Madam Secretary, you are right that resources are a key issue, and it is significantly a matter of court resources.

One thing I wanted to say, and then I want to read a statement about a bill I have introduced...

I see companies now resorting to the L visa, a program that allows workers from one company to work in their branches in affiliates in the United States.

The Christmas Day bomber reminded us that, despite our best efforts, foreign terrorists can obtain a visa and make it to the United States.

I just came back from the spring break with 24 town meetings, and one of the strong messages that came through was people irritated because they feel that the immigration laws are not being adequately enforced.

The purpose of the Recovery Act was to stimulate the U.S. economy and bolster our employment.

It indicates a lack of commitment to enforcing our immigration laws when we basically tell local law enforcement, even if you know you have apprehended someone here illegally, nothing is going to be done about it.

I have always believed that State and local law enforcement in the normal course of their duties who apprehend people who are not lawfully in the country should turn those people over to the Federal officials, and they should be processed.

The Inspector General found problems in 2006 with the L visa program, stating, 'It is vulnerable in several respects.'

We have got to get away from the virtual fence, complete the fencing that we are required to do, make sure we have enough people at the border to enforce the law.

I hope you can commit that they will not be, that now that we have Yuma under control, we will keep it that way.

The extent to which I say there are problems, I described the problems.

I would hope that you would agree that a change in law, if it is needed and you cannot do it on your own, that the visa revocations would not be reviewable in a court and that people who wish to harm Americans could be deported immediately.

So, over a decade ago, as Senator Wyden has said, we started with a simple proposed rule that any Senator placing a hold must publish that hold in the Congressional Record.

The three of us, Mr. Chairman, just want to bring some transparency to the practice of holds in the Senate.

Senator Lott offered to work with us, and, along with Senator Byrd, we crafted a proposal that was more workable and enforceable.

What I object to is not the use of holds, because I do that myself, but the word 'secret' in secret holds.

I have not listened to every speech on the Senate floor in the last week or so where there has been a lot of talk about secret holds and everything. But since I have been in the Senate working with Senator Wyden in a bipartisan way over…

the Senator is correct. The present rules are practically not much better than what we have always operated under. So there isn't transparency, and it isn't done soon enough.

Senator Wyden is correct. I would add this point, that not only is it transparency that is essential--and it happens that way--but also a lot of times holds are put on because there is something wrong. We have to know what it is somebody…

Medicare's payment system for physicians is flawed in many ways. One of those flaws has for many years given unfairly low payments to high quality areas like my own home state of Iowa and many other rural States. The new health care reform…

These questions are about transparency, about openness, and about accountability.

I want to thank you publicly for having the hearings that you are having around the country on enforcement of antitrust or review of antitrust and agriculture.

I hope you will send your message to all the agencies from the President.

I want a Freedom of Information question and discussion with you.