Floor Statements

Mr. President, following leader remarks the Senate will be in morning business until 5 p.m. today.

At 5 p.m. the Senate will be in executive session to consider a couple nominations for United States district judges. One is for Pennsylvania and one is for New Mexico. At 5:30 p.m. there will be at least one rollcall vote on the confirmation of the nominations. The Restrepo and Gonzales nominations are the two nominations we have. Restrepo is from Pennsylvania and Gonzales is from New Mexico.

Following those votes, the Senate will resume consideration of the immigration bill.

Mr. President, it has been 86 days since the Senate passed its budget. We have been through this on several occasions. We have had Republican Senators come and criticize the Republican leadership here for not letting us go to conference. They talked about their wanting regular order so we could move forward in dealing with the financial crisis facing this country, but they have ignored us.

We are proud of the budget we passed. It was hard, but it reflects our priorities: protecting middle-class families and growing the economy. Even though that is the case, we are still willing to work out a compromise with our Republican counterparts.

We are not going to get everything we want. That is what conferences are all about. They have been going on in this country for more than two centuries. But we believe our sound fiscal policy would stand out as being so much better than what they have done in the House. We could do this through the regular order of the budget process. Unfortunately, Democrats and Republicans are not going to find common ground if we never start negotiating. As I said, for 86 days Republican leaders have objected to a conference with the House of Representatives. In conference, Democrats and Republicans could work together to work out our differences--differences between our budgets as well as our priorities. But Senate Republicans have objected to a conference time and time again.

Today, I read in the Hill newspaper called Politico that the House Republicans are more than happy for their Senate colleagues to obstruct and delay. They know a budget conference would only put the spotlight on divisions within the House Republican caucus. Here is what the article said:

Going to conference to match the House and Senate-passed

budgets--or making any movement on the budget right now--

could open up a schism in the [Republican] caucus on spending

that for months leadership has managed to keep mostly at bay.

So what they are saying is the Republican leadership over here is protecting the House. The House Republican leadership understands they cannot agree on anything--nothing. Therefore, objecting to this is the right thing to do because they will never get out in the open as to how crazy their budget priorities are.

But as Senate Republicans cover for their dysfunctional House colleagues, the country inches closer to another crisis: a default on the Nation's bills.

Reasonable Republicans are just as concerned as I am about this last manufactured crisis--a crisis that would undercut the economic progress of the last 4 years. Those reasonable Republicans have come to the floor repeatedly to call on Republican leaders to stop blocking bipartisan budget negotiations. I hope those reasonable Republicans prevail. I hope Republican leaders in the House and in the Senate will stop bowing to tea party extremists and listen to the more reasonable Members of their caucus.

I repeat, Republican Senators have arrived here on the floor on more than one occasion and criticized our not being able to go to conference. So if past is prologue, using the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government as a political hostage will not only be bad

for the economy, it will also be bad for the Republican Party.

It is time Republican leaders acknowledge that compromise--not reckless brinkmanship--will put America on the road to fiscal responsibility.

Mr. President, for 16 years, Blanca Gamez thought she was an average American girl. But when she turned 16, one by one her friends learned to drive. Her parents sat her down and explained an important truth she did not know at the time: She could not get her driver's license because she is an undocumented immigrant.

Blanca's parents brought her from Mexico to the United States when she was 7 months old. Because they came without proper paperwork, she was missing something really important. Blanca's parents told her: ``You need nine numbers.'' That refers to a Social Security number, which she did not have. A Social Security number--those nine numbers-- opens doors to American citizens, which American citizens take for granted.

I had an opportunity to visit with Blanca when I was in Las Vegas recently. She is a young woman with everything going for her. She is smart, she is driven, and she loves this country with a passion that is truly moving. In fact, she does not remember the country she was born in, Mexico. She was 7 months old when she came here. To her home means Nevada. That is our State song: ``Home Means Nevada.'' And home certainly means Nevada to this young woman.

Unfortunately, without a Social Security number--those nine numbers-- Blanca faced challenges her American-born peers simply did not.

But all that changed a year ago this week when President Obama signed a directive suspending deportation of upstanding young people such as Blanca who were brought to this country as children. As a result, she now has her nine numbers.

Almost 300,000 DREAMers--undocumented immigrants who came to this country as children--have already taken advantage of this opportunity.

Thanks to President Obama's courageous action, Blanca and hundreds of thousands of upstanding young men and women like her can rest easier knowing they are no longer in danger of being deported. They can now drive, they can work, and they can get the nine numbers that unlock a successful future--I repeat: a Social Security number.

Blanca's future--and the future of 800,000 young DREAMers--will remain uncertain until Congress passes commonsense immigration reform. President Obama's directive is only a temporary solution.

The Republican majority in the House of Representatives has taken aim at the DREAMers, voting recently to resume deportation of promising young people such as Blanca.

The directive does not address the 10 million people living in this country without the proper documentation who do not qualify for deferred action. Many of these individuals are the parents or siblings of DREAMers such as Blanca. The bipartisan legislation before the Senate is the opportunity they have been waiting for. This bill offers a pathway to earned citizenship that begins by going to the back of the line, paying penalties and fines, working, paying taxes, staying out of trouble, learning English, getting right with the law.

The measure will be good for national security, it will be great for the economy, and it will be good for millions of immigrant families.

The bill is not perfect, but it takes important steps to reform our broken legal immigration system and strengthen border security.

I know many of my colleagues have ideas about how to improve this bill. I hope we will be able to process additional amendments soon so we can give these ideas the debate they deserve here in the Senate and, after that, of course, the votes they deserve.

We have five amendments pending. We could vote on four of them right away. I also think it would be fair to add the Heller amendment. That would mean three Republican amendments and two Democratic amendments.

My colleagues should be aware, unless we begin voting on amendments soon, we will need to work through the weekend in order to finish the bill before July 4.

Recognizing that this is a Nation founded by immigrants, I hope Senators will consider every amendment to this bill with compassion. Like generations before them, Blanca's parents and millions of other undocumented immigrants came here seeking a better life. The famous author C.S. Lewis said:

You are never too old . . . to dream a new dream.

It is time for Congress to help 11 million dreamers--young and old-- get right with the law and unlock their potential.

Would the Chair announce the business of the day, please.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to a period of morning business from now until 6:40 p.m. to allow a colloquy between Senator Brown and Senator Isakson.

When that time is up, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of S. 744, which is the immigration bill, on Tuesday, June 18, the time until 12:30 p.m. and the time from 2:15 to 3 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees for debate on the pending amendments listed below in the following order: Thune No. 1197, Landrieu No. 1222, Vitter No. 1228, and Tester No. 1198; that there be no second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes; that all the amendments be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold; that there be 2 minutes equally divided between the votes; and that all after the first vote be 10-minute votes.

Madam President, I have spoken with my friend, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the senior Senator from Iowa, because I wanted to add the Heller amendment; however, I understand the Republicans want to pick their own amendments. They do not want me picking them. I understand that, so I haven't included that one in the consent request.

Mr. President, following my statement the Republican leader will be recognized. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized when he completes his statement.

Mr. President, following leader remarks the Senate will resume consideration of S. 744, the comprehensive immigration bill.

I renew my request to be recognized following the remarks of Senator McConnell and the reporting of the immigration bill.

Mr. President, when Alfredo Castaneda crossed the border from Mexico into the United States two decades ago, he didn't climb over a fence. He didn't swim across a river. He didn't fly over the border. He didn't walk through the desert. When Alfredo Castaneda crossed the border, he was a 2-year-old little boy perched on his father's shoulders.

The choice to leave Mexico wasn't an easy one for Alfredo's father, but the rumble of hunger in his belly and in his son's belly convinced Alfredo's dad to leave behind the world he knew for a hopefully better life in America. He wrote me a letter; it is addressed to me. Here is what he said:

I lived in a shack with one wall of my house leaning on my

neighbor's; the other three were made of sticks and mud

bricks. I wanted to give my family a better life, and so I

hear the U.S. is a land of opportunity. All I want is to have

a sliver of that opportunity for my family.

So with his wife by his side and his son on his shoulders, Alfredo's father came to America illegally. Alfredo was a 2-year-old boy, as I mentioned, at the time. Today he is a 23-year-old man who appreciates the privileges that come with life in America, but he is also conscious of the opportunities available only to U.S. citizens--opportunities that aren't available to him because of his immigration status.

When his friends applied for part-time jobs in high school, Alfredo knew he could never work legally. When he was researching a paper for a class, Alfredo was denied a library card because he had no identification. When he filled out an application for his dream school, selecting ``noncitizen'' on an online form, Alfredo received an error message in bold red letters that said ``noncitizens cannot apply''-- cannot apply for entry into this institution.

Alfredo's life in Nevada bears little in common with the shack of sticks and mud he left behind. For him, America truly is the land of opportunity his father envisioned. Yet, until recently, Alfredo could not get a Social Security number, a driver's license, or even a full- time job because he is an undocumented immigrant. But that hasn't stopped him from reaching for his dreams. This is what he wrote in addition to what we have already heard:

My parents constantly reminded me to be a good citizen and

volunteer in my community whenever possible. They said that

it would pay off and would help me acquire citizenship in the

future. I took that to heart.

So Alfredo worked hard in high school--really hard--volunteered in a local hospital, and became politically

active. He enrolled in the College of Southern Nevada.

Since he can't find steady work, it has been difficult for Alfredo to afford tuition while he helps support his family. But he believes things are about to change for the better.

Thanks to a directive issued last year by President Obama, Alfredo and 800,000 DREAMers just like him won't be deported and will be able to work and drive legally. Alfredo has already applied for several jobs. He has even gotten a few interviews. He looks forward to learning to drive, going back to school, completing his associate's degree, and one day owning a business.

But President Obama's directive isn't a permanent answer. The Republican majority in the House of Representatives voted last week to resume deportation of outstanding young people just like Alfredo who were brought to this country through no fault of their own. Remember, this boy got here on his dad's shoulders. And the directive isn't a solution for Alfredo's parents and 10 million people just like them who live in the United States without the proper paperwork.

It is more important than ever that Congress pass a permanent fix for this Nation's broken immigration system. Alfredo believes in us. He believes we will succeed. He believes we will find the political will to pass commonsense, bipartisan immigration reform and do it now.

His letter contained a reminder of what is at stake in this debate. This is what he wrote:

It's not just a piece of legislation; that piece of paper

holds our dreams, ambitions, and potential in it.

I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the immigration bill was reported, so we are on that bill right now; is that right?

And the pending amendment is what?

Mr. President, in a brief moment I am going to move to table that amendment, but I want everyone to understand that I talked to Senator Grassley yesterday and told him I was going to do this, and the staffs have been advised of it as well.

So I ask unanimous consent to move to table the Grassley amendment and that the vote on the motion to table occur at 10 a.m. following the remarks of Senator McConnell; and that at a time following Senator McConnell's remarks, there be 5 minutes for the opposition and 5 minutes for those supporting the motion to table. So the vote would occur a little after 10 a.m., but that depends on how long Senator McConnell speaks.

Mr. President, my dear friend--we have served together in the Congress for more than three decades--I care a great deal about him. He is a good legislator. But I think the only criticism I have is he must be reading my speeches because the speech he just gave is almost a carbon copy of what I have been saying for a long time: that we should not have this 60-vote threshold on everything the Republicans created.

For him to come now and say we are going to have 50 votes, he should go back and reread my speeches, which maybe his staff has done.

I move to table the Grassley amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays on my motion.

I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, for the benefit of Members, we have had a number of amendments filed, and I would like to move forward on trying to move this legislation along. That is what this is all about.

So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be in order and be called up in the order I offer them here: Thune No. 1197, Landrieu No. 1222, Vitter No. 1228, Tester No. 1198, and Heller No. 1227; that the time until 11:30 a.m. be equally divided between the two managers or their designees for debate on these amendments; that at that time; that is, 11:30 a.m., the Senate proceed to vote on the amendments in this agreement in the order listed; that there be no second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes; that all the amendments be subject to a 60-affirmative vote threshold; that there be 2 minutes equally divided between the votes, and all after the first vote be 10 minutes in duration.

So you object to the whole thing?

I thought we had a deal there.

I therefore ask, because of the objection, unanimous consent that the following amendments be in order to be called up: Thune No. 1197, Landrieu No. 1222, Vitter No. 1228, Tester No. 1198, and Heller No. 1227.

I am disappointed my colleague's amendment is not going to be part of this, but maybe we can work on that at a subsequent time.

Mr. President, while we are determining the best way to move forward on these amendments that are now in order, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Mexico Mr. Heinrich be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes to give his maiden speech before the Senate, and during that 15-minute period of time we will try to figure out a way to proceed.

That is the request.

I also ask unanimous consent that following the Senator's statement I be recognized.

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

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

Mr. President, I am going to ask consent that we have a vote on some judges in an hour. But prior to saying that, I want to say this. This is a very important bill. People want to offer amendments on this bill. We have five amendments that are now pending. There are ways we could move forward expeditiously, but sometimes that is not the right thing to do.

We have a number of issues I want to focus on for just a minute. No. 1, we have a storm coming--we all know about that--in a couple of different waves. We have meetings going on today in the Capitol with different groups of people trying to figure out a way to go forward on this important legislation. I think what we should do is have these judges votes, have people go ahead and do their meetings--for example, there is one at the White House late this afternoon with some Senators.

But I do say this: We are going to finish the work on the floor soon on this bill, but we are going to come back Monday and we are going to be on this bill. I want to alert everybody that next weekend we will be working on this bill. We are going to finish this bill before the July 4 recess. Everyone should understand that. Everyone has had adequate warning, notice, that we are going to work next weekend. That means Friday, Monday, and that includes Saturday and Sunday to get this legislation done. If something comes up and we do not have to do that, good, but as things now stand, I see that is something we have to do. I want to make sure people know. They know because we have to move forward on this legislation.

We have a lot we have to finish during the July time period. We will be on this legislation. I have had a couple of Senators say: Can we be next? Mr. President, everyone is alerted. We are working. Both sides are working in good faith to get this bill done, and we are going to continue to do that. Hopefully we will not have to terminate all these amendments with procedural votes. If we have to do that, we will, but I would rather not do that.

I hope everyone will continue working to come to an agreement on how we can improve this bill. I kind of like it the way it is, but I am not the one who is going to make this determination. The ranking member is here, and he will have plenty of time for speeches this afternoon on this legislation. I also appreciate everyone being reasonable. My friend the Senator from South Dakota is always very easy and pleasant to work with. I talked to him about how we should move forward on his amendment, and we had a good conversation. Hopefully what I have said will pacify everyone for the time being and hopefully for a long period of time so we can get this done.

Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Nominations

I ask unanimous consent that at 11:30 today the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar Nos. 47 and 49 under the previous order. Therefore, under the order, the Senate would have one or two votes beginning at noon, beginning on the confirmation of Nitza Alejandro and Jeffrey L. Schmehl to be U.S. district judges for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Both of these judges are from Pennsylvania.

So people can plan, we hope the first one will be by voice. This one vote after noon will be the last vote of the week.

Madam President, a number of people have said they did not know what was going on with the intelligence situation that has developed in the country. The programs have been around for 7 years. We have had a number of briefings, both classified and unclassified. We are having another one at 2:30. General Alexander will be there. He has some new stuff he wants to lay out for us. Everyone should go. If you do not go, you have no excuse for saying you do not know what is going on. This meeting has been scheduled all week.

Having said that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 2:30 to 3:30 p.m. I do not want anyone to have an excuse for why they are not going there.

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

I ask unanimous consent that Senators proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators being permitted to speak for 10 minutes each.

I ask unanimous consent that on Monday, June 17, 2013, at 5 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 48 and 62; that there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

I ask unanimous consent the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 154.

I ask unanimous consent that the Hoeven substitute amendment be agreed to; the resolution, as amended, be agreed to; the Hoeven amendment to the preamble be agreed to; the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; the title amendment be agreed to; and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to S. Res. 171, which was submitted earlier today.