[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 82 (Tuesday, June 11, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4071-S4086]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND IMMIGRATION MODERNIZATION 
                         ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 744, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 80, S. 744, a bill to 
     provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other 
     purposes.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would ask the Chair at this time to 
recognize the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Schatz, who replaced Senator 
Inouye. I understand he is going to give his maiden speech in the 
Senate today. I would ask that the Chair recognize him.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Hawaii.


               Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization

  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, today, June 11, marks a public holiday in 
the State of Hawaii, King Kamehameha Day, celebrated since 1872. We 
hold a statewide festival and mark the day with lei draping ceremonies, 
parades, hula competitions, and other festivities. It is a day to honor 
Kamehameha the Great, who unified the Kingdom of Hawaii, and to 
celebrate the rich culture and traditions of the Hawaiian people.
  I chose this day to come to the Senate floor to talk about an issue 
of great importance to me and to the great State of Hawaii: Native 
Hawaiian government reorganization. It was a top priority of my 
immediate predecessors in this body, Senators Inouye and Akaka. For 
more than three decades, they worked together in the Congress to 
advance priorities important to Hawaii and to the Nation.
  They made history at almost every step of their careers--securing 
dozens of firsts in the House and in the Senate. But for the indigenous 
people of the United States, Senators Inouye and Akaka will be forever 
remembered for their work as members and then chairs of the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs, and for their advocacy on behalf of 
American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians.
  I want to acknowledge their legacy and to thank Senator Akaka for the 
role he continues to play in our great State and in the Native Hawaiian 
community in particular. Here is the reason I have chosen to carry 
forward this fight on behalf of Native Hawaiians: Simply stated, it is 
right to seek justice.
  Native Hawaiians are the only federally recognized native people 
without a government-to-government relationship with the United States, 
and they deserve access to the prevailing Federal policy of self-
determination. Opponents have argued that Native Hawaiians are not 
``Indians,'' as if the word applies to native people of a certain 
racial or ethnic heritage or is limited to indigenous people from one 
part of the United States but not another. This is misguided.
  Our Constitution makes it clear. Our Founding Fathers understood that 
it was the tribal nations' sovereign authority that distinguished them 
from others. It was the fact that tribes were native groups with 
distinct governments that predated our own that justified special 
treatment in the Constitution and under Federal law.
  In what is now the United States, European contact with native groups 
began in the 15th and 16th centuries on the east coast, and the 16th 
and 17th

[[Page S4072]]

centuries on the west coast; while in Alaska and Hawaii, European 
contact was delayed until the 18th century. Throughout the centuries, a 
myriad of factors influenced how various native groups were treated.
  The historical timeframe when policies and programs were applied to 
native groups may have been different, but what was consistent 
throughout were the Federal policies and actions intended to strip 
Native Americans of their languages, weaken traditional leadership and 
family structures, divide land bases, prohibit religious and cultural 
practices, and break communal bonds. These policies were as harmful and 
unjust to Native Hawaiians as they were to Alaska Natives and American 
Indians.
  There was a thriving society that greeted Capt. James Cook when he 
landed on the shores of Hawaii in 1778. Prior to their first contact 
with Europeans, Native Hawaiians had a population of at least 300,000. 
They were a highly organized, self-sufficient society, and they had 
their own rules, laws, language, and culture.
  In his journals Captain Cook referred to the indigenous people of 
Hawaii as ``Indians'' because it was the established English term in 
the 18th century to describe native groups--regardless of their race, 
ethnicity, or their governmental structure. But just like many Native 
Americans and Alaska Natives on the continent, the name ``Native 
Hawaiians,'' chosen in their own language, was ``Kanaka Maoli,'' ``The 
People.''
  From 1826 until 1893, the United States recognized the independence 
of the Hawaiian Government as a distinct political entity. We extended 
full and complete diplomatic recognition and entered into five treaties 
and conventions with the Hawaiian Monarchs to govern commerce and 
navigation. These treaties are clear evidence that Native Hawaiians 
were considered a separate and distinct nation more than a century 
after contact.
  But on January 17, 1893, the legitimate government of the Native 
Hawaiian people was removed forcibly by agents and Armed Forces of the 
United States. The illegality of this action has been acknowledged in 
contemporary as well as modern times by both the executive and 
legislative branches of our Federal Government.
  An investigation called for by President Cleveland produced a report 
by former Congressman James Blount. The report's findings were 
unambiguous: U.S. diplomatic and military representatives had abused 
their authority and were responsible for the change in the government. 
As a result of these findings, the U.S. Minister to Hawaii was recalled 
from his diplomatic post, and the military commander of the U.S. Armed 
Forces stationed in Hawaii was disciplined and forced to resign his 
commission.
  In a message to Congress in December 1893, President Cleveland 
described the events that brought down the Hawaiian Government as an 
``act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic 
representative of the United States and without authority of 
Congress.'' He acknowledged that ``by such acts, the government of a 
peaceful and friendly people was overthrown.'' President Cleveland 
concluded that ``a substantial wrong has thus been done which a due 
regard for our national character--as well as the rights of the injured 
people--requires we should endeavor to repair,'' and he called for the 
restoration of the Hawaiian Monarchy.
  The provisional government refused to relinquish power and in July of 
1894 declared itself to be the Republic of Hawaii. The provisional 
government advocated annexation of Hawaii to the United States and 
began to lobby the Congress to pass a treaty of annexation.
  Hawaii's Monarch at the time, Queen Liliuokalani, presented a 
petition to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and 
a formal statement of protest to the Secretary of State. The petition, 
signed by more than 21,000 Hawaiian men and women, represented more 
than half of the Hawaiian census population and was compiled in just 3 
weeks. It also included the signatures of approximately 20,000 non-
Hawaiians who supported the return of the islands to self-governed 
rule. The ``Petition Against Annexation'' was a powerful tool in the 
defeat of the annexation treaty.
  In the next year, proponents of annexation introduced the Newlands 
Joint Resolution, a measure requiring only a simple majority. The 
annexation of Hawaii passed with the much reduced threshold of votes 
and was signed into law by President McKinley in July of 1898.
  For almost two centuries after the founding of our Nation, Federal 
policies of removal, relocation assimilation, and termination decimated 
Native communities and worsened the economic conditions for American 
Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. The policy of banning 
native language used in the schools was adopted by the Territory of 
Hawaii. Native children were punished for speaking Hawaiian, just as 
American Indians and Alaska Natives were punished for using their own 
languages in school.
  The policy of allotting parcels of land to individual Indians began 
in 1887 as a way to break up the reservations and communal lifestyles. 
In 1906, it was expanded to Alaska Natives and in 1921 applied to 
Native Hawaiians. In an attempt to reverse the damage done by these 
policies since the 1920s, Congress has established special Native 
Hawaiian programs in education, employment, health care, and housing. 
Congress has extended to Native Hawaiians many of the same rights and 
privileges accorded to American Indians and Alaska Natives.
  The Congress has consistently recognized Native Hawaiians as Native 
peoples of the United States on whose behalf it may exercise its power 
under the Constitution. In 1993, the Congress passed and President 
Clinton signed legislation known as the apology resolution, a formal 
apology by the Congress. This legislation recognizes that the overthrow 
of the Hawaiian government resulted in the suppression of the inherent 
sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people and the deprivation of the 
rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination.
  It has been 20 years since the passage of the apology resolution. But 
the Federal Government has not yet acted to provide a process for 
reorganizing a Native Hawaiian governing entity. This inaction puts 
Native Hawaiians at a unique disadvantage. Of the three major groups of 
Native Americans in the United States: American Indians, Alaska Natives 
and Native Hawaiians, only Native Hawaiians currently lack the benefits 
of democratic self-government.
  An extensive congressional legislative and oversight record created 
over the last two decades and dozens of congressional findings 
delineated in Federal statutes establish these facts: Indigenous 
Hawaiians, such as tribes on the continental United States, formed a 
Native community with their own government and this political entity 
existed before the founding of the United States and Native Hawaiians 
share historical and current bonds with their community. Similar to 
tribes in the continental United States, Native Hawaiians have certain 
land set aside for their benefit pursuant to acts of Congress, 
including 200,000 acres of Hawaiian Homes Commission Act land and share 
an interest in the income generated by 1.2 million acres of public 
trust lands under the Hawaii Admission Act.
  Although the Congress has passed more than 150 statutes to try to 
address some of the negative effects of earlier Federal actions, data 
reveal persistent health, education, and income disparities. Native 
Hawaiians experience disproportionately high rates of unemployment and 
incarceration, and Native Hawaiian children are overrepresented in the 
juvenile justice system. Hawaiian families rank last in the Nation in 
average annual pay and face high rates of homelessness.
  Separate is not equal. That is why I urge the Federal Government to 
treat Native Hawaiians fairly. It is long past time for the Native 
Hawaiian people to regain their right to self-governance. Two years 
ago, the State of Hawaii passed a historic measure to explicitly 
acknowledge that Native Hawaiians are the only indigenous, aboriginal, 
maoli population of Hawaii, and to establish a Native Hawaiian 
Enrollment Commission. My good friend and the former Governor of Hawaii 
John Waihee was appointed as chairman and is leading the effort to 
register Native Hawaiians. This landmark effort is

[[Page S4073]]

widely supported by the State of Hawaii, our congressional delegation, 
and our citizens.
  I wish to acknowledge the commission, commend its vital work, and 
urge Native Hawaiians to take advantage of this opportunity to help 
reorganize a representational government. The actions and commitments 
of the State of Hawaii and the Enrollment Commission are crucial. But 
in order to reach our goal, we must all work together. That is why 
today, on King Kamehameha Day, I call upon all of us to join in the 
fight for justice for Native Hawaiians.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 12:30 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the 
proponents and opponents, with the Senator from Alabama Mr. Sessions 
controlling up to 1 hour.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to Senator Cornyn such time as he would 
consume.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this afternoon we will have an important 
vote, some might say even historic vote, on the motion to proceed to 
the immigration reform bill. I was here in 2007, the last time that 
subject was on the floor of the Senate. It proved to be a divisive and 
tough issue that we could not get through.
  But I think if there is one thing that I sense, in terms of my 
constituents in Texas and sort of the impression I get generally 
speaking, it is that the American people believe that the status quo on 
immigration is unacceptable. Some of our colleagues have actually 
called the status quo de facto amnesty because essentially there is 
lawlessness in our broken immigration system. What we need to do is 
restore law and order and predictability and make sure our immigration 
system works in the best interests of the United States. That is true 
in a number of ways that are included in the underlying bill as it was 
voted out of the Judiciary Committee.
  So I will vote yes on the motion to proceed because I think it is 
important we take up this debate. The majority leader has indicated we 
are going to be debating this and offering amendments over the next 3 
weeks. I think that is a good period of time for the American people to 
understand what is in the bill and to listen to pro and con debates and 
to make up their mind how they want their elected representatives to 
proceed.
  Yesterday I talked a little bit about an amendment I will offer to 
the underlying bill which would ensure that the Federal Government 
finally makes good on its promise--its perennial promise, but it is an 
unkept promise--to secure America's borders. This will not be any 
surprise to the Presiding Officer or my colleagues that coming from a 
State such as Texas, with a 1,200-mile common border with Mexico, this 
is a subject near and dear to my heart and that of my constituents. It 
is something we need to get right.
  The Democratic majority leader, in an interview with the press, 
called my amendment a poison pill. But I thought that was unusual and 
even curious because we had not shared the language of the amendment 
with him or anyone else at the time he gave it that characterization. 
But I believe the opposite is, in fact, true. If we do not guarantee 
results on border security, if we do not guarantee to the American 
people that we actually are going to get serious about stopping the 
flow of people illegally crossing our southwestern border or the 
northern border, for that matter, I think we guarantee the failure of 
bipartisan immigration reform.

  That is the real poison pill, failing to solve the problem and 
guarantee the results that the American people deserve and I think 
demand when it comes to dealing with our broken immigration system. If, 
in fact, by defeating sensible border security measures which guarantee 
implementation of border security, if by denying that, bipartisan 
immigration fails. Then the opponents of these sensible border security 
measures will have no one to blame but themselves, and that will prove 
to be the true poison pill.
  For more than 25 years the American people have been told by 
Washington that it is actually serious about securing our borders. Of 
course, this became more urgent after 9/11 when we finally realized 
that although we were removed from places such as the Middle East, 
Europe, and Asia, we were not insulated by virtue of our proximity or a 
lack of proximity to these places. So we learned we are not safe in 
America just by ourselves; that we are vulnerable to attacks.
  So this has given greater urgency to the importance of securing our 
borders and making sure we have a lawful immigration system that 
actually will work in the interests of the American people. We have 
also heard since 1986, when Ronald Reagan signed the first amnesty for 
3 million people, it was premised on a promise of enforcement, and this 
would never ever happen again. The American people justifiably feel 
that the rug was pulled out from under them on that one when Congress 
and others undermined the enforcement measures that would made sure any 
future amnesties would no longer be required.
  It is understandable and I believe justified for the American people 
to be skeptical about Congress when it makes promises without any means 
to implement guaranteed results. Back in 1996, Congress and President 
Clinton authorized a nationwide biometric entry-exit system to reduce 
visa overstays. Why is this important? Forty percent of illegal 
immigration occurs when people enter the country legally as tourists, 
students or otherwise, and they simply overstay their visa because we 
have not yet, in the 17 years since President Clinton and Congress 
authorized, indeed demanded an entry-exit system--it still has not been 
implemented.
  In other words, the Federal Government has always said the right 
things when it comes to reassuring the American people, but it has 
never been able to translate those promises into results that are 
actually implemented. No wonder the American people are profoundly 
skeptical. Do not take my word for it. As of 2011, the Department of 
Homeland Security had achieved operational control of less than 45 
percent of the United States-Mexico border. That is according to a GAO 
report; 45 percent of the southwestern border with Mexico is 
operationally secure, in the opinion of the GAO. More recently, radar 
surveillance by a new technology called VADAR was reported in the Los 
Angeles Times to have been successful in showing situational awareness 
along the border where it was tested but that, in fact, the Border 
Patrol detained less than half of the people crossing the border.
  That seems to be consistent with this idea of 45 percent operational 
control, where less than half of the people crossing were actually 
detained. A recent Council on Foreign Relations report showed similar 
security results--or failures I should say. Members of the Gang of 8, 
who I think have done the country a public service by bringing this 
matter to us, believe our goal should be 100 percent situational 
awareness of the southern border and a 90-percent apprehension rate of 
illegal border crossers.
  This may surprise my colleagues, but I actually agree with those 
metrics and those standards: 100 percent situational awareness, 90 
percent apprehension rate. Members of the Gang of 8 who brought us this 
legislation also believe we should implement a national E-Verify system 
so employers do not have to play police, and they can get a card they 
can swipe through a reader which will verify that a person who applies 
to work at their workplace is legally qualified to work in the United 
States.
  I think absolutely that is good requirement. I agree with the Gang of 
8's proposal. So I wonder why it is, why can they not take yes for an 
answer? If we agree on the standards they set, why can we not agree on 
sensible measures that will guarantee the implementation and the 
success of accomplishing the very goals they themselves have set?
  The difference is simply that my amendment would require national E-
Verify and a 90-percent apprehension rate and full situational 
awareness along the border, a biometric entry-exit system before 
immigrants transition from the registered provisional immigrant 
status--we will hear a lot about RPI--to legal permanent residency. 
This is the leverage Congress

[[Page S4074]]

and the American people have that will demand implementation of these 
security measures at the border and elsewhere.
  Meanwhile, while my results amendment would guarantee implementation 
of these provisions that have been long promised but never delivered by 
Congress, the Gang of 8 bill would authorize permanent legalization 
regardless of whether our borders are ultimately secured, according to 
their own standards. In fact, their bill requires only substantial 
completion of a plan whose contents we haven't even seen yet. This is 
something that is supposed to be proposed by the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, but we don't know what that plan is going to be. There is no 
lever. There is no means of forcing the Department to actually 
implement it and to achieve the goal the Gang of 8 themselves have set.
  My amendment contains a real border security trigger, while the Gang 
of 8 bill promises success but has absolutely no means to compel it. My 
amendment demands results, while the Gang of 8 bill is satisfied with 
just more promises, promises that historically have never been kept.
  I want to reiterate: We agree on a number of things. We agree on the 
objectives for border security. We agree on the importance of worksite 
verification of the legal status of people who apply to work. That is 
an important part of immigration reform.
  We agree on 100-percent situational awareness for our southwestern 
border, and we agree that the Department of Homeland Security should 
apprehend at least 90 percent of the people attempting to illegally 
cross the border. We agree on all of these realistic goals. The 
difference, once again, is that my amendment guarantees results, while 
the Gang of 8 proposal does not.
  I will ask my colleagues who have done, as I said earlier, good work 
bringing this proposal to the floor why is it if we agree on the goals 
that you would disagree on the means to enforce those goals? It makes 
no sense to me. We don't disagree about as much as I think some people 
might suggest.
  Another reason why I think this is not a poison pill is this is 
doable. The Gang of 8 said it is doable. I agree it is doable, but we 
need the leverage to compel the bureaucracy, Congress and everybody 
else, to actually make sure the American people aren't fooled again and 
the results that are part of the basic bargain contained in this bill 
are actually delivered.
  Let me note a couple of other issues that I think need to be fixed in 
the underlying bill. Where the Gang of 8 would actually make it harder 
to prevent visa overstays by changing existing law, laws that have been 
on the books since 1986, my amendment has a border security trigger 
that will require a fully operational biometric entry-exit program at 
all seaports and airports.
  Where the Gang of 8 bill would allow some criminals with violent 
histories to attain immediate legal status, my amendment would prohibit 
such criminals from gaining the benefits of RPI status or earn 
citizenship. Why should we reward people who demonstrated their 
inability or unwillingness to comply with our criminal laws? Why should 
we reward them with a pathway or a possibility of earning American 
citizenship? These people ought to be disqualified. The hard-working 
otherwise honest people who want to come here and seek a better life 
should be granted the benefits of this bill while excluding violent 
criminals.
  Where the Gang of 8 bill would prevent law enforcement from sharing 
information, my amendment would give law enforcement access to critical 
intelligence about threats to national security and public safety.
  One of the great failures of the 1986 immigration bill was that law 
enforcement was banned from gaining access to information in the 
applications of people who applied for amnesty that was clearly 
fraudulent, that would have reflected organized criminal activity and 
that would have rooted it out. Unfortunately, this current bill, 
underlying bill, contains the same prohibitions against information 
sharing that were contained in the 1986 bill, which unfortunately 
resulted in massive fraud and criminality. We need to stop that and 
learn from the mistakes of the 1986 bill and not repeat that again. 
Adopting my amendment would address that.
  Finally, where the Gang of 8 would do absolutely nothing to bolster 
infrastructure and personnel at land ports of entry along the southern 
border, my amendment would make sure resources are available to 
significantly reduce wait times, improve the infrastructure, and 
increase the personnel at our land ports of entry.
  This is important because this personnel and this infrastructure 
serve the dual purpose. No. 1, it makes sure legitimate trade in 
commerce crosses our borders. Why is that important? Six million jobs 
in America depend on lawful cross-border trade. These people are dual 
use. What I mean by that is they are also available to make sure 
illegal crossing doesn't occur and that drug dealers can't move bulk 
drugs and other contraband across, and that human traffickers are 
stopped trying to exploit our land ports of entry.
  One of the underlying premises of this approach is we need to 
separate the legal and the beneficial from the illegal and the harmful. 
When we do that, we can let our law enforcement personnel focus on the 
illegal and the harmful, while allowing those who are complying with 
our laws and are engaging in beneficial commerce with America. This 
creates jobs here in America and greater prosperity, and law 
enforcement won't have to spend or waste its time focusing on them so 
much.
  I don't know how any objective observer could look at my amendment 
and call it a poison pill. I think it is a mistake, again, because at 
the time the majority leader called it that, we hadn't even released 
the legislative language. I hope he and others will look at it 
carefully and work with us, because I think there is actually a path 
forward to bipartisan immigration reform that will secure our borders, 
eliminate the criminality in our system, and provide a legal means for 
America to be true to its values. It will look to its own economic 
self-interest in providing a pathway for legal immigration from the 
best and brightest, whom we ought to welcome with open arms.
  I don't know how any objective observer could look at my amendment 
and call it a poison pill, especially because it embraces so many of 
the metrics included in the underlying Gang of 8 bill. All my amendment 
does is to guarantee results, rather than be satisfied with more 
promises that will never be kept.
  This is the bottom line. Americans are tired of hearing endless 
border security promises without seeing any realistic mechanism for 
guaranteeing results. My amendment would guarantee such a mechanism, 
and it would guarantee the results Washington has long promised but 
never delivered.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to the bill that will 
soon be before us, a bill to allow us a once-in-a-generation 
opportunity to tackle the complex challenges facing us in comprehensive 
immigration reform.
  Immigrants have always played a central role in America's history, in 
our economy, in our culture, in our success as a Nation. Their 
importance cannot be overstated, but the system that makes it possible 
for immigrants to come here and contribute to that role is clearly in 
need of fundamental repair. America's immigration system today is badly 
out of sync with our values, and I believe it is up to us in the 
current Congress to fix it.
  The earnest work of the group of eight Senators, the so-called Gang 
of 8, has given us, in my view, a once-in-a-generation opportunity that 
we must embrace. We cannot squander this moment and allow partisan 
politics, fearmongering, and mischaracterization of the underlying bill 
to get in the way of what we must accomplish in order to mend the rich 
fabric of our country and create a predictable pathway for legal 
immigration going forward.
  I rise today to reflect on this historic opportunity to pass a 
comprehensive immigration reform bill that will make our country 
stronger, safer, and more vibrant for generations to come.
  The legislation soon to be before this Chamber has earned such strong 
support in large part because it started as a bipartisan effort with 
Senators from

[[Page S4075]]

both sides of the aisle and different regions of the country drawing 
upon their own years of experience to produce a first draft. It 
confronted a wide array of problems with our badly broken current 
immigration system. It wasn't perfect, but it was a strong start, and I 
am extraordinarily grateful to the group of these eight Senators who 
put so much time and effort into laying that groundwork.
  In the Judiciary Committee, Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member 
Grassley then led a markup, probably the first in my nearly 3 years 
here as a Senator, a full, robust, and historically open markup that 
achieved its goal of making the bill that comes before us stronger. 
They led an open and transparent process. They posted every proposed 
amendment online before the markup began so that each one could be 
thoughtfully considered by Senators, their staffs, and outside groups 
concerned about the bill.
  The markup lasted 5 full days across 3 weeks, during which each 
Senator was permitted an unlimited opportunity to speak and offer 
amendments. This is the regular order of which so many more seasoned 
Senators speak with fondness, something more characteristic of the 
Senate's past than its present.
  It led ultimately in the Judiciary Committee to 37 hours of markup 
debate. A great many of the amendments offered were accepted, 
Democratic amendments and Republican amendments. More than 300 
amendments were filed. More than 200 amendments, if you consider first 
and second degree, were taken up, considered, and disposed of. More 
than 100 were offered by Democrats and Republicans. Ultimately, 136 of 
these amendments were adopted, all but 3 on a bipartisan basis. The 
bill was, as you know, ultimately reported out of committee with a 
healthy bipartisan vote of 13 to 5.
  I am a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I too like all of my 
colleagues proposed amendments, studied my colleagues' amendments, 
debated those amendments, and ultimately I voted for this bill. I am 
proud of what the committee has accomplished.
  I am proud that the bill is coming before us today, and it is 
stronger than the original bill, exactly because of the hard work done 
by the Judiciary Committee and the great leadership of our chairman, 
Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont. It is stronger on border security. It 
is stronger when it comes to efficiency and using taxpayer dollars 
well, and it is stronger when it comes to fundamental fairness.
  First, on border security, even the first draft of this bill offered 
by the bipartisan Gang of 8 contained historic levels of investment in 
improving border security. The bill's provisions to require control 
over the southern border and to mandate employment verification 
nationwide were already groundbreaking before the markup in the 
Judiciary Committee began.
  Still, amendments were adopted in committee that strengthened these 
measures even further. Despite the protestations of some that this was 
a partisan or a lopsided markup, let me briefly detail some that were 
adopted that I think strengthened this provision of the bill.
  Senator Grassley, Republican of Iowa, the ranking member, offered an 
amendment that expands the bill's border security goals and metrics to 
cover the entire southern border, so that all border communities will 
benefit from the enhanced security investments made by the bill, not 
just those that are considered high risk.
  Senator Hatch, Republican from Utah, offered an amendment that will 
mandate biometric exit processing at airports, beginning at the 10 
largest international airports in the United States and soon thereafter 
20 additional airports.
  The committee also adopted amendments to strengthen background 
requirements in the bill.
  An amendment by Senator Flake of Arizona required those in RPI status 
to undergo additional security screenings when they apply to renew 
their status.
  An amendment offered by Senator Graham requires additional national 
security screening for applicants from countries or regions that pose a 
national security threat to the United States or that harbor groups 
deemed to pose a national security threat.
  Some in this Chamber have claimed this bill does not do enough to 
strengthen the security of our borders. That is simply and clearly not 
the case. This bill will make our country safer, and I believe it will 
make our country stronger.
  In terms of efficiency, something we talk about a great deal in the 
budget climate today, the amendments considered during markup also 
resulted in substantive changes to the efficiency of our immigration 
system and to the implementation of the changes demanded by this bill. 
Already the bill as drafted makes important steps to clear the long 
backlogs of immigrants waiting for green cards who already have been 
approved by the Department of Homeland Security. Removing the 
senseless, current, per-country caps is one part of the solution I am 
proud to see in this bill.
  One of my adopted amendments will streamline, for example, discovery 
procedures in immigration court to cut down on the needless cost of 
responding to each and every discovery request currently done through 
the less efficient Freedom of Information Act rather than a discovery 
process more typical in court proceedings.
  Senator Grassley offered amendments that required audits of the 
comprehensive immigration reform trust fund established by the bill and 
of all entities that receive grants under this bill. These amendments 
will ensure the significant cost of enhanced border security is spent 
efficiently and appropriately.
  Senators Leahy and Cornyn offered an amendment that gives the 
Department of Homeland Security flexibility with respect to the fence 
strategy fund to leverage the best technology at our disposal to 
achieve that task. The amendment also requires consultation with 
relevant stakeholders and respect for State and local laws in the 
implementation of fencing projects.
  Democrats and Republicans, coming together, working together, made 
this bill stronger. We did it in the Judiciary Committee, and we can do 
it here on the floor of the Senate.
  Last, America's immigration system should reflect America's 
fundamental values, and right now, in my view, it clearly does not.
  This bill does make our immigration detention and court systems 
fairer and more humane, but it does not fix all of the unfairness in 
our current system. Indeed, there are some painful sacrifices we have 
had to make in this bill, especially when it comes to families being 
united, families with their siblings, or the recognition of mixed-
status LGBT families in our country who receive no Federal protection 
under this bill. But the Judiciary Committee did make progress in 
making the bill fairer on some fronts.
  An amendment from Senator Blumenthal will allow DREAMers serving in 
the U.S. military to apply for citizenship on the same terms as those 
under current law.
  The committee also adopted an amendment that I cosponsored with 
Senator Lee to ensure individuals are notified when their name receives 
a nonconfirmation determination or further action notice in the E-
Verify system--a protection for vital privacy concerns.
  Two of Senator Franken's amendments will make the E-Verify system 
fairer for small businesses by ensuring they won't be penalized 
excessively for innocent noncompliance. They will also provide 
incentives to keep the error rate as low as possible.
  What we have now before us is a bill that has been thoroughly vetted, 
substantially amended, and supported by the broadest coalition ever 
before seen in comprehensive immigration reform efforts.
  This bill strengthens border security.
  This bill creates a path to legal status and strikes the right 
balance to encourage those here who are undocumented to come out of the 
shadows, comply with law, pay a fine, pay taxes, and become full 
participants in our national society and restore the primacy of the 
rule of law.
  This bill makes advancements in worker protection. Through enhanced 
employment verification, we strike at one of the most pervasive 
problems for American labor: the widespread hiring of undocumented 
labor at substandard wages and working conditions.
  This bill will have immediate and significant benefits for our 
economy. We should always remember that immigration has been and will 
continue

[[Page S4076]]

to be a real boom, a lifeblood to our Nation's economy along all points 
of the labor spectrum. In addition to bringing millions out of the 
shadows and welcoming them as full participants in our society and 
economy, this bill will go a long way toward fixing our current 
backward-looking policies toward high-skilled immigrants who want to 
remain in the United States after receiving their advanced education.
  In conclusion, I am proud of what this bill means for our country and 
what it has shown about our ability in the Senate to work together to 
advance meaningful changes to improve our Nation. There are no perfect 
laws, but considering just how broken our immigration system is now, it 
is unquestionably a giant leap forward. I am confident that if we can 
continue to work together on the floor here as we did in the Judiciary 
Committee, we will be able to find more common ground and continue to 
strengthen this bill in the upcoming weeks. We can make the most of 
this historic opportunity and finally build a modern immigration system 
that reflects America's values and makes our country strong.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that time during the quorum 
call be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COONS. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have before us a 1,000-page bill that 
is extremely difficult to read and to understand. We are being asked to 
vote on it, and Majority Leader Reid indicated that he wants a list of 
amendments, and presumably no more would be agreed to, and he is going 
to pick and choose which ones he would approve by the end of this week. 
I believe that is very premature. I do not believe that is the way we 
should be proceeding. We have to have the time to sufficiently analyze 
all the complexities that are here.
  I have to say to my gang members who produced this bill, this tome, 
that you spent months working on it with special interest groups and 
lawyers and the Obama administration's staff, and you produced a bill, 
and now we have to rush it through the Senate, and I don't think that 
is the right thing to do.
  Let me read from one of the sections in the bill. And I hope my 
colleagues know that if they begin to read the bill, they will know how 
hard it is. This is not an easy bill to read. You have to study it, and 
you have to have lawyers reading it, and you have to find out what the 
exceptions are and what the limitations are and what the additions are. 
The lawyers who wrote it know. The Gang of 8 doesn't know, I assure 
you. They don't know all the details that are in this legislation. It 
is not possible for them to do so. The people who are writing it--the 
special interest groups, union groups, business groups, ag business 
groups, meat packers group, LaRaza, immigration lawyers association--
all of them were working on it. They know what the impacts are.
  But how about this section right here from the guest worker section. 
This is subparagraph (B), Numerical Limitation. This apparently has to 
do with the number of people who would be admitted: Subject to 
subparagraph (D), the number of registered positions that may be 
approved by the Secretary for a year after the fourth year referred to 
in paragraph (1)(A)(iv) shall be the equal of--get this--subparagraph 
(i), the number of such registered positions available under this 
paragraph for the proceeding year, and, subparagraph (ii), the product 
of subparagraph (I), the number of such registered positions available 
under this paragraph for the preceding year, multiplied by subparagraph 
(II), the index for the current year calculated under subparagraph (C).
  Do you think that is easy to understand? But it has meaning, and what 
it basically means is that this bill is going to allow more workers to 
come into this country than we have ever allowed before at a time when 
unemployment is extraordinarily high, our ability to reduce 
unemployment is down, wages are down, and our workers are falling below 
the inflation rate in their wages for years.
  How about the second paragraph? Now, I am just reading this. So we 
are going to rush this through? Really?
  Subparagraph (C), Index: The index calculated under this subparagraph 
for a current year equals the sum of subparagraph (i), one-fifth of a 
fraction, subparagraph (I), the numerator of which is the number of 
registered positions that registered employers apply to have approved 
under subsection (e)(1) for the preceding year minus the number of 
registered positions approved under subsection (e) for the preceding 
year and, subparagraph (II), the denominator of which is the number of 
registered positions approved under subsection (e) for the preceding 
year.
  I am sure we all got that. I am sure we know exactly what that means.
  And it goes on: Subparagraph (iii), three-tenths of a fraction, 
subparagraph (I), the numerator of which is the number of unemployed 
U.S. workers for the preceding year minus the number of unemployed U.S. 
workers for the current year and, subparagraph (II), the denominator of 
which is the number of unemployed U.S. workers for the preceding year.
  And then it goes on: Subparagraph (iv), three-tenths of a fraction.
  It goes on.
  Somebody knows what that means because you had special interests in 
charge of writing this big monstrosity. They were there. They wanted 
their deal.
  I would say to my colleagues and to those in the Gang of 8--and I 
know they want to do the right thing and have worked hard, but they got 
off on the wrong track.
  The papers reported for weeks: Well, the unions are here and the 
chamber of commerce is here and the ag workers and ag industry people 
are here, and they want more workers for this, and this one is 
demanding more workers for that. And our Senators are over here somehow 
letting them all hammer it out, and that is how this writing comes up. 
It came from them. The Senators didn't write this.
  They knew exactly what they were doing. They were putting in numbers 
to get certain workers that businesses wanted so they can have more 
employees and they can keep wages down. That is what the scheme was--
more workers, less competition for labor, loose labor market, fewer pay 
raises, less overtime, fewer benefits because the employer has options.
  Remember, these are guest workers. These are not people on a 
citizenship path. They are not here to form corporations and hire 
millions of people and cure cancer. These are workers who come in and 
work for existing corporations. I would emphasize that some thought 
needs to be given to that. We haven't talked about that yet. We are 
going to talk about it.
  This large of an increase in immigration into our country has real 
impact, and a lot of the numbers and a lot of the data that is out 
there has not been challenged, and the data indicates that we are 
already at a point where the flow of immigrant labor into America is 
depressing wages, and it is a big factor in the cause of workers' wages 
today being 8 percent, in real terms, below what they were in 1999. 
Wages haven't been going up. Democrats used to talk about it. They used 
to hammer President Bush on it all the time. Now that Barack Obama has 
been in office for 5 years, you don't hear them talking about it 
anymore. Well, Senator Sanders talked about it on the floor last week. 
I give him credit for that. Of course, he is an Independent. But I 
haven't heard my Democratic colleagues continue to repeat the fact that 
steadily we are seeing a decline in wage rates in America, making it 
harder for middle-class Americans to get by--and what about even 
finding a job?
  So it is not a small matter. We are going to have to talk about this. 
We don't need to rush this through. It seems quite clear--crystal 
clear--to me that the Gang of 8 never discussed this. They certainly 
didn't call Professor Borjas at Harvard. Dr. Borjas is the leading 
expert on immigration and labor and the impact of it in America. He has 
written books on it. I believe his study says that a 40-percent fall in

[[Page S4077]]

wages for American citizens is attributable to the current flow of 
immigrant labor into America. It pulls down wages. It is free market. 
If you bring more cotton into America, the price of cotton falls. If 
you bring in more labor, the price of labor falls. That is the way the 
market forces work. He said this is a factor right now. But we need to 
understand that if 15 million people are legalized virtually 
immediately and the guest worker program appears to double the number 
of people who will come in and the immigrant flow, permanent immigrant 
flow of people who want to become citizens will increase 50 percent, 
then we will have one of the largest increases in flow of labor to 
America we have ever seen, and we cannot get jobs with decent pay for 
American workers right now.

  That is real out there. People are worried about their families. They 
are worried about their children's ability to get a job. They are 
worried about their grandchildren's ability to get a job. They are 
about to graduate from high school. They don't have a college degree. 
Maybe they don't plan to go to college. They are willing to work. Jobs 
are not that plentiful. Did you see the article, in Philadelphia, I 
believe it was, that they said they had job openings to try to help 
people who have had a criminal conviction in their background. They 
expected 1,000 people and 3,000 showed up. They had to cancel it and 
reset the whole deal because they interviewed people who said you 
cannot find a job in Philadelphia.
  In New York, one of the boroughs of New York, there was a very 
interesting article just 2 weeks ago about job openings for elevator 
mechanics. People waited 5 days--they took tents out--to stay in line 
to try to get those jobs. The number of people waiting in line was 20 
times the number of jobs that were out there or more. So we are going 
to reward people who entered the country illegally? We have to 
understand in this bill right here, if the bill is passed, the people 
who have come here--many are in the shadows and that is correct and 
that is a sad thing and it is a difficult thing--but those individuals 
also will be able to go apply for the elevator mechanic job. They will 
also be able to compete for employment in Philadelphia, where right now 
they might not be so able to contribute. It raises real questions.
  I wish to mention this. This is from this Saturday from the 
Washington Post. You heard that there are good job numbers, right? The 
job numbers were not so great it appears to me: 175,000 jobs were 
created last month, according to the Washington Post, based on new 
government data that was released Friday. The Labor Department said 
unemployment went up from 7.5 to 7.6, so the unemployment rate went up, 
even though the number of jobs was 175,000 created. What I wish to 
point out is this fact that is in the report:

       The bulk of the gains in May were in the service industry, 
     which added 57,000 jobs. Still, about half of those were 
     temporary positions--

  Those were temporary, not real jobs. I continue--

     suggesting that businesses remained uncertain of consumer 
     demand.
       Missing from the picture were production jobs in industries 
     such as construction and manufacturing.

  Those were not the kind of jobs being created.

       Meanwhile, manufacturing shed 8,000 workers.

  American manufacturers reduced employment last month and those are 
the better jobs with the retirement pay and with health benefits that 
come with a good manufacturing company. We are creating more and more 
competition for lower wage jobs. The article goes on to say this in 
addition:

       Some economists have raised concerns about the types of 
     jobs being created. Sectors such as retail, restaurants, bars 
     have been adding plenty of jobs, but those positions tend to 
     pay low wages. Friday's report showed workers' average hourly 
     earnings rose only a penny in May, to $23.89. For the entire 
     year, wages have risen 2 percent.

  Again, that is below the inflation rate. Again, we continue to have 
this situation in which wages trail inflation, which means the average 
American is having a hard time getting by and many of these jobs are 
part-time, not permanent. They are the kind of jobs a lot of people 
would look to advance from, whether working in a restaurant or 
something such as that. They will be looking to move forward. The kind 
of manufacturing jobs we would like to see more of are not there.
  I mentioned the work visas in this process. Despite a huge increase 
in the numbers of those who are going to be legalized and put on a path 
to permanent residence and citizenship, we have a large number of 
people in this total number. For example, under the bill, it is widely 
conceded that we would legalize 11 million people. They would be put on 
a path to legal permanent residence and into citizenship, 11 million, 
all of whom entered the country illegally and are here in violation of 
the law.
  What is not mentioned is that there is another 4.5 million who are 
in--they call it a backlogged status. They are basically chain 
migration members, family members who want to come, but under our 
current law we have a cap, a limit on how many family members are 
allowed to enter each year. As a result, the backlog, they call it, has 
moved up to 4.5 million. So now we have people say this. They have been 
saying we should not give the 11 million here illegally advantage over 
people waiting in line. That was a problem for the Gang of 8. I can see 
them sitting around, dealing with that. How can we give somebody here, 
waiting in line patiently and lawfully, status behind that of someone 
who has been here working in the country with false documents, 
illegally? That wouldn't be right.
  How did they solve that? As Washington does, they legalize them too. 
You say 4.5 million are waiting? They just let them come in too. We 
will be initially processing 15 million people. Then what about the 
annual future flow? Now it is the most generous flow in the world. We 
admit a little over 1 million people a year under our legal flow into 
the country. What about that? In light of all this accelerated 
admissions and legal status, should we reduce the number of people who 
are coming here each year lawfully now for a while? Oh, no, that is 
increased--50 percent, according to the Los Angeles Times. It could be 
more. I will accept that number. So instead of 1 million a year, that 
is 1.5 million. Over 10 years, that is 15 million. That results in 30 
million people in 10 years being given lawful permanent status in 
America.
  Already that is 10 percent of the entire population of America, and 
overwhelmingly this group is low skilled. Over half of the people here 
illegally do not have a high school diploma from their own home country 
and they are not able to take the better jobs. They will be competing 
for the lower wage jobs in America. If they are legalized, legal 
immigrants who entered the country a few years ago, they are going to 
find--maybe they were legalized in 1986, maybe they have come legally 
since, but that immigrant population is going to find their wages 
pulled down by this large amount of flow of labor into the country. I 
do not think there is any doubt about that. We will go more into detail 
about that as we go forward, but we are talking about 30 million being 
given legal status on a path to permanent legal residence and 
citizenship over the next 10 years.

  They will be given that status. We have not discussed that.
  I asked Senator Schumer at the committee twice: How many will be 
admitted under your bill? He refused to answer. I am not sure they know 
because these numbers are not all the numbers. There is an additional 
group of people who will come under the chain migration theory, the 
family-based connection and other special provisions in here that have 
no caps, no limits on how many would come. He refused to answer. The 
sponsors who are producing legislation for us today will not say how 
many people they expect to enter into our country if their bill passes. 
Why not? You don't know or you will not say? Either one is an 
indictment of this monstrosity and that is why it cannot pass.
  Even Senator Rubio is now saying he can't vote for the bill unless it 
is improved. He was in the Gang of 8. This is legislation that is 
flawed legislation, fatally flawed, and it should not become law--it 
just should not. They said a lot of good things about what they expect 
the bill to do. If it did those things, we would be more interested in 
it. We would have a framework for a bill that could actually do some 
good. I would say that for sure.

[[Page S4078]]

  As we go forward, we need to ascertain with absolute clarity what the 
best economic data shows about how many people this country can absorb 
in a reasonable way and be able to provide a decent place for them to 
work without pulling down the wages of an already-stressed American 
workforce. We need to talk about that. So far as I can tell, that was 
never discussed in the groups. What was discussed pretty much in the 
groups, it seemed to me, was businesses demanding more workers, La Raza 
demanding more people and basically open borders and they were the ones 
writing the legislation, in large part. There were some union 
objections to some of this. It needs to be listened to.
  Republicans say that is a union objection. If they make a good 
objection, so be it. I think they made some points but went along with 
this in a way that is not effective.
  We have to talk about the economic impact of it and we will. We need 
to ascertain the second aspect: The 30 million people I just mentioned, 
those 30 million are people who come permanently. They are on a path 
never to return to their country. They have a legal status that allows 
them to get legal permanent residence and then get citizenship.
  Normally, as I say, we do 1 million a year, which would be 10 million 
over 10 years. This will increase it to 15 million over 10 years, and 
that does not count the 11 million, plus the 4.5 million who will be 
given legal status. It is pretty clear to me it is indisputable that we 
will have 30 million people put on the path to citizenship in the 
United States of America, and I ask my colleague, if they have a 
different number, they should share it with us. Maybe in these bills, 
subparagraphs, numerators and denominators and fractions and all, they 
have a different number. I would like to hear it. We think we figured 
it out. The Los Angeles Times agrees. The only analysis I have seen 
agrees with it, as best we can do in the time since the bill was 
introduced.
  Then we have the worker programs. That is what I was reading about 
earlier. Let me mention those programs. These are programs that have 
generally been referred to as the guest worker programs. We believe, 
and I think data shows, that the bill doubles the number of guest 
workers who would be allowed into the country. Every year we bring in a 
certain number of people. Some work in agriculture, some work in 
landscaping, some work in others things. In a time of high 
unemployment, with Americans doing landscaping, Americans are working 
in meatpacking plants and doing farm work. But temporary, seasonal jobs 
are often hard to fill and guest workers can do that. I am not opposed 
to a guest worker program. But at this point in history, should it be 
double the number on top of the 30 million I just mentioned? This is an 
annual flow on top of that.

  For example, it adds four times more guest workers than the 2007 bill 
that the American people and Congress rejected. There are four times 
the number of guest workers in that bill at a time when 20 million more 
Americans are on food stamps than in 2007. Teenage unemployment is 54 
percent higher and median household income is 8 percent lower than in 
2007?
  Are we so desperate now we have to bring in twice as many guest 
workers? Where are they going to find work? Are we going to disappoint 
them? What if they cannot find work? Will they be able to say: Well, I 
will work for minimum wage?
  What happens to the young American who is 20 and would like to do 
some work? Perhaps he has a child and is trying to learn a skill and 
get started as a carpenter, bricklayer, or equipment operator. Will 
that make his ability to find a job harder?
  What if a young guy had a drug offense? I used to be a Federal 
prosecutor. Just because somebody was arrested and prosecuted for 
drugs, we don't want to make it so they can never get work again. Who 
is going to take care of them?
  We know this: We know if people don't have a job, the government has 
transfer payments, such as food stamps, Medicaid, housing allowances, 
and other benefits. So now does the taxpayer have to pay for even more 
people who are subsidized by the government because they honestly 
cannot find a job?
  My colleagues need to focus on this, and there has been almost no 
serious discussion about it other than what we hear from certain 
squeaky wheels and special interests.
  How many of our colleagues know the difference between the H-1B visa, 
the H-1B-B1 visa, the H-2A visa, the H-2B visa, and the H-4 visa? How 
many will come in under each one of them? What standards will they use? 
Do we actually have to make sure we have advertised and offered the job 
to an American first before using this visa?
  Those are just the H visas. What about the W-1 visa, the W-2 visa, 
and the W-3 visa? There is also the E-3 visa, the E-4 visa, and the E-5 
visa. Let's not forget the X visa and the Y visa. It goes on and on. 
That is how we have a doubling of the number of people coming in under 
the guest worker program.
  Our sponsors have spent 4 months bringing this up. Clearly, they 
should have spent much more time because the bill is fatally flawed. 
The only thing that clearly works in the bill--the only thing that is 
guaranteed to work--is the amnesty. Once this bill has passed, it is 
guaranteed that people who are here illegally will be given legal 
status. They will then be placed on a path to legal permanent residence 
and then citizenship. That is what is guaranteed. All we have, as in 
1986, is a promise that we will have enforcement in the future.
  A lot of us have been around here for several years, and we know that 
is not going to work. This promise is just that, a promise. We don't 
have the backing to make it sure. Senator Cornyn has an idea that he 
thinks will strengthen that, and I know it will strengthen it.
  Well, I appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts. Senator 
Cruz is now in the Judiciary Committee dealing with some other 
important issues of which I am glad that able lawyer is there. He will 
be speaking about this later.
  Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 17 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Senator Cornyn indicated that the bill fails with 
regard to enforcement and enforcement at the border. I could not agree 
more. In 2007, Senator Cornyn spent a lot of time working on this bill. 
He proposed an amendment then that would have improved the border 
enforcement, and he is an expert at that. He is a Senator from Texas. 
He has wrestled with this over the years, and we should absolutely 
listen to him.
  We also know this: The people who are out there enforcing the law 
every day are telling us the system is not working. They tell us 
changes and improvements need to be effected, and they are concerned 
this bill doesn't do it.
  On June 10, the Rockingham County Sheriff's Office in North Carolina 
issued a press release stating that more than 75 North Carolina 
sheriffs warned Congress that the Senate immigration bill would 
endanger public safety.
  Well, that is a pretty serious matter. They say this:

       In a short time, over seventy-five Sheriffs from across 
     North Carolina, serving counties both big and small across 
     this great state, have signed the attached letter opposing 
     the current Senate immigration plan.
       Our first responsibility and highest duty as Sheriffs is to 
     provide for the safety of the citizens residing in the 
     communities we serve. Unfortunately, this flawed bill which 
     was produced by the ``Gang of Eight'' puts the public safety 
     of citizens across the U.S. at risk and hampers the ability 
     of law enforcement officers to do their job.

  They go on to say:

       This Senate Bill should be opposed by lawmakers and 
     instead, Congress should work with law enforcement on reforms 
     that we already have, and were willing to propose, that will 
     enhance public safety.

  Kenneth Palinkas, American Federation of Government Employees Union 
president and affiliated with the AFL-CIO, wrote this letter:

       There has been much public concern over the fact that the 
     legalization occurs prior to any border enforcement. Indeed, 
     from what I understand, every amendment offered in committee 
     which made legalization contingent on first achieving border 
     security was defeated. History tells us that future promises 
     will not be kept and that our border agents will be left high 
     and dry by the executive branch as they have so many times 
     before, regardless of who writes the plan.


[[Page S4079]]


  This is the head of a Federal employees union who represents law 
enforcement officers--I think the biggest one. He goes on to say:

       But even if you completely rewrote your proposals to 
     resolve the many border security concerns and changed the 
     ordering to delay legalization, the legislation would still 
     fail and would still endanger the public because of the 
     fatally flawed interior enforcement components.

  He goes on to say:

       If passed, S. 744 would lead to the rubber stamping of 
     millions of applications for both amnesty and future 
     admissions.

  He goes on to say:

       Why should the Senate pass a bill that makes it even more 
     difficult for the USCIS officers--

  They are the citizenship and immigration officers--

     to identify, remove, and keep out public safety threats.

  Maybe those people are criminals in their own countries. What does a 
person do if they are about to go to jail in another country in the 
world? Well, if they can flee the country and get to the United States, 
that is not a bad thing. Over the last decade, we are seeing more 
criminals who are a part of the mix of the very fine and decent people 
who come to the country because they are perhaps, in effect, fleeing 
prosecution in their own country.
  What about the ICE officers, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
Council? They wrote a letter with Pennsylvania and North Carolina 
sheriffs, as well as sheriffs nationwide, on May 29, and they say this:

       Congress can and must take decisive steps to limit the 
     discretion of political appointees and empower ICE and CBP to 
     perform their respective missions and enforce laws enacted by 
     Congress.

  This is a bold statement. These people work for the President of the 
United States--or at least as part of the administration. Two years ago 
ICE officers voted no confidence in their supervisor, John Morton, 
because they said he spends more time dealing with pro-amnesty groups 
and directing them not to enforce the law than doing his duty. They 
have actually sued Secretary Napolitano and Mr. Morton for blocking 
them from executing plain congressional mandates. They believe they 
have no other obligation than to enforce this. They have to do it, but 
they have been told not to do it.
  They say:

       Rather than limiting the power of those political 
     appointees within the DHS, S. 744 provides them with nearly 
     unlimited discretion, which will serve only to further 
     cripple the law enforcement missions of these agencies.

  I have talked to these officers. They asked to be a participant with 
the Gang of 8 in writing this legislation, and they were refused. They 
asked repeatedly. They warned that this was not going to work. They 
never wanted to hear from the people who enforced the law every day. 
They wanted to hear from the amnesty crowd, and that is who they met 
with. They wanted to hear from the big business guys who want more 
cheap labor, and that is who wrote the bill. They didn't listen to the 
people who deal with this and put their lives on the line.
  This letter continues:

       While business groups, activists, and other special 
     interests were closely involved in drafting S. 744, law 
     enforcement personnel were excluded from those meetings. 
     Immigration officers, state, and local law enforcement 
     working directly with the nation's broken immigration system 
     were prohibited from providing input. As a result, the 
     legislation before us may have many satisfactory components 
     for powerful lobbying groups and other special interests, but 
     on the subjects of public safety, border security, and 
     interior enforcement, this legislation fails. It is a 
     dramatic step in the wrong direction.

  That is a pretty resounding condemnation, and I think that is 
fundamentally correct because I met with them. I asked that group of 
people to meet with them, and they would not do it.
  Participants on the recent calls that discussed this bill and how to 
promote it include the heads at Goldman Sachs, the Business Roundtable, 
Evercore, Silver Lake, Centerbridge Partners, the U.S. Chamber of 
Congress, as well as the head of Washington trade groups representing 
banking industries, such as, the Financial Services Roundtable. They 
all had input into it and were involved. I guess they made 
contributions to it.
  On June 10, Thomas Hodgson, sheriff of Bristol County--from 
Massachusetts--said:

       I have grave concerns about illegal criminals being 
     eligible for citizenship and gang members being permitted to 
     qualify for RPI status, registered provision immigrant, legal 
     status once they renounce their affiliation. Most troubling, 
     however, is the fact that we do not have adequate systems 
     in place such as biometrics to verify identification for 
     people entering or leaving the United States. Announcing 
     that biometrics will be available at our 30 busiest 
     airports serves only to limit illegal entry at those 
     locations, diverting illegal entry to those locations 
     without the superior technology.

  The sheriff said:

       I ask you to make it known to your senators and 
     representative that they vote no on passage of S. 744 until a 
     comprehensive security plan is in place.

  Peter Nunez, former U.S. attorney in San Diego, a great U.S. attorney 
whom I had the honor to serve with, said this:

       But of greatest concern is the so-called ``trigger'' that 
     we are told will delay the path to citizenship until the 
     border is secure.

  That is what they are saying. We have this thing in place, and until 
we guarantee the border is secure, the legalization doesn't happen. We 
have demonstrated already that is absolutely ineffective.
  Mr. Nunez goes on to say:

       This is an illusion meant to fool the public into believing 
     that amnesty will only take place after the border is secure. 
     Nothing could be further from the truth. Because on Day One, 
     every one of the 11 million illegal aliens will be eligible 
     for a temporary document allowing them to stay and work in 
     the U.S., their two most important goals.

  He was a U.S. attorney on the California border and he worked with 
these issues and understands them. He had the responsibility of 
prosecuting cases by the thousands--probably hundreds of thousands, 
frankly. Former U.S. Attorney Nunez is a very wise and experienced 
person.
  Pinal County Sheriff's Office, Florence, AZ, Sheriff Babeu said to 
secure the border first or we will repeat history. Quote:

       Pinal County Sheriff Babeu has announced his opposition to 
     the proposed immigration reform offered by the so-called 
     ``Gang of Eight.'' Officially titled the ``Border Security, 
     Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 
     2013.''

  Sheriff Babeu said:

       We must secure the border first, prior to any discussion of 
     green cards and a path to citizenship offered to nearly 20 
     million illegals and their families. This plan gives 
     everything to President Obama up front, while border security 
     is promised once again on the back end. We are about to 
     repeat history, when in 1986 President Reagan gave amnesty to 
     2 million illegals. Now, the stakes are far higher, yet it 
     seems we haven't learned our lesson. The failure to secure 
     the border after the Reagan amnesty got us to where we are 
     today with 11 million to 20 million illegals in our Country. 
     . . . this plan will repeat history.

  I think he is exactly right about that.
  Chris Crane, the head of the ICE union, is outspoken about this. He 
has testified before the House. He has had press conferences here in 
which I participated with him. He has warned this will make America 
less secure, not more secure. He warns it makes the ability of the ICE 
agents to enforce the law, already handicapped, even more problematic. 
He says the bill gives to the Secretary essentially more discretion to 
violate the law than the Secretary has today. In fact, the orders and 
directives and policies they are giving to the ICE officers about how 
to do their job are currently in direct violation of the law. This bill 
ratifies that by explicitly giving statutory authority to the Secretary 
to make all kinds of waivers for other matters. That is not the way to 
give confidence to America.
  Mr. President, I don't know what our time is. I see no one else on 
the floor. I don't want to take anybody else's time, but if I yielded 
the floor, I guess their time would run against them anyway.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair.
  Our law enforcement officers are frustrated. We have three major law 
enforcement groups, including Border Patrol, which was given 
considerable funding after the failure of the 2006 and 2007 
comprehensive immigration bill, and they have enhanced their efforts as 
a result of that, but we still are not where we need to be at the 
border. Indeed, since the announcement of this

[[Page S4080]]

possible amnesty, illegal entries have increased significantly on our 
borders. The number of people arrested is considerably higher this year 
than last year, and 55,000 of the 90,000 people--90,000 who have been 
arrested this year since January--were not from Mexico; this was 
primarily on the Mexican border--but from other countries. Some of the 
countries have a history of terrorism. Senator Cornyn has talked about 
that previously. We have a surge of it happening, and they are 
concerned about it, about protecting their officers.
  Customs and the citizenship and immigration officers are the people 
who will process the amnesty claims and the requests to be treated as 
lawful residents that will occur after this bill passes. They are the 
people who deal with those who make application to come to the United 
States, and they are the people who process the pathway to citizenship 
for everybody. They have explicitly voted in opposition to this 
legislation. They say it does not work. I just read a quote from the 
head of their union. The ICE officers who deal with all of the interior 
enforcement--they apprehend people who have been convicted of crimes 
and are in State and local jails who are noncitizens or who are 
illegally here and they are supposed to deport them--have been 
consistently out front pointing out how they have been restricted in 
their ability to do their job, and that if this bill passes and the 
vast majority of those here illegally are legalized, they are not in 
the future going to be placed in a position where they can do their 
job. They are not going to be placed in a position where they can 
effectively manage the interior enforcement in America. They say the 
bill will make us less secure, not more secure. How wrong a direction 
could that be?
  So those are the things we have to get a grip on here. That is why 
the legislation cannot become law, and I don't think--it won't become 
law as it is written today. That is the truth. One way or the other, it 
will not become law, because it is fatally flawed.
  I thank the Chair for the opportunity to share these remarks as we 
begin the discussion on one of the great issues of our time: 
immigration. It has to be done right. The American people are rightly, 
as are these law officers, concerned that we are about to do another 
1986, that we are going to give immediate lawful status to millions of 
people who came here illegally on the promise we will enforce the law 
in the future. But when we read the bill we can see that won't happen, 
and we will be sending another message worldwide that the United States 
is such that if one can get into our country illegally and hold on for 
long enough, that person too will be a beneficiary of the third major 
amnesty that occurs.
  So that is where we are.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor, and I note the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I am happy to be on the floor today as we 
get ready to proceed to the immigration bill and start to debate it. I 
wish to lay out a couple of points as we move forward on this debate 
which I fully anticipate we will do. We need to do so as a country, 
actually for many of the reasons my colleague from Alabama raised, 
because of these problems we face with regard to our immigration 
system.
  Let's take a step back and analyze the issue a little while for the 
people who are tuning in for the first time or maybe people are 
visiting Washington and are perhaps listening to us talk about it, to 
provide a fundamental understanding of what we are addressing. Let's 
begin by saying the obvious, which is that all Americans understand 
immigration because it is their story, whether it is you, your parents, 
grandparents, great-grandparents, or great-great-grandparents. One of 
the defining characteristics of the United States of America is that it 
is literally a collection of people from all over the world or 
descendants of people from all over the world who have come here in 
search of a better life.
  I think it is important to understand why that distinguishes us from 
the rest of the world and the attitudes of the rest of the world 
throughout history. If we look at the countries that have been 
organized throughout human history, the nation states, all of these 
countries have largely been organized because these people had a common 
ethnicity or a common race or they came from the same tribe or the same 
family clan or what-have-you. The United States is very different. The 
United States was actually founded on the notion that we are going to 
create a country that believes fundamentally in the God-given right of 
every single human being to go as far as their talent and work will 
take them. People such as myself who have been born and raised here our 
entire lives, sometimes we take that for granted, but we need to 
understand that throughout history it is a rarity. In fact, throughout 
history, what people have been told by their leaders is: You can only 
go so far in life because that is what your parents did, that is where 
your parents come from, so that is all you are allowed to do. But we 
were different, and thank God we were.
  What we said is, We don't care how poor you were the day you were 
born; it doesn't matter to us that your parents weren't well connected 
and well heeled; we don't even care that you are from another country. 
If a person wants to work hard and build a better life for him or 
herself, we want that person. That has been the history of the United 
States: a collection of go-getters from all over the world who have 
come here and built this extraordinary country and, as a result, the 
influence this country has had not just on human history but even to 
modern day is unbelievable culturally and economically, in terms of 
ensuring peace, especially in the aftermath of World War II. All of it 
is the result of this particular reality about who we are as a people 
and as a Nation. We have always had immigration, and we will always 
need immigration, to keep the nature and the essence of who we are as a 
people.
  But times change and the immigration system has to change with those 
times. In essence, the immigration system we had 100 years ago, 150 
years ago--people forget this: What was the immigration system of the 
United States? Not so long ago, this was the immigration system in the 
United States: If you got here, you were allowed to stay. If you made 
that dangerous voyage across the Atlantic, if you found your way to 
this country, if you were processed through Ellis Island or somewhere 
else, you were allowed to stay. We can't do that anymore. We have to 
have a controlled immigration system, especially in the 21st century, 
to measure who is coming here, who they are, and why they are here. 
That is the way it has to work now in the 21st century. We understand 
that.
  Adding to that, by the way, is the reality that the 21st century is 
so different from the 20th. We are actively engaged in global 
competition. It wasn't so long ago, such as when my parents came in 
1956, the United States was still a national economy. The people we 
traded with and sold with and competed against lived in this country, 
probably in one's own State or in one's own community. No more. Today 
we are actively involved in global competition for business, for 
clients, and for talent, so we have to understand our immigration 
system has to reflect these changes. The way people immigrate and who 
immigrates here now has to reflect the 21st century reality, which is 
reason No. 1 why this country needs immigration reform.

  All the attention is being paid to illegal immigration, and, look, 
that is a serious problem. I am going to talk about that in a moment. 
But issue No. 1, the fundamental reason we have to do immigration 
reform, is because we do not have a 21st-century immigration system. 
Our immigration system today is largely built on the idea that if you 
have a relative living here, it is easier for you to come than if you 
have a special skill or talent that you are offering to the country to 
contribute.
  We do not have a merit-based system, we have a family-based system. I 
say that as someone whose family came on a family-based system. My 
parents came here because my mom's sister

[[Page S4081]]

claimed her in 1956. But the country is so different, the world is so 
different--so different from 2006, not to mention 1956--and our 
immigration system has to reflect that.
  The problem is we have a broken legal immigration system. It does not 
reflect the realities of the 21st century. The result is that even if 
we did not have a single illegal immigrant in the United States, we 
should be on the floor of the Senate debating immigration reform 
because we must modernize our legal immigration system. That, as much 
as anything else, is the reason my colleagues should be excited about 
the opportunity to have this debate, because we have to modernize our 
legal immigration system so it is a benefit to our country.
  I give this anecdote because I think it is appropriate: We are in the 
NBA finals--which, by the way, the Miami Heat won game 2 in a 
resounding fashion, and we are very happy about that. We will see what 
happens tonight. But imagine for a second if there was now the hottest 
basketball player in the county, who played at some college in the 
United States--6 feet 10 inches, never misses a shot, just an 
unbelievable player. Do you think in your wildest dreams we would ever 
let that person go play in Italy or Spain or some other country? There 
is no way in the world we are going to allow the best basketball player 
in the world--no matter where they were born, no matter where they came 
from, no matter their immigration status--there is no way in the world 
we are going to let a future NBA star leave the United States and go 
play basketball in some other country, in a European league or the 
Greek league or whatever. They are going to stay here.
  So my question to you is, If that is how we approach sports--which is 
important, I guess, but it is a game--shouldn't that be the way we 
approach our economy? Should we be deporting the best graduates at some 
of our universities--world-class physicists and scientists and people 
in technology and engineering and math? Yet that is the way 
functionally our immigration system works right now. I am not making 
this up. We have heard the testimony. We have heard the people who come 
into our offices. There is not a Member in this body who has not had a 
meeting in their office, or their staff has not, with someone from the 
tech community who will come to you and say: We are going to college 
campuses, we are making job offers to the best and brightest, and we 
cannot keep them here--not because they do not want to stay here, not 
because they are not qualified, not because we do not have a job 
opening, but because we cannot get them a green card or a legal status. 
So they are learning at our universities, at the expense of the 
American taxpayer, and then they are leaving the United States to 
compete against us.
  That makes no sense, nor does, by the way, the system of getting 
workers for agriculture, which I would argue in many respects is 
skilled labor. If you do not believe me, go watch some of these people 
in the fields as they work, doing the work they do.
  But American agriculture, you talk about energy security. If you want 
to cripple a country, cripple their food security, cripple their 
agricultural security. Agriculture is an important industry in most of 
the States of the country and certainly for the United States of 
America. That industry depends on a workforce, and there is a demand 
for labor in that workforce. The fact is, and has been for over 100 
years, that the only way to fully fill all the jobs available in 
agriculture is through seasonal and temporary labor from abroad. There 
is a real demand for that labor, and there is a real supply of people 
who want to do that labor. Supply and demand will always meet. But 
because we do not have a functional legal immigration system that 
allows the supply of foreign workers to meet the demand of domestic 
jobs in agriculture, supply and demand are meeting, but they are 
meeting in a chaotic and broken way. That needs to be reformed, as well 
as a bunch of other aspects.
  The immigration system is very bureaucratic and complicated. In fact, 
our broken legal immigration system is one of the leading contributors 
to illegal immigration. Over 40 percent of the people in this country 
illegally today came legally. They did not jump a fence. They did not 
sneak in. They came on some sort of temporary visa and they overstayed 
it. One of the leading reasons they overstay is they think it is too 
costly, too time-consuming, and too bureaucratic to come back again 
legally in the future.
  So I guess my point is, even if we did not have a single illegal 
immigrant in the United States, we need to do immigration reform 
because we must modernize our legal immigration system, and it must 
reflect the 21st century.
  The second point I will make to you is our immigration laws are only 
as good as our ability to enforce them. We do not have enforcement 
mechanisms that work. All the attention is paid to the border, and it 
should be, because the border is not just an immigration issue, it is a 
national security issue. That means the same routes that are used to 
smuggle in immigrants can be used to smuggle in weapons and terrorists 
and other things--and drugs.
  So we must secure the border. That is not easy to do because there is 
no such thing as one border. The border is broken up into about nine 
different sectors. Some are doing much better than they ever have; 
others are not doing very well at all. We must secure the border of the 
United States for national security reasons as well as immigration 
reasons. I know it is hard to do it, and I know there have been efforts 
in the past that have failed, but I am telling you that I refuse to 
accept the idea that the most powerful country on Earth, the Nation 
that put a man on the Moon, is incapable of securing its own borders.
  Our sovereignty is at stake in terms of border security. Border 
security is not an anti-immigration or anti-immigrant measure, it is an 
important national security measure. But it is also an important 
defense of our sovereignty. We must protect our borders.

  Likewise, we have to understand that even if we protect our borders, 
the magnet that is bringing people to the United States is employment. 
So we have to create a system, which we are capable of doing in the 
21st century, we must create a system that allows employers to verify 
that the person they are hiring is legally here; hence, all this talk 
of E-Verify. Last but not least, because 40 percent of the people who 
are here illegally entered legally, we have to have a system that 
tracks when visitors enter and when they leave.
  My colleagues will tell you that is already required by law, and it 
is. The problem is that the way it is required right now will never 
work. That is why this bill deals with that. We have to have a system 
so when you are visiting the United States on a temporary visa--as a 
tourist, on business, whatever it may be--we track you. You log in when 
you come in and you log in when you leave.
  Every hotel in America knows when their guests come in and when they 
leave. Every hotel in America knows that. Multiple businesses track 
people when they come in and when they leave. We do this every single 
day as a matter of routine in our lives. The Federal Government should 
be able to do that, and it must do that. This bill requires that they 
do that, and it creates a real incentive to do that, and I will talk 
about that in a moment. But, basically, the incentive is that the green 
card process, for those who are here illegally in this country--that 
does not start until that system is fully in place. By the way, it also 
does not start until E-Verify is fully in place. These are significant 
security measures we must undertake.
  When you hear people say: Well, the bill weakens the status quo and 
the law, the problem is that the status quo is not working. There is a 
reason we have 11 million people here illegally, and it is because the 
status quo--the current law--there is a flaw in it. There is a flaw in 
E-Verify. The flaw in E-Verify is that you basically show up at your 
employer and you show them a Social Security card. It may not be your 
Social Security card, but that is all you have to show them. It is 
happening all the time. People are either falsifying the document or 
borrowing someone else's, and they are using someone else's legal 
documentation to find a job.
  We have to create a new E-Verify, one that allows us to verify that 
the person holding that card is actually that person; otherwise, 
arguing in

[[Page S4082]]

favor of the status quo is arguing in favor of continuing the fraud. We 
have to stop that from happening. So we have to have security elements 
as part of this bill--border security, E-Verify, and entry-exit 
tracking.
  The last issue--and it is the one that gets all the attention--is 
what to do with the people who are here illegally now. Let me begin by 
saying to you that I do not know anyone who is happy about the fact 
that we have approximately 10.5 million to 11 million human beings 
living in the United States illegally. I would also remind you that 
every one of their stories is different. I would caution people not to 
lump them all into one basket because they are all very different. Some 
came legally and overstayed, others entered illegally and have been 
here ever since. Some came in as very young children and did not even 
know they were illegal until they tried to go to college. The point is 
there is real diversity in that group of people.
  So we have three options. Option No. 1 is we can ignore it, leave it 
the way it is, pretend it is not there. I think if this bill fails, or 
efforts like it fail, that is exactly what will happen. For those who 
oppose amnesty, I would tell you that is de facto amnesty. De facto 
amnesty is having 11 million people living among you illegally. The 
only consequence to it is they do not have documentation. Obviously, 
they are working somewhere because they are providing for their 
families. They do not qualify for any Federal benefits. They are all 
around us, everywhere you look, whether you know it or not. They are 
here. Most have been here for longer than a decade. We can ignore it, 
but if we do, if we leave it in place, if we do nothing--if we do 
nothing--if this bill fails and we do nothing, that is de facto 
amnesty.
  The second option is we can make life miserable for them. We can 
basically put E-Verify in place, continue to secure the borders, and 
make life so tough on people that they will just leave on their own.
  I do not think that is a practical approach. I do not think it works. 
I do not think most Americans would tolerate what we would have to do 
in order for that to happen. I do not think most Americans would 
tolerate the humanitarian costs of approaching it that way. At the end 
of the day, I still think many will not leave anyway. They will figure 
out a way to survive and endure. I do not think that is a practical 
approach. If someone else thinks it is a practical approach, I would 
encourage them to come to the floor and convince me otherwise, come 
here and explain to us why we should try to do that. I have not heard 
anyone make that argument. I am not saying anyone is, which proves my 
point.
  What is the third option? The third option is to deal with it, to 
deal with it in a way that is reasonable and compassionate, but also in 
a way that is responsible and good for the country. That is what we 
have endeavored to do as part of this bill.
  So let's be clear what this bill does. First and foremost, this bill 
says to people who are here illegally: Come forward. We have a process 
for you that you are going to have to undergo if you want to be in this 
country legally. Here is the process: No. 1, you are going to have to 
undergo a background check. They are going to have to fingerprint you. 
You are going to have to undergo a background check for national 
security and for crimes. If you have committed serious crimes, you are 
not going to qualify for this legalization.
  You are going to have to pay an application fee. You are going to 
have to pay a fine because that is a consequence of having violated our 
immigration laws.
  When I hear the word ``amnesty'' used, it reminds me that amnesty 
means the forgiveness of something. We have seen amnesties all the 
time. I was recently in the great State of Hawaii. We had a great visit 
there, a personal visit. They have a box called an amnesty box. It 
allows you, when you get off the airplane, if you have any banned 
agriculture--plants, fruits, or whatever--to put it in the bucket, no 
questions asked. That is amnesty. Amnesty is turn it in and nothing 
will happen to you, no price to pay. That is not what this bill does.
  This bill says: Come forward, and you are going to have to undergo a 
background check for national security, a background check for crimes. 
You are going to have to pay a fine. You are going to have to pay an 
application fee. You are going to have to get gainfully employed and 
start paying taxes. You are not going to qualify for any Federal 
benefits--no ObamaCare, no food stamps, no welfare, nothing. That is 
all you are going to be able to have for 10 years, which leads me to my 
second point about the legalization.

  There is this notion out there that this is permanent legalization, 
that once you get this you are legal forever. Not true. This is like 
all other nonimmigrant visas. This is renewable. Under the program we 
envision in this bill, every 6 years you are going to have to come 
forward and reapply. Every 6 years you are going to have to come 
forward and undergo all the same things again--another fine, another 
application fee, another background check. In fact, when you go renew 
it the first time, you are going to have to prove you have been 
gainfully employed and paying taxes for the previous 6 years.
  The legalization that people are going to be able to get, the so-
called RPI--registered provisional immigrant--the key word there is 
``provisional.'' It is not permanent. There are people who are going to 
qualify for RPI at the beginning who, when it comes time to renew, are 
not going to qualify because they were not gainfully employed and 
paying taxes, because they committed a crime, or because they cannot 
pay the fine. That is going to happen. We do not think it will be 
prevalent, but it will happen. It is not permanent; it is provisional.
  The third aspect of it is that once you have been in RPI for 10 full 
years--after you have been in RPI for 10 full years, which means the 
first 6 years, and then you reapplied and qualified, and you have been 
in it another 4 years--then here is the only thing that happens: The 
only thing that happens is that you are now qualified to, you are 
eligible to, apply for a green card. It does not mean on the 10-year 
anniversary of getting RPI you show up at some office and say: I am 
here. Give me my green card. That is not true. You have to apply for 
it. You have to undergo the same green card process, with all the same 
checks and balances.
  I have filed an amendment to improve it even further. I am saying 
when you apply for that green card, after the 10-year period and more 
has expired, you are going to have to prove that you are proficient in 
English because I think assimilation is important. I think assimilating 
into American society is important. I think learning English is not 
just important for assimilation, it is important for economic success. 
You cannot flourish in our economy, you cannot flourish in our country 
if you are not proficient in English. We are going to require that at 
the green card stage.
  Now, what is the debate here going to be about over the next few 
weeks? Well, a couple things are going to have to happen.
  First, like any other bill, there are some technical changes that are 
going to have to be made, and those will be made. I think there will be 
improvements to the bill on other issues, such as what I have just 
talked about, this amendment I have making English proficiency required 
at the green card stage.
  Then I think we are going to move on and have a debate about the cost 
of this bill and ensuring that we truly tighten this. But look, the 
American people are very generous and open, especially to a process 
such as this, but they want to make sure it is not costing the American 
taxpayer. So we are going to have to make sure people are not 
qualifying for these Federal benefits. We have to make sure people who 
have violated our immigration law, one of the consequences of that is 
that they are not a burden on the American taxpayer.
  If we talk to many of these immigrant groups and the immigrations 
themselves, they will tell us that is not a problem. That is not what 
we are here for. Good. Because you are not going to qualify for those 
things. We are going to make that even clearer in some of the 
amendments Senator Hatch and others are working on.
  Then I think we have to get to the final point; that is, the security 
element of this bill. I personally believe that more than half of my 
colleagues

[[Page S4083]]

on the Republican side, maybe a little more, maybe a little less, want 
to vote for an immigration bill. They want to modernize our legal 
immigration system, they want to improve our enforcement mechanisms, 
and they want to deal with the 11 million people who are here 
illegally.
  But they are only willing to do that if they can go back to their 
folks at home and say: We took steps in this bill to make sure this 
will never happen again; we did not repeat the mistakes of the past; 
this is not going to happen again. That is going to be the key to this 
bill passing. I think we can do that. That is in our principles, by the 
way. The guiding principles before this bill was unveiled talked about 
border security. One of the ways I think we can improve that is by not 
leaving the border and fence plan to chance.
  Let's not leave it to the Department of Homeland Security. One of the 
objections we have heard from opponents of the bill is we do not trust 
Homeland Security to come up with a plan that works. Fine. Then let's 
put it in the bill. Let's put the specific plan in the bill, the number 
of fences, the amount of technology. Let's mandate it in the bill so we 
are not leaving it to guesswork, so when we vote for this bill, we are 
voting for a specific security plan.
  I have heard people say we think the E-Verify portion should be 
improved. Let's fix it now. Let's put it in the bill. We think the 
entry-exit tracking system can be improved. Let's put it in the bill, 
so that when we vote for this bill, we are also voting for a plan. That 
is important. That is not unreasonable. I want Members to think about 
this for a second. The immigrant who is illegally here comes forward. 
They get legalized through this pretty difficult process. They are now 
here legally. They have qualified because they have met these 
conditions. They are now here legally. They are working. They are 
paying taxes. They are not in the shadows anymore.
  But before we can move to a green card, which is permanent residency, 
all we are asking for is that we ensure that this never happens again. 
That is not an unreasonable request. Not only do I not think that is an 
unreasonable request, I think that is a very responsible request, 
because none of us wants to be here 5 years from now or 10 years from 
now saying: Boy, they truly messed up in 2013; we have to do this all 
over again. None of us wants to be here 5 years from now facing 5 
million illegal immigrants more, another wave of illegal immigration. 
We can get that right. We can get it right in this bill.
  If that happens, I believe this legislation will pass in a historic 
way out of this Chamber. It strengthens the chances it can pass in the 
House and be signed by the President. That is the opportunity we have 
to get something such as this right.
  I could go on and talk to you about the economic benefits of legal 
immigration reform and what that will mean for our economy. We will 
have plenty of time to have that conversation. Trust me when I tell 
you, I think we will work on it to convince you, it will be a net 
positive for America to have a legal immigration system that works.
  That is why this debate is so important. I think we can do something 
that is good for the country and responsible and once and for all solve 
this problem so we do not have to continue to deal with it, so it does 
not continue to hold us back, so we, a nation of immigrants, built on a 
heritage of legal immigration, can have a legal immigration system that 
works, that we can be proud of, that helps our country, that takes this 
issue off the table, that gets rid of de facto amnesty, that protects 
our sovereignty and our borders and the security of our people. That is 
what we have a chance to do.
  To the opponents of the legislation, I would say, look, I respect 
your views very much. I do. I think you raise very valid concerns, 
which we have attempted to address in this bill and which we will 
continue to address in this bill. I am not one of those take-it-or-
leave-it-people with regard to legislation. I always think that no 
matter what idea I have, the more people who are exposed to it, the 
more input I get, the more suggestions I get, the better we can make 
it.
  Ultimately, that is what I am interested in being a part of. I am not 
interested in being part of passing a bill as a talking point or a 
messaging point, nor am I interested in the political calculations of 
this issue. What I am personally interested in is solving a problem 
that is hurting America. That is how I will close. That is why I am 
passionate. The reason I am passionate about this issue is because this 
thing is hurting America. The fact that we have 11 million people 
leaving here, we do not know who they are, we do not know where they 
are, they are not paying taxes, they are not incorporated into our 
economy, that is hurting America. It is bad for them, but it is very 
bad for our country. The fact that we cannot enforce our immigration 
laws because the systems we have in place do not work, that is bad for 
America. The fact that we have a legal immigration system that hurts 
our economy and hurts our future, that is bad for America.
  What we have today on immigration in America is bad. It does not work 
for anyone, unless you are a human trafficker or someone who is 
benefiting at the expense of cheap illegal labor. Who else is being 
helped by the status quo? Who else likes what we have right now? The 
answer is nobody. Leaving this in place is not an alternative. It is 
not an option. This is a problem that is hurting our country. The only 
way I know how to solve a problem is to get involved in trying to solve 
it. That is why I came here. I did not come to the Senate to sign on to 
a bunch of letters and give a speech once a week on the floor. I came 
here because I believe, I know, I know with all my heart, that what we 
have is a unique, exceptional, and special place. But to keep it that 
way requires us to take seriously, not just our constitutional charge 
but take seriously the opportunity we have to solve historic problems 
in a historic way. I think this bill done right gives us the 
opportunity to do that. I look forward to the opportunity to be part of 
it. I hope my colleagues who are openminded about it will remain 
openminded as we work to improve this product and give the American 
people something that helps our country, solves our problem, and makes 
us all proud.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp.) The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to deliver a floor speech on immigration reform in Spanish 
and that the Spanish and English versions be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, the Senate has begun a historic debate on 
comprehensive immigration reform. We have had and will continue to have 
hours of debate on this issue. I think it is appropriate that I spend a 
few minutes explaining the bill in Spanish, a language that has been 
spoken in this country since Spanish missionaries founded St. 
Augustine, FL in 1565. Spanish is also spoken by almost 40 million 
Americans who have a lot at stake in the outcome of this debate.
  First, I want to applaud my colleagues in the ``Gang of 8,'' who have 
worked tirelessly to come up with a bipartisan comprehensive bill. This 
issue deserves an open and fair debate on the floor. It has been over 
25 years since we passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill. The 
next few days and weeks will not be easy; they will be a test for the 
Senate, and whether this body can debate, offer amendments, compromise, 
and ultimately come together on an issue that will move our country 
forward.
  This debate is about Isabel Castillo.
  This young woman from Harrisonburg, VA was brought to the United 
States by her parents at the very young age of 6. Her parents performed 
hard labor in order to support their family by picking apples and 
working in a poultry plant. All they wanted, like all parents do, was a 
better life for their children. Isabel did everything right--she 
graduated from high school and went on to attend college, where she 
graduated magna cum laude. She did not qualify for financial aid, due 
to her immigration status, and worked for a year to save money for 
college. After she graduated from college she was unable to legally 
find a job. Instead of giving up, this young woman organized the 
Harrisonburg Dream Act chapter to raise awareness about her situation 
in order to help other students.

[[Page S4084]]

  This is one example of many as to why we need to pass an immigration 
bill. For students and families, such as Isabel's, this is about their 
future.
  The last time Congress passed a comprehensive immigration bill was in 
1986. Many of the concerns I hear from Virginians involve issues that 
the last immigration reform bill did not address--lack of sufficient 
border security measures and a way to address the large number of 
undocumented immigrants in our country. The last immigration reform 
bill also did not include spouses and children of legalized 
immigrants--which created a strong incentive for many to enter or 
remain in the country illegally.
  This time around, things are different. I have been very impressed by 
the open process we have had in the Judiciary Committee:

       212 amendments were considered in the Committee;
       30 Republican amendments were accepted; and
       12 full committee hearings on immigration and border 
     security were held before markup.

  I understand that some doubt remains as to whether or not this bill 
will fix our broken immigration system. While not perfect--I can 
confidently stand here today and say this bill will do more for border 
security, more to improve our current backlog, more to strengthen our 
employment verification system, and more to put measures in place to 
deal with the future flow of immigrants--compared to any other 
immigration bill in history.
  This bill will first and foremost create a path to earned 
citizenship, not amnesty. Undocumented individuals will have to meet 
several stringent requirements such as, paying fees and fines, passing 
national security and criminal background checks, paying their taxes 
and learning English.
  And before anyone can come out of the shadows, this bill requires a 
border security strategy and border fencing strategy within 6 months of 
enactment.
  I am proud that this bill includes strong provisions to protect 
students who only know this country as their home, DREAMERS, as well as 
agricultural workers, who perform some of the most difficult labor--
these individuals will have an accelerated path if they meet certain 
conditions.
  In order for the U.S. to be the most talented country in the world, 
we must fix the current flaws in our immigration system. Our 
immigration system does not meet the demands of businesses that wish to 
attract and retain highly qualified immigrants.
  It is not about just addressing the short-term needs of the STEM 
workforce but about investing in the future of our children. In order 
to ensure we remain globally competitive, we must increase our 
investments in education. This bill does just that by establishing a 
STEM education initiative--funded through fees collected from employers 
of foreign STEM workers.
  According to the Council on Foreign Relations ``60 percent of U.S. 
employers are having difficulties finding qualified workers to fill 
vacancies at their companies.''
  This bill also creates a fair path for individuals who want to come 
into this country and start businesses, create jobs, and invest in the 
economy.

       In Virginia, Asian-owned businesses had sales and receipts 
     of more than $13 billion and employed more than 92,000 
     people.
       Virginia's foreign students contribute more than $405 
     million to the State's economy in tuition, fees, and living 
     expenses every year.

  Immigrants' contributions in the high-tech sector are striking, with 
one study finding that immigrants started 25 percent of all engineering 
and technology companies founded in the United States between 1995 and 
2005.
  Through this bill individuals who earn a master's or other 
postgraduate degree in STEM fields from American universities can apply 
for legal permanent resident status. This bill also changes our current 
visa system from one based on arbitrary numbers to one that is market 
based and understands the needs of U.S. employers.
  The Federal Government currently spends nearly $18 billion on 
immigration enforcement every year, more than the combined budgets of 
all other Federal law enforcement agencies:

       U.S. Border Patrol apprehension of foreign nationals 
     between ports of entry fell to a 40-year low of 327,577 in 
     FY2011; and
       Removals grew from 30,000 in 1990 to more than 391,000 in 
     FY2011.

  This bill goes even further by allocating up to $6.5 billion 
additional for border security. It requires a biometric exit system to 
be in place at the 10 largest international airports in the United 
States within 2 years, and 20 additional airports within 6 years.
  It is not just about spending more money at the border, but about 
being strategic in how and where we spend our resources.
  One of the key issues that we must address is to hold employers 
accountable and ensure that we have an effective employment 
verification system in place.
  As of May more than 400,000 employers registered for e-verify. This 
bill will mandate that all employers use a verification system that 
ensures all employees are legally authorized to work in the United 
States, and fine companies that employ undocumented immigrants.
  The State Department is currently processing visas for Filipino 
siblings of U.S. citizens who submitted their visa applications 24 
years ago. I ask my colleagues to imagine if you had to wait over 24 
years to see your family members.
  This bill provides sufficient visas to erase the current backlog of 
family and employment-based visa applicants in the next 7 years, 
starting in 2015.
  Lastly, and probably one of the most essential pieces of this bill, 
is how we deal with future flow of immigrants wanting to come to this 
country. This bill creates a future immigration framework that is 
premised on a merit-based points system. The bill establishes a new 
non-immigrant agricultural worker visa, and sets forth provisions 
relating to the integration of new immigrants; and includes provisions 
to deal with the present and future workforce needs of the American 
agriculture industry, while protecting workers from being displaced or 
otherwise adversely affected by foreign workers.
  In closing, I welcome this debate. English settlers who landed at 
Jamestown, VA in 1607 helped begin our Nation's great history as an 
immigrant Nation. And Virginian Thomas Jefferson, as he wrote the 
Declaration of Independence, expressed his clear understanding that 
immigration was a positive force for our Nation.
  Today, Virginia has the ninth-largest immigrant population in the 
country, with over 903,000 foreign-born residents. Immigrants 
contribute greatly to the richness of our Commonwealth.
  I hope that we will start a new chapter and send a strong message to 
the world that we are a country of laws but also of fairness and 
equality.
  Let's not repeat the mistakes of the past but let's also remember 
that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. Finding a perfect 
solution should not stand in the way of progress.
  Let's show this country and the world that this is not a Republican 
bill and it is not a Democratic bill but it is a strong bipartisan 
bill. It is time that we pass comprehensive immigration reform. Thank 
you.
  Mr. KAINE. El senado ha comenzado un debate historico sobre una 
reforma migratoria comprensiva. Hemos tenido y continuaremos a tener 
horas para debatir este asunto. Creo que es apropiado que tome unos 
pocos minutos para explicar la legislacion en espanol, un lenguaje que 
ha sido hablado en este pais desde que misioneros espanoles fundaron a 
San Agustin, FL en mil-quinientos-sesenta-y-cinco. El espanol tambien 
es hablado por casi cuarenta millones de Americanos con mucho invertido 
en el resultado de este debate.
  Primeramente, quiero felicitar a mis colegas en el ``Grupo de los 
Ocho,'' quienes han trabajado incansablemente para ofrecer legislacion 
bipartidista. Este asunto merece un debate abierto y razonable en el 
senado. Han pasado mas de veinte-y-cinco anos desde la ultima vez que 
pasamos una reforma migratoria comprensiva. Los proximos dias y semanas 
no seran faciles; seran una prueba para el senado, en como esta camara 
puede debatir, ofrecer enmiendas, negociar, y al final unirse en un 
asunto que movera nuestro pais adelante.
  Este debate es sobre Isabel Castillo.
  Esta joven de Harrisonburg, VA fue traida a los estados unidos por 
sus padres a la edad de seis. Sus padres

[[Page S4085]]

trabajaban a mano de obra muy dificil cosechando manzanas y trabajando 
en una factoria avicola para poder mantener a la familia. Lo unico que 
querian, como todos los padres quieren, era una vida mejor para sus 
hijos. Isabel hiso todo lo correcto--se graduo de la escuela secundaria 
y siguio adelante asistiendo la universidad, donde se graduo magna cum 
laude. Ella no califico para la asistencia universitaria federal por 
razon de su estatus migratorio y trabajo por un ano, para ahorrar 
dinero para la universidad. Despues de que se graduo del colegio, no 
pudo conseguir un trabajo legal. Enves de rendirse, esta mujer joven 
organizo el capitulo de Harrisonburg Sonadores para crecer el 
conocimiento de su situacion en orden de poder ayudar a otros 
estudiantes.
  Este es uno de muchos ejemplos por cual tenemos que pasar una reforma 
migratoria. Para estudiantes y familias, tal como la de Isabel, esto se 
trata de sus futuros.
  La ultima vez que el congreso paso una reforma migratoria comprensiva 
fue en mil-novecientos-ochenta-y-seis. Muchas de las preocupaciones que 
escucho de Virginianos incluyen asuntos que la ultima reforma 
migratoria no resolvio--la falta de suficiente medidas de seguridad 
para la frontera y una manera de resolver el gran numero de inmigrantes 
indocumentados en nuestro pais. La ultima reforma migratoria tampoco 
incluyo esposos y esposas e hijos e hijas de inmigrantes legalizados--
cual creo un incentivo fuerte para muchos en entrar o pertenecer en el 
pais ilegalmente.
  Esta vez, las cosas son diferentes. Estoy muy impresionado por el 
proceso abierto que hemos tenido en el comite judicial del senado:

       Doscientos-doce enmiendas fueron consideradas en el comite
       Treinta enmiendas republicanas fueron aceptadas; y
       Doce audiencias publicas sobre inmigracion y seguridad 
     fronteriza fueron realizadas antes de que el comite judicial 
     votara sobre la legislacion

  Entiendo que permanecen algunas dudas si esta legislacion arreglara 
nuestro sistema de inmigracion. Aunque no es perfecto--puedo pararme 
aqui hoy y decirles que esta legislacion hara mas para la seguridad 
fronteriza, mas para mejorar nuestra lista de visas pendientes, mas 
para fortalecer nuestro sistema de verificacion de empleo, y mas para 
establecer medidas para afrontar los inmigrantes que vendran en el 
futuro--comparado a cualquier otra legislacion migratoria en nuestra 
historia.
  Esta legislacion primeramente crea un camino a la ciudadania 
merecida, no amnestia. Individuos indocumentados tendran que satisfacer 
varios requisitos rigurosos tal como, pagando multas, pasando 
verificacion de antecedentes, pagando impuestos y aprendiendo ingles.
  Y antes de que cualquier persona pueda aplicar, esta legislacion 
requiere una estrategia de seguridad fronteriza y estrategia de 
prevencion en la frontera dentro de 6 meses de ser promulgada.
  Estoy orgulloso de que esta legislacion incluye provisiones fuertes 
para proteger estudiantes que solamente conocen este pais como su 
hogar, Sonadores, y tambien trabajadores en agricultura, quienes 
trabajan en unas de las manos de obra mas dificiles--esta gente tendra 
un camino acelerado si satisfacen ciertos requisitos.
  Para que los estados unidos sea el pais mas talentoso en el mundo, 
tenemos que arreglar las fallas que existen hoy en dia en nuestro 
sistema de inmigracion. Nuestro sistema no satisface las demandas de 
negocios que desean atraer y retener inmigrantes sumamente calificados.
  No se trata de simplemente afrontando las necesidades de corto plazo 
requeridas por los trabajadores en las mas reas de ciencia, tecnologia, 
ingenieria, y matematicas, sino sobre invirtiendo en el futuro de 
nuestros hijos. Para asegurar de que sigamos competitivos globalmente, 
tenemos que aumentar nuestras inversiones en la educacion. Esta 
legislacion hace tal meta estableciendo una iniciativa--fundado por 
pagos colectados de empleadores que emplean trabajadores extranjeros en 
estas areas.
  Segun el Consejo de Relaciones Exteriores, ``sesenta por ciento de 
empleadores tienes dificultades encontrando trabajadores calificados 
para llenar vacancias en sus empresas.''
  Esta legislacion tambien crea un camino justo para individuos que 
quieren venir a este pais y empezar negocios, crear trabajos, e 
invertir en la economia.

       En Virginia, los negocios aduenados por gente asiatica 
     tuvieron ventas y recibos de mas de trece-mil-millones de 
     dolares y emplearon a mas de noventa-y-dos-mil personas.
       Estudiantes extranjeros contribuyeron mas de cuatro-
     cientos-cinco millones de donlares cada ano a la economia de 
     Virginia a traves de sus matriculas, pagos, y gastos de 
     mantenimiento durante el ano academico.

  Las contribuciones de los inmigrantes en el sector de alta tecnologia 
son grandes, con un estudio encontrando que inmigrantes comenzaron 
veinte-y-cinco por ciento de todas las empresas de ingenieria y 
tecnologia fundadas en los estados unidos entre mil-novecientos-
noventa-y-cinco y dos-mil-cinco.
  A traves de esta legislacion, individuos que logran una maestria u 
otra matriculada avanzada in las areas de ciencia, tecnologia, 
ingenieria, y matematicas de universidades estadounidenses pueden 
aplicar para residencia permanente. Esta legislacion tambien cambia 
nuestro sistema de visas que existe hoy en dia de uno basado en numeros 
arbitrarios a uno basado en el mercado y las necesidades de empleadores 
estadounidenses.
  El Gobierno Federal ahora gasta casi diez-y-ocho-mil-millones de 
dolares en esfuerzo de inmigracion cada ano, mas que los presupuestos 
combinados de todas las otras agencias de ejecucion legal.

       Aprensiones de la Patrulla Fronteriza Estadounidense de 
     extranjeros dentro los puertos de entrada redujo por mas de 
     trescientos-veinte-y-siete-mil en al ano fiscal dos-mil-once, 
     un nivel no visto en cuarenta anos.
       Remociones crecieron de treinta-mil en mil-novecientos-
     noventa a mas de trecientos-noventa mil en el ano fiscal dos-
     mil-once.

  Esta legislacion va mas lejos asignando hasta seis-y-medio mil-
millones de dolares adicionales para seguridad fronteriza. Y requiere 
la creacion de un sistema biometrico en diez de los aeropuertos 
internacionales mas grandes en los estados unidos dentro de 2 anos, y 
veinte aeropuertos adicionales dentro de 6 anos.
  No se trata de simplemente gastar mas dinero en la frontera, se trata 
de ser estrategico en como y donde gastamos nuestros recursos.
  Unos de los asuntos centrales que tenemos que resolver es que 
empleadores sean responsables y asegurar que tengamos un sistema de 
verificacion de empleo efectivo.
  Desde Mayo, mas de cuatro-cientos-mil empleadores se han registrado 
para e-verify. Esta legislacion requiere que todos los empleadores usen 
un sistema de verificacion que asegure que todos los empleados sean 
legalmente autorizados para trabajar en los estados unidos, y multara 
empresas que emplean a los inmigrantes indocumentados.
  El Departamento de Estado ahora en dia esta procesando unas visas 
para hermanos Filipinos de ciudadanos estadounidenses quienes 
sometieron sus aplicaciones de visa hace veinte y cuatro anos. Les pido 
a mis colegas que se imaginen si usted tuviera que esperar mas de 
veinte-y-cuatro anos para ver a miembros de su familia.
  Esta legislacion proporciona suficiente visas para borrar el atraso 
de visas de familia y empleo en los proximos siete anos, empezando en 
el dos-mil-quince.
  Ultimamente, y probablemente unas de las partes mas esenciales de 
esta legislacion, es como afrontamos los inmigrantes que quieren venir 
a este pais en el futuro. Esta legislacion crea una estructura para los 
inmigrantes del futuro que es basada en un sistema de puntos de merito. 
La legislacion establece una nueva visa temporal para los trabajadores 
agricultores, y crea provisiones correspondientes a la integracion de 
nuevos inmigrantes; y incluye provisiones para resolver las necesidades 
del presente y el futuro correspondiente a la industria de agricultura 
estadounidense, mientras protegiendo trabajadores de ser desplazados o 
afectados negativamente por trabajadores extranjeros.

[[Page S4086]]

  En concluson, doy la bienvenida a este debate. Colonos ingleses 
quienes aterrizaron en Jamestown, VA en mil-seis-cientos-siete ayudaron 
empezar la gran historia de nuestra nacion como una nacion de 
inmigrantes. Y el Virginiano Thomas Jefferson, mientras que escribia la 
Declaracion de Independencia, expreso su entendimiento claro que 
inmigracion era una fuerza positiva para nuestra nacion.
  Hoy, Virginia tiene la novena poblacion de inmigrantes mas grande en 
el pais, con mas de novecientos-tres-mil residentes que nacieron afuera 
de los estados unidos. Inmigrantes contribuyen una gran riqueza a 
nuestro estado.
  Espero que podamos empezar un nuevo capitulo y que mandemos un 
mensaje fuerte al mundo y la nacion que somos un pais de leyes pero 
tambien de justicia e igualdad.
  No hay que repetir los errores del pasado pero debemos tambien 
recordar que la perfeccion no debe ser el enemigo de lo bueno. 
Encontrando una solucion perfecta no deberia de bloquear el progreso.
  Vamos a demonstrar a este pais y al mundo que esta legislacion no es 
Republicana y no es Democrata, es fuertemente bipartidista. Es tiempo 
que aprobemos una reforma migratoria comprensiva. Gracias.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in 
recess until 2:15 p.m.
  There upon, the Senate, at 12:36 p.m., recessed until 2:15 p.m. and 
reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Ms. 
Baldwin).

                          ____________________