Floor Statements

Would the leader yield for a question?

I just ask the leader, the government is shut down. There is nothing we can do to keep it open. The only way to keep the government open would be for the House to pass the resolution we have already sent them; is that correct?

But nothing we can do?

Is it not true that until they vote for that resolution, the government will remain shut? They could send us 100 different little doodads, gizmos, and other things, but the ball is in their court, and we hope and wish that they would pass our resolution and that we keep the government open.

We are in, as has been said by Leader Reid and my good friend from New Jersey, an unfortunate moment. There are millions of people who are innocent. They wake up in the morning, work hard, and hope to get a paycheck to help feed and clothe their families. They will not be getting a paycheck tomorrow morning.

They might be Federal Government workers. I have heard some of my colleagues on the other side demonize the Federal Government. When I think of the Federal Government, I think of individual people who are working hard, who show up at work in the rain and the snow, who work hard, as do people in the private sector, people who work for State governments or such as the people who work for us. Why should they be punished?

Then there are so many others, such as the veteran who needs a change in his or her disability formula and can't get it; the construction worker who is working on a federally funded highway, or somebody who works in a defense plant, as a civilian, all of these people now have been put at real risk.

There is an answer, as I mentioned in my colloquy with the leader. The answer is for the House to pass the bill that passed here--the key vote had a majority of Democrats and Republicans, 25 Republicans--and keep the government running.

They are busy working late at night on another little subterfuge, a little scheme. Have a conference.

As the leader said, conferences are fine with us. We tried to do a budget conference 18 times. Don't do a conference as a charade while you are shutting the government down. That is what the other side is asking us to do.

Let's modify what they are doing. Let them pass the bill that is now in the House that will keep the government running until November 15, and then we will have a conference on how to fund the government for another year.

Make no mistake about it. Tomorrow morning their next gambit will be defeated in the Senate and then we will be back where we were, where we are now.

There is a bill, a ready bill, in the House of Representatives that can keep the government funded and prevent these millions of innocent people and our national economy from being hurt and hurt significantly.

This is a final plea, at 12:15 a.m., 15 minutes after the government has been officially closed. House Members, Speaker Boehner, let the bill come up for a vote. It will pass. It will save such trouble, and, even worse. For millions of innocent Americans it will save our economy from great risk. Then we can go back to debating the many issues that you and we wish to debate.

With that, with a bit of a heavy heart because it didn't have to happen, that we have a small group of people who are so sure that they are right that they can hurt millions to pursue that righteousness, that self-righteousness, is a bad thing. I hope it doesn't happen again.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Arizona be given 15 minutes and that I have 5 minutes after him.

Madam President, not 15 minutes of our time, 15 minutes of their time.

Madam President, a point of information. I am in order after the Senator from Arizona?

Thank you, Madam President. I thank my colleague from Illinois for his courtesy and I thank the Senator from Arizona for his outstanding remarks, as usual.

For 21 hours, we have heard the Senator from Texas hold forth. What has he accomplished? He has alienated many of his own colleagues. He has taken 21 hours unnecessarily, although he is entitled to speak when he wants, because the vote would have occurred whether he said 10,000 words, 1 word or no words. So as Leader Reid said, this was not a filibuster. But, most of all, he has shown the American people what he is willing to do.

We all know the Senator from Texas has very strong views about ObamaCare. Fair enough. That is why we have a Senate. There is a time and a place to debate them. But he, in his view that he is right and everyone else is wrong, is willing not only to hold forth on the Senate floor in a meaningless exercise, but, more important, urge his colleagues to hold the American people hostage until everyone agrees with his view. He wants to hold the cancer patient hostage who will not get NIH treatments if the government shuts down. He wants to throw the construction worker out of work who is doing a job that is federally funded and will not be funded if the government shuts down. He wants to tell the recipient of Social Security that they may not get their checks if there aren't enough people at the centers to send those checks and make sure they get to the right place because he wants to shut down the government.

The Senator from Texas has passionate views. Fair enough. But when the Senator from Texas thinks he is so right that he can trample on the rights not only of his own colleagues who are in a bit of a tizzy about what he has

done, but, far more important, on the needs of the American people, something is wrong.

In this country, we have always eschewed ideologues--people who are so sure they are right they don't listen to anyone else, they don't care about anyone else, and they don't care about the damage they cause as they pursue their goal. That seems to be what the Senator from Texas is doing. I was appalled last night when he tried to make the analogy to World War II and Hitler. As somebody who lost brothers in the Holocaust, to compare the two was absurd. I know my colleague from Arizona mentioned that as well.

I was also surprised he used the book ``Green Eggs and Ham'' as he read to his daughters, because anyone who knows that book knows the moral of that book is to try something before you condemn it. You might actually like it. The main character in ``Green Eggs and Ham'' resisted eating green eggs and ham. Maybe if he were a Senator, he would speak on the floor for 21 hours. But then when he tasted green eggs and ham, he actually liked them. Maybe as the President's health care bill goes into effect, Senator Cruz may actually find that he and his constituents actually like it.

So the bottom line is very simple. There is a time and a place, as the Scriptures say. We will certainly debate ObamaCare in the 2014 elections. I would note we did in the 2012 elections and not a single Democrat who voted for ObamaCare in this Senate lost. Every single person who was up for office had voted for ObamaCare and was not defeated, even though that issue was used against them over and over again. If we want to have that debate again in 2014, fine, we welcome it. By the way, we welcome it in 2016 as well. If the Senator from Texas wants to have a debate on the floor of the Senate about ObamaCare, fine. But don't hold--not just this body because his exercise was meaningless--don't hold the American people hostage simply because he is so sure he is right and everyone else is wrong.

Don't hold the Social Security recipient hostage. Don't hold the road worker hostage. Don't hold the person who depends on inspectors who inspect our food or patrol our borders hostage. Debate ObamaCare all you want, but please don't threaten to shut down the government because you can't get your way.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Tuesday, September 24, 2013, at 10 a.m., to consider the Omnibus Budget for Senate Committees.

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Lynden Armstrong at the Rules and Administration Committee at 202-224-6352.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the substitute amendment to H.R. 527, the Responsible Helium Administration and Stewardship Act, which would reauthorize the Federal Helium Reserve and extend its operation for commercial sales. This bill prevents a severe disruption to the Nation's helium supply which threatens critical industries, hospitals, national security, and scientific research.

I would like to thank Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski, and their staffs for excellent work on this bill, which would ensure continued access to helium so that New York hospitals, our successful chip industry, and other high-tech companies will not go over the helium cliff, while making critical reforms to the sale process and reducing the deficit. Passage of this bill will prevent shortages for businesses and hospitals as well as skyrocketing prices that would have resulted from closure of the Federal Helium Reserve on October 7.

Helium's unique physical and chemical properties have made it critical to the manufacturing of a broad range of technologies from aerospace to semiconductors, medical devices, and fiber optics. It is also widely used in medical research, cutting-edge science, and hospital care. Helium is also essential to our national security, as the Department of Defense relies on it for a range of weapons systems and intelligence applications.

Here is just a sampling of how critical helium is.

MRI scanners at hospitals use helium to cool powerful magnets. Without helium, $2 million machines couldn't be operated without risk of damage.

Semiconductors cannot be made without helium, which serves as an essential coolant during the manufacturing process. Semiconductors are the core of all electronics embedded in cars, computers, health devices, weapons systems, nuclear reactors, et cetera. A robust supply of helium allows American semiconductor manufacturers, like GlobalFoundries and IBM, to create good-paying, high-tech jobs in upstate New York.

The production of optical fiber--the backbone of all telecom infrastructure--uses helium to prevent impurities.

The Department of Defense uses significant quantities of helium as part of the guidance correction systems for air-to-air missiles used by our military. It also relies on it for surveillance of combat terrain, helping protect our troops.

Our DOE National Laboratories, such as Brookhaven National Laboratory in my State, relies on helium for cutting--edge science.

Failure to act would hurt our economic competitiveness, cause job losses, and harm our national security when we can least afford it.

If we don't reauthorize the Reserve, we would have to get helium from one of two places: Russia or the Middle East, the only other regions in the world producing it.

I strongly urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this important legislation and I look forward to its swift passage.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, July 24, 2013, at 9:50 a.m., to conduct a business meeting to consider the nomination of Davita Vance-Cooks, of Virginia, to be the public printer, and to consider S. 375, a bill to require Senate candidates to file designations, statements, and reports in electronic format.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Lynden Armstrong at the Rules and Administration Committee, (202) 224-6352.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, July 24, 2013, at 10 a.m. to hear testimony on the nomination of Ann Miller Ravel and Lee E. Goodman to be members of the Federal Election Commission.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Jean Bordewich at the Rules and Administration Committee, (202) 224-6352.

I ask unanimous consent that all future time in quorum calls be divided equally between the two sides.

Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I am going to be brief, because things went a little longer. First, I have a great deal of respect for my good friend, and he truly is my good friend, the Senator from Tennessee. I understand what he is getting at. I certainly agree with one part of his comments that the unsubsidized and subsidized students should be given good treatment. We should not just aim at 2 million when there are 7 million more. I am on board with that.

I would make three points in reference to my colleague's comments and in reference to the bill, and why I am a sponsor of the Jack Reed bill. First, the bottom line is, we here are in this mystical world of baselines. Under present law, the government actually will make about $180 billion from students over the next 10 years. It is revenue neutral in the budgetary sense, but not in the family sense, in the sense that families are actually going to end up paying more.

My good friend from Tennessee and many on his side--and they are budget hawks--say they do not want to see that baseline changed. So they have come up with a fine proposal if you believe that you should not change that baseline. But if you believe, as I do, that actually the government should not be making extra money from the students as they pay, even if it means dipping into our Federal accounts to make that happen, then it is not such a fine proposal. But let's not confuse budget neutrality with neutrality between what the government does and what students get.

The proposal is indeed budget neutral, as would be letting things expire. The proposal is not family neutral. Students end up paying more, more than the government's cost. That is point No. 1. I know my colleague understands, and that is the dilemma we are in because there are different values here. To me, if I had to do one thing, one of my highest priorities and where the Federal Government ought to help out families, middle-class families, is helping pay for the cost of college.

Revenue neutrality, particularly at an artificially high baseline, 6.8 percent, does not help out families, does not make it worse than the present baseline, does not make it better. I would like to make it better.

Second point. I have spent much of my time in the Senate helping middle-class families pay for college. I am the author of the American Opportunity Tax Credit which gives every middle-class family up to $180,000. So I agree with my colleague's point about the middle class, gives them--I know he is going to want to ask me a question, but I cannot. I will come back. I have a meeting on this issue with some of the people from the White House right now, so I am not going to be able to answer a question. I do not want my colleague to stay.

I believe in this strongly. The tax credit is something I am proud of. That is on the books for 5 years, $2,500 in the pockets of middle- class families to help pay for college. But one of the problems we face is, every time we give the students a break, the colleges raise tuition. So the family is not any easier off paying for college. We need something to deal with that issue. I do not know what it is, but it will not be in any plan we are going to pass in the next week or two. So my view, to extend the present 3.4-percent rate for 1 year, to keep the situation the way it was before July 1 for a year while we come up with that type of solution, makes sense, makes a good deal of sense.

Third. We have another problem. A lot of these for-profit colleges have a high default rate. They raise the rates for everyone else. What are we going to do about those? Some of those are not for-profit. But any college that helps students get a lot of loans, and then has a huge default rate, low graduation rate, makes all the rest of us pay. It is a little like health care, where a few people are making the rest of us pay quite a bit. That was through no fault of their own. Who knows what this is. What do we do about them?

I agree with my good friend from Tennessee, we do not want to keep doing this year to year, like the doc fix. It would be a lot better, just like the doc fix, if we had a permanent solution that deals with these two issues instead of brushes over them. A 1-year extension keeping the present situation, not raising anybody's rates at all, makes sense, because while students will gain some, not probably as much as under present law, under the Reed law, now they may lose a lot later, because there are no caps except for the 8.25 percent when you refinance. But otherwise, the caps are each year. You can be 3.4 this year, and if interest rates go up 3 percent, you will be at 6.4 next year. If they go up 2 percent after that, you will be at 8.4. If they go up 2 percent after that, you will be at 10.4 for your 4 years in college.

We do not know what interest rates will be. It is anybody's guess. But that is why caps are a good thing, so when

it gets too high, we have some limit. I am not sure a cap simply on consolidation is a good enough cap.

I respect my friend from Tennessee, but I would argue there are two reasons that the proposal Senator Stabenow talked about is better: One, it does not make money from students to pay the government, which using the present baseline and being budget neutral we would have to continue to do.

No. 2, it doesn't allow us to get to a long-term solution, which we must do and should do, and maybe now that we are in this dilemma we are importuned for doing.

I wish to have a colloquy with my colleague from Tennessee. I will be back after this meeting if he is still around. I respect him, and I know he is trying to come up with a fair and good solution--one that ideologically or substantively I might disagree with, but I hope we keep moving toward one another so we can gain a good solution.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I would tell my friend from Michigan, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, that I am aware that the Department of Defense has some concerns with respect to section 1103 and also that it has some suggestions for our consideration to address those concerns. I would also tell my friend from Michigan that I would be willing, at the appropriate time, to consider such suggestions in order to address the Department's concerns.

Madam President, we are now approaching the final hour of this debate on how to fix our broken immigration system--the debate we have been having for 3 weeks here on the Senate floor, for 7 months among the Gang of 8, and for decades in this Nation. I want to profoundly thank my colleagues in the Gang of 8. I will have more to say about each of them after we vote. I also wish to thank all of my staff who did such a great job.

When I look out my window from my home in Brooklyn, I see the torch of Lady Liberty shining brightly and I can see and feel the promise of America and the covenant of America.

There is an unwritten covenant between America and those who immigrate here. It says if you come here with a dream, with a will to work hard, follow the rules and contribute, we will give you a chance to become an American and, in the process, to make America a better place than it was before you got here.

In choosing this country, whether it is my friend Marco Rubio's parents from Cuba or my grandparents and great-grandparents who fled persecution from Europe, immigrants bring an appreciation for the choices and opportunity that are unique to America. They often love America even more than native-born Americans. We take that appreciation for granted.

It is, therefore, not a surprise that CBO says this bill will grow our economy by 3.3 percent over the next 10 years and 5.4 percent over the next 20. CBO has simply enumerated a concept that many of us already knew: Immigrants have always been the greatest engine of economic growth, innovation, and renewal that this country has ever known. There is no greater economic engine than the long hours immigrants work with no complaint for the chance to achieve economic stability and prosperity for themselves and for their families.

According to CBO, it is a far greater engine for economic growth than any spending program Democrats might traditionally propose or any tax cut Republicans might traditionally propose. Whether it is highly skilled immigrants inventing new technologies or lower skilled immigrants toiling in our fields or all of those in between, immigrants have been an essential component to our American success story.

To reject this basic truth in this vote today would be a direct rebuke to the lady who shines so brightly in New York's harbor.

But just like today, our history has had many other instances where the fate of the American covenant with our immigrants has been tested. And, in the end, it has always survived stronger than it was before.

It has survived because all of us know if America is to remain the greatest Nation in the world, a beacon of hope and freedom for all to aspire to, we must always live up to the covenant that is represented by the great Lady in the Harbor.

This bill is our best chance, and may be our last chance, to maintain that covenant through the next generation of Americans, and to maintain the greatness of America. This bill includes input from almost every Member of this body.

I cannot think of two more vocal critics of the bill than the Senators from Alabama and Iowa, but even they have amended the bill in multiple places to make it better.

That is what makes this bill strong; that is what makes this bill good. It has garnered support from the most diverse coalition of groups any bill has ever seen: U.S. Chamber of Commerce; AFL-CIO; the faith community, including Evangelicals and Catholics; the

high-tech community; America's farmers and farm workers; the law enforcement community; the immigrant rights community.

Now, what does this bill do? Simply put, it does three simple things: It will prevent future waves of illegal immigration; it will provide a tremendous boost for the American economy by rationalizing future legal immigration; and it will fairly and conclusively address the status of people currently here illegally.

Let's look at the actual facts of what the bill does to end illegal immigration.

If the bill passes, anyone who wants to try to cross the border illegally will have to get over an 18-foot steel pedestrian fence and past border agents standing every 1,000 feet apart from Brownsville to San Diego.

Future waves of illegal immigration will be prevented if this bill is passed. That is not a wish, it is not a hope, it is a fact.

People have argued that we should not pass this bill because past efforts have failed to prevent illegal immigration. But let's not be so defeatist that we throw up our hands and declare we are incapable of learning from our past mistakes.

Under their logic, the famous expression would be changed: When you fall off a bicycle, make sure you never ride a bicycle again.

Finally, I do not countenance the way the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in our midst got here. But they are here now, and deporting all of them is unpractical, unrealistic, and wrong to consider.

Our bill will tell these individuals if they are willing to keep their end of the covenant, their road may be harder and longer than everyone else's road--a 10-year probationary period, no benefits or assistance of any kind--but it too can end with being given the chance to earn American citizenship if they work hard and pay taxes and play by the rules.

So the bill is the right thing to do from top to bottom. It has more deficit reduction than our best deficit-reducing packages. It will stimulate the economy more than any stimulus bill, and it will make our border more secure than it has ever been in our history.

So now there are simply no more legitimate excuses to vote against this bill. Opponents of the bill have given three stated excuses for opposing the bill, each of which has been resoundingly refuted.

They said the process is unfair, but it has been the most open process we have seen in a long time. They said it was going to bust the budget and take away American jobs. CBO refuted that.

Finally, they said the bill will not secure the border. But we have the toughest border security and enforcement in any immigration bill ever written.

Here is what a vote against this bill says: It says it would be nice to reduce the debt, but not if it helps immigrants. It says it would be nice to grow the economy, but not if it helps immigrants. It says it would be nice to end illegal immigration in our security, but not if it helps immigrants.

Those are the three stated reasons. The only reason left to vote against this bill is the unstated reason--opposition to a path to citizenship for the 11 million.

Make no mistake about it, the support this bill has generated in the Senate will make it impossible to ignore. I believe the support this bill will receive today in the Senate will propel it to pass the House and be placed for signature on the President's desk by the end of the year.

That is because in our hearts we know immigrants have always been part of the fabric of America. While there have always been people who have rejected immigrants--from the know-nothings to the exclusionists-- we have always seen the better angels of our nature prevail in the end.

At times like these, when our better angels are tested, to reject this bill would tear the fabric of America asunder. It would declare that America no longer seeks to be the shining city on the hill that attracts and is admired by people around the globe.

Pass this bill, and let's keep the American covenant alive. Pass this bill, and let the bright torch of Lady Liberty continue to shine brightly as a beacon to those around the globe for generations to come.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from Rhode Island. As usual, he is graceful and thoughtful as well as being an outstanding legislator with a great deal of passion. I know he wants to speak on the issue he is ready to speak about, but, again, his grace and kindness are always present and I appreciate it.

I return to the floor to just say some words of thanks. We had limited time before, so I wanted to speak to the issue. I wish to thank some people.

First I thought I would mention how much a dream this comprehensive bill has been to so many people. At the top of the list, of course, is Ted Kennedy, who was one of the greatest human beings I ever met in my life. He had the immigration subcommittee before me. This wouldn't have happened without his guidance and leadership.

Did we make changes from what he did? Obviously. But did his basic feeling, structure, and knowledge that it had to be bipartisan all carry forward on this bill? Absolutely. We know Ted is smiling as he is looking down on us today. We know he will continue to inspire not only those of us in the Senate but also the country as we move forward.

I wanted to spend a few minutes--and I very much appreciate my colleague from Rhode Island for yielding--to thank my staff. We are lucky to have the leadership of Mike Lynch, our chief of staff. We are a team, and it is an amazing team. Everyone covers each other and everyone looks out for each other.

Sometimes when I am upset and I say: Who did what, nobody did anything wrong. They are all watching each other's back. That is the lesson Lynch has taught all of them, and it is a great lesson. We are close-knit. We socialize. We have fun. They truly like each other. This certainly would not have happened without them.

Before I talk about my staff, I wish to praise each of my colleagues. I have done that repeatedly on the Gang of 8. I mentioned this outside, but I want to mention it on the floor. I can say exactly the same thing for each of the eight in the gang: It would not have happened without their presence. It was an amazing team. Each contributed something in his own way. Each contributed a great deal in his own way, and at impasses different people rose to the floor and lifted us out of those impasses. It was an amazing group.

I am not going to get into each individual right now, but I do want to thank the Gang of 8. We have bonded, we have become friends, and we have accomplished something that will hopefully carry forward and become law.

Now I wish to thank my staff. My staff, similar to all Americans, are the children or great-grandchildren or great-great-great-great-great- grandchildren of immigrants. They have shared their stories through this process. I know this was deeply personal for each of them. Every week just about the entire staff got together for an immigration meeting, and everybody contributed.

So I wish to take some time to thank them all. They worked so hard to fix this system. It was not only a dream of so many in this Senate, it was a dream of theirs. One thing is for sure, without them, we wouldn't be here.

In fact, I think everyone in the Gang of 8 grew to respect our staff just as we respected their staffs. That is another great thing that happened, the bonding.

I want to mention some of the individuals. First, my chief counsel, Stephanie Martz. She poured her whole heart and soul into the bill. She has young kids who have soccer games. She has a very busy schedule, but for this bill she missed bedtimes due to late-night meetings or conference calls. How many times on a Saturday did I talk to her when she was at some athletic event for one of her kids. I could hear the cheering and the running up and down in the background.

But Stephanie has a unique ability to help build coalitions. When one group or another was upset--and believe me, that probably happened every 5 minutes in this legislation--there was Stephanie, soothing them, calming them but telling them the truth, so they trusted her. She was an indispensable part of our ability to get this done.

Through the rough patches, she never gave up on our team. I know that Kyle, Nora, and Pip are going to be happy to have mommy back, and maybe there will be another ice hockey tournament in Rochester next year when whatever legislation we are working on then rises to the fore. To the great genius--and I started referring to him at our meetings as my immigration genius--and he was. The intellectual force, the creative force who propelled this effort was one Leon Fresco, the son of Cuban immigrants from Miami. I think it was about 5 years ago he took this job. He was a very successful immigration lawyer, but he took this job because he wanted to do immigration reform. He has worked on many other things. His creativity has shown its mark in ``Schumerland'' on so many different issues, but this was his dream, and he put every atom of his body into this.

Like me, he is voluble. During our staff meetings we would yell at each other, and it became a joke because I once said: Shut up, Leon. So John McCain greeted him at each meeting: Shut up, Leon. And we all loved it. But Leon, your fierce determination, your innate intelligence, your deep love of this country, is great. And thanks to Mama Fresco, Leon's mom, who is so proud of her son. It was great to meet your parents who are immigrants, who are the American dream.

The people I spoke about on the floor a few minutes ago are embodied in the Frescos. How about Sofie, Leon's wife. Sofie got pregnant during all of this, so he wasn't devoting 100 percent of his time to immigration reform, but close to it. And there she was, Sofie, indomitable and quiet, doing the job.

Our legislative team is a great team--and everyone pitched in to do immigration--led by Heather McHugh. Heather's advice and counsel were invaluable. She communicated with our colleagues. Each one of our staff has great attributes. Heather is always wary of me going a little too far, a little too fast, or a little too quick, and

she will come into the office and say: You know, you better think about this. Then I know I have trouble. But, again, she is incredible.

Because immigration is so multifaceted, all of our staff contributed, including Meghan Taira, whom I consider--no offense to all my colleagues--the best health L.A. on the Hill. She helped create the ACA. But, of course, there were many benefit issues that occurred, and there was Meghan.

Anna Taylor, the only person on our staff with a deep southern Arkansas accent, came from Blanche Lincoln's staff. There were tax issues and there she was, solving them all.

John Jones was incredible. He stepped up and handled many issues. Dan Rudofsky and Veronica Duron drafted summaries and talking points and spreadsheets.

When things got tough, Becca Kelly and Erin Vaughn, each the mother of children less than 1, let nothing get in the way of doing this while at the same time maintaining focus on their kids and the bill.

It might surprise the Presiding Officer to know that I have a very good press team. Brian Fallon, Matt House, Max Young, Meredith Kelly, Lindsay Dryzak, Marisa Kaufman, and Josh Molofsky learned the substance of immigration and spun it into a beautiful web the public could understand.

Our DPCC team, led by Ryan McConaghy, kept policy and press teams singing off the same praise sheet, keeping our caucus up to date.

Then, of course, as every one of us, we have great administrative staffers. Al Victor, who came to the office as a young kid from Long Island, as a young helper in the Long Island office, is now my unflappable executive assistant. No matter how tough and tense things get in our office--and they do--she is just as steady as a rock, getting things done. She and her colleagues, Megan Runyan, Alice James, Jessica Bonfiglio, Kristin Mollet, Rob Kelly, Ellen Cahill, Claire Reuschel all kept us administratively going.

I mentioned the Members. They are great. I have so much to say about each of them. I want to thank Chairman Leahy, who is probably on his way back to his beautiful farm in Vermont, for shepherding this bill through the Judiciary Committee. Everyone has praised his open and inclusive process. It is well known.

I want to thank Bruce Cohen. This is the capstone of his career. We all know how important he is to the Judiciary Committee. His big shoes were ably and elegantly filled by Kristine Lucius as chief council. But J.P. Dowd and Matt Virkstis, John Amaya, Lara Flint, Alex Givens, Chris Leopold, and Anya McMurray all did a great job.

As most people know around here, Harry Reid is one of my best friends in the world, and his unwavering support and confidence that we could get this done was essential. He had the great staff who lent constant help to us: David Krone, Bill Dauster, Serena Hoy, Kate Leone, Bruce King, and Angela Arboleda all did a great job.

The staffs of the other Members, I wish to mention a few of them also. I hope they are listening: Kerri Talbot, Darissa Wilhite, and Molly Groom of Senator Menendez's staff; Joe Zogby, Mara Silver, and Vaishalee Yeldandi with Senator Durbin; Jonathon Davidson and Sergio Gonzales who work with Senator Bennet. So many staffers.

As I said, we got to know each other very well, through all the meetings. We had a lot of disagreements and tough arguments. We all stuck together. And Senator Feinstein's team--Senator Feinstein put that agriculture section together. Amazing. The growers and the farm workers are for this bill. That is because of the great leadership of Senator Feinstein. Chris Thompson, Neil Quinter, and Kim Alton all did a great job there.

We worked as closely in this endeavor with the Republican staffs as well as the Democratic staffs, and I owe them a great deal of thanks: Cesar Conda, Sally Canfield, Enrique Gonzalez--let me pay him a compliment. He was sort of the equivalent--not quite, in my opinion, but close to the equivalent--of Leon Fresco on the Republican side. Also, John Baselice, Senator Rubio's staff; Mark Delich and Katherine Zill with Senator McCain; Matt Rimkunas, Sergio Sarkany, and David Glaccum with Senator Graham.

When we had our meetings, all of these staffers were there.

Chandler Morse, at first he was giving Senator Flake some tough advice, and just as Senator McCain would talk about Leon, I would talk about Chandler. I now owe him a dinner.

I said: Chandler, I am taking you out to dinner if this bill passes the Senate. Pick your restaurant. Don't make it too expensive.

And Elizabeth Taylor, who also works with Senator Flake. Then the great floor staff: Gary Myrick and Tim and Trish and Meredith and Tequia, Dan, Brad, Stephanie--they run the place like clockwork, as recently as today when there were more requests for time and people had to go home at 4 o'clock.

Emma Fulkerson of Senator Murray's staff; Reema and MJ on Senator Durbin's staff who did a great job, and, frankly, Dave Schiappa and the Republican floor staff as well.

We got a lot of help from the Senate appropriations, finance, and budget committees, and I thank them.

I also want to thank the rest of my staff in New York and in DC. They are the wind beneath our wings. If we didn't feel good and safe in New York, we couldn't take the risks we do here Washington, and they make that possible. So I thank them all.

Finally, Leon, always making sure everything goes exactly right. So I want to thank the legislative counsel staff who worked 24/7 to turn these legislative ideas into the 1,000-page bill, as has been remarked about over and over, and it needed that many pages because it was so complicated. But they did a great job as well.

So, once again, to my staff, from Mike Lynch all the way through, I think, as every Member probably thinks, I have the best staff on the Hill. It is certainly the best staff I have ever had in 39 years as a legislator. Without them, we couldn't do it.

So tonight we are going to celebrate the going away and the ascension of one of our old-time staffers, and we will all have a great time together. But I am blessed. I am blessed to have a family, my wife and daughters who put up with me through thick and thin. I am blessed to have two other families, my Senate colleagues, who I do regard as my family, and my staff, who I also regard as my family. So though I am not Irish, I have a big, big, big family, and they are the greatest, all three.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his graciousness.

Mr. President, thank you.

I thank the Senator from Ohio for his good work on his piece of legislation. I will talk about that in a minute.

I want to just talk in general about where we are. Obviously, this has been a long hard road, and we are on the edge of passing one of the most significant pieces of legislation that this body will have passed in a very long time.

The good news is we are going to pass it with just about every Democrat voting for it and a very significant number of Republicans voting for it. The reason for that is the vast majority of Members in this body realize that the immigration system is broken and needs fixing, absolutely. We have a dumb system right now. We turn away people who create jobs, and we let people cross the border who take away jobs from Americans.

America is crying out that we fix the system. We have 11 million people in the shadows. They are working for substandard wages, many of them under desperate conditions, and they bring down the wage rates for everybody else, through no fault of their own. We want to bring those people to an earned path to citizenship.

We want to take our immigration system and admit people who are going to create jobs. We have shortages. Google Maps is now in Vancouver, Canada. It is an American company. It is an American idea. But they are in Vancouver, Canada, because they cannot get the employees they need here. They are willing to pay whatever, but Canada's immigration system is much better than ours and they can get the people from all around the globe who are needed to run that part of the company.

We are fair to agriculture, growers. The farm workers have come together on this bill. It is a large improvement over the present system.

Now, I have heard my good friend from Ohio--and I like his amendment. In fact, my staff worked on it with him. But let's make no mistake about it. This is a vast bill, and E-Verify--permanent E-Verify--is in the bill. Maybe it can be improved a little bit, but it is 0.01 percent of the bill. It does not deal with border security. It does not deal with entry-exit. It does not deal with the 11 million. It does not deal with future flow. So I would urge my colleague to reconsider.

Of course, we want this amendment offered, and many of us will support it. But to say that is the only reason--if it does not get in the bill it is not worth voting for--I would have to respectfully and completely disagree with my colleague.

Let's face it, there are Members on his own side of the aisle who will block him from offering it. So that says it all, doesn't it? Why do they do that? Because they do not want a bill to pass. That has been the strategy.

I heard my good friend from Iowa talk about we are not approving enough amendments. Well, I will tell you, the folks on the other side have had a great plan: block votes for 2 weeks and then, in the final hours, complain we have not had enough votes. That is what they have done.

The first week we wanted to move amendments. The able chairman of the Judiciary Committee did. Oh, no. We had to change the rules and change the number of votes it takes to pass a bill around here. Week 2, we proposed many amendments be offered and the pace was painstakingly slow.

That is the plan: Block votes for 2 weeks and then complain.

Finally, last night, we got a list of 35, 36 amendments from the other side. Of course, we have many amendments. That would be 72 amendments because our side would want a one-for-one. That is only logical and fair. Then we heard it was not sufficient, that they wanted more amendments than that.

Furthermore, the Republican steering committee, my own colleagues have told me, sent out word: Get more amendments out there because we want to make sure there are so many amendments that we could never finish this bill.

In fact, even in that list of 36, the majority--not the majority but those who asked for the most amendments--were professed opponents of the bill. They were not interested in improving the bill. The strategy was, at the last hour, create dilatory tactics so the bill could never be approved.

Again, look at the list. One Member--I will not mention his name-- offered seven; another offered six. They are two of the five leading opponents of the bill. They are not interested in improving it. Many of the amendments on that list of 35 were debated in committee and defeated by bipartisan votes. The committee was an open process that shows our bona fides. There were 301 committee amendments, more than 130 votes, 49 Republican amendments added into the bill.

Leader Reid has just made a reasonable offer. He took 17 amendments from that list of 36. Every one of them was a Republican request. He did not make them up. He did not spin them out of whole cloth. He added 15 Democratic amendments. We have a lot of people on this side who genuinely want to improve the bill. Of course, the other side objected.

So the idea--the idea that we are not allowing amendments. Please. Take the leader's offer. That is half of the amendments you submitted last night.

I would be happy to yield to my friend from Arizona.

It is very hard to explain. It is sort of twisted logic a little bit, it is sort of pretzel-like logic. It is also pretzel-like logic to delay votes for so many weeks and then say all at once we need hundreds and hundreds of amendments. Not right, not fair, particularly, as my good friend from Arizona knows, when so many of those amendments come from sworn opponents of the bill, when so many of those amendments were disposed of in committee. So he is right.

One other point I would make while my good friend from Arizona is here, one of my fellow so-called gang members. We have a lot of disputes in this body because one side is against the other side. One side says one thing and the other side bands together and says no. We get gridlock. We need 60 votes. Neither side has it.

That is not the case here. Every major vote has been bipartisan, with a very significant number from the other side supporting the bill. More than that, the whole process has been bipartisan. The Gang of 8 was four and four. We sat in that room and haggled. We had as many disputes on the Democratic side, which did not want to accept what the Republicans wanted, as disputes on the Republican side, which did not want to accept what Democrats wanted.

But we all met in the middle because we believed in this bill. The sad fact is that while the vast majority of Americans support this proposal--by every poll that is seen, a majority of Republicans support this proposal, a majority of conservative Republicans support this proposal--there is a group in the country and reflected in the Senate that is so opposed to this bill they will go to any length to stop it. But the good news is, when you have a bipartisan majority, that cannot happen. So we get the kind of logic that my good friend from Arizona has pointed out. We get the kind of thing--it is sort of like Houdini. Remember, he tied himself in a straitjacket and then complained he could not get out.

I thank my colleague. Reclaiming my time, I would say, when we get a nerd from Ohio and a farmer from Big Sandy, MT, together, of course we are going to get a very good amendment.

The bottom line, though, is simple. That amendment is in the list that the leader suggested. Every one of the 17 Republican amendments was part of that list of 36. So the bottom line is--and now many more amendments have been filed--just talking about the amendment. Look, E- Verify is in the bill. I would not quite agree with my colleague from Arizona.

E-Verify will work very well without the amendment. I think it will work somewhat better with the amendment. It is a good amendment. I am supportive of the amendment. My staff helped work on the amendment. But let's not say this bill will have no internal enforcement without the amendment. It has very strong internal enforcement. In fact, it has mandatory E-Verify.

My good friend from Alabama has been railing for years that we need mandatory E-Verify in the country. As we work through the process, if the House in its wisdom moves the bill, we can improve things. This is not the last train out of the station. But I say this: If we do not have a bill, we will have no E-Verify, improved, not improved.

So many of the things that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle wanted will not be in the bill. Again, to me, having worked in a bipartisan way--and I have taken as many criticisms from my side of the aisle as from the other to get this done, what is happening here--not the Senator from Ohio. He is sincerely eager to improve the bill and I support that improvement. But for many others who are vehemently opposed to the bill, there is a view to delay and delay and delay in hopes--I would say forlorn hopes--that they cannot move the bill.

We have not been on this bill for 1 day. We have been on the bill for 3 weeks. Again, most of the objections, not all but the vast majority, came from the other side when we wanted to move forward. So I would urge that we adopt the leader's motion, 32 amendments, a reasonable amount of time to debate them, 17 from the Republican list, 15 from the Democratic list, and go forward.

I do not think there will be a single objection from our side, I will tell you that much. If you say we want these 32 and then untold more, that is a different story. That is a different story. But, again, let me conclude on a happy note.

We have our differences. But it has been truly amazing to work with the two Senators from Arizona and the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from Florida and the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from New Jersey. It has been an amazing journey. On one of the most difficult issues that faces America, we have crafted a proposal that has broad support and strong momentum, momentum that increased with today's vote and will increase further with tomorrow's vote.

Please, one of the things our citizenry objects to is there is always naysaying. It is always easier to say no than to say yes. But as has been pointed out, when you say no, you are keeping the 11 million here under what many have called unstated amnesty. You are keeping a broken system that kicks out of the country people who create jobs and lets into the country people who take away American jobs.

You are preventing the change in our immigration system to make America grow.

CBO said: Wow, because of this bill, GDP would grow by 3 percent this decade and 5 percent next decade. It is obvious. That is the energy of immigrants--poor immigrants, unskilled immigrants, rich immigrants, educated immigrants. Our ancestors, such as James Madison Flake, who my colleague from Arizona once told me about, but all our ancestors, whatever part of the globe they came from, worked so hard and are part of the secret to American success.

This bill restores that energy and that vitality. Again, this bill is not perfect. We never claimed it would be. But I would urge my colleague, my good friend, sincere friend from Ohio, who is very smart--that is what my friend from Arizona said--but has many other great attributes as well, and everyone else in this body, to not say, if I did not get exactly the change I wanted, this bill is no good; I cannot vote for it.

That is what has paralyzed this Nation in the last decade. This is an attempt not only to fix our immigration system but to overcome it. I pray to God we will.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator from Louisiana yield for a question?

I thank the Senator from Louisiana, as Senator McCain said, for her continued patience. I think what she proposes makes a great deal of sense. There are a whole lot of amendments--and we did this in committee under Senator Leahy's leadership--that are not controversial and we could vote for. My only question is, I take it the Senator assumes, once they are cleared, they would be voted en bloc.

OK. I think this makes sense. We are working on the ones that require votes. We should be working simultaneously on the ones that are noncontroversial, and let us hope we can come to some agreement so we can all vote on this bill and move on to other business.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, what is the status of the time that remains for each side?

Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Corker- Hoeven amendment. I have listened carefully to those who are opposed who have come to the floor today and Friday, and I have come to one conclusion: They won't take yes for an answer.

Most of the criticism that has come at this amendment is it does too much for the border. Even some of my colleagues who are opposed say it does too much, even though they proposed similar things themselves.

My good friend from Texas says we don't need more border agents but had proposed 5,000 himself. My good friend from Texas also said, well, we need technology, but there was no technology in his bill. My dear friend Senator Coburn, whom I very much like and admire, first says we need money for ICE agents, not Border Patrol. But ICE is funded to deport about 400,000 people a year. Most of the 11 million will become citizens and not be deported. We have more than enough ICE agents to deal with the much smaller number who will be here illegally, certainly in the beginning and throughout the bill.

Dr. Coburn said we don't have more money for U.S. CIS agents. We do-- $3.6 billion more.

Finally, Dr. Coburn talks about the trigger. Let's face it, for many on the other side the No. 1 priority is securing the border. For many on our side the No. 1 priority is achieving a path to citizenship. The bill proposed by the Gang of 8, we believe, did both. But, certainly, there were many on the other side who thought the amount we were putting into border security was not enough, was not adequate, so we were willing to augment that in the Corker-Hoeven amendment, which I am going to talk about in a minute.

Certainly, what we do not want to do is choose one in place of the other. The problem with the 90 percent, which Senator Cornyn proposed, was that under many different types of scenarios and circumstances--an act of God, an administration that was decidedly against a path to citizenship and counted things differently or held up the count--we could envision no path to citizenship. That was out of the question for us.

What we tried to do is say we can have both. We also said we are going to do border security first. But what we made sure of in the triggers--and there are five triggers now with the amendment in this proposal. We make sure the triggers could not be used deliberately by somebody who was opposed to the path to citizenship as a way to block them--whether that be a Congress or a President or somebody in the administration.

So we have come up with the right compromise. We have not split the baby in half, which is what Senator Cornyn and, I gather, Senator Coburn want to do. We have had both. We have satisfied those who are for border security and those who are for a path to citizenship, and only when we satisfy both will we get a bill. We cannot do it with one and not the other. So let me go over the border security part and why it will work.

First, to say the experts were not consulted, as my good friend from Oklahoma said, is not fair, particularly to Senators McCain and Flake, who are probably greater experts on what is needed at the border than any of us. They may not be chair or ranking member of the committee-- although I believe Senator McCain is on that committee--but they live on that border. And, to boot, Senator McCain has tremendous military experience in terms of surveillance.

What we have done is looked at each sector. There are nine. They are different. The sector of the Senator from Texas has a river and has private property that goes right up to the edge of the river. It would take 30 years to build a fence on that side of the property because we would need eminent domain, and I am sure there are some ranchers who would say: I don't want a fence on my side, right by the river. That is where my cattle come to graze and drink.

There are parts of the Arizona sector that are heavily populated where a strong fence is needed, and there are parts that are so rugged that have no roads that a fence would be a waste of money.

Our bill relies on different approaches in each of the nine sectors. But the best approach did not just come out of the air. That came with Senator McCain sitting down, working with Senators Hoeven and Corker, but also working with the Department of Homeland Security as well as those who work in the Border Patrol as to what is needed. That is in the bill.

We heard the objection from others that they do not trust DHS, either this one or a new one, to implement what is needed. So it is in the amendment.

Why do we need so many men and women on the border? Let me explain. Our American people demand that we make the border airtight. That is why some have proposed a 2,200-mile fence, double. That is what they wanted. The cost would be--I think it might go to the hundreds of billions, but it also would not work in many areas for the reasons I mentioned. But they want it airtight. So here is what we have: We have adequate eyes in the sky, whether it be drones or airplanes. So every person, every single person, 100 percent observability, 100 percent situational awareness is what it is called. Any single person crossing the border will be detected, every single person, whether it is night or day, whether it is sunny or stormy. The technology not available 10 years ago allows us to do just that.

Then we have proposed a large number of Border Patrol. It is true there are enough agents that 24-7 we could station somebody on the border every 1,000 feet, all the way from the western edge of the border in San Diego, CA, to the eastern edge of the border in Brownsville, TX. Why? Because the minute one of those eyes in the sky detects someone approaching the border, there will be adequate personnel there to say we will detain them or turn them back.

It is obvious. It is what the experts tell us will work. It is very explainable to the American people. So, yes, there are a lot of resources on the border. Yes, each of us, if we wrote the bill, might do it a different way or put in more money or less money. But no one can dispute that the border becomes virtually airtight--virtually airtight. That means those who cross the border will be few and far between.

There are two things I would like to mention. It is expensive. This amendment does not come cheap. But the CBO report was a game changer because it said what everyone understands, but it verified it. It gave it the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. We all know one of the great economic engines of America--or we should all know; many of us do. I know, Madam President, you know it, being an immigrant yourself--that one of the greatest economic engines America has had to propel it and make it the greatest country in the world is immigrants.

Immigrants are willing to risk everything. They cross stormy oceans, trek across deserts to come to America. What a beautiful, wonderful thing. I am so proud that out the window of my den in Brooklyn, NY, I can see that lady who holds the torch. To the whole world she symbolizes what a great country we are. And people come.

Anyone who doubts and says the Sun is setting on America, just look at how many people risk their lives to come here, how many people separate from families to come here, how many people uproot themselves to come here. If America were not such a great, attractive place, we wouldn't have a problem of so many illegal immigrants. People want to come here. When they come here they work. Boy, do they work. To be able to send $10 a week to their mother or kids in Oaxaca Province or in the Philippines or in Bosnia is a huge thing. It gives them joy. That is why they are sometimes willing to work under the kinds of conditions we don't find acceptable for people who are here legally. But it is the greatest economic engine there is.

Immigrants form companies because so many of the smartest and brightest come here. Immigrants make our meat factories and our farms work because even those who may not have such an education are willing to work under very difficult conditions to earn enough money to feed themselves and maybe send a little home to their families. They are the greatest economic engine we have--the greatest.

Republicans say the way to get this economy going is to cut taxes. Democrats say the way to get this economy going is to spend money. You can decide which one you believe in. But I tell you, no one can dispute that a greater economic engine of either of those is the blood, sweat, toil, and tears of our immigrant communities--not just starting today but from the day in my city when the new immigrants were called ``English'' because the Dutch had settled New York and didn't want these newcomers to come in. In fact, the two oldest high schools in America are in New York City. They are both private schools, but one is called Collegiate. It was formed by the Dutch Reform Church in 1628.

When the English came, they didn't want to go to a school with this Dutch Reform Church. So they formed the Trinity School for the Episcopal English, the Anglican English. There were all kinds of tension. Of course, there is always tension. But when these new English people came, they worked hard and the Dutch saw that.

Peter Stuyvesant recognized it and made New York, actually--the reason so many have written that we have become the greatest city in the world is because, unlike other cities, we would take everybody as long as they worked hard. It is one of the reasons my people settled so heavily in New York, in America. It was a tradition that lasted a long time. Boston was bigger than New York, Philadelphia, but they were closed to outsiders. New York was open.

So the greatest economic engine America needs is immigrants and their hard work, whether they are Ph.D.s in nuclear physics or cutting sugar in Florida or Louisiana. The CBO vindicated that report. Amazing. We are busy talking about Mr. Bernanke and how he could twist the dials and GDP growth might go up 0.3 percent. Do you know what the impartial CBO showed? If we did our bill, which both brought 11 million workers out of the shadows and brought hundreds of thousands more in, in the next decade--millions more in--whether through the Future-Flow Program or Family Unification--GDP would go up 3.3 percent. I know of no government program or tax cut that even professes to do that much. And in the second decade it would go up over 5 percent.

Of course, this is good for America, and we want to secure our borders and we want to rationalize our system and we want to be fair on a tough but earned path to citizenship for those who cross the border illegally. The bill, with the addition of the Corker-Hoeven amendment, will convince everybody they do it all.

One other point. Those who said this new Corker-Hoeven amendment will cost money, it will. But let me read what CBO has just said in the last half hour:

The amendment--

Corker-Hoeven--

would significantly increase border security relative to the

committee-approved version of the bill, and it would

strengthen enforcement actions against those who stay in the

country after their authorization has expired. Therefore, CBO

expects that relative to the committee-approved version of S.

744, the amendment would reduce both illegal entry into the

country and the number of people who stay in the country

beyond the end of their authorized period.

I say that to my colleague from Texas, who is on the Senate floor, and others who say this will not work. CBO: Illegal immigration will decline as a result of the Corker-Hoeven amendment.

Here is something else CBO says:

All told, CBO and JCT--

Joint Committee on Taxes--

expect that enacting the amendment would, like enacting S.

744--

The base bill--

reduce the federal deficit over both the next 10 years and

the second decade following enactment--fewer illegal

immigrants, higher GDP, more jobs, reduced deficit.

Who could oppose that? I don't know of anybody who could oppose that if they care about America.

Once again, on the border stuff my colleagues just won't take yes for an answer. This is the toughest, strongest, most expensive border provision we have had. It is augmented, of course, by the entry-exit system improvements and the mandatory E-Verify, which many of my colleagues, including my good friend from Alabama, have been calling for for a long time. Illegal immigration will drop dramatically, GDP will go up, jobs will go up, and the deficit will go down.

Pass this amendment and pass this bill. It is good for America.

I yield the floor.

Would my colleague yield for a question?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 1 minute for both the question and the answer.

Does the Senator deny that of the 1,000 pages, about 100 pages are new text and the rest is just the old text of the existing bill and that over a weekend every Senator should be able to read 100 pages of important legislation?

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Tennessee for his hard work, his diligence. One of the hallmarks of a truly outstanding legislator is the ability to walk in the other person's shoes. It is something we should all try to do, to see why the other side thinks differently than you and come to meet somewhere in the middle. That is what my good friend from Tennessee has done throughout the years he has been in the Senate, and he has had no finer moment--I completely agree--than this strong effort on immigration reform. I want to say the same about my colleague from North Dakota. I know for both of them this is not easy. This is courageous, and they are doing the right thing for their country, and with that, there is a great deal of satisfaction.

I thank our great leader. His steadfast, quiet style helps us get through just about anything in this body. He is my friend, and he is a great leader. I am proud to serve under him.

I thank the chairman of our committee as well for his steadfast leadership and the other seven members of the Gang of 8. We have come to become friends. We have argued with each other, we have bonded with each other but, most of all, we are united in this effort to make our Nation better by fixing our broken immigration system. It is a wacky system. It turns away people who will create jobs and lets people cross the border who will take away American jobs. It makes no sense.

We are now ready to move forward further with this amendment. The bipartisan ship of comprehensive immigration reform, launched in January, continues to sail forward with the acceptance by the Gang of 8 of this Hoeven-Corker amendment. Let's make no mistake about it, nothing in this amendment or the bill satisfies anyone completely, but together the amendment and the bill provide a sturdy craft that will weather the upcoming storms we face and get us finally to our long desired port--comprehensive immigration reform signed into law.

It is easy for people to focus on what they do not like in this bill. That is what has sunk effort after effort after effort. Instead, I urge all my colleagues--from the most liberal to the most conservative, from the most Democratic to the most Republican--to look at the so many positives in this amendment and this bill.

The American people have told us over and over that they will be fair and accept commonsense solutions for the 11 million living in the shadows and for future immigration reform if they are convinced there will not be wave after wave of future illegal immigration. That is just what this bill does. That is why it is a turning point.

This amendment--the offering of this amendment--is a turning point. We have always known there would be large numbers of Democrats who support final passage of this bill in the Senate. But this amendment gives us the real chance of getting a very significant number of our Republican colleagues.

I believe a large bipartisan vote in this body will change the dynamic in the House to make them far more amenable to passing immigration reform. I believe a large bipartisan vote in this body will wake up our colleagues on the other side in the House, ask them to live up to their responsibility to fix our broken immigration system for the good of the country. Hopefully, as Congressmen look at how their Senators voted, they will be influenced by it and take the same kind of courageous stand the Senators from Tennessee and North Dakota and many others have taken.

There have been three main objections to comprehensive immigration reform as we have moved forward: first, that the process was not going to be open; second, that it was going to cost the taxpayers a lot of money; and third, that it would not close down our borders. I believe, with this amendment, we answer all three resoundingly.

On the first, the fact that we need an open process, this process has been tremendously, completely transparently open. The bill was filed way in advance of the committee markup of the bill. Amendment after amendment was debated and debated and debated. Many amendments were accepted, many from the other side. Many were rejected. But it was an open process.

The leader has endeavored to make that process be open on the floor as well. Some others--some of whom have actually complained about the lack of openness of the process--have delayed our ability to offer amendments, but hopefully that will end soon.

The second objection--that it will cost money--that was successfully debunked this week by the CBO report on this bill. It said three things. It said, first, it will reduce the deficit by $175 billion in this decade and another $700 billion in the next decade. There is a lot more deficit reduction in this immigration reform bill than many other bills we have voted for where the specific goal was deficit reduction.

Second, it will grow our economy. Imagine, it is almost like an elixir. GDP grows over 3 percent this decade and another 5 percent in the next decade. What we have struggled to do to get even a quarter as much growth with programs that either spend money or cut taxes--but the vitality of humanity, particularly the humanity that wishes to risk all and come to America, is perhaps the greatest economic engine of them all, and the CBO recognizes what that will do.

Third, it will create jobs. At a time when we worry about the future job market, we worry about the ratio of retirees to those who are working, this bill is the best antidote.

Finally, on the border, there is no bill tougher on the border, there is no proposal tougher on the border than this one. We create a virtual human fence. There are enough border agents here to be on guard from San Diego, CA, to Brownsville, TX, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

They will only be 1,000 feet apart for every minute the clock ticks. No one--no one--will be able to cross the border with that number of people on the border. It is a virtual human fence. Many have asked for that to protect the border.

So these have been the three major objections. We have answered them all resoundingly. We have answered the fact that the process may not be open by making it transparent and open. We have answered the view that it will cost money by showing it will save money. We have answered the view that the border will not be secured by the addition of the Hoeven- Corker amendment.

There is only one other objection to these three objections. Lack of openness in the process, costing the government money, not closing the border are the stated objections. There is only one other objection. It is usually unstated. That is the earned path to citizenship. If portions of this bill were voted on separately, most of our colleagues who oppose the bill would vote for them. They would certainly vote for more border protection. They would certainly vote for deficit reduction. They would certainly vote for a future immigration flow that creates jobs. So why are they voting against it? They simply do not believe in a path to citizenship.

That is fine, but it ought to be stated. The beauty of the Corker- Hoeven amendment is it rips bare the real objection. It is no longer border security. It is, I do not want a path to citizenship that some may profess. So let's debate it on that issue.

By the way, it is no mistake, no accident, that the House wants to do it in pieces, individually, because they do not believe in a path to citizenship, those who profess that.

But mark my words here today. No bill--no bill--on immigration reform will be signed into law by the President without a path to citizenship. It can be an earned path, it can be a tough path, it can be a difficult path, but it is a real path. It is essential for any immigration reform. To those who think they can get the pieces of this bill on comprehensive immigration reform without a path to citizenship, they are sadly mistaken.

In conclusion, we are just halfway through our process. We still have a long road ahead. The good ship SS Immigration Reform will weather many more storms. But the addition of Corker-Hoeven gives us new masts, new wind in our sails. I am confident that if we stay united, Democrats and Republicans of good will, we will see, before the end of this year, comprehensive immigration reform signed into law by the President of the United States.

Well, I thank the leader for his very kind words. He is a kind man as well as a strong man. I thank him for being my friend, for being a great leader.

I will add one additional group to others who thought I could put together a proposal that would get 70 votes--we are not there yet; we are climbing each day; we are not there yet. That is my staff.