[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10650-10663]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           STUDENT LOAN RATES

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, July 1 is less than 1 week away. We need to 
reassure students who will be taking out

[[Page 10651]]

loans for school this fall that their interest rates will not double.
  It is safe to say most of us on both sides of the aisle would want to 
see a long-term approach to setting student loan interest rates rather 
than a temporary extension of the current rate. We have been working, 
Senator Harkin, Senator King, Senator Manchin, Senator Burr, Senator 
Coburn, Senator Warren, and many others about finding a way forward.
  Unfortunately, all of the proposals that are on the table today would 
leave students worse off in the future, frankly, worse off than simply 
allowing the interest rate to double. There is a year or two, perhaps, 
where interest rates would stay below the rate of 6.8 percent. Then 
looking at rate trends, it looks quite convincing that these rates 
would surpass the current fixed rate and go higher.
  We can not enact a long-term solution that is going to be bad for 
students. In fact, student groups and advocates have urged us to reject 
the so-called deals that are circling around with variable rates that 
are not capped that could lead to very high interest rates for students 
in a very short period of time.
  One thing we have all been aware of for the last week or two is the 
dramatic movement of rates based on comments by the Federal Reserve 
with respect to their elimination of the quantitative easing program. 
The future looks as though we are going to see increased rates.
  If we let them rise on students without any type of cap, I think we 
are going to, in a very short period of time, regret that we didn't 
take more time--be more thorough, and look at not just issues of rate 
structure but also incentives to keep costs down in college, and at 
refinancing options, because it is a staggering debt load already on 
students. We haven't done any of this.
  As a result, today, I introduce, along with many of my colleagues, 
the Keep Student Loans Affordable Act. I wish to thank Senators Hagan, 
Franken, Warren, Harkin, Stabenow, Boxer, and many other colleagues.
  This legislation will simply extend the current rate at 3.4 percent, 
the rate we have today for need-based loans. These are the subsidized 
loans that go to low- and moderate income students. It would extend 
them for 1 more year so we do have the time, and let's say we should 
and must take the time to thoughtfully develop a long-term approach to 
the student loan program. It is not just coincidental that we must 
reauthorize the Higher Education Act this Congress. We can use this 
time properly to ensure that we do, in fact, have a comprehensive 
solution that will make students better off, not just in the next 
several months but in the long run.
  Instead of charging low and moderate income students more for their 
student loans, our legislation would extend the 3.4-percent interest 
rate by closing a loophole in the tax laws, which allows fairly wealthy 
individuals to defer taxes on their IRA or 401(K) type accounts. This 
provision would save taxpayers $4.6 billion over 10 years, which will 
more than cover the cost of extending the rate on subsidized student 
loans.
  We are moving forward on a basis where we are not increasing the 
deficit. What we are doing is giving students another chance to 
maintain an appropriate loan level at 3.4 percent for an additional 
year. We have to take action to stop the interest rates from doubling.
  Student loan debt is the next big financial crisis facing this 
country. We already understand from analysts that people in their 
twenties are putting off home purchases, automobile purchases, and are 
not doing what their parents' generation did because they have so much 
debt. They cannot move into the economy as their parents did. It is the 
second most outstanding household debt behind mortgage debt in the 
country. It surpassed credit card debt. It is affecting the trajectory 
of young people's lives.
  Again, my generation thought by their late twenties they would own a 
home, in fact, perhaps moving on, fixing up, and looking at second 
homes. This has all changed.
  Today students are caught between a rock and a hard place as they 
have all this debt they must carry forward.
  The other thing that is so interesting is we are scrambling around 
here trying to figure out ways to deal with this issue. It turns out, 
in fact, the Congressional Budget Office has projected the loan program 
is actually generating revenue more than $50 billion this year and over 
$180 billion between now and 2023. We are actually making money on 
these loans. Frankly, if we don't look at the program and fix it, the 
irony will be students will pay more and the government will take in 
profits. In the long run, I think we will be worse for it because we 
will be depriving a whole generation of the kind of education 
opportunity they need.
  I think we have to do more. I introduced a long-term solution in 
April, the Responsible Student Loan Solutions Act, which will set 
student loans based on the actual cost of financing and administering 
the program. It will also protect students with a cap. I think that is 
essential. We have to understand the interest rates might rise to a 
point where we need to cap them to protect students. It would also 
allow refinancing, which is something that has not been seriously 
discussed. We frankly need more time to discuss that. We need the time; 
let's take the time.
  I urge my colleagues to join me. Let's take up and pass the Keep 
Student Loans Affordable Act. Give students the chance to go to school 
this fall with a 3.4 percent subsidized interest rate. Give us not only 
the chance but give us the incentives and give us the marching orders 
to fix this problem comprehensively.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the bill before us, S. 744, 1,200 pages, 
is promoted with high ideals, but it does not do what is promises. It 
is fatally flawed. If passed, it will not work--not because of the 
goals it states to have but because it won't work.
  This flawed bill did not come about because of inadvertent errors 
that were a part of it, chance, ignorance, or mistake. The policies 
reflected in this piece of legislation came about as a direct result of 
the fact that the forces that shaped it had goals that were important 
to them, but these goals are not coterminous with and are not in 
harmony with the interests of the Nation as a whole.
  The real politique Gang that put it together seems fine with that. 
They openly reported for weeks that these interests were in meetings in 
some room in secret, working through this legislation and their 
differences. Soon, they said, the Gang of 8 would have a bill that, 
having been blessed by these powerful special interests they had 
invited to the meetings, would be delivered to the Senate floor, 
masters of the universe that they are, all for us to adopt without 
complaint and with celebration.
  They were so proud of this process that the eight would stick 
together all for one and one for all and defeat any amendment that 
dared to alter the delicate agreement they talked about. They would 
consider amendments, of course, oh, certainly. We will consider 
amendments, but nothing serious that impacts the fundamental agreement 
that we have. One would not want to disturb that delicate balance, of 
course, of those very sensitive forces that were in the meetings. The 
folks who came together only for the common good--who understood the 
real needs of working Americans who are out of work, who have seen 
their paychecks decline, who have their spouse, their husband, their 
wife not able to find a job, their children not able to find a job, 
their grandchildren not able to find a job--they weren't thinking about 
them.
  They included Mr. Richard Trumka, the top union boss; Mr. Tom 
Donohue, the top Chamber of Commerce boss; the agribusiness 
conglomerates; the activist group La Raza. Also there were the 
immigration lawyers association, high-tech billionaires, having 
delivered magnificent computers, who now desire to deliver public 
policy; and the meat packers.
  One must know, friends, that when the Gang of 8 said there was a 
fragile

[[Page 10652]]

balance, a delicate agreement, they weren't talking primarily about the 
agreement they had among themselves as Senators. That was secondary. 
The agreement they were referring to was the special interest forces 
that were in that secret room writing that bill.
  Those interests, those forces, had signed in blood. The Gang of 8 
then signed in blood to fight off any serious objections or ideas that 
would violate that agreement.
  Although the Gang and the cabal that had confederated and combined 
together to set the immigration policy for the United States of America 
were desperate to keep it secret, there was another dominant force 
involved in the legislation, and that was President Obama. His team was 
there every step of the way. His team, which has done more to undermine 
law enforcement in the immigration area than any President in history, 
was there every step of the way. They were surely providing much of the 
drafting work, the legal work, and the support to get the detail done, 
which the Senators, of course, didn't have time to do. They didn't have 
time to study all the language of the bill.
  We know about this because this week Ms. Munoz, President Obama's top 
immigration official, formally a top official in La Raza who said it 
was immoral for businesses to be checked as to whether they were hiring 
illegal workers--she couldn't keep it a secret. She made sure to reveal 
to the New York Times that she and President Obama were there every 
step of the way, writing the bill, being engaged in it. All of this 
was, of course, much to the discomfort of the Gang, especially the 
Republicans, who had been anxious to declare the bill was written by 
the job creators, entrepreneurs, and the Chamber of Commerce.
  It went to the Judiciary Committee for a markup, and a very favorable 
Judiciary Committee it was. Four of the Gang of 8 are on the committee. 
They started executing their plan. Senator Schumer on occasion would 
give Republican Gang members on the committee a pass. He was overheard 
on the mike saying to a staffer that Republicans can have a pass on 
this vote. They could break ranks--the Republican Gang members--and 
vote with the people on an issue that came up in Judiciary Committee as 
long as there were enough votes otherwise to kill that pesky 
amendment--and so it was in committee.
  One other important thing, the money. There would be money to run 
campaign-like ads all over America to promote the bill, to promote the 
Senators, and to protect the Senators from criticism. And who knows, 
maybe to provide some political contribution sometime in the future for 
those who vote right.
  The combine had it all rolling until last week on the floor of the 
Senate when the wheels almost came off. Senators and the American 
people saw that S. 744 had more holes than Swiss cheese. Clearly, the 
bill lacked the simple conviction that after the amnesty occurred, the 
lawlessness must end. There was not a conviction anywhere displayed in 
that legislation that the people who wrote it had a determination not 
to do more than provide the amnesty and actually provide a lawful 
system in the future to ensure that lawlessness would not be a part of 
our future. You can see it in hundreds of different places.
  For example, the metrics--the standards for enforcement at the border 
in the bill--were weakened. Current law had higher standards of 
enforcement at the border than the new bill, which promised to be so 
tough--toughest bill ever, those TV ads said. Tough as nails, Senator 
Schumer said. But it weakened the standards for enforcement at the 
border.
  The E-Verify system for the workplace, which can be effective in 
eliminating the hiring of illegal workers, was pushed back for five 
years, and a whole new system was designed instead using the one 
currently in existence. It can occur now. The system is 99 percent 
effective now. Why would we want to wait 5 years, unless we really 
weren't interested in seeing it happen?
  Interior enforcement was diminished. The ICE officers have written us 
and told us this will make it worse. They are diminished in their 
ability to enforce the law. All kinds of discretion is given that will 
allow lawyers to block deportations and allow politicians to avoid the 
carrying out of the law.
  The citizenship process is deeply damaged and unable to function 
effectively, according to the Citizenship and Immigration Services 
officers who process these applications. They say there is no way they 
can process these applications.
  An amendment I offered to have at least face-to-face interviews with 
many of the people--at least those who may pose some risk--was voted 
down. They are not even going to have interviews with the people who 
apply for legal status under this bill.
  The entry-exit system, which provides that an individual must be 
clocked in when they come into the country and clocked out with a 
biometrics--fingerprint--system, that system was destroyed. Current law 
requires a biometric entry-exit system at all land, sea, and airports. 
This bill weakens that dramatically, makes it utterly unenforceable by 
changing biometric to electronic, whatever that means, and only 
requiring it to be at air and seaports.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent to have 1 additional minute, 
Mr. President.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. So, Mr. President, I would say this bill fails at point 
after point after point after point. It is not a bill that reflects a 
commitment to a lawful system of immigration in the future. We will 
admit dramatically more people than we ever have in our country's 
history at a time when unemployment is high. The Congressional Budget 
Office has told us that wages, average wages, will go down for 12 
years, that the gross national product per capita will decline for 25-
plus years, and that unemployment will go up.
  This is not the right thing for us to pass because the amnesty will 
occur, but the enforcement is not going to occur and the policies for 
future immigration are not serving the national interest.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on cloture, to not let this bill pass 
today but require that it be subjected to more amendments and more 
study at a time to come when we can pass legislation that will actually 
work. This cannot work as it is. We should not let it go to final 
passage today.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I understand I have 10 minutes allotted; 
is that correct?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CORKER. I want to thank my friend from Alabama, who has been down 
here vigorously and shows a lot of stamina. I have a sense he is not 
going to support this legislation.
  I do want to talk, though, a little bit about this legislation this 
morning. I was asked yesterday by a reporter about the folks back home 
in Tennessee and how they feel about the legislation. No doubt there is 
a lot of controversy around this legislation. There have been a lot of 
statements made that, candidly, don't pass the trying-to-get-it-right 
test.
  What I said to this reporter was that I have a lot of faith in 
Tennesseans. I believe Tennesseans, at the end of the day, will look at 
this legislation and study it, not just listen to what has been said by 
numbers of bloggers and people who are trying to spin things in such a 
way as to create confusion. At the end of the day, I believe when 
Tennesseans see what is in this legislation, the majority of them, the 
large majority of them, will believe this legislation improves the 
conditions from where we are today. I believe they will believe that.
  Of course, it is my job to go back home to explain to Tennesseans 
directly, as I do on all controversial issues, why I support this 
legislation

[[Page 10653]]

and why I think this is good for our country. But let me walk 
Tennesseans and Americans and people here in the Senate through, from 
my perspective, where we have been on this piece of legislation.
  First of all, this bill was introduced to the Judiciary Committee 
months ago, and hundreds and hundreds of amendments were added in the 
process and dealt with during that judiciary markup. It went through 
regular order, something all of us around here have been hoping would 
occur with all legislation, which is that it goes through regular 
order, something all of us around here have been hoping would occur 
with all legislation, which is that it goes through the committee 
process and comes to the Senate floor.
  The bill has been on the floor now for 3 weeks, and I know a lot of 
people around here are complaining about the number of amendments. But 
let's face it, for a long time people on my side of the aisle would not 
let amendments be heard. It is just the truth. I mean, it is what 
happens with controversial legislation. A lot of times when people 
don't want to see something pass or see it improved, there are 
opponents to actually even hearing amendments.
  So we had this ruse on the floor of the Senate yesterday about all 
this. Look, I would like to have 100 amendments on the floor. I am all 
for it. Bring it on. But the fact is, let's face it, both sides have 
been involved in keeping that from happening, and most recently it has 
been many of my friends on this side of the aisle.
  Republicans gathered around the trigger that a Senator offered 
relative to border security, and it had to do with a 90-percent 
effectiveness trigger. That is where negotiations around this bill 
really hung up. But let me talk to people a little about this trigger.
  When we look at the trigger that was in the border security bill, 
that I candidly supported, and many folks on my side did, the trigger 
was so subjective I would call it the Cheetos bag trigger or the 
granola wrapper trigger or the plastic bottle trigger. I want to make 
sure people understand the way this trigger was and why it wasn't 
acceptable to the majority of people in the Senate.
  The way this trigger works is it uses something called sign cuttings. 
This is a term that is used to track people through the desert and 
track them through the mountains. It has been used in the country for 
hundreds of years, especially in places that are less urban. So here is 
what was happening with that trigger.
  Border Patrol agents were going to be able to look at a Cheetos bag 
or an empty granola bar wrapper or an empty Coca Cola can and say: I 
don't know, did 10 illegal aliens eat out of that Cheetos bag or did 1? 
I don't know. And it was that very subjectivity that people realized 
was going to cause people to be able to move the goalpost.
  I am making light of it, but it is just true. This is the way, 
believe it or not, we keep stats on the border right now, in this very 
subjective manner. How many people attempted to get through? We didn't 
see them, but we think maybe 10 people went up through that crevice.
  It reminds me of when I go hunting once a year down in Albany, GA. I 
have a friend who allows me to hunt on his place, and when a covey of 
birds flies by, he says: I think there were 12, and he marks that down 
in his hunt log. Now, I am sure at the end of the year he gets somewhat 
close to how many birds were on his plantation, if you will, but we are 
looking at something that was going to matter as it relates to green 
cards, and it was subjective and was put in place, candidly, in such a 
way many people thought the goalpost was going to be moved.
  So Senator Hoeven and myself, working with a lot of others in the 
body, came up with tangible--tangible--triggers and not triggers some 
Border Patrol agent could fudge one way or the other. Not that anyone 
would attempt to, but one can understand, again, when someone is trying 
to guess how many people came through that they didn't even see--let me 
say that one more time.
  One of the denominating factors was the Border Patrol agents were 
going to have to say how many people came through the border that they 
didn't see. Let's guess. By the way, let's make it exactly 90 percent.
  So Senator Hoeven and I came up with an amendment that everybody 
could understand with 20,000 Border Patrol agents, a doubling along the 
southern border--20,000 agents. Every American can know whether that 
has happened. We added $4.5 billion worth of technology, and we listed 
the inventory. Every American can see whether that has happened. We 
have a fully implemented E-Verify. We don't want employers paying 
people under the table. We don't want people hiring folks who are here 
illegally. So that is fully implemented--fully implemented before a 
green card.
  We also have an entry-exit visa program. I think many people know the 
reason we had the terrorist attack on
9/11. We had people who overstayed their visas. Americans don't want to 
see that happen. So we have a tangible trigger--a tangible trigger--of 
making sure we have an entry-exit visa program.
  We also have another 350 miles of fencing. Now, a lot of people say 
that is not required, but it is absolutely required. Anybody who would 
say that hasn't attempted to read the legislation.
  So these are five tangible triggers. It is not a Cheetos bag 
trigger--not a Cheetos bag trigger but five tangible triggers that 
allow people to know whether we have actually met the goals that are in 
this bill.
  There was a lot of discussion yesterday about an E-Verify amendment. 
As has been said, it is an amendment that could have easily been added 
to this legislation. It is a fine amendment. I would certainly be glad 
to support it. Candidly, I think it is an amendment, if it made it to 
the floor, that would be one of those 100-to-0 or 98-to-2 votes. Maybe 
it could pass by voice vote. It is not controversial. But the fact is 
the bill has a lot in there relative to E-Verify, and no doubt the 
House can make that even stronger.
  Some of my friends are saying this is an amnesty bill. I don't know 
if people have looked at the provisions about people coming in out of 
the shadows and having to pay taxes--back taxes--and they will have to 
pay fines. They will have to pay taxes, by the way, into the U.S. 
system for 10 years and cannot receive a single benefit from the U.S. 
Government. That is the reason this bill scores so favorably from the 
standpoint of generating revenues into the Treasury.
  But let me just say this. Nobody in this body has offered an 
amendment that would round up everybody in this country who is here 
illegally and deport them out of this country. Not a single soul has 
offered an amendment to do that.
  Basically, what we have is a situation where we can cause people to 
come in out of the shadows, pay fines, pay taxes and receive no 
benefits and go to the back of the line. Everybody who came here 
properly or who has applied properly would be processed first. It is 
going to be a minimum of 10, maybe 13, 14, 15 years before people even 
have the ability to get a green card.
  The option is to vote against this bill and basically say we are not 
going to do anything about the people who are here; we are OK with 
employers continuing to pay them under the table; we are OK with them 
continuing to not pay taxes, because not a single one of my colleagues 
has offered an amendment to round up these 11 million people in our 
country and ship them out. I call that de facto amnesty.
  Some people have talked about the process. One of my closest friends 
in the Senate said, I don't like the process. We should have been 
working with the House from the very beginning.
  I am not a Member of the Gang of 8, but we had eight Senators who 
worked for a long time to create a bill. The same thing is happening in 
the House right now.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CORKER. I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page 10654]]


  Mr. CORKER. The process is that the House passes legislation, if they 
so choose. They may not choose to take up immigration. My sense is they 
will not take up this bill; they will take up their own bill. The way 
the process works is we conference those, and we end up with a better 
piece of legislation.
  Fiscally, if this bill passes, we are spending a lot of money on 
border security--and some people have said it is too much. But, again, 
I have had no amendments over here trying to lower the standards that 
were put in place by the Hoeven-Corker amendment. The fact is we would 
be spending $46 billion on border security to have these five tangible 
things occur, and we would be getting $197 billion back in the Treasury 
if we do this. I have never been able to vote for a piece of 
legislation that had this much fiscal benefit for our country that 
didn't raise anybody's taxes. Then we have seen the whole issue of the 
economic growth that is going to be created for our country if we pass 
this bill.
  I believe voting against this bill is voting against border security. 
What that means is that things are going to stay exactly as they are. 
We are going to have porous borders, no entry-exit visa program, no E-
Verify system. I think voting against this bill is voting for the 
status quo, which is, in essence, de facto amnesty.
  I believe this bill takes a step forward. I believe it is good for 
our country in every single way I can imagine, and later today I plan 
to support this bill. I hope it is improved in the House.
  I cannot imagine there is anybody in this body who believes where we 
are today is satisfactory. I came here to make progress, to solve 
problems, and I appreciate those involved in allowing me to help with 
that process.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all quorum 
calls prior to the votes at 11:30 a.m. today be equally divided.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                       Nomination of Anthony Foxx

  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I rise to say a few words about Anthony 
Foxx, the President's nominee to head the Department of Transportation 
that we will be voting on later this morning. While I am going to be 
sad to see him leave our local government in Charlotte, I am pleased 
the entire country will soon benefit from his leadership.
  Anthony Foxx earned an undergraduate degree in history from Davidson 
College in North Carolina and blazed a trail as the school's first 
African-American student body president. He then received a law degree 
from New York University and held positions in all three branches of 
the Federal Government. Beginning as a judicial clerk on the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, he served ably as a lawyer for the 
Department of Justice and counsel for the House Judiciary Committee.
  In 2005, Anthony was elected as an at-large member of the Charlotte 
City Council. During his 4 years of service as a councilman, he chaired 
the Transportation Committee and was a member of the Economic 
Development and Planning Committee. Since 2009, he has served as mayor 
of Charlotte, one of the country's fastest growing cities.
  When taking office, Charlotte's unemployment rate was almost 13 
percent. Through his tireless efforts, Mayor Foxx helped attract and 
create more than 8,400 new jobs. Most important, Mayor Foxx has been a 
true champion of transportation and infrastructure development, 
securing forward-looking investments in Charlotte's roads, airports, 
and mass transit. Under his leadership, I-485 has been approved for 
expansion; he secured funding toward the completion of the Blue Line 
Light Rail Extension Project, and oversaw the opening of the third 
runway at Charlotte Douglas International Airport. All of these 
projects occurred as we worked--and are still working--to climb out of 
the recession.
  These smart investments in infrastructure and transit-oriented 
development are continuing to fuel Charlotte's economic growth.
  Light rail has played an important role in sustaining this growth, 
with more than 19 million riders since it opened in 2007 and an average 
of 15,000 riders every day. The light rail is helping to revitalize 
Charlotte's historic South End neighborhood, which saw the city's first 
railroad line in 1850. The neighborhood is now home to more than 750 
businesses and 11 new residential districts.
  Investments at Charlotte airport are establishing the city as an 
international hub. With direct flights to London and soon Brazil, 
Charlotte and North Carolina are increasingly connected to businesses 
across the globe.
  The I-85 Corridor Improvement Project, which has been a top priority 
for the State for many years, I am pleased to say, is finally moving 
forward. This improvement project relies heavily on support from local 
leaders, including Mayor Foxx, and is expanding and improving this 
integral roadway so it can meet the needs of businesses and residents 
for years to come.
  Anthony's direct experience working with the transportation 
departments at the Federal, State, and local levels and his proven 
record of success make him well prepared to serve as the next Secretary 
of Transportation.
  I have worked closely with Mayor Foxx during my time in Washington, 
and I have the utmost confidence he will serve in this role with great 
distinction. I thank him for his dedication and willingness to step up 
when service is needed, and I am pleased the Commerce Committee 
approved Anthony Foxx's nomination with unanimous bipartisan support.
  Mayor Foxx is a true champion of transportation and infrastructure 
development, and I encourage my colleagues to support his nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Gang of 8 in their framework for 
comprehensive immigration reform said the following:

       Our legislation will provide a tough, fair, and practical 
     roadmap to address the status of unauthorized immigrants in 
     the United States that is contingent upon our success in 
     securing our borders and addressing visa overstays.

  It sounds good, doesn't it? They said their plan would be contingent 
upon success.
  But the bill doesn't do that. The bill doesn't say the border has to 
be secured. It doesn't say that we need to see results. It only throws 
more money at the problem and puts more boots on the ground. Of course, 
that is a good start. But as we have seen before, that is not enough. 
It is not enough to ensure we will not be back here in the same place 
25 years down the road, devising new plans. So I am going to take a few 
minutes to discuss the legalization program created in this bill.
  Since I was here in 1986, I know that loopholes allowed people to 
gain legalization even if they weren't entitled to it. We had problems 
with fraud and abuse back then, and I am afraid it will be the same if 
the bill is passed in its current form.
  Time and time again we have been told the bill will allow people here 
illegally to register and earn legal status, then become contributing 
members of society. Yet the bill fails to address how to prevent a 
continued influx of individuals who will replace those currently living 
in the shadows.
  Take the CBO report as an example. CBO said illegal immigration would 
only be reduced by 25 percent. That is not acceptable, especially given 
the promise of the Gang of 8 that the bill would ``be a successful 
permanent reform to our immigration system that will not need to be 
revisited.''
  The legalization program begins upon the mere admission of a strategy 
submitted by the Secretary of Homeland Security. So almost immediately, 
millions of people will come forward and be made lawful.

[[Page 10655]]

  Remarkably, the bill virtually suspends enforcement during the 2\1/
2\-year legalization application period. It prohibits law enforcement 
from detaining or removing anyone claiming eligibility without any 
requirement to prove they are, in fact, eligible. Law enforcement is 
even required to inform those here illegally about legalization and 
give them the opportunity to apply.
  Under the bill, undocumented immigrants already here can apply for 
and receive legal status, even if they have committed document fraud, 
provided false statements to authorities, and absconded court-ordered 
removal proceedings.
  During this time, there is an enforcement holiday. Enforcement 
officers would be limited in detaining or removing any individual who 
merely claims eligibility for RPI status, regardless of whether there 
is proof to back that up.
  Perhaps the enforcement holiday would be mildly concerning if we were 
dealing with individuals who only violated civil immigration laws. 
Unfortunately, the bill extends to those with criminal records. This 
includes individuals who have gang affiliations, even felony arrests, 
and even multiple misdemeanor criminal convictions.
  Moreover, the bill permits individuals who attain legalization to 
continue criminal behavior, so long as their behavior and subsequent 
convictions remain below the eligibility threshold. In fact, the bill 
goes even further and--can you believe this--provides the Secretary 
with waiver authority in order to dismiss misdemeanor criminal 
convictions for purposes of determining eligibility for legal status.
  The bill does not limit those outside the country from applying for 
legalization. The bill states that individuals who have previously been 
deported or otherwise removed from the country are ineligible for RPI 
status. However, one need only turn a few pages to discover that the 
Secretary has sole, as well as unreviewable, discretion to waive this 
provision and permit large classes of individuals to apply for 
legalization.
  There is yet another way of providing and allowing individuals who 
have been removed or reentered illegally to apply for status, if they 
are fortunate enough to have a relative who does, in fact, qualify for 
legalization. This weakens and undermines even current law where 
Congress has already declared that individuals who reenter illegally 
are not entitled to immigration benefits.
  Amendments to prohibit those ordered removed, those currently in 
removal proceedings, and those who have absconded and failed to show up 
for removal proceedings from applying or being granted legal status 
were voted down during committee considerations. An amendment to 
prevent spousal abusers, child abusers, drunk drivers, and other 
serious criminals from obtaining legal status was also rejected.
  I know the public listening or reading these records will not believe 
that Congress could do those things, that it is OK to have those people 
with that sort of criminal activity being legalized, but that is what 
the bill allows. These amendments also could have been voted on during 
floor debate, but the majority refused to allow their consideration.
  Now, the process for obtaining legalization is ripe for abuse and 
potentially encourages crafty behavior for individuals to game the 
system.
  Under the bill, individuals applying for legal status are permitted 
to file numerous amended applications in the event their initial 
application is denied for failure to complete properly or provide 
required documentation. In practice, one could continue to file 
numerous amended applications, knowing each application is incomplete, 
resulting in a perpetual limbo where an individual can remain here for 
an indeterminate time without any possibility of removal.
  Another area of potential abuse permits otherwise ineligible 
individuals to remain indefinitely in the United States.
  The bill provides for a stay of removal until a newly created 
administrative appellate review process of the application has been 
exhausted. One need only imagine the vast loophole created that will 
allow ineligible applicants to remain in the United States pending a 
typically extremely lengthy review process.
  When combined with a never ending application process and an 
expansive, time consuming appeals process, individuals can remain here 
for years without ever obtaining legal status, and without any fear of 
removal.
  Under the bill, people with RPI status must prove that they have been 
employed during the duration of their status. Yet, the bill allows 
people to prove that employment--which is required to get a green 
card--using merely a sworn affidavit.
  We know from our 1986 experience that sworn affidavits are highly 
unreliable, and incentivize massive fraud. They are not verifiable or 
trustworthy.
  A New York Times article from 1988 shows just how easy it was for 
immigrants to get false affidavits. During one investigation, the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service arrested seven people for 
selling fraudulent affidavits to new immigrants.
  One of these seven fraudsters ran a scheme that sold affidavits to 
1,400 people here illegally. They had thousands more applications 
filled out and waiting for others. In fact, while investigators were on 
site seizing the evidence, dozens of individuals arrived to purchase 
more fraudulent affidavits. Buying and selling fake documents was a 
thriving business and can be again.
  According to the article, one person arrested had 364 fraudulent 
affidavits on her five-acre farm.
  A third of these fraudsters went from farm to farm, offering false 
affidavits to farmers for prices from $950 to $3,000.
  The Majority has rejected several amendments that would improve on 
the 1986 legalization. That is unfortunate. The bill will lead to 
further fraud. It is my hope these provisions can still be fixed before 
any bill is sent to the President.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
immigration reform bill that we are going to vote on soon. I want to 
bring a Minnesota perspective to this debate. I want to talk about how 
this bill will help Minnesota businesses and agriculture while also 
helping and protecting Minnesota workers. I also want to talk about how 
this bill will help Minnesota families and communities.
  Minnesota was admitted to the Union in 1858. For the first 30 years 
after Minnesota's founding, no fewer than one-third of Minnesotans were 
immigrants born abroad. Our State did not suffer from that--it thrived. 
Our fields were first tilled by Swedish immigrants. Their crops filled 
2 million acres. Our iron mines in the north depended on Finnish labor. 
Norwegians were critical to our logging industry, while the Danes, who 
came to Minnesota after the Civil War, made our State a leader in dairy 
farming.
  Today, immigrants are about 7 percent of Minnesota's population. Most 
of them come from Asia, and Latin America, and Africa, rather than 
Europe. But the contributions of immigrants to Minnesota's economy and 
to our communities are no less important.
  I am going to vote for this bill because of what it will do for 
Minnesota's economy. This is clearest when it comes to Minnesota's 
agricultural industry, particularly our dairy farms. Minnesota is the 
Nation's sixth largest dairy producer. Five percent of our nation's 
cows are in our State.
  But for years, I have been meeting with dairy farmers and they told 
me they can't get the workforce they need. They can't find enough 
American workers--and the Nation's agricultural guestworker program is 
open only to seasonal workers. Unfortunately, you can't milk cows 
seasonally. If you did, they would just get cranky, the cows.
  For years, I have been calling for an immigration bill to fix this 
problem by opening our guestworker program to dairy farmers. This bill 
does just that.
  This bill will not just help agriculture. A lot of industry in 
Minnesota

[[Page 10656]]

is in the high tech and medical sectors--companies like 3M and 
Medtronic. Unfortunately, our visa system works against these companies 
because, while the University of Minnesota is minting new Ph.D.'s in 
STEM fields, our system sends many of our top foreign graduates right 
back to their home countries.
  Thanks to the work of my fellow Minnesota senator, Senator Klobuchar, 
this bill will make it easier for Minnesota companies to recruit and 
hire top minds, regardless of where they come from.
  I am also proud that this bill includes two amendments that I wrote 
that will protect small businesses.
  A major component of this bill is to create a mandatory electronic 
employment verification system called E-Verify. But small businesses in 
Minnesota were initially concerned about how E-Verify would affect 
them.
  My first amendment creates a special office within the Department of 
Homeland Security whose sole job will be to give workers and small 
businesses quick, in-person assistance if E-Verify does not work the 
way it should. My other amendment will keep pressure on DHS to lower E-
Verify error rates that, in the past, have caused major headaches for 
small businesses and employees alike.
  While this bill will help our businesses, it also has solid 
protections for American workers.
  In negotiations, the AFL-CIO demanded that before an American 
employer can hire a foreign guestworker, that employer has to 
aggressively advertise for and recruit American workers. If a business 
breaks these rules, it can get kicked out of the guestworker program. 
If the protections in this bill prove insufficient, I will fight to 
improve them. But for now, I think protections negotiated by the AFL-
CIO are adequate for moving forward.
  So this bill will protect workers today. But it will also help them 
for decades down the line by bolstering our Nation's safety net. Our 
changing demographics have put a strain on our Social Security system. 
More young workers paying into the Social Security system will help 
ease that, and that is precisely what this bill will provide: Census 
figures show that 48 percent of immigrants in the U.S. are between the 
ages of 20 to 44; for native-born workers, that figure is about 31 
percent.
  Finally, this bill will help our economy by helping our Nation's 
bottom line. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, 
immigration reform will decrease our deficit by $175 billion over the 
next decade, and an additional $700 billion over the following decade. 
That's $875 billion dollars--close to a trillion dollars in deficit 
reduction.
  This bill will be a boon to Minnesota's economy, and to our Nation's 
economy too. But this bill is not just about economics. It is also 
about our values. It is about living up to the promise engraved on the 
base of the Statue of Liberty:

       Give me your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Send 
     these, the homeless, the tempest-tost [sic] to me. I lift my 
     lamp beside the golden door.

  Minnesota played a special part in that promise. For decades, 
Minnesota has welcomed more refugees and asylees than almost any other 
State.
  We have welcomed the Hmong and Somalis and so many others because it 
is the right thing to do. In the same way, a big part of this bill is 
about doing the right thing and helping the least of our brothers and 
sisters.
  Last October I traveled to Northfield, MN, where I visited a program 
for Latino high school students called the ``TORCH'' program--that 
stands for Tackling Obstacles and Raising College Hopes. This is an 
amazing program that has more than doubled the high school graduation 
rate for Latino students.
  During my visit I met many undocumented students who were brought 
here by their parents as young children--and who were thus undocumented 
through no fault of their own.
  For years, these kids watched their classmates apply to college and 
plan for their careers, but they knew that was not for them--because 
they could not work legally or serve in our military.
  Then, last June, the President took executive action to protect these 
kids from deportations and let them work legally. Their teachers told 
me what an enormous difference it made for these kids. For the first 
time, they could see they had a future--they could go to college or 
join the military. And that was just because an executive order that 
did not have the force of a statute.
  With this bill, thanks to the inclusion of the DREAM Act, authored by 
Senator Durbin, their hope for the future will be a certainty. Good for 
those kids. And you know what, good for us, because those kids are 
going to work wonders.
  I am especially proud of a bill I wrote that also helps children and 
that is included in the larger bill we are debating, and that is the 
HELP Separated Children Act.
  My bill was inspired by what happened in Worthington, MN in December 
2006, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement carried out enforcement 
actions in 6 States and arrested hundreds of unauthorized immigrants. 
Tragically, those raids also left many children--most of them 
citizens--without their parents and with no way to find them. One 2nd 
grader in Worthington came home from school to find his 2-year-old 
brother alone and his parents gone. For the next week, he cared for his 
brother while his grandmother drove from Texas to meet them.
  Over the past 2 years, more than 200,000 parents of citizen children 
were deported. These children are often abandoned at home or at school 
and can go for months without speaking with or visiting their parents. 
My HELP Separated Children Act will lay down basic humanitarian 
protections for children in immigration enforcement. It will make sure 
that parents and children can stay in contact, and will make sure that 
parents can participate in court proceedings relating to their 
children.
  My bill was co-sponsored by Senators Grassley, Coons, Cornyn, Hirono, 
Cruz, Feinstein, Leahy and Blumenthal. Of the 200 or so amendments that 
we debated in the Judiciary Committee, this was the only one that was 
passed on a unanimous 18 to 0 vote.
  I am also proud that the bill includes amendments I proposed to help 
victims of domestic violence, as well as young children who are 
themselves involved in immigration proceedings.
  We have a rare opportunity before us. We have a chance to vote on a 
bipartisan bill written by a bipartisan group and supported by both the 
AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce. The bill will help our economy, 
secure our border, and give millions of undocumented people a tough but 
fair path to get right with the law. And on top of all of this, this 
bill will save the American people hundreds of billions of dollars. I 
am proud to support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Before I close, I want to take a moment to congratulate the members 
of the Gang of Eight--Senators Schumer, McCain, Durbin, Graham, 
Menendez, Rubio, Bennet and Flake. This bill is an example of the 
Senate at its best. It speaks not just to the ability of the Senators 
in the Gang--but also to their courage.
  I would also like to recognize Chairman Leahy for managing this 
markup and this debate so expertly.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I just want to speak for a few minutes. 
I spoke at length earlier this week.
  I thank Senator Franken for his kind words and the work he has done 
on this bill, and also Senator Leahy, as well as all of those involved 
with this bill. Managing the bill this morning, it is, again, awe 
inspiring to see all the work that has been done on both sides of the 
aisle--whether people will vote for the bill.
  I expect we will have a strong bipartisan vote on this bill after the 
civil debate we have had. This is an incredibly big and important issue 
for this country. I have been involved in this debate since 2007. We 
have seen everyone come

[[Page 10657]]

together from labor, business, farm groups, migrant workers, immigrant 
workers, and religious groups. We are finally going to get this 
incredibly important bill done.
  As Senator Franken noted, the piece that has been most important to 
me--in addition to the DREAM Act and all of the work that had to be 
done in law enforcement--was the work we have done to improve our legal 
immigration system. We are a country built on immigration. Thirty 
percent of our U.S. Nobel Laureates were born in other countries; 90 of 
our Fortune 500 companies were formed by immigrants. We cannot continue 
to compete in the global economy if we close our doors to those who 
think and make things and invent things. In part, that is what most 
excites me about this bill, the work we have done to improve the legal 
immigration system.
  I thank my colleagues, the Gang of 8, and our great Judiciary 
Committee that debated and marked up this bill into the night day after 
day. We should be proud of this bill, and I ask my colleagues to 
support it.
  With that, I yield for Senator Lee.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, before beginning my remarks, I would first 
like to thank my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from 
Iowa, for his tireless efforts in managing this process from the 
Republican side. It has not been easy, and his effort has reflected a 
certain level of statesmanship that is to be commended.
  I rise today in support of immigration reform. I support 
strengthening our borders and ensuring that they are secure before 
beginning a pathway to citizenship because it is the only way we can 
avoid the mistakes of the past.
  I support robust interior enforcement and a biometric visa tracking 
system because without those things in place, we will not solve the 
problem of illegal immigration. I support modernizing and streamlining 
our visa system because we need an efficient process of legal 
immigration that meets the needs of our economy. I support immigration 
reform that is tough on those who have chosen to break our laws and 
fair to those who have obeyed them and have been patiently waiting 
their turn in line trying to come here legally.
  Today there is reason for disappointment, but there is also great 
cause for encouragement. The bill we have before us is an enormous 
disappointment. The American people deserve better. As a matter of 
public policy, this bill fails to meet many of the goals we set at the 
beginning of the process.
  It is full of promises to beef up border security, but it makes no 
assurances. This legislation cuts the American people out by cutting 
out any congressional oversight of the opening and progression of the 
pathway to citizenship. It remains grossly unfair to those who have 
languished in our current legal immigration system, unable to get 
answers for decades in some cases. It transfers enormous authority and 
discretion to the executive branch, exacerbating an already widespread 
problem within our Federal Government.
  It also fails perhaps the most important test. According to the 
Congressional Budget Office, this bill will reduce illegal immigration 
by just a mere 25 percent over the next 10 years. This should be reason 
alone to scrap the entire bill.
  As a matter of process, Members of this body should be embarrassed 
about how this bill has moved through the Senate. From day one the 
country was misled about what was in the bill. The talking points never 
matched the reality of what was in the bill.
  We were told if we didn't like what was in it, we would have an 
opportunity to fix it. But that wasn't true either. During the 
committee markup, Democrats and the Gang of 8 Republicans voted as a 
block to defeat virtually all substantive amendments proposed to 
improve the bill.
  They said there would be regular order on the floor of the Senate, 
but that turned out to be a false promise as well. For a 1,200-page 
bill, the Senate, including the 92 Members not on the Judiciary 
Committee or the Gang of 8, was allowed exactly 10 rollcall votes 
before the process was shut down.
  By contrast, during the 2007 debate on immigration reform, the Senate 
voted 32 times to amend the bill. Some would argue even that was too 
small. But certainly 10 votes on a 1,200-page bill does not suggest 
that the proponents of the bill are interested in regular order.
  For the grand finale, at nearly the end of this process, the 
proponents substituted what is effectively a brandnew bill in place of 
the one we have been debating for over 2 months. They gave us very 
little time to read it before we had to vote on it. Once we were on the 
new bill, they did not allow a single vote on any amendments.
  This is an embarrassment to this institution, and it is an assault on 
the principles of democracy, but like a Phoenix rising from the ashes, 
from this low point in the Senate springs an encouraging path forward 
for those who, like me, truly want immigration reform.
  First, this exercise has laid out in front of the American people all 
the problems inherent in passing massive pieces of legislation presumed 
to fix all of our problems at once. The so-called comprehensive 
approach has been utterly discredited. From denying votes to buying 
votes with special interest carve-outs, our experience over the last 2 
months only reaffirms why the vast majority of Americans don't trust 
Washington.
  The special interests had a huge hand in writing the bill, while the 
American people had none. Almost all of the discussions and 
negotiations took place in secret backroom deals. Rather than debate 
policy differences, the debate was a daily fact check on misleading and 
outright false claims made by some of the bill's proponents.
  The good news is the House appears to have learned this lesson and 
wants no part of this. Already the Speaker has said the Senate bill is 
dead on arrival. So today's vote is largely symbolic.
  The House Judiciary Committee has recently passed two significant 
pieces of immigration reform--the one on interior enforcement and 
another dealing with agricultural workers. It proves that reform can be 
passed in a step-by-step process. Indeed, the only reason immigration 
reform is so controversial is because the Senate refuses to pass it one 
piece at a time. There is simply no legitimate reason we have to pass a 
one-size-fits-all, 1,200-page take-it-or-leave-it bill.
  Although it is likely this bill will pass today, I strongly encourage 
my colleagues to consider where we started, where we are now and, most 
importantly, what lies ahead of us. They said it would secure the 
border; it does not. Congress has been fooled by false promises before. 
We should not go down that same path again.
  They said illegal immigration will be a thing of the past. Under this 
bill, it will not. The Congressional Budget Office confirmed that under 
this bill, there will be 6- to 8-million illegal aliens in the country 
10 years from now. They said it would be good for the economy. It 
isn't.
  CBO also confirmed that it would lower wages and increase 
unemployment. They said it would be tough but fair. It is neither. It 
is not tough on those who have broken the law, and it is not fair for 
the people who have been trying to come here legally.
  If this bill passes today, it will be all but relegated to the ash 
heap of history as the House appears willing to tackle immigration 
reform the right way. The sponsors of this bill had the best of 
intentions but, in my opinion, intentions are not always enough.
  As I said at the outset, I stand here today strongly in support of 
immigration reform, but this bill is not immigration reform. It is big 
government dysfunction, and that is why I cannot support it and urge my 
colleagues to vote against it.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 21 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield myself up to 15 minutes.

[[Page 10658]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Utah in many of 
his remarks, if not all of his remarks. I come here to speak on the 
pending immigration bill more in disappointment than in anger because 
of the lost opportunity we had in the Senate to come up with a bill 
that would actually do the job of restoring legality and order to our 
broken immigration system, create a system of legal immigration which 
would benefit our economy, and reflect our basic values.
  It has been 5 months since the Gang of 8 first released their 
framework of principles for immigration reform. At the time, they were 
saying many of the right things--things that gave me great 
encouragement that we would come up with a better product than we have 
today. They promised their bill would secure our borders once and for 
all.
  I live in a border State with 1,200 miles of common border with 
Mexico. We know that border permits not only illegal entry into the 
United States because of inadequate resources and personnel there, but 
also it is a benefit to the United States because of the legitimate 
trade that passes through the ports of entry that create and support up 
to 6 million jobs in America.
  They promised a tough but fair legalization program. They promised 
that permanent legalization would be contingent on border security. 
This is a recurring theme in my remarks because I actually was so naive 
to believe the representations made by the Gang of 8.
  In January 2013 Senator Durbin, the distinguished majority whip, 
said: A pathway to citizenship needs to be contingent upon securing the 
border. That is what he said in January. Instead of a delivery on that 
promise, what we got was his statement 6 months later in June of 2013: 
The gang has delinked the pathway to citizenship and border 
enforcement.
  So the American people have been asked to extend an act of common 
generosity and compassion that is typical of the American people, but 
what they get in return is no assurance that the system has been 
restored to order or that the border has been secured. Unfortunately, 
once again, it is business as usual in Washington, DC.
  The promises the Gang of 8 made were encouraging and they raised 
hopes in me and others that we truly would have a bipartisan 
immigration bill voted out of the Senate that was worthy of the name. 
But, unfortunately, the bill now bears little resemblance to the 
initial promises of the Gang of 8.
  I know we talked a lot about border security, but in addition to a 
national security issue this is a matter of restoring the public's 
confidence that the Federal Government will actually do its job.
  The fundamental problem with this legislation is that it demands 
border security inputs but not outputs or results. In other words, the 
idea is--and the Washington Post editorial seemed to get it today--if 
you promise to buy enough stuff, then somehow the job will miraculously 
get done.
  This bill asks us to believe that quadrupling the size of the Border 
Patrol and expanding the border fence will solve the problem of illegal 
immigration. I certainly agree that what the Border Patrol calls 
tactual infrastructure or fencing--and particularly in urban areas--can 
be a tool that is effective. I certainly believe that additional Border 
Patrol--my proposal was that we add about 5,000 Border Patrol--would be 
helpful. Once the technology identifies people crossing the border 
illegally, they have to have somebody go pick them up.
  I actually agree with Senator McCain when he initially opposed my 
amendment to add 5,000 Border Patrol agents, when he said he thought 
the answer was mainly in the area of improved technology. I agree with 
that. But imagine my surprise when Senator McCain and Senator Schumer, 
the two main advocates of this surge in the underlying bill for border 
security, said: We think 5,000 Border Patrol agents is a budget buster, 
only to come back a few days later and offer 20,000 Border Patrol 
agents at an increased cost of at least $30 billion.
  So without a coherent strategy or mechanism for ensuring results, 
adding 20,000 Border Patrol agents--assuming that it ever actually 
happens--and a few hundred miles of additional fencing could turn out 
to be a massive waste of taxpayer dollars. Again, there is something 
fundamentally wrong with the idea that if we throw enough money at the 
problem, it will somehow miraculously be resolved.
  What we need is a plan, and what we need to know is how we can invest 
in this plan to accomplish measurable results, and this bill does not 
produce that.
  So if a person believes the Federal Government is going to hire 
20,000 additional Border Patrol agents and spend all this money over 
the next 10 years, well, as the song goes, I have some oceanfront 
property in Arizona I would like to sell you.
  My colleagues don't have to take my word for it. In recent days 
experts from across the political spectrum have told us this bill takes 
the wrong approach to border security. And contrary to what my good 
friend from Tennessee says, it is not ``this bill or nothing.'' This is 
not the only alternative. So one could say this bill is flawed and 
doesn't accomplish the job but still be for immigration reform and a 
solution, which I am.
  The former Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
Doris Meissner said the border security provisions in this bill are 
detached from reality. Former Customs and Border Protection 
Commissioner Robert Bonner, also formerly head of the Drug Enforcement 
Administration, said the bill ``is simply throwing a phenomenal amount 
of money at a problem to gain political support''--which it apparently 
has done--``but is not likely to solve the problem.''
  Meanwhile, former DHS official John Whitley has reminded us that we 
should be focusing on border security outputs instead of inputs. In 
other words, we should be looking at not just what is put into this but 
what it actually produces in terms of results. That makes sense. Just 
spending a lot of money on stuff we are going to buy without any plan 
and without measuring outputs isn't going to get the job done.
  An output-based trigger would assure the American people that we will 
not grant legal status until after our borders are secured. And the 
reason is because this is not a punitive measure; this is a way of 
realigning all of the incentives so that Republicans, Democrats, 
Independents, liberals, and conservatives can all pressure the 
executive branch and the bureaucracy to actually accomplish the 
promises set out in the bill rather than just throw money at it.
  The Presiding Officer has heard me say that the amendment I offered 
would have made legalization contingent on 100 percent situational 
awareness of the U.S.-Mexico border and full operational control of the 
border. I have been criticized by some of my friends who say that is an 
unreasonable requirement and then ask: Where in the world did you get 
those figures? Well, I got that out of the Gang of 8 proposal. The 
difference is that mine would have guaranteed accomplishing the goal; 
theirs merely promises it but will never keep that promise.
  I would have also made it contingent on a nationwide biometric entry-
exit system--something this Federal Government has been promising for 
17 years since President Clinton signed that requirement into law, but 
that promise hasn't been kept either.
  I also included in my amendment nationwide E-Verify, which is a way 
for employers to verify the eligibility of workers who apply for a job, 
that they can legally work in the United States.
  As I said, ironically, the Gang of 8 promised all of these same 
things, but the only mechanism I have seen that would have actually 
guaranteed it to happen was the amendment I offered that was tabled.
  What I have described is a real border security trigger, not just 
another promise--the kind of trigger that will

[[Page 10659]]

be necessary to get bipartisan immigration reform not just out of the 
Senate but out of the House of Representatives and on to the 
President's desk. I don't think we should be so shortsighted as to pat 
ourselves on the back and say: Hey, the Senate has passed an 
immigration reform bill, only to find it dead on arrival in the House 
of Representatives and to make it harder, not easier, to get a 
consensus bill on the President's desk for him to sign. That is not 
success.
  Not surprisingly, the Congressional Budget Office reports that this 
bill will have only the slightest impact on illegal immigration.
  The American people are not fooled. A recent Rasmussen poll says that 
only about 28 percent of Americans actually believe this bill will 
secure America's borders. The American people have been fooled in the 
past, which is another reason they are skeptical now, and they don't 
believe this bill will get it, and I don't either.
  In short, we are about to vote on a bill that repeats the mistakes of 
the past and does not learn from them, offering merely promises but no 
results. But it also makes a few new mistakes as well.
  Despite earlier promises of a tough but fair legalization program, 
this bill grants immediate legal status to people with multiple drunk 
driving convictions and people with multiple domestic violence 
convictions. And for people who have actually already committed these 
crimes and been deported, this bill would allow them to come back and 
register for RPI status.
  I simply do not understand, nor has anyone attempted to explain, how 
we can in good conscience support legalization, of violent criminals. I 
am not talking about just people who have come here to work and 
otherwise been law-abiding citizens; I am talking about people who come 
here and, in contempt of our laws, have committed crimes of violence, 
and they are now going to be rewarded under this bill with probationary 
status and a pathway to citizenship. A few days ago I challenged my 
colleagues to come to the floor and explain or perhaps defend these 
provisions. I didn't find any takers.
  I also mentioned the tragic stories of husbands and wives, fathers 
and mothers, brothers and sisters who lost their lives after being hit 
by an illegal immigrant drunk driver. Just to give some perspective, in 
2011 alone Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported nearly 36,000 
people with DUI convictions. This bill legalizes people who have 
committed driving under the influence offenses as well as people with 
multiple domestic violence offenses.
  Some might argue that multiple misdemeanors aren't that big of a 
deal, but tell that to the family of a loved one who has lost their 
son, their daughter, their mother, their father, their brother, or 
their sister because of drunk driving by people who have illegally 
entered our country. It is worth remembering that the difference 
between a misdemeanor and a felony can be just 1 day in custody.
  These are not minor offenses. It is worth remembering that, 
particularly in a domestic violence context, a felony is often pleaded 
down to a misdemeanor because of challenges getting cooperation from 
the complaining witness, who frequently lives with the defendant.
  No fewer than 23 States classify certain domestic violence offenses 
as misdemeanors. In Minnesota, misdemeanor domestic violence even 
includes domestic abuse with a deadly weapon. That law may call it a 
misdemeanor, but it is a serious crime.
  So for one last time, I will issue my challenge: Are there any 
supporters of this bill who will come to the Senate floor and tell the 
American people why drunk drivers, domestic abusers, and already 
deported criminals should be given immediate legal status under this 
bill? Well, I won't be holding my breath. No one has taken me up on 
that yet.
  I have just a few final points. We have been told this bill reduces 
the Federal budget deficit over the next 10 years. Amazingly, in some 
sort of Washington-style accounting, we can spend about $50 billion and 
still save money. That is amazing. It is magical. And it is pure 
fantasy. We were told that previously on the Affordable Care Act, but 
we know this bill is premised on accounting tricks. The reality is that 
it will actually increase the on-budget deficit.
  This is the amazing thing to me. We have some of our colleagues who 
are some of the most effective deficit hawks in this Chamber--those who 
have been champions fighting against special spending projects that 
tend to corrupt the political process--yet they support this bill and 
seem to have turned a blind eye to the on-budget deficit and the fact 
that this bill is littered with de facto earmarks, carve-outs, and pet 
spending projects.
  We have been told this bill modernizes the southern border. Yet it 
does absolutely nothing to facilitate the flow of lawful trade and 
commerce across our border and to allow law enforcement to focus on the 
criminal element, which would represent a tremendous step in the right 
direction.
  I wish to reiterate that I agree with the Gang of 8 and those who 
support some aspects of this bill that we need a nationwide E-Verify 
system. I know Senator Portman from Ohio, for example, had an E-Verify 
improvement amendment, but, like 45 other amendments denied an 
opportunity to be heard as part of this process wherein we have only 
seen 10 votes on amendments, he was unable to offer that improvement to 
this bill.
  I agree with the Gang of 8 and those who say we need stricter 
penalties on employers who hire illegal immigrants. I agree with those 
who say we need to increase the number of visas for highly skilled 
immigrants with advanced STEM degrees. I agree with the goal of 
unifying families. All of these measures enjoy broad bipartisan 
support, and I want to offer my congratulations to the Gang of 8 for 
including them in this bill.
  However, I can't support a bill that repeats the mistakes of the past 
by making a promise of future action that will never be kept, 
particularly on border security, and one that repeats the mistakes of 
1986. I certainly can't support a bill that offers immediate legal 
status to drunk drivers, wife-beaters, and violent criminals.
  I was disappointed when my RESULTS amendment was tabled, and I am 
disappointed that today we are about to pass deeply flawed legislation 
that will not be taken up by the House of Representatives. But I take 
some comfort in knowing that while the initial Senate debate is ending, 
the broader nationwide debate is just beginning. In the weeks and 
months ahead, I want to continue to play an active and constructive 
role, particularly working with our colleagues in the House of 
Representatives, to pass real immigration reform that promotes security 
and prosperity for the American people.
  I note that one of our colleagues in the House called this bill a 
runaway train in the Senate, but that train is getting ready to slow 
down, and I think the American people will benefit from the Congress 
taking its time to make sure that we not simply pass a bill but we pass 
a good bill, one that reflects our values and one that also benefits 
our economy. I think they will benefit from a careful discussion and 
dialog between the Senate and the House about what ultimately will be 
the bill that goes to the President's desk.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CORNYN. I will.
  Mr. DURBIN. I have noticed on several occasions the affection my 
friend from Texas has for this poster board that contains this reputed 
quote from me. I wish to ask the Senator from Texas, since he has used 
that repeatedly on the floor, is he aware of the fact that when I was 
asked about the relationship between the path to citizenship and border 
enforcement, it was in the context of the Cornyn amendment which 
established a percentage requirement as part of border enforcement? Is 
the Senator aware that the bill itself includes a dramatic commitment 
to resources on the border of the Senator's State with the nation of 
Mexico--literally doubling the number of Border Patrol agents and 
billions of

[[Page 10660]]

dollars being spent to make sure we stop as much as humanly possible 
illegal immigration--and that before the path to citizenship, the bill 
requires an E-Verify system as well as an exit-entry visa system? Is 
the Senator aware that is not included in that reference he has made to 
my statement?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would say to my good friend, the 
assistant majority leader, I am aware of the promises that are made in 
the underlying bill. My point is there is no mechanism to guarantee the 
goals the Gang of 8, on which the assistant majority leader has 
served--the promises that are made in terms of 100-percent situational 
awareness and operational control--there is absolutely nothing there 
that will guarantee the American people that promise will be kept, 
which is a serious problem, which is the reason why, when I saw the 
bipartisan framework for comprehensive immigration reform, I was 
encouraged. Because I could support a bill that did make a pathway to 
legal permanent residency contingent upon a certification that these 
goals have been met. But I cannot based on sad experience dating back 
to 1986 and 1996, and other times in the past, where Congress has made 
repeated promises of future performance--promises that are never kept.
  I would say, in conclusion, the American people are asked to be 
extraordinarily generous here in terms of providing probationary status 
and the possibility of legal permanent residency, and maybe even 
citizenship in the future. That is an act of extraordinary generosity 
and compassion they are being asked to demonstrate. But to be given 
just promises that will not be kept by throwing money at the problem, 
without any real plan to make sure it is going to be effective, this 
bill falls way short of its promises.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would notify the assistant Republican 
leader I will be making a unanimous consent request in a few minutes 
after my remarks. I do not want him to be surprised by that.
  Members representing all corners of this great Nation have been 
working hard on amendments to improve this comprehensive immigration 
bill. For a week now we have been trying to negotiate a package of 
noncontroversial amendments to be included in this legislation.
  In my experience over the years, both in the majority and in the 
minority, for whatever bill you had before the Senate, when you have a 
list of noncontroversial amendments, they are simply agreed to by 
everybody and put in a managers' package so as not to take up a day 
voting on things that are going to pass anyway.
  Last week I filed a managers' package of amendments. I removed from 
this list the ones that have been objected to by other Members. 
Instead, though, the Republican minority has taken the position that in 
order to even clear a few noncontroversial amendments--which includes 
both Republican and Democratic amendments--the majority must agree to 
vote on dozens of highly contentious measures, including amendments 
being offered by Senators who have said that no matter what happens 
they are going to oppose the legislation. In my experience, under both 
Democratic and Republican leadership in the Senate, that has never been 
considered reasonable.
  Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle have complained we 
have not had more votes on this bipartisan immigration bill, and I 
share that frustration. From the outset, Republicans have delayed the 
bill's consideration and the ability of Members to file amendments by 
filibustering the motion to proceed to the bill. We all know the bill 
is going to get cloture, but they still filibustered the motion to 
proceed--just as one more delaying tactic. In fact, 15 Members refused 
to even cut off a filibuster, not for a vote on the legislation, but 
just to bring it on the floor so we could begin to debate it--delay 
after delay after delay.
  Then once we overcame the filibuster and we could debate the 
legislation, I offered an amendment, and then I agreed to set it aside 
so Senator Grassley could call up a Republican amendment--again, the 
comity we usually have in this place. Well, then, when the next set of 
amendments was ready to be made pending, the Republicans, instead of 
doing what we Democrats did--allowing them to come up--objected to 
setting aside the pending amendment and prevented the next two 
amendments from becoming pending and ready for a vote. Then they 
objected to time agreements on votes. They even objected to allowing 
the leader to modify my amendment late last week, last Thursday night.
  They complain about delays--why aren't we voting? Every time we try 
to vote, they object.
  The lack of cooperation on this bipartisan bill has been frustrating 
for Senators on both sides of the aisle. I have had a lot of Republican 
Senators who have come to me saying they do not agree with these 
delays. It has been clear since day one that a small minority of 
Republican Senators is going to do anything to thwart this bill's 
passage. It is hard to sympathize with those who complain they cannot 
get a vote on their amendments, when they have objected to even the 
most minor consent agreements to make progress on the bill. The 
expression ``crocodile tears'' comes to mind.
  We have tried to find a way forward for votes on both sides, but it 
has been thwarted. It makes one wonder whether some would rather have 
the ability to complain about process rather than take votes to improve 
the bill. I had hoped we could agree to a reasonable number of votes 
this week.
  Unfortunately, some people here want to vote maybe. They do not want 
to vote yes or no. We are elected to vote yes or no, not maybe.
  Yesterday we proposed votes on 17 Republican amendments and a smaller 
number--15--of Democratic amendments, but Republicans objected. It is a 
shame we have not been able to continue the momentum of bipartisan 
cooperation that marked the Judiciary Committee's process that has 
brought this bill so far.
  In the Judiciary Committee we had 301 amendments filed. We approved 
around 140 amendments. All but two or three were passed with bipartisan 
votes--both Democrats and Republicans. And when we finished all those, 
I asked if anybody wanted to bring up any further amendments. They did 
not. And we passed the bill out with a bipartisan majority. But we 
voted. Sometimes we voted a dozen times in 2 hours.
  We still have a chance to move a package of noncontroversial 
amendments. Instead of insisting the Senate vote on dozens of 
controversial amendments designed to harm the careful balance in this 
legislation, Republicans should clear the noncontroversial and good 
ideas on which many Republican and Democratic Senators have worked so 
hard. The amendments included on my manager's list have widespread 
support. They have been filed by Senators--both Republicans and 
Democrats--over the past 3 weeks. Many have already been discussed at 
length here on the Senate floor.
  I will take some examples. This package of noncontroversial 
amendments contains bipartisan amendments to improve oversight of 
certain immigration programs. It contains entirely technical amendments 
to the bill. It contains a bipartisan amendment by Senators Nelson and 
Wicker to provide for maritime security, as they have so correctly 
pointed out on this floor that we have a long border--not just our land 
border; we have very long borders on two oceans. It contains an 
amendment by a group of northern border Senators, led by Senator 
Heitkamp, to ensure border security measures at the northern border. 
There are several amendments from our colleagues from New Mexico to 
help facilitate cross-border travel and commerce.
  The list includes an amendment by Senator Brown to ensure that the 
border fence is constructed of materials made in America. Who could 
vote against that? The list contains an amendment by Senator Cochran 
and Senator Landrieu. She is the chairwoman of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Homeland Security. It

[[Page 10661]]

requires increased reporting on the EB-5 program--something that should 
be a no-brainer. The list contains two amendments championed by 
Senators Coats, Klobuchar, and Landrieu to ease the process for 
international adoptions--a humanitarian measure that should get strong 
bipartisan support. But these are just a few examples of what we have 
in here that we have all agreed should be able to be passed.
  I wish the list were longer. Early yesterday morning, I learned there 
were Republican objections to a number of Democratic amendments that 
had been on my list, including several that have Republican cosponsors. 
I was surprised to hear there are concerns about several of these 
amendments. One of those that has apparently raised Republican concerns 
is an amendment by Senator Hagan to authorize a border crime prevention 
program and reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Program to protect law 
enforcement officers. The Bulletproof Vest Program is from the days 
when Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and I first introduced it, and it 
has gotten overwhelming support because of all the lives of police 
officers it has saved.
  I hope those who are objecting to it will--the next time we have a 
police memorial here on the Mall in remembrance of those police 
officers who have died--explain to those police officers in attendance 
why they are opposed to them having bulletproof vests.
  Yet another is an amendment Senator Feinstein, Senator Cornyn, and 
others have championed to provide the judiciary with the resources to 
handle the large number of immigration cases.
  I do not understand why these are considered controversial. I was 
disappointed we had to remove the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment from this 
list because Republicans objected to the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment on 
resources for the judiciary.
  Nonetheless, I took these off, even though I thought they would be 
noncontroversial. I liked the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment, and the 
others--the bulletproof vest amendment--but we took them off because 
Republicans objected.
  So now I am going to propose a list--and I want to make sure the 
Republican leader is on the floor--that contains 32 sensible, 
noncontroversial amendments that strengthen the bill and makes it 
better. They deserve to be adopted. I recognize and share the 
frustration of many Senators who have worked on their amendments and 
want their chance to influence the bill. Amendments that have broad 
support should not be held hostage by the partisanship that has impeded 
our work.
  I am going to offer now--incidentally, before I do, I note there are 
32 in here; the majority of them--17--have Republican support.
  I ask unanimous consent the following amendments be called up en 
bloc; that the clerks be authorized to modify the instruction lines, 
where necessary, to match the intended page and line numbers of the 
committee-reported substitute, as amended; and the Senate then proceed 
to vote on adoption of the amendments en bloc: Baucus-Tester No. 1512; 
Boxer No. 1240; Brown No. 1597; Cardin-Kirk No. 1286; Carper-McCain No. 
1558, as modified with changes that are at the desk; Carper No. 1590; 
Coats No. 1288; Coats No. 1373; Coburn No. 1509; Coons No. 1715; Flake 
No. 1472; Heinrich No. 1342; Heinrich No. 1417; Heinrich No. 1559; 
Heitkamp No. 1593; Klobuchar-Landrieu-Coats-Blunt No. 1261; Klobuchar-
Coats-Landrieu-Blunt No. 1526; Landrieu-Coats No. 1338; Landrieu-
Cochran No. 1383; Leahy No. 1454; Leahy No. 1455; Murphy No. 1451; 
Murray-Crapo No. 1368; Nelson-Wicker No. 1618; Reed No. 1223; Reed No. 
1608; Schatz-Kirk No. 1416; Shaheen-Ayotte No. 1272; Stabenow-Collins 
No. 1405; Toomey No. 1236; Udall of New Mexico No. 1241; and Udall of 
New Mexico No. 1242.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  The Republican whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to 
compliment the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for 
the open process he conducted in committee to process amendments on 
both sides of the aisle and the open and transparent way that was done. 
That stands in stark contrast to what has happened here on the floor, 
where we have only had 10 amendments that have had rollcall votes, 
compared to 46 rollcall votes the last time we debated comprehensive 
immigration reform in 2007.
  I would point out for my distinguished colleague that of the 32 
amendments that are being offered now by unanimous consent to be voted 
upon, 27 of them are Democratic amendments and 5 of them are Republican 
amendments.
  Senator Leahy noted that one of my amendments was excluded. Actually 
all of my amendments have been excluded, including the one that would 
prohibit legalization of drunk drivers and spouse beaters and other 
criminals, as well as one that is designed to root out fraud in the 
program.
  On behalf of my ranking member, we object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate the compliments. But I am 
thinking of Shakespeare, ``I came here not to praise Caesar, but to 
bury him.'' Unfortunately these amendments have been buried by the 
objection.
  I would note that yesterday we offered 17 Republican amendments and 
15 Democratic amendments to be voted on. That was objected to. Those 
were offered by the distinguished majority leader. It is frustrating.
  I know we are about to go to executive session. I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senator from Hawaii, Ms. Hirono, have 2 minutes before 
the executive session.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I have talked about how this bill treats 
immigrant taxpayers, specifically the restrictions on access to Federal 
safety net programs. The bill prohibits immigrant taxpayers from using 
programs they helped to fund with the hundreds of billions of dollars 
of taxes they pay. This is truly unfair. I filed an amendment to 
correct this unfair treatment. This amendment is No. 1317. My amendment 
simply says immigrant taxpayers who are lawfully present and working 
and who have paid all of their tax liabilities should be able to use 
the Federal programs their taxes pay for. This is simply common sense.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senators Boxer, Rockefeller, and Schatz 
be added as cosponsors of amendment No. 1317.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. HIRONO. I thank these Senators for their support.
  This amendment is supported by over 180 organizations including the 
National Immigration Law Center, National Council of La Raza, the Asian 
Pacific Islander American Health Forum, National Latina Institute for 
Reproductive Health, the AFL-CIO, U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops, the 
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
  I have several letters from these organizations that attest to their 
support of my amendment. I ask unanimous consent that one of these 
letters, which is signed by 179 organizations, be printed in the Record 
following my remarks.
  I have also been working with many Senators on an amendment to 
provide additional opportunities for women in the new merit-based 
immigration system created in the bill. Amendment No. 1718 would create 
a new tier 3 category with 30,000 merit-based visas. Tier 3 is 
structured in a way that allows women a fairer chance to compete for 
these visas.
  The Hirono-Murray-Murkowski amendment currently has 19 cosponsors. I 
ask unanimous consent that Senators Whitehouse and Schatz be added as 
cosponsors of amendment No. 1718.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. HIRONO. Amendment 1718 is a modified version of amendment No. 
1504. I made those modifications after working with Senator Graham, and 
he

[[Page 10662]]

has agreed to support this new amendment. I thank him for his support.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. HIRONO. I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. HIRONO. I also have letters from over 100 organizations in 
support of amendment Nos. 1718 and 1504. I ask unanimous consent that 
some of these letters of support be printed in the Record following my 
remarks.
  I thank UNITE HERE, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human 
Rights, We Belong Together, and the Asian American Justice Center for 
organizing these letters and for their support. I also thank the AFL-
CIO and SEIU for their support.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    June 18, 2013.
       To All Members of the U.S. Senate: We welcome the Senate's 
     consideration of comprehensive immigration reform as the 
     Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration 
     Modernization Act (S. 744) proceeds to the Senate floor. As 
     advocates for the health of the most vulnerable in our 
     communities, we have deep concerns about provisions in S. 744 
     that would harm the health and well-being of aspiring 
     citizens and their families. Immigrants on the roadmap to 
     citizenship will be paying taxes, and as taxpayers, aspiring 
     citizens should have access to taxpayer-funded programs like 
     all Americans.
       Senator Hirono (D-HI) plans to introduce an amendment to 
     restore taxpayer fairness to aspiring citizens. The amendment 
     provides that all immigrants who are lawfully present, 
     employed, and have satisfied their federal tax liability 
     shall not be prohibited from using any federally-funded 
     program or tax credit solely on the basis of their 
     immigration status. Allowing immigrants to use the programs 
     they pay for will enable them to be more economically 
     successful. We urge you to stand with Senator Hirono and 
     others to correct the unfair restrictions on access to 
     health, nutrition, and economic supports, thereby ensuring 
     that the roadmap to citizenship allows immigrants equal 
     opportunity to succeed in our country.
       As currently proposed, S. 744 bars most individuals in RPI 
     status from vital federal health coverage, nutrition 
     assistance, and economic security programs for the entire 
     period they are in provisional status, which would be at 
     least 10 years. When RPIs become Lawful Permanent Residents 
     (LPRs) and earn their green card, current law further 
     restricts LPRs from accessing these vital federal programs 
     for another five years. S. 744 also bars aspiring citizens in 
     RPI status from the premium tax credits and cost- sharing 
     reductions that will allow them to participate in the new 
     health insurance marketplaces established under the 
     Affordable Care Act (ACA). Individuals in blue-card and V 
     visa status are similarly restricted from accessing safety 
     net programs, premium tax credits, and cost-sharing 
     reductions.
       The restrictions in S. 744 mean that most aspiring citizens 
     may have to pay into programs for 15 years before they can 
     use them if their kids get sick or if they lose their jobs. 
     For about half a million children who may soon be on the 
     roadmap to citizenship, these restrictions could impact their 
     development and ability to learn in school. For pregnant 
     women, it could mean no access to prenatal care that is 
     critical to the health of infants and women. For women with 
     undetected breast or cervical cancer, a 15-year wait to see a 
     doctor could be the difference between life and death. These 
     restrictions will result in poorer health outcomes, wider 
     health disparities, lower worker productivity, and higher 
     costs to the healthcare system. The restrictions are also out 
     of line with the views of most Americans: 63% believe those 
     on the roadmap to citizenship should be eligible for Medicaid 
     and 59% believe they should be eligible for affordability 
     options under the ACA. Entrenching struggling parents and 
     families in poverty prevents economic competitiveness and 
     productivity; additionally, these programs exist so people 
     can take economic risks like starting a business. Instead, 
     better immigration policy will facilitate the integration of 
     aspiring citizens into the social and economic fabric of our 
     country.
       Moreover, denying aspiring citizens access to the very 
     programs that they pay into with their tax dollars is 
     inherently unfair. Aspiring citizens currently pay $11.2 
     billion annually in taxes. Already, immigrants have paid $115 
     billion more in taxes into the Medicare system than they have 
     used. As aspiring citizens move forward on the roadmap to 
     citizenship, they will contribute even more to government 
     revenue in fines, fees, and taxes.
       Senator Hirono's amendment to restore taxpayer fairness to 
     aspiring citizens will enable those on the roadmap to 
     citizenship to succeed and will promote the health of our 
     families, communities, and economy. We urge you to stand with 
     Senator Hirono to ensure that the roadmap to citizenship is 
     fair and allows aspiring citizens to live with health, 
     dignity, and justice.
       Thank you for your time and consideration to these issues.
           Sincerely,
       9to5, 9to5 Atlanta, 9to5 California, 9to5 Colorado, 9to5 
     Milwaukee, Abortion Care Network, ACCESS Women's Health 
     Justice, Advocates for Women AFL-CIO, AIDS Alabama, AIDS 
     Foundation of Chicago, AIDS United, Alliance for a Just 
     Society, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Congress of 
     Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Federation of 
     State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Americans for 
     Immigrant Justice, formerly Florida Immigrant Advocacy 
     Center, Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, Asian & 
     Pacific Islander American Health Forum, Asian American 
     Justice Center, Member of Asian American Center for Advancing 
     Justice, Asian Law Alliance, Asian Pacific American Labor 
     Alliance, AFL-CIO, ASISTA Immigration Assistance.
       Association of Asian Pacific Community Health 
     Organizations, Association of Farmworker Opportunity 
     Programs, Association of Reproductive Health Professionals 
     (ARHP), Breakthrough, California Latinas for Reproductive 
     Justice, California Primary Care Association, California 
     Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Campaign for Better Health 
     Care, CASA de Maryland, Center for Community Change (CCC), 
     Center for Independence of the Disabled, NY, Center for Law 
     and Social Policy (CLASP), Center for Medicare Advocacy, 
     Inc., Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice at University 
     of California Berkeley School of Law, Central Ohio Immigrant 
     Justice, Children's Defense Fund, Church of Our Saviour/
     Iglesia de Nuestro Salvador, Civil Liberties and Public 
     Policy, CLUE Santa Barbara, Coalition for Asian American 
     Children and Families, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights 
     of Los Angeles.
       Coalition for Peace Action of Monroe Township, Coalition on 
     Human Needs, COFA Community Advocacy Network, COMGARIGUA, 
     Community Action Partnership, Connecticut Multicultural 
     Health Partnership, CT Asian Pacific American Affairs 
     Commission, Direct Care Alliance, DRUM--Desis Rising Up & 
     Moving, El Concilio/Council for the Spanish Speaking, Empire 
     Justice Center, Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM), 
     Families USA, Farmworker Association of Florida, Feminist 
     Majority, First Focus Campaign for Children, Georgia Rural 
     Urban Summit, Hawai'i Coalition for Immigration Reform, 
     Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Health Care 
     for All Philadelphia, Health Care for America Now, 
     HealthyPacific.Org, HIKITTI Community, HIV Prevention Justice 
     Alliance, Housing Works.
       Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, 
     Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota, Immigrant Legal Advocacy 
     Project, Immigrant Service Providers Group/Health, 
     International Tribunal of Conscience, Jewish Community 
     Action, Jewish Labor Committee Western Region, Kentucky 
     Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, Koolauloa Health 
     Center, Korean Community Center of the East Bay, La Clinica 
     del Pueblo, La Raza Centro Legal, Latin American Association, 
     Latino Coalition for a Healthy California, Latino Commission 
     on AIDS, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, 
     Leadership Conference of Woman Religious, League of United 
     Latin American Citizens, Lifting Latina Voices Initiative/
     FWHC, Lowcountry Immigration Coalition, LUMA, Lutheran 
     Immigration and Refugee Service.
       Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, 
     Methodist Federation for Social Action, Mexican American 
     Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Micronesian United Big 
     Island, Ministry of Health, Moloka'i Community Service 
     Council, MomsRising.Org, Ms. Foundation for Women, National 
     Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities, 
     National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, National 
     Association of Counsel for Children, National Center for Law 
     and Economic Justice, National Center for Lesbian Rights, 
     National Center for Transgender Equality, National Conference 
     of Puerto Rican Women, Inc., National Council of Jewish 
     Women, National Council of La Raza (NCLR), National 
     Employment Law Project, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force 
     Action Fund, National Health Care for the Homeless Council, 
     National Health Law Program, National Hispanic Medical 
     Association, National Immigrant Justice Center, National 
     Immigration Law Center.
       National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, National 
     Organization for Women, National Physicians Alliance, 
     National Senior Citizens Law Center, National Women's Health 
     Network, National Women's Law Center, NCJW--Maine Section, 
     Nema Hawaii Community Association, New Economics for Women, 
     New Mexico Voices for Children, New York Lawyers for the 
     Public Interest, New Yorkers for Accessible Health Coverage, 
     Ni-ta-nee NOW, North Dallas Chapter of the National 
     Organization for Women, Northern Manhattan Coalition for 
     Immigrant Rights, Northwest Health Law Advocates,

[[Page 10663]]

     OneAmerica, Pacific Islander Health Partnership, Pennsylvania 
     Council of Churches, PHI PolicyWorks, Physicians for 
     Reproductive Health, Planned Parenthood Federation of 
     America, Pohnpei Fellowship Ministry.
       Political Asylum Immigration Representation Project, 
     Project Inform, Raleigh Episcopal Campus Ministry, Ramirez 
     Group, Reformed Church of Highland Park, NJ, Refugio del Rio 
     Grande, Religious for Immigration Reform, Reproductive Health 
     Technologies Project, RESULTS, Rockland Immigration 
     Coalition, Safehouse Progressive Alliance for Nonviolence, 
     Salvadoran American National Network, Sargent Shriver 
     National Center on Poverty Law, Sea Mar Community Health 
     Centers, Silicon Valley Alliance for Immigration Reform, 
     Single Stop USA, Sisters of Mercy West Midwest Justice Team, 
     South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT), South Cove 
     Community Health Center, The Black Institute, The Center for 
     APA Women, The Children's Advocacy Institute, The Children's 
     Partnership.
       The Hat Project, Unitarian Society of New Haven, 
     Immigration Rights Task Force, United for a Fair Economy, 
     United Migrant Opportunity Services/UMOS Inc, United We 
     Dream, Unity Fellowship Church NYC, University of Hawaii, 
     Violence Intervention Program, Voces de la Frontera, Voices 
     for America's Children, Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for 
     Immigrant Rights, We Belong Together: Women For Common-Sense 
     Immigration Reform, WI Council on Children and Families, 
     Women Watch Afrika, Inc., Women's Law Project, Worker Justice 
     Center, YWCA, YWCA USA.
                                  ____

                                                    June 21, 2013.
       Dear Senator: We, the undersigned organizations that 
     advocate on behalf of women, children and families, urge you 
     to support Hirono #1504, co-sponsored by Senators Hirono, 
     Murray, Baldwin, Boxer, Cantwell, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, 
     Landrieu, Leahy, Mikulski, Murkowski, Shaheen, Stabenow and 
     Warren. Hirono #1504 goes to the heart of making the 
     immigration system fair and inclusive by adding a new tier to 
     the proposed merit-based system that is more inclusive of 
     women's contributions.
       We are all deeply committed to ensuring that any 
     immigration reform bill treats women fairly and acknowledges 
     the many specific situations and contributions of women. We 
     believe that the proposed merit-based system for employment 
     green cards in S. 744, as currently written, will 
     significantly disadvantage women who want to come to this 
     country, particularly unmarried women. Awarding points 
     primarily for education and employment experience fails to 
     recognize the lack of opportunities and barriers that women 
     face in accessing both education and employment in their home 
     countries, barriers that are significantly worse than for 
     men. This, in effect, cements into U.S. immigration law 
     barriers and inequities that women face in their home 
     countries and inadvertently restricts the opportunities 
     available to women across the globe.
       Currently, approximately 70% of immigrant women come to 
     this country through the family-based system. Employment-
     based visas favor men over women by nearly a four to one 
     margin because U.S. immigration law places a premium placed 
     on male-dominated fields like engineering and computer 
     science. However, women perform essential work as primary 
     caregivers, domestic workers, in-home health care workers and 
     nurses. They also are often the backbone of families, taking 
     care of those in an extended family who are ill or unable to 
     care for themselves. Economically, women are increasingly the 
     primary breadwinners in immigrant families, making it more 
     likely for the family to open a small business or purchase a 
     home. Women are also the primary drivers of immigrant 
     integration for the entire family, encouraging others to 
     learn English and integrate effectively into the community.
       We believe that Hirono #1504 is essential to ensuring that 
     we do not inadvertently cement discrimination against women 
     into U.S. immigration law. The amendment would establish a 
     Tier 3 merit-based point system that would provide a fair 
     opportunity for women to compete for merit-based green cards. 
     Complementary to the high-skilled Tier 1 and the lower-
     skilled Tier 2, the new Tier 3 would include professions 
     commonly held by women so as not to limit women's 
     opportunities for economic-focused immigration. It would 
     provide 30,000 Tier 3 visas and would not reduce the visas 
     available in the other merit-based Tiers.
       America has always held out hope and opportunity to 
     millions of women across the world. Women move here to make 
     life better for themselves and their families. They move 
     seeking freedom and opportunity often denied in other places. 
     As Americans, we honor and celebrate our unique commitment to 
     protecting families and giving equal opportunities and 
     respect to women and girls. We need our immigration system to 
     reflect that commitment, and to provide opportunities to 
     everyone, including women.
       We urge you to support Hirono #1504 and help ensure 
     fairness for women in immigration reform. If you have any 
     questions, please contact Pramila Jayapal at We Belong 
     Together: Women for Common-Sense Immigration Reform at 
     [email protected] or June Zeitlin at The Leadership Conference 
     for Civil and Human Rights at [email protected].
           Sincerely,
       18Million Rising.org, 9to5, Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, 
     ALIGN New York, Alliance for a Just Society, American Baptist 
     Home Mission Societies, American Jewish Committee, Asian 
     American Justice Center, Asian American Legal Defense and 
     Education Fund, Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-
     CIO, Association of Asian Pacific Community Health 
     Organizations, Breakthrough, California Latinas for 
     Reproductive Justice, Campaign for Community Change (CCC), 
     Capuchin Justice and Peace Office, Carmelites, Vedruna ICJP, 
     Casa de Esperanza: National Latin@ Network for Healthy 
     Families and Communities, Center for Gender & Refugee 
     Studies, Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc., Chinese 
     American planning council, inc., Christian Church (Disciples 
     of Christ) Refugee and Immigration Ministries, Church World 
     Service, CLUE Santa Barbara.
       Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, 
     Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive 
     Rights, Communication Workers of America, Conference of Major 
     Superiors of Men, CUNY Law Immigrant Initiatives, Daughters 
     of Wisdom, Dominican Sisters of Houston, DRUM--Desis Rising 
     Up & Moving, Family Values @ Work Consortium, Farmworker 
     Justice, Feminist Majority, Franciscan Action Network, 
     Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights, Good Shepherd 
     Immigration Study Group, Hispanic Center of Western Michigan, 
     IHM Justice, Peace and Sustainability Office, Immigrant Law 
     Center of Minnesota, Immigration Equality Action Fund, 
     Institute for Women in Migration (IMUMI), International 
     Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural 
     Implement Workers of America (UAW).
       Japanese American Citizens League, Justice and Peace 
     Committee, Sisters of St. Joseph of West Hartford CT, Korean 
     Americans for Political Advancement (KAPA), LatinoJustice 
     PRLDEF, Leadership Conference of Women Religious, The 
     Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Lutheran 
     Immigration and Refugee Service, MinKwon Center for Community 
     Action, MomsRising.org, National Advocacy Center of the 
     Sisters of the Good Shepherd, National Asian Pacific American 
     Bar Association (NAPABA), National Asian Pacific American 
     Women's Forum (NAPAWF), National Center for Lesbian Rights, 
     National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NLDON), National 
     Domestic Workers Alliance, National Employment Law Project, 
     National Federation of Filipino American Associations, 
     National Immigrant Justice Center, National Immigration Law 
     Center, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, 
     National Women's Law Center.
       OCA-NY Asian Pacific American Advocates, OneAmerica, Our 
     Lady of Victory Missionary Sisters, PICO National Network, 
     Presentation Sisters, Religious Sisters of Charity, School 
     Sisters of Notre Dame JPIC Office Atlantic-Midwest Province, 
     Sisters of Mercy, Sisters of Mercy West Midwest Community, 
     Sisters of St. Francis, Tiffin, OH, Sisters of St. Joseph of 
     Rochester, South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT), 
     Tahirih Justice Center, Tennessee Immigrant & Refugee Rights 
     Coalition, The Advocates for Human Rights, The Episcopal 
     Church, The New American Leaders Project, Unid@s, Union of 
     sisters of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, US 
     Province, United Methodist Church, General Board of Church 
     and Society, United Methodist Women, Violence Intervention 
     Program, West Michigan Coalition for Immigration Reform, We 
     Belong Together Campaign, Women's Refugee Commission.

                          ____________________