. >> senator landrieu? >> no instructions.. no instructions. >> senator mccaskill? >> i'm going to say no instructions. maybe we'll pass until we get clarity about the proxies. i don't want to cast a vote for a colleague without them being here. >> senator tester? >> senator tester? we're going to pass again. senator tester has a proxy. a no vote. >> senator begich? >> no. >> senator collins? >> no. >> senator coburn? >> aye by proxy. >> senator brown? >> no by proxy. >> senator mccain? aye by proxy. >> senator johnson? >> aye by proxy. >> senator portman. >> no by proxy. >> senator paul? >> aye. >> senator moran? >> aye. >> senator lieberman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, on the vote of those present, the ayes are two, the nays are six. >> can i ask the clerk to go back to the senators we passed. >> senator landrieu. >> yes by proxy. >> senator mccaskill. >> no by proxy. >> and senator brown has just appeared so rather than his voting by proxy -- >> senator brown? okay. mr. chairman, on the vote of those present the ayes are two, the nays are seven. on the vote by proxy

. >> senator landrieu? >> aye by proxy. >> mccaskill. >> aye by proxy. >> senator tester. >> aye by proxy. >> collins. >> aye. >> coburn. >> no by approximaty. >> senator brown. >> aye. senator mccain. >> no my proxy. >> senator portman. >> no by proxy. i tried to warn everybody. >> hey, that's good. >> senator paul? >> no instruction. >> senator moran. >> aye. >> senator lieberman. >> aye. >> mr. chairman, on the vote of those present, the ayes are 9. the nays are 0. on the vote by proxy, the ayes are 3, the nays are 4. on this vote, the ayes are 12, the nays are 4 and the amendment is agreed to. >> thank you. i thank the clerk. senator carper mentioned the word lunch break earlier, so it stuck with me. we want to try to move an amendment or two more before we break. let's see if we can keep it going. senator moran, do you have any other amendments? >> i have no other amendments, mr. chairman. thank you. >> okay. so now i just think about who is here. senator levin i believe has passed. we'll go to senator

. >> senator landrieu? >> no. >> senator mccaskill? >> no. >> senator tester? >> no. >> senator begich? >> no. >> senator collins? >> no. >> senator coburn? >> yes. >> senator brown? >> no. >> senator mccain? >> yes. >> senator johnson? >> aye. >> senator portman? >> aye by proxy. >> senator paul? >> yes. >> senator moran? >> no. >> senator lieberman? >> no. >> mr. chairman on the vote of those present, the ayes are five, the nays are 12. and the amendment is not agreed to. >> okay. senator akaka. you're next. >> thank you, very much, mr. chairman. i want to offer akaka amendment number one, to strike title three regarding governmentwide workers compensation or feca reform. let me tell you why i'm offering this. feca reform should not be done in postal reform. most of the employees affected by this are not postal employees. and the savings expected from these changes would have very little effect on the postal service's deficit. feca has not been reformed in close to 40 years. we need to take a closer look at comprehensive reforms to make shush we get it right

begich, cole, landrieu, mccaskill, mikulski, both nelsons, pryor, webb, and former energy and commerce member ron wyden from oregon have all co-sponsored legislation with a number of republicans. so we believe actually that this vote, if it's allowed to occur in the senate, could pass along similar lines maybe 2-1 in the senate as it has in the hous

. >> senator landrieu? >> no instruction. >> senator mccaskill? >> no. >> senator tester? >> no. >> senator begich? >> yes. >> senator collins? >> no. >> senator coburn? >> no by proxy. >> senator brown? >> no. >> senator mccain? >> no by proxy. >> senator johnson? >> no. >> senator portman? >> no by proxy. >> senator paul? >> no. >> senator moran? >> no. >> senator lieberman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, on the vote of those present, the ayes are five, the nays are eight. on the vote by proxy, the yays are zero, the nays are three. on this vote the ayes are five, the nays are 11. and the amendment is not agreed to. >> i thank the clerk. thank you, senator akaka. of those here, let me indicate that next we'll go to senator johnson and then senator mccaskill. then senator paul, then senator tester, then senator moran and then senator begich. all of whom have amendments pending. senator johnson? >> thank you. i'd like to offer johnson amendment number one and only. i would -- like my colleague from kansas, new to this process, and as i studied the issue, there's pretty -- pretty

. >> senator landrieu. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i really appreciate the testimony, as usual. it's very, very helpful as we try to direct our policies to respond to some of the changing reality. i'd like to submit first for the record a report that just came out from our greater new orleans inc. that talks about the hidden job loss along the gulf coast. a story that really, in my view, hasn't been told because the unemployment numbers after the mccondo spill have stayed relatively flat. employment and unemployment. but it's because of the shift from south louisiana to north louisiana with the shale plays. but in south louisiana, we still are experiencing tremendous downturn because of the slow permitting process. the deepwater plays are significant, but the shallow water drillers have really been hurt. and according, mr. chairman, to this report, which is really the hidden story of the mccondo spill and the, i thought, inappropriate moratorium, put down 41% of the respondents said they are not currently making a profit. these are the small oil and gas independent marine operat

begich, cole, landrieu, mccaskill, mikulski, both nelsons, pryor, webb, and former energy and commerce member ron wyden from oregon have all co-sponsored legislation with a number of republicans. so we believe actually that this vote, if it's allowed to occur in the senate, could pass along similar lines maybe two-to-one in the senate as it has in the house. yesterday i received a letter that is literally signed by 360 different organizations from -- i got to imagine every member's home state that asks us to include this epa regulatory effect relief act of 2011 as part of the conference agreement. they cite about jeopardizing critically needed jobs and how it could cost literally billions of dollars without a delay that again epa asked for themselves. it talks about serious legal uncertainty, particularly with the january 9th, 2012 court decision overturning epa's stay of the march 2011 rules as yet another example of the continuing marchias of uncertainty regarding the rules. inadequate time for epa to finalize the rules, let alone even read the thousands of comments that are coming i

democratic senator ben nelson demanded for the louisiana purchase the so-called democratic senator mary landrieu asked for in return for her support it that's exactly the congress gave him a cap and trade energy let reform legislation through the senate as he wanted because he couldn't overcome a unanimous republican filibuster he couldn't get the disclose act require full disclosure of who's spending how much money in our elections post citizens united because it too couldn't break a unanimous philip republican filibuster he couldn't get comprehensive immigration reform and legislation like the dream act passed again thanks to a unanimous mcconnell led republican filibuster in the senate and he couldn't get legislation through the senate and tax breaks for corporations that outsource american jobs a build named creating american jobs and ending offshore enact all of these bills i just mentioned passed the house had more than fifty percent of the vote in the senate but couldn't break mitch mcconnell's unanimous republican filibuster which set the bar at sixty percent rather than a simple majorit

begich, cole, landrieu, mccaskill, mikulski, both nelsons, pryor, webb, and former energy and commerce member ron wyden from oregon have all co-sponsored legislation with a number of republicans. so we believe actually that this vote, if it's allowed to occur in the senate, could pass along similar lines maybe 2-1 in the senate as it has in the house. yesterday i received a letter that is literally signed by 360 different organizations from -- i got to imagine every member's home state that asks us to include this epa regulatory effect relief act of 2011 as part of the conference agreement. what we've got now is, as some before me have said is deceptive. the thing that struck me when i got here is that when we were looking for savings in the house and the senate does it and both parties do it, but we're looking for savings eight, ten years down the road. and we count that as saving money. well, the truth is, we don't know what's going to happen eight years down the road. in fact, the congress eight years from now will decide what's spent eight years down the road. we don't have a clue

senator mary landrieu phone becomes to be a journalist and was promoted by fox news o'keefe is down to is that a number of fake journalism stunts is just to advance far right wing ideology basically took on n.p.r. with a very deceptively edited video to make it look like an n.p.r. executive was making critical remarks against the republican party in his official capacity but the damage was done in that executive plus n.p.r. c.e.o. vivian schiller resigned they also messed up acorn too with some videos and that's basically how o'keefe rolls he throws blatant propaganda out there and lets the right wing media pick it up whether it's true or not is not a journalist he is a hack and now he's at it again releasing a new video to advance the myth of voter fraud this time then what you're about to see here goes to a voter registration center in minnesota has to several of them to obtain voter registration forms for fictitious people people like timothy t.-bo and thomas brady to prove that someone can register fake people or celebrities or jesus loving football stars to vote without an idea ta

chairman and senator collins and senator land route --landrieu. i look at this as a banner case. the senate is coming to the. we were selling one bill. this is the bill. if it needs improving we will improve it but we have a focus now and with a focus we can hopefully move forward. i want to thank you for your hard work for the dozen hearings you have held and all the offers for consultations that you have placed to us. let me speak for a moment on behalf of what i do in the intelligence committee. we have examined cyberthreats to our national and economic security. just last month that the worldwide threat hearing which is an open hearing we heard fbi director bob muller testified the cyber threat that cuts across all programs will be the number-1 threat to the country and already cyberthreats are doing great damage to the united states and the trend is getting worse. let me give you four examples. we know about these when they happen but they are often classified because the people they happened to don't want it released because their clients will think badly of them and of cou

landrieu: thank you, mr. president. that was a beautiful tribute by my colleague, and i wanted to come to the floor to just speak for a few minutes while we are trying to figure a way forward on a very important piece of legislation having to do with the transportation infrastructure for our nation. i know it's a bill that senator boxer as the chair of the e.p.w. committee has worked tirelessly on for years, along with senator inhofe. it's a very important piece of legislation authorizing billions of dollars of programs and projects, and i really want to say that i appreciate her leadership so much and i'm so hoping that the republican leadership and the democratic leadership can come together so sometime in the next few days we can have some votes relative to this important piece of legislation and move forward, because i know for the people that i represent in louisiana, this is one of our most important infrastructure bills, and i'm sure, mr. president, that you have many people in pennsylvania talking with you about

for the information of the members, the order of arrival today now is senator landrieu, pryor, brown, carper, so senator pryor. >> thank you for this very important meeting, always good to see you madam secretary. let me start, if i may, madam secretary, with a question about -- i think you have already pretty much said that you feel like we need a statute, but i'm curious about what specific authority your agency or the federal government does not have in this area that you need? what specific authority do you feel like you need to accomplish what you need to do here? >> i think the specific authorities the statute contains most important is the ability to bring all of the nation's critical infrastructure up to a certain base standard of security. and to outline the process with which that will occur. >> let me ask you, on a different topic. i know in reading some of the news stories, trade publications, et cetera, the private sector seems to have hesitation about sharing too much information and understandably so. they may fear that a competitor will get it or it may create liabilit

chairman, senator collins, senator landrieu. i look at this as a banner day. i look at that as finally the senate coming together, that we are settling on one bill. this is the bill. if it needs improving, we will improve it. but we have focused now, and with a focus we can hopefully moving forward. i want to thank you for your work, the hearings to have health the operas of consultation that you have placed out there it to us. let me speak for a moment on behalf of what idea in the intelligence committee. we have examined cyber threats to our national and economic security. just last month, at the world wide threat hearing, an open hearing, we heard fbi director bob mueller testified that the cyber threat which cuts across all programs will be the number-one threat to the country. already, cyber threats are doing great damage to the estates, and the trends are getting worse. let me give you four examples. we know about these when it they happen, but they are often classified because the people they happen to do not want it released because their clients will

chairman, senator collins, senator landrieu. i look at this as quite a banner day. finally the senate is coming together, that we are settling on one bill. this is the bill x if it needs improving, we'll improve it. >> right. >> but we have a focus thousand, and with a focus -- focus now, and with a focus we can hopefully move forward. i want to thank you for your hard work, for the dozen hearings you've held and for all the offers for consultation that you have placed out there to us. let me speak for a moment on behalf of what i do in the intelligence committee. we have examined cyber threats to our national and economic security, and just last month at the worldwide threat hearing which is an open hearing we heard fbi director bob muller testify that the cyber threat is the number one threat to the country. and already cyber threats are doing great damage to the united states. and the trend is getting worse. let me give you just four examples. and what's interesting is we know about these when they happen, be but they are often classified because the people that

for the information of the members, the order of arrival today now is senator landrieu, pryor, brown, carper, so senator pryor. >> thank you for this very important meeting, always good to see you madam secretary. let me start, if i may, madam secretary, with a question about -- i think you have already pretty much said that you feel like we need a statute, but i'm curious about what specific authority your agency or the federal government does not have in this area that you need? what specific authority do you feel like you need to accomplish what you need to do here? >> i think the specific authorities the statute contains most important is the ability to bring all of the nation's critical infrastructure up to a certain base standard of security. and to outline the process with which that will occur. >> let me ask you, on a different topic. i know in reading some of the news stories, trade publications, et cetera, the private sector seems to have hesitation about sharing too much information and understandably so. they may fear that a competitor will get it or it may create liabilit

for the information of the members, the order of arrival today is now in senator landrieu, pryor, brown, carper, johnson. will go to senator pryor. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for this very important meeting. always good to see you, madam secretary. let me start if i may, madam secretary, with the question about, i think you've already pretty much said that you feel like we need a statute, but i'm curious about what specific authority you think your agency or the federal government does not have in this area that you need. what specific authority do you feel like you need to accomplish what you need to do here? >> i think the specific authorities that the statute contains, the most important is the ability to bring all of the nation's critical infrastructure up to a certain base standard of security. and to outline the process with which that will occur. >> and let me ask you on a little different topic. i know that in reading some of the news stories, trade publications, et cetera, the private sector seems to have hesitation about sharing too much information, and understanda