Floor Statements

I listened to my colleague from Wyoming. He states it very well. I have come to the floor for roughly the same reason, but I don't know how many times you have to say it, because I think basically what the Senator from Wyoming was saying, and what I want to say is it is very difficult to reach agreements in the Senate. But when you reach an agreement, particularly only if it involves two Senators but particularly if they are leaders of the Senate, a person's word is his bond. That bond ought to be kept--as far as I know, always kept. At least that has been my relationship with fellow Senators. You say you are going to do

something and you continue that until it is successful. So here we are, no Senator has not kept their word yet, but we hear this threat. So I come to the floor to give my comments on it.

At the beginning of this Congress, the majority and minority leaders reached an agreement as to how to proceed with rules changes. An agreement was reached. We agreed to two rule changes: One change to the standing rules and one to the standing order. Senate Republicans gave up certain rights and protections in those rules changes. That was the first part of the agreement. In exchange for these rules changes, the majority leader gave his word to Republican Senators he would not utilize what is called around here and around this town the ``nuclear option'' and not use it during this Congress.

Let me review the exact wording of that agreement as it is recorded for history in the Congressional Record. This year, on January 24, 2013, the following exchange took place in the Senate. Senator McConnell stated:

Finally, I would confirm with the majority leader that the

Senate would not consider other resolutions relating to any

standing order or rules in this Congress unless they went

through the regular order process?

The majority leader replied:

This is correct. Any other resolution related to Senate

procedure would be subject to a regular order process,

including consideration by the rules committee.

In fact, the majority leader gave his word at the beginning of the last Congress as well. He stated:

The minority leader and I have discussed this issue on

numerous occasions. I know that there is a strong interest in

rules changes among many in my caucus. In fact, I would

support many of these changes through regular order. But I

agree that the proper way to change Senate rules is through

the procedures established in those rules and I will oppose

any effort in this Congress or the next to change the Senate

rules other than through regular order.

Let me just say when a Senator reaches an agreement and gives his word that he will stick to that agreement, that should mean something around here. As far as I am concerned, it means something all the time. I don't think I have been subject to entering an agreement with a colleague that hasn't been kept.

Let me emphasize something further. There was no contingency on that agreement. Republicans agreed to a change in the rules, and the majority leader gave his word he would not invoke the so-called nuclear option. That was the extent of the agreement, period. I trust the majority leader will keep his word and his commitment. If he pulls back on that commitment, it will irreparably damage the Senate.

Moreover, the notion there is now a crisis that demands another rules change is completely manufactured. The minority leader has spoken about the culture of intimidation. I am troubled it is finding its way into the Senate. For the record, in regard to why there is some talk around this institution of changing the rules--something to do with nominations and particularly judicial nominations not moving fast enough--I am in the middle of that as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. So far this year, we have confirmed 22 lower court nominees, with two more scheduled for this week. That is more than double the number of judges who were confirmed at this point during the previous President's second term--President Bush.

With the nominations this week, we have confirmed 195 of President Obama's nominees as lower court judges. We have defeated only two. That is a batting average of 99-plus percent. I don't know how much better we can get unless it is expected the Senate will not raise any questions about anybody appointed by any President to the judgeships of our country.

The claim we are obstructing nominees is plainly without foundation. I have cooperated with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee in moving forward on consensus nominees, and on the Senate floor there has been a consistent and steady progress on judicial nominations. Yet it seems as if the majority is intent on creating a false crisis in order to effect changes in longstanding Senate practices. They are now even threatening--can you believe this--to break the rules to change the rules. Again, I hope the majority leader keeps his word. We have certainly upheld our end of the bargain.

May I inquire of the Chair how many minutes are remaining for the minority in morning business?

Fifteen minutes more?

In regard to this whole issue about the Senate as an institution and where I said if this nuclear option holds it is going to destroy the Senate, I think it is very appropriate for us to remember the Senate is the only institution in our political branch of government where minority views are protected. In the House of Representatives, whether it is a Republican majority or a Democratic majority, as long as they stick together, they can do anything they want to and they can ignore the minority. But in the Senate, where it takes a supermajority of 60 to get something done, whether there is a Republican or Democratic minority, that minority is protected.

Today, where we have 54 Democrats and 46 Republicans, nothing is going to get done unless it is done in a bipartisan consensus way, and that is why it is so very important we do not destroy that aspect of the uniqueness of the Senate.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I want to visit with my colleagues about border security. It refers to an amendment that I have pending to enhance the bill's provisions on border security. I would like to take a few minutes to discuss why I think my amendment is a good first step to restore the faith of the American people in government. That faith has to be restored on the issue of immigration because we promised so much in the 1986 bill on border security and stopping undocumented workers from coming to this country, so, consequently, for the institution of Congress and the executive branch both, because we are not enforcing existing law, the credibility on immigration is at stake. On this issue the American people have lost faith that, at least from the immigration point of view, we are really a nation based on the rule of law.

It is no secret that we in Washington, particularly in the congressional branch, have low approval ratings. A lot of people, especially in recent weeks, wonder about the trust of government--you know, Benghazi, IRS, AP investigations. They have also lost confidence, then, in the leaders. They question our ability to protect their privacy. They question our capacity to protect their security.

This is especially true when we talk about border security with average Americans. They do not think we are doing enough. They say we do not need to pass another law. They just do not understand why we cannot stop the flow and simply enforce the laws on the books. To them it is that simple.

It comes up in my town meetings in Iowa, but the bill before us complicates things. It takes a step backwards on an issue about which Americans care deeply. It says we will legalize millions now--that means millions of undocumented workers--and we will worry about border security down the road, in 5 or 10 years.

The authors of this document before us, the Group of 8, say they are open to improving the bill. My amendment now before the Senate does just that. My amendment improves the trigger that jump-starts the legalization program. It ensures that the border is secure before one person gets legal status under this act.

The American people have shown they are very compassionate, not just willing to deal with this issue of 12 million undocumented workers here but in a lot of other ways so numerous and well-known we do not even need to mention them. Many can come to terms with a legalization program.

But many would say that a legalization program should be tied to border security or enforcement. That is what is very simple for the American people: secure the borders. Let me give some examples.

Bloomberg recently released a poll in which they asked the following question:

Congress is debating changing immigration laws. Do you

support or oppose a revision of immigration policy that would

provide a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented

immigrants in the United States?

Madam President, 46 percent said they would support it.

The poll then went on to ask the same respondents about elements in the immigration bill, and 85 percent said they favored ``strengthening border security and creating a system to track foreigners entering and leaving the country.'' So we have 46 percent saying they support immigration, but 85 percent of the same group say it is very necessary to strengthen border security.

In Iowa, a poll by the Des Moines Register found that 58 percent of the respondents were OK with a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants after--and I emphasize the word ``after''--the border is secure. Almost every poll shows the same results.

Sure, people would consider a legalization program, but it is almost always tied to the condition of border security. The American people do not think we are doing enough to secure the border. In a poll conducted by Anderson Robbins Research and Shaw & Company, 60 percent of those polled said the current level of security at the country's border is not strict enough. Also, 69 percent of the respondents said they favor requiring completion of a new border security measure first before making other changes in immigration policies.

Unfortunately, too many people have been led to believe this bill will force the Secretary of Homeland Security to secure the border. In fact, it does not guarantee that before legalization. That is why we need to pass my amendment on file now. It is a good first step to ensuring that we stop the flow of undocumented workers coming to this country. We need to prove to the American people that we can do our job. We need to show them we are committed to security.

Bottom line: Nobody says the existing immigration system is as it should be. People support reform, but they support reform if we have border security first.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suppose when some of us raise a lot of questions about this legislation and point out shortcomings in it that some question our sincerity. When we say we need a piece of legislation, we might be questioned by a lot of people who are listening. That may also sound like we question the sincerity of the Group of 8 when we raise questions about this bill that they worked hard to put together. I don't question their sincerity, and I do believe that legislation must pass the Senate.

There are those of us who have said for such a long time that the system we have is not satisfactory, we cannot maintain the status quo, and we have to be working for a product. All of us in the Senate are working toward a product. There is a difference of what that product should be in the final analysis.

I continue to come to the floor to raise some questions about, not the intent of the authors, but what I think is the practical effect of the legislation by these authors. I come to the floor today to respond to what my friend, the senior Senator from Arizona, said earlier today on this legislation. He is one of those hard-working Senators who have worked hard, hours I am sure I cannot comprehend, to put together this piece of legislation.

Today that Senator argued that poll after poll shows Americans support a legalization process if--and that is a very important ``if''--people pay back taxes, pay a fine, and get at the end of the line, and if we secure the border. I pointed out before that the problem with the legislation before us, as well intended, is that people do not really have to pay back taxes, or a fine, or go to the end of the line, and secure the border. So these polls are being misused if the practical effect of the language in the bill makes it possible that those things may never happen, even though it is well intended that they ought to happen. Nobody disagrees they ought to happen.

I will probably be somewhat repetitive, but I want to remind my colleagues, as I take a few minutes to discuss this, how the authors have tried to sell this particular immigration bill and what I see as false advertising. You see, the American people are being sold a product. In fact that is what politics is, it is a sale of ideas. A political party does not have any reason to exist if it does not have good ideas. Then the idea is to get in a position to put those ideas into effect.

This product is being sold, and I wish it comes out the way they say it does, but I have some questions about that. The American people are being asked to accept a legalization program. In exchange, they would be assured that the laws were going to be enforced. Normally, consumers are able to read the labels of things they are about to purchase. They have to read 1,175 pages to really know what is truly in this bill. Even a quick read of the bill would have many shaking their heads in confusion.

This bill is full of delegations of authority to the Secretary, possibilities for waivers, things of that nature--that really would be well down the road after the President signs legislation that you are really going to know how it is being carried out.

We have all heard the phrase ``the devil is in the details.'' At first the proposal the bipartisan group put forward

sounded reasonable, but we need to examine the fine print and take a closer look at what the bill really does. As I noted yesterday, I thought the framework held hope, but I realize the assurances the Group of 8 made did not really translate when the language of the bill emerged.

They professed that the border would be secured and that people would ``earn'' their legal status. However, the bill as drafted is legalization first and enforcement later, if at all. So I would like to dive into these details and give a little reality check to those who expect this bill to do exactly what the authors promise.

I have on this chart four points that I would like to make and statements that have been made about this legislation.

No. 1, they say ``people will have to pay a penalty'' to obtain legal status. The reality is the bill lays out the application procedures, and on page 972 a penalty is imposed on those who apply for registered provisional immigration status. Those are the words in the bill for legalization. We refer to that as RPI. It says those who apply must pay $1,000 to the Department of Homeland Security.

What is the certainty of getting that $1,000? For instance, it waives the penalty for anyone under the age of 21. Yet, on the next page, it allows the applicant to pay the penalty in installments. The bill says:

The Secretary shall establish a process for collecting

payments . . . that permit the penalty to be paid in periodic

installments that shall be completed before the alien may be

granted an extension of status.

In effect, this says the applicants have 6 years to pay the penalty. Six years is how long it takes to get RPI status, and at the end of 6 years, they have to extend it.

In addition to the penalty, applicants would pay a processing fee. That level is set by the Secretary. So here we have two instances of excessive delegation of authority to the Secretary. The bill says the Secretary has a discretion to waive the processing fee for any ``classes of individuals'' she chooses and may limit the maximum fee paid by a family.

The bill doesn't require everyone to pay a penalty. It doesn't require anyone to pay it when they apply for legal status. In fact, they may never have to pay a penalty.

No. 2, they say ``people have to pay back taxes.'' Who is going to argue with the fact that people have to pay back taxes to receive legal status? The reality: Members of the Group of 8 stated over and over again their bill would require undocumented individuals to pay back taxes prior to being granted legal status. However, the bill before us fails to make good on that promise. Proponents of the bill point to a provision of the bill that prohibits people from filing for legal status ``unless the applicant has satisfied any applicable federal tax liability.'' Doesn't that sound right? Absolutely it sounds right. As always, the devil is in the details.

There are two important weaknesses with how the bill defines ``applicable federal tax liability.'' The first one is: The bill limits the definition to exclude employment taxes, such as for Social Security and Medicare. For a lot of people, that may be the only taxes they pay, but they don't have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes.

Second, the bill does not require the payment of all back taxes legally owed. What it requires is the payment of taxes previously assessed by the Internal Revenue Service. Well, there are a lot of problems with the IRS assessing somebody for taxes if they have been in the underground, as an example. In order to assess taxes, it is quite obvious the IRS must first have information on which to base its assessment.

Our tax system is largely a voluntary system, relying on everybody to self-report their income on their tax return. But it also relies on certain third-party reporting, such as wage reporting by employers. That is why we get a W-2 form at the end of every year, so we and the IRS know exactly what we owe and what we paid and so they can figure out what more we might owe or how much we might get back.

If someone has been working unlawfully in this country and working off the books, it is likely that neither an individual return nor a third-party return will even exist; thus, no assessment will exist and no taxes will be paid. Similarly, it is very unlikely any assessment will exist for those who have worked under a false Social Security number and have never filed a tax return. A legal obligation exists to pay taxes on all income from whatever source derived, and nothing in this bill provides a requirement or a mechanism to accomplish this prior to granting legal status.

One of the Group of 8 members in January said:

Shouldn't citizens have to pay back taxes? We can trace

their employment back. It doesn't take a genius.

While it may be a well-intended statement, it obviously meets the test of common sense, but I showed how difficult it is to make that happen. The other side of the aisle, for instance, is going to argue that establishing a requirement for back taxes owed rather than taxes assessed is unworkable and costly. They will also claim imposing additional tax barriers on this population could prevent undocumented workers and their families from coming forward in the first place.

But the sales pitch has been clear: To get legal status, one has to pay their back taxes. So let me provide a reality check. This bill doesn't make good on the promises made.

Let's go to the third item on the chart. ``People will have to learn English.'' The reality: The bill, as drafted, is supposed to ensure that new Americans speak a common language. Learning English is a way for new residents to assimilate. This is an issue that is very important to Americans. Immigrants before us made a concerted effort to learn English. The proponents are claiming their bill fulfills this wish.

However, the bill does not require people here unlawfully to learn English before receiving legal status or even a green card. Under section 2101, a person with RPI status who applies for a green card only has to pursue a course of study to achieve an understanding of English and knowledge and understanding of civics.

If the people who gain legal status ever apply for citizenship--and some doubt this will happen to a majority of the undocumented population--they would also have to pass an English proficiency exam, as required under current law. So, yes, after 13 years, one would have to pass an exam, but the bill does very little to ensure that those who come out of the shadows will cherish or use the English language. The reality is English is not as much of a priority for the proponents of this bill as they claim it is.

The fourth thing on the chart: They say ``people won't get public benefits'' if they choose to apply for legal status.

The reality: Americans are very compassionate and generous people. Many people can understand providing some legal status to people here illegally, but one major sticking point for those who question the legalization program is the fact that lawbreakers could become eligible for public benefits and taxpayer subsidies.

The authors of the bill understood this. In an attempt to show that those who receive RPI status would not receive taxpayer benefits, they included a provision that prohibited the population from receiving certain benefits. There are two major problems with this point in the bill.

First, those who receive RPI status will be immediately eligible for State and local welfare benefits. For instance, many States offer cash, medical, and food assistance through State-only programs to ``lawfully present'' individuals.

Second, the bill contains a welfare waiver loophole that could allow those with RPI status to receive Federal welfare dollars. The Obama administration has pushed the envelope by waiving the welfare laws. If this loophole is not closed, they could waive existing law and allow funds provided under the welfare block grant known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to be provided to noncitizens.

Senator Hatch had an amendment during committee markup that would prohibit the U.S. Department of HHS from waiving various requirements and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program. His amendment would also prohibit any Federal agency from waiving restrictions on eligibility of immigrants for future public benefits. But the reality check for the

American people is there are loopholes and the potential for public benefits to go to those who are legalized under the bill.

Again, the devil is in the details, and I hope this reality check will encourage proponents of this bill to fix these problems before the bill is passed by the Senate. The American people deserve truth in advertising.

I want to speak about the provision that deals with the commission. Aside from the claims I just gave on the promises to pay taxes, et cetera, one of the authors of the immigration bill before us stated early on that if the Department of Homeland Security has not reached 100 percent awareness and 90 percent apprehension at the southern border within 5 years, the Secretary would lose control of the responsibility and it will be turned over to the border governors to get the job done.

The fact is the border governors and the commission they serve with are not going to have any power, and that is the point I am going to make. There was a lot of talk about how the Secretary would be pushed to fulfill the congressional mandate to secure the border. I pointed out yesterday how this Secretary said: We don't need to secure the border. It is already secured. But at the end of the day, as far as this bill is concerned, the legislative text doesn't match up with the rhetoric.

The border commission created is not made up primarily of border governors, doesn't have any real power, and the Secretary is not held accountable for not getting the job done. Again, it is false advertising.

The bill states that effective control--and those words ``effective control'' are the legal language in the bill--of the border is the ability to achieve and maintain ``persistent surveillance and an effectiveness rate of 90 percent or higher.'' It defines the effectiveness rate as ``the percentage calculated by dividing the number of apprehensions and turn backs in the sector during a fiscal year by the total number of illegal entries in the sector during such fiscal year.''

First, the bill only states that effective control requires ``persistent surveillance.'' It does not require 100 percent awareness.

Second, there is nothing in the bill that turns over the issue of border security to border governors if the Department here in Washington, DC, is unable to secure the border. The bill provides for a commission to be created if the Secretary of Homeland Security tells Congress she has not achieved effective control in all border sections during any fiscal year within 5 years. The southern border security commission is then created with the primary responsibility to make recommendations to the Secretary. There will be 10 members of the commission. While border States have a seat at the table, only 4 of the 10 members need to be southern border Governors or appointed by them. The members are allowed travel expenses and administrative support. They have to have some knowledge and experience in border security.

The commission is required to submit a report to the President, the Secretary, and the Congress with specific recommendations for achieving and maintaining the border security goals established in the bill. The members have 6 months to come up with a plan to achieve what the Secretary failed to do in 5 years.

The bill does not grant the commission any grand or impressive authorities. The bill simply states that the commission shall make recommendations. Nothing in the bill requires that the recommendations be acted upon or implemented by the administration.

The bill provides $2 billion to the Secretary to carry out the recommendations made by the commission. But, again, there is nothing in this bill requiring the Secretary to take any further action on those recommendations. Why not then give the commission actual authority to enforce border security? Then, if we don't do that, why create the commission at all?

In recent years, we in Congress have become accustomed to outsourcing our work. We have a responsibility to legislate. The executive branch has a responsibility to enact. These are basic tenets of government.

The commission called for in this bill is kind of irrelevant. This administration and any future administration must get the job done, no outsourcing the job to some commission, no excuses. This is so important because we quote these polls, and I refer to the polls the senior Senator from Arizona referenced before he made his remarks. They are all based upon certain propositions. They are well intended, but they do not provide the certainty they are going to be carried out, and legalization is based on that--the same for the polls that say people want the borders secure.

So this commission ought to have some power if the Secretary isn't going to act. But already the Secretary has the responsibility to see that the border is secure. She has testified it is secure, more secure than it has ever been, but I think the facts are that it has not been and we need to do better. For us to sell this bill to the American people, it must be based upon the proposition that the border be secured first and then legalization.

I yield the floor.

I object.

Will the Senator yield?

I ask unanimous consent that the pending Grassley amendment be set aside and the following amendments be in order to be called up: Thune No. 1197, Vitter No. 1228, Landrieu No. 1222, and Tester No. 1198; that the time until 4 p.m. be equally divided between the managers or their designees for debate in relation to the pending Grassley amendment No. 1195 and the pending Leahy amendment No. 1183; further, I ask that at 4 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Grassley amendment; that upon disposition of the Grassley amendment, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Leahy amendment; that there be no second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes; that there be 2 minutes equally divided in between the votes.

Will the Senator yield to me?

Well, it is amazing to me that the majority has touted this immigration bill process as one that is open and regular order. But right out of the box, right now, just on the third day, they want to subject our amendments to a filibuster-like 60-vote threshold. So I have to ask, who is obstructing now?

There is no reason, particularly in this first week at the beginning of the process, to be blocking our amendments with a 60-vote margin as required when you suppose there is a filibuster.

Let's at least start out with regular order; otherwise, it really looks as if the fix is in and the bill is rigged to pass basically as it is.

Bottom line: You should have seen how the 18 members of the Judiciary Committee operated for 5 or 6 days over a 2-week period of time. Everything was open. Everything was transparent. There was complete cooperation between the majority and the minority. There is no reason we cannot do that out here in the Senate right now, particularly at the beginning. This is a very provocative act.

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

Mr. President, I have come to the floor several times to discuss border security. Border security is so essential to people approving the legislation that we pass because most every poll shows when people want an immigration bill, it is premised on the assumption that we are going to have a secured border.

I talked yesterday about my amendment, and that amendment tends to be pending. I tried to improve upon the

Group of 8 legislation on border security. I will take a few minutes right now--not very long--to discuss why I think my amendment is a good first step at restoring the faith of the American people--in this legislation, but in turn in our government.

I would like to mention why it is so important, not just for public confidence--because that is what I have spoken about in the past--but for national security and the defense of the homeland. Being a U.S. Border Patrol agent is a very dangerous job. A former agent said in an interview in the El Paso Times:

I was attacked one time by a group of seven men with rocks

and I was pretty severely injured. Being assaulted is not

really that uncommon. Whether it is rocks being thrown at you

or a hand-to-hand combat situation or being shot at, it is

not particularly uncommon.

We need a bill that will protect our Border Patrol agents who put their lives on the line every day and do their job of patrolling the border. They face threats and violence, and many, such as Brian Terry, have been killed because of gang violence or drug cartels. Not only do our Border Patrol agents face danger, but ranchers face daily encounters of drug smugglers and illegal border crossers.

Robert Krentz from Arizona, a rancher, was killed in 2010. His family expressed frustration with the Federal Government, stating:

The disregard of our repeated pleas and warnings of

impending violence towards our community fell on deaf ears,

shrouded in political correctness. As a result, we have paid

the ultimate price for their negligence in credibly securing

our borderlands.

No one can fault someone for wanting to improve their lot in life. Husbands and wives trek across the border to make a better life for them and for their families. People yearn to be free and to make life full of liberty and happiness. But people who cross the border illegally risk their own lives. They spend days walking through desert. They fall prey to smugglers and become victims of rape and abuse. Securing the border is one of the most humane things we can do to protect the lives of those who will venture into the United States, not caring about our laws but for the sole purpose of improving their lives. That is the goal of America, a better life for all of us who were born here as well as those who immigrate here.

It is dangerous crossing the border illegally for those people. We can give them legal avenues to enter this country to live, work, and raise a family. If we do not deter illegal border crossings, people's lives will remain at risk as they are at this very hour.

Nonetheless, proponents of legalization hold to the belief that the vast majority of people who cross our border are people seeking employment. Most times that is true; however, not everyone who crosses the southern border is a resident of Mexico who seeks to be reunited with family and do the jobs Americans will not do. The number of individuals from noncontiguous countries, otherwise known as ``other than Mexicans,'' should be a concern.

As of April 2, 2013, the ``other than Mexican'' numbers on the southwest border were up 67 percent from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2013. We know some of the ``other than Mexicans'' include terrorists who enter the United States via the southern border. Secretary Napolitano has testified before Congress to that very fact.

We also know a majority of ``other than Mexicans'' fails to appear for their immigration proceedings and simply disappears, lost here in this great country, the United States. Increasing bonds for these nationals would deter absconders, assist ICE and custom border police in covering detention and removal costs or, at a minimum, provide a disincentive to cross. Unfortunately, an amendment during the Judiciary Committee markup to raise the bonds for ``other than Mexicans'' failed.

Many commonsense amendments were defeated during the committee process and many amendments to beef up the border will be considered in the days ahead.

As I have said before, the bill before us only requires the Secretary of Homeland Security submit a plan to Congress before millions of people are legalized. There is little regard for the need to better secure our border. In other words, when a plan is presented, make sure the plan works. Some of them say we have done enough. The Secretary says the border is more secure than ever before. They say border security shouldn't stand in the way of legalization.

My amendment is a good first step to stopping the flow of illegal immigration. It sends a clear signal that we are serious about getting the job done. For the Secretary to simply submit a plan to Congress is only worth the paper upon which it is printed. We need to take action and we need to make it a priority.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about four claims this bill makes, these four claims that are on the chart, to disprove those claims under certain circumstances.

Before I do that, everybody who has spoken so far has said we have to pass a bill. I don't disagree with that but not just any bill. A bill that secures the border is very necessary. The status quo is not justifiable. We have to realize the reality of the fact that we can't gather 11 or 12 million people to deport, and if we did that, we would hurt the economy. That is the reality.

To get around that, we have to get a bill that gets through the Senate, the House of Representatives, and that the President approves.

My main goal throughout these next 2 or 3 weeks is to develop a bill that accomplishes that but to stress that a lot of things that have been said by the authors of this legislation are not accurate. I will take a few minutes to discuss how the authors have tried to sell the immigration bill and what I see as false advertising.

Legislators are in the business of selling ideas. With this bill, the American people are being sold a product. They are being asked to accept legalization and, in exchange, they would be assured through this legislation that the laws are going to be enforced.

Normally consumers are able to read the labels of things they are about to purchase. They would have to read about 1,175 pages of this bill to know what it truly says. Even a quick read of the bill would leave many shaking their heads in confusion.

You have heard the phrase, ``The devil is in the details.'' At first the proposal that the bipartisan group put forward sounded very reasonable, but we need to examine the fine print and take a closer look at what the bill does.

As I noted yesterday, I thought the framework; that is, when they started working on it, held hope. I realized the assurances the Gang of 8 made didn't translate when the bill language emerged.

They professed that the border would be secured and that people would earn their legal status. However, the bill, as drafted, is legalization first, enforcement later, if at all.

I would like to dive into the details and give a little reality check to those who expect this bill to do exactly as the authors promise. What do the proponents of this bill say the legislation will do?

The first thing on my chart is, ``People will have to pay a penalty'' to obtain legal status.

The bill lays out the application procedure. On page 972, a penalty is imposed on those who apply for registered provisional immigration status. It says that those who apply must pay $1,000 to the Department of Homeland Security. It waives the penalty for anyone under 21 years. Yet on the next page it allows the applicant to pay the penalty in installments. The bill says:

The Secretary shall establish a process for collecting

payments . . . that permit the penalty to be paid in periodic

installments that shall be completed before the alien may be

granted an extension of status.

In effect, this says the applicant has 6 years to pay the $1,000. That is how long it takes to get RPI status. In addition to the penalty, applicants would pay a processing fee, a level set by the Secretary.

The bill says the Secretary has the discretion to waive the processing fee for any classes of individuals that she chooses and may limit the maximum fee paid by a family.

The fact is, the bill doesn't actually require everyone to pay a penalty. In view of the waiver, it doesn't require anyone to pay it when they apply for legal status. In fact, they may never have to pay a penalty.

Let's go to No. 2 on the chart. ``People will have to pay back taxes'' to receive legal status. In reality, members of the Gang of 8 stated over and over that their bill would require undocumented individuals to pay back taxes prior to being granted legal status. However, the bill before us fails to make good on the promise. Proponents of the bill point to a provision in the bill that prohibits people from filing for legal status ``unless the applicant has satisfied any applicable Federal tax liability.''

It sounds good, right? As always, the devil is in the details. There are two important weaknesses with how the bill defines ``applicable Federal tax liability.''

First, the bill limits the definition to exclude employer taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes. Think of that exclusion.

Second, the bill does not require the payment of all back taxes legally owed. What it requires is a payment of taxes assessed by the Internal Revenue Service. Think of the IRS assessing. In

order to assess a tax, the IRS first must have information on which to base this assessment. Our tax system is largely a voluntary system on self-reporting. It also relies on certain third-party reporting, such as wages reported by the employer; that is, the W-2 form.

If someone has been working unlawfully in the country and working off the books, it is likely that neither an individual return or third- party return will exist. Thus, no assessment will exist and no taxes will be paid.

Similarly, it is very unlikely that an assessment will exist for those who have worked under false Social Security numbers and never paid a tax. A legal obligation exists to pay taxes on all income from whatever sources derived. Nothing in this bill provides a requirement or a mechanism to accomplish this prior to granting legal status.

One of the gang members in January said this:

Shouldn't citizens pay back taxes? We can trace their

employment back. It doesn't take a genius.

While it may seem common sense, the other side of the aisle is going to argue that establishing the requirement to pay back taxes owed, rather than assessed, is unworkable and costly. They will also claim that imposing additional tax barriers on this population could prevent undocumented workers and their families from coming forward.

The sales pitch has been clear. To get legal status, one has to pay back taxes. Let me provide a reality check. The bill doesn't make good on the promises made.

Third, they say people will have to learn English. In reality, the bill as drafted is supposed to ensure that new Americans speak a common language. Learning English is a way new residents assimilate. This is an issue that is very important. Immigrants before us made a concerted effort to learn English. The proponents are claiming the bill fulfills this wish.

However, the bill does not require people here unlawfully to learn English before receiving legal status or even a green card. Under section 2101, a person with RPI status who applies for a green card only has to pursue a course of study to achieve an understanding of English and knowledge and understanding of civics.

If the people who gain legal access ever apply for citizenship--and some doubt this will happen to a majority of the undocumented population--they would have to pass an English proficiency exam as required under current law. Yes, after 13 years one would have to pass an exam, but the bill does very little to ensure that those who come out of the shadows will cherish or use an English language. The reality is that English isn't as much of a priority for the proponents of the bill as much as they claim it is.

Fourth and last, they say, ``People won't get public benefits'' when they choose to apply for legal status. The reality is Americans are very compassionate and generous. Many people can understand providing some legal status to people here illegally. One major sticking point, for those who question a legalization program, is the fact that lawbreakers could become eligible for public benefits and taxpayer subsidies.

The authors of the bill understood this, thank God. In an attempt to show that those who receive RPI status would not receive taxpayers' benefits, they included a provision that prohibited the population from receiving certain benefits. There are two major problems with the bill on this point.

First, those who receive RPI status will be immediately eligible for State and local welfare benefits. For instance, many States offer cash, medical, and food assistance through State-only programs to lawfully present citizens.

Second, the bill contains a welfare waiver loophole that could allow those with RPI status to receive Federal welfare dollars. The Obama administration has pushed the envelope by waiving welfare laws. If this loophole isn't closed, they could waive existing laws and allow funds provided under the welfare block grant, known as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, to be provided to noncitizens.

Senator Hatch had an amendment during committee markup that would prohibit U.S. Department of HHS from waiving certain requirements of the TANF Program. His amendment would also prohibit any Federal agency from waiving restriction on eligibility of immigrants for public benefits.

The reality check for the American people is that there are loopholes and the potential for public benefits to go to those who are legalized under the bill.

Again, the devil is in the details. I hope this reality check will encourage proponents of the bill to fix these problems before the bill is passed in the Senate.

The American people deserve truth in advertising. We can't maintain the status quo on immigration. A bill should pass, but the bill that passes should actually do what the authors say it will do. I have tried to point out some of the promises that may not be kept.

Authorized waivers in this bill--and I have used that word a few times--delegate to the Secretary to actually take action contrary to what is claimed by the authors and, hence, can undercut the intentions of the authors. We should legislate then and not delegate.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside to call up amendment No. 1195.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment is the first of many that will improve the bill and do what the American people expect us to do.

The American people are being asked to accept a legalization program and, in exchange for that--and that is a very compassionate approach-- we would be assured and the American people would be assured that the laws were going to be enforced. But as we read the details of the bill, it is clear the approach taken is to legalize first and enforce later.

My amendment would fundamentally change that. The amendment now pending would require the Secretary to certify to Congress that the Secretary has maintained effective control over the entire southern border for 6 months before proceeding and processing applications for registered provisional immigration status. It is a commonsense approach: Border security first. Legalize second.

To summarize, the bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, within 6 months that a bill is signed into law, to submit a ``comprehensive southern border security strategy'' as well as another plan called the ``southern border fencing strategy.''

After those so-called plans are submitted to Congress, the Secretary can start processing applications to legalize the 12 million people who are in the United States. The result is that those who are undocumented would become legal after a mere plan is submitted--not even considering if the plan will work.

There are two major flaws. The first is, Why do we need legislation to have the Secretary submit a border security strategy? Isn't that already the Secretary's responsibility? Do we really need to pass a law to tell her to do her job? We shouldn't have to.

This is a reminder of what comes up in my town meetings in the State of Iowa. I have had 73 of those in the 99 counties already. When I start, somebody will ask me about immigration. So I try to give them an update on where we are on the immigration legislation and what I believe about it. But invariably, without a doubt, somebody, before I start to explain, says, We don't need any more legislation. All we have to do is enforce what is already on the books and we wouldn't have a problem. So that gets kind of back to the point: Why do we need more plans? Isn't it the Secretary's responsibility already to enforce the law?

Second, the bill would start legalization even if the Secretary's strategies are flawed and inadequate. What if this Secretary isn't committed to fencing? What if this Secretary believes the border is more secure than ever? Well, in fact, Secretary Napolitano told the committee she thought our borders were secure. That ought to concern all of us, and for sure we couldn't sell that proposition to some of the people who come to my town meetings in Iowa.

RPI status is more than probation. RPI status is legalization. Once a person gets RPI, they get the freedom to live in the United States. They can travel, work, and benefit from everything our country offers. RPI status is de facto permanent legalization. We all know it will never be taken away. Given the history of these types of programs, we know it will never end.

My amendment improves the trigger and fulfills the wishes of the American people: Secure the borders. My amendment ensures the border is secured before one person gets legal status under this act.

If we pass the bill as is, there will be no pressure on this administration or any future administration to secure the borders. There will be no push by the legalization advocates to get that job done. We need to work together to secure the border first, including Members of Congress, members of the administration, business leaders, union leaders, and advocates for all kinds of immigration people. We need to be in the same boat to push for secure borders. But if we have legalization before we know the border is secure, then we break up and balkanize the advocates for immigration reform and the promise that goes with it of border security. So we need to secure the border for several reasons so we are not back in the same position 20 years from now. We need to protect U.S. sovereignty. We need to protect homeland security and improve national security.

There are a variety of threats to our border. There are potential terrorists and transnational criminals. Foreign nationals use the porous border to import threatening goods such as weapons of mass destruction, illegal drugs, contraband, counterfeit products, and other products meant to harm Americans or hurt our economy.

Under my amendment the Secretary would have to prove that we have ``effective control''--and I have not changed that definition of ``effective control;'' it is as defined in the bill--and to do it for at least 6 months before applications for RPI status are processed.

I agree with at least one of the authors of this bill. If this border security title is not improved, this bill does not stand a chance of making it all the way to the President of the United States.

My amendment is this very necessary first step of fixing this issue.

People do not trust the government will get this right or that this administration is dedicated to securing the border. We do not need a new bill to do that. All we need to do is prove to the American people that we are sincere and we will secure the border. That is what is promised by the authors. I do not doubt their good intentions. But when you have a plan submitted, and that is the basis for legalization, it seems to me we ought to have proof that the border is secure. So let's wait until the border is secure and then legalize.

I thank the chairman for the courtesy of offering this first amendment. Also, the chairman was not here when I spoke yesterday, but I said that he promised an open and transparent process in committee, and we had that transparent, open process, and I thank the chairman for doing that and seeing that it was done. I hope that process can continue on the floor.

I yield the floor.

All the time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Angela Sheldon, a detailee in Senator Hatch's office, be granted the privileges of the floor for the duration of the debate on S. 744.

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

Mr. President, as we look forward to a difficult and yet overdue debate about immigration, I wanted to share my thoughts on the legislation. I want to speak about the committee process as well as the substance of the bill before us. I also want to share my personal experience from the 1980s and how we can learn from history. Finally, I want to express my hope for what I think the bill should look like before it leaves the Senate.

I do not know of any Senator who says the status quo is the way it ought to be. In other words, this issue being on the floor of the Senate is very appropriate. But while we are here, we need to concentrate on getting immigration right for the long term. In 1986, the last time we had major legislation going to the President, I was there. I lived it. I voted for it.

I acknowledge that what we did in 1986, we got it wrong. We cannot afford to make the same mistakes of yesterday. From our national security to our economic security, too much is at stake. So do not repeat 1986. See that the borders are absolutely secure. No excuses from that point. No exceptions on that point.

Now, we are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. It is my solemn responsibility to respect the law and ensure that law is upheld. Do it the right way, not the easy way. Take what time is necessary to get it right. We know what works in Congress and what does not work. I think if we look back at health care reform as an example, we know that we did it in too hurried of a way and, consequently, questions about carrying out that legislation now are legitimate points of discussion.

Earlier in the year when a bipartisan group of eight Senators released their framework for reform, I was optimistic that the authors were going to produce legislation that lived up to the promises. In their framework they stated:

We will ensure that this is a successful permanent reform

to our immigration system that will not need to be revisited.

Without a doubt this is a goal we should all strive for. We must find a long-term solution to fixing our broken system. So I was encouraged. The authors, in the framework released to the public before bill language was available, said the bill would ``provide a tough, fair, practical road map to address the status of unauthorized immigrations in the United States contingent upon our success in securing our borders and addressing visa overstays.''

Who can argue with that point? That is exactly what we all believe a piece of legislation should do. At the time this bill was put forward and the framework was put forward, I reserved judgment until I saw the details of their proposal. I thought the framework held hope, but I realized the assurances that the Group of 8 made did not really translate when the bill language emerged. It seems as though the rhetoric was spot on, but the details were dubious.

This is what was professed by the authors: that the borders would be secured and that the people would earn their legal status. That was not what the bill actually did. The bill, as drafted, is legalization first, border secured later, and tracking visa overstays later, if at all.

In 1981, when I was a freshman Senator, I joined the Judiciary Committee and was active in the subcommittee process. We sat down and wrote legislation. We had 150 hours of hearings, 300 witnesses before we marked up a bill in May 1982. Hundreds of more hours and dozens more hearings would take place before the 1986 passage.

This year we had 6 days of hearings. We spent 18 hours and 10 minutes listening to outside witnesses. We had a hearing on the ``needs of women and children,'' another hearing focused on ``building an immigration system worthy of American values.''

The Judiciary Committee received the bipartisan bill at 2:24 a.m on April 17. We held hearings on April 19, 22, and 23. We heard from 26 witnesses in 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, to professors and advocacy groups. We even heard from people who are undocumented, proving that only in America would we allow someone not right with the law to be heard by the American people.

One of the witnesses was Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano. We attempted to learn about how the bill would affect the functions of the executive branch and whether she saw the same flaws many of us were finding. Unfortunately, we have not received responses from Secretary Napolitano to the questions that we raised at her hearing on April 23. We should have the benefit of hearing from the Secretary as to certain questions that were raised about this legislation, particularly when it comes from somebody in the executive branch who has to enforce what is laid before her.

After those hearings the committee was poised to consider the bill through a markup process. Our side of the aisle made it clear that we needed to have an open and transparent process, so we started work on May 9. We held five

all-day sessions where Members were able to raise questions, voice concerns, and offer amendments. Hundreds of amendments were filed. I alone filed 77 amendments. Of those, I offered 37. Of those 37, 12 were accepted, 25 were rejected.

Those on the other side of the aisle will boast that many Republican amendments were adopted in committee. They are somewhat right. However, only 13 of 78 Republican amendments offered were agreed to; 7 of those were from members of the Group of 8. But get this: Of the 62 Democratic amendments proposed, only 1 of those 62 amendments was rejected, and even that one was just narrowly rejected.

Commonsense amendments offering real solutions were repeatedly rejected. Those that were accepted made some necessary improvements. But get this: The core provisions of the bill remain the same coming out of committee as they were introduced into the committee.

I respect the process we had in committee. Chairman Leahy deserves thanks from all of us on the committee because he promised an open, fair, and transparent process. Quite frankly, it was. It is a good format for what needs to take place on the floor of the Senate if the legislation that is finally voted upon is going to have credibility.

In that committee we had a good discussion and debate on how to improve the bill. It was a productive conversation focused on getting immigration reform right in the long term. Yet I was disappointed that alliances were made to ensure that nothing passed that would make substantial changes or improvements in the bill. Many of those people gave high praise to the amendments being offered but continued to vote against them.

I have often spoke about the 1986 legislation and how that law failed the American people. Now 99 other Senators are probably going to get sick of me reminding them of my presence there in 1986 and saying that we screwed up, because at that time promises were made and those promises were not kept. We said it was a one-time fix, just like the Group of 8 said they have a one-time fix. But that one-time fix did nothing to solve the problem.

In fact, it only made matters worse and encouraged illegality. People came forward for legal status, but many more illegally entered or overstayed their welcome to get the same benefits and chance at citizenship. The 1986 bill was supposed to be a three-legged stool: control undocumented immigration, a legalization program, and reform of legal immigration.

We authorized $422 million to carry out the requirements of the bill and even created a special fund for States to get reimbursed their costs. The 1986 bill included a legalization program for two categories of people: one for individuals who have been present in the United States since 1982, and the second for farm workers who have worked in agriculture for at least 90 days prior to enactment. A total of 2.7 million people were legalized. We also had enforcement in that 1986 legislation.

For the first time ever we made it illegal to knowingly hire or employ someone who was here undocumented. We set penalties to deter the hiring of people here undocumented. We wrote in the bill that ``one essential element of immigration control is an increase in the Border Patrol and other inspection enforcement activities of the Immigration and Nationalization Service in order to prevent and to deter the illegal entry of aliens into the United States and in violation of the terms of their entry.''

Unfortunately, the same principles from 1986 are being discussed today: legalize now, enforce later. But it is clear that philosophy does not work. Proof of that is it did not work in 1986. So proponents of legalization today argue we did not get it right in 1986. How true they are. I agree the enforcement mechanisms in 1986 could have been stronger. There was no commitment to enforcing the law or making sure we protected every mile of our border.

Knowing what I know now, an immigration bill must ensure that we secure the border first. Legalization should only happen when the American people have faith in the system. There needs to be a commitment to enforce the laws on the books, and, as important, there needs to be a legal avenue that allows people to enter and stay legally in the country.

Now, if you want to know how important securing the border is, just come to my townhall meetings in Iowa. So far I have been in 73 of our 99 counties. When immigration comes up and I talk about legislation, there are outbursts that we do not need more laws; why do we not just enforce the laws that are on the books--things such as ``bring the troops home.'' ``Put them down on the border.'' ``Then we won't have a problem.'' Unfortunately, the bill before us repeats our past mistakes and does very little to deliver more than the same promises we made in 1986, which promises turned out to be empty. Instead of looking to the past for guidance on what to do in the future, the bill before us incorporates the mistakes of the past and, in some cases, even weakens the laws we currently have.

Those of us who are complaining, as I have just complained, have a responsibility to put a proposal before this body that will correct those things we think are a repeat of the mistakes of 1986, and we will do this.

To further explain this bill, the bill ensures that the executive branch, not the Congress or the American people through their Congress, has the sole power to control the situation. First, the bill provides hundreds of waivers and broad delegation of authority. Two, the Secretary may define terms as she sees fit. In many cases, the discretion is unreviewable, both by the American people and by other branches of government. Can you believe that? Unreviewable.

The bill undermines Congress's responsibility to legislate, and it weakens our ability to conduct oversight. We should learn a lot of lessons from past legislation. We should be doing more legislating and less delegating. Think of the recent things that have come out that the IRS has too much power.

In health care reform, there are 1,963 delegations of authority to the Secretary to write regulations. You might think you understand a 2,700-page piece of legislation that the President signed 4 years ago, but you aren't going to know what that legislation actually does until those 1,963 regulations are written. I think we are waking up to the fact that we delegated too much and legislated too little. We shouldn't be making that same mistake with this piece of legislation and, as it is written, we are making that mistake.

I wouldn't have such strong resentment about this issue if I knew I could have faith in this administration or any future administration. By the time this thing gets down the road, that is going to be a future administration to actually enforce the law.

Show me the evidence. The President and the administration have curtailed enforcement programs. It claims record deportations, but then what does the President say? He turns around and he says the statistics are--and this is his word--``deceptive.''

The Secretary says the border is more secure than ever before, but she denounced any notion of securing the border before people here who were undocumented were given legal status. The administration implemented the DREAM Act by executive fiat, saying Congress refused to pass a bill so it decided to do something on its accord. It did that 1 year after the President told a group of people he didn't have the authority to do it. They provided no legal justification for the actions and very few answers about how they were implementing the directive.

The refusal of any executive branch of government, whether it is Republican or Democratic, to refuse accountability raises a lot of questions. They refuse to be transparent and forthcoming with Congress on almost every matter.

When this bill was introduced, I had to question whether the promise for border security 10 years down the road would ever be fulfilled. No one disputes that this bill is what I have said already, a bill that legalizes first and enforces later. That is the core problem. That is a core problem from the standpoint of everybody who is going to tell us on this floor and during these weeks of debate that immigration reform is overwhelmingly popular. I am not going to dispute that.

Understand that there are very many things that are caveats in a poll. No. 1

is that we ought to have border security. The core problem is that enforcement comes after legalization, a core problem, and the main reason I could not support it out of the Judiciary Committee. It is the main reason. It is unacceptable to me, and it is unacceptable to the American people.

The sponsors of this bill disagree. If they would read their own legislation, they would realize this fact. Later in the week I will discuss an amendment I plan to offer to change this central flaw, but allow me to tell my colleagues who are not on the committee about this major objection I have.

We have millions of undocumented people in this country. Under this bill, Congress would give the Secretary of Homeland Security 6 months to produce two reports, one on border security strategy and the other on border fencing strategy. As soon as those two documents are sent to the Hill, just as soon as they come up here, the Secretary then has full authority to issue legal status, including work permits and travel documents, to millions of people who apply.

The result is the undocumented population receives what the bill calls registered provisional status after two plans are submitted. Registered provisional immigrant is RPI. RPI status is more than probation. RPI status is outright legalization.

After the Secretary notifies Congress that she believes her plan has been accomplished, newly legalized immigrants are given a path to obtain green cards and a special path to citizenship.

Without ensuring adequate border security or holding employers accountable, the cycle is destined to repeat itself. I used the committee process to attempt to strengthen border security. My amendment to fix the trigger so the Secretary would need to report to Congress on a fast-track system and show that the border was secured to get congressional approval before legalization would proceed was defeated. We used the committee process to try to track who was coming and going from our country. Amendments to require a biometric exit system at all ports of entry, which is current law, were defeated.

We tried to hold employers accountable and stop the magnet for illegal immigration. My amendment to speed up implementation of an employer verification system was defeated.

At the end of the day, the majority argued against securing the border for another decade. The triggers in the bill that kicked off legalization are ineffective and inefficient.

If we pass the bill as is, there will be no pressure on this administration, future administrations, or those in Congress to secure the border. There will be no push by the legalization advocates to get the job done.

This is what is so important about when does legalization take place, before the border is secure or after the border is secure. Once the plans are presented, there will never be any pressure from advocates for legalization, or anybody else who is interested in solving this problem, to push to get the job done.

Moreover, the bill gives Congress the sole discretion over border security, fencing strategy, and implementation of these strategies without any input from Congress.

We have a lot of questions. Will the Secretary, who believes the border is stronger than ever before, be willing to make it even stronger? Will a Secretary who does not believe a biometric exit system is feasible ensure that a mandated system is put in place? Will a Secretary who does not believe anything should stand in the way of legalization ensure the triggers are achieved?

Proponents of the legislation claim it includes the single largest increase in immigration enforcement in American history. Proponents say mandatory electronic employment verification is a solution to future illegal immigration. It is concerning that the bill delays for years the implementation of a mandatory electronic employment verification through which 99.7 percent of all work-eligible employees are confirmed immediately today.

I will speak later in the days ahead about how this bill weakens current law, particularly laws on the books to deter criminal behavior. It concerns me greatly that the bill we are about to consider rolls back many criminal statutes, but also that there is nothing in the bill that enhances the cooperation between the Federal Government and State and local jurisdictions. In fact, it preempts State laws that are trying to enforce Federal laws currently in place.

We have a lot of work cut out for us. I know there are some who don't want to see a single change in this legislation.

For me, this bill falls short of what I want to see in strong immigration reform. The fact is we need real reform, not gimmicks that fail to fix the real problem and secure our border. We need to be fair to millions of people who came here the legal way, not bias the system in favor of those who sneaked in through the back door. We need a bill that truly balances our national security with our economic security.

This is what we can do to improve the bill: I remain optimistic that on the floor we can vote on commonsense amendments that better the bill. Serious consideration will be given to amendments that strengthen our ability to remove criminal gang members, hold perpetrators of fraud and abuse accountable, and prevent the weakening of criminal law. We must seriously consider how the bill works to the detriment of the American workers and find consensus around measures that require employers to regroup and hire from homegrown talent before looking abroad, but also improving the mechanism by which people can come here when they are needed. We must be willing to close loopholes in our asylum system, prevent criminals and evildoers from gaining immigration benefits, and ensure that we are improving our ability to protect the homeland.

I assure my colleagues I have an open mind on this legislation. I want immigration reform. I want to get it right this time, not make the same mistakes I did in 1986. I want a bill I can support. To do that, I need to see a stronger commitment to border security. I need to know future lawbreakers won't be rewarded, and that there will be a deterrent for people who wish to enter or remain illegally in the country.

Basically and simply, I want the words of this bill to match the rhetoric of those proposing the plan. The bill sponsors want a product that can garner around 70 votes in the Senate. Doing so, they seem to think, would send a message to the House that they should rubberstamp a bill that passed the Senate and send that bill to the President. I don't think that is going to happen. The House is prepared to move on its own legislation.

There will be a conference, which is a rare occurrence around here, by the way. A conference of the two Houses will ensure that the bill benefits from various checks and balances that we worship through our Constitution.

I am not trying to jump ahead to the next step of the process, I am simply telling my colleagues this bill has a long way to go through the legislative process. It needs to change before it is accepted by the American people or sent to the President. If they are serious about getting this done, more compromises will be made.

Allow me to end by echoing the words of President Reagan:

Our objective is only to establish a reasonable, fair,

orderly, and secure system of immigration into this country

and not to discriminate in any way against particular nations

or people. Future generations of Americans will be thankful

for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and

thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred

possessions of our people: American citizenship.

That was President Reagan.

The path we take in the days ahead will shape our country for years to come. It is my hope we can find a solution while learning from our mistakes and ensuring that future generations don't have to revisit this problem down the road.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I voted for this nominee out of committee. I will vote for this nominee on the floor of the Senate. He is well qualified for this position.

I come to the floor not to repeat what a lot of other people have said about this nominee, but the process that was connected with arranging the vote for today's vote. Basically I want to speak about the needless shenanigans that have gone on before we get to this point where we vote at 2 o'clock.

Today's nominee for the D.C. Circuit was voted out of committee 1 week ago, on May 16, a unanimous vote of 18 to 0. He was placed on the Executive Calendar 3 days ago, on Monday, May 20. One day later, on May 21, the Republicans cleared this nominee to have an up-or-down vote when we returned from the Memorial Day recess, but the majority leader was not content to take yes for an answer. One day after this nominee was placed on the Executive Calendar and after Republicans agreed to an up-or-down vote, the majority leader chose to file cloture.

Why file cloture? Why would the majority leader do that on a nominee whom the minority party, the Republicans, were ready and willing to vote on, backed up by the fact that every Republican on the committee voted for this nominee?

There is only one plausible answer: That is part of the majority's attempt to create the appearance of obstruction where no obstruction ever existed. It is pure nonsense. It is a transparent attempt to manufacture a crisis, a crisis that does not exist. The fact of the matter is there is no obstruction and particularly no obstruction on this nominee, and the other side knew it before they filed cloture.

This morning in his opening remarks the majority leader tried to argue he has had to file cloture 58 times. But what the majority leader did this week illustrates precisely why that claim is completely without merit.

What the Majority Leader did fits neatly into the Democratic Majority's playbook.

First, file cloture for no apparent reason, none whatsoever. And then immediately turn around and claim: See, look everybody, we had to file cloture.

The fact is, we are confirming the President's nominee--all nominees--at a near-record pace. After today, the Senate will have confirmed 193 lower court nominees. We have defeated only two. That is 193 to 2, which in baseball terms is a .990 batting average. Anybody would agree that is an outstanding record. Who could complain about 99 percent?

After today--this year alone, the first year of the President's second term--the Senate will have confirmed 22 judicial nominees. Let's compare that to the previous President's first year of his second term--President Bush--when there was a Democratic Congress. In that same period of time in 2005, the Senate had only confirmed four nominees. So that is a record of 22--the first year of this President's second term--compared to only 4 for the first year of President Bush's second term.

If we were treating this President in the same way the Senate Democrats treated President Bush in 2005, we would not be confirming the 22nd nominee, we would be confirming only the 4th. So it should be clear to everyone that these are needless shenanigans.

Anyway, based on that record, what can the Senate Democrats possibly complain about? The bottom line is they can't complain--or they shouldn't complain. That is not based upon rhetoric but based on the record of 22 so far this year and 193 total confirmations for this President versus 2 disapprovals.

Of course, because the record is so good, the other side needs to manufacture a crisis, and that is why the other side filed cloture on this nomination just 1 day after it appeared on the Executive Calendar.

Yesterday, when the majority leader was pressed on why he chose to file cloture 1 single day after his nomination appeared on the Executive Calendar, he pointed to the fact that the nominee was first nominated in the year 2012. But apparently the majority leader was unaware that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee made no effort to schedule a hearing on this nominee until late last year.

Apparently, the majority leader was unaware that by January of this year, we learned the nominee was potentially involved in the quid pro quo that Mr. Perez--the President's nominee for Labor Secretary-- orchestrated between the Department of Justice and the city of St. Paul.

I spoke on this issue last week regarding the deal Mr. Perez struck, where he agreed the Department would decline two False Claims Act cases in exchange for the city of St. Paul withdrawing a case from the Supreme

Court. I am not going to go into those details again, but that is a very serious issue. The Department--and as it turns out Mr. Perez in particular--bartered away a case worth about $200 million of taxpayers' money to come back into the Federal Treasury under the False Claims Act. To have that case withdrawn is a pretty serious matter.

As it turns out, the nominee before us today happened to be the lawyer in the Solicitor General's Office who handled the case Mr. Perez desperately wanted withdrawn from the Supreme Court.

So, as would be expected, any Member of the Senate--particularly those who have the responsibility in the minority--needed to know what the nominee knew about the quid pro quo and what Mr. Perez told the committee about that deal.

We needed the documents about this issue, and we needed to speak with the witnesses involved, but the Department was desperate to keep those documents from Congress. They were desperate to keep the witnesses from being involved and interviewed.

The bottom line is that the Department of Justice dragged its feet for months. If the Department of Justice had turned over those documents and made witnesses available way back when we asked for them, the hearing for this nominee could have been one of the first we had this year. Instead, the Department of Justice chose to try their best to keep Congress from getting to the bottom of that quid pro quo, and, frankly, Mr. Perez's involvement in that matter.

If the majority wishes to complain about the nominee having his hearing in April rather than February, they should pick up the phone and call those in charge at the Department of Justice and ask: Why didn't you give Congress the information they needed?

It wasn't the Senate Republicans who withheld the documents, it was the Department of Justice. It wasn't Senate Republicans who held up the nominee's hearing, it was the Department of Justice.

The bottom line is that the Senate is processing the President's nominees exceptionally fairly. I will not repeat those statistics because I have already gone through them in this speech and in previous speeches.

This President is being treated much more fairly than Senate Democrats treated President Bush in 2005.

The fact is this: Filing cloture on this nominee--who will probably pass unanimously--was nothing but a transparent attempt to create the appearance of obstruction.

As I said, I intend to support this nominee, just as I did in committee, and I encourage my colleagues to support the nomination as well.

But as we move forward on these nominees, I wish we could stop these needless shenanigans. I wish the other side would stop shedding those crocodile tears. The statistics of approval by this Senate of judicial nominees, which is 193 to 2, is no justification for any crocodile tears whatsoever.

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

Mr. President, I want to discuss my amendment regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's release of farmers' information. By now, many of my colleagues have heard about the Environmental Protection Agency's release of individual personal information to environmental activists.

This should not have happened. The EPA released information on over 80,000 farmers nationwide, and over 9,000 Iowans. I can't even characterize some of these Iowans as livestock producers; many of them are simply hobby farmers. There is a person on the list who has 12 horses; another gentleman on the list has one pig.

It is downright absurd that EPA would collect this kind of information and then hand it over to environmental activists. Given what we have seen recently with the egregious actions by the Internal Revenue Service, we should all be outraged by the continuing pattern of overreach by this administration.

This whole situation just doesn't pass the commonsense test. We have seen acts of eco-terrorism in the past against farmers. Farmers shouldn't have to fear their personal information being released to groups who may want to use the information to harass or terrorize family farmers. This amendment would restrict EPA's ability to release such data.

Since EPA can't put an end to this reckless behavior, then Congress needs to step in and fix the problem for EPA. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, before we vote on the nominees today, I want to update my colleagues on where we stand with judicial confirmations. After tonight, the Senate will have confirmed 190 district and circuit nominees; we have defeated two. That's 190-2; which is a .990 batting average. That is an outstanding record. Who can complain about achieving 99 percent?

So far this year, the Senate has confirmed 17 nominees. Today, if Judge Chappell and Judge McShane are confirmed, we confirm the eighteenth and nineteenth nominees. At this stage in President Bush's second term, only 4 were confirmed. That is a record of 19 to 4.

This President is being treated exceptionally fairly.

The President has recently submitted a few new nominations. I know I have been reminding him that we can't do anything about vacancies without him first sending up nominees.

But again, even with the recent nominations, 58 of 82 nominations still have no nominee. And for judicial emergencies, only 6 of 32 vacancies have a nominee.

So I just wanted to set the record straight before we vote on these nominees. I expect they will both be confirmed tonight and I congratulate them on their confirmations.

Judge Chappell received her B.A. from the University of Wisconsin-- Madison in 1984 and her J.D. from Nova Southeastern University Law School in 1987. Upon graduation, Judge Chappell became an assistant State Attorney in the Fort Myers Misdemeanor Division. In 1988, she began prosecuting felony cases including crimes against children, drugs, property crimes, and crimes against persons. In 1991, she was promoted to office head of the Hendry and Glades County office where she prosecuted cases and supervised the attorneys, secretaries, and investigators. From 1993 until 1998, she acted as the supervisor of the Fort Myers Circuit Court Trial Division where she served as chair of the hiring committee and created a training course for new assistant state attorneys. From 1998 to 2000, Judge Chappell served as the office head of the Charlotte County office.

In 2000, Judge Chappell was appointed by then-Governor Jeb Bush as a Lee County Court judge for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit. In 2002, she was elected to serve a 6-year term for this position. There, she had jurisdiction over misdemeanor cases and civil disputes involving $15,000 or less. She resigned in 2003 due to her selection as a United States magistrate judge for the Middle District of Florida. There she handles criminal and civil dockets.

According to her questionnaire, Judge Chappell has presided over approximately 519 cases that have gone to verdict or judgment.

The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave her a Unanimous ``Qualified'' rating.

Judge McShane received his B.A. from Gonzaga University in 1983 and his J.D. from Northwestern School of Law at Lewis and Clark College in 1988. For the first 9 years of his law career, Judge McShane worked as a public defender in Portland, OR, representing indigent clients facing criminal prosecution, the majority accused of felonies. During this time, he held the positions of Senior Felony Attorney and Misdemeanor Supervisor. According to his questionnaire, as a practicing attorney, Judge McShane tried over 500 trials to verdict.

In 1997, Judge McShane was appointed as a Multnomah County Circuit Court judge pro tem by then-Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court, Wallace Carson. He presided over misdemeanor trials, criminal arraignments, traffic matters, stalking protective orders, probation hearings, small claims, and forcible entry and detainer matters.

In 2001, Judge McShane was appointed to the Multnomah County Circuit Court by then-Governor John A. Kitzhaber. In 2002, he was elected to the position and re-elected in 2008. He served as a trial judge with general jurisdiction and presided over criminal and civil matters. In 2012, he was assigned to the family law bench. According to his questionnaire, Judge McShane has presided over thousands of cases, of which approximately 1,600 cases went to verdict.

The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave him a Majority ``Qualified'' and Minority ``Well Qualified'' rating.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, at this time I would like to discuss the President's nominee for Secretary of Labor, Tom Perez.

Mr. Perez is not unknown to the Senate or even to the country as a whole now that he has been Assistant Attorney General for a long time. His tenure at the Civil Rights Commission has been marked with controversy, and that is putting it mildly. He was confirmed to his current post as Civil Rights Division Assistant Attorney General by a vote of 72 to 22. I was among those who supported his nomination to lead the Civil Rights Division, but unfortunately, based on reasons I will outline, I have come to regret that vote.

There are a number of issues regarding Mr. Perez's record that should give my colleagues pause. Today I wish to focus on the investigation I have been conducting with my colleague in the House Mr. Issa, chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, as well as Mr. Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

I would like to share with my colleagues the role Mr. Perez played in the quid pro quo between the City of St. Paul, MN, and the Department of Justice here in Washington where the Department agreed not to join two False Claims Act cases in exchange for the City of St. Paul withdrawing its case from 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. In other words, if an individual takes extraordinary action to get a city to withdraw a case that is already on the docket of the Supreme Court, that is pretty serious intervention.

First and foremost, at this point no one disputes the fact that Mr. Perez orchestrated the entire arrangement. He manipulated the Supreme Court docket so that his favored legal theory, called the 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 those facts.

The fact that Mr. Perez struck a deal that potentially squandered up to $200 million from taxpayers in order to preserve the disparate impact theory is, of course, extremely troubling in and of itself. In addition to the underlying quid pro quo, however, the evidence uncovered in our investigation revealed that Mr. Perez sought to cover up the fact that the exchange even took place.

Finally--and let me emphasize that this should concern all of my colleagues--when Mr. Perez testified under oath about this case both to congressional investigators and during his confirmation hearing, Mr. Perez told a different story.

The simple but unavoidable conclusion is that the story Mr. Perez told is simply not supported by the evidence, so I will start by reviewing 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. The career lawyers--when I use the words ``career lawyers,'' I mean these folks who are not political appointees. The career lawyers in the U.S. attorney's office of Minnesota were recommending the Department of Justice join this false claims case. The career lawyers, even in the civil division at main Justice, were recommending that Justice join the case. The career lawyers in the Department of Housing and Urban Development were also recommending the Department of Justice join in this false claims case. Why is that important? Because the government participating in a false claims case makes it a much stronger case than when the individual pursues it by themselves.

What I just described to my colleagues was all before Mr. Perez got involved. At about the same time the Supreme Court agreed to hear a 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 have been using in lawsuits against banks for their lending practices. If that theory were undermined by the Supreme Court, it would likely spell trouble for Mr. Perez's lawsuits against the banks.

So Mr. Perez approached the lawyers handling the Magner case and he cut a deal. The Department of Justice agreed not to join two false claims cases in exchange for the City of St. Paul withdrawing Magner from the Supreme Court. In early February 2012, Mr. Perez even flew to St. Paul to finalize the deal. The next week the Department of Justice declined the first false claims case, called the Newell case. The next day, the City of St. Paul withdrew the Magner case from the Supreme Court.

Now, there are a couple of aspects about this deal I wish to emphasize. First, as I mentioned, the evidence makes clear Mr. Perez took steps to cover up the fact that he had bartered away the false claims cases. Cover-ups aren't good in government. On January 10, 2012, Mr. Perez called the line attorney in the U.S. attorney's office regarding the declination memo in the Newell case. To remind my colleagues, Newell was the case the same career attorneys were strongly recommending the United States join before Mr. Perez got involved. By the time of this phone call in January 2012, Mr. Perez was well on his way toward orchestrating this quid pro quo I have described.

Mr. Perez then called the line attorney, Mr. Greg Brooker, and instructed him not to discuss the Magner case in the memo he prepared outlining the reasons for the decision not to join that false claims case. Here is what he said. This is a quote:

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

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

main thing I wanted 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.

End of that voicemail.

Approximately 1 hour later, Mr. Perez sent Mr. Brooker a follow-up e- mail, writing:

I left you a detailed voice message. Call me if you can

after you have a chance to review [the] voice mail.

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

Were you able to listen to my message?

Mr. Perez's voice mail was quite clear and obvious. He told Mr. Brooker:

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.

What could be more clear than that?

In fact, Mr. Perez himself sent an e-mail less than an hour later explaining that he had left a detailed voice mail for Mr. Brooker. Yet when congressional investigators asked Mr. Perez why he left a voice mail, he told an entirely different story. Here is what he told the 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.

Well, I hope my colleagues are listening and they say to themselves: Give me a break. This is plainly not what he said in his voice mail. Mr. Perez, I was born at night, but I wasn't born last night. 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 Mr. Brooker called him back the next day and refused to omit the discussion of the Magner case that was being withdrawn from the Supreme Court. According to Mr. Perez, he told Mr. Brooker during this call to ``follow the normal process.''

But, again, this story is not supported by the evidence.

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

Point 6 read:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 or 11 minutes.

Mr. President, with the passage of the STOCK Act last year, Congress made an important statement: When it comes to insider trading laws, there is no special exemption for Congress. If anyone in government provides confidential information to someone for the purpose of trading on it, that is insider trading.

It is illegal if the information is both material and nonpublic. The word ``material'' means a reasonable investor would want to know it before investing. ``Nonpublic'' means the information has not been released to the general public. To violate the law, the person making the disclosure must have a duty to keep the information secret.

Frankly, there is very little information in Congress that must be kept secret. Of course, that is a good thing. Unlike the executive branch, most of what Congress does is public immediately. But disclosing material nonpublic information can be a crime. Even if it is done intentionally, people might be investigated before getting a chance to clear their name. And there is a big difference between material nonpublic information and an expert's educated guess about what a government agency might do.

We now know that Wall Street has been harvesting expertise and tidbits of information from Washington, DC, for years while keeping us largely in the dark. In fact, the political intelligence industry is so big and so opaque that the Government Accountability Office was unable to quantify it or judge its size despite 1 whole year of investigating.

Political intelligence firms extract pieces of information from the government and use that intelligence to make money on Wall Street. Each detail a political intelligence firm gathers may not be material or nonpublic on its own, but the purpose of collecting and analyzing those details is to get an edge in the markets over other investors.

That is not illegal, and I have never suggested that it should be. People should not be discouraged from sharing information and opinions about how our government operates. We should be more transparent, not less. The less open and transparent government is, the more opportunities there are to exploit government information for profit in the markets.

I have been investigating the role of political intelligence firms in the early release of information about Medicare Advantage rates prior to the public announcement on April 1st. There has been some confusion over the scope of my inquiry, so I want to be clear.

There are reports that the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating whether material non-public information was released about the Medicare Advantage rates. My interest is much broader than that. Political intelligence is not the same thing as material non- public information. Gathering political intelligence includes a lot of activity that falls short of material non-public information. So, just because I am asking questions about how certain information or expert opinions flowed to these political intelligence firms, does not mean I am accusing anyone of any wrongdoing.

I am not seeking to ban the gathering of political intelligence. I am not suggesting that if someone was the source for some piece of political intelligence, that the source did anything illegal. But, the goal of these firms is to get an edge on other investors, and that should be understood by everyone who communicates with them.

This investigation has shed a great deal of light on the political intelligence industry. I hope to use this information to improve the legislation on political intelligence disclosure that I plan to re- introduce with Representative Slaughter. I am trying to learn how these political intelligence firms function by using this real-world example, so that I can write better legislation on disclosure.

To be clear, I am not focused on examining whether particular Congressional staff acted properly with regard to their professional duties. Any reports to the contrary are simply inaccurate. What I think we need is more transparency. Government officials need to know what happens with the information they provide to outside parties. I want to arm government officials with knowledge about who they are talking to.

My inquiry started with Height Securities, the firm that put out an alert 18 minutes before the markets closed on April 1st. That alert caused a huge spike in the health insurance stocks

that stood to gain from the rate announcement.

I initially learned that an email on April 1st from a healthcare lobbyist to the analyst at Height Securities looked like the basis for the flash alert that moved the markets. In the interest of full disclosure, it has been reported in the press that the lobbyist was formerly on my staff. But, I continued to press for more information.

I learned that Height paid for his expertise on healthcare, although his entire billing amounted to only 1.75 hours of work before sending the email on April 1st. I learned that the Height analyst had also communicated with two other healthcare policy experts before putting out his alert to the market.

Then, I learned that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-- CMS--had already made its decision to reverse the rate cuts much earlier, two weeks before the Height Securities alert.

The press has reported that there were major spikes in options trading on March 18th and March 22nd. Options trading is one way folks on Wall Street make big bets on a stock when they think they have a sure thing. March 18th happens to be the first trading day after CMS made its decision internally. March 22nd happens to be the day that CMS transmitted its draft decision to the White House more than a week before the public announcement. On that date, the circle of people in the administration who would have known about the CMS decision expanded significantly.

This suggests that political intelligence firms may have obtained key information for their clients in mid-March, not just the day of the announcement on April 1st.

The press also reported on the possible involvement of another political intelligence firm, Capitol Street. Capitol Street arranges conference calls between investors and governments experts.

In addition, I have asked two major hedge funds mentioned in the press whether they profited from trades in advance of the rate announcement. So the scope of my inquiry is broad. It is not focused on particular people. It is focused on the facts.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is also investigating. It is their job to determine whether any material non-public information was passed to Height or to anyone else in this case. That is not my job.

I am working on legislation to make the political intelligence industry more transparent. I am gathering facts to inform that legislation.

Remember, political intelligence does not necessarily involve material non-public information. But, people in government need to know who they are talking to and what they will do with your information. That is why it is so important to ensure that political intelligence relationships are transparent. Even if the information you provide is merely an educated guess, it can still move markets. It can still create an impression that a fortunate few are making money from special access to insiders.

If political intelligence transparency is passed, government officials would be more fully informed when they provide expertise to these firms about how the information might be used. But as things stand, without transparency, you do not necessarily know what firms like Height Securities or Capitol Street do with the information you provide to them. You don't know if they have a contract with a lobbyist who is bringing in some other client for a meeting. You don't know that your discussion with that lobbyist's client might be repeated to people who are looking for an edge in the stock market. What you think may be an innocent detail or an educated guess may move markets.

At the end of the day, that is what these firms want to exploit. That is what they are after. That is what they sell. They should be honest and upfront with people about how they make money. Lobbying disclosure isn't perfect, but it has brought more transparency to the process.

Now, we need political intelligence disclosure too, for the same reasons.

Transparency increases the public's ability to trust that we are working for them, not for just for special interests. That principle should apply just as much to special interests on Wall Street as it does to special interests on K Street.

I yield the floor.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to congratulate Art Gratias of Mason City, IA on receiving the Legion of Honor from the French Government for his contribution to the liberation of France. Art Gratias enlisted in the U.S. Army in January of 1942, having begun the enlistment process before the attack on Pearl Harbor that led to the formal participation of the United States in World War II. As a member of the 2nd Infantry Division, he participated in the D- day invasion of Normandy, which took place on his first wedding anniversary. Art fought in numerous campaigns in France and Central Europe, including the Battle of the Bulge. He was wounded on August 16, 1944, receiving the Purple Heart and later returned to combat.

The French Government has expressed its gratitude to Art Gratias for what he did for their country. I would

now like to take this opportunity to thank Art for his service to our country. In fact, despite the fact that he gave more to this country through his military service than we can ever thank him for, he continued to dedicate his life to public service. Art has been a school board member, teacher, and school administrator. He has been very active in the Kiwanis, American Legion, and his church. Art has served on numerous volunteer boards, and in the Iowa Senate. Art Gratias is a prime example of that remarkable American spirit of voluntarism that the French writer Alexis de Tocqueville discovered in the early years of our Nation so it is fitting that he was singled out by the French Government for its highest honor. I am proud to add my voice to those who pay tribute to his life of service.

Mr. President, over the course of the next several weeks, I hope to come to the floor and visit with my colleagues about the immigration bill that will soon be going through the Judiciary Committee. Today I want to share my thoughts on the parts that deal with the border security section of S. 744.

The immigration bill is very likely to allow millions of people who entered our country illegally or overstayed their visa to receive legal status and eventually green cards. However, it is very unlikely to result in true border security. The bill provides that those in a probationary status--and that is known in this legislation as ``registered provisional immigrant status''--be given green cards as soon as the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that four conditions have been satisfied.

On page 11 of the bill it lays out the process. The Secretary certifies that the border and fencing strategies, and those strategies are ones that she wrote, are substantially deployed, operational, and completed. She also has to implement a mandatory employment verification program and electronic exit system at airports and seaports. The authors of the bill envision that this will happen in 5 or 10 years down the road.

There are three reasons this process is problematic: First, the Secretary has unbridled discretion to conclude that the four provisions have been satisfied even if they have not been satisfied. The Secretary determines if the strategic plans are substantially deployed, operational, and completed according to requirements of the law. For example, the Secretary could say she is using an electronic exit system by collecting visa and passport information even if that system is not totally effective. The bill establishes no deadline for implementing any of these conditions.

Second, the bar is set very low for certifying that these conditions have been met. One of the four triggers to green card is a summation of a border fencing strategy. The bill defines in one sentence in section 5 the contents of that border fencing strategy condition. At a hearing on Tuesday before our Judiciary Committee, Secretary Napolitano testified that fencing was not a priority of this administration.

Considering how sensitive of an issue this is, one would not think she would say that. She did not really want $1.5 billion to be designated just for fencing. She implied that no more fencing was needed. Well, ask the people down on the border if that is true. She testified that the Department would prefer flexibility to use technologies other than fences. She stated that if she determined that little or no additional funding were necessary for fencing, she might then be able to certify this condition very quickly.

Third, litigation could ensure that legalization could occur in 10 years, regardless of whether any and all of the four border security triggers in the bill are met. The bill does this in four ways: First, green cards can be issued if litigation of any kind prevents any conditions from being met. Second, green cards can be issued if the Supreme Court rules that the implementation of any of the conditions is unconstitutional. Third, green cards can be issued if the Supreme Court grants review of litigation on the constitutionality of the implementation of these conditions. I note that this provision is especially ill-considered because it could trigger green cards merely because the Supreme Court agreed to review the condition's constitutionally, a highly likely event even if the Court later upheld that.

Fourth, the bill restricts litigation challenging one particular decision of the Secretary to a constitutional challenge only. But that limitation expressly does not apply to litigation challenging implementation of the conditions. Litigation brought against the conditions can be based on any legal theory.

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 based on the merits, nor does the bill require that appeals run their course, even if the appeal upholds the condition. It says that the Secretary ``shall permit''--and this is mandatory language--``shall permit'' applications for adjustment to LPR status if ``litigation . . . has prevented one of the conditions from being implemented.''

Under the plain language of the bill, 10 days after the day that any court prevents any of the border security conditions from being implemented, then, of course, the floodgates for green cards are to be opened. And nothing in the bill stops the administration from agreeing to a consent decree that prevents one of the conditions from being met.

Because I listened to over 7 hours of testimony on Monday and because on Tuesday the Secretary of Homeland Security shared her thoughts, I summarize to this one statement: During all that time, not one person disputed the fact that legalization begins upon the mere submission of both a southern border security and fencing strategy. Thus, the undocumented become legal after the plans are submitted despite the potential that the plans could be flawed and inadequate.

If enacted today, the bill would provide no pressure on this Secretary or future Secretaries to actually secure the border.

Secretary Napolitano has stated that the border is stronger than ever before. She even indicated that Congress should not hold up legalization by adding border security measures and requiring them to be a trigger for the program.

I am concerned that the bill we will be taking up repeats the mistakes we made in 1986. Maybe people will resent my referring to 1986, but I do that because I went through this before, and we thought we were doing it absolutely right in 1986. We didn't secure the border then and assumed legalization alone would stop the flow of more people crossing the border without papers.

Simply, we screwed up. We need to learn a lesson because the basis of this whole legislation is that the borders will be secured. The people don't want some phony language that allows the Secretary to circumvent congressional intent.

I urge all my colleagues to really understand what the bill does in regard to border security and, in the process, to make sure the same mistakes of 1986 aren't repeated and to insist that the border be secured instead of trusting what the Secretary says.

In regard to this whole issue, there has been a lot of finger- pointing going on in Washington in the past 2 weeks as it relates to immigration. It is a lot like the weeks and months after 9/11. What warning signs were missed about the brothers who bombed the Boston Marathon? Law enforcement and intelligence agencies tell conflicting stories. Bureaucracies are gearing up to do battle over who dropped the ball. They are preparing their defenses. They are leaking bits and pieces of information favorable to themselves.

Meanwhile, Congress and the public have a growing number of questions. I have written to the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI. Senator Paul and I have written on another matter to the FBI. But the Senate Judiciary Committee has not yet received clear answers to our questions, and there are very serious questions about whether our government has forgotten the lessons of 9/11.

The most important of those lessons is this: When extremist fanatics say they want to wage war against us, we should take them seriously. Our government was reportedly warned on multiple occasions that one of these brothers had become a radical jihadist. Do we still have agencies failing to follow up, failing to share information, and failing to connect the dots?

In this morning's Washington Post, the editorial board asked, ``Is the FBI focused enough on the real bad guys?'' The editorial pointed out that in addition to the older brother in Boston, several people who have been investigated by the FBI have gone on to commit attacks. The Post cited 2 examples: the man who shot 2 soldiers at a Little Rock military recruiting office in 2009 and the man who was accused of shooting and killing 13 people at Fort Hood later that year.

According to the editorial, ``Meanwhile, the FBI has devoted considerable resources to sting operations . . . sometimes on what look like dubious grounds.'' For example, the FBI launched an elaborate sting operation in Boston against a man planning to attack the U.S. Capitol with a remote-controlled model airplane loaded with grenades.

The Post concluded:

In [some cases], it's not clear that a sometimes far-

fetched plot would have gone forward without the

encouragement and help of FBI informants.

That is a very good point. It may be easier for an FBI informant to draw someone into a far-fetched plan, but it is harder to detect the real terrorist plot, such as the one in Boston. Unfortunately, it is connecting the dots that keeps us safe, not those easy sting operations.

Other warning signs about the older brother may have been missed because tips about him weren't shared between law enforcement. The older brother's best American friend was murdered in an unusual triple homicide. My office has been told that local authorities investigating the murder were unaware of the warnings from Russia about his radicalization. Thus, those local authorities in turn apparently didn't know they should make the FBI aware of the murder.

Four months later the older brother traveled to Russia, just as the Russian Government had warned us. The FBI claims it was unaware of the older brother's trip, even though the Homeland Security Department says its systems alerted them to the travel. Did the Homeland Security Department fail to share that information with the FBI?

The immigration reform bill, with all of its bells and whistles, can't make agencies share information with each other. That bill is supposed to require background checks on the 12 million people who are in our country undocumented. Yet it seems we have a hard time doing successful background checks just on those here legally.

Lack of information-sharing and failure to see real warning signs are probably things that no bill will fix. What has to change is the culture, and, of course, that begins at the top. It requires true leadership.

At the end of the day, this is about much more than who dropped the ball. It is about learning from mistakes and doing a better job next time. In order to do that, we need real transparency about what happened, not just talking points from agencies trying to deflect the blame.

The immigration bill before the Senate will make enforcement of immigration laws more inefficient, time-consuming, and ineffective.

I would refer my colleagues to section 3502 of the bill. That section governs immigration court proceedings. Under current law, people here illegally who are going through removal proceedings are not entitled to legal counsel at government expense, and the Justice Department is not required to provide that. However, this section opens the law wide, making taxpayers foot the bill for attorneys who will represent people here who are undocumented. It provides that ``the Attorney General, in the Attorney General's sole and unreviewable discretion, may appoint or provide counsel to aliens in'' removal proceedings.

The heading of the section implies that court proceedings would run more efficiently, when in actuality the goal is to ensure that people here illegally have every opportunity to fight removal orders. Some of these aliens could be dangerous. They certainly don't deserve free counsel whenever the Attorney General is inclined. Making it harder to deport aliens who should be deported will make it harder to deter aliens from entering the country illegally. Of course, there are organizations, such as law firms, law school clinics, and others, that provide pro bono legal services to aliens at no cost to the taxpayers.

The bill's language is just so astounding. There are very few statutes that say that any government official can do anything in his or her ``sole and unreviewable discretion.'' That means no oversight. However, time and again throughout this bill this language pops up. It means that no court can stop what that official wants to do. That is hard to square with our principles of democracy and a government based on the principles of checks and balances.

Ironically, the title for the section implies that this measure would ``reduce costs,'' but in fact it only increases the costs for taxpayers. This measure to provide legal counsel for people here illegally would be paid for from the newly created fund known as the Comprehensive Immigration Reform and Trust Fund. This fund, on the date of enactment, will have $6.5 billion, which is transferred from the General Treasury. How much will this section cost? We won't know until CBO scores it, but it won't be borne by the people in the removal proceedings, and that is going to be hard for the American people to swallow.

Anything that makes deportation harder or that makes deportation proceedings more likely to be about delaying tactics should be avoided, but the immigration bill appears to desire those results as goals. We should decline that invitation to mischief that is going to be a direct result.

Drug Prevention and Treatment Programs

Mr. President, I have long been a strong advocate for the responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

Throughout my career I have sent countless requests, letters, and conducted numerous investigations all in the interest of preventing waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars. Today, we are confronted with a government that is recklessly spending tax dollars and running up a huge Federal budget deficit and debt. We are also confronted with the need to tighten the government's belt when it comes to this reckless spending.

One area where we need to do a better job of responsibly using taxpayer dollars is through our drug treatment and prevention efforts. I have a strong commitment to ensure drug abuse does not flourish in communities throughout the country. I have championed numerous efforts to prevent drug abuse before it starts including my sponsorship of the Drug Free Communities grant program.

Drug abuse is very costly to society. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health estimates that 22.5 million Americans aged 12 and older used drugs in 2011. This is clearly a problem that needs to be addressed in an aggressive but wise manner.

Senator Feinstein and I requested the Government Accountability Office

to conduct a study of the Federal drug treatment and prevention programs that has recently been released. This report and another, which annually reports on the duplication or overlapping of Federal programs, states that out of 76 drug abuse prevention and treatment programs 59 or nearly 80 percent had evidence of overlapping efforts. In Fiscal Year 2012, 4.5 billion taxpayer dollars were allocated to these programs.

The Government Accountability Office reported that some programs, including the Drug Free Communities program, have a low risk for duplication because they have coordinated their efforts among their respective administering agencies. However, 29 of the 76 programs surveyed reported that no staff have coordinated with other agencies or programs to reduce duplication. This is almost 40 percent of all Federal drug prevention and treatment programs. The report further states that the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which is responsible for coordinating the government's anti-drug efforts, has not systematically assessed drug abuse prevention and treatment programs to examine the extent of overlap or opportunities for coordination.

It is with disappointment that I learned that the President has proposed a significant increase in his Budget to many of these programs. Specifically, the President has proposed a $1.5 billion increase for drug treatment programs, which is an increase of 18 percent from fiscal year 2012. Many of these programs have good intentions and may even do good work, but in a time when we are making many painful cuts throughout most federal agencies and programs to rein in spending should we be making such large increases?

Further, should we be spending more taxpayer dollars on programs that are duplicating efforts before they correct their problems? The last thing we need to be doing now is chasing good money after bad, and this is what the President is proposing with his budget.

Before we start increasing any program budget, we must first ensure that program is responsibly tracking and utilizing every taxpayer dollar it currently has and not wasting it by duplicating the work of another program. One example of success in eliminating duplication can be found with the National Drug Intelligence Center.

This center had repeatedly been listed as a duplicating agency for a number of years. The funding for this center was eventually eliminated in fiscal year 2011 while the work of the center has been consolidated.

I am pleased that the Office of National Drug Control Policy agrees with the recommendation of the Government Accountability Office report to assess the extent of overlap and duplication across all drug prevention and treatment programs by identifying where agencies can better coordinate their efforts. Yet these actions should have been taken years ago. However, it is with disappointment that I saw no mention of any effort to assess prevention and treatment programs in the President's recently released 2013 National Drug Control Strategy.

In fact, it appears that the President wants to expand many of the programs that currently do not coordinate efforts in his strategy. An assessment must be done and actions must be taken to eliminate waste before any expansions take place.

Failure to adhere to the Government Accountability Office recommendation will result in more wasted taxpayer dollars and less recipients benefitting from those dollars. The people most vulnerable to drug abuse, our Nation's youth, require our best efforts with the limited resources we have to ensure they receive the proper education and professional help so that they can grow into healthy adults. By failing to carefully safeguard taxpayer dollars, we are failing our children and grandchildren. We must do better.