[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 83 (Wednesday, June 12, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4359-S4400]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND IMMIGRATION MODERNIZATION 
                                  ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 744, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 744) to provide for comprehensive immigration 
     reform and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Leahy/Hatch amendment No. 1183, to encourage and facilitate 
     international participation in the performing arts.
       Grassley/Blunt amendment No. 1195, to prohibit the granting 
     of registered provisional immigrant status until the 
     Secretary has maintained effective control of the borders for 
     6 months.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is on S. 744.
  Mr. LEAHY. Is there a division of time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no such division of time.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S4360]]

  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I want to visit with my colleagues 
about border security. It refers to an amendment that I have pending to 
enhance the bill's provisions on border security. I would like to take 
a few minutes to discuss why I think my amendment is a good first step 
to restore the faith of the American people in government. That faith 
has to be restored on the issue of immigration because we promised so 
much in the 1986 bill on border security and stopping undocumented 
workers from coming to this country, so, consequently, for the 
institution of Congress and the executive branch both, because we are 
not enforcing existing law, the credibility on immigration is at stake. 
On this issue the American people have lost faith that, at least from 
the immigration point of view, we are really a nation based on the rule 
of law.
  It is no secret that we in Washington, particularly in the 
congressional branch, have low approval ratings. A lot of people, 
especially in recent weeks, wonder about the trust of government--you 
know, Benghazi, IRS, AP investigations. They have also lost confidence, 
then, in the leaders. They question our ability to protect their 
privacy. They question our capacity to protect their security.
  This is especially true when we talk about border security with 
average Americans. They do not think we are doing enough. They say we 
do not need to pass another law. They just do not understand why we 
cannot stop the flow and simply enforce the laws on the books. To them 
it is that simple.
  It comes up in my town meetings in Iowa, but the bill before us 
complicates things. It takes a step backwards on an issue about which 
Americans care deeply. It says we will legalize millions now--that 
means millions of undocumented workers--and we will worry about border 
security down the road, in 5 or 10 years.
  The authors of this document before us, the Group of 8, say they are 
open to improving the bill. My amendment now before the Senate does 
just that. My amendment improves the trigger that jump-starts the 
legalization program. It ensures that the border is secure before one 
person gets legal status under this act.
  The American people have shown they are very compassionate, not just 
willing to deal with this issue of 12 million undocumented workers here 
but in a lot of other ways so numerous and well-known we do not even 
need to mention them. Many can come to terms with a legalization 
program.
  But many would say that a legalization program should be tied to 
border security or enforcement. That is what is very simple for the 
American people: secure the borders. Let me give some examples.
  Bloomberg recently released a poll in which they asked the following 
question:

       Congress is debating changing immigration laws. Do you 
     support or oppose a revision of immigration policy that would 
     provide a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented 
     immigrants in the United States?

  Madam President, 46 percent said they would support it.
  The poll then went on to ask the same respondents about elements in 
the immigration bill, and 85 percent said they favored ``strengthening 
border security and creating a system to track foreigners entering and 
leaving the country.'' So we have 46 percent saying they support 
immigration, but 85 percent of the same group say it is very necessary 
to strengthen border security.
  In Iowa, a poll by the Des Moines Register found that 58 percent of 
the respondents were OK with a path to citizenship for undocumented 
immigrants after--and I emphasize the word ``after''--the border is 
secure. Almost every poll shows the same results.
  Sure, people would consider a legalization program, but it is almost 
always tied to the condition of border security. The American people do 
not think we are doing enough to secure the border. In a poll conducted 
by Anderson Robbins Research and Shaw & Company, 60 percent of those 
polled said the current level of security at the country's border is 
not strict enough. Also, 69 percent of the respondents said they favor 
requiring completion of a new border security measure first before 
making other changes in immigration policies.
  Unfortunately, too many people have been led to believe this bill 
will force the Secretary of Homeland Security to secure the border. In 
fact, it does not guarantee that before legalization. That is why we 
need to pass my amendment on file now. It is a good first step to 
ensuring that we stop the flow of undocumented workers coming to this 
country. We need to prove to the American people that we can do our 
job. We need to show them we are committed to security.
  Bottom line: Nobody says the existing immigration system is as it 
should be. People support reform, but they support reform if we have 
border security first.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, it is good that the Nation is having this 
debate on immigration, but I think we ought to talk about what is truly 
involved. For the last several months--even before our bill was 
drafted, people were saying we cannot proceed with immigration reform 
until we do more to secure our borders. Now that we have a bill--a bill 
that takes extraordinary steps to further secure an already strong 
border--we continue to hear we must wait. We are told that the 
immigration bill reported from the Senate Judiciary Committee last 
month, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration 
Modernization Act, S. 744, does not do enough.
  It is so easy to wait. Oh, let's wait until next year or the year 
after or the year after that, because then the 100 Members of the 
Senate don't have to vote. We can be on everybody's side. That is not 
why we were elected. We were elected to vote yes or to vote no. Let's 
start moving forward and stand up to vote, because when they say we 
have to wait for more security it ignores the facts.
  We have been pouring billions of dollars into border security for 
years--billions. Keep this in mind: Sometimes we argue over $15, $20, 
$30 million to help educate our children and that becomes a big issue. 
We have put billions of dollars into border security. Since the Senate 
last considered immigration reform in 2006 and 2007, we have made 
enormous strides on border security. This bill takes even more steps to 
prevent and deter illegal immigration.
  We can talk about philosophy and we can talk about things people have 
heard. I would like to talk about facts. It may be inconvenient to some 
of those who don't want to have immigration reform, but the facts speak 
for themselves. The Border Patrol has doubled in the past 10 years. It 
now has more than 21,000 agents. That is more than at any time in its 
history. The Obama administration has more than 21,000 Border Patrol 
agents, which is more than they have ever had under either Democratic 
or Republican administrations.
  The Department of Homeland Security has deployed additional 
technology in aircraft and hundreds of miles of fencing along the 
southern border. The Department has built more than 650 miles of 
fencing along the southern border, including more than 350 miles of 
pedestrian fencing.
  There has been talk about illegal crossing. Here is a fact: Illegal 
border crossing is at a near 40-year low under this administration 
because fewer people are trying to cross. In 2005, Border Patrol 
apprehended more than 1.1 million individuals who unlawfully crossed 
the border. In 2012, that number went down to one-third--roughly 
365,000. At the same time, deportation, as we all know, is at a record 
high level.
  Here is one of the things we should talk about: People ignore the 
fact that we spend more money on enforcing immigration and customs 
laws--$18 billion each year--than we do on all of

[[Page S4361]]

our other Federal law enforcement agencies put together. For those who 
care about law enforcement, that is kind of a striking number. So we 
have done ``enforcement first.''
  This legislation goes even further to build on what has been a 
successful record. Chairman Carper of the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee and I wrote a letter to our colleagues 
yesterday.
  In fact, I ask unanimous consent that our letter be printed in the 
Record at the end of my statement.
  In the letter, we point out that the bill appropriates up to another 
$6.5 billion to secure the border. It authorizes another 3,500 Customs 
and Border Protection officers. It allows Governors to deploy the 
National Guard to the southwest border region. It expands border 
security and use of technology at the border. I mean, this is not a 
bill that ignores enforcement; it expands it.
  It increases the already strict criminal penalties against those 
unlawfully crossing the border and provides additional resources for 
their criminal prosecution. It sets clear statutory goals: The 
prevention of 90 percent of illegal entries and persistent surveillance 
of the entire southern border. If DHS doesn't meet these goals within 5 
years, the bill establishes a bipartisan commission to develop further 
concrete plans and provides an additional $2 billion to carry out those 
plans.
  Some say: I have a better plan. Come on. The needs at the border 
change all the time, so we built in flexibility to meet those needs.
  The bill sets tough border security triggers. In fact, before DHS can 
register any undocumented individuals for provisional status, it has to 
provide Congress with two detailed plans laying out exactly how it is 
going to meet statutory goals: a comprehensive strategy and another 
specific to fencing. This is one of the toughest pieces of legislation 
on the security of our borders that has ever been before the Senate.
  The Department of Homeland Security cannot issue green cards to these 
individuals for 10 years--and even then only after four triggers are 
satisfied: Comprehensive border security strategy is substantially 
deployed; the fencing strategy is substantially completed; a mandatory 
electronic employment verification system is established for all 
employers; and an electronic exit system based on machine-readable 
travel documents is in place at airports and seaports. Even then we 
added more during the Judiciary Committee's markup of this bill. We 
adopted an amendment offered by Senator Grassley that expands the 
bill's 90 percent effectiveness rate to the entire southern border, not 
just high-risk sectors.
  So those who say they want more security than what we have here--it 
is virtually impossible to have more security. I think we might ask: 
Are you saying you don't want any immigration bill? This is similar to 
debates we have had--and I use the example of the work we did to bring 
about peace in Northern Ireland during the Clinton administration.
  The former majority leader of this body, Senator George Mitchell, did 
a heroic effort, along with others, on both the Protestant and Catholic 
side in Northern Ireland. There were some who said we cannot have a 
peace agreement until we do not have a single act of violence. I said, 
OK. Senator Mitchell and President Clinton said, so in other words, you 
are going to let one disgruntled person on either side veto any peace 
agreement?
  Let us not say we will have no immigration bill until not one person 
crosses our border illegally. That is making the perfect the enemy of 
the good, and that means we will never have it.
  I was pleased the committee also looked at two border-related 
amendments I offered with Senator Cornyn--the Leahy-Cornyn amendments. 
I mention this because there are a number of amendments offered which 
are bipartisan from Democrats and Republicans alike. One helps protect 
cross-border travel and tourism by prohibiting land border crossing 
fees. The other ensures that DHS has flexibility to spend the bill's 
fencing fund on the most effective infrastructure and technology 
available, while still requiring that $1 billion be allocated to 
fencing. It also requires consultation with relevant stake holders and 
respect for State and local laws when DHS implements fencing projects. 
Again, knowing that what we do or want today may be different from what 
we want a few years from now.
  I might say, parenthetically, the amendment I offered with Senator 
Cornyn to stop border crossing fees on either the southern border or 
northern border--some say we are going to turn our customs agents into 
toll collectors. I live an hour's drive from the Canadian border. We go 
back and forth like it is another State.
  The distinguished Presiding Officer lives in a State that borders 
Canada. She knows what it is like going back and forth, and she also 
knows how important that is to the economy of her State and my State, 
just as it is to Canada. We ought to luxuriate in the fact that Canada 
is such a friendly neighbor and the relationship we have with them is 
so good. Some of us are even related to people who have Canadian 
ancestry. I have been married to a woman whose parents came from 
Canada. She was born in the United States. We have been married for 
almost 51 years. I am delighted Canadians come across our border and 
settle in Vermont.

  I am also working on another amendment for Senate consideration 
regarding the use of vehicle checkpoints in the 100-mile border zone.
  I simply do not understand how some can argue that this bill does not 
do enough to secure the border. We do that in this bill. We massively 
increase the money, the agents, the technology used on the border, and 
this is in addition to the billions--yes, billions--of dollars we 
already spend each year to physically stop people from crossing.
  Some of the same people who want more security are the same people 
who say we are spending too much money in the Federal government. Well, 
short of putting up a steel wall, it is hard to imagine what more we 
can physically do from stopping people from crossing. As Chairman 
Carper said, if we build a 25-foot wall, I will show you somebody with 
a 26-foot ladder. We know people will still come. Because--and let's be 
serious for a moment--a fence does not address the root causes of 
illegal immigration. People come here looking for jobs, and American 
businesses hire them because they will do the jobs nobody else will. 
Yes, some come here to join their families, as the current backlogs for 
family-sponsored green cards would otherwise force them to wait years.
  If we are serious about stopping illegal immigration, we have to do 
more than build a bigger, longer, and higher fence. That won't work. We 
have to create legal ways for people to enter the country--people who 
want to come here for work and to join family members. Then we have to 
make it harder for people to find work if they do not use legal 
avenues, by requiring a nationwide employment verification system known 
as E-Verify--some have called this a virtual fence--and by increasing 
penalties on employers who hire undocumented workers. This bill does 
exactly that.
  The distinguished senior Senator from New York, Senator Schumer, 
talks about riding his bicycle around Brooklyn and seeing people who 
are probably undocumented and contractors coming up to them and saying, 
I will hire you for $15 a day, and they have to take the job. If we 
have real teeth, as our bill does, real penalties on employers who hire 
undocumented workers, they would instead have to hire those who are 
legal and have to pay at least minimum wage and have to put money into 
Social Security and so on. It makes a big difference.
  As Grover Norquist said in his testimony, our bill, if adopted, would 
improve the finances of our Nation. But more than that, this 
legislation provides workable, flexible, affordable, humane solutions. 
It is tough, it is fair, and it is practical. Yet, just as in 2006 and 
2007, we are still hearing from some Senators who oppose comprehensive 
immigration reform that we must do more to secure the border and 
enforce our laws.
  I welcome additional ideas on how to enhance border security and 
public safety. I want people to bring forth their amendments to be 
voted on up or down. Our goal must be to secure the border, not seal 
it.
  As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will oppose efforts 
that

[[Page S4362]]

impose unrealistic, excessively costly, overly rigid, inhumane, or 
ineffective border security measures, and I will oppose efforts to 
modify the triggers in ways that could unduly delay or prevent the 
earned legalization path--such as efforts to require Congress to ratify 
the trigger certifications. We have waited too long already. That 
includes the amendment offered by my friend from Iowa, Senator 
Grassley, which would significantly delay even the initial registration 
process for the 11 million undocumented individuals in this country.
  The bottom line is this: The pathway to citizenship must be earned, 
but it also must be attainable.
  Let's not forget that bringing 11 million people out of the shadows 
is not only the moral thing to do, it helps keep this country safe so 
we know who is here and we can focus our resources on those who 
actually pose a threat.
  I don't often quote the Wall Street Journal editorial board, but I 
will quote them here. They said:

       [Those] who claim we must ``secure the border first'' 
     ignore the progress already made, because their real goal 
     isn't border security, it is to use border security as an 
     excuse to kill immigration reform.

  We need immigration reform. It is a moral issue. It speaks to the 
greatness of our country. But it is also a national security issue and 
a public safety issue. Attempts to undermine immigration reform may 
come in the guise of promoting border security, but let us not be 
fooled. As 76 former State attorneys general recently wrote: ``Put 
simply, practical, comprehensive reform to our Federal immigration laws 
will make us all safer.''
  We must fix our broken immigration system once and for all. As I have 
said many times on this floor, I think of my maternal grandparents 
coming to Vermont from Italy and making Vermont a better State with the 
jobs they created, and their grandson became a Senator. I think of my 
wife's parents, coming from Quebec, bringing their French language but 
also bringing English, and my wife was born in Vermont as a result of 
that. But I think of her extended family--her father, uncle, and 
others--creating many jobs in Vermont and making Vermont better. Every 
one of us can tell stories such as that. Let's not forget those people.
  Let's not say that what worked for our ancestors is no longer 
available. Let's speak as the conscience of the Nation. One hundred 
Senators can be the conscience of the Nation and sometimes are, as we 
were on the Violence Against Women Act. It can now be so now, on the 
immigration bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,
                                    Washington, DC, June 11, 2013.
       Dear Colleague, As the Senate prepares to take up 5.744, 
     the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration 
     Modernization Act, as amended, we write to draw your 
     attention to the strong border security provisions in the 
     bill. As chairmen of the Judiciary Committee and the Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, we have 
     conducted extensive oversight of the Department of Homeland 
     Security and its enforcement record. The United States has 
     made significant progress on border security and immigration 
     enforcement in recent years, and this bill reinforces and 
     advances that progress in many ways.
       The Wall Street Journal editorial board recently explained 
     just how far we have come since the last time that the Senate 
     considered comprehensive immigration reform:
       The number of border patrol agents has grown to a small 
     army of 21,370, or triple the personnel employed as recently 
     as the Clinton Presidency. There are an additional 21,000 
     Customs and Border Protection officers.
       The feds have built some 300 radar and camera towers as 
     well as 650 miles of single, double and in some places triple 
     fencing. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) now has 
     the ability to detain 34,000 criminals and aliens at one 
     time. The Border Patrol deploys military-style vehicles, 276 
     aircraft, nearly 300 marine vessels, along with state-of-the-
     art surveillance.
       Meanwhile, illegal entries nationwide are at four-decade 
     lows. Apprehensions of illegal entrants exceeded 1.1 million 
     in 2005 but by 2012 had fallen by two-thirds to 365,000, the 
     lowest level since 1971 with the exception of 2011, the 
     previous 40-year low.
       Last year the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
     examined federal data on ``estimated known illegal entries'' 
     across the Mexican border. The numbers were way down nearly 
     everywhere. In San Diego, illegal entries fell to about 
     55,000 in 2011 from more than 265,000 in 2006. In Tucson--the 
     gateway to Arizona--illegal entries fell to about 200,000 
     from 600,000 over those years. And in El Paso illegal 
     crossings tumbled to 30,000 a year from more than 350,000.
       Even more dramatic is GAO's analysis of illegals who escape 
     through the enforcement net, a statistic called ``got 
     aways.'' In nine major Southern border crossing areas, 
     including the main gateways of Tucson, San Diego and the Rio 
     Grande, got aways fell to an estimated 86,000 in 2011 from 
     615,000 in 2006. That's an 86% decline in foreigners who 
     successfully snuck into the country from Mexico.
       Border Security Reality Check, Wall Street Journal (May 2, 
     2013).
       Let there be no mistake: We have poured billions of dollars 
     into border security over the past decade. In fact, according 
     to a recent Migration Policy Institute report, we spend more 
     money on enforcing our immigration and customs laws--$18 
     billion each year--than we do on all other federal law 
     enforcement agencies combined. The result of this 
     unprecedented investment of taxpayer money is that, as 
     Secretary Napolitano has told us, our borders are more secure 
     than they have ever been.
       The bill, as amended, builds on these successes by 
     allocating substantial additional resources to border 
     security. As outlined in the Senate Judiciary Committee's 
     report on the bill, S. 744, as amended, appropriates up to 
     $6.5 billion to secure the border beyond current spending 
     levels; authorizes 3,500 additional Customs and Border 
     Protection officers for our ports of entry; permits the 
     deployment of the National Guard to the Southwest border 
     region; significantly expands border security infrastructure, 
     such as Border Patrol stations and forward operating bases; 
     calls for the further use of technology at the border, 
     including additional unarmed unmanned aerial vehicles; 
     provides additional resources for criminal prosecutions of 
     those unlawfully crossing the border; and authorizes 
     reimbursements to State, local and tribal governments for 
     their costs related to illegal immigration.
       In addition to providing these new resources and 
     authorities to enhance our border security operations, the 
     bill also enhances the accountability of our border 
     officials. The bill, as amended, establishes a statutory 
     goal, known as the ``effectiveness rate,'' of preventing 90 
     percent of illegal entries at the border, and requires DHS to 
     report to Congress whether it is achieving this rate. It also 
     instructs DHS to achieve persistent surveillance over the 
     border, so that the American public and Congress can know 
     exactly how many people are trying to cross the border 
     illegally each year. If these statutory goals are not met 
     within 5 years, the bill establishes a bipartisan Southern 
     Border Security Commission, with members appointed by the 
     President, both Houses of Congress, and the Governors of our 
     border states. This Commission will be charged with 
     developing further concrete plans to meet the statutory goals 
     in the bill, and is provided with an additional $2 billion to 
     carry out its plan. During the Senate Judiciary Committee's 
     markup of the bill, the Committee adopted additional 
     provisions to strengthen border security, such as an 
     amendment offered by Senator Grassley to expand the bill's 
     90% effectiveness rate and persistent surveillance goals to 
     cover the. entire Southern border, not just its high-risk 
     sectors.
       The bill, as amended, also establishes tough triggers that 
     will ensure additional border security steps are taken before 
     the earned path to legalization can begin. Specifically, DHS 
     must provide to Congress a Comprehensive Southern Border 
     Security Strategy and a Southern Border Fencing Strategy that 
     lay out exactly how it will meet the statutory goals outlined 
     above before it can begin to register undocumented 
     individuals for provisional status. These Registered 
     Provisional Immigrants, in turn, will be allowed to apply for 
     green cards after 10 years--but only after:
       1. the Secretary certifies that the Comprehensive Southern 
     Border Security Strategy is substantially deployed and 
     substantially operational;
       2. the Secretary certifies that the Southern Border Fencing 
     Strategy is implemented and substantially completed;
       3. DHS has implemented a mandatory employment verification 
     system to be used by all employers; and
       4. DHS is using an electronic exit system at air and 
     seaports based on machine-readable travel documents to better 
     identify individuals who overstay their visas by tracking the 
     departures of non-citizens.
       The bill's comprehensive approach to immigration reform 
     will also enhance border security, by reducing the incentives 
     that lead people to come here illegally. We need to stop 
     focusing our attention on the symptoms, and start dealing 
     with the underlying root causes in a way that is tough, 
     practical, and fair. The Border Security, Economic 
     Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, as amended, 
     accomplishes that goal. First, undocumented individuals will 
     find it much more difficult to work, because the bill 
     requires a nationwide electronic employment verification 
     system and enhances penalties for employers who hire 
     undocumented workers. Second, the bill, as amended, creates a 
     more rational immigration system that provides legal avenues 
     for eligible individuals to enter the country for work or to 
     join their family members. As former Homeland Security 
     Secretary Michael Chertoff wrote, ``without expanded legal 
     immigration

[[Page S4363]]

     to address the needs of the labor market, border security 
     will be harder and more expensive to achieve'' (Obama 's 
     Immigration Agenda, The Washington Post, Feb. 14, 2013). By 
     making it more difficult for employers to hire undocumented 
     workers, creating legal ways to enter the country for 
     immigrants coming for legitimate reasons, and allowing 
     eligible undocumented individuals to earn a path to 
     citizenship, this bill will allow the Department of Homeland 
     Security to focus its efforts on addressing threats to our 
     national security and public safety.
       In sum, S. 744, as amended, will dramatically reduce 
     illegal immigration and improve national security. We look 
     forward to considering additional ideas to improve border 
     security further during Senate floor consideration, 
     especially those that present solutions that are effective, 
     workable, affordable, and flexible enough to allow the 
     Department of Homeland Security to deploy the right resources 
     where they are needed, without creating undue delays to 
     prevent undocumented individuals from earning a path to 
     citizenship. As we continue to build on the unprecedented 
     investments that have been made to secure our borders, we 
     must ensure that extreme or unworkable proposals do not 
     become a barrier to moving forward on comprehensive reforms 
     that are also critical to securing our borders. These reforms 
     include a path to citizenship for the undocumented in the 
     United States who work, pay taxes, learn English, pass 
     criminal background checks, pay substantial fines, and get in 
     line behind those who applied to come here legally and have 
     been waiting for years.
       The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration 
     Modernization Act, as amended, makes important improvements 
     to our immigration system that will strengthen national 
     security and benefit our nation as a whole. We look forward 
     to working with you as the Senate considers this legislation 
     and, hopefully, improves it.
           Sincerely,
     Patrick Leahy,
       Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee.
     Tom Carper,
       Chairman, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
     Committee.

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I see my good friend, and I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Vermont. I 
appreciate what he has said about this issue. This is a debate we need 
to undertake, and we are doing so. We are doing it in a way that the 
Senate in my previous experience has essentially dealt with 
legislation. We have brought it to the floor and it has come through 
the regular process. The committee has held extensive hearings on the 
issue. There is a national debate going on. We are hearing from our 
constituents back at home. I am not on the committee that has 
jurisdiction here, but I have been following it carefully in terms of 
what has been presented, the bill that has been drafted, the amendments 
that have been offered, which ones have succeeded, and which ones 
haven't. This is a major issue which deserves and is getting--unlike 
most of what has happened here in the last couple of years--a thorough 
debate, with opportunities to offer amendments, with opportunities to 
work to find ways to address concerns about the current legislation 
before us. That is why I voted for the motion to proceed. This is an 
issue that needs to be discussed so that, hopefully, a system we know 
is broken--I think there is pretty much unanimous agreement on the fact 
our current immigration system is full of flaws and has not achieved 
what was promised when the initial legislation was passed. It needs to 
be fixed because the status quo simply perpetuates and adds to the 
problem we have with illegal immigration and all the impacts on our 
country, including the distrust of the American people. So, hopefully, 
we are going to come forward with credible legislation this time to 
address the real problems. So I am pleased we are having this debate.
  We are a Nation of immigrants. It is part of our rich history. While 
all of those who have come to our shores over the decades may have 
different stories and a different journey, most share a common goal. 
They want the opportunity to live in a free society. They want to 
advance economically. They want to pursue the American dream. They want 
to provide for their children and their children's children the 
freedoms and the opportunities that exist in America.
  The American dream is a reality that is available for people to 
achieve if given the opportunity to work hard. I am the son of an 
immigrant. My mother's family came here to the United States legally in 
search of a better life and better opportunities not just for 
themselves but for their children and generations to follow.
  What my mother learned and passed down to her children is that with 
these freedoms granted to us as American citizens come 
responsibilities. We have the responsibility to cherish and defend our 
Constitution. We have the responsibility to be engaged citizens in our 
communities. We have the responsibility to vote and take part in the 
electoral process and, we have a responsibility to come to the aid of 
our neighbors in need. We have been, and hopefully will continue to be, 
a compassionate country--a country that believes all human beings are 
created equal and that our rights are endowed not by a king, not by a 
President, not by a government, but by God.
  In America, it doesn't matter where one comes from or what one's last 
name may be. If given the opportunity and the chance, a person can 
succeed, and that is what sets us apart from so many other countries. 
That is what makes us a shining light, a beacon to the rest of the 
world, and it is that light that attracts so many to our shores with 
hopes and dreams of a better future.
  During my time as Ambassador to Germany, Colin Powell, then Secretary 
of State, made many visits. One of those visits included a stop on the 
way back from a trip to India. As we were riding from the airport to 
his first appointment, he shared with me something that I think pretty 
much says it all about the world's view of America. He was talking to 
me about how we sometimes see people holding demonstrations and 
protests against America. He said, but, you know, as I was traveling in 
the motorcade down the main street, there was an Indian citizen there 
with a huge sign in big, bold letters that said ``Yankee, go home.'' 
And in parentheses, right underneath those bold letters, it said, ``and 
please take me with you.'' I think that little story illustrates how 
much of the world views America: a place they would like to get to.
  So as we address this issue, I think it is important to understand 
that this country is a magnet. It is a magnet for people to come and 
fulfill their dreams, to make their lives better and their children's 
lives better.
  But if we are a country that cannot have an orderly and effective 
process of legal immigration, we are going to lose the support of the 
American people. If individuals continue to learn that those who come 
the right way, the legal way, have to stand in line for 10, 12, 15, 20 
years, hoping to win the lottery, hoping to be one of those select 
people who are chosen, we will continue to see more and more illegal 
immigration. That is why it is important to address this issue and to 
make the necessary reforms.
  As I said earlier, it is an indisputable fact that our current 
immigration system has failed. It has failed the citizens of this 
country and it has failed those who have been standing in line for 
years trying to become eligible for immigration through the legal 
process. Today we have 11 million undocumented individuals living in 
our country. Approximately 40 percent of those who are here illegally 
arrive legally, on a legal basis for a temporary time. But once having 
come to our shores, they have overstayed their visas, absorbed 
themselves into our country and have not returned to their country. 
That is an issue. That is a problem, and we need to address that. We 
need to have a certified system in place that works--not promises, not 
words on pieces of paper--but a system that has the credibility to 
work, that when we grant people temporary status to come here to study, 
come here to visit, come here to see relatives, come here for whatever 
reason on a temporary basis, we know who comes in and we know who goes 
out and we know those who stay and we take appropriate action. That is 
simply a logical, legal way of having a system the American people can 
trust and believe in.
  One of the major issues here is our southern border and securing that 
border. I had the opportunity to spend a few days on the border from 
the Pacific Ocean in southern California and all the way across the 
Arizona border. So I had a pretty good look at this.

  As ranking member on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on

[[Page S4364]]

Homeland Security, I wanted to find out how we were spending our money, 
what kind of success we were having, what problems we faced, and how we 
should better address our resources. It was instructive, and I urge my 
colleagues to take the opportunity to do the same.
  As a result of that, despite efforts to make that border secure, 
``secure'' is not the right word to define where we are now. So one of 
the issues before us is: What do we do to make our borders more secure 
in a way that can convince the American people and the people we 
represent that this time--this time--we have in place a process which 
will result in a secured border?
  We went through this in 1986. Ronald Reagan proposed immigration 
reform. I voted for it. At the time, we had 3 million illegal 
immigrants. The promise in that legislation was that we would secure 
the border, and we would solve the problem of illegal immigration. 
Obviously, we did not. Today we have 11 million and perhaps counting.
  It is appropriate to say that the border is more secure than it was 
then. We have, over the years, and particularly in later years with a 
surge of illegal immigrants coming into our country, taken significant 
steps: increased border patrol agents, introduced sophisticated 
technology--a whole range of things that we have invested--money, 
resources, and manpower to make that border more secure.
  But we cannot truthfully come down here today and say the border is 
secure. We can say: We are going to make it secure and here is how we 
are going to do it. But I think we need something that is credible 
because the American people will simply say: How do we know you are not 
going to be here 5 years from now, 10 years from now, saying: I know we 
told you it was going to be secure and I know we still have a 
significant problem, but we will get it better next time. We do not 
want to repeat that mistake. If that happens again, I think it will be 
a long time before we are able to come down with a sensible reform 
proposal.
  Clearly, there is more work to do there, and it is going to be 
difficult for me to support a bill that does not put in place something 
that is credible relative to our ability to strengthen our border 
security.
  We cannot ignore this problem. We cannot ignore the fact that people 
continue to stay in our country illegally or cross our borders 
illegally. The status quo is not working. It encourages illegal 
immigrants to come across the border, which is why we need this debate, 
why we need reforms to our current broken system, and why we need to 
assure the American people we are going to work to repair this broken 
system.
  It is critical for our economic growth, it is critical for securing 
our borders, and it is critical for strengthening our national 
security. That is why I supported the motion to proceed to this debate 
on this important issue. Immigration reform needs to take place in an 
open, fair, and thorough debate, with the input of the American people, 
and I am certainly hearing from many of them in my State.
  I do have to say, I have serious concerns with the current text of 
the legislation that has come out of the Judiciary Committee, and I 
believe this bill needs to be improved before I could support it. I am 
particularly concerned and focused on improving the border security 
measures, making sure, as I said, we do not make the same mistakes we 
made in 1986. We must take steps now to secure it before we consider 
granting legal status to illegal immigrants.
  Additionally, I wish to work with my colleagues to improve the 
employer verification program, which I think is essential to dealing 
with the problem, and also our exit system measures, which I just 
discussed before about the people who come legally for a temporary stay 
but then we do not know if they go back home.
  I hope over the days ahead that we can live up to our reputation of 
being the most deliberative body in the world. People say: Why don't 
you get more things done? There is either one of two answers to that. 
One is, we do not bring bills to the floor and offer the opportunity to 
debate in an open way. But the second is that this is exactly what we 
need to do. On an issue of this importance, we clearly need this, and I 
am pleased that process is going to go forward.
  But let's not rush to a decision. Let's do it right. Let's not stand 
and declare that every amendment, if it does not fit with what the 
current bill before us addresses, then it is a poison pill that is 
simply being offered because Members do not want anything to pass. I do 
not fall in that category. I do not think we should have poison pills 
either. But a lot of these amendments I think go to addressing the 
problem we face as well as the inadequacies of the bill before us. 
There are a lot of sections in the bill that need fixing and a lot of 
amendments that will be offered are genuine and aim to make the bill 
better. A lot of those are offered by people who would like to get 
credible, workable, necessary immigration reform legislation passed.
  But if the sponsors of the bill or the supporters of the current text 
of the bill are simply going to declare that every amendment is a 
poison pill and that the only intent of the Members offering the 
amendment is to kill the bill, that is not constructive and that is not 
how we should go forward.
  So let's make sure what we do delivers on the promises we are making 
to secure our borders first, to deal with employer verification, 
improve the existing exit system, and to provide important provisions 
to ensure we have a legal immigration system that can benefit our 
country and continue the great story of America.
  I am looking forward to working with my colleagues to improve this 
legislation. I would like to see legitimate, real, effective border 
control, and a number of other features, but I would like to get our 
system reformed because the current system is not working.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity for all 
Members of this body to participate in a debate and amendments and 
discussion of the bill that was reported out through the Judiciary 
Committee in the regular order. If my colleagues have any doubt about 
this so-called Group of 8, I wish to assure them we are continuing to 
look for ways to improve the legislation. In fact, I have a couple 
amendments myself that I believe would help improve the legislation and 
make it better and stronger.
  But the fact is this legislation is absolutely needed. It is needed 
for a variety of reasons, most of which I will not go into at this 
time. But right now I hope my colleagues and the American people 
understand--and I think they do because recent polling overwhelmingly 
supports this legislation--I hope they understand that the status quo 
is totally unacceptable. The status quo is de facto amnesty. The status 
quo is 11 million people living in the shadows, and they are not going 
home. Anybody who thinks we are going to round up 11 million people and 
send them back to the country they came from--most of them from south 
of our border--obviously is unaware of the logistics that would be 
required.
  So if the status quo is unacceptable, don't we all share the same 
goal of a secure border, of addressing the issue of these 11 million 
people who are in this country living in the shadows and, by the way, 
being exploited in incredible fashion because they do not have the 
rights of citizens. They did break our laws by coming here, and we are 
making them pay a heavy price for doing so, including a fine, including 
learning English, including paying back taxes, including waiting 10 
years before they would be eligible for a green card. Most important to 
many Americans, they get in line behind everybody who waited--who 
waited legally either inside this country or outside it. They have to 
get in line behind them and they have to be working for those 10 years 
and they have to pay fees of $500, another $500 after 5 years, another 
$1,000 as they apply for a green card. They have to undergo a 
background check. Anyone who has committed crimes in this country is 
going to be deported. Most important, this legislation dries up the 
magnet that pulls people into this country where they believe they can 
find work.
  Over 40 percent of the people who are in this country illegally never 
crossed a single border. They came to this country on a visa and it is 
expired. So

[[Page S4365]]

that is why E-Verify, which we do not hear a lot about in this debate, 
is so important. Because under the E-Verify system--which means a 
document that is verifiable which identifies the individual--that 
employer who hires someone who does not have that documentation can be 
subject to prosecution and heavy fines and even more if they are repeat 
offenders.
  Once the word gets out all over the world--and especially south of 
our border, where living conditions are far worse than in the United 
States of America--then they are going to say: I am not going to come 
because I can't get a job once I am here.
  Today, in the streets of Sonora, Mexico, you can buy a birth 
certificate for about $40. So that person comes and shows it to the 
employer and they are hired. The E-Verify system will make that 
impossible. That is one of the key elements of this legislation.
  I have been on the border in Arizona for the last 30 years. I have 
seen the Border Patrol grow from 4,000 to 21,000. I have seen the 
National Guard deployed to the border. I have seen drones flying along 
the border. I have seen fences built. We have to do more. We have to do 
a lot more, and those are provisions in this bill. But to somehow say 
there has not been significant advancements in border security defies 
the facts on the ground.
  The border is still not secure, despite what we might hear the 
Secretary of Homeland Security say. It is not secure. But the 
provisions in this bill, I am confident--I can tell my colleagues from 
30 years of experience--I am confident it will make this border secure, 
as much as is humanly possible, remembering that there is an aspect of 
this issue we do not talk about; that is, the flow of drugs. Because, 
my friends, as long as there is a demand in this country for drugs, 
drugs are going to find a way into this country. It is just a 
fundamental of economics. We have not had nearly the discussion 
nationally, much less in this body, about the issue of the drugs that 
flow across our border. Believe me, if there is a demand, they will 
find a way, whether it is an ultralight, whether it is a tunnel or 
whether it is a submarine.
  But the fact is that we can get this border secured. The answer, my 
friends, as is proposed in the Cornyn amendment--that we hire 10,000 
more Border Patrol--is not a recognition of what we truly need. What we 
need is technology. We need to use the VADER radar that was developed 
in Iraq, where we can track people back to where they came from. We 
need to have more drones. We need to have more sensors on the ground, 
and I have gotten from the Border Patrol--not from the Department of 
Homeland Security but from the Border Patrol--a detailed list of every 
single piece of equipment that they believe is necessary in all nine 
sectors of our border in order to make our border secure, and it is 
detailed. It talks about, for example, at the Yuma and Tucson sectors: 
50 fixed towers, 73 fixed camera systems, 28 mobile surveillance 
systems, 685 unattended ground sensors, 22 hand-held equipment devices.
  The list goes on and on. It is detailed. I will be proposing this as 
an amendment on this bill to let my colleagues know that this is the 
recommendation of the men and women who are on our border, who are 
taking this issue on every single day they are at work--in fact, under 
very difficult conditions. I note that the temperature in southern 
Arizona is over 110 degrees today. It is very tough on individuals as 
they are patrolling our border. But we need helicopters. We need VADER 
radar. We need a whole lot of things. That will be paid for with 
approximately $6 billion that we provide in this bill--over $6 billion. 
We can purchase a lot of equipment that way. We are going to use the 
Army. We are going to use the Army to tell us how we can best surveil 
and enforce this border because of the experience they have had 
overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  I say to my colleagues, I am not apologizing for this legislation we 
have proposed and as sent through the Judiciary Committee, I am proud 
of it. I am confident we will secure this border by taking the measures 
that will be required in this legislation.
  I also have to say in all candor, my friends, there are amendments 
that will be proposed that will assist and make this bill better and 
improve it. There are also amendments that will be designed to kill it. 
I intend to do everything I can to reflect the will of the American 
people. I will be entering into the Record poll after poll after poll 
that shows that over 70 percent of the American people, if they are 
confident that we are going to secure our borders and if they are 
confident that these people will be brought out of the shadows, they 
will have to pay a fine, back taxes, learn English, and get in line 
behind everybody else, they support this path to citizenship after a 
10-year period of having legal status in this country.
  Why is it important for them to have a legal status if they have not 
committed crimes and they qualify? My friends, today on street corners 
all over America, particularly in the Southwest, there are men and 
women who are standing on a street corner waiting to be picked up by 
someone and taken to repair their roof or to cut their grass or to do 
menial labor. Do you know what they are getting out of that? They are 
getting below minimum wage because they have no recourse. They have no 
recourse as to any mistreatment they might suffer. So we want to bring 
these people out of the shadows.
  Yes, they broke our laws. That is why they have to pay such a big 
penalty. I doubt if there is a Member of this body who at one time or 
another has not broken a law, but we paid a penalty for it, hopefully, 
and we moved on with our lives. These people have broken our laws, and 
they have to pay a heavy penalty.
  There has been pushback, frankly, from our friends in the Hispanic 
community that this is too tough, this is too hard, this is too 
demanding. I understand that. I pushed back against them. But to 
somehow base this opposition on the fact that we cannot get our borders 
secure--it frankly is in defiance in a belief in what the United States 
of America can do. There have been significant failures on the border. 
There was a $787 million failure called SBI Net--I believe that was the 
name of it. That was supposed to secure our border. But I am confident 
that we have the technology and we have the ability and we can get this 
legislation through with confidence.
  I see the Senator from Louisiana is waiting. I am not going to take 
too much longer.
  The other key to this is workers. Frankly, I was not happy--nor were 
my friends--that we did not raise the cap higher than we did for guest 
workers to come into this country. But I would remind my colleagues 
that anybody who graduates from a U.S. college with a science, 
technology, engineering, or math degree and has an offer of employment 
will be eligible to have a green card to stay in this country.
  Today, in postgraduate schools in STEM--science, technology, 
engineering and math--the majority of the students are from foreign 
countries. If they want to stay here and work in this country and they 
have that degree, which we all know there is a shortage of, we will let 
them.
  High-tech companies will be able to bring in and keep more highly 
skilled workers through H-1B. The bill would raise the cap to 110,000 a 
year.
  All I am saying is that one of the keys to this is if we secure our 
borders and we dry up the magnet, then we have to have a way of 
attracting the workers we need to keep our economy going. Let's be 
honest. It is pretty tough picking lettuce down in Yuma. There are not 
a lot of American workers who want to do that. That has been the 
history of this country. Immigrants have come to this country, they 
have grabbed the bottom rung, and they have moved up. The bottom rung 
is pretty tough. We are going to have those people as guest workers. If 
they want to become citizens, then they apply for a green card, et 
cetera.
  Finally, I just want to say that the Grassley amendment would 
``prevent anyone currently illegally in the country from earning RPI 
status until effective control.'' Sounds good. Let me give my 
colleagues the testimony from Michael Fisher, who is the Chief of the 
U.S. Border Patrol, who testified in February about this very issue.

       First of all, 90 percent really would not make sense 
     everywhere. We put 90 percent as a goal, because there are 
     sections along the border where we have not only achieved, we 
     have been able to sustain 90 percent effectiveness.


[[Page S4366]]


  By the way, that is the case in the Yuma sector on our Arizona 
border.

       So it is a realistic goal, but I wouldn't necessarily and 
     just arbitrarily say 90 percent is across the board, because 
     there are other locations where there is a lot less activity 
     and there won't be a lot of activity simply because of 
     terrain features, for instance.

  So where it makes sense, we want to go ahead and start parsing that 
out within these corridors and within these specific sectors. That is 
exactly one of the things my amendment does. It has specific provisions 
of hardware and capabilities that need to be installed in each section.
  I thank my friend from Louisiana for her patience. I would like to 
again say to my colleagues that I have seen this movie before. I have 
been through it before. We failed in the past. We failed for a variety 
of reasons. This is our opportunity. If we enact this comprehensive 
bill now, we will remove a very huge stain on the conscience of the 
United States of America.
  We need to bring these people out of the shadows, but we must also 
assure all our citizens, especially in the southern part of my State, 
that they will live in a secure environment. We can do that. We can 
send a message to employers that they cannot hire someone who is in 
this country illegally without paying a very heavy price for doing so. 
That is what this legislation is all about.
  I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for the 
way he took this bill through his committee and brought it to the floor 
of the Senate. I am in favor of vigorous debate and discussion. We will 
have plenty of time for amendments and votes on those amendments. This 
is not a perfect bill that I am proud of. There are many ways we can 
improve it. But fundamentally we have the basics of a package that I 
believe is vitally needed for the good of this Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. While the distinguished senior Senator from Arizona is 
still on the floor, I would like to note that during the process of 
putting this bill together in the committee and having the votes, we 
had a number of quiet meetings, bipartisan meetings in the President 
pro tem office. It was extraordinarily helpful to have the senior 
Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, there because I feel very 
knowledgeable about the northern border, living an hour's drive from 
it, and we needed the Senator's expertise on the southern border. But 
more importantly, he and I, Senator Kennedy, and President George W. 
Bush worked for hours and hours, days and days, weeks and weeks, months 
and months trying to get a comprehensive immigration reform bill 
through once before. We now have the possibility of one.
  He said something every one of us can echo: It is not exactly the 
bill any one of us individually might have written. But by the time we 
get done, we can have legislation that will make America better and be 
true to our principles and be realistic.
  I could use a lot of other adjectives, but I want to personally thank 
the distinguished senior Senator from Arizona.
  The distinguished senior Senator from Louisiana is about to speak. 
Before she does, I would add that she is going to talk about an 
amendment I strongly support. I mention that support because we have a 
number of amendments that both Republicans and Democrats will support. 
I would hope that after the other party has their noon caucus, we can 
get to the point where we start voting on some of these.
  There are a lot of amendments that Republicans and Democrats would 
vote for together. There are some that will be opposed on one side or 
the other. But either way, vote on them. Vote them up or vote them 
down.
  Now, as manager of the bill, I can start calling up amendments and 
move to table. I do not want to do that. We have a lot of good 
amendments, a lot of good ideas from both Republicans and Democrats, 
but they cannot be in the bill until we vote on them. The distinguished 
Senator from Louisiana has one. I hope the other side will let her 
amendment come up soon.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin.) The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the chairman and the manager of this bill for 
his support of this particular amendment, which I hope is going to be 
noncontroversial. It has to do with clarifying some technical parts of 
the law dealing with adoptees and how they are able to claim 
citizenship.
  It does not have anything really to do with the larger pieces of this 
bill, but it is an opportunity to provide help and support to thousands 
of children, young people, and even adults who come to this country 
through the wonderful process of adoption, to clear up a couple of 
matters.
  I will talk about that in just a minute, but I want to associate 
myself with the extraordinarily powerful comments of the Senator from 
Arizona John McCain. Without his leadership and without his strong 
knowledge of the issue we are dealing with, I do not think the bill 
would be on the floor of the Senate, and I do not think we would have a 
chance to be voting on this important piece of legislation.
  He particularly--along with Senator Rubio and Senator Graham but 
particularly Senator McCain--has spent his adult life on the border in 
Arizona and has been in public office and has served this country so 
admirably in so many ways and fashions and understands this issue just 
about as well if not better than anyone on the floor.
  I have had the pleasure of working with him over many years to secure 
the border, as the chair of the Homeland Security Appropriations 
Subcommittee. I can attest that what he says is actually true and 
factual. The border is not as secure as it could be, but it is 
significantly stronger and more secure than it was just 5 years ago, 
let alone 10 years ago.
  He is also correct that we can make improvements on border security. 
Hopefully we will as this bill moves through, but the underlying bill 
itself takes huge steps in that direction by applying new resources to 
the technologies that are going to help us secure the border.
  Anyone who has been to the border--and I have traveled there to see 
with my own eyes, at the invitation of Senator McCain, which was a 
greet eye-opener to me. As a Senator from Louisiana, the only borders I 
am aware of are water borders. We do not have land borders like Arizona 
and California and Texas and other States, so it was the first time I 
had seen such a thing. I was absolutely amazed and somewhat taken aback 
by how quickly a person could scale the fence, how quickly tunnels can 
be built under the fence.
  I do not think some of my friends who are on the Republican side who 
are really concerned--and we all are, but they talk a lot about it. I 
am not sure they do as much as they talk about it, but that is my view. 
But they talk a lot about spending taxpayer money wisely. Putting more 
agents on the border and building a higher fence is not going to do it. 
Senator McCain is absolutely correct. What is going to do it is smart 
technology leveraged with the resources he has written in his bill.
  So if we want to secure the border more, which is my intention--and 
as chair of this committee, I intend to continue leading in that way, 
both our southern border and our northern border, as well as providing 
the Coast Guard with the resources they need to interdict drug 
smugglers who are coming into this country.
  I learned the other day--I would like to share this with people who 
potentially could be listening--that the Coast Guard has intercepted 
more illegal drugs than the entire land operation last year. They 
intercept drugs at a wholesale level before they even get to the 
country. This is about creating a perimeter that secures us against 
things we don't want to come into this country--illegal workers, 
illegal drugs, or illegal human trafficking, which is also a concern to 
many people in Louisiana and around the country.
  It is also important to have a border that allows for trade and 
commerce. We cannot lock ourselves away from the world. What Senator 
McCain is saying is so true.
  We have to be the smartest Nation on the Earth to protect our borders 
because we are the most open society and a model of what an open 
society should look like. We have to have that balance of security and 
trade. This is important for every American.
  I say to my colleague how proud I am of the Senator, and I would hope 
my

[[Page S4367]]

colleagues on the other side of the aisle would follow his good and 
steady advice.
  Yes, this bill could be improved on the floor of the Senate, but it 
should not be undermined with rhetoric that makes no sense. I am 
hearing that from some colleagues on the other side. I would hope they 
would have the good judgment to follow the very wise and mature 
leadership of the Senator from Arizona.
  I want to call my colleagues' attention to an amendment Senator Coats 
and I have filed, and I am very grateful for his leadership. I know of 
no opposition to this amendment. I am hoping that after lunch the 
caucuses can meet and we can maybe take up a few noncontroversial 
amendments that seek to clarify some provisions in the law that could 
be helpful to a few hundred and potentially even a few thousand 
Americans who desperately need our help. It is one amendment, the 
Citizenship for Lawful Adoptees amendment, supported by Senator 
Klobuchar, Senator Coats, and me. We hope there will be many more 
cosponsors.
  It does three simple but important things. First, a couple of years 
ago I helped lead the fight--with many of my colleagues still serving 
here--to pass the intercountry adoption act or the Child Citizenship 
Act of 2000. That was a very significant breakthrough in the adoption 
community.
  As my colleagues know, I am the chair of the adoption caucus. We have 
Democrats and Republicans who support the idea that every child in the 
world needs a family. We try to minimize and reduce barriers to 
children getting the family they need--either staying with the one to 
whom they were born, trying to help that family or, if they are 
abandoned, neglected, or grossly abused, by finding them another 
family.
  Governments do a lot of things well, but raising children isn't one 
of them. Parents raise children, and a responsible, loving adult is 
necessary for a child's physical, emotional, and spiritual development. 
Both our faith and the new science tell us that. It is really 
nondebatable.
  A group of us worked on this, and we are proud of the progress we are 
making. One part of this amendment would make it clear that if a person 
had been adopted and is now an adult but because of some circumstances 
never went through the process of citizenship before this law--because 
when we passed the law 10 years ago, any child now adopted overseas is 
automatically a citizen. It is as if the child was born to an American. 
That is what happens if you are overseas and you give birth to a 
child--the child is automatically American. You don't need to go 
through the immigration process to bring your child to the United 
States. We made it the same for adopted children because that truly is 
what adoption is like. It is like having your own biological child.
  So we made a great step forward, and we said that at the time for 
anybody under 18. Well, what has happened is, before 2000, for people 
older than 18--and they might be adults now; they are clearly in their 
thirties, forties, or fifties. They were adopted as infants or young 
children, but their paperwork never went through. Some of these 
individuals are being deported.
  It would be like deporting a child who came from Korea at 6 months. 
They have never spoken a word of Korean and have never been to Korea. 
If they were adopted from Korea, they shouldn't be deported to Korea. 
If they have committed some misdemeanor or even a felony, they should 
be penalized under the laws of the United States. They could be put in 
jail for life. For criminal activity, they should be treated like any 
other American. Deportation is not and should not be an option for this 
very small group. This amendment makes that clear.
  It also clarifies a residency requirement. The Child Citizenship Act 
was passed with overwhelming support from Republicans and Democrats. 
Don Nickles, as I recall, the Senator from Oklahoma, was the lead 
sponsor on this bill. He was a very strong supporter of many of the 
things of which I was speaking. He is no longer here, but his work 
lives on.
  The Child Citizenship Act also requires that Americans living abroad 
for military, diplomatic, and other reasons do not receive automatic 
citizenship upon entering the United States. When we wrote this bill, 
we intended for that to be the case, but because we put the word 
``reside'' instead of ``permanently physically present,'' we have to 
clarify that. With that minor change, it will basically say that if you 
are a diplomat living overseas and you adopt a child through a lawful, 
legal adoption process, this act applies to you.
  The third thing it will do is what we call the one-parent fix. There 
are many countries--and we hope Russia one day will again open. We hope 
Guatemala will one day get its 112 cases that we are still waiting for 
moved through very quickly.
  Some of the countries are requiring--and rightly so--that parents 
come to the country to adopt the child physically and then bring the 
child to the United States. In the past things could be done through 
agents or through adoption agencies, et cetera. I am perfectly fine 
with that. Many adoption advocates are. Parents should travel to the 
country.
  My sister did an intercountry adoption with Russia, so I am fairly 
familiar with our family's experience, which was quite a joy--an added 
expense but a joy to travel to the orphanage. And some Members of 
Congress have adopted children and gone through that process.
  The problem is that our agencies are saying--which is not according 
to the law, I believe--that if both parents don't travel, that adoption 
is not automatic. That was never the intention of our law. We are 
simply saying that if one parent travels and it is a legal adoption, 
that law still applies. It doesn't have to be both.
  There are three minor changes to this bill which have helped so many 
children come to the United States, and they have been such a joy to 
their parents. It is a help to the world in providing homes and loving 
support for kids who need it. It takes another barrier, another 
headache, and another heartache away from them for us to encourage 
adoption of all orphaned children and unparented children in the world 
who need families.
  I see the leader of the bill on the other side, the Senator from 
Utah. I would hope he could also be a cosponsor, if he would, and take 
a look at this amendment and give his support. I know there are many 
people in Utah, Minnesota, Louisiana, and Indiana whom this could 
potentially help. It is not going to touch millions, but it will touch 
thousands of people who I think could benefit.
  I will have several other amendments that I think can tighten the 
underlying bill, particularly for E-Verify, which Senator McCain spoke 
about. I wanted to get this hopefully small, uncontroversial amendment 
out of the way to help this small group and then turn my attention to 
some other things that are very important in the other underlying parts 
of the bill.
  I ask that whenever this amendment may be considered, the Senator 
from Utah would ask me personally, through the Chair, if he would 
consider putting this amendment on the short list to be reconciled 
potentially today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, this week we continue a very important 
discussion about how to fix our broken immigration system.
  One of the most important concerns we have is that the border is 
simply not secure. Despite the fact that this assertion is almost 
universally held on both the left and on the right, the bill we are 
debating has very little, if anything, to make the border more secure 
or at least to guarantee that it will become more secure as a result of 
its passage. Instead, the bill offers more of what the American people 
are used to from Washington--plans, promises, commissions, studies, and 
spending lots and lots of money but requires almost no action on border 
security.
  Many on my side of the aisle have placed heavy emphasis on 
strengthening the border security provisions to ensure that certain 
goals are met before granting permanent legal status to illegal 
immigrants. The reason for this is not merely academic; it is based in 
common sense. Failing to secure the border is the quickest way to 
repeat the mistakes we have made in the past. It means we will be back 
here in another 20 years dealing with a much

[[Page S4368]]

larger and far less manageable problem. That is what we are trying to 
prevent today and why we need to make sure this bill secures the 
border.
  The problem with this bill isn't just the weak border security 
measures. Even if we can come to some satisfactory conclusion on the 
security issues, this bill still would fail to reform many of the 
challenges we face and it makes most of them worse. If all we do is fix 
the border security portion, this bill is still considerably weak in 
four major areas and would still be unworthy of support without major 
changes.
  First, there is no congressional oversight of how the executive 
branch implements these reforms. By passing this bill, Congress would 
turn over almost all authority to the executive branch to secure or not 
secure the border, verify or not verify workplace enforcement, and 
certify or not certify visa reforms.
  Of course, the administration will begin the legalization of 11 
million illegal immigrants with no input from Congress as soon as 
possible regardless of how much progress has been made on border 
security, fencing provisions, and on the other priorities outlined in 
the bill.
  Congress is the branch of government that is most accountable to the 
American people. If the people don't believe the border is secure or 
that our visa system actually works or that the country's economic 
needs are being met, it is Congress that should be held accountable. It 
is also Congress that can most readily be held accountable through 
regular elections that occur every 2 years in both Houses, with each 
Senator being held accountable every 6 years. Therefore, Congress must 
play a predominant role in approving, overseeing, and verifying these 
reforms, as well as ensuring that these reforms are being implemented 
correctly and achieving desired results. This bill, however, leaves 
Congress and the American people dangerously out of the loop.
  Second, the bill surrenders control of immigration law to the 
Secretary of Homeland Security, as well as to a handful of other 
unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington. This is a problem 
that permeates the Federal Government in general. For example, last 
year Congress passed and the President signed into law 1,519 pages of 
legislation. Meanwhile, the Federal Government published 82,349 pages 
of new and updated rules and regulations in the Federal Register. That 
is more than 82,000 pages of rules that never came before Congress, 
never had a chance to be amended, and never received a vote in this 
body.
  This bill will make that problem worse by granting similarly broad 
discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security to create the rules 
and regulations that will determine how the bill is to be implemented 
as well as authorize the Secretary in hundreds and hundreds of 
instances to simply ignore immigration law as it is enacted by 
Congress. While I can certainly see why Members of Congress might not 
want to take responsibility for the consequences of this bill, that is 
not how our Republic is supposed to function.
  Third, this bill is inherently unfair to the countless thousands of 
people who have tried to navigate our current broken immigration 
system. Let me cite just one example. I received a letter just a few 
months ago from a constituent in Utah, from a person who immigrated to 
this country lawfully, a person who was teaching school at American 
Fork, UT, and here on a nonimmigrant visa. As she explained, she spent 
years of her life and thousands of dollars making sure that she came to 
the country legally. But she understands that her visa will expire in a 
few years, in 2017. She anticipates that she will be unable to get a 
renewal on that same visa and that she will effectively be deported at 
that point--voluntarily, but her visa term will expire and she 
anticipates she will have to go back to her home country. She explained 
to me it is very difficult for her to accept the fact that she has been 
here a few years teaching lawfully, developing friendships, developing 
her career, and because she did it legally she will have to go home. 
Meanwhile, those who have broken the law by their illegal presence in 
the United States will not only be allowed to stay where they are, not 
only be allowed to live where they now live, not only be allowed to 
work where they now work, but they will be put on a path toward 
eventual citizenship at the same time she and many others like her will 
have to go back to their home country.

  This policy seems to be rewarding those who have broken our laws 
while, in relative terms, punishing those who have attempted to abide 
by our laws in good faith. So this bill must be fair to those who have 
tried to come to the country the right way.
  As my colleague from Iowa Senator Grassley explained in painstaking 
detail yesterday, the claims of those who say there will be stiff 
penalties for those who have broken the law have proven to be almost 
entirely false. There is no requirement to learn English or to pay all 
back taxes. And it is quite possible many noncitizens will be eligible 
for our country's generous benefits, or at least a number of them.
  That brings me to the final concern that must be addressed before 
anyone should support this bill: the cost. One study conducted by the 
Heritage Foundation says the Gang of 8 bill could cost the taxpayers 
more than $6 trillion. Some on the right and on the left have 
criticized that study, and I welcome the debate surrounding that 
criticism. But the proponents of this bill have so far refused to do 
their own corresponding cost analysis. If they believe the Heritage 
Foundation is wrong, that is fine, but they should tell us how much 
they think it is going to cost the taxpayers. So far we have heard 
nothing. So far we don't have a corresponding study replacing the 
Heritage Foundation study that responds to the same points.
  There are reports some Democrats have asked the Congressional Budget 
Office to evaluate the bill, but the report won't be published until 
next week. That is unfortunate. If they are concerned about the cost, 
and if they want it to be part of the debate, this should have been 
done a long time ago. These are major portions of the bill that need to 
be addressed, major aspects of the bill I think we need the full 
opportunity to debate, discuss, and consider. Even if we are able to 
come to a deal that makes the security portions incrementally better, 
as long as it still lacks congressional oversight, grants excessive 
authority to the executive branch, unfairly penalizes those who are 
trying to follow the law, and costs taxpayers trillions of dollars, we 
should reject this reform unless major changes have been made.
  Some have suggested by pointing out the flaws of the bill we are 
letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. That vastly understates 
the problems in this bill. Far from good, this bill repeats the 
mistakes of the past. It makes our immigration system worse than the 
one we have today and will only lead to bigger and less manageable 
problems in the future. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  There is one more point I wish to make as we continue this debate. I 
realize this issue is very personal to some. Moments ago, I recounted a 
story from a constituent who takes this issue to heart. It has affected 
her family, her employment, and almost every aspect of her life. I 
understand when Congress is taking on tough challenges sometimes 
emotions get heated. That is understandable. But let us not forget we 
are all on the side of immigration reform. I don't know a single Member 
of this body or the other body of Congress, anyone on the left or on 
the right, who is not on the side of immigration reform. Perhaps such a 
person exists, but if that is the case, I have not met him or her.
  As I said last week, and as I have said on countless occasions--in 
interviews, op-ed pieces, newsletters, and online--I stand here today 
in support of real and comprehensive immigration reform. And I stand 
here today as someone who supports legal immigration into our country. 
I understand, as all of my colleagues do, that immigration is necessary 
to our country's prosperity and to its ultimate success.
  There are those who unfairly suggest that I and my fellow Senators 
who oppose this bill are somehow ``anti-immigrant'' or ``anti-
immigration.'' Unfortunately, those are the voices that are diminishing 
the prospects of getting real immigration reform done this year. I am 
well aware if this bill does not pass the Senate we will have an 
immigration problem that very next day. That is why I have been 
encouraging

[[Page S4369]]

Members of Congress to support a step-by-step approach to immigration 
reform. Let's not hold hostage the things we can't get done today 
because we are unable to iron out every contentious issue.
  There are more than 40 individual pieces of immigration-related 
legislation that have been introduced in this Congress alone, half of 
which I have sponsored, cosponsored, or that I could support. Indeed, 
the only reason immigration reform is controversial, in my opinion, is 
because the Senate refuses to take it step by step.
  First, let's secure the border. Let's set up a workable entry-exit 
system and create a reliable employment verification system that 
protects immigrants, citizens, and businesses. Then let's fix our legal 
immigration system to make sure we are letting in the immigrants our 
economy needs in numbers that make sense for our country.
  We don't need another 1,000-page bill full of unintended 
consequences. We need, and the American people deserve, real reform.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, a few months ago I met two sisters from 
my home State. They are Mari and Adriana Barrera. These two sisters 
were brought here by their parents when Mari was 7 and Adriana was 3 
years old. They were raised by a single mother who spoke no English 
after their father left the family behind.
  Growing up, their mother, who worked at a local hotel, did whatever 
she could to support her family, but Mari and Adriana often had to 
depend on themselves. Unlike other children her age, Mari told me she 
grew up the moment her father left. She told me about how she scheduled 
all of her family's doctors' appointments and how she translated legal 
documents, and how, at the age of 13, she started working as a hostess 
at a local restaurant, and not for money, as most teenagers want for 
their own indulgences, but to support her family.
  Mari also told me when she was about to enter high school Adriana had 
to have life-threatening surgery, and a dream was born within herself. 
As her sister's life hung in the balance, Mari realized she wanted to 
become a pediatric cardiothoracic surgeon. She wanted to help others 
the way she watched doctors help her sister that day, and she decided 
she would commit herself to getting the education and work toward that 
dream.
  When I talked to Mari that day a few months ago it was just after she 
had been forced to drop out of the University of Washington because she 
could no longer afford it. Living in Seattle, she told me about how she 
had been unable to find a job to support her studies. Why? Because she 
lacks a Social Security number. Mari's dream, it turns out--the same as 
for many like her--has been put on hold. It has been put on hold 
because our immigration system remains broken. All those dreams have 
been put on hold because for far too long Congress has failed to act. 
They have been put on hold because, despite the fact that young women 
such as the Barrera sisters want to contribute to our Nation, our 
current system won't let them.
  It is not only stories such as those of the Barrera sisters that 
point to a system badly in need of reform, I see it everywhere in my 
State. I see it in rural parts of my State, in cities such as Yakima 
and Moses Lake, where farmers can't get the seasonal agricultural 
workers they need to support one of our State's largest industries. I 
see it in big cities such as Seattle and Vancouver and Spokane, where 
high-tech businesses struggle to hire the world's best and brightest. I 
see it in neighborhoods throughout my State where families have been 
ripped apart by a system that forces them to choose between legal 
immigration and long-term separation from the people they love. I see 
it along our northern border in Washington State where the need to 
secure a long, porous border must be balanced with smart enforcement 
policies that don't use intimidation and fear as a weapon. And I see it 
in my State's LGBT community--a community that badly lacks fairness and 
equality under today's broken system.
  But these aren't problems that cannot be fixed. Although previous 
reform efforts have fallen short, this Senate is not incapable of this 
task, especially now. And that is because today--due to the changing 
demographics of our Nation, because of the growing political voice of a 
new generation of Americans, and because of the energy, determination, 
and hard work of immigration advocates in my home State and across the 
Nation--we are at a historic moment of opportunity. For the first time 
in the history of this debate there is broad bipartisan agreement this 
system must be fixed and that a bipartisan solution is within reach.
  No one in this country needs to be reminded it is a rarity here when 
Senators from different parties and from very different States come 
together to agree on common solutions to a big issue. So it is truly 
remarkable that over the course of the past year the bipartisan so-
called Gang of 8 has worked to craft this bill that is now before the 
Senate. The bill we are considering is focused on four bipartisan 
pillars that have drawn consensus support from Members of Congress and 
the American people.
  First of all, this bill includes a path to citizenship, so that with 
a lot of hard work many of the immigrants living in this country who 
are dreaming of citizenship can achieve that goal over time.
  Second, the bill provides employers certainty in a system that has 
often left them without any answers.
  Third, this bill will help continue the progress we have made in 
securing our borders by focusing on the most serious security threats 
and by utilizing new technology.
  Finally, this bill helps to reform our legal immigration system so it 
meets the needs of our families and our Nation going forward.
  These are all important steps. But this bill is only the beginning of 
a full, fair, and open public debate over reforming immigration in this 
country. And while it will be tempting to get caught up in the 
specifics of one amendment or policy in this debate, we can't forget 
about the larger questions this bill addresses, because at its heart 
this is a bill that touches nearly every aspect of American life, from 
our economy to our security, from our classrooms to our workplaces. It 
is about what type of country we want to be, what we stand for, and 
what type of future we all want to build.
  These are the questions I have actually posed in meetings with 
advocates and businesses and leaders in meetings all over my State, 
both in recent weeks and going back many years. Those conversations 
have stirred a lot of passion, brought new facts to light, and helped 
me bring the voices of countless advocates to this debate today. They 
have also helped me to arrive at the core issues I believe are 
essential to repairing our broken immigration system--the issues I will 
fight for as we debate in the weeks to come.
  Sitting and talking about the aspiring Americans this bill will 
affect has made clear that protecting families must be a central 
priority in comprehensive immigration reform. Immigration reform isn't 
just about a person's status, it is about sons and daughters and 
mothers and fathers and families who want to live full, productive 
lives together in this country. We know when workers have their 
families nearby they are more likely to be satisfied with their job, 
they are healthier, they work harder, and they contribute to our 
economy.
  We know families are the building block of strong communities. Yet 
under today's broken system, family-based immigration has been pitted 
against employment-based immigration, and far too often immigrant 
families are being forced to choose between the country they love and 
the ones they love. I firmly believe it is in our long-term national 
interest to change this approach. For immigration reform to best meet 
our national ideals we have to keep our focus on keeping our families 
together, reducing these backlogs, giving women immigrants access to 
green cards, and reuniting immigrants with their families.
  Immigration reform must also include a pathway to citizenship for the 
11 million undocumented immigrants residing in this country. Many of 
our undocumented immigrants have lived in this country for more than a 
decade. They are our neighbors, our friends, our colleagues. They go to 
church with us, they pay their taxes, and they follow our laws.

[[Page S4370]]

  But our current system creates a permanent underclass of people that 
are caught between the law and earning a living. While citizenship has 
to be earned, it is simply not feasible to deport this entire 
population or expect them to return to their nation of citizenship. We 
certainly can't make this pathway contingent on enforcement measures 
that are unachieveable or unrealistic. I believe the bill before us 
lays the foundation for a pathway to citizenship that will bring 
aspiring Americans out from the shadows.
  Immigration reform must also meet the needs of our changing economy. 
This need is perhaps best on display in my home State where the 
diversity of our economy creates diverse immigration needs. Washington 
is home to some of our Nation's largest high-tech, aerospace, and 
composite manufacturing firms. These are businesses that demand a 
robust employment-based visa system that attracts the best and 
brightest from across the world. However, just across the Cascade 
mountains lie miles and miles of fertile farmlands and orchards that 
demand a flexible and pragmatic agricultural worker program. I plan to 
support changes that help meet both of those needs while also working 
to invest in job opportunities for American workers through the STEM 
investments that are provided in this bill.
  We also need a smart and humane system of securing our Nation's 
borders, including my State's many land border crossings. But we must 
balance the necessity of securing our borders and enforcing our laws 
with the importance of treating everyone with dignity and respect, and 
that includes ensuring access to due process in our immigration 
hearings, restrictions on the use of unnecessary restraints on pregnant 
women, the use of less costly alternatives to detention whenever 
possible, and humane conditions and strict oversight and reporting 
requirements at our detention centers.
  Our strategy for enforcement and border security should focus on 
keeping Americans safe, fighting violent crime, reducing smuggling, and 
stopping terrorists. We should always be doing it in a way that upholds 
our commitment to civil liberties and the rights of every American.
  Finally, I strongly support efforts to craft a system that will unite 
families by extending immigration sponsorship privileges for married 
binational LGBT couples. I was very proud of my home State of 
Washington when it voted last year for marriage equality. However, my 
heart breaks because each time a binational LGBT married Washingtonian 
is split apart because their marriage is not recognized by the Federal 
Government, it is just not right.
  The Defense of Marriage Act has long barred equal immigration 
sponsorship privileges for married binational LGBT couples. While I am 
hopeful the Supreme Court will strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, 
I believe we should also move decisively to include these provisions in 
this bill.
  These are certainly not the only priorities I will be fighting for in 
the coming days. In fact, I am hoping to offer some amendments that 
will help open new doors to education for our DREAMers and that will 
expand investment in our STEM education. But I also know we will see 
amendments that will attempt to weaken and defeat this bill altogether, 
because as we saw in the exhaustive and inclusive committee process, 
there are those who are simply bent on standing in the way of a bill 
that Americans want and our economy needs--those who will say or do 
anything to defeat this bill.
  But I am confident this is a new day for immigration reform. I am 
confident of that because more Americans than ever before see the 
benefits of a modern immigration system that is coupled with the 
investments that help our families succeed. They see we are stronger 
when immigrant workers are contributing to our economy, when employers 
have the resources they need to grow, and when a path to citizenship is 
available to those who are already here.
  Too often in this debate it is difficult for some people to 
understand that the millions of undocumented families in our country 
are already an important part of our communities. Immigrants work hard. 
They send their children to schools throughout this country. They pay 
their taxes, and they help weave the fabric of our society. In all but 
name they are Americans.
  When John F. Kennedy was serving in this Chamber, he wrote a book 
about the fact that America is a nation of immigrants. In it, he wrote:

       Immigration policy should be generous; it should be fair; 
     it should be flexible. With such a policy we can turn to the 
     world, and to our own past, with clean hands and a clear 
     conscience.

  Today, those words continue to ring true. It is not only the world we 
have to turn to. This effort is about living up to our own ideals. It 
is about, as then-Senator Kennedy said, living up to our own past.
  Our history has long been that of a beacon of hope for people 
throughout the world, from those who arrived at Ellis Island to start a 
new life decades ago to the DREAMers who want to contribute to the 
country they love today.
  As we once again take on this very difficult task of reforming our 
immigration policy, let's make sure our actions reflect our security, 
our economy, and our future. But let's also never forget the past and 
the fact that our Nation has long offered generations of immigrants the 
chance to achieve their dreams.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


               Unanimous Consent Request--H. Con. Res. 25

  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 33, H. Con. Res. 25; that 
the amendment which is--and has been--at the desk, the text of S. Con. 
Res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the Senate on March 23, be 
inserted in lieu thereof; that H. Con. Res. 25, as amended, be agreed 
to; the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference 
with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses; and the 
Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate; 
that following the authorization, two motions to instruct conferees be 
in order from each side: a motion to instruct relative to the debt 
limit and a motion to instruct relative to taxes-revenue; that there be 
2 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees prior to the votes in relation to the motions; and, further, 
that no amendments be in order to either of the motions prior to the 
votes, all of the above occurring with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would like 
to explain briefly the overall situation.
  We are not objecting to budget. We are not objecting to conference. 
We just want the debt limit left out. It is a separate issue that 
warrants its own debate. It is a simple request: no backroom deals on 
the debt limit.
  I would like to focus on one particular argument we have heard from 
the other side. Critics argue that conference committees are 
transparent and that they don't involve backroom deals. If this were 
ever the case, today it is not.
  The purpose of conference committees is to reconcile differences in 
similar bills passed by the House and by the Senate. It is not the only 
way, but it is one way.
  In theory, conference committees are an open, accountable, and 
trustworthy means of resolving bicameral differences. But in recent 
years, the conference process--such as so much else in this town and in 
this Chamber--has become corrupted.
  Today, conference committees are just another mechanism to exclude 
the American people from the legislative process. Secret closed doors, 
they usually don't even begin until the deal is already completed, as a 
practical matter.
  Speaker Boehner himself said recently: We don't typically go to 
conference until such time that they are well on their way.
  A recent example was the conference last year on the highway bill. 
The Senate passed its bill in March. The House passed its version in 
April. On May 8, the conference committee met for about 2\1/2\ hours on 
C-SPAN, but no amendments, no substantive legislating. Members mostly 
gave just opening statements, but that was just the first meeting, 
after all--plenty of time to get to the real work.

[[Page S4371]]

  But then at the end of it all, the Chair of the conference thanked 
everyone for coming and then said something peculiar: We will be back 
here, if necessary. Maybe we can do this out of this room, but we may 
be able to agree and get signatures on a conference report. But, if 
necessary, we will be back here in 20-some days.
  A strange thing that the conference--which hadn't done anything yet--
would only meet again, if necessary. How else could they do their work 
if they didn't meet again?
  But then, without meeting again, the conference filed its 670-page 
report in the early morning hours of Thursday, June 28. As if by magic, 
without any debate or amendments or votes or public meetings, all the 
differences simply got ironed out. What is more, the highway bill 
suddenly included major provisions that had nothing to do with 
highways. Out of thin air the conference committee had added to the 
highway bill the flood insurance program and the student loan program. 
We might call it the miraculous deception.
  So Thursday morning they presented to Congress their massive bill--
intentionally waiting until only hours before the entire highway 
program was set to expire. It was a classic cliff deal: negotiated in 
secret, immune from amendment, including unrelated provisions air-
dropped into the bill, presented as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition 
up against a manufactured deadline crisis.
  Faced with this situation, the House and Senate passed the report 
without reading it and patted each other on the back for their 
bipartisanship.
  This, unfortunately, is how Washington too often works, and it is why 
the American people hold Washington in such low esteem. People don't 
trust the government because they know the government doesn't trust 
them.
  If my colleagues truly want a backroom deal on the budget, we will 
give them their chance to have it. We just ask that they leave the debt 
ceiling out of it.
  But make no mistake, my colleagues and I are not objecting because we 
don't understand how Washington works, as some have suggested. We are 
objecting because we know exactly how Washington works in this regard, 
and we mean to change it.
  So I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Virginia modify his 
request so it not be in order for the Senate to consider a conference 
report that includes reconciliation instructions to raise the debt 
limit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request as modified?
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, given that no Member of this body made an 
amendment to request such a provision and offered it for vote either 
during the Budget Committee deliberation or on the floor of this body 
when we were debating the budget, I consider the request basically an 
effort to modify the budget after the vote is done.
  Therefore, I reject the request, and I would ask an opportunity to 
comment additionally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator object to the request as 
modified?
  Mr. KAINE. I object to the request as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, in that case, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I would like to comment on my colleague's 
characterization that Members of this body want a backroom deal. 
Because in that characterization, my colleague neglected to make clear 
to certainly people in this gallery what happens when there is a 
conference report.
  Since March 23, we have been trying to take a budget passed by this 
body, in accord with the Budget Act of 1974, into a conference with the 
House budget that was passed the same week. That is the way, in a 
bicameral legislature, we resolve differences between the two Houses: 
to put the two different positions in a conference committee, and we 
ask people to sit down and debate and listen and dialog and hopefully 
find a compromise.
  There is no guarantee in any conference that a compromise will be 
found. All we are asking is that Members of this body, instead of 
exercising a prerogative to block debate and compromise, allow a 
conference to go forward so we can talk and listen and see whether we 
can find compromise for the good of the Nation.
  The Senator has indicated they are blocking that because they want to 
stop backroom deals. The Senator has neglected to explain what happens 
when there is a conference. When there is a conference, if there is a 
deal, if there is an agreement to find good for the common good of the 
Nation between a Republican House majority and a Democratic Senate 
majority, then the conference report gets submitted back to the bodies, 
we have debate in this Chamber where every Senator--just as they did 
during the budget--can stand and explain whether they are for it or 
against it, and then every Senator has the ability to vote yes or no to 
the conference report.
  If the Senator would like to see a conference and see if it works and 
if he doesn't like it vote against the budget or the budget compromise, 
he is able to do it. If any Senator allows a conference committee to go 
forward and when it comes back believes it represents some kind of a 
backroom deal, at that point they can say that on the floor. But to 
restrict a budget from even going to conference so we can find 
compromise before you know whether compromise will be found, before you 
know what the compromise might be, and to call it a back-room deal when 
you are blocking anybody from even entering the room and trying to find 
compromise I think is an unfair characterization of the procedures of 
this body.

  I have stated before on the floor as I have made the motion--this is 
the 13th motion we have made since March 23 to begin a budget 
conference so we can find compromise--when our Framers established a 
bicameral legislature they knew what they were doing, but they gave us 
a challenge and the challenge was this: In a bicameral legislature that 
requires passage in both Houses, if the governmental organism is to be 
alive, then compromise is the blood of the organism because passage in 
one House is not enough. There has to be passage in both Houses for the 
vast majority of items, including a budget.
  Blocking a process of compromise from beginning is taking the blood 
out of the living organism of this Congress and of this government. 
Efforts to block compromise harm this institution. They are harming the 
institution every day in the minds of the American public, be they 
Democratic, Republican, Independent, wherever they live.
  I have made the motion. The motion has been objected to. I can assure 
folks this motion will continue to be made because we passed a budget 
in this body under regular order. We need to get into a compromise--
into a conference with the House so we can do what is expected of us: 
listen, dialog, exercise efforts to find compromise. Without 
compromise, there is no Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, to respond to my distinguished colleague 
and friend from Virginia, in the first place it is important for us to 
remember, yes, we are a bicameral Congress. Yes, in order to pass 
legislation you have to have something pass in the House and pass in 
the Senate and then be signed into law by the President. But the fact 
is there are a number of ways to accomplish this.
  Yes, it is certainly true that one way we reconcile competing 
versions of legislation passed in the House and Senate respectively is 
through conference committee. It is not the only way, it is one way.
  It is also true that under Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 of the 
Constitution, each body of Congress has the power to write its own 
rules for its own operation. The way the rules of the Senate are 
written it is such that in our current posture, in order to get to a 
conference committee it requires unanimous consent. That means all of 
us have to agree it is a good idea to take that particular route. But 
we don't have to take that route. There are

[[Page S4372]]

other ways that, under the rules of the Senate, would allow us to 
address differences in the House-passed budget and Senate-passed budget 
without going to conference.
  We could, for example, take up the House-passed budget right now. We 
could debate that and discuss that. That is a way of addressing this 
that does not require us to go to conference. But going to conference 
right now under the rules of the Senate as they apply to this set of 
facts does require unanimous consent.
  There are a handful of us who are not willing to grant that consent 
if in fact the possibility remains that they will use that as a back-
room effort to raise the debt limit, a back-room effort that would not 
require utilization of the Senate's traditional rules, including the 
60-vote threshold that often applies.
  You are asking us to agree with something with which we fundamentally 
disagree. My friend from Virginia has also made the argument that it is 
somehow unreasonable of us to make this objection because of the fact 
that none of these amendments were brought up in connection with the 
budget. I actually think the argument goes exactly the opposite way. 
Because the debt limit was not part of the deliberations in this body 
on the budget, and because the debt limit was not part of the 
deliberations or the final text in the other body in connection with 
the budget, there is no need for the conference committee to address 
the debt limit. There certainly is no need to circumvent the otherwise 
applicable rules of the Senate that would govern this in this posture 
in this context.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with 
my colleague, the junior Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEE. I ask my colleague from Texas--who has on occasion expressed 
similar concerns to those I have just expressed with this kind of 
posture--so I ask my friend from Texas, is it in fact his interest, his 
objective to be obstructionist? Is he trying to obstruct here and in 
fact being unreasonable in raising these objections?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank my friend and note that a number of Senators have 
raised this objection and we have focused on one thing and one thing 
only, which is whether the Senate can raise the debt ceiling with just 
50 votes or instead whether the Senate can do so with 60 votes. That is 
the issue.
  We are perfectly prepared to go to conference on the budget, right 
now, today. That is a red herring. That is not what this procedural 
fight is about. Every time this motion has been asked by the majority, 
the minority has risen to protect the rights of the minority because 
ordinarily to raise the debt ceiling it would take 60 votes, and if it 
takes 60 votes, what that means is that the 54 Democrats are not able 
to do so on a straight party-line vote, freezing out Republicans.
  Right now the Democrats have stated they believe the debt ceiling 
should be raised with no preconditions, no negotiations, no structural 
changes to our out-of-control spending that is bankrupting our country.
  What the minority Senators have said is that, at a minimum, if we are 
going to raise the debt ceiling it should be subject to a 60-vote 
threshold so that we have a conversation about fixing the deep fiscal 
and economic challenges in this country. It is indeed the majority 
that--I will give credit for candor--does not wish to say no, we will 
take the debt ceiling off the table. Because it is, I believe, the 
Democrats' intention if this budget process goes to conference 
committee to use reconciliation as a backdoor procedural trick to raise 
the debt ceiling on 50 votes. I think that would be a travesty. But I 
think much of this debate is clouded in smoke and mirrors. Much of this 
debate is clouded in obfuscation. This is a simple question: Should the 
debt ceiling be able to be raised with only 50 votes or should it 
require 60 votes, which will necessitate some compromise, some 
discussion?
  On that question I am quite confident the American people are with my 
friend from Utah, are with the Members of the minority who believe that 
if the debt of this country is going to go higher and higher and 
higher, we need leadership in this body to fix the problem rather than 
simply putting more and more debt on our kids and grandkids.
  Mr. LEE. If I might ask, Madam President, of my friend from Texas, 
why wouldn't one want the usual rules of the Senate to apply? That is, 
why would one want to block or prevent the 60-vote threshold from 
applying with a debt ceiling increase, just as the 60-vote threshold 
applies to much of the most important, contentious, closely watched 
legislation that moves through this body?
  Mr. CRUZ. The 60-vote threshold, as my friend from Utah knows well, 
was designed to protect this institution that has been called the 
world's greatest deliberative body and to ensure that the minority has 
a role in the discussions. On this issue I think that is critically 
important. There are few if any issues we will address that are more 
important than the question of the unsustainable debt that is 
threatening the future of our kids and grandkids.
  The natural reason why the majority would want to get around the 60-
vote threshold is because without a 60-vote threshold the majority does 
not need to listen to this side of the house. President Obama has been 
very explicit. The President has said he wants the debt ceiling raised 
with no negotiations, no discussions, no conditions, ``no nothin' '' to 
fix the problem.
  In the last 4\1/2\ years our national debt has gone from $10 trillion 
to nearly $17 trillion. What we are doing is fundamentally 
irresponsible and the majority wishes to be able to keep doing it 
without making any prudent decisions to stop the out-of-control 
spending, stop the out-of-control debt, fix the problem. The only way 
they can do it is to use a procedural trick to shut down the minority.
  I do not believe that is consistent with our obligations to the 
constituents who elected us, and I don't believe it is consistent with 
the responsibility of all 100 Senators to take seriously the obligation 
of protecting the fiscal and economic strength of this Nation for the 
next generations.
  Mr. LEE. The Senator from Texas is a seasoned constitutional scholar, 
a graduate of Princeton University and of Harvard Law School. He went 
on to clerk for Judge Michael Ludick on the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the Fourth Circuit, now general counsel to Boeing. He later clerked for 
late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist on the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Having argued a total of nine cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, 
the Senator from Texas is a seasoned litigator in addition to being a 
scholar of the Constitution. So I ask my colleague a couple of 
questions related to that.
  It has occurred to me sometimes as a lawyer myself that there are 
sometimes some similarities between being a Senator and being a lawyer. 
They are not perfect, but we are retained for a limited period of time, 
in 6-year increments generally, to represent a group of people. It is 
our job to do what we can to act in the absence of those people. In my 
case there are 3 million people from my State, the State of Utah. They 
cannot all fit inside this Chamber so I am one of the people who is 
elected to represent them in their absence.
  I ask my colleague from Texas, No. 1, how do the people of Texas feel 
about the idea of raising the debt limit yet again? In particular, how 
do they feel about the idea of raising the debt limit yet again without 
any kind of permanent structural reform put in place as condition 
precedent to that action? And finally, how do the people of Texas feel 
as their elected representative, representing those people here in this 
body, you surrender one of your biggest bargaining chips, you abandon 
one of the tools that allows you to make sure we do not the raise the 
debt limit too casually, too cavalierly, without putting in place the 
adequate precautions?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank the junior Senator from Utah for his overly 
generous comments and kind characterizations. I think the analogy he 
drew is quite apt, that any lawyer, in representing a client, has an 
obligation to zealously represent that client; that he owes a fiduciary 
duty to that client.
  I suggest all 100 of us owe that same fiduciary duty to the men and 
women in our States who entrusted us with the obligation of coming here 
and fighting for them. Because the 3 million citizens of Utah could not 
all be on

[[Page S4373]]

the floor of the Senate fighting, the junior Senator from Utah steps in 
their shoes to fight on their behalf. I feel confident that the 
citizens of Utah, like the citizens from Texas, would be horrified at 
the notion that this body would continue raising the debt ceiling over 
and over again without even trying to fix the underlying problem.
  This Senate floor has a long and storied history. There have been 
great men and women, great leaders of this country who have walked on 
this floor. Yet each generation, going back for centuries, has managed 
to avoid saddling the next generation with crushing debts. I am 
reminded of the very distinguished late father of the Senator from 
Utah, Rex Lee, who was the Solicitor General of the United States, who 
was widely considered one of the finest Supreme Court advocates to have 
ever lived. He was an individual who took the obligation of zealously 
representing his client deeply and near and dear to his heart.
  Your father's generation, my father's generation, did not leave us 
with crushing debts, did not leave us with debts from which we could 
never escape. What has happened in the last 4\1/2\ years is 
qualitatively different, qualitatively different from what has happened 
in the last 2\1/2\ centuries in this country. No other generation has 
said to their kids, their grandkids, and to their grandkids' grandkids, 
we are going to rack up so much debt that you are never going to be 
able to escape.
  My wife and I are blessed. We have two little girls at home, 5 and 2. 
The idea that Caroline and Catherine are going to spend their adult 
days working to pay the taxes to pay off the debt we are spending 
recklessly right now I think is profoundly immoral, is profoundly 
irresponsible. I cannot tell you how many thousands of Texans, men and 
women across the State, have said the exact same thing: Stop 
bankrupting the country. Stop bankrupting our kids and grandkids. That 
is the fiduciary duty we have to fight for, to defend--to stand for the 
300 million Americans for whom this body, Congress, has been racking up 
a massive credit card debt that threatens to imperil the security of 
this country and the future generations in America.
  Mr. LEE. Is my colleague suggesting that we stop altogether the 
practice of issuing U.S. treasuries to finance the operations of 
government or is he suggesting that we go without a budget or that we 
simply halt the issuance of Treasury instruments altogether or is my 
colleague suggesting something more long term?
  Mr. CRUZ. Of course we shouldn't halt the issuance of treasuries, and 
of course we shouldn't forswear any and all debt. The Constitution 
provides that the Federal Government can incur debt, and there has been 
a long history of incurring debt, particularly to meet extraordinary 
circumstances. In wartime we have had a history of incurring debt and 
then paying that down.
  What is important to emphasize is that there is a qualitative 
difference in what has happened in the last 4\1/2\ years. We have 
always had some degree of debt in this country, but one of the 
challenges is that at times $1 million, $1 billion, and $1 trillion can 
seem like the same number. They all end in ``illions,'' they all sound 
big, and yet the difference of $10 trillion, where the national debt 
was 5 years ago, and just shy of $17 trillion, where we are now, is 
fundamental; it is structural. Our national debt exceeds the size of 
our entire economy.
  The nations of Europe are collapsing because their elected officials 
were not able to be responsible. They spent money they did not have, 
and they built up so much debt they could not repay. Eventually, there 
comes a point where every decision to address the debt is an ugly one. 
There comes a point where the debt hole is so deep--as some of the 
nations in Europe are discovering--that the answers are either drastic 
cuts to spending or massive tax increases or massively inflating the 
currency. Every one of those outcomes is ugly, which is one of the 
reasons we have seen rioting in the streets of Europe.
  Thankfully the United States is not yet in as deep a hole as some of 
the nations of Europe, and that is why we need leadership now to stop 
the out-of-control spending by addressing the deep structural problems. 
If we keep spending money we don't have--if any of us ran our families, 
our households, our businesses the way the Federal Government is run, 
we would be bankrupt. We would be sleeping under a bridge.
  What it takes, I believe, is responsible leadership, and I hope 
bipartisan responsible leadership. We need Republicans and Democrats to 
come together to say: Let's live within our means. That is not a 
terribly conservative principle. That is a principle that has been 
common sense in this country for centuries, and it is one, sadly, we 
have gotten away from in the last 4\1/2\ years.
  Mr. LEE. We are talking about a procedural strategy. We are not even 
talking about an outcome here. We are talking about the full 
utilization of the procedural rights of each and every Member of this 
body. We have been asked to give our consent and to effectively vote 
for a procedure that people on both sides of the Capitol have now 
admitted could and may well be utilized as a mechanism for raising the 
debt limit in a way that circumvents the 60-vote threshold of the 
Senate. It seems to me that is troubling, and if we analogize that yet 
again to other circumstances where we have to represent someone else, 
that can be troubling.
  Let's suppose the Senator from Texas is representing a client in 
court--let's say in the U.S. Supreme Court. For example, when the 
Senator is in the position of the petitioner, he has the right, as the 
petitioner--meaning the person filing the petition for a writ of 
certiorari--to seek review by the Supreme Court of the United States, 
and let's say review is granted.
  After review is granted, a briefing schedule kicks in and the 
petitioner has the opportunity to file the first brief. That is the 
Senator's prerogative as the petitioner. The other side then has about 
a month to file its brief, and then the Senator gets something the 
other side doesn't get to file--the Senator gets a reply brief.
  Procedurally, under the rules of the Supreme Court of the United 
States, that is the Senator's client's right. Once the Senator has a 
case in front of the Supreme Court and in the middle of the briefing 
schedule, what would the Senator from Texas say to a client if you came 
to them and said: My opposing counsel has asked me to waive my right to 
file a reply brief even though it is my right to do that? The client 
has asked me to do it. What would the client think if the Senator 
actually said: I am not going to file a reply brief even though 
procedurally I have every right to do that?
  Mr. CRUZ. My friend from Utah asks a terrific question. It is a 
question of procedural rules--whether in a courtroom or in the Senate--
designed to protect substantive rights. Ultimately, the 60-vote 
threshold is designed to protect the substantive rights not of the 
Senators--we are not here in our own stead. We are instead representing 
the constituents who sent us here.
  What the majority is asking us to do by asking for unanimous consent 
to allow this to go to conference and to set it up for them to raise 
the debt ceiling with 50 votes--the majority is asking for the 46 
Republicans on this side of the aisle to give away our right to speak. 
They are asking us to say we will cede to the majority the ability to 
do whatever it wishes on the debt ceiling. In giving away our right to 
speak, what we are giving away is not anything that belongs to us, it 
is the right of 26 million Texans to have their voice heard.
  For us to agree with the majority and say, yes, we will hand over the 
ability to make this decision on the debt ceiling without ever again 
consulting this side of the aisle would be very much like the situation 
the Senator from Utah asked about. I don't know how the Senator from 
Utah would answer a constituent in Utah who said: Senator Lee, why did 
you give away my voice? Why did you simply hand to the Democrats the 
ability to decide how much debt the United States should have, to raise 
it? And why did you essentially give away my seat at the table?
  It is not the seat of the Senator from Utah; it is not my seat. It is 
the seat of the millions of constituents in Utah, Texas, and each of 
our home States that sent us here. The idea that we would willingly 
give up their right to speak is inconsistent with the obligation we owe 
the men and women of Utah and the men and women of Texas.

[[Page S4374]]

  Mr. LEE. I would suspect that in most circumstances a lawyer giving 
up that procedural right would be committing malpractice. Perhaps a 
lawyer in that circumstance could say to the client: I am going to do 
this because opposing counsel has asked it of me, and I want to get 
along with her. I want to make sure I maximize our chances of settling 
this litigation perhaps before the litigation has been completely 
resolved. If that were the argument opposing counsel was making to me, 
I suspect I would tell the client: If that is the case and our 
objective is to try to settle the litigation rather than wait until 
the Court resolves it, then by doing that and giving up that procedural 
right to file the reply brief, I would be forfeiting a lot of 
bargaining power that I would otherwise have.

  And so too here we would be forfeiting a tremendous amount of 
bargaining power relative to the budget discussions, relative to the 
debt limit discussion, a discussion that needs to take place in full 
sunlight and not under cover of darkness. It needs to take place in the 
two Chambers and not in some back-room deal. That is what we are 
talking about. That is why these procedural rights are so important.
  People can disagree with the rules of the Senate, and a lot of people 
do. People can want to change the rules of the Senate, and there are 
some who do--some even in this body. But the fact is the rules are what 
they are. We have the power to make those rules under article 1, 
section 5 of the Constitution, and we have the power to change those 
rules under article 1, section 5 of the Constitution. But those rules 
being what they are, those rules being in place as they are today, and 
those rules having the application they do as of this very moment, 
people cannot ask someone such as me or my friend from Texas to give 
our consent to something we think is fundamentally wrong and that we 
think will substantially diminish the bargaining power we have in 
undertaking that policy approach we think is most necessary today.
  One of the questions I have been asked by some of our friends on the 
other side of the aisle, and a few of our friends who are even on the 
same side of the aisle as myself and the Senator from Texas, is: You 
are a Republican, I am a Republican, so why can't you guys trust that 
the Republicans who control the House of Representatives will 
adequately secure your interests? Why don't you therefore feel 
comfortable effectively forfeiting your right to a 60-vote threshold on 
the debt ceiling debate?
  Mr. CRUZ. I think that is a reasonable question to ask. There are a 
number of points that are relevant. No. 1, there is a considerable 
history of the debt ceiling being raised through reconciliation, and, 
indeed, it has been done in 1986, 1990, 1993, and in 1997. So the 
danger that we are acting to prevent is not a hypothetical danger, it 
is a danger that has proven accurate.
  Those who say we will simply trust the House--the House Members were 
elected to represent their constituents, and each of the 435 Members of 
the House has an obligation to exercise their best judgment to 
represent their constituents. Whatever they choose to do--and I would 
note a number of Members of House leadership have publicly on the 
record suggested they might well be amenable to raising the debt 
ceiling through reconciliation. So given their public statements, the 
scenario we are raising is a possibility that the House leadership has 
suggested may well be on the table.
  But more fundamentally, regardless of what the House chooses to do, 
the Senator from Utah has an obligation to the 3 million citizens of 
Utah to represent their views. I don't think it would be responsible 
for him to give up his very eloquent voice or for me to give up my 
voice or for any of us to give up the voice of the citizens we are 
representing.
  I am reminded of meeting an individual at a gathering of Republican 
women back in Texas about a month ago, and this individual was a 
veteran who had fought in World War II. He was there, introduced to 
everyone, and received a standing ovation. A story was told about how 
he had been grievously injured in World War II. As a result of that 
injury, he was in a hospital and two doctors were debating about where 
to amputate his leg. They were debating whether to amputate the leg 
above the knee or below the knee.
  This soldier was unconscious, and he awakened in the middle of this 
conversation between the two doctors about where to amputate his leg. 
This soldier began to participate in that debate. And, unsurprisingly, 
he had a very strong view that he would very much prefer they not 
amputate the leg. He expressed that view vociferously to the doctors 
who were having that debate. As he expressed his view, he ended up 
prevailing in that argument and they chose not to amputate his leg 
below or above the knee.
  To this day he walks with a limp. He doesn't walk as well as he might 
if he had not been injured, but he was able to save that leg because he 
had a voice in that debate, because he spoke up and his interest 
concerning his leg was acutely different from the two doctors who were 
debating it without his voice. I think he had every right to 
participate in that debate because it affected him, it affected his 
future, and it affected his life. And just so, I think the 3 million 
citizens of Utah have every right to participate in this debate and not 
simply to be told to trust the other body of Congress. They have an 
independent obligation. My friend the Senator from Utah has an 
obligation to his constituents to make sure their voice is part of this 
debate.
  Mr. LEE. Indeed, we each have an obligation to utilize our own voice 
and to make our own judgments with regard to the best course of action 
to take in any debate and in any discussion.
  The problems in this country are significant. There is not one of us 
in this body who wishes to minimize them. There is not one of us in 
this body who is not concerned about these problems. Each of us might 
take, advocate, or firmly believe in a different course of action, but 
it is precisely because of the diversity of opinion in this Nation that 
this Nation is great. It is precisely because of the viewpoint and 
diversity we have in this body that this body has been called the 
world's greatest deliberative legislative body. We need to make sure 
that that remains.
  In order for that to be the case, it is appropriate that Members of 
the Senate who have a good-faith, genuine disagreement with an issue as 
to which a unanimous consent has been made come forward and they 
object.
  On that basis, I object. I will continue to object as long as it 
remains necessary to ensure that the debate we have surrounding the 
debt limit occurs under the regular order of the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Sexual Assault in the Military

  Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, this afternoon the Senate Armed 
Services Committee--in fact, in less than an hour--will convene and we 
will begin working on historic changes, unprecedented changes to the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice in response to the serious and 
significant problem of sexual assault in our military.
  I come to the floor before we convene to explain why I am supporting 
significant changes as to how we handle sexual assaults in the military 
but also why I am not supporting completely removing the role senior 
military commanders play in ordering these kinds of trials to go 
forward.
  The discussion of this issue takes me back many years when I began 
prosecuting rape and sodomy cases as a young assistant DA in the 
prosecutor's office in Kansas City. For years, I handled dozens and 
dozens of these cases in the courtroom, both as an assistant prosecutor 
and as the elected prosecutor. I have had the opportunity, the 
blessing, the challenge, and the scarring that comes from holding 
victims' hands, crying with victims, feeling their pain, the permanency 
of the injuries they have suffered as a result of these unspeakable 
crimes. I would

[[Page S4375]]

challenge anyone in the Senate to come to this issue with more 
experience or more understanding of the unique challenges this crime 
represents in the never-ending quest for true justice.
  In my years of experience and the time I have spent with military 
prosecutors, victims, and civilian prosecutors, I have become convinced 
that the approach the Armed Services Committee will take today is the 
right approach to get these predators put in prison.
  I believe the provision that I expect will receive a bipartisan 
majority of the votes in the Armed Services Committee will better 
empower victims and lead to more reporting. The reason it will empower 
victims and lead to more reporting is because these changes will lead 
to more and effective prosecutions.
  Ultimately, no woman wants to come forward and talk about this crime, 
and certainly no man who has been victimized in the military wants to 
come forward and talk about this crime. It is personal. It is private. 
It is painful. So it does not matter whether the perpetrator is a 
member of the military or a civilian; these are difficult cases to 
bring forward because of the intensely personal nature of the pain 
involved.
  But I believe these reforms will hold the chain of command more 
accountable and force them to be part of the solution, and it will 
prevent the unintended consequences of dismantling a system of military 
justice that has long been a centerpiece of discipline in our military.
  Make no mistake about it, the changes we are making are aggressive, 
historic, victim-oriented, and unforgiving to the predators.
  Commanders under these reforms will not have the ability to dismiss a 
conviction of a jury. That is the first and most important reform that 
is occurring. Never again will a commander who has not heard the 
testimony be able to say ``never mind'' to that victim. Most 
importantly--and this is very important because the reporting on this 
issue has not been accurate--most importantly, under these reforms, if 
the lawyers, the prosecutors, say the case should go forward, and the 
commander disagrees and says no, that will go straight up, not to a man 
in uniform, but to the Secretary of the branch of the military where 
the crime occurred. So no longer will you have the uniforms making the 
ultimate decision.
  I would argue we are taking in many ways the convening authority out 
of the equation because we are allowing that lawyer, if the commander 
disagrees with them, that prosecutor, if the commander disagrees with 
them, to go straight up to the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of 
the Navy, the Secretary of the Air Force for the ultimate decision by a 
civilian, not by a member of the military.
  If the commander decides not to order the court-martial, not to order 
the trial, the final decision will go to the civilian Secretary. The 
ultimate authority is with the civilian.
  This is even a greater level of scrutiny than in the reforms proposed 
by Senator Gillibrand because you have another level. We heard of cases 
where the prosecutors did not want to go forward and the command did. 
There are instances where prosecutors in the civilian world will not 
file these cases and the military prosecutors will. I am sure there 
will be cases where military prosecutors will not want to go forward.
  So the good news is there is someone above the prosecutors who is a 
civilian who can, in fact, pass judgment also. We know that many cases 
are not filed in the civilian courts when they are ``he said, she 
said'' consent defenses in rape cases. I have painfully explained that 
decision to victims when the evidence simply was not going to meet the 
burden.
  But in the military, we have to make sure that it is not just a line 
prosecutor who has the ultimate authority. We need that civilian 
Secretary at the top of this decisionmaking power. We need that 
ultimate authority, especially in the culture of our military.
  The other thing our reform does that Senator Gillibrand's proposal 
does not do--and I think this is key--it creates a crime of 
retaliation. So if this victim comes back to the unit and retaliation 
occurs, the people who are committing the retaliation are now subject 
to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and they can be prosecuted for 
the crime of retaliation.
  I think this is a very important, direct approach. Because, 
ultimately, that is what most victims who do not come forward say they 
are afraid of: their loss of privacy and retaliation and the impact on 
their career.
  The bill also makes many other reforms, giving victims better access 
to legal counsel, improving the skill of personnel working with victims 
in the sexual assault response system, making sure victims have a voice 
in the clemency proceedings, and many others.
  Ultimately, at the end of the day, if a victim is sexually assaulted, 
and they come back to their unit, is it more likely the unit will 
retaliate against them and make their life miserable if outside lawyers 
have said the case should go forward or if the commander has said the 
case should go forward? We do not have evidence that this is a problem 
right now, that commanders are refusing to file these cases. Just the 
opposite. We heard testimony in committee that they are demanding 
prosecutions in some instances where the lawyers have said no.

  I believe these reforms will do a better job of getting predators 
behind bars and ultimately creating a more supportive environment for 
victims to come forward.
  We are not done with this, even after we pass these reforms in 
committee today, and even after we pass this Defense authorization bill 
and it goes to the President. But I think we have the best chance of 
making real progress with a strong bipartisan reform that will get at 
the heart of the matter, which these reforms do.
  I believe we will continue to monitor this, and as we go forward, if 
more changes are necessary, I will be the first in line to work for 
them. But do not let anyone say the reforms we are doing today are not 
what is right for the victims of sexual assault or for the proposition 
that anybody, any coward who besmirches our fine military by committing 
these crimes--that they should not belong in prison. They belong in 
prison, and that is what these reforms are intended to help happen.
  I thank the Chair and I assume I should yield the floor for my 
colleague from Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Madam President, I wish to say, through the Chair, thank 
you to the Senator from Missouri for her advocacy on behalf of our 
service men and women. And I think she should have made no assumption 
about yielding the floor to me, but I am happy to take it, if the 
Senator is done.
  Madam President, I come to the floor today, as I did yesterday, to 
talk about this incredible opportunity we have before us with this 
bipartisan immigration bill that we are considering now in the Senate, 
in regular order in the Senate. I hope we have a process on the floor, 
now that we are here, that mirrors the one the Judiciary Committee had: 
an open process where people can offer amendments they care about, one 
that has a spirited debate on a variety of important issues, so the 
American people can have the benefit of a fully transparent and 
deliberative process over these important issues.
  In the Judiciary Committee process alone, over 300 amendments were 
filed, and 200 were considered, and over 140 of them were actually 
adopted by the committee. That is the way this place ought to work. I 
think it will strengthen this bipartisan bill to continue to take other 
people's ideas.
  What we did not do in the Judiciary Committee, and what I hope we 
will not do on the Senate floor, is accept amendments that will disrupt 
a very carefully negotiated balance in the so-called Gang of 8 or Group 
of 8--four Democrats and four Republicans--who worked hard together to 
try to get to a place that could actually work.
  Today there has been a lot of talk, and over the past few days, about 
the border security issues, the border in particular, and preventing 
future waves of immigration. I did not come down here to negotiate any 
particular amendments or to litigate any particular amendments. I did 
want to get a little bit of context of where we arrived in the Group of 
8 on this issue.
  The bill, as written, makes very serious investments, takes major 
steps to

[[Page S4376]]

secure our borders. I have to say the work was informed most 
principally by two border Senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake, both 
Republicans representing the great State of Arizona. As they have 
pointed out and as we have pointed out, we actually, contrary to some 
of the rhetoric around this place, have made a lot of progress over the 
last decade. It is not perfect, but we have moved in the right 
direction.
  As you can see from this chart, in 2012 alone our expenditure on 
border security and immigration enforcement--this is before this bill 
we are talking about now that makes more investments in border 
security--our investment exceeded $17.7 billion. That is what the 
American people spent on border security, which is 23 percent higher--
just on border security. That is 23 percent higher than the $14 billion 
we spend on all of the other Federal law enforcement agencies combined.
  I think it will surprise the American people to know that. This is 
what we spent on border security. Here is the Border Patrol. Here is 
ICE. Together that is $17 billion, a little more than that. That is 
more than we spent on the FBI, the DEA, the Secret Service, the U.S. 
Marshal's Service, the ATF--all of those law enforcement agencies. All 
of them combined in 2012, before we pass the law that is in front of 
us, that is what we spent protecting the border.
  To hear some people around here talk about it, one would think none 
of that money made a difference. One would think none of the increased 
border agents have made a difference. Well, as of January 2013, the 
U.S. Border Patrol had 21,370 agents in total, 18,000 of whom are on 
the southwest border. From 1980 that represents a ninefold increase. It 
is nine times the number of agents we had. We had roughly 2,000 in 
1980; today we have roughly 21,000. That might be a reason border 
crossings are down as much as they are.
  In fact, we are at about net zero this year in terms of people coming 
across our southern border and leaving. Now, there are still areas on 
the borders where we need to do more, like in Arizona's Tucson sector. 
Senators McCain and Flake were kind enough to take some of us down to 
the border to see what was really happening, to understand the 
topography down there, the difficulty of building a fence from one end 
of our border to the other. There are places where fences have been 
incredibly effective, like in San Diego. There are other places we are 
going to need other technology to be able to secure our borders in an 
efficient and thoughtful manner.
  I hope others who have concerns in this area will meet with these 
border Senators and listen to what they have to stay about how we can 
improve the situation on the southern border. What our bill calls for, 
in addition to the increases in resources, is that within 6 months of 
the bill's passage, the Secretary of Homeland Security is required to 
develop and submit to Congress a comprehensive border strategy and 
fencing strategy.
  We appropriate in this bill $4.5 billion in addition to this money 
you saw up here, $4.5 billion for these strategies. The goal of this 
plan is to achieve persistent surveillance and a 90-percent 
effectiveness rate at certain high-traffic border areas. These are 
places on the border where lots of people try to get into the United 
States. I can tell the Presiding Officer, I have seen it with my own 
eyes. When Senator McCain took us down there, we actually saw someone 
come across the border. We saw somebody climb the fence while we were 
standing right there. I have a photograph of it on my cell phone. That 
person was apprehended within about 30 seconds of getting across the 
border.
  It shows it is an issue we need to continue to manage, but it is good 
news that we have seen the improvement we have. I think these goals 
will be met. I am convinced by the conversations I have had with 
Homeland Security and with others that the objectives we have laid out 
to create this 90-percent effectiveness rate in the high-traffic areas 
is achievable; that it is achievable with the technologies we propose.
  If there are changes that can be made during this discussion to 
improve that, I am all for them. But if the goals are not met, people 
will say: Well, you say it is going to happen. What if it does not 
happen?
  Here is what happens: In 5 years, if it has not happened, a southern 
border security commission will be established to make further 
recommendations about how it is we can secure the border, with 
representation from the border States themselves. We appropriate 
another $2 billion in this bill for the commission's recommendations, 
if, in fact, we ever have to get to a commission, which I hope we will 
not, and I expect that we will not.
  I have heard people say one of the big problems with this bill is it 
is just like 1986 all over. I was not here in 1986, so I cannot take 
the credit or the blame for what happened in 1986. But it is a serious 
critique and a reasonable critique of that bill; that it did not do 
anything to stop the future flow of immigrants and illegal immigration 
in this country. That is a very fair critique.
  It is not a fair critique of our bill because our bill deals with the 
border security I talked about, as well as internal security measures 
in the United States of America that were completely absent in the 1986 
effort. This bill includes a universal E-Verify system. We crack down 
on employers who hire undocumented workers. That alone will reduce 
dramatically the incentive of people to cross the border illegally. If 
they know all across America that small businesses can run a biometric 
card or other ID through a database that tells them whether people are 
here lawfully or not, and in an instant know whether they are here 
lawfully instead of engaging in this game that has been played for 
decades in-country where people with false security cards are able to 
come in and get a job and then a year or 18 months later, the employer 
finds out the Social Security is no longer available, that is going to 
dramatically disincentivize people from crossing the border.

  The small business owners I know are very happy with this because 
they are tired of being the immigration police. They are tired of 
feeling like they went the extra mile to figure out whether someone was 
here lawfully, they relied on a Social Security card that looked 
perfectly valid, with a valid Social Security number, only to find out 
18 months later they hired somebody who was undocumented. They are so 
weary, which is why they are expecting the Congress to finally do its 
job and fix this broken immigration system.
  The comparison to 1986 is unfair in many ways. Mark Everson, who is a 
former Deputy Commissioner at the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service who oversaw the implementation of the 1986 law, wrote today in 
the Washington Post:

       In contrast, the legislation before the Senate today takes 
     a comprehensive approach. . . . Demand for unauthorized 
     workers can be dampened, but only through adequate attention 
     to the workplace and interior enforcement. If anything, I 
     would accelerate the rollout of the E-Verify system, while 
     helping to secure our borders faster.

  I hope we can accelerate the E-Verify system. The reason is I have 
heard from employers who say: You know what. We are playing by the 
rules. We are making sure we do not hire undocumented people for our 
construction business, but there are other people down the road who 
will pay lower wages to people who are here unlawfully. That is an 
unfair disadvantage for us.
  I agree with that. I think the question about how fast we can 
implement E-Verify needs to be balanced against the inconvenience we 
pose to businesses as they get up to speed on the new system. But that 
is certainly something we can talk about.
  Finally, we have among many other broken parts of this system a 
broken entry-exit visa system in the United States. I think it would 
shock the American people--it surprised me--to learn that of the 11 
million people who are here, 40 percent of them are people who entered 
the country lawfully. They entered the country on a visa, but they 
overstayed their visa.
  We have to have the ability in this great country of ours, in this 
21st century, to somehow detect when people are coming in on a visa, 
but we have not bothered to figure out when people are leaving, which 
does not make a lot of sense given the fact that the technology is 
available.
  This bill finally includes a mandatory and operational biographic 
entry-and-exit system to track those coming to the United States and 
those living in the United States of America, and,

[[Page S4377]]

miraculously, finally, we are going to actually know who is coming in 
and out of the country.
  As we begin to phase in a biometric system, it will build upon the 
other efforts being taken to track visitors in a way that is cost 
effective. We are going to become more secure. We will finally know who 
is in this country and who should be asked to leave the United States 
of America.
  So, in my view, border security is not a reason to obstruct this 
bill. As I said earlier, we are open to changes, but we already have 
very strong border measures in this bill. I do not want that to be 
overlooked. I think when people hear that we need to spend billions and 
billions and billions of dollars more, they should know that we are 
already spending billions of dollars down there. Some of it has been 
effective; some of it has not been effective. I would say let's do what 
is effective, let's not do what is ineffective, and let's not overspend 
at a time when we have the budget issues that we are facing.
  In conclusion, as the USA Today editorial board has written:

       Unlike 1986's political sleight of hand--

  There is not a lot of love lost for the 1986 bill, as you can tell.

       Unlike 1986's political sleight of hand, this year's 
     legislation is a tough, credible plan for preventing a new 
     surge of illegal immigration. A quest for unattainable 
     perfection should not be allowed to undo the good that it 
     would achieve.

  I wish I could say this was a place that did not let the perfect be 
the enemy of the good. We seldom ever get to the good. But in this 
case, I think we have gotten to a place that is very good. We should 
move forward together as we have to this point in a bipartisan way to 
craft a thoughtful solution to a broken system that continues to be a 
drag on the economy of the State of Colorado and the economy of the 
United States of America.
  This law, if we pass it, will once again reaffirm what makes the 
United States so special: One, that we subscribe to the rule of law. 
There are a lot of countries in the world where that is not true. It is 
one of the principal reasons that people want to come to the United 
States: because it is a place where you can live up to your talent, 
because nobody can take it from you, because we subscribe to the rule 
of law. People want to come from all over the world--it is a great 
compliment to our country--to build their businesses here and to help 
us grow our economy.
  It will reaffirm as well the very important notion that we are a 
nation of immigrants, generation to generation going back to the 
founding of this great country of ours. That is who we are. If we get 
this bill passed, if we get this bill passed in the House, I think we 
will have done something very important for this generation of 
Americans and also for the people who are coming after.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to strongly 
urge consideration and passage of the first of several amendments I 
will be presenting on this so-called comprehensive immigration reform 
bill.
  It is amendment No. 1228 and is about the US-Visit system, the entry-
exit system that is supposed to be in place. It has been mandated by 
Congress many times to guard against visa overstays, which is a serious 
national security problem.
  Why is this important? There is one simple way to underscore it to 
answer that question, and that is to remind us that the 9/11 
terrorists, every single one of them, were visa overstays. They were 
dangerous people who came into our country on valid visas, overstayed 
their visas, plotted against us, and ultimately caused horrendous death 
and destruction on 9/11.
  What do we do about that situation? We need a system of tracking 
visas of the people who come into the country, tracking when they 
should be leaving the country, and looking to see if they have exited 
the country. We need a system which has biometric data associated with 
it which can track those entrances and those exits.
  This sort of system is technologically possible. It is definitely 
possible to fund and put in place. It is primarily a question of 
political will.
  Unfortunately, even after Congress mandated this multiple times to no 
effect, even after 9/11 and other terrorist attacks, we haven't 
mustered the political will to demand to put this is in place. If 9/11 
wasn't enough, the 9/11 Commission--which we appointed, we put into law 
and asked them to look at the horrible attack of 9/11 and give us 
recommendations--made this one of their top recommendations. Their 
specific recommendation was that ``the Department of Homeland Security, 
properly supported by Congress, should complete as quickly as possible 
a biometric entry-exit screening system.''

  Again, Congress had talked about this years before, starting in 1996. 
Congress passed that mandate, and Congress repeated that mandate many 
different times over 17 years, with six additional votes. The 9/11 
Commission said the tragedy of 9/11 was, in part, due to our not having 
that system and, Congress, the administration, you need to get this 
done. Still that important piece of border security is not in place.
  This Vitter amendment No. 1228 is very simple. It will prohibit the 
implementation of any program granting temporary legal status in this 
bill or adjusting the legal status of anyone who is presently in our 
country unlawfully until this US-VISIT system has been fully 
implemented--full implementation. So no change in anybody's legal 
status happens until we finally, after decades, implement this US-VISIT 
system; until we finally, after years, heed the recommendation of the 
9/11 Commission; until we finally, decades after 9/11, say this will 
never happen again.
  Also, under my amendment, both Houses of Congress must pass a joint 
resolution of approval stating, yes, this is fully in place. Because, 
quite frankly, there isn't sufficient trust of just the administration 
saying so, some certification from any administration--not just this 
one but any administration. It has to happen and Congress has to say, 
yes, that is in place, and then that change in legal status can go 
forward.
  We talk a lot about border security, and, of course, usually we focus 
on the southern border, for obvious reasons. That is where the numbers 
are. That is where the greatest flow is. But when it comes to national 
security, this is a vital component of enforcement. This is a vital 
component of border security, and so we need to get this right. We need 
to remember 9/11. We need to heed the recommendation of the 9/11 
Commission. It has been since 1996 when Congress mandated this, and we 
need to make it stick. The only way to make it stick, in the context of 
this bill, is to demand it is done, it is completed, verified, 
including by Congress, before any change in legal status happens.
  In closing, I also wish to express strong concern and opposition to 
Leahy amendment No. 1183, which is currently on the floor and up for 
consideration. That amendment would grant exceptional priority and 
exceptional favor to particular O and P visa applications, which are 
generally for renowned professors, researchers, doctors, Oscar winners, 
entertainers, and performers. It would specifically waive a fee 
associated with this visa.
  I think that is problematic because we depend on all of these fees to 
fund this system and this enforcement system which we are trying to 
improve. I find it ironic we would waive this fee for that class of 
individuals, who are absolutely the most well-heeled and the most 
capable of paying it. We would give that class of individuals special 
status and a waiver of a relatively modest fee and, in the process, 
hurt the funding for the entire enforcement system.
  I think that is misguided when we are trying to build up enforcement, 
when we are trying to get this done and pay for all that enforcement. I 
think it is misguided to waive this fee for exactly the sort of visa 
applicants who are most in a position to pay it.
  With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S4378]]

  The bill clerk proceeded to 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, one of the things I have found 
intriguing, and was glad to hear, was the bill sponsors of S. 744--the 
comprehensive immigration bill--indicated they had a plan that would 
move us to a more merit-based system of immigration. They made that 
promise.
  It is something I advocated in 2007. I had the opportunity to meet 
with the chairman of the Canadian system while in Canada and we talked 
about their merit-based system. It is a very significant system, a 
major change in how they handle immigration in Canada. He was very 
pleased with it. Fundamentally, they sought to admit people into Canada 
who would have the best chance of being successful in Canada. They 
can't admit everybody into Canada. No other country I know of has no 
limit on the number of people who enter. But they wanted to say who 
could be the most successful, who would do the best, and who should 
flourish in Canada, so they gave points for people with more education, 
people who already spoke English, people who had the job skills Canada 
needs, younger people, and matters such as that. It was designed to 
serve the Canadian national interest. It has been in place for a number 
of years now, it actually works, and they are very happy with it.
  So when I heard this might be a part of the immigration reform bill, 
I was pleased. It is important to emphasize, first, that merit-based 
immigration is separate from the doubling of the guest workers who come 
in under the bill. Because guest workers come in under other 
categories. I am referring now to immigrants--people who come to the 
country with plans to stay permanently. The merit-based system, as I 
understood it, was to focus on that group and rightly so. The merit-
based provisions don't include the temporary workers. They have their 
own category.
  But when I actually review the bill, it is clear this promise of a 
merit-based system is not met. The promise is not met to any 
significant degree. It is another example of the promoters of the 
legislation overpromoting and selling something that is popular, but 
when one reads the bill, it is not there. So I wish to talk about the 
legislation and go through it on this particular subject.
  The bill is 1,000 pages and deals with quite a lot of issues and each 
one of them are very important. The merit-based system has had almost 
no discussion in the process so far and it needs to be discussed. It is 
the reason, I believe, we would be better off to have brought up pieces 
of legislation that deal with the characteristics of the people we 
would like to have enter the country in the future, to deal with border 
security, to deal with the visa system, to deal with workplace 
enforcement, and to deal with internal enforcement, individually and 
separately.
  But, no, we have this monumental 1,000-page bill, with all kinds of 
things in it. The sponsors say: We have taken care of this problem. We 
have taken care of border security. We have taken care of the visa 
system, and, by the way, we have a great plan. The system is going to 
be merit based now.
  The proponents of the legislation have said the bill decreases annual 
family-based immigration by reducing the cap on family-based visa 
systems. These are immigrants who come to the country based on 
relationships with people here. They say: We will reduce that from 
226,000 to 161,000. However, the bill actually increases overall 
family-based immigration by allowing an unlimited number of visas each 
year for children and spouses of green card holders. It grows the 
number further by allowing the visas that would have gone to them under 
the old system to be used by other family-based visa applicants.
  The bill also does not change current law, which allows an unlimited 
number of family-based visas for parents of U.S. citizens each year. 
One of the largest and fastest growing chain migration categories is 
parents. According to the Department of Homeland Security yearbook 
statistics in 2012, 124,210 parents adjusted their status to legal 
permanent resident through this category.
  Canada does the opposite. Canada says it benefits more if they have 
young people come. They have a full working life, they pay into the 
pension plans, and that is fine. That works well. But they give less 
points for older people for the very same reason.
  This is a big increase we are seeing there. And the number of merit-
based visas pales in comparison to the family-based visas under the 
bill. So the total number of merit-based visas in this category is much 
smaller than the family-based visas in this legislation.
  For example, the new merits section allows for up to 250,000 a year. 
These are people who would apply and claim they have certain merit 
qualities that justify being ranked higher on the list. That is almost 
exactly the number of petitions that the U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services currently receives every year in just sibling and 
married sons and daughters family-based visa category. So the 250,000--
the maximum number under the merit system--is almost exactly the same 
as the number of brothers and sisters and married sons and daughters in 
the family-based category.
  According to the liberal group the Center for American Progress, the 
annual flow of family-based immigrants will be over 800,000--three 
times higher than the number of merit-based visas offered each year.
  The Migration Policy Institute notes this:

       The Senate bill would lift numerical limits and increase 
     the number of permanent visas issued on the basis of nuclear 
     family ties.

  The Migration Policy Institute effectively and correctly notes this:

       The Senate bill would dramatically expand options for low- 
     and middle-skilled foreign workers to fill year-round longer 
     term jobs and ultimately qualify for permanent residence.

  So this is a serious matter. Does the bill move to a merit-based 
system or does it dramatically expand immigration of low- and middle-
skilled foreign workers to fill long-term jobs and move to qualify for 
permanent residence? I think there is no doubt about it. The Migration 
Policy Institute is correct in that analysis. It would be so good if we 
had moved a lot further in the merit-based system, but the bill just 
doesn't.
  The bill's proponents also suggest that the bill reduces chain 
migration by eliminating siblings--brothers and sisters--and married 
children categories from the family-based visa system. However, the 
bill awards points in the new merit-based system to siblings and 
married children, allowing the same chain migrants to receive merit-
based visas ahead of many highly skilled and educated merit-based visa 
applicants. So what I am saying is that the merit-based system gives 
points, but it also gives points if you have family here--a lot of 
points.
  Proponents of the bill argue that the merit-based system will ensure 
that more highly skilled and educated aliens will receive visas because 
the point system favors education, employment, and English proficiency. 
However, points are also allocated for nonmerit-based factors, such as 
family ties, civic involvement, and by virtue of being an alien from a 
country from which few aliens have emigrated. That is sort of like the 
former diversity visa. The merit-based visa system favors chain 
migrants over highly skilled and educated applicants by allocating more 
points to nonmerit-based factors.
  Let's look at it. For example, an alien who wants to apply to the 
United States who has a college degree, a 4-year bachelor's degree, is 
given 5 points because they have more education. However, an alien who 
wants to come to the United States can also receive 5 points for simply 
being a national of a country from which few aliens have been admitted. 
Also, an alien who is a sibling of a citizen of the United States would 
receive the same amount of points as an alien with a master's degree--
10 points--and 5 more points than an alien with a college degree. So 
this brother or sister would also receive more points than an alien 
with 3 years of experience in an occupation requiring extensive 
preparation, such as a surgeon.
  So what I am saying is that through a backdoor way they claim they 
have a merit system, but, again, vast advantages are given based on 
family connections. So we could have two people from Honduras apply to 
come to the

[[Page S4379]]

United States. One was valedictorian of his high school class, has a 4-
year college degree, speaks English, and is anxious to come to America 
and go to work, and the other one dropped out of high school, doesn't 
speak English, and doesn't even have a high school degree. Well, if 
that one had a brother in the United States, he would be accepted 
before the more educated student graduate. I think that is wrong.
  In tier 2, a brother or sister of a citizen would receive the same 
amount of points as an alien lawfully present and employed in the 
United States in an occupation that requires medium preparation, which 
can include air traffic controllers, commercial pilots, and registered 
nurses.
  But this is only a fraction of the chain family-based migration that 
will occur over the next 10 years under this legislation because the 11 
million illegal immigrants who are given green cards and even 
citizenship will be able to bring in their families as well over time, 
and they can be approved on an expedited basis.
  For example, there are an estimated 2.5 million who would benefit 
under the DREAM Act provisions of the legislation. If they came here as 
children, they get accelerated process; they will be eligible for 
citizenship in 5 years. Again, that 2.5 million will be able to bring 
their parents also. DREAM Act beneficiaries will also be able to bring 
in an unlimited number--without any count--of parents, spouses, and 
children, and those spouses, children, and parents will get permanent 
legal status in an additional 5 years and will be eligible for 
citizenship in 10.
  An estimated 800,000 illegal agricultural workers today would become 
legal permanent residents, green card holders, in 5 years and will then 
be eligible to bring in an unlimited number of spouses and children. An 
estimated 8 million additional illegal immigrants who are here today 
would be given legal status, including recent arrivals from as late as 
December of 2011. Millions of visa overstay persons will receive legal 
status and work authorizations.
  These 8 million will be able to bring in their relatives as soon as 
10 years from now, and those relatives, over time, will be able to 
bring in spouses, children, and parents. None of those will come in on 
a merit-based system. They are not depending on their education. They 
are not depending on their health. They will just be able to come under 
the rules that will be set forth in this bill.
  There are an estimated 4.5 million aliens awaiting employment and 
family-based visas under current cap limitations. We have 4.5 million 
who have applied to come, but there are limits on how many people can 
come per year under the current law. But large parts of those caps and 
limits will be completely eliminated under the legislation. So an 
estimated 4.5 million who are waiting now outside of America for their 
time to come will be cleared over a period of years, not subject to the 
family-based annual cap, thus freeing room for more family-based 
migration that would be subject to an annual cap.
  Over the next decade the bill would legalize well over 30 million 
applicants. Colleagues, we need to understand that. Under current law, 
our processes call for the legalization of 1 million people a year. We 
are the most generous Nation in the world, but you have to know that if 
this bill passes, we will be giving permanent legal status to 30 
million people in the next 10 years. Over 2.5 million of those people 
would be through the new merit-based system. So out of 30 million, only 
2.5 million would be admitted under the merit-based system, and even 
among those 2.5 million, many will be admitted because they get extra 
points for being family members.
  But there is a larger issue as well. Median income has declined in 
America since Congress last considered immigration reform. Income in 
America for working Americans has been declining. I hate to say it, but 
it is true. I have seen recent statistics. From 1999 to today we have 
seen an 8-percent reduction in real take-home pay of working Americans. 
Some say that for the last 30 years we have had a basic erosion of the 
salary base of working Americans. That is very serious. Yet this bill 
roughly triples the annual flow of legal immigrants--largely low-
skilled legal immigrants, not high-skilled college graduates--and 
doubles the flow of temporary guest workers, which is an entirely 
separate group from the one I have been talking about.
  Do my colleagues have any concerns about how this will impact the 
falling incomes of our middle-class American citizens? Has any thought 
been given to that? Has anybody considered that if we bring in more 
people than the economy can absorb, this will create unemployment, 
place people on welfare and dependency, deny men and women the ability 
to produce an income sufficient to take care of their families, make 
them dependent on the State because we simply don't have enough jobs? 
Well, we don't have enough jobs now. That is an absolute fact. We had 
an increase in unemployment this last month. We had a decline of 8,000 
jobs in manufacturing. The bulk of the increases in jobs was in service 
industries, such as restaurants and bars, and part-time workers.
  We have a serious problem, and our colleagues need to be asking 
themselves, can I justify this kind of huge increase in immigration 
when we can't find jobs for current Americans? And what about the 
millions living in poverty today and chronically unemployed? What about 
the nearly one in two African American teenagers who are unemployed 
today? They need to get started in the workforce, but if they have to 
compete against somebody who came here under a work visa program who is 
30 years of age who would be glad to work for minimum wage or lower, 
they don't have a chance to get started.
  Can one of the sponsors explain to me the economic justification for 
adding four times more guest workers than proposed in the bill in 2007 
at a time when more than 4.6 million more Americans are out of work 
today than in 2007? Can one of the sponsors answer this basic question: 
How will this legislation protect struggling American workers? How will 
it help them? Oh, it may help some meatpacker or some large 
agribusiness. They may get a gain from it. But will it help the 
millions of middle-class working Americans who need jobs, need pay 
raises, need to be able to have health care and retirement benefits? I 
am worried about that. We need to talk about that. Some people are 
talking about it on the outside, but it is almost not discussed within 
this Chamber.
  Will the flowing of this many new workers raise wages or reduce 
wages? Will it make it harder for a husband or a wife, a son or a 
daughter, a grandchild or a granddaughter to get a job at a decent 
wage? Wages have been going down, unemployment is up--the lowest 
percentage of people in the workforce in America today since the 1970s. 
How can we justify this? Somebody needs to talk about it.
  We have people who are optimistic. They think we will just bring in 
millions of people and somehow jobs will accrue, but it doesn't appear 
to be so.
  To whom do we owe our loyalty? To some business that would like to 
have more labor? Or to the American people who fight our wars, obey our 
laws, raise their children and pay their taxes to this country--when 
they are working and can pay taxes? To whom is our loyalty owed? We 
need to ask those questions.
  I appreciate the fact that the Gang of 8 has stated they believe in a 
merit-based kind of program that would bring in more people and convert 
our system from low-skilled immigration to a higher skilled 
immigration. Unfortunately, it makes far too little advancement in that 
regard. We cannot accept such a meager alteration in our system. Canada 
went much further toward a merit-based system than we did, and that is 
what we need to do.
  There are a lot of statistics out there that show that an immigrant 
who comes to America with 2 years of college or more, speaking English, 
does very well in our country. They tend to flourish, tend to do well 
financially. They tend to pay more in taxes than they take out. But for 
those who are less skilled, the opposite is true. It is obvious the 
Nation should seek to advance its national interest by welcoming more 
people who have the ability to be successful and flourish in our great 
country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise to continue this debate on one of 
the great issues of our time, immigration, the bill that is before us. 
I thank the ranking member Mr. Grassley for allowing me to jump ahead 
of him in the

[[Page S4380]]

schedule. I have a markup in the Armed Services Committee, and I need 
to get back.
  Let me say that in the next few weeks the Senate will have an 
opportunity to discuss, clearly and resolutely, America's broken 
immigration system. Part of that means seeking policy solutions that 
will not only make our country stronger for decades to come but make 
our country safer going forward. Partisan politics should not derail 
the pursuit of an honest and good-faith approach to solving national 
problems, problems such as our broken immigration system. Americans are 
right to demand better from their elected representatives, and there is 
merit in allowing this legislation to proceed in an open and 
transparent manner.
  In doing so, we rightfully recognize that there is widespread and 
bipartisan consensus for lasting immigration reform. That consensus 
exists in this Chamber and it exists across the country. For that 
reason yesterday I voted in favor of cloture on this bill and in favor 
of the motion to proceed. So here we are, about to consider, I hope, 
amendments that would improve the bill.
  We cannot ignore the reality that there are 11 million undocumented 
immigrants in America today. We cannot dismiss the economic 
implications of a failed immigration system. Disagreements are part of 
the legislative process, and we will have disagreements over the next 
several weeks on this issue. I do not expect our work on this issue to 
be seamless, I do not expect it to be easy, but robust debate has 
always been central to the Senate's function and purpose. We would do 
well to uphold that proud tradition now. Lasting and effective 
immigration reform requires a willingness to work on issues 
collaboratively and constructively--and in a bipartisan manner. An 
issue of this magnitude that touches on so many aspects of our society 
and economy cannot be done on a solely partisan basis. We must have a 
wide, large, bipartisan majority for anything that moves out of this 
body and down to the House.
  I am a long-time supporter of reinforcing our borders, of increasing 
the number of Border Patrol agents and using surveillance technology to 
prevent illegal immigrants from crossing into our country. I support 
policies that come with enforcement and accountability, where those who 
have broken the law face consequences for their wrongdoing. I believe 
measures to strengthen employment verification are important to making 
sure American jobs are held by American citizens and by those who live 
and work in our country legally.
  In my view the immigration bill, prepared by a bipartisan Group of 8 
and supported by the Judiciary Committee, is a start but it is lacking 
in many ways, and I cannot support it in its current form. More should 
be done to ensure, first and foremost, that our borders are secure. 
Without this fundamental first step, true reform remains elusive and 
the problem of illegal immigration will persist.
  As we proceed with this bill, I look forward to amendments that would 
implement a stronger border security strategy, interior security 
protections, and processes for honest employers to assess employee work 
rights. A responsible way forward must recognize past failures, and we 
have certainly seen that--past failures, for example, to secure the 
border and unfulfilled promises for better enforcement. We need to 
recognize those failures of the past. A comprehensive plan must include 
mechanisms to track those who unlawfully overstay their visas just as 
it seeks to remedy gaps in border security.
  Over the course of the past few weeks, Mississippians have contacted 
my office and spoken to me directly regarding their concerns about 
whether the bill will offer amnesty; whether it will offer Federal 
benefits to illegal immigrants. Let me be clear that I will oppose 
legislation if it grants legal status without penalties or if it issues 
welfare benefits to individuals who have broken the law to live and 
work in this country. These individuals should not go to the front of 
the line, ahead of those who have patiently waited to become Americans.
  We are a country of immigrants. Throughout American history people of 
all nations have recognized the promise of opportunity and freedom in 
the United States. Legal immigration has sustained and advanced our 
communities in a positive way. Whether our immigration system is going 
forward in a way that benefits our society depends on how we act in the 
coming weeks. I hope we can do so thoughtfully and meaningfully as we 
seek solutions to a flawed system.
  This bill in its current form does not contain the reforms we need. 
Efforts to amend it should be seen as an opportunity to get a 
bipartisan consensus of Senators to a ``yes'' vote. They should not be 
seen as poison pills or as efforts to hurt the process. This bill 
serves as a vehicle for continued discussion about the future of U.S. 
immigration policy. We should welcome this debate, and I do welcome 
this debate. We should confront the challenges of our day in a way that 
is deliberative and principled.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suppose when some of us raise a lot of 
questions about this legislation and point out shortcomings in it that 
some question our sincerity. When we say we need a piece of 
legislation, we might be questioned by a lot of people who are 
listening. That may also sound like we question the sincerity of the 
Group of 8 when we raise questions about this bill that they worked 
hard to put together. I don't question their sincerity, and I do 
believe that legislation must pass the Senate.
  There are those of us who have said for such a long time that the 
system we have is not satisfactory, we cannot maintain the status quo, 
and we have to be working for a product. All of us in the Senate are 
working toward a product. There is a difference of what that product 
should be in the final analysis.
  I continue to come to the floor to raise some questions about, not 
the intent of the authors, but what I think is the practical effect of 
the legislation by these authors. I come to the floor today to respond 
to what my friend, the senior Senator from Arizona, said earlier today 
on this legislation. He is one of those hard-working Senators who have 
worked hard, hours I am sure I cannot comprehend, to put together this 
piece of legislation.
  Today that Senator argued that poll after poll shows Americans 
support a legalization process if--and that is a very important 
``if''--people pay back taxes, pay a fine, and get at the end of the 
line, and if we secure the border. I pointed out before that the 
problem with the legislation before us, as well intended, is that 
people do not really have to pay back taxes, or a fine, or go to the 
end of the line, and secure the border. So these polls are being 
misused if the practical effect of the language in the bill makes it 
possible that those things may never happen, even though it is well 
intended that they ought to happen. Nobody disagrees they ought to 
happen.
  I will probably be somewhat repetitive, but I want to remind my 
colleagues, as I take a few minutes to discuss this, how the authors 
have tried to sell this particular immigration bill and what I see as 
false advertising. You see, the American people are being sold a 
product. In fact that is what politics is, it is a sale of ideas. A 
political party does not have any reason to exist if it does not have 
good ideas. Then the idea is to get in a position to put those ideas 
into effect.
  This product is being sold, and I wish it comes out the way they say 
it does, but I have some questions about that. The American people are 
being asked to accept a legalization program. In exchange, they would 
be assured that the laws were going to be enforced. Normally, consumers 
are able to read the labels of things they are about to purchase. They 
have to read 1,175 pages to really know what is truly in this bill. 
Even a quick read of the bill would have many shaking their heads in 
confusion.
  This bill is full of delegations of authority to the Secretary, 
possibilities for waivers, things of that nature--that really would be 
well down the road after the President signs legislation that you are 
really going to know how it is being carried out.
  We have all heard the phrase ``the devil is in the details.'' At 
first the proposal the bipartisan group put forward

[[Page S4381]]

sounded reasonable, but we need to examine the fine print and take a 
closer look at what the bill really does. As I noted yesterday, I 
thought the framework held hope, but I realize the assurances the Group 
of 8 made did not really translate when the language of the bill 
emerged.
  They professed that the border would be secured and that people would 
``earn'' their legal status. However, the bill as drafted is 
legalization first and enforcement later, if at all. So I would like to 
dive into these details and give a little reality check to those who 
expect this bill to do exactly what the authors promise.
  I have on this chart four points that I would like to make and 
statements that have been made about this legislation.
  No. 1, they say ``people will have to pay a penalty'' to obtain legal 
status. The reality is the bill lays out the application procedures, 
and on page 972 a penalty is imposed on those who apply for registered 
provisional immigration status. Those are the words in the bill for 
legalization. We refer to that as RPI. It says those who apply must pay 
$1,000 to the Department of Homeland Security.
  What is the certainty of getting that $1,000? For instance, it waives 
the penalty for anyone under the age of 21. Yet, on the next page, it 
allows the applicant to pay the penalty in installments. The bill says:

       The Secretary shall establish a process for collecting 
     payments . . . that permit the penalty to be paid in periodic 
     installments that shall be completed before the alien may be 
     granted an extension of status.

  In effect, this says the applicants have 6 years to pay the penalty. 
Six years is how long it takes to get RPI status, and at the end of 6 
years, they have to extend it.
  In addition to the penalty, applicants would pay a processing fee. 
That level is set by the Secretary. So here we have two instances of 
excessive delegation of authority to the Secretary. The bill says the 
Secretary has a discretion to waive the processing fee for any 
``classes of individuals'' she chooses and may limit the maximum fee 
paid by a family.
  The bill doesn't require everyone to pay a penalty. It doesn't 
require anyone to pay it when they apply for legal status. In fact, 
they may never have to pay a penalty.
  No. 2, they say ``people have to pay back taxes.'' Who is going to 
argue with the fact that people have to pay back taxes to receive legal 
status? The reality: Members of the Group of 8 stated over and over 
again their bill would require undocumented individuals to pay back 
taxes prior to being granted legal status. However, the bill before us 
fails to make good on that promise. Proponents of the bill point to a 
provision of the bill that prohibits people from filing for legal 
status ``unless the applicant has satisfied any applicable federal tax 
liability.'' Doesn't that sound right? Absolutely it sounds right. As 
always, the devil is in the details.
  There are two important weaknesses with how the bill defines 
``applicable federal tax liability.'' The first one is: The bill limits 
the definition to exclude employment taxes, such as for Social Security 
and Medicare. For a lot of people, that may be the only taxes they pay, 
but they don't have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes.
  Second, the bill does not require the payment of all back taxes 
legally owed. What it requires is the payment of taxes previously 
assessed by the Internal Revenue Service. Well, there are a lot of 
problems with the IRS assessing somebody for taxes if they have been in 
the underground, as an example. In order to assess taxes, it is quite 
obvious the IRS must first have information on which to base its 
assessment.
  Our tax system is largely a voluntary system, relying on everybody to 
self-report their income on their tax return. But it also relies on 
certain third-party reporting, such as wage reporting by employers. 
That is why we get a W-2 form at the end of every year, so we and the 
IRS know exactly what we owe and what we paid and so they can figure 
out what more we might owe or how much we might get back.
  If someone has been working unlawfully in this country and working 
off the books, it is likely that neither an individual return nor a 
third-party return will even exist; thus, no assessment will exist and 
no taxes will be paid. Similarly, it is very unlikely any assessment 
will exist for those who have worked under a false Social Security 
number and have never filed a tax return. A legal obligation exists to 
pay taxes on all income from whatever source derived, and nothing in 
this bill provides a requirement or a mechanism to accomplish this 
prior to granting legal status.
  One of the Group of 8 members in January said:

       Shouldn't citizens have to pay back taxes? We can trace 
     their employment back. It doesn't take a genius.

  While it may be a well-intended statement, it obviously meets the 
test of common sense, but I showed how difficult it is to make that 
happen. The other side of the aisle, for instance, is going to argue 
that establishing a requirement for back taxes owed rather than taxes 
assessed is unworkable and costly. They will also claim imposing 
additional tax barriers on this population could prevent undocumented 
workers and their families from coming forward in the first place.
  But the sales pitch has been clear: To get legal status, one has to 
pay their back taxes. So let me provide a reality check. This bill 
doesn't make good on the promises made.
  Let's go to the third item on the chart. ``People will have to learn 
English.'' The reality: The bill, as drafted, is supposed to ensure 
that new Americans speak a common language. Learning English is a way 
for new residents to assimilate. This is an issue that is very 
important to Americans. Immigrants before us made a concerted effort to 
learn English. The proponents are claiming their bill fulfills this 
wish.
  However, the bill does not require people here unlawfully to learn 
English before receiving legal status or even a green card. Under 
section 2101, a person with RPI status who applies for a green card 
only has to pursue a course of study to achieve an understanding of 
English and knowledge and understanding of civics.

  If the people who gain legal status ever apply for citizenship--and 
some doubt this will happen to a majority of the undocumented 
population--they would also have to pass an English proficiency exam, 
as required under current law. So, yes, after 13 years, one would have 
to pass an exam, but the bill does very little to ensure that those who 
come out of the shadows will cherish or use the English language. The 
reality is English is not as much of a priority for the proponents of 
this bill as they claim it is.
  The fourth thing on the chart: They say ``people won't get public 
benefits'' if they choose to apply for legal status.
  The reality: Americans are very compassionate and generous people. 
Many people can understand providing some legal status to people here 
illegally, but one major sticking point for those who question the 
legalization program is the fact that lawbreakers could become eligible 
for public benefits and taxpayer subsidies.
  The authors of the bill understood this. In an attempt to show that 
those who receive RPI status would not receive taxpayer benefits, they 
included a provision that prohibited the population from receiving 
certain benefits. There are two major problems with this point in the 
bill.
  First, those who receive RPI status will be immediately eligible for 
State and local welfare benefits. For instance, many States offer cash, 
medical, and food assistance through State-only programs to ``lawfully 
present'' individuals.
  Second, the bill contains a welfare waiver loophole that could allow 
those with RPI status to receive Federal welfare dollars. The Obama 
administration has pushed the envelope by waiving the welfare laws. If 
this loophole is not closed, they could waive existing law and allow 
funds provided under the welfare block grant known as Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families to be provided to noncitizens.
  Senator Hatch had an amendment during committee markup that would 
prohibit the U.S. Department of HHS from waiving various requirements 
and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program. His amendment 
would also prohibit any Federal agency from waiving restrictions on 
eligibility of immigrants for future public benefits. But the reality 
check for the

[[Page S4382]]

American people is there are loopholes and the potential for public 
benefits to go to those who are legalized under the bill.
  Again, the devil is in the details, and I hope this reality check 
will encourage proponents of this bill to fix these problems before the 
bill is passed by the Senate. The American people deserve truth in 
advertising.
  I want to speak about the provision that deals with the commission. 
Aside from the claims I just gave on the promises to pay taxes, et 
cetera, one of the authors of the immigration bill before us stated 
early on that if the Department of Homeland Security has not reached 
100 percent awareness and 90 percent apprehension at the southern 
border within 5 years, the Secretary would lose control of the 
responsibility and it will be turned over to the border governors to 
get the job done.
  The fact is the border governors and the commission they serve with 
are not going to have any power, and that is the point I am going to 
make. There was a lot of talk about how the Secretary would be pushed 
to fulfill the congressional mandate to secure the border. I pointed 
out yesterday how this Secretary said: We don't need to secure the 
border. It is already secured. But at the end of the day, as far as 
this bill is concerned, the legislative text doesn't match up with the 
rhetoric.
  The border commission created is not made up primarily of border 
governors, doesn't have any real power, and the Secretary is not held 
accountable for not getting the job done. Again, it is false 
advertising.
  The bill states that effective control--and those words ``effective 
control'' are the legal language in the bill--of the border is the 
ability to achieve and maintain ``persistent surveillance and an 
effectiveness rate of 90 percent or higher.'' It defines the 
effectiveness rate as ``the percentage calculated by dividing the 
number of apprehensions and turn backs in the sector during a fiscal 
year by the total number of illegal entries in the sector during such 
fiscal year.''
  First, the bill only states that effective control requires 
``persistent surveillance.'' It does not require 100 percent awareness.
  Second, there is nothing in the bill that turns over the issue of 
border security to border governors if the Department here in 
Washington, DC, is unable to secure the border. The bill provides for a 
commission to be created if the Secretary of Homeland Security tells 
Congress she has not achieved effective control in all border sections 
during any fiscal year within 5 years. The southern border security 
commission is then created with the primary responsibility to make 
recommendations to the Secretary. There will be 10 members of the 
commission. While border States have a seat at the table, only 4 of the 
10 members need to be southern border Governors or appointed by them. 
The members are allowed travel expenses and administrative support. 
They have to have some knowledge and experience in border security.

  The commission is required to submit a report to the President, the 
Secretary, and the Congress with specific recommendations for achieving 
and maintaining the border security goals established in the bill. The 
members have 6 months to come up with a plan to achieve what the 
Secretary failed to do in 5 years.
  The bill does not grant the commission any grand or impressive 
authorities. The bill simply states that the commission shall make 
recommendations. Nothing in the bill requires that the recommendations 
be acted upon or implemented by the administration.
  The bill provides $2 billion to the Secretary to carry out the 
recommendations made by the commission. But, again, there is nothing in 
this bill requiring the Secretary to take any further action on those 
recommendations. Why not then give the commission actual authority to 
enforce border security? Then, if we don't do that, why create the 
commission at all?
  In recent years, we in Congress have become accustomed to outsourcing 
our work. We have a responsibility to legislate. The executive branch 
has a responsibility to enact. These are basic tenets of government.
  The commission called for in this bill is kind of irrelevant. This 
administration and any future administration must get the job done, no 
outsourcing the job to some commission, no excuses. This is so 
important because we quote these polls, and I refer to the polls the 
senior Senator from Arizona referenced before he made his remarks. They 
are all based upon certain propositions. They are well intended, but 
they do not provide the certainty they are going to be carried out, and 
legalization is based on that--the same for the polls that say people 
want the borders secure.
  So this commission ought to have some power if the Secretary isn't 
going to act. But already the Secretary has the responsibility to see 
that the border is secure. She has testified it is secure, more secure 
than it has ever been, but I think the facts are that it has not been 
and we need to do better. For us to sell this bill to the American 
people, it must be based upon the proposition that the border be 
secured first and then legalization.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, there is very little disagreement about 
the fact that America's immigration system is broken and in need of 
reform. For far too long, our immigration system has punished those who 
come to this country to pursue the American dream and play by the rules 
while rewarding those who do not respect our laws. As a result, our 
Nation is suffering. That is why it is important for this body to have 
an open and transparent amendment process as we move forward on this 
immigration reform legislation and try to fix what is broken with our 
immigration system.
  No State feels the impact of this broken immigration system more than 
my home State of Nevada. Nevada is a top destination for travelers all 
over the world, and it is an international hub through which tens of 
millions of people pass each year. Our State benefits from the cultural 
diversity of Filipino, Cuban, Chinese, and Armenian communities, just 
to name a few, and we are couched between two States that border the 
country of Mexico.
  Las Vegas is known for McCarran International Airport, which sees 
tens of millions of international tourists each year and is merely a 
short drive away from Los Angeles, San Diego, and Phoenix. Nevada's 
unique location leaves it highly vulnerable to our flawed immigration 
system and open to the exact same problems faced by other southwestern 
border States such as Arizona, Texas, California, and New Mexico.
  Despite the fact that Nevada is, in many respects, a border State 
that copes with the exact same immigration problems facing a State such 
as California, this bill in its current form excludes Nevada from the 
list of States that are eligible to join the southern border security 
commission. So my amendment No. 1227 would include Nevada with other 
southwestern border States whose Governors would comprise the southern 
border security commission.
  This amendment ensures the commission created in the underlying bill 
is fully representative of issues affecting southern border and 
Southwestern States. Although Nevada does not touch the southern 
border, its current demographics and State issues are reflective of 
other southern border States, and Nevada should have a voice on this 
commission.
  The problems of our immigration system are not simply geographic 
problems of latitude and longitude. They impact my home State in 
profound ways. I encourage my colleagues to support this commonsense 
amendment.
  As I have said, this immigration reform legislation is important, and 
we have an opportunity to provide much needed solutions to the problems 
with our immigration system. But we must also ensure the bill does not 
make matters worse by creating more confusion and placing heavier 
burdens on the economy and on the American people.
  My home State of Nevada continues to lead the Nation in high 
unemployment, bankruptcies, and foreclosures. It is absolutely critical 
that this immigration bill does not hinder Nevada's already struggling 
economy.
  That is why I filed two amendments, amendment No. 1234 and amendment 
No. 1235, which will help to safeguard

[[Page S4383]]

Nevada's recovering tourism industry in a way that meets our Nation's 
border security needs.
  The bill before us mandates the implementation of an entry-exit 
system that will include a biometric data system for all ports of 
entry, including the 10 highest volume airports. The implementation of 
such a system is long overdue in order to comply with current law, but 
we can take steps to make sure it does not negatively impact 
international travel.
  While I firmly believe we need to process our visitors both in and 
out of this country safely and securely, it is also essential that this 
mandatory exit system not cause increased travel delays for 
international passengers at high-volume airports such as McCarran 
International Airport in Las Vegas. So I filed an amendment that will 
require DHS to submit a report to the Homeland Security and Government 
Reform Committee within 60 days of the enactment of the underlying bill 
detailing how DHS intends to implement this biometric exit system.
  Requiring DHS to outline its implementation plan will provide the 
necessary guidance and clarity to airports that will first be required 
to comply with the system as well as ensuring they provide the 
necessary staffing at these airports in an effort to minimize the 
impact on the flow of travelers. Additionally, my amendment No. 1235 
will require DHS to create a wait-time reduction goal and increase, as 
deemed necessary by the Department, the number of Customs and Border 
Protection officers so airports with high volumes of international 
travelers can process them in a timely manner.
  Under this amendment, DHS will be required to develop a viable plan 
to reduce wait times by 50 percent at airports with the highest volumes 
of international travelers. Wait times for international visitors at 
McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas are already significantly 
high, largely due to a lack of Customs and Border Protection officers. 
This amendment will help to alleviate these wait times and to reduce 
the congestion that is discouraging travel and ultimately hurting our 
economy.
  The underlying bill is far from perfect, but as GEN George Patton 
famously said, ``A good plan executed today is better than a perfect 
plan executed next week.'' The amendments I am filing today will 
increase government transparency and help to make sure this bill does 
not add more confusion to the immigration process, which would only 
make the problems with our immigration system worse.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in that effort by supporting these 
amendments.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, let me start by complimenting the Senator 
from Nevada on his concerns with regard to staffing at our ports of 
entry, airports, and seaports. We have similar challenges, even at our 
land ports in Texas where legitimate commerce and tourism is taking 
place but which is being inhibited because of hardship or inconvenience 
on travelers because of a lack of staffing and infrastructure at those 
ports of entry.
  I have come to the floor to talk about an amendment I intend to 
offer, which I have discussed over the last couple of days, which uses 
many of the same standards the underlying Gang of 8 bill does. Let me 
explain.
  Of course, the Gang of 8 represents the Republicans and Democrats who 
came up with the original framework that then was adopted, by and 
large, by the Judiciary Committee, which is the base bill we are 
talking about today. But both the Gang of 8 bill and the results 
amendment which I will introduce call for the Department of Homeland 
Security to achieve 100 percent situational awareness of the southern 
border in 10 years. Both the Gang of 8 bill and the RESULTS amendment 
that I will offer call for the Department of Homeland Security to 
achieve full operational control of the border, which is defined as a 
90-percent apprehension rate of illegal traffic. Both the Gang of 8 
bill and the RESULTS amendment which I will offer call for a nationwide 
E-Verify system or a system of employer verification so we don't have 
our employers, small and large alike, having to be the police. We can 
give them a system that will be easily implemented--cards swiped and 
the like--which will allow them to determine and satisfy themselves 
that the worker who presents himself or herself for work is legally 
qualified to work in the United States.
  Both the Gang of 8 bill--the underlying bill--and the RESULTS 
amendment which I will offer call for a biometric entry-exit system at 
America's largest airports. In other words, rather than a poison pill--
if my amendment is a poison pill as some have suggested--then the Gang 
of 8 bill itself is a poison pill. But neither is true.
  The most important difference between my amendment and the Gang of 8 
bill is that my amendment has real border security triggers in place 
while the Gang of 8 bill has no effective trigger that will guarantee 
implementation of border security standards that reach the gang's own 
standards of 100 percent situational awareness and a 90-percent 
apprehension rate.
  The Gang of 8 bill endorses many of the same border security 
standards that my amendment does, but it also authorizes a permanent 
legalization program for illegal immigrants regardless of whether the 
United States-Mexico border is ever secured. In other words, it is 
another promise Congress is making to the American people, but the 
American people have no way of knowing whether that promise will ever 
be kept.
  As further indication that truly what I am trying to do in my 
amendment is consistent with what the Gang of 8 has proposed, here is a 
quote from the majority whip, Senator Durbin from Illinois, in January 
of 2013. He said their bipartisan framework for comprehensive 
immigration reform--in that bill--a pathway to citizenship needs to be 
``contingent upon securing the border.''
  But yesterday, as reported in the National Journal on June 11, 
Senator Durbin said the gang has ``de-linked the pathway to citizenship 
and border enforcement.''
  What my amendment does is restore this contingency which, if the 
gang's own standards are met--and I believe they will be--will allow 
people to transition from RPI status--registered provisional immigrant 
status--to legal permanent residency if they comply with the other 
requirements of the law.
  My amendment would delay permanent legal status until after we have 
that 100-percent situational awareness along the border and full 
operational control and nationwide E-Verify and a national biometric 
entry-exit system at all airports and seaports where Customs and Border 
Protection are currently deployed.
  Some have said my amendment and the standards in my amendment are 
unattainable or some say it is just too expensive. Let me answer both 
of those criticisms. If the standards the Gang of 8 has set itself for 
situational awareness and operational security are unattainable, then 
why did they embrace those standards in their own bill? Again, the only 
difference between my amendment and their initial proposal is that my 
amendment creates a trigger or a contingency requiring that standard to 
be met before immigrants who qualify for registered provisional 
immigrant status can transition into a legal permanent residency 
status.
  It has also been claimed by some of our colleagues, who interestingly 
were speaking without having actually seen language in the bill, that 
somehow the cost of my amendment is just too high. The fact is this 
bill appropriates $8.3 billion to pay into a trust fund that is created 
by the underlying legislation. On page 872 of the bill, it is called 
the comprehensive immigration reform trust fund. The initial funding is 
$8.3 billion.

  If my colleagues will simply read the legislation in my proposal, my 
amendment, the funding for my amendment comes from that same trust fund 
and does not appropriate any other additional funds. So I am satisfied 
by merely reallocating those funds in a way that I believe will help 
the Department of Homeland Security, help Congress, help the U.S. 
Government make sure we keep our promises to the American people.
  Well, you do not need to take my word for it. The Washington Post 
recently asked a number of immigration experts whether the goals set 
out in the Gang of 8 bill and in my amendment are, in fact, attainable. 
One of them, Asa Hutchinson--a name that is

[[Page S4384]]

familiar to many of us because he has served as a Member of Congress, a 
member of the Drug Enforcement Administration, and as Under Secretary 
for Border and Transportation Security at the Department of Homeland 
Security--told the Washington Post that the border security 
requirements in my amendment are both ``reasonable and attainable.'' In 
fact, Hutchinson said my amendment ``only requires security measures 
that are attainable in the near future.''
  Another expert, Cato Institute scholar Alex Nowrasteh, who is a 
strong supporter of the underlying Gang of 8 bill, said my amendment is 
``very much in the vein of the rest of the bill.'' He also affirmed 
that it would be, indeed, possible for the Federal Government to attain 
that 90 percent apprehension rate along the southern border.
  As for the biometric entry-exit system and the E-Verify requirements, 
if a nationwide biometric entry-exit system at our airports and 
seaports is unrealistic, then somebody should have told President 
Clinton in 1996 when he signed such a requirement into law.
  That is really the problem that my amendment is designed to solve. It 
has been the law of the land that Congress and the Federal Government 
implement a biometric entry-exit system for people entering our country 
and leaving our country since 1996, but do you know what. It has never 
been done.
  After the tragedy of 9/11 where 3,000 Americans lost their lives on 
that terrible day, the 9/11 Commission itself undertook a comprehensive 
study of how to stop such a terrible tragedy from occurring again. What 
they recommended, again, is a biometric entry-exit system. But while 
the biometric entry system is in place--it is just fingerprints on a 
fingerprint reader; pretty quick, easy technology, relatively cheap--
there has been no implementation at the airports and seaports of an 
exit system, which would tell us when people have entered legally but 
then have illegally overstayed their visa, which is 40 percent of 
illegal immigration.
  I would just close on this: On the E-Verify component--this, of 
course, is the employment verification system--if that is unrealistic, 
than somebody should have told our friends on the Gang of 8 because the 
E-Verify language in their bill is identical with my amendment.
  But here is the bottom line and the reality: Without a border 
security trigger, immigration reform will be dead on arrival in the 
House of Representatives. My amendment provides such a trigger. The 
Gang of 8 bill does not. That does not mean my amendment is a full-
scale alternative to the Gang of 8 bill. But it does mean my amendment 
is essential to moving this legislation forward and to getting an 
outcome that ultimately will end up on the President's desk.
  I believe we should try to do our best to improve this underlying 
bill. My amendment is in that spirit because I do believe that the 
status quo is simply unacceptable, as I believe almost virtually all of 
our colleagues do. If we do not guarantee results on border security, 
particularly at a time when skepticism about Washington is at an all-
time high, we guarantee the failure of bipartisan immigration reform, 
and that would be a tragedy.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, thank you, and I thank my colleague from 
Texas for his specifics there, and I know he is trying to make the bill 
a better bill. I have to say, as I understand it, this is the very same 
amendment that was defeated in committee. It was defeated by a 
bipartisan vote of 12 to 6. It was defeated for two reasons.
  Let me take a step back. The two reasons are, one, its cost goes 
through the roof, and there is no way to pay for it in the Cornyn 
amendment. It is estimated it could be, in the original amendment, as 
much as $25 billion. Now, maybe the number of border agents was 
reduced. I do not know if my colleague has done that, but that is a 
huge expense, and an unnecessary expense because our bill, the proposal 
that is before us, does a huge amount on border security for much lower 
cost. Mr. President, $25 billion is a lot of money.
  Second, we do have triggers in our bill, but they are achievable and 
specific because this bill is a careful compromise. We want to do two 
things. We want to have border security, absolutely. I have always said 
a watch word of this bill is that the American people will be fair and 
have a commonsense approach to both future legal immigration and the 11 
million who are living here in the shadows provided, and only provided, 
we prevent future waves of illegal immigration.
  We do that in three ways. One is the E-Verify system. We both agree 
that should be in place before there is a path to citizenship. One is 
fixing up exit-entry. The way my colleague has fixed up exit-entry, it 
could take 20 or 25 years before it is in place. We cannot, should not, 
and will not tell those who have waited in the shadows for so long that 
they should wait for 25 years. Those are the estimates. We can do this 
on the ports and in the air, but we need a better system, which we have 
worked on, for land entry.
  Finally, at the border itself, we have put a large amount of money in 
there. We have been guided by Senators McCain and Flake--because the 
Arizona border has more people passing through it than any other--as to 
what we should do.
  We emphasized the ability to put in new technologies--drones that can 
track everybody who crosses the border and track them on land. We do it 
for a lot less money. But, unfortunately, one of the triggers that my 
colleague, my good friend from Texas, has put in place would make a 
path to citizenship--even if all the other metrics were put in place--
iffy, possibly yes, possibly no. That is unacceptable. We need to do 
both.
  Should there be a new person who comes into office, should there be a 
different Senate, a different House, under the proposal of my colleague 
from Texas, not one single person could achieve citizenship, even if we 
had improved the border in many different ways.
  So I would say to my colleagues, we certainly want to improve the 
border, but we cannot improve that border and put in place triggers 
that are not specific and achievable. We can measure whether there are 
20 drones at the border. We can measure whether we have X miles of 
fence. But if we say, then, that it has to be at this certain rate 
every year, we are taking away that path to citizenship, through no 
fault of those who have tried to implement tougher border security.
  So I say to my colleague, we cannot accept his amendment, plain and 
simple. We welcome proposals on border security. I know there are many 
on the other side. I have spoken to four or five who are working on 
those proposals, but the very same amendment, the very same proposal 
that was defeated in committee by a bipartisan vote of 12 to 6 is not 
going to revitalize an immigration bill, which has plenty of life 
already. It is not going to strengthen a bill. It could indeed kill it.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. So I would urge that we go back to the drawing boards. 
If the Senator from Texas has a different proposal, obviously, I would 
look at it. This one is, unfortunately, one that we have tried, 
rejected, and will not lead to either comprehensive immigration reform 
in the broader sense or a path to citizenship in the most immediate 
sense.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am happy to allow a colloquy between the 
two Senators--questions or otherwise--but I have a consent request that 
Senator Grassley and I have been waiting to do for some time. So when 
we complete our work, I would hope the two Senators would engage in 
whatever conversation they want. I have also been told that perhaps 
Senator Leahy, the manager of this bill, may want to say something.
  So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be in order to be called up before the Senate: Thune No. 
1197, Vitter No. 1228, Landrieu No. 1222, and Tester No. 1198; that the 
time until 4:30 p.m. be equally divided between the two managers or 
their designees for debate on these amendments and the Grassley 
amendment No. 1195; that at 4:30 p.m.

[[Page S4385]]

the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Grassley amendment; that 
upon disposition of the Grassley amendment, the Senate proceed to vote 
on the four amendments in this agreement in the order listed; that 
there be no second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes; that 
all five amendments be subject to a 60-affirmative vote threshold; that 
there be 2 minutes equally divided in between the votes, and all after 
the first vote be 10-minute votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to this request?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I object.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding----
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. Yes. My friend has a consent request I understand he wants 
to propose.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the pending Grassley 
amendment be set aside and the following amendments be in order to be 
called up: Thune No. 1197, Vitter No. 1228, Landrieu No. 1222, and 
Tester No. 1198; that the time until 4 p.m. be equally divided between 
the managers or their designees for debate in relation to the pending 
Grassley amendment No. 1195 and the pending Leahy amendment No. 1183; 
further, I ask that at 4 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote in relation to 
the Grassley amendment; that upon disposition of the Grassley 
amendment, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Leahy 
amendment; that there be no second-degree amendments in order prior to 
the votes; that there be 2 minutes equally divided in between the 
votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am somewhat 
surprised at this request. How many times have we heard the Republican 
leader say on this floor and publicly that the new reality in the 
Senate is 60? So I just thought I was following the direction of the 
Republican leader. This is what he said. That is why we are having 60 
votes on virtually everything. And with this bill--with this bill--no 
one can in any way suggest this bill is not important and these 
amendments are not important.
  So I care a great deal about my friend, the ranking member of this 
committee, but I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to both requests.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nevada yield to me?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Will the Senator yield to me?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Well, it is amazing to me that the majority has touted 
this immigration bill process as one that is open and regular order. 
But right out of the box, right now, just on the third day, they want 
to subject our amendments to a filibuster-like 60-vote threshold. So I 
have to ask, who is obstructing now?
  There is no reason, particularly in this first week at the beginning 
of the process, to be blocking our amendments with a 60-vote margin as 
required when you suppose there is a filibuster.
  Let's at least start out with regular order; otherwise, it really 
looks as if the fix is in and the bill is rigged to pass basically as 
it is.
  Bottom line: You should have seen how the 18 members of the Judiciary 
Committee operated for 5 or 6 days over a 2-week period of time. 
Everything was open. Everything was transparent. There was complete 
cooperation between the majority and the minority. There is no reason 
we cannot do that out here in the Senate right now, particularly at the 
beginning. This is a very provocative act.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, a provocative act? If my friend is so 
interested in regular order, why have we waited 3 months to go to 
conference on the budget? On the budget. That is regular order. Now, 
suddenly, when it works to their advantage, I guess, they want to do 
away with the McConnell rule. What is the McConnell rule? Sixty votes 
on everything.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield on that point, I 
was privileged in my capacity as President pro tempore to speak to the 
graduating class of pages, the group of pages who graduated just ahead 
of the distinguished group we have here now. There had been discussion 
about immigration coming up. Then the distinguished Republican leader 
spoke and went on at great length to the pages about how these 
important issues must have 60 votes on everything, must have 60 votes 
on amendments and so forth. I am sure the distinguished Senator from 
Kentucky would confirm that is what he said. There were 100-and-some-
odd people in the room who heard him say it. And here we have offered--
the distinguished majority leader has offered to have three Republican 
votes and two votes by Democratic Senators, all under exactly the same 
rule, the rule Senator McConnell proposed.
  We have talked and given great speeches that we have all given time 
and time again both in the committee and on the floor. I would like to 
have votes on something so we can finish this because, frankly, given 
my choice of spending the Fourth of July week in Washington--salubrious 
as the weather is--or being in Vermont for the Fourth of July, I would 
much rather be in Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I still have the floor. I am sorry we have 
had this disagreement, but I would say to everybody that there are 
other ways of having simple-majority votes. If there is an objection to 
this, we will have to go to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would note that Senator Grassley just offered in a 
few minutes to commence voting on two amendments in the normal way we 
proceed. I think that was a very reasonable request. We have to be 
careful. These amendments represent important changes to a historic 
piece of legislation. We cannot just throw up a bunch of amendments 
here at the beginning, when people have not had time to digest them. So 
I think that as we proceed, we are going to need to be sure that it is 
not some situation where people are bringing up an amendment and it has 
to be voted on an hour or so later. People have not had time to fully 
digest it. I think the offer by Senator Grassley is very reasonable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, while the Senator from New York is still 
here, I would like to respond briefly and in a nonconfrontational way. 
But I would hope that on something as important as this, we are all 
operating from the same facts and not based on erroneous information or 
erroneous assumptions.
  First of all, my understanding is the Congressional Budget Office has 
not scored the underlying bill. As I said earlier, on page 872 of this 
bill, a comprehensive immigration reform trust fund is created, and 
$8.3 billion is transferred into that trust fund. My amendment uses the 
same money the underlying bill does to fund the requirements of my 
amendment.
  This notion that somehow having a biometric entry-exit system costs 
$25 billion is completely detached from any factual information I am 
aware of. My staff informs me, based on our best estimate, that a 
biometric entry-exit system at airports and at seaports would cost 
roughly $80 million a year. We are more than happy to share that 
information with our colleagues and have them take a look at it.
  Further, I know there has been an assumption that somehow there has 
been a figure of 10,000 new Border Patrol agents mandated in my 
amendment. That is an incorrect reading of it. The underlying bill 
calls for 3,500. We plus that up, we do, by not only Border Patrol but 
also customs and border agents to help facilitate the flow of legal 
commerce across Arizona, Texas borders, and elsewhere, which creates 
about 6 million jobs in America.
  So I do not mind us having a disagreement about policy. We are used 
to that. That is fine. I think some of these claims about extravagant 
expenses are not borne out by the facts. We would actually rely upon 
the same money that the trust fund created by the underlying bill does.
  I would yield to my friend from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would ask my friend from Texas, if you are adding 
additional either Border Patrol or Customs agents in addition to what 
is already in the underlying bill, where does your money come from? We 
are talking about personnel costs that are incredibly expensive. So I 
would ask him

[[Page S4386]]

where the money comes from if there is not additional cost. He would 
have to take it from someplace else.
  Mr. CORNYN. If I can respond to my friend, it comes from the same 
trust fund the underlying bill uses. It reallocates the money and does 
put some more money toward personnel. One of the problems is that there 
is so much that technology can do. I am exited about the prospects of 
technology when it comes to 100-percent situational awareness and 
allowing the Border Patrol to do a good job. But you have to have 
border patrol who show up and detain people when they come across 
illegally. My State has the longest border with Mexico--1,200 miles. 
Arizona has its own challenges. We have our challenges as well. So we 
do need more personnel.
  But the part that I would think is sort of baked into the underlying 
bill is that we also need to separate the legal commerce and tourism 
that is beneficial to both sides of the border. That is part of why the 
Customs agents who are included in my amendment are also there as well, 
the theory being--I think it is a good one--if you identify legitimate 
commerce and beneficial tourism and separate that from the bad guys, 
then law enforcement can focus more on the bad guys. That is what my 
amendment attempts to do. It is no additional money.
  Mr. McCAIN. You are adding personnel into your version of the bill. 
The money has to come from somewhere. Where is it coming from? You are 
saying it is ``reallocated.'' From where is it reallocated?

  Mr. CORNYN. It comes in the same trust fund that is created on page 
872 of the bill.
  Mr. McCAIN. There is a finite amount of money that is authorized. If 
the Senator takes money from one and adds money one place, it has to 
come from someplace else. That is simply first grade mathematics. I 
think it is incredible that the Senator should stand there and say: 
Yeah, we are adding these thousands of personnel, but there is no 
additional cost. That is not possible.
  Mr. CORNYN. If I can explain to the Senator from Arizona, this is the 
trust fund created by the underlying bill on page 872.
  Mr. McCAIN. With a finite amount of money in it.
  Mr. CORNYN. It is $8.3 billion. They allocate some of that money for 
the purposes set out in the underlying bill. My amendment reallocates 
some of that same trust fund for other purposes, including additional 
personnel. There is no additional money. This is an appropriation made 
in the underlying bill. So I think it is a misunderstanding of what my 
amendment is.
  Mr. SCHUMER. How many extra personnel does he ask for in his 
amendment?
  Mr. CORNYN. The underlying bill calls for 3,500. We ask for a plus-up 
of another 6,500.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, it is quite arguable that the entire 
trust fund is used up by those 6,500. That would mean no drones. That 
would mean no helicopters. That would mean none of the other things. It 
may mean no fencing that we add to the border. So my colleague from 
Arizona is exactly correct.
  The cost here--my good friend from his side of the aisle, Senator 
Graham, estimated this morning that the total cost would be $18 
billion. I think if you add a type of land-based exit-entry, it goes up 
another $7, $8 billion. We do not have that kind of money.
  So I would suggest to my colleague that if he wants to add 10,000 
Border Patrol--which most experts have told us will not do close to as 
good a job as the drones and the helicopters and the more mobile 
assets. And the reason is very simple. He knows as well as I do. He 
knows the border better than I do. We do not have roads on most of the 
border. What is Border Patrol going to do? There are no roads. They are 
impassable. A drone flying 10,000 feet above can see every person who 
crosses the border, track them inland, and if they go to a gathering 
point 25 miles inland, they pick them up there.
  So the bottom line is that not only is the cost of this amendment 
probably exceeding the trust fund by itself, but it will take a highly 
efficient way of preventing people from crossing the border and replace 
it with an inefficient way that no experts I have talked to--again, 
maybe my colleague has--no expert I have talked to says the best way to 
control people from crossing the border illegally--which I desperately 
want to do--works better with a huge amount of personnel, unallocated. 
We do not even know--if I ask my colleague where they are going to be 
assigned, which sector, where they are going to work, I bet there is no 
answer to that.
  The bottom line is very simple. We have carefully thought this 
through. We think we have maximized the effectiveness for about one-
third of the money our colleague is talking about. It is only one of 
many reasons this amendment was defeated by a bipartisan group, a 
majority in committee.
  So let's move on. Let's move on. Let's look at how we can make the 
border more secure. I am open to that. But this amendment, as I said, 
for a variety of reasons is a nonstarter.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, what is this--the third day this bill has 
been on the floor? There has been no scoring of the bill by the 
Congressional Budget Office, so no one knows what the official 
scorekeeper of the Congress has to say about this bill. But I would say 
that my amendment does not appropriate any additional money other than 
the money in the bill. Indeed, this leaves it up to the Department of 
Homeland Security within 120 days to render a plan, and then under the 
underlying bill, you can transition after 10 years from RPI status--
registered provisional immigrant--to legal permanent resident by 
substantial completion of a plan we do not know anything about.
  I mean, I do not think we are the experts in how exactly this should 
be done. I would hope that technology, which I think is fantastic--what 
answers that may provide to us 10 years hence in terms of how to 
accomplish the goals. But to suggest that somehow this legislation, 
which I have complimented on numerous occasions that it represents a 
substantial step in the right direction--to say that we cannot touch 
it, we cannot change it because eight Senators got together and decided 
what it should be, is preposterous. That is exactly what we are 
supposed to do. We ought to have a regular process to debate it and 
vote on it. But we should not be sort of suggesting ``been there, done 
that; you had your shot in committee'' and then not allow this process 
to move forward.
  I do not think we are all that far apart if we will stick to the 
facts and stick to the text of the bill. But we should not make things 
up, particularly on the order of $25 billion. I do not know where that 
came from. I know there was a suggestion that my amendment called for 
10,000 new Border Patrol agents. That is not in the bill. So let's 
stick to the facts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I would just say this: No, 1, this amendment--we are 
only on the third day of the bill. I have said over and over that I 
welcome suggestions on how to improve the bill. No one says the bill by 
the Gang of 8 is exactly right. In fact, as Senator Leahy well knows--
our chairman of the Judiciary Committee--we accepted a large number of 
amendments, many of which came from the other side, in committee. We 
will do the same thing here. But this particular amendment is not 3 
days old.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield? Is it not true that whether or 
not it has been scored by CBO, the legislation calls for the 
expenditure of certain amounts of money--in other words, about $6.2 
billion, I believe? So if it calls for the expenditure of a certain 
amount of money and it designates what that money is for, and if you 
are going to add thousands of Border Patrol agents onto it, then it 
seems logical that is going to cost more money.
  Mr. SCHUMER. It is hard to refute the logic of my friend from 
Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. May I finish my question? Is it not true that we have 
said: Look, we welcome any suggestion to improve the bill.
  I would say respectfully to my friend from Texas it is not true that 
this is written in golden tablets. In fact, the Senator from Ohio, who 
is coming here, is going to have some suggestions for improvements on 
the exit-entry visa, which I think will make the bill much better.

[[Page S4387]]

  Isn't it true that somehow to allege that we said there could be no 
changes is patently false?
  Third, isn't it true this amendment would break the agreement that 
was a hard-fought agreement? We are willing to compromise and make 
agreements in certain areas but not to a bill that billions and 
billions of dollars are added to, especially in the area of personnel, 
when we have gone from 4,000 members of the Border Patrol several years 
ago to 21,000. We are adding National Guard to the border.
  Personnel is not the challenge, whether it be the Texas border or the 
Arizona border, what the challenge is, is to use the technology that is 
existing so we can surveil and intercept. That is what this bill is all 
about; is that true?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague for those questions, and they are 
all pretty obvious.
  No. 1, we have costed this out. CBO will judge whether we are 
correct. We have made the bill revenue neutral. In fact, we have a 
slight surplus. The huge cost of 6,500 border agents without any 
allocation where they would go--do you know what. If this were another 
bill, my colleague from Texas and all of his colleagues would say we 
are wasting billions of dollars with no plan. He is exactly right on 
that point.
  On the second point, I have said, until I am blue in the face, 
sometimes from some criticism from some of the people who are my allies 
out there, that I am willing to look at changes in this bill. It is so 
unfair and patently false to say any one of the Group of 8 said we 
can't change the bill. We welcome changes to improve it. What happened 
in committee proves that.
  The third point, I would say to my colleague, the way the Senator 
from Texas constructs the trigger, there will be no one who will ever 
achieve a path to citizenship because he leaves out turnbacks. If we 
don't have turnbacks--the 90 percent causes us trouble even with the 
way it was done in other areas, with other suggestions. If we leave out 
turnbacks, people who are turned back or caught, and we say go home, we 
will never get to 90 percent.
  To say the proposal of the Senator from Texas allows a path to 
citizenship--it makes it virtually impossible. Therefore, again, I 
would say I wish to improve border security. I am open to suggestions. 
I wish to improve this bill in every area. I know my colleague from 
Arizona, my colleague from Colorado, my colleague from Illinois, the 
rest of us welcome that, and we have shown it time and time again.
  This amendment, I don't think, advances moving the bill forward. It 
doesn't work on border security because of its expense, its lack of 
specificity, and it is taking away the very technology we need. It 
doesn't create a path to citizenship in any way. It doesn't allow one.
  Finally, its cost is through the roof. Whatever CBO says, 6,500 new 
border agents is a multibillion-dollar proposition, unpaid for. I know 
my colleagues on the other side rue the day when we vote for unpaid-for 
obligations.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield to the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. There has been some discussion about whether this might be 
a closed thing, and the eight Senators came together on this and did a 
tremendous job. There were four Democrats and four Republicans putting 
it together. They were saying it was closed. Isn't it true that when 
the bill came to the Judiciary Committee, isn't it true there were 301 
amendments filed in the committee?
  Mr. SCHUMER. That is exactly the right number, as I recall.
  Mr. LEAHY. Isn't it true that 136 of those amendments were then 
adopted?
  Mr. SCHUMER. My count is exactly the same.
  Mr. LEAHY. Forty-nine of those amendments were proposed by 
Republicans; is that not correct?
  Mr. SCHUMER. We are so proud of that fact, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. LEAHY. Isn't it possible to say that of the eight Senators we 
have talked about, four of them, two Democrats and two Republicans, 
serve on the Judiciary Committee? They were helpful in voting for most 
of these changes that were changes to the original; is that not 
correct?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I agree. That is the right count. There were four of us 
there, and we did just as the chairman said.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York controls the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. To finish putting my question to the Senator from New 
York, I wish to make sure, because I thought I heard some comment that 
this was a closed process, and I appreciate that the Senator from New 
York agreed it was anything but.
  Mr. McCAIN. May I be recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield to the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Ohio is working on E-Verify. I think he 
has come up with some very good ideas on how we can improve a vital 
part of the bill; that is, verification of someone who applies for a 
job. That is the magnet that draws people across the border.
  Again, we look forward to those kinds of improvements and many other 
suggestions that have been made.
  How you can manufacture 3,500 new personnel and say it doesn't add to 
the cost and it will be reallocated, I want to know where it has been 
reallocated from.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague, and I agree with the sentiments.
  I reiterate one final point. The Cornyn amendment, as proposed, asks 
for a 90-percent success rate in terms of effectiveness on the border, 
but it eliminates the turnback part of it.
  That would mean now that it would be virtually impossible to get to 
that 90 percent 1 year from now, 5 years from now, 10 years from now, 
because one of the most effective things we do on the border is turn 
people back. We don't catch them after they cross the border. They get 
up to the border, we find them when they get to the border and say go 
home.
  It fails on both counts. It has been debated. It has been studied.
  I would plead with my colleagues who want more border security: Let's 
move on.
  The Senator from Utah has amendments on taxes and on benefits. The 
Senator from Ohio has amendments on E-Verify. Many of my colleagues 
have amendments on many other issues. We are open to debate and 
discussion on the core principles that the eight of us agreed to. That 
is an agreement among the eight of us, and the rest of you can disagree 
with that--we think most of you will agree with those core principles. 
So be it. Aside from the basic core of the bill, we welcome changes, 
suggestions, and improvements. We look forward to a healthy debate.
  To bring up an amendment that has been rejected and basically turns 
things on its head, because there will be no path to citizenship for 
anybody, and because you are just sort of, if you will, with all due 
respect, throwing money at a problem without specificity as to where 
the money goes, that doesn't move the debate forward.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for one more question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield to my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. I hope the Senator from New York understands what the 
Chief of the Border Patrol said on this issue of 90 percent 
effectiveness. We are going to hear this over and over.
  In a hearing on February 26, 2013, at a House Homeland Security 
Committee hearing, the Chief of the Border Patrol--not the Secretary of 
Homeland Security--said:

       First of all, 90 percent wouldn't really make sense 
     everywhere. . . . We put 90 percent as a goal because there 
     are sections along the border where we have not only 
     achieved, we've been able to sustain 90 percent 
     effectiveness. So it's a realistic goal but I wouldn't 
     necessarily and just arbitrarily say 90 percent is across the 
     board because there are other locations where there is a lot 
     less activity and there won't be a lot of activity because of 
     terrain features, for instance.
       So where it makes sense we want to go ahead and start 
     parsing that out within those corridors and within those 
     specific sectors.

  That is why we think that what we came up with in this legislation is 
effective control, 100 percent surveillance, and the use of technology, 
which

[[Page S4388]]

I am confident will give us a border that all Americans can be happy 
with. No border is ever going to be sealed. Anybody who stands in this 
body and says if you want to hire 10,000, 20,000 or 50,000 more Border 
Patrol agents, you still aren't going to secure the border completely.
  We can have effective control of that border, we can have 100 percent 
surveillance, and we can get the border to the point where American 
people can have confidence in it while we move forward with the rest of 
the legislation.
  I thank my colleague.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague.
  Reclaiming the floor for a brief minute, I know my colleague from 
Utah has been offered time to speak on his proposal, so I don't want to 
take too much more time.
  I wish to say once again that we welcome suggestions. The Senator 
from Arizona is right. We carefully looked at the border. This wasn't 
fly-by-night. Every one of us, certainly not only myself, wants to see 
that border as secure as possible.
  It so happens that 6,500 more Border Patrol agents, if you asked the 
experts, they wouldn't know what to do with them. Large sections of the 
border have no roads, have no way to station Border Patrol agents 
there; whereas, helicopters, drones, and mobile forces work.
  It was my colleague from Arizona who actually taught me that on a 
trip to the border. He used his military expertise to help us figure 
out the most effective way to seal the border effectively.
  When I hear of the amendment from my colleague from Texas, I don't 
get what the logic is behind it, frankly. I certainly don't get the 
logic on his trigger.
  It is fair if we want to make sure the border is secure, but if we 
use triggers--as some might, and I am not saying that my colleague from 
Texas intended that--but if triggers become a way to avoid a path to 
citizenship--without saying directly I want to avoid a path to 
citizenship because I don't want to vote for it--that is not going to 
work and we will not move forward.
  This Nation desperately needs us to move forward as Democrats and 
Republicans together. Let's continue the bipartisan spirit we have had. 
Let us move forward together to make this bill better, make our country 
proud of us, and keep America the leading power economically and every 
other way.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. May I ask unanimous consent to ask that the Senator from 
Ohio, without losing my right to the floor, if he has something he 
wanted to do--I didn't mean to jump in front of him, but I was told I 
could appear here at 4 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. The ranking member of the Finance Committee, member of 
the Judiciary Committee, I was told I could speak even before that, but 
then the majority leader came out to the floor to do some important 
business, and I was put back. I have about 5 or 10 minutes in which I 
would like to talk about E-Verify, as indicated earlier, and border 
security.
  I would defer to my colleague as long as my other colleagues would 
allow me to speak after that.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank my friend from Ohio. I am happy to proceed. I 
appreciate that.
  I would ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Ohio may speak 
and give his remarks immediately following mine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to take some time today to talk 
about immigration before us, its flaws, and what needs to be done to 
fix it.
  I first wish to note that I voted in favor of reporting this 
legislation out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I worked in good 
faith with my colleagues to secure the inclusion of provisions 
addressing things such as high-skilled immigration and a new 
agricultural visa program. Indeed, throughout the Judiciary Committee 
process, I was a willing negotiator on many important issues 
surrounding this bill. In general, I am in favor of immigration reform, 
and I wish to see this bill succeed.
  I also wish to commend my colleagues for their work on this 
legislation so far. Up to now, I think that process has been fair. It 
has been transparent, and, I believe, bipartisan. I hope that will 
continue now that the bill is on the floor.
  It is important we continue to work on a bipartisan basis because the 
bill is far from perfect. One can't look at it without knowing that. In 
my view, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed before 
this legislation is ready for final passage.
  During the Judiciary Committee's consideration of S. 744, I 
introduced four amendments on issues that fall under the jurisdiction 
of the Senate Finance Committee. At that time I stated that my 
continued support for the bill is contingent on whether those issues 
were addressed before final passage. Today I will file similar 
amendments here on the floor, with the hope I can work with my 
colleagues to address these concerns.

  I want to say upfront that, despite what will likely be several 
claims to the contrary, these are not poison pill amendments. I have no 
desire to weaken the bill or to threaten its prospects for final 
passage. Indeed, I think my four amendments will make it easier to pass 
the bill with strong bipartisan support, not only here but in the 
House.
  Senator Rubio, a member of the Gang of 8, is a cosponsor on these 
amendments. I appreciate his willingness to work with me on these 
important issues. He has been the one singular person, in my opinion, 
who has had an open mind and has been willing to work on these issues 
with both sides. He deserves a lot of credit for this bill, but he 
knows it is not perfect, he knows it is not there yet. I know he wants 
to do the right thing. I can only hope other proponents of this 
legislation will be willing to do the same.
  Each of my amendments is designed to ensure illegal immigrants 
applying for a change in status are not awarded special privileges and 
benefits under the law. I don't want to punish these immigrants, I 
simply want to make sure they are treated no better or worse than U.S. 
citizens and resident aliens with respect to Federal benefits and 
taxes.
  Let me take a few minutes to describe each of my amendments.
  My first amendment is designed to ensure compliance with Federal 
welfare and public benefits law. As we all know, last July, during the 
height of the Presidential campaign, the Department of Health and Human 
Services issued an information memo to States allowing them to waive 
Federal welfare work requirements. We now know that HHS attorneys have 
concluded the HHS Secretary has the authority to waive almost any 
prohibitions on Federal welfare spending that exist under current law--
certainly a false interpretation.
  Under a longstanding provision of Federal welfare law, noncitizens 
are banned from receiving cash welfare assistance for their first 5 
years in this country. Under S. 744, that 5-year ban is extended to 
registered provisional immigrants, or RPIs, and blue card holders. 
However, under current interpretations of the law by HHS, the 
Department could choose at any time to ignore this restriction and 
offer welfare benefits to these groups of noncitizens. My amendment 
would simply clarify the law to make clear the Obama administration 
does not have the authority to allow States to waive these longstanding 
restrictions and ensures welfare benefits are not offered to 
noncitizens as a result of this bill.
  As I stated, this is not punitive. This is not designed to punish any 
illegal immigrant seeking a change in status. It is, instead, designed 
to preserve the balance that exists under current welfare law.
  Some critics of the underlying bill have claimed it will allow 
illegal immigrants to receive welfare benefits, and when you couple the 
bill with HHS's recently claimed waiver authority, these critics 
actually have a point. My amendment would protect the bill from this 
type of criticism. That is a step in the right direction. I think it 
will bring people onto the bill.
  Let me make one thing clear: No one who is currently eligible to 
receive welfare benefits will be denied them as a result of this 
amendment. Instead,

[[Page S4389]]

this amendment does something we should have done long ago, which is to 
assert the prerogatives of the Congress in the face of executive 
overreach. There is no question that with its information memo 
permitting States to waive Federal welfare work requirements the Obama 
administration overstepped its statutory authority. We now know 
officials in the administration were working through ways to circumvent 
key features of welfare reform for years, including how and on whom 
Federal welfare dollars can be spent. So we know they believe they can 
allow States to spend Federal welfare dollars on noncitizens, and I 
don't think it is far-fetched to conclude that at some point they will 
allow States to spend Federal welfare dollars on noncitizens.
  Congress needs to act to prevent this and future administrations from 
engaging in this type of overreach. That is the purpose of my 
amendment.
  My second amendment would apply a 5-year waiting period for 
immigrants to become eligible for tax credits and cost-sharing 
subsidies under the Affordable Care Act--or the so-called Affordable 
Care Act. Under current Federal law, most lawful permanent residents or 
green card holders must wait 5 years before they are eligible for most 
means-tested benefits, including Medicaid and TANF--the Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families. However, the bill does not apply this 5-
year waiting period to the premium credits and subsidies offered under 
the Affordable Care Act.
  True enough, the bill does not allow RPIs and blue card holders to 
access these benefits. But once they become lawful permanent residents, 
they can access them immediately. This is a serious oversight that 
essentially creates a carve-out for the Affordable Care Act and a huge 
expense to this government. My amendment would correct this oversight 
and put the Affordable Care Act subsidies in the same class as other 
Federal benefits.
  This is only fair. After all, even those who were U.S. citizens at 
the time the health law was passed have had to wait nearly 5 years for 
the law to go into effect so they could access these credits and 
subsidies. Those who would, under this bill, be placed on a path to 
citizenship should be required to do the same.
  The amendment also prevents nonimmigrants who are not on any path to 
citizenship from accessing these benefits. My gosh, anybody in this 
body should want that. Under the bill, a ban on Affordable Care Act 
benefits is applied only to RPIs and blue card holders but not to 
nonimmigrants. My amendment would extend the ban to nonimmigrants.
  Let me repeat that. Under the bill, a ban on Affordable Care Act 
benefits is applied to only RPIs and blue card holders but not to 
nonimmigrants. My amendment would extend the ban to nonimmigrants.
  Once again, my goal with this amendment is not to punish any 
immigrant applicants or deny them benefits they might be entitled to 
under the law. I simply want to ensure we are not creating a new class 
of people with special access to Federal benefits. We can prevent that 
by imposing the same waiting period on Affordable Care Act subsidies we 
place on other federally means-tested benefits.
  My third amendment would help to preserve the Social Security system. 
Under current law, for a worker to be eligible for Social Security 
benefits they must be classified as ``fully insured'' or ``permanently 
insured.'' To be become insured, a worker accrues quarters of coverage 
during the years they work in the United States. S. 744 is unclear as 
to whether it would allow an illegal immigrant who obtains a change in 
status to claim years of unauthorized employment to determine their 
eligibility for Social Security benefits.
  Indeed, this bill is entirely silent on this matter. Once again, this 
is a glaring oversight in the legislation that needs to be rectified in 
order to preserve the integrity of the Social Security system. My 
amendment makes it clear no periods of unauthorized employment can be 
counted in an employee's quarters of coverage and, thus, they cannot be 
used to determine eligibility for Social Security.
  This is not a matter that can be simply overlooked. If someone was 
not authorized to work in this country but made the calculated decision 
to work anyway, using a made-up or stolen Social Security number or if 
someone overstayed their visa and worked anyway, they should not have 
been working and paying into the Social Security system. Consequently, 
they are ineligible for benefits until they become citizens.
  Once again, there is nothing punitive involved with this amendment. 
It only ensures we do not reward past unlawful activities. Once they 
are lawful, under this bill, they can participate but not for past 
unlawful activities. That is like rewarding people for doing wrong and 
disobeying our laws and ignoring the obligations that come with living 
in the United States of America. And it is a punch in the face to every 
law-abiding citizen who has been making these payments. The amendment 
provides the fairest and most workable path forward.
  My fourth and final amendment is the one that has garnered the most 
attention, as it should, in some ways. I think all three of these 
amendments have been very important and will be very important in this 
debate, and I am certainly hoping my colleagues on the other side will 
recognize that and help to pass them. But this fourth amendment would 
modify provisions in the bill relating to back taxes to include all 
income and employment taxes owed by immigrant applicants.
  For the past few months, proponents of this legislation, including 
members of the so-called Gang of 8, have been claiming that, as a 
condition of being put on a path to citizenship, illegal immigrants 
will be required to pay back taxes. This claim was repeated in the 
Halls of Congress, on Sunday morning talk shows, and in casual 
conversation. This was a promise made as a chief response to arguments 
the bill would provide amnesty for illegal immigrants. However, under 
the current draft of the legislation, this promise goes largely 
unfulfilled.
  The bill currently states illegal immigrants cannot apply for a 
change in status unless they have ``satisfied any applicable Federal 
tax liability.'' While that is all well and good, under this standard 
immigrant applicants will not be required to pay any portion of their 
back taxes owed to any part of their U.S. residency unless the IRS has 
already made a tax assessment. This will only occur in the very rare 
case where the IRS has already audited an immigrant applicant and found 
a tax deficiency. Put simply, very few people will be required to pay 
back taxes under this provision.
  My amendment would require RPI applicants to demonstrate they either 
have no obligation to pay back taxes or to actually pay the back taxes 
they lawfully owe. It also requires them to remain current on their tax 
obligations once they obtain the change in status.
  Once again, this is only fair. Some may claim it is punitive, but 
that is absurd. Is it punitive to ask immigrant applicants to live up 
to the same standards and requirements imposed on citizens and legal 
residents? No.
  When a citizen decides to leave the United States and renounce their 
citizenship, they often face taxes on income earned in the United 
States and on any gains from appreciated assets. Is it punitive to 
apply a similar standard for those seeking U.S. citizenship? Think 
about that: When a U.S. citizen decides to leave the United States and 
renounce their citizenship, they often face taxes on income earned in 
the United States and on any gains from appreciated assets. That is not 
punitive. The answer, of course, is that it is not punitive.
  My amendment would not punish any immigrant applicants. It would 
simply ensure they pay no more and no less than U.S. citizens and 
resident aliens in the same economic position.
  In addition to claims that requiring the payment of back taxes is 
punitive, some have already claimed it would be impossible to enforce 
because the applicants won't be able to determine what they owe in back 
taxes. This too is extremely misguided. The IRS is well experienced at 
estimating the tax liabilities for people who, for whatever reason, 
lack the records that normally support a tax return. They do it for 
U.S. citizens. Why can't we do it for people who now want to be on a 
path for citizenship but who haven't played by the rules? It just makes 
sense. Using bank records, credit card statements, housing records, and 
other evidence of an individual's lifestyle, the

[[Page S4390]]

IRS is able to construct returns and estimate tax liabilities for 
nonfilers who are U.S. citizens and resident aliens. The same process 
can be used for immigrants looking to certify they no longer owe any 
Federal taxes. That is not a tough thing to do. It is something they do 
every day at the IRS.
  It may very well be that a number of these people didn't make enough 
money to pay any taxes anyway. But they should at least have to be 
honest about where they stand, and they should at least have to do what 
regular citizens in this country have to do. We are not asking anything 
more or less than that.
  In the end, the only way proponents of this bill can escape the label 
of amnesty is to ensure immigrant applicants fulfill all their legal 
obligations and they are not accorded any special treatment. We are 
talking about amnesty here. This is the way to get rid of amnesty and 
to pass this bill. You simply cannot do that without requiring they pay 
any taxes they still owe for income they earned during their U.S. 
residency.
  I think the authors of the bill know this because, once again, they 
have been claiming the bill requires the payment of back taxes for 
months now. My amendment would simply fulfill the promise they have 
already been making. Let's get it right. Let's not play games.
  What is more, if we put this amendment into effect, we would be 
reducing the tax gap. As you know, the tax gap is the difference 
between what is actually paid to the IRS and what taxpayers owe under 
the law. The most recent tax gap estimate we have is from 2006, when 
the tax gap was approximately $385 billion for a single year. A number 
of my colleagues on both sides of the floor talk a lot about closing 
the tax gap. My amendment would take significant steps toward doing 
just that.
  As I said at the outset, my amendments are not designed to punish 
immigrants who come forward out of the shadows, and they are not 
designed to poison the well for immigration reform. My aim throughout 
this process has been to improve the bill.
  I believe we are engaged in an important effort, but we have to do 
things the right way. I made that effort during the markup of this 
bill. I didn't bring these four amendments up because they were Finance 
Committee amendments and probably would have been ruled out of order in 
the Judiciary Committee, and I agreed with my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle to defer until the floor. Now, all of a sudden, I am 
finding there are roadblocks being put up on these very simple 
amendments.
  Too often over the past few years the Senate majority has opted to 
ignore opportunities for bipartisan cooperation on issues of great 
importance. When the Senate first took up immigration reform, 
proponents of the bill said they were hoping to get at least 70 votes 
in the Senate. I said at the time that was an important goal, that we 
needed to get at least that many votes to send the right message to the 
House of Representatives. However, this week there are indications from 
the Democratic leadership that they are willing to set these goals 
aside if they just get 60 votes. Well, guess where that is going to go 
with the House. If we get 70 votes, that puts pressure on everybody 
involved in this matter. And I think we can get 70 votes.
  According to news reports out just today, two members of the majority 
leadership have indicated that they don't want to make too many 
concessions to conservatives in order to get Republicans on board. 
Instead, they just want to focus on getting to 60 votes. Needless to 
say, I think that would be a serious mistake. I think there are a lot 
of people on this side who would like to vote for a final bill, but 
they are going to need amendments like these that are basically simple, 
nonpunitive amendments that make sense, that basically show we are not 
for amnesty.
  Immigration reform is too big to be done by just one party, and it 
can't be done with the support of just a small handful of Republicans. 
As courageous as those Republicans have been, as far as I am concerned, 
it is going to take Members of both parties to put together something 
that can not only pass but also something that will work once it 
becomes law.
  We do have an opportunity to come together here on something that 
will make a real difference for a lot of people; something that, if 
done correctly, can do a lot of good. I hope we don't waste this 
opportunity in favor of yet another political exercise.
  Once again, I want to support this legislation, but I am not going to 
if we don't do commonsense things like this, and I am laying down the 
gauntlet. I want immigration reform to succeed. These amendments will 
help it to succeed not only here but in the House of Representatives as 
well. But unless we address these four issues I have outlined today--
and there are others, but these are the ones I have decided to bend my 
plow over--unless we address these four issues, I believe the bill is 
designed to fail, if not here in the Senate then in the House of 
Representatives. And it will deserve to fail, as far as I am concerned.
  Most importantly, if we don't address these issues, the bill will not 
be able to be implemented in a fair and equitable way, and I think the 
American people would be justly outraged.
  I know there are some who don't really care about these important 
issues. I just urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
my amendments--I think it is critical that these amendments pass--or 
work with me to find ways that I can please both sides. But I believe 
they are pretty straightforward amendments.
  I was promised by leaders in the Gang of 8 that they would work with 
me, that they would help me get these things done. I consider those 
promises to be very important. Yet I have had some indication over the 
last few days that maybe they are not going to work with me. I don't 
think anybody has acted in better good faith than I have. As I have 
said, I would like to support the bill.
  And make no mistake about it, I don't want people stiffing me on 
things that I consider to be important without even talking, without 
even working with me to resolve any problems they may have. I am not 
the kind of guy who takes that lightly. I think there is too much 
partisanship around here anyway.
  Frankly, if you could pass this bill with these amendments, I think 
it would go a long way to showing not just four Republicans on our side 
who are courageous, as I think are the four Democrats in the Gang of 8. 
But they are not the only ones who should support this bill if it is 
done right.
  If this is going to be a political exercise, count me out. If this is 
an exercise to really try to resolve the amnesty issues, if it is an 
exercise to really try to resolve these critical issues, I can be 
counted in. Maybe I don't mean that much in this debate, but if you 
look at some of the major sections in this bill, I have worked them 
out, and I will help work out this bill not only with colleagues on 
this side but with colleagues on the other side of Capitol Hill. But I 
don't want to be stiffed at this time, and I am not the kind of guy who 
takes stiffing lightly.
  I see some real politics at work here rather than the kind of fair 
working together that we have to have and that we have to start working 
toward if we want to really accomplish things that need to be 
accomplished during these next 3\1/2\ years.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Ohio is 
recognized.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I would like to join in the debate on 
immigration reform, and I think my colleague from Utah who just spoke 
makes a couple good points--one on the substance of the legislation and 
the need for us to be concerned about what the eligibility is, 
particularly as it relates to Federal benefits, to go to a legal 
status, but second about the process. I do hope the process can be an 
open one.
  Not all of us are in the Gang of 8. Not all of us are on the 
Judiciary Committee. A number of us have what we think are improvements 
to this legislation to make sure that it does work and hope that there 
will be an openness to that over the next couple of weeks as we take up 
this legislation. It is my hope that, working constructively in a 
bipartisan fashion, we can address some of what I see as shortcomings 
in this legislation.

[[Page S4391]]

  I do believe our current immigration system is broken. I think it is 
far too easy for people to cross our borders illegally and too easy for 
folks to find work without authorization. I think it is also too 
difficult for those who seek to come here in accordance with the law. 
So both the legal and the illegal part of our immigration system need 
fixing. It can't keep up with the demand for legal immigration or stem 
the tide of illegal immigration. So I think reform is essential.
  As it stands now, however, I am concerned that the legislation will 
not provide the country with a lasting workable solution. Like a lot of 
my colleagues we just heard from today--Senator Cornyn talked about 
this, Senator Hatch talked about it, and others have talked about it 
today on the floor--I remain concerned about a few things. One is the 
eligibility for Federal benefits. Senator Hatch talked about that. But 
for me, a lot of it comes down to meaningful enforcement of our laws, 
including on the border, which is very important, also entry-exit, as 
Senator McCain talked about, but significantly workplace enforcement. 
This is one area in particular that I believe must be addressed in 
order for us to have a successful implementation of the bill. 
Particularly, I would like to focus my comments today on what is called 
employment verification, or the E-Verify system.
  When we talk about strong enforcement measures, we hear a lot of talk 
about the border, and we heard a lot of discussion about it earlier 
today, and that is important. It is important to have a secure border 
for a lot of reasons, including the movement of guns, drugs, certainly 
terrorism, as well as immigration. But I don't believe that border 
security alone will address the problem. Why? Because so many people 
enter here legally but then overstay their visas. It is estimated that 
40 percent of those who are here illegally are here because they 
overstayed their visas. So we are not going to solve that problem at 
the border.
  Second, I believe that no matter how many miles of fence we build or 
how many Border Patrol agents we put side by side along the border, as 
long as there are people wanting to come here for economic reasons--and 
I believe economic incentives are the primary reason people come to 
this great country--I think it is going to be very difficult to stop 
illegal immigration just at the border. We have to deal with the jobs 
magnet, which is why people are coming here.
  This, by the way, has been a discussion over the years going back to 
the 1980s. The 1986 act talked about the jobs magnet and the need for 
us to have an effective--at that point it was called the employer 
sanctions system. It was never put in place. That is one reason the 
1986 act did not work. It has been in the debate for decades, and yet 
we haven't fixed it yet.
  My belief is that the underlying bill still needs to be improved in 
this regard. Our current employer verification system has simply failed 
to address some of the very fundamental problems of having unauthorized 
workers. So effective employment verification is essential to the 
successful completion of this legislative process and to having a 
successful comprehensive immigration reform bill that prevents future 
illegal immigration.
  Simply put, whatever reform we may adopt in this Congress will fail 
in the long run, in my view, if we don't eliminate the enticement to 
come to our country to work. I believe we must have a strong and 
workable E-Verify system that can help solve this basic problem.
  Ideally, E-Verify would enable all employers to be able to, first, 
verify accurately and efficiently the identity of new employees and, 
second, ensure their work eligibility. By ensuring that only authorized 
job seekers get hired, we can begin to remove the jobs magnet that, 
frankly, as I said earlier, undermined the 1986 reform effort and left 
us in the situation we face today where we have over 10 million people 
working and living in the shadows here in this country.
  Ultimately, I believe the E-Verify system contemplated by this 
legislation falls short but could be improved. While no verification 
system is perfect, the bill we are now considering mandates nationwide 
E-Verify implementation while doing little to address the fundamental 
flaws we have seen in E-Verify. There is a recent study that estimates 
that E-Verify has an error rate for unauthorized workers of 54 percent. 
That means half of the folks who are not authorized to work who go 
through E-Verify are able to be qualified anyway. In other words, the 
E-Verify system is not working to detect more than half of the 
unauthorized workers.
  In implementing the mandatory E-Verify system, we have to do more to 
strengthen the protections against the fraudulent use of identifiers--
particularly the Social Security cards and Social Security numbers in 
the employment authorization process--and we need to improve 
individuals' data privacy protections in that process. The proposal 
before us attempts to address some of these problems through what is 
called a photo-matching tool. This tool is designed to allow employers 
to compare a digital photograph from the E-Verify system with the photo 
on a new hire's passport, immigration document, or driver's license.
  Unfortunately, the verification system doesn't have access to photos 
for more than 60 percent of U.S. residents who do not have a U.S. 
passport or an immigration document, making the photo-matching 
ineffective. The current legislation therefore relies on the States to 
give the Department of Homeland Security access to driver's license 
records on a voluntary basis. There is no assurance that all or even 
most States will choose to participate in this. Past experience with 
what is called the REAL ID Act would indicate that fewer than half of 
the States would comply. Some say only 13 States would comply, some say 
18 States would comply. The fact is, fewer than half of the States are 
complying with REAL ID, which would mean that on a voluntary basis it 
is unlikely we are going get those driver's licenses or get those 
photos to be able to have photo-match work effectively for the 60 
percent or fewer residents who don't have a passport or immigration 
document.
  So I think more can be done to make this bill work better, and I am 
committed to trying to do that through legislation, amendments, and 
working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
  American citizenship is precious, and there are millions around the 
world who dream of attaining it. Our Nation deserves an immigration 
system that works. We can get there but only if we demand reform that 
recognizes the mistakes of the past--including the lack of promised 
enforcement from the 1986 law--and take steps to remedy those mistakes.
  I am committed to addressing the deficiencies in the present 
legislation, and I will work on the Senate floor to help strengthen 
border security, deal with the eligibility issues Senator Hatch talked 
about, and eliminate this magnet of illegal employment. In particular, 
I am committed to helping ensure that E-Verify is implemented in a 
manner that does curtail the employment of unauthorized workers, 
protects privacy, and minimizes the burdens on employers, particularly 
small businesses. I sincerely hope we can get there.
  I am confident that if this process is indeed open, as was discussed 
earlier, if it is an open process where amendments are able to be 
accepted, where people of good faith on both sides of the aisle are 
trying to get to a solution for a broken immigration system--broken 
both in terms of legal immigration and illegal immigration--we can in 
the end pass good legislation out of the Senate.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have come to the floor several times 
to discuss border security. Border security is so essential to people 
approving the legislation that we pass because most every poll shows 
when people want an immigration bill, it is premised on the assumption 
that we are going to have a secured border.
  I talked yesterday about my amendment, and that amendment tends to be 
pending. I tried to improve upon the

[[Page S4392]]

Group of 8 legislation on border security. I will take a few minutes 
right now--not very long--to discuss why I think my amendment is a good 
first step at restoring the faith of the American people--in this 
legislation, but in turn in our government.
  I would like to mention why it is so important, not just for public 
confidence--because that is what I have spoken about in the past--but 
for national security and the defense of the homeland. Being a U.S. 
Border Patrol agent is a very dangerous job. A former agent said in an 
interview in the El Paso Times:

       I was attacked one time by a group of seven men with rocks 
     and I was pretty severely injured. Being assaulted is not 
     really that uncommon. Whether it is rocks being thrown at you 
     or a hand-to-hand combat situation or being shot at, it is 
     not particularly uncommon.

  We need a bill that will protect our Border Patrol agents who put 
their lives on the line every day and do their job of patrolling the 
border. They face threats and violence, and many, such as Brian Terry, 
have been killed because of gang violence or drug cartels. Not only do 
our Border Patrol agents face danger, but ranchers face daily 
encounters of drug smugglers and illegal border crossers.
  Robert Krentz from Arizona, a rancher, was killed in 2010. His family 
expressed frustration with the Federal Government, stating:

       The disregard of our repeated pleas and warnings of 
     impending violence towards our community fell on deaf ears, 
     shrouded in political correctness. As a result, we have paid 
     the ultimate price for their negligence in credibly securing 
     our borderlands.

  No one can fault someone for wanting to improve their lot in life. 
Husbands and wives trek across the border to make a better life for 
them and for their families. People yearn to be free and to make life 
full of liberty and happiness. But people who cross the border 
illegally risk their own lives. They spend days walking through desert. 
They fall prey to smugglers and become victims of rape and abuse. 
Securing the border is one of the most humane things we can do to 
protect the lives of those who will venture into the United States, not 
caring about our laws but for the sole purpose of improving their 
lives. That is the goal of America, a better life for all of us who 
were born here as well as those who immigrate here.
  It is dangerous crossing the border illegally for those people. We 
can give them legal avenues to enter this country to live, work, and 
raise a family. If we do not deter illegal border crossings, people's 
lives will remain at risk as they are at this very hour.
  Nonetheless, proponents of legalization hold to the belief that the 
vast majority of people who cross our border are people seeking 
employment. Most times that is true; however, not everyone who crosses 
the southern border is a resident of Mexico who seeks to be reunited 
with family and do the jobs Americans will not do. The number of 
individuals from noncontiguous countries, otherwise known as ``other 
than Mexicans,'' should be a concern.
  As of April 2, 2013, the ``other than Mexican'' numbers on the 
southwest border were up 67 percent from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal 
year 2013. We know some of the ``other than Mexicans'' include 
terrorists who enter the United States via the southern border. 
Secretary Napolitano has testified before Congress to that very fact.
  We also know a majority of ``other than Mexicans'' fails to appear 
for their immigration proceedings and simply disappears, lost here in 
this great country, the United States. Increasing bonds for these 
nationals would deter absconders, assist ICE and custom border police 
in covering detention and removal costs or, at a minimum, provide a 
disincentive to cross. Unfortunately, an amendment during the Judiciary 
Committee markup to raise the bonds for ``other than Mexicans'' failed.
  Many commonsense amendments were defeated during the committee 
process and many amendments to beef up the border will be considered in 
the days ahead.
  As I have said before, the bill before us only requires the Secretary 
of Homeland Security submit a plan to Congress before millions of 
people are legalized. There is little regard for the need to better 
secure our border. In other words, when a plan is presented, make sure 
the plan works. Some of them say we have done enough. The Secretary 
says the border is more secure than ever before. They say border 
security shouldn't stand in the way of legalization.
  My amendment is a good first step to stopping the flow of illegal 
immigration. It sends a clear signal that we are serious about getting 
the job done. For the Secretary to simply submit a plan to Congress is 
only worth the paper upon which it is printed. We need to take action 
and we need to make it a priority.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if 
in morning business for up to 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise today for the 35th time to 
again bring the message to my colleagues that it is time to wake up to 
the threat of climate change. There is simply too much credible 
evidence that climate change is occurring, and there is too much at 
risk for us to continue sleepwalking.
  Our oceans face unprecedented challenges from climate change and 
carbon pollution. Oceans have absorbed more than 550 billion tons of 
our carbon pollution. As a result, they have become 30 percent more 
acidic. That is a measurement, not a theory.
  Ocean temperatures are also changing dramatically, again driven by 
carbon pollution. Sea surface temperatures in 2012, from the Gulf of 
Maine down to Cape Hatteras, were the highest recorded in 150 years. 
That is another measurement. Fish stocks are shifting northward with 
some disappearing from U.S. waters as they move farther offshore. 
Fishermen who have come here to talk to Senator Reed and myself have 
noted anomalies, and ``things are not making sense out there'' is the 
way they have described it.
  In my home State of Rhode Island, the Ocean State, we put our lives 
and hearts into our relationship with the ocean. The day-to-day life on 
the coast is a proud and rewarding tradition, but it is one that is now 
threatened by climate change.
  The waters of Narragansett Bay are getting warmer--4 degrees 
Fahrenheit warmer in the winter since the 1960s. Long-term data from 
the tide gauges in Newport, RI, show an increase in the average sea 
level of nearly 10 inches since 1930, and the rate of increase is 
accelerating. Sea level rise is contributing to erosion and allows 
storm surges and waves to wash farther and farther inland. Last year 
Hurricane Sandy really sped up that erosion, driving down beaches and 
dunes and tearing up coastal homes and roads.
  The ecosystem damage, erosion, and storms are just part of the price 
Rhode Islanders pay for unchecked greenhouse gas pollution. We are not 
alone. Every region of the United States is facing similar costs.
  Economists are working to calculate the costs of carbon pollution by 
adding up those damages of climate change. It is called ``the social 
cost of carbon'' because it is the cost of pollution the big polluters 
offload onto the rest of society. When consumers and taxpayers are 
forced to shoulder those costs, that is a market failure, and it is 
flat out unfair.
  The Obama administration recently revised its estimates of the social 
cost of carbon. The new calculation does a better job at capturing the 
most recent projections for sea level rise and agricultural 
productivity. This is a good step toward recognizing the magnitude of 
the harms of climate change, and I hope it is an indication that the 
President is going to do more to address this problem.
  Economists and administration officials are not the only ones looking 
at the cost of carbon pollution. Among those weighing the evidence that 
our climate is changing are the cold-eyed professionals of the property 
casualty insurance industry--insurers and the reinsurers. Their 
industry depends on getting this right. Politics has no place in their 
calculations. This is how they make their living.

[[Page S4393]]

  The insurance sector has created a complete data set for natural 
catastrophes worldwide from 1980 up to 2011, and here is what they see: 
The annual number of natural disasters is going steadily up. The top 
three colors of each of these bars show the number of events that are 
related to weather. On the bottom, this set in red shows the events 
that are not related to weather. Volcanoes, earthquakes, and so forth, 
are not climate related.
  While the overall number of catastrophes is increasing, we can see 
the number of these nonclimate catastrophes is constant. It is the 
climate-driven catastrophes that are increasing.
  Here is the chart without those nonclimate catastrophes. These are 
the catastrophes that are related to climate-driven weather. Insurers 
and reinsurers are looking more closely at the increase in weather-
related catastrophes and are now starting to include climate-change 
costs in their risk models.
  Pricing carbon properly is necessary. Representative Henry Waxman, 
Representative Earl Blumenauer, Senator Brian Schatz, and I have 
released a discussion draft of legislation to make the big carbon 
polluters pay a fee to cover the costs of dumping their waste carbon 
into our atmosphere and oceans--a cost they now push off onto the rest 
of us--and return all of that revenue to the American people.
  At present the political conditions in Congress are stacked against 
us. The big polluters and their allies hold sway and Congress refuses 
to wake up. While Congress sleepwalks through history, States such as 
my home State of Rhode Island are acting to mitigate and adapt for 
climate change.

  This week I welcomed dozens of Rhode Islanders to Washington for our 
annual Rhode Island Energy and Environmental Leaders Day. This event 
brings together Rhode Island renewable energy and sustainable 
development businesses, community development nonprofits, State and 
local officials, environmentalists, experts, and academics, to share 
ideas with national leaders and Federal agencies on promoting green 
energy, improving resiliency, and combating climate change.
  We were joined by my terrific Rhode Island delegation, Jack Reed, Jim 
Langevin, and David Cicilline. The highlight of the event was hearing 
from Vice President Al Gore, who is a world leader on environmental 
protection and alternative energy. Vice President Gore declared that 
``We are on the cusp of a fantastic revolution'' in green energy. ``But 
there is still ferocious resistance,'' he warned, from ``legacy 
industries that have built up wealth and power in a previous age''--
that is what stops Congress. That is what keeps us sleepwalking, and 
that is why we don't wake up.
  We were also joined by Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, who asserted 
the Obama administration's dedication to doubling renewable generation 
by the end of this decade.
  Congressman Henry Waxman, the ranking member on the House Energy and 
Commerce Committee and my fellow cochair of our Bicameral Task Force on 
Climate Change, also came to address the group, as did our colleague 
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. New Englanders, of course, 
know Senator Warren as a tireless advocate for everyday Americans, who 
is unafraid to challenge powerful special interests, and my friend 
Henry Waxman has carved out a unique role for himself as one of the 
leading legislators in the House of Representatives on this and a great 
number of other public health issues. I am so proud to be working with 
Representative Waxman.
  The innovation that is taking place in my Ocean State was on full 
display at the Rhode Island Energy and Environmental Leaders Day. We 
are a leader in the development of offshore wind energy. This month the 
Federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management announced the first-ever 
auction for renewable energy leases off the coast of Rhode Island and 
Massachusetts.
  Our State's Special Area Management Plan, or SAMP, has balanced 
environmental, commercial, and military marine interests through a 
first-of-its-kind marine spatial planning process. This cooperation has 
protected rich fishing grounds and sped up wind energy development.
  Rhode Island is part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, 
nicknamed ``Reggie,'' along with eight other northeastern States, 
including the State of the Presiding Officer, I believe. Our region 
caps carbon emissions and sells permits to powerplants to emit 
greenhouse gases, creating economic incentives for both States and 
utilities to invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy 
development.
  Rhode Island's Climate Change Commission identifies risks to 
important State infrastructure and reports on the effects of 
catastrophic events such as Hurricane Sandy and the 2010 flood.
  In places such as North Kingstown, RI, the city planners have taken 
the best elevation data available, and they have modeled various levels 
of sea level rise and storm surge. By combining these models with maps 
showing roads, emergency routes, water treatment plants, and estuaries, 
the town can better plan its infrastructure and its conservation 
projects.
  The Rhode Island Department of Health is using a $250,000 grant from 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to help the State 
prepare for and address health effects associated with climate change.
  Most of all, Rhode Islanders are calling for action, especially young 
Rhode Islanders. When I spoke at a climate change rally on the National 
Mall earlier this year, busloads of Rhode Islanders had driven down to 
show support for action on climate change. Right now students at Brown 
University and the Rhode Island School of Design are pushing their 
great universities to divest their endowments of coal holdings.
  I am proud of the effort we are making in Rhode Island, and I know a 
lot of States are working just as hard. But I say to my colleagues: Our 
home States are hampered in these efforts by inaction in Congress. Even 
the Government Accountability Office, known as Congress's watchdog, has 
pointed out repeatedly that the Federal Government should be a better 
partner to States that are trying to adapt to and plan for climate 
change.
  Sadly, Congress seems determined to be the last holdout against good 
sense. Some in this body choose to ignore the science and put special 
interests before national interests. They stifle policies that would be 
economically inconvenient to their special interests. The obstruction 
may be well funded by the polluters and their allies, but the majority 
of the American people understand that climate change is a problem, and 
they want their leaders to take action.
  Many in Washington do recognize the need for climate action and ocean 
stewardship. President Obama declared this June to be National Oceans 
Month, saying:

       All of us have a stake in keeping the oceans, coasts, and 
     Great Lakes clean and productive--which is why we must manage 
     them wisely not just in our time, but for generations to 
     come. Rising to meet that test means addressing threats like 
     overfishing, pollution, and climate change.

  Last week, the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation hosted the 12th 
Capitol Hill Ocean Week, bringing marine professionals, government 
officials, and ocean advocates to Washington to discuss strategies for 
keeping our oceans and coasts healthy.
  Also, last week, Secretary of State John Kerry hosted a roundtable 
discussion about the challenges of and opportunities for ocean 
sustainability under climate change.
  Responsible people are calling for action, such as Rhode Island's 
energy and environmental leaders, the insurance and reinsurance sector, 
and virtually every major reputable scientific organization, such as 
NASA, whose scientists sent a buggy the size of an SUV to Mars and are 
driving it around right now on the surface of Mars. They may know 
something when they can do that. Major U.S. corporations are calling 
for action, including Apple and Ford and Nike and Coca-Cola and 
organizations such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Heather 
Zichal, President Obama's Deputy Assistant for Energy and Climate 
Change, made it clear to the crowd at Rhode Island Energy and 
Environmental Leaders Day:

       Congress has not yet delivered a common-sense, market-based 
     solution. . . . [I]f Congress will not act, then [the 
     President] will.

  It is time to wake up and to meet the challenge of our time. There is 
a lot at stake for every State and there is a lot at stake for every 
generation. It is time to wake up and to take action.

[[Page S4394]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor because I have been 
listening to some of the discussions of my colleagues about the 
immigration reform bill that is before the Senate.
  As I have said before, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but 
they are not entitled to their own facts. I have heard references, time 
and time again, to 1986, the last time immigration reform legislation 
was passed. This is not 1986. Selective memory loss seems to be at work 
in the Senate today, so I wish to respond to some of these claims made 
by my colleagues.
  On one hand, critics of the immigration bill keep harking back to the 
Immigration Control Act of 1986, commonly known as IRCA, arguing we 
haven't learned the lessons of 1986. On the other hand, they insist on 
their slogan of securing the border first, before a legalization 
process can begin. But if there are lessons to be learned from 1986, 
there are just as many to be learned from the last 10 years in which 
``enforcement first'' has been the mantra of Congress's immigration 
policy, with disastrous results.
  First, with respect to 1986, the overriding lesson learned from that 
bill was that if we don't deal with the reasons people come to the 
United States, we don't solve the problem. A promise to end illegal 
immigration ultimately could not be fulfilled because the 1986 law did 
not address the question of future immigration flows.
  The Migration Policy Institute and the Immigration Policy Center have 
identified one cause of future illegal immigration after IRCA to be not 
legalization--not legalization--but the failure of legislation to 
address future flows of immigration. S. 744, the bill we are debating, 
however, does not follow in the failed footsteps of the 1986 act and 
addresses future flow in real and meaningful ways.
  But we have learned other lessons in the intervening years, most 
notably that the enforcement-first policy does not serve our country 
well. Despite an extraordinary allocation of resources and personnel, 
the flow of illegal immigrants has steadfastly been affected more by 
the economy than by enforcement efforts. As deportations have gone up, 
the tragic impact on families and children has been well documented and 
the impact on the economy continues to grow.
  So if one of the pull factors is the opportunity to earn money to 
send back to families, S. 744 undermines that opportunity by mandating 
a universal--a universal--employment verification system and provides 
for a reasonable implementation schedule. What that basically means is 
that virtually every employer in America is going to have to make sure 
that regardless of who a person is, when they come forth and seek to be 
employed by an employer that has a job available, they are going to go 
through the system and verify whether the person has the legal status 
to be able to work in the United States. That undermines that factor of 
drawing people to this country for employment opportunities much more 
than anything else about interdiction.
  If anything, the growing outrage over a broken immigration system 
helped to change the political dynamic last year. It was a rejection of 
both the enforcement-only strategy and the idea that we must secure the 
border first.
  Finally, the Migration Policy Institute explained that the 1986 
limited legalization program left many people in the shadows, which led 
to substantial backlogs in family-based immigration categories. Illegal 
immigration did not decrease dramatically until after the passage of 
enforcement-only bills starting in 1996 that trapped many in an 
undocumented status despite their family or employment ties. So our 
legislation learns from the mistakes of the past and creates a balanced 
21st century immigration system.
  Despite what many have said, our legislation, in moving forward with 
legalization, does not abandon border security but, rather, addresses 
it in tandem with the significant problems that face our immigration 
system. We can, for example, reap enormous benefits from legalizing the 
undocumented, both in terms of their economic and social 
contributions--making sure they fully pay taxes and are law abiding in 
every other respect--and in terms of creating a more secure and 
accountable system, as we will know who is in the United States and who 
can lawfully work here, but we can't do it if we have to wait years--
years--under some of the amendments our colleagues are offering to 
begin the process of transitioning undocumented people into a legal 
status.
  I have heard a lot about national security. I would prefer to know 
who is in the United States. Let them come forth, register with the 
government, go through a criminal background check, and those who can't 
pass that background check--maybe they don't think their background is 
going to come up--get deported. Then I know who is here to do harm to 
America versus who is here to pursue the American dream. But my 
colleagues would continue through their amendments to keep these people 
in the shadows--millions--and, therefore, I don't know how we promote 
national security if we don't know who is here and for what purposes. 
So we reap enormous benefits, both in terms of economic benefits as 
well as security, by bringing those people out of the shadows and into 
the light--registering with the government, going through a criminal 
background check, paying taxes, learning English, and earning their way 
to make their situation right in the United States.

  Certain impossible border security standards must be seen for what 
they are, which, in my view, is a cynical attempt to deny a pathway to 
legalization. My colleagues can flower it all they want, they can cover 
it up all they want, they can put all the lipstick on it they want, but 
it is still what it is. It is a cynical attempt to ultimately undermine 
a pathway to legalization. The standards some of my colleagues are 
trying to propose have not been met by the Federal Government in 
virtually any other responsibility the government has. Pretty amazing. 
Tying the two together, as so many have tried to do, is simply 
institutionalizing the status quo.
  What does the status quo do? The status quo allows millions to be in 
this country without knowing what their purpose is here. The status quo 
allows families to be divided. The status quo allows U.S. citizens and 
permanent residents--legal permanent residents of the United States--to 
be unlawfully detained in immigration raids, treated as second-class 
citizens of this country because of the happenstance of where they 
live, who they are, what they look like. Who among us is willing to be 
a second-class citizen in America?
  The status quo permits an underclass to be exploited and creates 
downward pressures on the wages of all Americans, and that exploitation 
takes place. The status quo doesn't allow for the challenges, even in a 
tough job economy, to be fulfilled so our economy can grow. I listen to 
all different sectors of our economy, including the agricultural 
sector. I listen to the seafood industry. I listen to the hospitality 
industry. I listen to the restaurant industry. I listen to the high-
tech industry. They all clamor for individuals to do these critical 
jobs that very often support the high-paying jobs above them but are 
essential in order to be able to produce that product or deliver that 
service. Yet we would have the status quo be preserved because that is, 
in essence, what the amendments being offered include, which are 
unattainable standards that my colleagues know simply cannot be met. 
They are not about border security but about undermining the pathway to 
legalization.
  So let's look at what this bill does do, however, about border 
security, among many other provisions. It includes $6.5 billion in 
addition to the greatest amount of resources, including money, border 
patrol, customs enforcement, physical impediments on the border, aerial 
surveillance that already exists. It adds $6.5 billion to bolster our 
border security efforts, and that is in addition to the annual 
appropriations for border security.
  Effective border controls? Yes. As a matter of fact, these provisions 
of the Gang of 8 were largely drafted by the Senators who came from 
border States and who had a real sense and a real conversation with 
those who secure the border every day about what is needed.
  It requires all employers to verify their workers are authorized to 
work in this country, which cuts off the job magnet--another effective 
control, perhaps the most effective control. It has

[[Page S4395]]

a whole entry-exit system that is far more advanced than that which 
exists today, and before any legalization can begin--before any 
legalization can begin--the Secretary of Homeland Security is 
designated to come up with a plan for how to deploy $4.5 billion of 
those resources on infrastructure, technology, fencing, and personnel 
such as the Border Patrol, so it will be able to catch 9 out of every 
10 undocumented immigrants who might attempt to cross the border. So 
there is more border control.
  Only after this plan has been presented to the Congress and the E-
Verify system--which is that employment check--is ready for nationwide 
implementation and the deployment of the resources has commenced, may 
the legalization program begin to adjust undocumented individuals to 
that provisional status. Before anyone in that provisional status can 
ever be granted a green card, which basically means permanent 
residency, all of the resources in the plan must be deployed on the 
ground and be working.
  That is not enough for some of my colleagues because they create 
standards for which we, in essence, could never, ever have even a 
provisional status in the country.
  Some Senators have also claimed our bill allows immigrants to receive 
welfare and other public benefits. That is just simply not true. S. 
744, the bill before us, bars individuals granted even provisional 
status and blue card status--which are agriculture workers and V 
nonimmigrant visas--they will not be eligible for the following Federal 
means-tested public benefit programs for the duration of their 
provisional status: nonemergency Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program, otherwise known as SNAP or food stamps, Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, and Supplementary Security Income.
  In fact, when most of these individuals adjust to LPR/green card 
status, they will be forced to wait at least 5 additional years before 
becoming eligible for these programs, and all the while they are paying 
taxes, which is a prerequisite. As a result, an individual with RPI 
status, who is otherwise eligible for public benefits, would not be 
able to enroll in programs such as Medicaid and SNAP for 15 years.
  Now, during the duration of their provisional status, individuals 
will not be eligible for the Affordable Care Act's premium tax credits 
and cost-sharing reductions that help make health insurance affordable 
for low- and middle-income working families. They will not be eligible 
for that. Individuals granted RPI--the provisional status--blue card or 
V nonimmigrant visa status will be able to purchase private health 
insurance at full cost--at full cost--without subsidies, without tax 
credits through the insurance marketplaces created under the Affordable 
Care Act.
  We want to give them the opportunity out of their own pocket and with 
full cost to be able to do so if they can because that means we lessen 
the burden on our health care system, particularly in an emergency room 
setting, which is what happens right now.
  This does not give tax credits, it does not give subsidies, but it 
does say to the individual: If you have the wherewithal, go buy 
insurance and protect yourself.
  This bill denies benefits to legalized immigrants. It is a tough bill 
and, frankly, for many of us, some of these provisions, because we say 
to someone: Come forth, register, pay fines, pay fees, pay your taxes, 
and, by the way, for a decade or more, even though you are paying taxes 
like anybody else, you have absolutely no right to anything--that is 
virtually what we are saying. So I wanted to clarify the record so the 
American people understand the truth about this bill. It is a tough and 
fair compromise that respects the American taxpayer.
  Finally, I would like to clarify the record about taxes and the 
economic benefits of this bill. This bill increases the gross domestic 
product of the United States by a cumulative $832 billion over 10 
years--$832 billion over 10 years--and that is only by virtue of 
looking at the legalization aspect. If we look at the totality of all 
the elements of the bill, it exceeds $1 trillion. It increases the 
wages of all Americans by $470 billion, and it creates an average of 
121,000 new jobs each year for the next 10 years. That is an additional 
1.2 million jobs over the next decade.
  The Senate bill says individuals who do not pay their taxes cannot--
cannot--renew their legal status or obtain green cards. Legalizing 
immigrants can be required to pay assessed taxes going back as for as 
10 years before legalization.
  This requirement is tougher than the back tax requirements in the 
2006 and 2007 bipartisan Senate immigration bills, which only required 
legalizing workers to pay back taxes when they obtained their green 
cards. Under this bill, workers are held responsible for back taxes at 
three points: when first transitioning to legal status, when renewing 
their status, and when obtaining a green card. On top of the back tax 
requirement, legalizing workers will have to pay significant penalties 
and fees at registration and renewal and when obtaining their green 
cards.
  Everyone who works, regardless of their immigration status, is liable 
for the payment of taxes. ``Assessed liability'' simply means 
legalizing workers will be held responsible for all of the back taxes 
the IRS says they owe--all the back taxes the IRS says they owe--going 
back as far as 10 years before legalization.
  The back tax requirement is written in the way that is most 
straightforward for the IRS to implement and enforce, saving resources 
and making sure that individuals with past-due liability can actually 
be blocked from adjusting their status.
  It provides an efficient way for the Department of Homeland Security 
to confirm that individuals have satisfied their tax liabilities. It is 
much easier for the Department of Homeland Security to work with IRS to 
confirm that individuals have paid all their assessed liabilities 
instead of sifting through tens of millions of tax returns, which would 
not reflect taxes that may have been assessed by the IRS.
  I look at the Congressional Budget Office. We will await their score, 
but they and other experts in the past have found that undocumented 
workers will pay billions of dollars more in taxes--more in taxes--once 
they come out of the shadows and work legally.
  I had thought, with poll after poll after poll where Democrats and 
Republicans and Independents said they wanted to see this broken 
immigration system fixed, where, in fact, we had a national election 
last November for the Presidency, for the Congress, in which this 
debate raged on quite a bit--and ultimately a new demographic in the 
country showed, in those election results, as they marched to the 
polls, that they were looking at how this Congress would deal with the 
question of reforming our broken immigration system--that, in fact, we 
would have a different day in the Senate, that instead of voices that 
are seeking to undermine the very essence of reform--that includes 
border security, that includes a pathway to legalization, that includes 
provisions in our economy that are incredibly important both to grow 
and not suppress the wages of Americans, that improves the protections 
to make sure American workers have the first shot at getting any job 
that exists in America first and foremost, that looks at the future in 
terms of flows and says: This is how we are going to deal with this to 
ensure that our economic vitality grows by virtue of who we allow in 
this country but that still preserves a very core value, an American 
value, a value I often hear my colleagues talk about, which is about 
family values and the family unit--well, that still preserves the very 
essence of that value, even as it reduces it somewhat, and at the same 
time preserves our history as a nation of immigrants, the greatest 
experiment in the history of mankind, which has made us the greatest 
country on the face of the Earth--that we would hear a different 
approach by some of our colleagues.
  But I have heard the same tired refrain, and it may sound good, but 
when you read what the amendments are all about, you understand what 
they are really trying to do. I believe those efforts will be rejected. 
Legitimate efforts to improve this bill, as it was improved in the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, in which 136 amendments were offered and 
passed--many of them were Republican amendments, many of them were 
bipartisan amendments that were

[[Page S4396]]

passed, and they, in fact, refined, improved, and made more specific 
elements of the bill that were great additions--those opportunities 
exist here as well.
  But what we cannot allow is to nullify the hopes and dreams and 
aspirations of millions of people in our country who are waiting for 
this moment. We cannot nullify the opportunity to really move toward 
securing our country in a way far beyond the status quo. We cannot lose 
the opportunity to grow our economy, get more taxpayers into our 
system, and strengthen our overall revenue sources. That is what this 
bill is all about. That is why I believe at the end of the day it will 
prevail and receive the votes necessary to move forward and be sent to 
the House so we can finally get this broken immigration system fixed.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand Senator Vitter, the Senator 
from Louisiana was on the floor earlier discussing the amendment 
Senator Hatch and I have proposed, Amendment No. 1183. I have read the 
remarks the Senator from Louisiana made, and I wish he had read our 
amendment more carefully. His remarks seem to be describing a different 
amendment than the one Senator Hatch and I have proposed.
  Our amendment is very simple. Under current law, foreign performing 
artists who come to the United States must get either an ``O'' or ``P'' 
visa. The Immigration Statute requires that U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, USCIS process these visas in 14 days. This 
statutory requirement is a reflection of the time sensitivity involved 
with scheduling these artists for engagements in the United States, and 
permitting them to meet their obligations, which of course benefit the 
American organizations that hire them. Our amendment, which is limited 
to non-profit organizations, provides that if the 14-day statutory 
requirement for processing is not met, then the foreign artist's 
petition would automatically be given expedited processing, and the 
associated additional fee is waived. But let me be clear, the visiting 
artist is already paying a fee of several hundred dollars for the 
petition. All our amendment would do is provide the petitioner with 
free expedited processing if the deadline were not met by the agency.
  Senator Vitter expressed concern that providing expedited processing 
in a case where the immigration agency does not adhere to its statutory 
deadline would take funding away from the enforcement of immigration 
law. Surely Senator Vitter knows that U.S. Citizenship and Immigrations 
Services is a fully fee-funded agency, and has no enforcement 
responsibilities. When Congress reorganized the former Immigration and 
Naturalization Service and created the Department of Homeland Security, 
the visa adjudication and immigration enforcement functions were 
separated. So let me be clear--the waiver of an expedited processing 
fee has absolutely no effect on the funding that goes to immigration 
enforcement. Moreover, as I discussed this morning, the bill we debate 
provides $6.5 billion to border security and enforcement. Our amendment 
is not some giveaway to, as Senator Vitter described, ``well-heeled'' 
individuals. Rather, it is an incentive for USCIS to process these 
petitions in a timely way as they are required under the law.
  But the most important distinction that the Senator from Louisiana 
failed to explain to the Senate was that our amendment applies only to 
non-profit organizations. Organizations like the Greater New Orleans 
Youth Orchestra, the Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra, Louisiana State 
University Opera, and the New Orleans Ballet Association. I suspect 
that these are not the ``well-heeled'' individuals the Senator from 
Louisiana is describing. In fact, I would ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record a list of 83 Louisiana Arts Organizations and 
supporters of the amendment Senator Hatch and I have offered.
  The Senator from Louisiana called our amendment misguided. Again, I 
wish he had read the amendment more carefully. I suspect the dozens of 
non-profit performing arts organizations across Louisiana that are 
enriching their communities with performances from international 
musicians and dancers would not think it is misguided to help them 
continue their important work. With such an incredibly rich musical 
history and tradition, I suspect the people of Louisiana, like 
Americans across the country, place a very high value on the performing 
arts.
  So with that clarification, I hope I have addressed the concern of 
the Senator from Louisiana and that he will reconsider his opposition.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       Performikng Arts Alliance

                  Members and Supporters in Louisiana


                         Organization and City

       Acadiana Center for the Arts, Lafayette; Acadiana Symphony 
     Orchestra, Lafayette; Alligator Mike Promotions LLC, New 
     Orleans; Ark-La-Tex Youth Symphony Orchestra, Shreveport; 
     ArteFuturo Productions, New Orleans; Arts Council of Greater 
     Baton Rouge, Baton Rouge; ArtSpot Productions, New Orleans; 
     Ashe Cultural Center/Efforts of Grace, Inc., New Orleans; 
     Atlantic Brass Quintet, Baton Rouge; Backbeat Foundation 
     Inc., New Orleans; Baton Rouge Symphony, Baton Rouge; BREC 
     Independence Park Theatre, Baton Rouge; Cindy Scott, New 
     Orleans; Columbia Theatre for the Performing Arts, Hammond; 
     Contemporary Arts Center, New Orleans; Coughlin-Saunders 
     Performing Arts Center, Alexandria; Cripple Creek Theatre 
     Company, NEW ORLEANS; CubaNOLA Arts Collective, New Orleans; 
     Dillard, New Orleans; Downsville High School, Downsville; 
     DUKES of Dixieland, The, New Orleans.
       Festival International de Louisiane, Lafayete; FMBC--
     Liturgical/Spiritual Dance Ministry, New Orleans; Goat in the 
     Road Productions, NEW ORLEANS; Graduate Program in Arts 
     Administration--UNO, New Orleans; Grand Opera House of the 
     South, Crowley; Greater New Orleans Youth Orchestras, New 
     Orleans; HMS Architects, New Orleans; Hot 8 Brass Band, New 
     Orleans; Houma Terrebonne Civic Center Development 
     Corporation, Houma; Independence Park Theatre, Baton Rouge; 
     Isidore Newman School, New Orleans; Jefferson Performing Arts 
     Society, Metairie; Junebug Producitons, New Orleans; Kors 
     Entertainment, Baton Rouge; Lake Charles Symphony Orchestra, 
     Lake Charles; Little Theater Shreveport, Shreveport; Louis 
     Armstrong Society Jazz Band, The, New Orleans; Louisiana 
     Alliance for Dance, Baton Rouge; Louisiana Division of the 
     Arts, Baton Rouge; Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra, New 
     Orleans.
       Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge; Louisiana State 
     University Opera, Baton Rouge; Louisiana State University 
     Student Union Theater, Baton Rouge; Louisiana Youth 
     Orchestra, Baton Rouge; Loyola University, New Orleans; 
     Maculele Cultural Project, Inc., New Orleans; Manship 
     Theatre, Baton Rouge; Mondo Bizarro, NEW ORLEANS; Monroe 
     Symphony Orchestra, Monroe; Moving Forward Gulf Coast, 
     SLIDELL; Musaica Chamber Music Ensemble, Metairie; Musicians 
     for Music, New Orleans; National Performance Network, New 
     Orleans; NEW NOISE, NEW ORLEANS; New Orleans Ballet 
     Association, New Orleans; New Orleans Center for Creative 
     Arts Institute, New Orleans; New Orleans Friends of Music, 
     New Orleans; New Orleans Opera, New Orleans; New Orleans 
     Shakespeare Festival at Tulane, New Orleans; Night Light 
     Collective, NEW ORLEANS; North Star Theatre, Mandeville; 
     Opera Louisiane, Baton Rouge.
       Oportunidades Nola, New Orleans; PearlDamour, NEW ORLEANS; 
     Performing Arts Society of Acadiana, Lafayette; Playmakers of 
     Baton Rouge, Baton Rouge; Rapides Symphony Orchestra, 
     Alexandria; Salvadore Liberto Music, River Ridge; Shreveport 
     Opera, Shreveport; Shreveport Symphony Orchestra, Shreveport; 
     Southern Rep, New Orleans; Strand Theatre of Shreveport, 
     Shreveport; Swine Palace Productions, Baton Rouge; Terrance 
     Simien & The Zydeco Experience, Lafayette; Terrance Simien & 
     The Zydeco Experience, Lafayette; The Shakespeare Festival, 
     New Orleans; Tsunami Dance, new orleans; Tutti Dynamics, New 
     Orleans; University of Louisiana, Lafayette; University of 
     Louisiana--Monroe, Monroe; VIEUX CARRE ARTISTS, New Orleans.

  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. I wish to start tonight by saluting our Gang of 8. I 
won't call them by name; you know their names, but four Democrats and 
four Republicans. I wish to thank them for their tireless efforts to 
bring this bipartisan legislation to the floor.
  I also wish to commend Senator Leahy and the Judiciary Committee that 
he leads for their efforts to bring the committee together and for 
bringing to the floor what I think most of us agree is very important 
legislation.
  Delaware celebrated the 375th anniversary of the arrival of the first

[[Page S4397]]

Swedes and Finns who came to America and came right through what is now 
Wilmington, DE. South of that spot, about 5 miles to the south, William 
Penn first came to America as well.
  Those immigrants came to our country all those years ago for a lot of 
the same reasons people come here today. They came to live what we now 
call the American dream, the remarkable idea that regardless of our 
background or station in life, people can still come to this country, 
work hard, build a better life for themselves and for their families. 
Today, some 400 years later after those first immigrants settled in my 
own State, we are blessed to live in a thriving and prosperous Nation 
in no small part because of millions of immigrants who came together to 
build this Nation. We can all be proud of that history.
  As a Nation of immigrants, we in Congress have a special 
responsibility to ensure our immigration system is effective and it 
reflects our values. Those values were what inspired brave, hard-
working, and committed people to take great chances to come to this 
Nation. They are often seeking to escape violence, to lift themselves 
out of poverty, or to simply live a better life.
  These immigrants renew and enrich our communities. They enhance our 
economy, but we cannot and should not open our doors indiscriminately 
to everybody who wants to come here. we need an immigration system that 
is practical, is effective and, in the end, is fair--fair to us, fair 
to the people who want to be here, and fair to the people who have been 
in line to become citizens in this country sometime down the road.
  Today, however, our immigration system is, by most standards, broken. 
It is not effective in bringing in the talent we need and maintaining a 
strong and vibrant economy. Our immigration system does not give 
employers the assurances that someone they want to hire is actually 
here legally and eligible to do some work. That system does not always 
focus our security efforts on the real risks and on those who come here 
with the intent to do us harm.
  Finally, our immigration system does not address in a pragmatic or 
fair way the fate of 11 million undocumented people living in our 
country right now, many of whom came here as children and, like us, 
know no home other than America.
  With that said, how do we modernize our immigration laws in a way 
that is fair, practicable, and makes our Nation more secure, physically 
and also economically? I have always said the key to immigration reform 
is border security.
  You will recall the last major comprehensive effort this body made to 
reform our broken immigration system about 6 years ago fell apart 
because a number of my colleagues here claimed, with some 
justification, that our borders were not secure enough. Many of my 
colleagues claim, justly or not, that the border is still too porous, 
and we would be having the same debate 20 years later because of border 
control, the lack of it.
  People ask themselves are our borders secure enough to ensure we 
don't end up having this same debate 20 or 30 years down the line. The 
answer, for many of my colleagues and for a lot of Americans was, no, 
they are not. That was then; this is now.
  Six years later, a number of people will still argue our borders are 
not secure enough to even try to move forward with these reforms. I 
disagree. When I hear our colleagues ask are our borders more secure, I 
am often reminded of a friend who says, when you ask him how he is 
doing: Compared to what?
  Some say our borders won't be secure until we stop every single 
person who tries to get across illegally. I think it is clear this is 
not a realistic goal or expectation.
  Let's go back a little bit in time. Take, for example, the border 
between East Germany and West Germany, most famously the Berlin Wall. 
This was perhaps the most secure border our world has ever seen, with 
roughly 100 miles of concrete, electrified razor wire, and a 100-yard-
wide kill zone guarded by some 30,000 soldiers. Still people made it 
safely across this highly secured border every year. In fact, a recent 
report by the Council of Foreign Relations concluded that East Germany 
only stopped about 95 percent of those who tried to cross the border 
and enter West Germany. Even a ruthless regime willing to kill its 
citizens couldn't stop desperate people in search of a better life. I 
don't think any reasonable person believes we should try to replicate 
the East German border strategy.
  What is the right comparison? I suggest the right comparison is what 
our borders looked like in 2007. Are our borders more secure today than 
they were then? Are they a lot more secure or just a little bit? I 
think they are a lot more secure.
  How do I know? I have the privilege of chairing the Senate Committee 
on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. We held a number of 
hearings this year on border security. Even more importantly I have had 
the opportunity to visit our borders with Mexico and actually up in 
Canada, along with Senator John McCain, Congressman Michael McCaul of 
Texas, Secretary Janet Napolitano, all kinds of local officials, 
sheriffs, police, mayors, and other folks. About 3 years ago, I visited 
the California border and earlier this year Arizona and Texas and up in 
Michigan. My goal was to get a firsthand look at what is working, what 
is not, and what more we ought to do to secure the border further--and 
we can.

  Based on what I have seen, there is overwhelming success, though, 
that our borders are more secure than they have been--probably have 
ever been--and certainly more secure than they were in 2007. I saw 
parts of our border that were overrun with undocumented immigrants as 
recently as 2006, when the Border Patrol agents I met with told me they 
used to arrest more than 1,000 people every single day trying to get 
into this country illegally. Think about that, 1,000 people a day. 
Today those same agents told me they have a busy day if they arrest as 
many as 50 people. Is 50 too many? Yes, it is, but it is not 1,000 
people a day.
  In fact, arrests at the border have reached their lowest levels since 
the early 1970s. With our putting massive investments in personnel and 
technology along the border, we are arresting significantly fewer 
people, and it is not because we are not on the lookout or trying to 
get those who are coming here.
  I have a slide of our southern border, from the Pacific to the Gulf 
of Mexico; from California into Arizona, to parts of New Mexico and 
Texas, all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. So four States are divided 
into about nine different quadrants. We have some interesting numbers. 
If we look at 1992, the number of people who were arrested was about 
565,000 just south of San Diego. In 2000, in the El Centro area of 
California, we had about 238,000. Initially, the numbers here in the 
West were huge. In the Navy, I used to be stationed in San Diego. These 
numbers were huge. It has sort of drifted this way. I used to go across 
the border south of San Diego into Mexico, but it is remarkably secure. 
The challenge now lies way over here and other places as well, but 
really it lies over here. We have not just Mexicans trying to get 
across. Maybe the majority of people trying to get across in South 
Texas today are from Central American countries--Guatemala, Honduras, 
and El Salvador.
  In 2005, a year or two before we debated the last immigration reform 
proposal, Border Patrol was arresting, in this Yuma section right here, 
138,000 people. Today, the number is 6,500. Think about that, from 
138,000 down to 6,500.
  Let's look at the Tucson sector. In the year 2000, we were arresting 
over 600,000, today about 120,000. In the El Paso sector in 1993 we 
were arresting close to 300,000; now it is right around 10,000, and it 
is not because we are not trying. It is not because we don't have a lot 
more people there, a lot better technology. It is just that the number 
of folks coming across has just significantly diminished.
  Over here in Texas though, in 1997, there were about one-quarter 
million coming across and getting arrested and today still about 
97,000. So there is still a good number--too high a number trying to 
get across--and we are arresting a number of those.
  But the change in these numbers--the dramatic reductions from 1997 to 
today--is not an accident. This precipitous drop in arrests is the 
direct result

[[Page S4398]]

of the unprecedented investments we have made in securing our borders 
over the past decade.
  You don't have to take my word for it. Here is what several of our 
border officials and residents who are true experts have to say about 
the progress we have made in securing our borders. I will just quote a 
few. I talked to a whole lot more. Some of my colleagues have been down 
there and talked to a bunch of local officials in those States too. 
Here is what the mayor of San Antonio said earlier this year before the 
House Judiciary Committee. Mayor Julian Castro of San Antonio said:

       In Texas, we know firsthand that this administration has 
     put more boots on the ground along the border than at any 
     other time in our history, which has led to unprecedented 
     success in removing dangerous individuals with criminal 
     records.

  The mayor of Nogales, AZ, one of the places we visited earlier this 
year with Secretary Napolitano, said:

       We used to have street chases all the time. . . . Now all 
     those things are gone, something you don't even hear about.

  That was about 2 or 3 months ago.
  A woman named Veronica Escobar, a county judge in El Paso, said this 
near the end of 2011:

       Those of us who actually live along the border know 
     otherwise. El Paso, the largest city along the United States-
     Mexico border, is also one of the country's safest cities and 
     the heart of a vibrant bi-national community.

  So the truth is we spend more on border security each year--about $18 
billion--according to a recent Migration Policy Institute report--about 
$18 billion a year--than we spend on the rest of Federal law 
enforcement activities combined. Think about that for a moment. We 
spend more on border enforcement, border security, than we spend on the 
FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and the U.S. Marshals combined--
combined.
  Since 2000, the Border Patrol alone has more than doubled in size. 
Its funding has almost quadrupled. We have built 650 miles more of 
fencing along the border. That is roughly one-third of our Mexican 
border. To better secure parts of our border where a fence might not be 
as effective, we deployed a number of what I like to call force 
multipliers, and I will talk about some of those later on.
  When I am talking about technology that will help the Border Patrol 
do their job more effectively, in some parts of the border it might be 
radar, it might be drones, in others it might be cameras, towers or 
hand-held systems. For example, in the past couple of years, we have 
deployed roughly 350 land-based towers, vehicle-based towers with 
advanced cameras and radar. We fly more than 270 aircraft and 
helicopters to monitor a 2,000-mile border, and we are also using 
drones and the lighter-than-air assets--blimps.

  But you don't have to take my word for it. I think a picture is worth 
a thousand words, and I have a couple of pictures here of some slides I 
wish to show to take a look at what the border looked like 7 years ago, 
in 2006, and what it looks like today.
  This is one of my favorite pictures. It is a picture of a ranch. I 
believe this is a ranch in Arizona. Look at this. It looks almost like 
a junkyard, almost like a place where people come to drop their trash, 
and that is what happened, because every day hundreds of people would 
come through here, through this ranch, to cross the border, and this is 
what they left behind. Here is the same place today.
  This is not because the folks trying to get into our country have 
somehow gotten an environmental conscience and they do not litter as 
much. That is not what is going on here. They are not coming through as 
much. So if you ever hear: Is our border more secure? Does it make a 
difference? I would say go to that ranch and take a look. We have spent 
a lot of money on infrastructure.
  This is Douglas, AZ. We were there, along the southern border of 
Arizona, and this is a before shot. This is the same landscape and what 
we see today. Actually, it looks like we have a couple of fences, a 
road in between, and all kinds of detectors. This is what it looked 
like before. So we have made huge investments for miles and miles and 
miles.
  We have something from the Yuma sector in Arizona. The Yuma sector 
was out of control. Border-wise, I think we had the most illegal border 
crossings than at any stretch of the border in 2006. Starting in 2006, 
they built more than 100 miles of fencing, just in this one sector 
alone--in the Yuma sector--where it made a lot of sense. There is an 
access road so the Border Patrol agents can get where they need to go 
quickly. We have deployed a bunch of cameras as well. Today, Yuma is 
the most controlled part of our border, as I reported those numbers 
earlier. There is a dramatic reduction in the numbers of folks coming 
through.
  This is another place in Arizona, in Nogales. We met with a bunch of 
local officials there as well. This is a lovely piece of landscape 
right here. This may not be as lovely, but what is different here is an 
access road. We can't put a Border Patrol agent every 100 feet along 
the border, but what we can do is get them where they need to go more 
quickly. One of the ways to do that is with access roads, and this is 
one of those near Nogales, AZ.
  This is another shot. This is Deming, NM. What it shows is what the 
area looked like in 2007 along the border. It doesn't look too hard to 
get across, and it wasn't. This is what it looks like today: lighting, 
the walls, ways for the Border Patrol to move quickly if they need to. 
It is just a different place today, and the numbers will demonstrate 
that has made a difference.
  Here we are in Del Rio, TX. There is a lot of water here. In 2008, 
there was literally no infrastructure whatsoever in Del Rio, TX. That 
was about 2008, and this is a couple of years later. You could 
literally walk across the border and you didn't know it. You didn't 
know if you were in the United States or Mexico. Today you know it, and 
we built significant fencing and all those all-important access roads 
and now have a far more secure border.
  This is a place called Marfa, TX. This is a border in the western 
part of Texas, actually near Big Bend National Park. In 2006, the 
border was wide open. This is lovely, isn't it? There were some people, 
particularly some of the locals, who were opposed to fencing. The 
reason why is because this now looks like this. But the problem with 
this is people were able to literally walk across, wade across, in 
substantial numbers. They do not do that anymore. We gave up some 
scenic beauty, but at the same time we have a whole lot of security we 
never had before.
  Here is Harlingen, TX. We were there a month or two ago. This is the 
eastern part of Texas, closer to the Gulf of Mexico, but we see a part 
of the border that as recently as 4 years ago, right here, you could 
literally walk across it and you wouldn't know it. You could walk right 
across, and a lot of people walked right across it. This is what it 
looks like now, with fencing and access roads. They don't walk across 
it without them knowing it and, frankly, oftentimes without us knowing 
it.
  This is one of my favorite pictures. This is a fence, and this is a 
fence, in this case, that at least stopped this vehicle. A friend of 
mine likes to say let me build a 20-foot fence and someone will come 
along and build a 21-foot ladder. Someone tried to be very clever and 
find a way to get this vehicle over this fence. I don't know if that is 
a Jeep, but they tried to get it across and they didn't quite make it. 
So people trying to get across are pretty ingenious, and they will try 
to build that 21-foot ladder or in this case a different type of 
ladder. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. In this case it 
worked to stop them.
  I also wish to show some of the force multipliers that are helping to 
enhance security efforts at our borders and ports of entry. These are 
pictures of just a small sample of the massive improvements we have 
made along the southern border from California to Texas. It shows what 
any fairminded person who has been to the border in recent years can 
tell us; that is, the investments we have made are actually paying off. 
I hope so. As much money as we have spent, I would hate to think we 
spent it without getting any kind of result.
  One of the investments we have made are the drones. We don't have a 
huge number, but I think we have four of them in Arizona, a couple in 
Texas, and I think they have a couple up along the northern border, 
maybe North Dakota, and a couple over in Florida. But we will talk a 
little more about these.

[[Page S4399]]

  Let me just say, if you put up a drone and you put a VADER system on 
it, they can fly at high altitudes, they can fly day or night, they can 
see in the rain, they can see in the dark, they can see when the Sun is 
shining. They are an incredibly effective asset when they fly. We will 
talk later about the problem that they don't always fly. They do not 
fly when the wind is more than 15 knots. We have four of these in 
Arizona, with only one that has a VADER system. Of the four we have, 
only about two of them are flying most of the time. They only fly 5 
days a week. So one of the keys, if we are going to use the drones, 
let's make sure we have VADER on all of them and let's make sure they 
are able to fly more than 5 days a week, more than 16 hours a day, and 
let's properly resource these aircraft.
  Old technology. The drone is pretty new. This is old technology. 
Blimps and dirigibles have been around forever. Some of you may recall 
seeing a video of blimps such as this from Kabul, Afghanistan. I talked 
on the phone this week with a fellow who is now Ambassador to Mexico. 
His name is Tony Wayne. He used to be the No. 2 guy in our Embassy in 
Afghanistan.
  I asked him: How do we use blimps in Kabul? We use them in Kabul very 
effectively. He said: The great thing about blimps is you can put them 
up in bad weather, when it is windy. You can't fly more than 15 knots, 
but these stay up and don't run out of gas. You can have more 
surveillance systems with pods on these than you can on a lot of the 
other aircraft we are flying. We use them with great effect in Kabul, 
Kandahar, Afghanistan, and other places, and we ought to be able to do 
better with them on the border with Mexico. They can be a great force 
multiplier as well.
  This is a little plane called a Cessna C-206, and it has enough room 
to carry two people. I think we have about 17 of them. We saw one in 
Arizona, and we saw a bunch more in Texas. It is really not cutting-
edge technology; it is just cost-effective. You can put these planes 
out for a while, and they don't use much gas. They are a good platform 
for surveillance.
  Unfortunately, out of the 16 or 17 that we have, only 1 of them has a 
surveillance system that enables us to look down and find out what is 
going on on the ground. It is sort of like sending out an airplane 
doing maritime surveillance when occasionally we do search and rescue 
missions over the vast ocean with binoculars, looking for somebody in a 
little skiff or in a life preserver. It is like looking for a needle in 
the haystack. When we fly these planes, we ought to have them fully 
resourced with modern surveillance equipment and people operating them.
  We have boats, and we have helicopters. We have boats that go fast 
along the Rio Grande River. We need boats that go fast. We need the 
same thing off the coast of California. Fortunately, we have them.
  We don't have enough helicopters. We talked to some folks in East 
Texas. They basically are flying three different kinds of helicopters--
one is fairly modern, and a couple others are not. The only one the 
Border Patrol is really interested in is the one that is fairly modern. 
It is reliable, has good surveillance equipment.
  What we were told by some people is this: If you are going to send us 
the older, less reliable helicopters without the technology, don't send 
them. What we need to have is more of the successful helicopters, the 
ones in demand, where it will actually be a real force multiplier.
  I thought this was an interesting slide. This is with night vision 
goggles. We also have the ability to use the VADERS, the systems we put 
in our drones. In the C-206s we fly, our ground-mounted cameras are 
along the border. This is nighttime, but this is what we can see today, 
and it is pretty easy to pick people up. If we are going to ever be 
able to figure out how many are getting across, not getting across, we 
need this; we don't need this. Fortunately we have this, and it is a 
force multiplier. We need to make sure we use it well.
  This shows a different series. Some are cameras, some are radar, but 
they are ground-based. In this case they have an operator. Again, this 
is one that is mounted on a truck bed. It can be moved around. Some are 
more permanent. Here is one that is more permanent. You have the Border 
Patrol here right at the fence and the ability to look north, south, 
east, and west.
  These are just a couple examples of force multipliers. We have all 
these men and women on the border. We have basically doubled the border 
patrol. How do we make them more effective without just adding more and 
more bodies between the ports of entry? We can do it with this kind of 
technology. We can do it effectively, and I think we can do it in a 
cost-effective way. That is what we ought to do.
  The bill we are going to be debating over the next couple of weeks 
sets aside an additional $6.5 billion for border security on top of the 
$18 billion we already spend today, every year. The $6.5 billion in the 
bill will be used to add another 3,500 officers--not between the ports 
of entry, these big ports. We are not talking about water ports. We are 
talking about land-based ports of entry where a lot of commerce--cars, 
trucks, pedestrians--is getting in, and big commerce is going through 
those ports of entry as well.
  But the legislation wisely could use some of that extra $6.5 billion 
to hire another 3,500 officers to work in our ports of entry, to build 
new infrastructure at the ports of entry and make them better, to 
secure new surveillance systems, and for the aerial support for the 
Border Patrol.
  For the first time in our Nation's history, we have set a statutory 
goal for the Border Patrol in this legislation to arrest or turn back 
to Mexico some 90 percent of all those trying to get across illegally. 
So if we have 100 people trying to get in on a given day at a 
particular spot, the idea is to know how many are actually trying to 
get in and how many are either detained or actually turned back. The 
idea is to make sure we are going to have at least a 90-percent success 
rate. It is a tough law, and it ensures accountability.
  Do you remember what I said about Germany? In Germany, with all the 
hundreds of miles of concrete and 30,000 soldiers, their effective rate 
was 95 percent. We are talking about something very close to that--90 
percent--without doing the kinds of stuff they did in East Germany.
  Lastly, the bill that is before us calls for achieving persistent 
surveillance over the entire border so we can know with a high degree 
of certainty how many people are trying to cross it illegally. Given 
the length of our borders and how rugged and how varied it is, this 
goal will be a challenge--and a costly one--to achieve, but it is not 
impossible.
  As I learned from my trips to the border, there is simply no one-
size-fits-all solution for securing our border. It really depends on 
the terrain, which varies widely along the border region. That is why 
we need to systemically identify the best technology to allow us to use 
our frontline agents--the Border Patrol--more effectively and give them 
the tools they tell us they need to be successful.
  One specific thing I have seen on my trips along the border with the 
C-206--and just think about it. You have an airplane. You put it up to 
fly for 3 or 4 hours, and you can send it out with one person looking 
through binoculars or a surveillance system with lights out. That works 
in the day or the night, rain or not, and it gives us great images and 
a great capability.
  We also need to make sure the Department of Homeland Security has the 
flexibility to deploy resources when and where it makes sense. For 
example, as we talked earlier about the blimps that are tethered, they 
have proven to be enormously successful in northern Afghanistan. And 
for anybody who doubts that, I urge you to give our Ambassador to 
Mexico a call, who was our No. 2 guy in Afghanistan the last time I was 
there a couple of years ago. As I said earlier, the blimps are old in 
terms of the technology, but they can handle a lot of surveillance 
stuff and equipment, and they do great work. In some places, they will 
make a lot of sense; in other cases, maybe not so much.
  But the Department of Homeland Security needs to be able to swiftly 
put in place innovative tools like blimps when factors on the ground 
change or when they see the need for a new approach to securing certain 
portions of our border. I don't think we ought to be hamstringing them 
with mandates

[[Page S4400]]

that make them less effective in carrying out their missions, including 
requiring additional fences in areas where the fencing doesn't make 
much sense. In a lot of places, it does. There are 600 miles or so 
where it does, and there are more places that it does. But there are 
also some places where it makes more sense to resource a drone, to have 
land-based radar and cameras, where it makes more sense to fly the 
206s, to have helicopters with the right kind of surveillance equipment 
on them and be able to move people along.

  I want to mention some other cost-effective technology. We saw some 
really interesting hand-held devices that allow the border agents to 
see in the dark. I also saw something at one of the ports of entry. It 
was actually about the size of my Blackberry. I remember standing at 
the ports of entry where they have literally thousands of cars and 
trucks and vehicles and pedestrians coming across a day. But before the 
truck or vehicle ever got to the border, the officer had a device that 
would tell her the truck that was coming through, the history of the 
truck that was coming through, the driver who was in the truck and the 
history of that driver coming through, what should be in the truck, and 
what was the cargo in the truck in recent months. This was up in 
Detroit too. But one of the officers there said this is a game changer.
  As I mentioned earlier, this bill we are debating appropriates about 
$6.5 billion to continue to build on the progress we have made and 
achieve the ambitious goals it sets for the Department. That is good 
news. My goal is to make sure that much of this funding is devoted to 
these force multipliers to help our boots on the ground work smarter 
and be more effective. I don't think we need to micromanage the 
process.
  We have been joined by the majority leader. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate my friend yielding.
  Mr. President, I read into the Record in some detail today a letter 
that he wrote with Senator Leahy talking about what has gone on in 
recent years with border security. Our country is very fortunate to 
have this good man leading our Homeland Security Committee.
  There are some Senators I don't know as much about as I do about this 
man, but we have been together since 1982. He had a sabbatical for 8 
years to run the State of Delaware as Governor, but other than that, we 
have been locked in arms, moving forward.
  I appreciate very much his yielding.

                          ____________________