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

BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND IMMIGRATION MODERNIZATION
ACT

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

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

Pending:

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

Amendment No. 1208

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

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

The amendment is as follows:

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

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

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

[[Page S4629]]

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

Women's Health Care

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

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

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

[[Page S4630]]

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

[[Page S4631]]

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

Amendment No. 1240

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 1227

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. HELLER. Madam President, the debate we are having in this Chamber
is incredibly important to our Nation's

[[Page S4632]]

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

[[Page S4633]]

who appears to have only gotten the CBO score for the first 10 years
but not the second 10 years, even though I understand he was the one
who asked for the CBO to score the second 10 years, apparently the
second 10 years holds an inconvenient truth for my friend. The good
news in this analysis actually gets better in the second 10 years. The
CBO reports that immigration reform will reduce the deficit by $700
billion, increase wages by half a percent, increase GDP by 5.4 percent,
and increase productivity and innovation.
As I listen to the Senator from Alabama make his remarks about the
CBO report on wages, I don't think the numbers say he believes what
they say. He was talking about how American family wages would go down,
and the report explicitly says that is not the case.
In fact, Ezra Klein wrote yesterday in the Washington Post that the
idea that immigration would lower wages of already working Americans is
``actually a bit misleading. . . . As for folks already here, CBO is
careful to note that their estimates ``do not necessarily imply that
current U.S. residents would be worse off'' in the first 10 years, and
in the second 10 years, they estimate that the average American's wages
will actually rise.''
In addition, in case my friend from Alabama missed it, the report
also says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The good news in this CBO report about the economic benefits of
immigration reform is exactly one of the reasons 70 percent of
Americans support it. It is good for the economy. Once again, we
realize the breadth of support for this legislation goes far beyond
politics, demographics, or elections. It goes to our responsibility to
the economy and to our country.
We have an obligation to pass this legislation if we want to fix our
immigration system and rebuild our economy.
To those opponents of immigration reform who tell us ``those people''
will come here and use services, demand more and bankrupt the system, I
would point them to this graphic.
The sizable deficit reduction from immigration reform in the first 10
years is actually dwarfed by the amount that immigrants will continue
to contribute in reducing the national deficit in the second 10 years.
This clearly shows immigration reform is good for America now and in
the long term. People have long realized, and the CBO numbers show us,
that this legislation is, without a doubt, the right thing to do. It
benefits all of us as an issue.
These are people who have come here to work, contribute to our
economy, our economic competitiveness, pay their taxes, and be part of
the dream. The CBO report simply puts numbers to what that dream is all
about and what we have known all along.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, as chair of the Agriculture, Nutrition
and Forestry Committee, I rise today to speak about the urgent need for
comprehensive immigration reform. I too, along with the distinguished
Senator from New Jersey, wish to indicate that it is very good news
that this is not only good in a number of ways to have a legal system
that is working for the economy, but we are actually going to see
deficit reduction. Saving money as well as providing certainty in the
economy for workers and businesses, a legal system that works for
people, for families, business workers, is extremely positive.
I wish to congratulate all of my colleagues and friends on both sides
of the aisle who have worked so hard: the leader of the Judiciary
Committee, the leader of the Immigration Subcommittee, and all of those
on both sides of the aisle who have worked so hard to make this happen.
I particularly thank Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Bennet, and
others who have worked very hard on a portion of the bill that relates
to agriculture.
In agriculture, we need comprehensive immigration reform. It is
critically important for farmers from Michigan, Wisconsin, Alabama,
California, and everywhere in between.
As you know, we passed our farm bill with wide bipartisan support a
week ago. In the debate, we talked a lot about risk management and
making sure that farmers have a safety net when they experience a
disaster, whether it be a drought, a late freeze, or other severe
weather. But what about when the weather is good, the Sun shines, there
is enough rain but not too much, and it falls at the right times and
the crops grow and ripen, and then there aren't enough people to
harvest it, which has happened too many times in Michigan? When that
happens, crops unpicked, unsorted, and unsold rot in the fields. In
California, last year peach growers saw much of their crop rot on the
trees because they couldn't find enough workers. One farmer outside
Marysville, CA, said he was losing 5 percent of his peaches every day--
every day--because he couldn't get enough farm workers and the system
didn't work. And this year grapefruit growers are already behind on
picking by 2 weeks because of the labor shortage. We need a legal
system that works.

In Alabama, in 2011 thousands of farm workers fled the State as a new
immigration law was passed and undermined the ability to get quality
legal workers. Brian Cash, a tomato grower on Chandler Mountain, said
that one day he had 64 workers and the next day he had 11 when the new
law made it a crime not to carry valid documents at all times, which
forced police to check on anyone they suspected was here illegally. The
way this was put together, it was not workable. So we need a system
that works, that is realistic, that makes sure everyone, in fact, who
is here is documented as legally here, but

[[Page S4634]]

it has to be done in a way that works for farmers and workers. Because
Brian didn't have enough workers to harvest his 125 acres, he watched
his tomato crop rot in the field, and that loss cost him $100,000.
In my home State of Michigan last year, we couldn't get enough
workers to help harvest the crops up and down the west side of the
State. Asparagus grower John Bakker, who runs the Michigan Asparagus
Advisory Board, reports that 97 percent of Michigan asparagus is
harvested by hand and almost all of our hand-harvesting labor comes
from migrant workers. That means much of our asparagus crop,
unfortunately, was left in the field last year.
As you can see here, this was all left in the field. All of this is
what has happened.
Alan Overhiser from Casco Township, MI, grows peaches and apples on
225 acres. He typically hires 25 to 30 seasonal workers. Right now he
only has two. He said:

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

So we need to have a legal system that farmers can count on to have
the skilled labor they need.
Dianne Smith, the executive director of the Michigan Apple Committee,
said that because last year's crop harvest was lost to a weather
disaster, many farm workers, of course, moved on to different jobs. In
fact, she said that apple growers from Michigan to Washington are
desperate to get back the skilled workers they need and that growers
are hearing that until immigration is worked out, until there is a
legal system they can trust and count on, workers they have worked with
for years aren't willing to come back to the United States.
Russ Costanza grows squash, peppers, cucumbers, tomatoes, and
eggplants on his Michigan farm. In the 1960s every farm worker his
father hired came from nearby Benton Harbor, MI. As of 2010 not a
single worker came from that city.
Again, there are the challenges of finding farm workers, those who
are skilled and who want to do this kind of work.
Fred Leitz, who also farms near Benton Harbor, says American workers
don't want to work in the fields. He has reached out to find workers
and says it is a particular kind of work that most American workers are
not interested in doing. In 2009 migrant workers held 200 of the 225
jobs at his apple orchard, and he said he would be out of business
without their help. He has to have a legal system that works so that he
knows he is following the law, so that people know they are following
the law, they can count on it, and they can have the skilled workers
they need every year.
Today, 77 percent of our country's farm workers are foreign born.
These are men and women who work in extremely difficult jobs. They are
people who need and want to follow the law. We have to make sure the
law works. We need immigration reform to make sure we have an
accountable system.
For our workers who put in so much effort all year long only to watch
their crops rot in the fields, we need immigration reform. We need a
legal system that works. If they do not have workers to pick all of
their crops, then farmers are going to plant fewer acres. The effect of
a labor shortage can be just as devastating and disastrous on our food
supply and our families' grocery bills as a drought or a freeze.
So there is no two ways about it. We need to pass this bill. We need
immigration reform. We need a system that is accountable, that is
credible, that is legal, and that works. Farmers and farm worker
organizations are strongly endorsing this bill because fixing our
immigration system is what the bill before us is all about.
I am very pleased people have come together--those representing
workers, those representing farmers--to find something that actually is
a good balance and works for everyone in this sector of the economy.
This bill first creates a way for current undocumented workers to
obtain legal status through the blue card program if they have worked
at least 100 work days or 575 hours from January 1, 2010, through
December 31, 2012. All the blue card holders receive biometric
identification, and employers will be required to provide a record of
their employment to the Department of Agriculture as well. To be
eligible then for a green card, the workers must have worked for at
least 100 days per year for 8 years prior to enactment or 150 days for
5 years prior to enactment, and they also would have to show that they
paid taxes on the income they earned while in blue card status and that
they have not been convicted of any felony or violent misdemeanor as
well.

Next, the bill also establishes an agriculture worker program to
assign work visas for immigrant workers who don't wish to live in the
United States but want to be able to come to the United States and work
legally. Workers must register with USDA and pay a registration fee,
and the USDA will create an electronic employment monitoring system
similar to our current student and exchange visitor information system
to track temporary workers.
This bill ensures a review of the visa cap after 5 years so we can
see how the program is working for farmers and for farm workers. It
also gives the Secretary of Agriculture the power to increase the
number of visas in an emergency, as in a situation where we don't have
enough workers and the crops are actually rotting in the fields.
In addition, any workers who are unemployed for more than 60 days or
breach a contract with an employer will have to leave the United
States.
Furthermore, the bill provides much needed certainty for farmers and
for workers when it comes to wages. Under the bill farmers will know
how much to plan to spend on help, and workers will know how much to
plan on earning for their work.
Finally, farm employers must hire eligible and qualified American
workers before filling any shortages of workers through the visa
program. So, as always--and certainly a high priority for me--we want
to make sure American workers have the first opportunity for these
jobs. It is only in a situation where there are not Americans applying
and wishing to have this employment that we would then turn to those
who are legally here and who are foreign born.
We are the top agricultural export country in the world--the top.
That is one of the bright spots for us. As I have said so many times,
16 million people work in this industry. We can't continue to be the
top export country if we leave crops in the fields or on the trees
because we don't have a legal system that works and we don't have legal
employees who are here, workers who are here legally and who can do the
work. So we need to pass this bill.
There are many reasons to pass this bill. One is to make sure we are
actually picking from the fruit trees and not letting things fall and
rot on the ground--the precious food we are growing across the country.
We need to pass this bill because our food supply and the world's food
supply depend on being able to get the crops out of the fields.
We have done a great job working together to produce a 5-year farm
bill that addresses everything from research and support for farmers
when they have disasters to conservation practices, trade, local food
systems, rural development, and on and on. The one piece we can do now
that will really give American agriculture a positive one-two punch is
to pass this bill.
This bill is a balance. It has been worked out among all those
involved in the agricultural economy, both from a business standpoint
and a worker standpoint. Everyone is very clear: The system is broken.
It doesn't work. It doesn't work for anybody right now. So we need a
system that works, that is accountable, that has the right kind of
balance, and that, of course, puts American workers first but allows
our farmers to have the legal workers they need as well in that
process.
This bill makes sense, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

Amendment No. 1320

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set
aside the pending amendment so that I may call up my amendment No. 1320
which is at the desk.

[[Page S4635]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

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

TITLE I--BORDER SECURITY

SEC. 1101. BORDER SECURITY REQUIREMENTS.

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

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

There has been a surge in illegal migrants, mostly from
Central America, trying to sneak around the checkpoint by
cutting through the desolate ranches and labyrinths of
mesquite brush that parallel the highway.
They arrive in South Texas by riding the freight trains up
through southern Mexico and along the gulf coast. Smugglers
float them across the Rio Grande to safe houses and border
cities such as Brownsville and McAllen, then drive them north
toward Houston and San Antonio along U.S. Route 281.
Several miles before the Falfurrias Border Patrol
checkpoint, the smugglers pull over, and that's where the
migrants start walking.

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

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

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

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

When winter arrives and quail hunters come to his ranch with dogs,
more bodies show up. Last year 16 bodies were found on Cage's ranch.
Sixteen men, women, and children lost their lives because of our broken
immigration system.
Sadly, the 16 found on Mr. Cage's ranch represent only a small
fraction of the 129 bodies found in just Brooks County last year. The
county spent $159,000 last year to recover and bury those who went
unclaimed. They are buried at the Sacred Heart Burial Park. They are
spread across three sections of the cemetery. In those three sections,
the graves do not have names.

[[Page S4636]]

The remains of a human being lie marked only by simple aluminum markers
carrying serial numbers or sterile descriptions: ``Unknown Female,''
``Bones,'' or ``Skull.''
No one who cares about our humanity would want to maintain a system
where the border isn't secure, where vulnerable women and children
entrust themselves to corrupt coyotes and drug dealers and are left to
die in the desert. This is a system that produces human tragedy, and
the most heartbreaking aspect of this Gang of 8 bill is that it will
perpetuate this tragedy. It will not fix the problem. It will not
secure the borders.
Linda Vickers, who is a constituent from Brooks County, wrote me
about the situation she faces:

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

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

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

A system that perpetuates these human tragedies is cruel. It is the
opposite of humane. Yet the bill before this Senate, the Gang of 8
bill, encourages illegal immigration now and more in the future if it
is passed.
Apprehensions in the Rio Grande Valley are projected to be higher in
fiscal year 2013 than in any year since 2000, and the number of
apprehensions to date, after only 8 months, is already more than the
total apprehensions in fiscal years 2002 to 2004 and 2007 to 2011.
This is a chart of the apprehensions of what Homeland Security refers
to as OTMs--those who are other than Mexican--because a significant
number of people coming into this country illegally are not from Mexico
but are from other nations.
The black line represents apprehensions of OTMs along the southwest
border, and the white line represents apprehensions in Texas. You see
two clear spots--one in the mid-2000s, coming up right upon the
consideration of the last major amnesty bill, and we saw apprehensions
spike dramatically as people were incentivized by that offer of amnesty
to risk their lives coming here illegally, and we see again a second
spike happening right now.

DHS statistics show apprehensions on the southwest border are up 13
percent versus the same time last year--from 170,223 in 2012 to
192,298.
The Gang of 8 bill encourages illegal immigration in many ways, one
of which is by prohibiting immigration law enforcement from detaining
or deporting any apprehended illegal immigrant if they ``appear to be
eligible for instant legalization'' and requiring that they be allowed
to apply for amnesty. In other words, what this bill does is it
handcuffs law enforcement from enforcing our immigration laws. We
should not be surprised that when you handcuff law enforcement, the
result is more and more breaking the law.
The Gang of 8 bill allows illegal aliens who have been previously
removed to, in the Secretary's discretion, be eligible for legalization
even if they have illegally reentered the country yet again. And
neither the Gang of 8 bill nor many of the alternative border security
proposals that have been introduced do enough to meaningfully secure
our borders.
The last time this body passed major immigration reform was 1986. In
1986 the Federal Government made a promise to the American people. The
Federal Government said: We will grant amnesty to some 3 million people
who are here illegally. In exchange, we will secure the borders. We
will stop illegal immigration. We will fix the problem. The American
people accepted that offer. What happened in 1986 was that the amnesty
happened, 3 million people received it, and yet the border security
never happened.
I was struck last week when the senior Senator from New York stood at
his desk and said: When this bill passes, illegal immigration will be a
thing of the past. It was an echo from the debate in 1986. In 1986 that
same promise was made to the American people: Just grant amnesty and
illegal immigration will be a thing of the past. Do you know what we
have learned? If legalization comes first, border security never
happens.
One of the major questions before this body is, Which should come
first, legalization or border security? I can tell you that the
overwhelming majority of Americans, Republicans and Democrats, want
border security first before any legalization. Yet the Gang of 8 bill
and the alternatives before this body don't require even a single
additional Border Patrol agent prior to legalization. The Gang of 8
bill does not require that a single foot of fencing be built along the
border prior to legalization. The Gang of 8 bill does not require a
biometric exit-entry system prior to legalization.
Unlike the Gang of 8 bill, the amendment I have called up does
provide real border security. It does what we have been telling the
American people, but it actually follows through on it. Prior to
legalization, my amendment would do a number of things. No. 1, it would
triple the number of Border Patrol agents on the southern border. Today
there are a little over 18,000 Border Patrol agents on the border, but
our border is not secure. This bill triples that. This bill quadruples
the number of cameras, sensors, helicopters, fixed-wing assets,
technology, and infrastructure on the border. This bill requires that
we complete all 700 miles of the fencing required by law in the Secure
Fence Act. This bill requires real-time sharing of information among
Federal law enforcement agencies. This bill requires that we complete
and fully implement the US-VISIT system, including biometric exist-
entry. And this bill requires that we establish operational control
over 100 percent of the southern border.
Proponents of the Gang of 8 bill suggest that we don't need
additional border patrol. I have to say that it is interesting seeing
Senators who represent States that are very, very far away from the
border standing up with complete confidence and sharing what we need to
do to secure the border.
I can tell you, every time I have been to the border in my home State
of Texas, the No. 1 answer that has been given from people on the
ground--how do we fix this? How do we secure the border? How do we make
it so you are not at risk from Mexican drug cartels and from the
constant human tragedy of illegal immigration? The No. 1 answer you get
over and over from law enforcement on the ground is this: More boots on
the ground.
Let me put things in perspective in terms of what exactly we are
talking about with boots on the ground. We need to have sufficient
resources to secure the border. And let's take as a comparison the
border versus New York City. In New York City, there are 34,500 NYPD
officers. The area those 34,000 officers are policing is 468 square
miles. That is a density of about 73 officers per square mile. By
contrast, the border has 18,516 Border Patrol agents, but instead of
policing 468 square miles, they are policing approximately 200,000
square miles. That is a density of 0.1 agents per square mile.
Let's look at it in a different way to get a sense of the
differential there is right now. In New York City, 34,500 NYPD
officers, as represented by this chart, are policing about 470 square
miles--that little dot. By comparison, roughly half this number of
Border Patrol agents are policing a square that large. And that is why
law enforcement on the border says that whenever you spot those who are
coming here illegally--even if you spot them, even if you find them,
there is a delay in getting Border Patrol agents there to apprehend
them, and by the time they are there, many of them have escaped and
fled into the interior.

[[Page S4637]]

Why focus on inputs? One of the reasons to focus on inputs is that
this administration in particular has demonstrated both a willingness
to disregard the law and less than complete fidelity to truth.
Proponents of the Gang of 8 say there are provisions in this statute
that require that DHS fix the problem. I would like to point out a
couple of provisions of current law.
If you look right now at current law, current Federal law requires:

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

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

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

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

Judicial Confirmation Process

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

[[Page S4638]]

use of the filibuster as measured by the number of cloture motions.''
Cloture motions and filibusters are two different things. In a report
dated just last month, the Congressional Research Service said:

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

The current majority leader files cloture motions left and right,
sometimes at the same time and in virtually the same breath as when he
brings up a matter for consideration. That gimmick boosts the number
that the majority uses as false evidence of a filibuster problem, but
it is simply filibuster fraud. So many of these cloture motions are
unnecessary that a higher percentage is withdrawn without any cloture
vote at all than under previous majority leaders of either party.
Here is one recent example. The Judiciary Committee unanimously
reported the appeals court nomination of Sri Srinivasan on May 16,
2013. No one opposed this nominee in the Judiciary Committee, and no
one was ever going to oppose this nominee on the floor. The majority
leader still filed a cloture motion even though the minority leader had
already agreed to a confirmation vote.
I will not be surprised if the majority claims that this unanimously
confirmed nominee was somehow filibustered because a completely
unwarranted and totally unnecessary cloture motion was filed and
promptly withdrawn.
It is time to stop the gimmicks and fake numbers. It is time to stop
the filibuster fraud. A cloture motion is simply a request to end
debate while a cloture vote is an actual attempt to end debate. A
filibuster occurs when that attempt to end debate fails.
Let's look specifically at judicial filibusters. The majority should
know the judicial filibuster facts because, after all, they pioneered
the use of filibusters to defeat judicial nominees who would otherwise
be confirmed.
The Senate has taken a total of 51 cloture votes on 36 different
judicial nominations since the first one in 1968. Remember that a vote
against cloture is a vote for a filibuster. As this chart shows, 79
percent of all votes by Senators for judicial filibusters in American
history have been cast by Democrats.
One reason why the majority uses fake definitions and made-up numbers
is that the number of real judicial filibusters is much lower today
than in the past, especially during the previous administration.
At this point under President Bush, the Senate had taken 24 cloture
votes on judicial nominees and 20 of them had failed. In other words,
there had been 20 judicial filibusters. Not cloture motions, but actual
filibusters that prevented confirmation votes. But under President
Obama, the Senate has taken only nine cloture votes on judicial
nominees and only four of those have failed. There have been only four
judicial filibusters since President Obama took office.
It's no wonder that the majority today would rather use fake numbers
than talk about real filibusters. Democrats led five times as many
filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees than there have been
filibusters of President Obama's judicial nominees. Five times as many.
Not only that, but the very same majority party leaders who today
most loudly condemn judicial filibusters the majority leader, the
majority whip, and the Judiciary Committee chairman each voted no less
than 21 times for judicial filibusters by this point under President
Bush. They voted for real filibusters then, they condemn fake
filibusters today.
Another example of filibuster fraud is the claim that the Senate
today is bound by a 2006 agreement among a group of Senators who came
to be known as the Gang of 14. Just a few months ago, the majority whip
said that the Senate is supposed to use this agreement today as the
standard for justifying a filibuster. In the Judiciary Committee and
here on the floor, Senators on the other side of the aisle lecture us
about how we supposedly have violated that agreement.
That agreement was never binding on more than those 14 Senators, it
offered a standard that was to be interpreted and applied individually,
and it never applied to anyone after 2006.
Here's what happened. By the spring of 2005, Democrats had led 20
filibusters that prevented confirmation votes on 10 different appeals
court nominees. The majority leader threatened to prevent judicial
filibusters through a parliamentary ruling that could be sustained by a
simple majority vote. A group of seven Democrats and seven Republicans
joined to head off that confrontation.
With a 55-45 Republican majority, the seven Democrats were enough to
prevent judicial filibusters and the seven Republicans were enough to
prevent a ban on judicial filibusters.
I have here the memorandum of understanding signed by those 14
Senators. Three things stand out.
First, it ``confirms an understanding among the signatories.'' The
agreement applied only to those 14 Senators, only five of whom are
serving today.
Second, it says that this agreement is ``related to pending and
future nominations in the 109th Congress.'' The agreement expired more
than 6 years ago.
Third, it says that those 14 Senators will support judicial
filibusters only under ``extraordinary circumstances'' and that each
Senator decides individually whether those circumstances exist. There
never was any objective standard that applied to the Senate as a whole,
or to any group of Senators for that matter.
It could not be clearer. This was an agreement among those Senators
to use that standard during that Congress in order to avoid that
confrontation over changing confirmation procedures.
Individual Senators may certainly use whatever standard they choose
for their cloture or confirmation votes, including whatever this
extraordinary circumstances standard might mean. But it is pure fiction
to say that this temporary agreement ever bound, let alone binds today,
more than those Senators who explicitly agreed to it.
Today we have the bizarre phenomenon of Democratic Senators who voted
for nearly two dozen filibusters of Bush nominees telling us that an
expired agreement they had never joined somehow prevents us from voting
for filibusters of Obama nominees today.
Why is the majority using such sleight of hand and trying to enforce
non-existent agreements? Why are they engaging in filibuster fraud?
One possibility is that the majority wants to cover up the fact that
President Obama has consistently lagged behind his predecessors in
making judicial nominations. The Senate, after all, cannot confirm
nominations that do not exist.
The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts tracks pending nominees
for current judicial vacancies. You can see here the record based on
that data. The Senate had pending nominations for an average of 41
percent of current vacancies under President Clinton, 53 percent under
President Bush, but only 35 percent under President Obama. And today it
is even lower, at only 33 percent.
During his first term, President Obama was more than 30 percent
behind President Bush's nominations pace, but ended up only 10 percent
behind in total confirmations. That hardly looks like partisan
obstruction to me.
Not all vacancies, of course, are created equal. Some are more
pressing than others. President Obama recently sent to the Senate
nominees for the three remaining vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the DC Circuit and the majority is demanding swift confirmation. By
the Democrats' own standards, however, these nominees should not be
considered.
In 2006, Judiciary Committee Democrats wrote then-Chairman Arlen
Specter to oppose considering a DC Circuit nominee. That letter, which
I have here, said that another DC Circuit nominee ``should under no
circumstances be considered--much less confirmed before we first
address the very need for that judgeship and deal with the genuine
judicial emergencies identified by the Judicial Conference.''
Madam President, I ask that both of these documents be printed in the
Record.
My Democratic colleagues had two criteria for filling a DC Circuit
vacancy. The need for the judgeship to be filled had to be established,
and particularly pressing vacancies elsewhere

[[Page S4639]]

had to be addressed. Let's apply those Democratic criteria to these new
DC Circuit nominees.
The first Democratic standard is that there must clearly be a need
for the particular judgeship to be filled. In 2006, Democrats offered
specific criteria including the total number of appeals filed.
As you can see here, based on the most recent data from the
judiciary's administrative office, the number of appeals filed shown
here in green has been below the 2006 level every year since, and far
below the average of all circuits across the country shown here in red.
Another Democratic benchmark is the number of appeals resolved on the
merits per active judge. Based on the same data from the judiciary's
administrative office, even with a lower number of active judges, this
benchmark has risen a mere four percent from 2006.
Whether you look at new cases or completed cases, judges on the DC
Circuit handle about 40 percent fewer cases than judges on the next
busiest circuit.
Based on these Democratic benchmarks, these DC Circuit vacancies do
not need to be filled.
The second Democratic standard for considering DC Circuit nominees is
that more pressing vacancies designated judicial emergencies should
first be addressed. Vacancies get that label the older they are and the
heavier a court's caseload.
The contrast between 2006 and today is really dramatic. When
Democrats in July 2006 rejected consideration of a single DC Circuit
nominee, President Bush had made nominations for 12 of the 20 existing
judicial emergencies. Now, when Democrats demand consideration of not
one but three DC Circuit nominees, President Obama has sent us nominees
for only eight of the 33 judicial emergencies that exist today.
So the DC Circuit's caseload is down while judicial emergencies
without nominees are up. I am not accusing my colleagues in the
majority of flip-flopping because their party controls the White House,
but it seems to me that their own criteria clearly compel the
conclusion that these new DC Circuit nominees should not be considered
at this time.
The second reason for the majority's filibuster fraud is that they
want to manufacture some justification, even if they have to make it up
out of thin air, for eliminating judicial filibusters. They want to do
today exactly what the Gang of 14 prevented in 2006, but with far less
justification.
The minority leader, Senator McConnell, has daily reminded us of the
majority leader's explicit promise not to pursue changing confirmation
procedures except through the steps provided for in our standing rules.
In addition, if we look at the facts rather than the fiction, there
is no conceivable reason to pursue such a change by any means. There
have been far fewer judicial filibusters today--one-fifth as many--than
during the Bush administration. There is less justification to change
confirmation procedures today than there was when Democrats opposed
doing so in 2006.
Let me summarize this journey through the real world of judicial
confirmations. There is a very real, very serious debate about the kind
of judges America needs on the federal bench. The process of
considering President Obama's judicial nominees, however, is being
conducted reasonably and fairly.
The majority apparently will do anything, even engaging in filibuster
fraud, to avoid admitting the facts while hoping that no one will be
the wiser. The truth is that filibusters are down, not up, and there
have been far fewer judicial filibusters of Obama nominees than there
were of Bush nominees. The DC Circuit's caseload is down while the
number of judicial emergencies without nominees is up.
There is a better course than provoking unnecessary confrontations by
nominees to positions that should not even exist or by threatening to
change confirmation procedures that should not be changed. The majority
should abandon their strategy of filibuster fraud and prioritize
filling the most pressing vacancies.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Memorandum of Understanding on Judicial Nominations

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

Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations

A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke
cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers
Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and
Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit),
B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories makes no
commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following
judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad
(6th Circuit),

Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations

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

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, July 27, 2006.
Hon. Arlen Specter,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Specter: We write to request that you
postpone next week's proposed confirmation hearing for Peter
Keisler, only recently nominated to the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals. For the reasons set forth below, we believe that Mr.
Keisler should under no circumstances be considered--much
less confirmed--by this Committee before we first address the
very need for that judgeship, receive and review necessary
information about the nominee, and deal with the genuine
judicial emergencies identified by the Judicial Conference.
First, the Committee should, before turning to the
nomination itself, hold a hearing on the necessity of filling
the 11th seat on the D.C. Circuit, to which Mr. Keisler has
been nominated. There has long been concern--much of it
expressed by Republican Members--that the D.C. Circuit's
workload does not warrant more than 10 active judges. As you
may recall, in years past, a number of Senators, including
several who still sit on this Committee, have vehemently
opposed the filling of the 11th and 12th seats on that court:
Senator Sessions: ``[The eleventh] judgeship, more than any
other judgeship in America, is not needed.'' (1997)
Senator Grassley: ``I can confidently conclude that the
D.C. Circuit does not need 12 judges or even 11 judges.''
(1997)
Senator Kyl: ``If . . . another vacancy occurs, thereby
opening up the 11th seat again, I plan to vote against
filling the seat--and, of course, the 12th seat--unless there
is a significant increase in the caseload or some other
extraordinary circumstance.'' (1997)
More recently, at a hearing on the D.C. Circuit, Senator
Sessions, citing the Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit,
reaffirmed his view that there was no need to fill the 11th
seat: ``I thought ten was too many . . . I will oppose going
above ten unless the caseload is up.'' (2002)
In addition, these and other Senators expressed great
reluctance to spend the estimated $1 million per year in
taxpayer funds to finance a judgeship that could not be
justified based on the workload. Indeed, Senator Sessions
even suggested that filling the 11th seat would be ``an
unjust burden on the taxpayers of America.''

[[Page S4640]]

Since these emphatic objections were raised in 1997, by
every relevant benchmark, the caseload for that circuit has
only dropped further. According to the Administrative Office
of the United States Courts, the Circuit's caseload, as
measured by written decisions per active judge, has declined
17 percent since 1997; as measured by number of appeals
resolved on the merits per active judge, it declined by 21
percent; and as measured by total number of appeals filed, it
declined by 10 percent. Accordingly, before we rush to
consider Mr. Keisler's nomination, we should look closely--as
we did in 2002--at whether there is even a need for this seat
to be filled and at what expense to the taxpayer.
Second, given how quickly the Keisler hearing was scheduled
(he was nominated only 28 days ago), the American Bar
Association has not yet even completed its evaluation of this
nominee. We should not be scheduling hearings for nominees
before the Committee has received their ABA ratings.
Moreover, in connection with the most recent judicial
nominees who, like Mr. Keisler, served in past
administrations, Senators appropriately sought and received
publicly available documents relevant to their government
service. Everyone, we believe, benefited from the review of
that material, which assisted Senators in fulfilling their
responsibilities of advice and consent. Similarly, the
Committee should have the benefit of publicly available
information relevant to Mr. Keisler's tenure in the Reagan
Administration, some of which may take some time to procure
from, among other places, the Reagan Library. As Senator
Frist said in an interview on Tuesday, ``[T]he DC Circuit . .
. after the Supreme Court is the next court in terms of
hierarchy, in terms of responsibility, interpretation, and in
terms of prioritization.'' We should therefore perform our
due diligence before awarding a lifetime appointment to this
uniquely important court.
Finally, given the questionable need to fill the 11th seat,
we believe that Mr. Keisler should not jump ahead of those
who have been nominated for vacant seats identified as
judicial emergencies by the non-partisan Judicial Conference.
Indeed, every other Circuit Court nominee awaiting a hearing
in the Committee, save one, has been selected for a vacancy
that has been deemed a ``judicial emergency.'' We should turn
to those nominees first; emergency vacancies should clearly
take priority over a possibly superfluous one.
Given the singular importance of the D.C. Circuit, we
should not proceed hastily and without full information. Only
after we reassess the need to fill this seat, perform
reasonable due diligence on the nominee, and tend to actual
judicial emergencies, should we hold a hearing on Mr.
Keisler's nomination.
We thank you for your consideration of this unanimous
request of Democratic Senators.
Sincerely,
Patrick Leahy, Charles Schumer, Russell Feingold, Dianne
Feinstein, Herb Kohl, Edward Kennedy, Richard Durbin,
Joe Biden.

Mr. HATCH. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BENNET. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BENNET. Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about
the bill that has been before us for the last week and a half or so to
fix our broken immigration system.
As the Presiding Officer knows, this bill has been the product of
bipartisan work both in the so-called Gang of 8, which I have the
privilege to be a part of, as well as in the Judiciary Committee where
they ran a process that set a standard for the way this place ought to
operate. We considered over 300 amendments in the Judiciary Committee,
accepting 141 amendments, many of them from Republicans and Democrats
alike. Now we are on the floor.
Those who want to delay immigration reform, who want to defeat
immigration reform, are using every tactic they can find to try to stop
this bill. But, fortunately, there are other people of goodwill on both
sides of the aisle who are trying to come to an agreement.
We focused a lot in the last week, as we should, talking about the
border. I spoke about the progress we have already made in securing our
southern border. There is more to do. There is progress that is
reflected in the underlying bill, and if that can be improved in a way
that does not make the pathway to citizenship contingent or unreal, I
think there are those of us who are willing to hear what that looks
like.
What we have not spent time on is actually what people in Colorado
have spent their time on when it comes to the question of fixing our
broken immigration system, which is the way the current system defeats
them in their efforts to build their businesses in this economy and the
promise that could be achieved if we actually were able to pass this
bill as it has been written. I have heard from people from every walk
of life across the State of Colorado who have been hurt by our outdated
and unreasonable and unimaginative and un-American immigration laws.
They understand in their gut the velocity we can add to the economy by
fixing the system, if Washington would just do its work. They include
high-tech companies on the Front Range including the bioscience,
engineering, and aerospace industries, among others. One of those
companies, Newsgator, an innovative social media software company based
in Denver, makes a compelling case. Its chairman and founding CEO J.B.
Holston told our office:

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

we are in an arms race--

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

It is not only the high-tech sector feeling these pain points.
Farmers, including peach growers on the western slope, cattle ranchers
on the eastern plains, and onion growers in the northern part of our
State, and tourism and the ski industry across Colorado are feeling it
as well, and DREAMers from the Denver public school system and other
school districts, rural and urban, struggling to go to college and work
toward a career because of their legal status.
We made a commitment when we set out as the Gang of 8, Democrats and
Republicans working together, that our legislation would be deficit
neutral, that it wouldn't add one dime--not one dollar--to our deficit.
That was an important principle for the members of this group because,
as the Presiding Officer knows, we face significant deficits,
significant national debt.
Yesterday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office not only
affirmed the stories I am hearing from my tech community and my
agricultural community and from businesses all across the State about
economic growth, it also had some incredible news with respect to our
deficit. CBO estimates if we pass this bill, we will reduce the deficit
by almost $200 billion in the first decade and almost $700 billion in
the second decade--almost $1 trillion. Even in Washington, DC, that is
real money. There will be almost $1 trillion of deficit reduction over
the next two decades as a consequence of this bill.
So let's break down what the CBO is saying. This bill will increase
employment and jobs in the country. More workers will come here. More
people will build businesses here. They will consume more and invest
more. This will spur economic growth.
These are not my opinions. These are not the opinions of the Gang of
8, although we share these opinions. These are the opinions of the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office as a result of reading this
bill.
Our bill also allows millions of Americans who are currently
undocumented to step out of the shadows of a cash economy and start
contributing more to our economy as they earn more.
When you crunch the numbers, based on the Congressional Budget Office
score, this bill will significantly increase our gross domestic
product, adjusted for inflation, and reduce deficits.
The CBO found that projected deficits will decline significantly over
the next decade as a consequence of this legislation.
Every year, from 2015 on, they expect deficits to go down. It is
going to end up, as I said earlier, saving us $197 billion between now
and 2023.
It turns out that based on this estimate, we will only begin to see
the benefits of this bill in the first decade. The economic benefits of
this bill actually accelerate in the second decade. From

[[Page S4641]]

2024 to 2033 the bill would reduce deficits by $690 billion.
I realize we have gotten in the habit around this place of thinking
in 30-day increments or 60-day increments. It is driving folks at home
crazy. This is a chance for us to reset for the 21st century.
The CBO has done the math. What that math tells you--despite what
other people who do not want to have immigration reform for whatever
reason have said, who claim that this is going to drive our deficits
through the roof--that math tells us we have a total of $887 billion in
deficit reduction over the next 20 years.
Here is a surprising fact that is buried in the Congressional Budget
Office report: Those deficit-reduction estimates are actually
conservative. CBO is only counting the most obvious savings in their
estimate. It is not including other more indirect economic benefits--
such as increased productivity--that will likely yield additional
savings.
Here is what CBO actually says in its report. This is a direct quote:

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

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

Froman Nomination

Ms. WARREN. Madam President, I rise today to talk about trade
agreements and the impact they have on our economy. Trade agreements
affect access to foreign markets and our level of imports and exports.
They also affect a wide variety of public policy issues--everything
from wages, jobs, the environment, and the Internet, to monetary
policy, pharmaceuticals, and financial services.
Many people are deeply interested in tracking the trajectory of trade
negotiations, but if they do not have reasonable access to see the
terms of the agreements under negotiation, then they do not have any
real input. Without transparency, the benefits of an open marketplace
of ideas are reduced enormously.
I am deeply concerned about the transparency record of the U.S. Trade
Representative and with one ongoing trade agreement in particular: the
Trans-Pacific Partnership. For months, the Trade Representative, who
negotiates on our behalf, has been unwilling to provide any public
access to the composite bracketed text relating to the negotiations.
The composite bracketed text includes proposed language from the United
States and also from other countries, and it serves as the focal point
for negotiations. The Trade Representative has allowed Members of
Congress to access the text, and I appreciate that, but there is no
substitute for public transparency.
I have heard the argument that transparency would undermine the Trade
Representative's policy to complete the trade agreement because public
opposition would be significant. In other words, if people knew what
was going on, they would stop it. This argument is exactly backward. If
transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade
agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the
United States.
I believe in transparency and democracy, and I think the U.S. Trade
Representative should too. So I asked the President's nominee to be
Trade Representative Michael Froman three questions: The first: Would
he commit to releasing the composite bracketed text. The second: If
not, would he commit to releasing a scrubbed version of the bracketed
text that made anonymous which country proposed which provision. And I
want to note that even the Bush administration put out a scrubbed
version during the negotiations around the Free Trade Area of the
Americas agreement. Third, I asked Mr. Froman if he would provide more
transparency behind what information is made available to outside
advisers. Currently, there are about 600 outside advisers who have
access to sensitive information, and the roster includes a wide
diversity of industry representatives and some from labor and some from
NGOs. But there is no transparency around who gets what information or
whether they are all getting the same things, and I think that is a
real problem.
Mr. Froman's response to my three questions was clear: no, no, and
no. He will not commit to making this information public so that the
public can track what is going on.
So I am voting against Mr. Froman's nomination later today because I
believe we need a new direction from the Trade Representative--a
direction that prioritizes transparency and public debate. The American
people have the right to know more about our negotiations that will
have a dramatic impact on our working men and women, on our
environment, on our economy, on the Internet.
We should have a serious conversation about our trade policies
because these issues matter. But it all starts with the transparency of
the U.S. Trade Representative.
Thank you, Madam President.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I want to speak for a few minutes on
the progress we are making on the immigration bill. In speaking about
the progress, it also gives me a chance to say to my colleagues on this
side of the aisle that I hope we can get an agreement to vote on
amendments this afternoon, because it is not only Democrats who want
amendments, we have got a lot of Republicans who want to put up some
amendments. If we can get this tranche of amendments out of the way,
then that gives us a chance to put up another tranche of 8 to 10
amendments is what I think we have the possibility of doing.
We have been on this bill for 1 week. We had one vote last week. That
was on my own amendment. That dealt with border security. Of course,
that vote was not a vote up or down on the amendment, it was a vote to
table. We were refused by the majority to have

[[Page S4642]]

an up-or-down vote on legislation that is part of the legislation that
is some of the most important to the people of this country, securing
the border before we have legalization. I quoted yesterday a CNN poll
that said 60 percent of the people say border security is the No. 1
issue as far as immigration is concerned. It is a necessary predecessor
to legalization.
Yesterday we had three votes. Unfortunately, they were 60-vote
thresholds. Obviously, most of the time you have a 60-vote threshold,
it is set up so that any amendment under that rule would fail.
Yesterday the majority leader threatened again to keep us working all
weekend. He stated he could file a cloture motion to cut off debate as
early as Friday. Of course, I hope that is not the case, because we
need an open and fair amendment process. We do immigration reform about
once every 25 years. My colleagues hear me say we made a lot of
mistakes in 1986. That is the last time we had a major immigration bill
pass the Senate. So we need to get it right. People do not want us to
do it in a fast and haphazard way. People want us to be very cautious
about something you do once every 25 years.
The chairman of the Judiciary Committee and I had a very good working
relationship in committee. We still have a good working relationship
with this bill out here on the floor of the Senate. But there are 98
other Senators involved. In committee it is a different situation than
on the Senate floor. In committee, we did not limit the ability of any
Member to raise an amendment. We had some tough votes we were all
forced to take in committee.
But now there are other Members who want their chance to improve the
bill. Of course, I said at the beginning of my remarks if we get these
eight amendments out of the way that are in this tranche, then we can
bring other amendments up, both Republican and Democratic amendments.
I realize there is a bipartisan group of Senators working on a border
security amendment. This is supposed to be some grand compromise. The
group is trying to find common ground somewhere between the bill as
drafted, 1,075 pages in that bill as drafted, and the Cornyn
amendment--middle ground.
At this point I am hearing from the other side as well as the Group
of 8 that they think the Cornyn amendment goes too far. Some would say
the Democrats will not negotiate in good faith because they have the
votes to pass the bill as is. It is no secret the Democrats wish to
have 70 votes at the end of the day. But even with 70 votes, in my
view, that is not a big victory and may very well be a failure. It
should not take much to get 15 Republican votes. It does not guarantee
the House will take up the bill. In fact, this bill may be dead on
arrival in the other body since they have their own approach and they
have their own ideas.
It was reported today that this bipartisan group of Senators trying
to find middle ground between this big bill and the Cornyn amendment on
border security are having trouble finding that consensus. They are
having trouble because the Democrats do not want any triggers or
roadblocks to legalization. That is clear. In other words, some people
are not willing to learn from the mistakes we made in 1986. We thought
in good faith we were writing a piece of legislation that would stop
people crossing the border without papers. We did that by making it
illegal for the first time to hire undocumented workers. We did it by
adding a $10,000 fine. So take away the magnet to work, the border is
secure, legalize 3 million people at that time.
We found that legalizing illegality brings yet more illegality. So
now there are 12 million people who either overstayed a visa or crossed
the border without papers. We should learn from that mistake of 25
years ago, the last time an immigration bill was up. We should do
something about border security. That something has to be stronger than
what is in this piece of legislation. But it is apparent to me--I hear
rumors that a lot of people on the other side of the aisle do not want
any triggers or roadblocks to legalization. That is not saying you do
not want legalization, that is only saying certain preconditions ought
to happen before there is legalization. Those ought to be meaningful
steps to take.
Yesterday the majority leader, as I said, said he was not in favor of
triggers. Secretary Napolitano in this administration made it clear
legalization should come first and triggers should not be a roadblock
to legalization, the very same mistakes we made in 1986.
The group negotiating this broader amendment is trying to do the
right thing, but I have real doubts that the other side of the aisle
wants to do anything to secure the border. Because of this, the
misguided, mislabeled bill before us could be falling apart. Those of
us who question this big government bill appear to be making headway in
exposing the bill for what it truly is, legalization first, enforcement
later. Despite repeated promises, it is that, legalization first,
border security when? Sometime down the road. Sometime never happens.
Sure, the proponents can throw money and dictate how many cameras and
drones to buy, but that does not mean the border will be stronger or
more secure. We need to do more than give them the capability of
achieving specific metrics. We need them to prove their success.
One more thing on the possibility of working this weekend. Since I
have been in the Senate, we have had a lot of weekend sessions.
Generally what happens is you have a lot of debate and a lot of talk
and a lot of wasted time on Saturdays. You have one vote at 2 o'clock
on Sunday. For a guy like me, I am going to be here regardless, not
because I am manager of this bill solely, but I have not missed a vote
in the Senate since July 1993. I have cast about 6,700 votes without
missing a vote. If there is only one vote Sunday afternoon I am going
to be here. But I would suggest if we are going to have a weekend
session, that action be taken to make sure we are actually doing
something and voting, that if we are going to be in session, that there
is not some sort of accommodation made, usually for the majority party
and sometimes the Republican Party, but right now it is the Democratic
Party to make a provision so people who want to fly home can do it.
Either we are here to work on the weekend or we should not be here.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, Senate Democrats have come to the floor
now 13 times and requested unanimous consent to move to bipartisan
budget negotiations with the House. We are ready to get to work. We
have been ready for 88 days now, which is how long it has been since
the Senate passed a budget.
Back in March we assumed that once the two Chambers passed their
budgets, Republicans would be eager to join us in a formal budget
conference, since they have spent years talking about the need to
return to regular order. Instead, we have seen delay after delay. Now
that Republicans have gotten exactly what they wished for, they seem to
be running as quickly as they can in the other direction, and they have
offered excuse after excuse after excuse.
First, they said they wanted a framework before they would start a
conference, even though a framework is exactly what a budget is. In
other words, they wanted to negotiate behind closed doors when we
should be negotiating in a conference.
Then they said they wouldn't allow us to go to conference unless we
guaranteed the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations would be
protected from paying a penny more in taxes.
Then many Republicans indicated they didn't want negotiations
happening too early, to take away the leverage they think they have on
the debt ceiling.
Then some of them called for a do-over of the budget debate,
including another 50 hours of debate and a whole new round of unlimited
amendments, even after they praised the open and thorough floor debate
we had on the Senate budget.
Now, in what seems to be the latest delaying tactic, some Republicans
are

[[Page S4643]]

saying before we can work to solve short-term problems we first need to
agree on the budget outlook 30 years down the road.
Enough is enough. The American people are sick and tired of the
constant lurching from crisis to crisis. They are looking to their
elected officials to come together, to compromise, to find common
ground, and that is exactly what we would be doing in a conference.
It is not just Democrats saying so. Over the past few weeks, we have
heard a number of Republicans step forward and agree with us that the
tea party and Senate Republican leadership are wrong. Senator Coburn
said blocking conference is ``not a good position to be in.'' Senator
Boozman said he would ``very much like to see a conference.'' Senator
Wicker said, weeks ago now, that ``by the end of next week, we probably
should be ready to go to conference.'' Now, according to Politico,
``more Republicans appear to favor heading to conference than blocking
it.''
As many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said, it
is certainly true there are big differences between the parties' budget
values, and priorities, but that would give us all the more reason to
sit down and try to find some common ground. The fact is we have a lot
of work that needs to be done in the next few weeks. We have 11 days
until the next State work period and then just 3\1/2\ weeks before we
all go back to our home States again for August. Because some
Republicans want to continue the harmful austerity measures resulting
from sequestration, we now have a $91 billion gap between the House and
Senate spending bills for the next fiscal year.
If we don't reconcile those differences, we are going to find
ourselves in a very tough, bad situation come September, and a lot of
hard-working families and communities are going to feel the
consequences. It does not have to be that way. I am confident, if both
sides come together now in a conference committee and are ready to
compromise, we can find a way to reach a fair and bipartisan and
responsible agreement.
The American people shouldn't have to worry the government is going
to lurch into another crisis that has been manufactured by this
Congress. It doesn't have to happen. Instead of fighting over whether
we should be engaging in bipartisan talks, we should be working
together to get more Americans back to work, to protect our economic
recovery, and lay the foundation for strong middle-class growth in the
future. I think we can all agree on those important goals, and they are
very urgent ones. But we cannot move forward on them if we are consumed
with constant artificial crises.
I believe it is time for Senate Republican leaders to listen to the
many Members of their own party who prefer commonsense bipartisanship
over delay and disorder and allow the House and Senate to begin a
bipartisan budget conference. I am here this afternoon to ask unanimous
consent to do just that.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration
of Calendar No. 33, H. Con. Res. 25; that the amendment which is at the
desk, the text of S. Con. Res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the
Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; that H. Con. Res. 25, as amended,
be agreed to; the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon
the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a
conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses;
and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the
Senate; that following the authorization, two motions to instruct
conferees be in order from each side, a motion to instruct relative to
the debt limit and a motion to instruct relative to taxes and revenue;
that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders
or their designees prior to votes in relation to the motions; further,
that no amendments be in order to either of the motions prior to the
votes; all of the above occurring with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I hope
I am not going to have to object, but I wish to suggest a very modest
and sensible alteration to the UC request from my colleague, the chair
of the Budget Committee, so hopefully we can get on to this because I
would like to see us go to conference.
I was very critical of the 3 years when my Democratic colleagues
absolutely refused to do a budget. It is progress that this year they
decided to do one. I am glad. I am on the Budget Committee. I think we
ought to have a budget, and I think we should go to the conference
committee, despite the fact we are very far apart.
My Democratic friends supported and voted for a budget with at least
$1 trillion of new tax increases, and I strongly oppose that. But I
agree that is what ought to be discussed in conference. The budget that
was passed uses the big tax increase that was in the budget for
additional spending. I strongly disagree with that. But again, that is
exactly the kind of thing that ought to be the subject of negotiations
in a conference. We are very far apart. I don't know whether we can
narrow that gap, but we should try.

The only reason I have been objecting, and that some of my colleagues
have been objecting thus far, is that our Democratic friends want to
insist on retaining the opportunity to use the conference report on a
budget resolution to raise the debt ceiling, and I would point out the
debt ceiling issue was not even contemplated in the Senate budget
resolution. It never came up, it wasn't discussed, there was no
amendment, there was no vote, and it is not in the document. In the
House budget, the debt limit increase is not contemplated. It is not
there. It wasn't voted on. It is completely absent.
So consistent with the rules of the Senate, I would simply suggest we
go right ahead to conference, that we have a conference on the budget
but that we follow the normal procedure of the Senate, which is that
matters that are not in either bill, either the House or Senate bill,
be excluded from consideration in a conference report so we don't
airdrop in some extraneous unrelated matter that was never contemplated
by either body.
I think that is the sensible approach and necessary because the debt
limit is a very important issue. We have a staggering amount of debt we
have allowed to accumulate. It is already damaging our economy and is a
huge threat and we know the President and many of our Democratic
friends think we should just raise that debt ceiling with no strings,
no conditions, no reforms. So we have a very real concern this
conference committee, as contemplated by my friends on the other side,
would be a vehicle for the backroom deal that would allow them to
exclude Republicans and come back and jam through a debt ceiling
increase with no reforms.
In order to avoid that, but so we can go to conference, which I think
we should do, I would simply ask that we modify the unanimous consent
request as follows; so it would not be in order for the Senate to
consider a conference report that includes reconciliation instructions
to raise the debt limit.
If the chair of the Budget Committee would agree to that modification
of her unanimous consent request, then I would agree to it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to point out to everyone
that we had hours and hours of debate, with over 100 amendments
offered, and no one offered an amendment on the debt ceiling limit. As
part of the agreement in order to go to conference, we have offered to
have a vote now on whether we should have motions to instruct. I would
be willing, as chair, to abide by that vote once our unanimous consent
is agreed to.
But I have to say, as a matter of principle, for a chair of any
committee to say, once we have gone through hundreds of hours of debate
and a lot of amendments, that then, before we go to conference, we have
to agree to a principle that has not been voted on or offered in the
Senate as part of that is not how we can proceed in this body. It would
be the same as if I would come out and say: I am not going to allow us
to go to conference on whatever bill because I have a small provision,
and unless you absolutely agree it has to be in there, even though I
don't have the votes, we are not going to conference. We would never
get anything done.

[[Page S4644]]

The unanimous consent request I have offered allows my Republican
friends to have a vote on this, even though they didn't ask for a vote
in all those hours of debate and hundreds of hours we spent on this
issue, before we move to conference. The principle is this: Our
Republican colleagues wish to have an open debate, they say, but we are
not having an open debate because of their insistence we don't go to
conference.
So I object to the Senator's request and again renew my request as I
stated before with the provision we have a motion to instruct and allow
those Senators who have strong feelings about this to vote on it before
we go to conference.
Finally, I would add, remember with whom I am going to conference:
Republicans and Democrats from our side and Republicans and Democrats
from the other body, a majority of whom are on their side of the aisle,
with the chairman, Paul Ryan, a Republican conservative, chairing their
side.
This is an issue that is going to have plenty of debate, plenty of
open discussion, if it should come up, and we will all have an
opportunity to vote on it.
I renew my unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will
wrap up quickly. I thank my colleague, the chair of the Budget
Committee, but as she knows--and I wish to make sure everyone is
clear--the motion to instruct conferees the chairman of the Budget
Committee is recommending is completely nonbinding. It is nothing more
than a recommendation. The fact remains she is insisting on retaining
the ability to do a backroom deal that would raise the debt ceiling
without allowing any Republican input in this body whatsoever. This is
a very bad policy. It was not contemplated in either bill.
I would be delighted to go to conference with a budget resolution
from the House and the Senate that does contemplate everything that is
in those two respective agreements but not some extraneous matter that
could be very damaging to our economy that was never contemplated. So I
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Kentucky.

Amendment No. 1200, as Modified

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER __--BORDER SECURITY ENHANCEMENTS

SEC. 1__1. SHORT TITLE.

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

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

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

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

[[Page S4645]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

(iii) deportation data, categorized by country and the
nature of apprehension;
(iv) individuals who have obtained or who seek legal
status; and
(v) individuals without legal status who have died while in
the United States;
(H) the number of Department agents deployed to the border
each year, categorized by staffing assignment and security
function;
(I) progress made on the implementation of full exit
tracking capabilities for land, sea, and air points of entry;
(J) progress towards the goal of 100 percent incarceration
until trial date for newly captured illegal entrants and
overstays;
(K) progress towards the goal of ending illegal immigration
and undocumented presence, as measured by data collected by
the United States Census Bureau and the Department; and
(L) progress towards eliminating disputes between Federal
agencies in the use of public lands to perform border
enforcement operations.

SEC. 1__3. REPORTS ON BORDER SECURITY.

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

SEC. 1__4. CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL PROCEDURES.

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

[[Page S4646]]

(iii) 30 days after date on which the report is submitted
under section 1__3(a) if such submission occurs before July 1
of a calendar year;
(B) in the Senate, may be introduced by any Member of the
Senate;
(C) in the House of Representatives, may be introduced by
any Member of the House of Representatives; and
(D) may not be amended.
(2) Referral to committee.--A joint resolution introduced
in the Senate shall be referred to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate. A joint
resolution introduced in the House of Representatives shall
be referred to the Committee on Homeland Security of the
House of Representatives.
(3) Discharge of committee.--If the congressional committee
to which a joint resolution is referred has not discharged
the resolution at the end of 30th day after its
introduction--
(A) such committee shall be discharged from further
consideration of such resolution; and
(B) such resolution shall be placed on the appropriate
calendar of the House involved.
(4) Floor consideration.--
(A) Motion.--
(i) In general.--After the committee to which a joint
resolution is referred has reported, or has been discharged
pursuant to paragraph (3) from further consideration of, the
joint resolution--

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

(ii) Unfinished business.--If a motion to proceed to the
consideration of the joint resolution is agreed to, the
resolution shall remain the unfinished business of the
respective House until it has been disposed.
(B) Debate.--Debate on the joint resolution, and on all
debatable motions and appeals in connection with such
resolution, shall be limited to not more than 10 hours, which
shall be divided equally between those favoring and those
opposing the joint resolution. A motion further to limit
debate is in order and not debatable. An amendment to, or a
motion to postpone, or a motion to proceed to the
consideration of other business, or a motion to recommit the
joint resolution is not in order. A motion to reconsider the
vote by which the joint resolution is agreed to or disagreed
to is not in order.
(C) Vote on final passage.--Immediately following the
conclusion of the debate on a joint resolution, and a single
quorum call at the conclusion of the debate if requested in
accordance with the rules of the appropriate House, the vote
on final passage of the joint resolution shall occur.
(D) Rulings of the chair on procedure.--Appeals from the
decisions of the Chair relating to the application of the
rules of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as
applicable, to the procedure relating to a joint resolution
shall be decided without debate.
(5) Coordination with action by other house.--If 1 House
receives a joint resolution from the other House before the
House passes a joint resolution--
(A) the joint resolution of the other House shall not be
referred to a committee; and
(B) with respect to a joint resolution of the House
receiving the resolution--
(i) the procedures in that House shall be the same as if no
joint resolution had been received from the other House;
except that
(ii) the vote on final passage shall be on the joint
resolution of the other House.
(6) Rules of house of representatives and senate.--This
subsection is enacted by Congress--
(A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate
and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such--
(i) it is deemed a part of the rules of each House,
respectively;
(ii) it is only applicable with respect to the procedures
to be followed in that House in the case of a joint
resolution; and
(iii) it supersedes other rules only to the extent that it
is inconsistent with such rules; and
(B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the
procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and
to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that
House.

SEC. 1__5. CONDITIONS.

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

SEC. 1__6. TRIGGERS BASED ON CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.

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

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

(a) Construction of Border Fencing.--
(1) First year.--Except as provided in subsection (d),
during the 1-year period beginning on the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall construct not
fewer than 100 miles of double-layer fencing on the Southern
border.
(2) Subsequent years.--During each of the first 4 1-year
periods immediately following the 1-year period described in
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall construct not fewer than
150 miles of double-layer fencing on the Southern border.
(b) Certification.--Except as provided in subsection (d),
not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit a
written certification that construction of the double-layer
fencing required under subsection (a) has been completed
during the preceding year to--
(1) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
(2) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate;
(3) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives; and
(4) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives.
(c) Determination of Miles of Fencing Constructed.--
(1) Included items.--In determining the number of fencing
miles constructed in the preceding year, the Secretary may
apply, toward the requirement under subsection (a), the
number of miles of--
(A) new double-layer fencing that have been completed; and
(B) a second fencing layer that has been added to an
existing, single-layered fence.
(2) Excluded items.--In determining the number of fencing
miles constructed in the preceding year, the Secretary may
not apply, toward the requirement in subsection (a)--
(A) vehicle barriers;
(B) ground sensors;
(C) motion detectors;
(D) radar-based surveillance;
(E) thermal imaging;
(F) aerial surveillance platforms;
(G) observation towers;
(H) motorized or nonmotorized ground patrols;
(I) existing single-layer fencing; or

[[Page S4647]]

(J) new construction of single-layer fencing.
(d) Sunset.--The Secretary shall no longer be required to
comply with the requirements under subsection (a) and (b) on
the earliest of--
(1) the date on which the Secretary submits the 5th
affirmative certification pursuant to subsection (b); or
(2) the date on which the Secretary certifies the
completion of not fewer than 700 miles of double-layer
fencing on the Southern border.
(e) Conforming Amendment.--Section 102(b)(1) of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended by striking subparagraph (D).

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

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Consistent with the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, the United States will
continue its progress toward full biometric entry-exit
capture capability at land, air, and sea points of entry.
(2) No capability exists to fully track whether non-United
States persons in the United States on a temporary basis have
exited the country consistent with the terms of their visa,
whether by land, sea, or air.
(3) No program exists along the Southwest border to track
land exits from the United States into Mexico.
(4) Without the ability to capture the full cycle of an
alien's trip into and out of the United States, it is
possible for persons to remain in the United States
unlawfully for years without detection by U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement.
(5) Because there is no exit tracking capability, there is
insufficient data for an official assessment of the number of
persons who have overstayed a visa and that remain in the
United States. Studies have estimated that as many as 40
percent of all persons in the United States without lawful
immigration status entered the country legally and did not
return to their country of origin or follow the terms of
their entry.
(6) Despite a legal mandate to track alien exits, more than
a decade without any significant capability to do so has--
(A) degraded the Federal Government's ability to enforce
immigration laws;
(B) placed a greater strain on law enforcement resources;
and
(C) undermined the legal immigration process in the United
States.
(b) Requirement for Outbound Travel Document Capture at
Land Points of Entry.--
(1) Outbound travel document capture at foot crossings.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a
mandatory exit data system for all outbound lanes at each
land point of entry along the Southern border that is only
accessible to individuals on foot or by nonmotorized means.
(B) Data collection requirements.--The system established
under subparagraph (A) shall require the collection of data
from machine-readable visas, passports, and other travel and
entry documents for all categories of aliens who are exiting
the United States through an outbound lane described in
subparagraph (A).
(2) Outbound travel document capture at all other land
points of entry.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a
mandatory exit data system at all outbound lanes not subject
to paragraph (1) at each land point of entry along the
Southern border.
(B) Data collection requirements.--The system established
under subparagraph (A) shall require the collection of data
from machine-readable visas, passports, and other travel and
entry documents for all categories of aliens who are exiting
the United States through an outbound lane described in
subparagraph (A).
(3) Information required for collection.--While collecting
information under paragraphs (1) and (2), the Secretary shall
collect identity-theft resistant departure information from
the machine-readable visas, passports, and other travel and
entry documents.
(4) Recording of exits and correlation to entry data.--The
Secretary shall integrate the records collected under
paragraphs (1) and (2) into the interoperable data system
established under section 3303(b) and any other database
necessary to correlate an alien's entry and exit data.
(5) Processing of records.--Before the departure of
outbound aliens at each point of entry, the Secretary shall
provide for cross-reference capability between databases
designated by the Secretary under paragraph (4) to determine
and record whether an outbound alien has been in the United
States without lawful immigration status.
(6) Records inclusion requirements.--The Secretary shall
maintain readily accessible entry-exit data records for
immigration and other law enforcement and improve immigration
control and enforcement by including information necessary to
determine whether an outbound alien without lawful presence
in the United States entered the country through--
(A) unauthorized entry between points of entry;
(B) visa or other temporary authorized status;
(C) fraudulent travel documents;
(D) misrepresentation of identity; or
(E) any other method of entry.
(7) Prohibition on collecting exit records for united
states citizens.--
(A) Prohibition.--While documenting the departure of
outbound individuals at each point of entry along the
Southern border, the Secretary may not--
(i) process travel documents of United States citizens;
(ii) log, store, or transfer exit data for United States
citizens;
(iii) create, maintain, operate, access, or support any
database containing information collected through outbound
processing at a point of entry under paragraph (1) or (2)
that contains records identifiable to an individual United
States citizen.
(B) Exception.--The prohibition set forth in subparagraph
(A) does not apply to the records of an individual if an
officer processing travel documentation in the outbound lanes
at a point of entry along the Southern border--
(i) has a strong suspicion that the individual has engaged
in criminal or other prohibited activities; or
(ii) needs to verify an individual's identity because the
individual is attempting to exit the United States without
travel documentation.
(C) Verification of travel documents.--Subject to the
prohibition set forth in subparagraph (A), the Secretary may
provide for the confirmation of a United States citizen's
travel documentation validity in the outbound lanes at a
point of entry along the Southern border.
(c) Infrastructure Improvements at Land Points of Entry.--
(1) Facilitation of land exit tracking.--The Secretary may
improve the infrastructure at, or adjacent to, land points of
entry, as necessary, to implement the requirements under
paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b), by--
(A) expanding or reconfiguring outbound road or bridge
lanes within a point of entry;
(B) improving or reconfiguring public roads or other
transportation infrastructure leading into, or adjacent to,
the outbound lanes at a point of entry if--
(i) there has been a demonstrated negative impact on
transportation in the area adjacent to a point of entry as a
result of projects carried out under this section; or
(ii) the Secretary, in consultation with State, local, or
tribal officials responsible for transportation adjacent to a
point of entry, has submitted a report to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and
the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives that projects proposed under this section
will have a significant negative impact on transportation
adjacent to a point of entry without such transportation
infrastructure improvements; and
(iii) the total of funds obligated in any year to improve
infrastructure outside a point of entry under subsection
(c)(1) shall not exceed 25 percent of the total funds
obligated to meet the requirements under paragraphs (1) and
(2) of subsection (b) in the same year;
(C) constructing, expanding, or improving access to
secondary inspection areas, where feasible;
(D) physical structures to accommodate inspections and
processing travel documents described in subsection (b)(3)
for outbound aliens, including booths or kiosks at exit
lanes;
(E) transfer, installation, use, and maintenance of
computers, software or other network infrastructure to
facilitate capture and processing of travel documents
described in subsection (b)(3) for all outbound aliens; and
(F) performance of outbound inspections outside of
secondary inspection areas at a point of entry to detect
suspicious activity or contraband.
(2) Report on infrastructure requirements to carry out 100
percent land exit tracking.--Not later than 45 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
submit, to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on
Homeland Security of the House of Representatives, a report
that assesses the infrastructure needs for each point of
entry along the Southern border to fulfill the requirements
under subsection (b), including--
(A) a description of anticipated infrastructure needs
within each point of entry;
(B) a description of anticipated infrastructure needs
adjacent to each point of entry;
(C) an assessment of the availability of secondary
inspection areas at each point of entry;
(D) an assessment of space available at or adjacent to a
point of entry to perform processing of outbound aliens;
(E) an assessment of the infrastructure demands relative to
the volume of outbound crossings for each point of entry; and
(F) anticipated wait times for outbound individuals during
processing of travel documents at each point of entry,
relative to possible improvements at the point of entry.
(d) Procedures for Exit Processing and Inspection.--
(1) Individuals subject to outbound secondary inspection.--
Officers performing outbound inspection or processing travel
documents may send an outbound individual to a secondary
inspection area for further inspection and processing if the
individual is--

[[Page S4648]]

(A) determined or suspected to have been in the United
States without lawful status during processing under
subsection (b) or at another point during the exit process;
(B) found to be subject to an outstanding arrest warrant;
(C) suspected of engaging in prohibited activities at the
point of entry;
(D) traveling without travel documentation; or
(E) subject to any random outbound inspection procedures,
as determined by the Secretary.
(2) Limitations on outbound secondary inspections.--The
Secretary may not designate an outbound United States citizen
for secondary inspection or collect biometric information
from a United States citizen under outbound inspection
procedures unless criminal or other prohibited activity has
been detected or is strongly suspected.
(3) Outbound processing of persons in the united states
without lawful presence.--
(A) Process for recording unlawful presence.--If the
Secretary determines, at a point of entry along the Southern
border, that an outbound alien has been in the United States
without lawful presence, the Secretary shall--
(i) collect and record biometric data from the individual;
(ii) combine data related to the individual's unlawful
presence with any other information related to the individual
in the interoperable database, in accordance with paragraphs
(4) and (5) of subsection (b); and
(iii) except as provided in subparagraph (B), permit the
individual to exit the United States.
(B) Exception.--An individual shall not be permitted to
leave the United States if, during outbound inspection, the
Secretary detects previous unresolved criminal activity by
the individual.

SEC. 1__9. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

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

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

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

SEC. 1__11. ASYLUM AND REFUGEE REFORM.

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

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

(a) Prohibition.--The Secretary of Interior and the
Secretary of Agriculture may not impede, prohibit, restrict,
or delay activities of the Secretary on land under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior or the
Secretary of Agriculture to achieve total operational control
of the Southern border.
(b) Authorized Activities.--The Secretary shall be granted
immediate access to land under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary of Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture for
purposes of conducting the following activities on such land
in accordance with the requirements under this Act:
(1) Installing and using ground and motion sensors.
(2) Installing and using of surveillance equipment,
including--
(A) video or other recording devices;
(B) radar and infrared technology; and
(C) infrastructure to enhance border enforcement line-of-
sight.
(3) Using aircraft and securing landing rights, where
appropriate, as determined by the Secretary.
(4) Using motorized vehicles to conduct routine patrols and
pursuits as required, including trucks and all-terrain
vehicles.
(5) Accessing roads.
(6) Constructing and maintaining roads.
(7) Constructing and maintaining fences or other physical
barriers.

[[Page S4649]]

(8) Constructing and maintaining communications
infrastructure.
(9) Constructing and maintaining operations centers.
(10) Setting up any other temporary tactical
infrastructure.
(c) Clarification of Waiver Authority.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
(including any termination date relating to the waivers
referred to in this subsection), the waiver by the Secretary
on April 1, 2008, pursuant to section 102(c)(1) of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note; Public Law 104-208) of the laws
described in paragraph (2) with respect to certain sections
of the Southern border shall be considered to apply to all
land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Interior or
the Secretary of Agriculture that is located within 100 miles
of the Southern border for all activities of the Secretary
described in subsection (b).
(2) Description of laws subject to waived.--The laws
referred to in paragraph (1) are--
(A) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
(B) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.);
(C) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq.);
(D) the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470
et seq.);
(E) the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.);
(F) the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.);
(G) the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16
U.S.C. 470aa et seq.);
(H) the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.);
(I) the Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.);
(J) the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.);
(K) the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.);
(L) Public Law 86-523 (16 U.S.C. 469 et seq.);
(M) the Act of June 8, 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.)
(commonly known as the ``Antiquities Act of 1906'') ;
(N) the Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.);
(O) the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et
seq.);
(P) the Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 U.S.C. 4201 et
seq.);
(Q) the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451
et seq.);
(R) the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.);
(S) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.);
(T) the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act
of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.);
(U) the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a et
seq.);
(V) the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661
et seq.);
(W) subchapter II of chapter 5, and chapter 7, of title 5,
United States Code (commonly known as the ``Administrative
Procedure Act'');
(X) the Otay Mountain Wilderness Act of 1999 (Public Law
106-145, 113 Stat. 1711);
(Y) sections 102(29) and 103 of California Desert
Protection Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 410aaa et seq.);
(Z) the National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et
seq.);
(AA) Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-1 et seq.);
(BB) sections 401(7), 403, and 404 of the National Parks
and Recreation Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-625, 92 Stat.
3467);
(CC) the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C.
1132 note; Public Law 101-628);
(DD) section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C.
403);
(EE) the Act of June 8, 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.)
(commonly known as the ``Bald Eagle Protection Act of
1940)'';
(FF) the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.);
(GG) Public Law 95-341 (42 U.S.C. 1996);
(HH) Public Law 103-141 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.);
(II) the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning
Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.);
(JJ) the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16
U.S.C. 528 et seq.);
(KK) the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181, et seq.);
(LL) the Materials Act of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); and
(MM) the General Mining Act of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 22 note).
(d) Notification Requirements.--The Secretary shall submit
a monthly report to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on
Homeland Security of the House of Representatives that--
(1) describes any public land use dispute raised by another
Federal agency;
(2) describes any other land conflict subject to subsection
(a) relating to border security operations on public lands;
and
(3) explains whether the waiver authority under subsection
(c) was exercised in regards to such dispute or conflict.
(e) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be
construed to authorize--
(1) the restriction of legal land uses, including hunting,
grazing, and mining; or
(2) additional restriction on legal access to such land.

SEC. 1__13. SAVINGS AND OFFSETS.

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

SEC. 1__14. IMMIGRATION LAW ENHANCEMENTS.

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

``CHAPTER 9--COURT OF IMMIGRATION REVIEW

``Sec. 211. Establishment and appointment of judges

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

``Sec. 212. Tenure and salaries of judges

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

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

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

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

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

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

``The United States Court of Immigration Review,
established under chapter 9 of title 28, United States Code,
shall be responsible for interpreting and administering
Federal immigration laws by conducting immigration court
proceedings and appellate reviews of such proceedings, in
cooperation with the Department of Justice.''.
(3) Conforming amendments to immigration and nationality
act.--Section 103 (8 U.S.C. 1103) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) by striking ``He'' each place it appears and inserting
``The Secretary'';
(ii) by striking ``the Service'' each place it appears and
inserting ``the Department of Homeland Security'';
(B) in subsection (c)--
(i) by striking ``The Commissioner shall'' and inserting
``The Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
shall'';
(ii) by striking ``He'' and inserting ``The Director'';
(iii) by striking ``the Service'' each place it appears and
inserting ``U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services''; and
(iv) by striking ``The Commissioner may'' and inserting
``The Director may'';

[[Page S4650]]

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

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

(a) In General.--Nothing in this Act, the amendments made
by this Act, or any other provision of law may be construed
as authorizing, directly or indirectly, the issuance, use, or
establishment of a national identification card or system.
(b) Limitations on Identification of United States
Citizens.--
(1) Biometric information.--United States citizens shall
not be subject to any Federal or State law, mandate, or
requirement that they provide photographs or biometric
information without prior cause.
(2) Photo tool.--As used in this Act, the term ``Photo
Tool'' may not be construed to allow the Federal Government
to require United States citizens to provide a photograph to
the Federal Government, other than photographs for Federal
employment identification documents and United States
passports.
(3) Biometric social security cards.--Notwithstanding
section 3102, any other provision of this Act, the amendments
made by this Act, or any other provision of law, the Federal
Government may not require United States citizens to carry,
or to be issued, a biometric social security card.
(4) Citizen registry.--Notwithstanding any provision of
this Act, the amendments made by this Act, or any other law,
the Federal Government is not authorized to create a de facto
national registry of citizens.
(c) Identification of Noncitizens.--The Federal Government
is authorized to require noncitizens, for identification
purposes, to provide biometric identification, including
fingerprints, DNA, and Iris scans, and nonbiometric
information, including photographs.

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

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

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

[[Page S4651]]

Finally, my amendment does not allow the processing of this new
category called registered provisional immigrants until Congress votes
that the border is secure. Then we limit the number to 2 million per
year, and each year we vote: Is the border more secure? If the border
is not becoming more secure, the process stops until we agree the
border is secure. This will allow the Department of Homeland Security
to do an effective job of conducting background checks on the estimated
11 to 12 million people.
If Congress votes that the border is not secure, the processing of
people into this category stops. It will not start again until
Congress, the Representatives of the people, believe that the border is
secure.
We desperately need immigration reform. If we don't have reform, I
think we will have another 10 million people come over in the next
decade. So something should be done, but it has to be done in a way
that fixes the system. This amendment will fix the system.
I ask my colleagues to support Senate amendment No. 1200, Trust But
Verify.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1251

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

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in the Record of Wednesday, June 12, 2013,
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have been working on immigration policy
for all the time I have been in the Senate, about 10 years now. So I
have some familiarity with the issues and the arguments that have been
made. It is always amazing to hear a lot of the same arguments being
repeated now that we have heard before in 2007 and before. But one of
the differences is we have 43 new Senators who weren't here in 2007,
the last time we had a major debate on immigration reform. So I think
the discussions have been useful and, hopefully, they will be
productive.
There is one obstacle, in my view, to immigration reform which is
something I would like to see: When it comes to securing our borders
and making sure that the flow of illegal immigration across our borders
stops or gets as close as we can to zero, the Federal Government has
zero credibility. The reason is simple. We have been making promises
since 1986 about border security enforcement.
Remember, 1986 was the year that Ronald Reagan--a model to
Republicans and conservatives--signed an amnesty for 3 million people,
premised on the representation and the expectation that enforcement
would ensue and the problem would be solved. In other words, he and the
American people said: We will have a compassionate resolution of the
condition of the 3 million people who are here, but we want to make
sure that the rule of law is restored and that we will not have to do
this again.
When the Gang of 8--the four Republicans and four Democrats who
authored the underlying bill--announced their product, I was hopeful
they would produce a bill with solid mechanisms for gaining secure
borders. Unfortunately, the bill contains no guarantees or results, no
real trigger, only more promises reminiscent of 1986 and many years
subsequent.
In 1996, Bill Clinton signed a law saying we were going to implement
a biometric entry-exit system. When that didn't happen, after 2011 the
9/11 Commission said one of the things we needed and was revealed as a
vulnerability for national security was the absence of a biometric
entry-exit system.
Despite the passage of all those years and the recommendations of the
9/11 Commission, we still have not implemented a biometric entry-exit
system. An entry system, yes, but exit, no. And 40 percent of illegal
immigration occurs as a result of the fact that people enter the
country legally and don't leave when their visa expires.
So, unfortunately, this bill contains more hollow promises and no
real trigger. By that I mean a conditioning on the transfer to either
probationary status or to legal permanent residency based on hitting
the standards that are met in the underlying bill--100 percent
situational awareness, 90 percent apprehensions, which is defined in
the bill as operational control of the border.
The message is, again, we don't have any enforcement mechanism here.
We are going to put a lot of money and a lot of resources into this but
we cannot control what future administrations do. We know no current
Congress can bind future Congresses. So these promises once again--I am
very concerned and I think the American people should be concerned--are
promises only and not delivering the results that I think they insist
upon before they will accept a resolution of the 11 million people in
compassionate terms.
But I do not think promises alone are good enough. You should not
take my word for it. You want to see, for example, what the
Congressional Budget Office came out with yesterday. I think people
would be serious about serious solutions to illegal immigration, but
the Congressional Budget Office which--love them or hate them, agree or
disagree--is the gold standard that Congress is bound by when
evaluating legislation. What they said is the number of new
unauthorized immigrants in the United States by the year 2033 will go
up. It will be 7.5 million people. If we did not pass any bill at all,
it will be 10 million. That is what the Congressional Budget Office
said. Those are not my figures, those are their figures. I think it is
incumbent upon anybody who disagrees to challenge these figures, and so
far we have heard no challenge forthcoming.
Make no mistake, border security is not an alternative to immigration
reform, it is a necessary complement to the sensible reforms that I
think a large majority of this Chamber could agree on, such as allowing
the United States to retain more highly skilled immigrants who get
Ph.D's and master's degrees at our colleges and universities in STEM
fields--science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and the like.
I know there has been a fair amount of disinformation circulated
about the proposals in my RESULTS amendment, so let me explain what it
actually does once more. My amendment requires the Federal Government
to have 100-percent situational awareness on the border. With
technology the American taxpayer has already paid for and which has
been deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq and is owned by the Department of
Defense, I am absolutely convinced we can get 100-percent situational
awareness on the border. Senator McCain yesterday said he agreed with
that. He cited a letter, which I am sure we will see forthwith, by the
head of the Border Patrol who said that is attainable.
Senator Bennet of Colorado and Senator Flake of Arizona, two members
of the Gang of 8, said they agree it is attainable. I think it is
attainable. That is one requirement.
Second, my amendment requires full operational control of the border.
That does not mean 100-percent detention of people coming across. It
means we have a deterrent effect by at least 90 percent of people
coming across being detained.
I have been in and around law enforcement most of my adult life. It
is not just how many people we detain, it is the deterrent value of the
knowledge of people who violate our laws that if they do so they will
be apprehended and they will receive the appropriate punishment. So the
deterrence factor is very important here. It is not just how

[[Page S4652]]

many people you catch but there has to be some metric that can be
objectively measured.
Next--and I alluded to this a moment ago--there has to be a
nationwide biometric entry-exit system. As I said, this has been the
law since 1996 when Bill Clinton signed it into law. Yet it has never
been implemented. What has been implemented is that when foreign
nationals visit the United States they do have to give a set of
fingerprints, but there is no complementary exit system to make sure
those same people leave the country when their visa expires--whether
they are a student or a tourist or a guest worker or something of the
like. Forty percent of our illegal immigration is people who enter
legally and simply do not leave when their visa expires. This biometric
entry-exit system would allow us to identify them and then to allow the
Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement
to do their job.
Fourth, my amendment requires nationwide E-Verify; in other words, a
means not to make the employers the police to sort of sift through
documents to try to figure out from your utility bill whether you
actually are a legal resident of the United States and can qualify to
work, but actually an electronic system. All employees of the Federal
Government, all of our employees in our Senate offices have to go
through that anyway to make sure this is uniformly observed, so that
the economic magnet that attracts so much illegal immigration is
removed and only people who can legally work in the country are allowed
to do so.
My amendment could have taken a much tougher position and said this
trigger must be met before people can progress or sign up for
probationary status. I voted for such an amendment, but knowing that
amendment would not pass the Senate I said the trigger ought to be
between the probationary status and the time when people transition
from probationary status to legal permanent residency. The whole
rationale is not to be punitive, not to create an obstacle that cannot
be met, but to realign the incentives for the executive branch, the
bureaucracy, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, conservatives,
liberals to come together and say we are going to make sure this target
is hit: 100-percent surveillance; 90-percent apprehensions or full
operational control of the border; an E-Verify system; and a biometric
entry-exit system.
Is it realistic to believe these goals can be met in the next decade?
Many experts, including members of the Gang of 8, which I mentioned a
moment ago, believe it is. Some of those experts include people such as
Robert Bonner, the former head of Customs and Border Protection; Asa
Hutchison, the former Under Secretary for Border & Transportation
Security at the Department of Homeland Security, and as I mentioned,
several of the Gang of 8--Senator Bennet of Colorado, Senator Flake of
Arizona, Senator McCain of Arizona--have all said they believe this
requirement of 100-percent situational awareness and operational
control of our southern border is feasible and can be accomplished and
that it is a reasonable, attainable goal.
My question for them and for others is, if they believe it is
feasible and if they believe we are suffering from a trust deficit as a
result of the American people being asked to trust us and that trust
being exploited and violated so many times in the past with promises
that are not kept, why not agree to a reasonable condition after
probationary status, before people transfer to legal permanent
residency where we know the forces will be aligned in order to make
sure that is met. Then we can regain the American people's confidence
and see we restored law and order and legality out of a current lawless
and chaotic system which exploits and preys on many innocent people who
die, who are subjected to human slavery as a result of trafficking, and
you name it.
There is a crisis of confidence in Washington these days and the only
way I think we are going to regain that confidence and demonstrate to
the American people we are serious about making this happen is a
trigger and a conditioning of that transition from RPI status to LPR
status contained in my amendment.
If it is attainable and if it is something that is important in terms
of regaining the public's confidence instead of just saying ``trust
us,'' why not support the amendment? Why not demand real results on
border security, rather than repetitive promises that have not been
kept in the past and which the American public is in deep doubt will be
kept in the future? Without a genuine border security trigger, this
bill, I would daresay, has zero chance of passing the House of
Representatives. For those of us who wish to see an improvement in the
status quo because we believe the status quos is simply unacceptable,
for those of us who wish to see a good immigration reform bill pass,
why not pass this bill with my amendment? Why not give this bill some
momentum as it goes over to the House of Representatives and as we come
together as a Senate and a House to reconcile those differences in the
bill and send over a good bill, an enforceable bill--not just full of
hollow promises but one which will actually gain results when it comes
to security.
Everybody in this Chamber knows the Senate bill is dead on arrival in
the House. They have their own ideas. They are going to take up
immigration reform on a piecemeal basis, but ultimately my hope is they
will cobble together one or more smaller bills and then we will be able
to get to a conference with the House to work out the differences. But
this is the kind of sleight of hand which I think undermines our
credibility and increases the skepticism of the American people that we
are actually going to deliver as represented when it comes to
immigration reform.
You have seen this before. Senator Durbin, the distinguished majority
whip, said in January 2013: A pathway to citizenship needs to be
``contingent upon securing the border.'' I agree with Senator Durbin. I
agree that is the essential bargain the American people are willing to
accept. There was a CNN poll yesterday that said 6 out of 10 of the
American people would accept a pathway to citizenship, perhaps
grudgingly, if they actually felt as though the results they demand be
provided on border security and enforcement are contained in this bill.
That is why I believe it was so important for Senator Durbin to say,
as part of their announcement of the goals of the Gang of 8, that a
pathway to citizenship would be ``contingent upon securing the
border.''
Here is the disconnect. Unfortunately, 6 months later, June 11, 2013,
Senator Durbin was quoted in the National Journal that the gang has now
decided that ``the pathway to citizenship'' and border enforcement can
be delinked. In other words, the way to citizenship is guaranteed and
good luck on the border security and the enforcement. Good luck,
present Congress, trying to enforce your will, present and hence, on a
future Congress; good luck, President Obama, trying to dictate exactly
what a future President, 10 years from now, will do.
The only way I believe we can credibly go back and defend our
position for immigration reform before our constituents, certainly my
constituents, is to look them in the eyes and say we have fixed the
problem. We have done everything humanly possible to make sure all the
incentives are aligned so that border security, interior enforcement,
and E-Verify are actually in place before people transition to legal
permanent residency.
We have now had three decades to fix our broken promises on border
security and now is the time to demand real results and to create a
mechanism for achieving them. It is time to make good on our promises
to the American people by securing America's borders.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about amendment No. 1311,
the Hire Americans First amendment, which I hope to call up later.
Nearly 8 percent of Americans are unemployed or underemployed and our
immigration policy obviously must be a jobs policy. Any successful
immigration plan must take a closer look at the H-1B Program, which
serves an important but specific and limited purpose. The H-1B visa was
created so businesses--particularly in high tech but not exclusively
that--so businesses could recruit foreign workers to help fill the void
created a by a lack of

[[Page S4653]]

American workers with those specific skills. Yet, as this bill comes to
the floor, something very important was excluded. The bill lacks a
requirement--which was in earlier versions of the bill--that employers
hire an equally or better qualified American worker when one is
available, rather than a potential H-1B worker.
The bill lacks a requirement that employers hire a qualified, equally
or better qualified American worker when one is available, rather than
a potential H-1B foreign worker. With this bill we are enshrining a
process--without this amendment--that allows companies to pass over
skilled Americans for foreign workers after they have been required to
actually actively recruit those Americans.
The bill has provisions to recruit Americans for these jobs that
might have gone to an H-1B foreign worker, but it falls short. It
doesn't require the employer to actually--after going through that
process, to actually hire the American worker who is as qualified or
better qualified than the H-1B foreign worker. This approach only
undermines support for the H-1B Program because it will be seen as a
tool to avoid hiring American workers.
Understand the American public, as they start to kind of understand
and digest the provisions of this purported new law, this legislation,
when they hear that, yes, companies have to recruit and look for
American workers but in the end, even if the American worker is as
qualified or more qualified, the company is under no obligation to
actually hire the American. Senator Grassley has been a champion in the
fight to end H-1B abuse. That is why I am proud to join Senator
Grassley in our bipartisan amendment to introduce the H-1B and L-1 Visa
Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act of 2013.

The H-1B program should only be used when there is no qualified
worker available in the United States. That is clearly what the
American people overwhelmingly say they want: that the program should
only be used when there is no qualified worker available here. This
amendment would increase protections to workers by requiring that
employers only hire H-1B workers, as I said before, when there is no
equally qualified or better qualified American.
This amendment would make sure a worker from Wuhan would not be hired
at the expense of a qualified engineer or scientist from Elyria or
Sylvania, OH. It means ensuring that American companies seek out, find,
and hire skilled American workers before seeking visas for foreign
workers. However, that is not included in this version of the bill that
we are debating on the Senate floor--the immigration bill. The bill in
its current form simply says that companies have to look for qualified
Americans. It doesn't require them to actually hire the equally
qualified or better qualified American, such as a chemist from
Cleveland or a computer scientist from Celina. The underlying bill
increases the number of H-1B-eligible visas, and that is fine. But it
also cracks down on employers who take advantage of the system. Without
the requirement to also hire qualified U.S. workers, the recruitment
steps mean standing on an escalator that leads to nowhere.
What this legislation now says is that companies that consider H-1B
visa hires need to recruit Americans, but the bill falls short of
saying if the American is as qualified or more qualified they need to
hire that American. If they are qualified Americans who can do the
work, there is simply no need to fill the post with an H-1B worker.
Passing the Brown-Grassley amendment--also cosponsored by Senator
Sessions, a Republican from Alabama, and Senator Manchin, a Democrat
from West Virginia--the hire Americans first amendment is important in
fixing that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

Amendment No. 1237, as Modified

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

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

The amendment is as follows:

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

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

SEC. 4607. AMERICAN JOBS IN AMERICAN FORESTS.

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

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I thought I would take a few moments to
share the contents of this amendment and why it is an important
addition to the bill we are considering currently. This is related to a
very critical part of Oregon's economy; that is, timber and forest
jobs. Forest jobs have long been a pillar of our rural economy in my
State. In fact, my father worked as a millwright when he first came to
Oregon. He worked as a mechanic, which was basically to keep the
sawmill operating.
When the sawmill shut down, he pursued other jobs as a mechanic. We
traveled with the timber economy, as so many families in Oregon did.
Many of our rural towns are mill towns--towns closely related to the
production of

[[Page S4654]]

lumber from our national forests and from private forests.
Over the past several decades, times have been pretty tough in the
timber economy, and we have many forest workers who have suffered
through these tough times. Their families have gone with the ups and
downs of the timber economy. Certainly, the recession added insult to
injury, and the unemployment rates in many of our timber counties
soared and have been stuck at over 15 percent.
That is why in 2009 I and others fought to get funding in the
recovery bill to expand thinning and wildfire prevention. The concept
was that we have millions of acres of overgrown second-growth forests
which is not ideal for ecosystems, and it is not ideal for producing
timber. What it is ideal for is forest fires and disease. So thinning
these forests made a lot of sense, and we can put a lot of folks to
work.
We did get funding for forest health, but in 2010 we had a little
shock. One of our newspapers in Oregon, the Bend Bulletin, started
reporting about how the forest service contracts intended to put
Americans to work--and for the Oregon forests, Oregonians to work--were
instead awarded to contractors who were bringing in foreign workers
under the H-2B visa program. These contractors, using cheap labor, were
underbidding the local companies that were employing Oregonians from
these rural communities--communities deeply steeped in the tradition of
forest jobs.
In 2011, we found out from a Department of Labor audit of some of
these contracts--more than $7 million worth--that not one Oregonian was
hired. In fact, the audit concluded that it was likely Oregonians
didn't even know the jobs existed. Now, why is that? Because the
contractor--seeking to underbid the contractors who would hire
Americans--proceeded to advertise in California for jobs in Oregon.
They proceeded to advertise well in advance of the jobs; there was a
disconnect in time. They proceeded to imply in the advertisements that
a second language was required.
When applications were received by the few Oregonians who found out
about those jobs, they round-filed those applications, put them through
the shredder, rather than using our tax money to thin our forests to
prevent forest fires and disease and didn't hire Americans for those
jobs.
The information provided to my office showed that in 2010 and 2011 in
Oregon and Washington more than one-third of the contracts being
awarded by the Forest Service were going to companies that self-
attested that they could not find a single American worker who wanted
to do these jobs. Now these companies are operating in rural
communities with very high unemployment rates in the middle of a
terrible recession. We have thousands of Oregonians who have signed up
on a job seeker database saying they want to work in our forests.
In Oregon that list involves more than 5,000 individuals who are on a
State list wanting to work in the woods, and the contractors said they
could not find anyone who wanted one of these jobs. This is exactly the
type of abuse that undermines the entire program. This is the type of
abuse that must not be allowed.
As I go from county to county doing townhalls, as I do in each county
every year, folks say time and time again: We need more jobs in the
woods. Well, those jobs that we do have in the woods, we need to make
sure they know about those jobs. When our taxpayer dollars are funding
the work, we need to make sure the money goes to create jobs where they
are needed.
That is why I am proposing a narrowly tailored amendment to address
this problem with three simple changes to the H-2B program for forestry
jobs. First, enhanced recruitment. Employers, before submitting a
petition to hire H-2B workers, would be required to use appropriate
recruitment strategies to find or notify Americans who are interested
in these jobs. This could be advertising at job fairs, with local and
State workforce agencies and nonprofits, or advertising on reputable
Internet job search sites or radio. The key is they must work with the
State workforce agency to advertise in the places where local residents
are likely to hear about the jobs. That is exactly what did not happen
in Oregon in 2009 and 2010.
The second provision of this amendment is that the Secretary of Labor
could grant a temporary labor certification to an employer to hire H-2B
forest workers. In order to do that, the director of the State
workforce agency would have to certify that the employer has complied
with the recruitment requirements, and the director of the State
workforce agency would have to make a determination that local workers
were not qualified or available to fill the jobs. That way we connect
the contractor who is responsible to make sure that folks know about
these jobs with the workforce agency that has the expertise in finding
people who want to know about these jobs. If there is a situation where
a contractor simply says, well, we advertised, but we cannot find
anyone, the workforce agency would know whether that was a legitimate
and valid conclusion.
The third point is that if an employer seeks to be certified for a
work itinerary that covers multiple States, and if the work outside the
primary State lasts 7 days or longer, then the employer needs to
contact the agency in each State. That way they don't simply have
someone starting work in California for a day or two and shifting to
Oregon, shifting to Washington, or shifting to Idaho--perhaps for a
month in each place--but never advertising in the State where the work
is being done. These are three simple changes to our H-2B program for
forest workers that could make a real difference for individuals
struggling to find work in the woods.
Now, we cannot go back and fix the contracts that have already been
issued and abused in the past, but we can fix the problems we know
about now so that those forest workers do get the jobs in the future--
those Oregonians, those Americans who want to work in the woods.
In places like Myrtle Creek, where I was born, or Roseburg, where I
went to first grade, when you are born in these timber communities, you
are practically born with a chainsaw in your hand. Timber is the heart
of the local economy. To have folks--who are unemployed, trying to
support their families and desperate for jobs in the woods--find out
that our tax money that was supposed to go to put them to work has been
put to work hiring people from outside our country is outrageous and
unacceptable. This amendment will address it in a responsible manner.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I thank the Presiding Officer for the time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

Women's Health Care

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

[[Page S4655]]

financial restrictions or a lack of access to health care or other
extenuating circumstances.
In fact, 58 percent of abortion patients say they would have
preferred to have an abortion earlier. Low-income women were more than
twice as likely as their wealthier counterparts to be delayed because
of financial limitation and difficulty in making arrangements. As
politicians, we should not be placing additional restrictions on women
in these circumstances.

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

[[Page S4656]]

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

Amendments Nos. 1268, 1298, and 1224 En Bloc

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

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

The amendments are as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 1268

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

At the end of title I, add the following:

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

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

AMENDMENT NO. 1298

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

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

AMENDMENT NO. 1224

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

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

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

[[Page S4657]]

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

Amendment No. 1200

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 154 Leg.]

YEAS--61

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

NAYS--37

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

NOT VOTING--2

Chiesa
Risch

The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, has the matter just voted on been tabled?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the time until 4:25
p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees,
with Senator Sessions controlling 7 minutes of the Republican time, and
this be for debate on the following amendments: Manchin No. 1268, Lee
No. 1208, as modified, with the changes at the desk, Pryor No. 1298,
Heller No. 1227, and Merkley No. 1237, as modified.
We still have a number of other amendments the managers are working
on and we will get to those later, or try to at least.
Continuing my request: At 4:25 p.m. the Senate will proceed to votes
in relation to the amendments in the order listed; that the amendments
be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold; that there be 2 minutes
equally divided prior to each vote and all after the first vote be 10
minutes in duration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I wish to address the leader and the managers of the
bill, both Senator Sessions and Senator Leahy. I know there are about
100 or so other amendments pending, and I know we have been sort of
held up the last couple of days, but there are amendments--and this is
the question I have--that don't touch the heart of the bill but that
are important to connect to this bill that have no opposition that I
know of.
I am asking the leader, for amendments that have no opposition and
have bipartisan support, when could we possibly get on amendments that
don't have opposition.
Mr. REID. I would say through the Chair to my dear friend from
Louisiana, the managers have been working through these amendments. I
know my friend says there is no opposition. Having said that, that
doesn't mean there isn't opposition.
Ms. LANDRIEU. So I should do more checking on them then.
Mr. REID. We have a number of people trying to get amendments on the
list. We will continue to work on that. It is not because the managers
haven't tried.
Mr. President, I would ask my request be modified to have the vote
start at 4:35 rather than 4:25; otherwise, Senator Sessions will not
have time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the leader's unanimous
consent?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be
determined by me, in consultation with Senator McConnell, the Senate
proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 182; that there
be 2 minutes for debate equally divided in the

[[Page S4658]]

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

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

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

[[Page S4659]]

unemployment is way too high, that we are going to pass a bill that
makes unemployment higher? How can we tell them the on-budget deficit
is going to be increased? Am I hearing this correctly?
To the public I would ask: Can you, the American people, afford that?
Can you sustain declining wages for another 10 years? Do you want your
Congress to pass a law that will reduce your wages that would increase
unemployment?
What about after that? Because of the sustained downward pressure on
wages, American wages 20 years from now will still be lower than they
would have been had the legislation not passed, and, particularly, as I
indicated, it falls on the lower wage people who are falling further
behind. The impact of the 1,000-page immigration legislation that is
before us today, experts tell us, will fall more heavily on the poorer
people and cause them to fall even further behind.
The working people in this country are going to get hammered by this
legislation. We need to be passing laws that help them get jobs, help
them add higher wages, help them have better benefits and more full-
time jobs, not fewer full-time jobs.
I don't see how we owe loyalty to Mr. Zuckerberg, the Facebook
billionaire who is running ads telling us what we are supposed to do.
Does he know real people who are suffering out there? He doesn't
impress me. He claims there is some convention of conservatives running
this advertisement. I am not aware that Mr. Zuckerberg is a
conservative. Do we all owe our loyalty to him because he brilliantly
produced Facebook or do we owe our loyalty to the working men and women
who vote for us, who fight our wars, pay our taxes, and serve our
country?

I suspect that if Mr. Zuckerberg were to post job openings tonight on
Facebook, put out his salaries, what he wants to pay, he would find
there might be plenty of Americans who want to take these jobs. I
suspect so. I would ask him to do so. Put on your website what kind of
qualifications, what kind of salaries you will pay, and let's see if we
do not have more applications than you suggest exist out there.
We know we have college graduates in large numbers in STEM fields
also having a hard time finding work. We know that is a fact. We have
senior engineers and scientists and computer people who would like to
go to work too. Maybe they have been laid off. Maybe there has been
downsizing. They have experience. Are they not to be considered? We
have to bring people in through some of these work programs for a
period of time to take the jobs.
A good immigration plan can work. We may need to bring in some
workers. We certainly need seasonal workers whom we can bring into
America if we do it right, and we need a guest worker program. I
support that. I support the million people a year who are admitted into
our country who work here every year. But this is a huge increase. The
guest worker program will double under this legislation.
I am afraid we are not serving the legitimate interests of the
American working men and women--immigrant, native born, Black, Asian,
White, Hispanic--who are here today, struggling today. Are we serving
them if we bring in more people than the economy can absorb? We can see
that will pull down their wages and make it hard for them to have a
job.
An author in the National Review wrote recently--I think this is very
wise and insightful:

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

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

Amendment No. 1208, as Modified

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

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

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

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

amendment No. 1268

Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes of debate
equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 1268,
offered by the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Manchin.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to an important
amendment to S. 744, the immigration bill now before us. My amendment
would cap compensation for private contractors employed for border
security at $230,700 a year. That is the same cap we now have on
nonelected civilian employees of the Federal Government.
I am offering this amendment because over the last couple of decades
the United States has increasingly relied on private contractors to do
the work that the men and women in our armed services used to do, and
they are getting exorbitant salaries to do it--in some cases, up to
$763,000 a year. That is almost twice the salary of the President of
the United States, and it is almost four times the salary of the
Secretary of Defense or Homeland Security. If we do nothing, that will
soon rise to $951,000 a year.
With the war in Afghanistan winding down, defense contractors are
looking for new opportunities, and border security is at the top of
their list. The New York Times said that some of them will demonstrate
military-grade surveillance equipment this summer in an effort to get
homeland security contracts worth billions of dollars.

[[Page S4660]]

I urge that this amendment be adopted. It caps it at $230,000 across
the board for all civilian employees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the subcommittee, of which I was not a
member, gave a lot of thought to this. Their number reduced by half the
amount that could be charged. I think it is somewhat higher than in the
amendment of Senator Manchin, but it went from--it could have been
$900,000 a year and I believe they cut it to under $500,000 a year. The
Committee on Armed Services discussed it. I believe the Manchin
amendment did not pass. I supported the subcommittee's mark on that. I
think they have come to a reasonable number. You are asking top
executives maybe to move across the country to lead an engineering
project, and maybe that is the right figure.
But I respect the interest of the Senator, and I understand the
effort behind his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 1268.
Mr. MANCHIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Chiesa).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch)
would have voted ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 72, nays 26, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 155 Leg.]

YEAS--72

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

NAYS--26

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

NOT VOTING--2

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

Amendment No. 1208, as Modified

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 156 Leg.]

YEAS--39

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

NAYS--59

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

NOT VOTING--2

Chiesa
Risch

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

Amendment No. 1298

Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes of debate
equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 1298,
offered by the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Pryor.
The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, this is amendment No. 1298. It is the
Pryor-Johanns amendment. I think the good news here is we have agreed
to a voice vote. But basically what this amendment does is it requires
the Department of Homeland Security, as they are doing their hiring to
beef up the border, to hire veterans of our Armed Services.
This is a win-win all the way around. Our vets have, as we know, a
higher unemployment rate, but also they happen

[[Page S4661]]

to be the best trained, the most disciplined. They have that can-do
spirit. They are familiar with the equipment and they make great
employees, as many of us know who hire veterans. We also know our
veterans know how to complete a mission.
So with that, Mr. President, I wish to yield the floor to Senator
Johanns.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, very briefly, I thank Senator Pryor for
bringing this amendment forward. I very proudly support it and concur
that it can be voice voted.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there anyone who expresses opposition?
The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I understand we are able to dispose of this
amendment with a voice vote, so I ask unanimous consent that the 60-
affirmative-vote threshold be waived on the Pryor amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on adoption of amendment No. 1298.
The amendment (No. 1298) was agreed to.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1227

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 157 Leg.]

YEAS--89

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

NAYS--9

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

NOT VOTING--2

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

Amendment No. 1237, as Modified

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the
amendment No. 1237, as modified, offered by the Senator from Oregon.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Let me take you back in time to 2009 and 2010. The
housing market had collapsed, sawmills had shut down across our Nation,
and thousands of loggers and sawmill workers were out of work. You can
imagine how outraged those unemployed loggers were when they found out
that government contracts had been let for logging but the contracts
were going to go to employees from Mexico. That is the type of bypass
that completely disturbs the fabric of our immigration system. It
undercut the success of thousands of rural families across this Nation.
This amendment has a simple fix. It says that jobs have to be
appropriately advertised so that our loggers will know how to apply.
That is it. It will work for rural America. It will work for the forest
industry. It will work for our loggers.
Mr. President, I understand that we are able to dispose of this
amendment with a voice vote. I ask unanimous consent that the 60-vote
affirmative threshold be waived under the Merkley amendment, as
modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, so ordered.
Is there further debate?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1237), as modified was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. I apologize to everyone for not mentioning this before. We
are very close to coming up with an agreement that the managers have
developed, along with our able staff, to have a series of amendments in
order. As things are now contemplated, we would debate those tonight
and in the morning and have some votes starting at 2:15. Hopefully
tonight and in the morning we will add to what we are going to agree to
later so that we would have even more amendments. It is my
understanding that there is already contemplation of some important
work in the morning.
In short, I don't think we will have any more votes tonight after
this one we are going to take on the Froman nomination. We are going to
have a consent agreement to put a number of amendments in order and
start those. There are four or five--I don't remember the exact number.
We will start those votes at 2:15 and continue working on this
important legislation.

____________________