Floor Statements

Mr. President they say history has a way of repeating itself. That certainly came true in June when the Senate approved a sweeping reform bill to revamp the nation's immigration laws. Unfortunately, the U.S. Senate failed to learn from the mistakes created by the 1986 overhaul.

In the 1980s, about 3 million people who were living in the country illegally were granted legal status. Today, 27 years later, the U.S. estimates 11 million undocumented immigrants are living here.

What should that tell us? It says that the 1986 law failed to stem the flow of illegal immigration. It sent the wrong signal by granting legal status to millions while ignoring the need to secure the border.

I do not need a crystal ball to tell me what would happen on the road ahead if we repeat the mistakes of the past. I saw how legalizing before securing our borders turned out. It turned America's time- honored welcome mat into a timeworn doormat.

America's immigration system is broken. It is time to fix it so that a legal flow of immigration can help the economy and bolster areas of the workforce that are short of workers, from low-skilled to high-tech workers.

But immigration laws should not come at the expense of American workers or cause them to be disadvantaged, displaced or underpaid. Rooting out fraud and abuse from many of our visa programs should be a priority.

Unfortunately, the bill passed by the U.S. Senate would not fix what is broken and is chock-full of loopholes that make the legalization system far from ideal.

Thankfully our system of self-government protects representation of, by and for the people with a bicameral Congress. Now the U.S. House of Representatives has a chance to get it right.

The House is moving on a number of bills. They are having very thoughtful

discussions on how to improve the legal system while adhering to the rule of law. They also know that passing one sweeping bill is a recipe for disaster--one that inevitably creates loopholes and allows special interest provisions to override good policy.

I would like to discuss a few of their good ideas.

First, the House Judiciary Committee approved the SAFE ACT, a bill that beefs up our interior enforcement efforts. It provides tools to State and local law enforcement agencies to help the government enforce immigration laws.

It enhances the 287(g) program, which I helped author. It gives the States and localities the power to enact and enforce their own immigration laws as long as they are consistent with Federal law. The bill would improve our country's ability to remove criminal aliens. Dangerous individuals would be detained, sex offenders would be made inadmissible, and gang members would be both inadmissible and deportable.

These are provisions that are omitted from the Senate bill. Dangerous criminals are ignored in the Senate bill, and it was apparent that the other side of the aisle did not want to have votes that would bar these dangerous criminals from receiving legal status.

Securing the border is very important, but so is focusing on individuals who violate our laws and violate the terms of their stay in the U.S. If we are serious about being tough on sex offenders, domestic abusers, drunk drivers, and other criminals, then the SAFE Act needs to be passed by the Senate and sent to the President.

Second, the House Judiciary Committee approved a bill that improves the existing E-VERIFY program. This program is a valuable tool and should be made mandatory for all businesses. While the Senate bill does make it mandatory, it does so over 6 years and provides exceptions for certain employers. The House bill would implement the program on a faster timetable, for which I have advocated.

Third, the House Judiciary Committee approved bills that improve the legal system for people who want to live and work in the United States. The committee approved a bill that focuses on high-skilled workers that are needed in the country, and another bill that improves the legal channels for people who want to work in agriculture. If we want to ensure that we do not deal with millions of people here illegally in the future, then we have to focus on getting our legal immigration system in order.

Now, I would like to talk about the border bill that was approved by the Committee on Homeland Security. This is a bill I am not ready to endorse. Let me explain why.

The bill, known as the Border Security Results Act, is not a serious and comprehensive approach to border security. While it takes a good first step in requiring metrics to assess whether the borders are secured, there is nothing that ensures that results are achieved.

The bill requires the Department of Homeland Security, within 6 months of enactment, to develop a strategy on how to secure our borders. The strategy includes an assessment of threats along the border. It will take into consideration the coordination of departments and the cooperation of foreign countries. The strategy calls for an assessment of technology needed. But, it does not actually do anything to give agents the resources they need. It does nothing to require fencing to be built.

After the strategy is submitted to Congress, the Secretary develops an implementation plan and provides that to Congress and the Government Accountability Office.

But like the Senate bill, there is no repercussions if the Secretary does not actually submit a strategy. And, there is no verification or approval of the strategy by Congress. Instead, it relies on this or a future administration to make promises they will not keep. It relies on them to fulfill the law, but we have seen time and again that they thumb their nose at bills we send them. They not only refuse to implement laws they like--such as ObamaCare-- but they will refuse to carry this one out as well.

The bill requires the Secretary to develop metrics to measure the ``effectiveness'' of security at ports and between ports of entry. That is a good start. But, there are no consequences if the Secretary does not develop such metrics. The GAO would evaluate the metrics, but again, there is no real consequence if they are flawed metrics. The border still will not be secured.

The Secretary then certifies that her department has achieved ``operational control.'' The definition of ``operational control'' is weakened from current law. The bill defines it as a ``condition in which there is a not lower than 90 percent illegal border crossing effectiveness rate, informed by situational awareness, and a significant reduction in the movement of illicit drugs and other contraband through such areas is being achieved.''

The GAO would attest if the certification for operational control is truly done. What if the Secretary never certifies this? What if the GAO says the Secretary's certification is not accurate? If the Department fails to achieve control of the border, then they have to issue a report to explain why. Again, it lacks any true accountability for this or any future administration to secure the border.

Finally, I want to mention one part of the House border bill that is most concerning to me. During committee mark-up, an amendment was accepted that would require a plan on the exit tracking system, but unfortunately there is no beef to it. Implementation of a biometric exit system was a key point when the Senate considered immigration.

The Congress has passed several laws that require the executive branch to track the entry and exit of foreign nationals. Those mandates have been ignored. The airline industry has resisted. Instead of building upon current law and finding a way to make it happen, the House bill provides a way out if the exit system is not deemed feasible by the Secretary--the same Secretary that has made no progress on the system.

Border security is not only putting manpower and technology along the southern border. It is also about tracking people that enter this country. Given that 40 percent of our undocumented population consists of visa overstays, we must address this problem immediately.

This problem is highlighted by a GAO report that was issued on Tuesday. GAO found that the Department has lost track of more than 1 million people. We know they arrived in the United States, but we do not have departure records.

By statute, the Department is required to report overstays. They claim they do not report the estimates because of lack of confidence that the data is reliable. After 17 years, the law has been ignored. The government is not sophisticated enough to match incoming and outgoing travel records, and that is a serious risk to our national security.

Over the years, the GAO has highlighted the challenges that the Department faces in putting the entry and exit system in place. Their new report casts more doubt on the Department's competency.

When the Senate passed the immigration bill in June, I was very clear in suggesting that the bill would have to be fixed by a conference committee with the House, if it ever goes to a conference. With the exception of the border security bill, the House has presented some valuable ideas.

While I want an immigration reform bill sent to the President, I want it done right. We can take our time to get it right.

Over the August recess, the American people will get their opportunity to inform members of Congress how they feel about the immigration proposals on the table.

But I can predict what many will say. I know from previous townhall meetings in my State, the people do not want more laws that will go ignored. They want the laws we have in place to be enforced.

We need legislation that upholds American values of hope, freedom and opportunity. We need immigration laws in place that welcome law-abiding immigrants to share their entrepreneurial spirit, build better lives for themselves, and help make America a better place for generations to come.

But we need legislation that upholds the rule of law and ensures that we do not saddle future generations with the same problems we are faced with today.

It is my hope that Congress, over the August break, will listen to the American people and work to enact true reform that achieves real results and makes good on the promises made in Washington.

Mr. President, I would like to take time today to honor the life of a very brave man, and an exemplary Iowan, Col. George ``Bud'' Day, who passed away over the weekend.

Bud Day's brave and memorable military career started at the age of 17, when he volunteered for the Marine Corps during World War II in Sioux City, IA.

After this period of service, Bud returned home, and received a law degree from the University of South Dakota.

His military service to this country, however, would resume.

Bud Day joined the Air National Guard in 1950 and was called up for active duty a year later during the Korean War.

By 1955 he had become a captain with the Air Force.

With the same go-getter attitude he displayed throughout his service, then Captain Day went on to command a squadron of F-100s in Vietnam in 1967.

On August 26, Bud's plane was hit and took a steep dive. Upon ejection he sustained many injuries.

Shortly after the crash, Bud was taken prisoner and tortured.

Maintaining his unflagging spirit and fueled by his love for his country, Bud Day refused to cooperate and escaped his captors. Surviving treacherous conditions and life-threatening situations every minute, Bud spent 2 weeks trying to find U.S. troops.

His efforts left him exhausted and he was later recaptured and returned to the same camp he had escaped from.

He was then moved to the infamous ``Hanoi Hilton'' camp where torture was commonplace for the next 5 years of his life until his release in 1973.

Even after all of this, Bud Day resumed his service with the U.S. Air Force, and was appointed vice commander of the 33rd Tactical Fighter Wing at Eglin Air Force Base, FL.

Three years after his release from the Hanoi Hilton, Bud received the Medal of Honor from President Gerald Ford for not divulging information in the face of torture, thereby putting his own life in imminent risk to save others.

He has also received numerous other awards and recognitions such as the Air Force Cross for extraordinary heroism in military operations against an opposing armed force as a POW, making him one of America's most decorated servicemen.

Bud Day remained public spirited even after his military service, continuing to advocate for veterans and other causes that were important to him.

His life of service is a tremendous role model for future generations and he will be missed.

I am proud to have been able to call Bud Day an Iowan and a friend.

Madam President, Shortly the Senate will be voting to invoke cloture on the nomination of James B. Comey to become the next Director of the FBI. I will vote to invoke cloture and expect many of my colleagues will do the same.

The confirmation of a new FBI Director is a serious decision for this Chamber to consider. As a large Federal law enforcement agency, the FBI has numerous responsibilities and tremendous power. Only with quality leadership and proper Congressional oversight will the FBI be best equipped to fight crime, terrorism, and espionage.

I think the President has made a fine choice in selecting Mr. Comey as the next leader of the FBI, and I plan to explain my support for him as we approach Mr. Comey's confirmation vote.

I recognize there is a level of concern associated with this nomination regarding the use of drones by the FBI. I have been at the forefront of this issue, raising it last year with the Attorney General. The Attorney General gave me an incomplete answer as to the FBI's use of drones.

Accordingly, after there was disclosure that the FBI was using drones on U.S. soil for surveillance, I questioned Mr. Comey about the extent of that policy. This needs to be addressed by the new director, and I have Mr. Comey's assurance he will review the policy. I will be monitoring this closely, but we need a director in place, and we need to confirm this nomination this week.

Excellent leadership is only one ingredient in the recipe for success at any Federal agency. Another critical element is proper congressional oversight. And it is this component I fear too many of my colleagues have forgotten. Today, too many seem to believe that advice and consent really means rubberstamp and turn a blind eye. The American people deserve better than this approach to confirmations.

Over the last few months, I have observed an alarming pattern. Too often, this administration submits subpar nominees while simultaneously obstructing any legitimate oversight by this Congress. Sadly, many of my colleagues appear to be choosing to ignore any effort to correct it. Let me cite just a few examples.

We saw how Mr. Perez, an assistant attorney general, brokered an unwritten deal that cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. My colleagues on the other side largely ignored the shady deal. Mr. Perez tried to cover his tracks, but got caught leaving a voicemail that was recorded. Even then, my colleagues dismissed it. And when he was caught concealing evidence of the deal on his personal email accounts, he defied a lawfully issued congressional subpoena and refused to turn over the documentation. Incredibly, his defiance was ignored. Worse yet, for all this rotten behavior, the Senate rewarded him with a promotion by confirming him as Secretary of Labor.

We see the same thing occurring with the nomination of Mr. Mayorkas. The nominee for the No. 2 position at the Department of Homeland Security is the target of an open investigation by the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security. The IG is investigating allegations that the nominee procured a visa as a political favor, even though the visa was properly rejected.

Incredibly, the Senate Committee pressed on with the hearing despite unanimous objection from the minority for moving forward in the midst of an open investigation.

That is incredible to me--a Senate Committee would move forward with a nominee who has an open investigation into the nominee's conduct. I wish this were a unique occurrence, but based on recent experience in the Judiciary Committee, it is not an isolated event. This is exactly what happened recently in the Senate Judiciary Committee with respect to Mr. B. Todd Jones, the nominee to be Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

Earlier this year, I learned the Office of Special Counsel was investigating Mr. Jones in a complaint that he retaliated against a whistleblower in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota.

In the Judiciary Committee, it has been the Committee's practice when a nominee is the subject of an open investigation, the Committee generally does not move forward until the issues are resolved. Because of this practice, I objected to holding his hearing last month and requested the hearing be postponed to allow the investigation to finish.

My request was denied. I then objected to putting him on the committee agenda until the non-partisan investigation was complete. Again, my request was rejected. And now, despite the fact there remains an open complaint of whistleblower retaliation against Mr. Jones before the Office of Special Counsel, his nomination will soon be considered by the full Senate.

I want all my colleagues to know what happened because I am quite concerned by the direction it has taken, especially in light of the fact this practice seems to be spreading into other Senate committees as well.

Over the past few months, there has been correspondence between my office and the Office of Special Counsel regarding the status of their proceedings.

I had previously received a copy of an anonymous letter to the Office of Special Counsel making various allegations against Mr. Jones. I sent a letter to OSC on April 8, asking for an update on those allegations. On April 12, the Office of Special Counsel responded that there were two pending matters involving the U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Minnesota, where Mr. Jones is the United States Attorney. The first matter was a prohibited personnel practice complaint alleging reprisal for whistleblowing and other protected activity. The second matter was a whistleblower disclosure, alleging gross mismanagement and abuses of authority.

The complaint, filed by an Assistant United States Attorney in the office, alleged that personnel actions, including a suspension and a lowered performance appraisal, were taken in retaliation for protected whistleblowing or other protected activity.

On June 5, OSC provided the committee with an update to the two pending cases. It reported the whistleblower disclosure case had been closed based on its determination that the information provided was insufficient to determine with a substantial likelihood that gross mismanagement, an abuse of authority, or a violation of a law, rule, or regulation had occurred. Accordingly, OSC closed that case file.

OSC's action to close the whistleblower disclosure case was not based on any investigation by that office. That action was merely a determination based on a technical review of the complaint document itself. It was not a finding on the merits of the complaint.

With regard to the other issue, the prohibited personnel practice, I was informed the complaint was referred for investigation. Subsequently the complainant and Justice Department agreed to mediation. I was told that if mediation was unsuccessful, the case would return to OSC's Investigation and Prosecution Division for further investigation.

My colleagues should understand that, of all the complaints received by OSC, only about 10 percent of them merit an investigation. This case was one of them. Why did the career, nonpartisan staff at OSC forward the case for investigation? Presumably because they thought it needed to be investigated. That says something about the likely merits of the case.

Before the hearing, there was disagreement regarding the status of the Special Counsel's investigation. Accordingly, I contacted the Special Counsel, inquiring as to the status of the complaints. The Special Counsel confirmed for the second time that the investigation remains open. She stated, ``The reassignment of the case for mediation did not result in the matter being closed.''

Despite this, and over my objection, on June 11, the committee went forward with a hearing on the Jones nomination. We were told Mr. Jones' hearing needed to be held in order for him to have an opportunity to respond to the Office of Special Counsel complaints. I would note that a similar rationale was used to justify the Mayorkas hearing--to publicly address the allegations against the nominee. In Mr. Jones' case, in advance of the hearing, the Department of Justice sent a letter to me stating: ``Mr. Jones looks forward to answering your questions about these matters during his nominations hearing. . . .''

Additionally, Mr. Jones was quoted in the Star Tribune as saying, ``I am looking forward to meeting with the Committee and answering all their questions.''

However, as I expected, the hearing provided no information to the committee with regard to the open Special Counsel investigation. At the hearing, Mr. Jones said he could not talk about the complaint. Of course, this negated the whole reason why the hearing had even been scheduled.

At his hearing, my first question to Mr. Jones was about the investigation. This is his reply:

Because those complaints are confidential as a matter of

law, I have not seen the substance of the complaints, nor can

I comment on them. I have learned more from your statement

today than I knew before I came here this morning about the

nature and substance of the complaint.

A few questions later, I inquired of Mr. Jones, ``Will you answer the complaints about the Assistant U.S. Attorney--because that is why you are here today?''

He replied:

Well, quite frankly, Senator, I am at a disadvantage with

the facts. There is a process in place. I have not seen the

OSC complaint. I do know that our office, working with the

Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, is in the process of

responding to the issues that you have talked about this

morning, but I have not had the opportunity to either be

interviewed or have any greater knowledge about what the OSC

complaint is.''

So there we were, left with an open investigation of serious allegations of whistleblower retaliation. We were told the hearing was the opportunity for us to question the nominee and get these questions answered, but the nominee couldn't even talk about them at all.

This put the Committee in the position of either allowing time for the Office of Special Counsel to do its job or looking into the matter for ourselves before proceeding.

Strangely, late in the day before the hearing, the Majority offered to conduct some interviews the Friday following the hearing. That was quite perplexing to me. We were going to begin the investigation after the hearing had concluded. I could not remember when the committee had ever conducted an investigation after a nominee's hearing.

The day after the hearing, the chairman's staff indicated to the media we were conducting a bipartisan probe. The media reported the majority staff had offered to conduct a bipartisan inquiry into the matters before the Office of Special Counsel.

However, I am disappointed to report there was no genuine effort to gather all the facts. The majority only agreed to jointly interview one witness, the whistleblower himself. However, the majority refused to look into the substance of the whistleblower's claims. Even more troubling, it quickly turned into an inquiry of the whistleblower rather than into the alleged retaliatory action done by the nominee.

The majority reached its own conclusion that it was not a whistleblower matter at all, but a personnel matter wherein management simply imposed discipline on a disruptive or insubordinate employee. However, there was never a factual record before the committee to support this conclusion.

The majority determined the whistleblower is an uncooperative witness for being ``unwilling to provide documents''--meaning his personnel file.

The whistleblower in this instance is an Assistant U.S. Attorney with 30 years of Federal service, 24 years of which he has served in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota. He has extensive leadership experience and in 2012 received the Assistant Attorney General's Distinguished Achievement Award.

It should be quite alarming to us all that a staff investigation of a whistleblower's complaint would be twisted around into an apparent attempt to investigate the whistleblower.

I have worked with many Federal Government whistleblowers over the years and this is exactly the type of treatment that whistleblowers fear. It is one of the main reasons they are afraid to come forward. This type of treatment raises serious concerns.

Unfortunately, I have come to expect this out of the Federal Government agencies--attacking the whistleblower rather than investigate the underlying problem. I have seen it over and over again. But this sort of inquiry shouldn't be the way the Senate deals with whistleblowers or others who come forward to testify.

The Senate cannot conduct itself this way. We cannot ignore ongoing investigations. In my opinion, we are neglecting our constitutional obligations. Eventually, one of these situations will embarrass the Senate, damage the reputation of the Federal Government, and, ultimately, probably cost the taxpayers, our constituents.

So I urge all of my colleagues to oppose taking further action at this time on the nomination of B. Todd Jones for Director of ATF, another nominee with an open investigation. I will vote no on cloture and encourage my colleagues to do likewise. This is about protecting the advice and consent function of the Senate.

The Senate should wait until the Office of Special Counsel has concluded its investigation and we know the truth about his retaliatory conduct against a protected whistleblower.

There will be time to debate the other substantive concerns regarding this nomination. There may be additional reasons why my colleagues should oppose Mr. Jones's nomination. Other Senators may vote to confirm the nominee.

But as a starting point, we should all be in agreement that it is imprudent and unwise for the Senate to give final consideration to any nominee where there is an open investigation into that nominee's conduct. The Senate cannot abdicate its duty to advise and consent on these nominees and simply rubberstamp them.

As we consider this nomination, as well as a number of other nominations this week, I would urge my colleagues to ponder what a Federal agency needs in order to be best positioned to succeed. In my opinion, a Federal agency needs at least two things: a quality leader and proper congressional oversight. I think this is especially relevant as we consider the next Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is a powerful law enforcement agency facing numerous challenges today.

First and foremost, the FBI is still undergoing a transformation from a Federal law enforcement agency to a national security agency. Following 9/11, the FBI's mission changed. Director Mueller was immediately thrust into the role of reinventing a storied law enforcement agency into a national security agency.

While Director Mueller rose to the challenge and made tremendous strides in accomplishing this transformation, that job is not yet complete. It is still adjusting to prevent domestic terrorism. It must grow to combat the growing threat of cybercrimes that threaten our national security, our economy, and our infrastructure. The FBI needs a Director to continue to guide it as it rises to counter these serious threats.

Second, the FBI must confront the growing concerns over the use of invasive methods of gathering information on American citizens. One example would be the proper use of drones by domestic law enforcement agencies. Last year I raised this issue with the Attorney General. It now appears his response was less than forthright. This year, I raised the issue with Director Mueller and again with Mr. Comey, today's nominee.

Frankly, it is going to require a Director who is knowledgeable on the subject, the law, and who is willing to work with Congress in order craft the best policy with regard to this technology's potential use in domestic law enforcement.

Third, a host of legacy problems at the FBI remain unsolved. The FBI has struggled to develop a working case management computer system. Management concerns remain about the proper personnel balance between special agents and analysts. It has yet to effectively manage agent rotations to the Washington, DC headquarters. A real or perceived double standard of discipline between line agents and management must be repaired. Significant concerns about internal FBI policies dealing with whistleblower retaliation exist. Each of these matters must be addressed as they threaten to undermine the hard work of the employees at the FBI.

The position of FBI Director is unique in that it is a 10-year appointment subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. This 10- year term was extended 2 years ago on a one-time only basis. The extension allowed Director Mueller to serve an additional time period as the President failed to nominate a replacement. At the time, we held a special hearing to discuss the importance of a term limit for the FBI Director. One of the reasons Congress created a 10-year term was to ensure accountability of the FBI.

Today, we vote on the nomination of James B. Comey for Director. Mr. Comey has a distinguished legal career. After graduating from the University of Chicago Law School in 1985, Mr. Comey clerked for Hon. John M. Walker, Jr., U.S. district judge for the Southern District of New York.

In 1986, he began his legal career with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, where he focused on civil litigation. In 1987, Mr. Comey became an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, eventually serving as deputy chief of the Criminal Division.

He left the Department of Justice to return to private practice in 1993, joining McGuireWoods, LLP. While at McGuireWoods, he served as a deputy special counsel on the U.S. Senate Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater and Related Matters. During this time, he also served as an adjunct professor at the University of Richmond Law School.

In 1996, Mr. Comey returned to government service as Managing Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Office of the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. By 2002, Mr. Comey was appointed U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. And in December 2003, he was appointed Deputy Attorney General, a position he served with honor and distinction until 2005, when he left government service.

However, I would like to point out, and I think Mr. Comey would agree, that perhaps one of the best indicators about his judgment is that he had the smarts to marry an Iowan.

At his confirmation hearing, Mr. Comey addressed many concerns raised by Senators from both sides of the aisle. His answers were direct and thoughtful. On subjects with which he was familiar, he spoke intelligently and straightforward. If he didn't know enough, he said so. There was no trying to hide the ball or cover for his lack of expertise in a particular area. In short, it was a refreshing change from the many nominees who come up here and try to parrot to Senators what nominees think we want to hear.

Not so with Mr. Comey. In fact, several times when pressed on his views on a specific FBI policy, such as FBI whistleblower policies or domestic drone use, he confessed he had little or no knowledge of the current FBI policy but promised to thoroughly review the existing policies in place and the legal and moral issues surrounding the controversies. Furthermore, he pledged to work with Congress by being responsive to our inquiries for information.

Now, these promises are not unique to Mr. Comey. Almost every nominee promises the Senate that he or she will be responsive to our concerns and requests for information. Sadly, especially under this administration, once confirmed, we rarely get an adequate response until right before that individual has an oversight hearing before a Senate or House Committee. I can only hope that Mr. Comey's efforts to be more transparent will not be stymied by the Department of Justice.

As I said, I think that if any Federal agency, but especially the FBI, is to succeed, it needs quality leadership and proper congressional oversight. After examining his record, I think that Mr. Comey will prove to be that leader. Only time will tell, however, if this administration will allow Mr. Comey to engage the Congress and allow us to perform our constitutional duty of oversight to ensure that existing legislation and policies best serve this nation.

I thank Mr. Comey for his willingness to return to public service. And I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

Madam President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, am I in order to speak about the nomination of Tony West?

Madam President, today the Senate will vote on the nomination of Tony West to be Associate Attorney General. Although I will be supporting Mr. West's nomination, I have some concerns about his record that I want to share with my colleagues.

This is a very important position. The Associate Attorney General is the third highest ranking official within the Department of Justice. Mr. West is currently serving as Acting Associate Attorney General, and as far as I can tell he has generally done a pretty good job. However, before serving as Acting Associate Attorney General, Mr. West was confirmed as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division. My concerns are with his record while serving in that position.

Specifically, while heading the Civil Division, Mr. West was involved in and even defended the quid quo pro deal between the Department of Justice and the City of St. Paul, MN. That scheme was orchestrated by Tom Perez, who headed the Civil Rights Division and was recently confirmed by the Senate to be Labor Secretary.

My colleagues have heard me on the floor of this body many times talking about this quid pro quo, most often emphasizing Tom Perez's involvement with it, but not too much about Mr. West.

The quid pro quo involved the Department agreeing to decline two False Claims cases pending against the City of St. Paul. Remember, if successful, those two False Claims cases were estimated--and they were pretty good cases--to bring $200 million back into the Federal Treasury. In exchange, the City of St. Paul would agree to drop a case pending before the Supreme Court.

As I have said, I have spoken at length on the St. Paul quid pro quo as it relates to the nomination of Mr. Perez to be Secretary of Labor.

As my colleagues know, I have been a major supporter of whistleblowers and their protection under the laws of this country. Whistleblowers are a very important source of information in helping us if laws are not being abided by

or money is being misspent. Of course, that is why I authored the 1986 amendments to the False Claims Act. It was to protect whistleblowers, but it also gives a resource for getting money back into the Federal Treasury if it is misspent.

Those amendments--meaning the False Claims Act amendments-- revitalized the law by empowering individual qui tam whistleblowers to come forward and file suits on behalf of the Federal Government to recover taxpayer dollars lost to fraud. Since those amendments were enacted, over $40 billion has been recovered.

Under Mr. West's tenure as head of the Civil Division, that Department has been successfully utilizing the tools of qui tam whistleblowers' information. Of course, they are not shy about saying so, and as far as I am concerned it is their right to do that. The more publicity we can have about recovering money under the False Claims Act, the more we may encourage more whistleblowers to come forth and recover even more money.

The False Claims Act is within the purview of the Civil Division, which Mr. West oversaw at that time, not the Civil Rights Division. However, in the quid pro quo, the evidence uncovered by my investigation suggests that Mr. West allowed Tom Perez to take control of the Civil Division in order to cut this deal that saved Mr. Perez's favored legal theory referred to as the ``disparate impact'' theory. As I have discussed previously, Mr. Perez was concerned the Supreme Court was going to strike down this theory as unconstitutional.

In doing so, the Department undercut a viable case against St. Paul and, in the process, left the whistleblower who filed the suit to fight the City on behalf of the American taxpayers all alone--left him out there twisting in the wind.

This is not how I expect the Department to treat good-faith whistleblowers. They are patriotic people. They are people who probably destroyed their opportunity of livelihood because they know something is wrong and they want to report it, just as patriotic people ought to do. In fact, I believe it is contrary to the assurances Mr. West gave me during his confirmation hearing in 2009 when he indicated he would protect whistleblowers and vigorously enforce the False Claims Act.

Let everybody understand there is not a single individual subject to Senate confirmation in the Justice Department who comes before the committee or to my office for an interview that I don't ask them their view of the False Claims Act, because I don't want anyone serving in the Justice Department who doesn't support vigorous enforcement and use of the False Claims Act.

As I have said, ultimately Mr. Perez was the architect of this ill- advised quid pro quo that left Frederick Newell, a good-faith whistleblower, hanging out there to dry. In my view, Mr. Perez bears the most responsibility in this whole matter. He was the one who was manipulating the process and he did so at times behind the back of Mr. West.

Nonetheless, Mr. West was the individual in charge of the Civil Division, and as head of that division the decision regarding whether to join those False Claims cases fell to Mr. West.

It is troubling to me that Mr. Perez, who at the time was head of the Civil Rights Division, would be the one who was so clearly orchestrating the deal, and acting as de facto head of the Civil Division. Unfortunately, Mr. West let him get away with it. So that concerns me as it relates to the nomination of Mr. West to be the third highest ranking official at the Department of Justice.

We need individuals serving in these positions who are willing to stand up to those who are trying to advance a political agenda; and that is exactly what Mr. Perez was trying to advance. In this instance, at least, it doesn't appear that Mr. West stood up to Mr. Perez as he should have.

On the contrary, the record appears to indicate Mr. West allowed Mr. Perez to orchestrate this deal on behalf of the Civil Division even though Mr. Perez was head of the Civil Rights Division.

However, notwithstanding these concerns, I am willing to give Mr. West the benefit of the doubt and vote for his nomination. Part of the reason I am willing to do so is because the Civil Division, under the leadership of Mr. West, has established a respectable record in utilizing the tools available under the False Claims Act amendments that I got passed in 1986 and that have brought back into the Treasury approximately $40 billion.

And, as an instance of the use of the False Claims Act by Mr. West, the Civil Division secured approximately $4.9 billion coming back into the Federal Treasury in the single year of 2012. Taken together over the last several years, the Civil Division has secured a total of approximately $13.3 billion.

Obviously, this is not an insignificant amount of taxpayer dollars coming back. Although the Department's recovery of this money, on the one hand, does not excuse their behavior in the quid pro quo matter, I do believe Mr. West deserves a certain degree of credit for his leadership in this area.

So, as I said, I will support his nomination, and I expect he will be confirmed. It is my sincere hope he will perform his job well and not let somebody undercut him as he let Mr. Perez undercut him in regard to the quid pro quo and the False Claims cases involving St. Paul, MN. But I want him to know, and everybody else to know, that I plan to conduct aggressive oversight of the Department to ensure the mistakes that occurred as part of the quid pro quo that potentially cost the taxpayers nearly $200 million lost to fraud are not repeated.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Donnelly in introducing legislation that will prevent the EPA from distributing the personal information of farmers. This legislation comes in direct response to

the EPA releasing personal information on over 80,000 farmers nationwide and over 9,000 farmers in Iowa. After the initial data release, I wrote a letter that was signed by 23 of my colleagues to the EPA asking them to explain their rationale for releasing the addresses, emails and phone numbers of so many producers. Their response was unsatisfactory to me so I am introducing this bill to stop the EPA from doing this again.

The EPA's interpretation of the information which can be provided under a Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, request is simply too broad. Our Nation's farmers operate unique businesses in that their homes are often at the same location as their farming operation. When the EPA released this data, activist groups attained contact information and addresses for farm families whose way of life they oppose. This is unacceptable.

I would also like to point out that this bill does not prevent the EPA from collecting the information about where farmers' operations are located. It also does not prevent EPA from disclosing information in the aggregate. The legislation simply prevents them from releasing personal information to the public. Furthermore, I am pleased to have support for this bill from 16 agriculture groups who agree that we should not enable activist groups with personal information. If we want people to trust our government, agencies like the EPA must quit taking actions that shake the confidence of our citizens. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this commonsense bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Donnelly in introducing legislation that will prevent the EPA from distributing the personal information of farmers. This legislation comes in direct response to

the EPA releasing personal information on over 80,000 farmers nationwide and over 9,000 farmers in Iowa. After the initial data release, I wrote a letter that was signed by 23 of my colleagues to the EPA asking them to explain their rationale for releasing the addresses, emails and phone numbers of so many producers. Their response was unsatisfactory to me so I am introducing this bill to stop the EPA from doing this again.

The EPA's interpretation of the information which can be provided under a Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, request is simply too broad. Our Nation's farmers operate unique businesses in that their homes are often at the same location as their farming operation. When the EPA released this data, activist groups attained contact information and addresses for farm families whose way of life they oppose. This is unacceptable.

I would also like to point out that this bill does not prevent the EPA from collecting the information about where farmers' operations are located. It also does not prevent EPA from disclosing information in the aggregate. The legislation simply prevents them from releasing personal information to the public. Furthermore, I am pleased to have support for this bill from 16 agriculture groups who agree that we should not enable activist groups with personal information. If we want people to trust our government, agencies like the EPA must quit taking actions that shake the confidence of our citizens. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this commonsense bill.

Mr. President, I will take a few minutes to talk about the President's nominee for Secretary of Labor Tom Perez. I have already spoken about Mr. Perez over the last few weeks. I will not repeat everything I said, but it is important for my colleagues to understand the basis of my opposition. We have had a lot of debate around here over the last few days about what grounds are appropriate to oppose an executive branch nominee. Many of my colleagues have suggested that Senators should not vote against such a nominee based on disagreement over policy. That may or may not be the appropriate view, but I am not going to get into that debate today.

I am quite sure I would disagree with Mr. Perez on a host of policy issues, but I wish to make clear to my colleagues those policy differences are not the reason I am vigorously opposed to this nominee. I am opposed to Mr. Perez because the record he has established of government service demonstrates that he is willing to use the levers of government power to manipulate the law in order to advance a political agenda.

Several of my colleagues cited examples of his track record in this regard, but in my view perhaps the most alarming example of Mr. Perez's willingness to manipulate the rule of law is his involvement in the quid pro quo between the City of St. Paul and the Department of Justice. In this deal that the Department of Justice cut with the City of St. Paul, the Department agreed not to join two False Claims Act cases in exchange for the City of St. Paul withdrawing its case before the Supreme Court in a case called Magner v. Gallagher.

Mr. Perez's actions in this case are extremely troubling for a number of reasons. At this point, no one disputes the fact that Mr. Perez actually orchestrated this entire arrangement. He manipulated the Supreme Court docket so that his favored legal theory, called disparate impact theory, would evade review by the High Court. In the process, Mr. Perez left a whistleblower twisting in the wind. Those are the facts and even Mr. Perez doesn't dispute them.

The fact that Mr. Perez struck a deal that potentially squandered up to 200 million taxpayer dollars in order to preserve a disparate impact theory that he favored is, of course, extremely troubling in and of itself. But in addition to that underlying quid pro quo, the evidence uncovered in my investigation revealed Mr. Perez sought to cover up the facts that the exchange ever took place.

Finally, and let me emphasize that this should concern all of my colleagues, when Mr. Perez testified under oath about the case, both to congressional investigators and during confirmation hearings, in those two instances, Mr. Perez told a different story. The fact is that the story Mr. Perez told is simply not supported by the evidence.

Let me begin by reviewing briefly the underlying quid pro quo. In the fall of 2011, the Department of Justice was poised to join a False Claims Act lawsuit against the City of St. Paul. That is where the $200 million comes in. That is what was expected to be recovered. The career lawyers in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Minnesota were recommending that the Department of Justice join the case. The career lawyers in the Civil Division of the Department of Justice were recommending the Department join the case. And the career lawyers in the Department of Housing and Urban Development were recommending that Justice join the case. At that point, all of the relevant components of government believed this case was a very good case.

They considered the case on the merits, and they supported moving forward, or as one of the line attorneys wrote in an e-mail in October, 2011: ``Looks like everyone is on board.'' But of course this was all before Mr. Perez got involved.

At about the same time, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case called Magner v. Gallagher.

In Magner, the City of St. Paul was challenging the use of the disparate impact theory under the Fair Housing Act. The disparate impact theory is a mechanism Mr. Perez and the Civil Rights Division were using in lawsuits against banks for their lending practices. For instance, during this time period Mr. Perez and the Justice Department were suing Countrywide for its lending practices based upon disparate impact analysis. In fact, in December 2011 the Department announced it reached a $355 million settlement with Countrywide. Again, in July 2012 the Department of Justice announced a $175 million settlement with Wells Fargo addressing fair lending claims based upon that same disparate impact analysis. Of course, there are a string of additional examples, but I don't need to recite them here.

What is clear is that if that theory were undermined by the Supreme Court, it would likely spell trouble for Mr. Perez's lawsuits against the banks. Mr. Perez approached the lawyers handling the Magner case, and, quite simply, he cut a deal. The Department of Justice agreed not to join two False Claims Act cases in exchange for the City of St. Paul withdrawing Magner from the Supreme Court. Now we have an interference in the agenda of the Supreme Court at the same time that a deal is going to cut the taxpayers out of winning back $200 million under the False Claims Act.

In early February 2012 Mr. Perez flew to St. Paul, and he flew there solely to finalize the deal. The next week the Justice Department declined to join the first False Claims Act, called the Newell case. The next day the City of St. Paul kept their end of the bargain and withdrew the Magner case from the Supreme Court.

There are a couple of aspects of this deal that I wish to emphasize for my colleagues. First, as I mentioned, the evidence makes clear that Mr. Perez took steps to cover up the fact he had bartered away the False Claims Act cases and the $200 million.

On January 10, 2012, Mr. Perez called the line attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the memo in the Newell case. Newell was the case that these same career attorneys I referred to and quoted previously were strongly recommending the United States join before Mr. Perez got involved. Mr. Perez called the line attorney and instructed him not to discuss the Magner case in the memo that he prepared outlining the reasons for the decisions not to join the case. Here is what Mr. Perez said on that call:

Hey, Greg. This is Tom Perez calling you at--excuse me,

calling you at 9 o'clock on Tuesday. I got your message. The

main thing I want to ask you, I spoke to some folks in the

Civil Division yesterday and wanted to make sure that the

declination memo that you sent to the Civil Division--and I

am sure it probably already does this--but it doesn't make

any mention of the Magner case. It is just a memo on the

merits of the two cases that are under review in the qui tam

context.

It is pretty clear they didn't want anything in writing that led people to believe there was any deal being made.

After that telephone message was left, approximately 1 hour later Mr. Perez sent Mr. Brooker a followup e-mail, writing:

I left a detailed voicemail. Call me if you can after you

have a chance to review [the] voicemail.

Several hours later Mr. Perez sent another followup e-mail, writing:

Were you able to listen to my message?

Mr. Perez's voicemail was quite clear and obvious. It told Mr. Brooker to ``make sure that the declination memo . . . doesn't make any mention of the Magner case. It is just a memo on the merits of the two cases.'' It is so very clear. In fact, it couldn't be more clear that this was an effort--that there was no paper trail that there was ever any deal made.

Yet, when congressional investigators asked Mr. Perez why he left the voicemail, he told an entirely different story. Here is what he told investigators:

What I meant to communicate was, it is time to bring this

to closure, and if the only issue that is standing in the way

is how you talk about Magner, then don't talk about it.

Anyone who actually listens to the voicemail knows this is plainly not what he said in that voicemail. He didn't say anything about being concerned with the delay. He said: Make sure you don't mention Magner. It is just a memo on the merits. His intent was crystal clear.

Mr. Perez also testified that Mr. Brooker called him back the next day and refused to omit the discussion of Magner. Let's applaud that civil servant because he chose not to play that game. According to Mr. Perez, he told Mr. Brooker during this call to follow the normal process. Again, this story is not supported by the evidence.

One month later, after Mr. Perez flew to Minnesota to personally seal the deal with the city, a line attorney in the Civil Division e-mailed his superior to outline the ``additional facts'' about the deal.

Before I begin the quote, I want to give the definition of ``USA- MN,'' which stands for ``U.S. Attorney, Minnesota.''

Point 6 reads as follows:

USA-MN considers it non-negotiable that its office will

include a discussion of the Supreme Court case and the policy

issues in its declination memo.

If Mr. Perez's story were true and the issue was resolved on January 11, why 1 month later would the U.S. Attorney's Office need to emphatically state that it would not hide the fact that the exchange took place?

As I just mentioned, Mr. Perez flew to Minneapolis to finalize the deal on February 3. You would think, wouldn't you, that a deal of this magnitude would be written down so the parties understood exactly what each side agreed to. But was this agreement written down? No, it wasn't. After Mr. Perez finalized the deal, the career attorneys asked if there was going to be a written agreement. What was Mr. Perez's response? He said: ``No, just oral discussions; word was your bond.''

So let me just review. At this point Mr. Perez had just orchestrated a deal where the United States declined to join a case worth up to $200 million of taxpayers' money in exchange for the City of St. Paul withdrawing a case from the Supreme Court. When the career lawyers asked if this deal will be written down, he said: ``No . . . [your] word was your bond.''

Of course, the reason you make agreements like this in writing is so that there is no disagreement down the road about what the parties agreed to. As it turns out, there was, in fact, a disagreement about the terms of this unwritten deal.

The lawyer for the city, Mr. Lillehaug, told congressional investigators that on January 9, approximately 1 month before the deal was finalized, Mr. Perez had assured him that ``HUD would be helpful'' if the Newell case proceeded after the Department of Justice declined to intervene. Mr. Lillehaug also told investigators that on February 4, the day after they finalized the deal, Mr. Perez told him that HUD had begun assembling information to assist the city in a motion to dismiss the Newell complaint on ``original source'' grounds. According to Mr. Lillehaug, this assistance disappeared after the lawyers in the Civil Division learned of it.

Why is that significant? Mr. Perez represents the United States. He represents the American people. Mr. Newell, the whistleblower, is bringing a case on behalf of the United States and indirectly the people. Mr. Perez is talking to the lawyers on the other side, and he tells the people, in essence: After the United States declines to join the case, we will give you information to help you defeat Mr. Newell, who is bringing the case on behalf of the United States.

Let me say that a different way. In effect, Mr. Perez is offering to give the other side information to help defeat his own client. Is that the way you represent the American people? Mr. Perez was asked about this under oath. Mr. Perez told congressional investigators, ``No, I don't recall ever suggesting that.''

So on the one hand, we have Mr. Lillehaug, who says Mr. Perez made this offer first in January and then again on February 4 but the assistance disappeared after the lawyers in the

Civil Division caught wind of it. On the other hand, it was Mr. Perez who testified under oath: ``I don't recall'' ever making such an offer. Whom should we believe? The documents support Mr. Lillehaug's version of the event.

On February 7, a line attorney sent an e-mail to the director of the Civil Fraud Section and relayed a conversation a line attorney in Minnesota had with Mr. Lillehaug. The line attorney wrote that Mr. Lillehaug stated that there were two additional items that were part of the deal. One of the two items was this:

HUD will provide material to the City in support of their

motion to dismiss on original source grounds.

Internal e-mails show that when the career lawyers learned of this promise, they strongly disagreed with it, and they conveyed their concern to Tony West, head of the Civil Division. During his transcribed interviews, Mr. West testified that it would have been ``inappropriate'' to provide this material outside of the normal discovery channels. Mr. West said:

I just know that that wasn't going to happen, and it didn't

happen.

In other words, when the lawyers at the Civil Division learned of this offer, they shut it down.

Again, why is this important? It is important because it demonstrates that the documentary evidence shows the events transpired exactly as Mr. Lillehaug said they did.

Mr. Perez offered to provide the other side with information that would help them defeat Mr. Newell in this case on behalf of the United States. In my opinion, this is simply stunning. Mr. Perez represents the United States. Any lawyer would say it is highly inappropriate to offer to help the other side defeat their own client.

This brings me to my final two points that I wish to highlight for my colleagues. Even though the Department traded away Mr. Newell's case and $200 million, Mr. Perez has defended his actions, in part by claiming that Mr. Newell still had his ``day in court.'' What Mr. Perez omits from his story is that Mr. Newell's case was dismissed precisely because the United States would not continue to be a party and would not be a party.

After the United States declined to join the case, the judge dismissed Mr. Newell's case based upon the ``public disclosure bar,'' finding that he was not the original source of information to the government.

I will remind my colleagues, we amended the False Claims Act several years ago precisely to prevent an outcome such as this. Specifically, the amendments made clear that the Justice Department can contest the ``original source'' dismissal even if it fails to intervene, as it did in this case.

So the Department didn't merely decline to intervene, which is bad enough, but, in fact, it affirmatively chose to leave Mr. Newell all alone in this case. And, of course, that was the whole point. That is why it was so important for the City of St. Paul to make sure the United States did not join the case. That is why the city was willing to trade away a strong case before the Supreme Court, and when the Newell case didn't go forward, they cut the taxpayers out of $200 million. The city knew if the United States joined the action the case would almost certainly go forward. Conversely, the city knew if the United States did not join the case and chose not to contest the original source, it would likely get dismissed.

The Department traded away a case worth millions of taxpayers' dollars. They did it precisely because of the impact the decision would have on the litigation. They knew as a result of their decision, the whole whistleblower case would get dismissed based upon ``original source'' grounds since the Department didn't contest it. Not only that, Mr. Perez went so far as to offer to provide documents to the other side that would help them defeat Mr. Newell in his case on behalf of Mr. Perez's client, the United States.

That is really looking out for the taxpayers. How would a person like to have a lawyer such as Mr. Perez defending them in some death penalty case? Yet when the Congress started asking questions, they had the guts to say: ``We didn't do anything improper because Mr. Newell still had his day in court.'' Well, Mr. Newell didn't have his day in court because the success of that $200 million case was dependent upon the United States staying in it.

Now, this brings me to my last point on the substance of this matter, and that has to do with the strength of the case. Throughout our investigation, the Department has tried to defend Mr. Perez's action by claiming the case was marginal and weak. Once again, however, the documents tell a far different story.

Before Mr. Perez got involved, the career lawyers at the Department wrote a memo recommending intervention in the case. In that memo, they described St. Paul's actions as ``a particularly egregious example of false certifications.''

In fact, the career lawyers in Minnesota felt so strongly about the case they took the unusual step of flying to Washington, DC, to meet with officials in the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, of course, agreed the United States should intervene in this false claims case. But, of course, that was all before Mr. Perez got involved.

The documents make clear that career lawyers considered it a strong case, but the Department has claimed that Mike Hertz--the Department's expert on the False Claims Act--considered it a weak case. In fact, during his confirmation hearing, Mr. Perez testified before my colleagues on the Senate HELP Committee that Mr. Hertz ``had a very immediate and visceral reaction that it was a weak case.''

Once again, the documents tell a much different story than was told to Members of the Senate. Mr. Hertz knew about the case in November of 2011. Two months later, a Department official took notes of a meeting where the quid pro quo was discussed. The official wrote down Mr. Hertz's reaction. She wrote:

Mike--odd--Looks like buying off St. Paul. Should be whether there are legit reasons to decline as to past practice.

The next day, the same official e-mailed the associate attorney general and said:

Mike Hertz brought up the St. Paul disparate impact case in

which the Solicitor General just filed an amicus brief in the

Supreme Court. He's concerned about the recommendation that

we decline to intervene in two qui tam cases against St.

Paul.

These documents appear to show that Mr. Hertz's primary concern was not the strength of the case, as Mr. Perez led my Senate colleagues to believe. Mr. Hertz was concerned the quid pro quo Mr. Perez ultimately arranged was improper. Again, in his words, it ``looks like buying off St. Paul.'' Yet, Mr. Perez led my colleagues on the HELP Committee to believe that Mr. Hertz believed it was a bad case on the merits.

Let me make one final point regarding process and why it is premature to even be having this debate. As of today, when we vote on Mr. Perez's nomination, we will be voting on a nominee who, to date, has not complied with a congressional subpoena compelling him to turn over certain documents to Congress. I am referring to the fact that the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform subpoenaed e-mails from Mr. Perez.

During the course of our investigation, we learned that Mr. Perez was routinely using his private e-mail account to conduct government business, including business related to the quid pro quo. In fact, the Department of Justice admitted that Mr. Perez had used his private e- mail account approximately 1,200 times to conduct government business. After Mr. Perez refused to turn those documents over voluntarily, then the House oversight committee was forced to issue a subpoena. Yet, today, Mr. Perez has refused to comply with the subpoena.

Here we have a person in the Justice Department doing all of these bad things. People want him to be Secretary of Labor, and we are supposed to confirm somebody who will not respond to a subpoena for information to which Congress is constitutionally entitled. We have people come before Congress who say, yes, they will respond to letters from Congress; they will come up and testify; they are going to cooperate in the spirit of checks and balances, and then we have somebody before the Senate who will not even respond to a subpoena.

So I find it quite troubling that this body would take this step and move forward with a nomination when the

nominee simply refuses to comply with an outstanding subpoena. Can any of my colleagues recall an instance in the past when we were asked to confirm a nominee who had flatly refused to comply with a congressional subpoena? Why would we want somebody in the Cabinet thumbing their nose at the elected representatives of the people of this country who have the constitutional responsibility of checks and balances to make sure the laws are faithfully executed? That is what they take an oath to do. It is quite extraordinary and should concern all of my colleagues, not just Republicans.

My colleagues are well aware of how I feel about the Whistleblower Protection Act, and my colleagues know how I feel about protecting whistleblowers who have the courage to step forward, often at great risk to their careers. But this is about much more than the whistleblower who was left dangling by Mr. Perez. This is about the fact that Mr. Perez manipulated the rule of law in order to get a case removed from the Supreme Court docket. And this is about the fact that when Congress started asking questions about this case, and when Mr. Perez was called upon to offer his testimony under oath, he chose to tell a different story.

The unavoidable conclusion is that the story he told is not supported by the facts. This is also about the fact that we are about to confirm a nominee who, even as of today, is still thumbing his nose at Congress by refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena.

I began by saying that although I disagree with Mr. Perez on a host of policy issues, those disagreements are not the primary reason my colleagues should reject this nomination. We should reject this nomination because Mr. Perez manipulated the levers of power available to few people in order to save a legal theory from Supreme Court review.

Perhaps more importantly, when Mr. Perez was called upon to answer questions about his actions under oath, I do not believe he gave us a straight story.

Finally, we should reject this nomination because Mr. Perez failed-- and refuses still--to comply with a congressional subpoena.

For these reasons, I strongly oppose the nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I have completed my statement and I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, during the debate over the budget, Dr. Coburn and I offered an amendment to create a separate and independent inspector general within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

We introduced this amendment because, thanks to a quirk in Dodd- Frank, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the only major Federal agency without its own inspector general. I think people know I tend to rely a great deal on inspectors general within the bureaucracy to be an independent check to make sure the laws are followed and that money is spent according to the law.

Dodd-Frank created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but it did not create a protection bureau-specific inspector general. Instead, because Dodd-Frank funded the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau through the Federal Reserve, this Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ended up sharing an inspector general with the Federal Reserve.

This has created a problem. Right now, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's inspector general has a split role. He serves as both inspector general for the Federal Reserve and for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I believe this creates a great deal of confusion and, obviously, a bureaucratic battle for resources. In fact, the inspector general has already had to create two separate audit plans. He also has had to hire employees who can oversee both the Federal Reserve and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The end result is an office split by two very important but very different priorities. Dodd-Frank created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve in order to fund the Bureau without having to come to us on Capitol Hill to get congressional appropriations. This is a problem but not a problem I am going to deal with right now. We had a marriage of convenience, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.

The Bureau's function is very different from the Federal Reserve. Despite this, years after Dodd-Frank was passed, this unique situation remains. My concern is if you have one inspector general trying to cover two different entities, the end result is neither gets fully overseen. In other words, we don't have adequate checks within the bureaucracy to make sure that laws are abided by and that money is spent according to law.

Since the passage of the Inspector General Act of 1978, Congress has believed that each Department and each agency needs its own independent inspector general. This has been a longstanding bipartisan position.

Currently, there are 73 inspectors general, in every single Cabinet- level Department and almost all independent agencies. Even small independent agencies such as the Federal Maritime Commission and the National Science Foundation have their own inspector general.

In each of these agencies, if each of these agencies has their own independent inspector general, shouldn't the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--particularly since this Bureau doesn't have to come to Congress for appropriations. We don't get appropriations oversight since some of their decisions can't even be challenged in the courts.

Now we are in this situation. The majority has opposed commonsense changes such as this to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

During the budget debate when Dr. Coburn and I introduced the amendment to create a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau-specific inspector general, the majority would not allow it to be brought up for a vote. The position I heard over and over was the majority did not wish to relitigate Dodd-Frank in any way. I did not hear any concerns related to the merits of this proposal. Our amendment wasn't about relitigating anything, it was about creating accountability and oversight at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and doing that through an independent inspector general, such as 73

other independent agencies have these sorts of checks and balances.

Because the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is funded directly by the Federal Reserve, there are few, if any, congressional oversight checks on the Bureau. This makes an independent inspector general even more important.

Right now, it seems to me, since we don't discuss Dodd-Frank very often, we don't have legislation related to it. We don't have opportunities to amend. This nomination of Mr. Cordray, now before the Senate, is the only tool the Senate has to create transparency and accountability within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. As we consider this nomination, I hope we will remember that and consider the Senate's role in overseeing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, what steps we can take to make the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau more transparent and, hence, more accountable to Congress, and in turn to the American people.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, soon we will be voting on a district court nominee. I rise in opposition to the nomination of Jennifer Dorsey. That is for the U.S. district judgeship for the District of Nevada. Before I outline the basis for my opposition, I wish to inform my fellow Senators and the American public regarding facts on judicial nominations.

We continue to hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about how we are obstructing nominees or treating this President differently. Those complaints are without foundation. I will quantify my answer to prove my point. There is no crisis in the manner in which we are confirming nominees. This is all part of a larger strategy to justify breaking the rules of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate.

The fact is that after today the Senate will have confirmed 199 lower court nominees. We have defeated two. That is 199 to 2. Who can complain about that record? The success rate happens to be 99 percent for the nominees sent by President Obama, considered on the floor of the Senate.

We have been doing it at a very fast pace as well. During the last Congress we confirmed more judges than any Congress since the 103rd Congress. That Congress sat from 1993 through 1994. This year we have already confirmed more judges than were confirmed in the entire first year of President Bush's second term.

So far this year we have confirmed 27 judges. If confirmed today, Ms. Dorsey will be the 28th confirmation this year. Let's compare this with a similar stage, which would be President Bush's second term, when only 10 judicial nominees had been confirmed. So we are now at a 28-to-10 comparison, with President Obama clearly ahead of where President Bush was. But somehow we are hearing complaints.

As I said, we have already confirmed more nominees this year, 28, than we did during the entirety of the year 2005, the first year of President Bush's second term, when 21 lower court judges were confirmed. After today only three article III judges remain on the Senate's Executive Calendar; two district nominees and one circuit nominee.

Yet we hear the same old story. Somehow our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Senate majority, the Senate Democrats, cite this as evidence of obstructionism. Compare that to June 2004, when 30 judicial nominations were on the calendar, 10 circuit, 20 district.

I do not recall any Senate Democrat complaining about how many nominations were piling up on the calendar, nor do I remember protests from my colleagues on the other side that judicial nominees were moving too slowly.

Some of those nominees had been reported out of committee more than 1 year earlier and most were pending for months. Some of them never did get an up-or-down vote. The bottom line is that the Senate is processing the President's nominees exceptionally fairly. I do not know why that message cannot get through. It is an excuse to abuse the rules of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate.

President Obama certainly is being treated more fairly in the beginning of his second term than Senate Democrats treated President Bush in the first year of his last term in office. It is not clear to me how allowing more votes so far this year than President Bush got in an entire year amounts to ``unprecedented delays and obstruction.'' Yet that is the complaint we hear over and over and over again from the other side.

I wanted to set the record straight. It is a sad commentary that I have to spend so much time when figures speak for themselves. But I will set the record straight again before we vote on the nomination of Ms. Dorsey.

I have concerns with this particular nominee. I think all Members are aware of the press accounts of campaign contributions which were made at the time this nomination was under consideration. We have not received a full explanation of what happened. Nevertheless, I am concerned about the appearances of these contributions and how such actions might undermine the public confidence that our citizenry must have in the judicial branch of our government.

I also have concerns about Ms. Dorsey's qualifications to be a Federal judge. She has no criminal law experience. She has participated in only six trials, one as a sole counsel, one as first chair, and four as second chair. I am concerned that her lack of experience will be a problem when she gets to the bench.

It is not surprising to me that the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave her a partial ``not qualified'' rating. I am also concerned with her understanding of the proper role of a judge.

While in law school, she wrote a note that praised the Justices who wrote Roe v. Wade. She praised them for the willingness to ``forge ahead to create a just outcome without regard to the usual decisional restraints.'' Then, she said, ``The majority made the just decision and then forced history and stare decisis to fit that decision.''

Ms. Dorsey praised judges who made their decision--and I want to use her words--``without regard to the usual decisional restraints.'' Those words are not the kind of words judges should be using. That is not the kind of judges we want, those who are activist judges who impose their own policy preferences rather than in following enacted law or precedent.

What do we want? We want judges who will be restrained by precedent and by the laws Congress passes. Although Ms. Dorsey said she no longer supports what she once wrote, I am unconvinced she will be able to lay her policy preferences aside when they conflict with what the law dictates she ought to do.

For all the reasons I mentioned above, I cannot support the nominee. I have two news articles that describe the campaign contribution issue I discussed earlier. I ask unanimous consent that those articles be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I support the nomination of Gregory Alan Phillips to be United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit. This is the 27th judicial confirmation this year. With today's confirmation, the Senate will have confirmed 198 lower court nominees; we have defeated two. That is 198-2, which is an outstanding record. That is a success rate of 99 percent.

We have been doing these at a fast pace. During the last Congress, we confirmed more judges than any Congress since the 103rd Congress, which was 1993-1994.

This year, the beginning of President Obama's second term, we have already confirmed more judges than were confirmed in the entire first year of President Bush's second term. Let me emphasize that again-- we've already confirmed more nominees this year than we did during the entirety of 2005, the first year of President Bush's second term.

After today, only four article III judges remain on the executive calendar--three district nominees and one circuit nominee. Yet somehow Senate Democrats cite this as evidence of obstructionism.

Compare that to the calendar of June 2004, when 30 judicial nominations were on the calendar--10 circuit and 20 district. I don't recall any Senate Democrats complaining about how many nominations were piling up on the calendar.

Nor do I remember protestations from my colleagues on the other side that judicial nominees were moving too slowly. Some of those nominees had been reported out more than a year earlier and most were pending for months. Some of them never got an up or down vote.

The bottom line is that the Senate is processing the President's nominees exceptionally fairly. President Obama certainly is being treated more fairly in the beginning of his second term than Senate Democrats treated President Bush in 2005. It is not clear to me how allowing more votes so far this year than President Bush got in an entire year amounts to ``unprecedented delays and obstruction.'' Yet that is the complaint we hear over and over from the other side.

After today's votes, there will be 84 vacancies in the Federal judiciary. But 53 of those spots are without a nominee. How is it Republicans' fault that the President has not sent 53 nominees to the committee? Obviously, common sense ought to tell you that we can't act on nominees who are not presented to the Senate.

I just wanted to set the record straight--again--before we vote on this nomination.

Mr. Phillips received his B.S. in 1983 and his J.D. in 1987, both from the University of Wyoming. Upon graduation, he served as a law clerk from 1987 to 1989 to the Honorable Alan B. Johnson, U.S. district judge for the District of Wyoming. After completion of his clerkship, he worked in private practice in the town of Evanston. There he practiced a wide variety of civil law, including personal injury, wills and estates, real property, contracts, worker's compensation, employment, domestic relations, and bankruptcy. For a few months during this time, Mr. Phillips served as a part-time deputy county attorney, mostly prosecuting misdemeanor crimes until a new county attorney could be elected.

In 1998, Mr. Phillips and Matthew H. Mead, presently serving as Governor of Wyoming, opened a law practice in Cheyenne, focusing on Medicaid, insurance, banking, and Federal tort claims law. Mr. Phillips served as a special attorney general during this period, handling a Medicaid third-party and estate reimbursement for Wyoming.

Mr. Phillips joined the U.S. Attorney's office in 2003 as an assistant U.S. attorney, where he first worked on both civil and criminal issues before shifting to exclusively criminal work. In 2011, Mr. Phillips was appointed by Governor Mead to be attorney general of the State of Wyoming. As attorney general, he manages five law divisions, overseeing arguments before the Wyoming Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. President, the Gang of 8 in their framework for comprehensive immigration reform said the following:

Our legislation will provide a tough, fair, and practical

roadmap to address the status of unauthorized immigrants in

the United States that is contingent upon our success in

securing our borders and addressing visa overstays.

It sounds good, doesn't it? They said their plan would be contingent upon success.

But the bill doesn't do that. The bill doesn't say the border has to be secured. It doesn't say that we need to see results. It only throws more money at the problem and puts more boots on the ground. Of course, that is a good start. But as we have seen before, that is not enough. It is not enough to ensure we will not be back here in the same place 25 years down the road, devising new plans. So I am going to take a few minutes to discuss the legalization program created in this bill.

Since I was here in 1986, I know that loopholes allowed people to gain legalization even if they weren't entitled to it. We had problems with fraud and abuse back then, and I am afraid it will be the same if the bill is passed in its current form.

Time and time again we have been told the bill will allow people here illegally to register and earn legal status, then become contributing members of society. Yet the bill fails to address how to prevent a continued influx of individuals who will replace those currently living in the shadows.

Take the CBO report as an example. CBO said illegal immigration would only be reduced by 25 percent. That is not acceptable, especially given the promise of the Gang of 8 that the bill would ``be a successful permanent reform to our immigration system that will not need to be revisited.''

The legalization program begins upon the mere admission of a strategy submitted by the Secretary of Homeland Security. So almost immediately, millions of people will come forward and be made lawful.

Remarkably, the bill virtually suspends enforcement during the 2\1/ 2\-year legalization application period. It prohibits law enforcement from detaining

or removing anyone claiming eligibility without any requirement to prove they are, in fact, eligible. Law enforcement is even required to inform those here illegally about legalization and give them the opportunity to apply.

Under the bill, undocumented immigrants already here can apply for and receive legal status, even if they have committed document fraud, provided false statements to authorities, and absconded court-ordered removal proceedings.

During this time, there is an enforcement holiday. Enforcement officers would be limited in detaining or removing any individual who merely claims eligibility for RPI status, regardless of whether there is proof to back that up.

Perhaps the enforcement holiday would be mildly concerning if we were dealing with individuals who only violated civil immigration laws. Unfortunately, the bill extends to those with criminal records. This includes individuals who have gang affiliations, even felony arrests, and even multiple misdemeanor criminal convictions.

Moreover, the bill permits individuals who attain legalization to continue criminal behavior, so long as their behavior and subsequent convictions remain below the eligibility threshold. In fact, the bill goes even further and--can you believe this--provides the Secretary with waiver authority in order to dismiss misdemeanor criminal convictions for purposes of determining eligibility for legal status.

The bill does not limit those outside the country from applying for legalization. The bill states that individuals who have previously been deported or otherwise removed from the country are ineligible for RPI status. However, one need only turn a few pages to discover that the Secretary has sole, as well as unreviewable, discretion to waive this provision and permit large classes of individuals to apply for legalization.

There is yet another way of providing and allowing individuals who have been removed or reentered illegally to apply for status, if they are fortunate enough to have a relative who does, in fact, qualify for legalization. This weakens and undermines even current law where Congress has already declared that individuals who reenter illegally are not entitled to immigration benefits.

Amendments to prohibit those ordered removed, those currently in removal proceedings, and those who have absconded and failed to show up for removal proceedings from applying or being granted legal status were voted down during committee considerations. An amendment to prevent spousal abusers, child abusers, drunk drivers, and other serious criminals from obtaining legal status was also rejected.

I know the public listening or reading these records will not believe that Congress could do those things, that it is OK to have those people with that sort of criminal activity being legalized, but that is what the bill allows. These amendments also could have been voted on during floor debate, but the majority refused to allow their consideration.

Now, the process for obtaining legalization is ripe for abuse and potentially encourages crafty behavior for individuals to game the system.

Under the bill, individuals applying for legal status are permitted to file numerous amended applications in the event their initial application is denied for failure to complete properly or provide required documentation. In practice, one could continue to file numerous amended applications, knowing each application is incomplete, resulting in a perpetual limbo where an individual can remain here for an indeterminate time without any possibility of removal.

Another area of potential abuse permits otherwise ineligible individuals to remain indefinitely in the United States.

The bill provides for a stay of removal until a newly created administrative appellate review process of the application has been exhausted. One need only imagine the vast loophole created that will allow ineligible applicants to remain in the United States pending a typically extremely lengthy review process.

When combined with a never ending application process and an expansive, time consuming appeals process, individuals can remain here for years without ever obtaining legal status, and without any fear of removal.

Under the bill, people with RPI status must prove that they have been employed during the duration of their status. Yet, the bill allows people to prove that employment--which is required to get a green card--using merely a sworn affidavit.

We know from our 1986 experience that sworn affidavits are highly unreliable, and incentivize massive fraud. They are not verifiable or trustworthy.

A New York Times article from 1988 shows just how easy it was for immigrants to get false affidavits. During one investigation, the Immigration and Naturalization Service arrested seven people for selling fraudulent affidavits to new immigrants.

One of these seven fraudsters ran a scheme that sold affidavits to 1,400 people here illegally. They had thousands more applications filled out and waiting for others. In fact, while investigators were on site seizing the evidence, dozens of individuals arrived to purchase more fraudulent affidavits. Buying and selling fake documents was a thriving business and can be again.

According to the article, one person arrested had 364 fraudulent affidavits on her five-acre farm.

A third of these fraudsters went from farm to farm, offering false affidavits to farmers for prices from $950 to $3,000.

The Majority has rejected several amendments that would improve on the 1986 legalization. That is unfortunate. The bill will lead to further fraud. It is my hope these provisions can still be fixed before any bill is sent to the President.

I yield the floor.

I do not support the overall Senate legislation as it is drafted. On this particular matter, I agree with Chairman Leahy that logging employment would be covered in the definition of ``agricultural employment'' for purposes of the new W agricultural visa program. Those workers that previously had access to the H-2A program should have access to the new W agricultural visa program.

Ms. COLLINS: I thank my colleagues for this clarification. This will maintain the status quo by allowing loggers, who currently enter the United States under the H-2A program, to enter the United States under the new W agricultural visa program. A reliable supply of labor, when American workers are not available, is critical for downstream industries such as paper mills in Maine.

I now wish to speak on an issue of significant importance to the forest products industry in Maine. The immigration bill before the Senate contains an ambiguity related to the definition of ``agricultural employment'' for purposes of the new W agriculture visa

program. Currently, logging employment is included in the H-2A visa program, pursuant to a rule adopted by the Department of Labor in 2008. The new W agricultural visa program will replace the H-2A visa program. Therefore, I wanted to make sure the logging workers who are currently eligible for the H-2A visa will be eligible for the new W agricultural visa program. My constituents are not asking for a carve-out or special favor. They are simply asking that the status quo be maintained in the new program.

Consequently, my colleague, Senator King, and I engaged in a colloquy with the managers of the bill, Senators Leahy and Grassley, to clarify that the intent of the legislation is not to exclude logging employment, as defined in title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations in section 655.103(c)(4), from the definition of ``agricultural employment'' for purposes of the new W agricultural visa program. I am grateful to my colleagues for making this clarification.

In addition, I received a letter from Secretary Vilsack of the U.S. Department of Agriculture on this issue.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

In this letter, Secretary Vilsack said that he is committed to working with Congress on this issue and working ``to implement the W Agricultural Visa program so that it covers logging to the extent possible, since those workers have historically been eligible for the prior H-2A agricultural worker program.'' I thank Secretary Vilsack for his commitment and look forward to working with him on this topic.

This is an important issue to my State of Maine and I thank my colleagues and Secretary Vilsack for working with me on this issue.

I did not come to speak. I came to object to the Senator's unanimous consent request.

I thank the Senator for his courtesy. I think there is an insinuation in his comment that there is a strategy on our part not to speak. That is not true. It is that there is a Republican meeting going on right now. I went to that meeting and said to the people in the meeting they ought to be out here speaking and they had an opportunity to do it. And, for the group, I have objected for that reason.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we have talked a lot about how the immigration bill would or would not prevent illegal immigration in the future. This is a huge concern because we don't want to be back in 25 years proposing the same short-term solutions to the problems.

I wish to take a few minutes about the national security implications of the bill. There are valid concerns that the bill will put public safety and the homeland at risk. I will walk through some of the issues and point out how we tried in committee to change the bill in this effort and, of course, we failed.

First, the bill contains a dangerous national security loophole that would render the U.S. Government unable to share information with foreign governments about immigrants who have had their status revoked. An amendment to preserve the ability of law enforcement to access critical, national security, public safety information and at the same time authorize the Secretary of State to share limited information with a foreign government while protecting legitimate privacy interests was rejected.

Second, the bill provides the Secretary of State with authority to limit in-person interviews of visa applicants abroad. The Secretary of Homeland Security is not required to interview anyone who applies for registered provisional immigrant status.

We learned a valuable lesson after September 11, 2001, because the hijackers were not interviewed and applications were rubberstamped. An amendment to require individuals who may be a threat to national security to submit to an in-person interview with consular officers when applying for a visa was voted down.

Third, there were gaping holes in the student visa process. Yet the committee rejected attempts to delay the expansion of the student visa program until the tracking system in place was improved.

Fourth, the amendment makes it almost impossible to revoke a person's visa when they are on U.S. soil. An amendment to clarify the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State to refuse or revoke visas when, in the national interest, as was the case with the Christmas Day bomber, was rejected.

Fifth, the bill does not address the concerns brought to the surface by recent events such as the Boston terrorist bombing. We are profoundly troubled with the lack of concern about lessons that can be learned from the failings of the immigration process, which may have contributed to recent events such as the Boston terrorist bombing.

We need to understand and we need to address these failures before proceeding with some of the provisions in this bill, especially the asylum and student visa expansion measures.

Putting revised procedures in place before gaining an understanding of what does not work in our current system is not good stewardship of the trust of the American people and the trust people placed in us as their representatives in Congress.

Our Nation's security is at risk and we cannot ignore it. We need to understand what is wrong with the system to prevent events such as the Boston bombing from happening again. However, an amendment to delay an expansion of asylum and student visa programs until there has been a coordinated review detailing the intelligence and immigration failures of the Boston Marathon terrorist attack was also voted down in committee.

Our national security must be a paramount concern with any immigration reform. Eliminating weaknesses in our system, including along the border and the interior, would make our Nation much safer. Regrettably, this bill falls far short of this goal.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I would like to make an inquiry about time. We were supposed to start the last 20 minutes. Is it OK if I start now with my final remarks?

Madam President, my colleagues have often heard me speak of my opposition to the legislation that is before us. They have not heard me speak about my opposition to immigration reform. As I have said so many times on this floor and in committee, or even to the press, I have not heard a single Senator say the existing system status quo ought to be maintained.

There are a lot of opinions about what should be done. So as we have seen over the last few weeks, immigration is an emotional issue that engenders strong feelings on both sides of the aisle. Saying it for a second time: Everyone wants reform, but everyone has their own ideas and different solutions.

Coming into the debate, I think my position has been very clear. I made it very clear because I have the experience of the 1986 legislation. That was legislation legalizing; it did not solve the problem. We screwed up in 1986 by not securing the border first, even though we had the intention that would happen. Today, we are right back at the same place talking about the same problems, proposing the same solutions. Unfortunately, the process has not allowed us to fundamentally improve the bill. We have not been able to vote up or down on commonsense amendments. There has been 550 amendments filed. We have taken up about a dozen.

Despite the fact that the American people want the border secured before we provide a path to legalization, there appears to be a majority of this body who believes legalization must come first. Next Monday and Tuesday I will be holding 11 townhall meetings in Iowa. I know what I am going to hear from my people: Yeah, we need immigration legislation. But first we need to enforce the laws that are already on the books before you consider anything new.

Despite what the Gang of 8 wrote in their framework for immigration reform, legalization is not--emphasis upon ``not''--contingent upon our success in securing our borders and addressing visa overstays. The bill will not ensure that a future Congress is not back 25 years from now dealing with the very same problems. We need a bill that insures results. We need a bill that puts security before legalization, not the other way around.

We are a nation based upon the rule of law. We have a right to protect our sovereignty and a duty to protect the homeland. Any border security measures we pass must be real and, more importantly, be immediate, not 10 years down the road.

We also need meaningful interior enforcement, including allowing immigration officers to do their job and work with State and local officials. Enforcement of the immigration laws has been lax and increasingly selective in the last few years because Federal immigration enforcement officers have been handicapped from doing their job.

The States have tried to step in, but every time the States tried to step in under the 10th Amendment to protect their citizens when the Federal Government would not do it, they have been denied the opportunity to control their own borders. The unfortunate reality is the bill does almost nothing to strengthen interior enforcement efforts. It does nothing to encourage cooperation between Federal, State, and local governments.

The Federal Government will continue to look the other way--look the other way as millions of new people enter this country undocumented. Meanwhile, the bill gives the States no new authority to act when the Federal Government refuses. One of the major reasons immigration is a subject of significant public interest is the failure of the Federal Government to enforce existing laws. Some 11 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. The bill subsequently weakens current criminal laws and will hinder the ability of law enforcement to protect Americans from criminal undocumented aliens.

In addition to weakening current law, the bill does very little to deter criminal behavior in the future. It ignores sanctuary cities and increases the threshold required for action of what constitutes a crime. Regrettably, the bill is weak on foreign national criminal street gang members, an amendment that I tried to offer, but we could not get the other side to vote on whether gang members ought to be denied benefits in this immigration law.

Furthermore, the bill falls short in protecting American workers who need and want jobs in this country. While I support allowing businesses to bring in foreign workers, they should only do so when qualified Americans are not available. I have long argued that we must enhance and expand opportunities for people who wish to work legally in the country. Yet as we do that, we cannot forget the American worker. We need to fight for them as well.

Finally, I empathize with people who come into this country to have a better life. We are proud of our country. Those of us born here do not appreciate how great this country is. When I talk at a naturalization ceremony in my State, I tell the new citizens: You are new here. You came from another land where you know things are a lot different than they are here. When you hear Americans bellyaching about our great country, I hope you will tell these Americans who were born here-- including this American--that this is the best country in the world, and how it is different in your own country and that you came here for a better life.

We are a compassionate people, and we are also the best country in the world. We are a great country because we have always abided by the rule of law. The rule of law is what makes opportunities that we have possible.

I am going to vote against this bill today. That is no surprise to anybody. I have hopes for a better product to come out of a conference committee. I hope for a bill to go to the President of the United States. My hope is that we will send a bill to the President that will make America stronger, make our borders more secure, and make our immigration system more effective. This is what Americans deserve and what we have a responsibility to deliver.

I yield the floor.

I yield to the Senator for 6\1/2\ minutes. As far as I know, nobody on my side wants the time, and the Senator may have the time.

Once again, I wish to thank everybody who maybe hasn't heard me say it. The Senator had a fair and open process in our committee. There wasn't a single Member who didn't get a chance to offer amendments. This is the way the process ought to work, and the chairman made it work that way.

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.

As we have seen over the past 2 weeks, immigration is a very emotional issue. It is an issue that engenders strong feelings from both sides of the aisle and maybe out in the grass roots of America even stronger feelings than are expressed on the floor of the Senate.

Everyone wants reform in the Senate. I have not heard anybody say the present situation is A-OK, but everyone has their own ideas and different solutions.

Now, at the grass roots of America, there are people who say we ought to give citizenship yesterday. There are people on the other side who say 12 million people ought to be rounded up and shipped out of the country. Neither one of those are very realistic today, but those are even stronger voices than you hear on the floor of the Senate.

Now, we are trying to find some reasonable solution. I do not think the bill that is eventually going to pass is a reasonable solution. But I will not know whether this is a reasonable solution until we get through the entire legislative process, meaning the House of Representatives and the conference. But I think down the road we can do much better than is going to be done in the Senate.

Now, as I said, everybody has their own ideas and different solutions. Unfortunately, the process has not allowed us to fundamentally improve this bill on the floor of the Senate like we were able to have that chance--not too successfully--but at least we had that chance in committee with that

fair and open process. So out here on the floor of the Senate we have not been able to vote up or down on commonsense amendments or very many amendments at all. I think to this point about 9, 10, 11 amendments are all that we have considered out of 451 that have been offered.

Despite the fact that the American people want the border secured before we provide a path to legalization, this bill appears to be favored by a majority in the body who believe that legalization must come before border security. I ought to say that again. Despite the fact that the American people want border security before we provide a path to legalization, there appears to be a majority in this body who believe that legalization must come before border security.

The polls around America show just the opposite. Border security first, everything else after the border is secured. This approach of legalization first is concerning, not only because the border will not be secured for years down the road, but more importantly because it devalues the principle that is very basic to our country and our constitutional system of government, the rule of law. The rule of law means the government will follow the laws it writes, and we expect the people to do likewise. People need to be able to trust their government and trust that the government will be fair.

I empathize with people who come into this country to have a better life. Who is going to blame them for doing that? We would do anything to give our kids a better life. Some people see no other choice but to cross the border without papers to find work and sacrifice everything they have to do it and to take a chance that they are going to run up against the law and be deported. But they do it because they want a better life. That is very basic to the American way of life. It is a natural right of most people around the world, a natural right that most of them are not able to bring to fruition.

The American people happen to be very compassionate. I know they are just trying to find a better opportunity and live the American dream, those people who come here undocumented. We are the best country in the world. We should be proud of it. We are an exceptional nation. But we are a great country because we have always abided by the rule of law. The rule of law is what makes all opportunities we have possible.

In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt sent a message to the Congress, the State of the Union Message. He talked about how man must be guaranteed his liberty and the right to work. But so long as a man does not infringe upon the rights of others, he said this:

No man is above the law and no man is below it, nor do we

ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it.

Meaning the law.

Obedience to the law is demanded as a right, not as a

favor.

I am a believer, just like everybody in this body, in the rule of law, despite what some say, including the majority leader. That does not mean we want to deport 11 million people. I want a humane and fair process for them to live, work, and remain here. I have said many times, and I have said it many times particularly in the past few months, that we do not necessarily need more laws, but rather we need to enforce the laws that are already on the books.

That is what I hear at my townhall meetings when people come to them and I start to explain about immigration. Somebody pops up: Right. We do not need more laws; we just need to enforce what we have on the books.

I agree. We need to enhance and expand legal avenues for people who want to enter, live, and work in this country. But we have laws that have gone ignored for 17 years. We have laws that are undermined and disregarded. The country will benefit if we have sensible immigration laws. One of the failings of the 1986 law was that it did not do enough to create avenues for people to work here. Advocates for reform claim they want a long-term solution, but what we have before us is nothing but a short-term bandaid. Really, what the bill does is clean the slate.

Those words ``clean the slate'' was a phrase that we used in 1986. That was the goal, to clean the slate, and we would start all over again. I referred many times--it is probably sickening to a lot of people in this body when I refer to the mistakes we made in 1986, not to repeat them. But here we are. We want to clean the slate again and start over. The problem is, if we just do the same thing we did in 1986, we will be back here in 25 years or less wanting to do the same thing.

So some Senators are going to say: In 2038, all we need to do is clean the slate. Well, we said that in 1986. We did clean the slate. We are back here in 2013 cleaning the slate again. We should have a long- term solution to these immigration issues. We should pass true and meaningful reform; and in doing so, we should not be ignoring the very principle on which our country was founded, on the rule of law.

We should not have to in any way be apologetic for taking this position either. One would get the opinion by hearing some speeches on the floor of the Senate that some people have more respect for people who violated our law than they have respect for the rule of law or people who have abided by the law. We have people from all over the world at our embassies, standing in line for long periods of time to come to this country legally. Those are the people whom we ought to be respecting.

I do not mean we disrespect people who come here to work. But there is one thing: They did violate our laws to come here. We do not have to apologize for not accepting the fact that it is OK to violate the laws. So we should not be apologetic for any position we take that is backed by the rule of law, the foundation of our society.

Why should we have to apologize for wanting to ensure people live by the laws that we set? We will not survive as a country if we allow people to ignore the law and be rewarded for it. We just cannot be a country of lawlessness. Why is wanting to secure the border anti- immigration? It is not. We are a sovereign nation. It is our duty to protect the people of this country. That is the first responsibility of the Federal Government, to guarantee our sovereignty because it is basic to our security. It is our right to create procedures whereby others can come to this country and make a living for themselves.

This does not mean we do not want other people from other countries. After all, except for Native Americans we are all a country of immigrants, some first generation and some, I suppose, fifth or sixth generation. We want to ensure that we protect our sovereignty. We want to protect the homeland.

So I ask my colleagues to think about how our country's immigration laws will survive the test of time. If this bill passes as is, will it be a temporary fix or something that we can be proud of for generations to come?

It is my understanding that, so far, 449 amendments have been filed to this underlying bill, including second-degree amendments. We started off the debate on the Senate floor with my amendment that would have required the border to be ``effectively controlled'' for 6 months before the Secretary could legalize people who are already present. We would call them, under this bill, registered provisional immigrants, and we referred to it as RPI status.

Clearly, the other side was afraid of the amendment I offered because it would have fundamentally changed the bill by requiring that the border be secured before granting 11 million undocumented workers a pathway to citizenship--but not, contrary to what the polls of the people of this country are telling us--they want security first, legalization after security of the borders. They have already cooked the books on this bill and don't want to make fundamental changes, regardless of whether they are good changes, because they don't want to upset their deal. They have insisted on a 60-vote threshold for amendments to pass.

When my amendment was up, I refused that 60-vote requirement and so they tabled my amendment. This raises the question: What about the open and fair process that we were promised? We learned on day one of the immigration debate that all of this talk about ``making the bill better'' was just plain hogwash. It was all just a phony and empty promise.

The sponsors would take the floor and say they were ready to vote on amendments, but in reality they were afraid of any good change. They refused to let Members offer amendments

of their own choosing. Instead, they wanted to pick what amendments Members would offer. They want to decide who, what, when, and how it would be disposed of. Of course, that is not right, that is not the open process that was promised.

In the last 2 weeks we have only debated nine amendments on this bill. Of those amendments, the majority leader tabled three amendments on a rollcall vote. Of the nine, we adopted three amendments by a rollcall vote. We rejected three amendments by a rollcall vote, and we adopted another three amendments by a voice vote.

I am sure everyone would agree that debating 9 amendments out of 450 is not a fair and open process. We have a lot more amendments that have been filed and not considered. These amendments would make this bill better. The sponsors of the bill are arguing that because we had a process in the Judiciary Committee that I have applauded as fair and open, that means we don't need such an open and fair process on the floor of the Senate.

What does that say about the other 82 Members of this body, that they shouldn't be allowed to offer amendments? The problem is while the committee process was open, many amendments were defeated, and no amendments were offered that substantially changed the bill in committee.

In order to address many issues with this bill, we would like to vote on more amendments before the end of the week. I wish to discuss some of the amendments we would like to see debated and considered before this immigration debate comes to an end, so people have a flavor of the kind of issues we believe have not been fully vetted on the floor of the Senate in this process that we were promised was going to be fair and open.

A number of amendments we would like considered would strengthen provisions of the bill dealing with border security, something that the current bill fails to do in a satisfactory manner. As everyone knows, this has been a serious deficiency in the immigration reform bill, regardless of the fact that the polls in this country say people want the border secured first and then legalization. This does it the opposite way: legalizes and then maybe the border will be secure.

For example, Lee amendment No. 1207 would prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from restricting or prohibiting activities of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection on public lands and authorize Customs and Border Protection access to Federal lands to secure the border.

Coats amendment No. 1442 would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to certify that the Department of Homeland Security has effective control of high-risk border sections at the southern border for 6 months before the Department can process RPI status applications. The Coats amendment would also require the Secretary to maintain effective control of those high-risk sections for at least 6 months before the Secretary may adjust the status of the RPI applicants.

Coburn amendment No. 1361 would allow Customs and Border Protection to enforce immigration laws on Federal lands. What is wrong with that amendment, to enforce immigration laws on Federal lands?

Other amendments would beef up our interior enforcement, which we all know is absolutely critical with respect to the success of our immigration system. This is an area where the underlying bill doesn't do enough.

An excellent amendment we haven't had an opportunity to debate and vote on is Sessions amendment No. 1334. That amendment would give a number of tools to State and local governments to enforce the immigration laws, including giving States and localities the ability to enact their own immigration laws, withholding specific grants from sanctuary cities that defy Federal immigration enforcement efforts, facilitating and expediting the removal of criminal aliens, improving the visa issuance process, and, lastly, assisting U.S. Immigration and Customs and Enforcement officers in carrying out their jobs.

Another amendment is Wicker amendment No. 1462, which would require information sharing between Federal and non-Federal agencies regarding removal of aliens, which would allow for quick enforcement against individuals who violate immigration laws. The Wicker amendment would also withhold certain Federal funding from States and local governments that prohibit their law enforcement officers from assisting or cooperating with Federal immigration law enforcement.

Some of the amendments that we haven't considered would ensure that our criminal laws are not weakened by the bill. I have an amendment, No. 1299, that would address some of the provisions in the underlying bill that severely weaken our current criminal laws.

Isn't that funny. We want to have a better immigration bill, and we are going to weaken certain laws that are already on the books?

Specifically, my amendment No. 1299 would address language in the bill that creates a convoluted and ineffective process for determining whether a foreign national in a street gang should be deemed inadmissible or be deported. I offered a similar amendment in committee where even two Members of the Gang of 8 supported it. My amendment would have closed a dangerous loophole created by the bill that will allow criminal gang members to gain a path to citizenship.

Specifically, in order to deny entry and remove a gang member, section 3701 of the bill requires that the Department of Homeland Security prove a foreign national, No. 1, has a prior Federal felony conviction for drug trafficking or a violent crime; No. 2, has knowledge that the gang is continuing to commit crimes; and, No. 3, has acted in furtherance of gang activity.

Even if all of these provisions could be proven, under the bill the Secretary can still issue a waiver. As such, the proposed process is limited only to criminal gang members with prior Federal drug trafficking and Federal violent crime convictions and does not include State convictions such as rape and murder.

The trick is while the bill wants you to believe that this is a strong provision, foreign nationals who have Federal felony drug trafficking or violent crime convictions are already subject to deportation if they are already here and denied entry as being inadmissible.

The gang provisions, as written in the bill, add nothing to current law and will not be used. It is, at best, a feel-good measure to say we are being tough on criminal gangs while really doing nothing to remove or deny entry to criminal gang members.

It is easier to prove that someone is a convicted drug trafficker than both a drug trafficker and a gang member. As currently written, why would this provision ever be used and, simply put, it wouldn't be used.

My amendment, No. 1299, would strike this do-nothing provision and issue a new, clear, simple standard to address the problem of gang members. It would strike this do-nothing provision and include a process to address criminal gang members where the Secretary of Homeland Security must prove, No. 1, criminal street gang membership; and, No. 2, that the person is a danger to the community.

Once the Secretary proves these two things, the burden shifts to foreign nationals to prove that either he is not dangerous, not in a street gang, or he did not know the group was a street gang. It is straightforward and it will help remove dangerous criminal gang members.

My amendment also eliminates the possibility of a waiver. Amendment No. 1299 should have a vote to make sure the bill doesn't weaken our current law.

There are a number of other amendments that we would like to see considered that would help ensure that individuals comply with the immigration law requirements and ensure that the RPI process does not allow individuals to game the system.

For example, Rubio amendment No. 1225 would require RPI immigrants 16 years old or older to read, write, and speak English.

Fischer amendment No. 1348 would also insert an English-language requirement as a prerequisite to RPI status.

Cruz amendment No. 1295 would require States to require proof of citizenship for registration to vote in Federal elections.

Hatch amendment No. 1536 would ensure that undocumented immigrants

actually pay their back taxes before gaining legalization.

Another amendment, Toomey amendment No. 1440, would increase the number of W nonimmigrant visas available during each fiscal year and would help improve the visa system.

Other amendments that we should debate and vote on would strengthen our immigration system by making sure that we don't allow criminal immigrants to stay in our country and be put on a path to American citizenship.

For example, Vitter amendment No. 1330 would make sure that undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of crimes of domestic violence, child abuse, and child neglect would be inadmissible.

Inhofe amendment No. 1203, entitled ``Keep Our Communities Safe Act,'' would allow the Department of Homeland Security or a subsidiary agency to keep dangerous individuals in detention until a final order of removal of that individual from the United States.

Cornyn amendment No. 1470 would make sure undocumented immigrants who have committed an offense of domestic violence, child abuse, child neglect, or assault resulting in bodily injury, violated a protective order or committed a drunk-driving violation, would be ineligible for legalization.

Portman amendment No. 1389 would limit the discretion of immigration judges and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the removal, deportation, and inadmissibility of undocumented individuals who have committed crimes involving child abuse, child neglect, and other crimes of moral turpitude concerning children.

Finally, Portman amendment No. 1390 would ensure that undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of crimes of domestic violence, stalking, and child abuse would be inadmissible.

I have gone through a whole bunch of amendments. These are all extremely important amendments that would ensure that the worst kinds of criminal immigrants do not gain a path to citizenship.

I urge the majority to allow us to consider these and other amendments that we would like to offer to improve the bill, instead of cutting us off and shutting off full and open debate of this very important issue--something that we were told from day one, that we would have an open and fair process.

What we are doing, voting this amendment to the House of Representatives on Thursday and Friday, ends up not being a fair and open process.

I yield the floor.

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

I know that when I come to the floor and remind my colleagues about my involvement in the 1986 immigration bill, it sounds like a broken record. I said early on this year that I wanted to educate my colleagues about the mistakes we made in 1986 so those mistakes were not repeated in the first immigration bill to pass the

Senate since 1986. Because I was here in 1986, I thought I could share the experience we had. I know firsthand that we screwed up in that 1986 legislation. I was certain other Members in this body could learn from our mistakes.

However, today we are right back to the same place, talking about the same problems, proposing the same solutions.

In 1981, as a freshman Member of the Senate, I joined the Judiciary Committee and was very active in the subcommittee process. We sat down and wrote the legislation. We had 100 hours of hearings and 300 witnesses before we marked up that bill in May of 1982. Hundreds more hours and a dozen more hearings would take place before the bill actually became law in 1986. This year we had 6 days of hearings. We spent 18 hours and 10 minutes listening to outside witnesses.

The Judiciary Committee received the bipartisan bill at 2:24 a.m. April 17. We held hearings April 19, 22, and 23. We heard from 26 witnesses in those 3 days. We heard from the head of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency union. We heard from economists and employers, law enforcement and lawyers, professors and advocacy groups. We even heard from people who are undocumented, proving that only in America would we allow somebody who has violated our laws, is not right with the laws, to be heard by the American people.

One of the witnesses on April 23 was Secretary Napolitano. We attempted to learn about how the bill would affect the functions of the executive branch--after all, that is where it is going to be carried out--and whether she saw some flaws, the same flaws many of us were finding in the legislation.

We asked follow-up questions of the Secretary that were thoughtful and focused on the mechanics of the legislation. We wanted to know the Secretary's thoughts since she would be implementing the legislation. Unfortunately, we still have not received responses to questions we raised. Today it has been 2 months since the Secretary has failed to answer our questions--in a sense, ignoring us. She has refused to cooperate. She has refused to tell us how the bill would be implemented by her department. Is it amazing--at least it is to me--that the majority puts up with this, let alone some of my own Republican colleagues?

After the committee hearings, we started the markup process on May 9. We held five all-day sessions where Members were able to raise questions, voice concerns, and offer amendments. Commonsense amendments offering real solutions were repeatedly rejected. Those that were accepted made some necessary improvements. But the core provisions of the bill have remained the same yet to this very day.

I respect the process we had in committee. It was open, fair, and transparent, even though the end result was almost determined. We had a good discussion and debate on how to improve the bill. It was a productive conversation focused on getting immigration reform right for the long term, not to make the same mistakes we did in 1986. Yet I was disappointed that alliances were made that actually ensured nothing passed in that committee process that would make substantial changes and improvements to the bill. Those alliances remain in effect when we are out here on the floor of the Senate.

As of this morning, 349 amendments have been filed to the underlying bill. We started off the debate on the Senate floor with my amendment that would require the border to be effectively controlled for 6 months before the Secretary could process applications for registered provisional immigrant status, RPI, or another way of saying it: legalizing those who crossed the border without papers. That is pretty darn important because we have been told since this bill was put to the public by the Gang of 8 that we were going to secure the border. Well, we are going to secure the border after legalization because a plan put before Congress is not securing the border. Securing the border is only if that plan actually secures the border. But legalization is going to take place before the plan is put into effect. That is what I consider a major shortcoming of this legislation because it makes the same mistakes we did in 1986. We thought we secured the border. We did not secure the border, but we legalized.

My amendment was surely feared by the other side because it would fundamentally change the bill. It would not fundamentally change what the authors of the bill said they were going to do--secure the border and then legalize--but it changed what was actually in the language of the bill. So in order to keep my amendment from being adopted, they insisted on a 60-vote threshold for the amendment to pass, which I refused. So in response they moved to table my amendment.

We were promised an open and fair process. Why wasn't that promise kept? We learned on day one that all the talking about making the bill better was just hogwash. It was a phony and empty promise. They would take to the floor and they would say they were ready to move and vote on amendments. Boy, that sounds very fair and open, doesn't it? Yet, in reality, they were afraid of all of the amendments that could be offered. They refused to let Members offer any amendment of their own choosing. They wanted to pick which amendments would be considered on the floor of the Senate. Does that sound fair and open? Well, it obviously does not. They wanted to decide who, what, when, and how it would be disposed of. That is not right.

What is even more disturbing is the fact that the alliances made thwarted the ability of the minority to have any say whatsoever. Republicans were obstructed even by Members of our own party. They voted to table amendments, and they refused an open amendment process. One Republican 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 this kind of open debate is

critical in helping the American people understand what's

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

our future.

That was never carried out here on the floor of the Senate.

The same Senator also wrote Chairman Leahy on March 30, saying:

I write 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

full and careful consideration of legislative language and an

open process of amendments.

That was a letter to Senator Leahy on March 30. It was well-intended, but I don't see a defense of that position out here on floor of the Senate as we are steamrolled.

In a letter to me on April 5, the 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.

As we are being steamrolled with just a few amendments being considered, we can see that may have been well-intended, but it is not carried out.

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 the people who don't agree can

offer their amendments.

Well-intended. The Gang of 8 called for a robust floor debate. They said they supported regular order. I asked them do they think that having only considered nine amendments equates to a robust and open process.

I will yield for a question. I may not answer it, but I will yield.

The Senator is correct.

We only had nine amendments. Is that a robust and open process? Do they think the majority has allowed regular order? From my point of view, the answer is a clear and resounding no.

We are at a point where the process has been halted. It is unclear if any more amendments will be debated and

voted on. The only amendment that is in order is the one that was concocted behind closed doors and is loaded full of provisions that are shockingly close to what can be called earmarks.

We are back where we started--with a gang of Members promising that their legislative text is the best thing to happen to immigration reform, that their solution is the end of future illegal immigration. Does anyone really think this will solve the problem once and for all? From my point of view, based upon my experience in 1986 and since, the answer is a clear and resounding no.

There are fundamental flaws in this amendment we call the Schumer- Corker-Hoeven amendment--legalization first. I am going to take the opportunity to walk through some changes.

The authors claim the amendment is a border ``surge'' that leaves no more doubt about whether the border will be secure. Yet 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 for the performing arts. This isn't just a border amendment; there are provisions in the bill to attract other Senators to support its passage. I will dive into those provisions in detail in a moment, but first I wish to focus on border measures.

The sponsors of this bill want you to believe it is different from the 1986 legislation. They say it will be a tough and expensive road and it would be easier for individuals to go home than to go through the process. What the sponsors don't like to admit is that the bill is legalization first, enforcement later--and I have to add, enforcement later, if ever.

Take, for example, the fact that one of the sponsors who went on Spanish television tried to apologize for speaking the truth. He said:

Let's be clear, nobody is talking about preventing the

legalization. The legalization is going to happen. That means

the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then

come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the

process of permanent residence.

He spoke the truth.

The fundamental flaw underlying the bill has not changed with this amendment. Let's be clear. No one is preventing the legalization. It is going to happen, as opposed to the promise when this bill was put forward that the bill was going to secure the border first.

There is a lot of money in this bill, there is a lot of micromanaging in this amendment, and there are more waivers. Remember, this is already on top of--I think one Member counted 222 waivers for the Secretary. We write a piece of legislation. We are supposed to legislate. We legislate and then say to the Secretary: Well, you can ignore what we legislate in certain conditions.

We ought to be making broad policy here and not delegating to the administration the way that we too often do--not just in this legislation but, as a matter of fact, on most everything.

What the amendment does is require more boots on the ground. It increases the presence of Border Patrol even though the Members of the Gang of 8 had long opposed that idea. They said it was unnecessary and costly. But let's be honest with the American people. The amendment may call for more Border Patrol agents, but it doesn't require it until the undocumented population, who are now called RPIs, apply for adjustment of status or a green card. It is legalization first, border security long down the road.

I am all for putting more agents on the border, but why wait? Why allow legalization now and simply promise more agents in the future? Even then, who really believes that the Secretary, like the one we have today, will actually enforce the law?

Then there is the fencing. One of the conditions that must be met before the Secretary can produce green cards for people here illegally is that 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; the amendment states that a second layer is to be built only if the ``Secretary deems necessary or appropriate.'' Can the authors of this amendment say that is a promise to the American people to build a fence if somehow the Secretary is given the authority of whether it is necessary or appropriate? Additionally, the underlying bill still specifically states that nothing in this provision shall be interpreted to require her to install fencing.

The amendment also requires that an electronic entry-exit system is in use at all international air and sea ports but only ``where U.S. Customs and Border Protection are currently deployed.'' This is actually weaker than the bill that came before the Senate a few weeks ago. That bill required that an electronic entry-exit system be in use at air and sea ports, not just internationally. It is still weaker than current law, which requires biometric entry and exit at all ports of entry, including air, sea, and land. That current law has been on the books for a long period of time--not carried out by both Republican and Democratic administrations. So what certainty do we have that this is going to be carried out?

The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment border proposal adds technology in addition to manpower at the southern border. It authorizes the Secretary to purchase and deploy certain border technology. I will give some examples that are included in this amendment.

In Arizona, the Secretary is allowed to deploy 50 fixed towers, 73 fixed camera systems, 28 mobile surveillance systems, 685 unattended ground sensors, and 22 hand-held equipment devices, including night vision goggles.

In San Diego, the Secretary is allowed to deploy the same type of equipment but of different quantities. They also will deploy nonintrusive inspective systems, a radiation portal monitor, and a littoral detection and classification network.

In El Centro, CA, the Secretary is allowed to deploy the same equipment, but the list also includes two sensor repeaters and two communications repeaters.

They will also get 5 fiber optic tank inspection scopes, a license plate reader, a backscatter, 2 portable contraband detectors, 2 radiation isotope identification devices, 8 radiation isotope identification devices updates, 3 personal radiation detectors, and 16 mobile automated targeting systems.

That is not all. The list goes on. It includes certain helicopters and aircraft upgrades. It includes 10 Black Hawk helicopters and 30 marine vessels.

I would like to know what some of these items are. Who provided the amendment sponsors with this list? We had a hearing in January, and not once did the list appear. Secretary Napolitano did not provide the committee with any list. Did Sikorsky, Cessna, and Northrop Grumman send a wish list to certain Members of the Senate?

While the Senate micromanages what technology is to be purchased and deployed, we should take note that the bill allows the Secretary to ``reallocate'' the personnel, infrastructure, and technologies laid out. It is pretty simple: A Secretary who says the border is secure right now can change all of this stuff specifically mentioned in this amendment.

Let's also not forget about the litigation exception. The triggers or conditions may never have to be met. Green cards can be issued if the Supreme Court grants review of litigation on the constitutionality of the implementation of the conditions. Under the bill, if any court in this country issues a stay on implementing one of the conditions, then green cards are to be issued after 10 years. The bill does not specify what sort of ruling must prevent implementation or even that the ruling be on the merits, nor does the bill require that appeals run their course, even if the appeal upholds the conditions.

We still maintain this toothless commission called the southern border security commission, but it retools it a little bit. It still does not give it any teeth whatsoever. The amendment requires the creation of the commission 1 year after the enactment, which is probably better than the 5 years that is in the bill. They would also be required to hold public hearings once a year. Under the original version of the bill, the commission would be in existence until they submitted a plan. Under this amendment, the commission will live for 10 years. Yet, the recommendations they provide still do not hold any

weight. They can be ignored. They are nonbinding.

There is a lot of spending in this amendment as well. In addition to micromanaging resources in each sector, the amendment increases taxpayer spending by $40 billion over the introduced version of the bill before this amendment was added to it. Originally, the legislation called for spending $100 million for startup costs and $6.5 billion for the Secretary to carry out the law. When we got to committee, there was a technical amendment that increased that startup cost from $100 million to $1 billion. During markup, Senator Schumer and his allies increased the trust fund allocation from $6.5 billion to $8.3 billion. The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment increases the trust fund to $46.3 billion. Now, think, going from $8.3 billion to $46.3 billion. Add the $3 billion for the Secretary to have startup costs, and we are at $50 billion. That is over a 500-percent increase in spending. You know, a billion here and a billion there, and it soon adds up to real money.

Note that this isn't shifting money from the trust fund, such as the Cornyn amendment would have done. And that amendment was defeated on the floor of the Senate. Instead, it is just plain old brand new spending. The sponsors found a money tree to pay for the wish list provided by Secretary Napolitano and the aerospace industry.

Based on reports of how this deal was struck, we have a pretty good idea of why spending has increased. According to a Politico article from last week, negotiations for this deal were at a standstill until the Congressional Budget Office's score was released. The CBO's score stated if the bill becomes law it would cut the deficit by almost $1 trillion over the next 20 years.

Thus, with this estimate in hand, the Politico report tells us how the negotiators were able to find a solution: ``Throw money at it.'' According to the article, it was suggested Senators could funnel some of the savings into border security, and that is what has been done. Again, as is often the case in Washington, the solution always seems to be just throw more money at the problem. But the money has to come from somewhere.

Furthermore, paying for the agents requires raiding the Social Security trust fund. Indeed, the bill sets aside $30 billion to pay for Border Patrol agents. But when asked on the floor how the Gang of 8 found the money, Senator Hoeven said he and Senator Corker were able to add the $30 billion in spending because the CBO projects that S. 744 will bring in more revenue than it requires in expenditures. Upon closer examination, it is clear the projected revenue under CBO analysis is due to an increase in Social Security and Medicare taxes.

This money must be set aside if Social Security and Medicare are to remain solvent. Thus, taking that tax revenue and using it for the fence means raiding the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. You know how the Medicare trust fund was raided for health care reform? Sounds like the same thing is happening here.

On the date of enactment, the Treasury will transfer $46.3 billion to the trust fund. The sponsors claim the Treasury will be repaid. But when will the funds be paid back to the Treasury? When will the American people be reimbursed? The sponsors of the bill are saying taxpayers would not bear the burden. Yet there is no requirement the funds be paid back. There is no time limit or accountability to ensure they are repaid.

The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment increases fees on the visas for legal immigrants in order to replenish the trust fund and the Treasury. It happens that employers, students, and tourists will pay the price. The bill allows the Secretary to increase those fees, so employers who bring in high-skilled workers will bear the burden. Students and tourists who come in the legal way will bear the burden.

But guess what. The amendment goes on to say the fees for those who cross the border in violation of our laws cannot be charged more than what is allowed. The Secretary cannot adjust fees and penalties on those who apply for or renew RPI status or even blue card status.

There is no interior enforcement in here, and there is a real problem when we don't have more interior enforcement than is here because we will have more people coming here who are undocumented. The amendment in the underlying bill will not end undocumented immigration. The Congressional Budget Office reports that illegal immigration will only be reduced by 25 percent due to the increased number 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 undocumented immigrants. Just like with the 1986 legislation, we will be back in the same position in 10 years facing the same problems.

The amendment, for instance, in section 1201, attempts to address people who overstay their visas. It says the Secretary shall, one, initiate removal proceedings; two, confirm that immigration relief or protection has been granted or is pending; or, three, otherwise close 90 percent of the cases of nonimmigrants who were admitted and extended their authorized period of admission by more than 180 days.

So while it appears to be tough on overstays, it only affects people who overstay their visa by 180 days or 6 months. It also allows the Secretary to close the cases.

What does it mean for the Secretary to close these cases? Under current law, an immigration judge has the power to administratively close a case. It is used to temporarily remove a case from the calendar. Sometimes a judge waits for further action to be taken. An administrative closure is not a final order. Closure does not mean termination. It does not mean deportation. So I think it is unclear what this language does and who it is applying to.

Moreover, it is unclear how the Secretary would know who has overstayed if no exit data or tracking system exists. Also, why doesn't the amendment require the Secretary to deal with 100 percent of the people who overstay their period of authorization? Given there are no ramifications for the Secretary if she does not capture 90 percent of visa overstays, this, again, is another law that will not be followed.

It does nothing to end this administration's anti-enforcement policies but, instead, gives the Secretary of Homeland Security vast discretion to ignore serious criminal convictions of immigration violators, including gang-related crime, domestic violence, drunk driving, and child abuse.

The bill would not only create an immediate legalization program for those here illegally today but also a permanent legalization program for future undocumented immigrants. The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment includes a provision that would make individuals admissible despite the 3- and 10-year bars.

I would like to know more about the rationale from the sponsors as to why this language was included. There is no doubt this amendment was crafted in the back rooms on Capitol Hill, and it is no secret some Members were able to insert provisions in the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment while the rest of us attempted to work out an agreement on pending and filed amendments.

While some of us were trying to legislate and bring up amendments for votes on the floor, others were taking advantage of the pay-to-play game. Clearly, some of the amendments filed were included. Let me share some examples.

No. 1, the amendment now authorizes funds for an educational campaign to help deter illegal crossings into Mexico from the South. This amendment would put American taxpayer money toward training for law enforcement officials in Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, and other countries. It would allow for taxpayer expenditures to educate nationals of other countries ``about the perils of the journey to the United States.''

This amendment should have been considered under regular order.

No. 2, the amendment now includes a provision that would require Customs and Border Protection officials to reduce airport wait times.

This amendment which was filed should have been considered under regular order.

No. 3, the amendment now makes it harder for Border Patrol agents to enforce U.S. immigration law along the

northern border by limiting the mileage or distance agents can search vehicles or other forms of transportation.

This amendment which was filed should have been considered under regular order.

No. 4, the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment includes amendment No. 1283 that creates a ``Youth Jobs Fund'' using $1.5 billion from the U.S. Treasury to be repaid through fees. The goal of the fund is to ``provide summer and year-round employment opportunities to low-income youth.''

This amendment should have been considered under regular order.

No. 5, the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment includes amendment No. 1493, which designates zones 1, 2, and 3 occupations involving seafood processing in Alaska as shortage occupations. It also includes amendment No. 1329, which extends the J visa Summer Work Travel Program to seafood processing positions only in Alaska.

These amendments should have been considered under regular order.

No. 6, the amendment now includes amendment No. 1183, which was actually pending before the Senate. It would allow for fee waivers on certain visa holders, namely O and P nonimmigrants, who come to the United States to work in Hollywood or play professional sports.

We could have voted on this and had regular order on that amendment.

Well, there are a lot more amendments I could go through, but I will just suggest some clarifying amendments. And there probably should have been more clarifying amendments.

The amendment by Schumer, Hoeven, and Corker also includes so-called ``technical fixes.'' One fix is related to the H-1B visa cap. The sponsors of the bill, and those who worked behind closed doors to devise an H-1B visa package, stated the annual cap would not exceed 180,000. Yet the language didn't do what they said it did. As written, it provided 20,000 more than they claimed. So this amendment includes a clarification to say the cap shall not exceed 180,000.

The second clarifying change in the amendment is related to visas for countries that have entered into free-trade agreements with the United States. During committee consideration, the Senator from New York added an amendment that would provide 10,500 visas for countries in the African Growth and Opportunity Act and the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act. The change in this amendment clarifies that only a total of 10,500 may go to those countries rather than to each country that is described under the act. Still, it is not 100 percent clear the clarification achieves the goal.

So it is legitimate with these clarifications and fixes, but how many more clarifying amendments are necessary? These two provisions were included because my staff caught them and brought them to the sponsors' attention. But how many more provisions are not written properly that we do not know about?

At the end of the day the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment doesn't do what the sponsors say it will. As we have seen all along, we are being promised one thing and sold another.

I am frustrated with how the majority has processed this bill. We should have had 3 genuine weeks on this bill processing amendments and having votes. Yet we are forced to vote on packages that were concocted behind closed doors. We were given 72 hours to read the legislative text. That may be plenty of time to read it, but it is not plenty of time to actually study it and know what is in it. Even then, the American people would have had a difficult time getting their hands on the bill over the weekend or understanding its true ramifications.

It is quite obvious I am going to vote against this 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.