[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 88 (Wednesday, June 19, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4663-S4670]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND IMMIGRATION MODERNIZATION
ACT--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am not going to ask unanimous consent
to call up any amendments or to have any votes or anything, so
everybody can relax. But I do want to speak for a minute about the
process we are in.
We have now been considering a major piece of legislation for weeks.
The chairman and the ranking member of the committee did a masterful
job. Even though there are some people still against the bill, there
are people for the bill, we are not exactly sure how it is going to
come out, but I want to say Senator Leahy and Senator Sessions--but
Senator Leahy particularly, as the chair--could not have done a better
job getting the bill printed, printing all of the amendments, staying
here through the night, letting the members of the committee have a lot
of time to debate the bill, to amend the bill. The committee did a very
good job.
I am planning to vote for the bill. I have not kept that a secret or
said anything to the contrary. Of course the amendment process is
important. I cannot make that commitment until we see it. If an
amendment gets on this bill that undermines some of the important
principles, I might have to change my mind. I don't think that is going
to happen.
But there is the problem and this is why I am going to stay on the
floor until, hopefully, something can be worked out. I am not on the
committee. Most of the people on this floor are not on the committee.
The committee is representative of a minority group of Republicans and
Democrats. The majority of us do not serve on the Judiciary Committee.
While we were interested and worked with our friends who are on the
committee to suggest important changes that would improve the bill or
correct the bill or fix the bill or save money, we were not on the
committee to do it. That is the process. I am not complaining about
that.
What I am complaining about is when it gets to the floor, you would
think the process would allow amendments to be debated so Members such
as myself--I serve as chair of the Homeland Security Appropriations
Committee. I am not a distant third party to this debate. My whole
budget funds this bill. This is what I spend good bit of my time on.
The people in my State and constituencies I represent have a lot of
interest in this bill. I am not a Johnny-come-lately to this issue. I
have things I want to say about it. I wish to have some amendments
talked about and voted on. If people want to vote them down, fine. If
they want to vote for them, fine. If they want to have 50 votes, fine.
If they want to have 60 votes--I just want a chance to talk about my
amendment, so I am going to do so right now.
I also want to say there are some amendments--I have a short list of
eight or so. Some of them are quite minor. One or two are fairly
significant and might need a debate. But part of my group of amendments
is completely, to my knowledge, unopposed by anyone. I have Senator
Coats as a cosponsor. I have worked openly. I filed amendments, the
text of which have been out there for days now. Senator Coats, who is
my ranking member--we try to work together in a bipartisan fashion. He
has cosponsored several of these amendments.
What I am strongly suggesting is the staff and the leadership
managing this bill try to identify, of the amendments that have been
filed, those that are noncontroversial, that everyone would agree to. I
think there are probably 20 or 30 such amendments. They do not change
the underlying agreement. They do not spend any additional money. They
fix or modify or improve sections of the bill. That is our job. That is
what we are supposed to do. That is the legislative process.
You know what. If it were not meant to be that way, we should have a
rule that says the bill goes to committee and then it doesn't even come
to the Senate floor, then it goes over to the House of Representatives,
and their committee works on it and they send it to the President.
But that is not what our laws say. Our laws say we should have some
debate on the Senate floor.
I have also been here long enough to realize the leadership is trying
its best and there are some amendments that are very controversial. I
am not new to the Senate. Fine. But what I am talking about is when we
get on a major bill such as this and Members work hard to build support
and to get bipartisan support, our amendments that are noncontroversial
should go first and then controversial amendments could go last.
But that is not what happens around here. What happens around here is
the guys who cause all the trouble all the time on every bill--I don't
want to name their names because it is not appropriate--but there is a
group on the other side, and a few maybe on our side, who are never
happy with anything so they file tons of amendments and we spend all of
our time worrying about their amendments. Those of us who spend a lot
of our time building bipartisan support, who offer amendments that have
no opposition, actually never get to those amendments.
This is sad. I basically have had enough. I have tried to be patient
all week. I have come every day and said: Are any of these amendments
going to get in the queue? That is not the way we are working right
now. We are taking the worst amendments, the most controversial
amendments, the guys who cause trouble on every single bill, and give
them votes on their amendments. Some of them have been defeated 99 to
1, and then everybody gets tired and aggravated and everybody says we
are tired, we are aggravated, we are calling cloture. And do you know
what happens when cloture is called. All amendments that are not
pending, even ones that no one opposes, that could actually help a
human being--imagine that, an amendment that actually could help
someone--crumble up on the Senate floor and everybody goes home and
says, well, that was a wonderful debate.
I am just venting here, but I am saying this is one Senator who is
tired of it. More important, my constituents are tired of it. It is not
about me, it is about them. They look at this and they say why can't
you get that amendment passed? There is no opposition to it. It is
good. We have worked on it. It would help.
That is a good question, and I have to say ``I have no idea.''
We have voted on all kinds of amendments that are controversial, that
are
[[Page S4664]]
very high-level kind of message amendments. When the authors offer them
or sponsor them, they know they are never going to pass but they are
looking for a headline.
I am not looking for any headline. I don't care if any reporter
writes about these amendments. But I happen to know some things in this
bill. As chair of the Small Business Committee, I have had some
hearings myself--amazing, that other committees actually have hearings.
I have had hearings and have had dozens of small business owners say to
me as chair of the Small Business Committee: Look, Senator, we are not
getting any attention here because everybody is talking about all sorts
of things such as the fence, the border, this and that. Could anybody
pay attention to the 7 million small businesses that are going to have
to abide by this E-Verify? By the way, we like the program, we are for
the program, but we have some suggestions to make it better.
Some of that happened in the Judiciary Committee, but the Judiciary
Committee is not the Small Business Committee. I have excellent members
on my committee and they have a voice, and this is an amendment many of
them support that I do not think the Judiciary Committee--either the
Republicans or the Democrats--opposes. The small business community is
for it. I don't know what to say other than I can't even get in the
queue, I cannot even get on the list to be considered.
Then I have a small group of amendments, because--you know, I am
happy to do it and I do it joyfully--I am the chair of the Adoption
Caucus. You, Mr. President, have been wonderful. Senator Klobuchar has
been wonderful. Orphans do not have lobbyists. I am not sorry, they
just don't. They don't have any money to pay lobbyists. Through all the
good people who volunteer to represent them, they come to my office,
they ask for help. I try to do my best. I don't always succeed, but I
try.
Amy Klobuchar and I, because she is a Senator who has also been
terrific about this, with others, not just myself--we have some
amendments that have nothing to do with the English language or any
language, the fence, any money, anything, just a few technical
corrections that could help some American families trying to adopt.
I was able to get one of my adoption amendments up. I thank Senator
Leahy. But we have four or five. I am not trying to be hoggish about
it, but they are not controversial. I have 15 amendments that are
noncontroversial--maybe I am making that up, maybe there is an
opponent--I can't get that discussed. But only people who have
controversial amendments with no chance of passing them, only people
who want headlines in newspapers, only people who have amendments
nobody over here is going to vote for, get to talk about it and the
rest of us who work hard and get bipartisanship and present amendments
that could actually help the bill, make the country stronger--we never
get to talk.
I am going to stay on the floor and object until I get an answer for
that question: Why is it that people who play by the rules, Senators
who work across the aisle, who work hard to build bipartisan support,
who work hard to get amendments that do not cost any money, that will
not really cause too much trouble--why do our amendments get the last
consideration?
I think it has ramifications for the way the Senate operates. Then it
is like behavior: The better behaved you are, the quieter you are, the
more team player you are, you don't get anything. The only way you get
something is to become obnoxious and to get your amendments that have
no bipartisan support, those who have amendments that cost a gazillion
dollars or take away a gazillion dollars. That is not encouraging good
behavior on the Senate floor.
I want to be a good team player. The people I represent want this
body to work. We want bipartisan solutions to real problems, and even
people who do not have lobbyists and even people who do not have a lot
of money deserve time on the Senate floor. And I intend to provide it
to orphans whom I support to try to help, and to the parents who are
adopting kids and don't ask for much but do ask: Could the Senator from
Louisiana please have an amendment that nobody opposes to help us and
our kids?
I am going to stand here and support the small businesses that get
overlooked all the time. They are not asking for much. They like the E-
Verify Program. I thought they had a few very positive suggestions, so
I thought I would put them in an amendment and offer it. Silly me. Then
this EB-5 reporting is one of the worst run programs in the government,
and everyone acknowledges that. Everyone knows it is not working, so
the committee does a good job to fix it. But my staff and I worked
pretty hard.
We are very close with those who work on immigration, and we talked
with them about some perfecting amendments. But, silly me, to think we
could make any improvements to the underlying bill on the EB-5 program
which could create millions of jobs in Louisiana, Texas, the gulf
coast--which is the area I pay the most attention to--California, New
York, Rhode Island, and other places.
I am going to sit here--I know other Senators may want to talk, but
sorry. Until I get some answers about some of our amendments, not just
mine but other amendments. There are Republican and Democratic
amendments that are not controversial and are cleared on all fronts. I
want those amendments to go first, and then we can say congratulations
to the Members who worked hard to minimize opposition and to write
their amendments in a way that people could be supportive. That is what
Senators are supposed to do.
We have turned from a Senate to a theater, and I am tired of being
part of a theater. If I wanted to be part of a theater, I would have
gone to New York. Not that anybody would have put me on the stage
because I can't sing or dance, but I don't want to. I want to lead, but
it is getting very difficult in this place to do any leadership. So I
am just going to sit here until maybe somebody who is a leader around
here can come talk to us about what we are going to do with amendments
on an immigration bill that is controversial, the bill itself--let me
not understate that.
There will be people who don't want to vote for this bill no matter
what shape it is in. I am not one of them. I want to know the answer to
my question: How many amendments of the 140 pending are
noncontroversial that Republicans and Democrats will agree to? That is
my question, and I would like an answer.
My second question is, When could we possibly vote on those
amendments before cloture is called? Cloture is going to be called on
this bill, and the reason is because we cannot get a lot of
cooperation. So what will happen is all these noncontroversial
amendments will fall by the wayside, and what a shame. I am just tired
of it.
It is the same group around here that causes all the trouble, and the
rest of us try to be supportive, try to go along, try to work in a
bipartisan way, and we get shut out. I have had enough, and the people
I represent have said: We are finished.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. First, over the last few moments I had a chance to
listen to the Senator from Louisiana. I just want to applaud the
tenacity with which she approaches her duties in this Chamber. She is a
terrific colleague. When there is something she thinks is the right
thing to do, she will fight very hard to get that done.
I am here to say a word in support of the bipartisan immigration
legislation we are looking at. In the months that led up to this
debate, I have met with people across Rhode Island to discuss our
pressing need for national immigration reform. Rhode Island, like
Connecticut--perhaps even more than Connecticut--is a State with a
proud tradition of immigration, and our many immigrant communities make
our State stronger and more vibrant.
I have heard from leaders of our Latino communities which are the
fastest growing share of our State's population and workforce. I have
heard from leaders of my State's other immigrant communities,
particularly including members of our Liberian community, many of whom
fled civil war in their home country but are unable to fully
participate in the American
[[Page S4665]]
dream because of the uncertainty of their immigration status. I have
heard from leaders in Rhode Island's technology industry who often have
trouble recruiting talented employees they want to hire to fill a
specific need, but the people they are looking for cannot obtain a
timely green card. I met with men and women who are struggling to find
work after losing their jobs to temporary foreign workers.
From all of those stories, one message comes through loudly and
clearly: Our immigration system is broken. There are 11 million people
living in the shadows. These are people who want to work to support
their families and contribute to our communities. Eligible, legal
immigrants can wait years, even decades to gain entry to this country.
Then we educate the best and brightest from around the world, but too
often we tell them they cannot remain in this country after they
graduate.
The bill before us offers a bipartisan solution to these problems. It
provides a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented immigrants
already in this country, including the DREAMers, the children who were
brought here at an early age and who are American already in every
meaningful sense of the word.
The pathway that is created by this bill is tough, but it is fair. It
prevents dangerous criminals from becoming citizens. It requires
undocumented immigrants to pay a fine, to learn English, and to work.
But for the vast majority of undocumented immigrants in our Nation, it
offers a way out of the shadows. That is why, as this debate continues,
we should reject amendments that would place further obstacles in that
path to citizenship.
This bill also significantly improves the security of our southern
border--a border that is already more secure than at any time in our
Nation's history. Under President Obama, the number of Border Patrol
agents has nearly doubled. Border crossings are down. This bill will
build on these successes by giving the Department of Homeland Security
tools to further strengthen border enforcement. This bill makes real
improvements to our legal immigration system. It will allow spouses and
children of permanent residents to come to this country without
unnecessary delay.
I recently heard a heartbreaking story from a woman in Cranston, RI,
who told me her husband might be forced to return to his native country
while he waits for up to 2 years to receive a green card--leaving her
at home alone for those 2 years to care for her disabled child.
This bill will also make our Nation more competitive by helping us to
attract the best and brightest from around the world. Two years ago I
met with a talented young man named Love Sarin who studied for his
doctorate at Brown University and then founded a company in Providence
that developed technology to help protect communities from the harm of
mercury exposure. But when he applied for a green card, he was denied
even though he had been educated at one of our universities, was
creating jobs in our country, and was helping to protect our health and
environment.
More recently, I received a letter from Charles in East Providence
who says this issue is ``close to [his] heart,'' and it is. His
girlfriend just finished her second master's degree program at Johnson
and Wales University. But unless she finds an employer willing to
sponsor her for a visa, she may have to return to her native China.
``These young people want to stay here and want to succeed,'' Charles
wrote.
This bill will allow more talented individuals in the sciences and
other fields to stay here and contribute to our economy. Let me
compliment the eight sponsors of this legislation for their tireless
efforts to find a reasonable middle ground. This bill is a compromise.
No one can say they got everything they wanted, but on balance this
bill is our best opportunity to fix our Nation's broken immigration
system. It is our best opportunity in years.
As we now know, this bill will reduce our deficit by nearly $900
billion over the next 20 years.
Let me also compliment our Judiciary Chairman Senator Leahy for his
leadership in getting us to this point. The markup of this legislation
by Chairman Leahy's committee was thorough, fair, and transparent. The
committee adopted 141 amendments--nearly all of them on a bipartisan
basis--and the bill is stronger and better today than when it was
introduced.
I was proud that three of my amendments were adopted, all of them
unanimously, by the committee. My first amendment provided both
American workers and workers on H-1B visas with a way of reporting H-1B
program violations. At my community dinners back home, I heard stories
of Rhode Island workers who were replaced by foreign workers on H-1B
visas. One day they are at work, the next day they are gone, and a
foreign worker is doing their job. Some were even forced to train their
replacements.
These workers had nowhere to turn. My amendment creates a Department
of Labor toll-free hotline and a Web site for American and foreign
workers to report possible violations of H-1B visa rules and an
inspector general audit.
My second amendment expands the bill's INVEST visa, which is issued
to qualified foreign-born entrepreneurs so they can come and create
businesses in the United States. My amendment added funding from
startup accelerators to the INVEST Program criteria.
As many of my colleagues know, startup accelerators help
entrepreneurs get off the ground by providing training, support, and
often initial funding. In Providence, one such accelerator called
Betaspring has helped launch 57 different companies, creating jobs in
our State and across the country. So they will now benefit from the
INVEST visa.
I also offered an amendment to allow scientists and researchers with
unique skills who wish to serve our country by working in our
prestigious National Laboratories to obtain citizenship on an expedited
basis provided they pass the necessary rigorous background checks.
I want to thank my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee for working
with me to include these important provisions on a bipartisan basis. I
do believe further improvements can be made on the floor, and I intend
to offer several more amendments during this debate.
I am working on two amendments that would leverage our immigration
laws to strengthen our Nation's cyber security. One amendment would set
aside some entry visas for potential witnesses in investigations and
prosecutions of cyber crime. We allow visas to those who help our law
enforcement agencies to bring cases against those who are hacking us
and trying to steal our intellectual property and potentially even
sabotaging our critical infrastructure. Another amendment would ensure
that enablers and beneficiaries of hackers who steal our American
intellectual property do not benefit from our immigration system. It
would allow our government to designate entities and individuals who
are associated with criminal hackers and say: Forget it. If you are
involved in supporting criminal hacking of our cyber networks, you are
not getting a visa. Your employees are not getting visas, and your
organizations cannot support visa applications.
I also intend to offer an amendment relating to the E-Verify system,
clarifying that employers need not reverify the authorization of
workers retaining the same position under the new employers. As new
companies take over existing service contracts, workers in certain low-
skilled positions can find themselves working for dozens of employers
over their careers without ever changing their job. They are not
changing their job, the employers are changing, and they should not
have to reverify every time. That is a needless burden on both the
employer and the employee.
In addition, I filed an amendment to close what is referred to as the
terror gap. Right now, believe it or not, nothing in our laws prevents
a suspected terrorist from legally purchasing a firearm even if a
background check reveals he is on the terrorist watch list. My
amendment would give the Attorney General the authority to prohibit the
transfer of firearms to suspected terrorists on the terrorist watch
list. That seems like common sense, and this amendment was based on
legislation introduced by our late colleague, Senator Frank
Lautenberg. I am very aware of his presence as I stand here
[[Page S4666]]
because with his departure, his desk moved over to the other side of
the aisle, and my desk moved into his space. So now I am actually
standing in Frank's spot.
Frank was a tireless advocate for protecting our communities from the
scourge of gun violence. I know as Democrats and Republicans we are
divided on gun issues. But if there is a gun issue we ought to be able
to come together on, it is that the people who are on the terrorist
watch list should not be able to buy firearms legally in this country.
I hope we can at least agree on that.
Finally, Chairman Leahy has also put forward an important and worthy
amendment that would provide for the equal treatment of all families
under our immigration laws. I was extremely proud to stand with Rhode
Island's Governor Lincoln Chafee last month as he signed into law
legislation making Rhode Island the 10th State in the country to
provide for marriage equality. It is time that our immigration system
catches up with States such as Rhode Island, and I was pleased to vote
for this amendment in the committee.
I will say I also understand and appreciate and indeed honor the
position the group of Senators who put this bill together have taken,
that they need to vote to protect their bill and their agreement. So on
our side, Senator Schumer, Senator Durbin, Senator Bennet, and Senator
Menendez may have to take positions to make sure this bill goes forward
and passes, and I wish to be on record as saying that I may vote
differently than they do, but I certainly appreciate the position they
are in, and I think it is honorable on their part to stick with the
deal they have agreed to and to work hard to make sure this immigration
bill passes.
Chairman Leahy, the chairman of our committee, has worked for years
to ensure that all families are treated fairly under immigration law. I
have been very proud to support his efforts. I see no reason why
treating all marriages equally should be so controversial, much less a
reason for blocking our best hope for comprehensive immigration reform.
I will conclude by saying I look forward to working in earnest with
my colleagues toward an immigration system that is worthy of our great
Nation. It is time to come together, fix our broken immigration system,
and make this a system of which we can be proud. I urge all of my
colleagues to join in this important task.
I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know the staff is working hard to
figure out the best way forward, and there are lots of views about
different amendments that may be controversial, but I am going to stay
here and work for the next hour or two tonight to see if we can just do
one simple thing--just one simple thing: that we can look at the list
of all amendments pending and all of those amendments that are
noncontroversial--no one objects to anything in the amendment--I would
like that list put together. It could be either voice-voted tomorrow or
all of those amendments could just get pending and be voted on later. I
am not even particular about when the vote would occur or under what
circumstances. The leadership can make all of those decisions. But what
I would like right now is to stop this operation until we can get the
noncontroversial amendments out of the way.
There are Republican amendments that nobody over here objects to.
There are Democratic amendments that Republicans don't object to. I
think those sponsors--which I would be included in, but I am not the
only one--could be rewarded for their good work, for coming up with
amendments that nobody is angry about, that people think, oh, that is a
good idea; we should do it. Why don't we do those amendments first.
Then all the other amendments people have filed for various reasons--
some in good fashion. People feel very strongly about them and want to
discuss them. They want to have a vote on them. They know it might not
pass, but it is important for them to represent that position. I have
no problem with that. I understand that.
What I and my constituents don't understand is why we can't take
noncontroversial amendments that everyone supports and get those
passed.
So until I get an answer to that, I am going to just suggest the
absence of a quorum and spend a couple of hours trying to find the
answer. Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, in the last few minutes, we have made a
little bit of progress. I am doing the best I can to work with both
sides of the aisle to simply get a list of amendments that are not
controversial. There are approximately 230 amendments pending on the
immigration bill. Many of them are controversial, but there are some,
potentially as many as 20, maybe even 30 amendments that are pending
that are public record, that have been filed, that Members on both
sides of the aisle have worked on very hard.
We have known about this debate. Some of us have been following it
more closely than others. But I dare to say there is not a Senator as a
Member of this body who has not been focused on what our constituents
want us to do to either improve this bill or to fight against this
bill. You have heard a lot of that debate.
I think this bill will probably pass. But who knows at this point,
because there are 200 amendments pending. What I am suggesting as a way
forward is to take those amendments that are noncontroversial.
Republicans have not come up with their list of noncontroversial yet.
The Democrats are very close to coming up with our list of
noncontroversial amendments. We think it is about 12 or 15. They can
have 12, 15 or 20 or 30 that are noncontroversial. No one on their side
objects, no one on our side objects, and they could do some good on
this bill in a variety of different ways.
I am suggesting we take those noncontroversial amendments and make
them pending and vote on them sometime, anytime, tonight, tomorrow. We
can voice vote them all as a package. We can vote them individually. I
am not trying to be overly prescriptive. But what I am saying, and I am
very serious about this, is my days of working on a major piece of
legislation--working your heart out for weeks getting ready for the
debate. You are so proud of your amendments. You have worked with the
other side. You have Republicans. You have Democrats. You have vetted
it with all the different input and organizations. You have worked so
hard on your amendment, and then we come to the bill. We cannot discuss
any amendments that people have worked hard to work out the problems.
We can only discuss the problem amendments.
It is not the right way to legislate. It is not the way the Senate
was created. It is not the way Congress should function. It is a
disservice to every one of our constituents. There are lots of
arrangements and understandings and compromises that go on off this
Senate floor. That is what Senators do all day long. I am proud to be a
Senator. I work with my colleagues. We work throughout the day, late at
night, in meetings, and say, listen, I have this great idea. Oh, I
think that is a wonderful idea. It will improve the bill. Can we work
on it together?
Our staffs work very hard, spend hours and hours on the phone talking
with people, negotiating, only to be told those amendments that people
have really worked on and eliminated all opposition by being
openminded, thoughtful, and willing to compromise, those amendments go
to the back of the line.
Only those amendments that have no chance of passing, that do not
have bipartisan support, get to be discussed on the Senate floor. That
is not the Senate I signed up for. I am not whining. I am just saying,
I am going to use my
[[Page S4667]]
power to change the Senate. I am starting right now. I am not doing it
anymore.
The people whom I represent are exhausted by it. I am getting
exhausted by it. My staff is exhausted by it. It is rewarding very bad
behavior. So the worse your amendment is, the more controversial your
amendment is, the least likely to get any votes on the other side, you
get to go first. The rest, everybody who has done it sort of the old-
fashioned way, the way we are supposed to do it, the way we learned
about it in school, the way our parents taught us, the way we observe
other great Senators, we come and cannot even get in the queue.
Then when you do in this new system of rewarding bad behavior, those
of us--and it is a big group of us. It is not just me. It is a very
large group and Republicans as well. We get told: All your amendments
that are noncontroversial that you have worked so hard to put together,
great ideas that are middle of the road and could actually solve some
problems of someone out in America, which is why I thought we should
come here, to help solve problems, you all only get 1 amendment or you
only get 2 amendments because we have 240.
That is not the way it should work. I am not going an inch further,
not 1 inch. This is the way it should work. A bill is brought to the
floor and everybody files their amendments. Senators work very hard
with the other side to try to get amendments that both sides could
agree to--because that is a democracy.
Then those amendments get identified, and those amendments go first.
All of the other amendments that are message amendments or
controversial amendments, they should get votes. I am not saying they
should not. I am happy to vote on them. Some of them are tough votes. I
have no problem with that. What I have a problem with, and I think if
every Senator was honest, they have a problem with it too, are the good
amendments, the noncontroversial amendments, the ones that everybody
works on, never get a vote. All the bad amendments get the attention
and votes.
I do not think that is right. We have to get back to the regular
order--not to the regular order. We have to get back. It is not regular
order. We have to get back to collegiality and common sense and trust.
That is what the Senate is best at. That has been lost. We better find
it pretty quickly.
I am going to stay here. We are not going anywhere. We are not going
to go to any unanimous consent requests until the list of
noncontroversial amendments is produced. The Republicans can produce
their list; we produce our list of noncontroversial amendments. Then
the leadership can say to me: Senator Landrieu, we will voice vote
these and everybody will be happy or they can say: Senator Landrieu, we
have to vote on these individually and we will do that at the end or
some time certain--I am fine with that--or they can say: We are going
to vote on them individually and they all need 60 votes, even though
they have 100 percent of the body. I would be fine. I am not trying to
be difficult, but I am trying to be a Senator.
I am trying to say that I, for one, am tired of the bullies on this
floor and the small group that thinks that on every single solitary
bill they should get the first amendment, the biggest amendment, and we
spend all of our time talking about them. It may be important. They are
not going to pass. That is OK. I do not even mind that. But what I do
mind is, after all of us who try to work in a bipartisan fashion have
to listen to this, bill after bill, day after day, then we cannot even
get our amendments that are noncontroversial. That is where I draw the
line.
Please, do not anybody write: Senator Landrieu is on the floor and is
pitching a fit because she cannot get her amendment. This is not about
my amendment. This is about the Senate. This is about the Senate and
noncontroversial amendments which cannot even get on any list. Why? I
do not know. Why? Why would that be? How is this possible?
No one objects. I am going to read just a few that we are talking
about. Some of them are mine. I know two others that are by Amy
Klobuchar. One of mine is amendment No. 1340. It simply reiterates in
this bill that everything done with children and families will be done
in the best interests of the child. ``Best interests of the child'' is
done in every State, in every court.
When we are making decisions about families, it is always in the best
interests of the child. It is modern child welfare practice. It will
clarify this bill. I do not know of anyone opposing it. You know what.
If someone is opposing it, then take it off the list--just take it off
the list. I am not even opposed to that.
I do not think anyone is opposing it. But if they do, they just have
to call the Democratic cloakroom and say: I do not think we should be
making decisions in the best interests of the child. I will take it off
the list. But I am not going to lose this amendment because the Senate
cannot function.
There is another amendment I have with Senator Coats. We have worked
very hard on this amendment. I had a hearing in my committee as chair
of the Senate Small Business Committee. Our committee worked very hard,
similar to most committees around here. My members are wonderful. I
believe that when I call a meeting and they come and we spend hours
looking at an issue and we actually all come to an agreement, maybe
this is something we could do. It deserves a chance, but not in the
system that we have because, again, the amendments that really work are
noncontroversial and never get discussed, never get in the queue--only
the other ones.
One that Senator Coats and I have is entitled E-Verify Early Adoption
for Small Employees or the EEASE Act. We even took the extra time to
come up with a creative name because we like legislating. We think that
is what we are supposed to do.
The EEASE Act, which is a small amendment to this bill, does three
things. I think one of them the small businesses will love: It directs
DHS to create a mobile app for E-Verify. Wouldn't that be convenient
for small businesses? Picture yourself in your pickup truck out in your
field or out in your garage, and someone walks up to you and wants a
job. You have a ``For Hire'' sign posted, and the guy comes up to you.
He says: Here is my driver's license. Here is my paperwork. The
employer picks up their iPhone, hits a button, goes to the app, and it
is E-Verify. They know the person is legal, and they hire them for a
job. How wonderful would that be? That is one of our amendments.
There is enough money in this bill to do that, but the bill doesn't
say that now. Our amendment would say: Make a mobile app for E-Verify.
Small businesses don't have time to run back to the farm, try to dial
in on the Internet in a rural area, such as the Presiding Officer's, in
New Mexico. Not everybody has high-speed Internet. Not everybody can go
run back to the farm in the middle of the day, and then when they come
back, they are tired. Why don't they just have everybody carry a pocket
communication system? That is an amendment. I don't know one single
solitary person on this floor who is against it, but we can't even get
a vote on it.
This idea came out of a roundtable with 24 representatives of very
important small business groups. I tell my committee and I tell people
in the Congress that my committee is going to be a voice for small
business. Well, that is great. They come up and they talk to me in
committee. I hear them. I take what they say, write it in an amendment,
and can't get it in the queue even when no one opposes it.
We have another amendment, and this one may be controversial--I don't
know. I would be willing, again--if somebody says: We object because it
messes up the compromise we have--I would maybe even withdraw this
amendment after I spoke about it because I think it is important or I
would be happy to get into any queue, any time, any day, to have a vote
on it.
This amendment provides an access lane for small business for H-1B
visas. It dawned on me after the bill came out of the Judiciary
Committee and after we had our roundtable that, yes, we were increasing
the number of H-1B visas, which I support and most people who support
the bill. It dawned on me and it became apparent to some of the small
business advocates that there was no express lane for them. The 7
million small businesses that were--many of them are high-tech
companies
[[Page S4668]]
that are relatively small, some of them are startups, and 40 percent of
all the patents are held by small businesses. It kind of dawned on us
maybe about a week ago that maybe we should have been paying more
attention, that the H-1B visas might all go to big businesses and maybe
we should have an express lane for the 7 million small businesses that
don't have a fleet of lawyers and a fleet of human resources people.
They are just trying to create jobs in America. How terrible. They are
just the ones creating all the new jobs. Could we please maybe help
them? I don't think this is controversial. Do you know what. Maybe
someone objects to it. Take it off the list.
Senator Klobuchar has two amendments, and I am sure she has been
fighting very hard to get them up, like everyone. These amendments have
to do with streamlining and removing obstacles for intercountry
adoption.
You would have to be walking in your sleep to not understand that we
have a problem in intercountry adoption. Guatemala has closed, Vietnam
has closed, Russia has closed. Parents have gone to great expense. I
have seen them weeping in the halls of Congress, begging their
Congressmen, Congresswomen, and Senators to please help them. They were
in the process, in the middle of an adoption, they had been matched
with a child, and the adoption has been closed. There are sad stories
in this world. I wish we could fix every one, but we can't.
This amendment actually would solve the problem for some families--
not all but some families who went through the international process--
not to help with Russia or Guatemala. I am sorry, we haven't come up
with a solution for that.
No one opposes this amendment. It could help hundreds, if not
thousands, of families to eliminate one or two more barriers to
intercountry adoption. Why would we want to do that? I will say why
because I think it is very important and I would imagine 100 Members of
the Senate would think it is very important for children to be raised
by parents. What a novel, extreme idea that children should actually be
with parents or with a responsible, loving adult. Why would the Senate
of the United States not spend any time at all eliminating barriers so
that children could be with parents? I don't know. I kind of think that
is important. I have two children. I am one of nine siblings. My family
made a big impact on me to help me to be the leader I am today, so I
kind of think that is important.
Senator Klobuchar filed this bill. I am very proud of Minnesota. We
are all proud of Minnesota. Minnesota adopts more children per capita
internationally than any State in the Union. Minnesota has a very
strong ethic when it comes to this. Do we help Minnesota? No. We punish
Minnesota by not even allowing an amendment that is noncontroversial.
Senator Klobuchar has people in her State who could be helped by this
amendment. I am certain there are people in Louisiana who could be
helped. There are people in every State from New Mexico to New York. No
one is objecting to it, but we cannot get it on the list.
There is an interesting problem with some of these adoptive parents.
I spend an awful lot of time with them. I am happy to do it, and they
do need champions in Congress, and I am not the only one. Senator Blunt
has been fabulous, Senator Coats has been fabulous, Senator Boozman of
Arkansas has been fabulous, Senator Shaheen has been terrific, Senator
Gillibrand, and Senator Levin. I mean, literally, you don't hear the
Senators talking about it as much as me because I am kind of the
chairman. I listen to them, and I try to voice our opinions, but trust
me, there are many Members.
These amendments are not controversial, and they will help orphans,
and they will help families who are trying to adopt children. Could we
get it on the list of noncontroversial amendments?
There is another amendment that I think is noncontroversial, and it
has to do with a program that is absolutely dysfunctional today and
everyone knows it. It is the EB-5 program. Not only is the program
dysfunctional and expensive, it is not being operated correctly, and
Judiciary knows this. In their bill, in the underlying bill, they have
made some great modifications to the program. That is very good, and
that is very good legislating. If this program could operate correctly,
efficiently, transparently, and without fraud and corruption, it could
create millions of jobs. The last time I checked, there were a few
people in Louisiana who need them. This is not a little thing, this is
a big thing. There are people in my State who would cut off their right
arm for a good-paying job right now. That is true in many parts of this
country.
Instead of taking up an amendment that is noncontroversial, that
actually could pass, that creates jobs, we can't take up this amendment
because we have to take up the amendments that raise the most ruckus,
that create the most firestorm, that satisfy the theatrical needs of
some Members on the floor. We can't do anything that is kind of boring,
noncontroversial, and bipartisan.
This amendment would strengthen the work the Judiciary Committee did.
It is amendment No. 1383. I literally do not know anyone who is
opposing this.
I am going to read these numbers out because, again, I am not
agreeing to unanimous consent for anything until both sides get a list
of noncontroversial amendments. Some are amendments Nos. 1338, 1383,
1340, 1261, and 1297. Potentially, there is no opposition to amendment
No. 1406, and I think there are some others that might not be
controversial, but I haven't completely checked, so I am not going to
put them on the list.
Some of these are mine, and some of these are from other Senators.
The Republican staff may have a list of noncontroversial amendments,
and when we get those lists and we can get those in the queue first,
then I will be happy for the queue to go on. If not, we are just going
to call cloture, and it is just not going to work.
I am supporting the bill. I want my leader to know, and I have to say
this, but I know he is going to speak, and I most certainly would give
the floor to him at this moment, but I wish to say something about what
a wonderful leader I think we have.
Senator Reid, this is no criticism of you. You are the most patient
person--one of the most patient people I have ever observed in my
professional life or in my whole life. I honestly do not know how you
do your job. Even if the caucus elected me, I would have to decline. I
do not have the patience, as you can tell, to do the job of a leader.
It would not work. They would never let me, but I wouldn't accept if
they did.
Let me say I hope I am doing a favor for the Senate because what I
want to do is be Senator. I have been here long enough to remember when
we actually were Senators, when we actually could come to the floor
with a bill, sort among ourselves what were really tough amendments,
what were kind of sort of tough amendments, and what were easy
amendments. We would do the easy amendments because that is just the
way you legislate--go ahead and get some things done that we all know
to do. We have all graduated from college. Some of us have master's
degrees and Ph.Ds. We do not sit around eating bonbons all day.
We are talking to our constituents. That is our job. We write
amendments based on those meetings and conversations because people
come to us and say: Senator, I have a problem. Can you fix it?
What am I going to say to them?
I wish to, but I can't. I can't fix any of your problems because
there is no way to fix them because I can't even get a simple amendment
on the floor on any bill, any day, any week, any month.
Mr. Leader, I have had enough. I know you have too. I want you to
know I am not trying to be difficult. Do you know what. I came here to
be a Senator, and I would like to be one again. I am sorry, but until I
get a list of uncontroversial amendments, I don't care if they have 20
and we have 5. I don't care if we have 20 and they have 5. I have no
idea. The ones that are uncontroversial I want to move forward. Then we
can debate all day long how to put the other ones in any kind of list,
and we may put mine last--just trying to show how generous I am trying
to be. We may take all of my amendments that are controversial and put
them last, but I want all the amendments that are not controversial to
go first. I am not going to yield until we do.
[[Page S4669]]
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. I can remember when the Senator first came here 10 years
ago, approximately. There was an issue dealing with the military. Mary
Landrieu was a new Senator. She was over here, she had her desk on the
other side, and she went on, and, wow, it was quite an impressive
speech. For a long time after that, I called her Military Mary.
The reason that it is such a memorable time for me is her good
father, ``Moon'' Landrieu, was watching his daughter. I called him and
told him what a great job she had done. Of course, he was very proud of
all 10 of his children but especially that night of his daughter Mary.
I have no problem with Mary Landrieu coming to the floor and doing
what she thinks is appropriate. She is absolutely right. We have a lot
of trouble now getting simple things done. On a bill like this, it used
to be that we would have two managers, whip through all these
amendments. We would just accept them. I mean, I listened to Senator
Landrieu talk about the best interests of the child. Who in the world
would oppose that?
The problem we have is that if we get a lot of amendments pending, it
will be hard to get rid of them. So Senator Leahy, who is a very
experienced legislator, Senator Grassley, their staffs, I hope what
Senator Landrieu has done is maybe to give the impetus to do what we
used to do routinely; that is, the amendments that couldn't be taken
care of on the floor would be in what was called a managers' amendment
where the two managers would agree on matters most of which were
noncontroversial. Sometimes there was a little trading going on--this
is a Republican amendment, this is a Democratic amendment; we don't
totally love this one, we don't totally love that one, but let's put it
together and have that be part of the managers' package. We haven't
done that much anymore. We can't agree even on the simple things. She
is right.
So I hope, Mr. President, that the night will bring the ability for
us to move to these amendments of hers or have a managers' package. I
am here to inform the Senate that one of my goals is to work very hard
to try to finish as much of this bill as we can as soon as we can. I
have told everyone many times we are going to finish the immigration
bill before we leave for the July 4 recess. We are going to do that. I
hope we don't have to work this Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. I hope
that is the case, but right now we don't know. The odds right now are
that is where we are headed.
I am going to come tomorrow morning at 11:30 and be recognized, and I
will move to table one of the pending amendments. That will get
everybody over here, and maybe in the light of the day, prior to noon,
people will be more reasonable. By that time maybe I will have a better
idea as to how we are going to move forward.
As I have said in the past, we can file cloture Friday, Saturday, or
Sunday or maybe even Monday. But right now it looks like we may have to
move that up a day and maybe I will have to file cloture on something
tomorrow.
So I have really appreciated everyone's movement on this bill today.
I think basically there is a good feel there is an end in sight. We
have a number of Senators who have been working with the Gang of 8 to
come up with some suggestions and, hopefully, they will have an
amendment they can offer tomorrow sometime that will put forth what
they think they need to improve this bill.
The focus for the last several days has been on border security. So
let's see what they have to offer on border security. The one thing
everyone has to understand is, while I am happy to look at anything
they think will help border security, it cannot get in the way and take
away from this bill a pathway to citizenship, which the American people
want.
So we are going to continue working. Staff will work on it all night.
The managers of this bill and others interested in this bill will work
on it. There are calls being made to the White House tonight. So at
11:30 tomorrow I will come in and see if we have a path forward to
getting this bill in a position where we can finish it next week
without working the weekend. But if we can't, the weekend is still in
play.
Ms. LANDRIEU. If the Senator will yield for a question.
Mr. REID. Of course.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I think that is an excellent suggestion. Again, let me
just thank the Senator sincerely for his patience, and I appreciate the
compliments.
As he knows, there are many other Senators who feel just like I do.
It is time to be Senators again, and it is just time to trust one
another to at least move amendments that are noncontroversial, that no
one objects to. Then we can whittle the list down to those that do need
debate and discussion, and, as you said, a little trading may have to
go on. That is normal.
What is not normal is coming to this floor, and those of us who have
worked so hard to get cosponsors, to tap down resistance, to modify, to
compromise, don't get any time at all because--I don't know. I don't
know who decided we don't. But I have enough power to try to change it,
and I am going to.
So I just want to say in closing, I have in front of me a list of 24
amendments--amendments by Senators Begich, Cardin, Collins, Hagan,
Heller, Kirk, Klobuchar, Landrieu, Leahy, Hatch, Murray, Nelson, Reed,
Schatz, Stabenow, Udall, Udall, and a few others--about 24--that the
Republicans and Democrats think no one objects to. I would ask the
leader if he would review this list tonight, ask the managers of the
bill if they would review this list tonight, and if we could just get
these noncontroversial amendments agreed to either by voice vote,
individual vote, or en bloc vote. It doesn't matter to me. It could be
this week or next week.
These amendments have been worked on by Members of both sides
genuinely. We don't want any headlines. We don't want any press
releases. We would just like our amendments passed. There is no
opposition to them. I will provide this list to the Senator and,
hopefully, tomorrow morning, when everybody has calmed down a little
bit, maybe that is the way we can proceed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed for the Record
the list of amendments I have just referred to.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Noncontroversial Amendments
1. Begich 1285: Requires social security to establish
special procedures for updating social security records for
those living more than 150 miles from a social security
office.
2. Cardin 1286: Provides social service agencies with
resources to help Holocaust survivors age in place
comfortably.
3. Carper 1408: Requires strategy to prevent unauthorized
immigration transiting through Mexico.
4. Collins 1255: Retains existing risk-based allocation of
Operation Stonegarden grants [with modification to come].
5. Feinstein 1250: Provides authorization for the use of
the CIR Trust Fund to alleviate the burdens on the Judiciary.
6. Hagan 1368: Reauthorizes Bullet Proof Vest program and
establishes a Border Crime Prevention grant program.
7. Heller 1234: Requires DHS to submit a report to Congress
on how the 10 airport biometric exit pilots impact wait times
and CBP staffing needs.
8. Kirk-Coons 1239: Allowing certain naturalization
requirements to be waived for USAF active-duty members who
receive military awards.
9. Klobuchar-Coats 1261: Adoption amendment. Requires
certificates of citizenship and other Federal documents to
reflect name and date of birth determinations made by a State
court.
10. Klobuchar-Coats 1297: Provides that an adoption
processed by the Central Authority of another Convention
Country will permit an alien child adopted abroad to
immigrate before the child has been in the legal and physical
custody of the adoptive parent for two years.
11. Landrieu 1338: Requires DHS to consult the
Administrator of the SBA during its analysis of impact of E-
Verify on businesses. Requires the DHS to create a smart-
phone app, which will make it easier for small businesses to
use E-Verify.
12. Landrieu 1382: Authorizes public-private partnerships
to expand land ports of entry.
13. Landrieu-Cochran 1383: Requires reports on EB5 program.
14. Landrieu 1341: Requires DHS to attempt to reduce
detention daily bed rate through a competitive bid process
and still maintain current health and management practices.
16. Leahy-Hatch 1183: Encourages international
participation in the performing arts.
17. Murray 1368: Prohibits the shackling of pregnant women,
absent extraordinary circumstances, in all DHS detention
facilities.
[[Page S4670]]
18. Nelson 1253: Provides additional resources for maritime
security [with modification to come].
19. Reed 1223: Increases role of public libraries in the
integration of new immigrants.
21. Schatz 1296: Requires GAO report on visa processing at
US embassies and consulates.
22. Stabenow 1405: This amendment requires a number of
administrative changes and studies all aimed at administering
the refugee resettlement program more efficiently and
effectively.
23. Tom Udall 1241: Expands the Border Enforcement Security
Task Force in the Southwest border region.
24. Tom Udall 1242: Makes $5 million available for
strengthening the Border Infectious Disease Surveillance
Project.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, to my friend from Louisiana, I reiterate
what I said earlier: I understand her concern. The only thing I would
say in regard to her statement is, she wants to do things in the normal
way. I am sad to report the normal way is what we have been doing the
last 6 or 8 months. And that is the sad commentary that this has become
the normal way.
I will be happy to review that list. I will do it looking at every
amendment. There are some people, you know, who don't want this bill to
pass. They don't want to do anything to improve the bill. No matter
what side you are on, these are people who offered these amendments in
good faith that they believe will improve the bill. But understand some
people don't want the bill improved; they just want the bill to go
away.
So I will work on this. I haven't talked to Senator Leahy tonight,
but I will. I talked to Senator Grassley earlier today. So I heard the
Senator loudly and clearly, and I will do the best I can.
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I am here today to briefly discuss an
amendment to an important provision in the immigration bill that the
Senate is considering concerning Stateless persons. Section 3405 of the
comprehensive immigration bill would, for the first time, recognize and
provide protections to those people in the United States that have no
nationality--they are Stateless. There are countless men, women, and
children in the United States today who cannot claim any nation as
their home. Many lost their nationality when their country of origin
ceased to exist as a result of political upheaval, rampant persecution,
or violent conflict. The comprehensive immigration bill would encourage
these people in the United States to come forward and apply to be
recognized as Stateless persons. Under the proposed law, if an
individual is recognized as Stateless, they could seek conditional
lawful status, provided they meet the appropriate requirements, and be
protected from being deported back to a State they no longer recognize
as their home.
The amendment I am offering to the immigration bill would advance
this important effort to recognize and protect Stateless persons living
in the United States.
We live in a time when political turmoil, persecution, and war are no
longer the only conditions creating Stateless persons. Today, rapid and
extreme environmental change threatens to erode national boundaries and
make States uninhabitable to people.
This is not an abstract challenge. Low-lying island States and atolls
in the Pacific and Indian Oceans today face an existential crisis due
to inexorable sea level rise that is making them uninhabitable. In
Kiribati, for example, rising seas are contaminating local water tables
with salt water, denuding fertile land and decimating island crops. The
threat of higher seas also makes Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, and
other island States more vulnerable to extreme weather that will
inundate these countries with swells of storm surge and leave whole
communities literally underwater. And in a short time, these island
States will disappear beneath the waves.
Sea level rise is just one of the dramatic challenges the world faces
as a result of climate change. Other environmental stressors are
manifesting in States around the world that carry similar consequences
as well. In North Africa, for instance, countries such as Morocco,
Tunisia, and Libya lose hundreds of square miles of fertile land each
year to desertification, driving away farming communities that are
accustomed to living off the land. In Southeast Asia, salt water
intrusion from sea level rise is destroying aquaculture ponds that
communities rely on for economic development and food, uprooting
families from their homes and driving them inland in search of new ways
to support their livelihoods. And rapidly receding glaciers in the
Himalayan Plateau threaten to make the headwaters of the region's major
rivers run dry, with consequences for downstream communities that may
eventually be forced from their homes in search of new water sources.
Scientists expect that climate change will exacerbate these
environmental stressors, including drought, glacial melt, and heat
waves, transforming once fertile landscape into barren and
uninhabitable land. Besides these slow onset challenges, there are more
people at risk today of being made permanently homeless by extreme
weather events like typhoons, hurricanes, and other storms that
threaten to decimate communities. And, unfortunately, the populations
most at risk also happen to be the world's poorest people who too often
have no other choice but to abandon their homes once disaster strikes.
By the end of the century, climate change will eclipse war as the
greatest driver of homelessness around the world. We can and must
protect those people who are in the United States from being deported
to a country that is no longer inhabitable due to sea level rise or
other environmental changes that leave the state uninhabitable to
people.
The amendment I am proposing is quite simple. If enacted, the
Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of
State, may designate individuals or a group of individuals displaced
permanently by climate change as Stateless persons.
Again, let me be clear about what this amendment does. It simply
recognizes that climate change, like war, is one of the most
significant contributors to homelessness in the world. And like with
States torn apart and made uninhabitable by war, we have an obligation
not to deport people back to a country made uninhabitable by sea level
rise and other extreme environmental changes that render these states
desolate. It does not grant any individual or group of individuals
outside the United States with any new status or avenue for seeking
asylum in the United States.
Finally, the amendment also recognizes that the climate challenges
that other States face are not unique to people beyond U.S. borders.
Indeed, Hawai'i, Alaska and other States are and will continue to
experience increased environmental pressures, with sea level rise,
drought, wild fires and extreme weather driving Americans from their
homes.
As such, the amendment would require the Government Accountability
Office to conduct a study assessing the impact of climate change on
internal migration in the United States and U.S. territories. The GAO
report will assess the impacts and costs on existing Federal, State,
and local services of various regions resulting from climate change-
induced migration of U.S. citizens. This important study will help the
United States chart a path forward for responding to internal persons
displaced by environmental change and extreme weather events, and
identify what resources the Federal, State, and local governments need
to invest in to adequately respond to climate-induced migration.
Climate change is one of the greatest challenges the United States
will confront this century. But with the kinds of forward-thinking and
pragmatic policies I am proposing today, we can put the United States
on a path to respond to the challenges the country will face, and help
protect those communities most at risk. I look forward to working with
my colleagues to advance this important effort.
____________________