[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9518-9526]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am not going to ask unanimous consent 
to call up any amendments or to have any votes or anything, so 
everybody can relax. But I do want to speak for a minute about the 
process we are in.
  We have now been considering a major piece of legislation for weeks. 
The chairman and the ranking member of the committee did a masterful 
job. Even though there are some people still against the bill, there 
are people for the bill, we are not exactly sure how it is going to 
come out, but I want to say Senator Leahy and Senator Sessions--but 
Senator Leahy particularly, as the chair--could not have done a better 
job getting the bill printed, printing all of the amendments, staying 
here through the night, letting the members of the committee have a lot 
of time to debate the bill, to amend the bill. The committee did a very 
good job.
  I am planning to vote for the bill. I have not kept that a secret or 
said anything to the contrary. Of course the amendment process is 
important. I cannot make that commitment until we see it. If an 
amendment gets on this bill that undermines some of the important 
principles, I might have to change my mind. I don't think that is going 
to happen.
  But there is the problem and this is why I am going to stay on the 
floor until, hopefully, something can be worked out. I am not on the 
committee. Most of the people on this floor are not on the committee. 
The committee is representative of a minority group of Republicans and 
Democrats. The majority of us do not serve on the Judiciary Committee. 
While we were interested and worked with our friends who are on the 
committee to suggest important changes that would improve the bill or 
correct the bill or fix the bill or save money, we were not on the 
committee to do it. That is the process. I am not complaining about 
that.
  What I am complaining about is when it gets to the floor, you would 
think the process would allow amendments to be debated so Members such 
as myself--I serve as chair of the Homeland Security Appropriations 
Committee. I am not a distant third party to this debate. My whole 
budget funds this bill. This is what I spend good bit of my time on. 
The people in my State and constituencies I represent have a lot of 
interest in this bill. I am not a Johnny-come-lately to this issue. I 
have things I want to say about it. I wish to have some amendments 
talked about and voted on. If people want to vote them down, fine. If 
they want to vote for them, fine. If they want to have 50 votes, fine. 
If they want to have 60 votes--I just want a chance to talk about my 
amendment, so I am going to do so right now.
  I also want to say there are some amendments--I have a short list of 
eight or so. Some of them are quite minor. One or two are fairly 
significant and might need a debate. But part of my group of amendments 
is completely, to my knowledge, unopposed by anyone. I have Senator 
Coats as a cosponsor. I have worked openly. I filed amendments, the 
text of which have been out there for days now. Senator Coats, who is 
my ranking member--we try to work together in a bipartisan fashion. He 
has cosponsored several of these amendments.
  What I am strongly suggesting is the staff and the leadership 
managing this bill try to identify, of the amendments that have been 
filed, those that are noncontroversial, that everyone would agree to. I 
think there are probably 20 or 30 such amendments. They do not change 
the underlying agreement. They do not spend any additional money. They 
fix or modify or improve sections of the bill. That is our job. That is 
what we are supposed to do. That is the legislative process.

[[Page 9519]]

  You know what. If it were not meant to be that way, we should have a 
rule that says the bill goes to committee and then it doesn't even come 
to the Senate floor, then it goes over to the House of Representatives, 
and their committee works on it and they send it to the President.
  But that is not what our laws say. Our laws say we should have some 
debate on the Senate floor.
  I have also been here long enough to realize the leadership is trying 
its best and there are some amendments that are very controversial. I 
am not new to the Senate. Fine. But what I am talking about is when we 
get on a major bill such as this and Members work hard to build support 
and to get bipartisan support, our amendments that are noncontroversial 
should go first and then controversial amendments could go last.
  But that is not what happens around here. What happens around here is 
the guys who cause all the trouble all the time on every bill--I don't 
want to name their names because it is not appropriate--but there is a 
group on the other side, and a few maybe on our side, who are never 
happy with anything so they file tons of amendments and we spend all of 
our time worrying about their amendments. Those of us who spend a lot 
of our time building bipartisan support, who offer amendments that have 
no opposition, actually never get to those amendments.
  This is sad. I basically have had enough. I have tried to be patient 
all week. I have come every day and said: Are any of these amendments 
going to get in the queue? That is not the way we are working right 
now. We are taking the worst amendments, the most controversial 
amendments, the guys who cause trouble on every single bill, and give 
them votes on their amendments. Some of them have been defeated 99 to 
1, and then everybody gets tired and aggravated and everybody says we 
are tired, we are aggravated, we are calling cloture. And do you know 
what happens when cloture is called. All amendments that are not 
pending, even ones that no one opposes, that could actually help a 
human being--imagine that, an amendment that actually could help 
someone--crumble up on the Senate floor and everybody goes home and 
says, well, that was a wonderful debate.
  I am just venting here, but I am saying this is one Senator who is 
tired of it. More important, my constituents are tired of it. It is not 
about me, it is about them. They look at this and they say why can't 
you get that amendment passed? There is no opposition to it. It is 
good. We have worked on it. It would help.
  That is a good question, and I have to say ``I have no idea.''
  We have voted on all kinds of amendments that are controversial, that 
are very high-level kind of message amendments. When the authors offer 
them or sponsor them, they know they are never going to pass but they 
are looking for a headline.
  I am not looking for any headline. I don't care if any reporter 
writes about these amendments. But I happen to know some things in this 
bill. As chair of the Small Business Committee, I have had some 
hearings myself--amazing, that other committees actually have hearings. 
I have had hearings and have had dozens of small business owners say to 
me as chair of the Small Business Committee: Look, Senator, we are not 
getting any attention here because everybody is talking about all sorts 
of things such as the fence, the border, this and that. Could anybody 
pay attention to the 7 million small businesses that are going to have 
to abide by this E-Verify? By the way, we like the program, we are for 
the program, but we have some suggestions to make it better.
  Some of that happened in the Judiciary Committee, but the Judiciary 
Committee is not the Small Business Committee. I have excellent members 
on my committee and they have a voice, and this is an amendment many of 
them support that I do not think the Judiciary Committee--either the 
Republicans or the Democrats--opposes. The small business community is 
for it. I don't know what to say other than I can't even get in the 
queue, I cannot even get on the list to be considered.
  Then I have a small group of amendments, because--you know, I am 
happy to do it and I do it joyfully--I am the chair of the Adoption 
Caucus. You, Mr. President, have been wonderful. Senator Klobuchar has 
been wonderful. Orphans do not have lobbyists. I am not sorry, they 
just don't. They don't have any money to pay lobbyists. Through all the 
good people who volunteer to represent them, they come to my office, 
they ask for help. I try to do my best. I don't always succeed, but I 
try.
  Amy Klobuchar and I, because she is a Senator who has also been 
terrific about this, with others, not just myself--we have some 
amendments that have nothing to do with the English language or any 
language, the fence, any money, anything, just a few technical 
corrections that could help some American families trying to adopt.
  I was able to get one of my adoption amendments up. I thank Senator 
Leahy. But we have four or five. I am not trying to be hoggish about 
it, but they are not controversial. I have 15 amendments that are 
noncontroversial--maybe I am making that up, maybe there is an 
opponent--I can't get that discussed. But only people who have 
controversial amendments with no chance of passing them, only people 
who want headlines in newspapers, only people who have amendments 
nobody over here is going to vote for, get to talk about it and the 
rest of us who work hard and get bipartisanship and present amendments 
that could actually help the bill, make the country stronger--we never 
get to talk.
  I am going to stay on the floor and object until I get an answer for 
that question: Why is it that people who play by the rules, Senators 
who work across the aisle, who work hard to build bipartisan support, 
who work hard to get amendments that do not cost any money, that will 
not really cause too much trouble--why do our amendments get the last 
consideration?
  I think it has ramifications for the way the Senate operates. Then it 
is like behavior: The better behaved you are, the quieter you are, the 
more team player you are, you don't get anything. The only way you get 
something is to become obnoxious and to get your amendments that have 
no bipartisan support, those who have amendments that cost a gazillion 
dollars or take away a gazillion dollars. That is not encouraging good 
behavior on the Senate floor.
  I want to be a good team player. The people I represent want this 
body to work. We want bipartisan solutions to real problems, and even 
people who do not have lobbyists and even people who do not have a lot 
of money deserve time on the Senate floor. And I intend to provide it 
to orphans whom I support to try to help, and to the parents who are 
adopting kids and don't ask for much but do ask: Could the Senator from 
Louisiana please have an amendment that nobody opposes to help us and 
our kids?
  I am going to stand here and support the small businesses that get 
overlooked all the time. They are not asking for much. They like the E-
Verify Program. I thought they had a few very positive suggestions, so 
I thought I would put them in an amendment and offer it. Silly me. Then 
this EB-5 reporting is one of the worst run programs in the government, 
and everyone acknowledges that. Everyone knows it is not working, so 
the committee does a good job to fix it. But my staff and I worked 
pretty hard.
  We are very close with those who work on immigration, and we talked 
with them about some perfecting amendments. But, silly me, to think we 
could make any improvements to the underlying bill on the EB-5 program 
which could create millions of jobs in Louisiana, Texas, the gulf 
coast--which is the area I pay the most attention to--California, New 
York, Rhode Island, and other places.
  I am going to sit here--I know other Senators may want to talk, but 
sorry. Until I get some answers about some of our amendments, not just 
mine but other amendments. There are Republican and Democratic 
amendments that

[[Page 9520]]

are not controversial and are cleared on all fronts. I want those 
amendments to go first, and then we can say congratulations to the 
Members who worked hard to minimize opposition and to write their 
amendments in a way that people could be supportive. That is what 
Senators are supposed to do.
  We have turned from a Senate to a theater, and I am tired of being 
part of a theater. If I wanted to be part of a theater, I would have 
gone to New York. Not that anybody would have put me on the stage 
because I can't sing or dance, but I don't want to. I want to lead, but 
it is getting very difficult in this place to do any leadership. So I 
am just going to sit here until maybe somebody who is a leader around 
here can come talk to us about what we are going to do with amendments 
on an immigration bill that is controversial, the bill itself--let me 
not understate that.
  There will be people who don't want to vote for this bill no matter 
what shape it is in. I am not one of them. I want to know the answer to 
my question: How many amendments of the 140 pending are 
noncontroversial that Republicans and Democrats will agree to? That is 
my question, and I would like an answer.
  My second question is, When could we possibly vote on those 
amendments before cloture is called? Cloture is going to be called on 
this bill, and the reason is because we cannot get a lot of 
cooperation. So what will happen is all these noncontroversial 
amendments will fall by the wayside, and what a shame. I am just tired 
of it.
  It is the same group around here that causes all the trouble, and the 
rest of us try to be supportive, try to go along, try to work in a 
bipartisan way, and we get shut out. I have had enough, and the people 
I represent have said: We are finished.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. First, over the last few moments I had a chance to 
listen to the Senator from Louisiana. I just want to applaud the 
tenacity with which she approaches her duties in this Chamber. She is a 
terrific colleague. When there is something she thinks is the right 
thing to do, she will fight very hard to get that done.
  I am here to say a word in support of the bipartisan immigration 
legislation we are looking at. In the months that led up to this 
debate, I have met with people across Rhode Island to discuss our 
pressing need for national immigration reform. Rhode Island, like 
Connecticut--perhaps even more than Connecticut--is a State with a 
proud tradition of immigration, and our many immigrant communities make 
our State stronger and more vibrant.
  I have heard from leaders of our Latino communities which are the 
fastest growing share of our State's population and workforce. I have 
heard from leaders of my State's other immigrant communities, 
particularly including members of our Liberian community, many of whom 
fled civil war in their home country but are unable to fully 
participate in the American dream because of the uncertainty of their 
immigration status. I have heard from leaders in Rhode Island's 
technology industry who often have trouble recruiting talented 
employees they want to hire to fill a specific need, but the people 
they are looking for cannot obtain a timely green card. I met with men 
and women who are struggling to find work after losing their jobs to 
temporary foreign workers.
  From all of those stories, one message comes through loudly and 
clearly: Our immigration system is broken. There are 11 million people 
living in the shadows. These are people who want to work to support 
their families and contribute to our communities. Eligible, legal 
immigrants can wait years, even decades to gain entry to this country. 
Then we educate the best and brightest from around the world, but too 
often we tell them they cannot remain in this country after they 
graduate.
  The bill before us offers a bipartisan solution to these problems. It 
provides a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented immigrants 
already in this country, including the DREAMers, the children who were 
brought here at an early age and who are American already in every 
meaningful sense of the word.
  The pathway that is created by this bill is tough, but it is fair. It 
prevents dangerous criminals from becoming citizens. It requires 
undocumented immigrants to pay a fine, to learn English, and to work. 
But for the vast majority of undocumented immigrants in our Nation, it 
offers a way out of the shadows. That is why, as this debate continues, 
we should reject amendments that would place further obstacles in that 
path to citizenship.
  This bill also significantly improves the security of our southern 
border--a border that is already more secure than at any time in our 
Nation's history. Under President Obama, the number of Border Patrol 
agents has nearly doubled. Border crossings are down. This bill will 
build on these successes by giving the Department of Homeland Security 
tools to further strengthen border enforcement. This bill makes real 
improvements to our legal immigration system. It will allow spouses and 
children of permanent residents to come to this country without 
unnecessary delay.
  I recently heard a heartbreaking story from a woman in Cranston, RI, 
who told me her husband might be forced to return to his native country 
while he waits for up to 2 years to receive a green card--leaving her 
at home alone for those 2 years to care for her disabled child.
  This bill will also make our Nation more competitive by helping us to 
attract the best and brightest from around the world. Two years ago I 
met with a talented young man named Love Sarin who studied for his 
doctorate at Brown University and then founded a company in Providence 
that developed technology to help protect communities from the harm of 
mercury exposure. But when he applied for a green card, he was denied 
even though he had been educated at one of our universities, was 
creating jobs in our country, and was helping to protect our health and 
environment.
  More recently, I received a letter from Charles in East Providence 
who says this issue is ``close to [his] heart,'' and it is. His 
girlfriend just finished her second master's degree program at Johnson 
and Wales University. But unless she finds an employer willing to 
sponsor her for a visa, she may have to return to her native China. 
``These young people want to stay here and want to succeed,'' Charles 
wrote.
  This bill will allow more talented individuals in the sciences and 
other fields to stay here and contribute to our economy. Let me 
compliment the eight sponsors of this legislation for their tireless 
efforts to find a reasonable middle ground. This bill is a compromise. 
No one can say they got everything they wanted, but on balance this 
bill is our best opportunity to fix our Nation's broken immigration 
system. It is our best opportunity in years.
  As we now know, this bill will reduce our deficit by nearly $900 
billion over the next 20 years.
  Let me also compliment our Judiciary Chairman Senator Leahy for his 
leadership in getting us to this point. The markup of this legislation 
by Chairman Leahy's committee was thorough, fair, and transparent. The 
committee adopted 141 amendments--nearly all of them on a bipartisan 
basis--and the bill is stronger and better today than when it was 
introduced.
  I was proud that three of my amendments were adopted, all of them 
unanimously, by the committee. My first amendment provided both 
American workers and workers on H-1B visas with a way of reporting H-1B 
program violations. At my community dinners back home, I heard stories 
of Rhode Island workers who were replaced by foreign workers on H-1B 
visas. One day they are at work, the next day they are gone, and a 
foreign worker is doing their job. Some were even forced to train their 
replacements.
  These workers had nowhere to turn. My amendment creates a Department 
of Labor toll-free hotline and a Web site for American and foreign 
workers to report possible violations of H-1B

[[Page 9521]]

visa rules and an inspector general audit.
  My second amendment expands the bill's INVEST visa, which is issued 
to qualified foreign-born entrepreneurs so they can come and create 
businesses in the United States. My amendment added funding from 
startup accelerators to the INVEST Program criteria.
  As many of my colleagues know, startup accelerators help 
entrepreneurs get off the ground by providing training, support, and 
often initial funding. In Providence, one such accelerator called 
Betaspring has helped launch 57 different companies, creating jobs in 
our State and across the country. So they will now benefit from the 
INVEST visa.
  I also offered an amendment to allow scientists and researchers with 
unique skills who wish to serve our country by working in our 
prestigious National Laboratories to obtain citizenship on an expedited 
basis provided they pass the necessary rigorous background checks.
  I want to thank my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee for working 
with me to include these important provisions on a bipartisan basis. I 
do believe further improvements can be made on the floor, and I intend 
to offer several more amendments during this debate.
  I am working on two amendments that would leverage our immigration 
laws to strengthen our Nation's cyber security. One amendment would set 
aside some entry visas for potential witnesses in investigations and 
prosecutions of cyber crime. We allow visas to those who help our law 
enforcement agencies to bring cases against those who are hacking us 
and trying to steal our intellectual property and potentially even 
sabotaging our critical infrastructure. Another amendment would ensure 
that enablers and beneficiaries of hackers who steal our American 
intellectual property do not benefit from our immigration system. It 
would allow our government to designate entities and individuals who 
are associated with criminal hackers and say: Forget it. If you are 
involved in supporting criminal hacking of our cyber networks, you are 
not getting a visa. Your employees are not getting visas, and your 
organizations cannot support visa applications.
  I also intend to offer an amendment relating to the E-Verify system, 
clarifying that employers need not reverify the authorization of 
workers retaining the same position under the new employers. As new 
companies take over existing service contracts, workers in certain low-
skilled positions can find themselves working for dozens of employers 
over their careers without ever changing their job. They are not 
changing their job, the employers are changing, and they should not 
have to reverify every time. That is a needless burden on both the 
employer and the employee.
  In addition, I filed an amendment to close what is referred to as the 
terror gap. Right now, believe it or not, nothing in our laws prevents 
a suspected terrorist from legally purchasing a firearm even if a 
background check reveals he is on the terrorist watch list. My 
amendment would give the Attorney General the authority to prohibit the 
transfer of firearms to suspected terrorists on the terrorist watch 
list. That seems like common sense, and this amendment was based on 
legislation introduced by our late colleague, Senator Frank Lautenberg. 
I am very aware of his presence as I stand here because with his 
departure, his desk moved over to the other side of the aisle, and my 
desk moved into his space. So now I am actually standing in Frank's 
spot.
  Frank was a tireless advocate for protecting our communities from the 
scourge of gun violence. I know as Democrats and Republicans we are 
divided on gun issues. But if there is a gun issue we ought to be able 
to come together on, it is that the people who are on the terrorist 
watch list should not be able to buy firearms legally in this country. 
I hope we can at least agree on that.
  Finally, Chairman Leahy has also put forward an important and worthy 
amendment that would provide for the equal treatment of all families 
under our immigration laws. I was extremely proud to stand with Rhode 
Island's Governor Lincoln Chafee last month as he signed into law 
legislation making Rhode Island the 10th State in the country to 
provide for marriage equality. It is time that our immigration system 
catches up with States such as Rhode Island, and I was pleased to vote 
for this amendment in the committee.
  I will say I also understand and appreciate and indeed honor the 
position the group of Senators who put this bill together have taken, 
that they need to vote to protect their bill and their agreement. So on 
our side, Senator Schumer, Senator Durbin, Senator Bennet, and Senator 
Menendez may have to take positions to make sure this bill goes forward 
and passes, and I wish to be on record as saying that I may vote 
differently than they do, but I certainly appreciate the position they 
are in, and I think it is honorable on their part to stick with the 
deal they have agreed to and to work hard to make sure this immigration 
bill passes.
  Chairman Leahy, the chairman of our committee, has worked for years 
to ensure that all families are treated fairly under immigration law. I 
have been very proud to support his efforts. I see no reason why 
treating all marriages equally should be so controversial, much less a 
reason for blocking our best hope for comprehensive immigration reform.
  I will conclude by saying I look forward to working in earnest with 
my colleagues toward an immigration system that is worthy of our great 
Nation. It is time to come together, fix our broken immigration system, 
and make this a system of which we can be proud. I urge all of my 
colleagues to join in this important task.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know the staff is working hard to 
figure out the best way forward, and there are lots of views about 
different amendments that may be controversial, but I am going to stay 
here and work for the next hour or two tonight to see if we can just do 
one simple thing--just one simple thing: that we can look at the list 
of all amendments pending and all of those amendments that are 
noncontroversial--no one objects to anything in the amendment--I would 
like that list put together. It could be either voice-voted tomorrow or 
all of those amendments could just get pending and be voted on later. I 
am not even particular about when the vote would occur or under what 
circumstances. The leadership can make all of those decisions. But what 
I would like right now is to stop this operation until we can get the 
noncontroversial amendments out of the way.
  There are Republican amendments that nobody over here objects to. 
There are Democratic amendments that Republicans don't object to. I 
think those sponsors--which I would be included in, but I am not the 
only one--could be rewarded for their good work, for coming up with 
amendments that nobody is angry about, that people think, oh, that is a 
good idea; we should do it. Why don't we do those amendments first. 
Then all the other amendments people have filed for various reasons--
some in good fashion. People feel very strongly about them and want to 
discuss them. They want to have a vote on them. They know it might not 
pass, but it is important for them to represent that position. I have 
no problem with that. I understand that.
  What I and my constituents don't understand is why we can't take 
noncontroversial amendments that everyone supports and get those 
passed.
  So until I get an answer to that, I am going to just suggest the 
absence of a quorum and spend a couple of hours trying to find the 
answer. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page 9522]]


  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, in the last few minutes, we have made a 
little bit of progress. I am doing the best I can to work with both 
sides of the aisle to simply get a list of amendments that are not 
controversial. There are approximately 230 amendments pending on the 
immigration bill. Many of them are controversial, but there are some, 
potentially as many as 20, maybe even 30 amendments that are pending 
that are public record, that have been filed, that Members on both 
sides of the aisle have worked on very hard.
  We have known about this debate. Some of us have been following it 
more closely than others. But I dare to say there is not a Senator as a 
Member of this body who has not been focused on what our constituents 
want us to do to either improve this bill or to fight against this 
bill. You have heard a lot of that debate.
  I think this bill will probably pass. But who knows at this point, 
because there are 200 amendments pending. What I am suggesting as a way 
forward is to take those amendments that are noncontroversial. 
Republicans have not come up with their list of noncontroversial yet. 
The Democrats are very close to coming up with our list of 
noncontroversial amendments. We think it is about 12 or 15. They can 
have 12, 15 or 20 or 30 that are noncontroversial. No one on their side 
objects, no one on our side objects, and they could do some good on 
this bill in a variety of different ways.
  I am suggesting we take those noncontroversial amendments and make 
them pending and vote on them sometime, anytime, tonight, tomorrow. We 
can voice vote them all as a package. We can vote them individually. I 
am not trying to be overly prescriptive. But what I am saying, and I am 
very serious about this, is my days of working on a major piece of 
legislation--working your heart out for weeks getting ready for the 
debate. You are so proud of your amendments. You have worked with the 
other side. You have Republicans. You have Democrats. You have vetted 
it with all the different input and organizations. You have worked so 
hard on your amendment, and then we come to the bill. We cannot discuss 
any amendments that people have worked hard to work out the problems. 
We can only discuss the problem amendments.
  It is not the right way to legislate. It is not the way the Senate 
was created. It is not the way Congress should function. It is a 
disservice to every one of our constituents. There are lots of 
arrangements and understandings and compromises that go on off this 
Senate floor. That is what Senators do all day long. I am proud to be a 
Senator. I work with my colleagues. We work throughout the day, late at 
night, in meetings, and say, listen, I have this great idea. Oh, I 
think that is a wonderful idea. It will improve the bill. Can we work 
on it together?
  Our staffs work very hard, spend hours and hours on the phone talking 
with people, negotiating, only to be told those amendments that people 
have really worked on and eliminated all opposition by being 
openminded, thoughtful, and willing to compromise, those amendments go 
to the back of the line.
  Only those amendments that have no chance of passing, that do not 
have bipartisan support, get to be discussed on the Senate floor. That 
is not the Senate I signed up for. I am not whining. I am just saying, 
I am going to use my power to change the Senate. I am starting right 
now. I am not doing it anymore.
  The people whom I represent are exhausted by it. I am getting 
exhausted by it. My staff is exhausted by it. It is rewarding very bad 
behavior. So the worse your amendment is, the more controversial your 
amendment is, the least likely to get any votes on the other side, you 
get to go first. The rest, everybody who has done it sort of the old-
fashioned way, the way we are supposed to do it, the way we learned 
about it in school, the way our parents taught us, the way we observe 
other great Senators, we come and cannot even get in the queue.
  Then when you do in this new system of rewarding bad behavior, those 
of us--and it is a big group of us. It is not just me. It is a very 
large group and Republicans as well. We get told: All your amendments 
that are noncontroversial that you have worked so hard to put together, 
great ideas that are middle of the road and could actually solve some 
problems of someone out in America, which is why I thought we should 
come here, to help solve problems, you all only get 1 amendment or you 
only get 2 amendments because we have 240.
  That is not the way it should work. I am not going an inch further, 
not 1 inch. This is the way it should work. A bill is brought to the 
floor and everybody files their amendments. Senators work very hard 
with the other side to try to get amendments that both sides could 
agree to--because that is a democracy.
  Then those amendments get identified, and those amendments go first. 
All of the other amendments that are message amendments or 
controversial amendments, they should get votes. I am not saying they 
should not. I am happy to vote on them. Some of them are tough votes. I 
have no problem with that. What I have a problem with, and I think if 
every Senator was honest, they have a problem with it too, are the good 
amendments, the noncontroversial amendments, the ones that everybody 
works on, never get a vote. All the bad amendments get the attention 
and votes.
  I do not think that is right. We have to get back to the regular 
order--not to the regular order. We have to get back. It is not regular 
order. We have to get back to collegiality and common sense and trust. 
That is what the Senate is best at. That has been lost. We better find 
it pretty quickly.
  I am going to stay here. We are not going anywhere. We are not going 
to go to any unanimous consent requests until the list of 
noncontroversial amendments is produced. The Republicans can produce 
their list; we produce our list of noncontroversial amendments. Then 
the leadership can say to me: Senator Landrieu, we will voice vote 
these and everybody will be happy or they can say: Senator Landrieu, we 
have to vote on these individually and we will do that at the end or 
some time certain--I am fine with that--or they can say: We are going 
to vote on them individually and they all need 60 votes, even though 
they have 100 percent of the body. I would be fine. I am not trying to 
be difficult, but I am trying to be a Senator.
  I am trying to say that I, for one, am tired of the bullies on this 
floor and the small group that thinks that on every single solitary 
bill they should get the first amendment, the biggest amendment, and we 
spend all of our time talking about them. It may be important. They are 
not going to pass. That is OK. I do not even mind that. But what I do 
mind is, after all of us who try to work in a bipartisan fashion have 
to listen to this, bill after bill, day after day, then we cannot even 
get our amendments that are noncontroversial. That is where I draw the 
line.
  Please, do not anybody write: Senator Landrieu is on the floor and is 
pitching a fit because she cannot get her amendment. This is not about 
my amendment. This is about the Senate. This is about the Senate and 
noncontroversial amendments which cannot even get on any list. Why? I 
do not know. Why? Why would that be? How is this possible?
  No one objects. I am going to read just a few that we are talking 
about. Some of them are mine. I know two others that are by Amy 
Klobuchar. One of mine is amendment No. 1340. It simply reiterates in 
this bill that everything done with children and families will be done 
in the best interests of the child. ``Best interests of the child'' is 
done in every State, in every court.
  When we are making decisions about families, it is always in the best 
interests of the child. It is modern child welfare practice. It will 
clarify this bill. I do not know of anyone opposing

[[Page 9523]]

it. You know what. If someone is opposing it, then take it off the 
list--just take it off the list. I am not even opposed to that.
  I do not think anyone is opposing it. But if they do, they just have 
to call the Democratic cloakroom and say: I do not think we should be 
making decisions in the best interests of the child. I will take it off 
the list. But I am not going to lose this amendment because the Senate 
cannot function.
  There is another amendment I have with Senator Coats. We have worked 
very hard on this amendment. I had a hearing in my committee as chair 
of the Senate Small Business Committee. Our committee worked very hard, 
similar to most committees around here. My members are wonderful. I 
believe that when I call a meeting and they come and we spend hours 
looking at an issue and we actually all come to an agreement, maybe 
this is something we could do. It deserves a chance, but not in the 
system that we have because, again, the amendments that really work are 
noncontroversial and never get discussed, never get in the queue--only 
the other ones.
  One that Senator Coats and I have is entitled E-Verify Early Adoption 
for Small Employees or the EEASE Act. We even took the extra time to 
come up with a creative name because we like legislating. We think that 
is what we are supposed to do.
  The EEASE Act, which is a small amendment to this bill, does three 
things. I think one of them the small businesses will love: It directs 
DHS to create a mobile app for E-Verify. Wouldn't that be convenient 
for small businesses? Picture yourself in your pickup truck out in your 
field or out in your garage, and someone walks up to you and wants a 
job. You have a ``For Hire'' sign posted, and the guy comes up to you. 
He says: Here is my driver's license. Here is my paperwork. The 
employer picks up their iPhone, hits a button, goes to the app, and it 
is E-Verify. They know the person is legal, and they hire them for a 
job. How wonderful would that be? That is one of our amendments.
  There is enough money in this bill to do that, but the bill doesn't 
say that now. Our amendment would say: Make a mobile app for E-Verify. 
Small businesses don't have time to run back to the farm, try to dial 
in on the Internet in a rural area, such as the Presiding Officer's, in 
New Mexico. Not everybody has high-speed Internet. Not everybody can go 
run back to the farm in the middle of the day, and then when they come 
back, they are tired. Why don't they just have everybody carry a pocket 
communication system? That is an amendment. I don't know one single 
solitary person on this floor who is against it, but we can't even get 
a vote on it.
  This idea came out of a roundtable with 24 representatives of very 
important small business groups. I tell my committee and I tell people 
in the Congress that my committee is going to be a voice for small 
business. Well, that is great. They come up and they talk to me in 
committee. I hear them. I take what they say, write it in an amendment, 
and can't get it in the queue even when no one opposes it.
  We have another amendment, and this one may be controversial--I don't 
know. I would be willing, again--if somebody says: We object because it 
messes up the compromise we have--I would maybe even withdraw this 
amendment after I spoke about it because I think it is important or I 
would be happy to get into any queue, any time, any day, to have a vote 
on it.
  This amendment provides an access lane for small business for H-1B 
visas. It dawned on me after the bill came out of the Judiciary 
Committee and after we had our roundtable that, yes, we were increasing 
the number of H-1B visas, which I support and most people who support 
the bill. It dawned on me and it became apparent to some of the small 
business advocates that there was no express lane for them. The 7 
million small businesses that were--many of them are high-tech 
companies that are relatively small, some of them are startups, and 40 
percent of all the patents are held by small businesses. It kind of 
dawned on us maybe about a week ago that maybe we should have been 
paying more attention, that the H-1B visas might all go to big 
businesses and maybe we should have an express lane for the 7 million 
small businesses that don't have a fleet of lawyers and a fleet of 
human resources people. They are just trying to create jobs in America. 
How terrible. They are just the ones creating all the new jobs. Could 
we please maybe help them? I don't think this is controversial. Do you 
know what. Maybe someone objects to it. Take it off the list.
  Senator Klobuchar has two amendments, and I am sure she has been 
fighting very hard to get them up, like everyone. These amendments have 
to do with streamlining and removing obstacles for intercountry 
adoption.
  You would have to be walking in your sleep to not understand that we 
have a problem in intercountry adoption. Guatemala has closed, Vietnam 
has closed, Russia has closed. Parents have gone to great expense. I 
have seen them weeping in the halls of Congress, begging their 
Congressmen, Congresswomen, and Senators to please help them. They were 
in the process, in the middle of an adoption, they had been matched 
with a child, and the adoption has been closed. There are sad stories 
in this world. I wish we could fix every one, but we can't.
  This amendment actually would solve the problem for some families--
not all but some families who went through the international process--
not to help with Russia or Guatemala. I am sorry, we haven't come up 
with a solution for that.
  No one opposes this amendment. It could help hundreds, if not 
thousands, of families to eliminate one or two more barriers to 
intercountry adoption. Why would we want to do that? I will say why 
because I think it is very important and I would imagine 100 Members of 
the Senate would think it is very important for children to be raised 
by parents. What a novel, extreme idea that children should actually be 
with parents or with a responsible, loving adult. Why would the Senate 
of the United States not spend any time at all eliminating barriers so 
that children could be with parents? I don't know. I kind of think that 
is important. I have two children. I am one of nine siblings. My family 
made a big impact on me to help me to be the leader I am today, so I 
kind of think that is important.
  Senator Klobuchar filed this bill. I am very proud of Minnesota. We 
are all proud of Minnesota. Minnesota adopts more children per capita 
internationally than any State in the Union. Minnesota has a very 
strong ethic when it comes to this. Do we help Minnesota? No. We punish 
Minnesota by not even allowing an amendment that is noncontroversial. 
Senator Klobuchar has people in her State who could be helped by this 
amendment. I am certain there are people in Louisiana who could be 
helped. There are people in every State from New Mexico to New York. No 
one is objecting to it, but we cannot get it on the list.
  There is an interesting problem with some of these adoptive parents. 
I spend an awful lot of time with them. I am happy to do it, and they 
do need champions in Congress, and I am not the only one. Senator Blunt 
has been fabulous, Senator Coats has been fabulous, Senator Boozman of 
Arkansas has been fabulous, Senator Shaheen has been terrific, Senator 
Gillibrand, and Senator Levin. I mean, literally, you don't hear the 
Senators talking about it as much as me because I am kind of the 
chairman. I listen to them, and I try to voice our opinions, but trust 
me, there are many Members.
  These amendments are not controversial, and they will help orphans, 
and they will help families who are trying to adopt children. Could we 
get it on the list of noncontroversial amendments?
  There is another amendment that I think is noncontroversial, and it 
has to do with a program that is absolutely dysfunctional today and 
everyone knows it. It is the EB-5 program. Not only is the program 
dysfunctional and expensive, it is not being operated correctly, and 
Judiciary knows this. In their bill, in the underlying bill, they have 
made some great modifications to the program. That is very good, and

[[Page 9524]]

that is very good legislating. If this program could operate correctly, 
efficiently, transparently, and without fraud and corruption, it could 
create millions of jobs. The last time I checked, there were a few 
people in Louisiana who need them. This is not a little thing, this is 
a big thing. There are people in my State who would cut off their right 
arm for a good-paying job right now. That is true in many parts of this 
country.
  Instead of taking up an amendment that is noncontroversial, that 
actually could pass, that creates jobs, we can't take up this amendment 
because we have to take up the amendments that raise the most ruckus, 
that create the most firestorm, that satisfy the theatrical needs of 
some Members on the floor. We can't do anything that is kind of boring, 
noncontroversial, and bipartisan.
  This amendment would strengthen the work the Judiciary Committee did. 
It is amendment No. 1383. I literally do not know anyone who is 
opposing this.
  I am going to read these numbers out because, again, I am not 
agreeing to unanimous consent for anything until both sides get a list 
of noncontroversial amendments. Some are amendments Nos. 1338, 1383, 
1340, 1261, and 1297. Potentially, there is no opposition to amendment 
No. 1406, and I think there are some others that might not be 
controversial, but I haven't completely checked, so I am not going to 
put them on the list.
  Some of these are mine, and some of these are from other Senators. 
The Republican staff may have a list of noncontroversial amendments, 
and when we get those lists and we can get those in the queue first, 
then I will be happy for the queue to go on. If not, we are just going 
to call cloture, and it is just not going to work.
  I am supporting the bill. I want my leader to know, and I have to say 
this, but I know he is going to speak, and I most certainly would give 
the floor to him at this moment, but I wish to say something about what 
a wonderful leader I think we have.
  Senator Reid, this is no criticism of you. You are the most patient 
person--one of the most patient people I have ever observed in my 
professional life or in my whole life. I honestly do not know how you 
do your job. Even if the caucus elected me, I would have to decline. I 
do not have the patience, as you can tell, to do the job of a leader. 
It would not work. They would never let me, but I wouldn't accept if 
they did.
  Let me say I hope I am doing a favor for the Senate because what I 
want to do is be Senator. I have been here long enough to remember when 
we actually were Senators, when we actually could come to the floor 
with a bill, sort among ourselves what were really tough amendments, 
what were kind of sort of tough amendments, and what were easy 
amendments. We would do the easy amendments because that is just the 
way you legislate--go ahead and get some things done that we all know 
to do. We have all graduated from college. Some of us have masters' 
degrees and Ph.Ds. We do not sit around eating bonbons all day.
  We are talking to our constituents. That is our job. We write 
amendments based on those meetings and conversations because people 
come to us and say: Senator, I have a problem. Can you fix it?
  What am I going to say to them?
  I wish to, but I can't. I can't fix any of your problems because 
there is no way to fix them because I can't even get a simple amendment 
on the floor on any bill, any day, any week, any month.
  Mr. Leader, I have had enough. I know you have too. I want you to 
know I am not trying to be difficult. Do you know what. I came here to 
be a Senator, and I would like to be one again. I am sorry, but until I 
get a list of uncontroversial amendments, I don't care if they have 20 
and we have 5. I don't care if we have 20 and they have 5. I have no 
idea. The ones that are uncontroversial I want to move forward. Then we 
can debate all day long how to put the other ones in any kind of list, 
and we may put mine last--just trying to show how generous I am trying 
to be. We may take all of my amendments that are controversial and put 
them last, but I want all the amendments that are not controversial to 
go first. I am not going to yield until we do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I can remember when the Senator first came here 10 years 
ago, approximately. There was an issue dealing with the military. Mary 
Landrieu was a new Senator. She was over here, she had her desk on the 
other side, and she went on, and, wow, it was quite an impressive 
speech. For a long time after that, I called her Military Mary.
  The reason that it is such a memorable time for me is her good 
father, ``Moon'' Landrieu, was watching his daughter. I called him and 
told him what a great job she had done. Of course, he was very proud of 
all 10 of his children but especially that night of his daughter Mary.
  I have no problem with Mary Landrieu coming to the floor and doing 
what she thinks is appropriate. She is absolutely right. We have a lot 
of trouble now getting simple things done. On a bill like this, it used 
to be that we would have two managers, whip through all these 
amendments. We would just accept them. I mean, I listened to Senator 
Landrieu talk about the best interests of the child. Who in the world 
would oppose that?
  The problem we have is that if we get a lot of amendments pending, it 
will be hard to get rid of them. So Senator Leahy, who is a very 
experienced legislator, Senator Grassley, their staffs, I hope what 
Senator Landrieu has done is maybe to give the impetus to do what we 
used to do routinely; that is, the amendments that couldn't be taken 
care of on the floor would be in what was called a managers' amendment 
where the two managers would agree on matters most of which were 
noncontroversial. Sometimes there was a little trading going on--this 
is a Republican amendment, this is a Democratic amendment; we don't 
totally love this one, we don't totally love that one, but let's put it 
together and have that be part of the managers' package. We haven't 
done that much anymore. We can't agree even on the simple things. She 
is right.
  So I hope, Mr. President, that the night will bring the ability for 
us to move to these amendments of hers or have a managers' package. I 
am here to inform the Senate that one of my goals is to work very hard 
to try to finish as much of this bill as we can as soon as we can. I 
have told everyone many times we are going to finish the immigration 
bill before we leave for the July 4 recess. We are going to do that. I 
hope we don't have to work this Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. I hope 
that is the case, but right now we don't know. The odds right now are 
that is where we are headed.
  I am going to come tomorrow morning at 11:30 and be recognized, and I 
will move to table one of the pending amendments. That will get 
everybody over here, and maybe in the light of the day, prior to noon, 
people will be more reasonable. By that time maybe I will have a better 
idea as to how we are going to move forward.
  As I have said in the past, we can file cloture Friday, Saturday, or 
Sunday or maybe even Monday. But right now it looks like we may have to 
move that up a day and maybe I will have to file cloture on something 
tomorrow.
  So I have really appreciated everyone's movement on this bill today. 
I think basically there is a good feel there is an end in sight. We 
have a number of Senators who have been working with the Gang of 8 to 
come up with some suggestions and, hopefully, they will have an 
amendment they can offer tomorrow sometime that will put forth what 
they think they need to improve this bill.
  The focus for the last several days has been on border security. So 
let's see what they have to offer on border security. The one thing 
everyone has to understand is, while I am happy to look at anything 
they think will help border security, it cannot get in the way and take 
away from this bill a pathway to citizenship, which the American people 
want.

[[Page 9525]]

  So we are going to continue working. Staff will work on it all night. 
The managers of this bill and others interested in this bill will work 
on it. There are calls being made to the White House tonight. So at 
11:30 tomorrow I will come in and see if we have a path forward to 
getting this bill in a position where we can finish it next week 
without working the weekend. But if we can't, the weekend is still in 
play.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. If the Senator will yield for a question.
  Mr. REID. Of course.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I think that is an excellent suggestion. Again, let me 
just thank the Senator sincerely for his patience, and I appreciate the 
compliments.
  As he knows, there are many other Senators who feel just like I do. 
It is time to be Senators again, and it is just time to trust one 
another to at least move amendments that are noncontroversial, that no 
one objects to. Then we can whittle the list down to those that do need 
debate and discussion, and, as you said, a little trading may have to 
go on. That is normal.
  What is not normal is coming to this floor, and those of us who have 
worked so hard to get cosponsors, to tap down resistance, to modify, to 
compromise, don't get any time at all because--I don't know. I don't 
know who decided we don't. But I have enough power to try to change it, 
and I am going to.
  So I just want to say in closing, I have in front of me a list of 24 
amendments--amendments by Senators Begich, Cardin, Collins, Hagan, 
Heller, Kirk, Klobuchar, Landrieu, Leahy, Hatch, Murray, Nelson, Reed, 
Schatz, Stabenow, Udall, Udall, and a few others--about 24--that the 
Republicans and Democrats think no one objects to. I would ask the 
leader if he would review this list tonight, ask the managers of the 
bill if they would review this list tonight, and if we could just get 
these noncontroversial amendments agreed to either by voice vote, 
individual vote, or en bloc vote. It doesn't matter to me. It could be 
this week or next week.
  These amendments have been worked on by Members of both sides 
genuinely. We don't want any headlines. We don't want any press 
releases. We would just like our amendments passed. There is no 
opposition to them. I will provide this list to the Senator and, 
hopefully, tomorrow morning, when everybody has calmed down a little 
bit, maybe that is the way we can proceed.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed for the Record 
the list of amendments I have just referred to.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Noncontroversial Amendments

       1. Begich 1285: Requires social security to establish 
     special procedures for updating social security records for 
     those living more than 150 miles from a social security 
     office.
       2. Cardin 1286: Provides social service agencies with 
     resources to help Holocaust survivors age in place 
     comfortably.
       3. Carper 1408: Requires strategy to prevent unauthorized 
     immigration transiting through Mexico.
       4. Collins 1255: Retains existing risk-based allocation of 
     Operation Stonegarden grants [with modification to come].
       5. Feinstein 1250: Provides authorization for the use of 
     the CIR Trust Fund to alleviate the burdens on the Judiciary.
       6. Hagan 1368: Reauthorizes Bullet Proof Vest program and 
     establishes a Border Crime Prevention grant program.
       7. Heller 1234: Requires DHS to submit a report to Congress 
     on how the 10 airport biometric exit pilots impact wait times 
     and CBP staffing needs.
       8. Kirk-Coons 1239: Allowing certain naturalization 
     requirements to be waived for USAF active-duty members who 
     receive military awards.
       9. Klobuchar-Coats 1261: Adoption amendment. Requires 
     certificates of citizenship and other Federal documents to 
     reflect name and date of birth determinations made by a State 
     court.
       10. Klobuchar-Coats 1297: Provides that an adoption 
     processed by the Central Authority of another Convention 
     Country will permit an alien child adopted abroad to 
     immigrate before the child has been in the legal and physical 
     custody of the adoptive parent for two years.
       11. Landrieu 1338: Requires DHS to consult the 
     Administrator of the SBA during its analysis of impact of E-
     Verify on businesses. Requires the DHS to create a smart-
     phone app, which will make it easier for small businesses to 
     use E-Verify.
       12. Landrieu 1382: Authorizes public-private partnerships 
     to expand land ports of entry.
       13. Landrieu-Cochran 1383: Requires reports on EB5 program.
       14. Landrieu 1341: Requires DHS to attempt to reduce 
     detention daily bed rate through a competitive bid process 
     and still maintain current health and management practices.
       16. Leahy-Hatch 1183: Encourages international 
     participation in the performing arts.
       17. Murray 1368: Prohibits the shackling of pregnant women, 
     absent extraordinary circumstances, in all DHS detention 
     facilities.
       18. Nelson 1253: Provides additional resources for maritime 
     security [with modification to come].
       19. Reed 1223: Increases role of public libraries in the 
     integration of new immigrants.
       21. Schatz 1296: Requires GAO report on visa processing at 
     US embassies and consulates.
       22. Stabenow 1405: This amendment requires a number of 
     administrative changes and studies all aimed at administering 
     the refugee resettlement program more efficiently and 
     effectively.
       23. Tom Udall 1241: Expands the Border Enforcement Security 
     Task Force in the Southwest border region.
       24. Tom Udall 1242: Makes $5 million available for 
     strengthening the Border Infectious Disease Surveillance 
     Project.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, to my friend from Louisiana, I reiterate 
what I said earlier: I understand her concern. The only thing I would 
say in regard to her statement is, she wants to do things in the normal 
way. I am sad to report the normal way is what we have been doing the 
last 6 or 8 months. And that is the sad commentary that this has become 
the normal way.
  I will be happy to review that list. I will do it looking at every 
amendment. There are some people, you know, who don't want this bill to 
pass. They don't want to do anything to improve the bill. No matter 
what side you are on, these are people who offered these amendments in 
good faith that they believe will improve the bill. But understand some 
people don't want the bill improved; they just want the bill to go 
away.
  So I will work on this. I haven't talked to Senator Leahy tonight, 
but I will. I talked to Senator Grassley earlier today. So I heard the 
Senator loudly and clearly, and I will do the best I can.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I am here today to briefly discuss an 
amendment to an important provision in the immigration bill that the 
Senate is considering concerning Stateless persons. Section 3405 of the 
comprehensive immigration bill would, for the first time, recognize and 
provide protections to those people in the United States that have no 
nationality--they are Stateless. There are countless men, women, and 
children in the United States today who cannot claim any nation as 
their home. Many lost their nationality when their country of origin 
ceased to exist as a result of political upheaval, rampant persecution, 
or violent conflict. The comprehensive immigration bill would encourage 
these people in the United States to come forward and apply to be 
recognized as Stateless persons. Under the proposed law, if an 
individual is recognized as Stateless, they could seek conditional 
lawful status, provided they meet the appropriate requirements, and be 
protected from being deported back to a State they no longer recognize 
as their home.
  The amendment I am offering to the immigration bill would advance 
this important effort to recognize and protect Stateless persons living 
in the United States.
  We live in a time when political turmoil, persecution, and war are no 
longer the only conditions creating Stateless persons. Today, rapid and 
extreme environmental change threatens to erode national boundaries and 
make States uninhabitable to people.
  This is not an abstract challenge. Low-lying island States and atolls 
in the Pacific and Indian Oceans today face an existential crisis due 
to inexorable sea level rise that is making them uninhabitable. In 
Kiribati, for example, rising seas are contaminating local water tables 
with salt water, denuding fertile land and decimating island crops. The 
threat of higher seas also makes Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, and 
other island States more

[[Page 9526]]

vulnerable to extreme weather that will inundate these countries with 
swells of storm surge and leave whole communities literally underwater. 
And in a short time, these island States will disappear beneath the 
waves.
  Sea level rise is just one of the dramatic challenges the world faces 
as a result of climate change. Other environmental stressors are 
manifesting in States around the world that carry similar consequences 
as well. In North Africa, for instance, countries such as Morocco, 
Tunisia, and Libya lose hundreds of square miles of fertile land each 
year to desertification, driving away farming communities that are 
accustomed to living off the land. In Southeast Asia, salt water 
intrusion from sea level rise is destroying aquaculture ponds that 
communities rely on for economic development and food, uprooting 
families from their homes and driving them inland in search of new ways 
to support their livelihoods. And rapidly receding glaciers in the 
Himalayan Plateau threaten to make the headwaters of the region's major 
rivers run dry, with consequences for downstream communities that may 
eventually be forced from their homes in search of new water sources.
  Scientists expect that climate change will exacerbate these 
environmental stressors, including drought, glacial melt, and heat 
waves, transforming once fertile landscape into barren and 
uninhabitable land. Besides these slow onset challenges, there are more 
people at risk today of being made permanently homeless by extreme 
weather events like typhoons, hurricanes, and other storms that 
threaten to decimate communities. And, unfortunately, the populations 
most at risk also happen to be the world's poorest people who too often 
have no other choice but to abandon their homes once disaster strikes.
  By the end of the century, climate change will eclipse war as the 
greatest driver of homelessness around the world. We can and must 
protect those people who are in the United States from being deported 
to a country that is no longer inhabitable due to sea level rise or 
other environmental changes that leave the state uninhabitable to 
people.
  The amendment I am proposing is quite simple. If enacted, the 
Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of 
State, may designate individuals or a group of individuals displaced 
permanently by climate change as Stateless persons.
  Again, let me be clear about what this amendment does. It simply 
recognizes that climate change, like war, is one of the most 
significant contributors to homelessness in the world. And like with 
States torn apart and made uninhabitable by war, we have an obligation 
not to deport people back to a country made uninhabitable by sea level 
rise and other extreme environmental changes that render these states 
desolate. It does not grant any individual or group of individuals 
outside the United States with any new status or avenue for seeking 
asylum in the United States.
  Finally, the amendment also recognizes that the climate challenges 
that other States face are not unique to people beyond U.S. borders. 
Indeed, Hawai'i, Alaska and other States are and will continue to 
experience increased environmental pressures, with sea level rise, 
drought, wild fires and extreme weather driving Americans from their 
homes.
  As such, the amendment would require the Government Accountability 
Office to conduct a study assessing the impact of climate change on 
internal migration in the United States and U.S. territories. The GAO 
report will assess the impacts and costs on existing Federal, State, 
and local services of various regions resulting from climate change-
induced migration of U.S. citizens. This important study will help the 
United States chart a path forward for responding to internal persons 
displaced by environmental change and extreme weather events, and 
identify what resources the Federal, State, and local governments need 
to invest in to adequately respond to climate-induced migration.
  Climate change is one of the greatest challenges the United States 
will confront this century. But with the kinds of forward-thinking and 
pragmatic policies I am proposing today, we can put the United States 
on a path to respond to the challenges the country will face, and help 
protect those communities most at risk. I look forward to working with 
my colleagues to advance this important effort.

                          ____________________