[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9316-9337]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND IMMIGRATION MODERNIZATION 
                             ACT--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 3 
p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or 
their designees for debate on the pending amendments.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I come to the floor today to ask my 
colleagues to join us in supporting the historic comprehensive 
immigration bill that is before us today.
  We worked hard on the Judiciary Committee to craft a strong 
bipartisan bill that bolsters our economy, secures our borders and 
promotes opportunity for both businesses and families.
  I thank all of those involved in the original bill--Senators Schumer, 
McCain, Durbin, Graham, Menendez, Rubio, Bennet and Flake. I thank the 
members of the Judiciary Committee who all had a hand in changes to the 
bill. And I specifically want to thank Senator Hatch who worked with me 
on the I-Squared--Immigration Innovation--bill. The bill on the floor 
today contains many of the provisions from I-Squared that encourage 
more American innovation.
  As you know, we passed this comprehensive immigration bill out of 
committee on a bipartisan vote of 13 to 5 and I am hopeful we can build 
that same kind of broad-based support on the Senate floor.
  This is not going to be simple. It is not going to be easy. But the 
most important thing--the reason I am optimistic we can get something 
done--is the fact that we are all coming at this from the same basic 
starting point:
  Democrats and Republicans, Senators from border States and Senators 
from inland States, we can all agree on this: Our current immigration 
system is broken. And changes must be made.
  The question now is how those changes should come about, and that is

[[Page 9317]]

why we are having this debate--to find that common ground and pass a 
bill that is ultimately stronger because it reflects the needs and 
priorities of both parties and all regions of the country.
  Passing comprehensive immigration reform will be a vital step forward 
for our country. It will be vital to our immigrant communities, who 
have been separated from their families for too long. It will be vital 
to our security. And it will be vital to our economy, to strengthening 
our workforce, addressing our long-term fiscal challenges and promoting 
innovation.
  There are many strong and compelling arguments for immigration 
reform, but let me begin with the economic impact on our businesses and 
major industries.
  Minnesota is a big agriculture State, just like the State of 
Wisconsin, Madam President, and I can't tell you how many farmers and 
agricultural businesses I have heard from who tell me they rely on 
migrant workers and other immigrants to keep their operations going. I 
have heard it from high-tech startups, too, as well as big technology 
companies like 3M, St. Jude and Medtronic. I have heard it from the 
homebuilders and hospitals and health care providers.
  These businesses represent a vast range of industries and interests. 
But when it comes to immigration reform, they all agree: It is critical 
to their operations, and it is a vital engine for growth and 
innovation.
  In fact, history shows that immigrants have helped America lead the 
world in innovation and entrepreneurship for generations:
  More than 30 percent of U.S. Nobel Laureates were born in other 
countries. Ninety of the Fortune 500 companies were started by 
immigrants, and 200 were started by immigrants or their children, 
including 3M, Medtronic, and Hormel in Minnesota.
  Workers, inventors, scientists and researchers from around the world 
have built America. And in an increasingly global economy, they are a 
big part of keeping our country competitive today.
  If we want to continue to be a country that thinks, invents and 
exports to the world, then we can not afford to shut out the world's 
talent. It doesn't make sense to educate tomorrow's inventors and then 
send them back home, so they can start the next Google in India or 
France.
  That's why I introduced the I-Squared Act with Senator Hatch to make 
much needed reforms to allow our companies to bring in the engineers 
and scientists they need to compete on the world stage.
  One of the things that bill would do is increase fees on employment-
based green cards, so that we can also reinvest in or own homegrown 
innovation pipeline by funding more science, technology, engineering 
and math initiatives in our schools.
  In my State the unemployment rate is at 5.4 percent. We actually have 
job openings for engineers, we have job openings for welders, and we 
want those jobs to be filled from kids who go to the University of 
Minnesota. We want those jobs filled by kids who get a degree at a tech 
school in Minnesota. But right now we have openings and we have to do a 
combination of things. We have to be educating our own kids and making 
sure if there is a doctor coming from another country who is willing to 
study at the University of Minnesota or in Rochester, MN, and then 
wants to do his or her residency right in America in an underserved 
area in a place such as inner-city Minneapolis or a place such as Deep 
River Falls, MN, we let them do that residency or internship there 
instead of sending them packing to their own country.
  Much of the legislation that was in the I-Squared bill, as I 
mentioned, is included right here in the bill we are considering. The 
health care leaders' provision I mentioned originally, called the 
Conrad 30 bill, something I worked on with Senator Heitkamp and Senator 
Moran and others--that is also in this bill.
  Here's something else that's just good sense: Bringing the roughly 11 
million undocumented immigrants out of the shadows.
  Immigrants who are ``off the grid'' can not demand fair pay or 
benefits, and there are those who seek to take advantage of that. It's 
a bad thing for the American workers whose wages are undercut. And it's 
a bad thing for the American families whose undocumented relatives are 
being exploited.
  In addition to the economic implications, having millions of 
undocumented people living in our country poses a serious threat to 
both our national security and public safety.
  This bill takes the only rational and feasible approach to bringing 
these people out of the shadows, by creating a fair, tough and 
accountable path to citizenship for those who have entered the country 
illegally or overstayed their visas.
  It's not an easy path. You have to pay fines, stay employed, pass a 
background check, go to the back of the line, learn English and wait at 
least 13 years to become a citizen.
  And if you have committed a felony or three misdemeanors, you're not 
eligible. You have to go back to your home country.
  Keep in mind, none of these steps towards citizenship would even 
begin until we had done what is necessary to secure our borders.
  This bill immediately appropriates $4.5 billion towards adding more 
border patrol agents, more fencing, and more technologies like aerial 
surveillance to prevent illegal crossings over the southern border. 
That is money that is being committed today, not a promise for future 
spending or something dependent on future Congresses. That money will 
be spent to make our border more secure.
  I think it is important to recognize that these new efforts would 
come on top of all the progress we have already made in recent years. 
Some estimates show that net illegal migration over the Mexican border 
is actually negative--meaning more people are going back or being sent 
back to Mexico than are coming here illegally. We have seen a sea 
change over the last few years and much of it, of course, is because of 
enforcement efforts going on, many funded by this Congress.
  But preventing illegal immigration isn't just about stopping people 
at the border. It's also about removing the incentive for people to 
come here illegally in the first place.
  The way we do that is by requiring employers to start using the E-
Verify system, so they can check whether or not a person is authorized 
to work in this country. And to ensure the smoothest possible 
transition, we do it over a 5-year phase-in period based on the size 
and type of the company. So smaller companies, farmers--those who find 
it harder to use the system, they will go later.
  I believe our compromise on the workplace enforcement issue is a good 
one, and it's reflective of the bi-partisan, balanced approach that 
this bill takes overall, on so many other complex issues.
  The economic and security arguments for reform are compelling. But we 
know there is so much more to this.
  This is about maintaining America's role as a beacon for hope and 
justice in the world, particularly for those seeking refuge and asylum.
  This is something we know a lot about in Minnesota, where we have 
always opened our arms to people fleeing violence in their home 
countries. Minnesota is home to the largest Somali population in North 
America and the second largest Hmong population in the United States. 
We actually have the first Hmong woman legislator, Mee Moua. We are 
better off because of the incredible diversity and entrepreneurial 
spirit these people have brought to our state.
  We are proud of the work these people have done. We know and we 
believe we are better off because of the incredible diversity and 
entrepreneurial spirit these people have brought to our State from 
other countries.
  Just as we have granted asylum to people fleeing violence in other 
countries, we must also look after those fleeing violence here at home. 
That is why I feel so strongly about the need to ensure immigrant 
victims of domestic violence are not forced to suffer in silence.

[[Page 9318]]

  The bill we are considering includes two amendments I introduced in 
the Judiciary Committee that would protect immigrants who are victims 
of domestic violence and elder abuse. No person who is being abused 
should be forced to live in fear because they are worried they will 
lose their immigration status if they speak up. Children should not be 
forced to live in fear either. So we need to change our laws to ensure 
that families are not being torn apart by a system that is not only 
inefficient and expensive, but cruel: 64,500 immigrant parents were 
separated from their citizen children during the first 6 months of 2010 
as a result of deportation. So this bill is about protecting families. 
It is also about building families.
  If I can say one thing about the domestic abuse issue, I cannot tell 
you how many cases we had when I was prosecutor where in fact the case 
would come into the office and the victim would be an immigrant. The 
perpetrator, we would have found, was threatening to get her deported 
or get her mother deported, if she was illegal, or get her sister 
deported or a family member deported if she reported it to the police. 
This bill fixes a lot of that by the way it handles the U visa program 
as well as other amendments I included, and it makes it easier to 
prosecute these perpetrators.
  As I mentioned, this bill is also about building families. Minnesota 
leads the country in international adoptions, and I've seen the 
incredible joy an adopted child from another country can bring to a new 
mom or dad. That's why I have introduced with Senators Coats and 
Landrieu a set of amendments to improve our system for international 
adoptions, so that more children can find a loving home here in the 
United States.
  This bill is vital to our economy and to our national security, but 
most importantly it is vital to maintaining America's remarkable 
heritage as a nation of immigrants.
  I am myself here because of Slovenian and Swiss immigrants. My 
grandpa on my dad's side worked 1,500 feet underground in the iron-ore 
mines of Ely, MN. His family came to northern Minnesota in search of 
work, and the iron ore mines and forests of northern Minnesota seemed 
the closest thing to home in Slovenia. My grandpa never graduated from 
high school, but he saved money in a coffee can so my dad could go to 
college.
  My dad earned a journalism degree from the University of Minnesota 
and was a newspaper reporter and long-time columnist for the Star 
Tribune. My mom was a teacher and she taught second grade until she was 
70 years old. Her parents came from Switzerland to Milwaukee where my 
great grandma ran a cheese shop. The Depression was hard on their 
family and out of work for several years, my grandpa made and sold 
miniature Swiss chalets made out of little pieces of wood.
  So I stand here today on the shoulders of immigrants, the 
granddaughter and great-granddaughter of iron ore miners and cheese-
makers and craftsmen, the daughter of a teacher and newspaper man . . . 
and the first woman elected to the Senate from the State of Minnesota.
  It could not have been possible in a country that didn't believe in 
hard work, fair play and the promise of opportunity. It could not have 
been possible in a country that didn't open its arms to the risk-
takers, pilgrims and pioneers of the world.
  So this is a very special and enduring part of the American story. 
And we need to be sure it continues for future generations in a way 
that is fair, efficient and legal.
  Passing this bill is important to our economy. It is important to our 
global competitiveness. It is important to our national security. And 
it is important millions of families throughout the U.S. who want to 
come here and live that dream my grandparents and great grandparents 
lived.
  It's too important for us not to act. To my colleagues, join us in 
passing this bill. Let's get it done.
  I yield the floor.
  Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I believe we must fix the immigration 
bill to make it fairer for women. The bill proposes a new merit-based 
point system for allocating green cards to future immigrants. Simply 
put, the point system makes it harder for women than for men to come to 
this country. The theory behind the merit system is that we should give 
immigration preferences to people who hold advanced degrees or work in 
high-skilled jobs. This idea ignores the discrimination women endure in 
other countries.
  Too many women overseas do not have the same educational or career 
advancement opportunities available to men in those countries. In 
practice, the bill's new point system takes that inequitable treatment 
abroad and cements it into our immigration laws. This bill reduces the 
opportunities for immigrants to come under the family-based green card 
system.
  Currently, approximately 70 percent of immigrant women come to this 
country through the family-based system. This legislation increases the 
amount of employment-based visas. This bill basically moves us away 
from the family-based system and into economic considerations. There is 
nothing wrong with that, but we should be fair to women while we are 
doing it. The immigration avenues favor men over women by nearly a 4-
to-1 margin.
  Using the past as our guide, it is easy to see how the new merit-
based system, with heavy emphasis on factors such as education and 
experience, will disadvantage women who apply for green card status. We 
all want a stronger economy, but we should not sacrifice the hard-won 
victories of the women's equality movement to get it. Ensuring that 
women have an equal opportunity to come here is not an abstract policy 
cause to me.
  When I was a young girl, my mother brought my brothers and me to this 
country in order to escape an abusive marriage. My life would be 
completely different if my mother was not able to take on that 
courageous journey. I want women similar to her--women who don't have 
the opportunities to succeed in their own countries--to be able to 
build a better life for themselves here. These disparities in the 
immigration bill are fixable.
  Later this week a number of my female Senate colleagues and I will 
introduce a proposal that will address the disparities in the new 
merit-based system. Let's improve immigration reform to make this bill 
better for women who deserve a fair shake in our green card system.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, coming up, we will be voting on some 
amendments. I just want to share a few thoughts as we gather in advance 
of that. One of the comments made earlier by one of our good Senators 
indicated a belief that this immigration bill is going to raise the 
salaries of American workers. I think that is what was said. I have to 
point out that is not accurate.
  This is a very serious issue we are confronting. This legislation 
does the opposite of what was said and creates an unprecedented flow of 
new workers into America--the likes of which we have not seen before--
and it will have a direct result of depressing job opportunities and 
wages of American citizens. It will affect immigrants who are legally 
here and also looking for work. It will impact the wages of African 
Americans, Hispanics, and any other group in America.
  Here is the reason why: Under our current law, the legal flow of 
persons

[[Page 9319]]

to America would be 1 million a year, and that is the largest of any 
country in the world. Over 10 years, that will rise to 10 million 
people. At this point, we now have 11 million immigrants here, plus a 
backlog of approximately 5 million more immigrants, which will total 
approximately 15 million people who would be legalized in very short 
order under this legislation.
  Some say, well, they are already working here, so there is not a 
problem on employment. But many of those workers are in the shadows, 
underemployed, maybe working part-time in restaurants or other places, 
and all of a sudden they will be given legal status. At that point, 
they will be able to apply for any job in America. This will be good 
for them, but the question is, Is it our duty to give our first 
responsibility to those who have entered illegally? Don't we have a 
responsibility to consider how it will impact people who are unemployed 
today and are out looking for work?
  Since 1999, we know wages have dropped as much as 8 percent to 9 
percent. Wages are declining, not going up in America today. One of the 
big reasons, according to Professor Borjas at Harvard, is that the flow 
of labor from abroad creates an excess of labor and that causes wages 
to decline. It is just a fact, and that is the way that works.
  In addition to that, we have our current law that allows temporary 
workers and guest workers who come for a period of time, and then they 
can work. What happens to that flow of workers today? They will double 
the number of people who will be coming in as temporary workers. 
Everyone has to understand that many of them come for 3 years with 
their family after which they can reup for another 3 years. They also 
compete for a limited number of jobs that legal immigrants would be 
competing for as well as citizens would be competing for.
  So there is this bubble of 15 million that is accepted at once and a 
doubling of the current flow of nonimmigrants. In addition to that, the 
annual immigrant flow into our country will increase at least 50 
percent. It could be more than that. So that would go from 1 million a 
year to 1.5 million a year. Over 10 years, that is 15 million.
  There are 300 million people in this country, and as elected 
officials, they are our primary responsibility. If this legislation 
were to pass--the 8,000 pages in this bill--it would allow 30 million 
people to be placed on a permanent path to citizenship over this 10-
year period, and that is well above what would normally be 10 million 
people. In addition to that, the flow of so-called temporary guest 
workers will be double what the current rate is.
  Madam President, how much time is there on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 17 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask to be notified in 5 minutes.
  I believe Senator Vitter's airplane has been delayed. His amendment 
is projected to come up. I don't know if it will be called up if he is 
not able to get back.
  He has an excellent amendment that deals with a fundamentally flawed 
part of our immigration system that the bill before us makes worse, not 
better. It absolutely and indisputably does make it better.
  This is the current situation: Six times Congress in the last 10 or 
15 years has passed legislation to require an entry-exit visa system. 
It is required that it be biometric. In other words, it would require 
fingerprints or something like that. Normally, fingerprints would be 
utilized.
  People are fingerprinted when they come into the country. It goes 
into the system, but we are not checking when anybody leaves. People 
legally come on a visa, and they leave. Because we don't use a system 
when people leave the country, nobody knows whether they left. Forty 
percent of the people who enter the country illegally are coming 
through visa overstays. They get a legal visa, and they just don't 
leave. People don't even know if they left because they are not clocked 
out.
  The 9/11 Commission said this is wrong. We need a biometric entry and 
exit system at land, sea, and airports.
  What does this bill do? It eliminates that language that is already 
in law, passed by Congress, and inexplicably has never been carried 
out. The bill merely requires a biographic or electronic exit system. 
It does not require a fingerprint-type exit system. Not only that, it 
only requires it at air and seaports, not the land ports. The 9/11 
Commission said that would not work because people come in all the time 
by air and leave by land, so we cannot rely on it. It will not 
establish the right integrity to know whether somebody overstayed. That 
makes perfect sense.
  Senator Vitter attempts to address that. He suggests that we have an 
integrated biometric entry-exit system operating and functioning at 
every land, air, and seaport--not just air and sea--prior to the 
processing of any application for legal status pursuant to the original 
biometric exit law, the 2004 Intelligence Reform Act, recommendations. 
That is what the current law says.
  In addition to that, before the implementation of any program 
granting temporary legal status, the Department of Homeland Security 
Secretary must submit written certification of the deployment of the 
system which will then be fast-tracked and approved through streamlined 
House and Senate procedures. This amendment is added to the current 
bill, and it will be effective in accomplishing what we need. In other 
words, it has a little trigger that says they don't get their legal 
status until the government does what they have been directed to do by 
Congress for over 10 years and have failed to do.
  We have had a pilot test at the Atlanta airport, for example, where 
people go to the airport, catch a plane back home to England, Jordan, 
India or wherever they go, put their fingerprints on a machine, and it 
reads them as they go through the airport. What they found was that out 
of 29,744 people in that pilot test, 175 were on the watch list for 
terrorism or warrants were out for their arrest or other serious 
charges were against them. They were able to identify them before they 
fled or left the country, and that is what the whole system was about.
  They found it didn't slow down the airport and that it didn't cost 
nearly what people are saying it will cost. Some have said it would be 
$25 billion, and that is totally inaccurate. According to this report, 
it will not cost anything like that. Police officers have fingerprint 
reading machines in their automobiles. You can go by there, put your 
fingers on there to read your print, and if you have a warrant out for 
arrest for murder or drug dealing or terrorism, you get apprehended.
  They recently caught a terrorist--actually from Alabama--and 
prosecuted him in Alabama. He was trying to get on a plane in Atlanta.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 5 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair, reserve the remainder of my time, 
and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, let me congratulate the Gang of 8 for 
their assiduous work on this immigration bill, as well as Senator Pat 
Leahy, the chairman of the committee, for doing a lot of good work.
  There is much in this bill I support. I support the pathway to 
citizenship. I support the DREAM Act. I support providing legal status 
to the foreign workers who are working in agriculture. We have to have 
strong border security. I support that effort.
  Let me tell my colleagues what I do not support. What I do not 
support is that at a time when nearly 14 percent of Americans do not 
have a full-time job, at a time when youth unemployment is somewhere 
around 16 percent and kids from California to Maine are desperately 
seeking employment, I do not support the huge expansion in the guest 
worker program that will allow hundreds of thousands of entry-level 
guest workers to come into this country.
  This is important for at least two reasons. We have kids all over 
America who are wondering how they are going to afford to be able to go 
to college. Many of these young people are going out looking for summer 
jobs, looking

[[Page 9320]]

for part-time jobs in order to help them pay for college. That is 
terribly important. We should not pass legislation which makes it 
harder for young people to get jobs in order to put away a few bucks to 
help pay for college.
  Then there is another group of people, and those are young people 
whom we don't talk about enough. Not everybody in America is going to 
college. There are millions of young people who graduate high school 
and want to go out and start their careers and make some money and move 
up the ladder. There are others who have dropped out of high school. We 
cannot turn our backs on those young people. They need jobs as well. If 
young people--young high school graduates, for example--are unable to 
find entry-level jobs, how will they ever be able to develop the 
skills, the experience, and the confidence they need to break into the 
job market? And if they don't get those skills--if they don't get those 
jobs and that income--there is a very strong possibility they may end 
up in antisocial or self-destructive activities.
  Right now, on street corners all over this country, there are kids 
who have nothing to do. And what are they doing when they stand on 
street corners? What they are doing is getting into drugs, they are 
getting into crime, they are getting into self-destructive activity. We 
already have too many young people in this country using drugs. We 
already have too many young people involved in criminal activity. As a 
nation, we have more people in jail than any other country on Earth, 
including China. Let's put our young people into jobs, not into jails.
  As I have heard on this floor time and time again, the best 
antipoverty program is a paycheck. Well, let's give the young people of 
this country a paycheck. Let's put them to work. Let's give them at 
least the entry-level jobs they need in order to earn some income 
today, but even more importantly, let's allow them to gain the job 
skills they need so they know what an honest day's work is about and 
can move up the economic ladder and get better jobs in the future.
  At a time when poverty in this country remains at an almost 50-year 
high, and when unemployment among young people is extremely high, I 
worry deeply that we are creating a permanent underclass--a large 
number of people who are poorly educated and who have limited or no job 
skills. This is an issue we must address and must address now. Either 
we make a serious effort to find jobs for our young people now or we 
are going to pay later in terms of increased crime and the cost of 
incarceration.
  Now, why is this issue of youth unemployment relevant to the debate 
we are having on immigration reform? The answer is obvious to anyone 
who has read the bill. This immigration reform legislation increases 
youth unemployment by bringing into this country, through the J-1 
program and the H-2B program, hundreds of thousands of low-skilled, 
entry-level workers who are taking the jobs young Americans need. At a 
time when youth unemployment in this country is over 16 percent and the 
teen unemployment rate is over 25 percent, many of the jobs that used 
to be done by young Americans are now being performed by foreign 
college students through the J-1 summer work travel program.
  Other entry-level foreign workers come into this country through the 
H-2B guest worker program. We have heard a lot of discussion about 
high-tech workers and how they can create jobs and all that. That is an 
issue for another discussion. Right now, what we are talking about is 
hundreds of thousands of foreign workers coming into this country not 
to do great scientific work, not as great entrepreneurs to start 
businesses, not as Ph.D. engineers, but as waiters and waitresses, 
kitchen help, lifeguards, front desk workers at hotels and resorts, ski 
instructors, cooks, chefs, chambermaids, landscapers, parking lot 
attendants, cashiers, security guards, and many other entry-level jobs.
  Does it really make sense to anyone when so many of our kids are 
desperately looking for a way to earn an honest living that we say to 
those kids: Sorry, you have to get to the back of the line because we 
are bringing in hundreds of thousands of foreign workers to do the jobs 
you can do tomorrow?
  The J-1 program for foreign college students is supposed to be used 
as a cultural exchange program--a program to bring young people into 
this country to learn about our customs and to support international 
cooperation and understanding. That is why it is administered by the 
State Department. But instead of doing that, this J-1 program has 
morphed into a low-wage jobs program to allow corporations such as 
McDonald's, Dunkin Donuts, Disney World, Hershey's, and many other 
major resorts around the country to replace American workers with cheap 
labor from overseas.
  Each and every year companies from all over this country are hiring 
more than 100,000 foreign college students in low-wage jobs through the 
J-1 summer work travel program. Unlike other guest worker programs, the 
J-1 program does not even require businesses to recruit or advertise 
for American workers. What they can do is pay minimum wage. They don't 
have to advertise for American workers. And guess what. For the foreign 
worker, they do not have to pay Social Security tax, they don't have to 
pay Medicare tax, and they don't have to pay unemployment tax. So, 
essentially, we are creating a situation where it is absolutely 
advantageous for an employer to hire a foreign worker rather than an 
American worker.
  So what I have done is introduced two pieces of legislation to 
address this issue. No. 1 basically says while I strongly support 
cultural programs--bringing young people here from abroad is a great 
idea--at this moment, with high unemployment, we cannot have those 
people competing with young Americans for a scarce number of jobs. So 
we eliminate the employment element of the J-1 program.
  The second bill says if we can't do that--and I hope we can--at the 
very least we need a jobs program for American kids, not just a summer 
jobs program but a yearlong jobs program. Let's not turn our backs on 
kids who want to get into the labor market, who want to develop a 
career. They need something in the summertime, they need something year 
round, and we have introduced legislation to do just that.
  My time has expired. I yield my time, if he wants it, to Senator 
Grassley.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                           Amendment No. 1197

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, we will soon be voting on the Thune 
amendment, and I rise to speak in support of the Thune amendment.
  The Thune amendment would strengthen the bill and beef up the 
triggers that precede the legalization program.
  The Thune amendment would ensure that current law regarding double-
layer fencing is implemented.
  Over the years, administration after administration--and not just 
Democrat or just Republican but both--has failed to enforce the laws on 
the books. The American people don't want more laws that will simply be 
ignored, they want the laws on the books to be enforced. This amendment 
offered by Senator Thune would ensure that the border is more secure 
before any legalization program is carried out.
  In a new CNN poll released just today, 36 percent of those polled 
said they favored a path to citizenship for people who have come to 
this country undocumented. But 62 percent of those polled said it is 
more important to increase border security to reduce or eliminate the 
number of immigrants coming into the country without permission from 
our government. So if we stand with the American people, and if we want 
the border secured, we will vote for the Thune amendment.
  It is this simple: When issues come up in my town meetings in my 
State of Iowa and people are asking what is going on with immigration, 
and we sit down and try to explain to the people how this bill is 
moving along or what it might include, invariably there are a lot of 
people in the audience who say we don't need more legislation, we need 
to have the laws on the books enforced.

[[Page 9321]]

I think this is backed up by this poll we have heard about from CNN 
today.
  In addition to that, I think it very much clarifies that people want 
the laws on the books enforced. But, more importantly, they expect 
people who take an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws would 
actually carry out the laws they are elected to carry out. So I hope my 
colleagues will vote for the Thune amendment.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to amendment 
No. 1197, offered by the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), and the Senator from 
Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Inhofe), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Are there any other Senators in 
the chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 151 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Chiesa
     Coats
     Coburn
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Scott
     Sessions
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter

                                NAYS--54

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cochran
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inhofe
     Mikulski
     Shelby
     Wicker
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield to the Senator from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                           Amendment No. 1222

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I offer this amendment. It is a 
technical amendment, three technical but important changes to the Child 
Citizenship Act of 2000. Senator Coats, Senator Blunt, and Senator 
Klobuchar have helped lead this effort. I have explained it numerous 
times on the floor. I think the leaders have agreed on a voice vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have spoken with the distinguished 
ranking member, Mr. Grassley. I understand we are able to agree to the 
Landrieu amendment by voice vote.
  I ask unanimous consent that the 60-vote threshold with respect to 
the Landrieu amendment be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I urge the question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1222) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1228

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 1228 
offered by the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Before we do that, I wish to remind everybody the next 
vote will be a 10-minute vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple but it is 
important. It would finally demand and require execution and 
enforcement of the so-called US-VISIT system, an entry-exit system to 
catch visa overstays. This system was first mandated by Congress in 
1996. We have had six additional votes by Congress demanding it then. 
The 9/11 terrorists were visa overstays. As a result, this system was 
strongly recommended, one of the top recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission. We must put this in place as we act on immigration. This 
amendment would get that done.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. I agree that we need to better track visa overstays. But a 
fully biometric entry-exit system at all air, sea, and land ports of 
entry is the kind of unrealistic trigger we can't adopt. Implementation 
of this amendment would be prohibitively expensive and cause all kinds 
of delays.
  In the Judiciary Committee we adopted an amendment offered by Senator 
Hatch which presents a more reasonable approach.
  I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 9 seconds remaining.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, we have talked about this since 1996 and 
9/11 happened. When are we going to do it if not now?
  I urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) and 
the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Inhofe), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 36, nays 58, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 152 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Chiesa
     Coats
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Scott
     Sessions
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter

                                NAYS--58

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar

[[Page 9322]]


     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Cochran
     Harkin
     Inhofe
     Mikulski
     Shelby
     Wicker
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on 
the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1198

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on amendment No. 
1198, offered by the Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, this amendment will include the tribal 
representatives on the DHS Border Task Force.
  In this country within 100 miles of the border we have 13 Indian 
reservations, some of them right on the border. If we are going to make 
sure the borders are secure in the north and the south, Indians need to 
be a part of the conversation, our Native American friends. They have a 
unique government-to-government status. As I said before, their input 
is critically important.
  This amendment would not be costing anything, has bipartisan support, 
and it will add tribal representatives--two on the north and two on the 
southern region--to the Department of Homeland Security Border Task 
Force. I encourage a ``yea'' vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have no problems with this amendment. 
It ensures that tribal communities are represented.
  The bill's task force is a new and independent entity designed to 
provide recommendations about immigration and border security. Mr. 
Tester is adding four additional members to the task force to ensure 
that the tribes are represented; however, this amendment does not 
fundamentally change the bill.
  There is no opposition to making sure that the tribes have a voice in 
policy. Of course, this task force doesn't have any real power, it only 
makes recommendations. The Secretary isn't required to address their 
concerns or enact their recommendations. Too often, the Secretary does 
not take into consideration our recommendations. Even now she has a 
hard time implementing laws.
  So, again, while the amendment is noncontroversial, Members should 
know this task force is a figleaf for actual border security.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) and 
the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Inhofe), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 153 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Chiesa
     Coats
     Coburn
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cowan
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Cochran
     Harkin
     Inhofe
     Mikulski
     Shelby
     Wicker
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote and lay that motion on the 
table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I am here to speak to what is a historic 
debate here on the floor of the Senate; that is, the debate we are 
having with regard to comprehensive immigration reform. We have a major 
opportunity here in the Congress to finally pass meaningful, strong, 
bipartisan legislation. Immigration reform is something Congress has 
grappled with in fits and starts for over a decade. In fact, I remember 
the summer 7 or 8 years ago when this Senate came very close to passing 
comprehensive immigration reform and fell just short of that goal.
  Today the need to act has become imperative. We cannot ignore it. 
There are constituents in Colorado from across the spectrum who are 
hard-working. They are small business owners, religious leaders, 
farmers, and citizens. They believe that now is the time.
  If we look at our economy, it is beginning to gain strength. Our 
economy is beginning to get its legs under it. Our economy also needs 
the labor market certainty that would come from immigration reform. So 
let's seize this opportunity to pass commonsense legislation that our 
constituents expect.
  I am looking right over the dais. Above the dais, I see ``e pluribus 
unum,'' which translates to ``out of many, one.'' That is a simple 
motto which is engraved in this great Senate Chamber, and it is one of 
the daily reminders that we are a nation of immigrants. Throughout our 
history, millions of immigrants--including my ancestors and the 
Presiding Officer's--braved hardship and great risks to come here. Why 
was that? They sought freedom, opportunity, and a better life for their 
families. Today's immigrants, in that same spirit, continue to brave 
great risks and hardships to obtain the American dream.
  We have heard from fellow Americans who are opposed to fixing our 
broken system. There are those among us who unfortunately see 
immigrants as a burden on our country or want to enact overly punitive 
measures to punish undocumented immigrants. I ask that they remember 
that our country was built and forged by immigrants whose blood and 
sweat built the America we know today.
  To oppose this legislation, with all due respect, is to deny the 
promise our ancestors and even the Framers expected us to extend to 
those outside our borders. Yes, we are a nation of laws, and we don't 
take lightly the violation of our laws, but we are also a nation that 
welcomes foreigners who want to build the American dream.
  I would like to challenge my colleagues to remember that we are a 
better, stronger country because of our immigrants whose first glimpse 
of America was the Statue of Liberty emblazoned with the words of poet 
Emma Lazarus:

       Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning 
     to breathe free.


[[Page 9323]]


  Our country and our economy were built from the ground up by the hard 
work and ingenuity of immigrants and their families. In recent years, 
one in four of America's new small business owners has been an 
immigrant. One in four high-tech startups in America was founded by 
immigrants. And 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies--when they 
started--were created by first- or second-generation immigrants. If we 
look at our system today, unfortunately, because it is broken, it has 
made it harder for would-be business owners as I just described to 
create jobs and help spur our Nation's economic development.
  Let me give another example. Right now our system invites the best 
and brightest from all over the world to come and study at our top 
universities. Once they have the training they need to create a new 
invention or build a new business--listen to this--our system tells 
them to go back home. That is not right.
  I am pleased, honored, humbled, and a little bit proud that I have 
worked for years with Coloradans at my side to solve this problem and 
to make the United States a place where entrepreneurs are encouraged to 
stay, build businesses, and grow our economy. In that vein, I want to 
thank the Gang of 8 for their hard work in crafting a bill that is 
built upon those principles. Entrepreneurs embody the American dream.
  Fixing our broken system is about more than businesses and startups; 
it is principally about families. To say that our current broken 
immigration system is bad for our families would be an understatement. 
Thousands of fathers--myself included--gathered with their families 
this past weekend to celebrate Father's Day. I couldn't help but think 
of the thousands of fathers our immigration system has separated from 
their loved ones or the countless fathers living today in Colorado who 
struggle with the fear every day that they could be separated from 
their families.
  There are fathers like Jorge, who has been living in the United 
States for 23 years. He is the proud father of four U.S. citizen 
children, including a U.S. Army corporal. He has been contributing to 
our economy in Colorado and therefore to the American economy and his 
community for many years. With immigration reform, Jorge will be able 
to come out of the shadows, where he will finally be able to realize 
the American dream without the constant fear of being deported and 
separated from his children. As I have suggested, unfortunately Jorge's 
situation is not unique. The fact that our current system has brought 
us to the place where at any moment thousands of families can be ripped 
apart is just not right.
  This bill would give Jorge and millions of others like him a tough 
but fair shot at earning legal status and eventually citizenship. Make 
no mistake. This process will not be without significant cost, and it 
will not be easy.
  Let me explain how I draw that conclusion. In order to get earned 
legalization, Jorge will have to pass a background check, pay back 
taxes, penalties, and fees, demonstrate work history, learn English, 
and go to the back of the line behind others who have also gone through 
the process. This is a tough but fair road ahead. It is a path 
negotiated by Senators of both parties and supported by the American 
people.
  Today there are an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in 
the United States. Some cross the border illegally, others have 
overstayed their visas. Regardless of how they came, the overwhelming 
majority of these folks, just like Jorge, are trying to earn a living 
and provide for their families.
  There are thousands of immigrants in Colorado who are working in the 
shadows, where they are vulnerable to exploitive employers paying them 
less than minimum wage, making them work without overtime, and denying 
them any of the benefits given to their other employees. That pushes 
down standards for all workers. What I am saying is that our current 
immigration system has fostered an underground economy that exploits a 
cheap source of labor while depressing wages for everyone else.
  My conclusion is that this bill will ensure that businesses are all 
playing by the same set of rules, and it includes tough penalties for 
businesses that do not. The underlying bill implements an effective 
employment verification system that will prevent identity theft, the 
hiring of unauthorized workers, and send a clear message that will help 
prevent future waves of illegal immigration. It is a commonsense 
solution. It is the kind of solution I have heard Coloradans ask for.
  I will now turn my attention to the border. This legislation contains 
historic resources and measures to better secure our borders. Last week 
I heard time and time again: Borders first, borders first. To the 
Coloradans who expect border security, as I do, I say the best thing we 
can do for border security is pass a comprehensive immigration reform 
bill.
  We have made significant progress over the past several years. We 
have put $17 billion in resources into protecting our borders. As a 
result, illegal border crossings are at their lowest levels in decades. 
Let's be clear. There is still room for significant improvement, and 
the strong border security provisions in this bill help us get there. 
In fact, the underlying bill would be the single biggest commitment to 
border security in our Nation's history. Why? It would put another $6.5 
billion on top of what we are already spending toward stronger, 
smarter, more innovative security along our borders. It would also 
direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit to Congress a 
comprehensive border security plan and a southern border fencing 
strategy. Moreover, the legislation would delay the process of granting 
legal status to immigrants until the plan and strategy have been 
deployed, a mandatory employment verification system has been 
implemented, and an electronic biographic entry-exit system is in place 
at major airports and seaports.
  Finally, this legislation would hold employers more accountable if 
they knowingly hire undocumented workers. We are saying that no longer 
will we tolerate an underground market of workers who are illegally 
employed and many times exploited.
  As I begin to close, I would like to turn to a special group of 
Coloradans who would be helped. This is a group about whom we all 
should care and about whom I deeply care, and that is our students. I 
am very pleased and excited that the provisions for the DREAM Act are 
included in the comprehensive immigration reform bill we are 
considering.
  I have stood alongside a steadfast group of my colleagues as we 
fought for passage of the DREAM Act for many years. Along the way I 
have talked to and more importantly listened to countless Colorado 
students who have looked me in the eyes and asked for their government 
to help give them status, opportunity, and potential so they can go on 
to be the next generation of American leaders without the daily fear of 
deportation. We are talking about thousands of Colorado students who 
were brought to the United States at a very young age. It wasn't their 
decision to be brought here, but they came here with their parents. 
That cohort--literally thousands of these wonderful, enthusiastic, 
energetic Coloradans--is poised to graduate college or join the 
military and in the process strengthen our country and grow our 
economy. Let's do the right thing by the DREAMers.
  I say and implore my colleagues, let's not stand in the way of what 
Americans want and what our economy needs. Our Nation will be stronger 
when our borders are secure, when employers are held accountable for 
the workers they have hired, when jobs are filled with qualified and 
documented workers who contribute to the economy and undocumented 
workers who are currently here are held accountable and given an 
opportunity to earn their legal status and then citizenship.
  So for my colleagues who are here today and are serious about fixing 
our broken immigration system, let's actually have a serious debate to 
improve this legislation. Let's vote on amendments with a sincere 
intent to really improve this bill. Let's work productively to find a 
bipartisan solution to

[[Page 9324]]

this huge national issue in the same way the Gang of 8 has worked for 
the past many months.
  As I said in my opening remarks, we have a historic opportunity to 
finally pass comprehensive immigration reform. We have an extraordinary 
opportunity to show the Senate at its best. Having the opportunity to 
openly and honestly debate this legislation is one of the many reasons 
we ran to serve in the Senate in the first place. The public has placed 
their trust in us to get this right, and we can.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to present and discuss the next 
amendment I personally offered which I am going to be bringing to the 
Senate floor; that is, amendment No. 1330, to prohibit anyone who has 
been convicted of offenses under the violence against women and 
children act from gaining legal status under the bill.
  I think if we ask the American people if they support the outline 
that has been presented as the guiding outline for the Gang of 8, the 
vast majority would say we absolutely support those principles. I would 
say I support those principles as they were enumerated. The trouble is, 
in my opinion, when we actually read the bill--and let's remember, 
particularly as we are in the middle of the debacle of executing 
ObamaCare, it is important to read the bill, it is important to know 
what is in the bill--in my opinion, the trouble is when we actually 
read the bill, it doesn't stand up to those principles. It doesn't 
match.
  One example is the absolute commitment made by the Gang of 8 early on 
in this process that individuals with a serious or significant criminal 
background would not get legal status and would be deported. They were 
very specific about that. In their bipartisan framework for 
comprehensive immigration reform, which the authors of this bill--the 
so-called Gang of 8--released in January of this year--they said very 
specifically:

       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.

  It is very clear.
  But then, again, when we actually read the bill, I believe it comes 
up far short of that. It does not include significant crimes, serious 
crimes which it should include as a disqualification.
  One of the areas I think is the clearest example of that is offenses 
under the Violence Against Women Act, offenses that have to do with 
domestic violence, with child abuse. Those are serious violent offenses 
that every American citizen--particularly women--would certainly 
consider very consequential, very significant, very serious, 
undermining their fundamental security.
  This Vitter amendment No. 1330, which I will be presenting and 
getting a vote on later in this debate, is simple. It simply says those 
criminal offenses, a conviction of any of those criminal offenses under 
the Violence Against Women Act--we are talking about domestic violence, 
we are talking about child abuse--are disqualifiers. Nobody can gain 
legal status if they are convicted of any of those offenses. That is a 
disqualifier and it is grounds for deportation.
  Again, it is very important to read the bill. It is very important 
that if anything passes here, it actually matches the promises made to 
the American people, the rhetoric the American people have heard for 
weeks and months. This is an important area where we need to get it 
right.
  So I hope all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, agree that 
these are serious offenses. Certainly, everybody seemed to agree in the 
important discussion about the Violence Against Women Act. Certainly, 
everybody seemed to agree then that those offenses that are all about 
domestic violence and child abuse are very serious, very significant, 
involve or threaten violence, and certainly they should be 
disqualifiers for a person becoming legalized under this bill and they 
should be grounds for immediate deportation. I hope this is beyond 
debate. I hope this amendment, as it should, gets widespread bipartisan 
support.
  I very much look forward to continuing this discussion about 
amendment No. 1330. I very much look forward to getting the vote it 
will get because it deserves to get it--and I will demand it--and I 
very much hope for and look forward to a strong bipartisan vote in 
support of stopping violence against women, in support of furthering 
the protections of the Violence Against Women Act.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I know the parties are working on a 
unanimous consent agreement for the next tranche of amendments to come 
forward. I expect and hope mine will be one of them, but it is not 
quite completed yet. So rather than ask for unanimous consent to call 
up my amendment now, what I would like to do is just talk about it a 
little bit and explain to my colleagues what is in it.
  We call my amendment the RESULTS amendment because it is necessary, 
because in the current form of the so-called Gang of 8 bill, it does 
not include any genuine guarantee of border security. My colleagues 
don't have to take my word for it. All they have to do is take a look 
at the chart behind me. Senator Durbin, one of the four Democrats and 
four Republicans who were responsible for coming up with the so-called 
Gang of 8 bill, said in January that in that bill, a pathway to 
citizenship ``would be contingent upon securing the border.'' He said 
that in January. I think a lot of people took him and others at their 
word, only to find out otherwise in June, 6 months later--June 2013--
when he was quoted as saying that the gang has ``delinked the pathway 
to citizenship and border enforcement.''
  What that means is the underlying bill gives a promise--another 
hollow, unenforceable promise--and, based upon our experience, I think 
the American people would be justified in saying they are asking us to 
trust them at a time when there is a genuine trust deficit with regard 
to the Federal Government. We have heard too many promises. We want 
guarantees that these promises will be delivered on, and that is what 
my amendment is all about.
  In the underlying bill, all we have is--first of all, we have a 100-
percent situational awareness requirement and a 90-percent apprehension 
requirement of people who are crossing the border illegally. But all 
that is required in the underlying bill is the submission of a plan and 
substantial completion of that plan for which nobody has seen the 
contents. That is 10 years from now. I don't think anyone would be out 
of bounds in saying there may be good intentions--people may actually 
believe what they say, but how can we possibly know that some unwritten 
plan that is going to be in place 10 years from now will actually be 
successful in accomplishing the very goals that were set out in the 
bill?
  My amendment is slightly different because it embraces those same 
standards, including 100 percent situational awareness and 90 percent 
cross-border apprehensions, and it says a person can't transition from 
probationary status to legal permanent residency until it is certified 
that they have accomplished those goals. What that does, simply stated, 
is--it doesn't punish anything, but it lines up all of the incentives 
for those of us who want to secure the border and have a border 
immigration system that actually works and incentives for those for 
whom a pathway to citizenship is the holy grail; that is what they want 
more than anything else. So it realigns incentives on the right and the 
left and gets us in a position where we can actually look the American 
people in the face and say we have as close as humanly possible a 
guarantee that these promises will ultimately be kept.
  My amendment requires the Secretary of the Department of Homeland 
Security and the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection and the 
Department of Homeland Security inspector general, in consultation with 
the Government Accountability Office and the Comptroller General, to 
jointly certify that the following triggers are

[[Page 9325]]

met before registered provisional immigrants can adjust to lawful 
permanent residency or green card status. First, as I said, the 
Department of Homeland Security has to have achieved and maintained 
full situational awareness of the entire southern border for not less 
than 1 year. That means the Department of Homeland Security has the 
capability to conduct continuous and integrated monitoring, sensing or 
surveillance of each and every 1-mile segment of the southern border or 
its immediate vicinity.
  Some may say: Full border situational awareness? How are we going to 
do that? Are we going to link Border Patrol agents arm to arm across a 
2,000-mile border? Are we going to just build a fence, as some have 
advocated, along the 2,000-mile border? The fact is we are going to use 
the best technology and the best strategy to make sure the resources 
our U.S. military has deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq and which have 
been tested along the southern border are available for border control, 
so that by virtue of radar, eyes in the sky, dirigibles, and unmanned 
aerial vehicles, a combination of these connected to the sensors on the 
ground will make sure the Border Patrol knows what is happening along 
the border when people try to cross and enter illegally. Then it is up 
to them to hit the 90-percent operational control requirement in both 
the underlying bill and in my amendment.
  The Department of Homeland Security is required to achieve that 
operational control for not less than 1 year, meaning it has an 
effectiveness apprehension rate of not less than 90 percent in each and 
every sector of the southern border.
  I saw this morning that Senator McCain said he expects to have a 
letter from the head of the Border Patrol which states that standard is 
imminently doable, given the proper resources. So if it is imminently 
doable, then I would like to suggest, contrary to what the majority 
leader said a few days ago, that this amendment is not a poison pill. 
This amendment would give the American people the confidence that we 
are actually going to do what is technologically feasible and which I 
believe they have a right to expect if we are going to be generous in 
the way we treat the 11 million people who are here and provide them 
not only an opportunity to apply for probation and to work, if they 
qualify and if they maintain the terms of that probation, but if they 
are successful, to ultimately apply 10 years hence for legal permanent 
residency for those who want that and who have played by the rules.
  The third trigger in my amendment is one that maintains the 
underlying provision requiring the Department of Homeland Security to 
implement an E-Verify system nationwide. The current situation is such 
that individuals who want to work may have fake documents claiming to 
be somebody they are not--maybe it is somebody else's Social Security 
number--in order to get hired. But the employer is not expected to be 
the police; they are not expected to be able to look behind these 
documents. We know that massive identity theft and document fraud occur 
in such a way as to circumvent the efforts to enforce our system and to 
restore legality into the system when it comes to people who come to 
this country and want to work here. So that is the third one.
  The fourth one, in order to fill a gaping hole in the bill with 
respect to interior enforcement, the RESULTS amendment requires the 
Department of Homeland Security to initiate removal proceedings for at 
least 90 percent of visa overstays who collectively currently account 
for 40 percent of illegal immigration. I think it surprises a lot of 
people to learn it is not just our porous borders, it is people who 
enter the country legally who simply overstay their visa and melt into 
the great American landscape, unless they happen to get caught for 
committing a crime of some kind, and they typically are not identified 
or detained. This is simply unacceptable, and my amendment is designed 
to guarantee that the Department of Homeland Security will implement a 
procedure which has been required for 17 years now. President Clinton 
signed a provision into law requiring a biometric entry and exit 
system.
  When a person enters the country on a foreign visa, they are required 
to give fingerprints--that is their biometric identifier--but there is 
no way and no means by which to check whether a person has left the 
country when their visa has expired. This is designed to deal with that 
40-percent source of illegal immigration.
  My amendment authorizes the creation of a southern border security 
commission similar to the one in the underlying bill, but does so in a 
way that respects the Constitution and federalism.
  My amendment removes Washington, DC, appointees from the commission 
and allows State Governors to immediately begin advising the Department 
on gaining operational control of the southern border. I think this is 
very important because while I have heard colleagues here in the Senate 
who have good intentions--but I think sometimes their only 
consciousness of what the border may look like is derived from movies 
they have seen or novels they have read--this requires consultation 
with the people who know the border communities best, and that is the 
people who live there and the State Governors who govern States on our 
U.S.-Mexico border.
  My amendment also requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
issue a comprehensive southern border security strategy within 120 days 
of enactment. People who are listening may say: I thought the 
Department of Homeland Security already had a southern border security 
strategy. And if it does not, why in the heck not?
  Well, this would compel the Secretary--who, amazingly to most people 
in my State, when she declared the border is secure, nearly provoked 
laughter, as much as anything else, because it is patently and 
demonstrably not true--but this amendment would require such a strategy 
within 120 days of enactment of the bill and chart a course for 
achieving and maintaining full situational awareness and operational 
control of the southern border.
  The Secretary would also be required to submit semiannual reports on 
implementation. This amendment would also streamline and improve the 
strategy required under the underlying bill. For example, it combines 
the southern border security strategy and the southern border fencing 
strategy for administrative clarity and economies of scale.
  It also addresses an oversight in the underlying bill by requiring 
the Department of Homeland Security to develop a strategy to reduce 
land port of entry wait times by 50 percent in order to facilitate 
legitimate commerce and encourage lawful cross-border trade.
  This is something that is not sufficiently appreciated. Mexico is our 
third largest trading partner. Six million jobs in America depend on 
cross-border trade with Mexico. Why in the world would we want to do 
anything that would make cross-border lawful trade worse? Right now, by 
failing to update our infrastructure at the ports of entry--and to make 
sure we have adequate staffing here--there are huge wait lines which 
prove very useful to the people who want to smuggle drugs and people 
across the border. So this would have a way of separating the 
legitimate trade and traffic from the people who are up to no good: the 
drug dealers, the human traffickers, and the like.
  There is a question that has arisen, as you might expect, about how 
we are going to pay for all this. That is a good question, and it is an 
important question. My amendment creates a comprehensive immigration 
reform trust fund similar to that in the underlying bill. Ultimately, 
the goal is for fees and fines to fund this entire piece of 
legislation. But my amendment combines all border security funding 
streams and makes $6.5 billion of these funds available immediately for 
implementing the southern border security strategy.
  The RESULTS amendment increases the number of Border Patrol agents 
and Customs and Border Protection officers by 5,000 each. Some people 
have mistakenly said I want to add 10,000 Border Patrol agents to the 
border on top of the 20,000 who are already there.

[[Page 9326]]

Well, that is not entirely accurate. We want 5,000 more because if you 
have this great technology--which is going to give you eyes in the sky; 
100-percent situational awareness--when this technology identifies 
people trying to cross the border, you have to have somebody to go get 
them and to detain them. That is why Border Patrol agents are 
important. In some parts of our 1,200-mile border in Texas alone, there 
are huge stretches of land that are vulnerable to cross-border traffic. 
That is why the Rio Grande sector in South Texas is now the single most 
crossed sector.
  The other day, when I was in Brooks County--Falfurrias, TX--the head 
of the Border Patrol sector in that area told me that in 1 day they had 
700 people coming across the border whom they detained. We do not know 
how many got away, but they did detain 700 people. Madam President, 400 
of them came from countries other than Mexico. In other words, Mexico's 
economy is doing much better, and it is less and less incentive for 
people to cross into the United States to work if they have a job where 
they live. But in Central America things are pretty bad right now. So 
400 out of the 700 in 1 day came from Central America. Literally people 
could come from anywhere around the world if they have the money and 
the determination to penetrate our southern border. So it is important 
we have increased numbers of Border Patrol agents as well as Customs 
and Border Protection officers to help facilitate legitimate commerce 
and to detain people trying to cross illegally.
  By the way, the underlying bill already has a provision for 
additional CBP officers--Customs and Border Protection officers--and my 
amendment would increase that number by 3,500, and add 5,000 Border 
Patrol agents to it.
  The RESULTS amendment also improves emergency border security 
resource appropriations by ensuring that deployment decisions are 
consistent with the comprehensive strategy and not done in a piecemeal, 
disconnected sort of way. It is important that we have a combination of 
not only boots on the ground, infrastructure, but also that technology 
I think we would all agree upon, much of which the American taxpayer 
has already paid for because it is being deployed by the U.S. military 
in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq. What we need to do is transfer 
some of that to the Homeland Security Department--another part of the 
Federal Government--and to implement it to help provide that 
situational awareness and enforcement.
  My amendment also authorizes $1 billion a year for 6 years--it does 
not appropriate it; it authorizes it--in emergency port of entry 
personnel and infrastructure improvements. I already touched on that a 
moment ago. But the whole idea of the underlying bill is to provide a 
guest worker program, a legal means to come and work in the United 
States. The idea is that will allow law enforcement to focus on the bad 
actors. This has the similar rationale.
  The RESULTS amendment further improves the land ports of entry by 
allowing the General Services Administration to enter into public-
private partnerships to improve infrastructure and operations.
  This amendment also repurposes the Tucson sector earmark in the 
underlying bill to the full southern border to help ensure that 
effective border security prosecutions are increased in every sector, 
not just in one, in Tucson.
  By making improvements to the State Criminal Alien Assistance 
Program--the so-called SCAAP bill--my amendment would help ensure that 
State and local governments are swiftly and fully compensated for their 
assistance in detaining criminal aliens who have been convicted of 
offenses and who are awaiting trial.
  One of the great frustrations in my State--given our common border 
with Mexico and the failure of the Federal Government to live up to its 
responsibilities when it comes to border security--is that much of the 
cost of that is borne by local governments and local taxpayers in 
counties along the U.S.-Mexico border, particularly when it comes to 
education, health care, and law enforcement.
  This SCAAP provision in my amendment would help make sure that in the 
law enforcement area State and local law enforcement officials are 
indemnified and, indeed, encouraged to help cooperate in detaining 
criminal aliens who have been convicted of offenses and are awaiting 
trial.
  My amendment would also create the southern border security 
assistance grant program to help border law enforcement officials 
target drug traffickers, human traffickers, human smugglers, and 
violent crime. Again, the Federal law enforcement agencies cannot do it 
by themselves, and local and State law enforcement in Texas do not 
expect them to, but they do expect a little bit of help, financial 
help, particularly, when it comes to overtime, when it comes to 
equipment that is necessary to supplement the Federal effort or to fill 
the gap when the Federal Government leaves a gap in law enforcement 
efforts.
  My amendment would also remove a controversial provision in the 
underlying bill that would prevent the emergency deportation of serious 
criminals.
  My amendment would remove a controversial disclosure bar that would 
prevent law enforcement and national security officials from obtaining 
critical information contained in legalization applications filed under 
this bill. My amendment would allow these officials to request and 
obtain information in connection with an independent criminal, national 
security, or civil investigation.
  This is directed at one of the biggest problems in the 1986 amnesty 
Ronald Reagan signed, because he signed an amnesty for 3 million people 
premised on the idea that we were actually going to enforce the law and 
we would never need to do that again. But so much of that amnesty was 
riddled with fraud and criminal activity because of the confidentiality 
provisions which prohibited law enforcement from investigating and 
detecting fraud and criminality. If we want to maintain the integrity 
of the provisions of this bill, we need to make sure our law 
enforcement officials are not blinded, but that they actually have the 
ability to investigate these matters for a criminal, national security, 
or civil investigation.
  My amendment would allow Citizenship and Immigration Services to turn 
over evidence of criminal activity or terrorism contained in 
legalization applications filed under the bill to other law enforcement 
agencies after the application has been denied and all administrative 
appeals have been exhausted.
  This would greatly work to reduce the potential for mass fraud that 
occurred in the 1986 amnesty bill, and it would allow the application 
process to maintain its basic integrity and ensure that national 
security is protected.
  My amendment would also give American diplomatic officials more 
flexibility to share foreigners' visa records with our allies by 
clarifying that the State Department may share visa records with a 
foreign government on a case-by-case basis for the purpose of 
determining removability or eligibility for a visa, admission, or other 
immigration benefits--not just for crime prevention, investigation, and 
punishment--or when the sharing is in the national interest of the 
United States.
  My amendment would further improve the public safety by denying 
probationary status--something called RPI, or registered provisional 
immigrant status--to any person who has been convicted of a crime 
involving domestic violence, child abuse, assault with bodily injury, 
violation of a protective order under the Violence Against Women Act, 
or drunk driving. These are serious offenses, and the consequences are 
often tragic. The underlying bill would allow the vast majority of 
illegal immigrants who have committed these crimes to automatically 
become registered provisional immigrants and, ultimately, hold open to 
them the possibility they could become American citizens. I think we 
need to draw a very bright line between those whose only offense is to 
try to come here for a better life and those who

[[Page 9327]]

have shown such contempt for our laws and American law and order that 
they commit crimes. We should not reward them with a registered 
provisional immigrant or probationary status.
  My amendment also removes an unjustified provision in the underlying 
bill that would allow repeat criminals with multiple convictions to 
automatically obtain legal status, so long as they were convicted of 
the multiple offenses on the same day. I know that sounds very strange, 
but in the underlying bill, if you commit multiple offenses on one day, 
they do not count as separate offenses for purposes of the bar--if you 
commit three misdemeanors or a felony. So my amendment would fix that.
  My amendment would also remove a dangerous provision in the 
underlying bill that would allow the Secretary of the Department of 
Homeland Security unfettered discretion to waive this criminal activity 
prohibition and to allow people to gain legal status, even if they are 
repeat criminals who have been convicted of three or more offenses.
  My amendment would strike a controversial provision allowing 
deportees and persons currently located outside the United States to 
qualify for probationary status. I do not know how many people have 
actually focused on this provision. I think most people thought this 
was for people who were in the shadows in the United States whose only 
offense was simply a violation of our immigration laws to come here and 
work. But this underlying bill would allow people who have already been 
deported and who have committed crimes already to reenter the country 
and to qualify for probationary status. My amendment would change that 
and fix that.
  My amendment would require the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
through her designees, to conduct interviews of applicants for RPI 
status who have been convicted of a criminal offense in order to 
determine whether the applicant is a danger to the public safety.
  Now, I can imagine that somebody might have committed some 
misdemeanor offense, but upon further inquiry and examination they may 
not be deemed a threat to the public safety. That is what the purpose 
of that interview requirement would be. We also close a judicial review 
loophole that would allow dangerous individuals to remain in the United 
States after their RPI application has been denied by the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  Finally, my amendment would take a hard line against human smuggling 
and the transnational criminal organizations that are the primary 
movers of people and drugs across the southern borders. I do not know 
how many of our colleagues really understand this now, but this is a 
major business that is primarily occupied by organized crime. It is the 
drug cartels. It is what we sometimes call transnational criminal 
organizations and the people who work for them.
  They are the primary agency moving people, drugs, and contraband 
across the border. That is what my amendment is designed to attack--
increased penalties for human smuggling and the transnational criminal 
organizations that facilitate them. My amendment adds aggravated 
penalties for human smuggling that is committed by repeat offenders 
which result in death, result in human trafficking, or include 
involuntary sexual conduct.
  I had the humbling experience the other day when I was in south Texas 
in meeting a young lady who is from Central America. Her parents paid 
$6,000 for her to be smuggled into the United States and to be reunited 
with relatives in New Jersey, only to find out that did not work out 
too well, and she had to rejoin the person who brought her across the 
border, the human smuggler, who promptly prostituted her and put her 
into involuntary servitude where she was afraid to escape lest she be 
deported and have to leave the country.
  There are innumerable human tragedies which occur day in and day out 
under the status quo, which is one reason why I believe we need to fix 
our broken immigration system, and particularly our porous border, that 
allows these predators to prey on innocent young women like this young 
woman I met from Guatemala, and to basically commit them to human 
slavery in the United States in places like Houston, where she worked 
in a bar and was prostituted out numerous times a day. Because she felt 
so vulnerable, she believed the only way she could actually stay here 
was to submit to the demands of this sexual predator.
  My amendment respects the victims of abuse of human smuggling by 
requiring the Department of Justice to ensure that information about 
missing and unidentified migrant remains found on lands near the 
southern border is uploaded into the National Missing and Unidentified 
Persons System. We provide state and local officials with resources to 
identify the victims.
  This is another experience I had when I was in Brooks County recently 
in south Texas, where just last year alone they found 129 dead bodies--
human remains--that they were unable to identify because these were 
people simply left behind by the human smugglers who basically did not 
care anything about them--only for the money they would provide, which 
once provided, they could care less about whether these people actually 
made their way into the United States, particularly if they were 
slowing down the rest of the group.
  My RESULTS amendment disqualifies persons who have used a commercial 
motor vehicle to commit a human smuggling offense from operating a 
commercial vehicle for a year. We ban repeat human smugglers from 
operating commercial motor vehicles for life. This is a penalty that 
will have teeth in it and deter this heinous crime. My amendment 
creates special penalties for illegal immigrants convicted of drug 
trafficking or crimes of violence.
  Now, we understand that, again, some people have come across our 
borders without observing our immigration laws who want nothing but a 
chance to work. But if people have come across the border and engaged 
in drug trafficking or criminal violence, they deserve the special 
penalties provided for in my amendment. My amendment would create a new 
crime for illegal border crossing with the intent to aid, abet, or 
engage in a crime of terrorism. Again, this is something I wonder 
whether my colleagues really understand because they do not live along 
the southwestern border.
  We have had people from 100 different countries, including countries 
of special interest as state sponsors of terrorism, come across our 
southwestern border. When I was in Falfurrias the other day, the Border 
Patrol showed me rescue beacons which, if you get sick enough and 
dehydrated enough and exposed enough to the elements and just want to 
give up, you can hit the beacon and the Border Patrol will come and 
rescue you.
  They are listed in three languages: English, Spanish, and Chinese. I 
asked the Border Patrol: Well, Chinese, that seems a little bit out of 
place in south Texas. They said: Well, for $30,000, if you are from 
China, you can hire someone to smuggle you into the United States. So, 
as we have heard from both the Director of National Intelligence and 
the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, this vulnerability along 
our southwestern border is literally a national security vulnerability, 
and one reason we need to adopt my amendment.
  My amendment closes loopholes in current laws that allow drug cartel 
mules to transport bulk cash and launder money with near impunity. So 
what happens is, the drugs come from the south of the border to the 
north of the border. Then the transaction is made by somebody buying 
those drugs. The cash has to make its way back. We have developed 
pretty sophisticated means through a wire transfer process to identify 
when large amounts of cash are transferred by wire. But there is also a 
huge trade in bulk cash, where literally cash is transferred in bulk 
across the border south in order to launder it with near impunity. My 
amendment would address that problem.

[[Page 9328]]

  My amendment targets money-laundering efforts through stored value 
cards and blank checks. So why do it on the wire? Why do it in bulk 
cash if you can just do it through a gift card you can buy at a local 
grocery store or blank checks? These are tactics that are frequently 
used by cartels to transport criminal proceeds across the southern 
border and launder money.
  In sum, my amendment goes beyond promises and platitudes. It demands 
results. Again, it realigns the incentives for everybody to make sure 
the Department of Homeland Security hits the standards in this bill of 
100 percent situational awareness, 90 percent operational control.
  These are not my standards alone. These were standards that the Gang 
of 8 wrote initially into their bill. Their bill offers promises but no 
real enforcement means to make sure it actually happens.
  Under my amendment, people who applied for registered provisional 
status are not eligible for legal permanent residency until the 
American people have the assurances that the border security measures, 
the E-Verify provision, the biometric entry-exit system, all those 
things have been done.
  That seems like a small price to pay with a generous gift that the 
American people are being asked to confer upon people who have entered 
the country illegally or who came in legally and overstayed their visa 
in violation of our laws. Now, this is what a real border security 
trigger looks like. Unfortunately, some of our colleagues do not want a 
trigger at all. Above all, they want a pathway to citizenship 
regardless of whether we have secured our borders.
  We have tried that before--in 1986. We have also promised people 
since 1996 that we would implement a biometric entry-exit system and 
have never delivered that. The 9/11 Commission identified the need for 
a biometric entry-exit system as a national security imperative in the 
9/11 Commission report. We still have not done it. So why in the world 
would the American people, at a time when their trust in the Federal 
Government is at an all-time low, why in the world would we simply say 
trust us once more. We are going to promise you the Sun and the Moon 
and the aurora borealis, but we are not going to have any means 
necessary in the bill to actually require the implementation of those 
promises. By the time the empty promises are realized, we know there 
will be 11 million people on registered provisional immigrant status 
and potentially on the way to legal permanent residency and 
citizenship.
  CNN reported a poll today that said 6 out of 10 Americans in their 
poll were OK with providing people humane and compassionate treatment, 
including an opportunity to earn legal status in this country if they 
could just be assured that the borders would be secured and our laws 
would be enforced. My amendment accomplishes exactly that.
  As I have repeatedly emphasized, my amendment uses the same border 
security standards as the Gang of 8 bill. Again, the difference is that 
in my amendment it has a real trigger that is based on demonstrable 
results, while their so-called trigger can be activated whether or not 
our borders are ever secured.
  To put it another way, their trigger demands border security inputs. 
My trigger demands border security results or outputs. We have now had 
27 years of inputs since the 1986 amnesty, and we still do not have 
secure borders. It is long past time to demand results, or outputs, and 
not just more hollow promises.
  One final point about immigration reform. Whatever legislation we 
pass in this Chamber will head over to the House of Representatives. If 
we want the Senate bill to have any chance to become law, then we have 
to include real border security provisions and a real border security 
trigger. Our House colleagues have made that abundantly clear.
  In other words, my amendment is not a poison pill. It is an antidote 
because it is the only way we are ever going to truly get bipartisan 
immigration reform, something which I hope and pray we will because the 
status quo is simply unacceptable.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I understand I am not supposed to call up 
my amendment. But I would like to discuss amendment No. 1298. If it 
were appropriate, I would ask to make it pending. But, again, I 
understand we are not quite ready for that.
  I am offering this amendment, when the time is right, because I think 
it is crucial that we have the strongest possible border protection 
system in place if this bill, in fact, does someday go into law. To 
that end, I would like to ensure that we have the best trained 
personnel securing our borders and overseeing the activity that 
contributes to the safety of our Nation every day.
  Therefore, I am proposing an amendment to require the Department of 
Homeland Security to set up a program to recruit highly qualified 
veterans of the Armed Forces as well as members of the Reserves to fill 
crucial positions within Customs and Border Protection and Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement.
  The security provided by these agents depends on the line watch 
agents who identify and apprehend undocumented aliens, smugglers, and 
terrorists. It depends on the agriculture and trade specialists, 
aircraft pilots, and mission support staff. It also depends on the 
intelligence research specialists, report officers, and systems 
engineers. Although the role and responsibilities within ICE and CBP 
are varied, each plays a critical role in protecting the border. The 
ability of these agencies to protect the border depends on the skills, 
training, and judgment of its employees.
  The men and women who have served our Nation in the Armed Forces, as 
well as those who have served in the Reserves, have a broad range of 
capabilities that make them well suited to work in these important 
agencies. These men and women embody endurance and adaptability. Many 
of them have the human intelligence skills that ICE and CBP agents and 
officers need to detect illegal border crossers and respond to other 
nefarious activities. They are familiar with the security equipment and 
technologies that these agencies rely upon.
  They have experience responding to leads provided by electronic 
sensor systems and aircraft sightings, as well as interpreting and 
following tracks and other physical evidence. They are trained in 
target assessment and have experience in disseminating the intelligence 
needed to make informed operational strategies.
  These men and women, in short, have the physical skills, operational 
experience, and decisionmaking abilities needed by ICE and CBP to 
ensure that our borders are stronger than ever.
  Let me say this is one of these amendments that is a no-brainer. This 
makes sense, and it helps our veterans in a couple of different ways. 
It helps with the unemployment rate, but it also helps them continue to 
serve our country. The bottom line is it helps our country to have the 
best, the brightest, most capable, and most experienced personnel we 
can possibly have on the border.
  This is a bipartisan amendment. Senator Johanns is my partner, and I 
am honored to be joined by him. Certainly, I would like to have broad-
based bipartisan support as we proceed when the time is right.
  I hope to have this amendment included in the bill. Again, when the 
time is right, I would ask that my colleagues consider supporting this 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. My colleagues have heard me mention so many times that 
we tend to delegate more and we ought to be legislating. This bill is 
another example of delegating too much and giving too much authority to 
Cabinet-level people, in this case the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
and not making enough hard decisions on the floor of the Senate.
  It is reminiscent of the 1,693 delegations of authority we gave to 
Cabinet

[[Page 9329]]

people in the health care reform bill to a point where you can read 
that 2,700 pages and understand it, but we truly don't know what the 
health care system in the United States is going to be until those 
1,693 regulations are put in place. That is going to be a long way down 
the road.
  I wish to point out to my colleagues, I think we are making the same 
mistake in this immigration bill that is before the Senate. I wish to 
take some time to talk about how important it is to emphasize the need 
for Congress to legislate, not delegate, especially with this 
immigration bill before us.
  When an immigration bill is nearly 1,200 pages long, the American 
people should expect that it is their elected representatives writing 
the legislation and making most of the decisions. They should expect 
the executive branch and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
particular, to carry out those policies.
  There are individual circumstances that Congress cannot fully 
anticipate, so it is understandable, then, delegating some authority. 
With direction from Congress, the Secretary should be able to issue 
regulations to enforce legislative policies in those situations. Those 
regulations and any discretion the Secretary exercises, such as other 
delegations of power from Congress, should be subject to judicial 
review to ensure that the policies Congress established are being 
carried out according to congressional intent.
  But this immigration bill takes a different and wrong-headed 
approach. It provides highly general discretion to the Secretary. It 
gives the Secretary tremendous, often unilateral, discretion to 
implement the bill. In many instances, that discretion is not even 
subject to judicial review.
  This, obviously, is not the way power is supposed to work in our 
representative system of government. Uncontrolled unilateral discretion 
is not what the Framers of the Constitution envisioned for a government 
with separation of powers, checks, and balances. We have seen, for 
instance, and recently with the IRS, what can happen when the executive 
branch exercises authority with too much discretion and not enough 
oversight.
  By some accounts, there are 222 provisions in the bill that give the 
Secretary of Homeland Security discretion or even allow her to waive 
otherwise governing parts of the bill. Other people have counted even 
more than the 222 provisions I have just referred to. Whether it is 
more or less, it is still a lot. In some cases, it is not just the 
delegation, it is how it is delegated.
  The Secretary's unbridled waiver authority makes a bill that is 
already weak on immigration enforcement then even weaker.
  Ironically, when the Judiciary Committee marked up the immigration 
bill, it rejected amendments that I and others offered to limit 
judicial review of immigration enforcement proceedings against people 
who are in this country illegally. The majority argued against them by 
claiming that judicial review, which historically has been limited to 
these enforcement actions, should be expanded to cover these decisions 
and that is an expansion of judicial review.
  Let me speak of the inconsistency of when they didn't think judicial 
review should be there. The majority wants unlimited judicial review 
when the Secretary would take enforcement action against people in the 
country illegally.
  At the same time, the bill provides more judicially unreviewable 
discretion for the Secretary when she decides not to enforce the law 
against undocumented immigrants.
  The people of this country should be aware of the one-way ratchet for 
discretion that the bill contains. Then it adds judicial review when 
the Secretary would enforce the law and does not provide judicial 
review when the Secretary decides to withhold enforcement of border 
security and other measures designed to reduce illegal immigration.
  I believe it is worth noting some of the specific provisions of the 
bill that give the Secretary discretion in enforcement, sometimes 
without judicial review. Some of the specific language that allows her 
to waive provisions that supporters of the bill claim make this bill 
even tough on illegal immigration and border security should also be 
discussed.
  When they are contrasted, the legislation's goal is very clear: enact 
very general border security measures that are said to be tough, while 
giving the Secretary often unilateral discretion and waiver authority 
to water down those measures.
  For instance, the Secretary can commence processing petitions for 
registered provisional immigrant status--RPI status we call it--based 
on her determination of border security plans and how she views the 
status of their implementation. The fencing that the bill seems to 
demand can be stopped by the Secretary when she believes it is 
sufficient.
  The Secretary has the ability to decide whether certain criminal 
offenses should bar someone from the legalization program. She can 
waive, with few exceptions, the grounds of inadmissibility prescribed 
in law. She is given discretion whether to bring deportation 
proceedings against those who do not qualify for RPI status. If they 
are denied, shouldn't they be deported?
  The Secretary is also allowed to waive various requirements when a 
person adjusts from RPI status to legal permanent resident status, 
including what counts as passing a background check.
  The Secretary has broad authority on how to use the $8.3 billion in 
upfront funds transferred from the Treasury. On top of that, she has 
wide discretion on how to use the additional $3 billion in startup 
costs that don't have to be entirely repaid to the Treasury.
  Notwithstanding the constitutional powers of Congress over the purse, 
she is given authority to establish a grant program for nonprofit 
organizations.
  With respect to the point system, the Secretary is given discretion 
to recalculate the points for particular petitioners and to decide not 
to deport inadmissible persons.
  She also has the discretion to waive requirements for citizenship 
that otherwise apply under the bill.
  The Secretary is also given a great deal of discretion in the 
operation of the electronic employment verification system; for 
instance, which businesses will be exempt from the requirement; which 
documents can individuals present to prove identity or work 
authorization. She also has the authority to determine when an employer 
who has repeatedly violated the law is required to use the system. 
Those decisions will be vital in determining whether the employment 
verification system will be effective.
  Members of this body can opine all day about what this bill does, but 
we may not know for years, as in the case of ObamaCare, until these 
regulations are written or these waivers are used, the extent to which 
this bill is carried out with the intent that we believe it is carried 
out.
  We don't know that for years. I use the example of the health care 
law because we are learning, after 4 years that the bill has been 
passed, there are a lot of unknowns in it. We also learned there is not 
a lot of certainty. That is the fallout from delegating so much power 
in one Secretary. We shouldn't repeat that mistake when we pass this 
bill next week.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. I wish to say thank you to Senator Manchin, former 
Governor Manchin, for his willingness to let me slip ahead of him for a 
few minutes. He is going to talk about the birthday of the State in 
which both of us were born, West Virginia. I am happy to be here to 
cheer him on and to applaud all the good work that goes on in my native 
State and the great work he is doing.
  The Presiding Officer has a baseball team up there in Massachusetts, 
those Red Sox, and every now and then there is a pitcher who telegraphs 
a pitch. I wish to telegraph a pitch this afternoon.
  I was surprised to find out last month from the chair of the Senate 
Committee on Homeland Security, when I was down at the Mexican border 
of

[[Page 9330]]

South Texas, that three out of every five people who come into our 
country illegally in Texas come not from Mexico, but they come from 
Central American countries. They come from Guatemala, they come from 
Honduras, and they come from El Salvador--3 out of 5, 6 out of 10.
  For the most part, they don't realize what they are getting into. 
They don't realize the risks they face on their way to the north to go 
to the border of Mexico and even when they get across the border into 
the United States. The dangers they face are of getting robbed, raped, 
beaten, drown in the river, and die of starvation and dehydration in 
the desert. Finally, they get to this country at a time when employers 
are tightening up in terms of whom they actually hire. They are not 
hiring those who are here and undocumented.
  There is the prospect of detention, not a very pleasant experience, 
followed shortly thereafter by literally being transported back to 
their native countries. Most of the people who are trying to get here 
from those three countries, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, don't 
know what they are getting into.
  They need to know what they are getting into. When I was Governor, as 
part of the 50-State deal negotiated by the States' attorneys general, 
you may recall, with the tobacco industry, we created a foundation out 
of that and called it the American Legacy Foundation. We ran something 
called a truth campaign. The idea was to convince people, such as these 
pages, not to start smoking and, if they were smoking, to stop. It was 
hugely successful.
  What we need is something similar to that, particularly in those 
Central American countries, where the majority of people are now coming 
from in order to get into Texas and to the United States.
  The other thing I would have us keep in mind, we have spent a fair 
amount of resources in this country trying to help the Mexicans go 
after the drug lords and to quash the drug trade. What is happening is 
it is akin to squeezing a balloon. The bad guys in Mexico have worked 
their way down to El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and created mischief 
there, setting up a drug trade, creating a lot of violence, and making 
life very unpleasant.
  What you have in those countries is not a good situation. One can 
understand why people want to get out of it: for jobs, hope, and for 
personal safety. One of the things we have done to help in Mexico--and 
we are part of the problem. Our country's consumption of illegal drugs 
has created this problem for Mexico. This deal where drugs come north 
and guns go south--we are part of that problem, and we need to 
acknowledge that. But we want to be part of the solution in Mexico, and 
I think we are playing a constructive role.
  We need to be part of the solution in Honduras, El Salvador, and 
Guatemala and do a similar kind of thing we are doing in Mexico. Part 
of that is to help a little on their own public safety, the law 
enforcement efforts in those three countries. Part of it is helping on 
economic development, job creation, so people don't feel the need to 
leave those countries and try to flee to our country. The last piece is 
to actually work with Mexico so they can do a better job of controlling 
their own borders, to make sure folks don't get, from south of them, 
into Mexico and eventually work their way into Texas and into the 
United States.
  I will be offering an amendment--not tonight but I suspect tomorrow--
that tries to say: Let's put together a truth campaign, convey what is 
really facing the people, particularly from those three Central 
American countries, who are trying to get to the United States and to 
also see, while we are doing that, if we can't help a little on the 
economic development and job creation side in those countries and in 
terms of helping them face lawlessness and crime. We can do a little to 
help there as well. I call this going after the underlying causes--not 
just treating the symptoms of the problem but going after the 
underlying cause--and I think we should do this. So I will offer this 
tomorrow, and I hope my colleagues will agree.
  I want to say again to my fellow native West Virginian, thank you for 
the chance to go ahead. Thank you most of all for the great job you are 
doing here and for being here to tell us a little bit of the good 
coming out of the Mountain State.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                     West Virginia's 150th Birthday

  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, this week the State of West Virginia 
will celebrate the sesquicentennial of its birth--a brave and daring 
declaration of statehood that is unprecedented in American history.
  West Virginia was born out of the fiery turmoil of the Civil War 150 
years ago. It was founded by true patriots who were willing to risk 
their lives and fortunes in a united pursuit of justice and freedom for 
all.
  To West Virginians, the names of Pierpont, Willey, and Boreman are 
nearly as familiar as Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin. Each of 
these men was a pivotal figure in our States's improbable journey to 
independence from Virginia and to our very own place in the Union.
  But, of course, our forefathers could not have brought forth a new 
State conceived of liberty without the hand of Abraham Lincoln. It was 
Lincoln who issued the proclamation creating West Virginia and 
establishing our State's birthday as June 20, 1863. And 
characteristically with few words, the 16th President dismissed the 
arguments of the day that his proclamation was illegal. Lincoln wrote:

       It is said that the admission of West Virginia is 
     secession, and tolerated only because it is our secession. 
     Well, if we call it by that name, there is a difference 
     between secession against the Constitution, and secession in 
     favor of the Constitution.

  Indeed, the people of West Virginia had a choice of two different 
flags to follow during the Civil War. There was, as Francis Pierpont 
pointed out, ``no neutral ground.'' The choice, he said, was ``to stand 
by and live under the Constitution'' or support ``the military 
despotism'' of the Confederacy. We chose wisely. We chose the Stars and 
Stripes. We chose allegiance to the country for which it stands. We 
chose to live under a constitution that promised the constant pursuit 
of ``a more perfect union'' of States. And ever since that historic 
beginning, we the people of West Virginia have never failed to answer 
our country's call. No demand has been too great, no danger too 
daunting, and no trial too threatening.
  The abundant natural resources of our State and the hard work and 
sacrifice of our people have made America stronger and safer. We mined 
the coal that fueled the Industrial Revolution. We powered the 
railroads across the North American continent and still today produce 
electricity for cities all across this country. We stoked the steel 
factories that armed our soldiers for battles all across the globe and 
built the warships that plowed the oceans of the world. And we have 
filled the ranks of our military forces in numbers far greater than 
should ever be expected of our little State.
  Consider this: According to U.S. census data, West Virginia ranked 
first, second, or third in military casualty rates in every U.S. war of 
the 20th century--twice that of New York's and Connecticut's in Vietnam 
and more than 2\1/2\ times the rates of those two States in Korea. 
Today 13.8 percent of West Virginia's population is made up of 
veterans--the seventh highest percentage among all States. That is 
higher than the national average of 12.1 percent. That is higher than 
States with much larger populations, States such as Florida, New York, 
Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, or Massachusetts. It is like I 
always say: West Virginia is one of the most patriotic States in the 
country.
  The best steel comes from the hottest fires. We have all been told 
that. Well, the fires of the Civil War transformed West Virginia from a 
fragile hope to a well-tempered, steely reality, dedicated to the 
ideals of the Declaration of Independence and guarantees of the U.S. 
Constitution. But West Virginia is great because our people are great--
mountaineers who will always

[[Page 9331]]

be free. We are tough, independent, inventive, and honest. Our 
character is shaped by the wilderness of our State, its rushing 
streams, its boundless blue skies, its divine forests, and its majestic 
mountains.
  Our home is, in the words of the best-selling novelist James 
Alexander Thom, ``a place for health and high spirits, where one's 
first look out the cabin door every morning [makes] the heart swell 
up.'' Thom wrote of our magnetic land as it existed long before it 
achieved statehood, but his words ring just as true of today's West 
Virginia. They pay homage to a State of natural beauty, world-class 
outdoor recreation, year-round festivals, ancient crafts, rich culture, 
strong tradition, industry, and trade. It is a place of coal mines and 
card tables, racing horses and soaring eagles, Rocket Boys and right 
stuff test pilots, sparkling lakes and magical mountains, breathtaking 
backcountry and barbecue joints, golf and the Greenbrier, battlefields 
and big-time college football, college towns and small towns that are 
pure Americana. It is a place of power, pulse, and passion. It is the 
special place we call West Virginia, the special place we call home.
  I admit we have had our ups and downs and setbacks and triumphs. We 
have had some pretty famous family feuds--a few you might have heard 
of--and life can be tough sometimes. But the spirit of West Virginia 
has never been broken, and it never will. I learned that a long time 
ago growing up in a small coal-mining town of hard-working men and 
women called Farmington, WV. When things got tough, they got tougher.
  It is as if we still hear the words of Francis Pierpont to the 
delegates to the Second Wheeling Convention in 1861 as they debated 
whether to secede from Virginia. Pierpont said:

       We are passing through a period of gloom and darkness . . . 
     but we must not despair. There is a just God who rides upon 
     the whirlwind and directs the storm.

  It is as if we still hear the words of President John F. Kennedy from 
the rain-soaked steps of the State capitol in Charleston during our 
State's centennial celebration. President Kennedy said:

       The sun does not always shine in West Virginia, but the 
     people always do.

  We are West Virginians. Even in the darkness and the gloom, we look 
to a just God who directs the storm. We are West Virginians. We are the 
35th State of these United States. We are West Virginians, and like the 
brave, loyal patriots who made West Virginia the 35th star on Old 
Glory, our love of God and country and family and State is unshakable, 
and that is well worth celebrating every year.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, that was 
wonderful. I am sorry more of us weren't here to hear those words.
  The Senator holds the seat once held for many, many years by Robert 
Byrd, who until maybe this month was the longest serving person in the 
history of our country to serve in Congress. I think the record was 
just eclipsed by John Dingell from Michigan--a most worthy successor.
  The Senator from West Virginia knows there is another notable West 
Virginian who is rising now to national prominence to serve our country 
as the new Director of the Office of Management and Budget. She grew up 
in Hinton, WV, graduated from Hinton High School, played on the girls 
basketball team, and her name is Sylvia Mathews Burwell.
  So West Virginia is a State that has produced certainly a lot of 
coal, a lot of natural resources, but also a lot of good people and a 
lot of good leaders. And this Senator came to us from West Virginia 
having been a two-term Governor and chairman of the National Governors 
Association, and I know he is marked maybe for greatness--maybe for 
greatness. And I think his wife has a birthday tomorrow; West Virginia 
has a birthday the day after tomorrow.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Hers is the 20th also.
  Mr. CARPER. The fact is that West Virginia sort of separated itself 
from Virginia, and about 237 years ago this past Saturday, the State of 
Delaware gave Pennsylvania its independence. It is quite common to talk 
about what is Delaware and what is not Delaware--Pennsylvania and 
Delaware were joined at the hip--but as I said, on June 15, 1776, 
Delaware gave Pennsylvania its independence and also declared our 
independence from the tyranny of the British throne. But here we are 5 
days later celebrating West Virginia giving Virginia its independence, 
and now they are on their own and making us all proud.
  Mr. MANCHIN. I know the Senator from Delaware was also, like myself, 
born in West Virginia. And when we think about all the famous people 
who have come from West Virginia, we think about the men with the right 
stuff--Charles Yeager, General Yeager, who broke the sound barrier in 
1947; we think about the Rocket Boys and the movie ``October Sky.'' We 
think about the Hatfield and McCoy feud--a couple of feuds we have had 
and some might say are still going on; and we think about the logo for 
the National Basketball Association. Jerry West is the person dribbling 
the basketball. That is his picture. That is the logo. So we think 
about so many contributions, but most important of all the people in 
West Virginia and all over this great country have contributed to who 
we are today, and I am a proud West Virginian through and through.
  Mr. CARPER. If I could add, Madam President, every Sunday night I 
turn on the radio to WNCN to hear simulcast across the country West 
Virginia Mountain State--it is great music, eclectic music that is 
wonderful and reminds me of home.
  I thank the Senator for enabling us to help him celebrate West 
Virginia's birthday as well.
  Mr. MANCHIN. I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise to discuss the report by the 
Congressional Budget Office that was just released. This is a long-
awaited report, and we have all been waiting with bated breath to see 
what they would say. The report assesses the economic and fiscal impact 
of S. 744, the bipartisan immigration bill being debated here in the 
Senate. We are still digesting the report, but at first glance it 
contains some very positive news for comprehensive immigration reform 
on a number of fronts.
  At the beginning of our bipartisan negotiations on this bill, we made 
an important promise: Our bill will not add to the deficit. CBO found 
that we kept our promise--and then some. Let me review some of the top-
line findings of the CBO report.
  CBO found our bill decreases Federal budget deficits by $197 billion 
over the 2014-2023 period. CBO finds we achieve about $700 billion in 
deficit reduction in the second decade of implementation, from 2024 to 
2033. So the first 10 years, our bill, according to CBO, decreases the 
deficit by $175 billion and in the second 10 years by $700 billion.
  The CBO also released an economic analysis that found the bill will 
increase GDP by 3.3 percent in 2023, and between 5.1 percent and 5.7 
percent in 2033.
  The second-decade figure on deficit reduction is quite relevant and 
remarkable. Many of the bill's opponents were specifically urging the 
CBO to look at the second decade in hopes it would show major costs, 
but CBO found just the opposite.
  I cannot overstate the significance of these findings. Simply put, 
this report is a huge momentum boost for immigration reform. It debunks 
the idea that immigration reform is anything other than a boon to our 
economy, and robs the bill's opponents of one of their last remaining 
arguments.
  The report proves once and for all that immigration reform is not 
only right to do to stay true to our Nation's principles, it will also 
boost our economy, reduce the deficit, and create jobs. Immigration 
reform should be a

[[Page 9332]]

priority of progressives and conservatives alike.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Rosoboronexport

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I come to the floor to say a few words 
about Rosoboronexport, the Russian State arms dealer which has been 
supplying the Syrian Government with deadly weapons and thereby 
facilitating mass murder. Last November I sponsored an amendment to 
prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars in America to enter into contracts 
or agreements with Rosoboronexport. My amendment had strong bipartisan 
support, and it passed unanimously. Yet just yesterday, as President 
Obama met with Russian leader Vladimir Putin at the G8 Summit in 
Northern Ireland, we learned the Pentagon signed a brand new $572 
million contract with Rosoboronexport to buy Mi-17 helicopters for the 
Afghan Army.
  How did the Obama administration get around the prohibition in my 
amendment? They argued that the Rosoboronexport contract was in our 
national security interests. In other words, they want us to believe we 
are promoting U.S. security by doing business with a Russian arms 
dealer who is helping an anti-American, terror-sponsoring dictatorship 
commit mass atrocities. Unbelievable.
  Last year the Pentagon agreed to audit the contract with 
Rosoboronexport and make good-faith efforts to find other procurement 
sources for the Afghan military. Now they are refusing to complete that 
audit on the grounds that Rosoboronexport simply has refused to 
cooperate.
  Meanwhile, my office has learned that Army officials within the Non-
Standard Rotary Wing Aviation Division, whose primary focus is the Mi-
17 program, are the subjects of an ongoing criminal investigation. 
This, obviously, raises troubling questions about whether the terms of 
the new Mi-17 procurement contract resulted from criminal misconduct.
  I want to take this opportunity to say once again that American 
taxpayers should not be indirectly subsidizing the murder of Syrian 
civilians, especially when there are perfectly good alternatives to 
dealing with Rosoboronexport. If the Pentagon continues this 
relationship, it will undermine American efforts to stand by the Syrian 
people.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
perhaps up to 20 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Global Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I am here again--I think it is the 
36th time--to speak as I do every week on global climate change, to 
remind us that it is time for us to wake up and to take action to 
protect our communities. The risks that we ignore will not go away on 
their own. The longer we remain asleep, the greater the challenges we 
leave for our children and grandchildren. The changes we are already 
seeing--rising sea levels, floods, and erosion, more powerful storms--
are taking their toll in particular on our aging infrastructure which I 
would like to talk about today--our roads, our bridges, our sewers and 
water pipes. This kind of infrastructure is designed to operate for 50 
to 100 years and to withstand expected environmental conditions. So 
what happens if expected weather and climate patterns change? Well, 
they are.
  According to the Draft National Climate Assessment:

       U.S. average temperature has increased by about 1.5 degrees 
     Fahrenheit since 1895; more than 80% of this increase has 
     occurred since 1980. The most recent decade was the nation's 
     hottest on record.

  We are also getting more precipitation with more and more of our rain 
coming in big, heavy downpours. Between 1958 and 2011, the amount of 
rain that fell during individual rainstorms increased in every region 
of the country--up to 45 percent in the Midwest and 74 percent in our 
northeast.
  Last month the Government Accountability Office issued a report 
revealing the risks posed to U.S. infrastructure by climate change. The 
report--which I requested, along with finance chairman Max Baucus--
shows we can no longer use historical climate patterns to plan our 
infrastructure projects.
  First, limited resources often must be focused on short-term 
priorities. Fixing an unexpected water main break, for example, won't 
usually allow for upgrades to account for climate change. And long-term 
projects that do include climate change safeguards usually require more 
money upfront. That is GAO's warning.
  GAO also found that local decisionmakers--folks in our home 
communities--need more and better climate information. The faster 
someone drives, the better their headlights need to be, and carbon 
pollution is accelerating changes to our climate and weather. Our 
communities need the information--the headlights--to see these oncoming 
changes, and it needs to be local.
  When a bridge is constructed in Cape Hatteras, it is more helpful to 
know how climate change will affect North Carolina than North America. 
Thankfully, leaders across the country are waking up to the reality of 
climate change and are making evidence-based, not ideological, 
decisions about how to best serve their communities.
  This is the Interstate 10 twin span bridge that crosses Lake 
Pontchartrain near New Orleans. During Hurricane Katrina, the storm 
surge rocked the bridge's 255-ton concrete bridge spans off of their 
piers, twisting many, and toppling others into the lake. Hurricane 
Katrina brought the largest storm surge on record for Lake 
Pontchartrain. Scientists tell us that climate change loads the dice 
for these stronger and more frequent storms. So the recovery design 
team decided to strengthen and raise this bridge. They made a larger 
initial investment in order to reduce maintenance costs in the future. 
That is smart planning.
  In 2012, Hurricane Isaac was the first major test for the new bridge, 
and it passed. The damage was limited to road signs and electrical 
components. This is the new higher bridge over here and that is the old 
bridge down on the left there.
  To the south, Louisiana State Highway 1 is the only access road to 
Port Fourchon. Senator Vitter, who is from Louisiana and our ranking 
member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, has told us that 
18 percent of the Nation's oil supply passes through Port Fourchon. It 
is a pretty important port, and Highway 1--the only access road to it--
is closed on average 3\1/2\ days a year due to flooding, according to 
GAO. NOAA scientists project that within 15 years portions of Louisiana 
Highway 1 will flood an average of 30 times each year. State and local 
officials raised 11 miles of Highway 1 by more than 22 feet. So when 
Hurricane Isaac brought a 6\1/2\ foot storm surge up the gulf, those 
raised portions were unaffected.
  Up north in Milwaukee, WI, the metropolitan sewerage district spent 
$3 billion in 1993 to increase the capacity of its sewer system based 
on historical rainfall records dating back to the 1960s. But extreme 
rainstorms in the Midwest have changed drastically. Milwaukee 
experienced a 100-year storm 3 years in a row. Milwaukee experienced 
100-year storms in 2008, again in 2009, and again in 2010. The 
University of Wisconsin projects these storms will be even more common 
in the future, so

[[Page 9333]]

Milwaukee took steps to improve the ability of nearby natural areas 
like wetlands to absorb the extra runoff from rainstorms. This eased 
the pressure on the city's wastewater system.
  The GAO infrastructure report also found that areas recently hit by a 
natural disaster tend to get proactive about adaptation. I think it is 
easy to see how getting clobbered by a hurricane will help people to 
rethink their emergency preparedness. But waiting for disaster is not 
risk management, and we can and must do better.
  In my home State of Rhode Island, local leaders are wide awake to 
climate change. For instance, North Kingstown is a municipality with 
planners who have taken the best elevation data available and modeled 
expected sea-level rise as well as sea-level rise plus 3 feet of storm 
surge. By combining these with the models and maps that show the roads, 
emergency routes, water treatment plants, and estuaries, the town can 
better plan its transportation, conservation, and relocation projects.
  Last week, North Kingstown's efforts were recognized by a grant from 
the EPA and will be a model for communities throughout the country.
  Other coastal States face many of the same risks we are facing in 
Rhode Island--none more than Florida. A study of sea-level rise on U.S. 
coasts found that in Florida more than 1.5 million residents and almost 
900,000 homes would be affected by 3 feet of sea-level rise. Both 
numbers, 1.5 million residents and almost 900,000 homes, are almost 
double any other State in the Nation.
  These maps show what 3 feet of sea-level rise means for Miami-Dade 
County in southeastern Florida. The map on the left shows the current 
elevation in southern Miami-Dade compared to 3 feet of sea-level rise 
shown here on the right. The blue regions, which are green here, are 
the regions that have gone underwater with 3 feet of sea-level rise. 
They would lose acres and acres of land. This nuclear power station and 
this wastewater treatment plant are virtually cut off from dry land.
  And the flooding won't just be along the coast; low-lying inland 
areas are also at risk. That is because in Florida, particularly in the 
Miami metropolitan area, the buildings are built on limestone. Florida 
stands on a limestone geological base, and limestone is porous. Up in 
New England, we can build levees and other structures to hold the water 
back. In Miami, they would be building those structures on a geological 
sponge. The water will seep under and through the porous limestone.
  Rising seas don't just threaten southern Florida. According to the 
American Security Project, Eglin Air Force Base on the Florida 
panhandle coast, which is the largest Air Force base in the world, is 
one of the five most vulnerable U.S. military installations because of 
its vulnerability to storm surges, sea-level rise, and saltwater 
intrusion.
  Responsible Floridians looking at these projections have decided to 
take action. Four counties in Florida--Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Broward, 
and Monroe--have formed the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change 
Compact. Using the best available science, they have assessed the 
vulnerability of south Florida's communities to sea-level rise. In 
their four counties in Florida alone, a 1-foot rise in sea level would 
endanger approximately $4 billion in property--just in those four 
counties. A 3-foot sea-level rise would endanger approximately $31 
billion in property.
  In Monroe County, 3 of the 4 hospitals, two-thirds of the schools, 
and 71 percent of emergency shelters are in danger by a 1-foot rise. 
That is a lot of infrastructure at risk.
  Together, these Florida counties, which are led both by Republicans 
and Democrats--this is a bipartisan county effort in Florida--have 
adopted a plan to mitigate property loss, make infrastructure more 
resilient, and protect those essential community structures such as 
hospitals, schools, and emergency shelters.
  This past October, those member counties signed a 5-year plan with 
110 different action items, including efforts to make infrastructure 
more resilient, reduce the threats to vital ecosystems, help farmers 
adapt, increase renewable energy capacity, and educate their public 
about the threat of climate to Florida. Looking at all of those risks 
to Florida and looking at the bipartisan action taken by those county 
leaders in Florida, I have to ask: If you are a Member of Congress from 
Florida, how can you credibly deny climate change?
  Studies show about 95 percent of climate scientists think climate 
change is really happening and humans really are contributing to it. 
About 5 percent disagree or aren't so sure. Can Floridians here in 
Congress really take the 5-percent bet? Does that seem smart, cautious, 
prudent, and responsible? This is the only Florida we have, and the 
Sunshine State is ground zero for sea-level rise. It is long past time 
for us to act on climate change, but it is not too late to be ready and 
it is not too late to be smart in Florida and elsewhere. In Florida, 
and in other States, infrastructure has to be designed for and adapted 
to the climate changes we can foresee.
  I thank the Government Accountability Office for this report. Nature 
could not be giving us clearer warnings. Whatever higher power gave us 
our advanced human capacity for perception, calculation, analysis, 
deduction, and foresight has laid out before us more than enough 
information for us to make the right decisions. Fortunately, these 
human capacities provide us everything we need to act responsibly on 
this information if only we will awaken.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1255

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise this evening to discuss an 
amendment I have filed to the immigration bill. It is Senate amendment 
No. 1255. It would ensure that the funding for an important border 
security program known as Operation Stonegarden continues to be 
allocated by the Department of Homeland Security based on risk. Without 
my amendment, 90 percent of the $50 million in funding for this program 
awarded annually would be earmarked for the southwest border. What I am 
proposing is that we not put a percentage in the bill but, rather, 
allow for a risk-based assessment of where Operation Stonegarden monies 
would best be spent. This program has been extraordinarily successful 
in my State of Maine. It has helped Federal, county, State, and local 
law enforcement to pool their resources and work together to help 
secure our border.
  While the southwest border is much more likely to make the evening 
news, we must not forget about our northern border. As the Department 
of Homeland Security pointed out when it released its first northern 
border strategy in June 2012: ``The U.S.-Canadian border is the longest 
common border in the world'' and it presents ``unique security 
challenges based on geography, weather, and the immense volume of trade 
and travel.''
  According to a report released by the GAO in 2010, the Border Patrol 
had situational awareness of only 25 percent of the 4,000-mile northern 
border and operational control of only 32 miles--less than 1 percent. 
We will hear those terms discussed a lot during the debate on 
immigration with respect to the southwest border. I think it is 
important that we not forget we also have a 4,000-mile northern border.
  This lack of situational awareness and operational control is 
especially troubling because as GAO has observed: ``DHS reports that 
the terrorist threat on the northern border is actually higher [than 
the southern border], given the large expansive area with very limited 
law enforcement coverage.''
  In the same report, GAO noted that the maritime border on the Great

[[Page 9334]]

Lakes and rivers is vulnerable to use by small vessels as a conduit for 
the potential smuggling and exploitation by terrorists, alien 
smuggling, trafficking of illicit drugs, and other contraband and 
criminal activity. Also, the northern border's waterways frequently 
freeze during the winter and can be easily crossed by foot, vehicle, or 
snowmobile. The northern air border is also vulnerable to low-flying 
aircraft that, for example, smuggle drugs by entering U.S. airspace 
from Canada.
  Additionally, Customs and Border Protection reports that further 
threats result from the fact that the northern border is exploited by 
well-organized smuggling operations which can potentially also support 
the movement of terrorists and their weapons.
  There is also, regrettably, significant criminal activity on the 
northern border. In the same report, GAO noted that in fiscal year 2010 
DHS has reported spending nearly $3 billion in its efforts to interdict 
and investigate illegal northern border activity, annually making 
approximately 6,000 arrests and interdicting approximately 40,000 
pounds of illegal drugs at and between the northern border ports of 
entry.
  The Operation Stonegarden grant program is an effective resource for 
addressing security concerns on our northern, southern, western, and 
coastal borders. Over the past 4 years, approximately $247 million in 
Operation Stonegarden funds has been allocated to 19 border States 
using a risk-based analysis for determining the allocations rather than 
the formula-based analysis that is included in this immigration bill.
  Earmarking 90 percent of funding from Operation Stonegarden to the 
southwest border is ill-advised. Operation Stonegarden grants should be 
used to help secure our northern, southern, and coastal borders by 
funding joint operations between the Border Patrol and State, county, 
and local law enforcement. These joint operations can act as a force 
multiplier in areas that would otherwise be unguarded altogether.
  My amendment would ensure that DHS continues to have the flexibility 
it needs to make risk-informed decisions about where Operation 
Stonegarden funds will best serve the security of our Nation's borders.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I hope it will be 
brought up at some point tomorrow.
  Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be in order to be called up and that they not be subject to 
modification or division, with the exception of the technical 
modifications to the Merkley and Paul amendments contained in this 
agreement: Manchin No. 1268; Pryor No. 1298; Merkley No. 1237, as 
modified with the changes at the desk; Boxer No. 1240; Reed No. 1224; 
Cornyn No. 1251; Lee No. 1208; Paul No. 1200, as modified with the 
changes at the desk; Heller No. 1227; and Cruz No. 1320; finally, that 
no second-degree amendments be in order to any of these amendments 
prior to votes in relation to the amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, we now have these amendments in order and 
we will work with all the parties to see if we can have some way of 
proceeding to set up votes. I would hope we can work something out so 
we do not have to do procedural things to try to get rid of them. We 
are going to do our utmost. I appreciate everyone's cooperation getting 
this long list of amendments so we can start voting on them.
  I think it would be a pretty fair assumption that we are not going to 
have any votes tonight on these amendments. We will work something out 
tomorrow. It is about 7 o'clock and we still have a little more work to 
do on other issues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                       Luis Restrepo Confirmation

  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise this evening to make some brief 
comments regarding a judicial nominee we voted on yesterday--one of 
two--Judge Luis Restrepo from Philadelphia, from the southeastern 
corner of Pennsylvania.
  I rise tonight because my train was late last night so I was not able 
to make some comments about his nomination, his qualifications, prior 
to the vote. But I was honored that he received the vote of the Senate 
last night.
  I also rise because it is timely in another way because we are 
considering immigration reform. I was on the floor last week talking 
about yet another judicial nominee from Pennsylvania--now a judge, as 
of last week. Judge Nitza Quinones, who is a native of Puerto Rico, 
came to this country after her education and became a lawyer and an 
advocate, and then, ultimately, a judge for more than two decades now, 
and now will serve on the Federal District Court for the Eastern 
District of Pennsylvania.
  So it is true of now Judge Restrepo. A native of Colombia, Judge 
Restrepo became a U.S. citizen in 1993. He earned a bachelor of arts 
degree from the University of Pennsylvania in 1981 and a juris doctor 
degree from Tulane University's School of Law in 1986.
  He is highly regarded by lawyers and members of the bench. He 
exhibits an extraordinary command of the law and legal principles, as 
well as a sense of fairness, sound judgment, and integrity.
  Judge Restrepo has served as a magistrate judge for the U.S. District 
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania since June of 2006.
  Prior to his judicial appointment, he was a highly regarded lawyer 
and a founding member of the Kreasner & Restrepo firm in Philadelphia, 
concentrating on both civil rights litigation as well as criminal 
defense work.
  He served as an assistant Federal defender with the Community Federal 
Defender for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania from 1990 to 1993, 
and as an assistant defender at the Defender Association of 
Philadelphia from 1987 to 1990.
  An adjunct professor at Temple University's James E. Bensley School 
of Law, he was also an adjunct professor at the University of 
Pennsylvania School of Law from 1997 to 2009 and has taught with the 
National Institute for Trial Advocacy in regional and national programs 
since 1992.
  I know the Presiding Officer knows something about being a law 
professor and the demands of that job and the demands of being an 
advocate.
  I think anyone who looks at Judge Restrepo's biography and background 
would agree he is more than prepared to be a Federal district judge, 
and I am grateful that the Senate confirmed him.
  Finally, Judge Restrepo has also served on the board of governors of 
the Philadelphia Bar Association and is a past president of the 
Hispanic Bar Association of Pennsylvania.
  So for all those reasons and more, I believe he is not only ready to 
be a Federal judge, but I am also here to express gratitude for his 
confirmation and for the vote in the Senate.
  As we consider immigration reform, we should be ever inspired by the 
stories we hear from not only judges who are nominated and confirmed 
here, but others as well who come to this country, who work hard, who 
learn a lot, and want to give back to their country by way of public 
service. Judge Restrepo, this week, and Judge Quinones, last week, are 
two fine examples of that.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, the prime sponsor, I suppose, of the 
immigration bill before us--this 1,000-page document--Senator Schumer, 
announced earlier today, based on the Congressional Budget Office 
report, that lower deficits were promised, and

[[Page 9335]]

that the bill, indeed, produces lower deficits. I do not believe that 
is an accurate statement, and I will share with you some of my concerns 
about that.
  We have been through this before, where the budget numbers, in 
reality, have been utilized in a way that is not healthy, and it 
creates a false impression of what is occurring here.
  Secondly, I do not know that he talked about this--I doubt he did--
the CBO report is explicit. Under this legislation, if it were to pass, 
the wages of American workers will fall for the next 12 years. They 
will be lower than the inflation rate. They will decline from the 
present unacceptably low rate, and continue to decline for 12 years, 
according to this report. That alone should cause us to defeat this 
bill.
  We have been told it is going to create prosperity and growth, but 
what it is going to produce is more unemployment, as this report 
explicitly states. It is going to produce lower wages for Americans, as 
this report explicitly states. And it is going to increase the deficit.
  So I think we need to have an understanding here that something very 
serious is afoot: to suggest that you can bring in millions of new 
workers to take jobs in the United States at a time of record 
unemployment and that will not impact wages, that will not make 
unemployment go up, goes beyond all common sense.
  Dr. Borjas at Harvard has absolutely proven through peer-reviewed 
research that that is exactly what is going to happen. Wages go down, 
as they have been going down, and unemployment will go up. So this 
report confirms that.
  I will read some of the things that are in it.
  I am on page 7 of ``The Economic Impact of S. 744, the Border 
Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.''

       S. 744 would allow significantly more workers with low 
     skills and with high skills to enter the United States--. . . 
     .

  No doubt about that. They say it is a move to merit-based 
immigration. But it is not a move to merit-based immigration. It 
increases low-skill workers substantially, as well as increasing other 
workers.

       Taking into account all of those flows of new immigrants, 
     CBO and JCT [Joint Tax] expect that a greater number of 
     immigrants with lower skills than with higher skills would be 
     added to the workforce. . . .

  In other words, another group coming in, more lower skilled than 
higher skilled, just as I indicated and other commentators have 
indicated previously.
  The report said this:

       Slightly pushing down the average wage of the labor force 
     as a whole.

  Pushing down the wage of the labor force as a whole. But they go on 
to say this. Get this. The next sentence:

       However, CBO and Joint Tax expect that currently 
     unauthorized workers----

  Illegal workers, in other words----

     who attain legal status under 744 will see an increase in 
     their wages.

  So I think this underestimates, if you read the report carefully, the 
adverse impact that the flow of workers will have on the wages of 
American workers and lawful immigrants who are here today. But at any 
rate, it is clear that is so.
  It goes on to say this, dramatically, I suggest:

       The average wage would be lower than under current law over 
     the first dozen years. CBO estimates that it would increase 
     unemployment for at least 7 years.

  So this is supposed to be good for the people we represent? Of 
course, I would like to ask our colleagues to think carefully about our 
duty. Who is it we represent in this body? What kind of 
responsibilities do we have to decent, hard-working Americans who 
experts have told us have seen their wages decline every year, 
virtually, since 1999.
  Wages have declined by as much as 8 percent since 2009 for a number 
of reasons. One of the reasons, according to Professor Borjas, is that 
immigration is already pulling down wages by as much as 40 percent. So 
this will add to the problem.
  This report said, quite clearly, unequivocally, it is going to 
increase unemployment, and it is going to pull down wages. That is 
exactly the wrong thing that ought to be happening at this time. How in 
the world can we justify passing a bill that hammers the American 
working man and woman who is out trying to feed a family, get a job, 
that has a little retirement, a little health care, some money to be 
able to take care of the family, and hammer them with additional 
adverse economic impacts?
  I suggest to you this is not a report that in any way justifies 
advancing this legislation. Let me just take a moment. I wrestle with 
these numbers. I see the Presiding Officer who is on the Budget 
Committee understands these numbers. They say it pays down the deficit. 
Let me show you what it really says. This is the way they double 
counted the money to justify ObamaCare.
  Basically, they created, through cuts in Medicare, savings and they 
lengthened the life of Medicare, but they claim they used that same 
money to fund ObamaCare. At one point, Mr. Elmendorf, the Director of 
the Office of Management and Budget, who wrote this said it was double 
counting the money. You cannot use the same money to fund ObamaCare and 
use that same money to strengthen Medicare. How simple is that?
  We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars in double 
counting of the money. That is what is happening in here. Look at this 
report. Impact on the deficit over the 10-year period, 2014 to 2023, 
the budget deficit would increase by $14.2 billion. The debt would 
increase by $14.2 billion. But then they say the off-budget money would 
decrease the deficit by $211 billion.
  My colleague, Senator Schumer, said this is all great. We have a big 
surplus now. We have $200 billion in the off-budget account. But what 
is that money?
  What is that money? That is the payroll taxes. That is your Social 
Security payment and your Medicare payment. When more of the illegal 
aliens come in and get a Social Security number and pay Social Security 
and Medicare, the money comes into the government. All right? But is it 
free to be spent on bridges and roads and aircraft and salaries for 
Congressmen and Senators? No.
  This is money that is dedicated to Social Security and Medicare. This 
is the trust fund money that goes to Social Security and Medicare. Yes, 
when people are legalized, they will pay more Social Security and 
Medicare taxes on their payroll, but it is going to that fund to pay 
for their retirement and their health care when they retire. You cannot 
use that money. You cannot spend the money today and pretend it is 
going to be there to pay for their retirement when they retire.
  They are going to pay into Medicare. They are going to pay into 
Social Security. They are going to draw out Social Security and 
Medicare when they reach the right age. What we know is, as Mr. 
Elmendorf indicates, as I have said repeatedly, most of these 
individuals are lower income, lower skilled workers. Therefore, what we 
know is in that regard, the lower skilled workers who pay into Social 
Security and Medicare take out more than they pay in. So this is not 
going to be positive, it seems to me, particularly when you account for 
the fact that a lot of people have scored this, but they have not 
scored it from the fact that most of the workers who will be paying 
Medicare and Social Security are lower income workers and they will be 
paying the lower rates. Not a huge difference, but it is a difference.
  So I would contend, I think, without fear of serious contradiction, 
although I expect political contradiction, that the off-budget money is 
your Medicare and Social Security money. See, you paid into that. The 
government, if it takes and spends it, does not have anything now to 
pay your Social Security and your Medicare benefits when you get old. 
We know it is already actuarially unsound. Those programs are in danger 
of defaulting a lot sooner than a lot of people think. We need to be 
saving these programs, not weakening them.
  So in the short run you get this bubble effect. You get an extra 
group of money. Since a lot of the workers are younger, it will look 
good on the budget for 10 years. It looks good on the

[[Page 9336]]

budget for 10 years, but this is not money to be spent by the 
government. This is money that is dedicated to their retirement and 
will be drawn out by these individuals when they go into retirement.
  So I would suggest that this 10-year score, 2014 through 2023, shows 
that the real impact is a $14.2 billion reduction--increase in the 
deficit of the United States over 10 years in the general fund account. 
The off-budget section says it reduces the deficit by $200 billion. But 
that money is utilized--it has to be in the trust fund to be utilized 
for future payments to these individuals when they retire. It is not 
money we can account for.
  The mixing of these two matters is one of the most dramatic ways this 
country has gotten itself into an unsound financial course. We have 
double counted this money repeatedly. We have money coming in to Social 
Security and Medicare and we spend it immediately. We pretend it is 
still there to pay for someone's retirement. This is going to be the 
same except it is guaranteed to be a financial loser over the long run.
  Again, I know Senator Sanders has talked about this, my colleague 
from Vermont. In a free market world, when you bring in more labor, the 
wages go down. I think CBO is probably underestimating this, frankly. 
Professor Borjas at Harvard, his numbers look more grim than these. But 
this is what they came up with. They have been trying to do guesswork 
and tell the truth the best they can, but they are getting a lot of 
pressure from the other side.
  A lot of Members here seem to think we can just bring in millions of 
people and those millions of people will somehow create more revenue. 
We are going to be like Jack Kemp. You know, everything is wonderful. 
It is just going to grow. But we have to be prudent. We have to be 
responsible. What we know is that since at least 1999, the wages of 
average American people have not kept up with inflation. That means 
those wages are on a net serious decline.
  Professor Borjas says it declined by 8 percent. That is very real. My 
Democratic colleagues used to be very critical when it was President 
Bush because it was all his fault that wages were not keeping up with 
inflation, people were being hurt. So now they do not talk about that 
anymore. If they do, they blame it on President Bush even though he has 
been gone 5 or 6 years.
  The reality is, I came to believe there is truth to this. It is not 
just a temporary cyclical thing that workers' wages have not been 
keeping up. I think it is something deeper than that. I think it is 
several things. Businesses are getting very intent on reducing the 
number of employees they have to produce certain products and widgets. 
They are getting far more efficient. So we are making more widgets with 
less people.
  If you go into plants like I do, you see these incredible robotics 
where you get dramatic improvements of productivity for widgets with 
less people. This creates, in some ways, unemployment.
  Last month we had a moderate increase in jobs in May, but there was 
an 8,000-job reduction in manufacturing. The increase was in service 
industries like restaurants and bars and that kind of thing. The 
increase was also temporary. So this is not healthy. You have this 
unhealthy trend out there when you bring in large amounts of labor, a 
majority of which the CBO says is low skilled, and you are hammering 
the American worker.
  Further, Peter Kirsanow, one of the outstanding members of the U.S. 
Commission on Civil Rights, along with Abigail Thernstrom, a brilliant 
lady who has written on these matters over the years, they wrote a 
letter recently that warned that passage of this bill will harm poor 
people in America, particularly African Americans.
  They said they had hearings on this matter. They have had the best 
economists come and testify. They studied those reports. They say not a 
single one of the economists they dealt with denied that the wages 
would be pulled down or unemployment would go up.
  That is what CBO told us today: Unemployment will go up, wages will 
go down. We have good Republican colleagues and they cannot conceive 
that we are in such a circumstance. They just believe growth is always 
good, and if you bring in more people you will have more growth. That 
is correct.
  Let me tell you the brutal truth based on the in-depth analysis by 
Professor Borjas at Harvard. He says the prosperity, the growth enures 
to the benefit of the manufacturers, of the employers who use a lot of 
low-skilled labor. Their income will go up, but the average wage of the 
average working person will go down. That is what large flows of 
immigration will do when there is high unemployment.
  Peter Kirsanow, a member of the Civil Rights Commission, in his 
letter, said that it is absolutely false that we have a shortage of 
low-skilled labor. He says we have a glut of low-skilled labor. The 
facts show that.
  The number of people employed in the workforce today has reached the 
level of the 1970s. That was before women were going into the 
workplace. As a percentage of the American population, the percentage 
of people who actually have a job today has been falling steadily, and 
it has now hit the level of the 1970s. Now they are going to bring in 
all these masters of the universe, these geniuses who have this plan 
that somehow is going to fix everything. We will just bring in more 
people.
  We had a Senator today say that it is going to increase wages. How 
can that be? What economic study shows that? Not any, to my knowledge. 
CBO says--wages are going to fall. Unemployment is going to go up, and 
it is not going to fix our deficit either.
  I feel very strongly that we have to put on a realistic hat. We are 
going to have to ask ourselves: Whom do we represent? Are we 
representing a political idea that is going to bring in more votes? Are 
we representing people who entered the country illegally? Are those our 
first priority? Do we have any obligation to the people who fight our 
wars, raise our next generation of children, try to do the right thing, 
pay their taxes, want to be able to have a decent job, a decent 
retirement plan, have a vacation every now and then, and have a health 
care plan they can afford? Don't we owe them that? Shouldn't that be 
our primary responsibility right now? I think it is. I think that is 
our primary responsibility.
  One says: Well, don't you care about people who are here illegally?
  I say: Yes, I care about them. I care about them deeply.
  I think we can work on this situation to not be in a position to say 
we are going to deport all of those who are here illegally. We can 
treat people compassionately. We are going to do the right thing about 
that.
  In the future, should we have a work flow every year in that doubles 
the amount of guest workers who come in for the sole purpose of working 
and not becoming an immigrant, and should we increase the annual legal 
flow of immigrants from 1 million a year to 1.5 million a year, 
increasing it 50 percent? Is that what good legislation would do? I 
mean, how did this happen?
  Thomas Sowell, a Hoover Institution scholar and economist at Stanford 
University, says there are three interests out here. One is the 
immigrants. They win. This report says their salaries go up. The other 
one is the politicians. They have it all figured out. They have written 
a bill that they think serves their political interests. The question 
is, Who is representing the national interests? Who is representing the 
American people's interests? Were they in these rooms when the chamber 
of commerce was there, La Raza was there, the business groups, 
agricultural groups, the labor unions and Mr. Trumka were there 
dividing up the pie, making sure their interests were protected? Who 
was defending the interests of the dutiful worker who is out trying to 
find a job today?
  There was a report in the New York Times last week about an event in 
Queens. Apparently, there was a group of jobs that were going to be 
offered as elevator repair personnel in New York. The line started 
forming 5 days in advance. People brought their tents, they brought 
their food, they brought their

[[Page 9337]]

sleeping bags, and they waited in line for days to be able to get a job 
as an elevator repair person. We have people saying these are jobs 
Americans won't do. That Americans won't work, and that's why we need 
more labor.
  Well, I always cut my own grass when I am home, but I am up here a 
lot, so there is a group that comes and cuts my grass in Mobile. These 
were two African-American gentlemen in their 40's. They came out, did a 
great job in the heat in Alabama, and took care of my yard.
  What is this--jobs Americans won't do? They want a job that has a 
retirement plan. They want a job that has some permanency to it. They 
want a job that has a decent wage. Americans will work, and all hard 
work should be honored.
  I will acknowledge that in seasonal work, temporary work, certain 
circumstances, we could develop a good migrant guest worker program 
that could serve this. Maybe in different times, if unemployment is 
low, we could justify bringing in even more workers than you would 
expect. But at a time of high unemployment, we have low participation 
in the workforce, and we ought to be careful about bringing in large 
amounts of labor that pleases rich businesses and manufacturing and 
agribusiness groups but doesn't necessarily protect the honest, decent, 
legitimate interests of American workers. I think they are being 
forgotten too often in this process.
  I wanted to push back to that. This report might look like it's 
saying that we are creating a service and we are reducing the debt. In 
one sense, on the on-budget analysis, the way we do our accounting 
around here, that impression is certainly created. It is a false 
impression, and it is that false understanding of the reality of the 
on-budget and off-budget accounting of revenue to America that has 
gotten us fundamentally in the problem we are now facing.
  Again, I repeat, the on-budget deficit, according to the CBO report, 
goes up over 10 years by $14 billion. It claims, though, that the 
deficit drops on the off-budget. Remember, that money is obligated. 
That is your withholding. That is your FICA. That is your Social 
Security, Medicare--withholdings on your paycheck. It goes up there, 
and it has been set aside for you, for your retirement, for your 
medical care when you are elderly. It is not available for us to spend 
today willy-nilly.
  And we think we have now created a circumstance where billions of 
dollars are being double-counted. Can you imagine that? That is what we 
are doing in this country. We are counting trillions of dollars--really 
double-counting it. Money that comes in we count in a unified budget as 
income to the budget, but it is dedicated income. We owe the people who 
paid it into their Social Security check, their Medicare coverage. It 
is owed to them.
  What we know is that when you have particularly lower--well, the 
whole program is unsustainable, but particularly the lower income 
workers pay in less than they will eventually take out over a lifetime. 
Adding all of these workers into the Social Security and Medicare 
system, where they pay in, will not place us on a sound path.
  Again, we need to be honest about where we are. The numbers do not 
look good. This Congress needs to wrestle with how to deal 
compassionately with the people who have been here a long time. We need 
to do it in a right way, but we have a responsibility, a financial duty 
to the people who sent us here to manage their money wisely and not 
make our financial situation worse than it is today. We have an 
obligation to try to figure out a way to reverse the steady, long-term 
trend of wage decline for millions of American workers. It needs to be 
getting better. What this report says is that if this bill is passed, 
this immigration bill is passed, it will make the long-term wage 
situation of Americans worse. How wrong a direction could that be?
  Look, if we let the labor market get a little tighter, we are going 
to find businesses that are willing to pay more to get a good worker. 
That is the free market. These business guys don't mind trying--Walmart 
seeks the very lowest priced product it can get, whether it is China or 
the United States. They are ruthless about it. It is free market, we 
say. We value it. OK, we support free market. But if there is a labor 
shortage, why shouldn't the laboring man be able to get a little higher 
wage for a change around here? This large flow of immigration will 
impact, adversely, their ability to find a job--unemployment will go 
up, according to the report--and we'll get a decrease in wages.
  I yield the floor.
 Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, today I would like to indicate 
support for two amendments I cosponsored and were introduced by Senator 
Thune and Senator Vitter.
  The first is amendment No. 1197 introduced by Senator Thune. Border 
security should be the number one priority in any immigration 
discussion, and building this fence which is already required by law 
will help in that endeavor.
  The second is Amendment No. 1228 introduced by Senator Vitter. This 
requires that the biometric border check-in and check-out system be 
fully implemented prior to any legal status being granted to an illegal 
alien. Our national and economic security depends on us knowing who is 
in our country, and this amendment will help achieve that goal.
  While I strongly disagree with granting amnesty to those who broke 
the law, on the chance that this bill passes I want to make sure that 
amendments like the two of these are included in the final 
legislation.

                          ____________________