Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 91 (Monday, June 24, 2013)

[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 91 (Monday, June 24, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4988-S5013]
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 bill clerk read as follows:

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

Pending:

Leahy Modified amendment No. 1183, to strengthen border
security and enforcement.
Boxer/Landrieu amendment No. 1240, to require training for
National Guard and Coast Guard officers and agents in
training programs on border protection, immigration law
enforcement, and how to address vulnerable populations, such
as children and victims of crime.
Cruz amendment No. 1320, to replace title I of the bill
with specific border security requirements, which shall be
met before the Secretary of Homeland Security may process
applications for registered immigrant status or blue card
status and to avoid Department of Homeland Security budget
reductions.
Leahy (for Reed) amendment No. 1224, to clarify the
physical present requirements for merit-based immigrant visa
applicants.
Reid amendment No. 1551 (to modified amendment No. 1183),
to change the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 1552 (to the language proposed to be
stricken by the reported committee substitute amendment to
the bill), to change the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 1553 (to amendment No. 1552), of a
perfecting nature.
Reid motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on the
Judiciary, with instructions, Reid amendment No. 1554, to
change the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 1555 (to the instructions of the motion
to recommit), of a perfecting nature.
Reid amendment No. 1556 (to amendment No. 1555), of a
perfecting nature.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 5:30
p.m. will be equally divided between the two managers or their
designees.
The majority leader.

Cloture Motion

Mr. REID. Madam President, I have a cloture motion at the desk, and I
ask that it be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the committee-
reported substitute amendment to S. 744, a bill to provide
for comprehensive immigration reform, and for other purposes.
Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Michael F. Bennet, Charles
E. Schumer, Richard J. Durbin, Robert Menendez, Dianne
Feinstein, Sheldon Whitehouse, Patty Murray, Debbie
Stabenow, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Mark R. Warner, Thomas
R. Carper, Richard Blumenthal, Angus S. King, Jr.,
Christopher A. Coons, Christopher Murphy .

Cloture Motion

Mr. REID. Madam President, there is a cloture motion at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 744, a bill to
provide for comprehensive immigration reform, and for other
purposes.
Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Michael F. Bennet, Charles
E. Schumer, Richard J. Durbin, Robert Menendez, Dianne
Feinstein, Sheldon Whitehouse, Patty Murray, Debbie
Stabenow, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Mark R. Warner, Thomas
R. Carper, Richard Blumenthal, Angus S. King, Jr.,
Christopher A. Coons, Christopher Murphy.

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required
under rule XXII be waived for these two cloture motions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the time be divided equally.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MURPHY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I rise today to speak on the immigration
bill presently before the Senate.
First, I wish to congratulate the leaders who have been able to bring
this bipartisan bill to the floor. The Gang of 8, of course, gets all
the attention, but Senator Leahy, the majority leader, and so many
others who have added both merit and momentum to this bill deserve to
be praised as well.
I particularly wish to congratulate Senator Leahy, the majority
leader, and the authors of the bill for the transparent process with
which we have debated this bill. I don't know the sum total of all the
amendments that were considered by the Judiciary Committee, but it was
a long markup with virtually every idea and every amendment vetted.
We have been standing on the floor of the Senate for nearly 2 weeks
debating this bill. That is right and that is good. This is one of the
most important bills the Senate will talk about. This matters to
millions of undocumented people all across this country, but it also
matters to millions of other individuals, families, and businesses who
have been weighed down by an immigration system that doesn't work any
longer.
Today we will be debating a new amendment on border security that
will, for many of us, be overkill. In order to make sure the perfect
doesn't become the enemy of the good, this will bring this very
important debate near to a close.
I rise to talk about one additional amendment I am offering that I
hope the Senate will consider, amendment No. 1451. It would, very
simply, prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from housing
children in adult detention facilities.
There is already fairly good law and some good regulation on the
books today that protect a lot of immigrant children from being held in
difficult detention facilities. Many of these children who are
classified as ``unaccompanied alien children'' are required to be
transferred to HHS custody within 72 hours. There is some good law and
good regulation built up around this issue already.
The data we have been getting over the last several years does tell
that current law doesn't work for every child in the system. As we
learned recently, ICE data says as many as 1,336 children were placed
in adult facilities between 2008 and 2012. Of these children,
apparently 371 of them spent more than 3 months in an adult facility--3
months in an adult facility.
I want you to put yourself in the shoes of a little 12-year-old boy
who may just be learning how to speak the English language, who maybe
came here with his parents and his family but was picked up by himself,
somehow through the system was separated from his family, locked up,
and his family may have some reluctance to come and claim him because
they, themselves, are undocumented. They worry they will be deported
along with the child.

Think about sitting, as a 12-year-old little boy, alone, perhaps
uncomfortable about communicating, in an adult facility for 1, 2, or 3
days and then imagine that for 1, 2, and 3 months. It is unacceptable.

[[Page S4989]]

While DHS disputes some of these numbers and is certainly doing what
it can to make sure these children don't spend time in adult lockups,
the law can be clear and we can create, with this amendment, a very
clear line for all children, no matter how they are categorized, to
make sure they do not spend time in adult facilities.
There are some very harsh realities for children who are locked up
with adults. We know this because we, unfortunately, do this for
documented children--for American citizens. Too often when children are
arrested on the streets of this country, they get housed in adult
criminal facilities within the American justice system. The National
Prison Rate Elimination Commission Report found incarcerated minors are
much more likely than adults to be sexually abused, especially when
they are locked up with adults.
Sometimes, to try to prevent this from happening, these children are
put in isolation in ICE detention facilities. That may protect the
child from abuse, but the isolation itself, which can go on for days
and days and days, causes serious psychological problems and sometimes,
the data shows, can lead to suicide.
Think also of one particular case--Mariana, we will call her--of a
17-year-old who came from Guatemala. Mariana was brought through the
Mexican desert by one of these coyotes. The journey was so difficult,
the coyote just abandoned her, 17 years old, by herself in the middle
of the desert. She managed to find her way to a highway and at that
highway the Border Patrol picked her up and took her to one of the
holding facilities and threw her in with a bunch of adults.
She was 17 years old, but the Border Patrol officers insisted she
looked like she was in her twenties, and she didn't have her birth
certificate with her. So the default was to put her in an adult
facility and to not believe her. Finally, a couple of kind women in the
facility intervened and allowed her to call her mother in Guatemala and
get a copy of her birth certificate. Finally, after all this, she was
transferred to HHS.
This shouldn't happen. With this amendment we can create a clearer
line to make sure children such as Mariana, and the hundreds who are
even younger than she, when they are picked up for whatever reason, are
not housed with adults. The amendment would require DHS to determine
the child's age when there is any notice or suspicion the detainee is a
child under the age of 18. Then DHS would have to transfer or release
the child, after determining the child's age, so children such as
Mariana would not have to wait and struggle themselves to get out of an
adult detention center.
My amendment also would make it clear the best interest of the child
should be the main concern in transferring or releasing the child.
Finally, building on some of the data reporting requirements that are
in the underlying bill, my amendment would include a couple of
additional categories that DHS is required to report so we know where
all these children are, the conditions in which they are being housed,
and whether they have a lawyer trying to look out for their interests.
I think this is an amendment that can get bipartisan support. No
matter where we stand on issues of border enforcement or a pathway to
citizenship, we all believe a child that has been detained by ICE,
likely through no fault of their own, deserves to be treated like a
child; that they deserve to be housed with other children, if they
can't be returned to their family. This amendment would do that and I
think would be another way, as we conclude the debate on one of the
most important bills this body will take up this year, for Republicans
and Democrats to come together around our common values.
I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask
unanimous consent that the time during the quorum be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS. Madam President, under the rule, I believe I am allowed
to use the time of Senator Grassley.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, the vote we will be having later this
afternoon is not on a Corker-Hoeven amendment, as I think most Senators
may have thought when they left town Thursday and Friday. In fact,
Thursday night we were told the Hoeven-Corker amendment would be filed
and, presumably, we would then be debating that amendment. As we went
into the night, every hour being told it would soon be filed, it turned
out it wasn't filed until almost noon Friday, and it wasn't filed as
the Corker-Hoeven amendment dealing with Border Patrol officers and
fencing and some other issues, it was filed as a complete substitute to
the whole bill.
This vote this afternoon will give Majority Leader Reid procedural
control of the debate. It is his motion to shut off debate on a 1,200-
page substitute--200 pages more than the bill we were looking at last
week and that no one has read.
Our Senators haven't had a chance to read the bill to see how the
merged language falls throughout the legislation and to see what other
changes may have been made over the weekend. I was here. We have been
trying to get through this, but it is not easy. I am sure my colleagues
haven't been able to do so.
The majority leader has filed cloture and is blocking any further
amendments from being in order unless he personally approves them. That
is the parliamentary situation we are in today. We are in a situation
in which the majority leader will approve, personally, any and all
amendments that get voted on. So he has once again created a situation
where Senators have to play ``Mother May I'' to get a vote on an
amendment they feel is important. This is not how the Senate should be
run.
A duly elected Senator from any State in America should be able to
come to the floor and get an amendment voted on without having to have
the personal approval of the majority leader. This trend has
accelerated in recent years where it is truly damaging the whole role
of the Senate, and we need more attention to that issue. This is
exactly what happened with ObamaCare. The majority rushed through a
complex bill so there would be no time to digest what was in it.
Just yesterday, on one of the Sunday programs, Bob Woodward, the
famed writer who dealt with the Nixon scandal and other issues over the
years, said this:

When you pass complicated legislation and no one has really
read the bill, the outcome is absurd.

I think that is too true, unfortunately. Senator Reid has said many
times we have to pass this bill by July 4. Why is that? Is that his
decision to make?
Is it the other Senators' decisions to make? So to accomplish that
goal, he has filed cloture immediately on this new substitute bill. He
filed cloture as soon as it was filed to shut off debate. That is the
effect of what we are doing.
Why is there such urgency to pass legislation of this importance by
Friday? I am not aware that we have any big business after the July 4th
recess. We could stay here through the July 4th recess, for that
matter. As Bill Kristol, the writer and commentator, noted yesterday on
one of the programs:

There's no urgency. Can we at least let people read it for
a week?

The last thing Republicans should do is be enablers in the majority
plan to rush through the bill before people know what is in it. Why
should we enable that? If this bill is so good, what is the harm of
letting the Senators and the American public have a while to digest
what is in it? Why not commit to open and extensive debate? We have an
obligation to read a bill before we pass it. If Senators have not read
the 1,200-page substitute bill, they shouldn't vote to cut off debate.
They should vote against that.
Let me say what the problem is here. This is a new technique. Senator
Lamar Alexander said some time ago, that the truth is the Senate
doesn't do comprehensive well. I think that was a very serious comment
after the failure of this last bill and after ObamaCare and its massive
power and overreach.

[[Page S4990]]

So what has happened? What has happened is Senators got together, as
they did with ObamaCare, basically in secret, they wrote a 1,200-page
bill in this case, and they did talking points. The talking points in a
big bill like this--and particularly this one--have had political
consultants, pollsters, all kinds of people organizing this campaign to
drive this legislation through the Senate. They have had a response to
every criticism; they have had spin in every different way. They are
running TV advertisements right now, I suppose, still promoting this
legislation as something it is not.
The talking points are designed to be very popular. The talking
points are designed to be very much in accord with most people's views
about what good legislation is. Indeed, I liked most of the talking
points myself. I would vote for legislation that did most of that, for
sure--if it did what it said. That is what is sold because nobody can
articulate and explain the details of it, and people's eyes glaze over
when you talk about it and people don't understand it fully. So they
promote the bill as if it is the talking points, when the talking
points do not comply with what is in this legislation.
That is why we have an obligation to study it, read it, and vote on
the bill, and not the talking points. A few weeks ago, former Attorney
General and Reagan's close friend, Ed Meese, wrote a letter to the
editors of the Wall Street Journal and said:

On legislation as important as this, lawmakers must take
the time to read the bill, not rely on others'
characterizations of what it says. We can't afford to have
Congress ``pass the bill to find out what's in it.''

So at this point in the legislative process, a ``yes'' vote on
cloture tonight means Senator Reid will have gained complete control of
the process. No amendments will be voted on he does not approve. His
goal is to drive the train to passage by this Friday. Public policy,
public interest is beside the point.
So the vote this afternoon is to proceed again to the altered
substitute--the entire substitute--of the Gang of 8 legislation, and
the flawed framework of this bill remains immediate amnesty, which will
never be revoked. That will occur within weeks, with no enforcement
measure ever effectively having to occur. In reality, it will not have
to occur.
According to the June 7 Rasmussen Report, the American people want
enforcement first by a 4-to-1 margin. The Gang of 8 initially promised
their bill would be enforcement first, but that is not what the bill
said. Today, no one disputes that it is amnesty first. In fact, the
lead sponsor of the bill, Senator Schumer, on ``Meet the Press''
conceded this point shortly after the bill was filed, saying:

. . . first, people will be legalized. . . . Then, we will
make sure the border is secure.

``Then, we will make sure the border is secure.'' This is important
because this is what happened in 1986, and Senator Grassley is so clear
about that. He voted for the 1986 bill, and he saw the enforcement
never occur.
Under the substitute, illegal immigrants can still receive amnesty--
not when the border is actually secure but when Secretary Napolitano
tells the Congress she is starting to secure the border. So it occurs
when Secretary Napolitano--who is now not enforcing our laws--tells
Congress she is starting to secure the border.
Within 6 months of enactment, Secretary Napolitano need only submit
to Congress her views on a comprehensive southern border strategy and
southern border fencing strategy and give notice that she has begun
implementing her plans.
At that point--which will likely occur earlier, as Secretary
Napolitano indicated during her testimony before the Judiciary
Committee--she may begin processing applications for and then granting
legal status, granting amnesty, and granting work and travel permits.
She will grant Social Security account numbers, the ability to obtain
driver's licensing, and many Federal and State public benefits, all
without a single border security or enforcement action having been
taken.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be notified after 20
minutes. How much time has been consumed at this point?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 11 minutes.
Mr. CORKER. Madam President, if I could, I had a time of 12:50 that I
have actually done to accommodate the Senator from Alabama who was
coming down at 1:00. My understanding is the Senator showed up 20
minutes early, which I applaud him for being prompt and early. But I do
wonder what is happening. I would be glad to go back and forth.
Mr. SESSIONS. I didn't understand it. I am sorry. Was there a UC on
the Senator taking the floor? If so, I will certainly yield and wrap
up.
Mr. CORKER. I think we had an agreement with those who manage the
floor as to how we were to come down and talk. But I would be more than
glad to give a moment or two to let the Senator finish and then go on.
But I want to make sure this is going to allow me the opportunity to
speak.
Actually, the Senator has been so involved, I would love for him to
listen to what I might have to say and then respond because I think
there have been a lot of myths out there that seem to be continuing.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I will conclude by 5 till and yield to
the Senator at that time. I think that will get us on the right track.
I know there were discussions, and I was told earlier that would be
the time that I would have. Then I was told they want you to come
earlier, and I didn't realize the Senator was in on part of that
agreement. So that is perfectly all right, and I will accommodate the
representations we have been given.
Madam President, Senators have been talking a good bit about the
enforcement that would occur under the substitute that has been
offered, but the substitute does not change the fact that no reduction
in illegal immigration is ever required.
In the beginning, proponents touted the bill's requirements that the
Secretary achieve and maintain 90 percent effectiveness in apprehending
illegal border crossers. We don't hear so much about that anymore. That
is because all that the bill requires now is that the Secretary submit
a plan for achieving and maintaining that rate, not that it actually be
achieved. Even if this was a real requirement, it wouldn't matter
because it does not account for those who evade detection at the
border.
During her testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Secretary
Napolitano all but acknowledged the effective rate is meaningless
because by definition Homeland Security has no idea how many border
crossings go completely undetected. So it is not subject to real
enforcement.
I appreciate my colleagues, Senator Corker and Senator Hoeven, and
those who have set forth their goals to produce legislation that would
be good for America. I appreciate the vision that has been stated. But
having been involved in this now for quite a number of years--not
because I desire to, but because I felt an obligation to do so, having
been a Federal prosecutor for almost 15 years--I want to see the system
actually work.
I am aware this bill is an authorization bill. It may authorize
Border Patrol officers. It may even authorize fencing. But until
Congress appropriates the money over a period of a decade, the way it
is set up, it will never happen. I am confident all the promises made
in the legislation underlying and in the additions that have been made
to it, it will not be accomplished in their entirety; and under this
legislation we will be sure to have a vast increase in illegal entry
under the entry-exit visa system, as the Congressional Budget Office
has stated, and we will still have illegal entrants from the border.
Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the
time that is reserved for Senator Grassley.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
On whose time is the Senator proceeding?
Mr. CORKER. As I understand it, Senator Leahy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
Mr. CORKER. I thank the Presiding Officer.
The Senator from Alabama has done an outstanding job in talking about
the many frailties that exist in the base bill. I do want to say that
the vote tonight is not on the base bill; the vote tonight is on an
amendment.
Many people on our side of the aisle have had concerns about border
security. The way the base bill reads is the

[[Page S4991]]

Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, would decide what
border security measures would be put in place, and she would implement
those after 180 days. Candidly, that calls for people on both sides of
the aisle to be somewhat concerned about what kind of border security
measures would be implemented.
The base bill, as the Senator from Alabama just mentioned, leaves all
of that discretion 100 percent to the person who leads Homeland
Security. On the Senate floor we have had numbers of measures that we
voted on to try to strengthen border security. All of those measures
have failed. I have voted for almost every single one of those that has
come up. As a matter of fact, almost every Member on our side of the
aisle other than the Gang of 8 has voted for those measures.
What we have before us tonight, though, is another border security
amendment. This amendment puts in place five triggers that are
tangible. It says if these five triggers are not implemented, then
those who are here who are undocumented and who become in temporary
status do not receive their green cards. Let me go through those five
measures that have to be put in place before that occurs.
First of all, there have to be 20,000 more Border Patrol agents
deployed and trained and on the border. That is one of the triggers, a
doubling of our Border Patrol.
Second, the additional 350 miles of fencing that Republicans have
longed for has to be in place. That is very tangible.
Third, we have to have bought and deployed over $4 billion worth of
technology on the border, which will give our Border Patrol 100 percent
awareness. This is a list that they have been seeking for years, and
before anybody can achieve their green card status this list has to be
bought and deployed.
Fourth, we have to have a fully implemented exit and entrance visa
program--something that, again, Republicans have pushed for for years;
and fifth, we have to have a fully deployed E-Verify system. All five
of those measures have to be in place before somebody can move from a
temporary status to a green card status. Those are tangible triggers.
When I was in the shopping center business--before coming to the
Senate, I used to build shopping centers around the country. It was
very evident in the community that I was in when I was completed.
Always when I completed those shopping centers I was paid. I didn't
have to go through some kind of process that said: Did we meet 90
percent of the retail needs of the community? We tried to design the
center so that it met the needs, but it was very tangible when I was
completed, and I was paid.
What this amendment seeks to do is to put in five very tangible
elements as triggers. These elements are all elements Republicans have
pushed for for years. So it is my hope that this evening Republicans
will join me in putting in place the toughest border security measures
we have ever had in this Nation.
The Senator from Alabama has talked about the length of this
amendment. The length of this amendment is 119 pages long. Because of
Senate procedure, it had to be added to the base bill, which made it a
little bit over 1,200 pages. But the base bill has been around since
May. It has gone through committee. Most every one of us who is serious
about this bill has gone through its many provisions.
The amendment we offered on Friday--which has given people 75 hours
to look at it--is 119 pages long. For those who are listening in, in
legislative language we write pages such that they are triple-spaced
and they are very short, so 119 pages is really 25 or 30 pages in
normal people's reading. I would say to the Presiding Officer that any
middle school student in Tennessee or Alabama could read this amendment
probably in 30 to 40 minutes. To ask Senators given an amendment on
Friday that deals with five basic things and a few others, to ask them
to read the amendment over the weekend--again, the equivalent of 25 or
30 pages, really--is certainly not something major to ask when you are
serving in the Senate. So the length issue is something that is a total
myth.
Some people have talked about the cost. Let's talk about that. First
of all, the cost would only happen if the bill passes, but it is
estimated that the cost of these border security measures and the other
measures in the base bill would be about $46 billion. That only happens
if the bill passes. I think you have seen that the CBO score on this
bill is $197 billion. So if this amendment were to pass and the bill
were to pass, we would have a situation where over the next 10 years we
would be investing $46 billion in border security--almost all of which
are measures Republicans have pushed for years--but we would have $197
billion coming back into the Treasury.
I have been here 6\1/2\ years, and never have I had the opportunity
to vote for something that costs $46 billion over a 10-year period and
we received $197 billion over a 10-year period and we did not raise
anybody's taxes and it promoted economic growth. To those people who
are talking about the cost, I would just say show me one piece of
legislation we have had the opportunity to vote for that has that kind
of return. I think every private equity, every hedge funder in the
United States of America would take those odds.
Finally, let me say to the Senator from Alabama, Governor Brewer from
Arizona was just on the television. She read this amendment over the
weekend. As I mentioned, it only takes about 30 to 40 minutes, and she
took the time to read it. What she just said on national television is
that this amendment is a win, a total victory for the State of Arizona.
And she knows more about border security probably than any Governor and
any person in the United States of America.
Let me say one more time what we are voting on tonight. We are voting
on a very tough border security amendment. If you vote for this
amendment, it will mean that five very tangible triggers have to be in
place. Whether the money is appropriated or not, they have to be in
place before you can have a green card. So if it is not appropriated,
no green card. When people say that Congress may not spend the money on
this, if Congress does not spend the money on it, people will not move
from the temporary status into green card status. So it is totally up
to us.
But the fact is that if you vote for this amendment tonight, you will
be voting that all five of those provisions have to be in place--tough
border security measures. They are very tangible. The entire American
population can see whether they are in place. And until those are in
place, people do not move to the green card status.
If you vote against this amendment--which I am getting the indication
the Senator from Alabama and others may be thinking about--what you
will be saying is, no, I would rather not have these five tough
measures in place. I would rather let Janet Napolitano, the head of
Homeland Security, decide what our border security is going to be. I
don't think that makes anybody in this body particularly comfortable.
People have talked about the fact that Congress needs to weigh in on
this border security measure, and we have with this amendment.
What I would say is that if you really believe in making sure we
address our border security, this amendment is something you should
support. If you would rather go to the status quo, if you would rather
leave it to the administration--which I agree has not done the things
they should do to secure the border--then don't vote for this
amendment; vote for Janet Napolitano to secure the border.
I have a feeling people on this side of the aisle will see the light.
And to people on the other side of the aisle who may resist this, what
this amendment does is it balances out the bill. It balances it out. It
says: Yes, we are going to put the kind of border security in place
that will cause the American people to trust us. At the same time, in
doing so we are going to put in place very tangible triggers, triggers
that cannot be moved. You cannot move the goalposts because of
interpretation. They are there. They are concrete. If we meet them,
people will have the pathway to be the kinds of productive citizens
they would like to be.
To me, this amendment satisfies people on our side of the aisle who
want border security. To me, it ought to satisfy people on the other
side of the aisle who acknowledge that we need to do both.

[[Page S4992]]

With that, I yield the floor. I would love to enter into a colloquy
with the Senator from Alabama. I know there has been a lot said, but I
urge every Member of this body to take the 30 to 40 minutes--not much,
as a Senator on one of the biggest issues we have dealt with in the
Senate--to read the amendment to see how superior it is to the base
language. I applaud the folks who created the base language, but this
is an effort to improve a bill.
Read the amendment and then decide: Do you really want to vote
against an amendment that the Governor of Arizona, who has dealt with
this issue more closely than any of us in the body, has declared as a
total victory for their State? Do you want to vote against this? Do you
want to vote against this really, I ask this body. I think we ought to
send this amendment onto the base bill with a tremendous majority. Then
we can debate the other pieces. We have an entire week. There are all
kinds of votes.
I would like to see a vote on the Portman amendment. As a matter of
fact, my understanding is that some of the people who disagree with
this bill do not want to see a vote on the Portman amendment. They are
blocking the Portman amendment. The Portman amendment will actually
make this bill even better. I hope we will hear from him on the
amendment. I hope we will hear from other Senators as they seek to
improve this bill. But I hope we will do that after voting cloture
tonight on a border security amendment that I know strengthens this
bill, puts it in balance, creates trust with the American people, and
creates the kind of pathway many people are seeking.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Senator will acknowledge that his
amendment was filed Friday afternoon, at a time when probably 90
percent of our Senators had left town. It was not his 200-page
amendment or just his interests; all kinds of special interests and
Senators' interests have been added to the bill. It was filed as part
of the overall bill. So the Senator would acknowledge that the
replacement that we would be voting cloture on tonight is 1,200 pages,
a little less than 200 pages more than the bill was on Friday morning?
Mr. CORKER. May I respond?
Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, in responding to the good Senator--the
Senator with one of the best temperaments in the Senate, the Senator
from Alabama, someone I enjoy working with--I respond that there is no
question that our amendment is 119 pages long and that it does
incorporate input from other Senators.
What I would say is that the Senator was a great jurist from the
State of Alabama. He worked on all kinds of legal documents, I am sure,
before he came to serve in such a distinguished way in this body. I
know that he understands well--because I know he has had to do it many
times--that when you have an amendment that touches many parts of a
bill or you have a contract that has changes that touch many parts of
the contract, what people do to cause people to understand how it is
written better--and actually it has to be a rule of construction here
in the Senate--is add those 119 pages throughout the text of a bill
that has been around since May that the Senator from Alabama was able
to go through in detail as a member of the Judiciary Committee and
offer all kinds of amendments. He has seen that base text now for a
long, long time. He went through it more--I know more than most here in
the Senate.
So, yes, we added an amendment. It does have other concerns. That is
what you do when you try to write a piece of legislation that solves
the problem. It is 119 pages, and it was added to the base text. That
is true. I would have to say on any measure for somebody who cares
about border security, it is much stronger than the base language.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am going to talk about what the
amendment does. The Senator has not seen quite as much--although he is
an experienced and very able addition to this Senate but has not,
perhaps, seen how over decades promises about enforcement at the border
are not fulfilled, and that is important. I will go through the
amendment the Senator has offered, and make some comments about why I
think it does not do what my colleague believes it does, why we should
not pass this, and why we absolutely should not move forward on the
substitute which is basically the bill that has been put out by the
Gang of 8, which fails in a whole host of ways. I would also be
concerned--and I will ask the Senator, does he believe that Senators
who have concerns about the bill should be given the right to have
amendments voted on in an up-or-down way as long as reasonably
necessary, to be able to offer amendments to fix the legislation?
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I could not agree more with the Senator
from Alabama. As I mentioned in my comments, I hope this body--I hope
Senators on my side of the aisle--will not block Senator Rob Portman's
amendment on E-Verify, which greatly strengthens the bill. But, yes, I
agree with the Senator. I hope we have a plethora of amendments offered
this week, debated this week, and voted on this week.
I would say to the good Senator from Alabama, with whom I really
cherish serving, I have not blocked one single amendment from being
voted on. I do not know if the Senator from Alabama has blocked any.
But the fact is, I say let's let it roll. I would love to see another
50 or 80 amendments this week if time will allow, so let's let it roll.
I am all for that. I agree 100 percent.
Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the Senator saying that, but it is not
going to happen because when we have cloture tonight, Senator Reid is
going to be in complete control of the voting process. Amendments will
be at his pleasure. There will be the amendments he is willing to vote
on, and the ones he doesn't approve of will not be up for a vote.
So that is where we are, and that is a fact. We are going to have
other cloture motions, and the goal will be to drive this bill to
passage by or before Friday. There will be far less votes than the last
time the immigration bill came up.
The last time the big immigration bill came up, there were 45 or so
amendments that we voted on. So far we have had nine votes on
amendments. There were discussions Wednesday and Thursday night that we
would have another 16 amendments. I was advocating for more amendments
to be brought up. I thought we had an agreement to do that, and we were
moving that way until this great amendment--the grand amendment that
fixes things--came up.
I will point out a few things I think are troubling with the
legislation, and we can then go to Senator Corker for his remarks. I
just want to make my points now.
First of all, Senator Corker said there is a trigger, and that
trigger is 10 years from now. It has to do with whether individuals are
going to get permanent legal status in 10 years. What if it turns out
the Congress has not appropriated money to complete the fencing as
promised? What if it turns out Congress has not funded the Border
Patrol agents they promised?
Are we are going to end up saying to these people: You don't get your
status.
They are going to say: What's the problem? We did everything we were
told to do, and Congress didn't do it. Give us our green cards.
People are going to say: We cannot deny people their green cards.
These are people who have been here for 10 years, not to mention the
time they have already been here and probably had children born in this
country who are citizens. This is not a practical or realistic
guarantee this will ever happen.
Based on my experience, I don't believe we are going to add 20,000
agents. We probably don't need that many, although we do need more
agents and better effectiveness at the border. The impact of the
trigger is the legal status and the Social Security card. The right to
work anywhere in America is given within 2 months of the passage of the
legislation. They are making promises 10 years down the road that I am
saying are not likely to ever happen. In fact, I don't think it will
happen in the way it was said.
The Secretary has the power to reallocate personnel under this bill,
and it gives her broad power to do that. She

[[Page S4993]]

will say she has done what is required--or the next Secretary will say
that--and I am concerned about that.
As far as the costs, Senator Schumer and the Judiciary Committee
promised that the bill was paid for by the fees, the punishment, and
the fines--and I will talk about that at some length later--from the
people who entered the country illegally. They claim they will have as
much as $8 billion, and maybe that is so. I am not sure.
They would not say how many people would be legalized. I asked that
question twice to Senator Schumer. He refused to say how many people
would be given green card status in the next 10 years in America. Maybe
he doesn't want us to know. If he doesn't know, that is a big gap for
somebody who is writing a 1,000-page bill and doesn't know how many
people are going to be legalized.
This is what he said: What we are simply doing is making sure all the
expenses in the bill are fully funded by the income the bill brings in.
This is to make sure this bill does not incur any costs on the
taxpayers to make it revenue neutral.
He said: It provides startup costs to implement the bill repaid by
fees that come back later. So what we are basically doing is setting up
two pots of money that have startup money, and it is repaid. Both the
companies pay when they get new workers, and the immigrants who get RPI
status pay in terms of their fines as they go through the process.
That is what we were told in their talking points. This is their
poll-tested talking points when they were drafting the original version
before Senator Corker was involved. Now it is $46 billion. Where is the
money coming from? Well, they say the bill creates more revenue.
The Congressional Budget Office--our budget accounting firm--said
before Senator Corker's bill raised the cost from $8 billion to $46
billion, it would increase the on-budget deficit by $14 billion, and
then it would reduce the off-budget deficit by $211 billion. So isn't
that good news? It improved our off-budget deficit.
What is the off-budget deficit? The off-budget deficit is the Social
Security withholding the newly legalized persons will pay when they get
their Social Security cards. So they will be paying withholding on
their checks that maybe they were not paying before, and they score
that as increased revenue, and it certainly is increased revenue. One
form of our accounting will show that as an increased revenue, and that
money in that form of accounting, unified-budget accounting, allows us
to think we can spend it for anything we want.
Wait a minute. What is the reality? The person is paying their Social
Security and Medicare withholding, and it doesn't go to the U.S.
Treasury. It goes to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. It
is not available simultaneously to be used to pay for a new bill. This
is how this country has been going broke.
The same thing happened during ObamaCare. The night before the vote,
December 23--we voted on Christmas Eve to pass that bill--I got Mr.
Elmendorf to say: You can't simultaneously strengthen Social Security
and Medicare with this new money and pay for something else with it. He
used this phrase: It is double counting the money. That is where they
are coming up with the money here.
So the Social Security and Medicare payroll withholding that people
will pay when they are legalized and given a Social Security card is
their retirement. We have to have that money to pay for their
retirement when they get ready to withdraw Medicare and Social
Security. We cannot spend it now and pretend we have free money. The
CBO score from just last week shows that is the situation. I am just
not happy about the counting of money in that form.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator would let me
respond in a generous way.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. First of all, I respect the leadership the Senator from
Alabama has given on the Budget Committee, and I know he knows all of
these things well. I have offered a very detailed piece of legislation
to deal with Medicare, and he knows the average American today is
paying one-third of the cost of Medicare over their lifetime. In other
words, they pay only one-third of the cost of their Medicare Program.
So the fact that we have people who began paying taxes--I mean one of
the things the Senator is mentioning is if we pass this bill, those who
are here today who have been undocumented and not paying taxes, will be
paying taxes. I would think the Senator from Alabama would think that
is an outstanding idea.
Most of them are younger, and the fact is they are going to help the
baby boomers and senior population in America we have because Americans
today are only paying one-third of the cost of Medicare. I know the
Senator from Maine is very knowledgeable on this subject. The Medicare
fund is going to be insolvent in 2024.
Senator Sessions is exactly right--by forcing these folks who are in
the shadows today to come out of the shadows for 10 years and pay taxes
and not receive, by the way, Federal benefits--no means-tested Federal
benefits--until we do the five things that are in our bill.
By the way, the Senator should know that the money for this is
appropriated now. If this bill passes, the money is appropriated. It is
not subject to appropriations down the road.
I will say one last thing, and I will yield the floor. I appreciate
the Senator from Alabama letting me do this.
Mr. SESSIONS. I want to make sure whose time is being used, but go
ahead.
Mr. CORKER. As I understand, this is under Senator Leahy's time.
The cloture vote tonight is not as was described a minute ago. The
cloture vote tonight is only on this amendment. It is not on the bill.
So for someone to say they are losing some kind of cloture rights down
the road, it is not true. The cloture vote we are having tonight is on
an amendment that has five strong border security measures that every
Republican has talked about for years. It doesn't mean we vote for the
bill. We are talking about the amendment. The moneys are appropriated.
The cloture vote is only on the amendment. I just wanted to clear that
up.
The CBO--which the great Senator from Alabama works with daily and
quotes daily--has said if this bill passes, it will help tremendously
with this deficit we know is weighing our country down today.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair, but the cloture will be on the
substitute which is 1,200 pages, not just the Senator's amendment, most
of which I am supportive of. I think I could be supportive of much of
it if we could make it effective.
The Senator is correct when he says the people who are paying into
Social Security and Medicare are not paying enough to produce the
revenue that would take care of them for the rest of their lives. The
Senator is right, and I certainly don't dispute that people who are
given Social Security and start to work under this bill, which provides
them amnesty and legal status, that they are going to pay Social
Security and Medicare money they were not paying before, but that is
their money. That money has to be used to pay for their retirement.
Where is the money going to come from to pay for that?
All I am saying is that it is quite plain, and that is why the CBO
score said the on-budget deficit gets worse. In the 10-year window, the
Social Security account looks better, but they are not counting the
younger--the average age is 35. Workers will be retiring in the years
to come and will demand their Medicare and Social Security. If the
money is spent now, it will not be there in the future. That is how a
country goes broke.
Senator Corker is one of the most knowledgeable, hard-working,
courageous, and determined people in the Senate in trying to fix the
financial path we are on, but I think the Senator is misinterpreting
that issue.
Mr. President, how much time has been used on my side?
I am going to have to save some time for other people who are due.
Maybe the question should be, how much time have I used?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 60 minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Sixty? Senator Corker said he was using some of his
time.

[[Page S4994]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I better wrap up. I know others want to
speak in opposition to the legislation.
With regard to the fence, there is a statement from the sponsors of
the Corker-Hoeven amendment that we are going to have a bunch of new
workers at the border--Border Patrol officers that will be guaranteed.
I pointed out how that is going to be funded for over 10 years. This is
not an appropriations bill; it is a promise. The legality--the
amnesty--occurs first. Just like so often happens in the past, the
promises are never fulfilled when competing interests start fighting
over money. It just doesn't happen.
There are some people who have opposed fences and opposed Border
Patrol agents religiously by using every excuse possible in this body.
It will not be easily accomplished in the future. In fact, in my
opinion, it will not be fully accomplished.
With regard to the promised fencing that is in the bill, the new
substitute requires the Secretary submit her southern border fencing
strategy to Congress and certify that 700 miles of pedestrian--not
double-layered, reinforced fencing, is in place. Congress first passed
a law requiring double and triple layer fencing in 1996. In 2006,
Congress overwhelmingly passed a law requiring a double layer fence.
That never happened. Then-Senator Obama voted for it and then-Senator
Biden voted for it. It never happened. Only 36 miles of that ever got
built because there was discretion given somewhere a little later and
all of a sudden they talked about a virtual fence that never occurred.
So this weakens current law, or it weakens the law we passed
previously.
The new bill says the second layer is to be built only if the
``Secretary deems it necessary or appropriate.'' That is what happened
in 2008. The new bill keeps the language from the Gang of 8 bill
addressing limitations on the requirements for strategy. This was
offered in the Judiciary Committee by Senator Leahy. I was rather taken
aback by it because they had been promoting the bill as being a bill
that had fencing in it. Senator Leahy offered the amendment. The Gang
of 8 all supported it--those on the committee. It said this:

. . . notwithstanding [the requirement that the Secretary
come up with a Southern Border Fencing Strategy], nothing in
this subsection shall require the Secretary to install
fencing, or infrastructure that directly results from the
installation of such fencing, in a particular location along
the Southern border, if the Secretary determines that the use
or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate
means to achieve and maintain effective control over the
Southern border at such location.

I think that is a fatal flaw in the language. It allows Senators to
believe, perhaps, and advocate that their bill guarantees we are going
to have 700 miles of fencing when it is not there. Senator Leahy knew
exactly what he was doing when he offered that amendment in committee.
And the 1,200-page substitute includes this exact Leahy amendment
language. It has not changed by the Senator's offer of legislation.
I have spoken more than I intended to. There are a number of other
issues I would raise if we had the time. I believe this is close to
what we ought to be doing, but we don't have the mechanisms in place to
get us there and we can't count in any realistic way on this all
happening. As a result, we are going to have, as we had before, the
legalization now and a promise of enforcement in the future that does
not occur.
I thank the Chair, yield the floor, and reserve the remainder of my
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator
from Alabama for his comments.
I want to rhetorically ask any of those who might share the views of
Senator Sessions, if you will, on this amendment, that would this
amendment--I would ask this question: If one doesn't like the status
quo, would this amendment, even if it weren't fully achieved--and I
know the language states it has to be achieved before one achieves
green card status; it is very specific in that regard--I would ask:
Does the Senator from Alabama and do other Senators not believe that if
this amendment passes, we would be much farther down the road toward
our goals than if this amendment doesn't pass? I would ask that
question rhetorically.
What we do a lot of times on the floor is we seek to improve a piece
of legislation. I know the Senator from Alabama is not going to vote
for this bill regardless of what the security measures are, in all
likelihood. But I would ask if he and others who share his views, which
are critical of this overall legislation, would they not support an
amendment that certainly is a vast improvement over the status quo?
I think the Senator has pointed out it is very unlikely that Homeland
Security is going to do the things we would all wish for them to do.
But in this amendment we have five of the things that for years
Republicans have hoped to achieve, and the administration clearly
states we cannot move from this temporary status into green card status
until these things are tangibly done. Again, it is much better than a
trigger that has some superfluous thing where nobody knows what it
means, and Democrats are worried we are going to move the goalpost in
one direction and the Republicans are going to move the goalpost in
another. Instead, we have something here that is very tangible.
Every American who is observing will know whether we have 20,000 more
Border Patrol agents deployed and trained first. Every American will
know whether we have an exit-entry visa program fully deployed. Every
American--every employer, for sure--throughout our country will know
whether we have an E-Verify system that is fully deployed. Every
American, whether we have 350 miles of fencing--which I would say to
the Senator from Alabama, there is no chance in the world--no chance--
that any additional border security measures are going to be created
that way unless this amendment passes. Then I would say: Think about
the $4.5 billion in technology that will cause us to have situational
awareness on the border that is a part of this bill.
Congress constantly talks about the fact that we punt too much to the
executive branch. I know many people on my side of the aisle do not
want to punt, if you will, the border security plan to the head of
Homeland Security, whomever that might be. They want to weigh in. So
this amendment gives everyone in this body the ability to weigh in and
for the other side of the aisle to ensure we have tangible measures
that cannot be moved.
Again, I realize that no matter what this bill says--no matter what
it says--as long as the title of it relates to immigration reform,
there are going to be people in this body who won't support it. There
are measures I don't even want to--I don't want to get myself in
trouble by stating the kind of measures that if they were in this bill
people would say, No, it has to be even tougher. The fact is we in this
body, generally speaking, have worked together to try to come up with a
piece of legislation that meets the balance. This amendment, to me,
adds that component that meets the balance.
I know some people on my side of the aisle would criticize because
they would say, Well, you worked with the other side of the aisle to
make this happen. I think that is what we all came here to do. I know
the Presiding Officer, who is an Independent, came here to do it,
because without working with Republicans and Democrats he couldn't get
anything done. So what we have done over the last couple of weeks now
is work very closely on both sides of the aisle to come up with a
measure that hits that balance. It doesn't move the goalpost because we
all know it is tangible.
As I mentioned, I used to build shopping centers all around the
country, retail projects in 18 States, and when I finished the project,
people could see it. I didn't have to go out and get a survey in the
community: Did I meet 90 percent of the retailing needs of this
community? And if it was a grocery center they might have said: Well,
you did on the grocery side but you didn't on the florist or some other
piece. I built something that was tangible and called for and it was
paid for.
Let's face it. The reason we have had this trouble is we have been
debating a trigger for months that everybody knows can be monkeyed
with. If a person sees a Cheetos bag in a crevice some place in Arizona
or someplace

[[Page S4995]]

else, somebody could say, Well, there were 10 people eating out of that
Cheetos bag so we are going to change the denominator. That is what
this debate has been about and everybody knows that. This side of the
aisle doesn't trust that side because they are afraid we are going to
add 10 more folks with that Cheetos bag and we are going to change the
denominator, and this side over here is saying we don't trust it
because we want to see results. This amendment gives results. It gives
results. Every American can see the results.
Again, I cannot imagine how anybody on this side of the aisle who is
serious about border security could want the text that is in the base
bill that doesn't stipulate anything--it stipulates nothing--I don't
know how they could want the text that is in the base bill over the
text that is in this amendment, which clearly lays out those five
things we have discussed over and over. They include 20,000 trained and
deployed border agents; 350 miles of additional fencing on top of the
350 that is there. Republicans have tried for years to get 700 miles.
We add the $4.5 billion in technology. The chief of the border control
area, Chief Fisher, has been in our offices for years wanting this
equipment to do what he needs to do, and it is in this bill. There is
an entry-exit visa program. We have 40 percent overstays on our visa
program. That is terrible. But it has to be fully deployed before a
person moves to green card status. And, again, E-Verify, which, let's
face it: Why are people coming across the border? They are coming
across the border to take care of their families. They want to work
hard. That is what we want our kids to do. They are walking across the
border to work hard and to do all kinds of things, including to create
companies. They are entrepreneurs. But they also raise our kids, they
serve us meals, they bring our crops in, they build our homes, they
build our buildings. They want to participate in the American dream.
And what this bill--not our amendment--lays out is a path for them to
be able to do that. It is a tough path. They get at the back of the
line. They pay taxes for 10 years and receive no means-tested Federal
benefits and, somehow, we have people opposing that, even though these
triggers have to be in place.
All I can say is this is a great Nation. This is a Nation that has
laws, and we are laying out in this amendment the way those laws have
to be.
I hope people will look at this amendment for what it is. It is an
opportunity for both sides of the aisle to succeed, for Republicans to
have those tough border control measures people want.
I was in a restaurant Saturday night in my neighborhood, a place I go
often, a place that serves great hamburgers. When I walked in, what do
people say? They want border security. So we have an amendment that
puts in place what is, as Governor Brewer of Arizona has said, ``a
victory for Arizona.'' It is a victory for Arizona. On the other side
of the aisle, what people have pushed for is a clear path. They want to
know that we are not going to wait 10 years and then move the goalpost.
Let's have tangible goals people can see.
I hope everybody will get behind this amendment--people on our side
because of border control and people on both sides because it achieves
the balance, if passed, that a piece of legislation such as this ought
to have.
I want to say again I have enjoyed working on this amendment and this
piece of legislation over the last 10 days more than anything I have
done in the Senate. We have an opportunity to do something great for
this Nation--great for this Nation--and the passage of the cloture vote
this night on this amendment is something that takes us a step closer.
Even if a Member opposes the underlying bill, those people who hear
concerns all over the country about border security should support
this. This is better than in the base bill.
This is a 119-page amendment. People know the way we write
legislative language. It is triple-spaced, big letters. We have a lot
of seniors in this body. We write in big letters. About 3 or 4 pages of
legislative language is the average page for most Americans and what
they read on a daily basis. A middle school class person in Tennessee
could read this amendment in 30 to 45 minutes--30 to 45 minutes. It has
been available for 75 hours. It has tangible goals we have all sought.
Voting for cloture tonight does not end debate on the base bill. That
is not true. It ends debate on this amendment. There are still cloture
votes into the future that close off the debate, if you will, for those
people listening in, that close off debate on the overall bill. So
nobody has given up rights. Why not strengthen the bill even if a
Member opposes it? If a person is for the bill, why not vote for a
measure that might add people to this piece of legislation and send it
over to the House of Representatives where they will create their own
bill--and there are improvements they can make--why not do that?
I urge a ``yes'' vote tonight. I hope people will actually read this
language and see what it does to the underlying bill.
I thank the Presiding Officer for his time this afternoon.
I 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. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Treasonous Behavior

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I would like to speak about the
immigration bill, but first I wish to make a comment about this
international drama that is going on from Hong Kong to--well, I guess
it started in Hawaii--from Hawaii to Hong Kong, now Hong Kong to
Moscow. Then the question is, Where does the fugitive go from there?
I think we ought to face facts that the Government of China would not
have let him go without making the decision with regard to Hong Kong. I
would not have been surprised if they did not get certain information
from him if, in fact, he has anything. But the fact that he is now in
Moscow and did not get on the airplane for Cuba tells me that the old
KGB officer--now President of Russia--Putin is directing the show. I
would not be surprised if the President of Russia is giving the orders
to milk him for every piece of information he has. If he does not have
anything, then I think the President of Russia is going to decide
whether he wants to have a good relationship with the United States and
might allow him to be extradited to the United States.
It may well be that since he was released from Hong Kong--which is
under the direction, in this case, of President Xi of China--that he
may not have all the information he is claiming to have.
Presumably, he is carrying a bunch of laptops. One would have thought
they would have taken them into custody, and maybe that is what is
happening right now in Moscow.
However it plays out, as I have said from the beginning, I think his
behavior is treasonous behavior and that the full extent of the law
ought to be applied and those countries that have a formal legal
relationship with the United States ought to obey the law and have him
extradited to the United States so he can face the charges.
By virtue of his escapades all over the globe, I think it is clearly
indicative that he does not want to face the full extent of the law. I
think all the more that would justify the Department of Justice in the
charge they have brought already on espionage.
I wish to say a word or two about the immigration bill. Clearly, on
the first day of the debate I came out here and embraced it. Clearly,
we need comprehensive immigration reform.
When I was a young Congressman back in the 1980s, I voted for it
then. The big difference back then was that we only had about 2 million
illegal folks in the country. Now the new term is ``undocumented.'' Of
course, that has swelled now to over 11 million undocumented.
In large part, the law that was passed back in the 1980s was never
observed. Businesses did not obey the law, and that is one of the
things we are looking at in this comprehensive immigration package--
that businesses will have to obey the law and still will be able to get
the labor source they need in order to conduct business and that
through a series of E-Verify and other provisions they can then have
the security of knowing that the individual they have hired is in legal
status.

[[Page S4996]]

I think it is clearly the right thing to do. There are 11 million
people here. These folks who are saying, oh, well, deport them, that is
not common sense. We cannot deport 11 million people; the economy would
collapse. Just look at the agricultural community. We have to have the
source of labor to pick the crops when the crops are ripe; otherwise,
the whole crop is lost. So too as we go through so many of the nuances
of this bill--it is all put together, and I think they have done a good
job.
I have one bone of contention. I came to the floor today absolutely
shocked that the amendment Senator Wicker, Republican of Mississippi,
and I have offered is--it is questionable whether, with all this
falderal that is going on about not accepting any additional
amendments, if it is going to be accepted.
This amendment says that in addition to the land border security,
which has been the story for the last week, laboring over how do we
increase border security--and the estimate on this new amendment we are
going to vote on today is that it is costing an additional $20 to $46
billion; that will really tighten up border security--but if you have
made the land border almost foolproof, what do you think is going to
happen? How are the smugglers going to get the illegal immigrants
across? How are the smugglers going to continue to try to get across
all the illegal drugs?
Similar to water, if you dam it up in one place, it is going to try
to go around. Where is ``going around''? The maritime border. If you
make the land border on the southern United States foolproof, where do
you think the smugglers and the illegal immigrants are going to go?
They are going to go to a very porous border that is from Texas to
Louisiana, to Mississippi, to Alabama, to my State of Florida, which
has the longest coastline of the continental United States, and then up
the eastern seaboard: Georgia, the Carolinas, Virginia, et cetera. They
are going to do it also by going in through some of the Caribbean
Islands, including U.S. territories--Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands--because if they get there, then they are on U.S. territory.
So if we are spending--this is where the common sense comes in--if we
are spending $46 billion additional to secure the land border, why
wouldn't we want to spend an additional $1 billion to help secure the
maritime border? California would be another one. You can come up the
coast of Central America into California. It, perhaps, is a more
daunting task because of the waters of the Pacific. But look at all the
opportunities on the coast of a State such as mine, Florida, of
bringing in smugglers. Of course, we have seen this over the years. So
what do we do? What is the $1 billion for? Simple, real simple. We
already have an unmanned aerial vehicle like a drone, such as we read
about over in Afghanistan--a Predator or some version thereof, unarmed.
Today, it is flying out of the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. But
that is one. When it is down for maintenance, there is zero. So why
wouldn't we enhance one UAV with more stationed strategically around
the coastal maritime border to stop what is supposedly going to happen
if this impregnable land border is there?
No. 2, the U.S. Navy is experimenting with a stable platform that is
very cheap to operate called a blimp. I have flown in this blimp. You
can station blimps with a long dwell time because the amount of fuel
that is used in a blimp from start to finish for upward of a 24-hour
mission, if you had two crews on board--that amount of fuel is the same
that it takes to crank up an F-16 just to get it out there on the
runway. It is a huge cost savings, and it gives us a lot of dwell time.
So why wouldn't we enhance for the U.S. Navy the blimp that is being
tested for the 4th Fleet headquartered at Mayport Naval Station? We
should.
Thirdly, the U.S. Coast Guard. Why wouldn't we enhance the Coast
Guard's ability to patrol not just for drugs, but for some of those who
are trying to come into the United States illegally now through the
maritime border, so why wouldn't we enhance the Coast Guard?
With $20 billion to $46 billion extra for this amendment that we are
going to vote on this afternoon, why wouldn't we add another $1 billion
to stop the illegal immigration and drug smuggling that is going to
occur on the maritime border? Just think about it. Just think, when you
try to stop water from rushing forward and you put some kind of dam
that stops it, if there is any break or leak or hole, where is that
water going to go? It is going to go in the place of least resistance.
So, too, smuggling of illegal aliens and drugs. If they do not get
across the land border because of my friends insisting that it become
impregnable, why would they want to block Senator Wicker's and my
amendment that says we are going to enhance modestly because we can
handle it with overhead and on-the-sea assets through the Department of
Homeland Security and the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Navy?
It is common sense. Common sense ought to rule.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON. Would the Senator yield. The Senator--the esteemed
chairman whose leadership has brought us to this point, that we are on
the brink of passing a major immigration reform bill--the Senator heard
my comments earlier. Does it not make common sense that if we are
making as secure as possible the southern land border of the United
States for illegal immigration--which also includes drugs, by the way--
would it not make sense that we would want to increase the maritime
border security?
Mr. LEAHY. In answer to my friend from Florida, who has been a friend
for decades and knows the coastal area far better than anyone else, the
more secure we make the land border for those who want to have illegal
entry into the United States, the more they are going to look for other
ways. Water is one of them.
The distinguished Senator from Florida has seen everything from boat
lifts on through coming into his State. Without naming the countries,
we know them all. So that is long way around of saying ``of course.''
Mr. NELSON. I thank the Senator, the esteemed chairman of the
Judiciary Committee. It is common sense. I appreciate him underscoring
that. I hope our brethren and sistren on the other side who are
questioning whether they are going to allow my and Senator Wicker's
amendment to be considered will reconsider their decisions.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would note that there are some in this
body, I am sure, who want no immigration bill. I get the feeling that
is a smaller and smaller group. I imagine they would love to just keep
killer amendments going for weeks and weeks and hope the bill might
die.
On the other hand, we have some very legitimate requests made on both
sides of the aisle. I have been told that some of the ones we might
want to bring up that we would pass probably unanimously, the other
side will not allow them to come up unless we allow these other
amendments.
I would hope that during the next 2 days both sides would allow the
distinguished ranking member and me to sit down and go through and
accept--as we normally do on a bill such as this--a package of
amendments that are acceptable.
I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be equally
divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. I know that when I come to the floor and remind my
colleagues about my involvement in the 1986 immigration bill, it sounds
like a broken record. I said early on this year that I wanted to
educate my colleagues about the mistakes we made in 1986 so those
mistakes were not repeated in the first immigration bill to pass the

[[Page S4997]]

Senate since 1986. Because I was here in 1986, I thought I could share
the experience we had. I know firsthand that we screwed up in that 1986
legislation. I was certain other Members in this body could learn from
our mistakes.
However, today we are right back to the same place, talking about the
same problems, proposing the same solutions.
In 1981, as a freshman Member of the Senate, I joined the Judiciary
Committee and was very active in the subcommittee process. We sat down
and wrote the legislation. We had 100 hours of hearings and 300
witnesses before we marked up that bill in May of 1982. Hundreds more
hours and a dozen more hearings would take place before the bill
actually became law in 1986. This year we had 6 days of hearings. We
spent 18 hours and 10 minutes listening to outside witnesses.
The Judiciary Committee received the bipartisan bill at 2:24 a.m.
April 17. We held hearings April 19, 22, and 23. We heard from 26
witnesses in those 3 days. We heard from the head of the Immigration
and Customs Enforcement agency union. We heard from economists and
employers, law enforcement and lawyers, professors and advocacy groups.
We even heard from people who are undocumented, proving that only in
America would we allow somebody who has violated our laws, is not right
with the laws, to be heard by the American people.
One of the witnesses on April 23 was Secretary Napolitano. We
attempted to learn about how the bill would affect the functions of the
executive branch--after all, that is where it is going to be carried
out--and whether she saw some flaws, the same flaws many of us were
finding in the legislation.
We asked follow-up questions of the Secretary that were thoughtful
and focused on the mechanics of the legislation. We wanted to know the
Secretary's thoughts since she would be implementing the legislation.
Unfortunately, we still have not received responses to questions we
raised. Today it has been 2 months since the Secretary has failed to
answer our questions--in a sense, ignoring us. She has refused to
cooperate. She has refused to tell us how the bill would be implemented
by her department. Is it amazing--at least it is to me--that the
majority puts up with this, let alone some of my own Republican
colleagues?
After the committee hearings, we started the markup process on May 9.
We held five all-day sessions where Members were able to raise
questions, voice concerns, and offer amendments. Commonsense amendments
offering real solutions were repeatedly rejected. Those that were
accepted made some necessary improvements. But the core provisions of
the bill have remained the same yet to this very day.
I respect the process we had in committee. It was open, fair, and
transparent, even though the end result was almost determined. We had a
good discussion and debate on how to improve the bill. It was a
productive conversation focused on getting immigration reform right for
the long term, not to make the same mistakes we did in 1986. Yet I was
disappointed that alliances were made that actually ensured nothing
passed in that committee process that would make substantial changes
and improvements to the bill. Those alliances remain in effect when we
are out here on the floor of the Senate.
As of this morning, 349 amendments have been filed to the underlying
bill. We started off the debate on the Senate floor with my amendment
that would require the border to be effectively controlled for 6 months
before the Secretary could process applications for registered
provisional immigrant status, RPI, or another way of saying it:
legalizing those who crossed the border without papers. That is pretty
darn important because we have been told since this bill was put to the
public by the Gang of 8 that we were going to secure the border. Well,
we are going to secure the border after legalization because a plan put
before Congress is not securing the border. Securing the border is only
if that plan actually secures the border. But legalization is going to
take place before the plan is put into effect. That is what I consider
a major shortcoming of this legislation because it makes the same
mistakes we did in 1986. We thought we secured the border. We did not
secure the border, but we legalized.
My amendment was surely feared by the other side because it would
fundamentally change the bill. It would not fundamentally change what
the authors of the bill said they were going to do--secure the border
and then legalize--but it changed what was actually in the language of
the bill. So in order to keep my amendment from being adopted, they
insisted on a 60-vote threshold for the amendment to pass, which I
refused. So in response they moved to table my amendment.
We were promised an open and fair process. Why wasn't that promise
kept? We learned on day one that all the talking about making the bill
better was just hogwash. It was a phony and empty promise. They would
take to the floor and they would say they were ready to move and vote
on amendments. Boy, that sounds very fair and open, doesn't it? Yet, in
reality, they were afraid of all of the amendments that could be
offered. They refused to let Members offer any amendment of their own
choosing. They wanted to pick which amendments would be considered on
the floor of the Senate. Does that sound fair and open? Well, it
obviously does not. They wanted to decide who, what, when, and how it
would be disposed of. That is not right.
What is even more disturbing is the fact that the alliances made
thwarted the ability of the minority to have any say whatsoever.
Republicans were obstructed even by Members of our own party. They
voted to table amendments, and they refused an open amendment process.
One Republican said:

I am confident that an open and transparent process, one
that engages every Senator and the American people, will make
it even better. I believe this kind of open debate is
critical in helping the American people understand what's
in the bill, what it means for you, and what it means for
our future.

That was never carried out here on the floor of the Senate.
The same Senator also wrote Chairman Leahy on March 30, saying:

I write to express my strong belief that the success of any
major legislation depends on the acceptance and support of
the American people. That support can only be earned through
full and careful consideration of legislative language and an
open process of amendments.

That was a letter to Senator Leahy on March 30. It was well-intended,
but I don't see a defense of that position out here on floor of the
Senate as we are steamrolled.
In a letter to me on April 5, the Senator wrote:

If the majority does not follow regular order, you can
expect that I will continue to defend the rights of every
Senator, myself included, to conduct this process in an open
and detailed manner.

As we are being steamrolled with just a few amendments being
considered, we can see that may have been well-intended, but it is not
carried out.
When the bill was introduced, the senior Senator from New York said:

One of the things we all agree with is that there ought to
be an open process so that the people who don't agree can
offer their amendments.

Well-intended. The Gang of 8 called for a robust floor debate. They
said they supported regular order. I asked them do they think that
having only considered nine amendments equates to a robust and open
process.
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. GRASSLEY. I will yield for a question. I may not answer it, but I
will yield.
Mr. LEAHY. Is it not a fact that the first amendment that was brought
up was a bipartisan one of Senator Hatch's and mine? Shortly
thereafter, the Senator from Iowa came with an amendment. Following the
normal courtesy done, I allowed mine to be set aside so he could bring
up his, but isn't it a fact that when we asked if we could set that
aside for some noncontroversial amendments on either side, he told me
he could not?
Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator is correct.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator.
Mr. GRASSLEY. We only had nine amendments. Is that a robust and open
process? Do they think the majority has allowed regular order? From my
point of view, the answer is a clear and resounding no.
We are at a point where the process has been halted. It is unclear if
any more amendments will be debated and

[[Page S4998]]

voted on. The only amendment that is in order is the one that was
concocted behind closed doors and is loaded full of provisions that are
shockingly close to what can be called earmarks.
We are back where we started--with a gang of Members promising that
their legislative text is the best thing to happen to immigration
reform, that their solution is the end of future illegal immigration.
Does anyone really think this will solve the problem once and for all?
From my point of view, based upon my experience in 1986 and since, the
answer is a clear and resounding no.
There are fundamental flaws in this amendment we call the Schumer-
Corker-Hoeven amendment--legalization first. I am going to take the
opportunity to walk through some changes.
The authors claim the amendment is a border ``surge'' that leaves no
more doubt about whether the border will be secure. Yet the border
changes only account for about half of the total amendment. There are
changes to every title. There are changes to exchange visitor programs,
the future guest worker program, and visas for the performing arts.
This isn't just a border amendment; there are provisions in the bill to
attract other Senators to support its passage. I will dive into those
provisions in detail in a moment, but first I wish to focus on border
measures.
The sponsors of this bill want you to believe it is different from
the 1986 legislation. They say it will be a tough and expensive road
and it would be easier for individuals to go home than to go through
the process. What the sponsors don't like to admit is that the bill is
legalization first, enforcement later--and I have to add, enforcement
later, if ever.
Take, for example, the fact that one of the sponsors who went on
Spanish television tried to apologize for speaking the truth. He said:

Let's be clear, nobody is talking about preventing the
legalization. The legalization is going to happen. That means
the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then
come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the
process of permanent residence.

He spoke the truth.
The fundamental flaw underlying the bill has not changed with this
amendment. Let's be clear. No one is preventing the legalization. It is
going to happen, as opposed to the promise when this bill was put
forward that the bill was going to secure the border first.
There is a lot of money in this bill, there is a lot of micromanaging
in this amendment, and there are more waivers. Remember, this is
already on top of--I think one Member counted 222 waivers for the
Secretary. We write a piece of legislation. We are supposed to
legislate. We legislate and then say to the Secretary: Well, you can
ignore what we legislate in certain conditions.
We ought to be making broad policy here and not delegating to the
administration the way that we too often do--not just in this
legislation but, as a matter of fact, on most everything.
What the amendment does is require more boots on the ground. It
increases the presence of Border Patrol even though the Members of the
Gang of 8 had long opposed that idea. They said it was unnecessary and
costly. But let's be honest with the American people. The amendment may
call for more Border Patrol agents, but it doesn't require it until the
undocumented population, who are now called RPIs, apply for adjustment
of status or a green card. It is legalization first, border security
long down the road.
I am all for putting more agents on the border, but why wait? Why
allow legalization now and simply promise more agents in the future?
Even then, who really believes that the Secretary, like the one we have
today, will actually enforce the law?
Then there is the fencing. One of the conditions that must be met
before the Secretary can produce green cards for people here illegally
is that the southern border fencing strategy has been submitted to
Congress and implemented. This fencing strategy will identify where 700
miles of pedestrian fencing is in place. Note that this is not double-
layered, as in current law; the amendment states that a second layer is
to be built only if the ``Secretary deems necessary or appropriate.''
Can the authors of this amendment say that is a promise to the American
people to build a fence if somehow the Secretary is given the authority
of whether it is necessary or appropriate? Additionally, the underlying
bill still specifically states that nothing in this provision shall be
interpreted to require her to install fencing.
The amendment also requires that an electronic entry-exit system is
in use at all international air and sea ports but only ``where U.S.
Customs and Border Protection are currently deployed.'' This is
actually weaker than the bill that came before the Senate a few weeks
ago. That bill required that an electronic entry-exit system be in use
at air and sea ports, not just internationally. It is still weaker than
current law, which requires biometric entry and exit at all ports of
entry, including air, sea, and land. That current law has been on the
books for a long period of time--not carried out by both Republican and
Democratic administrations. So what certainty do we have that this is
going to be carried out?
The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment border proposal adds technology
in addition to manpower at the southern border. It authorizes the
Secretary to purchase and deploy certain border technology. I will give
some examples that are included in this amendment.
In Arizona, the Secretary is allowed to deploy 50 fixed towers, 73
fixed camera systems, 28 mobile surveillance systems, 685 unattended
ground sensors, and 22 hand-held equipment devices, including night
vision goggles.
In San Diego, the Secretary is allowed to deploy the same type of
equipment but of different quantities. They also will deploy
nonintrusive inspective systems, a radiation portal monitor, and a
littoral detection and classification network.
In El Centro, CA, the Secretary is allowed to deploy the same
equipment, but the list also includes two sensor repeaters and two
communications repeaters.
They will also get 5 fiber optic tank inspection scopes, a license
plate reader, a backscatter, 2 portable contraband detectors, 2
radiation isotope identification devices, 8 radiation isotope
identification devices updates, 3 personal radiation detectors, and 16
mobile automated targeting systems.
That is not all. The list goes on. It includes certain helicopters
and aircraft upgrades. It includes 10 Black Hawk helicopters and 30
marine vessels.
I would like to know what some of these items are. Who provided the
amendment sponsors with this list? We had a hearing in January, and not
once did the list appear. Secretary Napolitano did not provide the
committee with any list. Did Sikorsky, Cessna, and Northrop Grumman
send a wish list to certain Members of the Senate?
While the Senate micromanages what technology is to be purchased and
deployed, we should take note that the bill allows the Secretary to
``reallocate'' the personnel, infrastructure, and technologies laid
out. It is pretty simple: A Secretary who says the border is secure
right now can change all of this stuff specifically mentioned in this
amendment.
Let's also not forget about the litigation exception. The triggers or
conditions may never have to be met. Green cards can be issued if the
Supreme Court grants review of litigation on the constitutionality of
the implementation of the conditions. Under the bill, if any court in
this country issues a stay on implementing one of the conditions, then
green cards are to be issued after 10 years. The bill does not specify
what sort of ruling must prevent implementation or even that the ruling
be on the merits, nor does the bill require that appeals run their
course, even if the appeal upholds the conditions.
We still maintain this toothless commission called the southern
border security commission, but it retools it a little bit. It still
does not give it any teeth whatsoever. The amendment requires the
creation of the commission 1 year after the enactment, which is
probably better than the 5 years that is in the bill. They would also
be required to hold public hearings once a year. Under the original
version of the bill, the commission would be in existence until they
submitted a plan. Under this amendment, the commission will live for 10
years. Yet, the recommendations they provide still do not hold any

[[Page S4999]]

weight. They can be ignored. They are nonbinding.
There is a lot of spending in this amendment as well. In addition to
micromanaging resources in each sector, the amendment increases
taxpayer spending by $40 billion over the introduced version of the
bill before this amendment was added to it. Originally, the legislation
called for spending $100 million for startup costs and $6.5 billion for
the Secretary to carry out the law. When we got to committee, there was
a technical amendment that increased that startup cost from $100
million to $1 billion. During markup, Senator Schumer and his allies
increased the trust fund allocation from $6.5 billion to $8.3 billion.
The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment increases the trust fund to $46.3
billion. Now, think, going from $8.3 billion to $46.3 billion. Add the
$3 billion for the Secretary to have startup costs, and we are at $50
billion. That is over a 500-percent increase in spending. You know, a
billion here and a billion there, and it soon adds up to real money.

Note that this isn't shifting money from the trust fund, such as the
Cornyn amendment would have done. And that amendment was defeated on
the floor of the Senate. Instead, it is just plain old brand new
spending. The sponsors found a money tree to pay for the wish list
provided by Secretary Napolitano and the aerospace industry.
Based on reports of how this deal was struck, we have a pretty good
idea of why spending has increased. According to a Politico article
from last week, negotiations for this deal were at a standstill until
the Congressional Budget Office's score was released. The CBO's score
stated if the bill becomes law it would cut the deficit by almost $1
trillion over the next 20 years.
Thus, with this estimate in hand, the Politico report tells us how
the negotiators were able to find a solution: ``Throw money at it.''
According to the article, it was suggested Senators could funnel some
of the savings into border security, and that is what has been done.
Again, as is often the case in Washington, the solution always seems to
be just throw more money at the problem. But the money has to come from
somewhere.
Furthermore, paying for the agents requires raiding the Social
Security trust fund. Indeed, the bill sets aside $30 billion to pay for
Border Patrol agents. But when asked on the floor how the Gang of 8
found the money, Senator Hoeven said he and Senator Corker were able to
add the $30 billion in spending because the CBO projects that S. 744
will bring in more revenue than it requires in expenditures. Upon
closer examination, it is clear the projected revenue under CBO
analysis is due to an increase in Social Security and Medicare taxes.
This money must be set aside if Social Security and Medicare are to
remain solvent. Thus, taking that tax revenue and using it for the
fence means raiding the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. You
know how the Medicare trust fund was raided for health care reform?
Sounds like the same thing is happening here.
On the date of enactment, the Treasury will transfer $46.3 billion to
the trust fund. The sponsors claim the Treasury will be repaid. But
when will the funds be paid back to the Treasury? When will the
American people be reimbursed? The sponsors of the bill are saying
taxpayers would not bear the burden. Yet there is no requirement the
funds be paid back. There is no time limit or accountability to ensure
they are repaid.
The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment increases fees on the visas for
legal immigrants in order to replenish the trust fund and the Treasury.
It happens that employers, students, and tourists will pay the price.
The bill allows the Secretary to increase those fees, so employers who
bring in high-skilled workers will bear the burden. Students and
tourists who come in the legal way will bear the burden.
But guess what. The amendment goes on to say the fees for those who
cross the border in violation of our laws cannot be charged more than
what is allowed. The Secretary cannot adjust fees and penalties on
those who apply for or renew RPI status or even blue card status.
There is no interior enforcement in here, and there is a real problem
when we don't have more interior enforcement than is here because we
will have more people coming here who are undocumented. The amendment
in the underlying bill will not end undocumented immigration. The
Congressional Budget Office reports that illegal immigration will only
be reduced by 25 percent due to the increased number of guest workers
coming into the country. The amendment does nothing to radically reduce
illegal immigration in the future and does not provide any resources to
interior enforcement agents whose mission it is to apprehend, detain,
and deport undocumented immigrants. Just like with the 1986
legislation, we will be back in the same position in 10 years facing
the same problems.
The amendment, for instance, in section 1201, attempts to address
people who overstay their visas. It says the Secretary shall, one,
initiate removal proceedings; two, confirm that immigration relief or
protection has been granted or is pending; or, three, otherwise close
90 percent of the cases of nonimmigrants who were admitted and extended
their authorized period of admission by more than 180 days.
So while it appears to be tough on overstays, it only affects people
who overstay their visa by 180 days or 6 months. It also allows the
Secretary to close the cases.
What does it mean for the Secretary to close these cases? Under
current law, an immigration judge has the power to administratively
close a case. It is used to temporarily remove a case from the
calendar. Sometimes a judge waits for further action to be taken. An
administrative closure is not a final order. Closure does not mean
termination. It does not mean deportation. So I think it is unclear
what this language does and who it is applying to.
Moreover, it is unclear how the Secretary would know who has
overstayed if no exit data or tracking system exists. Also, why doesn't
the amendment require the Secretary to deal with 100 percent of the
people who overstay their period of authorization? Given there are no
ramifications for the Secretary if she does not capture 90 percent of
visa overstays, this, again, is another law that will not be followed.
It does nothing to end this administration's anti-enforcement
policies but, instead, gives the Secretary of Homeland Security vast
discretion to ignore serious criminal convictions of immigration
violators, including gang-related crime, domestic violence, drunk
driving, and child abuse.
The bill would not only create an immediate legalization program for
those here illegally today but also a permanent legalization program
for future undocumented immigrants. The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment
includes a provision that would make individuals admissible despite the
3- and 10-year bars.
I would like to know more about the rationale from the sponsors as to
why this language was included. There is no doubt this amendment was
crafted in the back rooms on Capitol Hill, and it is no secret some
Members were able to insert provisions in the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven
amendment while the rest of us attempted to work out an agreement on
pending and filed amendments.

While some of us were trying to legislate and bring up amendments for
votes on the floor, others were taking advantage of the pay-to-play
game. Clearly, some of the amendments filed were included. Let me share
some examples.
No. 1, the amendment now authorizes funds for an educational campaign
to help deter illegal crossings into Mexico from the South. This
amendment would put American taxpayer money toward training for law
enforcement officials in Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, and
other countries. It would allow for taxpayer expenditures to educate
nationals of other countries ``about the perils of the journey to the
United States.''
This amendment should have been considered under regular order.
No. 2, the amendment now includes a provision that would require
Customs and Border Protection officials to reduce airport wait times.
This amendment which was filed should have been considered under
regular order.
No. 3, the amendment now makes it harder for Border Patrol agents to
enforce U.S. immigration law along the

[[Page S5000]]

northern border by limiting the mileage or distance agents can search
vehicles or other forms of transportation.
This amendment which was filed should have been considered under
regular order.
No. 4, the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment includes amendment No.
1283 that creates a ``Youth Jobs Fund'' using $1.5 billion from the
U.S. Treasury to be repaid through fees. The goal of the fund is to
``provide summer and year-round employment opportunities to low-income
youth.''
This amendment should have been considered under regular order.
No. 5, the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment includes amendment No.
1493, which designates zones 1, 2, and 3 occupations involving seafood
processing in Alaska as shortage occupations. It also includes
amendment No. 1329, which extends the J visa Summer Work Travel Program
to seafood processing positions only in Alaska.
These amendments should have been considered under regular order.
No. 6, the amendment now includes amendment No. 1183, which was
actually pending before the Senate. It would allow for fee waivers on
certain visa holders, namely O and P nonimmigrants, who come to the
United States to work in Hollywood or play professional sports.
We could have voted on this and had regular order on that amendment.
Well, there are a lot more amendments I could go through, but I will
just suggest some clarifying amendments. And there probably should have
been more clarifying amendments.
The amendment by Schumer, Hoeven, and Corker also includes so-called
``technical fixes.'' One fix is related to the H-1B visa cap. The
sponsors of the bill, and those who worked behind closed doors to
devise an H-1B visa package, stated the annual cap would not exceed
180,000. Yet the language didn't do what they said it did. As written,
it provided 20,000 more than they claimed. So this amendment includes a
clarification to say the cap shall not exceed 180,000.
The second clarifying change in the amendment is related to visas for
countries that have entered into free-trade agreements with the United
States. During committee consideration, the Senator from New York added
an amendment that would provide 10,500 visas for countries in the
African Growth and Opportunity Act and the Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act. The change in this amendment clarifies that only a total
of 10,500 may go to those countries rather than to each country that is
described under the act. Still, it is not 100 percent clear the
clarification achieves the goal.
So it is legitimate with these clarifications and fixes, but how many
more clarifying amendments are necessary? These two provisions were
included because my staff caught them and brought them to the sponsors'
attention. But how many more provisions are not written properly that
we do not know about?
At the end of the day the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment doesn't do
what the sponsors say it will. As we have seen all along, we are being
promised one thing and sold another.
I am frustrated with how the majority has processed this bill. We
should have had 3 genuine weeks on this bill processing amendments and
having votes. Yet we are forced to vote on packages that were concocted
behind closed doors. We were given 72 hours to read the legislative
text. That may be plenty of time to read it, but it is not plenty of
time to actually study it and know what is in it. Even then, the
American people would have had a difficult time getting their hands on
the bill over the weekend or understanding its true ramifications.
It is quite obvious I am going to vote against this amendment. It
does nothing to change the legalization first philosophy and offers
little more than false promises the American people can no longer
tolerate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to speak as if in morning business, without delaying or affecting the
time of the cloture vote today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Leahy pertaining to the introduction of S. 1215
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask
that the time be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HOEVEN. 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. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
recognized for up to 10 minutes under Senator Leahy's time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to address comprehensive
immigration reform and to talk specifically about the Hoeven-Corker
amendment.
The Hoeven-Corker amendment is to secure the border. Besides myself
and Senator Corker, this is bipartisan legislation that has 11
Republican and 4 Democratic cosponsors. This is all about securing the
border first. This is a first step for comprehensive immigration
reform, and that is what we are seeking to do.
I come to the Senate floor today to address some of the
misperceptions that have already been circulating about our
legislation. Throughout the weekend some of the pundits and others have
put out information that is incorrect with regard to the Hoeven-Corker
amendment to the new immigration bill. As the old saying goes, people
are certainly entitled to their opinions, and we respect all opinions,
but they are not entitled to their own facts. So I want to separate
some of the myths or misperceptions from the facts in regard to our
amendment.
Let me say at the outset we welcome the debate, and we welcome the
opportunity to provide information. This is truly about coming up with
legislation that wins the support of the American people as well as
bipartisan support in the Senate, the House, in this Congress, and that
is what it takes to meet a challenge of the magnitude of immigration
reform. So I will clear up some of the misperceptions or myths that
have been circulating and put forth the facts.
Myth No. 1: Somehow people have not had time to read this 1,200-page
amendment--and somehow this myth keeps getting repeated. Well, the fact
is it is not 1,200 pages. This new amendment is about 120 pages that
have been added to the underlying bill. So, yes, all told it is 1,200
because 1,100 pages is the existing bill, and we are adding an
additional 120 pages. The underlying bill--the 1,100 pages--has been
out there since May for people to read. The roughly 120 pages right
here is it. This is the new material. This is 120 pages. We are adding
120 pages, which I think somebody could read in a short amount of time.
This was filed at about 2 p.m. on Friday, and it has been available
to all of the Members. They had all of Friday to read the 120 pages.
This is the new material--not 1,200 pages. They had all of Friday to
read it, all of Saturday to read it, all of Sunday to read it, and
today until now to read it. If there is anybody who still hasn't read
it, there is plenty of time to read it before the vote at 5:30 p.m.
today.
There is 120 pages of new material. Let's be clear about that. There
is no purpose for folks to misunderstand or to create misunderstanding.
Why would anyone do that? Why would anyone want to say there are 1,200
pages of new material when there are 120 pages of new material? Well,
that is the first myth.
Myth No. 2: The southern border fence does not need to be completed
before people are eligible for green cards. That is the second thing
that is not correct. What is the fact? Because that is wrong. The fact:
The trigger explicitly states that at least 700 miles of fencing along
the southern border must be built before individuals can receive a
green card. A subsequent provision says DHS may decide where that fence
gets constructed, but the trigger language is clear: We have to build
700 miles of fence before anyone gets a green card.
The southern border is roughly 2,000 miles from Brownsville, TX, to
San

[[Page S5001]]

Diego, CA. A minimum of 700 miles of fence has to be built before
anyone can get a green card, and they have to go into what is called
provisional status for 10 years as well.
As for this provision, the Secretary of Homeland Security does have
some discretion to decide where on that 2,000-mile border they are
going to put the 700 miles of fence. That makes the most sense, doesn't
it? Shouldn't we put the fence where it does the most good? Why would
anyone try to say the subsequent provision--which says they can put the
fence where they need to put it and where it does the most good--get
construed to somehow mean we don't have to have 700 miles of fence? It
clearly says we have to have 700 miles of fence.
Again, let's make sure people understand what is in the bill rather
than confusing them about what is in the bill. It seems to me we can
debate this, and we should debate it, but let's debate it on the facts,
not on creating misperceptions.
Myth No. 3: Congress will choose not to fund the southern border
security in the amendment. Congress will choose not to fund it. Well,
the whole law says, in fact, they do have to fund it, and the fact is
the bill is fully funded. It is funded upfront. The amendment adjusts
the funding for border security by $38 billion, and that is over a 10-
year period. So it is between $3 billion and $4 billion a year we spend
to truly secure the border. Americans want the border secure, so that
is what we do. That cost is over a 10-year period.
Under this legislation, that money--upfront--is authorized and
appropriated and put in the comprehensive immigration reform trust
fund. Furthermore, that funding is paid for with immigration fees,
fines, and surcharges. So the illegal immigrants pay for the border
security. I think that is something Americans should understand, and I
think it is something they believe should happen. That is the way it
should be done.
Again, my question is: Why is the misperception going around that
somehow this thing isn't funded or will not get funded when this
amendment specifically says it is funded upfront, and the money is
appropriated into the trust fund? That is what it says in the roughly
120 pages that constitute the new legislation in this amendment.
Myth No. 4: The amendment puts the American taxpayer on the hook for
$38 billion. I think I covered this one pretty well just a minute ago,
but I have additional information to make sure people understand.

CBO says the underlying immigration bill will reduce the deficit by
$197 billion in the next 10 years and by $690 billion during the second
decade. That is almost $1 trillion in deficit reduction over the next
two decades. The total cost of security measures added by the Hoeven-
Corker amendment is--as I said just a minute ago--about $38 billion.
The base bill designates $8 billion to security measures, bringing the
total costs of security measures for the bill as amended to a total of
$46 billion. The U.S. taxpayer will be more than made whole with the
visa fees and by the $458 billion in additional tax revenue that
results in the large deficit reduction.
Again, the point I made before: By bringing illegals out of the
shadows, making them pay fines, fees, and taxes, we will generate the
revenue which not only reduces the deficit, but way more than pays to
secure the border. Again, Americans want border security first, which
is what this amendment is about.
Myth No. 5: The new border patrol agents will never be hired or
deployed. Fact: The amendment mandates that 20,000 more Border Patrol
agents be hired and deployed before individuals are eligible for a
green card. Let me read that again. The amendment mandates that 20,000
more Border Patrol agents are hired and deployed before individuals are
eligible for a green card. That is in addition to the almost 20,000
Border Patrol agents who are on the border now. That is a total of
40,000 Border Patrol agents on the border.
I have heard some of our Members talk about how they want 40,000
Border Patrol agents on the border. That is what this does. It requires
that it be done before anyone gets a green card.
Myth No. 6: Section 2302 says if a person overstays their visa in the
future, they can still apply for a green card and become a citizen.
Fact: That is just plain false. If a person overstays their visa, a
removal proceeding must be initiated unless they are in a special legal
status because they cannot return to their country due to conditions
such as an environmental disaster or a humanitarian crisis.
Myth No. 7: The amendment is only about the border and it does
nothing to address the visa overstay issue. Fact: Visa overstays
currently account for 40 percent of those unlawfully present in our
country. This is an important issue. The underlying bill improves the
identification of overstays through a fully implemented entry-exit
system.
Our amendment goes a step further by mandating the initiation of
removal proceedings for at least 90 percent of visa overstays--holding
DHS accountable. The amendment also requires extensive reporting to
Congress every 6 months to facilitate oversight of this important
overstay issue.
Myth No. 8: The 20,000 additional Border Patrol agents won't begin to
be deployed until 2017. Fact: Under the Hoeven-Corker amendment, the
Border Patrol must deploy 20,000 additional agents before registered
provisional immigrants can obtain a green card. The only reference in
the bill to the year 2017, as it relates to the deployment of border
security resources, is to a mandate on DHS that says the 3,500 Customs
and Border Protection officers assigned to points of entry must be
hired by and must be in place by 2013. This is a positive provision
that will ensure additional Customs and Border Protection officers are
in place as quickly as possible, and in no way delays the deployment of
the additional 20,000 Border Patrol agents.
There are other misperceptions circulating regarding the
legislation. That is why Senator Corker and I put out a fact sheet to
rebut them. We do it as simply and as straightforwardly as we can. We
say: OK, look. They are saying there are 1,200 new pages. No, there are
120 pages, and on we go down the list.

So I hope people understand we are trying to foster understanding. We
want people to understand this. We want people to know what is in it.
Again, we are, to the very best of our ability, trying to approach this
comprehensive immigration reform issue, we believe, the right way,
which means secure the border first. That is what this amendment is
about. It is about securing the border first, and we do it as
objectively and in as verifiable a way as we can.
We ask our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in rising
and meeting this incredible challenge we face for the benefit of the
American people and the future of our country.
Thank you, Mr. President. With that, I yield the floor and note the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MENENDEZ. 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. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any quorum
call time be equally divided on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, 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.
Mr. CORKER. 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. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the amendment at hand.
My understanding is Senator Leahy has allowed me to use some of his
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORKER. I will be brief. I spoke at length earlier today on this
amendment. I wish to speak especially to my side of the aisle as it
relates to this amendment.
There is a lot of confusion over what is happening tonight, and I
just want to make sure everybody understands. No. 1, we have a cloture
vote this evening on the amendment. It is a border security amendment.
It is not the

[[Page S5002]]

cloture vote on the bill. There still will be the opportunity for
additional amendments to be considered. So people can sense--I do want
to say the very people who seem to be wanting amendments are the same
people who are opposing amendments, so I hope that will get worked out
on the floor. But tonight's vote is simply a cloture vote on an
amendment that was offered on Friday, and that is all it is. So there
will be another cloture vote. No one is giving up rights relative to
this bill.
Secondly, this amendment we are voting on is 119 pages long. Because
of the rules of construction in the Senate, this 119-page amendment was
added to the base text. A lot of people understand that is just the way
we do things here, when an amendment touches various pieces of a bill.
But this amendment is 119 pages long. It has been added to the base
bill which makes the bill itself over 1,200 pages.
Members of this body have had access to the base bill since May. It
has been through committee. It has been amended. People have been able
to look at it.
I say to people viewing in, 119 pages in legislative language is
triple-spaced, on small pages, and generally is about 25 to 30 pages in
regular reading. I would just say that a middle or high school person
in Tennessee could read this amendment in about 30 to 45 minutes. I am
assuming staff can walk people through much more quickly if they wish
or one could go into much more detail. But the point is it is not as if
something has been dropped on people that is from outer space. This is
119 pages. It is easy to read. All of us could read it in a very short
amount of time. I am sure people would want to spend more time than
that.
So let me go back to what this amendment does. In the base bill right
now it states the head of Homeland Security would lay out a plan 180
days after passage of this legislation. Then, 10 years from now, this
same person--it might be a different person, but the head of Homeland
Security--would decide whether that plan has been implemented.
Many people on my side of the aisle viewed that as a little abstract
and wanted to improve it. There have been numbers of measures authored
on the floor. I voted for almost every single one of them to strengthen
the border. It has been something Republicans have championed for
years.
So this amendment would take away that base language saying the
Secretary of Homeland Security would make a plan and decide and would
put in place five very important measures.
The first would be deploying and training 20,000 Border Patrol
agents. That is doubling the number of Border Patrol agents we have in
the country, something Republicans have wanted for a long time.
Secondly, the amendment authorizes $4.5 billion on technology to
create the kind of technology that gives us situational awareness on
the border--something, again, Republicans have wanted for a long time.
It adds 350 miles of fencing to the 350 miles we now have, creating
700 miles. We have had amendments to that effect that almost every
Republican voted for. That is a part of this amendment.
It puts in place an entry-exit visa program. Again, people know 40
percent of the immigration issues we have in this country are because
of visa overstays. This attempts to solve that by putting in place a
very measurable trigger.
In addition to that, E-Verify has to be fully in place.
Again, all five of these have to be in place before people transition
from a temporary status to a green card status. So if you vote for this
amendment tonight, you are voting to have those five tangible,
measurable issues in place.

Let me talk about this. We have had a big debate over the trigger. By
the way, for what it is worth, I understand the concerns on the other
side of the aisle about a trigger that is subjective. In essence, what
happens down on the border right now is the Border Patrol agent sees a
Cheetos bag, literally, and has to decide whether 10 people ate out of
that Cheetos bag and left it there or 1. Let's make a subjective guess.
So the other side of the aisle said: We do not want anything subjective
like that.
Our side has wanted some tangible triggers. I used to build shopping
centers around the country--retail projects in 18 States. When I
completed the project, the whole community could see it was done and I
got paid. I would not have wanted a trigger that said: Did we meet 90
percent of the retail needs of the community? I built what was laid
out. That is what this amendment does. It lays out five measurable
triggers that people who have wanted border security for years have
pressed for.
I am almost finished.
The cost of it. A lot of people have said: The cost of this is $46
billion over a 10-year period. It is expensive. Some of them are one-
time costs. But as it relates to the overall bill--not the amendment--
the bill states--by the way, these measures do not go in place unless
the bill passes. But there is $197 billion in return over that 10
years.
I wish to say to everybody in this body, I have never had the
opportunity as a Senator--I have been here 6\1/2\ years--to potentially
be in a place to vote for something that spends $46 billion over 10
years and generates $197 billion back to the Treasury over 10 years
without raising anybody's taxes. I have never had that opportunity. I
would imagine every private equity company, every hedge fund in America
would want to participate in that kind of ratio.
I am going to close with this: The choice tonight is to vote cloture
on an amendment--not on the bill, an amendment--that has been on the
floor for 75 hours--everybody has had the opportunity to look at it--
that takes away the idea that the Homeland Security person will put out
a plan 180 days after we pass this bill and, instead, puts in place
tangible, measurable criteria, things that every American can see in
place before persons transfer from a temporary status to a green card
status.
For what it is worth, Governor Brewer, who is the Governor of
Arizona, who probably knows more about border security than anybody in
this body, today came out and said if we could pass this amendment as
part of the immigration bill, it would be a tremendous victory for
Arizona, a place that probably has more issues of border security than
any State in the country.
So I will just ask my Republican colleagues, why would anyone even
consider voting against an amendment that puts in place very stringent
border requirements in place of one where we have no idea what is going
to take place?
Republicans have asked that Congress weigh in. I do not know how
Congress could weigh in any more than spelling out what is going to
happen.
To my friends on the other side of the aisle, I would say to you, to
me, this is something that allows us to know that once this process
occurs, there is a tangible line in the sand we can measure, to know we
cannot move the goalposts--we cannot move the goalposts--and at the end
of the day we end up with a balanced bill.
I will close with this. I know I said I would close a minute ago. I
will say one more thing. I look at what we are trying to accomplish in
this bill and I look at the people who have come across our border to
work--to work. I know many of them have created companies and have been
entrepreneurs and contributed in all kinds of ways. Many of them have
just walked across to support their families. They raise our kids in
many cases. They pick our crops. They serve us in restaurants. They
build our homes. They build our buildings. They do many other things.
To me, what people on both sides of the aisle have done in trying to
agree to this motion tonight is to put in place something that is
tangible, something that cannot be changed down the road.
If this amendment is passed--even though there may be people who vote
against the overall bill--voting for this amendment strengthens the
bill. It says, if we pass it, we have a bill, in my opinion, that meets
the test of the American people. We are securing the border, but we are
allowing those people at the back of the line to have some pathway to
continue to live the American dream, the same things we want for our
sons and daughters all across our country.
I yield the floor and thank the Presiding Officer for the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to also address this most recent
backroom

[[Page S5003]]

gang agreement--the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment we will be voting
on in just a little while.
This amendment is clearly filled with lots of sort of nice shiny
objects to try to attract Republican votes. It is clearly supposed to
be about border security. But my fundamental concern is simple. I
believe this amendment is designed to pass the bill. I do not believe
it is designed to truly fix the bill. In that sense, I am concerned
this is a figleaf border security amendment--again, all about passing
the bill, not truly fixing it.
I say that for two simple reasons, the two basic flaws in the
underlying bill that this amendment does nothing to address. First of
all, the amendment, as the bill, is amnesty now, enforcement later,
maybe. Secondly, on the enforcement piece--which the authors of this
amendment are arguing for so strenuously--there is no metric about
actual effect, actual achievement. The only metric is spending money.
We all know the U.S. Government, the Federal Government, is great at
spending money. It has never been better at spending money than under
this current administration.
But if that were all that mattered, then we would have a rip-roaring
economy with unprecedented growth. If that were all that mattered, then
we would have the best educational system on the planet. If that were
all that mattered, we would have solved problems such as violent crime
and many others. But the metric cannot be spending money. The metric
has to be achieving security, achieving some reasonable level of border
and workplace security.
I am also very concerned about the backroom deal and the process that
got us here. I think it is important for the American people to know
exactly what happened in the last few weeks and, in particular, at the
end of last week. About 350 amendments were filed to this bill. They
covered all sorts of topics--certainly including every important
enforcement matter. Many of these amendments struck to the very core of
the Gang of 8 compromise bill.
As Ranking Member Grassley has noted, the Judiciary markup was an
open process in which nearly all amendments were considered in a fair,
decent manner. However, as Senator Grassley also noted earlier today,
on the floor, it is a very different atmosphere and the fix apparently
is in. We are seeing that on the floor. The fix seems to be in--another
closed-door agreement, loaded with ideas that have been accepted for
``yes'' votes to ensure the support of particular Members.
The amendment is 1,100 pages long--longer, I believe, than the
original bill--and because of this development, the full and fair floor
amendment process has come to a grinding halt.
That is exactly what is broken with the Senate. Rather than doing the
people's business out in the open--with floor amendments, with debate--
instead, so-called masters of the universe have huddled together,
again, behind closed doors, to hammer out a secret agreement, again,
virtually cutting off floor amendments and trying to pass the bill.
In 2007--the last time a major immigration bill came to the floor--we
had 46 rollcall votes on amendments. This time around we have had only
9, and now we have the prospect of cutting off the amendment process--9
out of 350 amendments filed, 2.5 percent of the filed amendments.
Again, this is what is wrong, in the eyes of the American people,
with Congress, with the Senate. This is one of the things I came to
change. I came to the Senate to work--developing and introducing
legislation, working hard in the appropriate committees, voting,
offering floor amendments, voting on those. But these gang deals,
negotiated behind closed doors, particularly when they cut off and
muffle the amendment process, are not that sort of work.
Again, the masters of the universe have conspired among themselves.
They have allowed certain Members into that back negotiating room,
undoubtedly for the price of a ``yes'' vote. Worst of all, this
threatens to completely shut off the open, fair amendment process.
That is why this morning I coauthored a letter to Senate Majority
Leader Reid, with 13 of my colleagues, addressing this very problem. In
the letter we state clearly:

We believe that there should be, AT A MINIMUM, this same
number of roll call votes--

That is as in the 2007 debate--

on serious, contested floor amendments on the Gang of Eight's
immigration bill. This can clearly be accomplished this week
with a little leadership and coordination through one or more
compact series of 10-minute votes with senators seated at
their desks.

Continuing with the letter, we say:

Further, we will give our consent to any reasonable consent
request if this is assured. This would specifically include
replacing the one or two cloture votes and one final passage
vote on the bill with one final passage vote with a 60-vote
threshold late Thursday, as well as clearing all truly non-
controversial amendments.

I hope all Members of this body look carefully at this bill we are
going to vote on in about an hour regarding cloture. I hope all of us
look hard at the details and recognize it does not change the core
fundamental flaws of the underlying bill. Still, as in the underlying
bill, the amnesty is first, virtually immediately, the enforcement is
later, maybe. As in the underlying bill, there is no true metric of
effectiveness, of enforcement bearing fruit. There is simply the metric
of spending money, which the Federal Government can do very
effectively. Surely, any Federal Government, particularly under the
Obama administration, will pass that test with flying colors.
The American people do not want amnesty first. They want enforcement
first. The American people do not have as a test of enforcement
spending money. They have the same tests they have for important issues
and challenges around their kitchen table and at their place of small
business--results, actual results.
We should use those same tests. We should use that same approach. The
American people get it. Why can't we? The American people also get the
very closed backroom deal nature of the process that is going on. They
want us to work. They want us to debate. They want us to propose. They
want us to vote out in the open, not certain masters of the universe
coming up with gang deals outside of here and then shutting down a
full, open, free amendment process.
It is not too late. It is not too late to look clearly at this
amendment and vote no. It is not too late to have an open amendment
process on the floor this week. I urge all of my colleagues--Democrats
and Republicans--to do just that.
With that, I yield back the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I wish to make some observations. I
know several of my other colleagues will continue to pursue their views
on the floor. I did not intend, when I was asked to sit in for Senator
Leahy for a while, to say anything. But some things just cannot go
unresponded to.
I heard a lot about the 2007 bill, how that process took place. But
what has failed to be mentioned is that the 2007 bill did not go to the
Judiciary Committee. It went straight to the floor. Now, this bill, in
addition to the time that it was out there when the Gang of 8 proposed
it, went through weeks--weeks--of the Judiciary Committee going through
its process: 140 amendments were heard and adopted, many of them
Republican and most of them bipartisan. So there were 140 changes made
to this legislation through the regular order process.

So there is a fundamental difference between 2007 and this
legislation. There is another fundamental difference; that is, for the
2 weeks this bill has been on the Senate floor, Republicans, on a
series of offers, opposed allowing amendments to go forward, including
amendments of their own Republican colleagues. Why? Because they
believed amendments being offered by some of their Republican
colleagues would make the bill more acceptable to Members on their side
of the aisle. So instead of allowing their own colleagues to have the
amendments and have their say, they opposed unanimous consent
agreements to move forward because they did not want their colleagues
to have an opportunity to have that amendment, and maybe if that
amendment was adopted then find a way to vote for this bill.
That is pretty outrageous. Then to come to the floor and suggest that
there has been an impediment over at least the last 2 weeks to being
able to

[[Page S5004]]

consider a variety of amendments, when they themselves opposed
amendments, including from their colleagues on their side of the
aisle----
Mr. LEAHY. Would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes, I will.
Mr. LEAHY. The Senator is probably aware of the fact that we have a
large number of amendments that were from both Republicans and
Democrats. We suggested that they are all acceptable, could probably be
adopted by a voice vote, both these Republican and Democratic
amendments, but that has been rejected by the other side. Is the
Senator aware of that?
Mr. MENENDEZ. I am aware of that. I heard the distinguished chairman
make that offer at various times and I heard that offer rejected
various times.
Mr. LEAHY. I might ask another question. The Presiding Officer has an
amendment involving women that would be easily accepted, but we cannot
get that agreement. The Senator has been here a long time in both
bodies. It is my recollection--is it correct at least in the past--that
when we have a group like that, both sides should come together and
accept them. Is that the normal practice?
Mr. MENENDEZ. The Senator is right. When there is a series of
amendments that would improve the bill and are agreed to by both sides
and are, in fact, noncontroversial, it has been the regular order to
get those amendments disposed of and on the way.
Mr. LEAHY. I appreciate that. The Senator from New Jersey has the
floor. I appreciate him coming here and saying this. Nobody in this
body of either party has worked harder and more diligently than the
Senator from New Jersey on comprehensive immigration reform.
Mr. MENENDEZ. The reality is this is a different process. Now, I know
there are allusions that this amendment is 1,100 pages long. We all
know this amendment only took the underlying bill and added the
amendment to the underlying bill. So to suggest that there is a new
1,100 pages is disingenuous. It is not the case.
Everybody has known what the amendment is about. The underlying bill
has been on the floor for 2 weeks. Before that, it came out of the
Judiciary Committee. I think everybody knew what it was. So I think it
is not fair to have the American people believe that somehow this
legislation just came onto the desks of Senators and they are voting in
the blind.
I find it interesting--you know, I have listened over the years, the
7 years I have been here, and before that in the other body, in the
House of Representatives--I hear those who want a fence. A fence is a
significant part of the solution to the question of border security.
Yet here we go. There is nearly 700 miles of fencing in this
legislation by virtue of this amendment that will be considered. Oh,
no, no, no, no. We do not want a fence.
Then we have heard that having greater Border Patrol agents at the
border would dramatically help us achieve border security. Well, this
amendment doubles--doubles--the amount of Border Patrol agents at the
border. It brings it from about 21,000 to 40,000, 41,000 Border Patrol
agents through the course of this legislation. Now we hear: That is
just wasting money.
Well, what is your plan? I have heard all of these things that this
amendment includes that were part of your plan in the past. But because
it is not your amendment, even though it is offered by Members on your
side of the aisle, including from border States, suddenly it is not
acceptable. Suddenly it is not acceptable.
There is the suggestion that there is somehow a backroom deal. I see
this amendment as the personification of what the American people are
trying to see this body do, which is Republicans and Democrats from
different parts of the country, from different ideological views,
coming together in order to compromise, in this case to seek a very
strong compromise on border security as part of comprehensive
immigration reform legislation, which in poll after poll across the
party spectrum has been sought by the people in this country.
That is the essence of what this amendment is all about. So if you
bemoan the lack of bipartisanship, then you should not be bemoaning
this amendment because this amendment is, in fact, the essence of that
bipartisanship and moves us in a direction on border security that I do
not believe has existed in any legislative proposal that has come
before the Senate. It is an incredible movement toward border security,
and it becomes one of several triggers.
What do we mean by a trigger? A condition precedent. We believe these
condition precedents can be met because at the end of the day we want
to achieve greater security for our country both at the border and in
entrance-exit visa issues and interior enforcement issues and in
workplace verification, with the E-Verify system. All of these elements
are in the legislation. All of them. And many of them are enhanced so
that we can get to where we want.
Now the problem is that there are colleagues here who, if 10 angels
came swearing from above in the heavens that this is the best
legislation to secure the Nation, to promote its economic opportunity,
to make sure we have and preserve family reunification as a core value,
that we have the future flow of workers so that we can deal with the
abilities of different sectors of our economy to have the human capital
like the high-tech industry, to be able to produce that human capital
so that America can continue to be at the apex of the curve of
intellect and globally competitive, they would say: No, these angels
lied. We will never satisfy those individuals.

I respect their right to have that view. But to suggest that it is
the process, when really what they want to see is no comprehensive
immigration reform, I think they should say what they really believe.
So that is what is before us.
Finally, on a series of issues that have been raised, for example, on
waivers, the reality is the limited waivers do not give anyone a free
pass or take away the government's ability to say no to any given
individuals. They do not grant unlimited discretion to decisionmakers.
Decisionmakers would not be able to exercise discretion in cases
involving immigrants who have multiple criminal convictions, who have
committed particularly serious offenses or otherwise pose a threat to
national security or public safety. Those restrictions, by way of
example, apply to terrorists, gang participants, drug traffickers,
human traffickers, money launderers, international child abductors,
unlawful voters, just to name a few. So I think there is a
mischaracterization in order to create the fear.
Finally, they will question that no matter what, no matter what is
done in this bill, no matter how many enforcement provisions exist--
interior enforcement, an entrance-exit visa requirement, and systems to
check that whoever comes in this country, make sure they exit and that
there is a follow-up in the E-Verify system, which means everyone in
the country, when they go for a job, now they are going to have to go
to a system to make sure they, in fact, have the right to work in this
country; all of the Border Patrol agents, all of the fencing--despite
all of that, there are those--and that the individual who is
undocumented in the country will have to wait a decade--a decade--
before they will even have the opportunity to adjust their status to
permanent residency, assuming, as the legislation calls for, all of
these elements I have just talked about are in place--are in place--who
suggest that that is amnesty.
Amnesty means you do something wrong and you get forgiven. But you do
not have to do anything to be forgiven, you just get forgiven. This is
not amnesty. These individuals have to come forth, they have to
register with the government, which is incredibly important because I
cannot secure America unless I know who is here to pursue the American
dream versus who may be here to do it harm. We have millions of people
in the shadows, undocumented. We do not know what their purpose is.
Then, after they come forward and register with the government, they
have to go through a criminal background check. If they fail it, they
get deported. If they pass it, then they get a temporary opportunity to
stay here with a permit to work and visit their families.
They have to earn their way, pay their taxes, learn English over the
course of a decade, and then, finally,

[[Page S5005]]

after a course of a decade, finally be eligible when all of those
conditions have been met. That is not amnesty; that is earned. That is
earned opportunity toward legalizing their status in this country.
So this is what poll after poll of Americans say they want to fix
this broken immigration system. For some of my friends, there will
never be a fix sufficient for their view. For some of my friends, it is
very clear they do not support any pathway to citizenship under any set
of circumstances. That is a view they have the right to hold, but it is
a view not supported by the American people. It is a view that does not
honor our Nation, which has a history of immigrants. It is a view that
has created enormous problems in Europe because immigrants in those
respective countries never find a way to earn their way to become a
citizen of that country, and you have seen the unrest in those
countries. We do not want that in America.
I intend to vote for cloture for the bipartisan amendment. It does a
lot that I think in many respects goes way beyond what I contemplated.
That is the essence of compromise. It is the essence of moving forward.
It is the essence of solving a problem that has vexed us way too long.
It is an opportunity to fix our broken immigration system.
I urge my colleagues to cast their votes and be not only on the right
side of what is necessary for the country, but be on the right side of
history.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, there is first a matter of fairness when
it comes to offering suggestions to amend legislation that is on the
Senate floor. Under the ordinary practices and procedures of the
Senate, the majority and the minority have an opportunity to offer
amendments to modify the underlying bill. On a subject as important and
as fundamental to who we are as a country and to our country's future
as immigration reform, there have been nine amendments voted on in this
bill in the last 2 weeks--nine amendments.
To listen to my colleagues in the majority who are happy with the
underlying bill because they wrote it, they act as if we have had a
fulsome opportunity to offer amendments. We have been willing to have
votes as long as we get votes on our amendments. It is not just the
majority that has the opportunity to modify the underlying legislation
and to debate it, the minority has rights too. Our side wants a right
to choose our own amendments, not to have the majority leader choose
which of our amendments he is going to deign to allow debate and votes
on. That is not democracy. That is not the Senate. That is a
dictatorship.
We will not allow the majority to tell us which of our amendments
will be allowed to be considered. We can have votes on any amendments
the other side wants a vote on. We are ready, and we have been all
along. It is not true to say that the minority has been blocking
amendments to this bill. That makes no sense whatsoever. The majority
wrote the bill.
The minority has all the incentives to offer amendments. Why in the
world would we block our own amendments, but for the fact that the
majority leader wants to choose which of those amendments he will
somehow allow us to offer. It makes no sense whatsoever. I have heard
some suggest that this is a minor vote we are going to have at 5:30,
that there are just modifications to the underlying bill.
This is the amendment we will vote on. It was released late Friday
evening, and we have been poring over line by detail ever since. This
is not a minor matter; this is a serious amendment. The Schumer-Corker-
Hoeven amendment makes enormous changes in the underlying bill. I wish
to talk about some of those changes.
Back when this underlying bill was proffered, the framework for it
was proffered by the so-called Gang of 8, Senator Durbin, the
distinguished minority whip from Illinois, said in 2013 a pathway to
citizenship needs to be ``contingent upon securing the border.'' That
was the bipartisan framework for comprehensive immigration reform in
January 2013.
Six months later we find a different story. He says: ``We have de-
linked a pathway to citizenship and border enforcement.'' He was quoted
in the National Journal on June 11, 2013. He has not suggested since
that time that it was taken out of context or a misquote.
What it demonstrates is how far we have come from what was promised 6
months ago and is now being delivered. I believe the American people
are enormously generous and compassionate. There are circumstances
under which the majority of Americans would say we believe people who
have entered our country without complying with our immigration laws or
who have entered legally and overstayed, the so-called visa overstays,
we believe they should get a second chance--but not by demanding a
pathway to citizenship and delinking it from border security and other
important measures that will make sure we don't repeat the mistakes of
1996.
When Ronald Reagan signed an amnesty for 3 million people, the
American people were told this will never happen again because we are
going to enforce the law this time. It didn't happen, and the American
people were justifiably skeptical as to whether it will happen again,
particularly when this sort of sleight of hand takes place where we are
told in January the pathway to citizenship is ``contingent upon
securing the border,'' only to find out 6 months later it has been
delinked.
If Congress can't keep a 6-month-old promise, it is never going to be
able to keep any of the promises contained in this amendment.
For starters, this underlying bill relies upon the same sort of
budgetary gimmicks that were used to pass the Affordable Care Act, now
known colloquially as ObamaCare. We have been told in the underlying
bill that it reduces the Federal deficit by $197 billion over 10 years.
I have even heard some of my Republican colleagues cite that as if this
is somehow free money: Hey, we can spend this money because the
underlying bill reduces the Federal deficit by $197 billion.
The Congressional Budget Office has pointed out that the only way we
can view that as free money--which is an oxymoron if there ever was
one--is by double counting the $211 billion in off-budget revenue that
will be needed to fund Social Security for the newly legalized
immigrants. In other words, this is money they are going to pay into
Social Security that they are going to eventually take out. To act like
you can use it to pay their Social Security benefits and at the same
time use it to fund this bill is double counting.
That is a budget gimmick. That is the same sort of gimmickry that has
gotten us $17 trillion in debt, and it is perpetuated under this bill.
If we were to use real-world accounting, the same sort of accounting
every family, every small business in America has to use, they can't
double count the money. They have to use real hard numbers. If we use
the same sort of accounting that families and small businesses across
America have to use day in and day out, we will find that the
underlying bill actually increases the budget deficit by more than $14
billion over the next decade. This is spending more money we don't
have, adding to our annual deficit, adding to our national debt,
putting us further and further in the hole when it comes to our fiscal
condition.
One of the other problems is that even since the Congressional Budget
Office looked at the underlying bill, we don't yet have an official
cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office for this bill that
basically rewrote the entire underlying bill. We still don't have an
official budget estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, and we
don't know when that is likely to come. Yet we are going to be required
by the majority leader, because he is the one who sets the schedule
here by virtue of his being the majority leader, we are going to be
required to vote on a cloture motion at 5:30 this evening, in about an
hour--before we even know from the official scorekeeper for the
Congress and the Federal Government exactly how much this costs, what
the assumptions are, and whether we are still going to be looking at
double counting the revenue that is coming in and looking to that to
pay for the costs of this bill at the same time we are going to have to
pay it out in benefits--double counting. We don't know if that
continues under this bill, but I dare guess that it will.

[[Page S5006]]

Some of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle previously
expressed real consternation at double counting back when ObamaCare was
passed and back during the 2009 stimulus package. Some of them issued
press releases saying: You can't spend the same money twice. Yet today
here we go again. This is another reason I am so concerned about where
we find ourselves: being jammed into voting on this piece of
legislation without an official score of the Congressional Budget
Office, before, I daresay, every Member has had a chance to read it and
understand it, and when it relies on double counting and other gimmicks
that have gotten us $17 trillion in debt.
I also worry that my colleagues who support this particular
amendment, while I stipulate to their good intentions, their approach
is one based solely on throwing more money at the problem without
having any plan, strategy, or any real mechanism for ensuring that
money is spent sensibly, and it accomplishes the stated goal.
Last week some of my colleagues gave me a hard time because I offered
an amendment which would raise the number of the Border Patrol agents
by 5,000. They said: We can't afford it. The underlying bill has zero
new Border Patrol.
My amendment offered 5,000 additional boots on the ground. They said:
We can't afford it. That is a ridiculous suggestion.
Imagine my surprise when this amendment that was filed so recently
calls for 20,000 Border Patrol agents. This is a fourfold increase,
even though experts across the political spectrum have said that
doubling the size of the Border Patrol in and of itself, while it may
provide some political figleaf for voting for this bill, does not and
will not solve the problem.
I wish to know, for example, where that number came from. How did my
colleagues turn on a dime from saying we needed zero additional Border
Patrol, to saying 5,000 was a ridiculous suggestion, and are now saying
20,000 is exactly right? What expert, at what hearing was the testimony
offered to support that sort of expense and that sort of approach?
Don't just take my word for it. There was a story in the Arizona
Republic, dated June 22, quoting a number of experts on immigration and
border security. Doris Meissner, who used to be the head of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, the predecessor to the
Department of Homeland Security, called the approach in this amendment
``detached from the reality on the ground.'' She said it is ``detached
from the reality on the ground'' and said it would make more sense to
invest in creating ``a modern 21st century border, which includes
enforcement but also trade and travel and facilitating crossing and
reducing waiting time.''
This makes more sense to me because part of the underlying premise
for the bill was to create a legal way for people to come, work,
immigrate to the United States, and then allow law enforcement focus on
the criminality, the drug traffickers, the human traffickers, and other
people engaged in illegal conduct.
Ms. Meissner appears to be saying that makes a lot of sense when it
comes to ``a modern 21st century border.''
Other experts have said and quoted in the same article in the Arizona
Republic, June 20, Adam Isacson: ``There may be some room for more
agents, but not for 20,000.''
John Whitley said: ``We should look at what we are trying to
achieve--at the outputs instead of the inputs.''
In other words, what this approach does is say we are going to look
at all the equipment we can buy, the technology we can deploy, the
boots on the ground, but we are going to turn a blind eye to the
outputs or the goals that we are presumably trying to achieve. Mr.
Whitley agreed with that. He said:

We should look at what we are trying to achieve--at the
outputs instead of the inputs. Otherwise, seven years from
now we'll be sitting around saying we don't know which bits
work and which bits are wasteful.

I know some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle--Senator
Leahy, for example, who is managing the bill for the majority, the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said it looks like a laundry list
for defense contractors. I think I am paraphrasing correctly. Then he
said: If that is what it is going to take to get them to vote for the
bill, then I am for it. I am going to support it.
Once again, the underlying bill puts symbolism over substance, and
they are hoping the American people will not notice. As I have said
repeatedly, the so-called border security triggers in the underlying
bill are sheer fantasy and wishful thinking because they are activated
by promises of more money and more promises than they are on actual
results. I am afraid the underlying Schumer-Hoeven-Corker amendment
does nothing to change that.

Here is a comparison of the approach under the underlying Gang of 8
proposal, the Corker-Hoeven-Schumer amendment, and an amendment I
offered last week which was tabled. We have the question, Is
operational control of the border required? Under the Gang of 8 bill?
No. This amendment? There is no requirement.
Under the amendment I offered last week, an individual would not be
able to transition from probationary status to legal permanent
residency until that happened. That is not to punish anybody, but what
it does is it realigns all the incentives for everybody involved in
this discussion, whether Democratic or Republican or Independent,
whether conservative or liberal or whatever. It would have realigned
all the incentives to make sure we would have hit this target of
operational control of the border.
Is 100 percent situational awareness required? Not under the Gang of
8 bill. Not under this amendment. There would have been under my
amendment of last week.
A biometric exit trigger. There is none under the Gang of 8 bill and
none under this amendment.
Here is perhaps one of the best and most obvious reasons why people
don't trust promises of future performance when it comes to Congress--
because 17 years ago Bill Clinton signed into law a requirement for a
biometric entry-exit system. Now, ``biometric'' is a big word. It could
mean just fingerprints or an iris scan or facial recognition, but it is
something you can't cheat on because it depends on a bodily
characteristic that is immutable and cannot be changed, such as
fingerprints.
So it was 17 years ago when President Clinton signed the law which
Congress passed, a biometric entry-exit requirement, and it still
hasn't been implemented. And while people think that mainly illegal
immigration is caused by people entering the country across our
borders, such as the 1,200-mile Texas-Mexico border, the fact is that
40 percent of illegal immigration occurs because people come in legally
and overstay their visa, and they simply melt into the great American
landscape. Unless they commit a crime or otherwise come in contact with
law enforcement, we never find them again.
Here is the other problem in the underlying bill. Even if these
requirements required results rather than promises of performance,
unfortunately, under the underlying bill and now again in this
amendment we are going to vote on at 5:30 today, the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security has the unilateral discretion and
authority to waive all of those requirements. This is the same person
who said the border is secure even though the General Accounting Office
said in 2011 only 45 percent of the border was under operational
control. She may well be the only person in America--the only person in
America--who believes the border is under control because it
demonstrably is not. Yet she is given the authority to waive these
requirements in this amendment we will vote on at 5:30.
Then there is this: Under the underlying bill an individual can beat
their spouse or their partner, they can drive drunk and threaten the
lives and livelihoods of American citizens, and they can still qualify
for RPI status and get on a pathway to citizenship. As a matter of
fact, under this underlying bill they could actually have already been
deported, having committed a misdemeanor, and still be eligible to
reenter the country and become the beneficiary of RPI status and put
eventually on a pathway to citizenship. That is a terrible mistake. I
don't know anybody who believes we ought to be taking people who have
shown such contempt for the rule of law and the health and safety and
welfare of the

[[Page S5007]]

American people and say: You know what, out of the generosity of our
hearts, we are going to give you one of the greatest gifts anyone could
ever get; that is, an opportunity to become an American citizen.
I would hope most of us in this Chamber would agree that immigrants
with multiple drunk driving or domestic violence convictions should
never be eligible for legalization, especially after they have already
been deported. Yet the underlying bill, the so-called Gang of 8 bill,
and the Schumer-Hoeven-Corker amendment will grant immediate legal
status to criminals, including those already deported, as I said, and
including people who have committed domestic violence, even with a
deadly weapon. I still can't quite get my mind around that, but it is
true.
Our standards when it comes to granting legal status to people who
have come into our country in violation of our immigration laws and/or
who have come in legally and overstayed should be crystal clear. We
should differentiate between people who have made a mistake and are
willing to pay for it--pay a fine, be put on probation, and
successfully complete that probation--and people who have come in and
shown such contempt for our laws and the rule of law as to have engaged
in a history of drunk driving or domestic violence. They should be
automatically disqualified from receiving probationary status. I find
it remarkable that we are even debating this issue in the first place.
A few final points. We are going to be asked to vote on legislation
that was crafted behind closed doors, with no chance for amendments. As
a matter of fact, I believe that once the majority leader gets cloture
on this amendment, we will have virtually no other opportunities to
offer any additional amendments and get votes on those amendments after
only having votes on nine amendments so far. That is an outrage. We are
going to be asked to vote on legislation filled with special interest
goodies, with earmarks and pet spending projects, and we still don't
have an official cost estimate by the Congressional Budget Office. We
are being asked to vote for legislation that will continue the three-
decade pattern of broken promises on border security. In short, we are
being asked to vote for more of the same.
I know my good friend from Tennessee Senator Corker has been one of
the best new additions to the Senate. He has remarkable knowledge and
experience and great enthusiasm.
He asked me: What more do you want than 20,000 Border Patrol agents
and a commitment to spend all these billions of dollars on new
equipment? What more could you possibly want?
My answer to that is this: I would like to know that the promises we
are making in terms of border security, interior enforcement, and visa
overstays are going to be kept; otherwise, all we will have is 11
million people granted probationary status, with the potential
eventually to earn legal permanent residency and American citizenship.
And those people who might be willing to consider that sort of
arrangement if they had a guarantee that we would not be back here
doing this same thing again in 5 or 10 years are going to have nothing
but a bunch of broken promises to show for it.
For me, it is a very sad episode in a very important Senate debate
that has huge ramifications for the future of our country. At the start
of this debate, I had high hopes that the Gang of 8 was serious about
keeping promises and delivering real bipartisan immigration reform that
could pass the House of Representatives. But now I see it is just the
same old beltway song and dance. What a shame. What a lost opportunity
that is.

Now I believe all eyes and attention will turn to the House of
Representatives, where I hope the House of Representatives will take a
more careful, step-by-step approach in addressing our broken
immigration system. My hope is that ultimately we will get to a
conference committee that will fix the underlying approach and problems
in this amendment and in this bill and will allow us to successfully
address our broken immigration system that serves no one's best
interests.
I am not one who believes ``no'' should be the final answer when it
comes to our broken immigration system. I actually believe we need to
fix it, and we need an immigration system that reflects our values and
reflects the needs of our growing economy in a globally competitive
environment, but this bill is not it.
There will be no way to enforce the promises that are so readily made
today in the future. Notwithstanding the best intentions of the people
who offer this amendment, many of us won't be here 10 years from now.
No Congress can bind a future Congress. No President can bind a future
President. And if we are depending for the next 3\1/2\ years on Janet
Napolitano, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and President Obama to
enforce the mechanisms in this bill, I am afraid we are going to be
sorely disappointed. And how can we possibly know what the next
President and future Congresses will ultimately do? That is why it is
so critical, if we are going to keep faith with the American people, to
have a mechanism in this bill that will force all of us across the
political spectrum to do everything we possibly can to make sure those
promises are kept. And it is not in this amendment.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of my
colleague from Texas and his earnest desire to confront the problems in
front of us. I would say at the outset that the recognition over the
last 8\1/2\ to 9 years of being in the Senate is that we have a problem
we need to solve, and I don't think anybody disagrees with that, but I
think there are two important points to which the American people
expect us to pay attention. One is what Reagan described as the shining
city on a hill and that people coming here make us better. There is no
question about that. What he wanted in 1986 was not all walls, as some
people wanted, not all doors, as some people wanted, but a wall with
doors.
So there are two basic facts that confront us. One is that the rule
of law is the glue that holds us together. And when we hear talk about
the American people having confidence as to whether we are going to
enforce the rule of law, whether it is on immigration or anything, the
very fact is that fabric which is holding this Nation together is being
stretched very thin right now, and the last thing we should do in an
immigration bill is to stretch that fabric further in terms of the
confidence of the American people and in terms of the rule of law.
This bill and this amendment is full of holes all throughout as far
as the rule of law is concerned. My colleague from Texas outlined some
of that. He also outlined the capability of the waiver--waiving the
border fence, waving the requirements for RPI status. It is all
written, but it is written so that the Secretary of Homeland Security
can waive almost every portion of it. So that is not the rule of law,
that is the rule of rulers and whatever the rulers decide.
One of my great disappointments in the Senate is that we too often
don't follow regular order. This bill was put together. It did go
through the Judiciary Committee, but not once did it come through the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Homeland
Security, where Border Patrol, where ICE, USIS--where all the
implementation of anything that is in this bill will take place; where,
by the way, all the knowledge, all the experience of all the members on
that committee for the last 10 or 12 years, with the exception of
Senator McCain, was not utilized in putting this bill together. So what
we have is some very good effort and well-intentioned effort by a lot
of people to do some things, but let me outline where they have it
wrong.
The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers wrote a
letter denying the fact that we need 20,000 additional Border Patrol
agents. Here are the people who know. How stupid is this?
What we are doing is throwing money and hoping it will stick on a
wall and that we can convince our colleagues we have a border security
plan when, in fact, there is no border security plan in the United
States today. How do I know there is no plan? Because 2 weeks ago I had
breakfast with Secretary Napolitano, and I asked her to send--and she
said she would--sector by sector, a border plan for the United

[[Page S5008]]

States, and I got a 2-page letter that had nothing in it.
This isn't a new border plan. This isn't a specific border plan. The
country doesn't have one right now, so we have put this together,
outside of the regular order, well-intentioned people trying to solve a
problem to assure the American people that in fact we are going to
secure our borders.
I will readily admit to you that if I lived in the poverty of some of
the Central American nations that I would make every effort on my part
to get here--legally or illegally--because the opportunity is here,
that opportunity to improve yourself, that opportunity to work hard,
that opportunity to live in a Nation that has a justice system where
the rule of law reigns supreme. If I were from one of the Central
American countries and came here, the very irony would be the fact that
I am going to break the law that is the very nurturing thing that gives
the opportunity to advance for me and my family.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from
the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

National Association of

Former Border Patrol Officers,

Brunswick, GA, June 21, 2013.
The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers
believe that the Information contained in their CIER Proposal
for Immigration Reform is a much better path to border
security than any other being discussed.
Just putting more Border Patrol Agents on the border would
be a huge waste of resources and do nothing to solve the real
problems of Illegal Immigration.
We believe that there are a sufficient number of Border
Patrol Agents currently on the border. The real question is
how many ICE Agents will need to be trained and put in place
to handle the sheer volume of Criminal Aliens currently
present in the United States. The issue being concealed by
the press and Congress is the clear and present danger
criminal aliens pose to the American people. Anything
resembling amnesty or a path to citizenship at this point in
time will ensure further endangerment of the American family
unit which is the foundation of American society, by enabling
the following type of aliens to remain in the United States:
(http://www.timesdaily.com/news/local/
article_989a9996-d4a2-11e2-a29c-10604b9f6eda.html)
(http://www.immigration911.org/news/2012/01/illegal-alien-
rapes-and-murders-one-month-old-baby-in-nm/)
(http://www.alipac.us/content/illegal-alien-raped-killed-9-
month-old-girl-california
-1916/).
Real border security must begin with effective interior
enforcement in every jurisdiction in all fifty states.
Achieving real border security requires aggressive expansion
of 287(g) authority, closing down sanctuary cities, fair and
universal employer sanctions and denial of other benefits
such as welfare, public housing, and granting of
identification that would enable the criminal element to
continue concealing their presence in our communities to
include driver's licenses.
For years the illegal aliens being apprehended by
percentages ranging from 17-30 percent already have criminal
records inside the United States. A significant percentage of
these illegal aliens are violent criminals and the number
requiring further prosecution prior to removal may exceed
three million. Moreover, at this point in time the illegal
drug and illegal alien situation in America has spread to
over 2000, American cities and those engaged in both of these
criminal activities are virtually inseparable. This threat to
Public Safety must be addressed first and in that process
there is a reasonable likelihood that potential terrorists
will also be identified and removed or incarcerated. They
live among us.
The second step can be discussed when the Public Safety of
Americans has been assured.

Zack Taylor,

Chairman, National Association of
Former, Border Patrol Officers.

Mr. COBURN. Now, what has Senator Cornyn outlined that does not fit
with common sense? He said people who commit three misdemeanors,
whether it be child abuse or spousal abuse or drunk driving, shouldn't
be given RPI status. Yet, under this bill you can do that. And for
those who are not familiar with courts of law, it is on the date. So if
you got two on one date, that only counts as one. Theoretically, you
could have 10 or 12 misdemeanors and still qualify for RPI status. How
does that fit with the rule of law? How does that fit with the glue
that holds us together? What that does is flaunt the rule of law.
The other thing that I think is very problematic in this bill is we
have 20,000 Border Patrol agents but no increase in ICE agents, no
increase in USCIS, who are the very people who are going to have to
handle the 11 million people here who are going to progress to RPI
status. So where is the money to handle the 11 million additional
people for ICE and USCIS? It is not in there.
If in fact we want the rule of law to work, then we want the people
who qualify under this bill for RPI status to do so under the rule of
law, which means you have to investigate and do a background check, and
make sure the documentation establishes them being here before December
31 of 2011; that in fact they do have residence here, that in fact they
have worked here, and that has to be worked on. That can't just be a
blanket. Because the opportunists will take advantage of that system.
If in fact there are no ICE agents and there are no USCIS agents to
actually handle that, that means everything that has been set up in
this bill will happen without an investigation, without knowledge that
it is true and, in fact, people qualify for RPI status.
The other side of the bill Senator Cornyn made a point about which I
wish to expand upon is the fact we are not going to have an entry and
exit visa system because 80 percent of the people go through the land
ports, and this bill exempts those land ports totally from that.
You heard Senator Cornyn talk about 40 percent, maybe even 50 percent
of the people who are here illegally today came here legally, with a
visa. They qualified for a visa, and they overstayed their visa. If in
fact we have no internal enforcement, no ICE agents to enforce the visa
overstays, we won't change that. The CBO even said you are going to
have 7.5 million new illegals--undocumented--come across under this
bill. If you have no internal enforcement, there is no way to drive
that number down. Yet this bill puts the resources in the wrong place.
You control a border by controlling what the situation is on the
border, depending on location, geography, topography, and assets. So
throwing 41,000 Border Patrol agents across our southern border might
work, but it is a tremendous waste of resources. It might be a jobs
program.
The fact is it takes a combination of technology, fencing, Border
Patrol, and the right combination for wherever we are talking about to
be effective in operational control of the border. But that is not even
a part of the bill. It is not part of the bill to have operational
control of the border with a 90-percent effective rate. One of the
reasons we can't get there--which is one of the things Americans want
to see us promise in this bill--is because our control of the border
today is somewhere between 40 and 65 percent. That is opposite of what
the Secretary of Homeland Security will tell you, but that is what the
studies outside of government say when they go to interview those
undocumented workers who are here today. They did a very thorough
analysis of that and said we are somewhere between 40 and 65 percent.
So the basis of allowing undocumented workers and those who are in
our country who can contribute greatly to our country, the basis of
putting them on some type of status to move toward a green card status
and ultimately citizenship has to be based on some real facts.
Why would somebody not agree to 90-percent control of the border? The
only reason they would not agree to it is they don't think it is
achievable. The only reason it is not achievable is because we don't
have the political will to do it. It is technically achievable. You
can't get to 100 percent, but with good leadership, good sector-by-
sector planning, good internal enforcement, and great legal immigration
so you decrease the illegal, we could get there. Why is that not part
of this bill? It is because the rule of law does not reign supreme in
the Senate.
Let me make a couple other points. One of the big holes in this bill
in section 1202 says the following: The Secretary shall initiate
removal proceedings in accordance with chapter 4 of title II of the
Immigration Nationality Act, 8 USC 1221; two, confirm that immigration
relief or protection has been granted or is pending or otherwise close
to 90 percent of the cases of immigrants who were admitted to the
United States as nonimmigrants, et cetera.
All that means is she can waive the requirements under the bill. She
can

[[Page S5009]]

waive the fence. All throughout this bill we are letting a nonelected
individual have the power to undermine every aspect of any tooth in
this bill.
When the immigration debate started, my hope was that we would do the
principle most Americans want us to do, which is we need to solve the
problem of the undocumented in this country. We need to bring them out
of the shadows. But the price to do that is cogent and realistic
control of our borders.
Let me make a point. If in fact you don't have cogent and realistic
control of your borders and you do everything else in this bill and
everything works as the authors want it to work, guess who is going to
be coming across the border. The very people we actually don't want
here: the drug runners, the human smugglers, the criminals, the
terrorists.
So when I say 90-percent operational control of the border and I am
in Oklahoma, people look at me with askance. They say, Well, that means
10 percent of the people are still coming. And guess what makes up that
10 percent. The worst of what tries to get into this country.

So it is not just about getting a border security plan to secure our
border, it is about limiting access of the criminals and the terrorists
and the worst from coming into our country. This bill is going to allow
that to continue. It is not going to stop that. It will continue.
To Senator Cornyn's point, what we need is to take this out of the
political arena. We need to make it so the pressure is that we do what
is best for America, and one which is best for America is having a lot
more people come here and contribute to our melting pot. There is no
question about that. But we have to have it where it cannot be
manipulated by whoever is in charge for political benefit. That is why
the Cornyn plan is novel in terms of actually solving the problem.
I am not going to be here much longer, less than 3\1/2\ years, but I
can already predict what is going to happen if this piece of
legislation comes through: My daughters and their husbands 15 years
from now are going to be listening to the same debate on the Senate
floor.
The biggest deficit the Senate has, in my mind, is failure to put
teeth into what they know will actually fix the problems in this
country. This bill has no teeth. This bill has $48 billion thrown up
against the wall to buy the votes to say we are going to have a secure
border when in fact we are not.
That doesn't mean we can't get a secure border. I worked for 2 weeks
with my staff. I told Senator Schumer from New York I would love to try
to do that, but in 2 weeks you can't do it. What you have done, you
haven't done it either, and you have done it from a deficit of
knowledge rather than using knowledge. You didn't use any of the
significant historical staff on the committee of jurisdiction to help
write this legislation. The institutional knowledge is not in it. It
will not succeed.
I don't know ultimately how I will vote on this amendment, but I am
certainly not going to vote to proceed to this until we have had a
chance--more than 72 hours--to actually work through and be able to
ascertain and also share the flaws in the approach.
For a third of that amount of money you could easily secure the
border, and we are going to spend $48 billion. And in there is another
jobs program adding to the 102 we have now, at $1.5 billion. GAO has
already said we need to redo our jobs program. Well, we have. We have
an earmark for another youth jobs program, and we won't even fix the
youth jobs programs we have now.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, what is the status of the time that
remains for each side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents of the measure retain 25
minutes; opponents have 7 minutes.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Corker-
Hoeven amendment. I have listened carefully to those who are opposed
who have come to the floor today and Friday, and I have come to one
conclusion: They won't take yes for an answer.
Most of the criticism that has come at this amendment is it does too
much for the border. Even some of my colleagues who are opposed say it
does too much, even though they proposed similar things themselves.
My good friend from Texas says we don't need more border agents but
had proposed 5,000 himself. My good friend from Texas also said, well,
we need technology, but there was no technology in his bill. My dear
friend Senator Coburn, whom I very much like and admire, first says we
need money for ICE agents, not Border Patrol. But ICE is funded to
deport about 400,000 people a year. Most of the 11 million will become
citizens and not be deported. We have more than enough ICE agents to
deal with the much smaller number who will be here illegally, certainly
in the beginning and throughout the bill.

Dr. Coburn said we don't have more money for U.S. CIS agents. We do--
$3.6 billion more.
Finally, Dr. Coburn talks about the trigger. Let's face it, for many
on the other side the No. 1 priority is securing the border. For many
on our side the No. 1 priority is achieving a path to citizenship. The
bill proposed by the Gang of 8, we believe, did both. But, certainly,
there were many on the other side who thought the amount we were
putting into border security was not enough, was not adequate, so we
were willing to augment that in the Corker-Hoeven amendment, which I am
going to talk about in a minute.
Certainly, what we do not want to do is choose one in place of the
other. The problem with the 90 percent, which Senator Cornyn proposed,
was that under many different types of scenarios and circumstances--an
act of God, an administration that was decidedly against a path to
citizenship and counted things differently or held up the count--we
could envision no path to citizenship. That was out of the question for
us.
What we tried to do is say we can have both. We also said we are
going to do border security first. But what we made sure of in the
triggers--and there are five triggers now with the amendment in this
proposal. We make sure the triggers could not be used deliberately by
somebody who was opposed to the path to citizenship as a way to block
them--whether that be a Congress or a President or somebody in the
administration.
So we have come up with the right compromise. We have not split the
baby in half, which is what Senator Cornyn and, I gather, Senator
Coburn want to do. We have had both. We have satisfied those who are
for border security and those who are for a path to citizenship, and
only when we satisfy both will we get a bill. We cannot do it with one
and not the other. So let me go over the border security part and why
it will work.
First, to say the experts were not consulted, as my good friend from
Oklahoma said, is not fair, particularly to Senators McCain and Flake,
who are probably greater experts on what is needed at the border than
any of us. They may not be chair or ranking member of the committee--
although I believe Senator McCain is on that committee--but they live
on that border. And, to boot, Senator McCain has tremendous military
experience in terms of surveillance.
What we have done is looked at each sector. There are nine. They are
different. The sector of the Senator from Texas has a river and has
private property that goes right up to the edge of the river. It would
take 30 years to build a fence on that side of the property because we
would need eminent domain, and I am sure there are some ranchers who
would say: I don't want a fence on my side, right by the river. That is
where my cattle come to graze and drink.
There are parts of the Arizona sector that are heavily populated
where a strong fence is needed, and there are parts that are so rugged
that have no roads that a fence would be a waste of money.
Our bill relies on different approaches in each of the nine sectors.
But the best approach did not just come out of the air. That came with
Senator McCain sitting down, working with Senators Hoeven and Corker,
but also working with the Department of Homeland Security as well as
those who work in the Border Patrol as to what is needed. That is in
the bill.
We heard the objection from others that they do not trust DHS, either
this one or a new one, to implement what is needed. So it is in the
amendment.

[[Page S5010]]

Why do we need so many men and women on the border? Let me explain.
Our American people demand that we make the border airtight. That is
why some have proposed a 2,200-mile fence, double. That is what they
wanted. The cost would be--I think it might go to the hundreds of
billions, but it also would not work in many areas for the reasons I
mentioned. But they want it airtight. So here is what we have: We have
adequate eyes in the sky, whether it be drones or airplanes. So every
person, every single person, 100 percent observability, 100 percent
situational awareness is what it is called. Any single person crossing
the border will be detected, every single person, whether it is night
or day, whether it is sunny or stormy. The technology not available 10
years ago allows us to do just that.
Then we have proposed a large number of Border Patrol. It is true
there are enough agents that 24-7 we could station somebody on the
border every 1,000 feet, all the way from the western edge of the
border in San Diego, CA, to the eastern edge of the border in
Brownsville, TX. Why? Because the minute one of those eyes in the sky
detects someone approaching the border, there will be adequate
personnel there to say we will detain them or turn them back.
It is obvious. It is what the experts tell us will work. It is very
explainable to the American people. So, yes, there are a lot of
resources on the border. Yes, each of us, if we wrote the bill, might
do it a different way or put in more money or less money. But no one
can dispute that the border becomes virtually airtight--virtually
airtight. That means those who cross the border will be few and far
between.
There are two things I would like to mention. It is expensive. This
amendment does not come cheap. But the CBO report was a game changer
because it said what everyone understands, but it verified it. It gave
it the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. We all know one of the great
economic engines of America--or we should all know; many of us do. I
know, Madam President, you know it, being an immigrant yourself--that
one of the greatest economic engines America has had to propel it and
make it the greatest country in the world is immigrants.
Immigrants are willing to risk everything. They cross stormy oceans,
trek across deserts to come to America. What a beautiful, wonderful
thing. I am so proud that out the window of my den in Brooklyn, NY, I
can see that lady who holds the torch. To the whole world she
symbolizes what a great country we are. And people come.
Anyone who doubts and says the Sun is setting on America, just look
at how many people risk their lives to come here, how many people
separate from families to come here, how many people uproot themselves
to come here. If America were not such a great, attractive place,
we wouldn't have a problem of so many illegal immigrants. People want
to come here. When they come here they work. Boy, do they work. To be
able to send $10 a week to their mother or kids in Oaxaca Province or
in the Philippines or in Bosnia is a huge thing. It gives them joy.
That is why they are sometimes willing to work under the kinds of
conditions we don't find acceptable for people who are here legally.
But it is the greatest economic engine there is.

Immigrants form companies because so many of the smartest and
brightest come here. Immigrants make our meat factories and our farms
work because even those who may not have such an education are willing
to work under very difficult conditions to earn enough money to feed
themselves and maybe send a little home to their families. They are the
greatest economic engine we have--the greatest.
Republicans say the way to get this economy going is to cut taxes.
Democrats say the way to get this economy going is to spend money. You
can decide which one you believe in. But I tell you, no one can dispute
that a greater economic engine of either of those is the blood, sweat,
toil, and tears of our immigrant communities--not just starting today
but from the day in my city when the new immigrants were called
``English'' because the Dutch had settled New York and didn't want
these newcomers to come in. In fact, the two oldest high schools in
America are in New York City. They are both private schools, but one is
called Collegiate. It was formed by the Dutch Reform Church in 1628.
When the English came, they didn't want to go to a school with this
Dutch Reform Church. So they formed the Trinity School for the
Episcopal English, the Anglican English. There were all kinds of
tension. Of course, there is always tension. But when these new English
people came, they worked hard and the Dutch saw that.
Peter Stuyvesant recognized it and made New York, actually--the
reason so many have written that we have become the greatest city in
the world is because, unlike other cities, we would take everybody as
long as they worked hard. It is one of the reasons my people settled so
heavily in New York, in America. It was a tradition that lasted a long
time. Boston was bigger than New York, Philadelphia, but they were
closed to outsiders. New York was open.
So the greatest economic engine America needs is immigrants and their
hard work, whether they are Ph.D.s in nuclear physics or cutting sugar
in Florida or Louisiana. The CBO vindicated that report. Amazing. We
are busy talking about Mr. Bernanke and how he could twist the dials
and GDP growth might go up 0.3 percent. Do you know what the impartial
CBO showed? If we did our bill, which both brought 11 million workers
out of the shadows and brought hundreds of thousands more in, in the
next decade--millions more in--whether through the Future-Flow Program
or Family Unification--GDP would go up 3.3 percent. I know of no
government program or tax cut that even professes to do that much. And
in the second decade it would go up over 5 percent.
Of course, this is good for America, and we want to secure our
borders and we want to rationalize our system and we want to be fair on
a tough but earned path to citizenship for those who cross the border
illegally. The bill, with the addition of the Corker-Hoeven amendment,
will convince everybody they do it all.
One other point. Those who said this new Corker-Hoeven amendment will
cost money, it will. But let me read what CBO has just said in the last
half hour:

The amendment--

Corker-Hoeven--

would significantly increase border security relative to the
committee-approved version of the bill, and it would
strengthen enforcement actions against those who stay in the
country after their authorization has expired. Therefore, CBO
expects that relative to the committee-approved version of S.
744, the amendment would reduce both illegal entry into the
country and the number of people who stay in the country
beyond the end of their authorized period.

I say that to my colleague from Texas, who is on the Senate floor,
and others who say this will not work. CBO: Illegal immigration will
decline as a result of the Corker-Hoeven amendment.
Here is something else CBO says:

All told, CBO and JCT--

Joint Committee on Taxes--

expect that enacting the amendment would, like enacting S.
744--

The base bill--

reduce the federal deficit over both the next 10 years and
the second decade following enactment--fewer illegal
immigrants, higher GDP, more jobs, reduced deficit.

Who could oppose that? I don't know of anybody who could oppose that
if they care about America.
Once again, on the border stuff my colleagues just won't take yes for
an answer. This is the toughest, strongest, most expensive border
provision we have had. It is augmented, of course, by the entry-exit
system improvements and the mandatory E-Verify, which many of my
colleagues, including my good friend from Alabama, have been calling
for for a long time. Illegal immigration will drop dramatically, GDP
will go up, jobs will go up, and the deficit will go down.
Pass this amendment and pass this bill. It is good for America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, at 5:30 p.m. today the Senate is going to
vote on the modification to the Leahy amendment, which is the package
that was put together by Senators Hoeven and Corker. The distinguished
senior Senator from New York who has led

[[Page S5011]]

the so-called Gang of 8 in putting this bill together has just spoken
on the floor, as will, I believe, the distinguished majority whip, who
is also on the floor.
As I indicated on Friday when I spoke about this, this is not the
amendment I would have drafted. I think every one of us, if we drafted
the bill, would have drafted it differently. Republicans demanded these
aggressive border measures to secure their support for the overall
legislation. And while it means spending an enormous amount of money,
because their amendment will increase Republican support by spending
this money for this historic, comprehensive legislation, I will support
it. Ultimately, the comprehensive legislation is most important.
I appreciate that this package includes a provision Senator Murray
and I worked on that takes an important step toward restoring privacy
rights to millions of people who live near the northern border. Over
the past decade, the Department of Homeland Security has periodically
set up a Border Patrol vehicle checkpoint nearly 100 miles from the
Canadian border in Vermont. Many Vermonters have questioned whether
this is an effective border security measure or whether it is just a
waste of money. Some have wondered why we are doing it when we are 100
miles from the friendliest border any country has ever known.
My provision will make significant progress in addressing that
checkpoint by injecting oversight into the decisionmaking process for
operating checkpoints so far from the border. While this is an
important step in the right direction, I am disappointed that the
version of the Hoeven-Corker amendment is limited to the northern
border, and I will continue to work on this issue so that all Americans
can have their privacy rights protected. Most of us appreciate our
privacy rights and don't like to be stopped for no particular reason.
Today's vote for cloture on this Republican package is a vote for
bipartisan support for comprehensive immigration reform. It is a vote
in favor of taking the bold steps needed to confront the current
situation and give the many millions of people living in the shadows
the opportunity to come into the lawful immigration system. I applaud
those Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, who have come together
to get us here. Now is the time for this whole body to come together in
support of fixing a broken immigration system that hurts all of us. It
stifles our economy and keeps our families apart. We have gotten to
this point through compromise, but we have not compromised on the core
of this legislation that is intended to set so many on the path to
become full and lawful participants in American life. And in that
spirit of compromise and cooperation, which was fostered through almost
140 amendments that were agreed to by bipartisan votes in the Senate
Judiciary Committee, I will support this amendment and urge my
colleagues to also support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I thank the Senator for his leadership
on this issue, and I want to make a few brief comments in support of
the amendment.
First of all, to those who have been traveling and are just coming
in, this is a cloture vote on the amendment only. There will be further
cloture votes down the road. This amendment is in legislative language
and has 115 pages. It takes about 30 minutes to read. We have had it
out there for 75 hours, so people have had plenty of time to look at
this.
I especially want to say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle
that what this amendment should be measured against is the base text of
this legislation. The border security piece would be put in place by
the head of Homeland Security. Right now, that is Janet Napolitano. She
would have 180 days to put that in place, and then the trigger 10 years
down the road is that Homeland Security says that it is 90 percent in
place.
What this amendment does is put in a much stronger border security
regime that has five triggers in it before anyone can receive a green
card: No. 1, there will be 20,000 Border Patrol agents who will be
deployed, trained, and in place; No. 2, $4.5 billion worth of
technology that is necessary for us to get 100 percent situational
awareness on the border; No. 3, 350 miles of new fencing on top of the
350 miles of fencing we now have: No. 4, the E-Verify system will be
fully implemented and in place: No. 5, fully implementing an entry-exit
visa program, which is one of the reasons there have been so many
overstays.
What I say to my friends on this side of the aisle: You are measuring
the base text which says nothing about what we are going to do to this
amendment which specifically spells out those things that have to occur
before anybody can move from temporary status to green card status.
Some people have talked about the costs. This is a $46 billion
investment. Much of it is one time. The fact is that this only goes in
place if the bill passes, and as everyone knows the bill generates $192
billion to the U.S. Treasury over a 10-year period. I have never had an
opportunity to vote for a bill that did that.
Lastly, let me state that Governor Brewer probably knows more about
border security than anybody on the Senate floor. She has been dealing
with that in Arizona for a long time. Today she said in front of a
national audience that this, in fact, was a victory for Arizona if this
amendment could be passed.
CBO has scored this today. I tell all the Members that as opposed to
the base text, which just says a plan will be put in place after 180
days--we don't know what that is. But this will significantly reduce
the amount of illegal immigration we have in this Nation.
I know there are folks who will vote against the bill regardless of
what it says. I just say: Please look at this amendment. This is a
strengthening amendment. This is an amendment that every Republican who
cares about border security and people on the other side who care about
border security should support. I hope everyone will get behind this.
This puts a balance in place. I think if this amendment is passed, we
will be doing something great for our Nation.
I urge everyone to vote yes.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, we are about to vote to end debate--a
debate that never really began on an amendment that is 1,200 pages and
was filed on Friday afternoon after many Senators left town. We are now
voting at 5:30 p.m. on Monday as many Senators are stepping off the
airplane.
This is the 1,200-page amendment. We have seen this play before. It
is reminiscent of ObamaCare--yet another bill we were told we have to
pass to find out what is in it. Unfortunately, it seems there are some
Republicans eager to go along with the Democrats in the mad rush to
pass this bill.
In the 2007 immigration debate, close to 50 amendments were
considered. In this debate, only nine amendments have been debated. I
introduced seven substantive amendments to improve this bill. Not a
single one of those amendments has been considered on the floor of the
Senate.
Mr. SCHUMER. Would my colleague yield for a question?
Mr. CRUZ. I would happily yield except we have 5 minutes left.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given
1 minute for both the question and the answer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CRUZ. Assuming that the time does not come out of my own, I have
no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Does the Senator deny that of the 1,000 pages, about 100
pages are new text and the rest is just the old text of the existing
bill and that over a weekend every Senator should be able to read 100
pages of important legislation?
Mr. CRUZ. As my friend from New York knows well, the amendments are
interspersed through a very complicated bill. Analyzing where waivers
have been given and what the intersection is of new provisions with old
provisions is not a simple endeavor. Indeed, in this particular body,
it is not unbeknownst to this body to slide something in text.

[[Page S5012]]

My point is very simple: What is the rush? Why are we proceeding
gangbusters? The only explanation that makes sense is that it seems
there are many Senators in this body--perhaps on both sides of this
aisle--who very much want a fig leaf. They want something they can
claim they are supporting border security when, in fact, this bill does
not do that.
I suggest that if we contrast this amendment to the amendment I
introduced, we can see the difference between a bill that actually
would protect border security versus something that is merely meant to
tell gullible constituents that we have done something.
The first and most important difference is that this amendment
provides legalization first and then border security maybe at some time
in the future. We have seen this before. In 1986 it was the same
promise Congress made. We got the legalization, we got the amnesty, and
we never, ever got border security. In contrast, the amendment I
introduced reflects the will of the American people to have border
security first and only then the possibility of legalization.
Secondly, this amendment does not require operational control of the
border. Current law requires that. This amendment weakens current law
on operational control. My amendment would require that the problem
actually be solved.
Thirdly, this amendment does not require a biometric entry-exit
system. It weakens current law. Current law requires that; this
amendment takes that out. Instead, it requires essentially a photo ID.
For anyone who perhaps has known a teenager, they know that the
difficulty of securing a fake ID with a picture on it is not very high.
Any flea market in the land will allow it.
Fourth, this bill weakens the requirements of statutes on secure
fencing, and it weakens the current law on border security.
Fifth, this amendment is not offset. My amendment was offset. So
there is brandnew spending in this amendment with no offset.
Sixth, this amendment has no real enforcement. The amendment I
introduced said: If the changes within it on border security were not
implemented within 3 years, 20 percent of the salary of political
appointees at DHS would be reduced, 20 percent of the budget would be
reduced, and it would be block granted to the State to fix the problem.
Fundamentally, this is about political cover. It is not about solving
the problem. I suggest the approach is one with which we are all
familiar. It is the approach that perhaps in childhood we knew well. It
is an approach that says: I will gladly secure the border next Tuesday
for legalization today. Now, if we were naive and had not been through
1986 together and had not seen Congress play this same show game with
the American people, perhaps we would fall for it, but I don't think
the American people are that gullible. Everyone wants to fix our broken
immigration system, but at the same time we should not replicate
mistakes of the past.
This amendment and the underlying Gang of 8 bill grant immediate
legalization. The border security changes will never be implemented,
and the border will not be secured. That is not a solution of which the
American people can be proud. I urge this body to reject the amendment,
to vote against cloture, and reject the underlying bill.

I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I understand there will be numbers of
people on my side of the aisle who are going to vote against the
immigration bill, in some cases regardless of what it says. But this
amendment is not about anything relative to amnesty or anything else.
If I could just read to all of my Members what CBO said about this
amendment: ``The amendment would significantly increase border security
relative''--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the proponents has expired.
Mr. CORKER. I ask unanimous consent for a 1-minute extension.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORKER. This came out of CBO today. I wish to say this to all the
Members on my side. I urge everyone to look at the CBO language, which
says if this amendment is passed, it will strongly increase border
security and strongly decrease illegal immigration in this country. I
don't know how any Republican who says they support border security can
vote against this amendment when they are comparing it against the base
language which is in the bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1\1/2\ minutes remaining for the
opponents.
The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, this is not a vote on the Hoeven
amendment; it is a vote on the complete substitute of over 1,000 pages
that includes all aspects of the bill before us. It includes amnesty,
and it includes the failed entry-exit visa.
If we vote for cloture tonight, we will be transferring complete
control of the entire process for this immigration bill to the majority
leader, Harry Reid. We can hear the whistle in the distance right now
as the train is arriving in the station. If Senators Reid, Corker, and
Hoeven are able to cut off debate, the next vote will come in about 30
hours and another substitute vote in 30 hours after that.
Senator Reid has filled the tree. There will be no amendments
allowed--
Mr. LEAHY. Regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the opponents has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. Without the approval of the majority leader.

Cloture Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of
rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to
a close debate on the Leahy amendment No. 1183, as modified, to S. 744,
a bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform, and for other
purposes.
Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Michael F. Bennet, Charles
E. Schumer, Richard J. Durbin, Robert Menendez, Dianne
Feinstein, Sheldon Whitehouse, Patty Murray, Debbie
Stabenow, Robert P. Casey Jr., Mark R. Warner, Thomas
R. Carper, Richard Blumenthal, Angus S. King Jr.,
Christopher A. Coons, Christopher Murphy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
amendment No. 1183 offered by the Senator from Vermont, as modified, to
S. 744, a bill to provide comprehensive immigration reform and for
other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the
Senator from Colorado (Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Georgia (Mr.
Isakson), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), and the Senator from
Utah (Mr. Lee).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) would
have voted ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 67, nays 27, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 160 Leg.]

YEAS--67

Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chiesa
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller

[[Page S5013]]

Rubio
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--27

Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Fischer
Grassley
Inhofe
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter

NOT VOTING--6

Brown
Chambliss
Enzi
Isakson
Lee
Udall (CO)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). On this vote, the yeas are 67,
the nays are 27. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Cloture having been invoked, the motion to recommit fails.

Vote Explanation

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I was unable to return
to Washington, DC, prior to the vote this evening due to unavoidable
weather-related delays of my airline flight, which were beyond my
control. I was therefore unable to cast a vote for rollcall vote No.
160, the motion to invoke cloture on Leahy amendment No. 1183 to S.
744, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill. Had I been present, I
would have voted yea.

____________________