Empowering States' Rights To Protect Consumers Act of 2013

I have expressed my frustration many times, and more often in the last week, about the lack of progress on getting votes. We have been on this bill for 3 weeks. Yet we have only dealt with nine amendments. It is unclear if any more amendments will be debated and voted on. We have provided a list to the majority on amendments that we believe will make the bill better. It seems as though the only amendments that will be made in order before we vote on final passage will be the Schumer-Hoeven-Corker so-called grand compromise. This is the one that was concocted behind closed doors for days, stalling progress we wanted to make in the public. In other words, we lost a lot of time while this grand compromise was being concocted behind closed doors. Even while that was going on, we could have been debating amendments and voting on amendments.

Not only is the amendment before us, meaning the Schumer-Hoeven- Corker amendment, loaded with provisions that some would call earmarks, but it continues to promote false promises that the border will be truly secured. We get the impression from hearing the authors debate their amendment that tomorrow we are going to have a secure border. This is not going to happen, and I will explain that in a moment.

Let's get back to basics. We are a Nation based upon the rule of law. In that concept, every Nation has a right to protect its sovereignty. In fact, it has a duty to protect the homeland. Any border security measures we pass then must be real and, more importantly, immediate. We can't wait 10 years down the road to put more agents on the border or to implement a tracking system to track foreign nationals. We have to prove to the American people today that illegal entries are under complete control and the visa overstays are being punished. Being punished means leave our country when your visa says you are supposed to leave the country.

Unfortunately, too many people have been led to believe the bill before us, and this grand compromise amendment, will force the Secretary of Homeland Security to secure the border. The fact is, it doesn't do that, but we are led to believe that tomorrow the border will be secure. The amendment basically is a continuation of the basic premise of the underlying bill--legalization first, enforcement later, if ever.

It is very simple and it is wrong. People will be legalized merely on the submission of a plan by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Will that plan secure the border? Who is going to know until a long way down the road. In the meantime, you have legalization and possibly enforcement, but you aren't going to know. Then you end up making the same mistake I made by voting for the bill in 1986. I don't intend to make that mistake again.

We are saying the Secretary puts forth a plan. This very same Secretary is the one who thinks the border is already strong enough, the same Secretary who has refused to even answer questions we submitted to her 2 months ago about how she might interpret some of this legislation. She obviously hasn't been forthright in answering what those department policies would be.

The amendment puts additional agents on the border, yes. It does it, quite frankly, in opposition to people on the other side of the aisle. Some of the sponsors of the bill have argued already that more agents aren't necessary. Maybe I should be satisfied we are going to have more agents. The point is, it is so far down the road--don't sell this amendment to me as border security.

Let's be honest with the American people. This amendment, this grand compromise concocted behind closed doors, may call for more Border Patrol agents, but it surely doesn't require it until the undocumented population, who are now RPIs, apply for adjustment status or a green card, and that is down the road several years.

I am all for putting more agents along the border, but why should we wait? It ought to be enforcement now, legalization later. Why allow legalization now and simply promise more agents in the future?

Even then, who believes the Secretary, like the one we have today, will actually enforce the law? When I say like the Secretary we have today, I mean the policy. She says the border is secure.

In this amendment there is the issue of fencing. One of the conditions that must be met before the Secretary can process green cards for people here illegally is the southern border fencing strategy has been submitted to Congress and implemented. This fencing strategy will identify where 700 miles of pedestrian fencing is in place. Note that this is not double layered, as in current law, so current law is weakened.

The amendment states the second layer is to be built only if the Secretary deems it necessary and appropriate. This is another delegation of authority to a Secretary who says the border is already secure.

Additionally, the underlying bill still specifically states that nothing in this provision shall be interpreted to require her to install fencing. Yes, they talk about this being a strong border-secure grand compromise, but it leaves so much discretion to a Secretary who already says the border is secure.

Another part of the amendment requires an electronic entry-exit system is in use at all international air and sea ports. This sounds like all international air and sea ports--and look at this caveat--but only ``where U.S. Customs and Border Protection are currently deployed.''

This is actually weaker than the underlying bill which required the electronic entry-exit system be used at air and sea ports, not just international. Here again we have a grand compromise, supposed to get more votes for this bill, but it is weaker than the underlying legislation, because the underlying legislation requires biometric entry-exit at all ports of entry, including air, sea, and land.

The amendment dictates to the Secretary which equipment to purchase and deploy at the border. The Members who wrote the bill were apparently given some secret list of technology that agents need, but I am not sure if this came from the Department or some defense contractor.

Have no fear, the border will be secure because the amendment calls for fixed towers and cameras, unattended ground sensors, night-vision goggles, fiberoptic tank inspection scopes, a license plate reader, and backscatters. Obviously, I am facetious when I say the border will be secured by this concocted, behind-closed-doors grand compromise.

What is not so funny is the spending of taxpayer dollars in this amendment. Originally the legislation allocated $6.5 million for the Secretary to carry out the law, and $6.5 billion is a lot of money. When we got to committee, the Gang of 8 increased the trust fund allocation by $6.5 billion to $8.3 billion, and $8.3 billion is still a lot of money. We have this grand compromise concocted behind closed doors before us, and now we are looking at not $8.3 billion but $46.3 billion upon date of enactment for the Secretary to spend as she wishes.

As is often the case here in Washington, the solution always seems to be throw money at a problem. This grand compromise measures the success of their amendment by the amount of money that is going to be spent, not by outcomes. The American people, in the polls of this country, want the outcomes to be a secure border, not the amount of money that is going to be spent on the success of a piece of legislation. Of course, the money has to come from somewhere, so the amendment requires the government to raid the Social Security trust fund. It is ObamaCare all over again, where the Medicare trust fund was raided to help finance that. It is irresponsible and unacceptable.

Moreover, the amendment's sponsors will claim that people here illegally will pay for our border security needs. But money has to come into the trust fund, and after it gets into the trust fund it has to be repaid to the Treasury. Where will the American people be reimbursed? The sponsors of the bill say the taxpayers will not bear the burden. Yet there is no requirement the funds be paid back. There is no time limit or accountability to ensure the taxpayers or the Treasury gets its money back.

The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment increases fees on visas for legal immigrants in order to replenish the trust fund and the Treasury. Employers, students, and tourists will pay the price. Talking about employers, students, and tourists, these are people who abide by the law who are paying the price. Meanwhile, the amendment says for those being legalized--in other words, people who came here undocumented, those people having not subjected themselves to American law by crossing the border illegally--they cannot be charged more than what is allowed already. The Secretary cannot adjust the fees or penalties on those who apply for or renew their RPI or blue card status, and those are the people who came to this country without papers, in violation of our law.

The amendment in the underlying bill will not end illegal immigration because the border is not going to be secure. The Congressional Budget Office says illegal immigration would only be reduced by 25 percent due to the increased numbers of guest workers coming into the country. The amendment does nothing to radically reduce illegal immigration in the future and does not provide any resources to interior enforcement agents whose mission it is to apprehend, detain, and deport illegal immigrants.

Just as with the 1986 amnesty--and I voted for that, which was a mistake I regret--we are going to be back in the same position in 10 years, facing the same problem.

The authors have talked a lot about the border surge in their amendment, but they seem to be hiding from the fact the border changes only account for about half of the total amendment. There are changes to every title. There are changes to exchange visitor programs, the future guest worker program, and visas, even for the performing arts. This isn't just a border amendment. There are provisions in the bill that were put in there specifically to get Senators to support passage of this bill, because they think if they can get 70 votes, the House of Representatives is going to buy into this thing. I expect to vote against the bill, and I expect the House of Representatives to fix this miserable failure, both the underlying legislation as well as the grand compromise amendment before us, so we can vote for a bill going to the President that has border security before we have legalization.

That is going to happen. I trust the other body isn't going to buy into the argument the Senators in this body want to use; that somehow, if this gets 70 votes, it is so bipartisan how could the other body not do it? This body is not the deliberative body on this amendment that history tells the American people the Senate is. This is a body that for 3 weeks, with 451 amendments, didn't deliberate. We stalled and voted on 9 or 10 amendments. The House of Representatives is going to be the deliberative body on immigration reform, and it is going to put the Senate to shame.

I encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment. It does nothing to change the legalization first philosophy and offers little more than false promises the American people can no longer tolerate.

I yield the floor.

Let me correct that. That is money total to be spent, not necessarily all on the border. But about $30 billion was added in this amendment for the border.

Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

I want to give an update, not only to Senator Landrieu, but for all the Senators. First of all, 10 days ago we started out with 27 amendments that were noncontroversial--or supposedly noncontroversial. Obviously, they were not all noncontroversial. That grew to 44 or 45, and I think we are back at 35 now on that list.

Remember, about 14 of those were included in the Hoeven-Corker amendment. They were included in that for sweetener--to buy people off to get their votes on final passage. So there are 14 that will probably be passed when we vote on final passage.

Last night my staff cleared 12 amendments, and that does not count several Republican amendments that were added to the list. We are making progress. Some are noncontroversial, but others are not. The one that the Senator from Louisiana mentioned that appeared to her to be noncontroversial, we suggested some technical changes to make it more definitive. If that is done, we can probably accept that.

Also, everyone has to remember that there are amendments on this list which are under the jurisdiction of other committees and not under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. Some of the amendments were rejected for that reason. Some of the amendments are technical, but some are more complicated.

I give my assurance to all of my colleagues that we will continue to work on this list.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of whatever time is left when Senator Cornyn is done.

Madam President, this grand compromise makes false promises to the American people and throws money at the border, but there is no accountability to get the job done. We need to see the results, but the only result we are being assured of is legalization-- legalization first, border security later.

On top of all the earmarks that are in this amendment, the grand compromise also has a grand plan for spending taxpayers' dollars, and we have to raid the Social Security trust fund to get it.

The American people expect us to get this right. This amendment is the wrong answer. I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield the floor, and I yield the remainder of my time.

I object.

In the last 3 weeks, I have pointed out several flaws in the immigration bill. Within a couple of days, we will have a bill through the Senate. I think I owe to my colleagues and to my constituents, since I have been pointing out flaws, what it would take for me to vote for an immigration bill because I am just like most everybody and maybe everybody in the Senate who will tell you that the status quo is not legitimate to maintain and that we have to reform the system.

So there are, I would like to say, 100 Senators who believe the immigration system needs to be fixed. I can guarantee that there are also 100 different ways to fix it. Nobody has a perfect solution, but I bring an experience to the table that very few others have.

My deep-rooted concern with this bill stems from my strong belief that we made a mistake in 1986. We allowed legalization and ignored the laws on the books. Another major shortcoming was that we allowed legalization without creating adequate avenues for people to enter, live, and work in this country legally. In other words, if we had a system that works, where we had a shortage of workers, if they could legally come to the country, we would not have the problems we have today. We did not do that in 1986.

These were crucial flaws that have led us to the debate we have been having the last 3 weeks, and I am not willing to pass that mistake on to future Congresses.

What will it take for somebody such as I, a Senator who voted for amnesty in 1986 and wasn't a part of the Group of 8 or Group of 10, to vote for immigration reform this year? This is what I need to see in an immigration bill in order to support it and send it to the President.

When I mentioned four different points, it doesn't mean that takes care of everything, but if these things were taken care of, regardless of the other things, I would feel I would have to support it. They are:

No. 1, legalization after border security; No. 2, meaningful interior enforcement, including allowing ICE to do its job and work with State and local people; No. 3, strengthening, not weakening, current law with regard to criminals; and, No. 4, protecting American workers while enhancing legal avenues.

I will explain them at this point, starting with legalization after border security. Most Americans contend that a legalization program is a compassionate way to help those who are unlawfully in the country. However, those compassionate people who support such a program of legalization do so only on the promise that the government will secure the border and stop the flow of illegal immigration.

We are a nation based upon the rule of law. We have a right to protect our sovereignty, and, of course, a duty to protect our homeland. Any border security measures we pass must be real and immediate. We can't wait 10 years to put more agents on the border or to implement a tracking system to track foreign nationals. We have to prove to

the American people that illegal entries are under complete control and that visa overstays are to be punished.

Unfortunately, too many people have been led to believe this bill before us will force the Secretary of Homeland Security to secure the border. It doesn't.

A fundamental component of any legislation is border security first and foremost, not legalization now and enforcement later, if ever.

There has to be pressure on the executive branch to get the job done. We must tie legalization to results. Only then will advocates and a future administration truly try to secure the border.

Secondly, meaningful interior enforcement, including ICE being allowed to do its job and work with State and locals. Enforcement of the immigration laws has been lax and increasingly selective in the last few years. As a result, States have been forced to deal with the criminal activity that surrounds the flow of people here who are undocumented.

They have stepped up efforts to control the effects of illegal immigration in some States, and the States should be able to protect their people and stem the lawlessness within their border. Yet time and again this administration has denied States the opportunity and tried to stop them from enforcing immigration laws.

Federal immigration enforcement officers have also been handicapped from doing their job. The bill would practically render these officers useless since they are required to verify a person's eligibility for legalization before apprehending and detaining. They need to be provided the resources to fulfill their mission and not be told by Washington to sit idly by.

The unfortunate reality is that the bill does almost nothing to strengthen and enhance our interior enforcement efforts. The bill does nothing to encourage Federal, State, and local law enforcement efforts to apprehend and detain individuals who pose a risk to our community. The Federal Government will continue to look the other way as millions of new people enter the country undocumented.

Meanwhile, the bill gives the States no new authority to act when the Federal Government refuses. I will be the first to say that border security is a must, but people who enter illegally and overstay their visas and are residing in the interior of the country, this cannot be ignored. This is something that if it is fixed, I would feel very comfortable voting for an immigration bill.

Strengthening, not weakening, current law with regard to criminals. It is not going to go over well back home if we say one can have criminal activity, even be deported from the country, and make application again to have the benefits of this legislation.

One of the major reasons why immigration is a subject of such significant public interest is the failure of the Federal Government to enforce existing laws. Eleven million people have unlawfully entered the country or overstayed their visas because the Federal Government did not deter them or take action to remove them.

This bill before us significantly weakens current criminal law and will hinder the ability of law enforcement to protect Americans from criminal undocumented aliens.

The bill weakens current law regarding passport fraud, only charging those who make or distribute illegal passports three or more times. It allows a person to knowingly purchase materials for making illegal passports but only charge the person with a crime if 10 or more passports are made.

It also weakens current law for those who illegally enter the country, changing existing laws by removing the crime of illegally attempting to enter the United States. This essentially incentivizes foreign citizens to attempt to illegally enter the country as many times as they wish.

Further, once they successfully enter the United States illegally, the alien would only be subject to criminal punishment if they are removed from the country three or more times. Why isn't once enough?

Taken together, the bill weakens current law and will make it easier for undocumented aliens to enter the country illegally by not criminalizing their attempts to enter, nor their actual illegal entry, unless they had been previously removed three or more times. This is a drastic change that will encourage future entries by undocumented people.

Given the serious nature of criminal street gangs, we need to pass an immigration bill that prevents entry into the country if one is a gang member. More important, we need to ensure that gang members are not being rewarded with legal status. Regrettably, the bill is weak on foreign national criminal street gang members in several regards. In addition to weakening current law, the bill does very little to deter criminal behavior in the future. The bill ignores sanctuary cities, allowing criminals to seek safe harbor in jurisdictions where they have policies aimed to protect people in the country illegally.

It increases the threshold required for actions to constitute a crime. It punishes persons only if they have already been convicted of three or more misdemeanors on different days, and it only punishes undocumented aliens who are removed from the country three or more times.

I am committed to making sure any bill that is sent to the President makes a more serious effort to penalize those who attempt to enter or reenter the United States. It needs to be tough on lawbreakers and send a signal that fraud and abuse, including identity theft, will not be tolerated. It needs to ensure that gang members are not granted legalization but rather made deportable and inadmissible.

We need to protect victims of crime and ensure that child abusers and domestic violence perpetrators do not receive benefits under the immigration law. Finally, we need to ensure that dangerous, undocumented criminals are not released in our country but are detained until they are properly returned to their home country.

Fourth and last, we need to protect American workers while enhancing legal avenues.

While I support allowing businesses to bring in foreign workers, they should only do so when qualified Americans are not available. There have been too many stories about U.S. workers who have had to train their replacements who come in through the H-1B visa program. Foreign nationals are being hired but then working in locations not specified in their application. Other work visa programs are not free of controversy.

I agree with the creation of a temporary worker program, such as the W visa program created in this bill. I have long argued we must enhance and expand opportunities for people who wish to work legally in this country. Yet as we do that, we cannot forget the American worker. We need to fight for them and ensure that they are not disadvantaged, displaced, and underpaid because of our generation laws.

The bill before the Senate makes that move in the right direction by increasing worker protection for Americans and by providing more authority to the executive branch to investigate fraud in the H-1B visa program. Unfortunately, the bill is slanted to ensure that only certain employers undergo more scrutiny. All employers who bring in visa holders should be held to the same standard. All employers, not just some, should be required to make a good-faith effort to recruit U.S. workers. All employers, not just some, should be required to attest that they did not or will not displace a U.S. worker within 180 days of applying for an H-1B worker. All employers, not just some, should be required to offer the job to a U.S. worker who is equally or better qualified.

Our employment-based immigration program, including the H-1B program, has served and could again serve a valuable purpose if used properly. However, they are being misused and abused. They are failing the American worker and not fulfilling the original purpose that Congress intended when it was created.

Reforms are needed to put integrity back into the program and to ensure that American workers and students are given every chance to fill vacant jobs in this country.

Again, how I vote on the final bill coming out of conference with the House is undecided. I want to be able to support something that will make Americans proud, that will not make the same mistakes we did in 1986, and

will stand the test of time so future generations can benefit. I need to see at least these four key changes before I can cast a vote in support.

I have said to Iowans and to my colleagues that the bill before the Senate is precooked, but I have faith that a better bill is achievable, a bill that can gain more votes, including mine. This body, the Senate, is described as the most deliberative parliamentary body in the world-- and I believe it is--but when we had 451 amendments offered to this bill, we were promised free and open debate. We have only dealt with about a dozen of them, and we can't say we had a fair and open debate as we were promised.

It surely did not meet the standard that was set by Chairman Leahy when he promised in committee a free and open debate. There was free and open debate and no limit on amendments. We stuck with it until we got done.

We could have just as well stuck with this bill until we got it done and we could have had votes on more amendments.

Now we are going to pass a bill that is not the best for the country and doesn't accomplish even what the authors of the legislation hoped to accomplish, particularly when they say secure the border first and then legalize. We have to rely upon a body that is not considered a deliberative body, the House of Representatives, to correct these mistakes that are made in this bill. I think they will, I hope they will, and then I hope I can vote for the product that will go to the President of the United States.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I want to give my colleagues a point of view on the immigration bill before the Senate from somebody other than a Senator.

In the weekend Des Moines Register, there was an article called ``Another View: Immigration reform plan adds disorder to a failing system'' by Mark H. Metcalf, who had been an immigration judge and now is a county attorney in the State of Kentucky.

I am quoting:

The most recent push for immigration reform is compelling.

True to our heritage of inclusion, it succeeds. False to our

tradition of rule of law, it fails.

For any law to forge consensus, it must appeal to both fairness and common sense. The measure now on the U.S. Senate floor fails this litmus.

What is sold as a means to simplify and dignify one of our

most important national institutions--immigration and

naturalization--mandates complexity and much of the same

disorder that got us where we are today. The bill's neglect

of an effective court system only aggravates this disorder.

America's immigration courts are weak, and this latest

measure keeps them that way. Put simply, immigration courts

cannot impose order. Few aliens ordered removed after years

of litigation are ever deported.

Edward Grant, a senior immigration appeals judge, noted

this impasse in 2006.

Then he quotes Edward Grant: ``All should be troubled that only a small fraction of [deportation orders] . . . is actually executed.''

And he was right. A 2003 Justice Department report found

only 3 percent of aliens free during trial were actually

removed after courts ruled against them. Those who deserve

relief fare just as poorly.

By last count, more than 330,000 cases were backlogged.

This historic dysfunction offers a glimpse of things to come

if the current version of reform passes.

The cause of this dysfunction is simple. Immigration courts

have no authority over immigration enforcement agencies.

Unlike federal district courts that have U.S. marshals, among

others, to execute their orders, federal immigration courts

have no such muscle.

Numbers tell the story.

Some 11 million illegal aliens now live in the U.S. Visa

overstayers--those who entered America legally and then

refused to leave--comprise 40 percent of this total. The rest

crossed unguarded borders and entered illegally. Both groups

brought children with them. From these two populations, 1.2

million deportation orders remain unexecuted.

The immigration courts observed this dysfunction first

hand. From 1996 through 2012, the U.S. permitted some 2.2

million aliens to remain free before trial. Nearly 900,000 of

these individuals--39 percent of the total--skipped court and

disappeared.

In the shadow of 9/11, things were even worse. From 2002

through 2006, half of all aliens free awaiting trial

vanished. Nothing in the details now being debated addresses

this systemic defect, and continued neglect will only

diminish public support for worthy initiatives intended to

elevate the foreign-born.

Fine improvements dot the present legislation. Enhancements

that protect lawful American workers, recruitment of the

highly skilled into our tech-driven economy, and real-time

tracking of visa holders into and out of ports of entry

provide overdue fixes.

Emphasis on border security demonstrates a seriousness

absent from earlier proposals. Those illegally brought to the

U.S. as children--better known as ``Dreamers''--earn tracks

to citizenship incentivized through higher education and

military service.

Now, let me editorialize here. There are two paragraphs where he says good things about this legislation. I do not necessarily agree with a couple of those points.

Now continuing to quote:

Some reworking is needed; but this value-added approach

appeals to our better instincts as a nation. Problems

persist, though, in that essential mechanism upon which a

rule of law nation depends: effective courts.

While the bill authorizes 225 new judges, judicial

authority declines. Deportation orders are further enfeebled.

Aliens deported from the U.S. may apply to come back, and the

thousands who skipped court can request a waiver--and get in

line with the many who played by the rules.

Fraud is enabled. Courts and immigration agencies alike

will be required to accept--without independent

verification--aliens' claims to work and residency that make

them eligible for the path to citizenship.

Constitutional protections are turned upside down.

Here I editorialize. Listen to this on how our laws are turned upside down. Continuing to quote:

Aliens in civil deportation proceedings will receive

counsel on demand, while citizens receive counsel only when

facing criminal charges and only after proving they are

indigent.

So again editorializing, it gives more constitutional rights and more legal counsel than the common criminal in this country might get.

Order is subverted. Even felons who are subject to

deportation may seek injunctions that allow them to remain in

the U.S. In the end, courts that spent years deciding the

cases of those who should be removed will see their orders

overturned by waivers that mock the judicial process.

America's immigration courts express fundamental confidence

in those who embrace our shores and the redemptive power of

our democracy. For the immigrant in particular, they reveal

the beginnings of accountability that are a surety of our

exceptionalism.

But ignored by administrations both Republican and

Democrat, these courts have ceased to do the critical work

for which they were created--to definitively decide the

claims of those who ask to join our nation and see that those

decisions are impartially enforced.

So now, instead of debating how we extend the great prize

of American citizenship to more of the world's bright and

talented, Congress argues whether felons should be deported.

This is the small-ball politics that has sabotaged public

confidence in immigration. It shows how far we have fallen

both in the mission of these special courts and with

immigration in general.

Courts without authority cannot provide order. Even less

can they assure liberty.

Only independent and empowered courts are an equal match

for the certain risks and superior opportunities that

American immigration offers. History proves them not just a

priceless check against tyranny, but also an effective

antidote for drifting government agencies that delay relief

to the deserving and deny sanction to the offender.

Such courts are a necessary complement to immigration

reform that is inclusive, accountable and commands consensus.

That is the end of the article in the Des Moines Register by this former immigration judge, Mark H. Metcalf.

I thank my colleagues for listening to this, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the only unanimous consent request I am going to make is at the end of my remarks I will ask for inclusion of something in the Record.

I wish to share with the public what is taking place on the immigration bill before us. Unfortunately, very little is taking place. We have been on the floor of the Senate considering this bill for 2\1/ 2\ weeks, and only 13 amendments have been disposed of. We have had nine rollcall votes on amendments, and three of those amendments were tabling votes. Yet over 550 amendments have been filed to this bill. Senators are still filing amendments. The fact is less than 3 percent of all amendments filed have actually been considered. For a process that was labeled as ``fair

and open,'' with the invitation to file amendments, even from the people who wrote the bill, the Gang of 8, it has become laughable.

Our side has been asking for votes. We have tried to call up amendments. Last night we sent a list of 34 amendments over to the majority and requested votes on them. I am told they have refused that list, and I think it is because there are some tough votes on those amendments. They want to limit the number of amendments that can be considered. They want to choose the amendments. In a sense, they want to tell Republicans which amendments we can offer from our side.

That is not right. I am very disappointed not just for myself but for a lot of other Members of the body. There is no deliberation. It seems as though there is no path forward to have votes to make the bill better. And, of course, this isn't the way to legislate. Immigration reform is an important matter. We have to get it right. We shouldn't rush a bill just to get it done, especially if we are going to pass a bad bill. This bill shouldn't be rushed if we are getting it wrong. We have to get it right. It is unfortunate that what has happened on the floor of the Senate--9 rollcall votes out of 550 amendments, and counting, that have been filed. So much for the world's greatest deliberative body.

Immigration reform hasn't been debated on this floor since 2007, and as far as I can remember, a major piece of legislation such as this on immigration hasn't passed the Senate since 1986.

It may seem that we have been on the bill for a long time. Compared to a lot of other issues, it has been a longer time. But most of the time has been spent delaying actual debate and consideration of amendments, while Members craft a grand bargain compromise behind closed doors. Of course, that has been adopted at this point in the process.

Unfortunately, it appears this bill has been precooked, deals have been made, and apparently having an open debate on amendments to the bill isn't part of that deal on any more than the few amendments we have discussed--particularly those amendments that could substantively change the underlying bill for the better. So we get the impression that, sorry, the kitchen is closed.

What has happened? We are supposed to be the most deliberative body in the world. We pride ourselves on that. But now we are going to rely on the House of Representatives to do our job to be deliberative and to fix this legislation. I have great hopes when this process is done through conference that I can vote for a bill that will go to the President of the United States.

As I have said before, the Judiciary Committee markup was full and open, and I have complimented Chairman Leahy many times on that point. It is too bad that process couldn't have been carried out here on the floor of the Senate.

Whether members were pleased in committee with the vote results for their amendments, in committee the members at least had the opportunity to offer amendments for debate and consideration. Amendments were debated. Amendments were voted on. But that hasn't been the case in the last 2\1/2\ weeks here on the Senate floor.

We have tried to offer amendments to this over 1,000-page-long bill. The majority is shutting us out. They have gotten the votes they need to pass this bill through Members getting their favorite amendments into the bill, and some of these seem to me to be special interest provisions and some of them tend to be like the cornhusker kickback sweeteners of ObamaCare fame. Now we are getting the door to the shop closed.

It is important for the public to know we have tried to make this bill better by trying to offer amendments. We have given the other side a list, and I think it has been flatly refused. It is not too much to ask for this number of amendments to be considered. That list had 34 amendments--that is 34 amendments out of 550 filed. Senators want to see a lot more amendments considered and voted on, but we have limited the number to 34.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the list of amendments we asked the majority to consider before final passage.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I object, and I ask for the floor.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my colleagues--I better say on behalf of myself and some of my colleagues--I have to object. The majority party has offered an agreement from our point of view that is insufficient and clearly not serious, even though I know they consider it a serious offer.

Last night, our side offered a list of amendments that could be voted upon. We asked for votes on 34 amendments and those 34 amendments are less than 10 percent of all of the amendments that are filed, right now about 550. But now the majority wants to limit the number of amendments and, in a sense, limit our rights, because each Senator ought to have an opportunity to put down the amendments they want to offer. It doesn't preclude the majority party from offering any amount of their amendments they want to offer.

It seems to me the majority wants to pick and choose the amendments they like. They don't want to take tough votes so they have chosen just a few of

our amendments to make it look as though it is very accommodating.

I have to say I feel a bit used and abused in this process. For 2\1/ 2\ weeks we have been pushing to get votes on our amendments. We have had a measly 10 votes on amendments. I will remind my colleagues that there were 550 filed. That is pretty embarrassing for the majority after they promised a fair and open debate.

I wish to remind my colleagues about fair and open debate. One Republican Member of the Group of 8 said:

I am confident that an open and transparent process, one

that engages every Senator and the American people, will make

it even better. I believe that this kind of open debate is

critical in helping the American people understand what is in

the bill, what it means for you, and what it means for our

future.

That same Senator also wrote to Chairman Leahy on March 30 before the bill was brought up in committee:

I wish to express my strong belief that the success of any

major legislation depends on the acceptance and support of

the American people. That support can only be earned through

a full and careful consideration of legislative language and

an open process of amendments.

In a letter to me on April 5, that same Senator wrote:

If the majority does not follow regular order, you can

expect that I will continue to defend the rights of every

Senator, myself included, to conduct this process in an open

and detailed manner.

When the bill was introduced, the senior Senator from New York said:

One of the things we all agree with is that there ought to

be an open process so that people who don't agree can offer

their amendments.

So it is very clear the Gang of 8, the authors of the legislation, called for a robust floor debate. They said they supported regular order.

So I ask now: Do they think that having only a few amendments considered, and this list that has just been put before us, is that a robust and open process? Do they think the majority party has used regular order?

After spinning our wheels for a couple of weeks, we had an important vote a couple of days ago. The proponents have been bragging for weeks that they were going to get over 70 votes for their legislation and somehow force the House to take up their bill. Of course, that won't happen if they don't get 70 votes. But I saw the shock of some that they had on their faces when their vote count fell short here a couple of days ago.

So now what are they doing? They need to pick up some votes and they need to make it look as though we have had a more fair process. So after less than the expected vote yesterday, the proponents came to me wanting to strike a deal that would give us votes on amendments. The problem is they still want to limit our amendments, but they want to make sure we include amendments that will help them pick up some votes.

Well, I happen to be a farmer and I am proud to be a farmer, but I want them to know I haven't just fallen off of the hay wagon. It is pretty clear what is going on around here. Regardless of the reasons for the majority now trying to look as though they are accommodating us, I am still willing to negotiate votes, but it needs to be a lot of votes.

Some on my side may be less charitable than I am since they also understand what is going on around here. So in the end, we may very well not be having any more votes on amendments. It is too bad the majority led us down this road and is aiming for the ditch. In other words, we have not had the fair and open process we were promised as we had in committee--a fair and very open process there, but it ended up completely contrary to what the Gang of 8 told us we were going to have when we got to the floor.

In the end they have only themselves to blame. In the end I think the end is right now. We are going to have votes on cloture. We are going to have a vote on final passage. I am telling people on my side of the aisle that if you are going to be against this bill, there is no sense in debating it anymore; we might as well carry our story to the other body because that is where this bill is going to be perfected, if it can be perfected, in a way that is going to be sent to the President and to solve the problems we have and not make the same mistakes we made in 1986.

I yield the floor.

I reserve the right to object, and I will object.

I want the Members of this body to know that I very much am interested in E-Verify, because I have legislation in for mandatory E- Verify. I was involved with several Senators in 2007 as we tried to get an amendment put together in those negotiations. It is a case of something very important. I happen to support this amendment, but it is one of 34 others we sent over to the majority to give us votes on. Our side isn't going to let the other side pick our amendments and choose our amendments that are going to be adopted any more than they would let us decide what Democratic amendments are going to be offered. That applies to the Portman amendment as well and the amendment of which Senator Tester is a cosponsor.

We had this set up where we were asked to put together amendments. It happens to be that a Republican Senator, somebody who just spoke and was involved in this colloquy, asked me to put together some amendments. I worked hard with a lot of dissenting Republicans about how we should do this process, put together 34 amendments and gave them to that Senator. He was going to negotiate with the leader or the majority.

It seems to me I ended up giving my amendments to an errand boy, didn't do much negotiation. We are here where we are.

Also for that Senator, I wish to tell him that he said we could do 15 vote amendments now, then maybe 15 more, and then maybe 15 more.

The unanimous consent request said after we do those amendments we were asked to do, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on final passage of the bill. There wouldn't have been a tranche of so many and then another tranche.

Here we are, even though I think it is a pretty good amendment. We were promised a free and open process of amendments, and the Group of 8 promised that from day one that they put their bill down, that this bill can be approved.

We have had a chance to improve it by a dozen votes, and that is it. I am sorry for Mr. Portman and for Mr. Tester that I have to object to their amendment, but I do object.

I think if we had 2\1/2\ weeks, we could have been doing a lot of these other things we are going to have to rely on the other body to do to get a decent bill to go to the President of the United States.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we will have a vote before much longer on the question of whether the legislation before us violates the budget. I think that is going to be established quite clearly. The chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Murray--and I am the ranking Republican on that committee--is going to acknowledge that and the Parliamentarian will so rule that the legislation violates the budget and violates it in a number of ways, contrary to the promises made by the sponsors of the bill.

The sponsors of the bill proposed a large piece of legislation and told everyone a great deal about their bill, one fact after another, and those promises and representations have been shown to be inaccurate. They are not accurate and that is unfortunate. That is why the bill is having the difficulties it is.

If it simply was a bill that provided a legal status for people who had been here a long time without difficulties and it was a bill that actually fixed the border, fixed the workplace enforcement, fixed the entry-exit visa, and created an effective internal enforcement mechanism for the future, the legislation would have a good chance of having popular support. But as people find out more about it, they find all those factors are not going to be achieved effectively--in some instances even weakened from current law--and as a result the legislation is in trouble.

When we get a piece of legislation that is 1,200 pages and people are unable to digest it, it boils down to talking points. So the sponsors produced a series of talking points that they said reflects what is in the legislation. One of their talking points was that the bill is not going to cost the taxpayers money; that we would fine the people who are here illegally and they will pay the cost of this bill so it would not impact the budget. We were promised that in the Senate Judiciary Committee when this legislation came up. Senator Schumer made that explicitly clear. This is a quote from him in committee, and this is what their talking point said and what their Members have been saying repeatedly:

And here, what we're simply doing is making sure that all

the expenses in the bill are fully funded by the income that

the bill brings in. This is to make sure that this bill does

not incur any cost on the taxpayers. It's to make it revenue

neutral.

That was the promise we had heard. People like to hear that. They were pleased to hear that. It was a positive spin for the bill. He goes on to say:

Section 6 provides start-up costs to implement the bill,

repaid by fees that come in later.

Then he goes on to say money will be paid from companies and workers and by the immigrants who get the legal status in terms of ``their fines as they go through the process.''

That was the promise that was there. Yet now we have legislation and a score that demonstrates that is plainly not correct. First, the Congressional Budget Office analyzed the cost, and this was before we added the extra money last week or what we will vote on today. This was before they added the substitute Corker-Hoeven-Schumer amendment, and that substitute adds a lot more money.

What our experts in the budget office tell us is that it would add $14 billion to the on-budget debt of the United States, but it is really more than that.

Most of the individuals who will be legalized will be able to have Social Security cards and will pay FICA, Medicare, and Social Security withholdings on their paychecks every week, which will incur extra revenue for the U.S. Government. Our colleagues claim credit for the FICA money to try to justify their claims that they are within the budget and that we should not just count the on-budget score that debt increases from the CBO. But we have to know that the FICA money is money that goes to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, and every one of the individuals whose average age now is in their thirties will eventually claim the benefit of Medicare and Social Security. They will draw out of the Medicare and Social Security trust funds the money they paid in.

Statistically speaking, they will draw out a lot more than they pay in because those funds are not on a sound basis. Medicare and Social Security are on an unsound basis today. They are counting that money to pay for their bill when that money is dedicated to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.

By spending that money today, they are simply adding to the debt of the United States. They cannot claim that twice. They cannot claim that the individuals who are going to be given Social Security cards and will be on a path to receive Social Security and Medicare when they retire--that they are paying into Social Security and Medicare if their money is being spent on funding this program. That is double counting, and Mr. Elmendorf of CBO showed that.

This chart shows it is really more than just the $14 billion, which is significant. This chart shows how much the deficit of the United States is impacted by this legislation. The unified budget surplus counts all the Social Security money and all the tax money in one pot. It is one way to do the accounting of the United States. It is not accurate in this case. It should not be used. It claims a $197 billion surplus. That is the Social Security and Medicare money. But if we take away the Social Security surplus this bill creates, $211 billion, and the money they pay into the Medicare trust fund, $56 billion--the net deficit is $70 billion. We have to get our minds correct.

The reason this country is going broke, the reason this country is so far off a sound fiscal path, is that we continue, we persist, in using a unified budget number when that money for Social Security and Medicare is dedicated money. It is set aside to pay for something in the future.

If someone sets aside money in their savings account for their retirement, they cannot spend it today and pretend they still have it for their retirement account. It is just that simple.

This is a bad trend we have been in. It was not so obvious when Social Security and Medicare were bringing in a lot more money than was going out. But now that is not so, and we will soon be in deficit, and very serious deficit. So we should not in any way suggest, believe, or tell the American people that this bill is paid for. It is not

paid for, and as a result it violates the Budget Act. That is the point of order that Senator Vitter has made, and we will vote on it.

In addition to that, it is worse. There are 10 more budget violations in the bill: One is for new direct spending to exceed the Judiciary Committee's authorization levels over a 5-year period. Another one is a 10-year violation of spending over authorized levels in violation of the committee allocations.

Another is an emergency designation to increase spending pursuant to emergency spending from the comprehensive immigration trust fund; emergency spending designation for the comprehensive reform trust fund in violation of the PAYGO Act; emergency designation in violation of a 2010 budget resolution; emergency designation for Social Security cards, in violation of the statutory PAYGO Act. This bill calls it an emergency to have funds for Social Security implementation. That is not an emergency.

Another is an emergency designation for the E-Verify system. That is a system we have established and should be able to expand rapidly. That is not an emergency to expand that. That is in violation of the 2010 budget resolution.

Another is an emergency designation for E-Verify in violation of the PAYGO act; emergency designation for passenger manifest information expenditures, in violation of the 2010 budget resolution; emergency designation in violation of the Statutory PAYGO Act for passenger manifest information.

All of those represent violations of the Budget Act. Senator Vitter raised the one that plainly violates the flat spending limit we agreed to and are now operating under. When the response came from Senator Leahy, he moved to waive that. He moved to waive not only that, but all the other 10 violations of the Budget Act. You only raise one at a time. Senator Vitter raised one, and they moved to waive them all and eliminate this pesky complaint that their bill spends more money than the budget allows.

We will be voting on that, colleagues, and this Senate has been in recent months doing well with regard to adhering to the budget limits we agreed to. We have had seven consecutive votes in which the Senate has voted not to violate the budget when a bill hit the floor that violated the budget. We sent the bill back for reform so if it comes back it has to be in harmony with the bill--seven consecutive votes.

My colleagues who have been there and who believe they have a responsibility to honor the budget limitations we agreed to should not vote to waive the budget. Let's stay within the budget. Let's require the bill's sponsors to do what they promised to do, and by right they should be able to do, which is produce a bill that comes within cost without raiding the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, as they now intend to do. That is just the way it is. I wish it were not so, but it is.

I will take a minute to point out that recently--last night or late yesterday--Senator Bennet, one of our most able Members of the Senate and a Member of the Gang of 8, took the floor to promote the bill and claimed that before jobs are offered, the bill ``requires an American is offered the job first.''

He went on to say: ``We are not bringing in a whole bunch of new people when there are Americans looking for work.''

We are not bringing in a whole bunch of new people when there are Americans looking for work--well, we are. The guest worker program that is in this bill, in addition to the legalization process of normal immigration, doubles the number of guest workers who will be coming to America over current law. These are not people who come to be permanent residents and immigrate to America. These are people who come to take a job and work for a certain period of time--really up to 3 years, and they can extend for 3 years. They have become permanent job takers, in many instances.

He says: First of all, you have to certify an American has been offered the job first. He and other supporters claim this bill is not going to impact wages, is not going to impact jobs. They say don't worry about it--I am worried about it. First and foremost, we are going to have 1.1 million people, and many of those are not able to work in the economy fully today because they are illegally here. They will be given a legal status, a Social Security card, driver's license, and the ability to apply for any job in America. So all of a sudden we are going to have a half million people, perhaps, out there competing for jobs that Americans cannot find today because unemployment is very high. That is going to happen promptly.

Then we are going to accelerate another 4.5 million people into the country, without regard to their skills, and they will be looking for jobs mostly in the lower skilled workforce area. Then, in addition to that, we add the normal flow of immigration into America. We currently welcome 1 million immigrants every year, but this is going to welcome 1.5 million a year. So, there will be an additional 500,000 workers a year in America under the normal immigration system. In addition to that, the guest worker program will double--all at a time when we are not doing well economically.

Today's announcement that the government revised downward substantially the growth in the first quarter is a real problem. We are not seeing job growth. Let me just show this chart about the impact on wages and workers in America that will occur as a result of this legislation. I think probably these numbers are modest. I think it will be more dramatic than this.

This is our Congressional Budget Office. They looked at the numbers, and they said: the average wage would lower over the first dozen years if this bill passes.

For 12 years, if we pass this bill, the average wages of Americans will be lower than would have been the case if the bill had not passed, according to our own CBO.

Somebody came and said on the floor: We won't worry about that because in 20 or 30 years they say it might be better.

First of all, our problem is today. People are unemployed today, and they cannot find work today. Wages have been declining every year since 1999. Working wages of Americans have been declining relative to inflation steadily for over a decade. This bill will accelerate that. It takes us in exactly the wrong direction. Why would we do that?

Then it says CBO--this is their own report and this chart is in their own report:

CBO estimates that S. 744 would cause the unemployment rate

to increase slightly between 2014 and 2020.

So for the next 7 or 8 years we are talking about increased unemployment.

This chart shows the wage situation. This is the current rate. The bill passes, wages drop, and they start going up out here, according to CBO, in year 2025. If the bill had not passed, the growth would have been higher still, but now it knocked it down dramatically. Even though it is growing, it doesn't mean it is getting back to where it would have been had the bill not been passed.

People who say this bill will not impact adversely--working Americans are facing an economic reality that is unfortunate for them.

Finally, they say it will make the economy stronger. You have heard that. Under this bill we will give legal status, in the next 10 years, to 30 million people; permanent legal status to 30 million people instead of 10 million people who would be given legal status in America if we followed current law.

Virtually all of those will be able to work, and we would see some increase in GDP/GNP if that were to occur. However, how much increase do you get and how does it compare out per person in America?

CBO said S. 744 would reduce per capita GNP by 0.7 percent in 2023. That is page 14. In fact, per capita GDP, according to their own chart that I have reproduced from their report, drops from 2017, 2021, 2025, 2029, 2030. It takes until 2030 before it starts getting back. If the bill hadn't passed, GDP per capita would hopefully be going up.

This is way below what would happen, and this hurts Americans when per capita GNP is reduced. Everybody will feel that--maybe not the masters of the universe in their suites out here that are nipping off extra profits because they have lower wages. It may not impact them. They may make more money.

In fact, Professor Borjas at Harvard says the people who gain the most from this immigration bill will be the people

who hire the most low-wage workers because wages will go down. They will make bigger profits, but the people who will be hurt are the vastly more numerous workers whose wages will go down.

This needs to be talked about. People seem to be in denial, but we have to talk about that. I ask my colleagues to consider this as they decide how to vote on this important piece of legislation.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we just saw on the news today that the GDP for the first quarter, according to the Wall Street Journal, was revised downward dramatically from previous estimates. I am not saying there is anything wrong with their accounting, but they go back and doublecheck their numbers and add other analyses and they come up with what the growth of the economy was in the first quarter. The previously announced growth level was 2.4 percent for the first quarter, which is low. Coming out of a recession, we need to be doing better than that. But now that it was revised downward, they found there was only 1.8 percent growth in the first quarter. That is a very dangerous trend, and the article said it is evidence of a slowing growth in America.

The fourth quarter of last year GDP growth was only .4 percent. If continued throughout the year, that is a very troubling number. The data shows for the last 15 quarters, almost 4 years, we have averaged only about 2 percent growth in our economy--growth in GDP.

I would say to my colleagues, as we vote to bring in more and more workers at a time when jobs are not being created in any significant number, we need to be aware that this can cause severe consequences.

The Atlanta Federal Reserve Economic Study, done several years ago, found the immigration flow today in the Atlanta area of the Federal Reserve had reduced the wages of American workers in that region by as much as $1,500 a year. That is $120 per month less money for an average family to take care of themselves.

Unemployment and declining wages are a big reason that people are getting in trouble on their credit cards. Professor Borhaas and others have done studies on this.

Another study found a $960 decline in people's annual wages, which is about $80 a month. Eighty dollars a month may not sound like a lot for a Senator, but it sounds like a lot for a working American--maybe equal to their gas bill, or part of it.

I would say that as we consider our votes on the immigration bill, let's consider that this economy is not growing and is not creating large job growth. We have projections that we are not going to do so for the next decade. And I am not talking about people who will be legalized that are here, but we ought not overload the economy with a new flow that is much larger than the current flow of immigration legally.

I see my colleagues are here, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I see Senator King from Maine here. I will only talk for a minute. I will share some thoughts later about where I see the difficulties with the immigration bill.

I would say that for the vast majority of the people who will be legalized or who will be coming into the country, businesses will be under no requirement to hire Americans first. That is not accurate, and it is a cause of concern for me.

Farewell Remarks

I wish to share some brief remarks. I know we have a lot to do, but I was here to hear Senator Cowan's farewell remarks to us. They were delivered eloquently and effectively, with integrity and graciousness and a sense of purpose that I found impressive. I think all of us have found him impressive, getting to know him. I heard him share his background recently, how he came to this position. He does so with a constancy of purpose and clear vision for what he believes is right. He has been raised right, and he reflects those values and has done so in the Senate.

It is a pleasure for me to have had the opportunity to get to know him. I would just say it must be a special thrill for him to be able to, all of a sudden, find himself, as he said so nicely, in the U.S. Senate without having to campaign, raise money, or otherwise be in that position.

He served his State with skill and dedication. It is a pleasure to have served with him. I wish him Godspeed in his future endeavors.

I understand the Senator from Maine is going to share with us some valuable history today. Maybe a connection between Maine and Alabama might even be mentioned.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Chair for allowing me to have the floor.

Look, we were moving--Senator Grassley had a list of 16, 18 amendments Wednesday night. He was prepared to begin the voting on those Thursday, Friday, Saturday if need be, as Senator Reid had said we could work on Saturday. Monday, what happened? They had the super- amendment, they had the Corker-Hoeven amendment, and the majority decided to sit on that and not allow any amendments to occur Thursday, not allow any amendments to occur Friday, and only have a cloture vote on Monday. And that vote--I don't think our Members understood fully-- gave complete power to the majority to dominate this process, to end the idea that we would have an open, fair process. It ended with the cloture vote Monday.

We were in the process to vote on a series of amendments. Senator Grassley worked and worked, and he got 35 amendments that he said we would agree to, out of the hundreds that were out there, to have votes on. Yet now they come back and say 15 or 17, and now we are going to do this, and we want this amendment and that amendment.

The process, I hate to say--it is pretty obvious to me--on Monday afternoon was altered. We had gone from an open debate process, as Senator Leahy conducted in the Judiciary Committee--at the end of it, he did say: Anybody else have anything else they want to offer? And there was nothing else to offer, and he voted.

The committee was not a normal committee. We had four of the Gang of 8 on it. So the vote after vote after vote, including two votes on E- Verify that would have strengthened the bill, was voted down. Votes on the earned-income tax credit--fixing and honoring the promise not to provide that welfare payment--were voted down.

So I just want to say that everybody knows what happened. The Republican Members of the Gang of 8 said we would have an open process. Right after the vote Monday afternoon, they told me they were going to work for a process, but I knew then that the deal had been cooked and that this wouldn't result in something that would work and be fair.

I would be pleased to yield to the Senator from Louisiana.

I thank the Senator from Louisiana for his comments, and I thank Senator Portman for providing some good language to improve our situation.

I truly believe what happened Monday afternoon heralded deep trouble. There was deep trouble the week before when a dramatic reversal of enforcement ideas came about to throw money at this problem come Friday. That is what happened, and the process has been shut down essentially since then.

I will yield to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. President, one more thing. First, I agree with Senator Johnson. I offered an amendment on the earned-income tax credit in committee--and four of the Gang of 8 Members are on the committee-- and they all voted that down, as I recall, even though they promised there would be no welfare benefit for those in the country illegally who would be given provisional status under this legislation. So that was a breach of one of the key promises they made when the bill was moved forward.

As a result, we know the earned-income tax credit is not a tax deduction; it is a direct check from the U.S. Treasury to people based on a lower income. It is a welfare-type payment. It is not a tax deduction-type situation. So that was a disappointment in committee, that the group's promises were violated, and they have been blocked again on the floor.

There is one more thing I want to say. I don't appreciate the idea expressed that no matter what would happen, Members on this side would not vote for the bill. That is not true. We need, and need badly, an immigration bill that would improve the immigration system of America, put us on a sound course for the future, would provide compassionate status for people who are here illegally and put them in a situation where they do not have to be deported. And I would support that and have said that for years, actually, and have said that through this process.

But let me tell you what the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Association wrote to the Senate just 2 days ago, June 24:

The . . . immigration bill, if passed, will exacerbate

USCIS concerns about threats to national security and public

safety.

They go on to say:

It will further expose the USCIS agency as inept with an

already proposed massive increase in case flow that the

agency is ill prepared to handle.

They go on to say this about the bill:

It was deliberately designed to undermine the integrity of

our lawful immigration system.

They go on to say:

This bill should be opposed and reforms should be offered

based on consultation with the USCIS adjudicators who

actually have to implement it.

Nobody asked them. They met in secret with the special interests, big business interests, the La Raza interests, the agriculture interests, the Immigration Lawyers Association, but they didn't have any of the officers there. I wrote and asked them to meet with them. They still refused to meet with them because they didn't want to hear that.

On June 24, 2013, ICE's union association wrote us and said:

I urge you to vote no as this bill fails to address the

problems which have led to the nation's broken immigration

system and in fact will only serve to worsen current

immigration problems.

They go on to say:

Instead of empowering ICE agents to enforce the law, this

legislation empowers political appointees to further violate

the law and unilaterally stop law enforcement. This at a time

like no other in our nation's history, in which political

appointees throughout the federal government have proven to

Congress their propensity for the lawless abuse of authority.

There is no doubt that, if passed, public safety will be

endangered and massive amounts of future illegal

immigration--especially visa overstays--is ensured.

So all this talk about the greatest bill ever, it is not so. This bill is much weaker than the bill that was voted down in 2007. It was on the way to defeat last week, until they had a desperate claim to throw 20,000 agents at the border and spend a bunch of money without any thought about how it would work.

I am concerned about this. I think a lot is at stake. We know how the situation got here. We know what happened. They voted cloture Monday and the majority leader filled the tree. He, therefore, has complete control over any amendments. The last time in 2007, there were 47 amendments voted on. This time, nine have been voted on. Even with the 35 Senator Grassley proposed, that would be less than last time.

We know what has happened. The Corker-Hoeven amendment was able to rescue a bill that was in deep trouble, and now it looks like we are moving on to final vote, without the ability to have amendments, because the majority will not agree to allow an open process, as was promised, and allow a number of amendments that were offered.

Senator Leahy said a lot of amendments were offered in committee. Why couldn't they have been offered on the floor? Why couldn't we have voted for amendments on the floor? The majority doesn't get to pick and choose what amendments they are going to allow to come up. We are either going to have an open amendment process or we are not, and it looks like we are not.

I thank the Chair and would yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy to introduce the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2013.

Our legislation places common sense restrictions on the use of cluster munitions. It prevents any funds from being spent to use cluster munitions that have a failure rate of more than one percent.

In addition, the rules of engagement must specify that the cluster munitions will only be used against clearly defined military targets; and will not be used where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians.

Our legislation also includes a national security waiver that allows the President to waive the prohibition on the use of cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than one percent, if he determines it is vital to protect the security of the United States to do so.

However, if the President decides to waive the prohibition, he must issue a report to Congress within 30 days on the failure rate of the cluster munitions used and the steps taken to protect innocent civilians.

Cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells that contain up to hundreds of small submunitions, or individual ``bomblets.''

They are intended for attacking enemy troop and armor formations spread over a half mile radius.

But, in reality, they pose a deadly threat to innocent civilians.

In Afghanistan, between October 2001 and November 2002, 127 civilians lost their lives due to cluster munitions, 70 percent of them under the age of 18.

An estimated 1,220 Kuwaitis and 400 Iraqi civilians have been killed by cluster munitions since 1991.

During the 2006 war in Lebanon, Israeli cluster munitions, many of them manufactured in the U.S., injured and killed 343 civilians.

Sadly, Syria is just the latest example.

According to Human Rights Watch, the Syrian military has used air- dropped and ground-based cluster munitions near or in civilian areas.

In October, residents of Taftanaz and Tamane reported that helicopters dropped cluster munitions on or near their towns. One resident told Human Rights Watch:

On October 9, I heard a big explosion followed by several

smaller ones coming from Shelakh field located at the north

of Taftanaz. We went to see what happened. We saw a big

[bomb] cut in half and several [bomblets] that were not

detonated. I personally found one that was not exploded.

There were small holes in the ground. The holes were

dispersed and spread over 300 meters.

Another resident reported that an air-dropped cluster munitions released bomblets that landed between two neighboring schools.

Last month, Human Rights Watch issued another report that Syrian forces used ``notoriously indiscriminate'' ground-based cluster munitions near Idlib and Latamenh, a town near Hama.

Not surprisingly, the residents of these towns also reported that many of the bomblets were dispersed over a wide area, failed to explode, and killed or maimed innocent civilians.

One resident of Latamneh told Human Rights Watch:

I heard a big explosion followed by smaller ones. . . . I

saw wounded people everywhere and small bombs covering the

streets. The damage caused to the buildings was minimal. I

saw a lot of unexploded bomblets.

One civilian was killed during the attack and 15 more, including women and children, were wounded. Another civilian was later killed by an unexploded bomblet. One video shows a baby with shrapnel along his right arm.

Videos taken after the incident also show that the civilians who came across the munitions were unaware of the deadly power of an unexploded bomblet.

Men, and even children, can be seen handling these weapons as if they were toys or simply souvenirs from the war.

Now, the United States has rightly condemned the Syrian military's use of cluster munitions against innocent civilians.

However, our moral leadership is hampered by the fact that we continue to maintain such a large arsenal of these deadly weapons and our continued resistance to international efforts to restrict their use.

In fact, the United States maintains an estimated 5.5 million cluster munitions containing 728 million submunitions. These bomblets have an estimated failure rate of between 5 and 15 percent.

According to the most recent data, only 30,900 of these 728 million submunitions have self-destruct devices that would ensure a less than one percent failure rate.

That accounts for only 0.00004 percent of the U.S. arsenal.

So, the technology exists for the U.S. to meet the one percent standard, but our arsenal still overwhelmingly consists of cluster bombs with high failure rates.

How then, do we convince Syria not to use these deadly weapons?

While we wait, the international community has taken action.

On August 1, 2010, the Oslo Convention on Cluster Munitions--which would prohibit the production, use, and export of cluster munitions and requires signatories to eliminate their arsenals within eight years-- formally came into force. To date, it has been signed by 111 countries and ratified by 77 countries.

This group includes key NATO allies such as Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, who are fighting alongside our troops in Afghanistan.

It includes 33 countries that have produced or used cluster bombs.

But it does not include the United States.

The United States chose not to participate in the Oslo process or sign the treaty.

This is unacceptable.

Instead, the Pentagon continues to assert that cluster munitions are ``legitimate weapons with clear military utility in combat.''

Recognizing that the United States could not remain silent in the face of widespread international efforts to restrict the use of cluster munitions, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates issued a new policy on cluster munitions in June, 2008 stating that, after 2018, the use, sale, and transfer of cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than 1 percent would be prohibited.

This policy is a step in the right direction, but would still allow the Pentagon to use cluster bombs with high failure rates for five more years.

That runs counter to our values. I believe the administration should take another look at this policy.

In fact, on September 29, 2009, Senator Leahy and I were joined by 14 of our colleagues in sending a letter to President Obama urging him to conduct a thorough review of U.S. policy on cluster munitions.

On April 14, 2010, we received a response from then National Security Advisor Jim Jones stating that the administration will undertake this review following the policy review on U.S. landmines policy.

The administration should complete this review without delay.

Until then, we are still prepared to use these weapons with well- known failure rates and significant risks to innocent civilians?

What does that say about us?

The fact is, cluster munition technologies already exist that meet the one percent standard. Why do we need to wait until 2018?

This delay is especially troubling given that in 2001, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen issued his own

policy on cluster munitions stating that, beginning in fiscal year 2005, all new cluster munitions must have a failure rate of less than one percent.

Unfortunately, the Pentagon was unable to meet this deadline and Secretary Gates' policy essentially postpones any meaningful action until 2018.

If we do nothing, close to twenty years will have passed since the Pentagon first recognized the threat these deadly weapons pose to innocent civilians.

We can do better.

First, it should be noted that in 2007, Congress passed, and President Bush signed into law, the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which included a provision that prohibits the sale and transfer of cluster bombs with a failure rate of more than one percent.

That ban has been renewed on an annual basis and remains on the books.

Our legislation simply moves up the Gates policy by five years and extends the ban on the sale and transfer of cluster munitions with high failure rates to our own arsenal.

For those of my colleagues who are concerned that it may be too soon to enact a ban on the use of cluster munitions with failure rates of more than 1 percent, I point out again that our bill allows the President to waive this restriction if he determines it is vital to protect the security of the United States to do so.

I would also remind my colleagues that the United States has not used cluster munitions in Iraq since 2003 and has observed a moratorium on their use in Afghanistan since 2002.

In conclusion, let me say that Senator Leahy and I remain as committed as ever to raising awareness about the threat posed by cluster munitions and to pushing the United States to enact common- sense measures to protect innocent civilians. This body constantly talks about America's moral leadership, and this is the perfect opportunity to exercise it.

Senator Leahy and I continue our efforts for people like Phongsavath Souliyalat.

Last year, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled to Laos and met Phongsavath, a 19-year old Lao man who lost his eyesight and his hands to a bomblet just three years before.

The bomblet that injured Phongsavath was dropped more than 30 years ago during the Vietnam War. It lay unexploded, a de facto landmine, until his 16th birthday.

Sadly, he is not alone. The U.S. dropped 270 million bomblets over Laos, and 30 percent failed to explode.

According to an article from the Los Angeles Times, civilians in one- third of Laos are threatened by unexploded ordinance, and only one percent of that area has been cleared.

Since the Vietnam War, more than 20,000 people have been killed or injured by these deadly weapons. All of them were innocent civilians that the United States did not intend to target.

After Phongsavath described the suffering of those who, like him, had been injured by unexploded bomblets, Secretary Clinton replied: ``We have to do more.''

I agree wholeheartedly. As a first step, Congress should pass the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2013. I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nepal Trade Preferences Act.

This legislation is simple and straightforward. It grants duty-free status to imports of Nepalese garments for a seven year period.

As a friend of Nepal and the Nepalese people for over 25 years, I believe this bill will promote economic prosperity and lasting political stability in one of the world's poorest countries.

Nepal has a per capita income of $540.

Approximately 25 percent of the Nepal's 24 million people live in poverty.

The unemployment rate in Nepal stands at a staggering 47 percent; and most Nepalese live on $3 a day.

Nepal's poverty was also compounded by a devastating, 10-year Maoist insurgency which resulted in the deaths of 13,000 people.

Thankfully, on November 21, 2006 Nepal's government and Maoist rebels signed a peace accord.

Two years later, Nepal became a republic and a Constituent Assembly was elected to draft a new constitution.

Unfortunately, this momentum has stalled and Nepal remains without a new constitution.

Challenges persist for Nepal's economy.

In 2005, in accordance with an international agreement, all quotas on garment imports were removed.

This has had a devastating impact on Nepal's garment industry as U.S. importers have shifted their orders to China, India and other suppliers with cheaper labor markets.

The number of people employed by the Nepalese garment industry dropped from over 100,000 people--half of them women to between 5,000 and 10,000.

Garment exports fell from approximately $139 million in 2000 to $47 million in 2011.

The number of garment factories plummeted from 450 to 10.

The U.S. share of Nepalese garment exports dropped from 90 percent to 21 percent.

Despite Nepal's poverty and the collapse of the garment industry, Nepalese garments are still subject to an average U.S. tariff of 11.7 percent and can be as high as 32 percent.

In essence, we are penalizing an impoverished country which cannot afford it. This makes no sense.

I would point out that U.S. tariffs on Nepalese garments stand in contrast to the European Union, Canada, and Australia which allow Nepalese garments into their markets duty free.

It should come as no surprise, then, that while the U.S. share of Nepalese garment exports has fallen, the European Union's share has risen from 18.14 percent in 2006 to 46 percent in 2010.

The purpose of the Nepal Trade Preferences Act is to ensure that we provide Nepal with the same trade preferences afforded to it by other developed countries. No more, no less.

Humanitarian and development assistance programs should be critical components of our efforts to help Nepal.

But we should also help the Nepalese people help themselves and open the U.S. market to a once thriving export industry.

In the end, economic growth and prosperity can be best achieved when Nepal is given the chance to compete and grow in a free and open global marketplace.

Success in that marketplace will lead to a lesser dependence on foreign aid and encourage Nepal to develop other viable export industries.

With this legislation, the United States can make a real difference now to help revitalize the garment industry in Nepal and promote economic growth and higher living standards.

The impact on the domestic industry will be minimal. At most, Nepalese garments have accounted for 0.26 percent of all garment imports in the United States generating $14 million in revenue.

Nepal will continue to be a small player in the U.S. market.

But to allay any concerns that Nepalese garments will somehow flood the market, this bill does place sensible restrictions on the amount of garments that will receive duty free status. That amount will rise every year up to a specific percentage of all U.S. garment imports.

By passing this legislation, we will help ensure that the garment industry will be a big player in contributing to Nepal's economic growth and development. This will be more jobs and a rising standard of living for the Nepalese people.

Let there be no doubt, it is my hope that this bill will also spur Nepal's political parties to come together, resolve their differences, and finalize a new constitution. Lasting political stability is essential if Nepal is to fully realize the economic benefits of this legislation.

Almost 7 years ago, the Nepalese people embraced peace and reconciliation. Let us show our solidarity with them and demonstrate our commitment to the success of the peace process by passing this commonsense measure.

I urge my colleagues to support the Nepal Trade Preferences Act.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Asia- South Pacific Trade Preferences Act of 2013, a bill to promote economic growth, democracy, and political stability in some of the world's poorest countries.

This legislation will provide duty-free and quota-free benefits for garments and other products similar to those afforded to beneficiary countries under the African Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA.

The countries covered by this legislation are 13 Least Developed Countries, LDCs, as defined by the United Nations and the U.S. State Department, which are not covered by any current U.S. trade preference program: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Kiribati, Laos, Maldives, Nepal, Samoa, Solomon Islands, East Timor, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.

These countries are among the poorest in the world with the bulk of their citizens living on less than $1 a day.

Despite this widespread poverty, their exports are subject to some of the highest U.S. tariffs, averaging around 16 percent.

In fact, these developing countries pay a disproportionate share of U.S. tariffs.

Bangladesh, for example, is the 9th largest contributor of U.S. tariffs even though it is the 46th largest source of U.S. imports.

Cambodia is the 12th largest contributor of U.S. tariffs but ranks as the 60th largest source of U.S. imports.

So, in essence, these two developing countries pay more in U.S. tariffs than many European countries. How is that fair or consistent with our values?

Unfortunately, the United States is the only developed nation that has not provided an enhanced trade preference program to the beneficiary countries in this bill.

Indeed, we maintain duty preference programs for Haiti, the countries of sub-Saharan African and other developing countries and rightly so. These programs are critical components of our efforts to provide hope for millions of people struggling with poverty.

But it makes no sense to exclude other countries at the same level of economic development. We should not hesitate to correct this inequity.

This is not about pitting one developing country against the other. Rather, it is a simple matter of fairness and

ensuring that we help all of those in need.

In fact, this effort goes hand in hand with my long-standing support for a strong and effective foreign aid budget for the United States as an essential tool in helping lift these countries out of poverty and put them on the path to economic prosperity and political stability.

Especially in these difficult fiscal times, however, humanitarian and development assistance should not be the sum total of our efforts.

Make no mistake: these programs help stabilize poor and war-torn countries, save lives, and lay the foundation for future prosperity.

Yet, the key for sustained growth, jobs, and rising standards of living will be the ability of each of these countries to create vital export industries to compete in a free and open global marketplace.

It is clear that the textile and apparel industries in many of the Asia-South Pacific countries in this bill are those industries that hold out the best hope for export growth.

We should help these countries help themselves by opening the U.S. market to their exports as we have done for other developing countries in the past.

By doing so, we will demonstrate the best of American values: reaching out to neighbors in need and helping them to stand on their own two feet.

We will also help ourselves.

First, as these countries become more prosperous, we will see new opportunities for our own exports in their growing markets.

This, in turn, will create jobs and economic growth in our own country.

But if we maintain high tariffs on imports from the Asia-South Pacific countries, those opportunities will likely go to the European Union and other developed countries that already have trade preference programs for these countries.

We should not put ourselves at such a disadvantage.

Second, as the Asia-South Pacific countries become more stable politically, we will help protect U.S. national security interests by preventing failed states which could become breeding grounds for terror.

There is no doubt in my mind that the cost of lowering tariffs on the imports of textile and apparel products from the Asia-South Pacific countries is far less than any military intervention.

We will also help ourselves by securing partners in the fight against global threats such as terrorism, climate change, the HIV/AIDS pandemic, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

U.S. leadership is essential in those efforts. But they require a global, multilateral response. As these countries grow, they can assume a larger role and contribute more effectively.

When it comes to our national security, every bit of assistance helps.

Finally, at a time of economic uncertainty, by eliminating tariffs on imports from the Asia-South Pacific countries, this bill will help lower prices for the American consumers and provide them with more options.

It will also help the 3 million American workers whose jobs depend on apparel imports.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Asia-South Pacific Trade Preferences Act is a win-win for the U.S. and the Asia-South Pacific countries.

Now, let me address some of the concerns that may be raised about this bill.

First, many of the Asia-South Pacific countries have struggled in the past with corruption, a lack of democracy, human rights abuses, and the absence of rule of law.

Some may ask: why reward these countries with a trade preference program?

Make no mistake. These countries will not automatically receive the trade benefits provided by this legislation.

This legislation has been drafted to ensure that the benefits are granted on a performance-driven basis.

That is, to be eligible, a beneficiary country must demonstrate that it is making continual progress toward establishing rule of law, political pluralism, the right to due process, and a market-based economy that protects private property rights.

So, this legislation would help promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law while sustaining vital export industries and creating employment opportunities.

The beneficiary countries have a clear incentive to stay on the right path or they will lose the benefits of this bill.

If we ignore any problems, we will sustain the status quo and our efforts will fail.

Finally, whenever we discuss the creation of a new trade preference program, understandable concerns are raised about the impact on domestic manufacturers.

If this bill becomes law, however, the impact on U.S. jobs will be minimal.

Currently, the beneficiary countries under this legislation account for only 4 percent of U.S. textile and apparel imports, compared to 24 percent for China, and 72 percent for the rest of the world.

These countries will continue to be small players in the U.S. market, but the benefits of this legislation will have a major impact on their export economies.

By passing this legislation we will have an opportunity to change lives, protect our national security interests, and help the American consumer. We should seize this opportunity.

I respectfully ask for the support of all my colleagues for this important initiative.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I was here to talk about immigration, and that is what I will talk about. But I have been caught in a crossfire on this subject, and I want to say my view is this is exactly what people hate about Washington, DC. It is exactly why we have a 10- percent approval rating.

For 4 years I went to townhall meetings and was asked over and over and over: Why don't the Democrats in the Senate pass a budget? Which I think is a very legitimate question. We got a new Chair of the Budget Committee and we passed a budget after 4 years, and now we are told we can't go to conference to have a discussion with House Republicans about what our budget ought to look like.

I actually disagree with the Senator from Texas, I have to say respectfully, on the merits of this issue; that is to say, on the debt ceiling itself. This is the reason I think folks in Colorado can't stand this place. There is not a mayor in my State, whether they are a Republican or a Democrat or a tea party mayor, not one--not one who would threaten the credit rating of their community for politics. Not one. We would run them out on a rail, because that is not the way you do business. The credit rating of a community is the most important thing it has. The

full faith and credit of the United States of America--which until the last debt ceiling discussion had never been questioned--was questioned for the first time in our history; not because of the size of our debt--which, by the way, I have spent 4 years trying to work on because I believe it is a very severe problem we face, and I look forward to working with the Senator from Texas on this issue--but because of the political dysfunction in DC. That is why we got this downgrade.

The Senator from Alabama, who has left the floor, was talking about the restatement of our GDP numbers in the first quarter. I worry a lot about that. The people I represent are not concerned with the procedural stuff that goes on here. What they are worried about is an economy they are living in day after day after day where, even in periods of economic growth, median family income is falling, middle- class families are falling behind. They are worried about an economy where they are earning less at the end of the decade than they were at the beginning, but their cost of higher education continues to escalate, their cost of health care continues to escalate. As individuals, as families, and as members of a generation, they are worried we are going to be the first generation of Coloradans and Americans to leave less opportunity and not more to the people who are coming after us.

I wish to finish my statement, and then I will gladly yield for a question.

I was glad to hear the Senator from Alabama. He and I disagree on the immigration bill, but we certainly agree on the issue of the concern all of us have about this economy--or most of us have about this economy. It is one of the reasons we should pass this immigration bill. The Congressional Budget Office tells us we would see 3 additional points of GDP increase in the first 10 years, 5 over the two 10-year windows, if we pass the bill.

To the point about American jobs, I was very glad to hear him say he was not talking about the 11 million people who are here because most of the 11 million people who are here are working. But they are working in a shadow economy, a cash economy, under circumstances where they can be exploited. We have allowed that to happen because of the broken immigration system we have. If all you cared about--and I deeply care about it--was raising wages for the American worker, you would want to bring those 11 million people out of that shadow economy. You would want them paid in something other than cash, and you would want them, for heaven's sake, paying taxes at a time when we have the kinds of deficit problems the Senator from Texas is describing.

The Senator also talked about the future flow of immigrants. I should say I was part of the bipartisan group. This is not a partisan bill, this immigration bill. There were eight of us. Four Republicans and four Democrats worked together on this bill, and one of the things we thought hard about was the future flow of immigrants to this country because generation after generation of Americans, since the founding of our country, has relied on new immigrants to bring their ideas, to bring their talents, to bring their energies to our shores to build their businesses here.

Today what we are saying to people--even people who get college degrees in the United States, degrees that we subsidize, that we pay for--even to those people, we are saying: Don't stay here. Even if you want to stay here, please go home to China and start your business there. Go home to India and compete with us there. Hire people there instead of creating jobs here in the United States.

We are a nation of immigrants. We subscribe to the rule of law. This bill is a ratification of those two American ideals--ideals that you can almost not find in any other country in the world.

That is why I am so glad that for once this body is actually acting in a bipartisan way to deal with not an easy problem but a tough problem. I will tell you the kids who are visiting today from 4-H all across the country and from my State of Colorado actually are expecting us to do these hard things, as our parents and grandparents did before them, so we don't leave them in the lurch.

That is what is at stake. That is why I wish we could find a way past this budget impasse as well so we actually could start to have a responsible conversation about what we are going to do on the entitlement side and on the revenue side, so we do not continue to hack away at domestic discretionary spending in ways that could lead us, with some of the House proposals, to invest only 4 percent of the revenue we collect in the future--4 percent in transportation and agriculture and education. There is not a business in this country that would last a year if it invested 4 percent of its cash flow in the future of that business.

At some point we have to move beyond where we have been here and actually get into a serious discussion about how we are going to manage this debt down over the next decade or two in ways that do not prevent us from growing our economy and in ways that do not subject our children to unpaid bills. It would be as if I went to the mortgage lender on my house and I said: I would like to buy a house, and I am going to take out a mortgage, and then I am going to give it to my kids to carry for me instead of paying for it myself. That is the position we are in today. The only way we are going to solve that is if Democrats and Republicans can sit down together and actually move past the talking points.

With that, I will yield for a question.

Here is how I answer that. I appreciate the question. Through the Chair to the Senator from Texas, it is clear that this is not going to get us anywhere, this procedural fight the two of you are having every couple of weeks. I think that is clear. I think it is clear that the debt ceiling is something that has been raised time and time again by Republicans and by Democratic Presidents over the years. I think it is also clear that we have to deal with our debt and our deficit. I believe that. But for myself, I don't feel like I would come to the floor and say that I am only going to allow this bill to go to conference with the Republicans in the House if all the money comes to Colorado--or some other stipulation I would want that 99 other Senators would not agree with.

The second thing is that I think it is important for people to understand that this issue--again, I am not in any way trivializing the issues around our deficit and our debt. I want the Senator from Texas-- I hope he understands that. I hope he knows that about me. But I worry about the debt ceiling as a tool for accomplishing this, first for the reasons that have to do with our credit rating but also because there is a view among some that the debt ceiling is about bills we are going to incur as opposed to the ones we already have incurred.

In other words, it would be one thing if somebody said: I am spending too much money and I am going to cut up my credit card, and that is what they would do, but that is not what the debt ceiling is about. What the debt ceiling is about is somebody saying: You know what, I want the best cable package I can find, I want the best satellite package I can find, and when the bill comes to pay for it, I am just going to chop it up into little pieces and not pay it. That is what I don't like about this approach.

But everybody is entitled to their own approach on this question. I just wish we could move forward here instead of continuing to earn the 10-percent approval rating Congress has. That is all I am asking for.

Sure.

May I.

I say through the Chair to my friend from Texas, I have not read the bill, but I will read the bill. I commit to him that I will do that.

I appreciate the implication of this, which is that the Senator is not objecting to my metaphor about the cable bill being cut up, because I do think that is a real problem.

We are not saying to people--we should not be saying to people that we are going to behave in an irresponsible way. As somebody who used to spend his time restructuring companies that were really well run, really well operated but had horrible balance sheets, I would have to think hard about the treatment that creditors would provide to, in this case, the U.S. Government when I look at that. I will look at that.

I say to the Senator from Texas that there are other things we might even be able to agree on too around here. For a long time I have thought it would be important for us to put health care on a budget in this country. We are not on a budget. During the health care debate I had an amendment called the fail-safe amendment that would say to the American people and to the Congress: This is what we have to spend on health care. That is all there is. There is not any more. We have to manage toward that. If we failed, if we tripped over it, we would actually have to make cuts, make changes to our system of health care.

We spend twice as much as any other industrialized country in the world, and it is crowding out a lot of other things that the 4-H kids and others whom I worry about care about.

So I think there is much we can work on, but I just don't think we are going to get to it through this kind of discussion. We might get to it through this kind of discussion.

In any event, I will commit to the Senator from Texas that I am going to sit down and stop talking about what he said.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, there is no one else on the floor. I thought I would take the opportunity to talk again a little bit about our immigration bill. This has been such a gratifying process to me because it has been bipartisan from the start. In fact, I have been telling people that it is not even that it has been bipartisan, it has been nonpartisan. The work on the Gang of 8, which led to work in the Judiciary Committee, which led to work on the floor is the way this place ought to operate on a whole host of issues, from energy--the Presiding Officer cares a lot about that--to infrastructure, to the budget issues I was just talking about with the Senator from Texas.

It is important for people to know that this is a bipartisan bill because I think people are fed up with the partisanship in this town, and they do not believe it reflects the way they live their lives. There is a reason for that. It does not. This place is decoupled from the lives of ordinary American people, and this is an effort--among others, hopefully--to recouple those priorities.

I have been interested in the objections to the immigration bill since the beginning. First there was the objection that it was actually going to drive up our deficit. Not surprisingly, we learned from the Congressional Budget Office that this bill actually would create the most significant deficit reduction of any piece of legislation we considered here, certainly that we passed here--$197 billion in the first 10 years, $700 billion in the second 10 years. Even in Washington, $1 trillion is still a lot of money. That is what we heard, both because people now not paying taxes would be paying taxes and also because of the economic growth that would be generated if we could restore the rule of law to our immigration system and to this economy. That was an objection. That objection was answered--not by me but by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The second objection was that the legislation was not going to get a fair airing, that it was going to be rushed through in the dead of night. I don't like doing work that way.

There were eight ``no'' votes on the fiscal cliff deal at the end of the year, and I was one of those ``no'' votes, one of three Democrats who voted no not largely but partly because it had not had any process and it was in the middle of the night. This bill, by contrast, had 7 months of negotiations among four Democrats and four Republicans. It had 3 weeks to go through the Judiciary Committee, a markup that had 160-some amendments, many of which were accepted. Forty-one Republican amendments were accepted to this bill. It came to the floor for the debate we have had over the last few weeks.

I realize the amendment process is jammed up, and I am sorry about that because I think people ought to be able--including the Presiding Officer--to offer the wise amendments they have and the not-so-wise amendments they have, at least in my opinion. But there certainly has been an open process for this bill. Sometimes I have heard people say, well, it is just like health care all over again. I was here during the health care bill, and I can say this process looks nothing like that process.

There is a third objection from some who say there is no border security in this bill. First of all, that wasn't even true of the Gang of 8 bill. We had substantial border security, and as my lead, I was taking what John McCain and Jeff Flake--both Senators from Arizona-- said was important. They are two Senators who have a border State, and they have been working hard to resolve these issues in our group. We made a substantial investment in that bill for border security and technology. Even fencing was included in that bill.

I think it is a reasonable expectation--not of Republicans but of the American people--that our border should be secure. Certainly the people in Colorado believe our border should be secure. So when Senators came and said: We would like to vote for this bill, but we would like to do more on border security, not only was I open to that, I supported that. The bill before us has incredibly substantial border security. There are 700 more miles of fencing. We doubled the number of Border Patrol agents on the border.

One of the Senators said to me that we are at a point now where there is a Border Patrol agent every 1,000 feet on the southern border. One might ask whether that is a wise use of resources, but it was important for some people to have that before they would sign on to this bill. So I don't think any reasonable person looking at this could say border security has not been addressed.

So what are the objections to moving forward? We have heard people say: Well, it is the path to citizenship or we don't like that part of the bill. That was a core principle for the four Democrats and four Republicans who started this negotiation, and it has been a core principle for a lot of people who voted for this bill. A very important reason to pass this legislation is to resolve the situation for the 11 million people who are here illegally. The pathway to citizenship is the right way to do it.

This is not amnesty. This has to be earned. People have to pay a fine. People have to learn English for the first time in our history. People have to pay their taxes. It takes 10 years to get a green card, then 3 years after that. They have to pass background checks all along the way so we know who the people are we want to stay in this country and who the people are we want to leave this country.

I see the Senator from Louisiana is here, so I will wrap up. To my friends

who think some lawful status that doesn't include a pathway to citizenship is useful to this country, I ask them to look at countries all around the world that have created a subclass of people--not even citizens, just a subclass of people--who have no attachment to their culture, no feeling they are ever going to participate in their civic or political institutions or meaningfully in their economy, no chance to believe their children or the children after them are actually going to make those contributions as well, and ask: Does that look like the United States of America to you?

That is not what the Founders had in mind. We hear a lot of cheap talk about the Founders around here these days. That is not what the Founders had in mind when they wrote into the Constitution that it was our responsibility as a body to deal with immigration.

So I hope people will consider that objection, take a look at the Senate bill, and will, hopefully, support it.

With that, I know the Senator from Louisiana was scheduled to speak, so I will yield the floor.

I object.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am here today on the immigration bill, but I wish to thank the Senator from Vermont for bringing our attention to this very serious issue. It is a little bit of a variation on a theme today about trying to reconnect the priorities of the American people--frankly, whether they are Republicans or Democrats or anybody else--and this place, which has become totally disconnected. I wish to say through the Chair to the Senator from Vermont how on point he is.

The people I represent care about the fact that they are living in an economy that even when it grows--I was talking about this a little bit earlier--it is not producing sufficient jobs and it is not driving up income. That is what they are concerned about. The student debt crisis the Senator speaks about, where it tripled over the last 10 years, is a huge part of this story. It is a significant part, because if a family's income is going down but the cost of higher education is skyrocketing--by the way, at the same time the cost of health care is skyrocketing--it makes it very hard to get ahead. People are desperately worried, as I said earlier, that we are going to be the first generation of Americans to leave less opportunity, not more, to our kids and grandkids.

But there is another issue as well, which is today, in the 21st century in this country, if a person is born and living in poverty, their chances of getting a college degree or the equivalent of a college degree are 9 in 100--9 in 100. For the folks in the Chamber, for the pages who are here today, we have 100 chairs, 100 desks in the Senate. If these desks represented poor children living in this country instead of Senators, those four desks in the front row and four at that end right there, and another one, those are the only folks who would be getting a college degree. Ninety-one other people in this Chamber would be constrained to the margin

of this economy and a margin of our democracy from the outset.

Matters are getting worse, not better. We led the world in the production of college graduates when George Bush--this is not a partisan observation, it is a temporal one--when George Bush, the son, became President. We led the world. Let me tell the young people who are here today, 13 years later, we are 16th in the world in the production of college graduates. Because of our inability to come together and figure out how to deal comprehensively over time in a thoughtful way with the fact that we don't want to stick our kids with this debt we have acquired--which we need to do; we are just hacking away at domestic discretionary spending for higher education, for K-12 education, for agriculture, for infrastructure.

Some of these budgets we have considered--we have not passed them here; they passed them over in the House--would invest only 4 percent of our revenue, 4 percent of the revenue we collect, in the future of this country. Ninety-six percent on something else is not going to get the job done.

On an issue such as this, where our students are saying: How do you at least not make matters worse, we ought to be able to come together in a bipartisan way and solve this problem.

I thank the Senator from Vermont for coming to the floor to focus our attention on something the American people actually care about.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I know the Senator from Massachusetts is here, and I look forward to hearing his farewell. Before he does, I wanted to say thank you to the Senator from Nevada for his work on this bill, for getting us to a bipartisan result, for helping us grow the vote, and for the statement he made about surely not one of us would have written the bill exactly the way it is written. But there is much more that is good about this bill than not. I am grateful for his support. I thank the Senator.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I know many of my colleagues are very talented attorneys. I am reminded of the adage that when you are a lawyer, if you have the law on your side, you argue the law. If you have the facts on your side, you argue the facts. But if you have neither the law nor the facts on your side, you bang on the table and create a diversion.

What I have heard a lot about here today is clearly a diversion because it is not either the law we are promoting or the facts, which seem to be pretty stubborn, but sometimes for people in this Chamber I guess the facts are not an impediment toward their arguments.

I will try to get to what this law is and what the facts are. My colleague from Alabama Senator Sessions likes to whip out the phrase ``welfare benefits.'' Let's make it clear to the American people we have not permitted welfare benefits for anyone under existing law who is undocumented in this country. We extend that and actually to some degree enlarge it in this law we are promoting. So to throw that out carelessly and suggest: Oh, there are welfare benefits--there are no welfare benefits. The existing law stops welfare benefits for anyone who is undocumented in the country, and we extend it in this law.

I must say I am chagrined when I hear my colleagues speak about certain Americans who are part of civil society, part of our civic fabric, part of national organizations such as La Raza and somehow are spoken of as if they are second-class citizens and that I should bend at the altar of some others who Senator Sessions believes are somehow superior. They have every right, as a U.S. citizen, to voice their opinions about what our government

should do in this question of immigration reform. I don't care for the categorization of people who are engaged as ordinary citizens of this country to be treated as if they were some second-class citizen.

Only in Washington could we hear an argument that somehow public safety will be ``endangered'' as a result of this legislation. There are 20,000 additional border agents and more resources are going to immigration enforcement than all other Federal criminal enforcement agencies, and somehow that creates greater endangerment of the public safety? So 20,000 more Border Patrol agents will somehow make the Nation less secure? Only in Washington could some of the detractors of this legislation suggest that 20,000 additional border agents and doubling the Border Patrol makes us less secure. Only in Washington could 700 miles of fencing make the Nation less secure. Only in Washington could the suggestion be made that an entrance-exit visa program to check who is coming in and making sure they leave or else they can be pursued is making us less secure. Only in Washington could we think about a mandatory universal E-Verify Program that has been enhanced under this legislation and somehow that makes the public less secure.

This comes from some of the very voices that for so long have said, we need more Border Patrol agents and more fencing. When they finally get the Border Patrol agents, fencing, and E-Verify system nationally mandated so everybody who gets a job or seeks to get a job is going to have to go through the system, as well as an entrance-exit visa program that is going to be implemented, and they still say: Oh, no, it is either not what we wanted or it is not enough.

And triggers--my God. Personally, from my perspective, we are trigger happy in this bill. We have more triggers in this bill than I have seen in virtually any other legislation. I believe we have up to five triggers. We have five triggers that have to be pulled, which means they have to be achieved before they can move forward to citizenship. That is a pretty significant period of time.

Now to the suggestion about costs. Well, this is one of the elements of where facts are a stubborn thing to overcome. Truth crushed to the ground still springs back. So what does it say? Well, let's start off with what it says about the deficit. This isn't me saying it as a proponent of the bill, as the Gang of 8. The Congressional Budget Office--the nonpartisan entity of the Congress that both Democrats and Republicans rely on for an analysis of whether a piece of legislation will cost money, what sort of economic impact it will have, and what the consequences will be--came to their own independent conclusion.

They said the gross domestic product would ultimately grow by 3.3 percent in the first 10 years after enactment. What does that mean? That means from all the output of this Nation, gross domestic product would grow dramatically. When we see growth at that additional rate, it means every American prospers as a result of it.

Then it went on to say an additional 5.4 percent of gross domestic product increase would exist in the second 10 years. That means even greater growth, which means greater opportunities for all Americans here at home. It also means the bipartisan immigration reform we have been debating in the Senate will actually grow our economy, not harm it, as some of the most ardent opponents have tried to argue. I have been saying that, as well as many others, all along.

What else did the Congressional Budget Office tell us? It told us we are going to reduce the deficit. We are going to reduce the deficit by--I think I have the wrong chart. Let me look. This is actually taxes paid. We had a chart, but basically what it says is that it is going to reduce the deficit by $197 billion over the first 10 years, and an additional $700 billion over the second 10 years. That is $900 billion of deficit reduction.

We will have nearly $1 trillion of deficit reduction as a result of this legislation. That deficit reduction is critical for the Nation's economic growth, prosperity, and to make sure the next generation doesn't bear that burden. According to the Congressional Budget Office, that is what we are going to get from achieving passage of this legislation and ultimately moving it into law.

The report went on to say revenue will come in a whole host of ways, such as 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 there were fewer unauthorized individuals coming into the United States under the bill.

One of the things the CBO said was: Well, there will be those whom we are concerned will overstay future visas. Two things on that score, and one point my colleagues have used consistently: No. 1, which visas are they talking about? Are they talking about the visas our Republican colleagues have largely championed for businesses in this country they want to see grow? Some have amendments to grow it even more. Those are the visas CBO talked about ultimately having the concern that people may overstay. That is why the entrance-exit visa program is so important to ensure that doesn't happen.

It is ironic, again, how they can argue all sides here. Because if we look at what CBO said, they said the potential for overstay of those new visas would be the issue. That is why this employment verification system and the entrance-exit visa program is so important.

The bottom line of the Congressional Budget Office report is pretty clear. It tells us the 11 million people who are living in fear in the shadows are not, as some would have us believe, part of America's problem, but by bringing them out of the shadows will be part of our solution. It is the key to economic growth.

Also, immigration reform, according to their views, will also save Medicare and Social Security trust funds. In so many ways these are so incredibly important.

I heard that somehow this will create challenges on the question of wages. Well, as I listened to some of my colleagues make their remarks about the CBO's reports on wages, I don't think the numbers say what they believe they say. They were talking about how American families' wages would go down. The report explicitly says that is not the case. In fact, Ezra Klein wrote in the Washington Post that the idea that immigration would lower wages of already-working Americans is ``actually a bit misleading.''

As for folks who are already here, the Congressional Budget Office is careful to note that their estimates ``do not necessarily imply the current U.S. resident would be worse off in the first 10 years.'' And in the second 10 years they estimate the average American wages will actually rise as a result of immigration reform to the tune of about $470 billion, an average annual increase in jobs of 121,000 per year for 10 years. That is 1.2 million additional jobs to the United States. It is $470 billion in increased wages of all Americans.

The truth is stubborn. Crush it to the ground and it springs back.

In addition to that, I have to remind my colleagues as they come closer to having to cast a vote--and I hear some voices who say: Oh, I would be open to vote for the bill if this or that. Immigrants constituted 12 percent of the population in the year 2000, but they accounted for 26 percent of the Nobel Prize winners based in the United States. Twelve percent of the population, immigrants; 26 percent Nobel Prize winners. They made up 25 percent of public venture-backed companies that started between 1990 and 2005. The fact is immigrants receive patents in our country at twice the rate of native-born populations.

So the bill's overall effect on the overall economy is unambiguously positive. One can try to distort it any way one wants, but that is simply the case.

Those are the economic benefits refuting some of the things I have heard here. Wages go up for all Americans, jobs get increased, GDP growth takes place, the deficit is reduced. How many things will we do in the Senate that can bring all of those elements together? Maybe some pieces of legislation might be about job growth. Maybe some pieces of legislation might be about GDP growth. Maybe some pieces of legislation might be about how to reduce our deficit. But what singular piece of legislation, according to the

Congressional Budget Office, brings all of those elements together? I would suggest not one that I have seen in the last 7 years.

I know there is a lot of thrashing and gnashing and banging on the table because when a person doesn't have the law on their side and when a person doesn't have the facts on their side, they create a diversion. There have been a lot of crocodile tears related to the request for amendments.

Let me just say, first of all, this whole process began with a bipartisan group of Senators who had input from their colleagues. They did not, in and of themselves, the Gang of 8, just say this is my view of what needs to be done. They went back to their caucuses. They asked: What are the foundations, what are the principles we need? There was a lot of input during that whole period of time. I constantly heard from my four Republican colleagues of the Gang of 8 how they had spoken to X or Y Senator and how they believed this was necessary, what were some of the essential elements, and those got incorporated through the process. They got incorporated through the process in which the legislation was ultimately devised and put forth. They got incorporated, unlike the 2007 bill referred to by several of my colleagues. The 2007 bill on immigration did not go through the process of the Judiciary Committee. It didn't go through the Judiciary Committee process. This bill did. It went through that regular order. Over 212 amendments--212 amendments--were considered. Over 136 changes, amendments, were accepted; 43 Republican amendments were adopted, and all but 3 of those 212 votes, from what I understand, were bipartisan votes.

So we had 136 changes to the law that the Gang of 8 proposed. Then we came to the floor. What happened on the floor? This bill, which has been on the floor for 20 days--this didn't just pop up. It has been on the floor for 20 days, which is nearly 3 weeks of Senate floor time. What happened at the beginning is that every time there was an effort to offer unanimous consent requests on the question of amendments, there were objections by the other side. There were objections against amendments offered by their own Members because those who oppose this legislation, no matter what, did not want to give Members an opportunity for a vote on their side, because they believed if their amendments were adopted, the Member would agree to vote for the bill because they had made the improvement they sought to the underlying bill they otherwise could support but with the change they were offering.

So, strategically, they decided not to allow their Members to ultimately have amendments because they were afraid they would join in the growing cadre of Members who were supporting the bill. It wasn't about who gets to pick or choose amendments; it was a strategic decision and that took the better part of the first 2 weeks.

We did have nine amendments; overwhelmingly, they were Republican. Then we had the Corker-Hoeven amendment, which of course had the most dramatic, significant impact on border security. But there were an additional nine amendments that were included in Corker-Hoeven. All of them, I understand, were Republican. We would have had a 10th amendment because, I understand, as has been said here--and I was asked as part of the Gang of 8, can you accept this. The Portman amendment on E- Verify would have been part of that package, and we wouldn't be debating about whether that is here; it would have been part of that package.

Then we had an offer by the majority leader of 17 additional Republican amendments and that was rejected. A whole host of those amendments were from some of the most ardent opponents of this legislation.

So this thrashing and gnashing about process--look, I understand if one doesn't want to get to a final judgment and they want to do everything possible not to get there; they want to do everything possible not to see the legislation move forward because they fundamentally disagree. Let's be honest. Let me make my final point. There is a universe of our colleagues in which no pathway to citizenship would ever be accepted. That is the unseen elephant in the room, but there is a universe of our colleagues--as a matter of fact, some of them are more overt about it. They show it by virtue of even some of the amendments they wanted to offer in which there would be no pathway for citizenship whatsoever--trigger, no trigger, any set of circumstances. We have seen the consequences of that in Europe. The consequence of that is that we create unrest in the community.

It is not OK to exploit 10 or 11 million people and not let them have the chance to make themselves right and earn their way into citizenship in the United States. It is not OK to say there can never be a pathway to citizenship when they are the ones who are bending their backs over, picking up the crops my colleagues and I get to eat every day for dinner or for breakfast. It is not OK to have that immigrant who is taking care of a loved one with a tender heart and warm hand, helping with their daily necessities, and say they can never get a pathway to citizenship. It is not OK to have had chicken for dinner tonight and not understand that this is from the cut-up hands of an immigrant worker. It is not OK to say the country is somehow less secure by virtue of what we are doing.

I have said it many times: I don't know who is here to pursue the American dream versus who might be here to do it harm unless I bring people out of the shadows and into the light. They go through a criminal background check which they have to pass, and if they don't, they get deported right away. If they do, then they have an opportunity to earn their way after a decade in this country toward permanent residency and then later on to U.S. citizenship.

So let's say it as it is. If you don't want a pathway to citizenship, then stand in the Chamber and make a case, if a Member doesn't want a pathway to citizenship under any circumstances. My colleagues have the right to have that opinion. I would strongly disagree but don't hide behind procedures and amendments. Tell me what legislation has come before the floor grows GDP in our country, grows jobs in our country, increases wages of all Americans, and reduces the debt by nearly $1 trillion. I haven't seen it.

That is what the opportunity is before the Senate. That is why no diversion will ultimately sell with the American people. In poll after poll after poll across the landscape of this country, Americans have said across the political spectrum--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--they want to see our broken system fixed. When the elements of this legislation--all of its elements--have been tested, they have overwhelmingly won support.

That is why I am proud of our colleagues, both Democratic and Republican, who have chosen to finally tackle a tough challenge and actually do something to fix this problem and to show America this institution can actually work. That is the other side benefit of everything I have just talked about in terms of economics, of security, of promoting our future, of creating greater jobs, of creating growth and prosperity, of having the best and the brightest in the world be able to help us continue to be a global economic leader, which is that the Senate can actually function.

That is the opportunity before us: fixing our broken immigration system, showing this institution can function in a bipartisan process, and ultimately preserving our legacy as a nation of immigrants.

I always say that the greatest experiment in the history of mankind is the United States, the greatest country on the face of the Earth. A part of American exceptionalism is that experiment we have had, to bring from different lands different people who have contributed enormously to this country.

Tomorrow, I hope to show a series of Americans whom we have proudly held up as examples of greatness, who, in fact, would not be here today but for the opportunities--sometimes under a legal immigration system and sometimes not through a legal immigration system--who have served this country greatly, whom we admire and, at the end of the day, we show as examples to our children of what a person can do for one's country, what a person can achieve for one's Nation, and models to hold up to the world. I can't wait to share that with the rest of my colleagues in the Senate.

With that, I yield the floor.