mr. grassley: mr. president, reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: the no rt from iowa. mr. grassley: -- and i have an suggestion that we can agree for the first four amendments on the list. mr. reid: all right, i would just ask -- mr. grassley: i object. i object. mr. reid: you object to the whole thing? the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. reid: i thought we had a deal there. mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i therefore ask, because of the objection, i ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be in order to be called up: thune 1197, landrieu 1222, vitter 1228, tester 119, heller 122. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. grassley: reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i suggest to the majority leader that we can agree to what you have requested except for heller amendment 1227. mr. reid: okay, i'm disappointed that my colleague's amendments is not going to be part

mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: this grand compromise makes false promises to the american people. it throws money at the border but there's no accountability to get the job done. we need to see results, but the only result we're being assured of is legalization. legalization first, border security later. on top of all the earmarks that are in this amendment, the grand compromise also has a grand plan for spending taxpayers' dollars. we don't have -- and we have to raid the social security trust fund to get it. the american people expect us to get this right. this amendment is the wrong answer. i urge a "no" vote. i yield the floor back. yield back the balance of the time. the presiding officer: all time has expired. mr. corker: i'd ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the question is on -- the question is on amendment 1183, as modified. a senator: ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the c

mr. leahy: and i yield the floor. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i'm going to vote for all of the judges that are on the -- for the roll calls and the silent votes today. so i'm going to spend my time, instead of speaking about the people that we're going to vote for, in response to what my chairman just stated about the record of confirming judges. so i want to inform my fellow senators and the american people regarding the facts on judicial nominations. today we will confirm two more nominees. i would note that we confirmed two judges just four days ago. after today, the senate will have confirmed 197 lower court nominees. we've defeated two. so on a score of 197-2, i think it's a pretty outstanding reco record. that's a success rate of the president's nominees being approved 99%. and we have been doing that at a fast pace. during the last congress, we confirmed more judges than any congress since the 103rd congress and that get set during the years of 1993 and 1994. this year, the begin

mr. grassley: yes. ms. landrieu: is there a physical copy of the list you presented to the democrats? could it be submitted to the record? mr. grassley: the chairman's staff has it, and i would ask you to consult the chairman. ms. landrieu: i would like to ask that list be submitted to the congressional record. mr. grassley: i won't submit that list until after the chairman -- ms. landrieu: i ask unanimous consent for that list to be submitted to the record. mr. grassley: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. ms. landrieu: mr. president, can i have the floor? the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. ms. landrieu: i ask unanimous consent that the time until 2:00 be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, the majority leader be recognized at 2:00 p.m. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. ms. landrieu: mr. president, i ask that i take the democratic leader's time for ten minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objecti

mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the pending amendment be set aside, and i call up number 1195. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from iowa, mr. grassley, proposes amendment numbered 1195. mr. grassley: i ask that further amendment of the reading constitute the reading -- the presiding officer: without objection, sir. mr. grassley: this amendment is the first of many that will improve the bill and do what the american people expect us to do. the american people are being asked to accept legalization programs -- a legalization program. in exchange for that -- and that's a very compassionate approach -- we would be assured and the american people would be assured that the laws were going to be enforced. but as we read the details of the bill, it is clear that the approach taken is legalized first and enforced later. my amendment would fundamentally change that. the amendment that is now pending would require the secretary to certify to congress that the secretary

quorum call: mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the call of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i want to visit with my colleagues about border security. it traoefrs an amendment that i have pending -- it refers to an amendment that i have pending to enhance the provisions on border security. i'd like to take a few minutes to discuss why i think my amendment is a good first step at restoring the faith of the american people in government, and that faith has to be restored on the issue of immigration because we promised so much in the 1986 bill of border security and stopping undocumented workers from coming to this country. and so consequently now the institution of congress and the executive branch both, because we aren't enforcing exist law, the credibility -- aren't enforcing existing law, the credibility on immigration is at stake here. on this issue the american people have lost faith about whether we're really, at least from the immigration point of view, are w

mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i have expressed my frustration and more often in the last weeks about the lack of progress on getting votes. we have been on this bill for three weeks, yet we've only dealt with nine amendments. it's unclear if anymore amendments will be debated and voted on. we've provided a list to the majority on amendments that we believe will make the bill better, but it seems as though the only amendments that will be in order before we vote on final passage will be the schumer-hoeven-corker so-called grand compromise. this is the one that was conco concocted behind closed doors for days, stalling progress that we wanted to make in the public; in other words, we lost a lot of time while this grand compromise was being concocted behind closed doors when even while that was going on we could have been debating amendments and voting on amendments. not only is the amendment before us -- meaning the schumer-hoeven-corker amendment -- loaded with provisions that some would call earmarks, bu

mr. grassley: thank you for your courtesy. i think there's an insinuation in your comment that there's a strategy on our part not to speak. that's not true. it's that there's a republican meeting going on right now. i went to that meeting and said to the people in the meeting that they ought to be out here speaking and they had an opportunity to do it. and for the group, i've objected for that reason. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: if no time is used at this point how will the time be taken off? how will it be calculated? the presiding officer: the time spent in quorum calls are equally divided between the two sides. mr. durbin: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i understand there is a quorum call, mr. president? the presiding officer: without objection, the quorum call is vitiated. mr. menendez: thank you. mr. president, i come to the floor at the end of a

mr. grassley: thank you. i suppose that when those of us that raise a lot of questions about this legislation and we point out shortcomings in it, that some question about sincerity when we say we need a piece of legislation might be questioned by a lot of people that are listening. but -- and that may also sound like we question the sincerity of the group of eight, this bill that we have before us, that they worked hard to put together when we raise questions about it. and i don't question their sincerity, and i do believe that a piece of legislation must pass the united states senate. those of us that have said for such a long time that the system we have is not satisfactory, you can't maintain the status quo, you've got to be working for a product. and all of us in the united states senate are working towards a product. there's a difference of what that product should be in the final analysis. so, i continue to come to the floor to raise some questions about not the intent of the authors but what i think i

quorum call: mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i ask to speak as if in morning business for seven minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: when i closed last night, i posed nine questions to secretary napolitano about the immigration bill. she said when she was going to be confirmed that she would answer questions that congress put before her. my questions came at the end of her hearing on the immigration bill and we have not received an answer now in 49 or 50 days. and i would appreciate answers to those questions. i want to speak about the entry-exit system in the legislation before us. one of the concerns that have been made about the immigration bill before us is that it weakens current law in several areas. now, when i go to my town meetings, i invariably get somebody saying, we don't need more legislation; just enforce the laws that are on the books. those very same constituents of mine

mr. grassley: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: [inaudible] the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: i ask unanimous consent for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have been agreed to by the majority and minority leaders. i ask they be agreed to and printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: mr. president, senate democrats have come to the floor now 13 times and requested unanimous consent to move to bipartisa bipartisan but negotiations with the house. we are ready to get to work. we've been ready for 88 days now, which is how long it's been since this senate passed a budget. now, back in march, we assumed that once the two chambers passed their budgets, republicans would be eager to join us in a formal budget conference since they have spent years talking about the need to re

mr. grassley: the senator is correct. mr. leahy: thank you. infrastructures grass wewe only had ninemr. grassley: we only had nine amendments. do we think they had regular order? from my point of view the answer is a resounding no. now we're at a point where the process is on hold. it is unclear whether any more amendments will be debated and voted on. the only amendment that is in order is the one that was concocted behind closed doors and is loaded full of provisions that are shockingly close to what can be called "earmarks." we're back where we started with a gang of members promising that their legislative text is the best thing to happen to immigration reform, that their solution is the end of future illegal immigration. does anyone really think that this will solve the problem once and for all? from my point of view, based upon my experience in 1986 and since, the answer is a clear and resounding no. there's fundamental flaws in this amendment that we call "the schumer-hoeven-corker amendment -- legalization first." i want to take the op

mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i have no problems with this amendment. it ensures that tribal communities are represented. the bill's task force is a new and independent entity designed to provide recommendations about immigration border security. mr. tester is adding four additional members to the task force to ensure the tribes are represented. however, this amendment doesn't fundamentally change the bill. there is really no opposition to making sure that the tribes have a voice in policy. of course this task force doesn't have any real power. it only makes recommendations. the secretary isn't required to address their concerns or enact their recommendations. too often the secretary doesn't take into consideration our recommendations. even now she has a hard time in implementing laws. again, while the amendment is noncontroversial, members should know this task force is a fig leaf for actual border security. mr. leahy: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the yeas and nays have been calle

thank you, mr. president. mr. grassley: mr. president? mrs. hagan: i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: the gang of eight in their framework for comprehensive immigration resomer said the following -- as i said "our legislation will provide a tough, fair, practical road map to address the status of unauthorized immigrants in the united states that is contingent upon our success in securing our borders and addressing visa overstays." sounds good, doesn't it in they said their plan would be, "contingent upon success." but the bill doesn't do that. the bill doesn't say the border has to be secured. it doesn't say that we need to see results. it only throws more money at the problem, puts more boots on the ground. of course that's a good start, but as we've seen before that's not enough. it's not enough to ensure that we won't be back here in the same place 25 years down the road devising new plans. so i'm going to fake a few minutes to -- take a few minutes to discuss the legalization program created in this bill. since i was here

mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i'm not going to make any unanimous consent request. i just want to speak about a piece of legislation that i hope to get up before we finish the bill on immigration. this is a grassley-kirk amendment number 1299. and i'm having a difficult time getting it put in place so we can get it brought up. i believe there's a lack of understanding of what my amendment does and i think i'll take this time to explain it so you fully understand it and i can get it to a roll call vote. i want to thank senator kirk for joining me on this amendment as a cosponsor. this amendment would address language in the bill that creates a convoluted and ineffective process for determining whether a foreign national in a street gang should be deemed inadmissible or be deported. i offered a similar amendment in committee because i believe this to be such a dangerous loophole that requires closing. my amendment even had the support of two members of the group of eight. specifically, in order to deny ent

mr. grassley: i object, and i ask for the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the senator from iowa. is recognized. mr. grassley: on behalf of myself and my colleagues, -- i better say on behalf of myself and some of my colleagues, i have to object. now, the majority party has proffered an agreement from our point of view that is insufficient and clearly not serious even though i know they considered a serious offer. last night, our side offered a list of amendments that could be voted upon. we asked for votes on 34 amendments, and that 34 amendments is less than 10% of all those amendments that are filed. right now about 550. but now the majority wants to limit the number of amendments and in a sense limit our rights because each senator ought to have an opportunity to put down the amendments that they want to offer. it doesn't preclude the majority party from offering any amount of their amendments that they want to offer. it seems to me the majority wants to pick and choose the amendments, the amendments that th

mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator -- the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: my colleagues have heard me mention so many times that we tendo delegate, ae legislating. and this bill is another example of delegating too much and giving too much authority to cabinet-level people -- in this case the secretary of homeland security -- and not making enough hard decisions right here on the floor of the united states senate. and it's reminiscent of the 1,693 delegations of authority that we gave to cabinet people in the health care reform bill, to a point where you can read that 2,700 pages and understand it, but you really don't know what the health care system in the united states is going to be until those 1,693 regulations are put in place. and that's tbg to be going to g ways down the road. so i want to point out to my colleagues, i think we're making the same mistake in this immigration bill that's before the senate. so i want to take some time to talk about how important it is to emphasize the need for congress to legislate, not delegate, especially w

mr. grassley: all the time. mr. leahy: all the time. and i appreciated working with him. we were able to pretty well decide when matters would come up and make sure that both republicans and democrats had a chance to bring up all their amendments, and we adopted 141 or so amendments, including second-degree amendments. and all but one or two of them were bipartisan votes. so i appreciate what he said, and i enjoyed working with him on that. i'll have more to say at another time about his hamid but i just -- amendment but i'd just note that for the past several days senators have been discussing the immigration bill. i'm glad the senate's now turned to actually considering. we've had a lot of talk about getting to it, including of course the time spent in the judiciary committee. i intend to file a handful of amendments to the bill today. i would encourage others to do the same so we can get to work without further delay. the bipartisan immigration bill is a measure of the senators who come together to pass -- we should send to the house the best bill we can. and i think t

grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: as we've seen over the past two weeks, immigration is a very emotional issue, and it's an issue that engenders strong feelings from both sides of the aisle and maybe out at the grass roots of america even stronger feelings than are exhibited here on the floor of the united states senate. everyone wants reform here in the united states senate. i haven't heard anybody say that the present situation is a-okay. but everyone has their own ideas and different solutions. now at the grass roots of america, there are people that say we ought to give citizenship yesterday. there's people on the other side that say 12 million people ought to be rounded up and shipped out of the country. neither one of those are very realistic today. but those are even stronger views than you hear on the floor of the united states national. -- of the united states senate. now we're trying to find some reasonable solution. i don't think that the bill that's eventually going to pass is a reasonable soluti

mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. grass as we look forward to a difficult -- mr. grassley: as we look forward to a difficult debate about immigration, i want to share my thoughts on the legislation. i want to speak about the committee process as well as the substance of the bill before us. i also want to share my personal experience from the 1980's and how we can learn from history, and finally i want to express my hope for what i -- i think a bill should look like before it leaves the united states senate. i don't know of any senator that says the status quo is the way it ought to be. in other words, this issue being on the floor of the united states senate is very appropriate. but while we're here, we need to concentrate on getting immigration right for the long term. in 1986, the last time we had major legislation going to the president, i was there, i lived it, i voted for it, and i acknowledged that what we did

so mr. president i look forward to a continuing debate on this need on this amendment and a vote on this amendment early next week. secondly mr. president i also wanted to mention a point of order that i will be making on this underlying bill as soon as possible hopefully also early next week. and the point of order is simple simple. it is a point of order against the emergency designation provision contained in the bill in section d-1. and it's pursuant to section 403-e of the fiscal year 2010 budget resolution. mr. president, we all consider spending and debt a big problem in this country and we put enormous focus and energy and debate and discussion on that issue. the problem is, so often after we set budget caps after we set these limits with the very serious spending and debt issue in mind, whenever a big bill comes up they just bust the caps. we put a so-called emergency designation on the spending and all of a sudden like that with that simple phrase we exempt that entire bill from th

we will start with mr. jones. >> good morning, madame chairwoman, ranking member grassley, members of the committee. thank you for those generous introductions and the recitation of my entire professional career and for the chance to be here today to answer questions. i'm honored to be considered as the president's nominee, as the director of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. permit me a moment to thank my family for their incredible love and support. she shouldered much of the burden and joy that comes with raising five kids. my youngest daughter just recently graduated from the university of minnesota and is moving to seattle in the next week to start her career and her life. my oldest daughter stephanie is on home leave from teaching in nicaragua. the core group is there in minnesota. my son michael is a graduate student in architecture in seattle and hope you will keep an eye on monaco when she gets out there, but as you mentioned, my oldest son is here. he lives here in d.c.. he

regarding mr. holmes' conduct. >> members of the committee are the public interest demands resolution of these issues. members of the committee are to know that if these charges have any merit. one way for that to happen is for the committee to undertake investigation. that is not happened. follow the usual committee practice and wait for third party investigating agency to complete the process and reach a conclusion. either. not taken place so, we're left today to take mr. jones' word. no way of independently to fying what he says or ascertain the truth of the matter. in addition to the open complaint, there are numerous regarding mr. es jones and his record while serving as u.s. attorney and director. that's why i requested a postponement of the hearing hile the chairman did postpone the hearing one week, that did not cure the procedure defects with the nomination. goit was unfortunate that we ahead with this hearing before resolved.an is in april, the chairman started alking about a hearing for

mr. mccain: mr. president, i can't speak for senator grassley, who is managing the bill in an outstanding fashion, but i would like to point from conversations that i've had with senator grassley that these amendments are in the process -- and as you mentioned, there are a number of them -- of being cleared. in other words, rather than just being judged noncontroversial, which i certainly accept the senator from louisiana's word, we really need to clear them with everybody. and i hope she understands. we hope that we can move forward rather rapidly with that process. i don't dispute that they're "noncontroversial" but every senator wants to have these amendments cleared with them, and they've already started that process. so i appreciate the advocacy and the involvement of the senator from louisiana. she's been extraordinarily involved in this issue by helping us make the package much better, and i hope she will show some more -- i emphasize "more" -- patience as we try to get this package agreed to

mr. chairman, a number of your colleagues reflected in the new projections expect the unemployment rate to get down to 6.5% next year, which is your threshold for considering raising the funds rate and yes the fomc has also said it expects to keep rates very accommodative for a considerable time after purchases and recovery has strengthened and yet here we are in the middle of 2013, have not even begun to scaled-back asset purchases. you personally addressed this but could there be a conflict between on the one hand the asset purchase program, on the other hand the funds rate guidance policy. could they conflict? could you elaborate? >> i hope the unemployment rate comes down so fast that this becomes a problem. i would point out a couple things. one is there is a range of estimates all based on each individual's idea of optimal policy so policy assumptions may not be the same. some are as low as 6.5 but as i said in my earlier answer the threshold is not a trigger so evidently if you loo

but the problem we have here, mr. president, we get a lot of amendments pending. it's hard to get rid of them. so senator leahy, a very experienced legislator, senator grassley, their staffs, maybe, i hope, i hope, what senator landrieu has done is maybe give the impetus to do what we used to do routinely and that is the amendments that couldn't be taken care of here on the floor, they would have what was called a manager's amendment where the two managers would agree on matters, most of which were noncontroversial, sometimes there was a little trading going on, this one is a republican amendment, this one is a democratic amendment, we really aren't totally loving this one, we don't totally love that one, but let's put them together and have that part of the manager's package. but we haven't done that much anymore. we can't agree on some even simple things. she's right. so i hope, mr. president, that the night will bring the ability for us to either move to these amendments of hers or have a manager's amendment. so i'm here to inform the senate this: one of my goa

mr. chairman? >> gentleman from arizona, mr. barber, is recognized. >> i certainly want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee again for conducting business in a remarkably bipartisan manner, and i fully support the section which deals with brac. i do not think it's time for us to be moving forward with the brac. while we need to find efficiencies given the budget control act and sequestration, this is not the time to implement or to proceed with a brac. by implementing sequestration, mr. chairman, we have created great uncertainty in our military and in the community that surrounds our military installations. i have two such installations in my district, and i'm really hopeful that we can figure out a way to roll back on this sequestration. very irresponsible decision. had i been here, i would have voted against it. .. finish further discussion about brac but certainly this is not the top to move forward. i commend the subcommittee, the chair and ranking member for

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: reserving the right to object. the senator from louisiana's proposing an amendment that i strongly disagree with the substance on. despite that, i don't object to her having a vote on her amendment. what i object to is the fact that there are only four senators who get to have amendments here. we have a list here of maybe a dozen, maybe it's 15 amendments that senators from our side have been requesting to have considered and they've been objected to all week long. now we're told that soon we can expect the majority leader to file a cloture motion on the bill which will lead to shut shutting off this bill entirely. this seems to me a clear strategy to block amendments. now, so far, we've had ten roll call amendments on this bill. of those three have been republicans, and last year the farm bill had 42 roll call votes. so what i would like to do, we can work this out right now as far as i'm concerned, if these amendments could be made in order, maybe there are others on your si