[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 93 (Wednesday, June 26, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5205-S5258]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND IMMIGRATION MODERNIZATION 
                                  ACT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 744, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative 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.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 11:30 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two 
managers or their designees.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I have expressed my frustration many times, and more 
often in the last week, about the lack of progress on getting votes. We 
have been on this bill for 3 weeks. Yet we have only dealt with nine 
amendments. It is unclear if any more amendments will be debated and 
voted on. We have provided a list to the majority on amendments that we 
believe will make the bill better. It seems as though the only 
amendments that will be made in order before we vote on final passage 
will be the Schumer-Hoeven-Corker so-called grand compromise. This is 
the one that was concocted behind closed doors for days, stalling 
progress we wanted to make in the public. In other words, we lost a lot 
of time while this grand compromise was being concocted behind closed 
doors. Even while that was going on, we could have been debating 
amendments and voting on amendments.
  Not only is the amendment before us, meaning the Schumer-Hoeven-
Corker amendment, loaded with provisions that some would call earmarks, 
but it continues to promote false promises that the border will be 
truly secured. We get the impression from hearing the authors debate 
their amendment that tomorrow we are going to have a secure border. 
This is not going to happen, and I will explain that in a moment.
  Let's get back to basics. We are a Nation based upon the rule of law. 
In that concept, every Nation has a right to protect its sovereignty. 
In fact, it has a duty to protect the homeland. Any border security 
measures we pass then must be real and, more importantly, immediate. We 
can't wait 10 years down the road to put more agents on the border or 
to implement a tracking system to track foreign nationals. We have to 
prove to the American people today that illegal entries are under 
complete control and the visa overstays are being punished. Being 
punished means leave our country when your visa says you are supposed 
to leave the country.
  Unfortunately, too many people have been led to believe the bill 
before us, and this grand compromise amendment, will force the 
Secretary of Homeland Security to secure the border. The fact is, it 
doesn't do that, but we are led to believe that tomorrow the border 
will be secure. The amendment basically is a continuation of the basic 
premise of the underlying bill--legalization first, enforcement later, 
if ever.
  It is very simple and it is wrong. People will be legalized merely on 
the submission of a plan by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
  Will that plan secure the border? Who is going to know until a long 
way down the road. In the meantime, you have legalization and possibly 
enforcement, but you aren't going to know. Then you end up making the 
same mistake I made by voting for the bill in 1986. I don't intend to 
make that mistake again.
  We are saying the Secretary puts forth a plan. This very same 
Secretary is the one who thinks the border is already strong enough, 
the same Secretary who has refused to even answer questions we 
submitted to her 2 months ago about how she might interpret some of 
this legislation. She obviously hasn't been forthright in answering 
what those department policies would be.
  The amendment puts additional agents on the border, yes. It does it, 
quite frankly, in opposition to people on the other side of the aisle. 
Some of the sponsors of the bill have argued already that more agents 
aren't necessary. Maybe I should be satisfied we are going to have more 
agents. The point is, it is so far down the road--don't sell this 
amendment to me as border security.
  Let's be honest with the American people. This amendment, this grand 
compromise concocted behind closed doors, may call for more Border 
Patrol agents, but it surely doesn't require it until the undocumented 
population, who are now RPIs, apply for adjustment status or a green 
card, and that is down the road several years.
  I am all for putting more agents along the border, but why should we 
wait? It ought to be enforcement now, legalization later. Why allow 
legalization now and simply promise more agents in the future?
  Even then, who believes the Secretary, like the one we have today, 
will actually enforce the law? When I say like the Secretary we have 
today, I mean the policy. She says the border is secure.
  In this amendment there is the issue of fencing. One of the 
conditions that must be met before the Secretary can process green 
cards for people here illegally is 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, so current law is 
weakened.
  The amendment states the second layer is to be built only if the 
Secretary deems it necessary and appropriate. This is another 
delegation of authority to a Secretary who says the border is already 
secure.

[[Page S5206]]

  Additionally, the underlying bill still specifically states that 
nothing in this provision shall be interpreted to require her to 
install fencing. Yes, they talk about this being a strong border-secure 
grand compromise, but it leaves so much discretion to a Secretary who 
already says the border is secure.
  Another part of the amendment requires an electronic entry-exit 
system is in use at all international air and sea ports. This sounds 
like all international air and sea ports--and look at this caveat--but 
only ``where U.S. Customs and Border Protection are currently 
deployed.''
  This is actually weaker than the underlying bill which required the 
electronic entry-exit system be used at air and sea ports, not just 
international. Here again we have a grand compromise, supposed to get 
more votes for this bill, but it is weaker than the underlying 
legislation, because the underlying legislation requires biometric 
entry-exit at all ports of entry, including air, sea, and land.
  The amendment dictates to the Secretary which equipment to purchase 
and deploy at the border. The Members who wrote the bill were 
apparently given some secret list of technology that agents need, but I 
am not sure if this came from the Department or some defense 
contractor.
  Have no fear, the border will be secure because the amendment calls 
for fixed towers and cameras, unattended ground sensors, night-vision 
goggles, fiberoptic tank inspection scopes, a license plate reader, and 
backscatters. Obviously, I am facetious when I say the border will be 
secured by this concocted, behind-closed-doors grand compromise.
  What is not so funny is the spending of taxpayer dollars in this 
amendment. Originally the legislation allocated $6.5 million for the 
Secretary to carry out the law, and $6.5 billion is a lot of money. 
When we got to committee, the Gang of 8 increased the trust fund 
allocation by $6.5 billion to $8.3 billion, and $8.3 billion is still a 
lot of money. We have this grand compromise concocted behind closed 
doors before us, and now we are looking at not $8.3 billion but $46.3 
billion upon date of enactment for the Secretary to spend as she 
wishes.
  As is often the case here in Washington, the solution always seems to 
be throw money at a problem. This grand compromise measures the success 
of their amendment by the amount of money that is going to be spent, 
not by outcomes. The American people, in the polls of this country, 
want the outcomes to be a secure border, not the amount of money that 
is going to be spent on the success of a piece of legislation. Of 
course, the money has to come from somewhere, so the amendment requires 
the government to raid the Social Security trust fund. It is ObamaCare 
all over again, where the Medicare trust fund was raided to help 
finance that. It is irresponsible and unacceptable.

  Moreover, the amendment's sponsors will claim that people here 
illegally will pay for our border security needs. But money has to come 
into the trust fund, and after it gets into the trust fund it has to be 
repaid to the Treasury. Where will the American people be reimbursed? 
The sponsors of the bill say the taxpayers will not bear the burden. 
Yet there is no requirement the funds be paid back. There is no time 
limit or accountability to ensure the taxpayers or the Treasury gets 
its money back.
  The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment increases fees on visas for legal 
immigrants in order to replenish the trust fund and the Treasury. 
Employers, students, and tourists will pay the price. Talking about 
employers, students, and tourists, these are people who abide by the 
law who are paying the price. Meanwhile, the amendment says for those 
being legalized--in other words, people who came here undocumented, 
those people having not subjected themselves to American law by 
crossing the border illegally--they cannot be charged more than what is 
allowed already. The Secretary cannot adjust the fees or penalties on 
those who apply for or renew their RPI or blue card status, and those 
are the people who came to this country without papers, in violation of 
our law.
  The amendment in the underlying bill will not end illegal immigration 
because the border is not going to be secure. The Congressional Budget 
Office says illegal immigration would only be reduced by 25 percent due 
to the increased numbers 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 illegal 
immigrants.
  Just as with the 1986 amnesty--and I voted for that, which was a 
mistake I regret--we are going to be back in the same position in 10 
years, facing the same problem.
  The authors have talked a lot about the border surge in their 
amendment, but they seem to be hiding from the fact 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, even for the performing arts. 
This isn't just a border amendment. There are provisions in the bill 
that were put in there specifically to get Senators to support passage 
of this bill, because they think if they can get 70 votes, the House of 
Representatives is going to buy into this thing. I expect to vote 
against the bill, and I expect the House of Representatives to fix this 
miserable failure, both the underlying legislation as well as the grand 
compromise amendment before us, so we can vote for a bill going to the 
President that has border security before we have legalization.
  That is going to happen. I trust the other body isn't going to buy 
into the argument the Senators in this body want to use; that somehow, 
if this gets 70 votes, it is so bipartisan how could the other body not 
do it? This body is not the deliberative body on this amendment that 
history tells the American people the Senate is. This is a body that 
for 3 weeks, with 451 amendments, didn't deliberate. We stalled and 
voted on 9 or 10 amendments. The House of Representatives is going to 
be the deliberative body on immigration reform, and it is going to put 
the Senate to shame.
  I encourage my colleagues to oppose the 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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an agreement I have 
reached with Senator Graham on the Hirono-Murray-Murkowski amendment 
No. 1718, which has been cosponsored by Senators Boxer, Gillibrand, 
Cantwell, Stabenow, Klobuchar, Warren, Baldwin, Mikulski, Shaheen, 
Leahy, Franken, Menendez, and Schumer.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Landrieu be added as a 
cosponsor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I have been speaking on the Senate floor 
and talking with my colleagues about my concern that the immigration 
bill we are considering inadvertently disadvantages women who are 
trying to immigrate to the United States. I believe the new merit-based 
point system for employment green cards will significantly disadvantage 
women who want to come to this country, particularly unmarried women.
  Many women overseas do not have the same educational or career 
advancement opportunities available to men in those countries. This new 
merit-based system will prioritize green cards for immigrants with high 
levels of education or experience. By favoring these immigrants, the 
bill essentially cements unfairness against women into U.S. immigration 
law. That is not the way to go.
  After I brought these concerns to Senators Schumer and Graham, 
Senator Graham graciously agreed to sit down with me. We were able to 
work out a way to address the concerns about women in the merit-based 
system that I believe will significantly improve this bill. The new 
Hirono-Murray-Murkowski amendment reflects a few changes which we 
agreed to after working with Senator Graham.
  The changes we made include: limits on the ability for certain types 
of health care workers to obtain points multiple times based solely on 
their

[[Page S5207]]

employment, clarification that there must be a personal relationship to 
obtain points under the humanitarian concerns section of the amendment, 
elimination of the provision that awarded points for being a last 
surviving relative of a U.S. citizen, harmonization of tier 3 with 
tiers 1 and 2 by adding points for English language skills, and 
ensuring the tier 3 visas do not--do not--reduce the overall numbers of 
tier 1 and tier 2 visas available.
  We should continue to increase the opportunities for women in our 
immigration system, but I believe this agreement will help level the 
playing field for women. Our amendment would establish a new tier 3 
merit-based point system that will provide a fair opportunity for women 
to compete for merit-based green cards.
  Complementary to the high-skilled, tier 1 and lower skilled tier 2, 
the new tier 3 would include professions commonly held by women so as 
not to limit women's opportunities for economic-focused immigration to 
our country. This system would provide 30,000 tier 3 visas and would 
not reduce the visas available in the other two merit-based tiers.
  I wish to thank Senator Graham for working with me to modify this 
proposal in such a way he could agree to lend his support while still 
addressing the real concerns that women will be at a disadvantage under 
the new merit-based system. I believe our amendment is a step in the 
right direction toward addressing the disparities for women in the new 
merit-based system, and over 100 organizations, including faith-based 
organizations, support the Hirono-Murray-Murkowski amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to improve the new 
merit-based immigration system and make this bill better for women. I 
hope we can reach an agreement to bring this amendment to the floor for 
a vote.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we will have a vote before much longer 
on the question of whether the legislation before us violates the 
budget. I think that is going to be established quite clearly. The 
chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Murray--and I am the ranking 
Republican on that committee--is going to acknowledge that and the 
Parliamentarian will so rule that the legislation violates the budget 
and violates it in a number of ways, contrary to the promises made by 
the sponsors of the bill.
  The sponsors of the bill proposed a large piece of legislation and 
told everyone a great deal about their bill, one fact after another, 
and those promises and representations have been shown to be 
inaccurate. They are not accurate and that is unfortunate. That is why 
the bill is having the difficulties it is.
  If it simply was a bill that provided a legal status for people who 
had been here a long time without difficulties and it was a bill that 
actually fixed the border, fixed the workplace enforcement, fixed the 
entry-exit visa, and created an effective internal enforcement 
mechanism for the future, the legislation would have a good chance of 
having popular support. But as people find out more about it, they find 
all those factors are not going to be achieved effectively--in some 
instances even weakened from current law--and as a result the 
legislation is in trouble.
  When we get a piece of legislation that is 1,200 pages and people are 
unable to digest it, it boils down to talking points. So the sponsors 
produced a series of talking points that they said reflects what is in 
the legislation. One of their talking points was that the bill is not 
going to cost the taxpayers money; that we would fine the people who 
are here illegally and they will pay the cost of this bill so it would 
not impact the budget. We were promised that in the Senate Judiciary 
Committee when this legislation came up. Senator Schumer made that 
explicitly clear. This is a quote from him in committee, and this is 
what their talking point said and what their Members have been saying 
repeatedly:

       And here, what we're simply doing is making sure that all 
     the expenses in the bill are fully funded by the income that 
     the bill brings in. This is to make sure that this bill does 
     not incur any cost on the taxpayers. It's to make it revenue 
     neutral.

  That was the promise we had heard. People like to hear that. They 
were pleased to hear that. It was a positive spin for the bill. He goes 
on to say:

       Section 6 provides start-up costs to implement the bill, 
     repaid by fees that come in later.

  Then he goes on to say money will be paid from companies and workers 
and by the immigrants who get the legal status in terms of ``their 
fines as they go through the process.''
  That was the promise that was there. Yet now we have legislation and 
a score that demonstrates that is plainly not correct. First, the 
Congressional Budget Office analyzed the cost, and this was before we 
added the extra money last week or what we will vote on today. This was 
before they added the substitute Corker-Hoeven-Schumer amendment, and 
that substitute adds a lot more money.
  What our experts in the budget office tell us is that it would add 
$14 billion to the on-budget debt of the United States, but it is 
really more than that.
  Most of the individuals who will be legalized will be able to have 
Social Security cards and will pay FICA, Medicare, and Social Security 
withholdings on their paychecks every week, which will incur extra 
revenue for the U.S. Government. Our colleagues claim credit for the 
FICA money to try to justify their claims that they are within the 
budget and that we should not just count the on-budget score that debt 
increases from the CBO. But we have to know that the FICA money is 
money that goes to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, and 
every one of the individuals whose average age now is in their thirties 
will eventually claim the benefit of Medicare and Social Security. They 
will draw out of the Medicare and Social Security trust funds the money 
they paid in.
  Statistically speaking, they will draw out a lot more than they pay 
in because those funds are not on a sound basis. Medicare and Social 
Security are on an unsound basis today. They are counting that money to 
pay for their bill when that money is dedicated to the Social Security 
and Medicare trust funds.
  By spending that money today, they are simply adding to the debt of 
the United States. They cannot claim that twice. They cannot claim that 
the individuals who are going to be given Social Security cards and 
will be on a path to receive Social Security and Medicare when they 
retire--that they are paying into Social Security and Medicare if their 
money is being spent on funding this program. That is double counting, 
and Mr. Elmendorf of CBO showed that.
  This chart shows it is really more than just the $14 billion, which 
is significant. This chart shows how much the deficit of the United 
States is impacted by this legislation. The unified budget surplus 
counts all the Social Security money and all the tax money in one pot. 
It is one way to do the accounting of the United States. It is not 
accurate in this case. It should not be used. It claims a $197 billion 
surplus. That is the Social Security and Medicare money. But if we take 
away the Social Security surplus this bill creates, $211 billion, and 
the money they pay into the Medicare trust fund, $56 billion--the net 
deficit is $70 billion. We have to get our minds correct.
  The reason this country is going broke, the reason this country is so 
far off a sound fiscal path, is that we continue, we persist, in using 
a unified budget number when that money for Social Security and 
Medicare is dedicated money. It is set aside to pay for something in 
the future.
  If someone sets aside money in their savings account for their 
retirement, they cannot spend it today and pretend they still have it 
for their retirement account. It is just that simple.
  This is a bad trend we have been in. It was not so obvious when 
Social Security and Medicare were bringing in a lot more money than was 
going out. But now that is not so, and we will soon be in deficit, and 
very serious deficit. So we should not in any way suggest, believe, or 
tell the American people that this bill is paid for. It is not

[[Page S5208]]

paid for, and as a result it violates the Budget Act. That is the point 
of order that Senator Vitter has made, and we will vote on it.
  In addition to that, it is worse. There are 10 more budget violations 
in the bill: One is for new direct spending to exceed the Judiciary 
Committee's authorization levels over a 5-year period. Another one is a 
10-year violation of spending over authorized levels in violation of 
the committee allocations.
  Another is an emergency designation to increase spending pursuant to 
emergency spending from the comprehensive immigration trust fund; 
emergency spending designation for the comprehensive reform trust fund 
in violation of the PAYGO Act; emergency designation in violation of a 
2010 budget resolution; emergency designation for Social Security 
cards, in violation of the statutory PAYGO Act. This bill calls it an 
emergency to have funds for Social Security implementation. That is not 
an emergency.
  Another is an emergency designation for the E-Verify system. That is 
a system we have established and should be able to expand rapidly. That 
is not an emergency to expand that. That is in violation of the 2010 
budget resolution.
  Another is an emergency designation for E-Verify in violation of the 
PAYGO act; emergency designation for passenger manifest information 
expenditures, in violation of the 2010 budget resolution; emergency 
designation in violation of the Statutory PAYGO Act for passenger 
manifest information.
  All of those represent violations of the Budget Act. Senator Vitter 
raised the one that plainly violates the flat spending limit we agreed 
to and are now operating under. When the response came from Senator 
Leahy, he moved to waive that. He moved to waive not only that, but all 
the other 10 violations of the Budget Act. You only raise one at a 
time. Senator Vitter raised one, and they moved to waive them all and 
eliminate this pesky complaint that their bill spends more money than 
the budget allows.
  We will be voting on that, colleagues, and this Senate has been in 
recent months doing well with regard to adhering to the budget limits 
we agreed to. We have had seven consecutive votes in which the Senate 
has voted not to violate the budget when a bill hit the floor that 
violated the budget. We sent the bill back for reform so if it comes 
back it has to be in harmony with the bill--seven consecutive votes.

  My colleagues who have been there and who believe they have a 
responsibility to honor the budget limitations we agreed to should not 
vote to waive the budget. Let's stay within the budget. Let's require 
the bill's sponsors to do what they promised to do, and by right they 
should be able to do, which is produce a bill that comes within cost 
without raiding the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, as they 
now intend to do. That is just the way it is. I wish it were not so, 
but it is.
  I will take a minute to point out that recently--last night or late 
yesterday--Senator Bennet, one of our most able Members of the Senate 
and a Member of the Gang of 8, took the floor to promote the bill and 
claimed that before jobs are offered, the bill ``requires an American 
is offered the job first.''
  He went on to say: ``We are not bringing in a whole bunch of new 
people when there are Americans looking for work.''
  We are not bringing in a whole bunch of new people when there are 
Americans looking for work--well, we are. The guest worker program that 
is in this bill, in addition to the legalization process of normal 
immigration, doubles the number of guest workers who will be coming to 
America over current law. These are not people who come to be permanent 
residents and immigrate to America. These are people who come to take a 
job and work for a certain period of time--really up to 3 years, and 
they can extend for 3 years. They have become permanent job takers, in 
many instances.
  He says: First of all, you have to certify an American has been 
offered the job first. He and other supporters claim this bill is not 
going to impact wages, is not going to impact jobs. They say don't 
worry about it--I am worried about it. First and foremost, we are going 
to have 1.1 million people, and many of those are not able to work in 
the economy fully today because they are illegally here. They will be 
given a legal status, a Social Security card, driver's license, and the 
ability to apply for any job in America. So all of a sudden we are 
going to have a half million people, perhaps, out there competing for 
jobs that Americans cannot find today because unemployment is very 
high. That is going to happen promptly.
  Then we are going to accelerate another 4.5 million people into the 
country, without regard to their skills, and they will be looking for 
jobs mostly in the lower skilled workforce area. Then, in addition to 
that, we add the normal flow of immigration into America. We currently 
welcome 1 million immigrants every year, but this is going to welcome 
1.5 million a year. So, there will be an additional 500,000 workers a 
year in America under the normal immigration system. In addition to 
that, the guest worker program will double--all at a time when we are 
not doing well economically.
  Today's announcement that the government revised downward 
substantially the growth in the first quarter is a real problem. We are 
not seeing job growth. Let me just show this chart about the impact on 
wages and workers in America that will occur as a result of this 
legislation. I think probably these numbers are modest. I think it will 
be more dramatic than this.
  This is our Congressional Budget Office. They looked at the numbers, 
and they said: the average wage would lower over the first dozen years 
if this bill passes.
  For 12 years, if we pass this bill, the average wages of Americans 
will be lower than would have been the case if the bill had not passed, 
according to our own CBO.
  Somebody came and said on the floor: We won't worry about that 
because in 20 or 30 years they say it might be better.
  First of all, our problem is today. People are unemployed today, and 
they cannot find work today. Wages have been declining every year since 
1999. Working wages of Americans have been declining relative to 
inflation steadily for over a decade. This bill will accelerate that. 
It takes us in exactly the wrong direction. Why would we do that?
  Then it says CBO--this is their own report and this chart is in their 
own report:

       CBO estimates that S. 744 would cause the unemployment rate 
     to increase slightly between 2014 and 2020.

  So for the next 7 or 8 years we are talking about increased 
unemployment.
  This chart shows the wage situation. This is the current rate. The 
bill passes, wages drop, and they start going up out here, according to 
CBO, in year 2025. If the bill had not passed, the growth would have 
been higher still, but now it knocked it down dramatically. Even though 
it is growing, it doesn't mean it is getting back to where it would 
have been had the bill not been passed.
  People who say this bill will not impact adversely--working Americans 
are facing an economic reality that is unfortunate for them.
  Finally, they say it will make the economy stronger. You have heard 
that. Under this bill we will give legal status, in the next 10 years, 
to 30 million people; permanent legal status to 30 million people 
instead of 10 million people who would be given legal status in America 
if we followed current law.
  Virtually all of those will be able to work, and we would see some 
increase in GDP/GNP if that were to occur. However, how much increase 
do you get and how does it compare out per person in America?
  CBO said S. 744 would reduce per capita GNP by 0.7 percent in 2023. 
That is page 14. In fact, per capita GDP, according to their own chart 
that I have reproduced from their report, drops from 2017, 2021, 2025, 
2029, 2030. It takes until 2030 before it starts getting back. If the 
bill hadn't passed, GDP per capita would hopefully be going up.
  This is way below what would happen, and this hurts Americans when 
per capita GNP is reduced. Everybody will feel that--maybe not the 
masters of the universe in their suites out here that are nipping off 
extra profits because they have lower wages. It may not impact them. 
They may make more money.
  In fact, Professor Borjas at Harvard says the people who gain the 
most from this immigration bill will be the people

[[Page S5209]]

who hire the most low-wage workers because wages will go down. They 
will make bigger profits, but the people who will be hurt are the 
vastly more numerous workers whose wages will go down.
  This needs to be talked about. People seem to be in denial, but we 
have to talk about that. I ask my colleagues to consider this as they 
decide how to vote on this important piece of legislation.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I come to the floor this morning to 
talk to an issue I have been speaking about for a couple of days. I 
most certainly can appreciate the frustration of the Senator from 
Alabama and the Senator from Iowa.
  The Senator from Alabama has been opposed to this bill from the 
beginning. He may have a different view. I am not sure any amendments 
would satisfy him, but of course he has been debating in good faith, 
and that is part of this process that needs to go on.
  The Senator from Iowa has been working very hard. He has spent so 
much time both in the committee and on the floor trying to work out a 
bill he is comfortable with, but sometimes that happens and sometimes 
it doesn't.
  I think what should happen, no matter what, is that after all the 
controversial issues are debated, there should be a coming together on 
both sides at a certain time, recognizing that all time has expired, 
all probability of any serious negotiation on any bills or any 
amendments that have to be voted on is over, and as friends and 
partners and as the leaders trying to move--appropriately and 
maturely--forward, we could come together at least with a short list of 
amendments that are completely uncontested and cleared on both sides. I 
am going to continue to ask for this because I think it will send a 
very positive signal to people that even though things have broken down 
some in the Senate, it is not completely broken.
  To frame this issue so people can understand why I might be concerned 
is that there have been 800 amendments filed on this bill--300 in 
committee, about 150 of which were debated and voted on or dispensed 
with, 500 filed on this floor. So in order for those amendments to get 
any consideration at all--which they haven't in any large measure--good 
will has to prevail, and the good will flew out of this Chamber a long 
time ago. I would like to get a little piece of it back. I wish I could 
get all of it back. I wish we would act as we did 4 or 5 or even 6 
years ago. It is not happening. Maybe it will.
  I would like to begin to move in that direction by asking my 
colleagues for consideration of a small group of amendments that, to 
our knowledge, have no opposition. I am going to read a few of those. 
Senator Grassley and his staff have been working on this. Senator Leahy 
and his staff have been working on this. I provided a list to Senator 
McCain and to every Member of the Gang of 8. I am hoping we can salvage 
some effort.
  What people might not realize: When a major bill such as this is 
being debated, there is a lot more going on besides what they see in 
committee or what they hear on the floor. The evidence of that would be 
that 800 amendments have been filed. Someone had to write all of those 
800 amendments. Staff worked very hard to think about ideas--not to 
derail the bill but to help the bill. No draft is perfect. Very smart 
staffers and Members actually do read the text and come up with ideas 
to improve.
  One in particular: I had a hearing in my Small Business Committee. I 
notified the immigration subcommittee, Judiciary. We conducted our 
hearing with the blessing of the chair. We didn't talk about any of the 
major pieces of the legislation except for the one or two that talked 
about small business. In all the discussion of major businesses needing 
skilled workers and major businesses and hotel chains, I thought maybe 
someone could gather some information about what small businesses might 
need and maybe improve the bill.
  I am supporting immigration reform. I think all Democratic Members--I 
don't know of anyone who is not. There are some Republican Members who 
are not supporting the bill, but there are some who are. So one 
amendment is requiring a mobile ap to be developed so a farmer, for 
instance, or a person in a rural area who has either high-speed 
connection or particularly wireless connection could pull up E-Verify 
on their mobile ap. They wouldn't have to drive 200 miles, as in the 
Presiding Officer's State in North Dakota or South Dakota or Louisiana 
or Mississippi. We have areas that people are working hard, and they 
are not right next door to an Internet cafe. So one idea we had was for 
mobile aps. That is what one of these amendments is. Wouldn't that be a 
big help? There is no one I know who is opposed to that. There are 
billions of dollars in this bill. Some of it most certainly could be 
spent helping small businesses access better E-Verify.
  There is another provision in this bill from Klobuchar, Landrieu, 
Coats, Blunt, Barrasso, and Enzi. This is as broad a coalition as could 
reflect broad-based support. Klobuchar is from Minnesota, Landrieu is 
from Louisiana, Coats is from Indiana, Blunt is from Missouri, Barrasso 
is from Wyoming, and we are Republicans and Democrats. I appreciate 
that this amendment has been cleared by both sides, and it requires 
certificates of citizenship and other Federal documents to reflect the 
name and date of birth determination made by State courts to help 
ensure that name and date of birth changes for adopted children are 
reflected in Federal records.

  We adopt about 100,000 children in America every year. I think these 
parents should be given our best efforts. These are parents who are 
adopting children domestically, keeping them off the streets, out of 
mental institutions, pouring their hearts and souls into helping raise 
children who others have either thrown away or given up. Yet we make it 
difficult.
  A few of us who work on this issue a lot know how things need to be 
fixed. This is a bill that comes to the floor. We think, gosh, this 
bill is not big enough to command its own attention on the Senate 
floor, so we are going to prepare an amendment for when the immigration 
bill comes up and we hope the Members will allow it to go through.
  I am not going to give up on my Members yet. I am going to remain 
very optimistic and very hopeful that even Senators who are opposed to 
this bill and have done everything they can to stop it or people 
opposed to the original draft who have done everything they can to 
amend it--some of that has been successful, some of it has not been. 
But I am hoping at the end of the day, even those who have been making 
these great efforts will step back and understand and be respectful 
that other work should go on as well. This amendment is an example.
  There is another amendment that Senator Cochran and I have, amendment 
No. 1383. It simply requires reports on the EB-5 visa program. The 
requirement for reports is not in this bill. It is a program everyone 
here is familiar with. It has many problems. The underlying bill fixes 
it, and I think to those of us supporting the bill, fixes it 
adequately. I am not sure what the opponents think. But there is no 
requirement to report back to the committee so we can continue to 
monitor this program. Because it has been so off-track in the past, 
let's make sure we get it on-track in the future. This is just standard 
Senate operations. Unfortunately, we are now at a place in time in the 
history of the Senate, there are no standard operating procedures 
anymore, and it is a sad day.
  There is another amendment that I understand has been completely 
cleared. Murray-Crapo amendment No. 1368 prohibits the use of restraint 
on pregnant women in DHS detention facilities during labor and 
childbirth except in extraordinary circumstances. Now, please, the 
amendment simply would say you cannot shackle women during childbirth 
and labor. Is anyone on the Senate floor opposed to this? If so, please 
make yourself known.
  Nelson-Wicker is a very important amendment to Senator Wicker, who is 
a Republican, and Senator Nelson, who is a Democrat. I am a cosponsor 
of this amendment, but it is Senator Nelson's amendment. I can't 
believe there would be anyone in this Chamber who would disagree. All 
it is saying is since we are spending now--and I might need to ask the 
Senator from Iowa to give

[[Page S5210]]

me the final update on the number because the number keeps going up--if 
Senator Grassley would mind giving me the number--$46.3 billion on the 
southern border, California, Texas, New Mexico.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Let me correct that. That is money total to be spent, 
not necessarily all on the border. But about $30 billion was added in 
this amendment for the border.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. So $30 billion on the land border, and it could be 
something between 30 and 46 and those numbers keep changing. But it is 
a lot of money. Senator Nelson's amendment says that at least $1 
billion of that money be spent on maritime border security, not land 
border. As he said so eloquently, if we continue to put up fences and 
borders on the land and make it secure--which we all want to do--there 
are maritime assets that need to be stepped up. I think most everybody 
understands that and would say that is a very good amendment.
  These are amendments that don't need to be voted on. I am not asking 
for votes on these amendments. They don't need to be voted on. They 
would normally go by voice vote en bloc--no votes required. Out of the 
800 amendments, this list has less than 45 amendments that probably 
don't need any vote, no time, just a simple--it is a consent. Staff has 
been given these and looked at these amendments.
  I am going to continue to come to the floor today in hopes that after 
the leaders negotiate on the contested amendments--and I have a list of 
the contested amendments. It looks quite different than the list I am 
talking about. The list that is being contested has names such as: 
Vitter, Vitter, Vitter, Vitter, Vitter, Vitter, Vitter, Lee, Lee, Lee, 
Lee, Cruz, Cruz, Cruz, Cruz, Cornyn, Cornyn, Cornyn, Cornyn. That is a 
list. There is another list: Chambliss, Portman, Vitter, Inhofe, 
Toomey, and Fischer. These lists are lists from Members who really 
believe they need to get a vote on their amendments. I would like them 
to get a vote. I am not opposed to them getting a vote.

  What I am opposed to is this list which is not one Senator, it is 
numbers of Senators who have worked very hard to get bipartisan support 
for amendments that improve the underlying bill, which is going to 
pass.
  The bill is going to pass. It is either going to pass with 69 votes, 
72 votes, or 74 votes. There is no way this bill is not going to pass 
the Senate. It is clear it is going to pass. People don't like that it 
is going to pass, but it is going to pass.
  So before it passes, I am asking with all of my heart for the 
consideration of amendments that have been brought by Democrats and 
Republicans who have been working in good faith to make the bill better 
and to solve problems for our constituents. Our constituents are not 
trying to negotiate on the number of Border Patrol agents. The Gang of 
8 did that. They are not trying to negotiate whether we are going to 
have 40,000 or 80,000 Border Patrol agents. My constituents want help 
for the kids they adopted. Some of these amendments are to get help for 
Holocaust survivors. There are only a few of them left in the world. We 
would like to give some attention to them. Some of them spent 6 years, 
7 years, or 4 years in a prison camp, and this might help them to die 
in peace.
  Madam President, I ask that there be order on the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Order, please. The Senate will be in order.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I--as well as many colleagues--have gotten to the point 
where we would like to try to get back to a place where after all the 
fighting is over, all the yelling is done, all the posturing is done, 
all the message amendments are done, we could at least trust each other 
enough to have a consent package of items that would be helpful to the 
people we represent. That is a simple request.
  I will yield the floor. Others want to speak, but I will come back 
once we have a clear list and again ask unanimous consent for these 
amendments. But I will not do that now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Texas.
  I want to give an update, not only to Senator Landrieu, but for all 
the Senators. First of all, 10 days ago we started out with 27 
amendments that were noncontroversial--or supposedly noncontroversial. 
Obviously, they were not all noncontroversial. That grew to 44 or 45, 
and I think we are back at 35 now on that list.
  Remember, about 14 of those were included in the Hoeven-Corker 
amendment. They were included in that for sweetener--to buy people off 
to get their votes on final passage. So there are 14 that will probably 
be passed when we vote on final passage.
  Last night my staff cleared 12 amendments, and that does not count 
several Republican amendments that were added to the list. We are 
making progress. Some are noncontroversial, but others are not. The one 
that the Senator from Louisiana mentioned that appeared to her to be 
noncontroversial, we suggested some technical changes to make it more 
definitive. If that is done, we can probably accept that.
  Also, everyone has to remember that there are amendments on this list 
which are under the jurisdiction of other committees and not under the 
jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. Some of the amendments were 
rejected for that reason. Some of the amendments are technical, but 
some are more complicated.
  I give my assurance to all of my colleagues that we will continue to 
work on this list.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of whatever time is left 
when Senator Cornyn is done.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator from Texas yield for 30 seconds?
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I would be glad to yield as long as it 
doesn't come out of my 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I thank Senator Grassley for those 
comments. I will continue to work with him in good faith on this list. 
I realize not all of these amendments are under the jurisdiction of the 
Judiciary Committee, so that is why we have been working with leaders 
of other committees that have jurisdiction over these amendments to 
help get them passed.
  I appreciate my friend's work and will continue to move forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, we have been on this bill for about 2\1/
2\ weeks. We find ourselves in a very strange position where we have 
had votes on 10 amendments, and now Senators are talking about clearing 
another 45 amendments 2 days before the majority leader has basically 
set a deadline and said we are going to be through with this bill one 
way or the other. This strikes me as a strange way to do business, but 
here we are.
  I have always believed that even though you want something--and in 
this case I believe virtually every Senator in this Chamber wants an 
immigration bill--that you can want something so bad and be so 
desperate that you will get a bad deal. I think we are beginning to see 
some elements in this bill, which I want to talk about briefly, that I 
think ought to give all of us pause and cause us to wonder whether this 
is the way we should be doing business.
  One of the things my constituents in Texas found so infuriating about 
the process of passing the Affordable Care Act--all 2,700 pages--was 
the way there were backroom deals and various special interest 
boondoggles that helped garner the 60 votes necessary to pass ObamaCare 
back in 2010. Some of them became somewhat famous. There was the 
``Cornhusker kickback,'' ``Gator aid,'' and the ``Louisiana purchase.'' 
They became symbols of Congress's irresponsibility when it came to 
discharging our duties as Members of the Senate.
  It is suggested that if, in fact, individual Members got sweeteners 
that were sufficient to get their vote, that was the way we ought to be 
doing business. Unfortunately, we are starting to see similar tactics 
break out here on this immigration issue, suggesting that some Members 
are so desperate to get a deal, any deal, they are willing to take a 
bad deal, one in which none of these standing alone would pass muster 
or scrutiny.
  Immigration reform is a nationwide challenge, and immigration reform 
should promote the national interests, not the special interests of 
individual

[[Page S5211]]

Senators or any region or State or lobbying group. Yet when we look at 
the underlying bill, I see a litany of de facto earmarks, carve-outs, 
and pet spending initiatives. Because we have been in such a rush since 
last Friday to move to the designated deadline the majority leader has 
set for this bill, there may be many Members who are unfamiliar with 
these special carve-outs, de facto earmarks, and pet spending 
initiatives. I want to talk about a few of them.
  The bill directs $250 million from the comprehensive immigration 
reform trust fund to boost immigration-related prosecutions in a single 
sector. There are nine Border Patrol sectors, but the Tucson sector is 
the surprise beneficiary of $250 million in a special earmark in this 
bill.
  I have a simple question: Don't all of the border sectors need 
increased funding for prosecutions? Well, I believe the answer is yes. 
So I believe carving out the Tucson sector for special treatment is 
entirely inappropriate. So we see that even longtime opponents of 
earmarks are now cosponsoring legislation that is filled with de facto 
earmarks, including one that benefits their State alone. We wouldn't 
see this sort of thing, I believe, if we had a stand-alone bill. But 
they have jammed that in here in order to get the maximum number of 
votes. We have seen strange things happen.

  This bill also creates a bureaucracy to determine which occupational 
category should be prioritized under the new guest worker program. 
However, it requires a new bureaucracy to automatically designate 
Alaska seafood processing as a shortage occupation that receives 
special treatment. We might as well call this the Alaska Seafood 
Special.
  I will mention one more boondoggle, and that is the jobs for youth 
pet program, which authorizes $1.5 billion to expand an Obama stimulus 
program that could conceivably be used to give free cars, motorcycles, 
scooters, and other vehicles to young people who participate. I am 
referring to page 1,182 of the jobs for youth amendment. It is title V 
under the bill, which says: The funds made available under this section 
may be used to provide supportive services, such as transportation or 
childcare, that is necessary to enable the participation of such youth 
in the opportunities.
  So I believe this is an open-ended invitation to take this $1.5 
billion and use it for purposes that many of us would cringe at if we 
really understood it.
  I want to make two final points about the spending in the bill. 
First, we are going to be asked to waive all 11 budget points of order 
under the bill at a time when there is bipartisan concern about our 
fiscal standing, at a time when our debt is $17 trillion. I think we 
have been pretty good recently in not waiving budget points of order. I 
believe we are recognizing on a bipartisan basis that it is important 
we hold the line against increased deficit spending and increased debt. 
But we are going to be asked to vote to essentially violate our own 
pay-go rules in waiving the budget points of order, busting the 
Judiciary Committee's spending limit, and to designate certain spending 
as emergency spending even though it is obviously not emergency 
spending. So much for fiscal responsibility.
  Supporters of the underlying bill continue to argue that this 
legislation will actually reduce the Federal deficit. It is a bizarre 
situation where we can spend almost $50 billion and claim that it 
actually reduces the deficit, but that is the argument. Yet, as I 
explained on Monday, the only way we can transform this bill into a 
deficit reduction bill is by double counting more than $211 billion 
worth of Social Security revenue. In other words, the money paid in in 
terms of Social Security taxes is eventually going to have to be paid 
out in benefits, and they can't say we will pay it out in benefits and 
then also use that surplus to fund the underlying bill because that is 
double counting.
  Indeed, the bill assumes the very same pot of money can be used to 
fund new spending initiatives and fund these future Social Security 
benefits, but only in Washington can we get away with such magical 
accounting techniques. In the real world this bill actually increases 
the Federal Government's on-budget deficit over the next 10 years.
  I am just suggesting that in our rush to get a bill we are making 
concessions we ordinarily would not make on stand-alone legislation, 
whether it is in these sweetener provisions, the de facto earmarks, 
special carve-outs, or by double counting revenue. But to add it all 
up, we are left with a bill that is chock-full of de facto earmarks, 
porkbarrel spending, and special interest sweeteners. This is a bill 
that increases the on-budget deficit but fails to guarantee a border 
that is secure and offers only promises, which historically Congress 
has been very bad about keeping.
  Does that sound like real immigration reform? I know we can do 
better, and I know we must do better if we are ever going to solve our 
biggest immigration problems.
  Again, I would love to support an immigration reform bill. 
Unfortunately, the way this bill is shaping up, I cannot and will not. 
My hope is that the House of Representatives will take up this issue on 
a step-by-step basis and in smaller increments so people can actually 
read and understand it. By working through this issue in the House, 
eventually they will be able to come up with a conference committee 
that will produce a responsible immigration reform bill, one that 
doesn't offer de facto earmarks and various sweeteners to people who 
support it, but one which will stand on its own merits and will not 
bust the budget by double counting Social Security funds paid into the 
bill in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, it is my understanding that Senator 
Leahy is yielding time--or maybe it is Senator Landrieu who is yielding 
time. Somebody is yielding time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I want to speak today on the amendment. 
I know the Senator from Texas, my friend and someone I respect, made 
numerous comments about the bill. But actually the vote we have today 
is about the border security amendment that has been negotiated and a 
lot of people have worked on. I know some of his comments refer to some 
portions of the amendment. Mostly, he was talking about the bill 
itself.
  The issue before us today is the border security amendment the 
Senator from North Dakota and myself and many others worked on. I want 
to put this in context, if I can. Fifteen days ago in the Republican 
caucus at what we call our conference lunch, there was a discussion 
about the ways of trying to make this immigration bill better. The 
Senator from North Dakota had a base bill dealing with border security, 
and many of us at the time said what we could do is take a base border 
security amendment, expand it, and try to accommodate many of the 
desires of people in our caucus with other provisions in it that many 
Senators here in this body wanted to see happen. Two Fridays ago, we 
actually had about 12 offices come together for a meeting to talk about 
many of those attributes they felt would make this bill better. So over 
time we developed a 115-page amendment--some people say 119-page 
amendment--dealing with not just border security but many issues people 
in this body thought would make this bill better.
  There has been some dispute about the size of this amendment; I know 
we have had some discussion from people on the floor. It is unfortunate 
that sometimes people will come to the Senate floor and say things that 
are a little over the top in order to make a point. But I will note 
that today some of my friends on my side of the aisle received multiple 
Pinocchios, if you will, from a very well-respected publication, 
because the fact is the amendment is as we have said.
  Because of the rules of construction in the Senate, when we add a 
119- or 115-page amendment to a 1,100-page bill and we intersperse the 
amendment throughout it, no doubt we come up with a 1,200-page bill, if 
you will. The fact is, 1,100 of those pages we have had since April. 
They have been through committee. People offered amendments. So let me 
say I think the amendment size issue has been totally rebutted. I would 
say the Senator from

[[Page S5212]]

North Dakota and myself have certainly carried the day on that issue. I 
think it is a fact now. We understand the size.
  We know this amendment has some things in it other than border 
security. That was part of the process in getting to a place where we 
enhanced the bill.
  Some people are talking about the cost, and my friend from Texas was 
just speaking. If my colleagues noticed--and it is very important 
around here to listen--he talked about on-budget costs. First of all, 
everybody in this body knows the problem we have in America today is 
the off-budget items and that our entitlement programs are what are 
driving the huge deficits we have in this Nation. So it is the 
entitlement issues most people who speak about deficit reduction are 
focused on because we have done so much already on what we call the 
discretionary side, which is the on-budget piece.
  CBO has scored this bill and basically they have said--not basically, 
they have said if this bill were to pass, when we take into account the 
entitlements and we take into account the discretionary spending, which 
is what is called on-budget, we will reduce the deficit by $197 
billion. One of the main reasons that is the case is when immigrants 
move into what is called the temporary status, they pay in for 10 
years, and one of the toughest provisions in this bill is they cannot 
receive any benefits for 10 years. Think about that. We have this huge 
amount of money that is going to be coming into the Social Security 
Program and coming into the Medicare Program which, candidly, helps 
people in this Nation because it makes those programs more solvent.
  We have to listen to the words here. Let's think about it when people 
talk about the cost of this border security amendment. Yes, it costs 
$46 billion to implement these items--which, by the way, almost every 
Republican has championed for years, all of the items in this border 
surge, if you will--but it costs $46 billion. I will tell my colleagues 
I have been here 6\1/2\ years and I would put my credentials on 
focusing on deficit issues with anyone in this body. I have never had 
an opportunity to vote for a bill that cost $46 billion over a 10-year 
period but generated $197 billion into the Treasury without raising 
anybody's taxes and, I might add, also generating economic growth for 
our country. So I want to debunk that. This is a tremendous opportunity 
for us to actually reduce our deficit while, at the same time, securing 
our border.
  People are talking about process--and I am coming to the end here. It 
is interesting to me that the very people, I hate to say it, on my side 
of the aisle who have been raising cain, if you will, about the fact 
there aren't enough amendments are the very people who are objecting to 
amendments being offered.
  Look, this is the old game that is played around here: Well, we think 
we ought to have 35 amendments. We think we ought to have--but somebody 
on my side is objecting. Most people in the country don't understand 
that in the Senate we have something called unanimous consent, and if 
one Senator disagrees, it cannot happen--one Senator. So we have had 
this situation going back and forth where we have tried to have 
amendments. I agree, let's have amendments. There is one amendment in 
particular I wish we could vote on and pass. I would love to see it. 
But guess what. I want everybody to know the very people who are saying 
they want to have more amendments are objecting to more amendments. So 
understand what is happening here on the Senate floor.
  There will be some people who say, Well, I am going to vote against 
this because of the process. I want America to understand what is 
happening in this body right now. As a matter of fact, I don't know if 
it is true, but my understanding was the other side was actually going 
to agree to 35 amendments, and people heard that and they said: Well, 
my gosh, they might accept 35 amendments. Go down there and file more 
amendments because we are afraid they are actually going to agree to 
what it is we are asking for. So we will see.
  Let me close with this: Nobody in this body can say the amendment we 
are voting on today does not do anything someone can imagine relative 
to border security. My good friend from Texas spent a lot of time 
drafting a border security bill that had 5,000 Border Patrol agents. 
This one has 20,000--20,000 Border Patrol agents. This amendment calls 
for 20,000 Border Patrol agents. It doubles the number of Border Patrol 
agents on our southern border.
  We are adding $4.5 billion worth of technology that the chief of 
border control has been trying to get for years, bought and paid for in 
this bill.
  We are adding an entry-exit visa program that has to be fully in 
place.
  We are adding E-Verify for every employer in the country.
  We are also adding 350 miles of fencing.
  People are saying: Well, we don't know if this will ever happen. My 
colleagues should read the triggers. If it doesn't happen, nobody gets 
a green card, and every American can see whether this happened.
  Then people are saying, Well, on the fencing piece--nobody, by the 
way, debates the 20,000 Border Patrol; nobody debates E-Verify; nobody 
debates entry-exit; nobody debates the $4.5 billion in technology. But 
then people are saying, Well, wait a minute. On the fencing piece, 
though, the Homeland Security Secretary can decide where it goes. Well, 
my friends in good government--and I happen to be with one of those--
yes, it does say she can decide in section 5 of the bill which places 
work best.

  We know the people from Texas don't even want a fence. People in 
Arizona wish to have a fence. But it still says under the triggers--and 
people are trying to malign and trying to fool people all out across 
America because they know what is getting ready to happen. The fact is, 
without the 350 miles ironclad, in place, there is no green card. So 
all five provisions have to be in place.
  I know people try to spin things when they get on television and they 
try to say things to confuse America. What I would say to America is 
read the bill. I think Americans would be proud of border security, 
which brings me to a close here today.
  Here is what I want to say: On the procedural vote that took place 2 
days ago, every single Democrat voted to end debate on this border 
security measure. We had 15 Republicans who voted for it. The process 
issue is behind us and today we are voting on the amendment itself. I 
don't know how any Republican can look a TV camera or a constituent in 
the eye and not say this amendment strengthens--surges--on the border 
and makes our border more secure. So if, for some reason, Republicans 
come to the floor today--a majority of Republicans--and they vote 
against this border security amendment, what is going to happen is the 
Democrats are going to own the border security issue, and basically 
Republicans--whose constituents I think in some cases care more about 
this issue than many people on the other side--will be giving up this 
issue.
  I don't know how any Republican can go back home and say to their 
constituents: I voted against adding Border Patrol agents and I voted 
against adding a fence on the southern border and I voted against an E-
Verify system and I voted against an exit-entry program and I voted 
against the technology our Border Patrol chief wants. I voted against 
it because I didn't like the process. I voted against it because this 
bill has been before us now for over 2 months and I had a chance to 
make amendments in the Judiciary Committee and I had a chance to make 
amendments on the floor but, candidly, I didn't want that to happen, so 
I kept that from occurring.
  I would ask my friends: Please, today is about an amendment to a bill 
that makes it stronger. My colleagues may not like every provision, but 
we cannot look folks in the eye back home and say this isn't something 
that those who care about border security would know surges the border, 
makes this country safer, and I would say makes this bill a much 
stronger bill.
  With that, I yield the floor. I hope my good friend and great partner 
from the State of North Dakota will make some comments.
  I wish to thank Senator Leahy from Vermont for his generosity with 
time this morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished

[[Page S5213]]

Senator from North Dakota, and I ask unanimous consent that the last 5 
minutes be reserved for the Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Vermont, and I wish to particularly thank my distinguished colleague 
from the State of Tennessee for all of his work on this border surge 
amendment. That is what we are talking about: a border surge amendment. 
The amendment we have offered, Hoeven-Corker, is about securing the 
border first. As the good Senator from Tennessee described, that is 
absolutely the focus of what we are doing here.
  We are willing to work with everybody on both sides of the aisle in 
this body and in the House to come up with legislation that secures the 
border. We believe that is what Americans want. That is what we are 
working so hard to do.
  What I would like to start with, though, this morning in terms of my 
comments is this budget point of order we are going to be voting on in 
a few minutes. I would like to cite right from the Congressional Budget 
Office report. So I am going to just take facts, statistics right out 
of the CBO report because, as the good Senator from Tennessee explained 
a minute ago, so much of this is getting either misunderstood or 
misinterpreted. So let's get right to the CBO report, and let's look at 
exactly what it says.
  According to CBO, it is clear that this legislation will reduce our 
deficit. The CBO report shows that in the first decade there is $197 
billion provided from this legislation that we can use for deficit 
reduction--less, obviously, as Senator Corker just explained so well a 
minute ago, as we are putting significant resources into securing the 
border. So if you take out that additional $40 billion that our 
amendment costs to make sure we secure the border, to make sure we have 
the E-Verify system, to make sure we have electronic entry and exit at 
all of our international airports and seaports--deduct that $40 
billion, that is $157 billion that we have available in the first 
decade and, according to CBO, in the second decade, $700 billion. So 
that is about $850 billion over the next two decades that is available 
to help us reduce the deficit, and that is after putting the five 
triggers in place that we provide in this legislation to secure the 
border first.
  That means a comprehensive southern border strategy: 20,000 
additional Border Patrol agents; 700 miles of fence in total--350 in 
addition to the 350 we have; a national mandatory E-Verify system; and 
electronic entry and exit identification must be in place, as I said, 
at all international airports and seaports. These things must be done 
upfront. These triggers must be met and illegal immigrants must be in 
provisional status for 10 years before anyone can get green cards, 
other than DREAMers or some blue card ag workers. So the cost of border 
enforcement is paid for, and we still have $850 billion available for 
deficit reduction.
  So you might ask, well, why the budget point of order, then? Why the 
budget point of order when we are trying to get the debt and the 
deficit under control? Well, the budget point of order goes to the 
amount of dollars coming in on-budget and off-budget. What do we mean 
by off-budget? That means entitlement programs. So the amount of 
dollars coming in do not match up with what is exactly in the budget, 
now both on-budget and off-budget. But that is understandable, isn't 
it?
  This is new significant legislation, so of course we have to adjust 
the on-budget and the off-budget to account for this $850 billion we 
did not have before. OK--almost $1 trillion now that we have. OK. So of 
course we have to make some adjustments.
  So the real question here, the real question on this budget point of 
order is, Would you rather have $850 billion available to reduce the 
deficit or would you rather not have it? Because if you do not pass the 
legislation, you do not get the $850 billion in funds to help with 
deficit reduction. That is, if you will, kind of the bottom line here, 
isn't it?
  Now, it is true, as I say, we have to adjust our budget categories, 
but overall, CBO scoring--after paying for an incredible amount of 
additional resources to secure the border first--$850 billion over the 
next two decades.
  Also, this funding strengthens entitlement programs. Right. Why? 
Because the funding we are talking about is paid into Social Security 
and Medicare. CBO shows that in both the first decade and the second 
decade more is paid into those programs to make them solvent. But 
opponents say: Well, yes, sure. More is paid in, but those payers 
someday are going to get benefits, so they are going to take it out. 
But CBO shows that the amount being paid in is more than the benefits 
being paid out and that the amount is on a growth trajectory, not the 
reverse, meaning more is paid in in the second decade than the first 
decade, so we make those programs even more solvent, and it gets us on 
the right trajectory. That is why we should defeat the budget point of 
order--because, quite simply, we want the $850 billion to help reduce 
the deficit. That is the real issue we are dealing with.
  Also, I want to take a minute again to address the GDP, GNP, wages, 
and unemployment. Again, I want to quote from the CBO because I really 
believe these things are getting misinterpreted.
  GDP--gross domestic product--in the first decade grows 3.3 percent 
more with the legislation. In the second decade, it grows 5.4 percent 
more. OK. GNP--gross national product--per capita in the first 10 
years, 0.7 of 1 percent less, it is true, in the first decade, but 
after that we get more GNP. So long term, more GDP, more GNP.
  Unemployment. This talk about increasing unemployment--0.1 of 1 
percent in the first 6 years, as you adjust. After that, there is no 
difference in unemployment.
  The same thing with wages--initially 0.1 of 1 percent lower because 
you have immigrants coming in who earn a lower wage, but over time, in 
the second 10 years, wages go up. OK.
  What is my point? The point is that for all of these categories, in 
all four of these categories, we do as well or better--as well or 
better--over the long run. Isn't that what we want?
  I will summarize.
  The first order of business for immigration reform is to secure the 
border. Americans want immigration reform--of that there is no doubt. 
But they want us to get it right, and that means securing the border 
first.
  Our amendment, as the Senator from Tennessee said, is 119 new pages--
not 1,200. Madam President, 1,100 is in the base bill. That has been 
out here since May.
  Our amendment secures the border with five tough provisions or 
triggers that must be met before green cards are allowed. We have 
talked about that. A comprehensive, high-tech plan on the southern 
border must be in place: 20,000 Border Patrol agents, a total of 700 
miles of fence--things our colleagues on our side of the aisle have 
been asking for are here--a national, mandatory E-Verify system, 
electronic entry and exit at international airports and seaports. That 
is about securing the border first. That is what this amendment is 
about. It is objective, and it is verifiable. That is what the 
technology on the border--$4.5 billion in technology for sensors, 
radars drones, helicopters, planes--that is what it is all about, so we 
know we have the border secured.
  So we ask our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with us. 
Let's rise up. Let's meet this challenge for the American people, and 
let's address border security. That is what this legislation does.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Hoeven-Corker amendment is subject to 
a budget point of order because it increases the net on-budget deficit 
over both the 5- and 10-year periods and exceeds the Judiciary 
Committee's allocation for direct spending. But on-budget effects do 
not take into account the significant off-budget savings.
  Last week the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that 
our bill is going to help us achieve nearly $1 trillion in deficit 
reduction. We have also learned that the Hoeven-Corker amendment would 
significantly increase our border security, and, as the CBO said and as 
my friends from Tennessee and North Dakota have said, the

[[Page S5214]]

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.
  So when we vote on waiving the point of order, I will vote to waive 
it because the Hoeven-Corker amendment and the overall amendment will 
spur job growth and will dramatically reduce our deficit.
  Then we are going to vote on the substitute. The substitute is the 
product of many months of hard work and bipartisan collaboration in a 
very transparent process. No one should oppose the cloture motion on 
the committee-reported substitute, as amended.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee held lengthy and extensive public 
markup sessions to consider the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, 
and Immigration Modernization Act, S. 744. This was after a couple 
dozen hearings over the last few Congresses. We did it in as 
transparent a way as possible.
  Madam President, over 300 first-degree amendments were filed. We had 
them online for a week and a half before the Senate Judiciary Committee 
even took up the bill.
  Over the course of 3 weeks, we debated the bill for nearly 40 hours. 
We often worked late into the evening. That was online. That was 
streamed. That was open to everybody. And certainly the thousands and 
thousands and thousands of e-mails that came in from all over the 
country showed people were watching.
  The committee considered a total of 212 amendments--we had 212 
amendments during that time--136 of which were adopted. Every member of 
the committee--Democratic or Republican--who filed amendments to the 
legislation was afforded the opportunity to offer multiple amendments. 
Nearly every member of the committee, in both parties, who offered an 
amendment had an amendment adopted. All but three of the amendments 
adopted passed on a bipartisan vote, and the committee reported the 
legislation by a bipartisan vote of 13 to 5.
  So, as I said, the public witnessed what we did. They saw us streamed 
live on the committee's Web site. They saw broadcasts on C-SPAN. All 
our amendments were posted, and as we had developments, they were 
reported in real time. Members from both sides of the aisle praised the 
transparent process and the significant improvements to the bill made 
by the Judiciary Committee.
  Let me also compliment the ranking Republican on the committee, the 
senior Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley. We were on different sides of 
the legislation, but we worked very well together. We talked numerous 
times throughout the whole markup to make sure it would go. He would 
come to me at times when some of their members had to be out for one 
reason or another--other committees--and we worked around that. We made 
sure everything went--we made sure neither side was surprised. I 
appreciate the cooperation I received from Senator Grassley. I think it 
is one of the reasons we could actually show the Senate the way the 
Senate is supposed to work.
  I hope colleagues will vote for the committee-reported substitute, as 
amended.
  This is one of our Nation's toughest problems, but we were not 
elected to do easy things. In fact, if all we had were easy things, I 
do not know why anybody would want to be in the Senate. We were 
elected, the men and women of this body, from all over the country--
from both parties, with philosophical differences--and we are supposed 
to fix our Nation's toughest problems.
  We are on the eve of coming one step closer to fixing our Nation's 
broken immigration system. I hope the vast majority of Senators will 
vote yes. There has been a great deal of work on this. Is this bill 
perfect? No. Is any bill perfect? No. Is this much better than what we 
have today? Yes. Is it exactly the bill I would have written? No. It is 
not the bill Senator Grassley would have written. It is not the bill 
any one of us individually would have written. But we are not a 
monarchy. We are not a dictatorship of one. We have 100 people here 
representing over 300 million Americans, and we are supposed to mold, 
as best as possible, the sentiments and needs of those 300 million 
Americans but also the aspirations of those who would be Americans, 
like my grandparents and my wife's parents and even Members of this 
body.
  So, Madam President, I hope that, one, we will waive the budget point 
of order and then, secondly, we will vote for the amendment, as with 
the substitute.
  I believe we are ready to vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I will use leader time so I can talk. We 
are going to be in a vote in a few minutes to waive the Budget Act, and 
then we are going to have two more. One is on the adoption of the Leahy 
amendment, as modified, and then a cloture vote on the committee-
reported substitute amendment.
  I mentioned on the floor this morning the work done by the Gang of 
8--extremely important. As I indicated at that time, as I look at the 
Republicans and Democrats who did this, I do not know of anything in it 
for them politically. It was done because they believed the immigration 
system is broken and broken badly and needed some repair work. They did 
a remarkably good job.
  But I would like to add to that the junior Senator from Tennessee, 
Mr. Corker, and Senator Hoeven. What they have done to help us with 
this bill is remarkably important and good. Could we have passed this 
without them? Maybe. But the point is that they have strengthened this 
legislation. When I worked on it 7 years ago, the issue was always, is 
there going to be a secure border? What they have done is made that 
without any question a fact. So I admire what they have done--again, 
not for any political benefit because, as I look, I doubt they will get 
any from this, but they will get the benefit of doing what they believe 
is right for our country. I appreciate that. History will indicate that 
I am right. Maybe in the short term it may not be, but history will 
indicate, when the books are written, that these two good men allowed 
us to do something that is important for our country.
  What if we did not fix this broken immigration system today, in 2013, 
this week? What would the future be for this country? No. 1, as we have 
said, the security of this Nation would be not as good as it would have 
been had we passed this bill. Secondly, the economic security of this 
country would be not nearly as good as it will be if we pass this bill. 
A $1 trillion debt will be reduced in this country.
  So I admire all of these Senators for the good work they have done 
for the country. I know we have been working for the last couple of 
weeks and very intensely for the last couple of days to come up with a 
list of amendments. I have people on my side of the aisle who are very 
interested in having a vote on their amendments. I even have had a 
number of Republican colleagues come to me and say: You have to do 
something to allow us to have some amendments. We have tried very hard 
to do that, but I have to say, honestly, I am not really happy with 
what has taken place since I have left here last night and got here 
this morning because we are going backward, not frontward. So I hope 
that when we get these three votes out of the way, people agree. Let's 
do the possible. There is a way we can come up with some amendments. I 
understand both sides want their amendments heard and voted on; they 
are important to them. If it is important to them, it should be 
important to us. So we are going to continue to work on that to see if 
we can come up with a list of amendments.
  I would be remiss if I did not mention, together with the 10 Senators 
I have already talked about, the chairman of the committee. We would 
not be where we are without a fair, open markup. That is not the way it 
always is around here. This man is the President pro tempore of the 
Senate. He is the chairman of the committee. He has a lot of power. He 
could run that committee any way he wants. That is the way it is here. 
He did. He ran it the way it should be run. I admire and appreciate the 
work he has done.
  So let's get these votes out of the way, see if we can come up with a 
list of amendments, something we can work on. Each side is going to 
have to give a little.
  I ask unanimous consent that the second and third votes in this 
series be

[[Page S5215]]

10 minutes in duration and that there be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided between the two votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, all postcloture time has expired.
  Amendment No. 1551 is withdrawn.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive budget points of 
order for consideration of this measure.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) would 
have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 68, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 162 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     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
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--30

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Blunt
     Lee
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and 
sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to and the 
point of order falls.


                    Amendment No. 1183, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 
1183, as modified, offered by the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I yield my time to the Senators from 
Tennessee and North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Vermont.
  Americans want immigration reform, but they want border security 
first, and that is exactly what this amendment does. It secures the 
border with five tough provisions or triggers that must be met--that 
must be met--before green cards are allowed. Those five triggers are: a 
comprehensive southern border strategy that must be deployed and 
operational, 20,000 additional Border Patrol agents, a total of 700 
miles of fence, a national mandatory E-Verify system must be in place, 
and electronic entry and exit identification must be in place at all 
international airports and seaports.
  Simply put, this is about making sure we secure the border, and we do 
it in an objective and verifiable way.
  I want to thank all of my cosponsors on this legislation, and turn to 
the good Senator from Tennessee and thank him for his work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, this grand compromise makes false 
promises to the American people and throws money at the border, but 
there is no accountability to get the job done. We need to see the 
results, but the only result we are being assured of is legalization--
legalization first, border security later.
  On top of all the earmarks that are in this amendment, the grand 
compromise also has a grand plan for spending taxpayers' dollars, and 
we have to raid the Social Security trust fund to get it.
  The American people expect us to get this right. This amendment is 
the wrong answer. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield the floor, and I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1183, as modified.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) would 
have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--- yeas 69, nays 29, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 163 Leg.]

                                YEAS--69

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     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
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--29

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Blunt
       
     Lee
       
       
  The amendment (No. 1183), as modified, was agreed to.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on the motion to 
invoke cloture on the committee-reported substitute, as amended.
  The clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
  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 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.

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, all 
time is yielded back.
  By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
committee-reported substitute amendment to S. 744, a bill to provide 
for 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.

[[Page S5216]]

  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) would 
have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 67, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 164 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     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
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--31

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Blunt
     Lee
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 67, the nays 31. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have been talking about a couple of 
things, including the schedule. We are moving forward. This vote 
suggests it is obvious that a very large and bipartisan majority of the 
Senate will support an immigration bill. I know there have been 
proposals for amendments. I am not going to make a proposal at this 
time. I will leave that for the leader. There have been efforts to get 
a finite number of amendments from both Republicans and Democrats so we 
can vote. Under normal circumstances, we would probably have voice 
votes on some of those amendments. I hope we can do that because I 
think we would be able to complete this immigration bill.
  Our staffs have a great deal of work to do in putting everything 
together. The staffs on both sides of the aisle have worked long hours. 
They have been here working even after the rest of us have left. After 
this is completed, maybe they can actually have some time with their 
families and prepare for this great Nation's celebration next week.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to continue 
to speak for 5 minutes as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Supreme Court Ruling

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Supreme Court struck down section 
3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. I think that helped this Nation take 
a major step toward full equality. The ruling confirms my belief that 
the Constitution protects the rights of all Americans--not just some 
but all of us--and that no one should suffer from discrimination based 
on who they love. I share the joy of those families who had their 
rights vindicated today, including many legally married couples in my 
home State of Vermont. I have already heard from many and the joy they 
have expressed is so overwhelming.
  In August, my wife Marcelle and I will celebrate our 51st wedding 
anniversary. Our marriage is so fundamental to our lives that it is 
difficult for me to imagine how it would feel to have the government 
refuse to acknowledge it. Without her love and support over the past 51 
years, there is nothing I could have ever accomplished that would have 
been noteworthy in my life. It has taken the joining together of two 
people who love each other.
  Today we have thousands of gay and lesbian individuals and families 
across the country who have had their rights vindicated by the Supreme 
Court's decision, including the same rights Marcelle and I have had for 
51 years.
  Despite today's historic ruling, there are still injustices in our 
Federal laws that discriminate against these married couples. I will 
continue to work with Senator Feinstein on legislative fixes to protect 
all families.
  As we continue to fight for equality and against discrimination in 
our Nation's laws, I am hopeful today's ruling will address a serious 
injustice. By just striking down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage 
Act, the Supreme Court has pronounced that our Federal laws cannot 
discriminate against individuals based on who they love. I believe this 
should extend to our immigration laws as well.

  Last month I was forced to make one of the most difficult decisions 
in my 38 years as a Senator when I withdrew my amendment that would 
have provided equality in our immigration laws by ensuring that all 
Americans--all Americans--may sponsor their lawful spouse for 
citizenship. It was one of the most disappointing moments of my 38 
years in the Senate, but I took Republicans, many who spoke in good 
faith, at their word that they would abandon their own efforts to 
reform the Nation's immigration laws if my amendment had been adopted. 
I believed what they said, and I withdrew it.
  However, with the Supreme Court's decision today, it appears the 
antidiscrimination principle I have long advocated will apply to our 
immigration laws, and binational couples and their families can now be 
united under the law. As a result of this very welcome decision, I will 
not be seeking a floor vote on my amendment.
  Today's decision should be seen as a victory for all of those who 
support justice, equality, and family values.
  I had the privilege of serving with a wonderful Senator from Vermont 
when I first came here, Robert Stafford. He was ``Mr. Republican'' in 
our State. When we were debating the question of same-sex marriage in 
the Vermont Legislature, Senator Stafford said: If we have two people 
who love each other and make each other better--two Vermonters who love 
each other and make each other better because of that love--what 
difference does it make to us whether they are the same sex or not? 
Vermont is better because they make it better.
  I agree with him. There is still important work to be done so all 
families are protected under our Federal laws. Until we fully achieve 
the motto engraved in Vermont marble above the Supreme Court building 
that declares ``equal justice under the law,'' I will continue to fight 
for the equal treatment of all Americans.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, over the last few days I have received 
numerous e-mails and calls from conservatives and tea party activists 
from across the country regarding immigration. Their opinions really 
matter to me because they were with me 3 years ago when so many people 
in Washington--and in Florida, for that matter--thought I had no chance 
to win my election.
  Let me say these people are patriots. They are Americans from all 
walks of life who are deeply concerned about the direction our country 
is headed, and they are increasingly unhappy about the immigration 
reform proposal in the Senate. It is not because they are ``anti-
immigrant'' as some like to say, and it is not because they are closed-
minded. They believe, as do I, that as a sovereign country, we have a 
right to secure our borders and we have a right to have immigration 
laws to enforce them.
  They are increasingly opposed to this effort because for over three 
decades and despite many promises to enforce the law, the Federal 
Government, under both Republicans and Democrats, has failed to do so.
  In the end, it is not just immigration reform itself that worries 
them; it is the government that has failed them so many times before. 
They realize we have a legal immigration system that needs reform. They 
realize we have over 11 million people currently living in our country 
illegally and that we have to deal with them. They just simply believe 
no matter what law we

[[Page S5217]]

pass, we cannot trust the Federal Government to ever actually enforce 
it.
  This sentiment was best summed up for me in an e-mail I received from 
Sharon Calvert, a prominent tea party leader in Tampa, FL. She wrote:

       Today, June 2013, we are in a very different political 
     climate than we were after the last election. We are in a 
     political climate of distrust. Distrust of government and 
     elected representatives is at its highest.

  She goes on to say:

       Do we want to trust this administration to faithfully 
     enforce a bill to the best interests of all Americans with a 
     bill that few have read?

  She makes a powerful point.
  After finding out that the IRS investigates people based on their 
political views, all the questions that remain about Benghazi, and 
seeing the Justice Department target reporters, trust in the Federal 
Government is rightfully at an all-time low.
  I share this skepticism about this administration and Washington in 
general. In just the 2 years I have been here, I have seen the games 
played and the promises broken and how the American people ultimately 
suffer the consequences. That is exactly what led me to get involved in 
this issue in the first place.
  We have a badly broken legal immigration system--not only one that 
does not work; it actually encourages illegal immigration. We have a 
border with Mexico that, despite billions of dollars already spent, is 
still not secured. Every day, people, drugs, and guns are trafficked 
across the border, and we have 11 million people living in this country 
illegally in de facto amnesty.
  What I am describing is the way things are now. This is the status 
quo, and it is a terrible mess. It is hurting our country terribly, and 
unless we do something about it, this administration isn't going to fix 
it.
  Political pundits love to focus on the politics of all this, but for 
me this isn't about catering to any group for political gain. 
Predictably, despite all the work we have done on immigration reform, 
some so-called ``pro-immigrant'' groups continue to protest me daily.
  This isn't about winning points from the establishment or the 
mainstream media either, by the way. No matter how consistent I have 
been in focusing on the border security aspects of reform, whenever I 
have spoken about it the beltway media has accused me of trying to 
undermine or walk away from this reform.
  This isn't about becoming a Washington dealmaker. Truthfully, it 
would have been a lot easier to just sit back, vote against any 
proposal, and give speeches about how I would have done it differently.
  Finally, this certainly isn't about gaining support for future 
office. Many conservative commentators and leaders--people whom I 
deeply respect and with whom I agree on virtually every other issue--
are disappointed about my involvement in this debate.
  I got involved in this issue for one simple reason: I ran for office 
to try to fix things that are hurting this special country. In the end, 
that is what this is about for me--trying to fix a serious problem that 
faces America.
  The proposal before the Senate is by no means perfect. As does any 
proposal that will come before the Senate, it has flaws; but it also 
has important reforms that conservatives have been trying to get for 
years. For example, it changes our legal immigration system from a 
predominantly family-based system of chain migration to a merit-based 
system that focuses on job skills.
  This proposal mandates the most ambitious border and interior 
security measures in our Nation's history. For example, it requires and 
funds the completion of 700 miles of real border fence. It adds 20,000 
new border agents. It details a specific technology plan for each 
sector of the border. It requires E-Verify for every employer in 
America. And it creates a tracking system to identify people who 
overstay their visas.
  These are all things that at a minimum must happen before those in 
the country illegally can apply for permanent status. And the proposal 
deals with those who are here illegally in a reasonable but responsible 
way. Right now, those here illegally are living in de facto amnesty. 
This is what I mean by that: They are unregistered, many pay no taxes, 
and few will ever have to pay a price for having violated our laws.
  Under this bill they will have to come forward. They will have to 
pass background checks. They will have to pay a fine. They will have to 
start paying taxes. They will be ineligible for welfare, for food 
stamps, and for ObamaCare.
  In return, the only thing they get is a temporary work permit, and 
they can't renew it in 6 years unless they can prove they have been 
holding a job and paying their taxes. For at least 10 years, that is 
all they can have. After all that, they cannot even apply for permanent 
status until the fence is built, the Border Patrol agents are hired, 
and the border security technology, E-Verify, and the tracking system 
are fully in place.
  Yet despite all of these measures, opposition from many conservatives 
has grown significantly in the last few weeks. Why? Well, because they 
have heard the Secretary of Homeland Security can just ignore the 
border requirement. But this is not true. The Department does have the 
discretion on where to build the fence but not on the amount of fencing 
it must build. At the end of the day, it is simple: 700 miles of 
pedestrian fencing must be built.
  They have also heard the Secretary of Homeland Security can just 
waive the radar and the drones and the ground sensors and the other 
technology required in the bill. But that is just not true. The 
Secretary can always add more to the plan, but the list of border 
security measures we mandate in the legislation is the minimum that 
must be implemented.
  Some oppose it because they have heard ``a future Congress can just 
defund all of the security measures'' as they have done in the past. 
But that is just not true. The money is built into the bill. Unlike 
previous border security laws, it doesn't leave it dependent on future 
funding.
  They also oppose the bill because they have heard it creates a 
taxpayer subsidy for people to buy a car or a scooter. That is just not 
true. Nothing in this bill allows that.
  Finally, they oppose the bill because they have heard that last 
Friday, a brandnew, 1,100-page bill no one has read is what is now 
before the Senate. That is just not true. This is the exact same bill 
that has been publicly available for 10 weeks. The main addition to it 
are about 120 pages of border security because in order to add 700 
miles of fence, 20,000 border agents, and a prohibition on things such 
as foreign students or tourists from getting ObamaCare, we had to add 
pages to the bill.
  Now, I understand--I do--why after reading these false claims people 
would be opposed to this bill. I also understand why, after we have 
been burned by large bills in the past, people are suspicious of big 
reforms of any kind. I understand why, after promises made in the past 
on immigration have not been kept, people doubt whether they will ever 
be kept again in the future.
  But I also understand what is going to happen if at some point we do 
not come up with an agreement we can support on immigration reform. 
What is going to happen is we will still have a broken legal 
immigration system. We will not have more Border Patrol officers. We 
will not have enough fencing. We still will not have mandatory E-
Verify. And we will still have 11 million people living here illegally.
  That is why I am involved, because despite all of the problems we 
have with government, the only way to mandate a fence, E-Verify, and 
more agents is to pass a law that does so.
  I knew getting these requirements into the bill would not be easy. 
This administration insisted the border is already secure, and they 
fought every effort to improve the border security parts of this bill. 
The administration wants the fastest and easiest path to citizenship 
possible, and they fought every condition and every trigger in this 
bill.
  I got involved because I knew if conservatives didn't get involved in 
shaping this proposal, it would not have any of the border security 
reforms our Nation desperately needs.
  Getting to this point has been very difficult. To hear the worry and 
the anxiety and the growing anger in the voices of so many people who 
helped me get elected to the Senate, whom I agree with on virtually 
every other issue, has been a real trial for me. I

[[Page S5218]]

know they love America, and they are deeply worried about the direction 
this administration is trying to take our country.
  When I was a candidate, I told people I wanted to come here and 
fight. I want to fight to protect what is good for America and fight to 
stop what is bad for America. I believe what we have now regarding 
immigration is hurting our country badly, and I simply wasn't going to 
just leave it to Democrats alone to figure out how to fix it.
  I guess perhaps at the heart of my support of this proposal is that I 
know firsthand that while immigrants have always impacted America, 
America changes immigrants even more. Just a generation ago my parents 
lived in poverty in another country. America changed them. It gave them 
a chance to improve their lives. It gave them the opportunity to open 
doors for me that were closed to them. And the longer they lived here, 
the older their kids got, the more conservative they became, the more 
convinced they became that limited government and free enterprise and 
our constitutional liberties made this Nation special.

  I am a firsthand witness to the transformative power of our country, 
how it does not just change people's pocketbooks, it changes their 
hearts and their minds. Despite all the challenges and despite our 
broken government, I still believe this is that kind of country.
  I realize in the end many of my fellow conservatives will not be able 
to support this reform. But I hope you will understand that I honestly 
believe it is the right thing to do for this country--to finally have 
an immigration system that works, to finally have a fence, to finally 
have more agents and E-Verify, and to finally put an end to de facto 
amnesty.
  In my heart and in my mind, I know we must solve this problem once 
and for all or it will only get worse and it will only get harder to 
solve.
  To my fellow conservatives, I will continue to fight alongside you 
for real tax reform, for lowering our debt, for balancing our budget, 
for reducing regulations, for rolling back job-killing environmental 
policies, and for repealing the disaster of ObamaCare. To my fellow 
conservatives, I will continue to fight alongside you for the sanctity 
of life and for traditional marriage. But I will also continue to work 
in the hopes of one day uniting behind a common conservative strategy 
on how to fix our broken immigration system once and for all.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I want to say how much I respect the 
Senator from Florida. I respect his viewpoint. I respect the amount of 
effort he has put into this issue, which is a very difficult and a very 
complex issue. He speaks from the heart. I have never questioned his 
motives, and he has worked very hard to put together the very best 
piece of legislation that I think could have been accomplished on this 
Senate floor.
  I wish I could stand with him in terms of final support because I, 
too, believe our current system is broken, that it needs to be 
addressed. The status quo is not an option. We will continue down the 
same road, and only to a greater degree than where we find ourselves 
today.
  I am deeply concerned. For me, the most difficult of things to work 
through--it finally came down to the fact that, as Senator Rubio has 
talked about, there is a great level of distrust in this country today 
toward whatever comes out of Washington and whomever's mouth it comes 
out of.
  I think some of this is due to certain events that have happened in 
the last several months. Benghazi is still not settled. The American 
people still are not satisfied with what has been said about what 
happened in Benghazi and what our response should have been. There have 
been changing narratives. That feeds into the distrust.
  Certainly, there are the scandals--the IRS scandal and others 
continue to feed this distrust. It is a very dangerous thing for a 
democracy when people have lost trust in their elected Representatives, 
in their government. It is a very dangerous thing for the future. We 
need to restore that.
  To me, that element that now exists means when we take up legislation 
as comprehensive as this bill is, as sweeping as this bill is, we need 
to ensure the American people understand it and that they have trust in 
us that what we promise we will do in this bill will be fulfilled.
  All this, from my perspective, has to be measured against the 1986 
Immigration Reform Act, which I voted for and supported. Ronald Reagan 
was President at the time. We had a divided Congress--Republicans and 
Democrats. This Senate was under one party and the House was under 
another. So the situation was somewhat similar to today. But with 
President Reagan's leadership, and with the promises that were made, 
the 3 million people who were here illegally at that time were granted 
an opportunity to get on a path to citizenship--and it was combined 
with the fact that we promised in that bill, verbally and in language, 
that we would secure the border so we would not have to deal with this 
again. Well, here we are in 2013 dealing with it again, but there are 
not 3 million illegal immigrants; there are now 11 million illegal 
immigrants.
  It is having an enormous impact on our country, and it is an issue 
which we have to address. But I think we have to do it in a way that 
acknowledges that the promises made then were not fulfilled. When added 
today to the broken promises and the growing level of distrust than any 
of us could possibly imagine, that has to be addressed. The way, in my 
opinion, to address that is--to borrow from Ronald Reagan trust, but 
verify.
  I think verify, because of this trust deficit, has to come first 
before people are ready to trust. They simply do not believe that the 
promises made will work, that they will be fulfilled.
  When the underlying bill basically says the Secretary of Homeland 
Security will state that the Department has a strategy to address the 
border security problem, that does not play very well with people who 
have seen strategies promised before. They want to see results. The 
real issue here has been--at least for me, and I think for many of my 
colleagues--whether we are able to prove to the American people they 
are going to get their results before we start moving people through a 
legalization process which we know we are never going to be able to 
pull back.
  There were some amendments offered by my colleagues which I supported 
because essentially they said we want to look at results first before 
we begin the process--from which we are never going to be able to pull 
back--of granting legal status for illegal immigrants in this country.
  So it is that cart before the horse that, for me at least, and I 
think for many, is the reason why we cannot support this bill as it is 
currently written.
  I hope the House will come forward with something more credible, 
perhaps more sequential, that addresses this very fundamental flaw in 
this bill to prove to the American people that we will fulfill the 
promises we are making in this legislation before we start a process of 
granting legal status to illegals. We need to ensure we will not get 
years down the road only to find we have not succeeded in fulfilling 
those promises, and have created yet another amnesty situation.
  I am the son of an immigrant. My mother came here with her family. It 
has been the narrative in our family that legal immigration is what has 
made America the country that it is. So I do not fear immigration. The 
diversity has been good for our country. I served as Ambassador to 
Germany for 4 years, and I cannot tell you how many Germans and 
Europeans from other countries came up to me and basically said: 
Someday I hope to get in the lottery, that my name will be pulled. I 
have been in line for 15 years; I have been in line for 20 years 
waiting to come to your country through a legal immigration process.

  It is pretty hard, when you are the son of an immigrant--you know 
your family came here the right way--to know there are millions of 
people in this world who would love to come to America and become 
responsible citizens, and yet to see them look at people flooding 
across the borders and being granted that privilege which they have not 
yet been able to attain.
  So I trust that we will be able to go forward. I hope the House will 
come forward with something that is more credible than what the Senate 
is poised to pass. I voted earlier for a procedural

[[Page S5219]]

motion to allow debate on this issue because I think we need to have 
this debate. I was hoping that we could address this fundamental issue 
through the amendment process. The employee verification has been 
strengthened, the border security has been strengthened, the exit visa 
problem has been strengthened, assuming the promises come true, but 
they have only been strengthened on a piece of paper. We need to see it 
strengthened for real on the border, at the employment offices, and at 
the exit visa offices on the portals for people coming in and out of 
this country. That is yet to be seen. That is yet to be demonstrated.
  So without that fundamental approach of demonstrating results first 
in order to restore that trust, which is so lacking with the American 
people--yet justified, on the failures of Congress and the failures of 
this administration, in particular, or any administration to deliver 
what they said they would and--to fulfill their promises--that is why I 
will not be supporting the bill.
  I do hope, given the problems we have with the status quo--as I think 
was clearly outlined by my colleague from Florida--we need to keep at 
this. We need to find the solution to the problem because America 
cannot continue to be the country that it is and be the country that we 
want it to be if we do not address this wound and this flaw in the 
current immigration system.
  We need the ability to attract and maintain people with skills for 
many of our businesses. Some of our most important industries--
pharmaceutical, software, and others--important to our national defense 
and national security need those employees coming here the legal way 
through visas. We also need our agriculture industries and others to 
have access to workers. I have a lot of processing plants in my State 
and agricultural sources in my State that cannot find enough American 
workers to fill the positions they have offered. That ought to be 
addressed. I want to address that.
  So I am not simply someone standing up and saying we do not have to 
fix the problem. We do have to fix the problem. I respect the efforts 
that have been made in a bipartisan way to try to do that. I just think 
this bill has one major fatal flaw; that is, promises are not 
demonstrated, are not fulfilled, before the process starts. For that 
reason, I cannot support the bill in its final form.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Supreme Court Ruling

  Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I rise today to talk about college 
affordability and student loan interest rates. But before I do that, I 
would like to take a moment to comment on the historic decision this 
morning by the Supreme Court.
  I have been married to my wife Franni for 37 years. It is the best 
thing that ever happened to me, and I have long believed that every 
loving couple should be seen as equal under the eyes of the law. So I 
have been fighting for years, along with others, to overturn the so-
called Defense of Marriage Act. I am very happy today that the Court 
did so in part this morning.
  Today all Minnesota couples will be treated equally under Federal 
law, and this will make a real difference for those families.
  We still have work to do. I think Americans should have the freedom 
to marry the person of their choosing regardless of the State in which 
they live. So we still have work to do, but today is a happy day.


                      Student Loan Interest Rates

  OK. Back to college affordability and student loan interest rates.
  The interest rate on the Stafford subsidized loan is set to double on 
July 1. Along with a number of my colleagues, I am fighting to prevent 
that from happening and to reach an agreement to protect students and 
make college more affordable for them and for their families.
  Not long ago I had a group of student leaders from MnSCU--the 
Minnesota State Colleges and Universities--come to my office in DC to 
discuss college affordability.
  Now, remember, these are members of the student government of many of 
Minnesota's public colleges and universities. They are the student 
leaders. There were about 20.
  I asked them: How many of you work while you are going to school, 
while you are in college?
  Every one of them put up their hand.
  I said: OK. How many of you work at least 20 hours a week?
  Most of them.
  How many of you work 30 hours a week while you are going to school?
  More than I expected.
  Then I asked them: How many of you work full time, work 40 hours a 
week while you are going to college?
  A number of them raised their hand.
  Mind you, these are the student leaders of these schools. So they 
also spend their time in student government. Working in college is not 
necessarily a bad thing. Some work can help students better manage 
their time, become more productive, and help pay for college. I worked 
during college. It was like 5 hours a week in our dorm kitchen.
  Evidence shows that when a student starts to work more than 15 hours 
a week, it becomes harder for the student to maintain good grades at 
school and to graduate from school on time. Students are working more 
because college is becoming less and less affordable. They are still 
taking out more and more student loans and graduating with more and 
more debt.
  Minnesota has the unfortunate distinction of being the State with the 
third highest average debt for students graduating from college, at 
over $30,000 a student. Whether those student Americans are attending 
community college or 4-year public or private colleges, it is 
increasingly difficult for them and their families to afford higher 
education.
  Part of what has happened is that State support for higher education 
has gone down in recent years, shifting more of the burden onto 
students and their families. According to the latest report from the 
State Higher Education Executive Officers, public colleges experienced 
a 9-percent decrease in State funding per student from 2011 to 2012, 
including in Minnesota.
  Minnesota public colleges saw a 27-percent decrease in State funding 
per student from 2007 to 2012. Meanwhile, and partially because of 
this, the University of Minnesota saw an increase of 65 percent in its 
average tuition and fees in constant dollars from 2002 to 2012. Our 
other public 4-year universities saw a 47-percent increase in average 
tuition and fees. Our public 2-year colleges saw a 39-percent increase 
in tuition and fees over the same time period.
  After more than a decade of higher education spending cuts and 
tuition increases in Minnesota, things have started to turn around this 
year. The State legislature passed a bill that increased funding for 
higher education in Minnesota by $250 million, including a tuition 
freeze at the University of Minnesota and Minnesota's other public 
colleges and universities for 2 years. That is very good news. While 
this is a great victory for Minnesota's students and families, it 
certainly will not solve the college affordability problem in 
Minnesota.
  As college has gotten more expensive, our Federal student aid system 
has not kept up. In 1975, Pell grants--long the cornerstone of our 
Federal financial aid system--a full Pell grant covered almost 80 
percent of the cost of attending a public 4-year college, but now it 
pays for approximately 33 percent of the cost of a year at a public 4-
year college.
  As students have turned to student loans, more of them are ending up 
tens of thousands in debt. In Minnesota I have held several college-
affordability roundtables and heard from a number of extraordinary 
students. One of them is Taylor Williams, who was a senior at the 
University of Minnesota in the spring. He grew up in a low-income 
family. Taylor was afraid of taking the advanced placement courses 
because he did not think he could afford the tests. The tests cost too 
much money. Fortunately, Taylor had a guidance counselor who found 
funding to help him pay for the tests, and his success in those AP 
tests helped him start college with 1 year's worth of credit. Taylor, 
when I talked to him, was also working 30 to 40 hours a week and 
receiving

[[Page S5220]]

community scholarships. Yet, in spite of all of this, he is graduating 
with student debt.
  Because of stories like Taylor's, I recently introduced the 
Accelerated Learning Act, a bill to reauthorize an existing Federal 
program that provides funding to low-income students to help pay for AP 
and IB--International Baccalaureate--exams. This is a Federal program 
that has been around for over a decade and has helped students lower 
the cost of college. I am pleased that this legislation was included in 
the larger bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act that we passed out of the HELP Committee earlier this month.
  Taylor and countless other students at schools across Minnesota 
demonstrate tremendous perseverance and grit in getting a college 
education and cobbling together the resources to pay for it. They are 
working incredibly hard, and they are still taking on significant 
amounts of debt--debt that will stay with them for a good portion of 
their lives.
  Paying for college should not have to be that hard. In many other 
countries it is not. In fact, in many other countries, students can go 
to college for free--for free--or pay extremely low tuition. According 
to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, 
countries where students pay zero tuition for their postsecondary 
education include the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, 
Iceland, Mexico, Norway, and Sweden. Other countries, such as France, 
Austria, Switzerland, and Belgium have postsecondary systems where 
students have to pay tuition of less than $1,500 per year.
  Because of this it is not a surprise that many of these countries are 
also surpassing the United States in higher education attainment. Not 
very long ago the United States ranked first in the world in the 
percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds with a higher education. According to 
the latest data from the OECD, the United States is now 14th in that 
category. This is a trend we need to reverse if the United States is 
going to remain globally competitive. In an ideal world the United 
States would provide free or extremely low cost postsecondary education 
to its citizens, as so many other nations do. Unfortunately, that is 
not going to happen anytime soon. So we need to take smaller but 
important steps to help our students pay for college.
  The interest rate on subsidized Stafford loans is going to double 
from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 1 unless Congress takes action 
to prevent that from happening. This interest rate--this is an increase 
that would affect almost 200,000 students in Minnesota, who would end 
up paying about $1,000 more for each student loan they take out over 
the life of that loan. That is above what they are already paying.

  At a time of record-low interest rates, it makes no sense to let the 
student loan interest rate double. We should prevent that from 
happening. Ultimately, we need a long-term fix so that interest rates 
do not become more unaffordable for students and their families. We 
also need to make sure that whatever action we take does not make the 
problem worse.
  Several of my colleagues have proposed short-term fixes to this 
interest rate problem. I am proud to support efforts by Senators Jack 
Reed and Tom Harkin to freeze the interest rate at 3.5 percent while 
Congress works out a longer term solution. I am also a proud cosponsor 
of Senator Warren's legislation to tie the student loan interest rate 
to the rate at which the Federal Reserve lends money to banks. At a 
time when the Fed is lending money at an interest rate of .75 percent 
to banks, it makes no sense for students to borrow money from the 
government at a rate of 6.8 percent a year or even higher. Senator 
Warren has been an important voice in this debate in the Senate, making 
the student loan interest rate the focus of her first piece of 
legislation.
  We need to get this done. Democratic leaders have been negotiating in 
good faith on this issue. If we need to pass a short-term extension of 
the current interest rate to give negotiators more time to produce a 
solution that works for students and their families, well then that is 
what we should do.
  Fixing the student loan interest rate is far from the only issue we 
have to tackle to make college more affordable for students. I just 
reintroduced my bipartisan Understanding the True Cost of College Act 
to standardize financial aid award letters among universities so 
students can have clear and consistent information about the cost of 
their education. Students and their families and high school counselors 
need to have uniform financial aid letters so they can make real 
comparisons about all the costs before deciding where the student 
should go to college. That is what my bill makes possible.
  I also stand ready to work with my colleagues to protect the Pell 
Grant Program and to support other programs that make college more 
affordable for students, such as the TRIO and Work-Study Programs.
  We have a lot to do and a long way to go to make college more 
affordable for our students. Doing that will help more Americans find 
jobs to support their families, help more employers find qualified 
workers for their businesses, and help our economy prosper. This is one 
of the most critical issues we face as a Congress. Addressing the 
student loan interest rate is a solid first step we can take toward 
tackling this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. In the last 3 weeks, I have pointed out several flaws 
in the immigration bill. Within a couple of days, we will have a bill 
through the Senate. I think I owe to my colleagues and to my 
constituents, since I have been pointing out flaws, what it would take 
for me to vote for an immigration bill because I am just like most 
everybody and maybe everybody in the Senate who will tell you that the 
status quo is not legitimate to maintain and that we have to reform the 
system.
  So there are, I would like to say, 100 Senators who believe the 
immigration system needs to be fixed. I can guarantee that there are 
also 100 different ways to fix it. Nobody has a perfect solution, but I 
bring an experience to the table that very few others have.
  My deep-rooted concern with this bill stems from my strong belief 
that we made a mistake in 1986. We allowed legalization and ignored the 
laws on the books. Another major shortcoming was that we allowed 
legalization without creating adequate avenues for people to enter, 
live, and work in this country legally. In other words, if we had a 
system that works, where we had a shortage of workers, if they could 
legally come to the country, we would not have the problems we have 
today. We did not do that in 1986.
  These were crucial flaws that have led us to the debate we have been 
having the last 3 weeks, and I am not willing to pass that mistake on 
to future Congresses.
  What will it take for somebody such as I, a Senator who voted for 
amnesty in 1986 and wasn't a part of the Group of 8 or Group of 10, to 
vote for immigration reform this year? This is what I need to see in an 
immigration bill in order to support it and send it to the President.
  When I mentioned four different points, it doesn't mean that takes 
care of everything, but if these things were taken care of, regardless 
of the other things, I would feel I would have to support it. They are:
  No. 1, legalization after border security; No. 2, meaningful interior 
enforcement, including allowing ICE to do its job and work with State 
and local people; No. 3, strengthening, not weakening, current law with 
regard to criminals; and, No. 4, protecting American workers while 
enhancing legal avenues.
  I will explain them at this point, starting with legalization after 
border security. Most Americans contend that a legalization program is 
a compassionate way to help those who are unlawfully in the country. 
However, those compassionate people who support such a program of 
legalization do so only on the promise that the government will secure 
the border and stop the flow of illegal immigration.
  We are a nation based upon the rule of law. We have a right to 
protect our sovereignty, and, of course, a duty to protect our 
homeland. Any border security measures we pass must be real and 
immediate. We can't wait 10 years to put more agents on the border or 
to implement a tracking system to track foreign nationals. We have to 
prove to

[[Page S5221]]

the American people that illegal entries are under complete control and 
that visa overstays are to be punished.
  Unfortunately, too many people have been led to believe this bill 
before us will force the Secretary of Homeland Security to secure the 
border. It doesn't.
  A fundamental component of any legislation is border security first 
and foremost, not legalization now and enforcement later, if ever.
  There has to be pressure on the executive branch to get the job done. 
We must tie legalization to results. Only then will advocates and a 
future administration truly try to secure the border.
  Secondly, meaningful interior enforcement, including ICE being 
allowed to do its job and work with State and locals. Enforcement of 
the immigration laws has been lax and increasingly selective in the 
last few years. As a result, States have been forced to deal with the 
criminal activity that surrounds the flow of people here who are 
undocumented.
  They have stepped up efforts to control the effects of illegal 
immigration in some States, and the States should be able to protect 
their people and stem the lawlessness within their border. Yet time and 
again this administration has denied States the opportunity and tried 
to stop them from enforcing immigration laws.
  Federal immigration enforcement officers have also been handicapped 
from doing their job. The bill would practically render these officers 
useless since they are required to verify a person's eligibility for 
legalization before apprehending and detaining. They need to be 
provided the resources to fulfill their mission and not be told by 
Washington to sit idly by.
  The unfortunate reality is that the bill does almost nothing to 
strengthen and enhance our interior enforcement efforts. The bill does 
nothing to encourage Federal, State, and local law enforcement efforts 
to apprehend and detain individuals who pose a risk to our community. 
The Federal Government will continue to look the other way as millions 
of new people enter the country undocumented.
  Meanwhile, the bill gives the States no new authority to act when the 
Federal Government refuses. I will be the first to say that border 
security is a must, but people who enter illegally and overstay their 
visas and are residing in the interior of the country, this cannot be 
ignored. This is something that if it is fixed, I would feel very 
comfortable voting for an immigration bill.
  Strengthening, not weakening, current law with regard to criminals. 
It is not going to go over well back home if we say one can have 
criminal activity, even be deported from the country, and make 
application again to have the benefits of this legislation.
  One of the major reasons why immigration is a subject of such 
significant public interest is the failure of the Federal Government to 
enforce existing laws. Eleven million people have unlawfully entered 
the country or overstayed their visas because the Federal Government 
did not deter them or take action to remove them.
  This bill before us significantly weakens current criminal law and 
will hinder the ability of law enforcement to protect Americans from 
criminal undocumented aliens.
  The bill weakens current law regarding passport fraud, only charging 
those who make or distribute illegal passports three or more times. It 
allows a person to knowingly purchase materials for making illegal 
passports but only charge the person with a crime if 10 or more 
passports are made.
  It also weakens current law for those who illegally enter the 
country, changing existing laws by removing the crime of illegally 
attempting to enter the United States. This essentially incentivizes 
foreign citizens to attempt to illegally enter the country as many 
times as they wish.
  Further, once they successfully enter the United States illegally, 
the alien would only be subject to criminal punishment if they are 
removed from the country three or more times. Why isn't once enough?
  Taken together, the bill weakens current law and will make it easier 
for undocumented aliens to enter the country illegally by not 
criminalizing their attempts to enter, nor their actual illegal entry, 
unless they had been previously removed three or more times. This is a 
drastic change that will encourage future entries by undocumented 
people.
  Given the serious nature of criminal street gangs, we need to pass an 
immigration bill that prevents entry into the country if one is a gang 
member. More important, we need to ensure that gang members are not 
being rewarded with legal status. Regrettably, the bill is weak on 
foreign national criminal street gang members in several regards. In 
addition to weakening current law, the bill does very little to deter 
criminal behavior in the future. The bill ignores sanctuary cities, 
allowing criminals to seek safe harbor in jurisdictions where they have 
policies aimed to protect people in the country illegally.
  It increases the threshold required for actions to constitute a 
crime. It punishes persons only if they have already been convicted of 
three or more misdemeanors on different days, and it only punishes 
undocumented aliens who are removed from the country three or more 
times.
  I am committed to making sure any bill that is sent to the President 
makes a more serious effort to penalize those who attempt to enter or 
reenter the United States. It needs to be tough on lawbreakers and send 
a signal that fraud and abuse, including identity theft, will not be 
tolerated. It needs to ensure that gang members are not granted 
legalization but rather made deportable and inadmissible.
  We need to protect victims of crime and ensure that child abusers and 
domestic violence perpetrators do not receive benefits under the 
immigration law. Finally, we need to ensure that dangerous, 
undocumented criminals are not released in our country but are detained 
until they are properly returned to their home country.
  Fourth and last, we need to protect American workers while enhancing 
legal avenues.
  While I support allowing businesses to bring in foreign workers, they 
should only do so when qualified Americans are not available. There 
have been too many stories about U.S. workers who have had to train 
their replacements who come in through the H-1B visa program. Foreign 
nationals are being hired but then working in locations not specified 
in their application. Other work visa programs are not free of 
controversy.
  I agree with the creation of a temporary worker program, such as the 
W visa program created in this bill. I have long argued we must enhance 
and expand opportunities for people who wish to work legally in this 
country. Yet as we do that, we cannot forget the American worker. We 
need to fight for them and ensure that they are not disadvantaged, 
displaced, and underpaid because of our generation laws.
  The bill before the Senate makes that move in the right direction by 
increasing worker protection for Americans and by providing more 
authority to the executive branch to investigate fraud in the H-1B visa 
program. Unfortunately, the bill is slanted to ensure that only certain 
employers undergo more scrutiny. All employers who bring in visa 
holders should be held to the same standard. All employers, not just 
some, should be required to make a good-faith effort to recruit U.S. 
workers. All employers, not just some, should be required to attest 
that they did not or will not displace a U.S. worker within 180 days of 
applying for an H-1B worker. All employers, not just some, should be 
required to offer the job to a U.S. worker who is equally or better 
qualified.
  Our employment-based immigration program, including the H-1B program, 
has served and could again serve a valuable purpose if used properly. 
However, they are being misused and abused. They are failing the 
American worker and not fulfilling the original purpose that Congress 
intended when it was created.
  Reforms are needed to put integrity back into the program and to 
ensure that American workers and students are given every chance to 
fill vacant jobs in this country.
  Again, how I vote on the final bill coming out of conference with the 
House is undecided. I want to be able to support something that will 
make Americans proud, that will not make the same mistakes we did in 
1986, and

[[Page S5222]]

will stand the test of time so future generations can benefit. I need 
to see at least these four key changes before I can cast a vote in 
support.
  I have said to Iowans and to my colleagues that the bill before the 
Senate is precooked, but I have faith that a better bill is achievable, 
a bill that can gain more votes, including mine. This body, the Senate, 
is described as the most deliberative parliamentary body in the world--
and I believe it is--but when we had 451 amendments offered to this 
bill, we were promised free and open debate. We have only dealt with 
about a dozen of them, and we can't say we had a fair and open debate 
as we were promised.
  It surely did not meet the standard that was set by Chairman Leahy 
when he promised in committee a free and open debate. There was free 
and open debate and no limit on amendments. We stuck with it until we 
got done.
  We could have just as well stuck with this bill until we got it done 
and we could have had votes on more amendments.
  Now we are going to pass a bill that is not the best for the country 
and doesn't accomplish even what the authors of the legislation hoped 
to accomplish, particularly when they say secure the border first and 
then legalize. We have to rely upon a body that is not considered a 
deliberative body, the House of Representatives, to correct these 
mistakes that are made in this bill. I think they will, I hope they 
will, and then I hope I can vote for the product that will go to the 
President of the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
10 or 12 minutes as in morning business and then have the Senator from 
Massachusetts, Ms. Warren, be recognized at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Whitehouse and Ms. Warren pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 1229 are located in Today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we just saw on the news today that the 
GDP for the first quarter, according to the Wall Street Journal, was 
revised downward dramatically from previous estimates. I am not saying 
there is anything wrong with their accounting, but they go back and 
doublecheck their numbers and add other analyses and they come up with 
what the growth of the economy was in the first quarter. The previously 
announced growth level was 2.4 percent for the first quarter, which is 
low. Coming out of a recession, we need to be doing better than that. 
But now that it was revised downward, they found there was only 1.8 
percent growth in the first quarter. That is a very dangerous trend, 
and the article said it is evidence of a slowing growth in America.
  The fourth quarter of last year GDP growth was only .4 percent. If 
continued throughout the year, that is a very troubling number. The 
data shows for the last 15 quarters, almost 4 years, we have averaged 
only about 2 percent growth in our economy--growth in GDP.
  I would say to my colleagues, as we vote to bring in more and more 
workers at a time when jobs are not being created in any significant 
number, we need to be aware that this can cause severe consequences.
  The Atlanta Federal Reserve Economic Study, done several years ago, 
found the immigration flow today in the Atlanta area of the Federal 
Reserve had reduced the wages of American workers in that region by as 
much as $1,500 a year. That is $120 per month less money for an average 
family to take care of themselves.
  Unemployment and declining wages are a big reason that people are 
getting in trouble on their credit cards. Professor Borhaas and others 
have done studies on this.
  Another study found a $960 decline in people's annual wages, which is 
about $80 a month. Eighty dollars a month may not sound like a lot for 
a Senator, but it sounds like a lot for a working American--maybe equal 
to their gas bill, or part of it.
  I would say that as we consider our votes on the immigration bill, 
let's consider that this economy is not growing and is not creating 
large job growth. We have projections that we are not going to do so 
for the next decade. And I am not talking about people who will be 
legalized that are here, but we ought not overload the economy with a 
new flow that is much larger than the current flow of immigration 
legally.
  I see my colleagues are here, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in 
morning business to offer a unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


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

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it has now been 95 days since the Senate 
passed a budget, and I have come to the floor myself now 6 times to ask 
unanimous consent to move to conference. My Democratic colleagues have 
asked unanimous consent to move to conference another eight times. 
After every request, a Senate Republican has stood up and said no--no 
to the opportunity to work on a bipartisan budget deal.
  I want to say to the Republicans who are blocking a bipartisan budget 
conference: Enough is enough. We have heard so many excuses--refusing 
to allow conference before we get to a so-called preconference 
framework; putting preconditions on what can be discussed in a 
bipartisan conference; claiming that moving to a budget conference--
which leading Republicans did call for just a few months ago--was 
somehow not regular order; to, most recently, claiming we need to look 
at a 30-year budget window before looking at the major problems we have 
right now in front of us--which, I add, is unacceptable, because the 
American people rightly expect us to work on both at the same time.
  Hearing these changing excuses week after week has been frustrating 
not just for Democrats but for many of my Republican colleagues as 
well.
  A large group of us--Republicans and Democrats--think that although 
we do have major differences between the parties' values and 
priorities, we should at least come to the table and try to work out a 
bipartisan deal. That is what American people do every day. And when 
there is a disagreement, they can't afford to play a game of chicken 
and hope the other person gives in, because when that happens, 
important work cannot get done. Kids don't get picked up from school, 
bills don't get paid, small businesses miss a major opportunity for 
expansion. Every day regular Americans avoid those kinds of situations, 
and we here in the Senate should at least try to do the same.
  There are extremely important things that are not getting done in the 
Senate right now because some Republicans want to embrace the harmful 
top-line spending level in sequestration which has a major gap between 
the House and Senate appropriations levels for the next fiscal year. We 
don't have much time left to resolve that gap. After we come back from 
next week's State work period, we will have 1 month to try to come to 
an agreement or else we are going to find ourselves in a very tough 
situation in September. We could, once again, be working against the 
clock to avoid a harmful crisis. The last thing the American people--
who come together and resolve differences every day--want to see is 
another round of manufactured crises coming out of Washington, DC, and 
they do not have to. We still have time.
  I know there are leaders on both sides of the aisle who would 
strongly prefer to solve problems rather than to get into yet another 
political fight that creates uncertainty for our families, our 
businesses, our country, and our economy. I am confident that if those 
of us who prefer commonsense bipartisanship over artificial crisis work 
together, we can reach a fair agreement and show the American people 
our government does work.
  I urge Senate Republican leaders to drop the tea party-backed 
strategy of delaying until the next crisis, and allow the Senate to 
join the House in a formal bipartisan budget negotiation.
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
consideration of Calendar No. 33, H. Con. Res.

[[Page S5223]]

25; that the amendment which is at the desk, the text of S. Con. Res. 
8, the budget resolution passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu 
thereof; that H. Con. Res. 25, as amended, be agreed to; the motion to 
reconsider be made and laid upon the table; that the Senate insist on 
its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing 
votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint 
conferees on the part of the Senate; that following the authorization, 
two motions to instruct conferees will be in order from each side--
motion to instruct relative to the debt limit, and motion to instruct 
relative to taxes and revenue; that there be 2 hours of debate equally 
divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to votes in 
relation to the motions; and further, that no amendments be in order to 
either of the motions prior to the votes; all of the above occurring 
with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. The issue before this body is not complicated. There are a 
lot of procedural ambiguities that make it difficult to penetrate, and 
yet it is one very simple issue. The issue before this body is whether 
the Senate can raise the debt limit of the United States with simply 
using a 50-vote threshold or whether it should go through the regular 
order before raising any debt limit, subject to a 60-vote threshold.
  What is the difference? The difference is simple: If the debt limit 
can be raised using 50 votes, then the majority party--the Democrats--
do not need to speak to the Republicans, do not need to sit down at the 
table and work with the Republicans, do not need to listen to any 
opposing views.
  Indeed, the President of the United States has been very candid. He 
has been unequivocal. President Obama has said he believes we should 
raise the debt limit, with no preconditions, with no negotiations, with 
no changes whatsoever.
  If you think it is OK that in 4\1/2\ years our Nation's debt has gone 
from $10 trillion to nearly $17 trillion, if you think it is OK that 
our Nation's debt is now larger than the size of the entire economy, if 
you think it is OK that our children and grandchildren are being be 
bankrupted--in 4\1/2\ years the national debt has grown over 60 
percent--and if you think it is OK that the Senate Democrats want to 
continue borrowing trillions more while doing nothing--nada--zilch--to 
address the spending problems, to rein in out-of-control spending, then 
you should welcome this motion.
  Over and over again the majority has asked to go to conference on the 
budget. Why? Because going to conference on the budget allows a 
procedural back door to enable them to raise the debt ceiling using 
only 50 votes.
  How do we know that is what this is about? We know that is what this 
is about because my friend the Senator from Washington could go to 
conference on the budget right now. This instant we could go to 
conference on the budget--right now--except, when I ask--as I am going 
to in a moment--for unanimous consent not to use it as a procedural 
back door to raise the debt ceiling, my friend the Senator from 
Washington is going to object. And I know this because we have done 
this kabuki dance more than once and we continue doing it back and 
forth. But it makes clear that is what this fight is all about.
  Of course the Senate budget didn't address the debt ceiling; the 
House budget didn't address the debt ceiling; we didn't have a debate 
on the floor of this Senate about the debt ceiling; we didn't have a 
vote on the floor of the Senate about the debt ceiling; and yet the 
reason the majority is so adamant that they want to go to conference is 
because it presents them with an avenue to use 50 votes--the votes of 
only the Democrats in this body--to raise the debt ceiling to dig us 
further in debt and to do nothing--nothing--to fix the problem.
  I would suggest that is irresponsible. That is not what Americans 
want. That is not what Democrats, Republicans, or Independents outside 
of the Washington beltway want.
  We fundamentally know it is wrong to stick our kids and grandkids 
with $17 trillion in debt. It is even more wrong to keep on doing it 
and making it worse and worse and not rolling up our sleeves to fix it.
  One of the great frustrations of this body is that for some time now 
the American people have been unequivocal: Their top priority is jobs 
and the economy, and is turning around what is going on. Yet this body 
doesn't talk about that. It doesn't talk about generating jobs, getting 
the economy growing, and stopping our out-of-control debt. Instead, we 
debate every other priority under the Sun--whether it is restricting 
Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms or whether it is a 
national energy tax through the President's climate change proposal.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am not sure whether there has been an 
objection.
  Mr. CRUZ. Reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent that 
the Senator modify her request so that it not be in order for the 
Senate to consider a conference report that includes reconciliation 
instructions to raise the debt limit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would object. What the Senator is 
asking for is a precondition on a conference committee without the 
consideration of this whole Senate.
  What I have offered to him and to this body in my unanimous consent 
request is a vote on the motion to instruct conferees, which is what 
occurs in the Senate if we want to put any precondition onto a budget.
  I reject his unanimous consent, and I ask again my unanimous consent 
request.
  Mr. CRUZ. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Washington object to the 
request as modified?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Washington objects to the request as 
modified, and again reasks my original unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CRUZ. Reserving the right to object, I would note the comment 
from my friend from Washington suggesting a motion to instruct the 
conferees. What she of course knows is that is a typical Washington 
maneuver, because the motion to instruct is nonbinding and it is 
subject to 50 votes. So if we had a motion to instruct the conferees 
not to raise the debt ceiling, every Democrat in this body would vote 
against it. It would be defeated. And even if it were passed, it would 
be nonbinding on the conferees.
  No one should be confused. What the Democrats want is to raise the 
debt ceiling. And they want to do it using 50 votes, ignoring the views 
of the minority, and doing nothing to fix the problem.
  Accordingly, I object.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I make my unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request?
  Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I was here to talk about immigration, and 
that is what I will talk about. But I have been caught in a crossfire 
on this subject, and I want to say my view is this is exactly what 
people hate about Washington, DC. It is exactly why we have a 10-
percent approval rating.
  For 4 years I went to townhall meetings and was asked over and over 
and over: Why don't the Democrats in the Senate pass a budget? Which I 
think is a very legitimate question. We got a new Chair of the Budget 
Committee and we passed a budget after 4 years, and now we are told we 
can't go to conference to have a discussion with House Republicans 
about what our budget ought to look like.
  I actually disagree with the Senator from Texas, I have to say 
respectfully, on the merits of this issue; that is to say, on the debt 
ceiling itself. This is the reason I think folks in Colorado can't 
stand this place. There is not a mayor in my State, whether they are a 
Republican or a Democrat or a tea party mayor, not one--not one who 
would threaten the credit rating of their community for politics. Not 
one. We would run them out on a rail, because that is not the way you 
do business. The credit rating of a community is the most important 
thing it has. The

[[Page S5224]]

full faith and credit of the United States of America--which until the 
last debt ceiling discussion had never been questioned--was questioned 
for the first time in our history; not because of the size of our 
debt--which, by the way, I have spent 4 years trying to work on because 
I believe it is a very severe problem we face, and I look forward to 
working with the Senator from Texas on this issue--but because of the 
political dysfunction in DC. That is why we got this downgrade.
  The Senator from Alabama, who has left the floor, was talking about 
the restatement of our GDP numbers in the first quarter. I worry a lot 
about that. The people I represent are not concerned with the 
procedural stuff that goes on here. What they are worried about is an 
economy they are living in day after day after day where, even in 
periods of economic growth, median family income is falling, middle-
class families are falling behind. They are worried about an economy 
where they are earning less at the end of the decade than they were at 
the beginning, but their cost of higher education continues to 
escalate, their cost of health care continues to escalate. As 
individuals, as families, and as members of a generation, they are 
worried we are going to be the first generation of Coloradans and 
Americans to leave less opportunity and not more to the people who are 
coming after us.
  Mr. CRUZ. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BENNET. I wish to finish my statement, and then I will gladly 
yield for a question.
  I was glad to hear the Senator from Alabama. He and I disagree on the 
immigration bill, but we certainly agree on the issue of the concern 
all of us have about this economy--or most of us have about this 
economy. It is one of the reasons we should pass this immigration bill. 
The Congressional Budget Office tells us we would see 3 additional 
points of GDP increase in the first 10 years, 5 over the two 10-year 
windows, if we pass the bill.
  To the point about American jobs, I was very glad to hear him say he 
was not talking about the 11 million people who are here because most 
of the 11 million people who are here are working. But they are working 
in a shadow economy, a cash economy, under circumstances where they can 
be exploited. We have allowed that to happen because of the broken 
immigration system we have. If all you cared about--and I deeply care 
about it--was raising wages for the American worker, you would want to 
bring those 11 million people out of that shadow economy. You would 
want them paid in something other than cash, and you would want them, 
for heaven's sake, paying taxes at a time when we have the kinds of 
deficit problems the Senator from Texas is describing.
  The Senator also talked about the future flow of immigrants. I should 
say I was part of the bipartisan group. This is not a partisan bill, 
this immigration bill. There were eight of us. Four Republicans and 
four Democrats worked together on this bill, and one of the things we 
thought hard about was the future flow of immigrants to this country 
because generation after generation of Americans, since the founding of 
our country, has relied on new immigrants to bring their ideas, to 
bring their talents, to bring their energies to our shores to build 
their businesses here.
  Today what we are saying to people--even people who get college 
degrees in the United States, degrees that we subsidize, that we pay 
for--even to those people, we are saying: Don't stay here. Even if you 
want to stay here, please go home to China and start your business 
there. Go home to India and compete with us there. Hire people there 
instead of creating jobs here in the United States.
  We are a nation of immigrants. We subscribe to the rule of law. This 
bill is a ratification of those two American ideals--ideals that you 
can almost not find in any other country in the world.
  That is why I am so glad that for once this body is actually acting 
in a bipartisan way to deal with not an easy problem but a tough 
problem. I will tell you the kids who are visiting today from 4-H all 
across the country and from my State of Colorado actually are expecting 
us to do these hard things, as our parents and grandparents did before 
them, so we don't leave them in the lurch.
  That is what is at stake. That is why I wish we could find a way past 
this budget impasse as well so we actually could start to have a 
responsible conversation about what we are going to do on the 
entitlement side and on the revenue side, so we do not continue to hack 
away at domestic discretionary spending in ways that could lead us, 
with some of the House proposals, to invest only 4 percent of the 
revenue we collect in the future--4 percent in transportation and 
agriculture and education. There is not a business in this country that 
would last a year if it invested 4 percent of its cash flow in the 
future of that business.
  At some point we have to move beyond where we have been here and 
actually get into a serious discussion about how we are going to manage 
this debt down over the next decade or two in ways that do not prevent 
us from growing our economy and in ways that do not subject our 
children to unpaid bills. It would be as if I went to the mortgage 
lender on my house and I said: I would like to buy a house, and I am 
going to take out a mortgage, and then I am going to give it to my kids 
to carry for me instead of paying for it myself. That is the position 
we are in today. The only way we are going to solve that is if 
Democrats and Republicans can sit down together and actually move past 
the talking points.
  With that, I will yield for a question.
  Mr. CRUZ. If I may ask my friend two questions on the two topics he 
addressed, the first being the debt ceiling, the second being 
immigration. On the debt ceiling, the question I will ask is, Does my 
friend from Colorado believe Congress should continue raising the debt 
ceiling in perpetuity, with no changes and no preconditions, and should 
the Senate be able to do so with just 50 votes?
  Mr. BENNET. Here is how I answer that. I appreciate the question. 
Through the Chair to the Senator from Texas, it is clear that this is 
not going to get us anywhere, this procedural fight the two of you are 
having every couple of weeks. I think that is clear. I think it is 
clear that the debt ceiling is something that has been raised time and 
time again by Republicans and by Democratic Presidents over the years. 
I think it is also clear that we have to deal with our debt and our 
deficit. I believe that. But for myself, I don't feel like I would come 
to the floor and say that I am only going to allow this bill to go to 
conference with the Republicans in the House if all the money comes to 
Colorado--or some other stipulation I would want that 99 other Senators 
would not agree with.
  The second thing is that I think it is important for people to 
understand that this issue--again, I am not in any way trivializing the 
issues around our deficit and our debt. I want the Senator from Texas--
I hope he understands that. I hope he knows that about me. But I worry 
about the debt ceiling as a tool for accomplishing this, first for the 
reasons that have to do with our credit rating but also because there 
is a view among some that the debt ceiling is about bills we are going 
to incur as opposed to the ones we already have incurred.
  In other words, it would be one thing if somebody said: I am spending 
too much money and I am going to cut up my credit card, and that is 
what they would do, but that is not what the debt ceiling is about. 
What the debt ceiling is about is somebody saying: You know what, I 
want the best cable package I can find, I want the best satellite 
package I can find, and when the bill comes to pay for it, I am just 
going to chop it up into little pieces and not pay it. That is what I 
don't like about this approach.
  But everybody is entitled to their own approach on this question. I 
just wish we could move forward here instead of continuing to earn the 
10-percent approval rating Congress has. That is all I am asking for.
  Mr. CRUZ. Will the Senator yield for an additional question at that 
point?
  Mr. BENNET. Sure.
  Mr. CRUZ. I like and agree with his analogy about cutting up a credit 
card. Indeed, if my friend from Colorado supports anything resembling 
Congress cutting up the credit card, that will truly be a dramatic 
position, a position on which he and I could find common cause.
  Mr. BENNET. May I.
  Mr. CRUZ. If I can ask the question. I ask, the natural results of 
what my

[[Page S5225]]

friend from Colorado just said are that I assume, then, that he would 
readily support Pat Toomey's Default Prevention Act? What Pat Toomey's 
Default Prevention Act does is it ensures what the Senator said--money 
that we borrowed we will keep paying. It says that in the event the 
credit limit is not raised, the United States will always, always, 
always pay its debt. We will never, ever, ever default on the debt, and 
we will take that completely off the table. Then the debt limit fight 
would only be about, as my friend from Colorado put it, cutting up the 
credit card for future spending.
  Would my friend from Colorado support the Default Prevention Act of 
Pat Toomey, making it impossible--taking default off the table 
permanently?
  Mr. BENNET. I say through the Chair to my friend from Texas, I have 
not read the bill, but I will read the bill. I commit to him that I 
will do that.
  I appreciate the implication of this, which is that the Senator is 
not objecting to my metaphor about the cable bill being cut up, because 
I do think that is a real problem.
  We are not saying to people--we should not be saying to people that 
we are going to behave in an irresponsible way. As somebody who used to 
spend his time restructuring companies that were really well run, 
really well operated but had horrible balance sheets, I would have to 
think hard about the treatment that creditors would provide to, in this 
case, the U.S. Government when I look at that. I will look at that.
  I say to the Senator from Texas that there are other things we might 
even be able to agree on too around here. For a long time I have 
thought it would be important for us to put health care on a budget in 
this country. We are not on a budget. During the health care debate I 
had an amendment called the fail-safe amendment that would say to the 
American people and to the Congress: This is what we have to spend on 
health care. That is all there is. There is not any more. We have to 
manage toward that. If we failed, if we tripped over it, we would 
actually have to make cuts, make changes to our system of health care.
  We spend twice as much as any other industrialized country in the 
world, and it is crowding out a lot of other things that the 4-H kids 
and others whom I worry about care about.
  So I think there is much we can work on, but I just don't think we 
are going to get to it through this kind of discussion. We might get to 
it through this kind of discussion.
  In any event, I will commit to the Senator from Texas that I am going 
to sit down and stop talking about what he said.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNET. 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. BENNET. Mr. President, there is no one else on the floor. I 
thought I would take the opportunity to talk again a little bit about 
our immigration bill. This has been such a gratifying process to me 
because it has been bipartisan from the start. In fact, I have been 
telling people that it is not even that it has been bipartisan, it has 
been nonpartisan. The work on the Gang of 8, which led to work in the 
Judiciary Committee, which led to work on the floor is the way this 
place ought to operate on a whole host of issues, from energy--the 
Presiding Officer cares a lot about that--to infrastructure, to the 
budget issues I was just talking about with the Senator from Texas.
  It is important for people to know that this is a bipartisan bill 
because I think people are fed up with the partisanship in this town, 
and they do not believe it reflects the way they live their lives. 
There is a reason for that. It does not. This place is decoupled from 
the lives of ordinary American people, and this is an effort--among 
others, hopefully--to recouple those priorities.
  I have been interested in the objections to the immigration bill 
since the beginning. First there was the objection that it was actually 
going to drive up our deficit. Not surprisingly, we learned from the 
Congressional Budget Office that this bill actually would create the 
most significant deficit reduction of any piece of legislation we 
considered here, certainly that we passed here--$197 billion in the 
first 10 years, $700 billion in the second 10 years. Even in 
Washington, $1 trillion is still a lot of money. That is what we heard, 
both because people now not paying taxes would be paying taxes and also 
because of the economic growth that would be generated if we could 
restore the rule of law to our immigration system and to this economy. 
That was an objection. That objection was answered--not by me but by 
the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
  The second objection was that the legislation was not going to get a 
fair airing, that it was going to be rushed through in the dead of 
night. I don't like doing work that way.
  There were eight ``no'' votes on the fiscal cliff deal at the end of 
the year, and I was one of those ``no'' votes, one of three Democrats 
who voted no not largely but partly because it had not had any process 
and it was in the middle of the night. This bill, by contrast, had 7 
months of negotiations among four Democrats and four Republicans. It 
had 3 weeks to go through the Judiciary Committee, a markup that had 
160-some amendments, many of which were accepted. Forty-one Republican 
amendments were accepted to this bill. It came to the floor for the 
debate we have had over the last few weeks.
  I realize the amendment process is jammed up, and I am sorry about 
that because I think people ought to be able--including the Presiding 
Officer--to offer the wise amendments they have and the not-so-wise 
amendments they have, at least in my opinion. But there certainly has 
been an open process for this bill. Sometimes I have heard people say, 
well, it is just like health care all over again. I was here during the 
health care bill, and I can say this process looks nothing like that 
process.

  There is a third objection from some who say there is no border 
security in this bill. First of all, that wasn't even true of the Gang 
of 8 bill. We had substantial border security, and as my lead, I was 
taking what John McCain and Jeff Flake--both Senators from Arizona--
said was important. They are two Senators who have a border State, and 
they have been working hard to resolve these issues in our group. We 
made a substantial investment in that bill for border security and 
technology. Even fencing was included in that bill.
  I think it is a reasonable expectation--not of Republicans but of the 
American people--that our border should be secure. Certainly the people 
in Colorado believe our border should be secure. So when Senators came 
and said: We would like to vote for this bill, but we would like to do 
more on border security, not only was I open to that, I supported that. 
The bill before us has incredibly substantial border security. There 
are 700 more miles of fencing. We doubled the number of Border Patrol 
agents on the border.
  One of the Senators said to me that we are at a point now where there 
is a Border Patrol agent every 1,000 feet on the southern border. One 
might ask whether that is a wise use of resources, but it was important 
for some people to have that before they would sign on to this bill. So 
I don't think any reasonable person looking at this could say border 
security has not been addressed.
  So what are the objections to moving forward? We have heard people 
say: Well, it is the path to citizenship or we don't like that part of 
the bill. That was a core principle for the four Democrats and four 
Republicans who started this negotiation, and it has been a core 
principle for a lot of people who voted for this bill. A very important 
reason to pass this legislation is to resolve the situation for the 11 
million people who are here illegally. The pathway to citizenship is 
the right way to do it.
  This is not amnesty. This has to be earned. People have to pay a 
fine. People have to learn English for the first time in our history. 
People have to pay their taxes. It takes 10 years to get a green card, 
then 3 years after that. They have to pass background checks all along 
the way so we know who the people are we want to stay in this country 
and who the people are we want to leave this country.
  I see the Senator from Louisiana is here, so I will wrap up. To my 
friends

[[Page S5226]]

who think some lawful status that doesn't include a pathway to 
citizenship is useful to this country, I ask them to look at countries 
all around the world that have created a subclass of people--not even 
citizens, just a subclass of people--who have no attachment to their 
culture, no feeling they are ever going to participate in their civic 
or political institutions or meaningfully in their economy, no chance 
to believe their children or the children after them are actually going 
to make those contributions as well, and ask: Does that look like the 
United States of America to you?
  That is not what the Founders had in mind. We hear a lot of cheap 
talk about the Founders around here these days. That is not what the 
Founders had in mind when they wrote into the Constitution that it was 
our responsibility as a body to deal with immigration.
  So I hope people will consider that objection, take a look at the 
Senate bill, and will, hopefully, support it.
  With that, I know the Senator from Louisiana was scheduled to speak, 
so I will yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I am here to speak about an amendment I 
have filed on this immigration bill that I have been working hard to 
get a vote on. It is certainly not the only amendment I filed, but it 
is a top priority. My amendment is the violence against women and 
children amendment, amendment No. 1330.
  We have heard a lot of promises and a lot of rhetoric on this issue 
from many people, including the Gang of 8. What I have found 
distressing, as I have actually gotten to read the bill--and let's 
always remember one of the great lessons of ObamaCare was to read the 
bill before we vote--is that the details and exact language does not 
match a lot of the rhetoric.
  One of the earliest and most important promises by the Gang of 8 was 
that in this amnesty process folks who were guilty of serious crimes 
would not be eligible for citizenship; in fact, they would be deported. 
That is why the bipartisan framework for comprehensive immigration 
reform that the Gang of 8 released in January of this year said:

       Individuals with a serious criminal background or others 
     who pose a threat to our national security will be ineligible 
     for legal status and subject to deportation. Illegal 
     immigrants who have committed serious crimes face immediate 
     deportation.

  We can all agree with that. The problem is the details in the text of 
the bill do not agree with that because it does not include several 
serious offenses, particularly against women and children.
  My amendment is simple. It is to beef up and strengthen this part of 
the bill by including the Violence Against Women Act offenses as 
crimes, which would disqualify someone from being granted amnesty and 
would trigger immediate deportation. These include serious, violent 
crimes such as sexual assault, stalking, domestic violence, sex 
trafficking, dating violence, child abuse and neglect, as well as elder 
abuse. It is specifically Violence Against Women Act offenses. These 
are serious, violent crimes against some of the most vulnerable people 
in our society. In my opinion those offenses should clearly be 
disqualifiers. So that is what the amendment would do.
  Now, VAWA, which we debated and voted on a few months ago, has 
widespread bipartisan support. More than 200 national organizations and 
more than 500 State and local organizations expressed support for that 
bill. A great majority of Senators voted for it. I voted for it. So we 
should certainly follow up on that rhetoric and that vote by making 
sure these serious offenses in the Violence Against Women Act are 
disqualifiers to amnesty in the immigration bill.
  This is not my only amendment, and not getting a vote for this 
amendment so far is a frustration. It is a frustration for a lot of us 
with regard to a lot of amendments. This immigration debate is 
enormously important. This bill is enormously long. It is well over 
1,000 pages. So far we have had 10 rollcall votes on amendments--10, 
period. That is one amendment per--I don't know--120, 130 pages. That 
is ludicrous, and that is not the full, robust amendment process we 
were promised for months and months by both the majority leader and the 
Gang of 8.
  I hope I can get a vote on this amendment, and I also want and expect 
a vote on the other amendments I filed. I have many amendments, but I 
have narrowed that list down.
  So, with that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my 
Violence Against Women and Children amendment No. 1330 be made pending 
and eligible for a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. VITTER. In closing, I find that very disheartening. This is a big 
subject. I agree with the proponents of the bill when they say this is 
a big problem that needs fixing. It has been on the Senate floor for 3 
weeks. The bill is well over 1,000 pages long, and we need more 
opportunity for serious debate and amendments than we have gotten.
  As soon as a path to passage was identified late last week--as soon 
as that happened, the amendment process was basically shut down. It 
continues to be shut down today. The important amendment I have brought 
to the floor that has been denied a vote is an example of that. I find 
it very regrettable.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         College Education Cost

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, we have a major crisis in our country 
today in terms of the high cost of a college education, and in addition 
to that the incredible debt burden college students and their families 
are facing. This is a major problem in Vermont, and it is a major 
problem for every State in our country.
  The job of the Senate is to understand that crisis, improve the 
situation, lessen the burden on students and their families, and not to 
make the situation worse than it is today. At a time when we need the 
best educated workforce in the world, hundreds of thousands of bright, 
young Americans who are qualified to pursue a higher education--who 
want to pursue a higher education--do not go to college, and they do 
not go to college for one very simple reason: They cannot afford to go 
to college.
  According to a Pew study of 18- to 34-year-olds who have not 
completed college, 48 percent say they cannot afford to do so. Higher 
education for middle-class families and working-class families is 
simply too expensive, and this is an issue we must address.
  What does it say about our country when hundreds and hundreds of 
thousands of young people who want to contribute and do more with their 
lives cannot get the education they need? In many cases it deprives 
them from making it into the middle class, and it denies this Nation 
the intellectual capabilities they have.
  Further, millions of young people who graduate college are saddled 
with an incredible debt burden which radically impacts their lives. In 
America today, the average debt for a college graduate is over $27,000 
in my State of Vermont. It is about $28,000. That is the average. That 
means there are many young people who have more debt. For those who go 
to graduate school or medical school or dental school, the debt can be 
many times higher. Last year I talked to two young dentists in the 
State of Vermont. They are in debt to the tune of over $200,000 for the 
crime of having gone to dental school.
  This horrendous debt burden impacts the lives of young people in many 
ways. It can determine--and this is a hugely important issue--the 
profession they choose to enter. How can a person become a teacher, a 
childcare worker, a legal aid attorney or even a primary care physician 
if the salary a person earns will not enable them to pay off their debt 
and take care of the obligations they face? In other words, this debt 
is forcing many young people into professions which are not necessarily 
their love. It is not what they wanted to do; it is what they have to 
do in order to earn money to pay off their

[[Page S5227]]

debts. This crushing debt burden determines where many young people 
will live and whether they can even afford to buy a home. How does a 
person go out and buy a home if they are spending 20 or 25 percent of 
their income paying off their student debt? This debt burden on our 
young people even determines, in some cases, whether they get married 
and have kids.
  The higher education debt burden the American people are now carrying 
at $1.1 trillion is now higher than our credit card debt and is having 
a significant impact upon our economy. In fact, the Federal Reserve and 
the Department of Treasury have both issued warnings that high levels 
of student loan debt could drive down consumer demand and have a 
negative impact on economic growth. In other words, if a person is 
spending all their money paying off debt, they are not buying goods or 
services. So this high level of student loan debt is having a negative 
impact on our overall economy.
  According to a report released by the New York Fed--and this is 
important for people to hear--student loan debt has nearly tripled 
since 2004. In less than 10 years it has nearly tripled. Total student 
loan debt in the United States now exceeds $1.1 trillion. The average 
student loan balance has increased 70 percent since 2004.
  If we do not act immediately, the subsidized Stafford Loan Program 
will see a doubling of interest rates on July 1, a few days from now. 
Let me repeat: If Congress does not act immediately, within the next 
few days, the subsidized Stafford Loan Program will see a doubling of 
interest rates on July 1. The rates will rise from 3.4 percent to 6.8 
percent for subsidized Stafford loans. This would be a disaster for 
millions of students and their families all over our Nation. We must 
not allow that to happen. At the very least, we must immediately pass 
legislation that extends interest rates at 3.4 percent for several more 
years on the Stafford Loan Program. Meanwhile, as part of higher 
education legislation, we must begin work on a long-term solution that 
guarantees the students of this country will be able to attend college 
and graduate school and not be burdened with suffocating debts.
  As we contemplate long-term new policy on student loans, one thing we 
should be very clear about: The Federal Government should not be making 
a huge profit off the needs of low-income and working families who 
utilize the Stafford Loan Program. That is simply wrong. In fact, that 
is what we are doing today.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Federal Government 
makes a substantial profit from student loans. For loans made this 
year, in 2013 alone, that profit is expected to exceed $50 billion, and 
this is higher than the profits made by ExxonMobil, the most profitable 
company on Earth. As I hear every day on the floor of the Senate, we 
are reminded we live in a competitive global economy. I hear every day 
from my colleagues that the United States is not doing all we can do in 
terms of educating our young people in such areas as science, 
engineering, technology, and math. In fact, in the immigration bill we 
are debating, there is an effort to bring hundreds of thousands of 
workers from abroad, presumably because we do not have enough workers 
who are knowledgeable in terms of engineering, science, math, and other 
technologies. What sense does it make if we are doing a bad job now in 
educating our young people in general, and specifically in the STEM 
areas, that we make it harder for kids to get a college education? What 
sense does that make?
  I should mention that countries all over the world understand this 
point, and they are doing a much better job than we are of investing in 
their young people in general and specifically in higher education. 
According to a report released just yesterday by the OECD, the United 
States was one of the few advanced countries in the world that did not 
increase its public investment in education. In fact, the vast majority 
of advanced nations do everything possible, and a lot better job than 
we do, to make higher education more affordable for all of their 
students.
  A couple weeks ago I had the Ambassador from Denmark coming to the 
State of Vermont to talk about what goes on in Denmark. People asked 
him: How much does it cost to go to college in Denmark? The answer was: 
Nothing, not a penny out of your pocket. It is paid for out of the tax 
base. In fact, students there get a stipend.
  But Denmark is not the only country which makes sure all of their 
kids can get a higher education, a graduate school education, a medical 
school education, while not having to pay for it out of their own 
pocket. Austria, Finland, Norway, Scotland, and Sweden also do the 
same. In Canada, which is an hour away from where I live, average 
annual tuition fees were $4,288 in 2010, roughly half of what they were 
in the United States. Yet the OECD says Canada is one of the most 
expensive countries for a student to go to college--half the cost of 
where we are. Germany is in the process of phasing out all tuition 
fees. Even when German universities did charge tuition, it was roughly 
$1,300 per student.
  Here is the bottom line: All over this country, students and their 
families are facing crushing debt, radically impacting their lives and 
the choices they make. There are some in the Senate who say: Yes, that 
is pretty bad. How can we make it even worse? How can we raise interest 
rates for our kids and make it harder for them to go to college and 
make sure when they get out of college they are deeply in debt?
  I say: No, I think that is absurd.
  I remind my colleagues that when Wall Street banks borrow money--do 
my colleagues know what they are getting it for today? They are getting 
it for less than 1 percent--three-quarters of 1 percent. We are talking 
about families having to spend 6 percent, 7 percent, 8 percent, 9 
percent in order to send their kids to college, to help our country, to 
make it into the middle class. That is absurd. We have to understand 
that a well-educated population is perhaps the most important thing we 
need as a nation if we are going to survive in a highly competitive 
global economy.
  Let me conclude by saying this: This Congress has to act and act 
immediately to prevent the disaster we are looking at from happening; 
that is, the doubling of interest rates on the Stafford Loan Program, 
which will go from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 1. Short term, we 
have to extend the 3.4-percent interest rate. Long term, we need to 
make certain every kid in this country, regardless of income, can go to 
college and leave school without a crushing financial debt.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I am here today on the immigration bill, 
but I wish to thank the Senator from Vermont for bringing our attention 
to this very serious issue. It is a little bit of a variation on a 
theme today about trying to reconnect the priorities of the American 
people--frankly, whether they are Republicans or Democrats or anybody 
else--and this place, which has become totally disconnected. I wish to 
say through the Chair to the Senator from Vermont how on point he is.
  The people I represent care about the fact that they are living in an 
economy that even when it grows--I was talking about this a little bit 
earlier--it is not producing sufficient jobs and it is not driving up 
income. That is what they are concerned about. The student debt crisis 
the Senator speaks about, where it tripled over the last 10 years, is a 
huge part of this story. It is a significant part, because if a 
family's income is going down but the cost of higher education is 
skyrocketing--by the way, at the same time the cost of health care is 
skyrocketing--it makes it very hard to get ahead. People are 
desperately worried, as I said earlier, that we are going to be the 
first generation of Americans to leave less opportunity, not more, to 
our kids and grandkids.
  But there is another issue as well, which is today, in the 21st 
century in this country, if a person is born and living in poverty, 
their chances of getting a college degree or the equivalent of a 
college degree are 9 in 100--9 in 100. For the folks in the Chamber, 
for the pages who are here today, we have 100 chairs, 100 desks in the 
Senate. If these desks represented poor children living in this country 
instead of Senators, those four desks in the front row and four at that 
end right there, and another one, those are the only folks who would be 
getting a college degree. Ninety-one other people in this Chamber would 
be constrained to the margin

[[Page S5228]]

of this economy and a margin of our democracy from the outset.
  Matters are getting worse, not better. We led the world in the 
production of college graduates when George Bush--this is not a 
partisan observation, it is a temporal one--when George Bush, the son, 
became President. We led the world. Let me tell the young people who 
are here today, 13 years later, we are 16th in the world in the 
production of college graduates. Because of our inability to come 
together and figure out how to deal comprehensively over time in a 
thoughtful way with the fact that we don't want to stick our kids with 
this debt we have acquired--which we need to do; we are just hacking 
away at domestic discretionary spending for higher education, for K-12 
education, for agriculture, for infrastructure.

  Some of these budgets we have considered--we have not passed them 
here; they passed them over in the House--would invest only 4 percent 
of our revenue, 4 percent of the revenue we collect, in the future of 
this country. Ninety-six percent on something else is not going to get 
the job done.
  On an issue such as this, where our students are saying: How do you 
at least not make matters worse, we ought to be able to come together 
in a bipartisan way and solve this problem.
  I thank the Senator from Vermont for coming to the floor to focus our 
attention on something the American people actually care about.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BENNET. With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). 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. Mr. President, I want to give my colleagues a point of 
view on the immigration bill before the Senate from somebody other than 
a Senator.
  In the weekend Des Moines Register, there was an article called 
``Another View: Immigration reform plan adds disorder to a failing 
system'' by Mark H. Metcalf, who had been an immigration judge and now 
is a county attorney in the State of Kentucky.
  I am quoting:

       The most recent push for immigration reform is compelling. 
     True to our heritage of inclusion, it succeeds. False to our 
     tradition of rule of law, it fails.

  For any law to forge consensus, it must appeal to both fairness and 
common sense. The measure now on the U.S. Senate floor fails this 
litmus.

       What is sold as a means to simplify and dignify one of our 
     most important national institutions--immigration and 
     naturalization--mandates complexity and much of the same 
     disorder that got us where we are today. The bill's neglect 
     of an effective court system only aggravates this disorder.
       America's immigration courts are weak, and this latest 
     measure keeps them that way. Put simply, immigration courts 
     cannot impose order. Few aliens ordered removed after years 
     of litigation are ever deported.
       Edward Grant, a senior immigration appeals judge, noted 
     this impasse in 2006.

  Then he quotes Edward Grant: ``All should be troubled that only a 
small fraction of [deportation orders] . . . is actually executed.''

       And he was right. A 2003 Justice Department report found 
     only 3 percent of aliens free during trial were actually 
     removed after courts ruled against them. Those who deserve 
     relief fare just as poorly.
       By last count, more than 330,000 cases were backlogged. 
     This historic dysfunction offers a glimpse of things to come 
     if the current version of reform passes.
       The cause of this dysfunction is simple. Immigration courts 
     have no authority over immigration enforcement agencies. 
     Unlike federal district courts that have U.S. marshals, among 
     others, to execute their orders, federal immigration courts 
     have no such muscle.
       Numbers tell the story.
       Some 11 million illegal aliens now live in the U.S. Visa 
     overstayers--those who entered America legally and then 
     refused to leave--comprise 40 percent of this total. The rest 
     crossed unguarded borders and entered illegally. Both groups 
     brought children with them. From these two populations, 1.2 
     million deportation orders remain unexecuted.
       The immigration courts observed this dysfunction first 
     hand. From 1996 through 2012, the U.S. permitted some 2.2 
     million aliens to remain free before trial. Nearly 900,000 of 
     these individuals--39 percent of the total--skipped court and 
     disappeared.
       In the shadow of 9/11, things were even worse. From 2002 
     through 2006, half of all aliens free awaiting trial 
     vanished. Nothing in the details now being debated addresses 
     this systemic defect, and continued neglect will only 
     diminish public support for worthy initiatives intended to 
     elevate the foreign-born.
       Fine improvements dot the present legislation. Enhancements 
     that protect lawful American workers, recruitment of the 
     highly skilled into our tech-driven economy, and real-time 
     tracking of visa holders into and out of ports of entry 
     provide overdue fixes.
       Emphasis on border security demonstrates a seriousness 
     absent from earlier proposals. Those illegally brought to the 
     U.S. as children--better known as ``Dreamers''--earn tracks 
     to citizenship incentivized through higher education and 
     military service.

  Now, let me editorialize here. There are two paragraphs where he says 
good things about this legislation. I do not necessarily agree with a 
couple of those points.
  Now continuing to quote:

       Some reworking is needed; but this value-added approach 
     appeals to our better instincts as a nation. Problems 
     persist, though, in that essential mechanism upon which a 
     rule of law nation depends: effective courts.
       While the bill authorizes 225 new judges, judicial 
     authority declines. Deportation orders are further enfeebled. 
     Aliens deported from the U.S. may apply to come back, and the 
     thousands who skipped court can request a waiver--and get in 
     line with the many who played by the rules.
       Fraud is enabled. Courts and immigration agencies alike 
     will be required to accept--without independent 
     verification--aliens' claims to work and residency that make 
     them eligible for the path to citizenship.
       Constitutional protections are turned upside down.

  Here I editorialize. Listen to this on how our laws are turned upside 
down. Continuing to quote:

       Aliens in civil deportation proceedings will receive 
     counsel on demand, while citizens receive counsel only when 
     facing criminal charges and only after proving they are 
     indigent.
  So again editorializing, it gives more constitutional rights and more 
legal counsel than the common criminal in this country might get.

       Order is subverted. Even felons who are subject to 
     deportation may seek injunctions that allow them to remain in 
     the U.S. In the end, courts that spent years deciding the 
     cases of those who should be removed will see their orders 
     overturned by waivers that mock the judicial process.
       America's immigration courts express fundamental confidence 
     in those who embrace our shores and the redemptive power of 
     our democracy. For the immigrant in particular, they reveal 
     the beginnings of accountability that are a surety of our 
     exceptionalism.
       But ignored by administrations both Republican and 
     Democrat, these courts have ceased to do the critical work 
     for which they were created--to definitively decide the 
     claims of those who ask to join our nation and see that those 
     decisions are impartially enforced.
       So now, instead of debating how we extend the great prize 
     of American citizenship to more of the world's bright and 
     talented, Congress argues whether felons should be deported. 
     This is the small-ball politics that has sabotaged public 
     confidence in immigration. It shows how far we have fallen 
     both in the mission of these special courts and with 
     immigration in general.
       Courts without authority cannot provide order. Even less 
     can they assure liberty.
       Only independent and empowered courts are an equal match 
     for the certain risks and superior opportunities that 
     American immigration offers. History proves them not just a 
     priceless check against tyranny, but also an effective 
     antidote for drifting government agencies that delay relief 
     to the deserving and deny sanction to the offender.
       Such courts are a necessary complement to immigration 
     reform that is inclusive, accountable and commands consensus.

  That is the end of the article in the Des Moines Register by this 
former immigration judge, Mark H. Metcalf.
  I thank my colleagues for listening to this, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss S. 744, the Border 
Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.
  From the very beginning of this debate, I have said that our Nation 
needs immigration reform. I have also urged Senate leadership to ensure 
that the Senate has ample opportunity to debate this bill, amend it, 
and take the hard votes necessary to make the bill as good as it can 
be. To ignore this problem and to do nothing to change the status quo 
would be a disservice to the American people and a great detriment to 
our country.
  I have also said throughout this process that in order to enact 
meaningful,

[[Page S5229]]

comprehensive immigration reform we have to strengthen border security. 
It is true that the border security portion of the underlying bill 
needed significant improvement. Through the hard work and negotiations 
led by my colleagues Senator Hoeven and Senator Corker the border 
security portion of this legislation has been addressed, and for that 
reason I can support this bill.
  The Hoeven-Corker amendment, which I cosponsored, adds 20,000 
additional Border Patrol agents to the southern border. It requires 
twice the original amount of fencing along the border--700 miles total, 
to be exact--and requires the Department of Homeland Security to 
implement a border fencing strategy to help ensure that the fence is an 
effective deterrent. It also mandates that the E-Verify system be fully 
implemented before any registered provisional immigrant can adjust 
their status. This will help make sure businesses have a safe and legal 
workforce. And the amendment requires an electronic entry-exit system 
at all international air and sea ports of entry where U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection officers are currently deployed.
  By increasing and enhancing security efforts at our borders, by using 
new technology that will allow us to better monitor activities at our 
borders, we will ensure that those who are here are here lawfully and 
that they have the opportunity to thrive and succeed, just like many 
generations of American immigrants have done.
  To do nothing now amounts to de facto amnesty for 11 million people 
who are already here illegally. We must take action to prevent further 
unlawful entry. The current system is backward, and it is broken.
  This legislation represents a product of many long hours of debate, 
discussion, and deliberation in this body. It addresses a problem in 
our country that requires dramatic change and meaningful reform. While 
this bill is just one step in the process, it is a step in the right 
direction. It takes into consideration the necessity of securing 
America's borders, while encouraging the lawful immigration of those 
who would come to our shores to contribute to America's greatness, as 
immigrants have done since our Nation's founding.
  In the past, attempts to reform our immigration system failed due to 
a process that was neither transparent nor fair.
  But from the Judiciary Committee proceedings to today, the Senate has 
had ample opportunity to debate this legislation and amend it. As a 
result, we have a bill where the good far outweighs the bad. With this 
legislation, we can address the 11 million undocumented individuals 
living in the country under de facto amnesty. We can finally secure our 
borders and stop more people from living here illegally. We can fix a 
system that has been broken for decades once and for all.
  We can continue to maintain the smartest, hardest working, most 
creative workforce in the world. Fighting for what you believe in and 
working with Members from both sides of the aisle does not mean you are 
turning your back on your principles. Democrats and Republicans can 
find ways to work together and pass legislation this great Nation 
deserves. Republicans can do so and still stay true to their 
conservative principles.
  No question, this has been a contentious debate. My constituents feel 
strongly about this issue on both sides of the spectrum. Some reporters 
in Nevada like to harp on the fact that my work to find a solution 
between Democrats and Republicans has been politically motivated. One 
such reporter even resorted to describing my actions in racially 
insensitive terms.
  The bottom line: The easy thing to do politically is nothing. The 
harder choice is to govern. We must remember that long before America 
was the great Nation we are today, before we were the world's greatest 
economy, a military superpower, a global champion for democracy that 
has forever changed human history, America was merely an idea. America 
began as an idea in the hearts and minds of a persecuted minority that 
longed for freedom and the opportunity to decide for themselves what 
their destiny would be. That idea was brought here by immigrants who 
crossed the oceans and devoted themselves to the formation of a free 
society unlike any the world had ever known.
  America has always been a Nation of immigrants. That heritage is one 
of the defining aspects of our national success story. When I think 
about a true American immigrant success story, I think about one of my 
constituents back home, Mr. Carlos Pereira. Carlos came to America from 
Peru in the 1990s. He and his wife Kathia set out to build their very 
own bakery. But they wanted to build more than a bakery, they wanted to 
build a new life for themselves and for their children. They did just 
that. They built a bakery with their bare hands. They laid the bricks 
and hammered the nails, and after a lot of long nights and hard work, 
they built Bon Breads in Las Vegas. Today, their company is a world 
renowned, internationally respected enterprise, and their products are 
used by chefs and restaurants all over the world. Bon Breads is 
responsible for creating hundreds of jobs in Nevada, and is a perfect 
example of what our immigration system should encourage.
  Carlos' hard work, dedication, and perseverance allowed him and his 
business to succeed in a way that would be impossible in many other 
countries today. I have three naturalized citizens on my staff about 
whom I can say the exact same thing. That is a true immigrant success 
story. That is the kind of potential we can unlock by fixing what is 
broken with our current system.
  We can improve our economy, create jobs, and strengthen our Nation as 
a whole with this immigration reform bill or we can choose to protect 
the status quo, do nothing to fix the overall problem. This bill is a 
step forward toward much-needed reform to our immigration system. It is 
true to the American idea that has defined our Nation since its 
founding, the idea that is inscribed on the Statue of Liberty, 
welcoming the tired, the poor, and the huddled masses, yearning to 
breathe free.
  Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made a profound statement 
recently, that in America it does not matter where you came from, it 
only matters where you are going. Our immigration laws should embody 
that principle and enable good hard-working people to come here, study 
hard, start businesses, raise families, and contribute as productive 
citizens. The bill before us is a good step toward preserving that 
idea.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this immigration reform 
bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the 
Senator from Massachusetts makes his remarks that Senator Grassley be 
recognized, then I be recognized after him, and then Senator Kaine, 
those four in that order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Massachusetts is 
here, and I look forward to hearing his farewell. Before he does, I 
wanted to say thank you to the Senator from Nevada for his work on this 
bill, for getting us to a bipartisan result, for helping us grow the 
vote, and for the statement he made about surely not one of us would 
have written the bill exactly the way it is written. But there is much 
more that is good about this bill than not. I am grateful for his 
support. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. COWAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
15 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Farewell to the Senate

  Mr. COWAN. Mr. President, I rise today in my final full work week and 
not yet 150 days into my Senate career, yet at the precipice of the 
close of that career. On January 30 of this year, Governor Deval 
Patrick sent me to this Chamber to represent the people of 
Massachusetts and their interests.
  Yesterday, on June 25, those same people took to the voting booth and 
called me home. In doing so, they called Senator-elect Ed Markey to the 
high honor of serving this august body. After 37 distinguished years in 
the House, Senator-elect Markey now has this opportunity to offer his 
voice, wisdom, accumulated experiences, humor,

[[Page S5230]]

esprit de corps, and tireless commitment to justice and equality to the 
Senate. I, for one, believe that Massachusetts and the country will be 
better for it. Like a majority of Massachusetts voters who expressed 
themselves yesterday, I am quite confident Senator-elect Markey will 
serve with distinction and act in the best interests of the citizens he 
is now privileged to represent.
  The Senator-elect bested a strong candidate who brought a new voice 
and, yes, a new visage to the Massachusetts political scene. I applaud 
Gabriel Gomez on a well-run campaign and, most importantly, his 
willingness to sacrifice so much in an effort to serve the people of 
the Commonwealth. He started this journey as a relative unknown, but I 
suspect we have not heard the last of Mr. Gomez. I thank him and his 
family for their sacrifices and their willingness to engage.
  When it comes to farewell speeches, few will top the words offered by 
John Kerry on this floor a few months ago. After 28 years of 
distinguished service to the people of Massachusetts, now-Secretary 
Kerry spent nearly an hour reflecting on his service to this body. By 
the same measure, as merely an interim Senator serving but a few short 
months, I probably should have ended my remarks about 45 seconds ago. 
But before I yield, I will take a few minutes to reflect on my brief 
time in this body and extend my gratitude to a number of folks.
  First, I want to acknowledge and recognize the outstanding staff 
members in Boston and DC who have helped me serve our constituents to 
the best of my ability. When Governor Patrick named me as interim 
Senator, a few people--okay, more than a few--openly questioned whether 
I would be up to the task and whether I was capable of accomplishing 
anything other than locating the lavatory during my temporary 
assignment. But I knew something those doubters did not know. I knew I 
was going to be able to do my best for the folks back home because I 
came to the Senate armed with the knowledge of the issues by dint of my 
time in the Patrick-Murray administration. I planned to make a few key 
hires and convince the bulk of Secretary Kerry's Senate staff to stay 
on and help me do the job the Governor sent me to do. In other words, I 
knew what I did not know, but I knew enough to hire the people who knew 
the considerable rest. Boy, have they proven me a genius. If you work 
in the Senate but a day--and I suspect the same is true in the House of 
Representatives--you will learn quickly that staff make this place hum, 
and good staff make all the difference in the world. I hope my team 
will forgive me if I do not list them all by name, thereby avoiding the 
sin of omission, but, instead, all of the staff will accept my 
heartfelt appreciation for their willingness to join my team, show me 
the ropes, teach a new dog some old tricks, educate me on all of the 
rules that matter, which seem to be written nowhere, and their 
exhibition of degrees of professionalism and service to our country 
that the public too often thinks is missing in their Congress.
  To my entire staff, I have been in awe at your greatness. I am 
forever in your debt for your immeasurable contributions to our work in 
the interests of Massachusetts residents. I look forward to your many 
successes yet to come.
  To two of my team in particular, Val Young, my chief of staff, and 
Lauren Rich, my scheduler, who have known and worked with me for years, 
thank you for your continued willingness to partner with and trust in 
me.
  If I am being honest about the people who helped me look as though I 
belong here, I must spend a moment or two acknowledging the wonderful 
women and men who comprise the Senate staff. From the Capitol Police, 
who protect us every day and somehow knew my name on the first day, to 
the subway operators who always deliver us on time and unfazed, to the 
elevator operators who excel in the art of cutting off reporters and 
their annoying questions, to the cloakroom staff who field every 
cloying call about voting schedules and presiding hours, to the clerks 
and Parliamentarians who discreetly tell you what to say and do as 
presiding officer while the public in the gallery silently wonders why 
everyone addresses you as Mr. or Madam President while sitting in that 
chair, to the generous food service staff who look the other way when 
you go back for seconds and sometimes thirds, and to so many others who 
are the oil that makes this engine hum, each of you has shown me such 
patience, support, and grace that I know your love for this institution 
may trump even the Members' affection for this place and will sustain 
the institution long after any one or all of us leave this Chamber. You 
are tremendous resources for every new Senator, and I suspect great 
comfort to even the longest serving among us. The public may not know 
you by name or know the importance of your work, but now I do. I have 
been honored to serve you.
  The next folks I recognize are the youngest and most silent among us. 
Of course, I speak of the pages, the young women and men who spend part 
of a high school year dressed and acting in formal traditions of this 
body. I have yet to speak with an uninteresting page or a page 
uninterested in the Senate and our government. These are dynamic young 
people who could be doing so many different things with their time but 
they give their time and service to the Senate and its Members. They 
are indispensable to both. I look forward to the day when my young boys 
will be of age to follow in the footsteps of these outstanding young 
people.
  Last, and by no means least, I want to thank the family and friends 
who supported my family and me during my short tenure. We often say it 
takes a village to raise a child, but I can attest it also takes a 
village to help an interim Senator meet his duties at Congress and at 
home. Whether offering me a spare bedroom in Silver Spring or agreeing 
to last minute babysitting duties so my wife and I both could celebrate 
Black History Month at the White House, our village is vast and 
generous. Of course, every village needs a queen. The queen of my 
village is my wife Stacy. I was able to serve because she was willing 
to be mom and dad and sacrifice in ways known and unknown while I have 
been in DC. Over the past few months, I have missed many homework 
assignments, some birthday dinners, pediatric appointments, school 
performances, and parent-teacher meetings, but our sons never felt 
their dad was absent and unaccounted for because their mom, a supermom, 
more than made up for my absence.
  Stacy has been my rock and salvation for nearly 20 years now. I am 
better every day for it. Let the record show for now and all time my 
love and dedication to Stacy.
  In January of this year I planned to leave the Deval Patrick 
administration and transition back into private life. I was looking 
forward to more conventional hours, a reprieve from working under the 
public scrutiny of the press, and spending more time with my wife and 
our young son. So I came to the Senate. Go figure.
  I was surprised, but deeply honored, when Governor Patrick sent me 
here to represent the folks back home. I am eternally grateful to the 
government's faith and trust in my ability to serve. This floor on 
which I stand today and with which I have become so closely acquainted 
over the last 5 months has been occupied by some of the most dynamic 
and greatest political figures of our Nation's history.
  From my own State of Massachusetts alone: Adams, Webster, Sumner, 
Saltonstall, Brooke, Kennedy, all who held a seat in the Chamber before 
me, are enough to make any person feel daunted when assuming a desk on 
this floor.
  I was appointed to the Senate to fill the seat of another great 
Senator, John Kerry, and work alongside another great Senator, 
Elizabeth Warren.
  Thank you for being here, Elizabeth.
  Although my time was short, I only sought to uphold not only Senator 
Kerry's legacy in this body but the work of all of the esteemed 
Senators who have dedicated their service to the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts, and I pledged to be the best partner I could to Senator 
Warren.
  I entered the Senate at a vexing time in this body's history. As we 
all know, congressional approval levels are dismally low. People across 
the Nation and political pundits everywhere believe partisanship is a 
divide too wide to bridge and a wall too high to overcome. Yet despite 
the overwhelming public pessimism, I came to Washington with two 
achievable objectives:

[[Page S5231]]

to serve the people of Massachusetts to the best of my ability and to 
work with any Senator willing to implement smart, sensible, and 
productive policy to advance the ideals of our Nation.
  From the outside, the prospects for bipartisanship may seem slim. 
Party-line votes are the norm. The threat of the filibuster demands a 
supermajority to pass meaningful legislation. The American people have 
come to believe Congress is more committed to obstruction than 
compromise.
  To the everyday observer we have reached a standstill where 
partisanship outweighs progress and neither side is willing to reach 
across the aisle for the good of the American people.
  What I have encountered in the Senate is not a body defined by 
vitriol but one more defined by congeniality and common respect. That 
began before I even started here.
  On the day the Governor announced my appointment, I was pleasantly 
surprised to receive calls on my personal cell phones--I still don't 
know how they got those numbers--from Senators King, Hagan, and Cardin. 
I had the pleasure of receiving warm welcomes from Majority Leader Reid 
and Republican Leader McConnell, among so many others that first day.
  One of the first persons to congratulate me after Senator Warren and 
Secretary Kerry escorted me for my swearing in was my colleague from 
across the aisle, Senator Tim Scott. Since then Senator Rand Paul and I 
have recounted our days at Duke and our affection for college 
basketball.
  On a bipartisan congressional delegation to the Middle East, I traded 
life stories and perspectives with Senators Klobuchar and Hoeven and 
discussed the comedic genius of Will Ferrell with Senators Gillibrand 
and Graham.
  Senator Portman stopped by my Commonwealth Coffee last week to wish 
me well as I leave the Senate. He encouraged me every day during my 
time here.
  Senator Burr, my next-door neighbor in the Russell Building, has 
always been good to remind me that I came from North Carolina before I 
had the privilege to serve in Massachusetts.
  Senator McCain invited me to cosponsor my first Senate resolution.
  Senator Manchin has shown me more kindnesses than I can count.
  The freshman Senators on both sides welcomed me to their class and 
offered never-ending encouragement.
  Indeed, one of them, Heidi Heitkamp, has become the North Dakota 
sister I never knew I had.
  I wish I had time to recount every kindness each of the other 99, 
including the late Senator Lautenberg, gifted me while here, but I 
don't. Each has been recorded indelibly in my memory and is returned 
with gratitude.
  In April I experienced the very best of this body's character in the 
wake of the Boston Marathon bombings when Members from every corner of 
this Nation extended their sympathies, their prayers, and pledged their 
assistance and support for the city of Boston and to all those affected 
by that tragedy. In the aftermath we all came together as Americans to 
honor those killed and to support the wounded during their time of 
recovery.
  We saw the same in the wake of terrible tornadoes that swept through 
Oklahoma.
  Upon closer inspection, it is clear all of us here have common bonds 
and share similar goals. If only we are willing to seek out those bonds 
and focus on the goals that are in the best interests of our Nation.
  While we may not agree on every policy, every line item, or every 
vote, we have each embraced the role of public servant, committed to 
improving the country we have pledged to support and defend. As I have 
discovered in my time here, there is more opportunity for cooperation 
than the American public might believe. This cooperation has led to 
some noted successes.
  Thanks to the bipartisan work in the Agriculture Committee and on the 
Senate floor, we were able to send a farm bill to the House. Through 
the joint leadership of the so-called Gang of 8, we are debating right 
now a workable approach to comprehensive immigration reform. We have 
confirmed five Cabinet Secretaries.
  In what will remain the most memorable all-nighter of my Senate 
career, through a marathon session and more votes in one night than 
most interim Senators have in a career, the Senate passed a budget. Now 
we anxiously await the urgent opportunity to conference with the House.
  I have seen progress, and I remain a true believer in the democratic 
process, the core functionality of our government endowed to us by our 
Founding Fathers so many decades ago. I remain a true believer in the 
Senate's system of government and the Senate's role in that system.
  If I have been asked a question any more frequently than: What are 
you going to do next, Mo, it has been: Is our system of government 
broken? Is Congress broken?
  I have answered truthfully each time: No, our system of government is 
the greatest ever known and the best example of democracy in human 
history.
  The genius of our Founding Fathers is on display every day on Capitol 
Hill, in every State capitol, and every city or townhall across this 
Nation. Part of the Founders' genius was the birth of the government 
designed to function as the people needed it to but function only as 
effectively as the privileged few empowered within it want it to work, 
or as Secretary Kerry himself said best a few months ago in his final 
floor remarks:

       I do not believe the Senate is broken. . . . There is 
     nothing wrong with the Senate that can't be fixed by what's 
     right about the Senate--the predominant and weighty notion 
     that 100 American citizens, chosen by their neighbors [or 
     Governor, in my case] to serve from States as different from 
     Massachusetts and Montana, can always choose to put parochial 
     or personal interests aside and find the national interest.

  What an awesome responsibility and privilege.
  In my scant 5 months I have seen the promise of those words realized 
in more ways and in more interactions than the public, unfortunately, 
has had occasion to witness. I believe in that unlimited promise still.
  I also have been part of history while I was here. With my 
appointment, in coincidence with the appointment of Senator Scott, two 
African Americans are serving in this body concurrently for the first 
time in our Nation's history.
  Senator Scott and I are, respectively, the seventh and eighth Black 
Senators to serve in this body. While I believe this number to be far 
too few, I am also hopeful that it is a sign that these United States 
will soon be represented by a more diverse population that more closely 
reflects the diverse country that we are and the diversity of opinions 
that exist across and within our diverse Nation.
  With different perspectives, different backgrounds, different races, 
religions, and creeds, we are better equipped to confront the issues 
that face our vast and changing Nation. America has always been and 
always will be a nation of immigrants, where religious freedom is in 
our DNA, where more and more we are chipping away at the barriers 
preventing us from achieving true marriage equality, and where people 
worldwide still yearn to reach our shores to enjoy our freedoms.
  A Congress that is more reflective of this America, as this Congress 
is becoming, will be good for America.
  Finally, I offer my heartfelt gratitude to the people of 
Massachusetts. Not one person was given a chance to vote for or against 
me, but I have gone about my work every day as if they had. I came to 
this body beholden to Massachusetts, her residents, and the country 
only, and leave confident that I have stayed true to that honor.
  Ladies and gentlemen of the Commonwealth, it has been a true honor 
and privilege to represent you as your junior Senator in the Senate.
  With that, this will likely be the final time I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will be brief.
  I appreciate very much the remarks of Senator Cowan. The only thing 
he said that I disagree with is: No one had a chance to vote for him to 
get here.
  There was one big vote that was very important, a man by the name of 
Deval Patrick. Once he made that decision, you were our Senator as well 
as the Senator of Massachusetts.
  I, of course, know Deval Patrick. We all saw him at the convention 
giving his brilliant speech. He was swarmed with people giving him 
advice as to

[[Page S5232]]

who he should select to replace Senator Kerry. He called me and said: 
Don't worry about it. I am going to select the best person from the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts to represent Senator Kerry's seat for the 
interim.
  He was right, and I have told Governor Patrick on the telephone. A 
couple of weeks ago I said: Make sure to call Governor Patrick for me--
because I know they are good friends--and tell him I told you how much 
we all admire you.
  In the Democratic caucus yesterday, this good man didn't get one 
standing ovation, he received two. This is rare. He got that because he 
is a genuine person. He came here now and talked about the goodness of 
this body. We need more of that.
  Senator Cowan, thank you very much. I admire you. I know in the paper 
today you said that you are always going to be Mo, but to me you are 
always going to be Senator Cowan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts--the Senator 
from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. May I interrupt for a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. President, first of all, we are operating under a unanimous 
consent request, and I would ask if we can modify that to hear from the 
Senator from Massachusetts and then revert back to the unanimous 
consent request that has been granted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. WARREN. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I will be brief.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, for 4 months I have had the privilege of 
serving alongside my good friend Mo Cowan. From the time he was sworn 
in, Mo hit the ground running. Even though his time here was short, Mo 
has been a committed and strong advocate for the people of 
Massachusetts and here in Washington.
  As former chief of staff to Governor Patrick, Mo brought to the 
Senate a deep knowledge of the issues facing our Commonwealth. Through 
his committee work and his outreach to his constituents, his careful 
consideration of important national issues, he has worked tirelessly to 
ensure that the interests of the people of Massachusetts are well 
represented and the people of America are well served.
  He has built great relationships and earned the respect of our 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
  I very much enjoyed getting to know Mo's wonderful family: his smart, 
talented, and patient wife Stacy and their two young boys. I am sure 
Grant and Miles are looking forward to having their dad closer to home 
again.
  Mo has been a dedicated public servant, and his time in the Senate 
only adds to his fine record of service on behalf of the people of the 
Commonwealth. It has been an honor to work together with Mo fighting 
together for Massachusetts families. I wish him and I wish his family 
the very best. It has been an honor to be a partner of Senator Cowan in 
the Senate.
  Thank you, Mo.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Would the Senator yield for a second? I hate to 
interrupt.
  Mr. INHOFE. Go ahead.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I will buy the Senator's book.
  May I have 1 minute to say something about our departing colleague 
because I may not be able to get back. Literally, 1 minute.
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I appreciate that, I say to the Senator.
  I would like to say to Senator Cowan, ``Mo,'' from Massachusetts: I 
haven't known you very long, but I have found you to be someone who has 
been, quite frankly, very earnest in their time in the Senate, very 
smart, and a lot of fun. We got to travel to Egypt, to Turkey, to 
Israel to see some of the more dangerous places in the world, and I 
just want to let the people of Massachusetts know that I have met a lot 
of colleagues in my time here, but this is one fine man. I wish you all 
the best. I have learned a lot from you. I know you are originally from 
North Carolina. That is probably why we hit it off. I have learned a 
lot and I have laughed a lot. You are a fine man and we wish you well. 
I hope that maybe public service is in your future, but whatever you 
do, I know you will do it well. Godspeed.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me just say kind of the same thing. I 
had occasion to research Senator Cowan. I do this because one of the 
things I enjoy doing every Wednesday morning, when we have our Prayer 
Breakfast, is introducing those who are speaking. He was speaking. When 
one researches someone like him and you find things out, you kind of 
redevelop a love for everyone, and I wonder: Are you sure you are in 
the right place here? I have to question that.
  But I hold you in the highest regard. I am very familiar with how you 
tick, how you think, what you said, and we will miss you in this place. 
Thank you so much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have a unanimous consent request. 
Senator Grassley was going to be next, and I will go ahead and take his 
time.
  The unanimous consent request was that I be recognized as in morning 
business for such time as I shall consume.
  Let me share a couple of things. First of all, I am looking forward 
to serving with the Senator who was elected yesterday. I think he will 
find out something that I found out when I was first elected to the 
Senate after serving for several years in the House of Representatives: 
It is a more civil place. It is a place where we can have differences 
of opinion, where we disagree with each other, but we do so in a very 
friendly way.
  I am actually looking forward to that because there have been times 
when our discourse, our discussions with each other were not friendly, 
but I think it will turn out to be a total change. I wish to get on 
record to say that I am looking forward to serving with our newly 
elected Senator from Massachusetts.
  I look forward to being with him, although I think he has every 
reason and opportunity to change his mind on some of the positions he 
has taken in the past.
  Let me share something I didn't say when I had the floor yesterday 
and was talking a little bit about President Obama's talk. There were 
four things that I didn't hear, and I am going to repeat them. They are 
statements that were made by President Obama talking before an 
audience.
  I have to say I truly believe I know the reason for this long talk 
that he gave yesterday, because he had served for 4 years. He knew his 
far-left base was demanding some type of cap and trade. He knew he 
didn't have the votes to pass it. So he was not able to push that, 
knowing before the election, if this came out, what kind of a tax 
increase this would be on the American people. So he waited until after 
the election, and that is what we heard yesterday.

  Some of the things he said were a little bit insulting, but I can 
handle that. He said he lacks ``patience for anyone who denies that 
this problem is real.'' He is talking about global warming. He is 
trying to revive global warming.
  I say revive because it is interesting that when it started out 12 
years ago it was global warming. Remember Kyoto? That is what it was 
all about, the Kyoto treaty. In fact, they came back from Rio de 
Janeiro and the treaty was never submitted by President Bill Clinton to 
the Senate for ratification. The reason was the votes weren't there. So 
time went by and they decided, since it is not warming and we want to 
keep this thing alive and we want to do all we can to destroy 
CO2 in our society, let's call it something else. So they 
called it climate change. A few other titles came along in the 
meantime. For the first time it has now reverted back, after several 
years, to global warming.
  Some of the statements he made were: ``We don't have time for a 
meeting of the Flat Earth Society,'' and ``sticking your head in the 
sand might make you feel safer, but it's not going to protect you from 
the coming storm.'' Listen to this:

       The 12 warmest years in recorded history have all come in 
     the last 15 years. Last year, temperatures in some areas of 
     the ocean reached record highs, and ice in the Arctic sank to 
     its smallest size on record--faster than most models had 
     predicted it would. These are the facts.

  Those aren't the facts. That is not even true, but it is interesting 
we would be trying to revive this. I know there are a lot of people all 
excited out there who have said: Oh, for the last 4

[[Page S5233]]

years we haven't said anything about global warming. Now we are talking 
about it and now something is going to be done. I would like to quote 
this from the Economist:

       Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth's 
     surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have 
     continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes 
     of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is 
     about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by 
     humanity since 1750.

  Of course, we know that is true because we know the major surge came 
in the 1940s following World War II.
  Continuing to quote the article, which quotes James Hansen, who is 
one of the major movers behind this whole thing--the global warming 
movement:

       And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA'S Goddard 
     Institute for Space Studies, observes, ``the five-year mean 
     global temperature has been flat for a decade.''

  This is a guy on the other side who has always been held up to be the 
authentic knowledgeable person.
  Here is a quote from the NASA Goddard Paper from January of this 
year:

       The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a 
     decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural 
     variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net 
     climate forcing.

  A quote from Reuters in April, 2013:

       Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate 
     change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and 
     defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions. . . . Some 
     experts say their trust in climate science has declined 
     because of the many uncertainties. The UN's Intergovernmental 
     Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to correct a 2007 report 
     that exaggerated the pace of melt of the Himalayan glaciers 
     and wrongly said they could all vanish by 2035.

  All that sounded good at the time, but it was a lie. Still quoting 
from the article:

       ``My own confidence in the data has gone down in the past 
     five years,'' said Richard Tol, an expert in climate change 
     and professor of economics at the University of Sussex in 
     England.

  I could go on and on. Yesterday on the floor I talked about Richard 
Lindzen with MIT, considered by many people to be the foremost 
authority on climate anywhere in the country, and he is talking about 
what the motive is behind people to promote this thing. He said 
controlling CO2--and I am quoting from memory now--is a 
bureaucrat's dream. If you control climate, you control life. That is 
exactly what we were talking about at that time, and it was true.
  We have covered all these things, and I have said for several years 
now that people understand the science isn't there. I can remember some 
of my Republican friends got upset with me because I often said good 
things about Lisa Jackson. Lisa Jackson was the first Administrator of 
the EPA under President Obama, and she is, of course, a liberal and all 
of that. But she has a propensity for telling the truth, and that is 
all I ask for in people who are serving in public office. In fact, she 
has done that, and I wish to share one thing with my colleagues.
  When they are unable to pass any kind of cap-and-trade bill--and keep 
in mind the last time they tried to do it was the bill that was 
introduced by two House Members, one of whom was elected to the Senate 
yesterday. In that cap-and-trade bill, people realized what the size of 
the tax increase would be and it went down in flames. So when the big 
U.N. party--by the way, when I talk about the U.N.'s Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change--the IPCC--that is something a lot of people 
don't know about. That is the United Nations. They are the ones that 
put that together to fortify their position that we need to do 
something to equalize the wealth of nations worldwide.
  In fact, I wrote a book about that. I would not ask anyone to buy it 
because that would be inappropriate, but I will loan it to you, if you 
want to read it, and I cover that in a lot of detail. But on this 
subject, I asked Lisa Jackson the question, right before going to 
Copenhagen--and Copenhagen is the biggest party of the year.
  I am going to wind this up, and I will continue this later, but I 
would only say the science is not there, with what they were talking 
about yesterday. I think I pretty much made the point I came to make.
  But returning to Lisa Jackson, right before everyone was going to 
Copenhagen--and remember, IPCC is part of the United Nations and once a 
year they throw a big party. Friends of mine, I can remember one from 
Africa showing up at one of these parties and I said: You don't believe 
all this global warming stuff, do you? He said: No, but this is the 
biggest party of the year. So they all show up.
  At that time--I am not sure where it was, but the time I am talking 
about, 2 years ago, it was in Copenhagen. So I said, right before I 
left for Copenhagen to be a one-man truth squad there, I said to Lisa 
Jackson, the Administrator of the EPA serving at the time, in a hearing 
we had: I have a feeling once I leave town, since you can't pass any 
kind of cap and trade, you are going to try to do it through regulation 
and you are going to have to have an endangerment finding, and when you 
have an endangerment finding, it has to be based on some type of 
science. What science are you going to use? She said: The IPCC, the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--the United Nations.
  As luck would have it--it wasn't months after it or weeks after 
that--hours after that Climategate came in and they were exposed for 
lying about the science for all those years. So the timing could not 
have been better.
  I would only say I am glad this issue has opened up again because I 
had a dusty old file on climate change I haven't used for 5 years and I 
have gotten it out and we are ready to use it again. I just hope the 
American people will look at the beautiful political speech made by the 
President yesterday for actually what it is.
  Let's keep in mind the cost of this anytime we want to go into the 
extreme position of saying that CO2 is the cause of climate 
change or of global warming. We are talking about a tax increase to the 
American people. One of the Senators stood after I said this yesterday 
and said there is no evidence of that yet. That was the Wharton School 
of Economics and MIT that came out with those figures.
  The last thing I will say, God is still up there and climate is going 
to change and it has. I can remember studying this--and going from 
memory now, not reading anything--and reading about the first time they 
came out with this fact that we are all going to die because the world 
is going to freeze over. That was in 1895. In 1895, they talked about 
this disaster that was coming upon us--the coming ice age, they said. 
Then, in 1918, all of a sudden the climate started getting warmer. It 
was going through these cycles. It has been happening since the 
beginning of time. It got warmer. That is when global warming first 
came up, in 1918.
  Then, in 1984, the next cycle came in, and that was a cold cycle. But 
listen to this, because what is interesting about this is in 1944, 
after the Second World War, we had the largest surge in CO2 
in our country's history. It precipitated not a warming period but 
another cooling period, which lasted until 1975. Then, of course, 
another warming period came in, which I disagree with all the 
statements that were made--certainly by the President yesterday and by 
many of the Members of this body--now we are precipitating going into a 
leveling off and perhaps a warming period.
  So it is going to be changing, and it is a little arrogant for us in 
this country to look at these God cycles up there and say we can do 
something to change that because we can't. It is a beautiful world we 
are in, and we are going to try to make it better, but we don't need 
the largest tax increase in America's history to make it better.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The senior Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the only unanimous consent request I am 
going to make is at the end of my remarks I will ask for inclusion of 
something in the Record.
  I wish to share with the public what is taking place on the 
immigration bill before us. Unfortunately, very little is taking place. 
We have been on the floor of the Senate considering this bill for 2\1/
2\ weeks, and only 13 amendments have been disposed of. We have had 
nine rollcall votes on amendments, and three of those amendments were 
tabling votes. Yet over 550 amendments have been filed to this bill. 
Senators are still filing amendments. The fact is less than 3 percent 
of all amendments filed have actually been considered. For a process 
that was labeled as ``fair

[[Page S5234]]

and open,'' with the invitation to file amendments, even from the 
people who wrote the bill, the Gang of 8, it has become laughable.
  Our side has been asking for votes. We have tried to call up 
amendments. Last night we sent a list of 34 amendments over to the 
majority and requested votes on them. I am told they have refused that 
list, and I think it is because there are some tough votes on those 
amendments. They want to limit the number of amendments that can be 
considered. They want to choose the amendments. In a sense, they want 
to tell Republicans which amendments we can offer from our side.
  That is not right. I am very disappointed not just for myself but for 
a lot of other Members of the body. There is no deliberation. It seems 
as though there is no path forward to have votes to make the bill 
better. And, of course, this isn't the way to legislate. Immigration 
reform is an important matter. We have to get it right. We shouldn't 
rush a bill just to get it done, especially if we are going to pass a 
bad bill. This bill shouldn't be rushed if we are getting it wrong. We 
have to get it right. It is unfortunate that what has happened on the 
floor of the Senate--9 rollcall votes out of 550 amendments, and 
counting, that have been filed. So much for the world's greatest 
deliberative body.
  Immigration reform hasn't been debated on this floor since 2007, and 
as far as I can remember, a major piece of legislation such as this on 
immigration hasn't passed the Senate since 1986.
  It may seem that we have been on the bill for a long time. Compared 
to a lot of other issues, it has been a longer time. But most of the 
time has been spent delaying actual debate and consideration of 
amendments, while Members craft a grand bargain compromise behind 
closed doors. Of course, that has been adopted at this point in the 
process.
  Unfortunately, it appears this bill has been precooked, deals have 
been made, and apparently having an open debate on amendments to the 
bill isn't part of that deal on any more than the few amendments we 
have discussed--particularly those amendments that could substantively 
change the underlying bill for the better. So we get the impression 
that, sorry, the kitchen is closed.
  What has happened? We are supposed to be the most deliberative body 
in the world. We pride ourselves on that. But now we are going to rely 
on the House of Representatives to do our job to be deliberative and to 
fix this legislation. I have great hopes when this process is done 
through conference that I can vote for a bill that will go to the 
President of the United States.
  As I have said before, the Judiciary Committee markup was full and 
open, and I have complimented Chairman Leahy many times on that point. 
It is too bad that process couldn't have been carried out here on the 
floor of the Senate.
  Whether members were pleased in committee with the vote results for 
their amendments, in committee the members at least had the opportunity 
to offer amendments for debate and consideration. Amendments were 
debated. Amendments were voted on. But that hasn't been the case in the 
last 2\1/2\ weeks here on the Senate floor.
  We have tried to offer amendments to this over 1,000-page-long bill. 
The majority is shutting us out. They have gotten the votes they need 
to pass this bill through Members getting their favorite amendments 
into the bill, and some of these seem to me to be special interest 
provisions and some of them tend to be like the cornhusker kickback 
sweeteners of ObamaCare fame. Now we are getting the door to the shop 
closed.
  It is important for the public to know we have tried to make this 
bill better by trying to offer amendments. We have given the other side 
a list, and I think it has been flatly refused. It is not too much to 
ask for this number of amendments to be considered. That list had 34 
amendments--that is 34 amendments out of 550 filed. Senators want to 
see a lot more amendments considered and voted on, but we have limited 
the number to 34.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the list of 
amendments we asked the majority to consider before final passage.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       1. Grassley 1570--gangs
       2. Vitter-#1577 or 1578--moves trigger in Corker-Hoeven 
     before RPI
       3. Vitter--Strike Amnesty (#1474)
       4. Vitter--Voter Integrity Protection Act (#1290)
       5. Vitter--Child Tax Credit (#1289)
       6. Vitter-1473--no RPI status for convicted drunk drivers
       7. Vitter-1445--WIRE Act
       8. Vitter--Sanctuary Cities 1291
       9. Vitter--VAWA 1330
       10. Inhofe-1560--Zadvydas, detention for longer than six 
     months
       11. Sessions-1607--interior enforcement
       12. Lee-1593--permits CBP agents to access federal lands 
     for immigration enforcement activities.
       13. Lee-1210--absconders don't get RPI
       14. Lee-1214--no sworn affidavits
       15. Wicker 1606--sanctuary cities
       16. Fischer 1594--English at RPI
       17. Cruz-1579--replace title I with beefed up border 
     security measures
       18. Cruz-1580--Obamacare defunding if people are in rpi 
     status.
       19. Cruz-1581--proof of citizenship to vote
       20. Cruz-1583--no citizenship
       21. Cruz-1584--no benefits
       22. Cruz-1585--H-1B increases
       23. Cruz-1586--numerical limitations on permanent residents
       24. Cornyn--1622--Strike RPI eligibility for domestic 
     violence, child abuse, and drunk driving offenders; require 
     interviews of criminals and previously deported
       25. Cornyn-1619--Allow for national security and law 
     enforcement application information sharing;
       26. Cornyn--Human Smuggling
       27. Toomey--increase W guestworkers
       28. Portman-1634--E verify
       29. Coats-1563--Triggers: High Risk at RPI and effective 
     control before green cards
       30. Hatch--back taxes
       31. Coburn-#1616--Strikes judicial review, taxpayer funded 
     lawyers and new DOJ Office of Legal Access Programs for 
     aliens.
       32. Coburn-#1612--Denies RPI to aliens convicted for 
     domestic violence, child abuse, assault with bodily injury, 
     violation of protection order, drunk driving, reduces 
     allowable misdemeanors making an alien ineligible for RPI and 
     eliminates the Secretary's ability to waive that provision.
       33. Johnson--1 year application period
       34. Johnson--EITC

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I also wanted to mention even though I oppose the bill, I 
do think they have done a good job of trying to get some amendments 
out, particularly Senator Grassley and Senator McCain, who offered the 
opportunity to have my amendment. It was a good amendment. It was so 
good that the ACLU is scoring against it. Hopefully, we will get a 
chance to get those in.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in 
morning business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Senator Mo Cowan

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was here on the floor when Senator Mo 
Cowan gave his farewell remarks. He came to the Senate as an appointee 
to fill the spot John Kerry left vacant when he left to the Secretary 
of State's position. I can't think of a person who came to the Senate 
who has been so warmly received so quickly.
  Senator Harry Reid made the comment that it is rare for a new 
Member--just 6 months of seniority--to get a standing ovation at his 
caucus lunch. Mo Cowan got two yesterday, which I think is a tribute to 
the fact that we enjoyed his service and value his friendship, and will 
remember him for his fine representation of the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts.
  Mo Udall, a wise and witty longtime member of this Senate, famously 
said that once politics gets in your blood, the only cure is embalming 
fluid.
  There is a lot of evidence to support that idea. But another Mo--
Senator Mo Cowan--is an exception to the rule.
  When he was appointed 5 months ago to fill the seat vacated by 
Secretary of State John Kerry, Senator Cowan said he was happy to serve 
his State--but only a new Senator could be elected to finish Secretary 
Kerry's term in this Senate.
  Well, yesterday Massachusetts voters went to the polls to choose that 
new Senator. I look forward to Senator Ed Markey joining this body very 
soon.
  For now, I want to take a moment to thank Mo Cowan for his service to 
his State, this Senate and our Nation.
  Senator Cowan has served with wisdom, courage and civility. He has 
made

[[Page S5235]]

friends and allies on both sides of the aisle--no easy feat.
  I have to confess, I was probably pre-disposed to like Senator Cowan 
because of his sartorial style. The last Senator to wear a bow-tie so 
regularly was my dear friend and political mentor, Paul Simon.
  More admirable than Senator Cowan's sense of style, however, is his 
sense of fairness and decency and courage.
  He has co-sponsored important bills including the Paycheck Fairness 
Act, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, the Employment 
Non-Discrimination Act, and the Safe Chemical Act.
  In the wake of the terrible murders of 20 little children and their 
teachers in Newtown, CT, Senator Cowan voted for sensible regulations 
to help keep weapons of war out of the hands of criminals and those 
with serious mental illness.
  He voted for a budget resolution that would enable us to continue 
reducing the Federal deficit while still, meeting our obligations today 
and investing in a secure future.
  I am particularly grateful to Senator Cowan for co-sponsoring a bill 
Senator Enzi and I have worked on for several years and which this 
Senate passed. The Marketplace Fairness Act will give States--if they 
wish to use it--a way to collect sales and use taxes in Internet 
purchases--taxes that are already owed but rarely collected. 
Massachusetts lost $268 million last year because of the inability to 
collect these taxes.
  He flew on Air Force One with President Obama and travelled to the 
Middle East with a bipartisan group of Senators to investigate the 
Syrian civil war.
  Senator Cowan has also been a diligent defender of the people of 
Massachusetts. He and Senator Warren have worked especially hard to 
protect their State's struggling fishing industry.
  His service here was short, but his record is impressive. It is 
especially impressive considering the fact that before he was sworn in 
as a Senator, Mo Cowan had never held a single elective position in his 
life.
  William Maurice ``Mo'' Cowan was born in a small rural town in North 
Carolina that he sometimes likens to the old TV town of Mayberry. His 
father died when Mo was 16 years old. His widowed mother raised Mo and 
his sisters on the money she earned as a seamstress, the equivalent of 
about minimum wage.
  Mo Cowan graduated from Duke University--the first person in his 
family to graduate from a 4-year college. He earned a law degree from 
Northeastern School of Law in Boston.
  He earned a reputation as a very good lawyer and a mentor to other 
young lawyers in the Boston area, especially young lawyers of color.
  Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick convinced Senator Cowan to join 
his administration as his chief counsel and later promoted him to chief 
of staff.
  When Governor Patrick approached Senator Cowan about serving as 
Massachusetts' junior Senator until yesterday's special election could 
be held, Senator Cowan tried to persuade the Governor to choose someone 
else. Thank goodness he lost that debate.
  Mo Cowan is a young man--especially by Senate standards--just 44 
years old. He was born on April 4, 1969. He came into this world 1 year 
to the day after Dr. Martin Luther King died.
  With his appointment to the Senate, Senator Cowan became the eighth 
African American ever to serve in this body. He and Senator Scott made 
history--the first time that two African Americans had ever served in 
this Senate at the same time.
  I think Dr. King would be pleased that we have made progress, but he 
would also remind us that we still have a long way to in achieving a 
Senate that better reflects the American people, and he would be right.
  I might add that the Supreme Court's ruling yesterday striking down 
parts of the Voting Rights Act means we may have to work even harder to 
make that possible. And I am committed to doing so.
  On the day that Senator Cowan was sworn in to this body, he said: 
Days like today are what my mother spoke of when I was a kid, [and she 
said] that if you worked hard and did the right things and you treated 
peoples well, anything could happen.
  Years from now, other mothers will teach that lesson to their sons 
and daughters--and they will able to point to Senator Cowan as proof.
  In closing I want to thank Senator Cowan's wife Stacy and their young 
sons Miles and Grant for sharing so much of their husband and father 
with this Senate.
  To my colleague Senator Cowan: It has been a privilege to work with 
you.
  Mr. President, I ask how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, what is pending before the Senate is a 
piece of history. For those who are witnessing this debate--whether in 
the galleries or at home on C-SPAN--you are watching a debate on the 
floor of the Senate that doesn't happen very often. We are debating the 
comprehensive immigration reform bill. It is the first time in 25 years 
we have tackled this issue.
  If you look at the history of the United States, you know right off 
the bat we are a Nation of immigrants. My mother was an immigrant to 
this country. Many of us have immigrant parents and grandparents and 
great-grandparents. That is who we are. We come from all over the world 
to this great Nation. But the history of immigration law will tell you 
that immigrants aren't always well or warmly received. There have been 
periods in history where we have excluded people from certain countries 
and excluded immigrants in general. There were other periods where we 
couldn't wait to get the cheap labor from anyplace in the world to 
build this great Nation. We have had real mixed feelings when it comes 
to immigration.
  The sad reality is for 25 years our immigration laws haven't worked 
well. The estimate is we have about 11 million undocumented people 
living in America. I have come to know many of them. They are not who 
you think they are. Many of them turn out to be the mothers in a 
household where the father and all the kids are American citizens. Many 
of them turn out to be the people who sat down next to you in church. 
They are the ones who, incidentally, cleared your table at the 
restaurant. They are making the beds in your hotel room for the next 
morning. They are watching your kids in daycare. And they are taking 
care of your mom at the nursing home. These are the undocumented people 
of America, many of them just asking for a chance to be part of this 
American family. This bill gives them a chance.
  But it isn't easy. They have to come forward and register with the 
government, tell us who they are, where they live, where they work, and 
tell us about their families. Then they have to pay a fine of $500. 
That is the first installment. Then any job they have, they have to pay 
their taxes and submit themselves to a criminal background check.
  If that isn't enough, we tell them we are going to continue to 
monitor them over 10 years, watching them. During that period of time 
they have to demonstrate they are learning English. Then if they 
complete that 10-year period, they have a 3-year chance to become 
citizens. It is a 13-year process. Many of them have already been here 
for 10 years or more. But if they are ready to travel down this long 
road--and many are--at the end of the day their dream will come true. 
They will be citizens in America. It is no amnesty. They are going to 
pay a heavy price to make it all the way through those 13 years, but it 
gives them their chance, and it makes us a safer Nation knowing who 
they are, where they live, and where they work.
  We are going to tighten our system so people applying for jobs in the 
future have to prove who they are--no more phony Social Security 
numbers, no more phony IDs. There is going to have to be real proof 
before you get a job in America.
  Approximately 40 percent came here on a visitor's visa and 
overstayed. If you came here on that visa, we are going to track you 
into America and out of America. The system is going to be tough.
  And when it comes to the border, there is a difference of opinion 
between the Democratic side and the Republican side of the aisle about 
how much

[[Page S5236]]

to do. Well, we have made a dramatic investment in border security 
between the United States and Mexico. In the last 10 years we have 
increased the Border Patrol between the two countries from 10,000 to 
20,000. In many sectors we now have 97-percent effectiveness stopping 
those who try to cross the border. We are going to invest 20,000 more 
workers on that border--40,000 Border Patrol people.
  People who have come to the floor critical of this bill say it isn't 
enough. I will have to tell you, for some of these folks it will never 
be enough. We are going to put billions of dollars into making that 
border safe and reducing, if not eliminating, illegal immigration. That 
is part of our promise in this bipartisan agreement that was reached.
  I have been fortunate to serve with the so-called Gang of 8, four 
Democrats and four Republicans. We have sat across the table for 5 
months now, 30 different sessions, working out all the details, and we 
have come up with an agreement--a good bipartisan agreement that is 
finally going to move us forward.
  I might add one footnote. Twelve years ago, I introduced a bill 
called the DREAM Act, and said children brought to this country deserve 
a special chance to become citizens. They didn't do anything wrong. 
They didn't break any laws. They were 2 and 5 and 10 years old. They 
were brought here by their parents. They deserve a chance. This bill is 
the strongest bill ever brought to the floor of the Senate when it 
comes to the DREAMers. I am proud of that. I am happy these young 
people will finally get the chance to prove themselves, as I am sure 
they will, when it comes to the future of this country.
  There are lots of other provisions. Never take for granted that the 
fruits and vegetables on your table appear magically. They are picked, 
and many of them are picked by foreign workers, migrant workers. We 
have an agriculture worker section here, which is important for the 
future of our agricultural economy. We have a section when it comes to 
the talented people we want to keep in the United States once educated 
here, and those we can bring in to help create jobs in our country. But 
the first rule in this bill, and the one I insisted on: Every job has 
to be offered to an American first. With our unemployment, that is the 
starting point, and it is included in this bill and it should be.
  There are parts of this bill I don't applaud or necessarily endorse, 
but it is the product of a compromise. We are not only proving to this 
Nation that we can address the biggest issue in our heritage, we are 
trying to prove to this Nation this Chamber--this Senate--can go to 
work, roll up its sleeves, and get something done on a bipartisan 
basis.
  There will be some ``no'' votes, but the test votes we have had so 
far show a strong bipartisan majority to move forward. If we get it 
done--and I hope to God we do during the course of this week--I pray 
that my colleagues over in the House will accept their responsibility 
to this Nation to accept the need for comprehensive immigration reform.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I see Senator King from Maine here. I 
will only talk for a minute. I will share some thoughts later about 
where I see the difficulties with the immigration bill.
  I would say that for the vast majority of the people who will be 
legalized or who will be coming into the country, businesses will be 
under no requirement to hire Americans first. That is not accurate, and 
it is a cause of concern for me.


                            Farewell Remarks

  I wish to share some brief remarks. I know we have a lot to do, but I 
was here to hear Senator Cowan's farewell remarks to us. They were 
delivered eloquently and effectively, with integrity and graciousness 
and a sense of purpose that I found impressive. I think all of us have 
found him impressive, getting to know him. I heard him share his 
background recently, how he came to this position. He does so with a 
constancy of purpose and clear vision for what he believes is right. He 
has been raised right, and he reflects those values and has done so in 
the Senate.
  It is a pleasure for me to have had the opportunity to get to know 
him. I would just say it must be a special thrill for him to be able 
to, all of a sudden, find himself, as he said so nicely, in the U.S. 
Senate without having to campaign, raise money, or otherwise be in that 
position.
  He served his State with skill and dedication. It is a pleasure to 
have served with him. I wish him Godspeed in his future endeavors.
  I understand the Senator from Maine is going to share with us some 
valuable history today. Maybe a connection between Maine and Alabama 
might even be mentioned.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise in morning business, and I request 
unanimous consent for 15 minutes for remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Battle of Gettysburg

  Mr. KING. We all know that next Thursday, a week from tomorrow, is 
our Nation's most important anniversary--July 4, 1776, the birthday of 
the country. But Tuesday, July 2, is also one of our most important 
anniversaries because July 1, 2, and 3 are the days the Battle of 
Gettysburg occurred. That was probably the defining event in the 
history of this country. It is especially important this year because 
it is the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg. What I would 
like to do is share a few moments about one particular aspect of that 
battle. It does indeed involve Maine and Alabama. It involves a man 
from Maine named Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, who in 1862 was a 
professor of modern languages at Bowdoin College in Maine. He was not a 
soldier, had no history in the military, but decided that he had a 
vision of America and he wanted to serve his country.
  He joined a volunteer regiment organized in Maine in August of 1862 
called the 20th Maine regiment. They came down the east coast, up the 
Potomac to Washington, and were immediately deployed to Antietam in 
September of 1862--the bloodiest day in American history. Fortunately 
for the 20th Maine, they were held in reserve that day. They did see 
action over the course of the fall and early winter at the Battle of 
Fredericksburg. Then, along with 2 great armies, they headed north into 
the State of Pennsylvania.
  Mr. President, you are going to have to bear with my cartographic 
skills. I think it would be helpful if we can see what happened. It is 
easy to draw Virginia because it is a big triangle, so this is 
Virginia. Here is the Maryland-Pennsylvania border.
  In the early summer of 1863, two great armies snaked north out of 
Virginia. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia came up the west side of the 
foothills of the Appalachians and into Pennsylvania, shadowed by 
Meade's Army of the Potomac, both 90,000 men. Meade was leading the way 
into Pennsylvania without a particular destination but a desire to 
engage the Federal Army in one climactic battle which he thought 
correctly could have ended the Civil War.
  Nobody knows exactly why on July 1 of 1863 those two armies collided 
in the little town of Gettysburg. There is a rumor that there was a 
shoe factory there and that the southern Army was going to go and 
requisition those shoes. For whatever reason, the two armies met in 
this little town of Gettysburg, PA. One of the interesting things about 
the battle was that Lee's army had already gotten almost to Harrisburg 
and came down into Gettysburg. The Union Army was coming up the 
Taneytown Road from Washington and from the south, and they came in in 
this direction. So at the Battle of Gettysburg, the southern army came 
in from the north, and the northern army came in from the south.
  On the first day of the battle, there was a standoff. They met almost 
by accident in this town. There was fierce fighting in the streets of 
Gettysburg, in the south of the town, and it was essentially a draw.
  At the end of the day on July 1--and the word flashed back to both 
armies that this was it. This was the confrontation, and reinforcements 
came in from both lines of march to meet at this little town.
  What happened on the second day was that on the morning of the second 
day the Union troops--again, if this is

[[Page S5237]]

the town up here, the Union troops ended up on a hill called Culp's 
Hill and then in a long line to the south, along an area that was an 
old place where they buried people. Of course, that is Cemetery Ridge.
  On the other side, the Confederates--and interestingly enough, 
throughout American history red markers represent the Confederates and 
blue the Federals--the Confederates ended up on a long ridge that ended 
up down this way, with about a mile apart, and over here was a place 
where they trained people to be preachers. That, of course, is Seminary 
Ridge. So generations of sixth graders have been--Seminary Ridge over 
here, Cemetery Ridge over here--generations of sixth graders have been 
confused by this, but it is ``Cemetery'' where the Union was and 
``Seminary'' where the Confederate troops were.

  About the second day of the battle, a Union general noticed there was 
a small hill down at the bottom of the entire line of Union troops that 
was unoccupied by either side. He also immediately realized this could 
be the most important piece of property in the entire battlefield 
because it had an elevation that looked up the entire Federal line and 
it anchored the Federal line.
  The Union general grabbed the nearest officer near him and said: We 
have to occupy that hill immediately. The fellow's name was Strong 
Vincent, was the officer from New York. Vincent grabbed two other 
regiments, New York and Pennsylvania, and then Maine, the 20th Maine 
Regiment, and they went to the top of this hill.
  Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain had only been the colonel of the 20th 
Maine for about a month. He was in charge of 358 men. Vincent took him 
to the extreme left flank of the Union Army, of this little hill, which 
is called Little Round Top.
  We had Pennsylvania, New York, and Maine. Vincent took Joshua 
Lawrence Chamberlain to this point, and here were his orders:

       This is the extreme left flank of the entire Union Army. 
     You are to hold this ground at all hazards.

  ``At all hazards''--that means to the death.
  Almost immediately upon getting to the top of the hill, up came the 
15th Alabama--one of the crack regiments in Lee's army--up the hill to 
try to dislodge the 20th Maine. If you have not been to Gettysburg, 
Little Round Top--if God were going to build a fortress, it would look 
like Little Round Top. It is steep, rocky, with lots of places to be 
behind, and indeed Chamberlain took maximum advantage of that. As the 
charge came, they were able to repel it.
  A half hour later or so, the Alabamians came again. They were pushed 
back. They came again and were pushed back. Each time they got closer 
and closer to the top of the hill because of the nature of guns in the 
Civil War. A good shooter in the Civil War, a good handler of a rifle, 
could get off four shots a minute.
  I want you to think of yourself, Mr. President, at the top of that 
hill with the 15th Alabama coming up. You take aim with your rifle and 
shoot--bang. You are now prepared to shoot a second time. That period 
until that sound--it felt like an eternity--was 15 seconds. That is how 
long it would take to reload and get another shot. That is why in this 
situation the charge came closer and closer.
  By the third and fourth charge, it became hand-to-hand combat.
  I should say, by the way, as I mentioned, that Joshua Lawrence 
Chamberlain was not a soldier by trade; he was a professor at a little 
college. He spoke 10 languages in 1856. But he had a deep vision for 
the meaning of America, and he had a deep concern about the issue of 
slavery.
  When he was a student at Bowdoin in the early 1850s, a young 
professor's wife was writing a book, and he sat in the living room of 
this professor and listened to her read excerpts from this book, and 
the book turned out to be probably the most influential book ever 
published in America. It was called ``Uncle Tom's Cabin.'' It described 
for people in the country the evils of slavery. Indeed, when Abraham 
Lincoln met Harriet Beecher Stowe and shook her hand, he said, ``I am 
shaking the hand that started the Civil War'' because it lit the fuse 
that led to the pressure that ultimately led to the abolition of 
slavery.
  In any case, four and then five charges, and each time, the 15th 
Alabama was repelled. But then they were gathering at the bottom of the 
hill for the final assault late in the day, a hot afternoon, July 2, 
1863. The problem was, for Chamberlain, his men were out of ammunition. 
They each had been issued 60 cartridges at the beginning of the battle. 
They had all been fired during those five assaults. He then had a 
choice to make as a leader. He had three options:
  One was to retreat--which is a perfectly honorable thing to do in a 
military situation, but his orders were to hold the ground ``at all 
hazards'' because if he had not, if the Confederates had gotten around 
Little Round Top, the entire rear of the Union Army would have been 
exposed.
  His other option was to stand and fight until overwhelmed. That would 
not have worked very well because it would have only delayed them for a 
few minutes.
  Instead, he chose an extraordinary option that was very unusual even 
at the time. He uttered one word, and the word was ``bayonets.'' There 
is a dispute in history whether he also said ``charge'' and what his 
actual order was, but everybody agrees he uttered the word 
``bayonets,'' and his soldiers knew what that meant, and down the hill 
into the face of the final Confederate charge came 200 crazy guys from 
Maine. The 15th Alabama for the first and only time in the Civil War 
was so shocked by this technique that they turned and ran, and the 200 
boys from Maine--and I say 200 but at the beginning of this action 
there were over 300; they lost 100 to casualties and death--captured 
400 or 500 Confederates with no bullets in their guns.
  Chamberlain tried to call his men back. They said, ``Hell no, 
General, we are on our way to Richmond.''
  I tell this story because it is a story of extraordinary bravery. By 
the way, Chamberlain received the Congressional Medal of Honor for his 
bravery and creativity that afternoon on that little hill in 
Pennsylvania. But I tell the story because it is a story of our country 
and it is a story of how a single person's actions and bravery can have 
enormous impact. Historians argue about whether this was really the key 
turning point, was there something else, was it some other regiment at 
another place, but an argument can be made that this college professor 
from Maine saved the United States. The defining moment for our country 
was that hot afternoon in Pennsylvania, July 2, 1863.
  I believe it is one of the great stories of American history. In 
fact, the story of Chamberlain and Little Round Top is taught in Army 
manuals to this day as a story of leadership, creativity, perseverance, 
courage, and devotion to God and country.
  I hope all Americans will think about these moments, and thousands 
more like them, as we celebrate not only the birth of our country next 
week, but also the rebirth of our country in the 3 days prior to July 
4th.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Health Care

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of talk this week 
about the big push by President Obama and his allies to promote the 
health care law. We are less than 100 days out from the implementation 
of that law. People in Wyoming are already feeling the effects of the 
Democrats' health care law.
  The law says employers with more than 50 full-time employees have to 
provide expensive, one-size-fits-all health insurance. Employers all 
across the country are cutting full-time workers back to part-time 
status and cutting their shifts to less than 30 hours a week. Thirty 
hours a week is the cutoff point to be considered a full-time worker 
under the Democrats' health care law.
  As a result of the Democrats' health care law, we are starting to get 
stories like the one from the Rocket-Miner newspaper in Rock Springs, 
WY, that came out yesterday.

[[Page S5238]]

  The subheadline is ``School district looks at coverage, worker 
options,'' and that is under the headline of ``Health Care Reform.''
  Here is what the article says:

       More than 500 employees working for Sweetwater County 
     School District No. 1 could see a reduction in their 
     paychecks for the upcoming school year.
       The district may reduce hours for part-time employees to 
     exempt it from covering them on its insurance plan under 
     President Barack Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable 
     Care Act.

  This is the Rocket-Miner newspaper in Rock Springs, WY, Tuesday, June 
25.
  The article goes on to explain that the school district has more than 
500 employees who are working between 30 and 34 hours a week. Those are 
the people that the health care law is threatening the most. The 
article goes on to say these workers ``are likely to see their hours 
decreased by up to five hours.'' So they will be cutting the hours of 
workers from 34 hours and getting them down to 29 hours.
  It quotes the school board chairman saying that the huge chunk of 
money it would need to provide Washington-approved insurance for 
everyone would have to come out of classrooms and other essentials. 
Taking money out of classrooms and other essentials, he says: ``We are 
talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars.''
  Well, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars isn't a very impressive 
amount to Washington Democrats, but for a small school district in 
Wyoming, that is a big hit to their budget. It is a lot of pain that 
the law is inflicting on those teachers and on those students. So for 
the employees who are going to see their hours cut from 35 hours to 
fewer than 30 hours, the Democrats' health care law is hitting their 
paychecks, and hitting it hard.
  Well, that was yesterday. Today in the Gillette News Record, Kathy 
Brown wrote: ``School trustees consider changes with ObamaCare.'' Here 
is what they say in Campbell County:

       About 200 part-time positions could be affected. It does 
     mean the district must track the hours of employees much more 
     closely, and consider what to do with 320 substitute 
     teachers, 27 substitute bus drivers, 23 coaches, eight 
     temporary and four summer-only employees.
       Before the July 17 meeting, school officials will try to 
     provide information to trustees on hours and possible costs.

  ``This is a paperwork nightmare,'' says one of the trustees.

       She wondered if the district would have to hire more 
     employees just to do the paperwork and tracking.

  There are nearly 8 million people in this country who are working 
part time because they cannot find full-time work. These are not just 
numbers in a monthly unemployment report, these are people all across 
the country in towns such as Rock Springs and Gillette, WY. They want 
to work and provide for their families, but they are suffering from the 
bad economic recovery which has been caused by the failed policies of 
Washington Democrats. Then they get hit a second time with this 
terrible health care law. This health care law cuts back their hours 
and cuts their paychecks even more.
  I want to make one more point about the health care law. This 
headline is from the front page of this morning's Investor's Business 
Daily, June 26, 2013. It says: ``Privacy Falls Victim To ObamaCare 
Hub.''
  The hub they are talking about is the database of information about 
people that was created by this health care law. It was created so 
Washington could figure out who has health insurance and who might 
qualify for subsidies under the law. With this data hub Washington 
bureaucrats are going to have access to a huge amount of personal 
information about people all across the country.
  Here is what the article says:

       The ObamaCare hub will ``interact'' with seven other 
     federal agencies: Social Security Administration, IRS, 
     Department of Homeland Security, Veterans Administration, 
     Office of Personnel Management, Defense Department and--
     believe it or not--the Peace Corps. It also will plug into 
     state Medicaid databases.

  So what does the hub want to include in all of this? Well, the 
article goes on to say that the hub will store ``names, birth dates, 
Social Security numbers, taxpayer status, gender, ethnicity, e-mail 
addresses, phone numbers on millions of people expected to apply for 
coverage via ObamaCare exchanges.''
  That is just part of it. They are also going to have ``tax return 
information from the IRS, income information from Social Security 
Administration, and financial information from other third-party 
sources.''
  The article says Washington ``will also store data from businesses 
buying coverage via an exchange, including a `list of qualified 
employees and their tax ID numbers,' and keep it all on file for 10 
years.''
  In addition, the article goes on to say:

       The Federal Government also can disclose this information--

  We are talking about citizens' private information turned over to the 
government, and the government ``can disclose this information `without 
the consent of the individual.' '' They ``can disclose this information 
`without the consent of the individual' to a wide range of people, 
including `agency contractors, consultants, or grantees' who `need to 
have access to the records' to help run ObamaCare.''
  So all of this personal, private information is collected in one 
place, held for 10 years, and made available to bureaucrats, 
contractors, and consultants.
  This is just another terrible effect of the Democrats' health care 
law. This is a law that American people are just starting to learn more 
about, and a law that many of those who voted for it didn't even know 
what was in it. The more people learn, the more worried they become 
about how this law will affect their care, their jobs, their paychecks, 
and their privacy.
  When Democrats in Washington pushed their health care law through 
Congress, they were not honest with the American people about any of 
these negative effects. The American people deserve better.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak on the bill 
that is before us, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill. No matter 
what side of the aisle you are on, we can all agree that our current 
system is not working, and it is in need of reboot and reform. I 
believe that the bipartisan approach taken in this bill gives us an 
opportunity to address this issue in a thoughtful manner. I thank the 
drafters of this bill for their hard work and tireless advocacy; I also 
thank Chairman Leahy and the Majority Leader for the open and 
transparent process that this bill has undergone.
  I have three principles on immigration reform: we must protect our 
borders, protect American jobs, and reward those who play by the rules. 
And I believe that this carefully drafted and negotiated bill meets all 
of these metrics. In addition to an accountable path to citizenship for 
the undocumented population currently in the U.S., the bill also 
includes new resources to secure our border and puts forth a rational 
approach to future legal immigration to the U.S. While I do not agree 
with every part of this bill, I believe that the compromises that were 
made are fair. In passing this bill, we do what is right for our 
economy, and we do what is right for our society.
  This bill makes important reforms across the board, but I want to 
focus on a few that are of particular importance to Maryland. The 
seafood industry is the lifeblood of Maryland's Eastern Shore. It is 
also a traditional industry that is adapting in today's world. They 
rely on H-2B workers to keep their businesses running when American 
workers are unavailable. I have consistently fought for an approach to 
the H-2B program that recognizes that one size does not fit all, 
protects the wages and jobs of all workers, and provides the certainty 
that small businesses need to survive. This bill includes important, 
tailored provisions that ensure the availability of the H-2B program. 
The inclusion of the returning worker exemption, a provision that I 
sponsored for many years, simply allows workers who entered during this 
fiscal year not to be counted toward the H-2B cap through 2018. This is 
a fix that aids the small, seasonal businesses that rely on these 
workers year after year, such as the crab-pickers on Maryland's 
Hooper's Island.
  The bill also includes language that protects the wages of American 
workers while striking a balance with the needs of employers. It adds 
crucial

[[Page S5239]]

worker protections by providing for transportation costs for H-2B 
workers, mandating that employers are responsible for fees, and 
requiring that American workers not be displaced. The H-2B program is 
far from perfect--and it could benefit from improvements--but its 
availability is vital to many businesses. It is our job to make sure 
that it works for all.
  Tourism is vital to Maryland's economy, and programs like the Visa 
Waiver Program ensure our friends and allies around the world are able 
to visit our State. Each year, the Visa Waiver Program allows 16 
million tourists to visit the United States and spend more than $51 
billion, while supporting half a million jobs. This bill includes 
important provisions to expand the Visa Waiver Program that I have long 
fought for. These provisions give discretion to the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to include countries that meet strict security 
requirements, while also protecting our borders and creating jobs in 
the tourism industry. New national security requirements mean stronger 
passport controls, border security, and cooperation with American law 
enforcement.
  The current system punishes our allies--and that is what is happening 
with our close friend Poland. Poland has been a longtime friend to the 
U.S. and has stood with us in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting and dying 
alongside Americans. But Polish citizens cannot visit the U.S. without 
a visa. Expanding the Visa Waiver Program to Poland alone could mean 
$181 million in new spending and could support 1,500 new jobs. The 
expansion of the Visa Waiver Program is good for national security and 
economic development and helps our most trusted allies.
  Now is the time for comprehensive immigration reform. Immigrants are 
part of the fabric of our country, and we all benefit from an approach 
that recognizes these contributions while ensuring that our laws are 
followed and respected. This bill does that, and I look forward to 
supporting its passage here in the Senate.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the special procedures 
for certain nonimmigrant agricultural workers included in the 
underlying immigration bill. I have thoughts about the overall 
immigration bill which I will share later, but at this time I want to 
focus on a specific provision in the underlying substitute amendment.
  Many farmers and ranchers in this country will tell you that they 
need reliable, dedicated, and experienced employees to make their 
operation successful. This could mean contracting with seasonal workers 
to help a farmer harvest row crops or for my colleague, Chairman Leahy, 
it could mean finding employees to milk and move cows on dairy farms in 
Vermont. Agricultural labor in this country comes from a variety of 
places, and an important source is from temporary and seasonal foreign 
workers.
  Currently, the H-2A program assists employers and foreign workers 
with visas to perform temporary and seasonal agricultural labor. The 
most common form of agricultural visa is for seasonal work in 
harvesting, planting, or maintaining crops. Workers usually get visas 
to the United States to perform work for several months and then return 
to their home nations. However, Congress and the administration for 
decades have recognized a special segment of temporary agricultural 
workers which are distinct from the others, particularly those 
industries within agriculture which require workers for longer periods 
because of the unique work they perform. Under the existing H-2A 
program, these occupations are recognized by special procedures which 
allow employees to meet the needs of the specialized industries they 
serve. Occupations which serve the livestock industry are examples of 
agricultural jobs that require temporary work for longer periods of 
time. Herding and managing livestock is an inherently different type of 
work than that which is performed by other temporary agricultural 
workers. In many cases, those working as temporary foreign workers in 
livestock related occupations often have rich cultural histories and 
family ties to herding which allow them to bring their unique 
experience to the United States and make significant contributions to 
our livestock industry.
  This inherent challenge is evident in the special procedures which 
manage nonimmigrant sheepherders in the existing H-2A program. For over 
50 years, temporary nonimmigrant agricultural workers have been coming 
to the United States to work as herders in the sheep and goat industry. 
Over all these decades, Congress has recognized the special nature of 
the sheepherding program in immigration law. At this time, I ask 
unanimous consent that the following letters dated July 28, 1987, from 
U.S. Senator Al Simpson and the response from Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, INS, Commissioner Alan Nelson dated November 4, 
1987 be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  In this exchange, Senator Simpson, serving as the chairman of the 
Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and a primary author of the 
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, wrote the administration 
expressing the continued intent of Congress that the agency and its 
rules reflect the historical arrangement that sheepherders had within 
the H-2A program. Senator Simpson highlighted specifically the fact 
that sheepherders should not be subject to the same return requirements 
as other nonimmigrant temporary agricultural worker programs. In its 
response, the Immigration and Naturalization Service recognized the 
uniqueness of the sheepherder program, its effectiveness operating 
under these special procedures, and sheepherders should not be subject 
to the same return requirements as other nonimmigrant agricultural 
workers.
  As a result, the H-2A sheepherder program has operated successfully 
with little change from when it first started. Currently, the special 
procedures fall under the authority of the U.S. Department of Labor and 
have continued to largely reflect the unique needs of sheepherders and 
other special procedure occupations.
  That is why I am pleased this immigration bill includes language 
which authorizes special procedures for these very agricultural 
occupations. Section 2232 of the legislation creates the new 
nonimmigrant agricultural worker program. Within that section 218(A)(i) 
authorizes ``special nonimmigrant visa processing and wage 
determination procedures for certain agricultural occupations''. Those 
occupations include (A) sheepherding and goat herding; (B) itinerant 
commercial beekeeping and pollination; (C) open range production of 
livestock; (D) itinerant animal shearing; and, (E) custom combining 
industries. This is an important step forward in making sure that the 
nonimmigrant sheepherders and workers in other special occupations can 
continue to enter our country and work in these unique temporary 
agricultural jobs.
  Particularly important is that the bill provides these special 
occupations with unique rules on work locations, and housing. This is 
because unlike the typical temporary nonimmigrant agricultural jobs 
performed in the United States, the special procedure occupations 
operate in unique conditions. For example, sheepherders may work alone 
or in teams monitoring animals graze in remote areas where mobile 
housing is required. For sheepherders, mobile sheep wagons serve as 
both a historical symbol and functional shelter from the elements of 
the range where teams of sheepherders prepare meals, bunk, and keep 
supplies for livestock. By including the housing language in this 
section, Congress clearly intends that traditional uses of these 
housing units continue for special procedure occupations.
  I have expressed concerned in recent years about efforts by the U.S. 
Department of Labor to avoid consulting stakeholders when drafting new 
policies for special procedure occupations. Bypassing stakeholders has 
confused employers and employees and led to a number of inconsistent 
enforcement actions by agency personnel.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter I sent to the Department of 
Labor on November 14, 2011, as the ranking member of the Senate Health, 
Education, Labor and Pensions, HELP, Committee as well as the response 
I received on February 2, 2012, from Department of Labor Assistant 
Secretary Jane Oates be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks. You will note that previous practice afforded the Secretary 
some discretion in how it

[[Page S5240]]

consults with special procedure stakeholders--specifically, that the 
``administrator may consult with affected employer and worker 
representatives.'' I am pleased that this bill includes text which 
requires that agencies ``shall'' consult with employer and employee 
representatives and publish for notice and comment regulations relating 
to the implementation of the special procedures. This is an important 
step in ensuring that both employers and employees are heard in the 
rulemaking process and their concerns are reflected in agency guidance. 
This consultation will help avoid future confusion amongst the parties, 
ensure that policies practically serve the program, and that there can 
be an end to inconsistent enforcement actions.
  Mr. President, the occupations represented by these special 
procedures may affect only a few specific industries but play an 
important role in protecting the future of American agriculture. I am 
pleased the immigration bill allows occupations such as sheepherding to 
operate under the new program as it has operated for the past 50 years. 
In addition, I am pleased that the legislation recognizes a specific 
need to address the unique wage, housing, and operational components of 
the special procedure programs. Finally, it is vital that rulemaking 
requires agency consultation with stakeholders when drafting policies 
for the special procedure program. I thank the sponsors of this bill 
for their work on this section.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                    Washington, DC, July 28, 1987.
     Hon. Alan Nelson,
     Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Al: I am writing to comment on the Immigration 
     Service's interim final regulations regarding the H-2A 
     program, as they would affect the sheepherding program.
       Congress clearly intended that the sheepherding program be 
     allowed to continue in its present form and under its present 
     conditions. This was actually explicitly stated in previous 
     Senate versions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act. I 
     am now concerned that the proposed regulations might not 
     fulfill congressional intent in this area.
       I understand that the interim final INS regulations require 
     all H-2A workers to return home for a minimum of 6 months 
     after residing in the U.S. for a period equal to three labor 
     certifications. Under present practice, there is no such 
     requirement in the H-2 sheepherding program. While I 
     understand the reason for a ``six month return'' rule in 
     other occupations, present practice allows a much briefer 
     time outside of the U.S. after three labor certifications for 
     sheepherders. I suggest that current practice be continued in 
     this area.
       Thank you for your attention and assistance. With best 
     personal regards,
           Most Sincerely,
                                                  Alan K. Simpson,
     United States Senator.
                                  ____

                                        U.S. Department of Justice


                       Immigration and Naturalization Service,

                                 Washington, DC, November 4, 1987.
     Hon. Alan K. Simpson,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Simpson: This is in response to your letter of 
     July 28, 1987 concerning the interim H-2A rule that requires 
     that a person who holds H-2A status for three years must 
     remain abroad for six months before he can again obtain H-2A 
     status. You indicated this would be detrimental to the sheep 
     industry, and that in promulgating the H-2A program Congress 
     intended that the sheepherder program continue under the 
     prior conditions.
       Persons admitted as H-2 nonimmigrants have traditionally 
     been limited to stays of no more than three years. The 
     interim rule to which you referred, found in 8 CFR 
     214.2(h)(3)(viii)(C), was an attempt to strengthen this 
     limitation to ensure that persons who hold H-2A status are 
     nonimmigrants, and are not using the status as quasi-
     permanent residence. Our concern was the practice of 
     employing an individual as an H-2A for three years, sending 
     him abroad solely for the purpose of obtaining a new visa, 
     and then bringing him back to the United States. Such actions 
     do not constitute a meaningful interruption in employment in 
     the United States, and turns H-2A nonimmigrant status into 
     quasi-permanent residence, while leaving control over the 
     alien's immigrant status with the employer.
       We recognize that the prior H-2 sheepherder program worked 
     effectively for the sheep industry. The administration has 
     already recognized the uniqueness of this program through 
     special provisions in the Department of Labor temporary 
     agricultural labor certification process. Based on your 
     statement regarding the intent of Congress regarding this 
     program, in the final H-2A petition rule we will include a 
     similar provision, and not require a six month absence after 
     a sheepherder has been in the United States for three years.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Alan C. Nelson,
     Commissioner.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                Washington, DC, November 14, 2011.
     Re Changes in the Special Procedures for the H-2A Program

     Hon. Hilda L. Solis,
     Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Solis: I write to respectfully request the 
     Department of Labor reconsider several of the recent changes 
     it made to Special Procedures for the H-2A Program. Although 
     there are some positive changes, which are well intentioned, 
     there are several that will have serious adverse impacts on 
     H-2A employers. Specifically, I am concerned that the 
     Department of Labor continues to make these changes with 
     little or no input from stakeholders and offers little 
     clarification as to how the guidance will be enforced.
       Several Training and Employment Guidance letters (TEGLs) 
     were issued June 14, 2011 and published in the Federal 
     Register on August 4, 2011 in accordance with 20 CFR 655.102. 
     Special procedures under this section are designed to provide 
     the Secretary of Labor with a limited degree of flexibility 
     in carrying out the responsibilities of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (INA). However, the guidance issued under 
     these TEGLs in 2011 deviates significantly from past 
     interpretations of employment guidelines, was written devoid 
     of stakeholder input and causes several significant 
     challenges for the employers in the open range livestock 
     industry.
       Although several of the changes create significant 
     challenges, those concerning sleeping units and variances are 
     creating the one of the most alarming negative impacts on 
     livestock producers. Guidelines concerning the use of mobile 
     housing for open range occupations have remained unchanged 
     for 22 years. A separate sleeping unit has been understood to 
     be a bedroll/sleeping bag, bed, cot, or bunk. However, the 
     latest TEGL references the term ``housed'' in regards to 
     sleeping unit and adds a three day consecutive limitation for 
     employees sharing a mobile housing unit on the range, such as 
     a sheep wagon. This seems to imply that a separate sleeping 
     unit is to include a separate ``housing unit.'' Not only is 
     the guideline inconsistent with previous standards but when 
     interpreted strictly proves impractical for many employers. 
     The resources necessary to move and secure multiple housing 
     units in remote areas of range would not only hinder herding 
     operations but could also prove to be dangerous in adverse 
     weather conditions or during the shorter hours of daylight 
     associated with the winter months.
       H-2A employers engaged in sheep herding activities want to 
     provide safe workplace conditions for their employees. 
     However, when Department guidelines are vague, inconsistent 
     or made without stakeholder input--challenges are due to 
     arise that could adversely impact the industry and its 
     employees. There is also ongoing concern about enforcement 
     activities by the Department. Instances of inconsistent 
     interpretations of guidance have been reported that concerns 
     both long-standing policies and guidance resulting from the 
     2011 TEGLs. In the case of guidance that pre-dates the 2011 
     TEGLs, there have been instances in which employers are 
     challenged for practices that are consistent with state 
     standards for their occupation and in areas where the 
     Department is to provide deference to state workforce and 
     employment requirements.
       Additionally, there has been a great deal of confusion over 
     the revision of the requirements for variances by the 2011 
     TEGLs. In the past, operators were able to file a variance 
     once with their appropriate state department of workforce and 
     employment with no need to file additional variances for 
     herding activities. However, the new guidance requires 
     variances to be filed every year and can be applied to only 
     extremely limited situations. This change limits flexibility 
     for employers to best serve the needs of their employees and 
     creates impractical consequences for a number of range 
     operations. I encourage the Department to consider returning 
     its policies to allow for variances to be filed once for 
     activities recognized by the special procedures and to remove 
     the time limit that has been imposed on variances.
       Thank you for considering this request and these comments 
     regarding the Special Procedures for the H-2A Program. Again, 
     I encourage the Department to allow greater stakeholder 
     participation in future changes to the special procedures. I 
     look forward to the Department's response on this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Mike Enzi,
     United States Senator.
                                  ____



                                     U.S. Department of Labor,

                                      Washington, DC, Feb. 2, 2012
     Hon. Michael Enzi,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Enzi: Thank you for your letter to Secretary 
     of Labor Hilda L. Solis requesting that the Department of 
     Labor (Department) reconsider the recent changes made to 
     Special Procedures for the H-2A Program through the Training 
     and Employment Guidance Letters (TEGL) published in

[[Page S5241]]

     the Federal Register on August 4, 2011. The TEGLs updated 
     special procedures previously established under the H-2A 
     Temporary Agricultural Program for occupations such as sheep 
     and goat herding to reflect organizational changes as well as 
     new regulatory provisions contained in the Temporary 
     Agricultural Employment of H-2A Foreign Workers in the United 
     States (H-2A Final Rule) published by the Department on 
     February 12, 2010. Your letter has been referred to my office 
     for response. The Employment and Training Administration is 
     responsible for administering foreign labor certification 
     program through the Office of Foreign Labor Certification 
     (OFLC).
       In your letter you state that even though there were some 
     positive changes set forth in the TEGLs, the Department 
     continues to make changes with little or no input from 
     stakeholders and offers little clarification as to how the 
     guidance will be enforced. Of particular importance, you cite 
     changes pertaining to sleeping units made available to 
     workers and to the variance procedure previously required of 
     employers when petitioning for more than one worker to be 
     housed in mobile units used in the open range. Your letter 
     states that the above change in guidance limits flexibility 
     for employers to best serve the needs of their employees and 
     creates impractical consequences for a number of range 
     operations.
       To provide for a limited degree of flexibility in carrying 
     out the Secretary's responsibilities under the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (INA), while not deviating from statutory 
     requirements, the H-2A Final Rule provides the Administrator 
     of OFLC with the authority to establish, continue, revise, or 
     revoke special procedures for processing certain H-2A 
     applications. The special procedures for sheep and goat 
     herding, for example, have been recognized for many years and 
     draw upon the historically unique nature of the agricultural 
     work that cannot be completely addressed within the 
     regulatory framework generally applied to other H-2A 
     employers. Such procedures recognize the peculiarities of the 
     industry or agricultural activity, and establish a reasonable 
     and tailored means for such employers to meet underlying 
     program requirements while not deviating from statutory 
     requirements. Prior to making determinations regarding the 
     use of special procedures, the H-2A Final Rule states that 
     the ``OFLC Administrator may consult with affected employer 
     and worker representatives''. The Department published these 
     revised special procedures in June 2011 with a delayed 
     effective date of October 1, 2011, to provide affected 
     employers time to understand and adapt to any changes. The 
     Department then published each TEGL as a notice in the 
     Federal Register on August 4, 2011.
       The special procedures published by the Department covering 
     occupations involved in the open range production of 
     livestock do not change the longstanding requirement that 
     employers must provide housing and sleeping facilities to 
     workers under the H-2A Program. Due to the unique nature of 
     the work performed on the open range, employers in this 
     industry are allowed to self-certify that housing is 
     available, sufficient to accommodate the number of workers 
     being requested, and meets all applicable standards. Within 
     the housing unit, workers must be afforded a separate 
     sleeping unit such as a comfortable bed, cot, or bunk with a 
     clean mattress. Therefore, it would be possible for the 
     employer to continue to have one camp with more than one 
     worker so long as each worker had his or her own bed. Because 
     employers participating in the H-2A Program must make 
     arrangements for housing workers several months in advance of 
     the start date of work, the Department believes employers 
     likewise have sufficient time to plan and arrange for the 
     provision of sleeping units for its workers. Where it is 
     temporarily impractical to set up a separate sleeping unit 
     which would result in more than one worker having to share a 
     bed, cot or bunk, the revised special procedures defined 
     ``temporary'' as no more than three consecutive days to 
     ensure workers promptly receive the housing benefits they are 
     entitled to under the H-2A Program.
       In your letter you also state that the new guidance departs 
     from the previous practice of allowing employers to file a 
     housing variance request only one time with the appropriate 
     State Workforce Agency. Though the new guidance continues the 
     practice of allowing employers to submit a written request 
     for a housing variance, the Department's requirement has 
     remained consistent by stipulating that ``When filing an 
     application for certification, the employer may request a 
     variance from the separate sleeping unit(s) requirement to 
     allow for a second herder to temporarily join the herding 
     operation.'' Each open range production of livestock 
     application is adjudicated on a case-by-case basis and 
     conform to housing safety and health standards.
       If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. 
     Tony Zaffirini, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental 
     Affairs, at (202)-693-4600.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Jane Oates,
                                              Assistant Secretary.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today in support 
of S. 744, the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill before 
the Senate.
  Through the process of negotiation and compromise, including 212 
amendments that were considered during the course of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee markup last month and now much discussion on the 
Senate floor, a workable, tough--but fair--bill sits before us, ripe 
for us to take action on a problem that has gone unresolved for far too 
long.
  Colleagues, this is our last, best chance to achieve immigration 
reform.
  The bill before the Senate provides long-sought-after solutions that 
will help fix our broken immigration system. It takes into 
consideration our country's modern-day national security, economic, and 
labor needs, as well as our country's age-old tradition of preserving 
family unity and promoting humanitarian policies.
  It would also bring approximately 11 million undocumented individuals 
now living in the United States out of the shadows and on a path where 
they could proudly and openly contribute to this great nation.
  The first fundamental principle of the bill is that we must control 
our Nation's borders and protect our national security.
  Before a single undocumented person in the United Staes can earn a 
green card, several important ``triggers'' must be met, showing that 
the Federal Government has effectively secured the border and is 
enforcing current immigration laws. These triggers include the 
following:

       No. 1, an unprecedented increase of 20,000 new full-time 
     Border Patrol agents stationed along the southern border.
       No. 2, the full deployment of the comprehensive southern 
     border security strategy, which requires the Department of 
     Homeland Security to conduct surveillance of 100 percent of 
     the southern border region.
       No. 3, DHS completion of the southern border fencing 
     strategy, which includes at least 700 miles of pedestrian 
     fencing along the southern border.
       No. 4, implementation of a mandatory employment 
     verification system for all employers, known as E-Verify, 
     which will prevent unauthorized workers from obtaining 
     employment.
       No. 5, implementation of an electronic exit system at air 
     and sea ports of entry that operates by collecting machine-
     readable visa or passport information from passengers of air 
     and vessel carriers.

  These enforcement improvements build upon the Department of Homeland 
Security's substantial progress in securing and managing our borders.
  Over the past several years, DHS has deployed unprecedented amounts 
of manpower, resources, and technology to secure the Nation's borders, 
and these efforts have not only led to enhanced border security but 
have also expedited legitimate trade and travel.
  The second fundamental principle included in the bill is the creation 
of a path to citizenship for the 11 million individuals who are living 
and working in the United States without proper immigration 
documentation.
  While some have insisted that all 11 million undocumented immigrants 
should be deported, such a solution is not reasonable.
  A majority of these individuals and families have become integrated 
into the fabric of their communities, and deportation would be a severe 
outcome. Many work and pay taxes, but they and their families live in 
the shadows and face the possibility of being picked up and deported, 
daily.
  The State of California has the largest number of undocumented 
immigrants, estimated to be 2.6 million people or nearly one-fourth of 
all unauthorized immigrants currently living in the United States. 
These individuals have become an essential part of the California 
workforce. Many work in hotels, restaurants, agriculture, and the 
housing and construction industries.
  A recent study of immigrants in California that was completed by Dr. 
Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda and Marshall Fitz of the Center for American 
Progress concluded that, ``if all unauthorized immigrants were removed 
from California, the state would lose $301.6 billion in economic 
activity, decrease total employment by 17.4%, and eliminate 3.6 million 
jobs.'' The study further showed that, ``if unauthorized immigrants in 
California were legalized, it would add 633,000 jobs to the economy, 
increase labor income by $26.9 billion, and increase tax revenues by 
$5.3 billion.''
  This bill establishes a process to bring these individuals out of the 
shadows.
  The need to provide a stable, legal, and sustainable workforce 
through immigration reform is critical in the agricultural sector.

[[Page S5242]]

  According to government estimates, there are about 1.8 million people 
who perform hired farm work in the United States. Approximately 1.2 
million of these individuals--fully two-thirds of those who help bring 
pistachios, almonds, wine, and other things we enjoy, to our tables--
are not authorized to work here.
  Some may ask, why don't farmers hire Americans to do the work? The 
answer is, they have tried and tried, but there are not many Americans 
who are willing to take a job in the fields. It is hard, stooped labor, 
requiring long and unpredictable hours, often in the hot Sun and high 
temperatures. That is why the labor shortage persists even in these 
challenging economic times.
  The United Farm Workers initiated the ``Take Our Jobs'' campaign in 
which they invited citizens and legal residents to apply for jobs on 
farms across the country, but only seven people accepted jobs and 
trained for agriculture positions.
  A 2012 California Farm Bureau survey found that 71 percent of the 
tree fruit growers and nearly 80 percent of raisin and berry growers 
were unable to find adequate labor to prune trees and vines or pick 
crops.
  This problem also impacts year-round industries such as dairy. A 2012 
Texas A&M study found that farms using an immigrant workforce produce 
more than 60 percent of the milk in our country. Without these 
immigrant dairy employees, economic output would decline by $22 billion 
and 133,000 workers would lose their jobs.
  All over the Nation, growers are closing their farms because they 
lack a stable, legal workforce. And American farmers who remain are 
suffering economic losses because of the lack of immigration reform.
  And when farmers suffer, there is a ripple effect felt throughout the 
economy--in farm equipment manufacturing, packaging, processing, 
transportation, marketing, lending, and insurance.
  The reality is that if there are not enough farm workers to harvest 
the crops in the United States, we will end up relying on foreign 
countries to provide our food supply. This is not good for our economy 
or for ensuring that Americans are receiving safe and healthy foods.
  Right now, the H-2A visa, or temporary agricultural guest worker 
visa, is the only program that is available for growers to hire foreign 
workers. Unfortunately, this program has not worked for the vast 
majority of agricultural employers.
  A 2011 National Council of Agricultural Employers survey found that 
administrative H-2A delays prevented almost three-fourths of surveyed 
employers from timely receiving workers, which caused economic loss of 
nearly $320 million for farms in 2010.
  Katie Jackson from Jackson Family Wines in Santa Rosa, CA, wrote me 
about the challenges she currently faces in navigating the H-2A visa 
program and identifying a sufficient number of skilled workers. She 
wrote that because, ``very few of the unemployed in this Nation will 
opt to work in agriculture, and even fewer have the necessary skills to 
do so,'' Jackson Family Wines turned to increased automation and use of 
the H-2A program. However, Ms. Jackson noted that ``the H-2A program is 
cumbersome and from our perspective merely provides a temporary fix.''
  In previous Congresses, Senators Craig, Kennedy, and I repeatedly 
tried to pass bipartisan legislation to address this, known as AgJOBS, 
without success.
  This year, I collaborated with Senators Rubio, Bennet, and Hatch to 
negotiate and develop a new proposal that is balanced and fair to 
address the ag labor crisis. I am very grateful to Senator Schumer and 
the other Members of the Gang of 8 that they incorporated this proposal 
into this bill; it is now subtitle B of Title II, the ``Agricultural 
Worker Program.''
  All of the elements of this program were negotiated between farm 
worker representatives and a large coalition of grower organizations. 
These negotiated provisions protect both farmers who are forced to rely 
on foreign farm labor and the farm workers by allowing the current 
undocumented farm workers to continue to work in agriculture to earn a 
blue card and eventually a green card.
  Under the bill, agricultural workers who can document U.S. 
agricultural employment for a minimum of 100 work days or 575 hours in 
the 2 years prior to date of enactment are eligible to adjust to blue 
card status. Blue card applicants must not have a felony or violent 
misdemeanor conviction and must pay a $100 fine for being in the United 
States without immigration status.
  Agricultural workers are eligible for a green card when they pay all 
taxes, have no felony or violent misdemeanor convictions, and pay 
another fine--of $400. The worker must also document that they 
performed at least 5 years of agricultural employment for at least 100 
work days per year during the 8-year period beginning on the date of 
enactment or performed at least 3 years of agricultural employment for 
at least 150 work days per year during the 5-year period beginning on 
the date of enactment.
  To replace the problematic H-2A program, the bill will also address 
the long-term workforce needs of farmers going forward, including 
dairies and other year-round ag industries, by creating a streamlined 
system to bring in temporary guest workers through a new agricultural 
visa program called the W-Visa program.
  This two-part new farm worker visa program provides a temporary 
worker two options, which are at-will employment or contract-based 
employment.
  No. 1 at-will employees have the freedom to move from employer to 
employer without any contractual commitment.
  No. 2 contract employees must commit to work for an employer for a 
fixed period of time, which can provide increased stability for both 
employees and employers. After fulfilling this commitment, they are 
then free to work for other U.S. agricultural employers.
  The bill includes specific negotiated wage rates that replace the 
``adverse effect wage rate'' standard that exists under the current H-
2A program, which has proven to be very controversial, and which many 
farmers say is one of the reasons that the H-2A program is unworkable.
  The number of agricultural guest workers who can enter the country in 
any given year is subject to a carefully negotiated cap to reflect 
anticipated labor market demands.
  For the first 5 years, the visa program is capped at 112,333 per 
year. With a 3-year visa, this would result in 336,999 temporary 
workers who can be in the country at one time.
  To ensure that a given year's visa allocation is not used up by 
regions of the country that harvest earlier than others, the bill 
requires that the visas be evenly distributed on a quarterly basis in 
the first year and that the USDA Secretary can modify the timing of the 
disbursement of visas based on prior usage patterns thereafter. Any 
unused visas that remain at the end of a quarter can be rolled over to 
the next quarter but not to the next year.
  The cap may be increased if there are demonstrated labor shortages or 
reduced in response to a high unemployment rate of agricultural 
workers. After 6 years, the number of applications for guest worker 
visas and the number of blue card applications approved will also be 
considered when determining the annual caps.
  This new, improved visa program will help American agriculture 
continue to be a driving force in our Nation's economy.
  For those who are currently unauthorized to be in this country, 
Democrats and Republicans together created a new registered provisional 
immigrant--or RPI--program to provide such immigrants with lawful 
immigration status.
  RPIs would be authorized to work in the United States and to travel 
abroad. Only if they meet stringent criteria may they renew their RPI 
status for another 6 years and ultimately adjust from RPI status to 
that of a lawful permanent resident--or green card holder.
  Let me be clear, this is not amnesty. Amnesty is automatically giving 
those who broke the law a clean slate, no questions asked. This bill 
does not do that. Instead, the bill imposes rigorous requirements in 
order for each individual to attain legal status, apply for a green 
card, and eventually become a citizen.
  The time has come for those who are already here, doing jobs across 
the

[[Page S5243]]

spectrum--such as caring for our aging population, working in 
restaurants and hotels, and creating successful small businesses. It is 
realistic for us to secure a sufficient legal workforce, while 
importantly protecting our U.S. workers, to meet the labor needs of 
this country.
  This bill would also finally pave the way for DREAMers who were 
brought to the United States by their parents and grew up here; they 
consider the United States their home and want to give back.
  Approximately 65,000 DREAMers graduate from our high schools each 
year. They are hard-working and are dedicated to their education or to 
serving in the Nation's military. Some are valedictorians and honor 
roll students; some are community leaders and have an unwavering 
commitment to serving the United States.
  Through no fault of their own, these young individuals lack the 
immigration status they need to realize their full potential. This bill 
will provide an opportunity for these students to fulfill the American 
dream and it is only prudent for us to give them that chance.
  While still prioritizing the American workers who are seeking jobs by 
establishing a strict screening requirements, this bill aims to meet 
the needs of businesses so that our economy can succeed not only in the 
fields but in medical, technological, and research labs across the 
country.
  This bill reforms the H-1B visa program for high-skilled workers by 
doubling and potentially tripling it depending on the country's labor 
needs. Ensuring that this country stays ahead of the curve in 
technology, it facilitates advances in science, technology, math, and 
engineering by stapling a green card to certain STEM graduates' 
passports. It creates a W visa program for low-skilled workers and 
encourages ideas through entrepreneurship, enabling the creation of the 
likes of the next eBay, Google, PayPal, and Yahoo, all which were 
founded by immigrants.
  I want to commend the members of the Gang of Eight Senators--Schumer, 
McCain, Durbin, Graham, Menendez, Rubio, Bennet, and Flake,--for 
providing a foundation that strikes the right balance and reflects the 
best thinking on how to accommodate all the various concerns and 
interests.
  I also want to recognize those who paved the path forward for them, 
including former Senators Kennedy, Specter, Salazar, Kyl, and Martinez. 
Their hard work in tackling this difficult issue has finally brought us 
to this crucial stage.
  This is not a perfect bill, but it is a necessary bill. If we do not 
seize this opportunity, I fear that the chance of comprehensive reform 
will be gone for another generation--something I believe would be a 
terrible mistake for our country.
  It realistically and pragmatically updates our current immigration 
system in a way that enhances our national security, ensures our labor 
needs are met in a fair way that does not compromise U.S. workers, 
facilitates timely family unification, and is humane. I hope you will 
join me in passing this bill in the Senate.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as we look forward to bringing our debate 
on comprehensive immigration reform to a close, I especially want to 
recognize the work of one Senator who made a major contribution to this 
legislation. Provisions contained in this legislation will rewrite our 
entire agricultural visa program, and they will do so for the better. 
For the first time, America's dairy farmers will have access to 
temporary foreign workers, and the population of undocumented farm 
workers will have the chance to come out of the shadows and into the 
lawful immigration system, where they will have rights and the 
protection of the law. I am grateful for the work she has done, and I 
am proud to support her important contributions to this legislation.
  The work of the senior Senator from California on this legislation 
should be recognized and commended. She worked long and hard to bring 
agricultural workers and employers together to find consensus.
  She spent many hours keeping these negotiations going, and she did 
not give up until a fair agreement was reached. And just this week I 
know that Senator Feinstein stood up for farmers in the Northeastern 
part of the United States and resisted last-minute efforts related to 
this bill to create a divide between farmers in different parts of the 
country. For this, I thank her.
  Yesterday, the Washington Post published an article about Senator 
Feinstein's distinguished service in the Senate, her leadership, her 
incredible work ethic, and her tenacity. I ask unanimous consent that 
this article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, June 25, 2013]

  Feinstein, NSA's Top Congressional Defender, Has Built Respect Over 
                           Decades of Service

                            (By Emily Heil)

       She stands before television cameras just hours after the 
     news breaks that the U.S. government has been conducting a 
     massive survillance program, compiling a database of 
     Americans' phone records and monitoring foreign terrorism 
     suspects' Internet traffic.
       Her hands form fists.
       ``It's called protecting America,'' says Dianne Feinstein.
       A five-term California Democrat who chairs the Senate 
     intelligence committee, Feinstein hardly needs to flex her 
     muscles these days to command deference. On Sunday talk shows 
     and from podiums around the Capitol, she's playing the role 
     of chief congressional defender of the surveillance program 
     to skeptical colleagues and critics who say it's Big Brother 
     run amok. She is also one of the most senior members of the 
     powerful Judiciary and Appropriations panels.
       Just as she is playing such high-profile roles, Feinstein, 
     who turned 80 on Saturday, is blazing a new political trail 
     as a symbol--an unwilling one--of the changing workplace.
       ``It's a non-role as far as I'm concerned,'' Feinstein 
     says. ``I've always had the belief that age is just 
     chronology. I know people who are 50 who are older than I 
     am.''
       With the death of Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) this 
     month, Feinstein became the Senate's oldest member, a 
     distinction never before held by a woman. In fact, there's 
     only been one other female senator over 80: Rebecca L. 
     Felton, an 87-year-old, lace-collared white-supremacist 
     suffragette who was appointed to a vacant seat from Georgia 
     and served for less than two months in 1922.
       Feinstein's age is in most ways incidental to her success; 
     in others, it's key. She's benefiting from the privileges 
     that seniority brings in the Senate and from a work ethic 
     forged in an era where women had to work twice as hard as 
     their male counterparts to succeed.
       There are now a record 20 female senators, many of whom 
     have taken on high-ranking roles such as chairmanships of key 
     committees that can help ensure long political life spans. 
     They may soon be as likely as men to grow old in elected 
     office--or in any office.
       Women over 60 make up the fastest-growing segment of the 
     workforce, notes Elizabeth Fideler, a fellow at the Sloan 
     Center on Aging and Work at Boston College and the author of 
     ``Women Still at Work: Professionals Over 60 and on the 
     Job.'' And the sight of older woman at the office--even when 
     that office is the Capitol--is becoming more familiar. 
     ``Obviously, politics is a bit harsher an arena, but people 
     are willing to accept an older person so long as they remain 
     effective,'' she says.
       Age is a sensitive topic for anyone. For politicians, even 
     more so. When Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.) at 72 launched his 
     presidential campaign in 1995, Time magazine's cover asked, 
     ``Is Dole Too Old for the Job?'' And recall Sen. John 
     McCain's (R-Ariz.) anger at a question about his age during 
     the 2008 presidential campaign. (McCain was 70, and called 
     the questioner a ``little jerk.'')
       If the politician in question happens to be a woman, she's 
     even more likely to get The Question or be the target of 
     late-night vitriol.
       In 2007, at the age of 67, Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) became 
     speaker of the House--the highest-ranking woman in the 
     history of the republic--and a feast for comedians' Botox 
     jokes.
       ``Nancy Pelosi said today we've waited 200 years for 
     this,'' Jay Leno cracked after Pelosi was sworn in. ``Two 
     hundred years? How many face-lifts has this woman had?''
       Former congresswoman Pat Schroeder (D-Colo.) predicts that 
     even as women remain in office into old age, the public will 
     never tolerate ``a female Strom Thurmond,'' a reference to 
     the late South Carolina Republican senator who left office at 
     the age of 100, his final years spent with staffers and 
     colleagues overlooking (and compensating for) his diminished 
     mental and physical powers.
       ``The public would turn on her,'' Schroeder says. ``Not 
     like they did with Strom, who everyone thought was funny--
     this kind of character.''
       Tall and unstooped, Feinstein is often seen striding down 
     the Capitol's marble halls.
       Even her political adversaries say she remains more engaged 
     in the minutiae of her job than many of her younger 
     counterparts.
       ``I always think if I'm half as prepared and energetic as 
     Senator Feinstein, I'm doing okay,'' says Sen. Claire 
     McCaskill. The Missouri Democrat calls Feinstein ``the ideal 
     of what a senator should be.''
       ``Role model'' is the one part of her new status that 
     Feinstein embraces. ``That is the biggest compliment,'' she 
     says.

[[Page S5244]]

       Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright says the 
     scrutiny that female politicians will draw in their older 
     years will be just a continuation of what they have faced at 
     other points in their careers. ``They'll talk about 
     [Feinstein's] hair--but that's what happens now anyway,'' she 
     says.
       It did, at least, early in Feinstein's career, when media 
     reports swooned over her looks and her impeccable ensembles. 
     ``Charm Is Only Half Her Story,'' was the headline of a Time 
     magazine 1990 story, which described her as ``a casting 
     director's idea of a Bryn Mawr president who must be bodily 
     restrained from adding gloves--or perhaps even a pillbox 
     hat--to her already ultra-conservative banker-blue suits and 
     fitted red blazers and pearls.''
       Ask friends and colleagues to describe Feinstein and 
     something surprising happens.
       ``She does her homework,'' says former senator Olympia 
     Snowe (R-Maine).
       ``She does her homework,'' says Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-
     Ga.), the vice chairman of the intelligence committee.
       ``She just does her homework,'' says Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-
     Calif.)
       At home, as in the office, Feinstein works constantly. That 
     includes spending her days off poring over thick briefing 
     books and, always, the ``weeklies,'' a stack of the memos she 
     requires every member of her staff to submit each Friday.
       In the memo, each employee--from top policy advisers to 
     mailroom clerks--describes what he or she has done that week: 
     meetings they attended, people they met with, legislation 
     they worked on, or what kind of letters have been coming in 
     from constituents. Feinstein scours them, and then asks 
     pointed questions at mandatory Monday-morning staff meetings 
     in her Washington office.
       This interrogative style has led some former staffers to 
     grouse that she is a tough boss, prone to calling out 
     underlings, even in group settings where such queries can 
     come off as insults. Mark Kadesh, a lobbyist who was her 
     longtime chief of staff, says that the rigors of working for 
     her weren't for everyone. ``The thing is that she's no more 
     demanding of herself than she is of her staff,'' he says. 
     ``If you couldn't keep up, it was tough. If you accepted that 
     challenge, it was a great experience.''
       Yet colleagues--even Republicans--find her approachable. 
     ``You knew that she always came to her conclusions based on 
     real knowledge and understanding, not in a partisan way,'' 
     Snowe says.
       Chambliss credits her with helping to smooth over the once-
     strained relationship between the Senate and House 
     intelligence committees. The bipartisan leaders now meet 
     regularly to talk about how to speak with one voice on tricky 
     issues--a change from the past. ``We couldn't afford that--
     the world has become too dangerous a place on intelligence 
     issues,'' he says.
       Feinstein's always-be-prepared ethos seems, in part, a 
     holdover from an earlier time. When she first entered public 
     office as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors 
     in 1969, few women held elected offices. Those who did faced 
     far more scrutiny than their male counterparts.
       Feinstein recalls being the top vote-getter in her first 
     election to the board, which by law, meant she would be its 
     president. But some, citing her inexperience, called on her 
     to cede that position to the second-place man. She politely 
     declined. Her ascent from supervisor to mayor was accompanied 
     by tests. ``You would get pressed,'' she says. ``And so you 
     learn to know your stuff.''
       To this day, Feinstein enters no forum--be it a hearing 
     with top military brass or a one-on-one with a low-level 
     staffer--without excruciatingly detailed preparation.
       ``On the NSA issue, none of the members had gone to these 
     briefings, and yet they're all talking about them--whereas if 
     Dianne hadn't gone to them, known everything about them, 
     she'd have the grace not to say something,'' Schroeder says. 
     ``My jaw always drops when I see someone who'd rather be at 
     the gym or running to the airport who wants to stand up and 
     criticize something they don't know anything about.''
       While she's surely come a long way from those board 
     meetings in San Francisco, the tests still come.
       In March, Feinstein had a YouTube-able moment when she 
     spoke before the Senate Judiciary Committee about her 
     proposal to ban assault weapons. Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican 
     freshman from Texas and a tea party favorite, prefaced a 
     question to her with a discourse on the Constitution, in 
     which he informed Feinstein (who has served on Judiciary for 
     20 years and was the panel's first female member), that the 
     Second Amendment gives people the right to bear arms.
       ``I am not a sixth grader,'' she replied, calmly, but with 
     a rare edge to her voice that indicated that she was just a 
     bit peeved with the gentleman from Texas. ``It's fine you 
     want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just 
     know I've been here for a long time.''
       And may be longer still. Feinstein, who won reelection in 
     2012, will be 85 when her term ends. Will she run again? 
     ``Ask me in three years,'' she says.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, we have been working to come up with a list 
of amendments. Without any editorializing, this is the list we have 
been able to come up with. The staff has worked on this for long hours.
  I ask unanimous consent that a managers' package of amendments 
consisting of Boxer-Landrieu-Murray No. 1240 (pending); Brown No. 1597; 
Carper-McCain-Udall No. 1558, as modified; Carper No. 1590; Coats No. 
1288; Coats No. 1373; Coburn No. 1509; Coons No. 1715; Flake No. 1472; 
Heinrich-Udall of New Mexico No. 1342; Heinrich-Udall of New Mexico No. 
1417; Heinrich-Udall of New Mexico-Gillibrand No. 1559; Heitkamp-Levin-
Tester-Baucus No. 1593; Klobuchar-Landrieu-Coats-Blunt-Barrasso-Enzi 
No. 1261; Klobuchar-Coats-Landrieu-Blunt No. 1526; Landrieu-Coats-
Shaheen-Franken No. 1338; Landrieu-Cochran No. 1383; Leahy No. 1454; 
Leahy No. 1455; Murray-Crapo No. 1368; Nelson-Wicker No. 1253; Reed No. 
1223; Reed No. 1608; Schatz-Kirk No. 1416; Shaheen-Ayotte No. 1272; 
Stabenow-Collins No. 1405; Toomey No. 1236; Udall of New Mexico-
Heinrich No. 1241; and Udall of New Mexico-Heinrich-Gillibrand No. 1242 
be in order and considered en bloc; that the Senate proceed to vote on 
adoption of the amendments in this package en bloc; that upon 
disposition of the managers' package, the following amendments be in 
order to be called up and the clerks be authorized to modify the 
instruction lines to fit the committee-reported amendment, as amended, 
where necessary: Sessions No. 1334; Hirono No. 1718; Fischer No. 1594; 
Blumenthal No. 1636; Vitter No. 1445; Brown No. 1311; Toomey No. 1599; 
Hagan No. 1386; Coats No. 1563; McCaskill No. 1457; Johnson of 
Wisconsin No. 1380; Boxer No. 1260; Cruz No. 1580; Feinstein No. 1250; 
Lee No. 1214; Udall of New Mexico No. 1218; Vitter No. 1577; Tester No. 
1459; Vitter No. 1474; Heitkamp No. 1593; Lee No. 1207; Whitehouse No. 
1419; Cruz No. 1579; Udall of New Mexico No. 1691; Cruz No. 1583; 
Heinrich No. 1342; Cruz No. 1585; Reed of Rhode Island No. 1608; Cruz 
No. 1586; Nelson-Wicker No. 1253; McCain-Cardin No. 1469; and Portman-
Tester No. 1634; that at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning, June 27, the Senate 
proceed to vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed; that 
the amendments be subject to a 60-affirmative vote threshold; that 
there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote; and all after 
the first vote be 10-minute votes; that upon disposition of the 
Portman-Tester amendment No. 1634, the pending amendments to the 
underlying bill be withdrawn; the majority leader then be recognized 
for the purpose of raising points of order against the remaining 
pending amendments to the substitute amendment; that after the 
amendments fall, the substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to; 
the cloture motion with respect to S. 744 be withdrawn; the bill, as 
amended, be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to vote on 
passage of the bill, as amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I object, and I ask for the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my colleagues--I 
better say on behalf of myself and some of my colleagues--I have to 
object. The majority party has offered an agreement from our point of 
view that is insufficient and clearly not serious, even though I know 
they consider it a serious offer.
  Last night, our side offered a list of amendments that could be voted 
upon. We asked for votes on 34 amendments and those 34 amendments are 
less than 10 percent of all of the amendments that are filed, right now 
about 550. But now the majority wants to limit the number of amendments 
and, in a sense, limit our rights, because each Senator ought to have 
an opportunity to put down the amendments they want to offer. It 
doesn't preclude the majority party from offering any amount of their 
amendments they want to offer.
  It seems to me the majority wants to pick and choose the amendments 
they like. They don't want to take tough votes so they have chosen just 
a few of

[[Page S5245]]

our amendments to make it look as though it is very accommodating.
  I have to say I feel a bit used and abused in this process. For 2\1/
2\ weeks we have been pushing to get votes on our amendments. We have 
had a measly 10 votes on amendments. I will remind my colleagues that 
there were 550 filed. That is pretty embarrassing for the majority 
after they promised a fair and open debate.
  I wish to remind my colleagues about fair and open debate. One 
Republican Member of the Group of 8 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 that this kind of open debate is 
     critical in helping the American people understand what is in 
     the bill, what it means for you, and what it means for our 
     future.

  That same Senator also wrote to Chairman Leahy on March 30 before the 
bill was brought up in committee:

       I wish 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 
     a full and careful consideration of legislative language and 
     an open process of amendments.

  In a letter to me on April 5, that same 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.

  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 people who don't agree can offer 
     their amendments.

  So it is very clear the Gang of 8, the authors of the legislation, 
called for a robust floor debate. They said they supported regular 
order.
  So I ask now: Do they think that having only a few amendments 
considered, and this list that has just been put before us, is that a 
robust and open process? Do they think the majority party has used 
regular order?
  After spinning our wheels for a couple of weeks, we had an important 
vote a couple of days ago. The proponents have been bragging for weeks 
that they were going to get over 70 votes for their legislation and 
somehow force the House to take up their bill. Of course, that won't 
happen if they don't get 70 votes. But I saw the shock of some that 
they had on their faces when their vote count fell short here a couple 
of days ago.
  So now what are they doing? They need to pick up some votes and they 
need to make it look as though we have had a more fair process. So 
after less than the expected vote yesterday, the proponents came to me 
wanting to strike a deal that would give us votes on amendments. The 
problem is they still want to limit our amendments, but they want to 
make sure we include amendments that will help them pick up some votes.
  Well, I happen to be a farmer and I am proud to be a farmer, but I 
want them to know I haven't just fallen off of the hay wagon. It is 
pretty clear what is going on around here. Regardless of the reasons 
for the majority now trying to look as though they are accommodating 
us, I am still willing to negotiate votes, but it needs to be a lot of 
votes.
  Some on my side may be less charitable than I am since they also 
understand what is going on around here. So in the end, we may very 
well not be having any more votes on amendments. It is too bad the 
majority led us down this road and is aiming for the ditch. In other 
words, we have not had the fair and open process we were promised as we 
had in committee--a fair and very open process there, but it ended up 
completely contrary to what the Gang of 8 told us we were going to have 
when we got to the floor.
  In the end they have only themselves to blame. In the end I think the 
end is right now. We are going to have votes on cloture. We are going 
to have a vote on final passage. I am telling people on my side of the 
aisle that if you are going to be against this bill, there is no sense 
in debating it anymore; we might as well carry our story to the other 
body because that is where this bill is going to be perfected, if it 
can be perfected, in a way that is going to be sent to the President 
and to solve the problems we have and not make the same mistakes we 
made in 1986.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak at this 
time, followed by the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am disappointed the Senator from Iowa 
didn't accept the proposal of the majority leader and let us continue 
making improvements to this bill. But I have watched this debate and I 
wish to add my voice to those who came out and complimented the good 
work, the bipartisan work the Gang of 8 has performed in their efforts 
to forge a bipartisan compromise on an issue that is of remarkable 
importance to this nation--to our economic growth, to our security and, 
quite honestly, to who we are as a country.
  I look forward to voting in favor of this legislation. I will not 
recap all of the components and the path of how we got here. Suffice it 
to say this piece of legislation includes protections for American 
workers, improves border enforcement, puts in a place a more effective 
identity verification process, improves our entry exit system, as well 
provides a reasonable earned pathway to citizenship for the 11 million 
undocumented immigrants who already live and work in America. 
Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office has indicated that 
immigration reform will also help decrease the deficit.
  As well, it includes key priorities I have championed in the Senate, 
including sensible and necessary reforms to our high skill and 
employment based visa programs. It makes sure that as we continue to 
train and educate the world's best and brightest--STEM and PhDs from 
Brazil or the Czech Republic or India--they can stay here in America. 
Unfortunately, because what happens now is that when they get their 
degree, we send them home to compete against us. Canada, the U.K., and 
Australia have changed their laws, so now these high skill individuals 
don't go home, they simply move across the border to Canada and take 
those high-paying jobs and support jobs with them.
  This legislation will also makes important strides to ensure 
DREAMers--those young people who were brought to this country at a 
young age, through no fault or choice of her own, who are caught in 
this limbo at this point, where many jurisdictions, including 
unfortunately, my State, sometimes don't allow them to finish their 
education--have the opportunity to contribute to the only country they 
know.
  As a matter of fact, during this year's State of the Union Address I 
was proud to invite Ambar Pinto. Ambar is a 19-year-old incredible 
young woman who was born in Bolivia, has grown up most of her life here 
in Virginia, and I was proud to invite her to be my guest at the State 
of the Union Address. I know Ambar will be able to contribute to her 
community, to Virginia, and to the United States, and this legislation 
will make sure she gets the same kind of fair shot in this country that 
I had and other Americans have had.
  Let me also say--I know there are other Senators who wish to speak--
this legislation is about the character of our country. Senator 
Alexander from Tennessee said something the other day I have quoted him 
on a number of times. In this immigration debate, we discuss the 
character of our country. If I move to China tomorrow, I will never be 
Chinese. If I move to India tomorrow, I will never be Indian. If I move 
to France, I will never become French. It is only in America that 
someone from anywhere around the world, if they play by the rules, 
accept our democratic principles and our free enterprise system, can 
come here and get the fair shot and not only can they become Americans, 
but their children will be Americans for generations to come. Our 
country is at its best when it welcomes hardworking immigrants into the 
national fold. That American tradition is reflected in the tenants of 
this legislation.

  This path has been circuitous. We are long overdue. The last 
immigration reform was more than 20 years ago. Our current system is 
fundamentally flawed and broken. It is time to pass this legislation 
with an overwhelming majority, get it to the other body, get

[[Page S5246]]

it out, and get this bill to the desk of the President for his 
signature.
  I am proud of the work that has been done by Members from both 
parties on this important legislation. I look forward to its successful 
conclusion, I hope, tomorrow, and I look forward to the fact that the 
Ambar Pintos and so many others who have lived in the shadows for so 
long, will be able to pursue the American dream.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. 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. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the underlying 
immigration bill, but, more importantly, to talk about an important 
amendment that I hope can be brought up. I have spoken on the Senate 
floor about this before and have provided great detail as to why it 
works to ensure that we have employment verification at the workplace, 
why it is so important, really, the critical element, I believe, in 
terms of immigration reform.
  I believe strongly if we do not have a stronger employee verification 
system at the workplace, the rest of this legislation is not going to 
work. We are not going to have the people come out of the shadows that 
those who are proponents of this legislation would like to see, and I 
would like to see. Significantly, we are not going to be able to 
curtail future flows of illegal immigration.
  People come here to work, and it is that magnet of employment that 
over the years has drawn people to this great country. If we are just 
going to put up more fences and have more Border Patrol, which I 
support, we are not going to get at the problem. First, when people 
want to get here badly enough, they figure out a way to go over or 
under those fences. They figure out a way to go around them. That has 
been the story of our country. Every time we have increased 
enforcement, including some sectors of the border now where there are 
double fences, people still manage to find their way across in order to 
find work.
  Second, 40 percent of those who are here illegally in this country, 
we are told, came here legally. They did not come across the border 
illegally. They overstayed their visas. The only way to get at that 
problem is to ensure that we have strong workplace verification. 
Frankly, the underlying bill must be strengthened in order for the 
legislation to work the way it is promised.
  I believe this amendment I am prepared to offer with Senator Tester, 
my colleague from Montana, is not just bipartisan, it is not just one 
that has been worked through with the Gang of 8, with the White House, 
with the chamber of commerce, with the AFL-CIO, with all the groups--we 
played by the rules over the last month or so to put together a good 
amendment--but it is one that will actually ensure to the American 
people that we can have an enforcement in place both at the border and 
in the interior at the workplace that will enable the rest of the 
legislation to work.
  I have made it very clear over the last several weeks that I cannot 
support the underlying bill unless it has those enforcement guarantees 
because I cannot go to my constituents, look them in the eye, and say 
this is going to work.
  So I agree, our immigration system is broken. The legal system is 
broken. The illegal immigration system, obviously, is broken. But we 
have to do the right things to fix it or else the promises we make are 
simply empty promises.
  They say everybody wants to go to Heaven, but not everybody is 
willing to do the hard things to get there. This is an example of that. 
It is a hard thing. A lot of people do not want to see a tightening at 
the workplace. But it has to happen, and I think we all acknowledge 
that.
  I was part of the 1986 immigration reform. That dates me, I know. But 
I was on the commission that helped come up with that. We proposed 
employer sanctions--it was called at the time--both in terms of the 
legislation and how it was implemented. Those employer sanctions were 
never put in place. That is one, although 3 million people were 
legalized, millions more came--up to 12 million now.
  This is the critical part of this legislation, and I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's have a vote on it. If we 
do not have a vote on it, we will not send the necessary message to the 
House of Representatives of the importance of this piece of the puzzle.
  People said: Well, why didn't you include it in the Corker-Hoeven 
amendment, which was about a border surge? Because it needs to be and 
deserves to be drawn out as a separate issue, a separate debate, which 
we have had on the Senate floor. I have spoken on it before, Senator 
Tester has spoken on it, and we need to be sure that we can show 
through a bipartisan vote that, yes, we are willing to do the hard 
things to get to ``Heaven,'' the hard things to make sure this 
legislation actually works; and that is dealing with this at the 
workplace, which is the magnet, which is the reason people come to this 
country.
  So I would ask any colleagues on both sides of the aisle, please, let 
us have a vote. There have only been 10 votes out of the over 500 
amendments, apparently, that have been filed. There have been only 10 
votes on this floor. Let us have a vote. We will be able to do it in a 
bipartisan way. We will be able to show the American people, as 
Republicans and Democrats, we can come together to solve big problems--
and this is a big one. If it is not solved, I will tell you, it is not 
going to work.
  The pilot program for the kind of E-Verify that is in the underlying 
bill has been tested. Do you know what the recent report says on it? 
Fifty-four percent of those who are illegal got through the system and 
got a job--more than half. Why? Because the verification does not work. 
Our legislation strengthens it in a half dozen ways.
  Again, I have gone into great detail on this on the Senate floor, and 
it is all in the Record, and I have shared this with all my colleagues 
who are interested.
  Again, we have done the right thing in terms of working with both 
sides of the aisle, playing by the rules in terms of being sure the 
Gang of 8 signs off on it. It is not perfect, it is not exactly the 
amendment I initially drafted, nor is the underlying legislation 
perfect. But it does put in place real enforcement to ensure that the 
legalization will not occur in the absence of enforcement, which would 
lead not only to fewer people coming out of the shadows, but more 
illegal immigration coming, as happened in 1986.
  The 1986 bill casts a long shadow in this place, and we have to be 
sure we do not repeat those mistakes. This will ensure we do that.
  I urge my Republican colleagues, including the ranking member who has 
been terrific in this process trying to work with us, to accept a 
reasonable list and to accept some time limits that are reasonable.
  I will say, last July 4th, a year ago, we were kept in session in 
this place. I was kept in session, as was every Member. I was happy to 
do it. But, frankly, it was regarding legislation that was more 
political than it was real. It never went anywhere because it was 
viewed as kind of a political exercise. I think both sides of the aisle 
would agree with that. We stayed on Saturday. As I recall, we stayed 
that weekend.
  Here we have a historic bill before us on immigration and we cannot 
stay for a couple days to be sure we get through some of these 
amendments? That makes no sense.
  Members in this body know me. I am not a partisan. I am not a guy who 
normally gets up here and rails against the other party about process. 
But I would say both parties need to figure out a way to come together 
and to come up with a list of amendments that make sense to ensure that 
this legislation we are considering is one that not only goes over to 
the House with over 60 votes but goes over to the House with the kind 
of substantive provisions that are going to make the legislation work 
so we can tell the American people and, frankly, tell our colleagues in 
the House this is something they ought to take up because our 
immigration system is broken.
  I see my colleague from Montana is here. I would yield to him to see 
if he has any comments to make.

[[Page S5247]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Ohio.
  I just want to say this: I am not going to speak a lot about the 
amendment. I think Senator Portman has laid it out very well. I just 
want to say that we have immigration problems in this country that need 
to be fixed, and they have needed to be fixed for some time.
  I think the Gang of 8 has done a great job coming forth with a good-
faith effort, with a good bill that heads us in that direction. I think 
this amendment makes a good bill even a better bill.
  I thank Senator Portman for his work in a bipartisan way to put forth 
an amendment that makes the bill better, that makes the bill work 
better.
  I will tell you, at some point in time there will be a unanimous 
consent request offered on this amendment to get a vote on it, and I 
will hope that both sides agree that we can get a vote on this 
amendment. I will tell you why. It makes the bill better, and it will 
pass. That is what we are here to do.
  So I thank my friend from Ohio, and I will encourage, as he did, both 
sides to come together to make a good bill an even better bill so we 
can pass it through Congress and get it to the President's desk.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Montana. I 
thank him for his willingness to work on this together. This was not an 
easy process. Let's be honest, a lot of people would like not to 
tighten up the workplace requirements. There are people on all sides of 
this issue. The business community sometimes does not want to. Labor 
unions sometimes do not want to. Other groups are concerned about this. 
But the reality is, unless we have strong workplace verification 
provisions in place, the rest of the legislation does not work. It is a 
critical piece of the puzzle.
  I urge my colleagues to give us a vote. Give us a chance. Let's show 
we can, on a bipartisan basis, do something that will actually create 
the enforcement that is needed to have the rest of this legislation 
work.
  Again, I am urging both sides of the aisle to work on this together 
and to come up with a reasonable list of amendments. I am not 
suggesting anybody else's amendment should not be offered, but I am 
saying there is a way to get there. If we have to stay in, I hope 
Members would be willing to do this on an issue this important to the 
American people and this important to the future of our country.
  With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, thank you.
  I thank the Senator from Ohio for his good work on his piece of 
legislation. I will talk about that in a minute.
  I want to just talk in general about where we are. Obviously, this 
has been a long hard road, and we are on the edge of passing one of the 
most significant pieces of legislation that this body will have passed 
in a very long time.
  The good news is we are going to pass it with just about every 
Democrat voting for it and a very significant number of Republicans 
voting for it. The reason for that is the vast majority of Members in 
this body realize that the immigration system is broken and needs 
fixing, absolutely. We have a dumb system right now. We turn away 
people who create jobs, and we let people cross the border who take 
away jobs from Americans.
  America is crying out that we fix the system. We have 11 million 
people in the shadows. They are working for substandard wages, many of 
them under desperate conditions, and they bring down the wage rates for 
everybody else, through no fault of their own. We want to bring those 
people to an earned path to citizenship.
  We want to take our immigration system and admit people who are going 
to create jobs. We have shortages. Google Maps is now in Vancouver, 
Canada. It is an American company. It is an American idea. But they are 
in Vancouver, Canada, because they cannot get the employees they need 
here. They are willing to pay whatever, but Canada's immigration system 
is much better than ours and they can get the people from all around 
the globe who are needed to run that part of the company.
  We are fair to agriculture, growers. The farm workers have come 
together on this bill. It is a large improvement over the present 
system.
  Now, I have heard my good friend from Ohio--and I like his amendment. 
In fact, my staff worked on it with him. But let's make no mistake 
about it. This is a vast bill, and E-Verify--permanent E-Verify--is in 
the bill. Maybe it can be improved a little bit, but it is 0.01 percent 
of the bill. It does not deal with border security. It does not deal 
with entry-exit. It does not deal with the 11 million. It does not deal 
with future flow. So I would urge my colleague to reconsider.
  Of course, we want this amendment offered, and many of us will 
support it. But to say that is the only reason--if it does not get in 
the bill it is not worth voting for--I would have to respectfully and 
completely disagree with my colleague.
  Let's face it, there are Members on his own side of the aisle who 
will block him from offering it. So that says it all, doesn't it? Why 
do they do that? Because they do not want a bill to pass. That has been 
the strategy.
  I heard my good friend from Iowa talk about we are not approving 
enough amendments. Well, I will tell you, the folks on the other side 
have had a great plan: block votes for 2 weeks and then, in the final 
hours, complain we have not had enough votes. That is what they have 
done.
  The first week we wanted to move amendments. The able chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee did. Oh, no. We had to change the rules and change 
the number of votes it takes to pass a bill around here. Week 2, we 
proposed many amendments be offered and the pace was painstakingly 
slow.
  That is the plan: Block votes for 2 weeks and then complain.
  Finally, last night, we got a list of 35, 36 amendments from the 
other side. Of course, we have many amendments. That would be 72 
amendments because our side would want a one-for-one. That is only 
logical and fair. Then we heard it was not sufficient, that they wanted 
more amendments than that.
  Furthermore, the Republican steering committee, my own colleagues 
have told me, sent out word: Get more amendments out there because we 
want to make sure there are so many amendments that we could never 
finish this bill.
  In fact, even in that list of 36, the majority--not the majority but 
those who asked for the most amendments--were professed opponents of 
the bill. They were not interested in improving the bill. The strategy 
was, at the last hour, create dilatory tactics so the bill could never 
be approved.
  Again, look at the list. One Member--I will not mention his name--
offered seven; another offered six. They are two of the five leading 
opponents of the bill. They are not interested in improving it. Many of 
the amendments on that list of 35 were debated in committee and 
defeated by bipartisan votes. The committee was an open process that 
shows our bona fides. There were 301 committee amendments, more than 
130 votes, 49 Republican amendments added into the bill.
  Leader Reid has just made a reasonable offer. He took 17 amendments 
from that list of 36. Every one of them was a Republican request. He 
did not make them up. He did not spin them out of whole cloth. He added 
15 Democratic amendments. We have a lot of people on this side who 
genuinely want to improve the bill. Of course, the other side objected.
  So the idea--the idea that we are not allowing amendments. Please. 
Take the leader's offer. That is half of the amendments you submitted 
last night.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I would be happy to yield to my friend from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. My understanding is that there were 17 amendments that 
were just proposed by the majority leader, and it was opposed by the 
Senator from Iowa because we were not allowing votes. Did I hear 
correctly that after a unanimous consent request for 17 Republican 
amendments--1 of them very critical to the Senator from Montana and the 
Senator from Ohio because of E-Verify, which is something which is a 
fundamental key to making

[[Page S5248]]

sure that those 40 percent of the people who are in this country 
illegally, who did not cross our border but came on visas and 
overstayed--and then it is my understanding that after those 17 votes, 
with 10 minutes allowed for each side, if I understand the unanimous 
consent request by the majority leader, then we would do 17 more and 
even 17 more, if necessary. Yet the Senator from Iowa says we are not 
allowing amendments.
  I have to say, I think in honesty, if I would ask the Senator from 
New York this, there was a delay of a couple days there that was 
unnecessary, which frankly was from the other side. But to somehow 
allege that the rights on this side of the aisle are being abridged, 
when there is a unanimous consent request to have 17 votes right now 
with 10 minutes in between--perhaps the Senator from New York can 
explain to me that logic.
  Mr. SCHUMER. It is very hard to explain. It is sort of twisted logic 
a little bit, it is sort of pretzel-like logic. It is also pretzel-like 
logic to delay votes for so many weeks and then say all at once we need 
hundreds and hundreds of amendments. Not right, not fair, particularly, 
as my good friend from Arizona knows, when so many of those amendments 
come from sworn opponents of the bill, when so many of those amendments 
were disposed of in committee. So he is right.
  One other point I would make while my good friend from Arizona is 
here, one of my fellow so-called gang members. We have a lot of 
disputes in this body because one side is against the other side. One 
side says one thing and the other side bands together and says no. We 
get gridlock. We need 60 votes. Neither side has it.
  That is not the case here. Every major vote has been bipartisan, with 
a very significant number from the other side supporting the bill. More 
than that, the whole process has been bipartisan. The Gang of 8 was 
four and four. We sat in that room and haggled. We had as many disputes 
on the Democratic side, which did not want to accept what the 
Republicans wanted, as disputes on the Republican side, which did not 
want to accept what Democrats wanted.
  But we all met in the middle because we believed in this bill. The 
sad fact is that while the vast majority of Americans support this 
proposal--by every poll that is seen, a majority of Republicans support 
this proposal, a majority of conservative Republicans support this 
proposal--there is a group in the country and reflected in the Senate 
that is so opposed to this bill they will go to any length to stop it. 
But the good news is, when you have a bipartisan majority, that cannot 
happen. So we get the kind of logic that my good friend from Arizona 
has pointed out. We get the kind of thing--it is sort of like Houdini. 
Remember, he tied himself in a straitjacket and then complained he 
could not get out.
  Mr. McCAIN. Would the Senator yield? The Senator from Iowa may allege 
that the amendments he wants considered are not in that package. I 
would ask the Senator from New York, and perhaps the majority leader, 
would we then agree to have votes on the amendments the Senator from 
Iowa wants? This is a beginning and something we could continue to vote 
on as long as it takes.
  When we were doing the budget, we stayed up all night. That was 
another great moment in the history of the Senate. Again, I am not 
saying all amendments are not equal. But I think it is pretty clear 
that the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Ohio Mr. Portman 
have a very important amendment that has to do with E-Verify, a 
fundamental of this legislation.
  We can assure the American people that the magnet disappears because 
of the certainty of penalties for employers, which is embodied in E-
Verify, which the Senator from Ohio has spent weeks on. Only a nerd 
such as the Senator from Ohio could come up with the absolute detailed 
and absolute complete and comprehensive approach to E-Verify, a man I 
admire enormously.
  Anybody who could be the Director of the budget has to be a nerd, as 
we know. But I admire the work of the Senator from Ohio, along with the 
Senator from Montana. Is there anyone who would disagree that what the 
Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Montana are proposing would not 
improve the bill enormously and the confidence of the American people 
that we can verify whether someone is in this country illegally and 
applying for a job?
  I guess my other question is, if the Senator from Iowa does not like 
the list that the majority leader read from, why do we not do some of 
the other amendments or are we not going to do any amendments? Finally, 
may I say to my friend from Ohio, I have the greatest respect for his 
intellect and his capabilities. I know he knows I was just joking with 
my comments.
  As a personal aside, when I was practicing for a failed run for the 
Presidency, the Senator from Ohio played my opponent, and I began to 
dislike the Senator from Ohio enormously. He did a great job, as he did 
in the last election.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague. Reclaiming my time, I would say, 
when we get a nerd from Ohio and a farmer from Big Sandy, MT, together, 
of course we are going to get a very good amendment.
  The bottom line, though, is simple. That amendment is in the list 
that the leader suggested. Every one of the 17 Republican amendments 
was part of that list of 36. So the bottom line is--and now many more 
amendments have been filed--just talking about the amendment. Look, E-
Verify is in the bill. I would not quite agree with my colleague from 
Arizona.
  E-Verify will work very well without the amendment. I think it will 
work somewhat better with the amendment. It is a good amendment. I am 
supportive of the amendment. My staff helped work on the amendment. But 
let's not say this bill will have no internal enforcement without the 
amendment. It has very strong internal enforcement. In fact, it has 
mandatory E-Verify.
  My good friend from Alabama has been railing for years that we need 
mandatory E-Verify in the country. As we work through the process, if 
the House in its wisdom moves the bill, we can improve things. This is 
not the last train out of the station. But I say this: If we do not 
have a bill, we will have no E-Verify, improved, not improved.
  So many of the things that many of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle wanted will not be in the bill. Again, to me, having worked 
in a bipartisan way--and I have taken as many criticisms from my side 
of the aisle as from the other to get this done, what is happening 
here--not the Senator from Ohio. He is sincerely eager to improve the 
bill and I support that improvement. But for many others who are 
vehemently opposed to the bill, there is a view to delay and delay and 
delay in hopes--I would say forlorn hopes--that they cannot move the 
bill.
  We have not been on this bill for 1 day. We have been on the bill for 
3 weeks. Again, most of the objections, not all but the vast majority, 
came from the other side when we wanted to move forward. So I would 
urge that we adopt the leader's motion, 32 amendments, a reasonable 
amount of time to debate them, 17 from the Republican list, 15 from the 
Democratic list, and go forward.
  I do not think there will be a single objection from our side, I will 
tell you that much. If you say we want these 32 and then untold more, 
that is a different story. That is a different story. But, again, let 
me conclude on a happy note.
  We have our differences. But it has been truly amazing to work with 
the two Senators from Arizona and the Senator from South Carolina and 
the Senator from Florida and the Senator from Colorado and the Senator 
from Illinois and the Senator from New Jersey. It has been an amazing 
journey. On one of the most difficult issues that faces America, we 
have crafted a proposal that has broad support and strong momentum, 
momentum that increased with today's vote and will increase further 
with tomorrow's vote.
  Please, one of the things our citizenry objects to is there is always 
naysaying. It is always easier to say no than to say yes. But as has 
been pointed out, when you say no, you are keeping the 11 million here 
under what many have called unstated amnesty. You are keeping a broken 
system that kicks out of the country people who create jobs and lets 
into the country people who take away American jobs.

[[Page S5249]]

You are preventing the change in our immigration system to make America 
grow.
  CBO said: Wow, because of this bill, GDP would grow by 3 percent this 
decade and 5 percent next decade. It is obvious. That is the energy of 
immigrants--poor immigrants, unskilled immigrants, rich immigrants, 
educated immigrants. Our ancestors, such as James Madison Flake, who my 
colleague from Arizona once told me about, but all our ancestors, 
whatever part of the globe they came from, worked so hard and are part 
of the secret to American success.
  This bill restores that energy and that vitality. Again, this bill is 
not perfect. We never claimed it would be. But I would urge my 
colleague, my good friend, sincere friend from Ohio, who is very 
smart--that is what my friend from Arizona said--but has many other 
great attributes as well, and everyone else in this body, to not say, 
if I did not get exactly the change I wanted, this bill is no good; I 
cannot vote for it.
  That is what has paralyzed this Nation in the last decade. This is an 
attempt not only to fix our immigration system but to overcome it. I 
pray to God we will.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, because there were some comments made 
about the amendment that Senator Tester and I have offered, let me be 
very clear. This is about making the underlying bill work.
  I do not believe it will work if we do not have strong workplace 
verification, simply, both because as the Senator from Arizona said, 40 
percent of the people who are here illegally did not come across the 
border, they came because they overstayed their visas and they are here 
illegally now, and because when folks want to come here badly enough to 
get work, they will go over, under, and around whatever barriers we put 
on the border.
  I am for more border security. It is a good part of the bill. It does 
not solve the problem. Fifty-four percent--remember that. That is the 
pilot program for E-Verify. Over half of the people who are illegal who 
attempt to get work are getting through.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I don't think it is going to affect anybody in this 
Chamber. I don't think the bill will work. I am not going to vote for 
it if it doesn't have strong enforcement, because I don't think they 
are going to come out of the shadows in the way they want to have them, 
including me. I don't think you are going to be able to stop people 
from coming in the future. The flows of illegal immigration, as we saw 
in 1986, cannot be curtailed unless there is strong enforcement at the 
workplace.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to my colleague from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. It is my understanding the Senator from Ohio, it is true, 
worked for weeks, literally consulting industry, consulting labor, the 
best high-tech people in America, and has come up with these fixes 
which all of us, no matter how we are on this issue, agree would 
dramatically improve our capability to make sure if anyone is in this 
country illegally before they obtain a job.
  Maybe it might be helpful to our colleagues if the Senator could 
describe for a couple of minutes, if he would, what he has been through 
in this process of coming up with this product to make sure this is a 
system that can work. I am not sure people are aware of that.
  Again, I say only someone with his background, knowledge, and 
expertise, in my view, could have come up with this amendment, along 
with the Senator from Montana.
  Mr. PORTMAN. I thank my colleague. I have explained this on the floor 
in some detail as to what is in the legislation and why it is so 
important, including speeding up the time for E-Verify to apply, 
including a real trigger that is comprehensive, including having the 
ability to verify somebody's identity--which is the problem now with E-
Verify--by photo match, by doubling the amount that goes to the States 
for them to provide the data.
  It also has privacy protections. It also ensures we don't create a 
new national database that could have potential negative consequences 
for all of us as citizens who care about civil liberties. It is a great 
balance.
  We have worked with the chamber, we have worked with the AFL-CIO, we 
have worked with the White House, we have worked with Republicans and 
Democrats alike. We have worked with people in the Gang of 8. It is not 
exactly the amendment we initially drafted. Ours was even tougher, I 
will say, in some respects, but it is an amendment I believe in my 
heart if we could get passed would create an E-Verify system that would 
be strong enough to create a deterrent, and right now the incentive to 
work is so strong that we can't solve this at the border. Plus, as my 
colleague from Arizona indicated, folks are coming over and overstaying 
their visas.
  Let me say one more thing more if I could, please.
  The Senator from Iowa has 34 amendments he wishes to have offered. I 
don't know if all 34 of those would actually be offered. Some of them, 
as my colleague from New York said, are being offered by the same 
Senator. I imagine there will be some voice votes in there. I know, as 
I said earlier, there has to be a time agreement that has to be 
reasonable. I know there has to be a limit. It seems to me there is a 
way for us to get there. This is, again, to show the American people 
that on a bill this historic we don't just have 10 amendments on the 
floor, to show we have the ability to hear not just from our amendment, 
Senator Tester and myself--which is critical to me to having this bill 
succeed--but also other Members, who as Members of the Senate have the 
right to be heard.
  I would hope we could come together. I misspoke earlier and said it 
was last 4th of July. It was 2 years ago on the 4th of July. I remember 
missing the 4th of July events back home because we were here voting. 
Why? Because we wanted to spend some time on the Buffett rule, and that 
was fine. We all came back and did it. It didn't go anywhere.
  I would only suggest this is even more important. If we have to stay 
through the weekend, if we have to ensure that we stay up late tonight 
and tomorrow tonight to get this done, I hope we will do it to provide 
an ability to find a way forward where we have these amendments. 
Significantly, we would offer an amendment like this one that enables 
this bill to work, and it enables us to have even more support as this 
bill goes to the House of Representatives.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I have been very patient today, and I have just about had 
it on this, all of this pontificating on this amendment, all right?
  The Senator from Ohio had an offer to put this in the bill. He turned 
it down. We are spending all of this time because he has been aggrieved 
in some way? He had the opportunity to put this amendment in the bill 
as it is offered.
  I wanted to be quiet all day, but this is enough. This is enough. The 
American people need to know he had the right to put it in the bill. 
They agreed on it. He said no. I assume this is because he wants a big 
show out here to have a separate vote. I don't know what it is. That is 
enough. I have had enough. I know he is a smart man. He has been head 
of OMB and a lot of good things. I know nothing bad about him, but that 
is enough of this, enough of this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I wish to talk a little bit about 
amendment No. 1634 very quickly. The good Senator from Ohio has talked 
about it and explained it very well, but I wish to talk about a few 
things.
  This amendment substantially improves privacy protections in the E-
Verify Program. That is a good thing. It ensures no Federal database 
will be created using the Photo tool or other data from a State DMV 
database. That is a good thing.
  It ensures no other Federal Government agency can access information 
made available under E-Verify. That is a good thing.
  It increases privacy protections using established techniques, such 
as requiring an individual to be notified when

[[Page S5250]]

their Social Security number is used for purposes of employment 
verification in a manner that is potentially fraudulent. That is a good 
thing.
  It requires new regular reporting of suspected fraudulent use of the 
E-Verify process.
  This is a good amendment. It will make a good bill better.
  For that reason I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 1634 be in 
order for the purpose of a vote on the Senate floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I reserve the right to object, and I will object.
  I want the Members of this body to know that I very much am 
interested in E-Verify, because I have legislation in for mandatory E-
Verify. I was involved with several Senators in 2007 as we tried to get 
an amendment put together in those negotiations. It is a case of 
something very important. I happen to support this amendment, but it is 
one of 34 others we sent over to the majority to give us votes on. Our 
side isn't going to let the other side pick our amendments and choose 
our amendments that are going to be adopted any more than they would 
let us decide what Democratic amendments are going to be offered. That 
applies to the Portman amendment as well and the amendment of which 
Senator Tester is a cosponsor.

  We had this set up where we were asked to put together amendments. It 
happens to be that a Republican Senator, somebody who just spoke and 
was involved in this colloquy, asked me to put together some 
amendments. I worked hard with a lot of dissenting Republicans about 
how we should do this process, put together 34 amendments and gave them 
to that Senator. He was going to negotiate with the leader or the 
majority.
  It seems to me I ended up giving my amendments to an errand boy, 
didn't do much negotiation. We are here where we are.
  Also for that Senator, I wish to tell him that he said we could do 15 
vote amendments now, then maybe 15 more, and then maybe 15 more.
  The unanimous consent request said after we do those amendments we 
were asked to do, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed 
to vote on final passage of the bill. There wouldn't have been a 
tranche of so many and then another tranche.
  Here we are, even though I think it is a pretty good amendment. We 
were promised a free and open process of amendments, and the Group of 8 
promised that from day one that they put their bill down, that this 
bill can be approved.
  We have had a chance to improve it by a dozen votes, and that is it. 
I am sorry for Mr. Portman and for Mr. Tester that I have to object to 
their amendment, but I do object.
  I think if we had 2\1/2\ weeks, we could have been doing a lot of 
these other things we are going to have to rely on the other body to do 
to get a decent bill to go to the President of the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Montana has the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Would the Senator from Montana yield for 1 minute?
  Mr. TESTER. I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I think of myself as one of the calmest 
people around here, but a lot of facts and numbers have been tossed 
around here. Let's get a few in perspective.
  When this bill was before the Judiciary Committee, there were 301 
amendments filed. We put them online. Every single person saw a week 
and a half in advance what the amendments were. We then brought them 
up. I would bring up one from one party and then one from another. We 
did this day after day after day into the night until people said we 
have no more amendments we want to bring up.
  We adopted 136 of those amendments, all but 3 of them with Republican 
and Democratic votes. To say nobody has had a chance to amend this--we 
had nearly 140 amendments, including amendments from the Senator from 
Iowa, others, and myself. All but 3 of these 136 were by bipartisan 
votes.
  I well remember the last night of that markup, late in the evening. I 
said, does any Senator, Republican or Democratic, have another 
amendment they want? No. There were not any more amendments, and we 
voted out the bill.
  We have offered to have rollcall votes on 15 Democratic amendments, 
17 Republican amendments, and then another 29 amendments that everybody 
agrees should be passed and do them en bloc in the managers' package.
  Now I know some--not the Senator from Iowa because he has been here a 
long time, but I know some Senators are new to this body. I have been 
here 38 years. I have seen great legislators in the Republican Party 
and great legislators in the Democratic Party. We always talk about the 
hundreds of amendments we know we are going to get down to a finite 
number. Then you agree to vote on those, and you usually have a 
managers' package where both Republicans and Democrats agree these can 
be done en bloc. This is what we have done. There are several 
amendments here on the floor. We have offered 15 Democratic, 17 
Republican, and another 29 en bloc.
  The objection did not come from the Democratic side. It came from the 
Republican side, including some who said they would never vote for any 
immigration bill whatsoever.
  The distinguished majority leader has more patience than the Senator 
from Vermont. I applaud him for his patience.
  I have not spoken on this point, and I apologize for taking the time, 
but it is frustrating to me to hear these numbers when so much work has 
been done by both Republicans and Democrats on this bill to get to the 
point we are.
  I respect my friend Senator Portman, but he was offered the 
opportunity to put his amendment in the package which was agreed to. I 
had amendments. I would love to have the glory of saying: Here is the 
Leahy amendment passed on the floor. I said: No, I am more interested 
in getting it passed. I will put it in the package and let it go 
through. I don't need to have my name on it. I just want to get it to 
the floor.
  I thank the Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana has the floor.
  Mr. TESTER. I thank the Senator. I want to get back to the amendment 
for a second here since it was objected to.
  We wonder why we have a single-digit approval rating in Congress. The 
people out here that I represent aren't Democrats first, they are not 
Republicans first, they are Americans first.
  This amendment was objected to by somebody who actually agrees with 
the amendment. If you are home watching this on TV, you are saying what 
is going on in Washington, DC? We have an amendment that people agree 
is going to make this bill better, but yet it is objected to. Why? Is 
it because there will be one or two more votes for this bill in the 
end? Is that why? If it is, that is not a good reason.
  Look, we all live in this country. We all want this country to work. 
We all want it to continue to be a leader in the world. This amendment 
makes a good bill better.
  I want to kick it to the Senator from Ohio for his closing comments 
on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Ohio is 
recognized.
  Mr. PORTMAN. I thank my colleague from Montana. There was some 
discussion, both by Senator Leahy--who actually was complimented 
earlier in his absence about the way he handled this bill in committee, 
by Senator Grassley, because of the amendments he did offer and allowed 
Republicans and Democrats to offer.
  To my friend, the majority leader, and to the Senator from Vermont, 
yes, we were offered, Senator Tester and I were offered the opportunity 
to put the legislation into the Hoeven-Corker amendment.
  By the way, the idea there was that we had to cosponsor that 
amendment sight unseen, which ended up being about 1,200 pages. We 
chose not to do that, Senator Tester and I, for a very simple reason, 
which is we wanted to have a debate and a vote on this issue.
  I have discussed this on the floor now three times, and I will 
discuss it once more. Apparently the Senator from Nevada wasn't there 
to hear it.
  We believe--and I am passionate about this, as you can tell--that if 
we don't fix the workplace we cannot have

[[Page S5251]]

an immigration system that works. It is as simple as that. And to not 
have a separate debate and a separate vote on this amendment, on this 
issue, does not give us the possibility of sending this over to the 
House with a strong message and maximizing the chance the House of 
Representatives will see that strong bipartisan vote on this important 
issue of workplace enforcement to ensure it is part of the final 
package. It is that simple.

  If it had been part of the so-called border surge amendments, 
rightfully so, Members from the other body and others observing this 
process would have said it wasn't about E-Verify, it wasn't about the 
workplace, it was about the border and about the 20,000 new Border 
Patrol agents, and they would have been right. Let's be honest.
  We asked for something simple: Give us an opportunity to have a 
debate. It is not about us, it is not about politics, it is about the 
substance of the legislation, to make sure that coming out of the 
shadows will actually happen because folks will find it more difficult 
to find jobs if they are illegal, to ensure that we don't have a future 
flow of illegal immigration because we have, again, an employment 
verification system that works, and to show that there is bipartisan 
support for that.
  Look, it is, frankly, not a very popular part of the legislation, and 
over the years it hasn't been. In 1986 it wasn't. That is why it was 
never implemented, because there is sort of an unholy alliance among 
employers, among those representing labor union members, among those 
representing certain constituent groups who feel there might be some 
discrimination or other issues. That is why we have carefully drafted 
this amendment to address those concerns, and we wanted to be sure we 
had a separate debate and vote.
  By the way, we are talking about a 5-minute debate, and we still hope 
we will get it because it makes too much sense. We could not believe--
Senator Tester and I could not believe that couldn't be possible in 
this body, that the world's greatest deliberative body couldn't spend 
10 minutes debating this crucial issue to show, on a bipartisan basis, 
what kind of support there is for not just dealing with the border but 
also dealing with the workplace, which, in my view, is the critical 
element here.
  We made a mistake in 1986 by not writing the legislation properly and 
not implementing what we had in terms of employer sanctions. That is 
one reason. Although 3 million people were given legal status and 
amnesty, millions more came, to the point where now 12 million people 
are living in this country in the shadows. We have to be sure that 
problem is addressed, and that is why legitimately we thought it would 
be appropriate for this body to take up that issue and have a vote on 
it.
  I stand by that. I think we made the right decision, although I am 
very, very discouraged by the fact that it now appears there might be 
some sort of a roadblock here. Let's get a reasonable list, let's get 
reasonable time limits, and let's work through these amendments. We 
could be doing them right now. We could have done them yesterday. We 
could do them tomorrow. We could be here over the weekend.
  Two years ago we stayed in over the July 4th recess to talk about the 
Buffet rule, which never went anywhere. This is not substantive 
legislation that we actually hope will become the law of the land and 
have a major impact on all of us as American citizens and the future of 
our country, a nation of both immigrants and laws?
  I ask again, Mr. President, that Republicans be reasonable, Democrats 
be reasonable, and let's come together with a list that makes sense, 
and let's vote on these amendments. Let's start doing our work.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair for allowing me to have the floor.
  Look, we were moving--Senator Grassley had a list of 16, 18 
amendments Wednesday night. He was prepared to begin the voting on 
those Thursday, Friday, Saturday if need be, as Senator Reid had said 
we could work on Saturday. Monday, what happened? They had the super-
amendment, they had the Corker-Hoeven amendment, and the majority 
decided to sit on that and not allow any amendments to occur Thursday, 
not allow any amendments to occur Friday, and only have a cloture vote 
on Monday. And that vote--I don't think our Members understood fully--
gave complete power to the majority to dominate this process, to end 
the idea that we would have an open, fair process. It ended with the 
cloture vote Monday.
  We were in the process to vote on a series of amendments. Senator 
Grassley worked and worked, and he got 35 amendments that he said we 
would agree to, out of the hundreds that were out there, to have votes 
on. Yet now they come back and say 15 or 17, and now we are going to do 
this, and we want this amendment and that amendment.
  The process, I hate to say--it is pretty obvious to me--on Monday 
afternoon was altered. We had gone from an open debate process, as 
Senator Leahy conducted in the Judiciary Committee--at the end of it, 
he did say: Anybody else have anything else they want to offer? And 
there was nothing else to offer, and he voted.
  The committee was not a normal committee. We had four of the Gang of 
8 on it. So the vote after vote after vote, including two votes on E-
Verify that would have strengthened the bill, was voted down. Votes on 
the earned-income tax credit--fixing and honoring the promise not to 
provide that welfare payment--were voted down.
  So I just want to say that everybody knows what happened. The 
Republican Members of the Gang of 8 said we would have an open process. 
Right after the vote Monday afternoon, they told me they were going to 
work for a process, but I knew then that the deal had been cooked and 
that this wouldn't result in something that would work and be fair.
  Mr. VITTER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would be pleased to yield to the Senator from 
Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. I thank the Senator from Alabama for yielding, and I want 
to echo these concerns. I, for one, have been filing amendments and 
trying to get votes on important amendments for weeks, since the very 
beginning of this process. I started the first day of this debate, and 
I haven't let up.
  The Senator from Alabama is exactly correct. A slow, halting 
amendment process at the beginning was completely shut down by the 
proponents of this bill as soon as they identified a path to pass the 
bill. As soon as they put together the major elements of the Corker-
Hoeven amendment, then the amendment process was shut down. Now they 
are trying to resurrect a little bitsy piece of it at the tail end of 
the entire debate. For what reason? For the purely cynical reason that 
they can get a few amendments they want up to try to grow and maximize 
their vote. Well, that is a purely cynical, one-sided process, and I, 
for one, won't stand for it.
  I have been here urging my amendments from the beginning and 
consistently. The Senator from New York was on the floor a few minutes 
ago saying this was some last-minute plea. It hasn't been last-minute 
on my part. I started on day one, and I continued on day two and 
continued on day three, all through the process. I was ready with my 
amendments early on. Friday, I organized a letter expressing this very 
concern about the shutdown of the amendment process and organized 
signatures and sent that letter on Monday to the distinguished majority 
leader.
  So my plea for votes on significant amendments didn't start today. It 
didn't start yesterday. It has been part of the entire floor process, 
but that process has been completely controlled and manipulated in a 
one-sided way by the proponents of this bill, and now they just want a 
few amendments at the end. Why? No. 1, so they are not embarrassed by 
the complete shutdown they have orchestrated; and No. 2, so they can 
try to buy a few more votes for the bill on cloture. Well, that is not 
an open process, that is not a fair process, nor is it fair to be 
picking and choosing what amendment votes I get. All of the amendments 
by myself and others are germane.
  This is not reasonable in any way. So I proudly join the Senator from 
Iowa in objecting to that offer, which was completely cynical and one-
sided.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.

[[Page S5252]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Louisiana for his comments, 
and I thank Senator Portman for providing some good language to improve 
our situation.
  I truly believe what happened Monday afternoon heralded deep trouble. 
There was deep trouble the week before when a dramatic reversal of 
enforcement ideas came about to throw money at this problem come 
Friday. That is what happened, and the process has been shut down 
essentially since then.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will yield to the Senator from Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate 
the Senator from Alabama yielding the floor.
  I came down first of all to express my gratitude to Senator Grassley 
for fighting for amendments, and I wish to comment on and really affirm 
what Senator Vitter was talking about--the Senator from Louisiana--
about how these amendments were chosen by the other side.
  I have not been an abuser of the amendment process in my time in the 
Senate. I try to pick the amendments and I try to write the amendments 
I think really have a positive impact on any piece of legislation.
  In this case, on the immigration bill, I want to solve the problem. I 
was looking for a reason to vote for the bill. What prevents me from 
voting for this bill is the huge cost we are having to pay for it.
  Listen, I don't want to divide families. I don't want to deport 
children's fathers. I don't want to deport husbands and wives. But I 
also agree with the American people that we cannot--we are already 
bankrupt in this country. We cannot provide benefits to those people 
coming here whom we want to welcome into our country, to contribute to 
our country, but we can't be paying benefits.
  So I offered two amendments--first of all, to not allow the Secretary 
to extend the registration period another 18 months, so we can get this 
behind us. My other amendment, which I think is more significant and 
would help me vote for the bill, would be to prevent immigrants from 
obtaining the earned-income tax credit. The American people by a 77-
percent margin do not believe we should be paying benefits, as we are 
bankrupting this nation, to people who are not citizens.
  The amendment, the one I really asked for, if it was going to be 
narrowed down from two to one, I asked for a vote on the amendment to 
prevent the earned-income tax credit--a welfare benefit paid through 
the Tax Code--from being offered to immigrants. That is the one I 
wanted, but in this package, negotiated apparently by the majority 
leader, they were going to offer the other amendment. Why? Because I 
don't believe they want to expose their Members to that vote, basically 
providing benefits to non-U.S. citizens that they know full well the 
American people do not support.
  So, once again, I appreciate Senator Grassley's efforts. I also fully 
support Senator Portman's amendment as well. He is exactly right. The 
way we stop illegal immigration is by reducing the demand for illegal 
border crossings. We do that by shutting down the demand for that 
labor.
  Again, we want to welcome legal immigrants through a legal process, 
but we cannot tolerate this lawlessness and this illegal immigration, 
and we simply cannot afford to pay noncitizens that benefit level. The 
cost of the bill is $262 billion, which just makes it very difficult 
for me to support it.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, one more thing. First, I agree with 
Senator Johnson. I offered an amendment on the earned-income tax credit 
in committee--and four of the Gang of 8 Members are on the committee--
and they all voted that down, as I recall, even though they promised 
there would be no welfare benefit for those in the country illegally 
who would be given provisional status under this legislation. So that 
was a breach of one of the key promises they made when the bill was 
moved forward.
  As a result, we know the earned-income tax credit is not a tax 
deduction; it is a direct check from the U.S. Treasury to people based 
on a lower income. It is a welfare-type payment. It is not a tax 
deduction-type situation. So that was a disappointment in committee, 
that the group's promises were violated, and they have been blocked 
again on the floor.
  There is one more thing I want to say. I don't appreciate the idea 
expressed that no matter what would happen, Members on this side would 
not vote for the bill. That is not true. We need, and need badly, an 
immigration bill that would improve the immigration system of America, 
put us on a sound course for the future, would provide compassionate 
status for people who are here illegally and put them in a situation 
where they do not have to be deported. And I would support that and 
have said that for years, actually, and have said that through this 
process.
  But let me tell you what the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services Association wrote to the Senate just 2 days ago, June 24:

       The . . . immigration bill, if passed, will exacerbate 
     USCIS concerns about threats to national security and public 
     safety.

  They go on to say:

       It will further expose the USCIS agency as inept with an 
     already proposed massive increase in case flow that the 
     agency is ill prepared to handle.

  They go on to say this about the bill:

       It was deliberately designed to undermine the integrity of 
     our lawful immigration system.

  They go on to say:

       This bill should be opposed and reforms should be offered 
     based on consultation with the USCIS adjudicators who 
     actually have to implement it.

  Nobody asked them. They met in secret with the special interests, big 
business interests, the La Raza interests, the agriculture interests, 
the Immigration Lawyers Association, but they didn't have any of the 
officers there. I wrote and asked them to meet with them. They still 
refused to meet with them because they didn't want to hear that.
  On June 24, 2013, ICE's union association wrote us and said:

       I urge you to vote no as this bill fails to address the 
     problems which have led to the nation's broken immigration 
     system and in fact will only serve to worsen current 
     immigration problems.

  They go on to say:

       Instead of empowering ICE agents to enforce the law, this 
     legislation empowers political appointees to further violate 
     the law and unilaterally stop law enforcement. This at a time 
     like no other in our nation's history, in which political 
     appointees throughout the federal government have proven to 
     Congress their propensity for the lawless abuse of authority. 
     There is no doubt that, if passed, public safety will be 
     endangered and massive amounts of future illegal 
     immigration--especially visa overstays--is ensured.

  So all this talk about the greatest bill ever, it is not so. This 
bill is much weaker than the bill that was voted down in 2007. It was 
on the way to defeat last week, until they had a desperate claim to 
throw 20,000 agents at the border and spend a bunch of money without 
any thought about how it would work.
  I am concerned about this. I think a lot is at stake. We know how the 
situation got here. We know what happened. They voted cloture Monday 
and the majority leader filled the tree. He, therefore, has complete 
control over any amendments. The last time in 2007, there were 47 
amendments voted on. This time, nine have been voted on. Even with the 
35 Senator Grassley proposed, that would be less than last time.
  We know what has happened. The Corker-Hoeven amendment was able to 
rescue a bill that was in deep trouble, and now it looks like we are 
moving on to final vote, without the ability to have amendments, 
because the majority will not agree to allow an open process, as was 
promised, and allow a number of amendments that were offered.
  Senator Leahy said a lot of amendments were offered in committee. Why 
couldn't they have been offered on the floor? Why couldn't we have 
voted for amendments on the floor? The majority doesn't get to pick and 
choose what amendments they are going to allow to come up. We are 
either going to have an open amendment process or we are not, and it 
looks like we are not.

[[Page S5253]]

  I thank the Chair and would yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks on immigration 
reform, I would like to acknowledge the diligence and leadership of my 
colleague from Alabama Senator Sessions, who has spent a lot of hours 
on this floor and in the committee before this on the issue of 
immigration. I commend his relentless efforts to bring to light many of 
the problems and questions surrounding the legislation before us, some 
he has been talking about in the past few minutes.
  As a Member of the House of Representatives in 1986, I opposed the 
Simpson-Mazzoli Act, which granted amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal 
immigrants. Supporters of that law then promised that it constituted a 
one-time fix to our Nation's broken immigration system. Instead, the 
promise itself was broken. At least four times as many illegal 
immigrants now reside in the United States some 27 years later.
  Despite this failure, the Senate now tonight is considering 
legislation that repeats the mistakes of Simpson-Mazzoli. The 
provisions are different, but I believe the results will be the same. 
Still, supporters of this legislation before us promise border security 
in return for amnesty, just as proponents of Simpson-Mazzoli did.
  In light of these facts, here is a more credible promise: I believe 
the child of Simpson-Mazzoli will become the mother of all amnesties. 
You can call it what you want.
  Compounding the mistakes made a generation ago will ensure that the 
problem of illegal immigration revisits generations to come on a much 
grander scale. Therefore, I rise to urge my colleagues to reject this 
deeply flawed legislation.
  The subject of border security has been talked about in the Senate. 
During consideration of the Simpson-Mazzoli Act in 1986 in the Senate, 
my former Senate colleague and coauthor of that legislation stated the 
following: ``The American people, in my mind, will never accept a 
legalization program unless they can be assured this is a one-shot 
deal.''
  The assurances to which he referred were border security and tough 
enforcement of immigration laws. Specifically, Simpson-Mazzoli called 
for 50 percent more Border Patrol personnel for 2 years and new 
penalties for employers who hired illegal immigrants. Unfortunately, as 
we know, the former proved insufficient and the latter was hollow. But 
it was too late. Nearly 3 million illegal immigrants had already been 
granted amnesty by the time most lawmakers figured out that the 
assurances were basically a sham.
  Despite the drastic increase in illegal immigration in the 
intervening years, supporters of the bill now before the Senate make 
similar assurances of border security in return for a form of amnesty. 
They say there will be a surge in Border Patrol and a fence along the 
southern border. We have heard it before, but they claim two main 
distinctions between their promise and the one we heard in 1986.
  First, the supporters of this bill say this bill does not contain 
amnesty but a tough path to citizenship. Second, they say this bill 
will secure the border before legalization occurs. But will it? I 
believe neither claim holds water.
  Under this legislation, once the Secretary of Homeland Security 
notifies Congress that the Department has begun to implement a so-
called comprehensive southern border security strategy and a southern 
border fencing strategy, she can commence processing applications for 
registered provisional immigrant status. In addition, the Secretary 
must begin implementing these plans within 180 days of enactment of 
this legislation.
  I will clarify the legal talk: No later than 6 months after this bill 
becomes law, those who came here illegally will be allowed to stay 
legally.
  I will clarify that further: That is amnesty.
  The sequence is also noteworthy. No fence must be built before 
amnesty is granted. No surge in Border Patrol must occur either. Those 
things come after, not before.
  So I return to the fundamental question: Will these measures as 
structured stop illegal immigration? The Congressional Budget Office, 
CBO, says no. Instead, CBO provides only a vague and uninspiring 
assessment that the legislation will slow illegal immigration by some 
amount greater than 25 percent--if, and only if, the dubious promises 
of this legislation are fulfilled.
  Perhaps that is the more salient point: We don't know what the impact 
of this will be. We don't know what we are doing. We only know that 
even the best outcome will not be nearly enough.
  I believe we should know what we are doing. We should know the border 
is secure before any discussion of legalization begins in the Senate.
  But there are economic consequences to all of this too that people 
need to think of. What we do know is that the economic consequences of 
this massive amnesty will make struggling Americans struggle even 
harder. By some estimates, this legislation will produce a surge of 
more than 30 million immigrants in just the first decade after 
enactment. Some people believe more.
  CBO projects that passing this legislation brings grim news about 
what this will mean for working Americans as well as those looking for 
work.
  For example, the unemployment rate, according to CBO, will accelerate 
over the next 6 years; average wages for Americans will drop over the 
next 10 years; meanwhile, average wages will rise for those granted 
amnesty or legalization; economic output per capita will decrease over 
the next 10 years; and the on-budget deficit will increase by more than 
$14 billion over the next 10 years.
  In short, this legislation is projected to increase Americans' 
difficulty in finding a job and then reduce their paycheck when they 
get one. In my judgment, that is reason enough to oppose any 
legislation like this.
  I understand that supporters of this legislation point to better 
economic projections in the so-called outyears. However, even if those 
projections prove accurate--which we don't know--we should never put 
the economic well-being of Americans on hold.
  Finally, I am deeply concerned that this legislation will further 
strain our overcommitted entitlement and welfare programs. Our Nation, 
as we all know, is over $17 trillion in debt. We should be working on a 
long-term plan to put our Nation back on sound fiscal footing, not 
adding to the burden.
  There is also the issue of competitiveness. Long-term thinking would 
also aggressively promote American competitiveness. Real immigration 
reform presents a golden opportunity to advance that cause. 
Unfortunately, this legislation misses the mark.
  By some estimates, China and India together graduate nearly 1 million 
engineers each year from their universities. The United States, by 
comparison, graduates approximately 120,000 engineers. In addition, the 
Manhattan Institute estimates that 51 percent of engineering Ph.D.s and 
41 percent of physical sciences Ph.D.s who are foreign born are forced 
to leave the United States once they get their degree.
  I believe if we care about immigration reform, if we want to continue 
to lead the world, we must attract and retain the best and the 
brightest minds. Yet this legislation would cause a tectonic population 
and labor market shift in the opposite direction.
  Specifically, CBO projects that among the tens of millions of 
immigrants who will come to America under this legislation, there will 
be seven low-skilled workers for each high-skilled worker. It is little 
wonder then that CBO projects that Americans' wages will fall.
  Two provisions in the legislation will effect this change. First, the 
current cap on family-based visas will be removed. This will create an 
unlimited influx of low-skilled workers. Second, the cap on visas for 
high-skilled workers will be increased, though not nearly enough to 
meet the demand.
  The legislation will also impose onerous new restrictions on 
employers seeking to hire such workers. The authors of this legislation 
claimed that it contains a merit-based approach, which will ensure that 
more high-skilled immigrants receive visas. They emphasize that their 
point system emphasizes higher education, consistent employment, and 
English proficiency. Yet closer examination of the details reveals that 
points would also be awarded on the basis of nonmerit factors,

[[Page S5254]]

such as family ties and civic involvement. In effect, this dilutes not 
only the point system but also claims of a merit-based approach that 
will promote American competitiveness.
  I think we have some of the best universities in the world. They 
attract a lot of the most gifted individuals from around the globe, 
deepening our country's vast pool of talent. This, in turn, attracts 
companies here and abroad, seeking the brightest minds in math, 
science, and engineering. Graduates will go onto attain high-paying 
jobs or even create jobs themselves if they are allowed to stay here.
  I believe we must do more to allow such talent to stay, especially in 
light of an increasingly global and competitive economy.
  In closing, I would quote Mark Twain, who once cleverly observed: 
``History does not repeat itself but it does rhyme.''
  In the context of immigration reform, the promises we hear today 
sound a lot like those we heard in 1986, but this time the amnesty will 
be much bigger. I believe the consequences will be many: undermining 
the rule of law, failing to secure the border, increasing economic 
difficulties for American workers and job seekers, eroding our Nation's 
finances, and weakening our competitive position internationally.
  I believe one of our fundamental responsibilities as lawmakers is to 
support policies that foster the conditions for job creation and 
economic prosperity in America. I believe we must remain a welcoming 
nation, but we must always put Americans first.
  In my judgment this legislation fails in many corners, and it fails 
most tests. Accordingly, I will respectfully but firmly oppose it, and 
I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I want to speak to the underlying 
legislation that we are debating in the Senate today. I want to 
acknowledge that, like many of my colleagues in the Senate, I am a 
descendant of immigrants. Only one generation separates me from a 
grandfather who was born in Norway but came to America with his brother 
in hopes of making a better life. My grandfather and great-uncle, when 
they came through Ellis Island, their given name was not the name I 
have today. It was Gjelsvik, and when they got to Ellis Island the 
immigration officials there asked them to change their name because 
they thought it would be difficult to spell and pronounce for people in 
this country. So they picked the name of the farm near where they 
worked near Bergen, Norway, which was the Thune farm. So Nicolai 
Gjelsvik became Nick Thune, my grandfather.
  When they got here they worked on the railroad, saved up enough money 
to buy a merchandizing store, which eventually became a hardware store, 
and there is to this day on the streets of Mitchell, SD, a Thune 
Hardware. The family is not associated with it anymore, but that is an 
example, like so many other cases, of people in this Chamber as well as 
those all across the country who came here in search of the American 
dream, in search of a better life for their children and grandchildren.
  My grandfather raised three sons in the middle of the Great 
Depression. The middle son, my father Harold, became an accomplished 
basketball player, went on to star at the University of Minnesota, and 
when World War II broke out he defended his country in combat. He 
became a naval aviator, flew off the aircraft carrier Intrepid during 
World War II. When he returned to South Dakota he started raising his 
family in the small town of Murdo, which is where I grew up.
  This country was built by immigrants like my grandfather, and our 
future both economically and as a continued example of freedom 
throughout the world will be maintained by future generations of 
immigrants who come here with the respect for the rule of law and hopes 
of starting a better life.
  A lot has changed in the world since my grandfather came to the 
United States. We face new threats from abroad that attempt to use our 
porous borders to harm this Nation and to destroy our way of life. In 
addition to these new national security challenges, we depend on a more 
dynamic system of commerce, trade, transportation, and communication. 
Our government is also larger and now offers a broad social safety net 
to a growing and aging population. To maintain our system of 
government, while encouraging future generations of immigrants to come 
here, our immigration policy must provide a clear path for those who 
wish to come legally while enforcing the rule of law. As lawmakers, we 
have to look at each piece of legislation that comes to the Senate 
floor based on its own merits and the impacts that it will have on our 
Nation.
  The immigration bill before the Senate has many aspects of it that I 
can support, but there are elements of this legislation that cause me 
concern. I appreciate the effort of those who have worked in drafting 
this bill to find a way to address the 12 million undocumented workers 
who are currently living in this country. However, if we are going to 
fix the problem, we need to do so in a way that doesn't result in the 
Senate having the same discussion again and again in years to come.
  The solution to the problem of illegal immigration is not Congress 
passing new laws every few years that provide for legalization without 
securing our borders. That sends the wrong message to natural-born 
citizens and those waiting outside of our country to enter legally.
  What legalization before enforcement communicates is if they want to 
come to America, don't play by the rules; it takes too long. Instead, 
find a way to sneak in and wait for the next round of amnesty.
  Before we get to the point of talking about what a path to 
legalization might look like, as a country we first need to be at the 
place where we can, No. 1, confirm our borders are secure; No. 2, know 
when people have overstayed their visas; and, No. 3, have a system in 
place where employment is limited to those who have played by the 
rules.
  Once we have these tools in place, then we can look at a path to 
legalization. The bill before us today is legalization first and 
enforcement second. That is a promise the American people have heard 
before.
  Last week I spoke several times on an amendment that I had offered to 
this legislation for a border fence which, at the time, was voted down 
by a majority in the Senate. I would prefer if we lived in a world 
where a border fence was not necessary, but, unfortunately, we do not. 
When I introduced that amendment I was surprised to learn from some of 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that in their view it was a 
waste of money and unnecessary. In fact, one of my colleagues even 
called it a dumb fence. Yet the substitute amendment agreed to this 
week now calls for 700 miles of fencing along the southern border.
  With this new compromise, instead of the fence being a bad idea, now 
all of a sudden--and I guess it is not unlike some of the evolutions 
that occur around here--it is a good idea. I appreciate that some of my 
colleagues appreciate that good fencing is a key component of border 
security.
  I would like to make clear that this 700 miles of fencing is not a 
trigger that is a precursor to legalization. The amendment agreed to in 
the Senate is still legalization first and the promise of border 
security down the road.
  What the amendment I offered called for was 350 miles of fence to be 
completed prior to RPI status being granted. That would have meant 
border security first, then legalization. Additionally, I had proposed 
a double-layered fence to prohibit pedestrian traffic, which is 
different than the single-layered fence in the current legislation.
  It would be insincere to claim we want to discourage illegal 
immigration and yet have a border that anyone can walk across, in some 
places without even knowing that a border has been crossed. No border 
fence will ever be 100 percent effective, we know that. But a physical 
barrier along with increased use of technology will stem the flow of 
pedestrian traffic. On the few sections of our border where a double-
layered fence is already in place, this is verifiably the case.
  Another provision being touted as part of the compromise version of 
this legislation is the inclusion of 20,000 additional Border Patrol 
agents to secure

[[Page S5255]]

our southern border. Prior to this compromise, our colleague from Texas 
Senator Cornyn was criticized for proposing 10,000 new agents. I would 
hear people coming down on the floor saying: We can't have that. How 
are we going to pay for it? We don't have the money to pay for this in 
the bill.
  Now the increase of 20,000--double the number proposed by the Senator 
from Texas--is being defended and even celebrated by my colleagues who 
were criticizing the increase only a week ago. I am still not sure how 
these additional Border Patrol agents will be paid for, nor am I sure 
how Customs and Border Patrol will be able to double in size in a short 
period of time.
  I want to point out that those who are proposing this--and, again, 
when this was originally proposed, the underlying bill had about $8.3 
billion in it for infrastructure and other things that were called for 
in the bill. But adding 20,000 Border Patrol agents now, with all the 
other spending in the bill, has driven the cost of this up from about 
$8.3 billion, which was going to be paid for in the form of fees, to 
now about $50 billion in costs. The argument is, that is OK because it 
is going to be paid for. The CBO has said this is going to generate a 
surplus over the next 20 years.
  How is that surplus? How did they come up with that estimate? Of 
course, first of all, it is a payroll tax number. They are assuming 
that people who come here are going to start paying payroll taxes into 
the Social Security trust fund and into the Medicare trust fund--all 
probably fair assumptions. The only thing about that is when those 
payroll taxes come into those trust funds, at some point their 
assumption is they are going to be paid out in the form of benefits. So 
they took payroll tax surpluses and counted those as the way in which 
they would pay for the spending in the bill.
  However, if we actually look at what the CBO said, if we take out 
those Social Security and Medicare trust fund surpluses, the general 
fund--or I guess you would say excluding the FICA payroll tax surpluses 
amount on this--is a $70 billion deficit. If you back out Medicare, it 
is only a $14 billion on-budget deficit, but it is still a deficit 
under the bill.
  To suggest this is all going to be paid for by savings that are going 
to occur because of additional payroll taxes misses the point that 
those are payroll taxes that go into those trust funds on the 
assumption they are going to pay benefits at some point in the future. 
These are temporary savings; these are not savings we can count. In 
fact, when we do the on-budget analysis, we come up, again, with a 
deficit of $14 billion. If we take out the Medicare surplus, payroll 
tax surplus, we end up with a $70 billion deficit.
  While I appreciate, again, the work of my colleagues to improve the 
bill, the final product is still legalization first and promises of 
border security down the road. The drafters of the legislation could 
point to many specifics that they hope to see in place, but these 
promises of additional fencing, E-Verify, electronic entry-exit, and 
more Border Patrol agents could be years away--if they ever happen at 
all. There are virtually no border security or interior enforcement 
border security measures in place prior to the initial legalization of 
12 million undocumented workers.
  I would like to see a border security package that brings real border 
security prior to legalization. Unfortunately, this bill is not it.
  We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. It 
is important that these laws are respected and enforced in accordance 
with the Constitution and with respect to our immigrant heritage. We 
must have an immigration system that rewards those who play by the 
rules and come to the United States through legal means. In considering 
changes to our laws, we need to promote and reward lawful behavior 
rather than providing incentives that would encourage even more illegal 
immigration.
  In 1986 Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act 
offering amnesty to roughly 3 million people. Today the population of 
illegal immigrants in the United States is estimated to be around 12 
million.
  Did the 1986 amnesty legislation solve the problem? No, it did not. 
Yet today here we are again proposing a very similar package which 
repeats the same mistakes made in the past. Lawful immigration makes 
our communities, our economy and our country stronger. Our current 
immigration system needs to be fixed in a manner that continues 
America's great heritage as a nation of immigrants. Unfortunately, as 
this bill currently stands it will not solve the problem. Unless we see 
changes that emphasize border security and the rule of law before 
legalization, I will not be able to support this bill. And that is not 
because I oppose immigration reform. It is because this is not a piece 
of legislation that will help our country in the long run. This 
legislation will provide instant legalization, leaving in place many of 
the same problems which led to the situation, while exacerbating other 
problems.

  I filed an amendment that would take many of the triggers being 
touted as part of this latest substitute amendment and make them 
prelegalization. If this amendment were to be accepted, the bill would 
become enforcement first and legalization later. We may not get to the 
point in the Senate where that type of change is going to be 
considered.
  As we wind up this debate and move to the finish line in terms of 
final passage, it sounds as though additional amendments are probably 
unlikely to be considered, which is unfortunate. We have a lot of 
colleagues, as was talked about earlier, who have lots of good ideas 
that would improve and strengthen this bill. We will not have an 
opportunity to debate or vote on those amendments.
  I am hopeful that as this bill moves out of the Senate sometime 
tomorrow and gets to the House of Representatives it will be 
strengthened in ways I can support. It is time we keep our promises to 
the American people by securing our borders as we seek to reform our 
immigration system. I hope before this is all said and done and this 
process reaches the final finish line, which would be the President's 
desk, it has the right types of enforcement that put border security 
first and addresses what I think are the broken promises that have been 
made to the American people too many times in the past.
  The American people need to be assured once and for all that we are 
serious about the issue of enforcement and the issue of border 
security, and that the past promises and assurances which have been 
given in the past are not all empty rhetoric and hollow talk and mean 
something. We can do that, but unfortunately this bill fails to get the 
job done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I know many of my colleagues are very 
talented attorneys. I am reminded of the adage that when you are a 
lawyer, if you have the law on your side, you argue the law. If you 
have the facts on your side, you argue the facts. But if you have 
neither the law nor the facts on your side, you bang on the table and 
create a diversion.
  What I have heard a lot about here today is clearly a diversion 
because it is not either the law we are promoting or the facts, which 
seem to be pretty stubborn, but sometimes for people in this Chamber I 
guess the facts are not an impediment toward their arguments.
  I will try to get to what this law is and what the facts are. My 
colleague from Alabama Senator Sessions likes to whip out the phrase 
``welfare benefits.'' Let's make it clear to the American people we 
have not permitted welfare benefits for anyone under existing law who 
is undocumented in this country. We extend that and actually to some 
degree enlarge it in this law we are promoting. So to throw that out 
carelessly and suggest: Oh, there are welfare benefits--there are no 
welfare benefits. The existing law stops welfare benefits for anyone 
who is undocumented in the country, and we extend it in this law.
  I must say I am chagrined when I hear my colleagues speak about 
certain Americans who are part of civil society, part of our civic 
fabric, part of national organizations such as La Raza and somehow are 
spoken of as if they are second-class citizens and that I should bend 
at the altar of some others who Senator Sessions believes are somehow 
superior. They have every right, as a U.S. citizen, to voice their 
opinions about what our government

[[Page S5256]]

should do in this question of immigration reform. I don't care for the 
categorization of people who are engaged as ordinary citizens of this 
country to be treated as if they were some second-class citizen.
  Only in Washington could we hear an argument that somehow public 
safety will be ``endangered'' as a result of this legislation. There 
are 20,000 additional border agents and more resources are going to 
immigration enforcement than all other Federal criminal enforcement 
agencies, and somehow that creates greater endangerment of the public 
safety? So 20,000 more Border Patrol agents will somehow make the 
Nation less secure? Only in Washington could some of the detractors of 
this legislation suggest that 20,000 additional border agents and 
doubling the Border Patrol makes us less secure. Only in Washington 
could 700 miles of fencing make the Nation less secure. Only in 
Washington could the suggestion be made that an entrance-exit visa 
program to check who is coming in and making sure they leave or else 
they can be pursued is making us less secure. Only in Washington could 
we think about a mandatory universal E-Verify Program that has been 
enhanced under this legislation and somehow that makes the public less 
secure.
  This comes from some of the very voices that for so long have said, 
we need more Border Patrol agents and more fencing. When they finally 
get the Border Patrol agents, fencing, and E-Verify system nationally 
mandated so everybody who gets a job or seeks to get a job is going to 
have to go through the system, as well as an entrance-exit visa program 
that is going to be implemented, and they still say: Oh, no, it is 
either not what we wanted or it is not enough.
  And triggers--my God. Personally, from my perspective, we are trigger 
happy in this bill. We have more triggers in this bill than I have seen 
in virtually any other legislation. I believe we have up to five 
triggers. We have five triggers that have to be pulled, which means 
they have to be achieved before they can move forward to citizenship. 
That is a pretty significant period of time.
  Now to the suggestion about costs. Well, this is one of the elements 
of where facts are a stubborn thing to overcome. Truth crushed to the 
ground still springs back. So what does it say? Well, let's start off 
with what it says about the deficit. This isn't me saying it as a 
proponent of the bill, as the Gang of 8. The Congressional Budget 
Office--the nonpartisan entity of the Congress that both Democrats and 
Republicans rely on for an analysis of whether a piece of legislation 
will cost money, what sort of economic impact it will have, and what 
the consequences will be--came to their own independent conclusion.
  They said the gross domestic product would ultimately grow by 3.3 
percent in the first 10 years after enactment. What does that mean? 
That means from all the output of this Nation, gross domestic product 
would grow dramatically. When we see growth at that additional rate, it 
means every American prospers as a result of it.
  Then it went on to say an additional 5.4 percent of gross domestic 
product increase would exist in the second 10 years. That means even 
greater growth, which means greater opportunities for all Americans 
here at home. It also means the bipartisan immigration reform we have 
been debating in the Senate will actually grow our economy, not harm 
it, as some of the most ardent opponents have tried to argue. I have 
been saying that, as well as many others, all along.

  What else did the Congressional Budget Office tell us? It told us we 
are going to reduce the deficit. We are going to reduce the deficit 
by--I think I have the wrong chart. Let me look. This is actually taxes 
paid. We had a chart, but basically what it says is that it is going to 
reduce the deficit by $197 billion over the first 10 years, and an 
additional $700 billion over the second 10 years. That is $900 billion 
of deficit reduction.
  We will have nearly $1 trillion of deficit reduction as a result of 
this legislation. That deficit reduction is critical for the Nation's 
economic growth, prosperity, and to make sure the next generation 
doesn't bear that burden. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 
that is what we are going to get from achieving passage of this 
legislation and ultimately moving it into law.
  The report went on to say revenue will come in a whole host of ways, 
such as payroll taxes, income taxes, fees, and fines estimated to be 
about $459 billion in the first 10 years and $1.5 trillion in the 
second 10 years. It also found there were fewer unauthorized 
individuals coming into the United States under the bill.
  One of the things the CBO said was: Well, there will be those whom we 
are concerned will overstay future visas. Two things on that score, and 
one point my colleagues have used consistently: No. 1, which visas are 
they talking about? Are they talking about the visas our Republican 
colleagues have largely championed for businesses in this country they 
want to see grow? Some have amendments to grow it even more. Those are 
the visas CBO talked about ultimately having the concern that people 
may overstay. That is why the entrance-exit visa program is so 
important to ensure that doesn't happen.
  It is ironic, again, how they can argue all sides here. Because if we 
look at what CBO said, they said the potential for overstay of those 
new visas would be the issue. That is why this employment verification 
system and the entrance-exit visa program is so important.
  The bottom line of the Congressional Budget Office report is pretty 
clear. It tells us the 11 million people who are living in fear in the 
shadows are not, as some would have us believe, part of America's 
problem, but by bringing them out of the shadows will be part of our 
solution. It is the key to economic growth.
  Also, immigration reform, according to their views, will also save 
Medicare and Social Security trust funds. In so many ways these are so 
incredibly important.
  I heard that somehow this will create challenges on the question of 
wages. Well, as I listened to some of my colleagues make their remarks 
about the CBO's reports on wages, I don't think the numbers say what 
they believe they say. They were talking about how American families' 
wages would go down. The report explicitly says that is not the case. 
In fact, Ezra Klein wrote in the Washington Post that the idea that 
immigration would lower wages of already-working Americans is 
``actually a bit misleading.''
  As for folks who are already here, the Congressional Budget Office is 
careful to note that their estimates ``do not necessarily imply the 
current U.S. resident would be worse off in the first 10 years.'' And 
in the second 10 years they estimate the average American wages will 
actually rise as a result of immigration reform to the tune of about 
$470 billion, an average annual increase in jobs of 121,000 per year 
for 10 years. That is 1.2 million additional jobs to the United States. 
It is $470 billion in increased wages of all Americans.
  The truth is stubborn. Crush it to the ground and it springs back.
  In addition to that, I have to remind my colleagues as they come 
closer to having to cast a vote--and I hear some voices who say: Oh, I 
would be open to vote for the bill if this or that. Immigrants 
constituted 12 percent of the population in the year 2000, but they 
accounted for 26 percent of the Nobel Prize winners based in the United 
States. Twelve percent of the population, immigrants; 26 percent Nobel 
Prize winners. They made up 25 percent of public venture-backed 
companies that started between 1990 and 2005. The fact is immigrants 
receive patents in our country at twice the rate of native-born 
populations.

  So the bill's overall effect on the overall economy is unambiguously 
positive. One can try to distort it any way one wants, but that is 
simply the case.
  Those are the economic benefits refuting some of the things I have 
heard here. Wages go up for all Americans, jobs get increased, GDP 
growth takes place, the deficit is reduced. How many things will we do 
in the Senate that can bring all of those elements together? Maybe some 
pieces of legislation might be about job growth. Maybe some pieces of 
legislation might be about GDP growth. Maybe some pieces of legislation 
might be about how to reduce our deficit. But what singular piece of 
legislation, according to the

[[Page S5257]]

Congressional Budget Office, brings all of those elements together? I 
would suggest not one that I have seen in the last 7 years.
  I know there is a lot of thrashing and gnashing and banging on the 
table because when a person doesn't have the law on their side and when 
a person doesn't have the facts on their side, they create a diversion. 
There have been a lot of crocodile tears related to the request for 
amendments.
  Let me just say, first of all, this whole process began with a 
bipartisan group of Senators who had input from their colleagues. They 
did not, in and of themselves, the Gang of 8, just say this is my view 
of what needs to be done. They went back to their caucuses. They asked: 
What are the foundations, what are the principles we need? There was a 
lot of input during that whole period of time. I constantly heard from 
my four Republican colleagues of the Gang of 8 how they had spoken to X 
or Y Senator and how they believed this was necessary, what were some 
of the essential elements, and those got incorporated through the 
process. They got incorporated through the process in which the 
legislation was ultimately devised and put forth. They got 
incorporated, unlike the 2007 bill referred to by several of my 
colleagues. The 2007 bill on immigration did not go through the process 
of the Judiciary Committee. It didn't go through the Judiciary 
Committee process. This bill did. It went through that regular order. 
Over 212 amendments--212 amendments--were considered. Over 136 changes, 
amendments, were accepted; 43 Republican amendments were adopted, and 
all but 3 of those 212 votes, from what I understand, were bipartisan 
votes.
  So we had 136 changes to the law that the Gang of 8 proposed. Then we 
came to the floor. What happened on the floor? This bill, which has 
been on the floor for 20 days--this didn't just pop up. It has been on 
the floor for 20 days, which is nearly 3 weeks of Senate floor time. 
What happened at the beginning is that every time there was an effort 
to offer unanimous consent requests on the question of amendments, 
there were objections by the other side. There were objections against 
amendments offered by their own Members because those who oppose this 
legislation, no matter what, did not want to give Members an 
opportunity for a vote on their side, because they believed if their 
amendments were adopted, the Member would agree to vote for the bill 
because they had made the improvement they sought to the underlying 
bill they otherwise could support but with the change they were 
offering.
  So, strategically, they decided not to allow their Members to 
ultimately have amendments because they were afraid they would join in 
the growing cadre of Members who were supporting the bill. It wasn't 
about who gets to pick or choose amendments; it was a strategic 
decision and that took the better part of the first 2 weeks.
  We did have nine amendments; overwhelmingly, they were Republican. 
Then we had the Corker-Hoeven amendment, which of course had the most 
dramatic, significant impact on border security. But there were an 
additional nine amendments that were included in Corker-Hoeven. All of 
them, I understand, were Republican. We would have had a 10th amendment 
because, I understand, as has been said here--and I was asked as part 
of the Gang of 8, can you accept this. The Portman amendment on E-
Verify would have been part of that package, and we wouldn't be 
debating about whether that is here; it would have been part of that 
package.
  Then we had an offer by the majority leader of 17 additional 
Republican amendments and that was rejected. A whole host of those 
amendments were from some of the most ardent opponents of this 
legislation.
  So this thrashing and gnashing about process--look, I understand if 
one doesn't want to get to a final judgment and they want to do 
everything possible not to get there; they want to do everything 
possible not to see the legislation move forward because they 
fundamentally disagree. Let's be honest. Let me make my final point. 
There is a universe of our colleagues in which no pathway to 
citizenship would ever be accepted. That is the unseen elephant in the 
room, but there is a universe of our colleagues--as a matter of fact, 
some of them are more overt about it. They show it by virtue of even 
some of the amendments they wanted to offer in which there would be no 
pathway for citizenship whatsoever--trigger, no trigger, any set of 
circumstances. We have seen the consequences of that in Europe. The 
consequence of that is that we create unrest in the community.
  It is not OK to exploit 10 or 11 million people and not let them have 
the chance to make themselves right and earn their way into citizenship 
in the United States. It is not OK to say there can never be a pathway 
to citizenship when they are the ones who are bending their backs over, 
picking up the crops my colleagues and I get to eat every day for 
dinner or for breakfast. It is not OK to have that immigrant who is 
taking care of a loved one with a tender heart and warm hand, helping 
with their daily necessities, and say they can never get a pathway to 
citizenship. It is not OK to have had chicken for dinner tonight and 
not understand that this is from the cut-up hands of an immigrant 
worker. It is not OK to say the country is somehow less secure by 
virtue of what we are doing.

  I have said it many times: I don't know who is here to pursue the 
American dream versus who might be here to do it harm unless I bring 
people out of the shadows and into the light. They go through a 
criminal background check which they have to pass, and if they don't, 
they get deported right away. If they do, then they have an opportunity 
to earn their way after a decade in this country toward permanent 
residency and then later on to U.S. citizenship.
  So let's say it as it is. If you don't want a pathway to citizenship, 
then stand in the Chamber and make a case, if a Member doesn't want a 
pathway to citizenship under any circumstances. My colleagues have the 
right to have that opinion. I would strongly disagree but don't hide 
behind procedures and amendments. Tell me what legislation has come 
before the floor grows GDP in our country, grows jobs in our country, 
increases wages of all Americans, and reduces the debt by nearly $1 
trillion. I haven't seen it.
  That is what the opportunity is before the Senate. That is why no 
diversion will ultimately sell with the American people. In poll after 
poll after poll across the landscape of this country, Americans have 
said across the political spectrum--Republicans, Democrats, and 
Independents--they want to see our broken system fixed. When the 
elements of this legislation--all of its elements--have been tested, 
they have overwhelmingly won support.
  That is why I am proud of our colleagues, both Democratic and 
Republican, who have chosen to finally tackle a tough challenge and 
actually do something to fix this problem and to show America this 
institution can actually work. That is the other side benefit of 
everything I have just talked about in terms of economics, of security, 
of promoting our future, of creating greater jobs, of creating growth 
and prosperity, of having the best and the brightest in the world be 
able to help us continue to be a global economic leader, which is that 
the Senate can actually function.
  That is the opportunity before us: fixing our broken immigration 
system, showing this institution can function in a bipartisan process, 
and ultimately preserving our legacy as a nation of immigrants.
  I always say that the greatest experiment in the history of mankind 
is the United States, the greatest country on the face of the Earth. A 
part of American exceptionalism is that experiment we have had, to 
bring from different lands different people who have contributed 
enormously to this country.
  Tomorrow, I hope to show a series of Americans whom we have proudly 
held up as examples of greatness, who, in fact, would not be here today 
but for the opportunities--sometimes under a legal immigration system 
and sometimes not through a legal immigration system--who have served 
this country greatly, whom we admire and, at the end of the day, we 
show as examples to our children of what a person can do for one's 
country, what a person can achieve for one's Nation, and models to hold 
up to the world. I can't wait to share that with the rest of my 
colleagues in the Senate.

[[Page S5258]]

  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I am going to begin my comments, but I 
am told by the majority leader he may want to come in and do wrapup, 
and I am perfectly comfortable with him coming in and interrupting me 
if he does get to the floor to do that.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would ask my friend from Georgia, through 
the Chair, if I could do the closing script. It will take about 2 or 3 
minutes.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Certainly.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I do appreciate the Senator's courtesy very 
much.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding 
rule XXII, at 11:30 a.m. tomorrow morning, Thursday, June 27, the 
Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 179, 
Anthony Renard Foxx, to be Secretary of Transportation; that there be 2 
minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form; that following 
the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote without 
intervening action or debate on the nomination; the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no 
intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that 
any related statements be printed in the Record; that President Obama 
be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then 
resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that tomorrow, June 
27, upon disposition of the Foxx nomination and the resumption of 
legislative session, all postcloture time be considered expired with 
respect to the committee-reported amendment, as amended; that the 
pending amendments to the underlying bill be withdrawn; that I be 
recognized for the purpose of raising points of order against the 
remaining pending amendments to the substitute amendment; that after 
the amendments fall, the Senate proceed to vote on the adoption of the 
committee-reported substitute amendment, as amended; that upon 
disposition of the committee-reported substitute amendment, the Senate 
proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 744, as amended; 
finally, if cloture is invoked, it be considered as if cloture had been 
invoked at 7 a.m., Thursday, June 27.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, are we in a period of morning business now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No. We are on S. 744.

                          ____________________