is to not put the seal on the podium when the president is speaking at a fundraiser, when he's soliciting donations for political causes, and i think that's a line that we've kept to over the last seven years. but that's the -- it may aggrandizing it to describe that as a policy, but that is a description of how we handle this matter. >> well, why did you decide to use the seal yesterday? do you know if the clinton campaign asked for the seal? a candidate could be seen speaking behind it? >> i'm not aware of any such request from the clinton campaign. >> okay. [inaudible] the vice president and his seal when he campaigns for the candidate on friday? >> yeah. i have not asked the vice president's team about what policies they expect to have in place, but we can certainly check with them, or you can check with them and get an answer, or we can just tune in on friday. [laughter] all right?

jordan. >> thanks, josh. i want to ask you about opioid legislation now that the house and senate republicans have voted down additional funding to pass that bill, would the president veto that package if it landed on his desk? >> well, jordan, the thing that i find at least somewhat surprising is the way a that republicans in congress -- the way that republicans in congress continue to abdicate their basic responsibility to address an emergency. democrats and republicans all around the country have identified the opioid epidemic in the united states as an emergency. public health professionals have identified this as an emergency, mayors and governors all across the country, democrats and republicans, have identified the oil to yoid epidemic in america as an emergency. republican presidential candidates have campaigned in

states across the country earlier this year and talked about how the opioid epidemic in america required a robust response. somehow that message has not gotten through to congressional republicans. the administration has gone to great lengths to try to do what we can using the president's executive authority to try to enhance the fight against the opioid epidemic. just yesterday there was an announcement of a couple of steps at the department of health and human services was taking to give physicians the authority to offer medication-assisted treatment to more patients. there were announcements from the v.a. and the department of defense to improve prescription drug monitoring to prevent

people from becoming addicted to opioids. so many people all along the ideological spectrum in both parties are making the case about how this is an urgent priority. but it's only republicans in congress that are deaf to those calls. and i'm not really sure why. there are patriotic americans in democratic and republican congressional districts who have lost loved ones to the opioid epidemic. there are people in america right now who know they have an addiction, who have sought treatment and are unable to get it because beds in treatment facilities are not available to them. everyone who has spent any time looking at this issue

understands that additional resources are necessary in the form of hospital beds and public health professionals to treat this problem. thousands of americans are in need of assistance. and passing a bill that is doing little more than paying lip service to the problem falls woefully short of congress' basic responsibility. democrats have been fighting for additional resources. you'll recall that the president of the united states put forward a comprehensive proposal to fight opioid addiction in his budget. and i don't have to remind you that that billion dollar proposal was something that republicans in congress were unwilling to even discuss.

they canceled a hearing that had previous -- the past 40 congresses had previously held to value a wait the president's budget -- evaluate the president's budget proposal. for 40 years in a row, that meeting had been held. but they wouldn't even give the president's budget director a chance to discuss the proposal. so republicans don't take this seriously, and i don't understand why. the so we'll see what gets passed out of conference. but if there is a bill that reaches the president's desk that is geared toward fighting the opioid epidemic but doesn't include any funding, i certainly cannot promise that the president would sign it. so we'll see what they do. but hopefully, republicans in congress will listen to the calls from democrats and republicans alike who aring

asking for more resources -- who are asking for more resources to deal with this significant emergency. okay? april. >> josh, i have two subjects i want to ask you, two totally different -- [inaudible] first, i want to go back to yesterday. how did -- give us a little color off of air force one. how did the conversation or the issue of the comey statement come up yesterday with the president and secretary clinton? >> this is the easiest question i'm going to get all day. it did not come up. >> you mean to tell me they were on plane traveling to charlotte, never talked about it on the plane, not even when they had both -- [inaudible] >> well, secretary clinton did not fly back on air force one with president obama. so presumably she got -- >> [inaudible] at the restaurant. >> well, they got it to go, so presumably, she was able to enjoy it on her own plane. i know some members of the

president's staff enjoyed the barbecue on the flight back on air force one -- >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> it was excellent. but, no, the president takes quite seriously the need to avoid the appearance of outside influence on an ongoing investigation. the fbi director has indicated they have completed the investigation, but the results of that investigation and the recommendations that spring from that recommendation are still being evaluated by prosecutors at the department of justice. so the president did not discuss matter with secretary clinton. again, the president and his views on this matter are not relevant, because the decision that prosecutors at the department of justice will make will be rooted in their own expertise, their own evaluation

of the facts and the evidence x that's how they will reach their conclusions. they will do that independent of their own political preferences, and they will certainly do that independent of any preferences that the president has. but the president takes this quite seriously, and it was not discussed by the president and secretary clinton on the flight yesterday. >> next subject. baton rouge, louisiana -- [inaudible] the president is a huge partaker of social media. has he seen this video that's gone viral of alton sterling's death at the hands of the police in baton rouge? >> the president is aware of the situation. i do not know whether or not he has watched the video. april, as you probably know, the department of justice announced just this morning that they would be taking a close look at this matter. and, again, for reasons that are not dissimilar from what we were discussing earlier, i'm just not going to be able to comment in a lot of detail on this situation given the fact that the

department of justice has said that they're going to take a look at the situation. but, obviously, the president is aware of this, and regardless of what this investigation finds, there are, there is a family in baton rouge, and there is a community that is grieving right now. and, obviously, our thoughts and prayers are with the family that's lost a loved one. >> do you think the president -- [inaudible] could you tell us how? because he started an office, my brother's keeper, because of situations like this. could you tell me how he was made aware and what he's said, and could you talk to us about the process as it relates to a possible -- [inaudible] law violation -- >> well, i'll let the department of justice talk about it, it is a process they're going to conduct independent of any white house judgment about situation.

but, look, the president's aware of it, but i don't have a specific reaction to the news to share with you. >> [inaudible] roderick johnson, the head of my brother's keeper, tell him? i mean, how do -- >> no, he -- this incident has, obviously, garnered significant media attention, and that's how the president's aware of it. okay? mark. >> yeah, josh, back to the e-mails and the congressional hearing, is it appropriate for congress, members of congress to haul before hearings the lead investigators and the attorney general? is there a danger of them asserting political influence that you say the president is so keen to avoid? >> well, i think you're raising a legitimate question, but it's one at this point that i'm just not going to be in a position to comment on given the fact that what the fbi director will presumably be asked to discuss is the findings of his investigation and the recommendation that that

investigation prompted to the the department of justice. and given that those findings and that recommendation are still being evaluated by the department of justice, i just, i'm reluctant to weigh in on it at point. >> speaker ryan has said that he should supply point-by-point justification for the things he said yesterday. is that appropriate? >> yeah. i think, again, the fbi director did speak to this investigation at some length yesterday. many people have observed that that is not the standard practice, but there is little about this matter that is standard, you might say. so i think the fbi director did have an opportunity to be quite transparent with the american public about the investigation that was conducted, how it was conducted, what they found and what they recommended to the department of justice. but i'm just not going to be

able to speak on this matter given that the findings and recommendations are still under review by professionals at the department of justice. >> also what do you think of donald trump's assertion that letting clinton off the hook represents bribery of the attorney general? >> i don't have a specific reaction to mr. trump's comments on this matter. so thank you for giving me the opportunity though. suzanne. >> yeah, i want to follow up on april's question out of baton rouge. the louisiana governor said there were a number of white house officials who reached out to him this morning. was the president one of them? has the president talked to the governor, and why has the justice department reacted with such speed in terms of taking over the investigation? >> the president has not made any calls to the louisiana governor on this matter. i can tell you that the white house officials that did place calls placed those calls prior to the announcement from the department of justice about the ongoing investigation. now that the investigation is underway, i would not anticipate

extensive conversations about this matter between the white house and any louisiana officials, again, out of respect for the independent department of justice investigation. for the decision and speed with which the decision was made by the department of justice to take a close look at this matter, i'd refer you to officials at the department of justice. they reached that decision on their own and based on their knowledge of the facts. but exactly what factored into that decision and the timing for that decision being announced, that's something that they'll have to speak to. >> some officials including the police chief who felt like that wasn't necessary, that according to him he didn't need hand-holding and that type of thing, is there any sense that there's some pushback from the justice department getting involved? >> well, again, i'll let the police chief speak to his perspective. obviously, the department of justice has made a decision

based on their own expertise and based on their own knowledge of the case to conduct a investigation, but i'll leave it to them to explain. >> in the video, what we did see, another african-american man on the ground being shot and killed by police officers. it is under investigation, which we know, but the family held a press conference in which his 15-year-old son wailed and broke down the loss of his father. >> it's heartbreaking. >> heartbreaking. has the president seen that particular video, and just to a larger point, what does he think? what is his reaction and response to something like that happening again in our country? >> well, listen, i -- in response to april's question, i noted earlier, the pain that is obviously being felt by this family and by this commitment in batten -- by this community in baton rouge. and we're thinking about them as

they endure that grief. but as it relates to the facts of the situation, i'm just not going to be able to get boo it because -- into it because department of justice is taking a look at the matter. but this is something that the president is aware of. i don't know if he saw the news conference. but i'm certain that he's aware of the news. but we're obviously going to be deferential to the decision making at the department of justice about how to pursue justice in this matter. okay? all right? megan. >> we'll leave the white house briefing at this point to return to live coverage of the u.s. senate. you can continue to watch online at c-span.org. live now to the senate floor. m. mr. toomey: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: thank you, madam president. i rise to address the legislation we'll be voting on later this afternoon. two procedural votes to take up legislation, both of which both bills were inspired by a horrendous event that occurred

almost exactly one year ago. july 1, 2015, is the date, madam president, when a 32-year-old woman named kate steinle was walking on a pier in san francisco with her dad, and out of nowhere comes a man who starts firing his weapon at her, shoots her and within moments kate steinle bled to death in her father's arms. now, as appalling as that murder was, one of the particularly galling things about it is that the shooter should never have been on the pier that day. the shooter had been convicted of seven felonies and had been deported from america five times because he was here illegally, but even more maddening, madam president, is that just a few months before, san francisco law enforcement officials had him in their custody. they had him.

and the department of homeland security discovering that, they put out a request to say hold onto this guy, detain him until we can get one of our guys there to take him into custody because we want to get him out of this country, he's dangerous, we know he is. and what did the san francisco law enforcement folks do? they said sorry, we can't help you and they released him onto the streets of san francisco from which he later shot and killed a perfectly innocent young woman. now, why in the world would the san francisco law enforcement folks release a seven-time convicted felon, five-time deported person who was known to be dangerous and in the face of a request from the department of homeland security, why would they release such a person? because san francisco is a sanctuary city, which means it is the legal policy of the city

of san francisco to refuse to provide any information or to cooperate with a request to detain anyone when the department of homeland security is requesting such cooperation with respect to someone who's here illegally. madam president, this is madness. this is just unbelievable that we have municipalities that are willfully releasing dangerous people into our communities. and let me point out that the terribly tragic case of kate steinle is not a unique case. according to the department of homeland security, in an analysis they looked at just an eight-month period in 2014, the most recent period for which we have data, sanctuary cities across america released 8,000 individuals and 1,800 of them were later arrested for criminal acts. that's what's happening across

america, including in the great city of philadelphia, in my home state of pennsylvania which has become a sanctuary city. so today we're going to vote on two different bills. we're going to take a procedural vote which will determine whether or not we can proceed to two bills inspired by this terrible, terrible tragedy. first is my legislation. it's called the stop dangerous sanctuary cities act, s. 3100. i'm grateful for my cosponsors, senators inhofe, vitter, cotton, cruz and wicker. and let me explain how this bill is structured because there's a court ruling that has caused a number of municipalities that would rather not be sanctuary cities, has caused them to feel like they need to be sanctuary cities. and here's the ruling. it's both the third circuit court of appeals which has jurisdiction over my state of pennsylvania but also a federal district court in oregon.

what they have held is that if the department of homeland security makes a mistake, let's say it's the wrong john doe and they ask a police department somewhere to hold that person, turns out they're holding him wrongly. according to these court decisions, the local police department can be held liable, even though they were just acting in good faith at the request of the department of homeland security. well, that doesn't make any sense, and it's easily corrected. my bill corrects it. what my bill says is that if a person is wrongly held in such a circumstance where the local police are complying in good faith with the request from the department of homeland security, if that happens, the person, the individual wrongly held can still sue. they can still go to court, but they wouldn't go to court against the local police or the local municipal is pallity. they would take their case against the department of

homeland security where it belongs, because after all it was the era of the -- error of the department of homeland security that caused the person to be wrongly held. so that solves the problem of a municipality being concerned about a liability that would attach to, really, their doing the right thing, and given that solution which is in our legislation if we pass this and we make this law, then there is no excuse whatsoever for any municipality willfully refusing to cooperate with federal immigration and law enforcement officials, and so the second part of my legislation says if a community nevertheless despite a lack of any legal justification, nevertheless chooses to be a dangerous sanctuary city, well then you're going to lose some federal funding, specifically community development block grant funds which cities get from the federal government and they love to spend that on all kinds of things.

well, you know, the fact is sanctuary cities impose costs on the rest of us, security costs to the risks that we take, the unspeakable costs that the steinle family incurred, and so i think it's entirely reasonable that we withhold this funding as a way to hopefully induce these cities to do the right thing. now, i said there are two pieces of legislation that we're going to be taking procedural votes on today. the other one is called kate's law. i want to commend senator cruz for introducing this legislation. as i pointed out, kate steinle's killer had been convicted of seven felonies and deported five times. how many times is this going to continue? what kate's law simply says is there will be a mandatory five-year prison sentence for someone who illegally re-enters the u.s. after having already been convicted of an aggravated felony and having been convicted of at least two prior offenses

of illegal re-entry. so if that gets a little bit confusing, the bottom line is they have come into the found four times illegally and been convicted of an aggravated felony. at some point, the person needs to go to jail. and so that's what kate's law does. now, let me go back to my legislation because i have heard a -- let's just -- i assume it's a mistaken impression that i want to set the record straight, and that is some have argued that if my legislation were passed, if we passed the legislation to correct the legal problem and then withhold funding from cities that become sanctuary cities, they have said that, well, that might discourage victims of crime and witnesses to crime from coming forward if they're hear illegally because they will have this fear of being deported. so let's be very, very clear. our legislation explicitly states that a locality and

municipality will not be labeled a sanctuary jurisdiction, and so they would not be at risk to losing any federal funds. if their policy is that when a person comes forward as a victim or a witness to a crime, local law enforcement does not share information with d.h.s. and does not comply with a department of homeland security request for a retainer. so, in other words, there's a big carveout, there's an exception for people who are victims to crime or witnesses to crime so that we don't discourage people from coming forward. i think it makes perfect sense. some have also argued erroneously that my bill creates a mandate for local law enforcement to take on the federal immigration duties, the duties that are appropriate of the federal government. well, the fact is that's a misreading of the legislation. our legislation does not require local law enforcement to do

anything. it doesn't require even the local law enforcement comply with any request from the department of homeland security. what it says is that you will be defined as a sanctuary city if you have local legislation that forbids the cooperation. that's what it says. so that the police can make their best judgment and can cooperate with the administration when they see fit without being in violation of their own laws. so our legislation does not at all impede the enforcement of criminal law, and it does not impose any burdens. there are four law enforcement groups who have endorsed my bilw enforcement officers association, the national sheriffs association, the national association of police organizations, the international union of police associations, which is an afl-cio entity, and the reality is the vast majority

of local law enforcement want to cooperate with federal department of homeland security folks, immigration officials, law enforcement people because they're all about keeping our communities safer, and they don't want to release someone onto the streets who is likely to be a criminal or even a terrorist. now, let me stress that support for my legislation is bipartisan and opposition to the kind of sanctuary city policy such as what we have in philadelphia is bipartisan. ed rendell is a former mayor of philadelphia, he is the former governor of pennsylvania, the former chairman of the republican national committee and he has criticized the policy that is in place. mayor nutter, recently outgoing mayor, reversed the sanctuary city policy that they used to have in place because he realized that it is a bad policy for keeping philadelephians and

pennsylvanians safe. and the obama administration chose to ask the secretary of the department of homeland security, jeh johnson, travel to philadelphia personally and pleaded with mayor kenny, the mayor of philadelphia, to at least make some narrow exceptions to the sanctuary city policy so that, precisely so that when we have suspected terrorists in the custody of local police departments and the department of homeland security discovers this, they'll get some cooperation so that we can take custody of these people. so, madam president, this to me is just common sense. it's not principally about immigration. it is almost entirely about security and keeping dangerous people off our streets. the vote today is not a final disposition of the legislation. it's a vote on whether or not we can even take it up and begin a debate. i don't know how anyone could defend the proposition that we

shouldn't even consider this legislation. if someone wants to oppose it, well, by all means, but the vote we're going to have today is a procedural vote on whether or not we proceed to this legislation and just begin this discussion. for me, it shouldn't be a question at all for the safety of the american people, we ought to proceed with this legislation. in my view, the life of kate steinle matters, and i would hope that my colleagues would vote to enable us to proceed, and let's have a vigorous debate about the merits of this, about whether we ought to tolerate sanctuary cities that knowingly and willfully refuse to cooperate with federal immigration and law enforcement officials. let's have the discussion, by all means, but let's start by getting on the bill so that we can attempt to find a consensus and a resolution to this. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. booker: thank you very much, madam president. i'm rising today really in

support of the confirmation of judge brian martinotti to be a united states district court judge on the u.s. court for the district of new jersey. i'm very proud to do that and i'm grateful that my senior senator, robert menendez, is here as well. judge martinotti is an outstanding public servant who has honorably served the people of new jersey in both private practice as well as in public service for decades. i'm grateful that judge martinotti is finally getting the confirmation vote he deserves, more than a year after his nomination. and again, i'm grateful for the partnership of senator menendez and his support throughout this long process. within my first year here in the senate, i had the honor to recommend judge martinotti to president obama. he is a talented jurist. he has had an impressive -- he has an impressive legal background, and he is more than qualified to be a federal judge. as a judge on the new jersey superior court, judge martinotti

is a well-known and highly regarded leader in the new jersey legal community. as a state superior court judge, he served 14 years -- he has 14 years of judicial experience and has presided over 90 cases that have gone to judgment.. he previously served as public defender, prosecutor, tax attorney and city council member where i began my political career. he served as a legal counsel for the italian american police society and has worked in the private practice for 15 years. judge martinotti has litigated both criminal and civil cases which i'm confident will make him a well-balanced jurist. judge martinotti possesses a sharp legal mind, a breadth of experience and he is prepared to do the work of a federal jurist. the american bar association standing committee on the federal judiciary rated judge martinotti unanimously well-qualified giving him their highest possible rating. last october the judiciary

committee voted unanimously in support of judge martinotti's nomination. i am confident that this well-qualified nominee will serve honorably on the federal bench. i'm glad that we have finally scheduled this vote. the senate still has work to do when it comes to confirming very well-qualified judicial nominees. currently or federal courts have 83 judicial vacancies nationwide, 30 of which have been deemed judicial emergencies. despite these number of vacancies the pace of nominations has been historically slow. last year with only 11 judicial nominees were confirmed matching the record for confirming the fewest number of judicial nominees in more than half a century. now more than 17 months into congress there has only been 20 judges that have been confirmed. during the last two years of the bush administration, with a democratic majority, we saw 68 judges confirmed. i fear this pace of progress,

this slowness is really undermining our judiciary here in the united states, and even after this vote we still have two of the 17 judicial seats vacant in the district of new jersey and 24-b judicial nominees pending on the senate floor. we have to do better. we do not yet have an agreement on the vote of the nomination of judge julian neals who is nomination has been pending before the senate now for 18 months. his nomination has the support of both myself and senator menendez and was unanimously passed out of the judiciary committee last november. it is time that judge neals nomination has a full senate vote. our federal justice system cannot function as intended when critical posts are left vacant for months on end. it hurts our economy as well as hurting the overall principles of justice in our country.

i urge our leadership to act to address judicial vacancy crisis. and i urge my fellow senators today to vote to confirm judge martinotti as a united states district court judge to the district of new jersey. thank you very much, madam president. mr. menendez: madam president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: thank you, madam president. madam president, i'm pleased to be joining my colleague from new jersey, senator booker first in his recommendation to the president of judge martinotti and today on the floor in support of his confirmation. and it was one of senator booker's first to recommend to the president an exemplary recommendation that again i was very pleased to support. and i rise to express to all of

my colleagues my wholehearted enthusiastic support of brian r. martinotti's nomination and his confirmation by the senate to the u.s. district court for the district of new jersey. in his life and in his career, he has shown himself to be a judge with with the necessary wisdom, experience, and judicial temperament that the district court requires. well over a decade he has been a super kwror court judge in bergen county, new jersey, which for my colleagues who may not be familiar with the state, it is a densely populated county with all the inherent need for someone like judge martinotti who has repeatedly shown the intellect, the judicial temperament, the observance of precedent, which i know is very important to many of my colleagues, that it takes to make a fair judgment based on the law. beyond his growing -- glowing record in the family division

and now in the civil division where he is handling a diverse caseload from complex mass tort litigation to environmental lawsuits to housing issues and countless other areas, the fact is he is exceptionally well regarded by those who have appeared before him on both sides of the table, the defense and prosecution table. and that says more about the man than any list of cases that he's heard. he has a wealth of knowledge from private practice, and that helps him as he deals with the practitioners who will be before him. or the wealth of experience in mediation that he had before being on the superior court on the new jersey state bar of mediation, american bar arbitration, national mediation as a court-approved mediator. his experience is impeccable going back to the time as a

judicial law secretary for the honorable roger kahn. he has been a leader until new jersey, the very did i definitif the pillar of the community serving in the bergen county law association, palisades medical center, march of dimes, bergen county community foundation, italian american police society of new jersey, not to mention the many honors and awards he's received from countless community organizations. given his experience, his temperament, his proven abilities and personally knowing the kind of man he is, it is no wonder his name is before the united states senate today. indeed the american bar association's standing committee on the federal judiciary unanimously rated him well-qualified to serve on the bench. that is the bar association's highest rating. so, madam president, as i've traveled the globe as a senior member of the senate foreign

relations committee, i can tell you that when we talk about american exceptionalism, one of the elements of american exceptionalism is rule of law. and as part of that rule of law, it is the judicial functions that take place where any citizen can expect to walk into a courtroom in the nation and find themselves before a judge who is enormously well-qualified and that can have a fair day as it relates to the issues that they are litigating before that court. that is an essential part of american exceptionalism. and judge martinotti, upon confirmation, will only enhance that american exceptionalism far beyond where it is today. i urge my colleagues to join us and unanimously confirm this eminently qualified nominee to the u.s. district court of new jersey. and with that, madam president, i yield the floor and observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. thune: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i ask the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the question occurs on the nomination. mr. thune: madam president, i would ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 92, the nays are 5. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate will resume legislative session.

the clerk will report the notion invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 531, s. 3100, a bill to ensure that state and local law enforcement may cooperate with federal officials to protect our communities from violent criminals and suspected criminals who are illegally present in the united states, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by mandatory consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. is it the sense of the senate to proceed to s. 31000, a bill to ensure that state and local law enforcement may cooperate with our federal officials shall be brought at that close? the yeas and nays are manned tried under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not on this vote the yea, are 53. the nays are 44. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn in not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 2:6, s. 2193, a bill to amend the immigration and

nationality act to increase penalties for individuals who illegally reenter the united states after being removed and for other purposes signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to s. 2193, a bill to amend the immigration and nationality act to increase penalties for individuals who illegally reenter the united states after being removed and for other purposes shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on to voashts the yeas are 5, the nays are 42. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: it's my understanding the next matter we move to is the g.m.o. cloture vote. is that right? the presiding officer: the next vote is the motion to invoke cloture on s. -- with regard to s. 764, is that correct. -- that is correct. mr. reid: i am going to take some of my leader time now.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, the senate is about to hold a cloture vote on g.m.o.'s. this legislation i personally need the conversation that's going to take place, if cloture is not invoked on this matter. i'll be voting "no" on cloture for that reason. i think it's wrong, and all i have to do is pair it with what my friend, the republican leader, said numerous times a year and a half ago and many years before that, where he said, it's not fair to get on an important piece of legislation and not have the opportunity to offer votes. well, that's true. but in addition to that, my friend, the republican leader, said we were going to have a new sheriff in town. he was going to make sure that any matter that came before this body had a full hearing in our committees. on g.m.o.'s that's not the case. certainly there has been none.

-- on this bill. iin-- in addition to that, we should have an amendment process. my friend, the republican leader, said there would be a robust amendment process when he took over. if this is robust, that's a sad day in the world. so, this is wrong. it's unacceptable to push through this important legislation with no debate, no amendments, without adhering to the committee process. we owe it as a body to the american people to give this legislation proper consideration. democrats and republicans alike should be concerned about this. we must not stand for the republican leader jamming this bill through the senate. that's what's happening. i listened and i need to listen to the debate on this legislation, and others senators feel the same way. members need to stey state their opinions -- state their opinions and offer amendments. the republican leader repeatedly promised, i repeat, repeatedly promised regular order and an

open amendment process. i can't get away from the fact of a robust amendment process. he trumpeted the importance of committees. once again, he's failed to live up to what he told us he would do. i assume he is not living up to his own standards. i'm going to vote "no" on cloture. i encourage my colleagues to do the same. i invite my republican colleagues to do the same. that's what they ask us to do, and i'm asking them to do that. it's simply too important to just push this thing through. senator mcconnell should respect his colleagues, democrats and republicans, and the importance of this legislation by allowing regular order to take place. until that happens, i will oppose cloture on this measure. the presiding officer: the clerk will report to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to concur in the house amendment with an amendment to

s. 764, a bill to reauthorize and amend the national sea grant college program act and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent,ed mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to concur in the house amendment with an amendment to s. 764, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: officer the sergeant at arms will restore order in the senate. order in the senate. there will be order in the senate.

there will be order in the senate.