorite was a dry fly fisherman." as an adult, serving the montana national guard i would ride my mountain bike almost daily on the trails of the national forest that connect the streets of our capital city in helena.

one day my granddaughter kennedy will fish and bike these same lands and waters. these places all have one thing in common beyond being gorgeous and being in montana. they belong to me and you. they are part of what makes living in america so special. other countries and other states have lost this heritage. but not in montana p. maintaining and improving access to these lands is one of the most important things that we can do. that's why today i introduced legislation to make it harder to sell off this land. my bill will create a budget point of order in the senate to block attempts to sell off public land to pay for congress's bills. there is no question that washington has a spending problem. rriving in the senate -- since arig in the senate, i have proposed several ways to rein in out-of-control spending. but selling off our kids and

grandkids' heritage is a terrible idea. jeopardizing the countless jobs that rely on our outdoors is also a terrible idea. there's a theory circulating in some parts of the west that the federal government has a continuing duty to dispose of its lands in western states. what this really means is handing over our most popular recreation areas to the highest out-of-state bidder that's good for copper barons but it's bad for us. this theory is as radical as it is wrong. as court rulings have repeatedly found. but it is getting traction. our colleagues in the house of representatives have passed a budget that could sell off millions of access of acres of public land in montana. i want you to know, mr. president, that i will fight any similar attempts in this chamber. i want my granddaughter kennedy

to grow up in montana with the same easy access to streams and forests that i enjoyed, whether she wants to hunt, hike, fish or bike. we also need to get our forests healthy and working again, creating good jobs and making our forests more resilient to forest fires. like many montanans, i'm frustrated with how long it takes to conduct a timber sale or complete an environmental analysis of potential projects. even simple projects get tied up in court and our rural communities and the land itself suffers for it. but the solution isn't to hand the keys over to special interests and walk away. the solution is to manage the land from the ground up. in montana, tourism is critical to our economy. our recreation supports over 64,000 jobs and generates over $5.8 billion in revenue annual

annually. cutting off access or selling the land to out-of-state development is a direct threat to jobs in montana. turning over land to the state is just one step away from privatizing it. and there is no question that private land is the misguided ultimate goal by many who don't know on outdoor heritage in the west. in the year of 2000, i led the response of the montana national guard to the wildfires that year that consumed over 1 million acres of montana land. the departments of agriculture and interior have spent about $1.8 billion annually to fight wildfires in the last five yea years. states simply cannot afford the price tag. one bad wildfire season could bankrupt a state. i want to share a little more about what's at stake here. under the ryan budget in the house of representatives, with an auction of our public lands,

montana hunters could lose access to the elk wallows of the pioneer mountains. you might here elk bugling on tender foot crete in the little belts, but it could be on private land instead of land protected by the land and water conservation fund. montanans could be shut out of the missouri river breaks, locked out of putting a canoe in or hunting a mule deer or sheep. we could lose the rocky mountain front facing paddle locks and orange signs instead of open space and the chance for a big horned sheep tag. under the house plan, anglers in montana could lose the headwaters of rock creek or the smith river and the chance to sink a perfect fly from a stre streamside the public owns.

despite years of effort to secure access, we could be shut out of land around the three dollar bridge south of boozman that helped -- snie bozeman that helps kids like me fishing in the stream. the same thing could happen to the centennials and the swan. we could lose the best eastern montana has to offer, from the monster bucks and turkeys on the custer national forest to the duck factory of the b.l.m.'s prairie potholes. under the house plan, we could be facing closed roads, closed trails and closed land in the galletin national forest that thousands of montanans worked together 20 years ago to keep open and keep public forever. montana is the last, best place because we can hunt, fish, hike, and play outland that we all o own. i will fight to keep it that w

way. mr. president, thank you for this time. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to participate in a colloquy with a number of my colleagues for up to 20 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. sir, we're in a quorum call. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes in a colloquy with a number of my colleagues. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today with the ranking member of the senate energy committee to discuss the issues the keystone x.l. pipeline. and i turn to my colleague from alaska to invite her to share with the senate some of her observations and considerations and concerns as we seek approval of an opportunity to create more jobs in america, improve our economy as well as energy security for our country. so i turn to the senator from alaska and ask her concerns,

comments and solutions that she may see regarding the keystone x.l. pipeline. ms. murkowski: well, thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: and i appreciate my friend and colleague from wyoming today helping to lead off this discussion about the keystone x.l. pipeline. and, really, mr. president, to encourage the senate to move on this, to do something on this rather than just talk about it. we're sitting here tuesday afternoon, had a series of -- of votes on judges here this morning. looks like we're employing to -e we're going to have some more this week. but from the view of so many around this country that are worried about jobs, worried about the economy, worried about what is happening with the i.r.s., with the v.a., not too mention what is worried -- what is happening on the world sense, but it looks like we're going to have yet another unproductive week here in the senate.

and since we're here and we've got time, i can't think of a better time and a better issue to take up than this of the keystone x.l. pipeline. the bill that we're asking to be brought up is senate bill s. 2280. it was introduced by our colleague from north dakota, senator hoeven. he introduced it back in may, it was may 1, and it was placed on the legislative calendar for a few days. it has 55 cosponsors. here we talk about bipartisan issues and initiatives within the senate. 55 is a pretty good number. it includes 11 democrats, including the chair of the energy and natural resources committee. we are -- we're well, well, well beyond the house of representatives, though, on this initiative. they passed a keystone bill over a year ago but we have been working in the energy committee. we had a keystone bill that was reported out of the energy

committee just last week. we passed an original bill on a bipartisan basis. it has not yet been filed but it's virtually identical to senator hoeven's bill that we are discussing here today. but i did vote. i know my colleague from wyoming and i know the occupant of the chair here voted for senator landrieu's original bill. i did so because i think that it is good policy to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline. and i committed at that hearing and i certainly commit now that i'm going to do everything i can to help advance this initiative. and so if and when her bill is placed on the calendar, i would intend to support that as well. but the problem that we have -- and it should be no surprise to most -- the problem is, no matter how many keystone bills are added to the calendar, it appears that the majority leader is going to ignore them. it doesn't matter how long

keystone has been under review. it doesn't matter how many new jobs will be created. it doesn't matter that the delays are -- are political and not substantive. the fact of the matter is, is we cannot take -- get to that point where we can take up this important initiative. the majority leader could have offered us a vote on senator hoeven's bill at any point -- at any point -- over these last six weeks but he's chosen not to, and it seems pretty clear to me that he has no intention of moving to it, especially if we just kind of sit back on this and don't push. now, it may be that that is the will of some in this body, that they don't want us to do anything, they don't want us to push forward, but i think that is contrary to the will, to the wish of 56 members of this chamber. and it's contrary to our

national interest here. it's interesting to note, mr. president, democrats were not always opposed to importing crude oil from canada as they would appear today. back in 1970, the nixon administration announced that it would place a quota on canadian oil imports, and it was none other than senator ted kennedy who led the fight against this decision. and he said in a senate hearing in march of 1970, kennedy argued -- quote -- "the reason why canadian oil has never been restricted in the past is obvious. canadian oil is as militarily and politically secure as our own and, thus, there can be no national security justification for limiting its importation." pretty telling words back then and i think they still hold true today. and it wasn't just ted kennedy. there were other democrats who opposed the nixon administrati

administration's restriction on trade with canada. senator proxmire of wisconsin, senator mcintyre of new hampshire. i think we've had -- we've had such an opportunity on this floor to debate the merits of the keystone x.l. pipeline, to debate not only how many good-paying jobs that they can bring to us but how it can help this nation and canada as -- as we work to promote our north american energy independence. our energy partnership with canada has taken decades to develop. it's had some rocky times. but all good and worthy relationships take a little bit of work to maintain. and so if the obama administration is unwilling to do the hard work of diplomacy and make this remarkably easy decision approving a job-creating and a security enhancing pipeline, then i think it's time for congress to act.

and that's why, mr. president, a few of us have gathered here today to -- to move this issue forward, to do more than just talking about it but to get the united states senate to the point where we might actually have an opportunity to vote on it. and do some good for this country. so we're sitting here waiting. we've got an opportunity to do it, and i think that we should -- we should end the delay, i think we should move forward with this bill. mr. barrasso: i agree, mr. president. last week extremists from the islamic state of iraq and syria, a terrorist group, attacked the largest oil refinery in iraq. the terrorist group that was actually kicked out of al qaeda for being too extreme. and it's a striking reminder, mr. president, to all of us, all of us in chamber and this nation how important it is for the united states to take swift action to increase energy production here in north

america, energy security is key. president obama essentially conceded the point last week during the press conference when he announced he was sending troops back into iraq. he said he was asked what iraq's civil war is in terms of national security interests of the united states and he gave a couple of reasons, he said -- quote -- "obviously issues like energy, like energy, and global energy markets continue to be important." you know, i would just say, mr. president, despite the urgency, the president refuses to take steps to reduce the effects iraq's oil can have on america's national security in the future. the president admits that it's the national security interests of the united states but refuses to do anything about it that is meaningful. what does the president and the administration think should happen? the president was asked a week or so ago as a result of a huge spike in oil prices, a barrel of oil as a result of what was

happening with isis in the middle east, said what about all this. he said he was concerned, he said -- quote -- "that the gulf should pick up the slack and produce more oil." not north america, not the united states. the gulf. he's talking about the persian gulf should pick up the slack. vice president biden put out a plan last week to support energy production, but not in the united states. in the caribbean. you know, americans shouldn't be asking more energy from the caribbean or the persian gulf. we should be producing more energy on our own in our own gulf you gulf coast, off shore, in federal lands, in alaska, and that's why last week the energy and natural resources committee passed legislation approving construction of keystone x.l. pipeline. it passed the committee as the ranking member said, bipartisan support, even democrats voted for it. believe that will send oil

from -- that bill will send oil from states like north dakota and the senator from north dakota is here on the floor, will send oil from canada and north dakota to refiners in texas and louisiana. last week democrats in the committee voted for this bill, talked about how important it is. the keystone x.l. pipeline application has been pending more than five years. the state department has done five environmental reviews of the project. all five. all five have been found that the keystone x.l. pipeline will cause no significant environmental impacts. we should not delay this project any longer. democrats should push their party leaders to vote on this important bill. you know, i'm disappointed, i know my colleagues are, that senate democrats up to this point from have chosen to block this important bill. i think it's outrageous the way a small group of democrats refuse even to consider having a debate on this vital measure, energy security for our country, energy at home, america needs the jobs, we

neend the energy. according to the u.s. state department, this bill would support thousands and thousands of jobs. energy is a national security issue for the united states and this bill would help produce energy here in north america, not where the president said they'll pick up the slack, in the persian gulf. bills on the calendar right now, the democrat majority leader can bring it up for a vote and we're going to ask him to do so today. the chair of the energy committee should be calling on the majority leader and demand that he act on the bill. we are here in the senate, we get elected to the senate to vote. the keystone x.l. pipeline is important, this bill is important, democrats who want to vote against it can make their arguments, cast their vote. so i turn to my friend and colleague, the senator from north dakota, a senator who has been an incredible leader, former governor of the state, a senator who knows the issue well, who knows the value of

american energy, u.s. energy, north american energy, the impact on jobs, the impact on our economy, the impact of energy as a geopolitical weapon in what's happening around the world. so i ask my friend and colleague from north dakota if he thinks there is any reason whatsoever to delay action on this bill or if we should just move ahead. i see the senator from oklahoma has also joined us. so there is obviously significant and growing voices coming to the floor to say it's time to vote now. not additional delay, not additional studies, not additional talk. time to vote. i turn to my friend and colleague from north dakota, the former governor of north dakota, i think the longest serving governor in the history of the state, for his impression of why it's time to vote today. mr. hoeven: mr. president? the presiding officer: the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota.

mr. hoeven: i'd like to thank the esteemed senator from wyoming not only for being here today but for his tremendous leadership on energy issues. wyoming produces an incredible amount of energy for this country and the senator from wyoming well knows you not only are have to produce that energy, have you to get it to market and you need pipelines to move oil and gas to market. we move some by truck, some by train, but we can't move everything by truck and by train. we've got to have pipelines. that's what this is all about. the keystone x.l. pipeline is the latest, greatest technology that is the most efficient and the safest way to move this product to market and will actually result in less greenhouse gas than if don't want build the pipeline as was determined by the administration's own environmental impact statement produced by the department of state. i have some additional comments i'd like to make on this important issue but first i'd like to turn to the esteemed

senator from oklahoma and ask that he provide some of his comments and insights from a state that produces an incredible amount of energy and from hydraulic fracturing started in this country and has been done safely since the 1950's, someone who understands not only do we have to produce energy to get a energy independence but we've got to have the infrastructure to move that product safely to market. so with that i would turn to the distinguished senator from oklahoma and ask his thoughts on this important issue as well. mr. inhofe: thank you. i do appreciate that. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: oklahoma is not just the place where they first started hydraulic fracturing, that was duncan, oklahoma, in 1948 and according to lisa jackson who is the obama-appointed e.p.a. director, never been a

confirmed case of groundwater connation. i know -- contamination. i know we're strapped for time. i do want to draw your attention to the chart, what i'm holding up here. it happened that cushing, oklahoma is considered the crossroads of the pipelines throughout the united states. and in cushing, we had the first, the only trip president obama has made to oklahoma, he came into oklahoma and with -- see in the background all the tubes up there, and to dramatically make a statement. and that statement, i'm going to read it here evening though you can read it with me. "i'm directing my administration to cut through the red train, break through the bureaucratic hurdles and make this project, the keystone, a priority to go ahead and get it done." that's what the president said in oklahoma. and i wasn't there, but that's what he said. that's a direct quote. then he went and did everything

he could do to destroy the keystone pipeline. now, he made the statement down there, he said i'm not going to do anything to create a problem for the southern leg that goes from cushing down into texas. there's a reason for that. the reason is, he couldn't do it. the reason he's stopping it up there, it crosses a country line from canada to the united states, he has some jurisdiction there but there's nothing he could do to stop it. so i came down to tell us that he wasn't going to do that. i just have to say to the president, people in oklahoma aren't that dumb. they know that you didn't have the authority or you would have stopped it. the portion between canada and cushing is the part that remains stalled. at this point i think the reason is one guy named tom steyer. if you haven't heard him before, let me introduce you to him. first of all, you always hear a lot of things about the koch brothers and other people are putting money and are concerned

about. this is the most -- this actually is a statement made by this very wealthy person. i'm sure he's a nice tern. tom steyer is a multibillionaire, he's very liberal, from the state of california, the state of my good friend from -- the senator from -- the junior senator from california. he's made the statement that he is going to put up a hundred million dollars to spend in campaigns of people who would do two things. one, try to resurrect the issue of global warming which is dead on the -- i can remember back when global warming would be polled as the number one or number two plob in the country. right now according to last week's gallup poll it's 14 out of 15. that's a dead issue. but a hundred million dollars to do two things, resurrect the issue and stop the keystone pipeline. a few weeks ago he said explicitly -- these are his words, not mine -- it is

true -- -- quote -- "it is true that we expect to be heavily involved in midterm elections. we're looking at a bunch of races. my guess is we'll be involved in eight or more races. we just learned this week that as the president marks his one-year anniversary of his climate action plan, tom steyer is going to meet personally with him. so there's $100 million at work right there. if that's what it takes for a meeting. and we all know what the cost would be. and this is the thing that is very important. we know and this is one thing that has not been refuted -- may back in the beginning of the whole global warming thing they talked about the cost is going to be somewhere twernd $2,010,300,000,000 and $400 million a year. well, that was the warton economics foundation, the charles rivers, everyone agrees with that. the keystone pipeline which tom steyer wants to stop would create 42,000 jobs and tens of thousands more would be supported in the manufacturing sector.

but keystone is just the tip of the iceberg. if you look at this chart, chart number three, you can see all of the domestic energy resources that are being developed around the country. right now, and we're going through a shale revolution in america. and the only thing that is getting in the way is the federal government. this is what's interesting. in the last six years, oil production on private and state lands is up 61%. on federal land, however, oil production is down -- how could that be? throughout the united states, not just in the western parts, look in new york and pennsylvania. all of it on state and private land, an increase in five years, five and a half years of 61%. at the same time, on federal land, it's down by 6%. the i.f.c. international, a well respected consulting firm released a report last month

that said u.s. companies will need to invest $260 billion over the next 20 years of infrastructure to keep up with the growing oil and gas production. what does it mean for jobs? according to analysis, the spending on these pliens lien will create 432,000 direct jobs, that's based on a conservative estimate that does not assume we develop all of the resources in our country. if that were included, it would be a lot more. so keeping this from happening would be a great impact for imposing anti-energy global warming policies. we need to build the keystone pipeline and provide regulatory certainty for the entire energy infrastructure sector. and without it, we'll never reach into energy independence. right now we know --. the presiding officer: the time has expired. mr. inhofe: how much time is remaining on our side? the presiding officer: 33

minutes is remaining on the republican side buy but the request for the colloquy time has expired. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent i be given four more minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from california. mrs. boxer: what time do we have a veto here? the presiding officer: 4:30. mrs. boxer: the reason we were careful with our time and we gave my good friends, and they are my good friends, a lot of extra time, i'll allow the senator to proceed for a minute but after that we need equal time on this. i give him one minute. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator has asked for four minutes. mrs. boxer: i approve one minute. ms. inhofe: could we compromise at two minutes. mrs. boxer: let me think it over. okay. the presiding officer: without objection. two minutes. mr. inhofe: i thank my good friend from california for thinking that over. i want to mention 432,000 direct jobs. and when you stop and think about it, keeping it from happening would really have -- would have the effect of

stopping us from becoming oil independent. and we could do that. the keystone pipeline needs to be built, we all know about the jobs, more importantly there's not a single good reason why it shouldn't happen. tom steyer's goal is to stop the oil in canada from being developed but he can't do it. the canadians have already -- we've seen this just in the last week. they have conversations going where they are -- with china to have them accept this if we don't complete our keystone pipeline. with that i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i ask unanimous consent to call up senate bill 2280, a bill to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline, that there be up to four hours of debate, and that the senate then proceed to vote on