[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9481-9517]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND IMMIGRATION MODERNIZATION 
                                  ACT

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

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


[[Page 9482]]


  Pending:

       Leahy-Hatch amendment No. 1183, to encourage and facilitate 
     international participation in the performing arts.


                           Amendment No. 1208

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment 
No. 1208.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Lee] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1208.

  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To require fast-track congressional approval when the 
Secretary of Homeland Security notifies Congress of the implementation 
of the border security strategies and certifies that the strategies are 
                       substantially operational)

       On page 856, lines 1 and 2, strike ``the Secretary has 
     submitted to Congress'' and insert ``Congress has approved, 
     using the fast-track procedures set forth in paragraph (3), 
     the contents of''.
       On page 56, strike lines 19 through 22, and insert the 
     following: ``Congress has ratified, using the fast-track 
     procedures set forth in paragraph (3), the written 
     certification submitted by the Secretary to the President and 
     Congress, after consultation with the Comptroller of the 
     United States, that--''.
       On page 858, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       (3) Fast-track procedures.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 30 days after receiving a 
     submission from the Secretary under paragraph (1) or (2), the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives shall vote to 
     determine whether the action taken by the Secretary meets the 
     requirements set forth in such paragraphs that are required 
     before applications may be processed by the Secretary for 
     registered provisional immigrant status or adjustment of 
     status under section 245B or 245C, respectively, of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by sections 2101 
     and 2102.
       (B) Referral to committee.--The question described in 
     subparagraph (A) may not be referred to any congressional 
     committee.
       (C) Amendments.--The question described in subparagraph (A) 
     may not be subject to amendment in the Senate or in the House 
     of Representatives.
       (D) Majority vote.--The question described in subparagraph 
     (A) shall be subject to a vote threshold of a majority of all 
     members of each House duly chosen and sworn.
       (E) Presidential signature.--The congressional approval and 
     ratification required under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not 
     be completed until after it has received the signature of the 
     President.

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, amendment No. 1208 would require fast-track 
congressional approval at the introduction of the Department of 
Homeland Security border security strategies before the award of 
registered provisional immigrant, or RPI, status--before the 
eligibility of that status begins, as well as at the certification of 
the strategy's completion, before those receiving RPI status may become 
eligible to become lawful permanent residents and eligible to receive 
green cards. This would be a fast-track vote, one that would have to 
occur within 30 days after the triggering event within the executive 
branch. It would also be subject to a 51-vote threshold and would not 
be subject to a filibuster. It is a basic function of Congress to 
oversee the executive branch and to ensure that the executive branch is 
enforcing the law as enacted by Congress.
  In the area of border security, the executive branch, in both 
Republican and in Democratic administrations, has failed to fully 
enforce the laws passed by Congress. To give a few examples, the Secure 
Fence Act, which was enacted in 2006, still has not been fully 
implemented, and the fencing requirement--the fence segments required 
by that act--still have not been fulfilled. The US-VISIT entry-exit 
system, which was put into place by legislation enacted in 1996, still 
is not fully implemented. It is worth noting that 40 percent of our 
current illegal immigrants are people who have overstayed their visas. 
It is very reasonable to assume there is a significant connection 
between our failure to implement this entry-exit system called for by 
existing law and the fact that a sizable chunk--several millions of our 
current illegal aliens--are people who have overstayed their visas.
  Polls overwhelmingly show Americans do not believe the border is 
secure. They also believe we should secure our borders first before 
moving on to certain areas of immigration reform. These are failures of 
the Federal Government. The American people cannot hold unelected 
bureaucrats in the executive branch--people such as the Secretary of 
Homeland Security--accountable for those failures. The most direct line 
of accountability is from the American people to their Members of 
Congress. In order to ensure the voice of the American people is heard, 
Congress must be able to vote on the border security strategy and on 
the certification of that strategy as a condition precedent to allowing 
these RPI provisions to kick in and to allowing people to enter into 
the pathway to citizenship and advance toward citizenship in the coming 
years.
  To cut out Congress cuts out the American people, and that is exactly 
what this bill, without an amendment such as this one, would do. So it 
is important to remember that to cut out Congress cuts out the American 
people, and that is what we are trying to protect against.
  Opponents of my amendment have argued they would be unwilling to rely 
on a majority of Congress to approve a border security plan as a 
condition for allowing the RPI period to open and to proceed. Has it 
ever occurred to them that it might be precisely because a majority of 
Americans would not approve the border security plan or at least they 
might not approve of it or, perhaps, it is not a good idea to move 
forward on sweeping new policies that will affect generations to come 
without the support of the American people? It is, after all, the 
American people who have to deal with the consequences of a dangerous 
and unsecured border. They will have to deal with cross-border 
violence. They will have to deal with the heartbreaking stories of 
human trafficking. They will have to deal with the drugs imported into 
their communities. They will have to deal with the economic effects and 
the added costs of public services associated with an ongoing unsecure 
border. Therefore, it is the American people who should be the ones who 
get to say whether the border is secure and not the unelected, 
unaccountable bureaucrats who have a long track record of failing to 
implement the objectives established by Congress and embodied in law.
  My amendment would restore the voice of the American people to this 
process because, again, cutting out Congress means cutting out the 
American people. I strongly urge my colleagues to defend the rights of 
the American people, to weigh in on this important issue, and to 
support my amendment.
  Finally, I wish to commend the House Judiciary Committee for passing 
the SAFE Act out of committee last night. The SAFE Act is an important 
step forward in improving interior enforcement, securing the border, 
and strengthening our national security. It also demonstrates that we 
can effectively pursue significant immigration reforms in a step-by-
step approach with individual reform measures.
  The SAFE Act is by no means a small piece of legislation but, 
importantly, it focuses reform on particular areas that should receive 
bipartisan support in both Chambers of Congress.
  First, let's secure the border. Let's set up a workable entry-exit 
system and create reliable employment verification systems that will 
protect immigrant citizens and businesses from bureaucratic mistakes. 
Let's also fix our legal immigration system to make sure we are letting 
in the immigrants our economy needs in numbers that make sense for our 
country.
  Once these and other tasks, which are plenty big in and of 
themselves, are completed or at least in progress to the American 
people's satisfaction, then and only then can we address the needs of 
current undocumented workers with justice, compassion, and sensitivity.
  Since the beginning of this year, more than 40 immigration-related 
bills have been introduced in the House and in the Senate. By a rough 
count, I can support more than half of them, eight of which have 
Republican and Democratic cosponsors. We should not risk forward 
progress on these and other bipartisan reforms simply because we are 
unable to iron out each of the more contentious issues.
  So, again, with respect to this amendment No. 1208, I strongly urge

[[Page 9483]]

my colleagues to support this amendment because we were elected not to 
delegate the power to make laws to other people, we were elected to 
make law. Identifying the precise moment at which the border is 
sufficiently secure--that it is a good time to open the pathway to 
legalization, the pathway to citizenship, whatever we end up calling 
it--it makes a lot of sense to put that decision in the hands of the 
elected people precisely because that decision is one that is difficult 
to identify. It is difficult for us to identify exactly what standards 
will satisfy the American people. We can make a rough approximation, 
but we should require a vote by both Houses of Congress and an act of 
Congress submitted to the President for signature or veto before the 
RPI period is open. We were elected to make decisions such as these, 
and we should not be outsourcing those decisions to others who are not 
elected.
  Those who are not elected who, under the text of Senate bill 744, 
would be empowered to make these decisions, are--make no mistake--well-
educated people and well-intentioned people, and I am not saying they 
categorically cannot be trusted. What I am saying is that those people 
who are well educated and well intentioned do not stand for reelection 
at regular intervals as we do. They are not elected by the people. They 
don't stand for election at regular intervals. For the most part they 
are insulated and isolated from the electoral process which keeps all 
of us accountable to the people in whom the ultimate sovereign 
authority lies.
  For those reasons I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 1208.
  Thank you. I yield the floor and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Women's Health Care

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, a couple of us are going to come down to 
the floor and talk about an action that was taken in the House 
yesterday. With all the issues we have to confront--whether it is 
continuing this economic recovery and job creation; dealing with 
immigration, as we are trying to do in the Senate; dealing with going 
to conference on the budget, which Chairman Murray has been pushing for 
day after day after day--one would think the House would take up one of 
those matters. But instead what do they do? They take up an extreme 
anti-choice bill. Clearly, House Republicans have learned no lessons 
from last year, when voters resoundingly rejected their efforts to 
defund Planned Parenthood, restrict women's access to birth control, 
and slash preventive care for women and families.
  So the debate they had in the House yesterday echoes of last year, 
when Republicans talked about ``legitimate rape'' or a pregnancy from 
rape as a ``gift from God.'' In fact, the Republican sponsor of this 
bill said the incidence of pregnancy from rape was ``very low''--an 
assertion that is flatly contradicted by the facts.
  I see my colleague Senator Murray is here, and I would just pause and 
ask her through the Chair if she needs to speak first.
  Mrs. MURRAY. No. Go ahead.
  Mrs. BOXER. Then I will complete and turn to her. I so thank her for 
organizing us this morning.
  In November, voters sent the message that they want us to focus on 
real concerns--jobs, education, immigration reform. But now they are 
back. They are back in full force with an even more extreme antiwomen, 
anti-choice agenda.
  They should know this: The women of America are watching and so are 
the men who support them.
  This House Republican bill that was passed by them yesterday is a 
frontal assault on women's health. It puts women in danger of becoming 
infertile, in danger of suffering serious complications arising from 
cancer, blood clots, kidney disease or diabetes, just to name a few of 
these conditions. It is an attack on 40 years of settled law, and it 
criminalizes doctors.
  Furthermore, there is no real rape or incest exception. It just bans 
abortion by a date certain with no real rape or incest exception. Let 
me explain this.
  The Republican sponsors of the bill claim there is an exception for 
rape and incest. As a matter of fact, it was not in there, and they 
quickly added it. But, seriously, they do not fix the problem because 
what they do is say: Yes, a woman can end a pregnancy if she is raped, 
but she has to report that rape, and it is true that many women choose 
not to report the rape for their own private and personal reasons.
  So when you tell a woman who has been raped and who is too scared to 
report it that she has to carry the rapist's child to term, that is not 
a rape exception. That is an outrage. When you tell a victim of incest, 
who is too scared to report it, that she has to carry that child to 
term, that is not an incest exception. It is revictimizing someone who 
has suffered a horrific crime.
  Sixty-five percent of rape victims do not report these crimes. There 
is no protection at all for those women in this bill.
  There is also no health exception. The House Republican bill has no 
health exception at all. It is a reckless disregard for the health of 
women. For example, if a woman will face serious complications, even 
life-threatening complications, if they continue a pregnancy--where 
they could suffer kidney failure, a worsening of breast cancer and 
ovarian cancer--there is no help for those women.
  I would say listen to the women who have suffered these problems.
  Judy Shackelford of Wisconsin. Four months into her pregnancy she 
developed a pregnancy-induced blood clot in her arm. The only guarantee 
that she would not die and leave behind her 5-year-old son was for Judy 
to end the pregnancy. She and her husband made the difficult decision 
to terminate the pregnancy, and those Congressmen playing doctor over 
there are telling her what she should do for her family. They are not 
doctors.
  Listen to Christie Brooks of Virginia. Christie was pregnant with her 
second child. After a 20-week ultrasound, she found out her daughter 
would be born with a severe structural birth defect and would suffocate 
at birth. She made the difficult decision of ending that pregnancy at 
22 weeks.
  Then there is Vikki Stella. Vikki I have met. She discovered months 
into her pregnancy that the fetus she was carrying suffered from major 
anomalies and had no chance of survival--zero. Because of Vikki's 
diabetes, the doctor determined that induced labor and Caesarian 
section were both riskier procedures for Vikki than an abortion.
  That procedure not only protected Vikki from immediate medical risks, 
but it ensured that she could have more children in the future. And 
those Congressmen over there want to get into her life and tell her 
what to do and tell her family what to do.
  This bill is so extreme it would throw doctors in jail for 5 years 
for providing women with the care they need. And they talk about this 
brutal doctor who is now serving two consecutive life terms for what he 
did. Well, that is the way the system should work. If you break the 
law, as that doctor did, you go to jail. But do not change the law so 
if a good doctor is trying to help a good patient, he or she risks 
going to prison.
  This bill is so extreme a broad array of groups oppose it. The 
American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists--they represent 
thousands of OB/GYNs nationwide--said this bill is ``dangerous to 
patients' safety and health.''
  A coalition of 15 religious groups oppose the bill. Here is what they 
said:

       We believe--and Americans, including people of faith, 
     overwhelmingly agree--that the decision to end a pregnancy is 
     best left to a woman in consultation with her family, her 
     doctor, and her faith. Our laws should support and safeguard 
     a woman's health--not deny access to care.

  In closing--and before we hear from my colleague--let me tell you 
this: Speaker Boehner said last week that creating jobs is ``really our 
No. 1 priority.'' Majority Leader Eric Cantor

[[Page 9484]]

said ``House Republicans are focused on creating jobs and restoring 
faith in our government.''
  No, they are not. They are continuing the war on women. If this is 
what their agenda is, why are they doing that? Why are they attacking 
40 years of settled law?
  President Obama has threatened to veto this bill, saying it shows 
``contempt for women's health and [their] rights.'' In the Senate, my 
friend and I, who are here--and many others--are going to block this 
dangerous and extreme bill.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from 
California for coming out today to let everyone know how extreme this 
bill is and how important it is that we send the message that this bill 
is going to be what most Republicans know deep down already. The anti-
choice bill that they passed yesterday--a bill the New York Times 
called ``the most restrictive abortion bill to come to a vote in either 
chamber in a decade''--is not going anywhere--is not going anywhere.
  The bill they passed yesterday is a nonstarter in the Senate, and it 
is a nonstarter with the overwhelming majority of American women. It is 
an attack on women's rights under the Constitution, and it is an attack 
on a woman's ability to make her own health care decisions.
  It is a bill that was motivated by politics, pure and simple, and it 
amounts to little more than a charade designed to appeal to a dwindling 
base. But it is a charade that will end in the Senate today.
  Even more than reminding House Republicans this bill has no chance of 
moving forward, I am here to provide a reality check because, 
apparently, despite the one that millions of American women provided 
last November, House Republicans need another one.
  Despite the fact in States across the country voters rejected one 
candidate after another who politicized rape and ran on restricting a 
woman's right to choose, House Republicans are now back at it again.
  Despite the fact they had to bring in a paid pollster to tell the 
entire Republican House caucus to stop talking about rape, apparently 
the message has not sunk in.
  For many Republicans it is like 2012 all over again, which is to say 
it is more like 1950 all over again--a time when an all-male House 
Republican Judiciary panel can join together--all male--just like they 
did last Wednesday, to pass a bill that clearly ignores Roe v. Wade; a 
time when the same panel could reject efforts to protect the life and 
health of the mother or even reject efforts to make exceptions for rape 
or incest; a time when one of those panel members, a Republican 
Representative from Arizona, can even trot out the idea that women are 
not likely to become pregnant if they are raped.
  But it is not 1950, and that irresponsible and shameful claim has 
been debunked by doctors and experts of all stripes, time and again.
  It has been 40 years since Roe v. Wade put the health care choices of 
women in the hands of women. We are not going back.
  But just as House Republicans need a reality check that American 
women are not going to have the clock turned back on them, I also 
believe the American people need to know House Republicans--and those 
on the far right targeting women's health care--are not going away 
anytime soon either.
  In fact, I wish I could say the new restrictions on women's health 
care choices that the House passed yesterday were a surprise or that I 
thought that after last fall, Republicans would magically see the 
light.
  I wish I could say I bought the rhetoric from some Republicans who 
have criticized their own because they believe we should be focused on 
jobs and the economy at such a difficult time.
  But the truth is, attacks on women's health care have not stopped 
and, apparently, they will not stop. That is because they are a core 
part of that party's philosophy. In fact, all we have to do is look 
back at the moment that Republicans in the House took power.
  We all remember back to 2010, after campaigning, by the way, across 
the country on a platform of jobs and the economy, the first three 
bills they introduced were each direct attacks on women's health.
  The very first bill they introduced, H.R. 1, would have totally 
eliminated title X funding for family planning and teen pregnancy 
prevention, and it included an amendment that would have completely 
defunded Planned Parenthood and would have cut off support for the 
millions of women who count on that.
  Another one of their opening rounds of bills would have permanently 
codified the Hyde amendment and the DC abortion ban. The original 
version of their bill did not even include an exception for the health 
of the mother.
  Finally, they introduced a bill right away that would have rolled 
back every single one of the gains we made for women in the health care 
reform bill.
  That Republican bill would have removed the caps on out-of-pocket 
expenses that protect women from losing their homes or their life 
savings if they get sick. It would have ended the ban on lifetime 
limits on coverage. It would have allowed insurance companies to once 
again discriminate against women by charging them higher premiums, and 
it would have rolled back the guarantee that insurance companies cover 
contraceptives.
  Those were just their first three bills.
  Since that time, we have seen women targeted on everything from 
contraception to Violence Against Women Act protections, to stripping 
the new protections provided under the Affordable Care Act.
  Through economic peril, budget crises, record unemployment, the 
attacks on women's health have remained constant. On Capitol Hill, in 
State houses across the country, and in courtrooms at all levels, the 
fight against women making their own decisions about their health rages 
on. Republicans have shown they will go to just about any length to 
limit access to care. They have put politics between women and their 
own health care, they have put employers between women and their health 
care, they have even threatened to shut down the government over this 
very issue.
  They have shown that this is not about what is best for women and men 
and their own family planning decisions; instead, it is about political 
calculation. It is about appeasing the far right. It is about their 
continued efforts to do whatever it takes to push their extreme agenda. 
But as we have seen with this latest effort, the deck is stacked 
against them because the Constitution is not going anywhere. Also, 
because Senators such as myself and Senator Boxer are not going 
anywhere either, because women who believe Republicans should not be 
making their health care decisions are not going anywhere. Therefore, 
this bill is not going anywhere.
  Mrs. BOXER. Would the Senator yield for a question? I wish to engage 
my friend in a colloquy.
  We are very fortunate, the Senator and I, because we chair important 
committees here. Of course all the committees are important--the Budget 
Committee and I the Environment and Public Works Committee. Both of us 
have worked hard to get important bills through the Senate--Senator 
Murray, the budget of the United States of America, and for me, the 
Water Resources Development Act, which deals with making sure the 
infrastructure around our water, our ports is sound. About 500,000 jobs 
go along with it. The Senator's is critical because it attacks the 
issue of jobs and deficits and the rest.
  So it seems to me--and I want to know if my friend agrees with me--
there is an agenda the Republican House can embrace to deal with what 
is concerning the American people, such as taking the Senator's bill, 
the budget bill, to conference after they went out and campaigned all 
over the country saying we did not want a budget. We pass a budget, now 
they are stopping

[[Page 9485]]

the budget; picking up and passing the water resources bill, or their 
own version of it if they want; certainly dealing with comprehensive 
immigration reform, which is critical.
  I was disheartened to hear Speaker Boehner say: Well, I am not that 
interested in comprehensive immigration reform. Well, why doesn't he 
take a look at the budgetary impact which is so positive for our Nation 
doing this, getting people out of the shadows, getting them to start 
businesses and work.
  Does my friend agree there is no shortage of important and critical 
issues facing the American people they could take up there other than 
an attack on women and women's health?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Let me respond this way: When I go home--and I go home 
every weekend--my constituents talk to me about this big word called 
sequestration and its impact on their lives. Whether they have been 
furloughed, and their paycheck is much smaller, or whether they are 
running a violence against women center and they are having to close 
down a facility, or whether they are sending their kids to preschool 
and teachers have been laid off, or whether their small pizza shop in 
Kitsap County is going to have to close because so many people have 
been furloughed and cut back because of sequestration, what they want 
us to do is to invest in our infrastructure, to invest in our 
education, to make our country strong for the future, and to quit 
governing by crisis, which is why I have come to the floor, as the 
Senator from California knows, constantly to say we passed our budget; 
the House has passed their budget; solve this and replace sequestration 
in a responsible and fair way. We need to get to conference.
  But we are being blocked by a handful of Republicans here on the 
Senate floor. Over in the House, they are not appointing conferees. 
They do not want to go to conference apparently, because they want to 
take the floor time to attack women's health care. This is not what the 
country is telling us to do. They are telling us to do our job and get 
a budget done so they have certainty. They are telling us to do our job 
and make sure we invest in the WRDA bill Senator Boxer has worked so 
hard to do; that the Corps of Engineers projects, whether it is a dam 
or whatever project they have at home that provides jobs and provides 
the kind of economy they need is taken care of. They elected us to come 
back here and do the job of this country.
  So, yes, it is frustrating to me to have to come to the floor one 
more time to talk about abortion when we should be talking about the 
investments that need to be made, when we should be passing a budget, 
we should be investing in our children and their future and providing 
people with jobs and job training and research that is so important at 
universities across this country so we can be a good place 30 years 
from now in this country and be competitive.
  I would say to my colleague, yes, it appears to me the country has an 
agenda that is vastly different than the House Republicans on the far 
right.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I think it says it all here. We need to 
do our work on the issues that matter to the people. We need to make 
sure the economic recovery gains steam. We need to make sure we look at 
this sequester and fix it. We need to make sure we have, yes, deficit 
reduction, but investment. We need to stand strong here in the Senate. 
We will. Hopefully our House colleagues will change their minds. 
Republicans over there set the agenda. Get to the business of the 
people and stop attacking women.


                           Amendment No. 1240

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 1240.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself, Ms. 
     Landrieu, and Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1240.

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To require training for National Guard and Coast Guard 
    officers and agents in training programs on border protection, 
immigration law enforcement, and how to address vulnerable populations, 
                 such as children and victims of crime)

       On page 919, line 17, insert after ``agents,'' the 
     following: ``in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, 
     National Guard personnel performing duty to assist U.S. 
     Customs and Border Protection under section 1103(c)(6) of 
     this Act, Coast Guard officers and agents assisting in 
     maritime border enforcement efforts,''.

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise in support of the Boxer-Landrieu-
Murray amendment numbered 1240 which is a very simple amendment. It has 
bipartisan support as well. It would require the participation of the 
National Guard and the Coast Guard in new Border Protection training 
programs.
  The underlying bill includes language authorizing specialized 
training for Federal law enforcement agents who have been tasked with 
securing the border to update them on how the law will impact their 
duties and their responsibilities. The bill specifically requires 
Customs and Border Protection, Border Patrol, ICE officers, and 
agriculture specialists at the border to undergo training on such 
things as identification and detection of fraudulent travel documents, 
civil rights protections, border community concerns, environmental 
concerns, and how agents should handle vulnerable populations such as 
children, victims of crime, and human trafficking.
  But the bill leaves out two very important groups of Federal 
officials who will be key to further securing our lands and sea 
borders. They leave out the National Guard and the Coast Guard. The 
bill provides new authorizations for the National Guard to assist 
Customs and Border Protection agents with border enforcement duties. In 
the case of the Coast Guard, the bill continues their large role with 
maritime border security.
  But the new training language excludes both the National Guard and 
the Coast Guard. So we look at our amendment as making a pretty easy 
fix. We do not think it was intentional to leave the National Guard and 
the Coast Guard out of the training. So we simply restore it.
  I noted that Senator Cornyn identified the same problem during 
Judiciary Committee consideration of the bill. This piece was tucked 
into a more controversial amendment, so it did not pass. This 
bipartisan idea needs to be taken out. It needs to stand alone. It 
needs to pass. I am very hopeful it will.
  In closing, I will list who is supporting us: National Task Force to 
End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women; Asian Pacific Islander 
Institute on Domestic Violence; Casa de Esperanza; National Latina 
Network for Healthy Families and Communities; Futures Without Violence; 
Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community; 
Jewish Women International; Legal Momentum; National Coalition Against 
Domestic Violence; National Congress of American Indians Task Force on 
Violence Against Women; National Council of Jewish Women; National 
Network to End Domestic Violence; National Organization of Sisters of 
Color Ending Sexual Assault; National Resource Center on Domestic 
Violence; and the YWCA.
  We have a big group out there that understands these officers need 
that training.
  With that, I thank everybody for their indulgence for allowing me 
time to explain the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                           Amendment No. 1227

  Mr. HELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside so I can call up amendment No. 1227.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page 9486]]

       The Senator from Nevada, [Mr. Heller], for himself and Mr. 
     Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 1227.

  Mr. HELLER. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To include a representative from the Southwestern State of 
           Nevada on the Southern Border Security Commission)

       On page 861, line 9, strike ``4 members, consisting of 1 
     member'' and insert ``5 members, consisting of 1 member from 
     the Southwestern State of Nevada and 1 member''.

  Mr. HELLER. Madam President, the debate we are having in this Chamber 
is incredibly important to our Nation's future. We simply cannot afford 
to waste this opportunity to bring meaningful reform to America's 
immigration system. We have a chance to enact commonsense reforms that 
will help fix the broken system that punishes those who simply want to 
work hard and play by the rules.
  Over the course of the next 2 weeks, we have an opportunity to 
enhance border security and to ensure that those coming to our shores 
do so in a lawful manner. In order to do that, we need to make sure the 
underlying immigration bill actually addresses the issues and offers 
reasonable solutions that make sense.
  Let me be clear: In order to fix the immigration system, we must 
secure our borders. Attempting to bring about immigration reform while 
ignoring the problems at our borders makes no sense. I, like many of my 
colleagues, have repeatedly voted this week in favor of increasing 
border security. I think most Americans would agree any reform 
legislation must include measures that stop unlawful entry into our 
country. The underlying bill recognizes the serious need for greater 
security at our borders and establishes a southern border security 
commission if State-based results are not achieved in a reasonable 
time.
  I for one hope we secure our borders effectively and quickly so no 
such commission is ever needed. The southern border security commission 
will be established only if the Department of Homeland Security fails 
to achieve effective control of the southern border within 5 years of 
the bill's enactment. Hopefully we never recognize that scenario. But 
if for some reason a southern border security commission is needed, and 
if we fail to change the status quo after 5 years, then the States that 
are most affected by these issues must have a central role in fixing 
those problems.
  Let me be clear: My amendment No. 1227 does not endorse the creation 
of the border commission. It simply ensures that should the commission 
be required, it will be fully representative of States' concerns and 
State-based recommendations on how to achieve control of the southern 
border.
  The commission is primarily comprised of representatives from 
southern border States, including Arizona, California, Texas, and New 
Mexico, and is responsible for providing concrete recommendations to 
Congress and the administration on how to achieve control of the 
southern border should DHS fail to do so.
  But Nevada would not be guaranteed a voice on the commission, despite 
the fact that Nevada shares contiguous borders with two southern border 
States and faces many of the same immigration-related challenges as 
these States. It is more than reasonable to argue that Nevada, which is 
a short drive away from San Diego, Los Angeles, and Phoenix, should be 
included on a commission designed to improve border security in the 
southwestern region. If that commission is necessary, Nevada should 
have a seat at that table. Including Nevada on the commission makes the 
underlying bill more effective, enhances this particular border 
security provision, and ensures that it fully addresses the issues 
affecting the southern border and southwestern States.
  If we reject common sense during this amendment process, we are going 
to end up right back where we started in years to come. We are not 
going to give the American people the solution they deserve in this 
immigration bill. It is common sense that if the Federal Government 
fails to gain control of the borders, then the States most affected by 
the failure should be able to play a role in fixing the problem. It is 
common sense that States such as Nevada, which faces the same problems 
as other States in the region, should contribute to the process as 
members of that commission.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I come to the floor with even more 
good news about the Gang of 8's immigration reform proposal that is 
being debated before the Senate. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office has confirmed that this legislation we are considering is good 
for the American economy.
  We in the Gang of 8 have spent months working on this bipartisan 
effort because we knew it was good for the United States. Now we have 
the official word from the Congressional Budget Office confirming that 
it will reduce our Nation's deficit and grow our Nation's economy.
  As you can see in this graph, the Congressional Budget Office's 
analysis shows that our bill will increase the U.S. gross domestic 
product by 3.3 percent in the first 10 years after its enactment and 
5.4 percent in the second 10 years after its enactment. This means the 
bipartisan immigration reform we are debating in the Senate will 
actually grow our economy, not harm it as some of the ardent opponents 
have tried to argue.
  I have been saying this all along: bringing 11 million people out of 
the shadows will increase our economic growth, and now we know by how 
much.
  The Congressional Budget Office also tells us we reduce the deficit 
by $197 billion over the next decade and by another $700 billion more 
between 2024 and 2033 through changes in direct spending and revenues. 
We are talking about almost $1 trillion in deficit spending that we can 
lift from the backs of the next generation by giving 11 million people 
a pathway to productive citizenship.
  I have been saying all along, bringing 11 million people out of the 
shadows and fixing our broken immigration system will increase the 
gross domestic product and decrease the deficit, and now we know by how 
much. The report says it will come in payroll taxes, income taxes, 
fees, and fines estimated to be about $459 billion in the first 10 
years and $1.5 trillion in the second 10 years. It also found that 
there will be fewer unauthorized individuals coming into the United 
States as a result of our bill.
  Contrary to what my colleague from Alabama has continuously claimed 
on the floor of the Senate, the CBO found ``that the border enforcement 
and security provisions of the bill, along with the implementation of 
the mandatory employment verification system, would decrease the net 
future flows of unauthorized people into the United States.''
  The bottom line of this report is clear. What the CBO numbers tell us 
is that 11 million people living in fear and in the shadows are not, as 
some would have us believe, part of America's problem, but bringing 
them out of the shadows is actually part of the solution and part of 
strengthening America's economic future. They are a key to economic 
growth, and immigration reform will help save the Social Security and 
Medicare trust funds.
  What we realize today is that giving 11 million people a pathway, an 
arduous pathway, nonetheless a tough pathway, go through a criminal--
come forth and register with the government, first of all, and let us 
know who is here, go through a criminal background check; they must 
pass that background check because if they don't, they are deported; 
and then ultimately they pay their taxes, learn English, and after more 
than a decade earn their way toward citizenship; fixing that broken 
immigration system, in effect, is an economic growth strategy and 
exactly the right thing to do.

[[Page 9487]]

  Frankly, the CBO numbers negate any reasonable argument the opponents 
of this legislation have. Every argument they have made is based on one 
thing and one thing only: that ``those people'' living in the shadows, 
``those people'' trying to earn a living, ``those people'' trying to 
keep their families together are a symptom of American decline. Our 
history of immigration clearly contradicts those arguments, and the CBO 
numbers confirm it.
  The opponents of this legislation couldn't be more wrong. Giving 11 
million people a pathway to citizenship, while strengthening our 
enforcement efforts, is not a symptom of decline. On the contrary, it 
is a symbol of America's hope and a validation of American values, what 
we stand for as a nation and who we are as a people.
  I believe a new generation of immigrants willing to work hard and 
contribute to the economy will help make this another century of 
American exceptionalism.
  I say to my friends on the other side, and I say to my friend from 
Alabama who appears to have only gotten the CBO score for the first 10 
years but not the second 10 years, even though I understand he was the 
one who asked for the CBO to score the second 10 years, apparently the 
second 10 years holds an inconvenient truth for my friend. The good 
news in this analysis actually gets better in the second 10 years. The 
CBO reports that immigration reform will reduce the deficit by $700 
billion, increase wages by half a percent, increase GDP by 5.4 percent, 
and increase productivity and innovation.
  As I listen to the Senator from Alabama make his remarks about the 
CBO report on wages, I don't think the numbers say he believes what 
they say. He was talking about how American family wages would go down, 
and the report explicitly says that is not the case.
  In fact, Ezra Klein wrote yesterday in the Washington Post that the 
idea that immigration would lower wages of already working Americans is 
``actually a bit misleading. . . . As for folks already here, CBO is 
careful to note that their estimates ``do not necessarily imply that 
current U.S. residents would be worse off'' in the first 10 years, and 
in the second 10 years, they estimate that the average American's wages 
will actually rise.''
  In addition, in case my friend from Alabama missed it, the report 
also says:

       Although immigrants constituted 12 percent of the 
     population in the year 2000, they accounted for 26 percent of 
     U.S. based Nobel Prize winners, and they made up 25 percent 
     of public venture-backed companies started between 1990 and 
     2005.

  The fact is, immigrants receive patents at twice the rate of the 
native-born U.S. population. The bottom line, as Ezra Klein states:

       The bill's overall effect on the overall economy is 
     unambiguously positive.

  This is encouraging news for the American economy and it validates 
what many of us have known all along. I would only say let's not take a 
report from the Congressional Budget Office, twist it for political 
purposes, and then preach to the fears of those who would oppose this 
legislation no matter how encouraging and positive the CBO numbers are. 
I am already beginning to hear the voices who, of course, are rejecting 
the CBO's analysis. I find it interesting. I stand on this floor very 
often and listen to my colleagues who use the CBO numbers when it 
inures to their benefit but reject them when it doesn't. You can't do 
it. You can't have it both ways. This is a reason to move forward, not 
a reason for further obstruction.
  The Congressional Budget Office report is encouraging enough, in my 
view, to make this legislation part of an economic recovery strategy 
and a long-term competitiveness strategy. I say to the opponents of the 
legislation: Don't stand in the way of economic growth. Don't stand in 
the way of economic recovery. Let's say yes to immigration reform.
  Even a voice I normally am not in concert with--Grover Norquist, the 
president of Americans for Tax Reform, said yesterday:

       Today's CBO score is more evidence that immigration is key 
     to economic growth. Immigration reform will jumpstart 
     America's economy and reduce our national debt. . . . I urge 
     Congress to fix our broken immigration system for the sake of 
     the American economy.

  I don't usually agree with Grover Norquist, so the fact that we can 
actually agree on this issue means we have done something right in the 
Gang of 8, something worthy of the support even of some of my most 
conservative colleagues.
  I think my friends on the other side are out of arguments. Ezra Klein 
does a good job of bottom-lining the CBO analysis. He says:

       This isn't just a good CBO report. It's a wildly good CBO 
     report. They're basically saying immigration reform is a free 
     lunch: It cuts the deficit by growing the economy. It makes 
     Americans better off and it makes immigrants better off. At a 
     time when the U.S. economy desperately needs a bit of help, 
     this bill, according to CBO, helps. And politically, it 
     forces opponents of the bill onto the ground they're least 
     comfortable occupying: They have to argue that immigration 
     reform is bad for cultural or ethical reasons rather than 
     economic ones.

  The good news in this CBO report about the economic benefits of 
immigration reform is exactly one of the reasons 70 percent of 
Americans support it. It is good for the economy. Once again, we 
realize the breadth of support for this legislation goes far beyond 
politics, demographics, or elections. It goes to our responsibility to 
the economy and to our country.
  We have an obligation to pass this legislation if we want to fix our 
immigration system and rebuild our economy.
  To those opponents of immigration reform who tell us ``those people'' 
will come here and use services, demand more and bankrupt the system, I 
would point them to this graphic.
  The sizable deficit reduction from immigration reform in the first 10 
years is actually dwarfed by the amount that immigrants will continue 
to contribute in reducing the national deficit in the second 10 years.
  This clearly shows immigration reform is good for America now and in 
the long term. People have long realized, and the CBO numbers show us, 
that this legislation is, without a doubt, the right thing to do. It 
benefits all of us as an issue.
  These are people who have come here to work, contribute to our 
economy, our economic competitiveness, pay their taxes, and be part of 
the dream. The CBO report simply puts numbers to what that dream is all 
about and what we have known all along.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, as chair of the Agriculture, Nutrition 
and Forestry Committee, I rise today to speak about the urgent need for 
comprehensive immigration reform. I too, along with the distinguished 
Senator from New Jersey, wish to indicate that it is very good news 
that this is not only good in a number of ways to have a legal system 
that is working for the economy, but we are actually going to see 
deficit reduction. Saving money as well as providing certainty in the 
economy for workers and businesses, a legal system that works for 
people, for families, business workers, is extremely positive.
  I wish to congratulate all of my colleagues and friends on both sides 
of the aisle who have worked so hard: the leader of the Judiciary 
Committee, the leader of the Immigration Subcommittee, and all of those 
on both sides of the aisle who have worked so hard to make this happen.
  I particularly thank Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Bennet, and 
others who have worked very hard on a portion of the bill that relates 
to agriculture.
  In agriculture, we need comprehensive immigration reform. It is 
critically important for farmers from Michigan, Wisconsin, Alabama, 
California, and everywhere in between.
  As you know, we passed our farm bill with wide bipartisan support a 
week ago. In the debate, we talked a lot about risk management and 
making sure that farmers have a safety net when they experience a 
disaster, whether it be a drought, a late freeze, or other severe 
weather. But what

[[Page 9488]]

about when the weather is good, the Sun shines, there is enough rain 
but not too much, and it falls at the right times and the crops grow 
and ripen, and then there aren't enough people to harvest it, which has 
happened too many times in Michigan? When that happens, crops unpicked, 
unsorted, and unsold rot in the fields. In California, last year peach 
growers saw much of their crop rot on the trees because they couldn't 
find enough workers. One farmer outside Marysville, CA, said he was 
losing 5 percent of his peaches every day--every day--because he 
couldn't get enough farm workers and the system didn't work. And this 
year grapefruit growers are already behind on picking by 2 weeks 
because of the labor shortage. We need a legal system that works.
  In Alabama, in 2011 thousands of farm workers fled the State as a new 
immigration law was passed and undermined the ability to get quality 
legal workers. Brian Cash, a tomato grower on Chandler Mountain, said 
that one day he had 64 workers and the next day he had 11 when the new 
law made it a crime not to carry valid documents at all times, which 
forced police to check on anyone they suspected was here illegally. The 
way this was put together, it was not workable. So we need a system 
that works, that is realistic, that makes sure everyone, in fact, who 
is here is documented as legally here, but it has to be done in a way 
that works for farmers and workers. Because Brian didn't have enough 
workers to harvest his 125 acres, he watched his tomato crop rot in the 
field, and that loss cost him $100,000.
  In my home State of Michigan last year, we couldn't get enough 
workers to help harvest the crops up and down the west side of the 
State. Asparagus grower John Bakker, who runs the Michigan Asparagus 
Advisory Board, reports that 97 percent of Michigan asparagus is 
harvested by hand and almost all of our hand-harvesting labor comes 
from migrant workers. That means much of our asparagus crop, 
unfortunately, was left in the field last year.
  As you can see here, this was all left in the field. All of this is 
what has happened.
  Alan Overhiser from Casco Township, MI, grows peaches and apples on 
225 acres. He typically hires 25 to 30 seasonal workers. Right now he 
only has two. He said:

       I think one thing people don't understand is that people we 
     normally hire are skilled at this work. It's not just 
     something that everyone can do. I think that's probably the 
     myth out there. The reality is that we're in the business of 
     providing safe, high-quality food that people want to buy. It 
     takes a skilled labor force. It's hard work. They just aren't 
     everywhere.

  So we need to have a legal system that farmers can count on to have 
the skilled labor they need.
  Dianne Smith, the executive director of the Michigan Apple Committee, 
said that because last year's crop harvest was lost to a weather 
disaster, many farm workers, of course, moved on to different jobs. In 
fact, she said that apple growers from Michigan to Washington are 
desperate to get back the skilled workers they need and that growers 
are hearing that until immigration is worked out, until there is a 
legal system they can trust and count on, workers they have worked with 
for years aren't willing to come back to the United States.
  Russ Costanza grows squash, peppers, cucumbers, tomatoes, and 
eggplants on his Michigan farm. In the 1960s every farm worker his 
father hired came from nearby Benton Harbor, MI. As of 2010 not a 
single worker came from that city.
  Again, there are the challenges of finding farm workers, those who 
are skilled and who want to do this kind of work.
  Fred Leitz, who also farms near Benton Harbor, says American workers 
don't want to work in the fields. He has reached out to find workers 
and says it is a particular kind of work that most American workers are 
not interested in doing. In 2009 migrant workers held 200 of the 225 
jobs at his apple orchard, and he said he would be out of business 
without their help. He has to have a legal system that works so that he 
knows he is following the law, so that people know they are following 
the law, they can count on it, and they can have the skilled workers 
they need every year.
  Today, 77 percent of our country's farm workers are foreign born. 
These are men and women who work in extremely difficult jobs. They are 
people who need and want to follow the law. We have to make sure the 
law works. We need immigration reform to make sure we have an 
accountable system.
  For our workers who put in so much effort all year long only to watch 
their crops rot in the fields, we need immigration reform. We need a 
legal system that works. If they do not have workers to pick all of 
their crops, then farmers are going to plant fewer acres. The effect of 
a labor shortage can be just as devastating and disastrous on our food 
supply and our families' grocery bills as a drought or a freeze.
  So there is no two ways about it. We need to pass this bill. We need 
immigration reform. We need a system that is accountable, that is 
credible, that is legal, and that works. Farmers and farm worker 
organizations are strongly endorsing this bill because fixing our 
immigration system is what the bill before us is all about.
  I am very pleased people have come together--those representing 
workers, those representing farmers--to find something that actually is 
a good balance and works for everyone in this sector of the economy.
  This bill first creates a way for current undocumented workers to 
obtain legal status through the blue card program if they have worked 
at least 100 work days or 575 hours from January 1, 2010, through 
December 31, 2012. All the blue card holders receive biometric 
identification, and employers will be required to provide a record of 
their employment to the Department of Agriculture as well. To be 
eligible then for a green card, the workers must have worked for at 
least 100 days per year for 8 years prior to enactment or 150 days for 
5 years prior to enactment, and they also would have to show that they 
paid taxes on the income they earned while in blue card status and that 
they have not been convicted of any felony or violent misdemeanor as 
well.
  Next, the bill also establishes an agriculture worker program to 
assign work visas for immigrant workers who don't wish to live in the 
United States but want to be able to come to the United States and work 
legally. Workers must register with USDA and pay a registration fee, 
and the USDA will create an electronic employment monitoring system 
similar to our current student and exchange visitor information system 
to track temporary workers.
  This bill ensures a review of the visa cap after 5 years so we can 
see how the program is working for farmers and for farm workers. It 
also gives the Secretary of Agriculture the power to increase the 
number of visas in an emergency, as in a situation where we don't have 
enough workers and the crops are actually rotting in the fields.
  In addition, any workers who are unemployed for more than 60 days or 
breach a contract with an employer will have to leave the United 
States.
  Furthermore, the bill provides much needed certainty for farmers and 
for workers when it comes to wages. Under the bill farmers will know 
how much to plan to spend on help, and workers will know how much to 
plan on earning for their work.
  Finally, farm employers must hire eligible and qualified American 
workers before filling any shortages of workers through the visa 
program. So, as always--and certainly a high priority for me--we want 
to make sure American workers have the first opportunity for these 
jobs. It is only in a situation where there are not Americans applying 
and wishing to have this employment that we would then turn to those 
who are legally here and who are foreign born.
  We are the top agricultural export country in the world--the top. 
That is one of the bright spots for us. As I have said so many times, 
16 million people work in this industry. We can't continue to be the 
top export country if we leave crops in the fields or on the trees 
because we don't have a legal system

[[Page 9489]]

that works and we don't have legal employees who are here, workers who 
are here legally and who can do the work. So we need to pass this bill.
  There are many reasons to pass this bill. One is to make sure we are 
actually picking from the fruit trees and not letting things fall and 
rot on the ground--the precious food we are growing across the country. 
We need to pass this bill because our food supply and the world's food 
supply depend on being able to get the crops out of the fields.
  We have done a great job working together to produce a 5-year farm 
bill that addresses everything from research and support for farmers 
when they have disasters to conservation practices, trade, local food 
systems, rural development, and on and on. The one piece we can do now 
that will really give American agriculture a positive one-two punch is 
to pass this bill.
  This bill is a balance. It has been worked out among all those 
involved in the agricultural economy, both from a business standpoint 
and a worker standpoint. Everyone is very clear: The system is broken. 
It doesn't work. It doesn't work for anybody right now. So we need a 
system that works, that is accountable, that has the right kind of 
balance, and that, of course, puts American workers first but allows 
our farmers to have the legal workers they need as well in that 
process.
  This bill makes sense, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                           Amendment No. 1320

  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set 
aside the pending amendment so that I may call up my amendment No. 1320 
which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cruz] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1320.

  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To replace title I of the bill with specific border security 
   requirements, which shall be met before the Secretary of Homeland 
 Security may process applications for registered immigrant status or 
 blue card status and to avoid Department of Homeland Security budget 
                              reductions)

       On page 896, strike line 11 and all that follow through 
     page 942, line 17, and insert the following:

                        TITLE I--BORDER SECURITY

     SEC. 1101. BORDER SECURITY REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--During the 3-year period beginning on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall--
       (1) triple the number of U.S. Border Patrol agents 
     stationed along the international border between the United 
     States and Mexico;
       (2) quadruple the equipment and other assets stationed 
     along such border, including cameras, sensors, drones, and 
     helicopters, to enable continuous monitoring of the border;
       (3) complete all of the fencing required under the Secure 
     Fence Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-367);
       (4) develop, in cooperation with the Department of Defense 
     and all Federal law enforcement agencies, a policy ensuring 
     real-time sharing of information among all Federal law 
     enforcement agencies regarding--
       (A) smuggling routes for humans and contraband;
       (B) patterns in illegal border crossings;
       (C) new techniques or methods used in cross-border illegal 
     activity; and
       (D) all other information pertinent to border security;
       (5) complete and fully implement the United States Visitor 
     and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT), 
     including the biometric entry-exist portion; and
       (6) establish operational control (as defined in section 
     2(b) of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-367)) 
     over 100 percent of the international border between the 
     United States and Mexico.
       (b) Triggers.--The Secretary may not commence processing 
     applications for registered provisional immigrant status 
     pursuant to section 245B of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act, as added by section 2101, or blue card status under 
     section 2111 until the Secretary has substantially complied 
     with all of the requirements set forth in subsection (a).
       (c) Budgetary Effects of Noncompliance.--
       (1) Initial reductions.--If, on the date that is 3 years 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     has failed to substantially comply with all of the 
     requirements set forth in subsection (a)--
       (A) the amount appropriated to the Department for the 
     following fiscal year shall be automatically reduced by 20 
     percent;
       (B) an amount equal to the reduction under subparagraph (A) 
     shall be made available, in block grants, to the States of 
     Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas for securing the 
     international border between the United States and Mexico; 
     and
       (C) the salary of all political appointees at the 
     Department shall be reduced by 20 percent.
       (2) Subsequent years.--If, on the date that is 4, 5, 6, or 
     7 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary has failed to substantially comply with all of the 
     requirements set forth in subsection (a)--
       (A) the reductions and block grants authorized under 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) shall increase by 
     an additional 5 percent of the amount appropriated to the 
     Department before the reduction authorized under paragraph 
     (1)(A); and
       (B) the salary of all political appointees at the 
     Department shall be reduced by an additional 5 percent.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), there are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this title such 
     sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal year 2014 
     through 2018.
       (2) Offset.--
       (A) In general.--Any amounts appropriated pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) shall be offset by an equal reduction in the 
     amounts appropriated for other purposes.
       (B) Rescission.--If the reductions required under 
     subparagraph (A) are not made during the 180-day period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, there 
     shall be rescinded, from all unobligated amounts appropriated 
     for any Federal agency (other than the Department of 
     Defense), on a proportionate basis, an amount equal to the 
     amount appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1).

  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, central to any debate over immigration is 
the need to secure our borders. The American people are overwhelmingly 
unified on that proposition. We must secure our borders. Unfortunately, 
the bill before this body--the Gang of 8 immigration bill--does not 
secure our borders.
  Right now our borders are anything but secure. In fiscal year 2012 
there were 364,768 apprehensions along the southwest border. Forty-nine 
percent of those apprehensions were in Texas.
  The Border Patrol reported in 2012 463 deaths, 549 assaults, and 
1,312 rescues. And this is just a tiny fraction of those actually 
harmed crossing the border illegally. In fiscal year 2012 there were 
2,297,662 pounds of marijuana and nearly 6,000 pounds of cocaine seized 
at the southwest border.
  The trafficking we are seeing is not just human life, but it is also 
drugs that are destroying the lives of countless young people and 
Americans across our country. From April 2006 to March of 2013 over 9 
million pounds of marijuana, cocaine, meth, and heroin has been seized 
just in Texas, $182 million in currency has been seized, over 4,000 
weapons have been seized. Madam President, 392 cartel members have been 
arrested in Texas since 2007, 33 cartel-related homicides in Texas just 
since 2009, and 78 instances where shots were fired at law enforcement 
officers in Texas.
  The insecurity of our borders is causing human tragedies in our 
country, many of which are occurring in my home State of Texas. A 
brutal example can be found in the situation faced by my constituents 
in Brooks County, TX, a county in South Texas 60 miles southwest of 
Corpus Christi, 90 miles from Laredo. Seemingly far removed and 
peaceful, Brooks County is the site of an extreme problem: hundreds of 
thousands of people coming here illegally, many of them from countries 
other than Mexico, attempting to cross the harsh terrain on foot, 
cutting across private property to avoid detection by the understaffed 
Border Patrol.
  According to news sources, 400 to 500 illegal immigrants cross Brooks 
County on foot every single night--400 to 500 a night. The Washington 
Post recently wrote a piece about Brooks County and described the 
situation as follows:

       There has been a surge in illegal migrants, mostly from 
     Central America, trying to sneak around the checkpoint by 
     cutting through the desolate ranches and labyrinths of 
     mesquite brush that parallel the highway.
       They arrive in South Texas by riding the freight trains up 
     through southern Mexico and along the gulf coast. Smugglers 
     float them across the Rio Grande to safe houses

[[Page 9490]]

     and border cities such as Brownsville and McAllen, then drive 
     them north toward Houston and San Antonio along U.S. Route 
     281.
       Several miles before the Falfurrias Border Patrol 
     checkpoint, the smugglers pull over, and that's where the 
     migrants start walking.

  Because they are either paid in advance or based solely on how many 
people they successfully deliver, smugglers often leave illegal 
immigrants in places such as the sometimes 30-mile overland hike, which 
is undertaken at a brutally fast pace, and sadly the harsh land and 
climate lead to the death of many.
  The Washington Post interviewed one of my constituents, Mr. Presnall 
Cage, on that point. He said:

       ``I don't want the bodies here anymore,'' said Presnall 
     Cage, whose family's 43,000-acre property is directly west of 
     the highway checkpoint. ``A more secure border would mean 
     fewer deaths,'' he said.

  The system we have is not humane. It is cruel, and it results in 
terrible human tragedies.
  The Washington Post went on to describe the situation Mr. Cage faces.

       Some of the migrants find their way to Cage's ranch house, 
     as three groups of people had done the week before. ``I feel 
     so sorry for them,'' he said. ``They have no idea what 
     they're getting into.'' Cage has placed dozens of water 
     faucets around his property. But a sinking feeling sets in 
     whenever he sees a pair of sneakers laid across a path or a 
     shirt tied to a branch near the road, typical last-ditch 
     distress signals.

  When winter arrives and quail hunters come to his ranch with dogs, 
more bodies show up. Last year 16 bodies were found on Cage's ranch. 
Sixteen men, women, and children lost their lives because of our broken 
immigration system.
  Sadly, the 16 found on Mr. Cage's ranch represent only a small 
fraction of the 129 bodies found in just Brooks County last year. The 
county spent $159,000 last year to recover and bury those who went 
unclaimed. They are buried at the Sacred Heart Burial Park. They are 
spread across three sections of the cemetery. In those three sections, 
the graves do not have names. The remains of a human being lie marked 
only by simple aluminum markers carrying serial numbers or sterile 
descriptions: ``Unknown Female,'' ``Bones,'' or ``Skull.''
  No one who cares about our humanity would want to maintain a system 
where the border isn't secure, where vulnerable women and children 
entrust themselves to corrupt coyotes and drug dealers and are left to 
die in the desert. This is a system that produces human tragedy, and 
the most heartbreaking aspect of this Gang of 8 bill is that it will 
perpetuate this tragedy. It will not fix the problem. It will not 
secure the borders.
  Linda Vickers, who is a constituent from Brooks County, wrote me 
about the situation she faces:

       In all the years I have lived here (since 1996) I have 
     never seen or been confronted by so many illegal immigrants. 
     Since May of last year the numbers have continued to rise. . 
     . . But I have never seen it like this! Nor, have I ever felt 
     this unsafe in my own home and on my own ranch as I do right 
     now. I have had so many gang members (MS-13, Pistoleros, 
     etc.) around my house that I now feel it is not ``if'' I will 
     be assaulted, but ``when.''

  Linda Vickers' husband is a veterinarian, Dr. Mike Vickers. Like many 
other ranchers in Brooks County, Mike speaks Spanish and he worked for 
Mexican ranchers for years as a vet until the travel became too 
dangerous. Dr. Vickers gave the following statement of his own:

       I live on a Brooks County ranch with my wife, Linda. In 
     2012, 129 bodies of deceased illegal aliens were found in our 
     County on private ranch land. Most of these bodies were found 
     within 15 minutes of our front door in any given direction! 
     We believe these bodies represent only 20-25% of the actual 
     number of illegal immigrants dying in this area. . . . In one 
     week of last July, I personally rescued 15 people (most were 
     Central Americans) that were lost and close to dying from 
     dehydration and heat exhaustion. . . . This same week I found 
     a deceased person that had been laid across a dirt road in 
     order to be found. He was a 31 year old man from El Salvador.

  A system that perpetuates these human tragedies is cruel. It is the 
opposite of humane. Yet the bill before this Senate, the Gang of 8 
bill, encourages illegal immigration now and more in the future if it 
is passed.
  Apprehensions in the Rio Grande Valley are projected to be higher in 
fiscal year 2013 than in any year since 2000, and the number of 
apprehensions to date, after only 8 months, is already more than the 
total apprehensions in fiscal years 2002 to 2004 and 2007 to 2011.
  This is a chart of the apprehensions of what Homeland Security refers 
to as OTMs--those who are other than Mexican--because a significant 
number of people coming into this country illegally are not from Mexico 
but are from other nations.
  The black line represents apprehensions of OTMs along the southwest 
border, and the white line represents apprehensions in Texas. You see 
two clear spots--one in the mid-2000s, coming up right upon the 
consideration of the last major amnesty bill, and we saw apprehensions 
spike dramatically as people were incentivized by that offer of amnesty 
to risk their lives coming here illegally, and we see again a second 
spike happening right now.
  DHS statistics show apprehensions on the southwest border are up 13 
percent versus the same time last year--from 170,223 in 2012 to 
192,298.
  The Gang of 8 bill encourages illegal immigration in many ways, one 
of which is by prohibiting immigration law enforcement from detaining 
or deporting any apprehended illegal immigrant if they ``appear to be 
eligible for instant legalization'' and requiring that they be allowed 
to apply for amnesty. In other words, what this bill does is it 
handcuffs law enforcement from enforcing our immigration laws. We 
should not be surprised that when you handcuff law enforcement, the 
result is more and more breaking the law.
  The Gang of 8 bill allows illegal aliens who have been previously 
removed to, in the Secretary's discretion, be eligible for legalization 
even if they have illegally reentered the country yet again. And 
neither the Gang of 8 bill nor many of the alternative border security 
proposals that have been introduced do enough to meaningfully secure 
our borders.
  The last time this body passed major immigration reform was 1986. In 
1986 the Federal Government made a promise to the American people. The 
Federal Government said: We will grant amnesty to some 3 million people 
who are here illegally. In exchange, we will secure the borders. We 
will stop illegal immigration. We will fix the problem. The American 
people accepted that offer. What happened in 1986 was that the amnesty 
happened, 3 million people received it, and yet the border security 
never happened.
  I was struck last week when the senior Senator from New York stood at 
his desk and said: When this bill passes, illegal immigration will be a 
thing of the past. It was an echo from the debate in 1986. In 1986 that 
same promise was made to the American people: Just grant amnesty and 
illegal immigration will be a thing of the past. Do you know what we 
have learned? If legalization comes first, border security never 
happens.
  One of the major questions before this body is, Which should come 
first, legalization or border security? I can tell you that the 
overwhelming majority of Americans, Republicans and Democrats, want 
border security first before any legalization. Yet the Gang of 8 bill 
and the alternatives before this body don't require even a single 
additional Border Patrol agent prior to legalization. The Gang of 8 
bill does not require that a single foot of fencing be built along the 
border prior to legalization. The Gang of 8 bill does not require a 
biometric exit-entry system prior to legalization.
  Unlike the Gang of 8 bill, the amendment I have called up does 
provide real border security. It does what we have been telling the 
American people, but it actually follows through on it. Prior to 
legalization, my amendment would do a number of things. No. 1, it would 
triple the number of Border Patrol agents on the southern border. Today 
there are a little over 18,000 Border Patrol agents on the border, but 
our border is not secure. This bill triples that. This bill quadruples 
the number of cameras, sensors, helicopters, fixed-

[[Page 9491]]

wing assets, technology, and infrastructure on the border. This bill 
requires that we complete all 700 miles of the fencing required by law 
in the Secure Fence Act. This bill requires real-time sharing of 
information among Federal law enforcement agencies. This bill requires 
that we complete and fully implement the US-VISIT system, including 
biometric exit-entry. And this bill requires that we establish 
operational control over 100 percent of the southern border.
  Proponents of the Gang of 8 bill suggest that we don't need 
additional border patrol. I have to say that it is interesting seeing 
Senators who represent States that are very, very far away from the 
border standing up with complete confidence and sharing what we need to 
do to secure the border.
  I can tell you, every time I have been to the border in my home State 
of Texas, the No. 1 answer that has been given from people on the 
ground--how do we fix this? How do we secure the border? How do we make 
it so you are not at risk from Mexican drug cartels and from the 
constant human tragedy of illegal immigration? The No. 1 answer you get 
over and over from law enforcement on the ground is this: More boots on 
the ground.
  Let me put things in perspective in terms of what exactly we are 
talking about with boots on the ground. We need to have sufficient 
resources to secure the border. And let's take as a comparison the 
border versus New York City. In New York City, there are 34,500 NYPD 
officers. The area those 34,000 officers are policing is 468 square 
miles. That is a density of about 73 officers per square mile. By 
contrast, the border has 18,516 Border Patrol agents, but instead of 
policing 468 square miles, they are policing approximately 200,000 
square miles. That is a density of 0.1 agents per square mile.
  Let's look at it in a different way to get a sense of the 
differential there is right now. In New York City, 34,500 NYPD 
officers, as represented by this chart, are policing about 470 square 
miles--that little dot. By comparison, roughly half this number of 
Border Patrol agents are policing a square that large. And that is why 
law enforcement on the border says that whenever you spot those who are 
coming here illegally--even if you spot them, even if you find them, 
there is a delay in getting Border Patrol agents there to apprehend 
them, and by the time they are there, many of them have escaped and 
fled into the interior.
  Why focus on inputs? One of the reasons to focus on inputs is that 
this administration in particular has demonstrated both a willingness 
to disregard the law and less than complete fidelity to truth. 
Proponents of the Gang of 8 say there are provisions in this statute 
that require that DHS fix the problem. I would like to point out a 
couple of provisions of current law.
  If you look right now at current law, current Federal law requires:

       Ports of entry shall use equipment and software to allow 
     the biometric comparison and authentication of all travel 
     documents.

  That was enacted in law in 2002. Has it happened? No. It is one of 
the things in the civics classes we teach our kids: Congress passes a 
law, the President signs it, and suddenly it occurs. It doesn't occur 
if the Executive doesn't implement it. And the statement of the head of 
the travel entry programs at CBP in 2011 was:

       The operational costs of a biometric program at this time 
     would be inordinately expensive and the benefits not 
     commensurate with the costs.

  Despite the fact that the statute, the words on the paper say we have 
to have a biometric system, we do not, and the Obama administration 
made it perfectly clear they do not intend to change that.
  Look at another provision of current law. Current law provides the 
DHS Secretary shall--not may, not might--``shall provide for at least 2 
layers of reinforced fencing'' over 700 specified miles.
  How much of that has happened? Madam President, 36.6 miles of double-
layered fence is currently standing. The statute says there shall be 
700. DHS has built only 36. Words on a paper don't secure the border.
  A third example of current law right now that the Obama 
administration is disregarding, current law provides DHS Secretary 
Janet Napolitano must ``achieve and maintain operational control'' over 
the entire border.
  What does Janet Napolitano say? She says: ``Look, operational 
control, it's an archaic term.''
  DHS doesn't even measure it anymore, much less require it.
  Why? Because when they were measuring it they found it wasn't being 
achieved, the border wasn't secure. So rather than enforce it, they 
just erased the metric that demonstrated they are not fixing the 
problem.
  There are two fundamental questions this body needs to consider when 
it comes to border security. No. 1, do we have real border security? Do 
we fix the problem, stop providing empty promises? The Gang of 8 bill 
has empty promises that will do nothing to secure the border. I think 
the American people are tired of empty promises.
  The amendment I have offered will put real teeth in border security: 
triple the number of Border Patrol agents on the southwest border; 
quadruple the cameras, sensors, drones, helicopters, and other 
technology and infrastructure as appropriate; ensure that we fix the 
problem.
  No. 2, there is a fundamental question: Which comes first, 
legalization or border security? The Gang of 8 bill says let's have 
legalization first and then border security is a promise that will 
happen in the future. We have been down that road. That was the exact 
same path we took in 1986. In 1986 Congress told the American people we 
will grant legalization now, and on Tuesday I will pay you the cost of 
a hamburger. In the future, we will secure the border. Three decades 
later it still has not happened.
  The only way to make it happen is to require border security first, 
to put the incentives on the Federal Government. Talk is cheap. We need 
to fix the problem.
  In closing, I ask you, Madam President, and I ask the American people 
to focus on the cost, the human tragedy of our current system. In 1986 
there were 3 million people here illegally. They were granted amnesty 
and the Federal Government promised the problem would be solved. Three 
decades later the border is still not secure, and there are 11 million 
people here illegally.
  If this body passes the Gang of 8 bill, it will grant immediate 
legalization and it still will not secure the border. In another 10 or 
20 years we will be back here, but it will not be 3 million or 11 
million; it will be 20 million or 30 million people here illegally. If 
that happens, there are going to be a lot more graves like this, a lot 
more little boys, little girls, a lot more men and women who will never 
achieve the potential they could because of our system. It is a 
perverse system that encourages good people who just want a better 
life--they want a better life for their kids--and with our system, 
because we do not enforce the law, they risk their lives, they entrust 
themselves to human traffickers who assault them, who sexually violate 
them, who leave them to die in the desert.
  The American people are overwhelmingly unified that, No. 1, we need 
to secure the border. And, No. 2, any bill that this body passes should 
have border security first and then legalization, not the other way 
around. There is an old saying that is popular in Texas: Fool me once, 
shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
  In 1986, Congress asked the American people: Trust us with 
legalization first and border security later. We learned it never 
happened. You know what. I don't think the American people are ready to 
be fooled a second time. I hope this body will adopt the amendment I 
have introduced to provide real border security and to ensure that 
border security occurs first, before legalization.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent my remarks be as 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 9492]]




                     Judicial Confirmation Process

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Senate has so far this year confirmed 
26 judicial nominees, including six appeals court nominees. The 
majority was right on cue, complaining about what they still insist is 
unprecedented confirmation obstruction and threatening to fundamentally 
change the confirmation process itself.
  The late Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once said 
that you are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts. So 
let us look at the real confirmation facts.
  The Senate confirmed a higher percentage of President Obama's first-
term appeals court nominees, and did so faster, than it had for 
President Bush. The 111 judges confirmed in the previous Congress was 
the highest total in more than 20 years.
  Now we are at the beginning of President Obama's second term. The 
Senate is on a faster second-term confirmation pace than under any 
President in American history. And by the way, we have already 
confirmed more judges as the Democratic majority allowed to be 
confirmed in all of 2005, the first year of President Bush's second 
term.
  Or we can look specifically at nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals. 
The six appeals court nominees already confirmed this year are more 
than 60 percent above the average annual confirmation pace during the 
entire time I have been in the Senate. In fact, the Senate confirmed 
more appeals court nominees by this time in only eight of those 36 
years.
  Despite those confirmation facts, the majority wants the public to 
believe that legions of judicial nominees are piling up, waiting to be 
confirmed, and the only thing holding back this confirmation flood is 
Republican obstruction in general, and Republican filibusters in 
particular.
  Democratic Senators claim that there have been hundreds of 
filibusters. In January 2011, they claimed that there had been 275 
filibusters in the previous 4 years alone. Last December, the claim had 
risen to 391.
  My Democratic colleagues would be no less accurate if they claimed 
thousands or even millions of filibusters. There is no other way to say 
it, Mr. President, but the majority is committing filibuster fraud.
  Here's how they do it. The Senate must end debate on a bill or a 
nomination before we can vote on it. The process for ending debate, or 
invoking cloture, has two steps, a cloture motion and a cloture vote.
  A cloture motion is nothing more than a request to end debate and 
requires only the signature of 16 Senators. The little secret behind 
those wild claims of filibusters in the hundreds is that Democrats are 
counting cloture motions, not filibusters. On January 1 of this year, 
one Democratic Senator actually let slip what the majority is up to 
when he referred to ``the use of the filibuster as measured by the 
number of cloture motions.''
  Cloture motions and filibusters are two different things. In a report 
dated just last month, the Congressional Research Service said:

       Senate leadership has increasingly made use of cloture . . 
     . at times when no evident filibuster has yet occurred.

  The current majority leader files cloture motions left and right, 
sometimes at the same time and in virtually the same breath as when he 
brings up a matter for consideration. That gimmick boosts the number 
that the majority uses as false evidence of a filibuster problem, but 
it is simply filibuster fraud. So many of these cloture motions are 
unnecessary that a higher percentage is withdrawn without any cloture 
vote at all than under previous majority leaders of either party.
  Here is one recent example. The Judiciary Committee unanimously 
reported the appeals court nomination of Sri Srinivasan on May 16, 
2013. No one opposed this nominee in the Judiciary Committee, and no 
one was ever going to oppose this nominee on the floor. The majority 
leader still filed a cloture motion even though the minority leader had 
already agreed to a confirmation vote.
  I will not be surprised if the majority claims that this unanimously 
confirmed nominee was somehow filibustered because a completely 
unwarranted and totally unnecessary cloture motion was filed and 
promptly withdrawn.
  It is time to stop the gimmicks and fake numbers. It is time to stop 
the filibuster fraud. A cloture motion is simply a request to end 
debate while a cloture vote is an actual attempt to end debate. A 
filibuster occurs when that attempt to end debate fails.
  Let's look specifically at judicial filibusters. The majority should 
know the judicial filibuster facts because, after all, they pioneered 
the use of filibusters to defeat judicial nominees who would otherwise 
be confirmed.
  The Senate has taken a total of 51 cloture votes on 36 different 
judicial nominations since the first one in 1968. Remember that a vote 
against cloture is a vote for a filibuster. As this chart shows, 79 
percent of all votes by Senators for judicial filibusters in American 
history have been cast by Democrats.
  One reason why the majority uses fake definitions and made-up numbers 
is that the number of real judicial filibusters is much lower today 
than in the past, especially during the previous administration.
  At this point under President Bush, the Senate had taken 24 cloture 
votes on judicial nominees and 20 of them had failed. In other words, 
there had been 20 judicial filibusters. Not cloture motions, but actual 
filibusters that prevented confirmation votes. But under President 
Obama, the Senate has taken only nine cloture votes on judicial 
nominees and only four of those have failed. There have been only four 
judicial filibusters since President Obama took office.
  It's no wonder that the majority today would rather use fake numbers 
than talk about real filibusters. Democrats led five times as many 
filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees than there have been 
filibusters of President Obama's judicial nominees. Five times as many.
  Not only that, but the very same majority party leaders who today 
most loudly condemn judicial filibusters the majority leader, the 
majority whip, and the Judiciary Committee chairman each voted no less 
than 21 times for judicial filibusters by this point under President 
Bush. They voted for real filibusters then, they condemn fake 
filibusters today.
  Another example of filibuster fraud is the claim that the Senate 
today is bound by a 2006 agreement among a group of Senators who came 
to be known as the Gang of 14. Just a few months ago, the majority whip 
said that the Senate is supposed to use this agreement today as the 
standard for justifying a filibuster. In the Judiciary Committee and 
here on the floor, Senators on the other side of the aisle lecture us 
about how we supposedly have violated that agreement.
  That agreement was never binding on more than those 14 Senators, it 
offered a standard that was to be interpreted and applied individually, 
and it never applied to anyone after 2006.
  Here's what happened. By the spring of 2005, Democrats had led 20 
filibusters that prevented confirmation votes on 10 different appeals 
court nominees. The majority leader threatened to prevent judicial 
filibusters through a parliamentary ruling that could be sustained by a 
simple majority vote. A group of seven Democrats and seven Republicans 
joined to head off that confrontation.
  With a 55-45 Republican majority, the seven Democrats were enough to 
prevent judicial filibusters and the seven Republicans were enough to 
prevent a ban on judicial filibusters.
  I have here the memorandum of understanding signed by those 14 
Senators. Three things stand out.
  First, it ``confirms an understanding among the signatories.'' The 
agreement applied only to those 14 Senators, only five of whom are 
serving today.
  Second, it says that this agreement is ``related to pending and 
future nominations in the 109th Congress.'' The agreement expired more 
than 6 years ago.
  Third, it says that those 14 Senators will support judicial 
filibusters only under ``extraordinary circumstances''

[[Page 9493]]

and that each Senator decides individually whether those circumstances 
exist. There never was any objective standard that applied to the 
Senate as a whole, or to any group of Senators for that matter.
  It could not be clearer. This was an agreement among those Senators 
to use that standard during that Congress in order to avoid that 
confrontation over changing confirmation procedures.
  Individual Senators may certainly use whatever standard they choose 
for their cloture or confirmation votes, including whatever this 
extraordinary circumstances standard might mean. But it is pure fiction 
to say that this temporary agreement ever bound, let alone binds today, 
more than those Senators who explicitly agreed to it.
  Today we have the bizarre phenomenon of Democratic Senators who voted 
for nearly two dozen filibusters of Bush nominees telling us that an 
expired agreement they had never joined somehow prevents us from voting 
for filibusters of Obama nominees today.
  Why is the majority using such sleight of hand and trying to enforce 
non-existent agreements? Why are they engaging in filibuster fraud?
  One possibility is that the majority wants to cover up the fact that 
President Obama has consistently lagged behind his predecessors in 
making judicial nominations. The Senate, after all, cannot confirm 
nominations that do not exist.
  The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts tracks pending nominees 
for current judicial vacancies. You can see here the record based on 
that data. The Senate had pending nominations for an average of 41 
percent of current vacancies under President Clinton, 53 percent under 
President Bush, but only 35 percent under President Obama. And today it 
is even lower, at only 33 percent.
  During his first term, President Obama was more than 30 percent 
behind President Bush's nominations pace, but ended up only 10 percent 
behind in total confirmations. That hardly looks like partisan 
obstruction to me.
  Not all vacancies, of course, are created equal. Some are more 
pressing than others. President Obama recently sent to the Senate 
nominees for the three remaining vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the DC Circuit and the majority is demanding swift confirmation. By 
the Democrats' own standards, however, these nominees should not be 
considered.
  In 2006, Judiciary Committee Democrats wrote then-Chairman Arlen 
Specter to oppose considering a DC Circuit nominee. That letter, which 
I have here, said that another DC Circuit nominee ``should under no 
circumstances be considered--much less confirmed before we first 
address the very need for that judgeship and deal with the genuine 
judicial emergencies identified by the Judicial Conference.''
  Madam President, I ask that both of these documents be printed in the 
Record.
  My Democratic colleagues had two criteria for filling a DC Circuit 
vacancy. The need for the judgeship to be filled had to be established, 
and particularly pressing vacancies elsewhere had to be addressed. 
Let's apply those Democratic criteria to these new DC Circuit nominees.
  The first Democratic standard is that there must clearly be a need 
for the particular judgeship to be filled. In 2006, Democrats offered 
specific criteria including the total number of appeals filed.
  As you can see here, based on the most recent data from the 
judiciary's administrative office, the number of appeals filed shown 
here in green has been below the 2006 level every year since, and far 
below the average of all circuits across the country shown here in red.
  Another Democratic benchmark is the number of appeals resolved on the 
merits per active judge. Based on the same data from the judiciary's 
administrative office, even with a lower number of active judges, this 
benchmark has risen a mere four percent from 2006.
  Whether you look at new cases or completed cases, judges on the DC 
Circuit handle about 40 percent fewer cases than judges on the next 
busiest circuit.
  Based on these Democratic benchmarks, these DC Circuit vacancies do 
not need to be filled.
  The second Democratic standard for considering DC Circuit nominees is 
that more pressing vacancies designated judicial emergencies should 
first be addressed. Vacancies get that label the older they are and the 
heavier a court's caseload.
  The contrast between 2006 and today is really dramatic. When 
Democrats in July 2006 rejected consideration of a single DC Circuit 
nominee, President Bush had made nominations for 12 of the 20 existing 
judicial emergencies. Now, when Democrats demand consideration of not 
one but three DC Circuit nominees, President Obama has sent us nominees 
for only eight of the 33 judicial emergencies that exist today.
  So the DC Circuit's caseload is down while judicial emergencies 
without nominees are up. I am not accusing my colleagues in the 
majority of flip-flopping because their party controls the White House, 
but it seems to me that their own criteria clearly compel the 
conclusion that these new DC Circuit nominees should not be considered 
at this time.
  The second reason for the majority's filibuster fraud is that they 
want to manufacture some justification, even if they have to make it up 
out of thin air, for eliminating judicial filibusters. They want to do 
today exactly what the Gang of 14 prevented in 2006, but with far less 
justification.
  The minority leader, Senator McConnell, has daily reminded us of the 
majority leader's explicit promise not to pursue changing confirmation 
procedures except through the steps provided for in our standing rules.
  In addition, if we look at the facts rather than the fiction, there 
is no conceivable reason to pursue such a change by any means. There 
have been far fewer judicial filibusters today--one-fifth as many--than 
during the Bush administration. There is less justification to change 
confirmation procedures today than there was when Democrats opposed 
doing so in 2006.
  Let me summarize this journey through the real world of judicial 
confirmations. There is a very real, very serious debate about the kind 
of judges America needs on the federal bench. The process of 
considering President Obama's judicial nominees, however, is being 
conducted reasonably and fairly.
  The majority apparently will do anything, even engaging in filibuster 
fraud, to avoid admitting the facts while hoping that no one will be 
the wiser. The truth is that filibusters are down, not up, and there 
have been far fewer judicial filibusters of Obama nominees than there 
were of Bush nominees. The DC Circuit's caseload is down while the 
number of judicial emergencies without nominees is up.
  There is a better course than provoking unnecessary confrontations by 
nominees to positions that should not even exist or by threatening to 
change confirmation procedures that should not be changed. The majority 
should abandon their strategy of filibuster fraud and prioritize 
filling the most pressing vacancies.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                                   Washington, DC.

          Memorandum of Understanding on Judicial Nominations

       We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, 
     rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and 
     Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an 
     understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust 
     and confidence, related to pending and future judicial 
     nominations in the 109th Congress.
       This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the 
     currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to 
     subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President 
     and to be acted upon by the Senate's Judiciary Committee.
       We have agreed to the following:


          Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations

       A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke 
     cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers 
     Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and 
     Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit),

[[Page 9494]]

       B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories makes no 
     commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following 
     judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad 
     (6th Circuit),


              Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations

       A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their 
     responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the 
     United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should 
     only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and 
     each signatory must use his or her own discretion and 
     judgement in determining whether such circumstances exist.
       B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing 
     commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the 
     rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to 
     be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the 
     Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by 
     means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII,
       We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United 
     States Constitution, the word ``Advice'' speaks to 
     consultation between the Senate and the President with regard 
     to the use of the President's power to make nominations. We 
     encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with 
     members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior 
     to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for 
     consideration.
       Such a return to the early practices of our government may 
     well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately 
     accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.
       We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the 
     traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators 
     seek to uphold.
         Ben Nelson, Mike DeWine, Joe Lieberman, Susan Collins, 
           Mark Pryor, Lindsey Graham, Lincoln Chafee, John 
           McCain, John Warner, Robert Byrd, Mary Landrieu, 
           Olympia Snowe, Ken Salazar, Daniel Inouye.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 2006.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Specter: We write to request that you 
     postpone next week's proposed confirmation hearing for Peter 
     Keisler, only recently nominated to the D.C. Circuit Court of 
     Appeals. For the reasons set forth below, we believe that Mr. 
     Keisler should under no circumstances be considered--much 
     less confirmed--by this Committee before we first address the 
     very need for that judgeship, receive and review necessary 
     information about the nominee, and deal with the genuine 
     judicial emergencies identified by the Judicial Conference.
       First, the Committee should, before turning to the 
     nomination itself, hold a hearing on the necessity of filling 
     the 11th seat on the D.C. Circuit, to which Mr. Keisler has 
     been nominated. There has long been concern--much of it 
     expressed by Republican Members--that the D.C. Circuit's 
     workload does not warrant more than 10 active judges. As you 
     may recall, in years past, a number of Senators, including 
     several who still sit on this Committee, have vehemently 
     opposed the filling of the 11th and 12th seats on that court:
       Senator Sessions: ``[The eleventh] judgeship, more than any 
     other judgeship in America, is not needed.'' (1997)
       Senator Grassley: ``I can confidently conclude that the 
     D.C. Circuit does not need 12 judges or even 11 judges.'' 
     (1997)
       Senator Kyl: ``If . . . another vacancy occurs, thereby 
     opening up the 11th seat again, I plan to vote against 
     filling the seat--and, of course, the 12th seat--unless there 
     is a significant increase in the caseload or some other 
     extraordinary circumstance.'' (1997)
       More recently, at a hearing on the D.C. Circuit, Senator 
     Sessions, citing the Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit, 
     reaffirmed his view that there was no need to fill the 11th 
     seat: ``I thought ten was too many . . . I will oppose going 
     above ten unless the caseload is up.'' (2002)
       In addition, these and other Senators expressed great 
     reluctance to spend the estimated $1 million per year in 
     taxpayer funds to finance a judgeship that could not be 
     justified based on the workload. Indeed, Senator Sessions 
     even suggested that filling the 11th seat would be ``an 
     unjust burden on the taxpayers of America.''
       Since these emphatic objections were raised in 1997, by 
     every relevant benchmark, the caseload for that circuit has 
     only dropped further. According to the Administrative Office 
     of the United States Courts, the Circuit's caseload, as 
     measured by written decisions per active judge, has declined 
     17 percent since 1997; as measured by number of appeals 
     resolved on the merits per active judge, it declined by 21 
     percent; and as measured by total number of appeals filed, it 
     declined by 10 percent. Accordingly, before we rush to 
     consider Mr. Keisler's nomination, we should look closely--as 
     we did in 2002--at whether there is even a need for this seat 
     to be filled and at what expense to the taxpayer.
       Second, given how quickly the Keisler hearing was scheduled 
     (he was nominated only 28 days ago), the American Bar 
     Association has not yet even completed its evaluation of this 
     nominee. We should not be scheduling hearings for nominees 
     before the Committee has received their ABA ratings. 
     Moreover, in connection with the most recent judicial 
     nominees who, like Mr. Keisler, served in past 
     administrations, Senators appropriately sought and received 
     publicly available documents relevant to their government 
     service. Everyone, we believe, benefited from the review of 
     that material, which assisted Senators in fulfilling their 
     responsibilities of advice and consent. Similarly, the 
     Committee should have the benefit of publicly available 
     information relevant to Mr. Keisler's tenure in the Reagan 
     Administration, some of which may take some time to procure 
     from, among other places, the Reagan Library. As Senator 
     Frist said in an interview on Tuesday, ``[T]he DC Circuit . . 
     . after the Supreme Court is the next court in terms of 
     hierarchy, in terms of responsibility, interpretation, and in 
     terms of prioritization.'' We should therefore perform our 
     due diligence before awarding a lifetime appointment to this 
     uniquely important court.
       Finally, given the questionable need to fill the 11th seat, 
     we believe that Mr. Keisler should not jump ahead of those 
     who have been nominated for vacant seats identified as 
     judicial emergencies by the non-partisan Judicial Conference. 
     Indeed, every other Circuit Court nominee awaiting a hearing 
     in the Committee, save one, has been selected for a vacancy 
     that has been deemed a ``judicial emergency.'' We should turn 
     to those nominees first; emergency vacancies should clearly 
     take priority over a possibly superfluous one.
       Given the singular importance of the D.C. Circuit, we 
     should not proceed hastily and without full information. Only 
     after we reassess the need to fill this seat, perform 
     reasonable due diligence on the nominee, and tend to actual 
     judicial emergencies, should we hold a hearing on Mr. 
     Keisler's nomination.
       We thank you for your consideration of this unanimous 
     request of Democratic Senators.
           Sincerely,
         Patrick Leahy, Charles Schumer, Russell Feingold, Dianne 
           Feinstein, Herb Kohl, Edward Kennedy, Richard Durbin, 
           Joe Biden.

  Mr. HATCH. 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. BENNET. 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. BENNET. Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about 
the bill that has been before us for the last week and a half or so to 
fix our broken immigration system.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, this bill has been the product of 
bipartisan work both in the so-called Gang of 8, which I have the 
privilege to be a part of, as well as in the Judiciary Committee where 
they ran a process that set a standard for the way this place ought to 
operate. We considered over 300 amendments in the Judiciary Committee, 
accepting 141 amendments, many of them from Republicans and Democrats 
alike. Now we are on the floor.
  Those who want to delay immigration reform, who want to defeat 
immigration reform, are using every tactic they can find to try to stop 
this bill. But, fortunately, there are other people of goodwill on both 
sides of the aisle who are trying to come to an agreement.
  We focused a lot in the last week, as we should, talking about the 
border. I spoke about the progress we have already made in securing our 
southern border. There is more to do. There is progress that is 
reflected in the underlying bill, and if that can be improved in a way 
that does not make the pathway to citizenship contingent or unreal, I 
think there are those of us who are willing to hear what that looks 
like.
  What we have not spent time on is actually what people in Colorado 
have spent their time on when it comes to the question of fixing our 
broken immigration system, which is the way the current system defeats 
them in their efforts to build their businesses in this economy and the 
promise that could be achieved if we actually were able to pass this 
bill as it has been written. I have heard from people from every walk 
of life across the State of Colorado who have been hurt by our outdated 
and unreasonable and unimaginative and un-American immigration

[[Page 9495]]

laws. They understand in their gut the velocity we can add to the 
economy by fixing the system, if Washington would just do its work. 
They include high-tech companies on the Front Range including the 
bioscience, engineering, and aerospace industries, among others. One of 
those companies, Newsgator, an innovative social media software company 
based in Denver, makes a compelling case. Its chairman and founding CEO 
J.B. Holston told our office:

       I have been watching the immigration debate closely because 
     my company relies on high-skilled technology workers. In the 
     21st century global economy, we are in an arms race--

  we are in an arms race--

     for recruiting, attracting, and retaining the world's best 
     and brightest. Our current immigration system is a barrier to 
     American businesses winning that race.
       Stalled progress on immigration also sidelines growth 
     capital for U.S. high tech companies. That's a toxic 
     combination for growth.
       The proposed immigration overhaul bill is a great step 
     forward.

  It is not only the high-tech sector feeling these pain points. 
Farmers, including peach growers on the western slope, cattle ranchers 
on the eastern plains, and onion growers in the northern part of our 
State, and tourism and the ski industry across Colorado are feeling it 
as well, and DREAMers from the Denver public school system and other 
school districts, rural and urban, struggling to go to college and work 
toward a career because of their legal status.
  We made a commitment when we set out as the Gang of 8, Democrats and 
Republicans working together, that our legislation would be deficit 
neutral, that it wouldn't add one dime--not one dollar--to our deficit. 
That was an important principle for the members of this group because, 
as the Presiding Officer knows, we face significant deficits, 
significant national debt.
  Yesterday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office not only 
affirmed the stories I am hearing from my tech community and my 
agricultural community and from businesses all across the State about 
economic growth, it also had some incredible news with respect to our 
deficit. CBO estimates if we pass this bill, we will reduce the deficit 
by almost $200 billion in the first decade and almost $700 billion in 
the second decade--almost $1 trillion. Even in Washington, DC, that is 
real money. There will be almost $1 trillion of deficit reduction over 
the next two decades as a consequence of this bill.
  So let's break down what the CBO is saying. This bill will increase 
employment and jobs in the country. More workers will come here. More 
people will build businesses here. They will consume more and invest 
more. This will spur economic growth.
  These are not my opinions. These are not the opinions of the Gang of 
8, although we share these opinions. These are the opinions of the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office as a result of reading this 
bill.
  Our bill also allows millions of Americans who are currently 
undocumented to step out of the shadows of a cash economy and start 
contributing more to our economy as they earn more.
  When you crunch the numbers, based on the Congressional Budget Office 
score, this bill will significantly increase our gross domestic 
product, adjusted for inflation, and reduce deficits.
  The CBO found that projected deficits will decline significantly over 
the next decade as a consequence of this legislation.
  Every year, from 2015 on, they expect deficits to go down. It is 
going to end up, as I said earlier, saving us $197 billion between now 
and 2023.
  It turns out that based on this estimate, we will only begin to see 
the benefits of this bill in the first decade. The economic benefits of 
this bill actually accelerate in the second decade. From 2024 to 2033 
the bill would reduce deficits by $690 billion.
  I realize we have gotten in the habit around this place of thinking 
in 30-day increments or 60-day increments. It is driving folks at home 
crazy. This is a chance for us to reset for the 21st century.
  The CBO has done the math. What that math tells you--despite what 
other people who do not want to have immigration reform for whatever 
reason have said, who claim that this is going to drive our deficits 
through the roof--that math tells us we have a total of $887 billion in 
deficit reduction over the next 20 years.
  Here is a surprising fact that is buried in the Congressional Budget 
Office report: Those deficit-reduction estimates are actually 
conservative. CBO is only counting the most obvious savings in their 
estimate. It is not including other more indirect economic benefits--
such as increased productivity--that will likely yield additional 
savings.
  Here is what CBO actually says in its report. This is a direct quote:

       According to CBO's central estimates (within a range that 
     reflects the uncertainty about two key economic relationships 
     in CBO's analysis), the economic impacts not included in the 
     cost estimate would have no further net effect on budget 
     deficits over the 2014-2023 period and would further reduce 
     deficits (relative to the effects reported in the cost 
     estimate) by about $300 billion over the 2024-2033 period.

  Let me put that another way. The CBO is saying this bill could 
actually, when you factor in the economic effects, reduce deficits by 
$300 billion more in the second decade than it actually projects in the 
cost estimates.
  One way or another, we are either just below or just above $1 
trillion, and that is real money, particularly in light of the 
sequester--the law we had written to be so terrible and so ugly it 
would never, ever go into effect, but now is the law of the land. What 
a more destructive way to get $1 trillion in savings than a bunch of 
automatic, across-the-board cuts. In fact, the prominent conservative 
economist Doug Holtz-Eakin said a few months ago that he thought, using 
a dynamic scoring model, the immigration bill could reduce deficits by 
even more--shaving as much as $2.7 trillion off our deficits.
  So until yesterday we had not heard what this nonpartisan group, the 
Congressional Budget Office, had to say about this immigration bill. 
But it supports what we have already heard from businesses at home, our 
industry leaders across the country, and economists no matter what 
political stripe they are, that fixing our immigration system is going 
to help strengthen our economy. We know it will secure our borders. We 
know it will reunite families. And we know it will bring people who 
came to this country for a better life a chance to come out of the 
shadows and contribute to our democracy and contribute to our economy 
in the 21st century, as they did in the 20th century and as they did in 
the 19th century before that.
  What we have not heard is a convincing case to maintain the status 
quo that is holding back our economy, that is keeping unresolved the 
question about what to do with the 11 million people who are living in 
our shadow economy, and what we are to do to reinvite talented people 
from around the world to make their best contribution in America. That 
is what this bill represents. This bill is a reaffirmation of the idea 
that we are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. The Senate 
should pass this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Froman Nomination

  Ms. WARREN. Madam President, I rise today to talk about trade 
agreements and the impact they have on our economy. Trade agreements 
affect access to foreign markets and our level of imports and exports. 
They also affect a wide variety of public policy issues--everything 
from wages, jobs, the environment, and the Internet, to monetary 
policy, pharmaceuticals, and financial services.
  Many people are deeply interested in tracking the trajectory of trade 
negotiations, but if they do not have reasonable access to see the 
terms of the agreements under negotiation, then they do not have any 
real input. Without transparency, the benefits of an open marketplace 
of ideas are reduced enormously.
  I am deeply concerned about the transparency record of the U.S. Trade 
Representative and with one ongoing

[[Page 9496]]

trade agreement in particular: the Trans-Pacific Partnership. For 
months, the Trade Representative, who negotiates on our behalf, has 
been unwilling to provide any public access to the composite bracketed 
text relating to the negotiations. The composite bracketed text 
includes proposed language from the United States and also from other 
countries, and it serves as the focal point for negotiations. The Trade 
Representative has allowed Members of Congress to access the text, and 
I appreciate that, but there is no substitute for public transparency.
  I have heard the argument that transparency would undermine the Trade 
Representative's policy to complete the trade agreement because public 
opposition would be significant. In other words, if people knew what 
was going on, they would stop it. This argument is exactly backward. If 
transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade 
agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the 
United States.
  I believe in transparency and democracy, and I think the U.S. Trade 
Representative should too. So I asked the President's nominee to be 
Trade Representative Michael Froman three questions: The first: Would 
he commit to releasing the composite bracketed text. The second: If 
not, would he commit to releasing a scrubbed version of the bracketed 
text that made anonymous which country proposed which provision. And I 
want to note that even the Bush administration put out a scrubbed 
version during the negotiations around the Free Trade Area of the 
Americas agreement. Third, I asked Mr. Froman if he would provide more 
transparency behind what information is made available to outside 
advisers. Currently, there are about 600 outside advisers who have 
access to sensitive information, and the roster includes a wide 
diversity of industry representatives and some from labor and some from 
NGOs. But there is no transparency around who gets what information or 
whether they are all getting the same things, and I think that is a 
real problem.
  Mr. Froman's response to my three questions was clear: no, no, and 
no. He will not commit to making this information public so that the 
public can track what is going on.
  So I am voting against Mr. Froman's nomination later today because I 
believe we need a new direction from the Trade Representative--a 
direction that prioritizes transparency and public debate. The American 
people have the right to know more about our negotiations that will 
have a dramatic impact on our working men and women, on our 
environment, on our economy, on the Internet.
  We should have a serious conversation about our trade policies 
because these issues matter. But it all starts with the transparency of 
the U.S. Trade Representative.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative 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.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I want to speak for a few minutes on 
the progress we are making on the immigration bill. In speaking about 
the progress, it also gives me a chance to say to my colleagues on this 
side of the aisle that I hope we can get an agreement to vote on 
amendments this afternoon, because it is not only Democrats who want 
amendments, we have got a lot of Republicans who want to put up some 
amendments. If we can get this tranche of amendments out of the way, 
then that gives us a chance to put up another tranche of 8 to 10 
amendments is what I think we have the possibility of doing.
  We have been on this bill for 1 week. We had one vote last week. That 
was on my own amendment. That dealt with border security. Of course, 
that vote was not a vote up or down on the amendment, it was a vote to 
table. We were refused by the majority to have an up-or-down vote on 
legislation that is part of the legislation that is some of the most 
important to the people of this country, securing the border before we 
have legalization. I quoted yesterday a CNN poll that said 60 percent 
of the people say border security is the No. 1 issue as far as 
immigration is concerned. It is a necessary predecessor to 
legalization.
  Yesterday we had three votes. Unfortunately, they were 60-vote 
thresholds. Obviously, most of the time you have a 60-vote threshold, 
it is set up so that any amendment under that rule would fail. 
Yesterday the majority leader threatened again to keep us working all 
weekend. He stated he could file a cloture motion to cut off debate as 
early as Friday. Of course, I hope that is not the case, because we 
need an open and fair amendment process. We do immigration reform about 
once every 25 years. My colleagues hear me say we made a lot of 
mistakes in 1986. That is the last time we had a major immigration bill 
pass the Senate. So we need to get it right. People do not want us to 
do it in a fast and haphazard way. People want us to be very cautious 
about something you do once every 25 years.
  The chairman of the Judiciary Committee and I had a very good working 
relationship in committee. We still have a good working relationship 
with this bill out here on the floor of the Senate. But there are 98 
other Senators involved. In committee it is a different situation than 
on the Senate floor. In committee, we did not limit the ability of any 
Member to raise an amendment. We had some tough votes we were all 
forced to take in committee.
  But now there are other Members who want their chance to improve the 
bill. Of course, I said at the beginning of my remarks if we get these 
eight amendments out of the way that are in this tranche, then we can 
bring other amendments up, both Republican and Democratic amendments.
  I realize there is a bipartisan group of Senators working on a border 
security amendment. This is supposed to be some grand compromise. The 
group is trying to find common ground somewhere between the bill as 
drafted, 1,075 pages in that bill as drafted, and the Cornyn 
amendment--middle ground.
  At this point I am hearing from the other side as well as the Group 
of 8 that they think the Cornyn amendment goes too far. Some would say 
the Democrats will not negotiate in good faith because they have the 
votes to pass the bill as is. It is no secret the Democrats wish to 
have 70 votes at the end of the day. But even with 70 votes, in my 
view, that is not a big victory and may very well be a failure. It 
should not take much to get 15 Republican votes. It does not guarantee 
the House will take up the bill. In fact, this bill may be dead on 
arrival in the other body since they have their own approach and they 
have their own ideas.
  It was reported today that this bipartisan group of Senators trying 
to find middle ground between this big bill and the Cornyn amendment on 
border security are having trouble finding that consensus. They are 
having trouble because the Democrats do not want any triggers or 
roadblocks to legalization. That is clear. In other words, some people 
are not willing to learn from the mistakes we made in 1986. We thought 
in good faith we were writing a piece of legislation that would stop 
people crossing the border without papers. We did that by making it 
illegal for the first time to hire undocumented workers. We did it by 
adding a $10,000 fine. So take away the magnet to work, the border is 
secure, legalize 3 million people at that time.
  We found that legalizing illegality brings yet more illegality. So 
now there are 12 million people who either overstayed a visa or crossed 
the border without papers. We should learn from that mistake of 25 
years ago, the last time an immigration bill was up. We should do 
something about border security. That something has to be stronger than 
what is in this piece of legislation. But it is apparent to me--I hear 
rumors that a lot of people on the other side of the aisle do not want 
any triggers or roadblocks to legalization. That is not saying you do 
not want legalization, that is only saying certain

[[Page 9497]]

preconditions ought to happen before there is legalization. Those ought 
to be meaningful steps to take.
  Yesterday the majority leader, as I said, said he was not in favor of 
triggers. Secretary Napolitano in this administration made it clear 
legalization should come first and triggers should not be a roadblock 
to legalization, the very same mistakes we made in 1986.
  The group negotiating this broader amendment is trying to do the 
right thing, but I have real doubts that the other side of the aisle 
wants to do anything to secure the border. Because of this, the 
misguided, mislabeled bill before us could be falling apart. Those of 
us who question this big government bill appear to be making headway in 
exposing the bill for what it truly is, legalization first, enforcement 
later. Despite repeated promises, it is that, legalization first, 
border security when? Sometime down the road. Sometime never happens.
  Sure, the proponents can throw money and dictate how many cameras and 
drones to buy, but that does not mean the border will be stronger or 
more secure. We need to do more than give them the capability of 
achieving specific metrics. We need them to prove their success.
  One more thing on the possibility of working this weekend. Since I 
have been in the Senate, we have had a lot of weekend sessions. 
Generally what happens is you have a lot of debate and a lot of talk 
and a lot of wasted time on Saturdays. You have one vote at 2 o'clock 
on Sunday. For a guy like me, I am going to be here regardless, not 
because I am manager of this bill solely, but I have not missed a vote 
in the Senate since July 1993. I have cast about 6,700 votes without 
missing a vote. If there is only one vote Sunday afternoon I am going 
to be here. But I would suggest if we are going to have a weekend 
session, that action be taken to make sure we are actually doing 
something and voting, that if we are going to be in session, that there 
is not some sort of accommodation made, usually for the majority party 
and sometimes the Republican Party, but right now it is the Democratic 
Party to make a provision so people who want to fly home can do it. 
Either we are here to work on the weekend or we should not be here.
  I yield the floor 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.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


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

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, Senate Democrats have come to the floor 
now 13 times and requested unanimous consent to move to bipartisan 
budget negotiations with the House. We are ready to get to work. We 
have been ready for 88 days now, which is how long it has been since 
the Senate passed a budget.
  Back in March we assumed that once the two Chambers passed their 
budgets, Republicans would be eager to join us in a formal budget 
conference, since they have spent years talking about the need to 
return to regular order. Instead, we have seen delay after delay. Now 
that Republicans have gotten exactly what they wished for, they seem to 
be running as quickly as they can in the other direction, and they have 
offered excuse after excuse after excuse.
  First, they said they wanted a framework before they would start a 
conference, even though a framework is exactly what a budget is. In 
other words, they wanted to negotiate behind closed doors when we 
should be negotiating in a conference.
  Then they said they wouldn't allow us to go to conference unless we 
guaranteed the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations would be 
protected from paying a penny more in taxes.
  Then many Republicans indicated they didn't want negotiations 
happening too early, to take away the leverage they think they have on 
the debt ceiling.
  Then some of them called for a do-over of the budget debate, 
including another 50 hours of debate and a whole new round of unlimited 
amendments, even after they praised the open and thorough floor debate 
we had on the Senate budget.
  Now, in what seems to be the latest delaying tactic, some Republicans 
are saying before we can work to solve short-term problems we first 
need to agree on the budget outlook 30 years down the road.
  Enough is enough. The American people are sick and tired of the 
constant lurching from crisis to crisis. They are looking to their 
elected officials to come together, to compromise, to find common 
ground, and that is exactly what we would be doing in a conference.
  It is not just Democrats saying so. Over the past few weeks, we have 
heard a number of Republicans step forward and agree with us that the 
tea party and Senate Republican leadership are wrong. Senator Coburn 
said blocking conference is ``not a good position to be in.'' Senator 
Boozman said he would ``very much like to see a conference.'' Senator 
Wicker said, weeks ago now, that ``by the end of next week, we probably 
should be ready to go to conference.'' Now, according to Politico, 
``more Republicans appear to favor heading to conference than blocking 
it.''
  As many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said, it 
is certainly true there are big differences between the parties' budget 
values, and priorities, but that would give us all the more reason to 
sit down and try to find some common ground. The fact is we have a lot 
of work that needs to be done in the next few weeks. We have 11 days 
until the next State work period and then just 3\1/2\ weeks before we 
all go back to our home States again for August. Because some 
Republicans want to continue the harmful austerity measures resulting 
from sequestration, we now have a $91 billion gap between the House and 
Senate spending bills for the next fiscal year.
  If we don't reconcile those differences, we are going to find 
ourselves in a very tough, bad situation come September, and a lot of 
hard-working families and communities are going to feel the 
consequences. It does not have to be that way. I am confident, if both 
sides come together now in a conference committee and are ready to 
compromise, we can find a way to reach a fair and bipartisan and 
responsible agreement.
  The American people shouldn't have to worry the government is going 
to lurch into another crisis that has been manufactured by this 
Congress. It doesn't have to happen. Instead of fighting over whether 
we should be engaging in bipartisan talks, we should be working 
together to get more Americans back to work, to protect our economic 
recovery, and lay the foundation for strong middle-class growth in the 
future. I think we can all agree on those important goals, and they are 
very urgent ones. But we cannot move forward on them if we are consumed 
with constant artificial crises.
  I believe it is time for Senate Republican leaders to listen to the 
many Members of their own party who prefer commonsense bipartisanship 
over delay and disorder and allow the House and Senate to begin a 
bipartisan budget conference. I am here this afternoon to ask unanimous 
consent to do just that.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration 
of Calendar No. 33, H. Con. Res. 25; that the amendment which is at the 
desk, the text of S. Con. Res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the 
Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; that H. Con. Res. 25, as amended, 
be agreed to; the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon 
the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a 
conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses; 
and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the 
Senate; that following the authorization, two motions to instruct 
conferees be in order from each side, a motion to instruct relative to 
the debt limit and a motion to instruct relative to taxes and revenue; 
that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders 
or their designees prior to votes in

[[Page 9498]]

relation to the motions; further, that no amendments be in order to 
either of the motions prior to the votes; all of the above occurring 
with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I hope 
I am not going to have to object, but I wish to suggest a very modest 
and sensible alteration to the UC request from my colleague, the chair 
of the Budget Committee, so hopefully we can get on to this because I 
would like to see us go to conference.
  I was very critical of the 3 years when my Democratic colleagues 
absolutely refused to do a budget. It is progress that this year they 
decided to do one. I am glad. I am on the Budget Committee. I think we 
ought to have a budget, and I think we should go to the conference 
committee, despite the fact we are very far apart.
  My Democratic friends supported and voted for a budget with at least 
$1 trillion of new tax increases, and I strongly oppose that. But I 
agree that is what ought to be discussed in conference. The budget that 
was passed uses the big tax increase that was in the budget for 
additional spending. I strongly disagree with that. But again, that is 
exactly the kind of thing that ought to be the subject of negotiations 
in a conference. We are very far apart. I don't know whether we can 
narrow that gap, but we should try.
  The only reason I have been objecting, and that some of my colleagues 
have been objecting thus far, is that our Democratic friends want to 
insist on retaining the opportunity to use the conference report on a 
budget resolution to raise the debt ceiling, and I would point out the 
debt ceiling issue was not even contemplated in the Senate budget 
resolution. It never came up, it wasn't discussed, there was no 
amendment, there was no vote, and it is not in the document. In the 
House budget, the debt limit increase is not contemplated. It is not 
there. It wasn't voted on. It is completely absent.
  So consistent with the rules of the Senate, I would simply suggest we 
go right ahead to conference, that we have a conference on the budget 
but that we follow the normal procedure of the Senate, which is that 
matters that are not in either bill, either the House or Senate bill, 
be excluded from consideration in a conference report so we don't 
airdrop in some extraneous unrelated matter that was never contemplated 
by either body.
  I think that is the sensible approach and necessary because the debt 
limit is a very important issue. We have a staggering amount of debt we 
have allowed to accumulate. It is already damaging our economy and is a 
huge threat and we know the President and many of our Democratic 
friends think we should just raise that debt ceiling with no strings, 
no conditions, no reforms. So we have a very real concern this 
conference committee, as contemplated by my friends on the other side, 
would be a vehicle for the backroom deal that would allow them to 
exclude Republicans and come back and jam through a debt ceiling 
increase with no reforms.
  In order to avoid that, but so we can go to conference, which I think 
we should do, I would simply ask that we modify the unanimous consent 
request as follows; so it would not be in order for the Senate to 
consider a conference report that includes reconciliation instructions 
to raise the debt limit.
  If the chair of the Budget Committee would agree to that modification 
of her unanimous consent request, then I would agree to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to point out to everyone 
that we had hours and hours of debate, with over 100 amendments 
offered, and no one offered an amendment on the debt ceiling limit. As 
part of the agreement in order to go to conference, we have offered to 
have a vote now on whether we should have motions to instruct. I would 
be willing, as chair, to abide by that vote once our unanimous consent 
is agreed to.
  But I have to say, as a matter of principle, for a chair of any 
committee to say, once we have gone through hundreds of hours of debate 
and a lot of amendments, that then, before we go to conference, we have 
to agree to a principle that has not been voted on or offered in the 
Senate as part of that is not how we can proceed in this body. It would 
be the same as if I would come out and say: I am not going to allow us 
to go to conference on whatever bill because I have a small provision, 
and unless you absolutely agree it has to be in there, even though I 
don't have the votes, we are not going to conference. We would never 
get anything done.
  The unanimous consent request I have offered allows my Republican 
friends to have a vote on this, even though they didn't ask for a vote 
in all those hours of debate and hundreds of hours we spent on this 
issue, before we move to conference. The principle is this: Our 
Republican colleagues wish to have an open debate, they say, but we are 
not having an open debate because of their insistence we don't go to 
conference.
  So I object to the Senator's request and again renew my request as I 
stated before with the provision we have a motion to instruct and allow 
those Senators who have strong feelings about this to vote on it before 
we go to conference.
  Finally, I would add, remember with whom I am going to conference: 
Republicans and Democrats from our side and Republicans and Democrats 
from the other body, a majority of whom are on their side of the aisle, 
with the chairman, Paul Ryan, a Republican conservative, chairing their 
side.
  This is an issue that is going to have plenty of debate, plenty of 
open discussion, if it should come up, and we will all have an 
opportunity to vote on it.
  I renew my unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
wrap up quickly. I thank my colleague, the chair of the Budget 
Committee, but as she knows--and I wish to make sure everyone is 
clear--the motion to instruct conferees the chairman of the Budget 
Committee is recommending is completely nonbinding. It is nothing more 
than a recommendation. The fact remains she is insisting on retaining 
the ability to do a backroom deal that would raise the debt ceiling 
without allowing any Republican input in this body whatsoever. This is 
a very bad policy. It was not contemplated in either bill.
  I would be delighted to go to conference with a budget resolution 
from the House and the Senate that does contemplate everything that is 
in those two respective agreements but not some extraneous matter that 
could be very damaging to our economy that was never contemplated. So I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Kentucky.


                    Amendment No. 1200, as Modified

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 1200, which is 
cosponsored by the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Roy Blunt, with a 
modification at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul], for himself and Mr. 
     Blunt, proposes an amendment numbered 1200, as modified.

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be considered as read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide for enhanced border security, including strong 
border security metrics and congressional votes on border security and 
                          for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place in title I, insert the following:

                CHAPTER __--BORDER SECURITY ENHANCEMENTS

     SEC. 1__1. SHORT TITLE.

       This chapter may be cited as the ``Trust But Verify Act of 
     2013''

     SEC. 1__2. MEASURES USED TO EVALUATE BORDER SECURITY.

       (a) Border Security Review.--

[[Page 9499]]

       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct an annual 
     comprehensive review of the following:
       (A) The security conditions in each of the following 9 
     Border Patrol sectors along the Southwest border:
       (i) The Rio Grande Valley Sector.
       (ii) The Laredo Sector.
       (iii) The Del Rio Sector.
       (iv) The Big Bend Sector.
       (v) The El Paso Sector.
       (vi) The Tucson Sector.
       (vii) The Yuma Sector.
       (viii) The El Centro Sector.
       (ix) The San Diego Sector.
       (B) Update on the new and existing double layered fencing 
     built and in place, broken down on an annual basis since the 
     date of the enactment of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Public 
     Law 109-367), with the goal of completing the fence not later 
     than 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (C) Progress towards the completion of an effective exit 
     and entry program at all points of entry that tracks visa 
     holders.
       (D) Progress towards the goal of a 95 percent apprehension 
     or turn back rate.
       (E) A 100 percent incarceration until trial rate for newly 
     captured illegal entrants and overstays.
       (F) Progress towards the goal ending of illegal immigration 
     and undocumented presence, as measured by census data and the 
     Department.
       (2) Report.--Not later than July 1, 2014, and annually 
     thereafter, the Secretary shall submit a report to Congress 
     containing specific results of the review conducted under 
     paragraph (1).
       (3) Rule of construction.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     nothing in paragraph (1) may be construed as prohibiting the 
     Secretary from proposing--
       (i) alterations to boundaries of the Border Patrol sectors; 
     or
       (ii) a different number of sectors to be operated on the 
     Southern border.
       (B) Reporting.--The Secretary may not make any alteration 
     to the Border Patrol sectors in operation or the boundaries 
     of such sectors as of the date of the enactment of this Act 
     unless the Secretary submits, to the Committee on Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives, a written notification and description of 
     the proposed change not later than 120 days before any such 
     change would take effect.
       (b) Unqualified Opinion.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall submit a report to 
     Congress that contains--
       (A) an unqualified opinion of whether each of the sectors 
     referred to in subsection (a)(1)(A) has achieved ``total 
     operational control'' of the border within its jurisdiction; 
     and
       (B) the following criteria and goals of the Department:
       (i) Transparent data relating to the success of border 
     security and immigration enforcement policies.
       (ii) Improved accountability to the people of the United 
     States.
       (iii) 100 percent surveillance capability on the border not 
     later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (iv) An apprehension or turn back rate of 95 percent or 
     higher not later than 5 years after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
       (v) Increasing annual targets for apprehensions, which 
     shall be adapted to the unique conditions of each Border 
     Patrol sector.
       (vi) Uniformity in data collection and analysis for each 
     Border Patrol sector.
       (vii) An update on the new and existing double layered 
     fencing built and in place, broken down on an annual basis 
     since the date of the enactment of the Secure Fence Act of 
     2006.
       (2) Total operational control defined.--In this chapter, 
     the term ``total operational control'', with respect to a 
     border sector, occurs if--
       (A) the fence construction requirements required under this 
     chapter have been completed;
       (B) the infrastructure enhancements required under this 
     chapter have been completed and deployed;
       (C) there have been verifiable increases in personnel 
     dedicated to patrols, inspections, and interdiction;
       (D) U.S. Customs and Border Protection has achieved 100 
     percent surveillance capacity and uninterrupted monitoring 
     throughout the entire sector;
       (E) U.S. Customs and Border Protection has achieved an 
     apprehension rate of at least 95 percent for all attempted 
     unauthorized crossings;
       (F) uniform data collection standards have been adopted 
     across all sectors; and
       (G) U.S. Customs and Border Protection is tracking the 
     exits of 100 percent of outbound aliens through all points of 
     entry.
       (3) Metrics described.--The Secretary shall use specific 
     metrics to assess the progress toward, and maintenance of, 
     total operational control of the border in each Border Patrol 
     sector, including--
       (A) with respect to resources and infrastructure--
       (i) a description of the infrastructure and resources 
     deployed on the Southwest border, including physical barriers 
     and fencing, surveillance cameras, motion and other ground 
     sensors, aerial platforms, and unmanned aerial vehicles;
       (ii) an assessment of the Border Patrol's ability to 
     perform uninterrupted surveillance on the entirety of the 
     border within each sector;
       (iii) an assessment of whether the Department of Homeland 
     Security has attained a 100 percent surveillance capability 
     for each sector; and
       (iv) a specific analysis detailing the miles of fence 
     built, including double-layered fencing, pursuant to the 
     Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-367), as amended by 
     this Act.
       (B) with respect to illegal entries between ports--
       (i) the number of attempted illegal entries, categorized 
     by--

       (I) number of apprehensions;
       (II) people turned back to country of origin (turn-backs); 
     and
       (III) individuals who have escaped (got aways);

       (ii) the number of apprehensions, including data on unique 
     apprehensions to capture individuals who attempted to enter 
     multiple times;
       (iii) the apprehension rate as a percentage of total 
     attempted illegal entries;
       (iv) an estimate of the total number of successful illegal 
     entries, based on reliable supporting evidence;
       (v) the prevalence of drug and contraband smuggling, 
     categorized by--

       (I) the frequency of attempted crossings;
       (II) successful evasions of law enforcement;
       (III) the value of smuggled contraband;
       (IV) successful discoveries and arrests; and
       (V) arrest rate trends related to violent criminals 
     crossing the border;

       (vi) physical evidence of crossings not otherwise tied to a 
     pursuit, including fence-cuttings; and
       (vii) transparent data that reports if the numbers include 
     actual physical capture or turn-backs witnessed by border 
     enforcement and a segregation of data that includes evidence 
     of individuals going back, including but not limited to 
     footprints, food and torn clothing;
       (C) with respect to illegal entries at ports--
       (i) the number of attempted illegal entries, categorized by 
     the number of apprehensions, turn-backs, and got aways;
       (ii) the number of apprehensions, including data on unique 
     apprehensions to capture individuals who attempt to enter 
     multiple times;
       (iii) the apprehension rate as a percentage of total 
     attempted illegal entries;
       (iv) an estimate of the number of successful illegal 
     entries, based on reliable supporting evidence; and
       (v) the prevalence of drug and contraband smuggling, 
     categorized by--

       (I) the frequency of attempted entries;
       (II) successful discovery methods;
       (III) the use of falsified official travel documents;
       (IV) evolving evasion tactics; and
       (V) arrest rate trends related to persons apprehended 
     attempting to smuggle prohibited items;

       (D) with respect to repeat offenders--
       (i) data and analysis of recidivism trends, including the 
     prevalence of multiple arrests and repeated attempts to enter 
     unlawfully; and
       (ii) updated information on U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection's Consequence Delivery System;
       (E) with respect to smuggling--
       (i) progress made in creating uniformity in the punishment 
     of unlawful border crossers relative to their crimes for the 
     purposes of deterring smuggling;
       (ii) the percentage of unlawful immigrants and smugglers 
     who are subject to a uniform punishment; and
       (iii) data breaking down the treatment of, and consequences 
     for, repeat offenders to determine the extent to which the 
     Consequence Delivery System serves as an effective deterrent;
       (F) with respect to visa overstays, data for each year, 
     categorized by--
       (i) the type of visa issued to the alien; and
       (ii) the nationality of the alien;
       (G) with respect to the unlawful presence of aliens--
       (i) the total number of individuals present in the United 
     States, which will be correlated in future years with 
     normalization participants;
       (ii) net migration into the United States, including legal 
     and illegal immigrants, categorized by--

       (I) nationality; and
       (II) country of origin, if different from nationality;

       (iii) deportation data, categorized by country and the 
     nature of apprehension;
       (iv) individuals who have obtained or who seek legal 
     status; and
       (v) individuals without legal status who have died while in 
     the United States;
       (H) the number of Department agents deployed to the border 
     each year, categorized by staffing assignment and security 
     function;
       (I) progress made on the implementation of full exit 
     tracking capabilities for land, sea, and air points of entry;

[[Page 9500]]

       (J) progress towards the goal of 100 percent incarceration 
     until trial date for newly captured illegal entrants and 
     overstays;
       (K) progress towards the goal of ending illegal immigration 
     and undocumented presence, as measured by data collected by 
     the United States Census Bureau and the Department; and
       (L) progress towards eliminating disputes between Federal 
     agencies in the use of public lands to perform border 
     enforcement operations.

     SEC. 1__3. REPORTS ON BORDER SECURITY.

       (a) Department of Homeland Security Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than July 1, 2014, and annually 
     thereafter for 5 years, the Secretary shall submit a report 
     to Congress that contains a comprehensive review of the 
     security conditions in each of the Border Patrol sectors 
     along the Southwest border.
       (2) Public hearings for report.--Congress shall hold public 
     hearings with the Secretary and other individuals responsible 
     for preparing the report submitted under paragraph (1) to 
     discuss the report and educate the United States public on 
     border security from the perspective of such officials. 
     Congress shall allow differing views on the conclusions of 
     the report to be expressed by outside groups and interested 
     parties for purposes of analyzing data through a transparent 
     and deliberative committee process.
       (b) Inspector General's Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the issuance 
     of each report under subsection (a), the Inspector General of 
     the Department shall submit a report to Congress that 
     provides an independent analysis of the report submitted 
     under subsection (a)(1) to analyze--
       (A) the accuracy of the report; and
       (B) the validity of the data used by the Department to 
     issue the report.
       (2) Participation.--The Inspector General should 
     participate in any hearings relating to the assessment of the 
     border security report of the Department.
       (c) Governors Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter for 5 
     years, the Governor of each of the States along the Southern 
     border may submit an independent report to Congress that 
     provides the perspective of the Governor and other officials 
     of such State tasked to law enforcement on the security 
     conditions along that State's border with Mexico.
       (2) Public hearings for state reports.--Congress shall hold 
     public hearings with the Governor and other officials from 
     each State that submits a report under paragraph (1) to 
     discuss the report and educate the United States public on 
     border security from the perspective of such officials.
       (d) Public Disclosure of Reports.--Upon the receipt of a 
     report submitted under this section, the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives shall--
       (1) provide copies of the report to the Chair and ranking 
     member of each standing committee with jurisdiction under the 
     rules of such House, the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, the Minority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives, the Majority Leader of the Senate, and the 
     Minority Leader of the Senate; and
       (2) make the report available to the public.

     SEC. 1__4. CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL PROCEDURES.

       (a) Joint Resolution Defined.--
       (1) In general.--In this subsection, the term ``joint 
     resolution'' means only a joint resolution of the 2 Houses of 
     Congress that only includes--
       (A) the matter contained in the preamble set forth in 
     paragraph (2); and
       (B) the matter after the resolving clause set forth in 
     paragraph (3).
       (2) Preamble.--The joint resolution shall include the 
     following preamble:
       ``Whereas Congress passed and the President enacted into 
     law section 1__6 of the Trust But Verify Act of 2013, with 
     the promise to the American people that the border would be 
     fully secure within 5 years;
       ``Whereas, one goal of comprehensive immigration reform was 
     to verify that the United States Government is capable of 
     implementing operational control of the border;
       ``Whereas the prerequisite to reforming visa law and the 
     creation of new immigration and visa categories was the 
     implementation of full border security within a reasonable 
     amount of time; and
       ``Whereas the American people have been the subject of 
     broken promises in the past on border security: Now, 
     therefore, be it''.
       (3) Matter after the resolving clause.--The matter after 
     the resolving clause in the joint resolution shall read as 
     follows: ``It is the sense of Congress that the United States 
     border is secure because--
       ``(1) the double-layered fencing is on schedule to be 
     completed in 5 years and sufficient progress has been made in 
     the past year to complete such fencing on the schedule 
     promised to the American people;
       ``(2) an effective exit-entry registration system at all 
     points of entry that tracks visa holders is either completed 
     or sufficiently completed to the satisfaction of Congress;
       ``(3) the goal of a 95 percent effectiveness rate for the 
     capture of unauthorized immigrants has been achieved, or is 
     on pace to be achieved, not later than 5 years after the date 
     of the enactment of the Trust But Verify Act of 2013;
       ``(4) the security conditions in each of the 9 Border 
     Patrol sectors along the Southwest border have been achieved, 
     or are on pace to be achieved not later than 5 years after 
     the date of the enactment of the Trust But Verify Act of 
     2013, as determined by total operational control metric set 
     forth in section 1__2 of such Act;
       ``(5) a 100 percent incarceration rate until trial for 
     newly captured illegal entrants and overstayers has been 
     implemented;
       ``(6) progress towards the goal of ending illegal 
     immigration and undocumented presence has been achieved, as 
     measured by data collected by the United States Census Bureau 
     and the Department; and
       ``(7) sections 245B of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 
     as added by section 2101 of the Border Security, Economic 
     Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, will not 
     compromise border security and shall remain in effect for at 
     least 1 more year notwithstanding section 1__5 of the Trust 
     But Verify Act of 2013.''.
       (b) Procedures for Considering Resolutions.--
       (1) Introduction.--A joint resolution--
       (A) may be introduced in the Senate or in the House of 
     Representatives during the 30-day calendar day period 
     beginning on--
       (i) July 1, 2014;
       (ii) July 1 of any of the following 4 years; or
       (iii) 30 days after date on which the report is submitted 
     under section 1__3(a) if such submission occurs before July 1 
     of a calendar year;
       (B) in the Senate, may be introduced by any Member of the 
     Senate;
       (C) in the House of Representatives, may be introduced by 
     any Member of the House of Representatives; and
       (D) may not be amended.
       (2) Referral to committee.--A joint resolution introduced 
     in the Senate shall be referred to the Committee on Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate. A joint 
     resolution introduced in the House of Representatives shall 
     be referred to the Committee on Homeland Security of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (3) Discharge of committee.--If the congressional committee 
     to which a joint resolution is referred has not discharged 
     the resolution at the end of 30th day after its 
     introduction--
       (A) such committee shall be discharged from further 
     consideration of such resolution; and
       (B) such resolution shall be placed on the appropriate 
     calendar of the House involved.
       (4) Floor consideration.--
       (A) Motion.--
       (i) In general.--After the committee to which a joint 
     resolution is referred has reported, or has been discharged 
     pursuant to paragraph (3) from further consideration of, the 
     joint resolution--

       (I) it is in order (even though a previous motion to the 
     same effect has been disagreed to) for any Member of the 
     respective House to move to proceed to the consideration of 
     the joint resolution; and
       (II) all points of order against the joint resolution (and 
     against consideration of the joint resolution) are waived;
       (III) the motion described in subclause (I) is highly 
     privileged in the House of Representatives and is privileged 
     in the Senate and is not debatable;
       (IV) the motion described in subclause (I) is not subject 
     to amendment, a motion to postpone, or a motion to proceed to 
     the consideration of other business; and
       (V) a motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion is 
     agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in order.

       (ii) Unfinished business.--If a motion to proceed to the 
     consideration of the joint resolution is agreed to, the 
     resolution shall remain the unfinished business of the 
     respective House until it has been disposed.
       (B) Debate.--Debate on the joint resolution, and on all 
     debatable motions and appeals in connection with such 
     resolution, shall be limited to not more than 10 hours, which 
     shall be divided equally between those favoring and those 
     opposing the joint resolution. A motion further to limit 
     debate is in order and not debatable. An amendment to, or a 
     motion to postpone, or a motion to proceed to the 
     consideration of other business, or a motion to recommit the 
     joint resolution is not in order. A motion to reconsider the 
     vote by which the joint resolution is agreed to or disagreed 
     to is not in order.
       (C) Vote on final passage.--Immediately following the 
     conclusion of the debate on a joint resolution, and a single 
     quorum call at the conclusion of the debate if requested in 
     accordance with the rules of the appropriate House, the vote 
     on final passage of the joint resolution shall occur.
       (D) Rulings of the chair on procedure.--Appeals from the 
     decisions of the Chair relating to the application of the 
     rules of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as 
     applicable, to the procedure relating to a joint resolution 
     shall be decided without debate.
       (5) Coordination with action by other house.--If 1 House 
     receives a joint resolution from the other House before the 
     House passes a joint resolution--

[[Page 9501]]

       (A) the joint resolution of the other House shall not be 
     referred to a committee; and
       (B) with respect to a joint resolution of the House 
     receiving the resolution--
       (i) the procedures in that House shall be the same as if no 
     joint resolution had been received from the other House; 
     except that
       (ii) the vote on final passage shall be on the joint 
     resolution of the other House.
       (6) Rules of house of representatives and senate.--This 
     subsection is enacted by Congress--
       (A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such--
       (i) it is deemed a part of the rules of each House, 
     respectively;
       (ii) it is only applicable with respect to the procedures 
     to be followed in that House in the case of a joint 
     resolution; and
       (iii) it supersedes other rules only to the extent that it 
     is inconsistent with such rules; and
       (B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the 
     procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and 
     to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that 
     House.

     SEC. 1__5. CONDITIONS.

       (a) Year 1.--Except as provide in section 1__6, section 
     245B of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by 
     section 2101 of this Act, shall cease to have effect 
     beginning on December 31, 2014, unless Congress enacts a 
     joint resolution pursuant to section 1__4 during the 1-year 
     period ending on such date.
       (b) Year 2.--Except as provided in section 1__6, section 
     245B of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by 
     section 2101 of this Act, shall cease to have effect 
     beginning on December 31, 2015, unless Congress enacts a 
     joint resolution pursuant to section 1__4 during the 1-year 
     period ending on such date.
       (c) Year 3.--Except as provided in section 1__6, section 
     245B of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by 
     section 2101 of this Act, shall cease to have effect 
     beginning on December 31, 2016, unless Congress enacts a 
     joint resolution pursuant to section 1__4 during the 1-year 
     period ending on such date.
       (d) Year 4.--Except as provided in section 1__6, section 
     245B of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by 
     section 2101 of this Act, shall cease to have effect 
     beginning on December 31, 2017, unless Congress enacts a 
     joint resolution pursuant to section 1__4 during the 1-year 
     period ending on such date.
       (e) Year 5.--Except as provided in section 1__6, section 
     245B of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by 
     section 2101 of this Act, shall cease to have effect 
     beginning on December 31, 2018, unless Congress enacts a 
     joint resolution pursuant to section 1__4 during the 1-year 
     period ending on such date.
       (f) Status of Registered Provisional Immigrants.--If 
     section 245B of the Immigration and Nationality Act ceases to 
     be effective pursuant to this section--
       (1) any alien who was granted registered provisional 
     immigrant status before the date such section ceases to be 
     effective shall remain in such status; and
       (2) any alien whose application for registered provisional 
     immigrant status is pending may not be granted such status 
     until such section is reinstated.
       (g) Rules of Construction.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (g), no provision of this section may be 
     construed--
       (1) to limit the authority of the Secretary to review and 
     process applications for registered provisional immigrant 
     status under section 245B of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act, as added by section 2101 of this Act; or
       (2) to repeal or limit the application of section 245B(c) 
     of such Act.
       (h) Sunset.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall cease to have 
     effect on December 31, 2018, unless Congress enacts a joint 
     resolution pursuant to section 1__4 during 2018.

     SEC. 1__6. TRIGGERS BASED ON CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.

       (a) Year 1.--If a joint resolution is enacted pursuant to 
     section 1__4 during 2014, the sunset provision set forth in 
     section 1__5(a) shall have no further force or effect.
       (b) Year 2.--If a joint resolution is enacted pursuant to 
     section 1__4 during 2015, the sunset provision set forth in 
     section 1__5(b) shall have no further force or effect.
       (c) Year 3.--If a joint resolution is enacted pursuant to 
     section 1__4 during 2016, the sunset provision set forth in 
     section 1__5(c) shall have no further force or effect.
       (d) Year 4.--If a joint resolution is enacted pursuant to 
     section 1__4 during 2017, the sunset provision set forth in 
     section 1__5(d) shall have no further force or effect.
       (e) Year 5.--If a joint resolution is enacted pursuant to 
     section 1__4 during 2018, the sunset provision set forth in 
     section 1__5(e) shall have no further force or effect.

     SEC. 1__7. REQUIREMENT FOR PHYSICAL BORDER FENCE 
                   CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Construction of Border Fencing.--
       (1) First year.--Except as provided in subsection (d), 
     during the 1-year period beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall construct not 
     fewer than 100 miles of double-layer fencing on the Southern 
     border.
       (2) Subsequent years.--During each of the first 4 1-year 
     periods immediately following the 1-year period described in 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall construct not fewer than 
     150 miles of double-layer fencing on the Southern border.
       (b) Certification.--Except as provided in subsection (d), 
     not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit a 
     written certification that construction of the double-layer 
     fencing required under subsection (a) has been completed 
     during the preceding year to--
       (1) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
       (2) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate;
       (3) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (4) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (c) Determination of Miles of Fencing Constructed.--
       (1) Included items.--In determining the number of fencing 
     miles constructed in the preceding year, the Secretary may 
     apply, toward the requirement under subsection (a), the 
     number of miles of--
       (A) new double-layer fencing that have been completed; and
       (B) a second fencing layer that has been added to an 
     existing, single-layered fence.
       (2) Excluded items.--In determining the number of fencing 
     miles constructed in the preceding year, the Secretary may 
     not apply, toward the requirement in subsection (a)--
       (A) vehicle barriers;
       (B) ground sensors;
       (C) motion detectors;
       (D) radar-based surveillance;
       (E) thermal imaging;
       (F) aerial surveillance platforms;
       (G) observation towers;
       (H) motorized or nonmotorized ground patrols;
       (I) existing single-layer fencing; or
       (J) new construction of single-layer fencing.
       (d) Sunset.--The Secretary shall no longer be required to 
     comply with the requirements under subsection (a) and (b) on 
     the earliest of--
       (1) the date on which the Secretary submits the 5th 
     affirmative certification pursuant to subsection (b); or
       (2) the date on which the Secretary certifies the 
     completion of not fewer than 700 miles of double-layer 
     fencing on the Southern border.
       (e) Conforming Amendment.--Section 102(b)(1) of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended by striking subparagraph (D).

     SEC. 1__8. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT EXIT TRACKING FOR ALL UNITED 
                   STATES VISITORS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Consistent with the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
     Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, the United States will 
     continue its progress toward full biometric entry-exit 
     capture capability at land, air, and sea points of entry.
       (2) No capability exists to fully track whether non-United 
     States persons in the United States on a temporary basis have 
     exited the country consistent with the terms of their visa, 
     whether by land, sea, or air.
       (3) No program exists along the Southwest border to track 
     land exits from the United States into Mexico.
       (4) Without the ability to capture the full cycle of an 
     alien's trip into and out of the United States, it is 
     possible for persons to remain in the United States 
     unlawfully for years without detection by U.S. Immigration 
     and Customs Enforcement.
       (5) Because there is no exit tracking capability, there is 
     insufficient data for an official assessment of the number of 
     persons who have overstayed a visa and that remain in the 
     United States. Studies have estimated that as many as 40 
     percent of all persons in the United States without lawful 
     immigration status entered the country legally and did not 
     return to their country of origin or follow the terms of 
     their entry.
       (6) Despite a legal mandate to track alien exits, more than 
     a decade without any significant capability to do so has--
       (A) degraded the Federal Government's ability to enforce 
     immigration laws;
       (B) placed a greater strain on law enforcement resources; 
     and
       (C) undermined the legal immigration process in the United 
     States.
       (b) Requirement for Outbound Travel Document Capture at 
     Land Points of Entry.--
       (1) Outbound travel document capture at foot crossings.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a 
     mandatory exit data system for all outbound lanes at each 
     land point of entry along the Southern border that is only 
     accessible to individuals on foot or by nonmotorized means.
       (B) Data collection requirements.--The system established 
     under subparagraph (A) shall require the collection of data 
     from machine-readable visas, passports, and other travel and 
     entry documents for all categories of aliens who are exiting 
     the United States through an outbound lane described in 
     subparagraph (A).
       (2) Outbound travel document capture at all other land 
     points of entry.--

[[Page 9502]]

       (A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a 
     mandatory exit data system at all outbound lanes not subject 
     to paragraph (1) at each land point of entry along the 
     Southern border.
       (B) Data collection requirements.--The system established 
     under subparagraph (A) shall require the collection of data 
     from machine-readable visas, passports, and other travel and 
     entry documents for all categories of aliens who are exiting 
     the United States through an outbound lane described in 
     subparagraph (A).
       (3) Information required for collection.--While collecting 
     information under paragraphs (1) and (2), the Secretary shall 
     collect identity-theft resistant departure information from 
     the machine-readable visas, passports, and other travel and 
     entry documents.
       (4) Recording of exits and correlation to entry data.--The 
     Secretary shall integrate the records collected under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) into the interoperable data system 
     established under section 3303(b) and any other database 
     necessary to correlate an alien's entry and exit data.
       (5) Processing of records.--Before the departure of 
     outbound aliens at each point of entry, the Secretary shall 
     provide for cross-reference capability between databases 
     designated by the Secretary under paragraph (4) to determine 
     and record whether an outbound alien has been in the United 
     States without lawful immigration status.
       (6) Records inclusion requirements.--The Secretary shall 
     maintain readily accessible entry-exit data records for 
     immigration and other law enforcement and improve immigration 
     control and enforcement by including information necessary to 
     determine whether an outbound alien without lawful presence 
     in the United States entered the country through--
       (A) unauthorized entry between points of entry;
       (B) visa or other temporary authorized status;
       (C) fraudulent travel documents;
       (D) misrepresentation of identity; or
       (E) any other method of entry.
       (7) Prohibition on collecting exit records for united 
     states citizens.--
       (A) Prohibition.--While documenting the departure of 
     outbound individuals at each point of entry along the 
     Southern border, the Secretary may not--
       (i) process travel documents of United States citizens;
       (ii) log, store, or transfer exit data for United States 
     citizens;
       (iii) create, maintain, operate, access, or support any 
     database containing information collected through outbound 
     processing at a point of entry under paragraph (1) or (2) 
     that contains records identifiable to an individual United 
     States citizen.
       (B) Exception.--The prohibition set forth in subparagraph 
     (A) does not apply to the records of an individual if an 
     officer processing travel documentation in the outbound lanes 
     at a point of entry along the Southern border--
       (i) has a strong suspicion that the individual has engaged 
     in criminal or other prohibited activities; or
       (ii) needs to verify an individual's identity because the 
     individual is attempting to exit the United States without 
     travel documentation.
       (C) Verification of travel documents.--Subject to the 
     prohibition set forth in subparagraph (A), the Secretary may 
     provide for the confirmation of a United States citizen's 
     travel documentation validity in the outbound lanes at a 
     point of entry along the Southern border.
       (c) Infrastructure Improvements at Land Points of Entry.--
       (1) Facilitation of land exit tracking.--The Secretary may 
     improve the infrastructure at, or adjacent to, land points of 
     entry, as necessary, to implement the requirements under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b), by--
       (A) expanding or reconfiguring outbound road or bridge 
     lanes within a point of entry;
       (B) improving or reconfiguring public roads or other 
     transportation infrastructure leading into, or adjacent to, 
     the outbound lanes at a point of entry if--
       (i) there has been a demonstrated negative impact on 
     transportation in the area adjacent to a point of entry as a 
     result of projects carried out under this section; or
       (ii) the Secretary, in consultation with State, local, or 
     tribal officials responsible for transportation adjacent to a 
     point of entry, has submitted a report to the Committee on 
     Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives that projects proposed under this section 
     will have a significant negative impact on transportation 
     adjacent to a point of entry without such transportation 
     infrastructure improvements; and
       (iii) the total of funds obligated in any year to improve 
     infrastructure outside a point of entry under subsection 
     (c)(1) shall not exceed 25 percent of the total funds 
     obligated to meet the requirements under paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) of subsection (b) in the same year;
       (C) constructing, expanding, or improving access to 
     secondary inspection areas, where feasible;
       (D) physical structures to accommodate inspections and 
     processing travel documents described in subsection (b)(3) 
     for outbound aliens, including booths or kiosks at exit 
     lanes;
       (E) transfer, installation, use, and maintenance of 
     computers, software or other network infrastructure to 
     facilitate capture and processing of travel documents 
     described in subsection (b)(3) for all outbound aliens; and
       (F) performance of outbound inspections outside of 
     secondary inspection areas at a point of entry to detect 
     suspicious activity or contraband.
       (2) Report on infrastructure requirements to carry out 100 
     percent land exit tracking.--Not later than 45 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     submit, to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Homeland Security of the House of Representatives, a report 
     that assesses the infrastructure needs for each point of 
     entry along the Southern border to fulfill the requirements 
     under subsection (b), including--
       (A) a description of anticipated infrastructure needs 
     within each point of entry;
       (B) a description of anticipated infrastructure needs 
     adjacent to each point of entry;
       (C) an assessment of the availability of secondary 
     inspection areas at each point of entry;
       (D) an assessment of space available at or adjacent to a 
     point of entry to perform processing of outbound aliens;
       (E) an assessment of the infrastructure demands relative to 
     the volume of outbound crossings for each point of entry; and
       (F) anticipated wait times for outbound individuals during 
     processing of travel documents at each point of entry, 
     relative to possible improvements at the point of entry.
       (d) Procedures for Exit Processing and Inspection.--
       (1) Individuals subject to outbound secondary inspection.--
     Officers performing outbound inspection or processing travel 
     documents may send an outbound individual to a secondary 
     inspection area for further inspection and processing if the 
     individual is--
       (A) determined or suspected to have been in the United 
     States without lawful status during processing under 
     subsection (b) or at another point during the exit process;
       (B) found to be subject to an outstanding arrest warrant;
       (C) suspected of engaging in prohibited activities at the 
     point of entry;
       (D) traveling without travel documentation; or
       (E) subject to any random outbound inspection procedures, 
     as determined by the Secretary.
       (2) Limitations on outbound secondary inspections.--The 
     Secretary may not designate an outbound United States citizen 
     for secondary inspection or collect biometric information 
     from a United States citizen under outbound inspection 
     procedures unless criminal or other prohibited activity has 
     been detected or is strongly suspected.
       (3) Outbound processing of persons in the united states 
     without lawful presence.--
       (A) Process for recording unlawful presence.--If the 
     Secretary determines, at a point of entry along the Southern 
     border, that an outbound alien has been in the United States 
     without lawful presence, the Secretary shall--
       (i) collect and record biometric data from the individual;
       (ii) combine data related to the individual's unlawful 
     presence with any other information related to the individual 
     in the interoperable database, in accordance with paragraphs 
     (4) and (5) of subsection (b); and
       (iii) except as provided in subparagraph (B), permit the 
     individual to exit the United States.
       (B) Exception.--An individual shall not be permitted to 
     leave the United States if, during outbound inspection, the 
     Secretary detects previous unresolved criminal activity by 
     the individual.

     SEC. 1__9. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act, or amendments made by this Act, may be 
     construed as replacing or repealing the requirements for 
     biometric entry-exit capture required under the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (division C of Public Law 104-208).

     SEC. 1__10. STUDENT VISA NATIONAL SECURITY REGISTRATION 
                   SYSTEM.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a Student 
     Visa National Security Registration System (referred to in 
     this section as the ``System'').
       (b) Countries Represented.--The System shall include 
     information about each alien in the United States on a 
     student visa from 1 of the following countries:
       (1) Afghanistan.
       (2) Algeria.
       (3) Bahrain.
       (4) Bangladesh.
       (5) Egypt.
       (6) Eritrea.
       (7) Indonesia.
       (8) Iran.
       (9) Iraq.
       (10) Jordan.
       (11) Kuwait.

[[Page 9503]]

       (12) Lebanon.
       (13) Libya.
       (14) Morocco.
       (15) Nigeria.
       (16) North Korea.
       (17) Oman.
       (18) Pakistan.
       (19) Qatar.
       (20) Russia.
       (21) Saudi Arabia.
       (22) Somalia.
       (23) Sudan.
       (24) Syria.
       (25) Tunisia.
       (26) United Arab Emirates.
       (27) Yemen.
       (c) Registration.--The Secretary shall notify each alien 
     from 1 of the countries listed under subsection (b) who is 
     seeking a student visa under subparagraph (F) or (J) of 
     section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)) that the alien, not later than 30 days 
     after receiving a student visa, shall--
       (1) register with the System, as part of the visa 
     application process; and
       (2) be interviewed and fingerprinted by a Department 
     official.
       (d) Background Check.--The Secretary shall perform a 
     background check on all aliens described in subsection (c) to 
     ensure that such individuals do not present a national 
     security risk to the United States.
       (e) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall establish a procedure 
     for monitoring the status of all alien students in the United 
     States on student visas.
       (f) Reports.--
       (1) Inspector general.--The Secretary shall submit an 
     annual report to Congress that--
       (A) describes the effectiveness with which the Department 
     is screening student visa applicants through the System; and
       (B) indicates whether the System has been implemented in a 
     manner that is overbroad or results in the deportation of 
     individuals with no reasonable link to a national security 
     threat or perceived threat.
       (2) Certification and national security report.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a 
     report to Congress that--
       (i) certifies that the System has been implemented; and
       (ii) describes the specific steps that have been taken to 
     prevent national security failures in screening out 
     terrorists from using student visas to gain entry into the 
     United States.
       (B) Effect of noncompliance.--Beginning on the date that is 
     181 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall suspend the issuance of visas under 
     subparagraphs (F) and (J) of section 101(a)(15) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act until the Secretary has 
     submitted the report described in subparagraph (A).
       (3) Annual report.--The Secretary shall submit an annual 
     report to Congress that contains--
       (A) the number of students screened and registered under 
     the System during the past year, broken down by country of 
     origin; and
       (B) the number of students deported during the past year as 
     a result of information gathered during the interviews and 
     background checks conducted pursuant to subsections (c)(2) 
     and (d), broken down by country of origin.

     SEC. 1__11. ASYLUM AND REFUGEE REFORM.

       (a) Registration.--The Secretary shall notify each alien 
     who is admitted as a refugee under section 207 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1157) or granted 
     asylum under section 208 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1158) that the 
     alien, not later than 30 days after being admitted as a 
     refugee or granted asylum--
       (1) shall register with the Department as part of 
     application process; and
       (2) shall be interviewed and fingerprinted by an official 
     of the Department.
       (b) Background Check.--The Secretary shall screen and 
     perform a background check on all individuals seeking asylum 
     or refugee status under section 207 or 208 of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act to ensure that such individuals do not 
     present a national security risk to the United States.
       (c) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall monitor individuals 
     granted asylum or admitted as refugees for indications of 
     terrorism.
       (d) Reports.--
       (1) Secretary of homeland security.--The Secretary shall 
     submit an annual report to Congress that--
       (A) describes the effectiveness with which the Department 
     is screening applicants for asylum and refugee status; and
       (B) indicates whether the System has been implemented in a 
     manner that is overbroad or results in the deportation of 
     individuals with no reasonable link to a national security 
     threat or perceived threat.
       (2) Certification and national security report.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a 
     report to Congress that--
       (i) certifies that the requirements described in 
     subsections (a) through (c) have been implemented; and
       (ii) describes the specific steps that have been taken to 
     prevent national security failures in screening out 
     terrorists from using asylum and refugee status to gain entry 
     into the United States.
       (B) Effect of noncompliance.--Beginning on the date that is 
     181 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall suspend the granting of asylum and refugee 
     status under sections 207 and 208 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1157 and 1158) until the Secretary 
     has submitted the report described in subparagraph (A).
       (3) Annual report.--The Secretary shall submit an annual 
     report to Congress that contains--
       (A) the number of aliens seeking asylum or refugee status 
     who were screened and registered during the past year, broken 
     down by country of origin; and
       (B) the number of aliens seeking asylum or refugee status 
     who were deported as a result of information gathered during 
     interviews and background checks under subsections (a)(2) and 
     (b), broken down by country of origin.

     SEC. 1__12. RESOLUTION OF PUBLIC LAND USE DISPUTES IMPEDING 
                   BORDER SECURITY AND ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Prohibition.--The Secretary of Interior and the 
     Secretary of Agriculture may not impede, prohibit, restrict, 
     or delay activities of the Secretary on land under the 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior or the 
     Secretary of Agriculture to achieve total operational control 
     of the Southern border.
       (b) Authorized Activities.--The Secretary shall be granted 
     immediate access to land under the jurisdiction of the 
     Secretary of Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture for 
     purposes of conducting the following activities on such land 
     in accordance with the requirements under this Act:
       (1) Installing and using ground and motion sensors.
       (2) Installing and using of surveillance equipment, 
     including--
       (A) video or other recording devices;
       (B) radar and infrared technology; and
       (C) infrastructure to enhance border enforcement line-of-
     sight.
       (3) Using aircraft and securing landing rights, where 
     appropriate, as determined by the Secretary.
       (4) Using motorized vehicles to conduct routine patrols and 
     pursuits as required, including trucks and all-terrain 
     vehicles.
       (5) Accessing roads.
       (6) Constructing and maintaining roads.
       (7) Constructing and maintaining fences or other physical 
     barriers.
       (8) Constructing and maintaining communications 
     infrastructure.
       (9) Constructing and maintaining operations centers.
       (10) Setting up any other temporary tactical 
     infrastructure.
       (c) Clarification of Waiver Authority.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     (including any termination date relating to the waivers 
     referred to in this subsection), the waiver by the Secretary 
     on April 1, 2008, pursuant to section 102(c)(1) of the 
     Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
     of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note; Public Law 104-208) of the laws 
     described in paragraph (2) with respect to certain sections 
     of the Southern border shall be considered to apply to all 
     land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Interior or 
     the Secretary of Agriculture that is located within 100 miles 
     of the Southern border for all activities of the Secretary 
     described in subsection (b).
       (2) Description of laws subject to waived.--The laws 
     referred to in paragraph (1) are--
       (A) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
       (B) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.);
       (C) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 
     et seq.);
       (D) the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 
     et seq.);
       (E) the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.);
       (F) the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.);
       (G) the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 
     U.S.C. 470aa et seq.);
       (H) the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.);
       (I) the Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.);
       (J) the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.);
       (K) the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
     and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.);
       (L) Public Law 86-523 (16 U.S.C. 469 et seq.);
       (M) the Act of June 8, 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) 
     (commonly known as the ``Antiquities Act of 1906'') ;
       (N) the Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.);
       (O) the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et 
     seq.);
       (P) the Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 U.S.C. 4201 et 
     seq.);
       (Q) the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 
     et seq.);
       (R) the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.);
       (S) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 
     U.S.C. 1701 et seq.);

[[Page 9504]]

       (T) the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 
     of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.);
       (U) the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a et 
     seq.);
       (V) the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 
     et seq.);
       (W) subchapter II of chapter 5, and chapter 7, of title 5, 
     United States Code (commonly known as the ``Administrative 
     Procedure Act'');
       (X) the Otay Mountain Wilderness Act of 1999 (Public Law 
     106-145, 113 Stat. 1711);
       (Y) sections 102(29) and 103 of California Desert 
     Protection Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 410aaa et seq.);
       (Z) the National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et 
     seq.);
       (AA) Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-1 et seq.);
       (BB) sections 401(7), 403, and 404 of the National Parks 
     and Recreation Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-625, 92 Stat. 
     3467);
       (CC) the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 
     1132 note; Public Law 101-628);
       (DD) section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 
     403);
       (EE) the Act of June 8, 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.) 
     (commonly known as the ``Bald Eagle Protection Act of 
     1940)'';
       (FF) the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 
     Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.);
       (GG) Public Law 95-341 (42 U.S.C. 1996);
       (HH) Public Law 103-141 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.);
       (II) the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning 
     Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.);
       (JJ) the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 
     U.S.C. 528 et seq.);
       (KK) the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181, et seq.);
       (LL) the Materials Act of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); and
       (MM) the General Mining Act of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 22 note).
       (d) Notification Requirements.--The Secretary shall submit 
     a monthly report to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Homeland Security of the House of Representatives that--
       (1) describes any public land use dispute raised by another 
     Federal agency;
       (2) describes any other land conflict subject to subsection 
     (a) relating to border security operations on public lands; 
     and
       (3) explains whether the waiver authority under subsection 
     (c) was exercised in regards to such dispute or conflict.
       (e) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be 
     construed to authorize--
       (1) the restriction of legal land uses, including hunting, 
     grazing, and mining; or
       (2) additional restriction on legal access to such land.

     SEC. 1__13. SAVINGS AND OFFSETS.

       (a) Use of Funds.--The Secretary may use amounts from the 
     Comprehensive Immigration Reform Trust Fund made available 
     under subparagraphs (A)(ii) and (D) of section 6(a)(3)--
       (1) to fulfill the requirement under section 1__8 for 100 
     percent exit tracking of outbound aliens at land points of 
     entry;
       (2) to establish and maintain the Student Visa National 
     Security Registration System described in section 1__10; and
       (3) to reform the processing of applications for asylum and 
     refugee status pursuant to section 1__11.
       (b) Prohibition.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no 
     funds may be obligated or expended for the construction of a 
     new headquarters for the Department.
       (2) Exception.--The prohibition under paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply if the Secretary certifies to Congress that--
       (A) total operational control of the Southern border has 
     been achieved;
       (B) 100 percent exit tracking for all United States 
     visitors at air, sea, and land points of entry has been 
     achieved;
       (C) the Student Visa National Security Visa Registration 
     System is fully operational; and
       (D) reforms to asylum and refugee processing set forth in 
     section 1__11 have been fully implemented.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $1,000,000,000 to carry out paragraphs (1) 
     through (3) of subsection (a).
       (d) Rescission of Certain Unobligated Funds.--From 
     discretionary funds appropriated to the Department, but not 
     obligated as of the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     $1,000,000,000 is hereby rescinded.

     SEC. 1__14. IMMIGRATION LAW ENHANCEMENTS.

       (a) Transition of Executive Office for Immigration 
     Review.--
       (1) Establishment of court of immigration review.--Title 
     28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 
     7 the following:

                ``CHAPTER 9--COURT OF IMMIGRATION REVIEW

     ``Sec. 211. Establishment and appointment of judges

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is established, under article I 
     of the Constitution of the United States, a court of record, 
     which shall be known as the United States Court of 
     Immigration Review.
       ``(b) Jurisdiction.--The Court of Immigration Review shall 
     have original, but not exclusive, jurisdiction over all civil 
     proceedings arising under the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) and is authorized to implement orders 
     issued by the Court, in cooperation with the Department of 
     Justice.
       ``(c) Appointment of Judges.--The President shall appoint, 
     by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, such judges 
     as may be necessary to carry out the duties of the Court of 
     Immigration Review.

     ``Sec. 212. Tenure and salaries of judges

       ``(a) Tenure.--Each judge of the United States Court of 
     Immigration Review shall be appointed for a term of 10 years.
       ``(b) Salary.--Each judge shall receive a salary at an 
     annual rate determined in accordance with section 225 of the 
     Federal Salary Act of 1967 (2 U.S.C. 351 et seq.), as 
     adjusted by section 461 of this title.

     ``Sec. 213. Times and places of holding court

       ``The United States Court of Immigration Review may hold 
     court at such times and such places as it may fix by rule of 
     court.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment to homeland security act of 
     2002.--Subtitle A of title XI of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 (6 U.S.C. 521 et seq.) is amended--
       (A) by striking the subtitle heading and inserting the 
     following:

     ``Subtitle A--United States Court of Immigration Review''; and

       (B) by amending section 1101 (6 U.S.C. 521) to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 1101. RESPONSIBILITIES OF UNITED STATES COURT OF 
                   IMMIGRATION REVIEW.

       ``The United States Court of Immigration Review, 
     established under chapter 9 of title 28, United States Code, 
     shall be responsible for interpreting and administering 
     Federal immigration laws by conducting immigration court 
     proceedings and appellate reviews of such proceedings, in 
     cooperation with the Department of Justice.''.
       (3) Conforming amendments to immigration and nationality 
     act.--Section 103 (8 U.S.C. 1103) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) by striking ``He'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``The Secretary'';
       (ii) by striking ``the Service'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``the Department of Homeland Security'';
       (B) in subsection (c)--
       (i) by striking ``The Commissioner shall'' and inserting 
     ``The Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 
     shall'';
       (ii) by striking ``He'' and inserting ``The Director'';
       (iii) by striking ``the Service'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services''; and
       (iv) by striking ``The Commissioner may'' and inserting 
     ``The Director may'';
       (C) in subsections (d) and (e), by striking ``The 
     Commissioner'' and inserting ``The Director, U.S. Citizenship 
     and Immigration Services'';
       (D) in subsection (e), by striking ``the Service'' and 
     inserting ``U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services''; and
       (E) in subsection (g), by amending paragraph (1) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall assist the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security in enforcing the provisions of 
     this Act, in cooperation with the United States Court of 
     Immigration Review, established under chapter 9 of title 28, 
     United States Code.''.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the immigration judges serving in the Executive Office for 
     Immigration Review on the day before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, absent misconduct or other compelling 
     circumstances, should be--
       (1) appointed by the President to serve on the United 
     States Court of Immigration Review, established under chapter 
     29 of title 28, United States Code; and
       (2) confirmed by the Senate as soon as practicable, but in 
     no case later than 1 year after such date of enactment.
       (c) Continuity Provision.--All officers and employees of 
     the Executive Office for Immigration Review on the day before 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, absent misconduct or 
     other compelling circumstances, shall remain in their 
     respective positions during the Office's transition to the 
     United States Court of Immigration Review.
       (d) Ending of Capture and Release.--The Secretary may not 
     release any individual arrested by the Department for the 
     violation of any immigration law before the individual is 
     duly tried by the United States Court of Immigration Review 
     unless the Secretary determines that such arrests were made 
     in error. Individuals arrested or detained by the Department 
     have the right to an expedited proceeding to ensure that they 
     are not detained without a hearing for an excessive period of 
     time.

     SEC. 1__15. PROTECTING THE PRIVACY OF AMERICAN CITIZENS.

       (a) In General.--Nothing in this Act, the amendments made 
     by this Act, or any other provision of law may be construed 
     as authorizing, directly or indirectly, the issuance, use, or 
     establishment of a national identification card or system.
       (b) Limitations on Identification of United States 
     Citizens.--

[[Page 9505]]

       (1) Biometric information.--United States citizens shall 
     not be subject to any Federal or State law, mandate, or 
     requirement that they provide photographs or biometric 
     information without prior cause.
       (2) Photo tool.--As used in this Act, the term ``Photo 
     Tool'' may not be construed to allow the Federal Government 
     to require United States citizens to provide a photograph to 
     the Federal Government, other than photographs for Federal 
     employment identification documents and United States 
     passports.
       (3) Biometric social security cards.--Notwithstanding 
     section 3102, any other provision of this Act, the amendments 
     made by this Act, or any other provision of law, the Federal 
     Government may not require United States citizens to carry, 
     or to be issued, a biometric social security card.
       (4) Citizen registry.--Notwithstanding any provision of 
     this Act, the amendments made by this Act, or any other law, 
     the Federal Government is not authorized to create a de facto 
     national registry of citizens.
       (c) Identification of Noncitizens.--The Federal Government 
     is authorized to require noncitizens, for identification 
     purposes, to provide biometric identification, including 
     fingerprints, DNA, and Iris scans, and nonbiometric 
     information, including photographs.

     SEC. 1__16. NUMERICAL LIMITATION ON REGISTERED PROVISIONAL 
                   IMMIGRANTS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary 
     may not grant registered provisional immigrant status under 
     section 245B of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added 
     by section 2101 of this Act, until the first joint resolution 
     is enacted pursuant to section 1__4, and to more than 
     2,000,000 applicants for such status in any calendar year 
     following enactment of the first joint resolution enacted 
     pursuant to section 1__4.

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about my amendment, 
which we have entitled ``Trust But Verify.''
  I am in full support of immigration reform, as are most Members of 
this body and most Americans. But part of that reform must be that we 
insist on border security.
  Recently the authors of the current bill made clear that legalization 
will not be made contingent on border security. Most conservatives such 
as myself believe just the opposite, that legalization or documentation 
of workers absolutely must depend on border security first. My 
amendment does that. Trust But Verify makes documentation of 
undocumented workers contingent on border security.
  I believe the American people should not rely on bureaucrats or a 
commission to enforce border security. We have been promised security 
in the past and it never happens. My amendment is different than any 
other amendment because I want Congress to institute border security, 
not wait for a plan from the administration.
  With Trust But Verify Congress will vote every year for 5 years on 
whether the border is secure. The power to enforce border security will 
be in our hands, the people's representatives, and it is Congress that 
will be held accountable if we fail. If Congress believes the border is 
not secure, then the processing of the undocumented workers stops until 
the border becomes secure.
  To be clear, my amendment doesn't replace any triggers of the 
underlying bill. It simply adds new conditions to build on border 
security measures that are already in the bill. The only way to put 
real pressure on the Department of Homeland Security is to have tough 
triggers that ensure that the border is secure before immigration 
reform can proceed.
  My amendment is entitled ``Trust But Verify.'' My amendment 
legislates exactly how we secure the border. The current bill merely 
requests a plan to secure the border. My amendment requires 100 percent 
border surveillance capability, a 95-percent apprehension rate, and a 
completion of a double-layered fence. Instead of having a plan to build 
a fence, we just tell them: Build the fence. We monitor the building of 
the fence as it progresses, and we make these triggers transparent to 
the public.
  This amendment also would end the practice of releasing people who 
are caught crossing the border. Ninety-five percent of the people 
caught are released and they never come back--they go to the interior 
of the country.
  Legalization of undocumented workers is allowed to commence after 1 
year if Congress agrees that the border is secure. The resolution would 
be simple and would simply state every year: It is the sense of 
Congress that the U.S. border is increasingly secure. And Congress will 
determine if the Department of Homeland Security has met the goals 
Congress has written into law.
  My amendment mandates that 100 percent exit tracking for U.S. 
visitors is accomplished through all portals--air, land, and water. One 
of the biggest problems our Nation is experiencing is that individuals 
here on temporary visas tend to overstay, and some never exit the 
country. My amendment solves this problem.
  My amendment also has two important national security elements. One 
provision sets up a student visa national security registration system 
as a means to track young men and women who come to this country on 
student visas. Also, individuals here under asylum or refugee status 
must register in a program providing increased screening and a means to 
make sure the Federal Government has an idea of where people in these 
programs reside.
  We should remember that most of the 9/11 hijackers were here on 
student visas and were not being properly monitored. And I still don't 
think that problem has been fixed.
  This amendment is fully paid for by taking funds that would have gone 
toward this commission. We will not need a commission because we are 
actually going to put border security in the bill, and it requires no 
additional funding. If my amendment is implemented, there will not be a 
need for this commission.
  One big problem with immigration reform is the dire need to reform 
our immigration court system. My amendment empowers immigration judges 
to have the power to implement orders. Judges make decisions and then 
no one will carry out the orders. It is a completely broken system. 
Both the left and the right agree we need to fix the immigration court 
system. This amendment would do it. My amendment would convert our 
courts from administrative courts to article I courts with enhanced 
jurisdiction.
  My amendment also protects the privacy of all Americans by placing in 
law protections against citizens being subject to invasive biometric 
identification cards. Most Second Amendment supporters rightly see 
universal background checks as a step too far in invading citizens' 
personal business. Any national ID, biometric or otherwise, raises the 
same constitutional concerns.
  Finally, my amendment does not allow the processing of this new 
category called registered provisional immigrants until Congress votes 
that the border is secure. Then we limit the number to 2 million per 
year, and each year we vote: Is the border more secure? If the border 
is not becoming more secure, the process stops until we agree the 
border is secure. This will allow the Department of Homeland Security 
to do an effective job of conducting background checks on the estimated 
11 to 12 million people.
  If Congress votes that the border is not secure, the processing of 
people into this category stops. It will not start again until 
Congress, the Representatives of the people, believe that the border is 
secure.
  We desperately need immigration reform. If we don't have reform, I 
think we will have another 10 million people come over in the next 
decade. So something should be done, but it has to be done in a way 
that fixes the system. This amendment will fix the system.
  I ask my colleagues to support Senate amendment No. 1200, Trust But 
Verify.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. 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. 1251

  (Purpose: Requiring Enforcement, Security and safety while Upgrading

[[Page 9506]]

Lawful Trade and travel Simultaneously (RESULTS))
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendments, and to call up my amendment No. 1251.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn], for himself, Mr. 
     Crapo, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Alexander, Mr. 
     Isakson, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Burr, Mr. Chambliss, and Mr. 
     Johanns, proposes an amendment numbered 1251.

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of Wednesday, June 12, 2013, 
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have been working on immigration policy 
for all the time I have been in the Senate, about 10 years now. So I 
have some familiarity with the issues and the arguments that have been 
made. It is always amazing to hear a lot of the same arguments being 
repeated now that we have heard before in 2007 and before. But one of 
the differences is we have 43 new Senators who weren't here in 2007, 
the last time we had a major debate on immigration reform. So I think 
the discussions have been useful and, hopefully, they will be 
productive.
  There is one obstacle, in my view, to immigration reform which is 
something I would like to see: When it comes to securing our borders 
and making sure that the flow of illegal immigration across our borders 
stops or gets as close as we can to zero, the Federal Government has 
zero credibility. The reason is simple. We have been making promises 
since 1986 about border security enforcement.
  Remember, 1986 was the year that Ronald Reagan--a model to 
Republicans and conservatives--signed an amnesty for 3 million people, 
premised on the representation and the expectation that enforcement 
would ensue and the problem would be solved. In other words, he and the 
American people said: We will have a compassionate resolution of the 
condition of the 3 million people who are here, but we want to make 
sure that the rule of law is restored and that we will not have to do 
this again.
  When the Gang of 8--the four Republicans and four Democrats who 
authored the underlying bill--announced their product, I was hopeful 
they would produce a bill with solid mechanisms for gaining secure 
borders. Unfortunately, the bill contains no guarantees or results, no 
real trigger, only more promises reminiscent of 1986 and many years 
subsequent.
  In 1996, Bill Clinton signed a law saying we were going to implement 
a biometric entry-exit system. When that didn't happen, after 2011 the 
9/11 Commission said one of the things we needed and was revealed as a 
vulnerability for national security was the absence of a biometric 
entry-exit system.
  Despite the passage of all those years and the recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission, we still have not implemented a biometric entry-exit 
system. An entry system, yes, but exit, no. And 40 percent of illegal 
immigration occurs as a result of the fact that people enter the 
country legally and don't leave when their visa expires.
  So, unfortunately, this bill contains more hollow promises and no 
real trigger. By that I mean a conditioning on the transfer to either 
probationary status or to legal permanent residency based on hitting 
the standards that are met in the underlying bill--100 percent 
situational awareness, 90 percent apprehensions, which is defined in 
the bill as operational control of the border.
  The message is, again, we don't have any enforcement mechanism here. 
We are going to put a lot of money and a lot of resources into this but 
we cannot control what future administrations do. We know no current 
Congress can bind future Congresses. So these promises once again--I am 
very concerned and I think the American people should be concerned--are 
promises only and not delivering the results that I think they insist 
upon before they will accept a resolution of the 11 million people in 
compassionate terms.
  But I do not think promises alone are good enough. You should not 
take my word for it. You want to see, for example, what the 
Congressional Budget Office came out with yesterday. I think people 
would be serious about serious solutions to illegal immigration, but 
the Congressional Budget Office which--love them or hate them, agree or 
disagree--is the gold standard that Congress is bound by when 
evaluating legislation. What they said is the number of new 
unauthorized immigrants in the United States by the year 2033 will go 
up. It will be 7.5 million people. If we did not pass any bill at all, 
it will be 10 million. That is what the Congressional Budget Office 
said. Those are not my figures, those are their figures. I think it is 
incumbent upon anybody who disagrees to challenge these figures, and so 
far we have heard no challenge forthcoming.
  Make no mistake, border security is not an alternative to immigration 
reform, it is a necessary complement to the sensible reforms that I 
think a large majority of this Chamber could agree on, such as allowing 
the United States to retain more highly skilled immigrants who get 
Ph.D's and master's degrees at our colleges and universities in STEM 
fields--science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and the like.
  I know there has been a fair amount of disinformation circulated 
about the proposals in my RESULTS amendment, so let me explain what it 
actually does once more. My amendment requires the Federal Government 
to have 100-percent situational awareness on the border. With 
technology the American taxpayer has already paid for and which has 
been deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq and is owned by the Department of 
Defense, I am absolutely convinced we can get 100-percent situational 
awareness on the border. Senator McCain yesterday said he agreed with 
that. He cited a letter, which I am sure we will see forthwith, by the 
head of the Border Patrol who said that is attainable.
  Senator Bennet of Colorado and Senator Flake of Arizona, two members 
of the Gang of 8, said they agree it is attainable. I think it is 
attainable. That is one requirement.
  Second, my amendment requires full operational control of the border. 
That does not mean 100-percent detention of people coming across. It 
means we have a deterrent effect by at least 90 percent of people 
coming across being detained.
  I have been in and around law enforcement most of my adult life. It 
is not just how many people we detain, it is the deterrent value of the 
knowledge of people who violate our laws that if they do so they will 
be apprehended and they will receive the appropriate punishment. So the 
deterrence factor is very important here. It is not just how many 
people you catch but there has to be some metric that can be 
objectively measured.
  Next--and I alluded to this a moment ago--there has to be a 
nationwide biometric entry-exit system. As I said, this has been the 
law since 1996 when Bill Clinton signed it into law. Yet it has never 
been implemented. What has been implemented is that when foreign 
nationals visit the United States they do have to give a set of 
fingerprints, but there is no complementary exit system to make sure 
those same people leave the country when their visa expires--whether 
they are a student or a tourist or a guest worker or something of the 
like. Forty percent of our illegal immigration is people who enter 
legally and simply do not leave when their visa expires. This biometric 
entry-exit system would allow us to identify them and then to allow the 
Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
to do their job.
  Fourth, my amendment requires nationwide E-Verify; in other words, a 
means not to make the employers the police to sort of sift through 
documents to try to figure out from your utility bill whether you 
actually are a legal resident of the United States and can qualify to 
work, but actually an electronic system. All employees of the Federal 
Government, all of our employees in our Senate offices have to go

[[Page 9507]]

through that anyway to make sure this is uniformly observed, so that 
the economic magnet that attracts so much illegal immigration is 
removed and only people who can legally work in the country are allowed 
to do so.
  My amendment could have taken a much tougher position and said this 
trigger must be met before people can progress or sign up for 
probationary status. I voted for such an amendment, but knowing that 
amendment would not pass the Senate I said the trigger ought to be 
between the probationary status and the time when people transition 
from probationary status to legal permanent residency. The whole 
rationale is not to be punitive, not to create an obstacle that cannot 
be met, but to realign the incentives for the executive branch, the 
bureaucracy, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, conservatives, 
liberals to come together and say we are going to make sure this target 
is hit: 100-percent surveillance; 90-percent apprehensions or full 
operational control of the border; an E-Verify system; and a biometric 
entry-exit system.
  Is it realistic to believe these goals can be met in the next decade? 
Many experts, including members of the Gang of 8, which I mentioned a 
moment ago, believe it is. Some of those experts include people such as 
Robert Bonner, the former head of Customs and Border Protection; Asa 
Hutchison, the former Under Secretary for Border & Transportation 
Security at the Department of Homeland Security, and as I mentioned, 
several of the Gang of 8--Senator Bennet of Colorado, Senator Flake of 
Arizona, Senator McCain of Arizona--have all said they believe this 
requirement of 100-percent situational awareness and operational 
control of our southern border is feasible and can be accomplished and 
that it is a reasonable, attainable goal.
  My question for them and for others is, if they believe it is 
feasible and if they believe we are suffering from a trust deficit as a 
result of the American people being asked to trust us and that trust 
being exploited and violated so many times in the past with promises 
that are not kept, why not agree to a reasonable condition after 
probationary status, before people transfer to legal permanent 
residency where we know the forces will be aligned in order to make 
sure that is met. Then we can regain the American people's confidence 
and see we restored law and order and legality out of a current lawless 
and chaotic system which exploits and preys on many innocent people who 
die, who are subjected to human slavery as a result of trafficking, and 
you name it.
  There is a crisis of confidence in Washington these days and the only 
way I think we are going to regain that confidence and demonstrate to 
the American people we are serious about making this happen is a 
trigger and a conditioning of that transition from RPI status to LPR 
status contained in my amendment.
  If it is attainable and if it is something that is important in terms 
of regaining the public's confidence instead of just saying ``trust 
us,'' why not support the amendment? Why not demand real results on 
border security, rather than repetitive promises that have not been 
kept in the past and which the American public is in deep doubt will be 
kept in the future? Without a genuine border security trigger, this 
bill, I would daresay, has zero chance of passing the House of 
Representatives. For those of us who wish to see an improvement in the 
status quo because we believe the status quos is simply unacceptable, 
for those of us who wish to see a good immigration reform bill pass, 
why not pass this bill with my amendment? Why not give this bill some 
momentum as it goes over to the House of Representatives and as we come 
together as a Senate and a House to reconcile those differences in the 
bill and send over a good bill, an enforceable bill--not just full of 
hollow promises but one which will actually gain results when it comes 
to security.
  Everybody in this Chamber knows the Senate bill is dead on arrival in 
the House. They have their own ideas. They are going to take up 
immigration reform on a piecemeal basis, but ultimately my hope is they 
will cobble together one or more smaller bills and then we will be able 
to get to a conference with the House to work out the differences. But 
this is the kind of sleight of hand which I think undermines our 
credibility and increases the skepticism of the American people that we 
are actually going to deliver as represented when it comes to 
immigration reform.
  You have seen this before. Senator Durbin, the distinguished majority 
whip, said in January 2013: A pathway to citizenship needs to be 
``contingent upon securing the border.'' I agree with Senator Durbin. I 
agree that is the essential bargain the American people are willing to 
accept. There was a CNN poll yesterday that said 6 out of 10 of the 
American people would accept a pathway to citizenship, perhaps 
grudgingly, if they actually felt as though the results they demand be 
provided on border security and enforcement are contained in this bill.
  That is why I believe it was so important for Senator Durbin to say, 
as part of their announcement of the goals of the Gang of 8, that a 
pathway to citizenship would be ``contingent upon securing the 
border.''
  Here is the disconnect. Unfortunately, 6 months later, June 11, 2013, 
Senator Durbin was quoted in the National Journal that the gang has now 
decided that ``the pathway to citizenship'' and border enforcement can 
be delinked. In other words, the way to citizenship is guaranteed and 
good luck on the border security and the enforcement. Good luck, 
present Congress, trying to enforce your will, present and hence, on a 
future Congress; good luck, President Obama, trying to dictate exactly 
what a future President, 10 years from now, will do.
  The only way I believe we can credibly go back and defend our 
position for immigration reform before our constituents, certainly my 
constituents, is to look them in the eyes and say we have fixed the 
problem. We have done everything humanly possible to make sure all the 
incentives are aligned so that border security, interior enforcement, 
and E-Verify are actually in place before people transition to legal 
permanent residency.
  We have now had three decades to fix our broken promises on border 
security and now is the time to demand real results and to create a 
mechanism for achieving them. It is time to make good on our promises 
to the American people by securing America's borders.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about amendment No. 1311, 
the Hire Americans First amendment, which I hope to call up later.
  Nearly 8 percent of Americans are unemployed or underemployed and our 
immigration policy obviously must be a jobs policy. Any successful 
immigration plan must take a closer look at the H-1B Program, which 
serves an important but specific and limited purpose. The H-1B visa was 
created so businesses--particularly in high tech but not exclusively 
that--so businesses could recruit foreign workers to help fill the void 
created by a lack of
American workers with those specific skills. Yet, as this bill comes to 
the floor, something very important was excluded. The bill lacks a 
requirement--which was in earlier versions of the bill--that employers 
hire an equally or better qualified American worker when one is 
available, rather than a potential H-1B worker.
  The bill lacks a requirement that employers hire a qualified, equally 
or better qualified American worker when one is available, rather than 
a potential H-1B foreign worker. With this bill we are enshrining a 
process--without this amendment--that allows companies to pass over 
skilled Americans for foreign workers after they have been required to 
actually actively recruit those Americans.
  The bill has provisions to recruit Americans for these jobs that 
might have gone to an H-1B foreign worker, but it falls short. It 
doesn't require the employer to actually--after going through that 
process, to actually hire the American worker who is as qualified or 
better qualified than the H-1B

[[Page 9508]]

foreign worker. This approach only undermines support for the H-1B 
Program because it will be seen as a tool to avoid hiring American 
workers.
  Understand the American public, as they start to kind of understand 
and digest the provisions of this purported new law, this legislation, 
when they hear that, yes, companies have to recruit and look for 
American workers but in the end, even if the American worker is as 
qualified or more qualified, the company is under no obligation to 
actually hire the American. Senator Grassley has been a champion in the 
fight to end H-1B abuse. That is why I am proud to join Senator 
Grassley in our bipartisan amendment to introduce the H-1B and L-1 Visa 
Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act of 2013.
  The H-1B program should only be used when there is no qualified 
worker available in the United States. That is clearly what the 
American people overwhelmingly say they want: that the program should 
only be used when there is no qualified worker available here. This 
amendment would increase protections to workers by requiring that 
employers only hire H-1B workers, as I said before, when there is no 
equally qualified or better qualified American.
  This amendment would make sure a worker from Wuhan would not be hired 
at the expense of a qualified engineer or scientist from Elyria or 
Sylvania, OH. It means ensuring that American companies seek out, find, 
and hire skilled American workers before seeking visas for foreign 
workers. However, that is not included in this version of the bill that 
we are debating on the Senate floor--the immigration bill. The bill in 
its current form simply says that companies have to look for qualified 
Americans. It doesn't require them to actually hire the equally 
qualified or better qualified American, such as a chemist from 
Cleveland or a computer scientist from Celina. The underlying bill 
increases the number of H-1B-eligible visas, and that is fine. But it 
also cracks down on employers who take advantage of the system. Without 
the requirement to also hire qualified U.S. workers, the recruitment 
steps mean standing on an escalator that leads to nowhere.
  What this legislation now says is that companies that consider H-1B 
visa hires need to recruit Americans, but the bill falls short of 
saying if the American is as qualified or more qualified they need to 
hire that American. If they are qualified Americans who can do the 
work, there is simply no need to fill the post with an H-1B worker. 
Passing the Brown-Grassley amendment--also cosponsored by Senator 
Sessions, a Republican from Alabama, and Senator Manchin, a Democrat 
from West Virginia--the hire Americans first amendment is important in 
fixing that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                    Amendment No. 1237, as Modified

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, under the prior unanimous consent 
agreement, I call up my amendment numbered 1237, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Merkley] proposes amendment 
     numbered 1237, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To increase the employment of Americans by requiring State 
 workforce agencies to certify that employers are actively recruiting 
Americans and that Americans are not qualified or available to fill the 
   positions that the employer seeks to fill with H-2B nonimmigrants)

       On page 1793, between lines 17 and 18, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 4607. AMERICAN JOBS IN AMERICAN FORESTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``American Jobs in American Forests Act of 2013''.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Forestry.--The term ``forestry'' means--
       (A) propagating, protecting, and managing forest tracts;
       (B) felling trees and cutting them into logs;
       (C) using hand tools or operating heavy powered equipment 
     to perform activities such as preparing sites for planting, 
     tending crop trees, reducing competing vegetation, moving 
     logs, piling brush, and yarding and trucking logs from the 
     forest; and
       (D) planting seedlings and trees.
       (2) H-2B nonimmigrant.--The term ``H-2B nonimmigrant'' 
     means a nonimmigrant described in section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b)).
       (3) Prospective h-2b employer.--The term ``prospective H-2B 
     employer'' means a United States business that is considering 
     employing 1 or more nonimmigrants described in section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b)).
       (4) State workforce agency.--The term ``State workforce 
     agency'' means the workforce agency of the State in which the 
     prospective H-2B employer intends to employ H-2B 
     nonimmigrants.
       (c) Department of Labor.--
       (1) Recruitment.--As a component of the labor certification 
     process required before H-2B nonimmigrants are offered 
     forestry employment in the United States, the Secretary of 
     Labor shall require all prospective H-2B employers, before 
     they submit a petition to hire H-2B nonimmigrants to work in 
     forestry, to conduct a robust effort to recruit United States 
     workers, including, to the extent the State workforce agency 
     considers appropriate--
       (A) advertising at employment or job-placement events, such 
     as job fairs;
       (B) placing the job opportunity with the State workforce 
     agency and working with such agency to identify qualified and 
     available United States workers;
       (C) advertising in appropriate media, including local radio 
     stations and commonly used, reputable Internet job-search 
     sites; and
       (D) such other recruitment efforts as the State workforce 
     agency considers appropriate for the sector or positions for 
     which H-2B nonimmigrants would be considered.
       (2) Separate certifications and petitions.--A prospective 
     H-2B employer shall submit a separate application for 
     temporary employment certification and petition for each 
     State in which the employer plans to employ H-2B 
     nonimmigrants in forestry for a period of 7 days or longer. 
     The Secretary of Labor shall review each application for 
     temporary employment certification and decide separately 
     whether certification is warranted.
       (d) State Workforce Agencies.--The Secretary of Labor may 
     not grant a temporary labor certification to a prospective H-
     2B employer seeking to employ H-2B nonimmigrants in forestry 
     until after the Director of the State workforce agency, in 
     each State in which such workers are sought--
       (1) submits a report to the Secretary of Labor certifying 
     that--
       (A) the employer has complied with all recruitment 
     requirements set forth in subsection (c)(1) and there is 
     legitimate demand for the employment of H-2B nonimmigrants in 
     each of those States; or
       (B) the employer has amended the application by removing or 
     making appropriate modifications with respect to the States 
     in which the criteria set forth in subparagraph (A) have not 
     been met; and
       (2) makes a formal determination that nationals of the 
     United States are not qualified or available to fill the 
     employment opportunities offered by the prospective H-2B 
     employer.

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I thought I would take a few moments to 
share the contents of this amendment and why it is an important 
addition to the bill we are considering currently. This is related to a 
very critical part of Oregon's economy; that is, timber and forest 
jobs. Forest jobs have long been a pillar of our rural economy in my 
State. In fact, my father worked as a millwright when he first came to 
Oregon. He worked as a mechanic, which was basically to keep the 
sawmill operating.
  When the sawmill shut down, he pursued other jobs as a mechanic. We 
traveled with the timber economy, as so many families in Oregon did. 
Many of our rural towns are mill towns--towns closely related to the 
production of lumber from our national forests and from private 
forests.
  Over the past several decades, times have been pretty tough in the 
timber economy, and we have many forest workers who have suffered 
through these tough times. Their families have gone with the ups and 
downs of the timber economy. Certainly, the recession added insult to 
injury, and the unemployment rates in many of our timber counties 
soared and have been stuck at over 15 percent.
  That is why in 2009 I and others fought to get funding in the 
recovery bill to expand thinning and wildfire prevention. The concept 
was that we have millions of acres of overgrown second-growth forests 
which is not ideal for ecosystems, and it is not ideal

[[Page 9509]]

for producing timber. What it is ideal for is forest fires and disease. 
So thinning these forests made a lot of sense, and we can put a lot of 
folks to work.
  We did get funding for forest health, but in 2010 we had a little 
shock. One of our newspapers in Oregon, the Bend Bulletin, started 
reporting about how the forest service contracts intended to put 
Americans to work--and for the Oregon forests, Oregonians to work--were 
instead awarded to contractors who were bringing in foreign workers 
under the H-2B visa program. These contractors, using cheap labor, were 
underbidding the local companies that were employing Oregonians from 
these rural communities--communities deeply steeped in the tradition of 
forest jobs.
  In 2011, we found out from a Department of Labor audit of some of 
these contracts--more than $7 million worth--that not one Oregonian was 
hired. In fact, the audit concluded that it was likely Oregonians 
didn't even know the jobs existed. Now, why is that? Because the 
contractor--seeking to underbid the contractors who would hire 
Americans--proceeded to advertise in California for jobs in Oregon. 
They proceeded to advertise well in advance of the jobs; there was a 
disconnect in time. They proceeded to imply in the advertisements that 
a second language was required.
  When applications were received by the few Oregonians who found out 
about those jobs, they round-filed those applications, put them through 
the shredder, rather than using our tax money to thin our forests to 
prevent forest fires and disease and didn't hire Americans for those 
jobs.
  The information provided to my office showed that in 2010 and 2011 in 
Oregon and Washington more than one-third of the contracts being 
awarded by the Forest Service were going to companies that self-
attested that they could not find a single American worker who wanted 
to do these jobs. Now these companies are operating in rural 
communities with very high unemployment rates in the middle of a 
terrible recession. We have thousands of Oregonians who have signed up 
on a job seeker database saying they want to work in our forests.
  In Oregon that list involves more than 5,000 individuals who are on a 
State list wanting to work in the woods, and the contractors said they 
could not find anyone who wanted one of these jobs. This is exactly the 
type of abuse that undermines the entire program. This is the type of 
abuse that must not be allowed.
  As I go from county to county doing townhalls, as I do in each county 
every year, folks say time and time again: We need more jobs in the 
woods. Well, those jobs that we do have in the woods, we need to make 
sure they know about those jobs. When our taxpayer dollars are funding 
the work, we need to make sure the money goes to create jobs where they 
are needed.
  That is why I am proposing a narrowly tailored amendment to address 
this problem with three simple changes to the H-2B program for forestry 
jobs. First, enhanced recruitment. Employers, before submitting a 
petition to hire H-2B workers, would be required to use appropriate 
recruitment strategies to find or notify Americans who are interested 
in these jobs. This could be advertising at job fairs, with local and 
State workforce agencies and nonprofits, or advertising on reputable 
Internet job search sites or radio. The key is they must work with the 
State workforce agency to advertise in the places where local residents 
are likely to hear about the jobs. That is exactly what did not happen 
in Oregon in 2009 and 2010.
  The second provision of this amendment is that the Secretary of Labor 
could grant a temporary labor certification to an employer to hire H-2B 
forest workers. In order to do that, the director of the State 
workforce agency would have to certify that the employer has complied 
with the recruitment requirements, and the director of the State 
workforce agency would have to make a determination that local workers 
were not qualified or available to fill the jobs. That way we connect 
the contractor who is responsible to make sure that folks know about 
these jobs with the workforce agency that has the expertise in finding 
people who want to know about these jobs. If there is a situation where 
a contractor simply says, well, we advertised, but we cannot find 
anyone, the workforce agency would know whether that was a legitimate 
and valid conclusion.
  The third point is that if an employer seeks to be certified for a 
work itinerary that covers multiple States, and if the work outside the 
primary State lasts 7 days or longer, then the employer needs to 
contact the agency in each State. That way they don't simply have 
someone starting work in California for a day or two and shifting to 
Oregon, shifting to Washington, or shifting to Idaho--perhaps for a 
month in each place--but never advertising in the State where the work 
is being done. These are three simple changes to our H-2B program for 
forest workers that could make a real difference for individuals 
struggling to find work in the woods.
  Now, we cannot go back and fix the contracts that have already been 
issued and abused in the past, but we can fix the problems we know 
about now so that those forest workers do get the jobs in the future--
those Oregonians, those Americans who want to work in the woods.
  In places like Myrtle Creek, where I was born, or Roseburg, where I 
went to first grade, when you are born in these timber communities, you 
are practically born with a chainsaw in your hand. Timber is the heart 
of the local economy. To have folks--who are unemployed, trying to 
support their families and desperate for jobs in the woods--find out 
that our tax money that was supposed to go to put them to work has been 
put to work hiring people from outside our country is outrageous and 
unacceptable. This amendment will address it in a responsible manner.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for the time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                          Women's Health Care

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss 
H.R. 1797. A number of my colleagues, Senators Murray and Boxer, have 
been here this morning to talk about the bill that passed yesterday in 
the House of Representatives that would prohibit all abortions beyond 
20 weeks with very, very limited exceptions.
  This topic is critically important to the women of Connecticut and 
our country, and the bill is lamentably and regrettably yet another 
example of legislation that feigns concern for women's health when 
actually it would endanger the lives and well-being of women across 
this great country.
  The bill would take decisions regarding health care away from women 
and their doctors and would force doctors to decide between incurring 
criminal penalties and helping their patients. That choice is 
unacceptable professionally and morally.
  The decision to end a pregnancy is a serious decision that a woman 
should make in consultation with her doctor. When those decisions are 
made later in a pregnancy, they are most often the result of serious 
health risks to the mother or the discovery that the fetus is not 
viable. They are the result of those risks or the discovery that a 
fetus is not viable. Political interference is abhorrent and 
unacceptable in these personal and private decisions, and it violates 
the constitutional right of privacy.
  The other scenario in which a woman may seek an abortion later in a 
pregnancy is due to an inability to access such services earlier--
whether due to financial restrictions or a lack of access to health 
care or other extenuating circumstances.
  In fact, 58 percent of abortion patients say they would have 
preferred to have an abortion earlier. Low-income women were more than 
twice as likely as their wealthier counterparts to be delayed because 
of financial limitation and difficulty in making arrangements. As 
politicians, we should not be placing

[[Page 9510]]

additional restrictions on women in these circumstances.
  The House bill blatantly ignores constitutional protections that are 
vitally necessary to protect the health of women, as decided in Roe v. 
Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, because these kinds of 
restrictions place limitations that interfere with constitutional 
rights and have no place in these personal and very private decisions.
  The limited exceptions in this bill would require a woman to report a 
rape or incest to law enforcement or a specific government agency when 
she is seeking much needed health care services. Those restrictions 
that affect women when they have been victims of a crime or face 
serious health risks have no effect in reducing abortions, and that is 
their purported purpose--to reduce abortion--but that purpose will in 
no way be served by these restrictions. Victims of incest or rape may 
be too young or too fearful of retaliation to report to a law 
enforcement agency. Why create a needless, lawless obstacle to vital 
health care?
  We should be working to ensure that women have the ability to access 
safe and affordable contraception so there are fewer unintended 
pregnancies in this country. And yet supporters of this bill would also 
restrict access to contraception, and they are the ones who have tried 
to make it more difficult to get access to the information and services 
necessary to prevent unintended pregnancies.
  We need to do more. Our Nation needs to do better to ensure that 
women have access to preventive and maternal health care so they can be 
prepared to face the responsibility of pregnancy and parenthood. This 
bill would do very little, if anything, to actually help women protect 
their health care and the health care of their families.
  I urge my colleagues to reject any consideration of this ill-intended 
and, I hope, ill-fated measure that endangers women's health across the 
country, and I urge my colleagues to focus on the real priorities that 
face this Congress--job creation and economic recovery, for example--
and stop this attack on women's health.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, we are debating the immigration bill 
again today, and as the Presiding Officer knows, I am one of those 
Members of the Senate who believe our immigration system is broken, 
both the legal system and the way in which we want to deal with those 
who come here illegally.
  I have concerns with the underlying legislation. I have spoken about 
that on the floor. I have concerns about the workplace magnet. I think 
the E-Verify proposals in the underlying bill are an improvement to the 
current system but still not as strong as they need to be to be an 
effective deterrent to those who are unauthorized to work. I don't 
think the system will work, frankly, unless we strengthen those 
provisions at the workplace. Most people want to come here for economic 
reasons, and if we don't deal with the workplace we will not be able to 
affect much at the border if people really want to come here with their 
families to get a job.
  Second, we have learned now that 40 percent of those who are here 
illegally have actually overstayed their visas, meaning they came here 
legally but then overstayed their visas and are here illegally now.
  We also learned that under E-Verify, unfortunately, about 54 percent 
of those who are unauthorized to work are getting through the system 
now with the pilot programs that are available. So that needs to be 
strengthened, and I will have proposals to do that.
  I am working with the eight Members of our body here who have put 
together this legislation and other Senators on both sides of the aisle 
to try to strengthen those provisions because I don't think the bill is 
going to hold together without real enforcement.
  Secondly, the border enforcement needs to be strengthened and the 
triggers need to be strengthened. I am working with Senator John Cornyn 
and others on that. I hope Senators on both sides of the aisle can 
agree that along with having workplace verification that really does 
determine who is eligible to work and whether documentation is 
fraudulent, we also need to have a secure border moving forward.
  Third, I have concerns about some of the benefits that will be 
offered to people who are in this interim status, so-called RPI status, 
who would be in a legal status but still not able to obtain a green 
card. So the question is, What benefit should they get? We want to be 
sure people are not enticed to come here for benefits but, rather, come 
here legally to work.
  Finally, I have concerns about some of the criteria for this status, 
which would be a legal status, as it relates to crimes they have 
committed. As a result, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support 
two amendments I have filed to the underlying bill. I believe these 
amendments would serve to clarify what kinds of criminal acts would 
render violent offenders inadmissible under the immigration reform bill 
we are debating.
  The first amendment addresses convictions for domestic violence, 
stalking, or child abuse. Under the current language, those convicted 
of these crimes would only be ineligible for admission in the event 
they served at least 1 year in prison. My amendment would change this 
language to declare inadmissible anybody convicted of such crimes who 
could have been sentenced to no less than 1 year of imprisonment for 
the crime at the time of conviction. I think this is really a 
clarification amendment and a simple amendment that should be accepted 
by both sides because it is in keeping with the original purpose of the 
language, which is to allow a more consistent and fair application of 
the law.
  If my amendment is accepted, two individuals convicted of the same 
crime under the same circumstances would be treated in the same way 
under our Nation's immigration laws. That is not the case as the bill 
is currently written. The current language puts emphasis on the time 
served rather than the offense committed. As we all know, the amount of 
time a person convicted of a crime might serve in prison is related to 
a whole lot of factors unrelated to the purpose of this legislation--
from the disposition of the sentencing judge, to the recommendations 
made by the prosecutors, to the overcrowding in many of our State 
prisons. So this amendment would take those extraneous considerations 
out of the picture, applying the same standard to all applicants for 
citizenship while ensuring that the spirit of the original language 
remains--preventing violent criminals from reaping the benefits of this 
legislation.
  The second amendment serves a similar purpose. It would exclude 
crimes against children involving moral turpitude--things such as child 
abuse, child neglect, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor 
through sexual acts. It would remove those from the discretionary 
authority of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and 
immigration judges with regard to removal, deportation, or 
inadmissibility of an individual. This amendment would strengthen our 
efforts to prevent and punish child abuse and would ensure that anyone 
who endangers our children is not eligible to become a citizen of this 
country.
  Nothing is more precious than American citizenship. We see that every 
day with people coming to this country, some legal and some illegal. We 
have to ensure that this legislation does not extend that privilege to 
those who would commit crimes against the most vulnerable among us.
  These very simple, commonsense amendments would help to achieve that 
goal. So along with E-Verify and ensuring that our border will be 
secure, ensuring that the appropriate benefits are provided to those 
who are not citizens but here in an interim status, I

[[Page 9511]]

urge my colleagues to adopt these two amendments to ensure that those 
who would like to become citizens of the United States are those who 
deserve it and are not individuals who have engaged in the kinds of 
criminal acts that would make them inappropriate to become citizens of 
the United States.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield back the time. I don't see any 
colleagues stepping forward, so I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


              Amendments Nos. 1268, 1298, and 1224 En Bloc

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Manchin, Pryor, and 
Reed, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called 
up en bloc: Manchin No. 1268, Pryor No. 1298, and Reed No. 1224.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for Mr. Manchin, Mr. 
     Pryor, for himself and Mr. Johanns, and Mr. Reed, proposes 
     amendments numbered 1268, 1298, and 1224 en bloc.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1268

   (Purpose: To provide for common sense limitations on salaries for 
    contractor executives and employees involved in border security)

       At the end of title I, add the following:

     SEC. 1122. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE COSTS OF SALARIES OF CONTRACTOR 
                   EMPLOYEES.

       Section 4304(a)(16) of title 41, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, except that in the case of contracts with the 
     Department of Homeland Security or the National Guard while 
     operating in Federal status that relate to border security, 
     the limit on the costs of compensation of all executives and 
     employees of contractors is the annual amount payable under 
     the aggregate limitation on pay as established by the Office 
     of Management and Budget (currently $230,700)''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1298

(Purpose: To promote recruitment of former members of the Armed Forces 
 and members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces to serve in 
     United States Customs and Border Protection and United States 
                  Immigration and Customs Enforcement)

       At the end of section 1102, add the following:
       (e) Recruitment of Former Members of the Armed Forces and 
     Members of Reserve Components of the Armed Forces.--
       (1) Requirement for program.--The Secretary, in conjunction 
     with the Secretary of Defense, shall establish a program to 
     actively recruit members of the reserve components of the 
     Armed Forces and former members of the Armed Forces, 
     including the reserve components, to serve in United States 
     Customs and Border Protection and United States Immigration 
     and Customs Enforcement.
       (2) Recruitment incentives.--
       (A) Student loan repayments for united states border patrol 
     agents with a three-year commitment.--Section 5379(b) of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) In the case of an employee who is otherwise eligible 
     for benefits under this section and who is serving as a full-
     time active-duty United States border patrol agent within the 
     Department of Homeland Security--
       ``(A) paragraph (2)(A) shall be applied by substituting 
     `$20,000' for `$10,000'; and
       ``(B) paragraph (2)(B) shall be applied by substituting 
     `$80,000' for `$60,000'.''.
       (B) Recruitment and relocation bonuses and retention 
     allowances for personnel of the department of homeland 
     security.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure 
     that the authority to pay recruitment and relocation bonuses 
     under section 5753 of title 5, United States Code, the 
     authority to pay retention bonuses under section 5754 of such 
     title, and any other similar authorities available under any 
     other provision of law, rule, or regulation, are exercised to 
     the fullest extent allowable in order to encourage service in 
     the Department of Homeland Security.
       (3) Report on recruitment incentives.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Secretary of 
     Defense shall jointly submit to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress a report including an assessment of the desirability 
     and feasibility of offering incentives to members of the 
     reserve components of the Armed Forces and former members of 
     the Armed Forces, including the reserve components, for the 
     purpose of encouraging such members to serve in United States 
     Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement.
       (B) Content.--The report required by subparagraph (A) shall 
     include--
       (i) a description of various monetary and non-monetary 
     incentives considered for purposes of the report; and
       (ii) an assessment of the desirability and feasibility of 
     utilizing any such incentive.
       (4) Appropriate committees of congress defined.--The term 
     ``appropriate committees of Congress'' means--
       (A) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed 
     Services, and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and
       (B) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed 
     Services, and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House 
     of Representatives.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1224

(Purpose: To clarify the physical present requirements for merit-based 
                       immigrant visa applicants)

       On page 1162, strike lines 7 through 11 and insert the 
     following:
       (B) has been in the United States in a class of aliens 
     authorized to accept employment in the United States for a 
     continuous period of at least 10 years, not counting brief, 
     casual, and innocent absences.
       Beginning on page 1164, strike line 23 and all that follows 
     through page 1165, line 2, and insert the following:
       (f) Eligibility in Fiscal Years After Fiscal Year 2028.--
     Beginning on October 1, 2028, aliens are not eligible for 
     adjustment of status under subsection (c)(3) unless they have 
     been in a class of aliens authorized to accept employment in 
     the United States for 20 years before the date on which they 
     file an application for such adjustment of status.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, yesterday we had the good fortune of 
receiving the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate of the 
immigration bill before the Senate, and I would like to mention two 
findings from the CBO report.
  It says the bill will drive down wages. For legal American workers, 
the CBO estimates the bill would drive down their average wages.
  Secondly, it says the bill will not stop illegal immigration. Despite 
promises of a secure border, the bill would slow future illegal 
immigration by only 25 percent, according to the CBO. In the next 
couple of decades, that would mean 7.5 million new undocumented 
immigrants coming to the country.
  Before I dive into these two findings, let me remind my colleagues 
what was said by the authors of the bill. They said that undocumented 
immigrants and, hence, illegal migration would be a thing of the past. 
They said their bill included the toughest enforcement measures in 
history.
  In their framework, the Group of 8 said they would write a bill which 
would ensure that the problem does not have to be revisited. They 
implied that their bill--similar to the 1986 bill--would take care of 
the problems once and for all. The obvious fact there is that the 1986 
legislation said it would secure the border, but it never did secure 
the border. So we see the Group of 8 legislation before us as making 
the same mistakes we made in 1986.
  As to what the Group of 8 said--that they would write a bill that 
would ensure that the problem does not have to be revisited--we find 
the Congressional Budget Office thinks entirely differently.
  I may not always agree with CBO. I disagree with the fact that CBO 
has used dynamic economic effects to score this bill, when they do not 
use it on anything else. Yet they refuse to provide the dynamic scoring 
particularly on revenue bills. But everyone knows what the CBO says 
goes.
  I always say on the Senate floor, CBO is god. If they say something 
is going to cost something, and you want to dispute what they say, you 
have to have 60 votes in this body to overturn a point of order against 
the CBO. It is

[[Page 9512]]

very difficult to get 60 votes in the Senate, so that is when if they 
say something is something, it is something, and that makes them god 
around this town.
  So I ask the proponents about these two key findings that I have 
pointed out: What do the proponents say about the fact that the influx 
of new immigrants would have the effect of bringing down the average 
wage for America's workforce?
  This is exactly the point Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. 
Commission on Civil Rights, argued before our Judiciary Committee on 
April 19. He said illegal immigration has a negative effect on the 
wages and employment levels of low-skilled workers, particularly 
African Americans.
  The second question to the group: Is the fact that S. 744 will drive 
down wages acceptable to those who support the bill?
  In the report, the ``CBO estimates that, under the bill, the net 
annual flow of unauthorized residents would decrease by about 25 
percent relative to what would occur under current law.''
  I wish to put in front of that 25 percent my own words: You mean if 
we pass this legislation, according to CBO, this legislation is only 
going to have the effect of lowering the illegal immigration by 25 
percent, when we are led to believe they are going to overcome the 
problems we did not foresee in 1986, when we legalized--thought we did 
it once and for all; that would take care of it--and we find out now it 
did not take care of it. We legalized 3 million people, and now we have 
12 million undocumented people here as well.
  So let's just see. If the CBO is correct and the net flow of 
unauthorized residents would only decrease by about 25 percent, does 
that not indicate we will have to revisit the immigration issue again?
  It is obvious this bill will not ensure that we are not back in this 
same position down the road, contrary to the promises of the Group of 8 
that: We are going to write this legislation in a way that we will not 
have to revisit it. We said that very same thing in 1986, but here we 
are 25 years later with four times the number of undocumented workers 
than we had then.
  The CBO also reported that while ``enforcement and employment 
verification requirements in the legislation would probably reduce the 
size of the U.S. population,'' other aspects of the bill will, in fact, 
``probably increase the number of unauthorized residents--in 
particular, people overstaying their visas issued under the new 
programs for temporary workers.''
  This bill favors legalization before border security and, apparently, 
will have no noticeable decrease in the net annual flow of unauthorized 
residents. The CBO says the bill will not stop the flow of illegal 
immigration.
  If proponents are serious about stopping people from living here 
illegally--contrary to our law, a nation based upon the rule of law--
they need to adopt commonsense legislation that will stop this flow, 
not merely reduce it by just 25 percent.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1200

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding regular order would 
be my calling up Paul amendment No. 1200, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may call for regular order.
  Mr. REID. I so move.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Mr. REID. I move to table the Paul amendment. 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 motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Chiesa).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Brown). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 154 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

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

                                NAYS--37

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Roberts
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Chiesa
     Risch
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, has the matter just voted on been tabled?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the time until 4:25 
p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, 
with Senator Sessions controlling 7 minutes of the Republican time, and 
this be for debate on the following amendments: Manchin No. 1268, Lee 
No. 1208, as modified, with the changes at the desk, Pryor No. 1298, 
Heller No. 1227, and Merkley No. 1237, as modified.
  We still have a number of other amendments the managers are working 
on and we will get to those later, or try to at least.
  Continuing my request: At 4:25 p.m. the Senate will proceed to votes 
in relation to the amendments in the order listed; that the amendments 
be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold; that there be 2 minutes 
equally divided prior to each vote and all after the first vote be 10 
minutes in duration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I wish to address the leader and the managers of the 
bill, both Senator Sessions and Senator Leahy. I know there are about 
100 or so other amendments pending, and I know we have been sort of 
held up the last couple of days, but there are amendments--and this is 
the question I have--that don't touch the heart of the bill but that 
are important to connect to this bill that have no opposition that I 
know of.
  I am asking the leader, for amendments that have no opposition and 
have bipartisan support, when could we possibly get on amendments that 
don't have opposition.
  Mr. REID. I would say through the Chair to my dear friend from 
Louisiana, the managers have been working through these amendments. I 
know my friend says there is no opposition. Having said that, that 
doesn't mean there isn't opposition.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. So I should do more checking on them then.
  Mr. REID. We have a number of people trying to get amendments on the 
list. We will continue to work on that. It is not because the managers 
haven't tried.

[[Page 9513]]

  Mr. President, I would ask my request be modified to have the vote 
start at 4:35 rather than 4:25; otherwise, Senator Sessions will not 
have time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the leader's unanimous 
consent?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be 
determined by me, in consultation with Senator McConnell, the Senate 
proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 182; that there 
be 2 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form; that 
following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote 
with no intervening action or debate on the nomination; that the motion 
to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no 
intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that 
any related statements be printed in the Record; that President Obama 
be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then 
resume legislative session.
  It is Michael Froman to be U.S. Trade Representative.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, unless Senator McConnell objects, we will 
have a vote right after this batch of votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  If no one yields time, the time will be equally charged to both 
sides.
  The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the 
immigration bill of the Gang of 8 confirmed in dramatic fashion our 
most significant concerns about the bill. Indeed, I would say, through 
the history of the movement of this bill through the Senate, this is 
the most dramatic event yet.
  Basically, it says these things in explicit phrases after careful 
analysis:
  No. 1, it will reduce the wages of American citizens.
  No. 2, it will increase unemployment in America.
  No. 3, it will reduce GNP per capita in America. The growth in our 
economy will be reduced by the passage of this bill.
  It concludes that the flow of illegal immigrants will not be stopped 
but will only be reduced by 25 percent.
  So we are talking about a bill that is supposed to be the toughest 
ever, that is going to promote economic growth in America, a bill that 
is supposed to make us economically stronger and end illegal 
immigration in the future. It just doesn't do that.
  I have read the bill. I have studied the bill and looked at the bill. 
I have been concluding and saying for weeks each one of those things, 
and the score confirms that.
  So I would ask colleagues: How can we vote for a bill that pulls down 
wages of Americans, increases unemployment, and only has a modest 
reduction in the illegality that is occurring today, reduces GNP, and 
increases the debt? How can we do that?
  For example, the bill would increase welfare spending by $259 billion 
in the first 10 years and increase the on-budget deficits by $14 
billion.
  It has been said the overall deficit when we account for the off-
budget items looks better. But that is a direct result of counting the 
Social Security, Medicare, FICA withholding on people's payroll. That 
money, for the people who are paying in, is being set aside in trust 
funds to pay for their Social Security and retirement when they draw it 
in the future. We can't count that money as improving the debt 
situation of the United States. As soon as the 10-year prohibition or 
so that limits welfare is off, then the cost of the legislation is 
going to go up much more.
  The bill would make no meaningful reduction in future illegal 
immigration. CBO estimates about 350,000 illegal immigrants would be 
added each year. As Senator Cornyn has said, 7.5 million people would 
enter illegally in the next 10 years instead of the current level of 
about 10 million. So that is a 25-percent reduction. CBO writes:

       However, other aspects of the bill would probably increase 
     the number of unauthorized residents--in particular, people 
     overstaying their visas issued under the new programs for 
     temporary workers. . . .

  I have been pointing out for weeks people are going to come here with 
their families, supposedly to work temporarily for 3 years, with the 
ability to extend for 3 years, and then who is going to be able to tell 
them to go home? They are not going to go home in any realistic way. We 
are going to have a substantial increase in visa overstays. CBO 
concludes that is correct. It is a guaranteed policy that will not 
work. So the bill would result in a massive increase in the future 
legal flow of immigration.
  Current law estimates we will add 10 million people in 10 years, 
including the legalized illegal immigrants. That means 30 million 
immigrants by 2023. That is the number I have been using. I felt that 
was a fair, legitimate number. It is complicated.
  I asked Senator Schumer twice in the committee: How many people will 
be admitted in the next 10 years and given legal status? He wouldn't 
say. The bill's sponsor would not tell us how many, but CBO now has 
said the figure I have used--30 million--basically is correct. That is 
triple the number that would be admitted under the current legal flow 
of immigrants into our country. We admit 1 million a year. That would 
be 10 million over 10 years, and this would be 30 million. So we have 
to ask those questions.
  Finally, CBO tells us, under this bill: The average wage would be 
lower than under current law over the first 12 years.
  Let me read that again: The average wage would be lower than under 
current law over the first 12 years. They use the words ``first dozen 
years.'' So that should be the end of the bill right there.
  This is the chart that is included in CBO's analysis and their 
report. It is the exact same chart they prepared, not the chart I 
prepared.
  I know the Presiding Officer cares about this issue. This is the 
impact on average wages. This is where we start today at the zero 
factor, and it drops down to 2024, 10 years of lower wages than if we 
didn't pass the bill--which only makes sense because we are flowing in 
a huge flow and supply of low-skilled workers, and they are going to 
pull down the wages particularly of our lower income workers. This is 
going to happen. Mathematics and the free markets tell us that.
  So the country--the Nation--the Congress should try to determine what 
the right flow of immigrant labor is and get it right so we are not 
hammering American workers today who are unemployed, who are struggling 
for jobs, trying to get better pay. In fact, average workers' pay has 
declined since 1999.
  CBO's estimate of per capita GNP--this is their chart from their 
report--shows that through 2030, we have lower GNP per capita than if 
the bill never passed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, if we have a few more minutes and no one 
else is seeking the floor, I would note that CBO's unemployment rate 
``. . . S. 744 would cause the unemployment rate to increase slightly 
between 2014 and 2020''--6 years of higher unemployment rates.
  We have heard a lot of talk over the years about the declining wages. 
I do think that it is important for us to discuss. But that decline of 
wages--which started over a decade ago and is accelerated with this 
legislation--how is it we are not talking about it?
  Senator Menendez, one of the intrepid authors of the immigration bill 
before us made some remarks earlier this morning that I thought were 
pretty remarkable. He said not to worry about these first 10 years of 
lower growth, lower wages, and higher unemployment because the analysis 
actually gets better in the next 10 years.
  But if we look at that and how it plays out, what we would see is 
this: We would see there is an improvement

[[Page 9514]]

in the wages in the second 10 years--which, let me tell you, their 
projections are always better the first 10 years. But in the second 10 
years, even if we saw some growth, the growth still does not get back 
to the level it would have been had the bill never been passed. We have 
to know that. The growth does not recover from the spot we already are.
  Respectfully, the inconvenient truth that he referred to is that this 
Rube Goldberg scheme that has been hatched will certainly help certain 
special economic interests and certain political interests will be 
served for sure, but it will be devastating for American workers at a 
time they are already hurting. I don't see how we can justify this.
  Are we supposed to tell the American people that they are to accept 
declining wages for another 10 years? How can that be the policy of the 
Congress of the United States? How can we tell the American person, at 
a time when unemployment is way too high, that we are going to pass a 
bill that makes unemployment higher? How can we tell them the on-budget 
deficit is going to be increased? Am I hearing this correctly?
  To the public I would ask: Can you, the American people, afford that? 
Can you sustain declining wages for another 10 years? Do you want your 
Congress to pass a law that will reduce your wages that would increase 
unemployment?
  What about after that? Because of the sustained downward pressure on 
wages, American wages 20 years from now will still be lower than they 
would have been had the legislation not passed, and, particularly, as I 
indicated, it falls on the lower wage people who are falling further 
behind. The impact of the 1,000-page immigration legislation that is 
before us today, experts tell us, will fall more heavily on the poorer 
people and cause them to fall even further behind.
  The working people in this country are going to get hammered by this 
legislation. We need to be passing laws that help them get jobs, help 
them add higher wages, help them have better benefits and more full-
time jobs, not fewer full-time jobs.
  I don't see how we owe loyalty to Mr. Zuckerberg, the Facebook 
billionaire who is running ads telling us what we are supposed to do. 
Does he know real people who are suffering out there? He doesn't 
impress me. He claims there is some convention of conservatives running 
this advertisement. I am not aware that Mr. Zuckerberg is a 
conservative. Do we all owe our loyalty to him because he brilliantly 
produced Facebook or do we owe our loyalty to the working men and women 
who vote for us, who fight our wars, pay our taxes, and serve our 
country?
  I suspect that if Mr. Zuckerberg were to post job openings tonight on 
Facebook, put out his salaries, what he wants to pay, he would find 
there might be plenty of Americans who want to take these jobs. I 
suspect so. I would ask him to do so. Put on your website what kind of 
qualifications, what kind of salaries you will pay, and let's see if we 
do not have more applications than you suggest exist out there.
  We know we have college graduates in large numbers in STEM fields 
also having a hard time finding work. We know that is a fact. We have 
senior engineers and scientists and computer people who would like to 
go to work too. Maybe they have been laid off. Maybe there has been 
downsizing. They have experience. Are they not to be considered? We 
have to bring people in through some of these work programs for a 
period of time to take the jobs.
  A good immigration plan can work. We may need to bring in some 
workers. We certainly need seasonal workers whom we can bring into 
America if we do it right, and we need a guest worker program. I 
support that. I support the million people a year who are admitted into 
our country who work here every year. But this is a huge increase. The 
guest worker program will double under this legislation.
  I am afraid we are not serving the legitimate interests of the 
American working men and women--immigrant, native born, Black, Asian, 
White, Hispanic--who are here today, struggling today. Are we serving 
them if we bring in more people than the economy can absorb? We can see 
that will pull down their wages and make it hard for them to have a 
job.
  An author in the National Review wrote recently--I think this is very 
wise and insightful:

       We are a nation with an economy, not an economy with a 
     nation.

  What that means to me is that we represent people, human beings, and 
we have an obligation to help them make their lives better and not to 
make their lives tougher. It seems to me we have such a pell-mell rush 
for amnesty that we have not seen the enforcement, we have agreed to 
too much legal flow, and we have very little reduction in the illegal 
flow over the next 10 years, and for that reason the bill should not 
become law.
  That is why the bill is in trouble. That is why we need to be 
listening to the House. They are having serious hearings, step by step, 
on this legislation. The first legislation that I have seen them to 
produce is very good.
  We can reform the system. We can make it better. We can have a 
generous immigration system for America, as we have already had. We can 
be compassionate toward people who have been here for a long time and 
not try to deport everybody who has been here and done well but is not 
legally here. We can do something about that. But we need to be sure 
that the amount of workers coming in is an amount that can readily be 
absorbed, that can be assimilated, and we need to be sure that the 
illegality ends. CBO says it will not under this bill.


                    Amendment No. 1208, as Modified

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Lee amendment No. 
1208 be modified with the changes that are at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

    (Purpose: To require fast-track congressional approval when the 
Secretary of Homeland Security notifies Congress of the implementation 
of the border security strategies and certifies that the strategies are 
                       substantially operational)

       On page 856, lines 1 and 2, strike ``the Secretary has 
     submitted to Congress'' and insert ``Congress has approved, 
     using the fast-track procedures set forth in paragraph (3), 
     the contents of''.
       On page 856, strike lines 19 through 22, and insert the 
     following: ``Congress has ratified, using the fast-track 
     procedures set forth in paragraph (3), the written 
     certification submitted by the Secretary to the President and 
     Congress, after consultation with the Comptroller of the 
     United States, that--''.
       On page 858, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       (3) Fast-track procedures.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 30 days after receiving a 
     submission from the Secretary under paragraph (1) or (2), the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives shall vote to 
     determine whether the action taken by the Secretary meets the 
     requirements set forth in such paragraphs that are required 
     before applications may be processed by the Secretary for 
     registered provisional immigrant status or adjustment of 
     status under section 245B or 245C, respectively, of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by sections 2101 
     and 2102.
       (B) Referral to committee.--The question described in 
     subparagraph (A) may not be referred to any congressional 
     committee.
       (C) Amendments.--The question described in subparagraph (A) 
     may not be subject to amendment in the Senate or in the House 
     of Representatives.
       (D) Majority vote.--The question described in subparagraph 
     (A) shall be subject to a vote threshold of a majority of all 
     members of each House duly chosen and sworn.
       (E) Presidential signature.--The congressional approval and 
     ratification required under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not 
     be completed until after it has received the signature of the 
     President.

  Mr. SESSIONS. 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. DURBIN. Mr. 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. 1268

  Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes of debate 
equally divided prior to a vote in relation to

[[Page 9515]]

amendment No. 1268, offered by the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. 
Manchin.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to an important 
amendment to S. 744, the immigration bill now before us. My amendment 
would cap compensation for private contractors employed for border 
security at $230,700 a year. That is the same cap we now have on 
nonelected civilian employees of the Federal Government.
  I am offering this amendment because over the last couple of decades 
the United States has increasingly relied on private contractors to do 
the work that the men and women in our armed services used to do, and 
they are getting exorbitant salaries to do it--in some cases, up to 
$763,000 a year. That is almost twice the salary of the President of 
the United States, and it is almost four times the salary of the 
Secretary of Defense or Homeland Security. If we do nothing, that will 
soon rise to $951,000 a year.
  With the war in Afghanistan winding down, defense contractors are 
looking for new opportunities, and border security is at the top of 
their list. The New York Times said that some of them will demonstrate 
military-grade surveillance equipment this summer in an effort to get 
homeland security contracts worth billions of dollars.
  I urge that this amendment be adopted. It caps it at $230,000 across 
the board for all civilian employees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the subcommittee, of which I was not a 
member, gave a lot of thought to this. Their number reduced by half the 
amount that could be charged. I think it is somewhat higher than in the 
amendment of Senator Manchin, but it went from--it could have been 
$900,000 a year and I believe they cut it to under $500,000 a year. The 
Committee on Armed Services discussed it. I believe the Manchin 
amendment did not pass. I supported the subcommittee's mark on that. I 
think they have come to a reasonable number. You are asking top 
executives maybe to move across the country to lead an engineering 
project, and maybe that is the right figure.
  But I respect the interest of the Senator, and I understand the 
effort behind his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 1268.
  Mr. MANCHIN. 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 assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Chiesa).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 72, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 155 Leg.]

                                YEAS--72

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--26

     Ayotte
     Blunt
     Burr
     Carper
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Fischer
     Graham
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     Lee
     McCain
     Paul
     Portman
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Chiesa
     Risch
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 1208, as Modified

  Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes of debate 
equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 1208 
offered by the Senator from Utah, Mr. Lee.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, this amendment, if enacted, would require 
fast-track congressional approval at the introduction of the Department 
of Homeland Security strategies before the award of registered 
provisional immigrant--or RPI--status begins and at the certification 
of the strategy's completion before those receiving RPI status become 
eligible for green cards.
  The basic point of this amendment is that we have a trigger that 
needs to signal that it is OK to open the RPI process, the process by 
which illegal aliens will be legalized first and then eventually made 
citizens. Somebody needs to signal that it is OK to pull that trigger, 
that it is OK to proceed. I think that decision needs to be made right 
here in the U.S. Congress.
  This would occur pursuant to a fast-track plan of no more than 30 
days. It would not be subject to a filibuster; it would be subject only 
to a 51-vote threshold. We should pass this amendment and we should 
move forward.
  For these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment, to preserve the right of the people to be heard. If we cut 
out Congress, we are cutting out the right of the American people to be 
heard on this issue and the right of the American people to decide when 
and under what circumstances it is OK to continue the pathway to 
citizenship.
  For this reason, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and 
I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  There is a sufficient second.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment because it would 
significantly delay even the initial registration process.
  I have said the pathway to citizenship should not be a false promise. 
We either make the promise or we don't. It should be attainable, not 
something that is always over the next mountain.
  The drafters worked long and hard to reach a bipartisan agreement. 
Similar efforts to this were defeated on a bipartisan basis in the 
Judiciary Committee's consideration because we did not want to make the 
legalization program inappropriately subject to partisan disputes.
  This amendment would simply remove a real promise of citizenship. I 
oppose the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1208, as modified.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Chiesa).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 59, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 156 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

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

[[Page 9516]]



                                NAYS--59

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Chiesa
     Risch
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.


                           Amendment No. 1298

  Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes of debate 
equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 1298, 
offered by the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Pryor.
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, this is amendment No. 1298. It is the 
Pryor-Johanns amendment. I think the good news here is we have agreed 
to a voice vote. But basically what this amendment does is it requires 
the Department of Homeland Security, as they are doing their hiring to 
beef up the border, to hire veterans of our Armed Services.
  This is a win-win all the way around. Our vets have, as we know, a 
higher unemployment rate, but also they happen to be the best trained, 
the most disciplined. They have that can-do spirit. They are familiar 
with the equipment and they make great employees, as many of us know 
who hire veterans. We also know our veterans know how to complete a 
mission.
  So with that, Mr. President, I wish to yield the floor to Senator 
Johanns.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, very briefly, I thank Senator Pryor for 
bringing this amendment forward. I very proudly support it and concur 
that it can be voice voted.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there anyone who expresses opposition?
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I understand we are able to dispose of this 
amendment with a voice vote, so I ask unanimous consent that the 60-
affirmative-vote threshold be waived on the Pryor amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on adoption of amendment No. 1298.
  The amendment (No. 1298) was agreed to.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1227

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 1227, offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Heller.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, as I said in my remarks this morning, I 
hope this commission is never required because if it is, it means the 
border still is not secure 5 years down the road. If that is the case, 
then the commission will need to be fully representative of the 
concerns and recommendations of all the States in the southwestern 
region that are affected by our broken immigration system.
  Should DHS fail to gain control of the borders, and should it be 
necessary to form a commission to ensure we achieve that objective, it 
makes no sense to exclude Nevada's perspective and recommendations. My 
State's unique location and growing immigrant population leave it 
highly vulnerable to our Nation's flawed immigration system.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. REID. I yield it back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1227.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Chiesa) and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. 
Risch).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 9, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 157 Leg.]

                                YEAS--89

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

                                NAYS--9

     Barrasso
     Coats
     Collins
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     Scott
     Sessions

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Chiesa
     Risch
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. For the information of all Senators, following the 
disposition of the Merkley amendment, the Senate will consider the 
Froman nomination.


                    Amendment No. 1237, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the 
amendment No. 1237, as modified, offered by the Senator from Oregon.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Let me take you back in time to 2009 and 2010. The 
housing market had collapsed, sawmills had shut down across our Nation, 
and thousands of loggers and sawmill workers were out of work. You can 
imagine how outraged those unemployed loggers were when they found out 
that government contracts had been let for logging but the contracts 
were going to go to employees from Mexico. That is the type of bypass 
that completely disturbs the fabric of our immigration system. It 
undercut the success of thousands of rural families across this Nation.
  This amendment has a simple fix. It says that jobs have to be 
appropriately advertised so that our loggers will know how to apply. 
That is it. It will work for rural America. It will work for the forest 
industry. It will work for our loggers.
  Mr. President, I understand that we are able to dispose of this 
amendment with a voice vote. I ask unanimous consent that the 60-vote 
affirmative threshold be waived under the Merkley amendment, as 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, so ordered.
  Is there further debate?

[[Page 9517]]

  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1237), as modified was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I apologize to everyone for not mentioning this before. We 
are very close to coming up with an agreement that the managers have 
developed, along with our able staff, to have a series of amendments in 
order. As things are now contemplated, we would debate those tonight 
and in the morning and have some votes starting at 2:15. Hopefully 
tonight and in the morning we will add to what we are going to agree to 
later so that we would have even more amendments. It is my 
understanding that there is already contemplation of some important 
work in the morning.
  In short, I don't think we will have any more votes tonight after 
this one we are going to take on the Froman nomination. We are going to 
have a consent agreement to put a number of amendments in order and 
start those. There are four or five--I don't remember the exact number. 
We will start those votes at 2:15 and continue working on this 
important legislation.

                          ____________________