Floor Statements

First, I thank the Senator from Delaware for his kind words about me and my friend and colleague from Arizona, who I believe is carrying on in the fine tradition of his predecessor Senator Kyl in a spirit of bipartisanship and dedication to the people of Arizona.

I come to the floor with my colleague from Arizona to offer a resolution honoring the fallen heroes of the Granite Mountain Interagency Hotshot Crew.

Yesterday, Senator Flake and I were privileged to attend a memorial ceremony in Prescott, AZ, honoring the life and sacrifice of the 19 brave men of the Granite Mountain Hotshots who lost their lives last week battling the Yarnell Hill Fire in Yavapai County, AZ.

I know I speak for all of my fellow citizens in expressing our gratitude to the Vice President of the United States, who came all the way to Arizona and gave a moving, stirring, and wonderful testimony to these brave Arizonans. I believe it is typical of my friend for so many years, the Vice President of the United States, that he and his wonderful wife would come to Arizona to join us to honor the efforts of these brave men.

These were not men merely worth knowing, they were men to admire. They were men to emulate if you have the courage and character to live as decently and honorably as they lived. Not many of us can. But we can become better people by trying to be half as true, half as brave, half as good as they were and to make our lives count for something more than the sum of our days.

The news accounts of their lives and the testimonials to their virtues that have appeared in the days since we lost

them give the rest of us a glimpse of what a blessed memory they are to those who knew and loved them. Some of them were the sons of firefighters who grew up wanting to be like dad, their hero. Some leave behind wives and children. Some were expecting the birth of their first child. Some married their high school sweethearts. Some were engaged and looking forward to being husbands and fathers.

Two were cousins and best friends. One rescued horses. One aspired to preach the word of God. One was a standout ball player. One dressed in a yellow raincoat when he was 6 and pretended to put out fires. Some were born in Arizona. Some came from other places and fell right in love with the beauty and people of Arizona.

Some were shy. Others were practical jokers. They were all respected and admired, the kind of men you just like being around.

They all loved the outdoors. They were athletic and adventurous. They loved their jobs. They wanted to serve others. They wanted to make a difference. They all had a purpose greater than themselves. They were all young, so young. They were all brave, so brave. They were all loved and were loved, so loved. They will all be missed, so terribly missed.

I will forever be touched by what their families and friends have told me about them and how much they meant to them and their communities. Their stories teach us how to be better people. Their loss reminds us to hold each other a little tighter, to love each other a little harder. I will always consider myself disadvantaged for not having known them. From the little I know about hope in the face of daunting challenge and the indomitability of the human spirit, it is so vital to helping us keep our faith and to endure. I hope I can offer some solace when I say the courage of those we honor today is immortal. It does not perish with them. How they lived and what they did will inspire others to live courageously, purposefully, selflessly.

Of these qualities, we tend to see merely flashes throughout our lives. In these men of the Granite Mountain Hotshots, we see grand examples--sublime, shining, and unforgettable examples--that will summon good men and women today and long after our time has passed to live bravely, compassionately, and honorably.

In a fierce and terrifying encounter with extreme danger, they stood their ground like the heroes they were and fought for their community. While they did not come home to the people who loved them so much and will miss them always, I firmly believe we will see them again in the better world that is to come.

Until then, we fondly remember the humanity and the heroism of these brave men, their wonderfully unassuming down-to-Earth nature, all of their marvelous imperfections known only to their closest family and friends, and how, in the face of dire peril, they rose beyond all that makes us merely ordinary and let God cradle them in his arms and carry them away.

The lost men of the Granite Mountain Hotshots died having taught us all to live. For that, as we honor them and pay our respects to their loved ones today, I submit we should all find great solace.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 193, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge the passing of longtime tribal leader Dr. Clinton Pattea, the president of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation in Arizona.

Dr. Pattea was one of the longest serving Native American public officials in the Nation. Last year--coinciding with the State of Arizona's centennial celebration--we marked Dr. Pattea entering his 50th year of service to the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation's tribal council. While he held a variety of elected posts, including tribal councilman and vice president, most of his time in office was spent serving as the tribe's president.

President Pattea was a true visionary in his community and throughout Indian Country. He was a strong advocate for the principles of tribal self-governance and Indian self-determination, which over the years helped bring about positive change in the relationship between the Federal Government and all Native Americans.

He was among the first tribal leaders in Arizona to acknowledge the tremendous economic potential that Indian gaming offered his people. Dr. Pattea was a fierce advocate for developing a government-to- government relationship with the State of Arizona and worked tirelessly to spearhead a voter-approved tribal gaming compact that has made Arizona the pinnacle of regulated Indian gaming that we know today.

Over the past 30 years, I have personally witnessed the Fort McDowell Yavapai make tremendous strides as a community, and I attribute much of that success to Dr. Pattea's leadership. He directed his tribal government to develop business ventures to help take his community out of poverty; he successfully fought for the Nation's Federal water rights settlement; and he assembled a tribal government that is among the best examples of a sovereign governing body in the country. Today, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation stands as a leader in the Valley of the Sun as well as the United States.

We were fortunate to have been enriched by Dr. Pattea's passion for public service. His work with the tribal council brought him immense satisfaction. It is fitting that his legacy will continue on through the recently established Dr. Clinton M. and Rosiebelle Pattea Foundation, which will fund tribal scholarships for education, culture, health and wellness programs in his name.

I offer my deepest condolences to the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation on Dr. Clinton Pattea's passing. My thoughts and prayers are with his tribal members and his loved ones.

Madam President, I join my friend from New York in stating that I am aware that the Department of Defense has a number of concerns with section 1103 and some ideas on how to address those concerns while allowing us to take the necessary steps to ensure the security of our southern border. I would also tell my friend from Michigan, with whom I have served for many years on the Armed Services Committee, that I would be willing, at the appropriate point, to consider ideas to address the Defense Department's concerns.

Madam President, I thank Senator Durbin for his compelling remarks and his deep and abiding concern for many years for the so-called DREAMers. I thank my other my six colleagues for their involvement, and I also thank Senator Corker and Senator Hoeven for their effort on this bill. I thank my colleague Senator Flake for his outstanding work. I would like to also mention Senator Lindsey Graham, who gave his own unique perspective, as well as my friend from Colorado Senator Bennet and also Senator Schumer, who has played such an important and valuable leadership role.

The word ``friend'' is tossed around this body quite often, perhaps with not as much sincerity as we would like, but these seven individuals are my friends. More importantly, they are friends of America. They are friends who realize that we were sent here by our constituents to achieve results, and I don't know at this particular time of a greater issue in which we should be involved.

We have heard a lot of personal stories here today, and I am deeply moved by all of them. There is another human story. In fact, there are millions of them. I would like to tell a few of them.

Over the last week the Arizona newspapers have reported that eight bodies were found in the Arizona desert. The Arizona desert today, my friends, is in triple-digit temperatures.

On June 21 the Arizona Republic reported:

Four men may have been dead three days before their bodies

were found in the Arizona desert by U.S. Border Patrol agents

. . . Two men had Mexican identifications, and the other two

didn't have identification.

On June 24 the Associated Press reported:

Maricopa County Sheriff's deputies found another dead body

in the Arizona desert near Gila Bend . . . just days after

four bodies were found in the same area . . . No

identification was found on the body and there were no signs

of trauma or foul play.

On June 27, today, the Arizona Daily Star reported:

Three decomposing bodies were found by Tucson Sector Border

Patrol agents in the desert in two separate incidents over

the weekend.

The Yuma Sun reported yesterday:

There have been 12 people rescued from the desert by Yuma

Sector agents. Six others were not located and died in the

wilderness.

The list goes on and on.

Since 2007--the last time we tried to pass this legislation--more than 2,425 immigrants have died trying to cross our southwest border. These are people who wanted to come to this country because they wanted to realize the American dream. That is what they wanted. That is what they risked their lives and, in fact, gave their lives for--and, yes, they did so illegally. They were willing to pay a penalty for crossing our border illegally. Shouldn't we give them the same chance we have given generation after generation of immigrants who have come to this country? There has been wave after wave of Irish, Italians, Jews, Poles, and now people from all over the world who want to come to this country. Shouldn't we do that? Isn't it in us to bring 11 million people out of the shadows who are now being exploited and have none of the protections of citizenship?

Well, how do we address that? This legislation does secure the border, and I can tell everyone, from 30 years of being on the border, this bill secures the border, and anyone who says it doesn't does not understand our security needs. I have been there, and I have seen the technology. This is technology that was developed in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will give us surveillance. Yes, there is a bill with 20,000 new Border Patrol agents, but the fact is that the technology that is there now will give us the ability for 100 percent situational awareness and the ability to intercept. I guarantee it to my friends because I saw it work. There are 700 miles of total fencing that will be added--700 miles. As we all know, we will also have additional Border Patrol agents.

What is the key to this bill? The key to this bill is not only that we have the fencing on the border and the Border Patrol, but it is the 40 percent of the people who are here illegally who came here and overstayed their visas. They didn't cross the southwest border. What do we do about that? We dry up the magnet, and that is the E-Verify program, which makes sure that every person who wants to come to this country illegally will know they cannot get a job here. Within 5 years we will have an E-Verify system that I am confident--and more importantly, so are the people who are really knowledgeable about this--will be a full-proof system with 95 percent effectiveness.

This legislation will not only give us a secure border, but it will address the key element because people who now want to come here illegally will know they cannot. Employers will know that if they hire someone who is here illegally, they will pay a severe penalty for doing so. We have to dry up the magnet.

So today there are 11 million people who are in violation, and they don't have the protection of our laws. I would like to mention again the people who are coming across our borders. There is a thing called coyotes. Does anyone know what coyotes are? They are drug cartel people. They are the most evil people on Earth. They take these people in groups, and they bring them across the border. Many times, the reason we find these bodies in the desert is because they say: We are leaving you here. Tucson is right over the hill. Thousands have died in the desert. Do my colleagues know what they do sometimes when they get them all the way up to Phoenix? They keep them in drop houses jammed together and they hold them for ransom under the most unspeakable conditions. Do my colleagues know what else they do? They abuse the people they bring up. I won't go into the details of how they do that. It is an unacceptable situation.

Fifty thousand Mexican citizens have been killed by the drug cartels. Last year, hundreds of migrants were missing or killed in Mexico, more than 20,000 were kidnapped, and many are regularly beaten. The Mexican Government doesn't know exactly how to handle this situation, and it is all complicated by drugs which we are creating the demand for.

I have had the great opportunity in my life to have many experiences, and the one I will never forget was on July 4 of 2007. Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Joe Lieberman, my beloved friend, and I were in Baghdad for the Fourth of July. General Petraeus had requested that we speak at a reenlistment ceremony where about 800 brave young men and women serving in the military were reenlisting to stay and fight. There was another group of some 80-some who were green card holders who, because they had joined the military, had an accelerated path to citizenship. I was honored to be there. I was honored to speak to them. In the front row, there were four empty seats with boots on them representing men who were green card holders who had lost their lives in combat in the previous 48 hours, men who had been willing to risk their lives and serve our country in order to be citizens of this country. I have never been so deeply moved.

Let's give these 11 million people a chance to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

My understanding is that there were 17 amendments that were just proposed by the majority leader, and it was opposed by the Senator from Iowa because we were not allowing votes. Did I hear correctly that after a unanimous consent request for 17 Republican amendments--1 of them very critical to the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Ohio because of E-Verify, which is something which is a fundamental key to making

sure that those 40 percent of the people who are in this country illegally, who did not cross our border but came on visas and overstayed--and then it is my understanding that after those 17 votes, with 10 minutes allowed for each side, if I understand the unanimous consent request by the majority leader, then we would do 17 more and even 17 more, if necessary. Yet the Senator from Iowa says we are not allowing amendments.

I have to say, I think in honesty, if I would ask the Senator from New York this, there was a delay of a couple days there that was unnecessary, which frankly was from the other side. But to somehow allege that the rights on this side of the aisle are being abridged, when there is a unanimous consent request to have 17 votes right now with 10 minutes in between--perhaps the Senator from New York can explain to me that logic.

Would the Senator yield? The Senator from Iowa may allege that the amendments he wants considered are not in that package. I would ask the Senator from New York, and perhaps the majority leader, would we then agree to have votes on the amendments the Senator from Iowa wants? This is a beginning and something we could continue to vote on as long as it takes.

When we were doing the budget, we stayed up all night. That was another great moment in the history of the Senate. Again, I am not saying all amendments are not equal. But I think it is pretty clear that the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Ohio Mr. Portman have a very important amendment that has to do with E-Verify, a fundamental of this legislation.

We can assure the American people that the magnet disappears because of the certainty of penalties for employers, which is embodied in E- Verify, which the Senator from Ohio has spent weeks on. Only a nerd such as the Senator from Ohio could come up with the absolute detailed and absolute complete and comprehensive approach to E-Verify, a man I admire enormously.

Anybody who could be the Director of the budget has to be a nerd, as we know. But I admire the work of the Senator from Ohio, along with the Senator from Montana. Is there anyone who would disagree that what the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Montana are proposing would not improve the bill enormously and the confidence of the American people that we can verify whether someone is in this country illegally and applying for a job?

I guess my other question is, if the Senator from Iowa does not like the list that the majority leader read from, why do we not do some of the other amendments or are we not going to do any amendments? Finally, may I say to my friend from Ohio, I have the greatest respect for his intellect and his capabilities. I know he knows I was just joking with my comments.

As a personal aside, when I was practicing for a failed run for the Presidency, the Senator from Ohio played my opponent, and I began to dislike the Senator from Ohio enormously. He did a great job, as he did in the last election.

Will the gentleman yield?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

It is my understanding the Senator from Ohio, it is true, worked for weeks, literally consulting industry, consulting labor, the best high-tech people in America, and has come up with these fixes which all of us, no matter how we are on this issue, agree would dramatically improve our capability to make sure if anyone is in this country illegally before they obtain a job.

Maybe it might be helpful to our colleagues if the Senator could describe for a couple of minutes, if he would, what he has been through in this process of coming up with this product to make sure this is a system that can work. I am not sure people are aware of that.

Again, I say only someone with his background, knowledge, and expertise, in my view, could have come up with this amendment, along with the Senator from Montana.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Has the Senator ever been to the Arizona-Mexico border?

May I ask when that was?

In the early 2000s. I would say to the Senator from Nebraska, she is so ill-informed from the statement I just heard. I don't know where to begin, except to say that if she doesn't think this legislation secures the border, she hasn't spent any time on the border--certainly not meaningful time. And I can't express my disappointment in the series of false statements the Senator just made.

Madam President, I would welcome the Senator from Nebraska to come to the border and see what has been done and what can be done with the use of technology. And to somehow believe our border cannot be secured by this legislation argues strenuously for a visit, and I invite the Senator. I would be glad to join her at any time.

Again, I can't speak for Senator Grassley, who is managing the bill in an outstanding fashion, but I would like to point out, in conversations I have had with Senator Grassley, these amendments are in process, and as the Senator mentioned, there are a number of them being cleared. In other words, rather than just being judged noncontroversial, which I certainly accept the word of the Senator from Louisiana, we need to clear them with everybody. I hope she understands, and I hope we can move forward rather rapidly with that process.

I don't dispute they are ``noncontroversial,'' but every Senator obviously wants to have these amendments cleared with them, and they have already started that process. I appreciate the advocacy and the involvement of the Senator from Louisiana. She has been extraordinarily involved in this issue by helping us make the package much better, and I hope she will show some more--I emphasize more--patience as we try to get this package agreed to by both sides.

Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

First of all, could I say that all of us who have had the honor of working with the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from North Dakota are greatly appreciative of the work they have done. If there is going to be broad bipartisan support for the final product, it will be because of what the Senators from Tennessee and North Dakota have done, and I am very grateful for that.

I think it is important--wouldn't the Senator from Tennessee agree-- that people understand that this is a very tough bill, and it required a lot of cooperation from our friends on the other side of the aisle to go along and agree with this. I think they have shown a great deal of compromise in order to reach this point and agree with us on this legislation, for which clearly we need bipartisan support.

But I would like to ask the Senator for a couple of specifics because, again, I think it is important that we understand how tough this legislation is. Is it not true that we know already that E-Verify must be used by every employer in the country before anyone under this plan could be eligible for a green card? Isn't that true? It is already there?

And the electronic entry-exit system at all international airports and seaports has to be up and operational before anyone is eligible for a green card; is that true?

Now, thanks to the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from North Dakota, is it true that

additional technology must be deployed and operational in the field-- and that includes new VADER radar systems, integrated fixed towers, unmanned aerial systems, fixed cameras, mobile surveillance systems, ground sensors--to the point where the head of the Border Patrol has assured us that if these technologies are in place and operational, we can have 100 percent situational awareness and 90 percent effective control of the border?

So to put the final piece of this puzzle together, is it not true that the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from North Dakota have called for 350 miles of additional border fencing in addition to the 350 miles already there and that 20,000 new, full-time Border Patrol agents be hired and deployed before someone is eligible for a green card? Is that a fact?

I wonder if the Senator from North Dakota would like to respond to that.

And is it not true, I say to my two colleagues--Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with both the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from North Dakota.

Is it not true, I say to my friends, that on our side of the aisle there is understandable skepticism--and well-founded skepticism on the part of my friend from Texas--because we have seen this movie before. In 1986 we gave amnesty to 3 million people and we said we would secure the border. Then in 2006 we passed a border security appropriations, and there was going to be plenty of money. Yet it was never funded.

So for those of us from the Southwest particularly but people all over America, is it not true that there is understandable skepticism that we would not pass legislation that is binding? And is it not true that we can't make this, as far as border patrol and as far as miles of fencing, any more binding than it is in my colleagues' amendment?

I would ask my colleagues one more question. With all due respect to every Member of this body, when we look at this legislation and we look at these triggers and the technology that is going to be required, which, if operational, the head of the Border Patrol has said will give 100 percent awareness and 90 percent effective control, plus this increase in fencing, plus Border Patrol agents and the already existing in legislation E-Verify--and I think the Senator from North Dakota is very correct. If we remove the incentive, if people know they can't get a job in this country unless they have the proper documents, then people will stop coming illegally. It also addresses the issue of the 40 percent who are here who never crossed our border illegally but came on a visa and overstayed it.

So I would just ask for maybe a subjective opinion. Is it possible that one could ever argue against this legislation now by saying that it does not give us a secure border?

Could I have the Senator from North Dakota finish answering this question?

I thank the Senator from Texas for his engagement.

As usual, the Senator from South Carolina has a very busy schedule. I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed 10 minutes and then I regain the floor.

I thank my friend from South Carolina for his usual eloquent exposition of what this situation is all about.

I have other colleagues who are waiting to speak, but I want to say again, the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Tennessee have shown the best of what this institution can be all about. Not only did they reach agreement between the two of them, not only did they reach agreement with I believe a significant number of our colleagues but they also reached agreement with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. In this day and age, that is a signal success. I thank them for not only what they produced but the many compromises they had to make along the way.

I won't try to embellish what the Senator from South Carolina said, except to say I come from a State that has probably been torn apart more than any other by this issue. We passed legislation in reaction to our broken borders, where ranchers in the southern part of my State were actually murdered; where our wildlife refuges were destroyed; where people died in the desert by the hundreds, their bodies were found months later; where coyotes bring people across the border and then hold them in drop houses in Phoenix for ransom under the most unspeakable conditions; where drugs are brought freely across the border and guided by guides on mountaintops, guiding these drug cartels as they bring the drugs to Phoenix. The drug people will tell you that Phoenix, AZ, is still the major drug distribution center in the United States of America.

So I take a backseat to no one, even from the great State of Texas, of the enormous challenges and controversies associated with illegal immigration.

We tried before and we failed. I won't go into why we failed and all the people who were responsible. I will take responsibility. I didn't do a good enough job in selling my colleagues on the absolute need for immigration reform. The fact is 11 million people live in the shadows, they live here in de facto amnesty, and they are being exploited every single day.

Should not it be for a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles to bring these people out of the shadows? Yes, punish them because they committed crimes by crossing our border illegally. But isn't it in our Nation to come together and pass this legislation and not manufacture reasons for not doing that? Isn't there enough of a penalty? Isn't there enough border security now, thanks to my colleagues from North Dakota and from Tennessee--isn't there enough now?

All I can say is I urge my colleagues to vote overwhelmingly in favor of this hard-fought, well-crafted amendment and let's move on to other issues that face this Nation. Then I believe we can look back years from now and say to our children and our grandchildren that we did the right thing.

I yield floor.

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

I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as if in morning business.

I thank the Presiding Officer for these few extra minutes. I intend to speak until 12:45.

There is a lot to say about the immigration bill, and obviously there are amendments that are pending.

One, the Thune amendment would delay the process of bringing people out of the shadows until 350 miles of double-layer fencing is complete. This could have the impact of delaying the process for years. I note with some interest that the Senator from Texas, Senator Cornyn, believes there is no more fencing required in the State of Texas.

Fencing is important. Surveillance is more important. This bill alone as presently written includes $1.5 billion of fencing for the southern border as a trigger to begin adjustment of status for those in RPI status, but it doesn't arbitrarily dictate the number of miles of double-layer fencing that should be built. I think we should leave that to the best judgment of the Border Patrol.

I would point out that back in 2007, the Senators from Texas added an amendment to an appropriations bill that said: If the Secretary determines the use or placement of resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border. We currently have 352 miles of pedestrian fencing, 298 miles of vehicle fencing along the southern border, which is where the Border Patrol said it is most effective.

The Vitter amendment has the same limitations. We agree, and in the bill an exit-entry system is created. The bill mandates that before anyone receives a green card, an entry-exit system must be in place in all air and sea capabilities.

I want to remind my colleagues who keep referring back to 1986--and I was around at that time--there was no real provision for border security there. There are provisions here. And I want to emphasize that we know exactly from the Border Patrol the technology that is needed in each sector in order to get 90-percent effective control of the border and 100-percent situational awareness, and these are detailed in important technology--which is the real answer to border security.

I am absolutely confident that with the implementation of this technology-based border security system, we can

absolutely guarantee the American people--but, more importantly, the head of the Border Patrol--I will have a statement from him early this afternoon, and he will say that if we implement the technology--which they gave us the detailed list of--he is confident we can have 90- percent effective control of our border and 100-percent situational awareness.

I hope my colleagues who are concerned about border security--and legitimately they are--will pay attention to the statement of the head of the Border Patrol who says unequivocally that if we adapt these specific enforcement capabilities and technology, we will be able to have control of our border. That is an important item in this debate and it is incredible detail.

Also in this legislation we need to give them the flexibility where there is the improved technology, et cetera. We do need more people to facilitate movement across our ports of entry, but we have 21,000 Border Patrol. Today, on the Arizona-Mexico border there are people sitting in vehicles in 120-degree heat. In 1986, we had 4,000 Border Patrol. We now have 21,000. What we need is the technology that has been developed in the intervening years.

I would be more than happy to say to my colleagues that if we have a provision that this strategy must be implemented and is providing 90- percent effective border control, that would serve as a trigger.

I hope my colleagues will reject the pending Vitter and Thune amendments and we will move on with the legislative process.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, first of all, I wish to thank the Presiding Officer, the distinguished Senator from Delaware, who is not only an outstanding Member of the Senate, but he is the chairman of the homeland security committee. He has gone out of his way to understand the issues we face when we are addressing border security. The chairman was kind enough to visit the border between Arizona and Sonora, Mexico, and spent a lot of time with us and with the people who are entrusted to secure the border. He made some remarks I think were entirely accurate about the challenges we face in enforcing our border. So I wish to again thank the distinguished chairman of the homeland security committee.

I wish to address a few aspects of comprehensive immigration reform that need to be discussed. First of all, everybody says--and I say it too--we don't want to return to 1986 because in 1986 we guaranteed the American people we would secure the border, and it would never happen again. Well, the fact is, when we look at what we did in 1986--and I will, first of all, plead guilty for having voted for it--the only mandate in the entire legislation which gave ``amnesty'' to 3 million people was:

Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under

paragraph one, sufficient funds shall be available to provide

for an increase in the Border Patrol personnel of the

Immigration and Naturalization Service so that the average

level of such personnel in each of the fiscal years 1987 and

1988 is at least 50 percent higher than such level for fiscal

year 1986.

Let me translate that. It meant we would increase the Border Patrol. That was the only mention of how we were going to secure the border after we gave amnesty in 1986. And at that time, I say to my colleagues, the cost, as I mentioned, was 50 percent higher. The Border Patrol has to be 50 percent higher.

Well, the number of Border Patrol agents in 1986 was 4,000--4,000. Now we have 21,000. So there was really nothing in the 1986 bill about fencing, about sensors, about other ways to get our border secure. So we learned from that.

We learned from that, and this legislation that recently passed through the Judiciary Committee and is now on the floor, as compared with 1986 where they said they would increase the numbers of Border Patrol agents by 50 percent--this legislation appropriates $3 billion in funding for the comprehensive southern border security strategy. No one who is in RPI status will be able to petition for a green card until certain requirements are fulfilled, including the following: E- Verify in use by all employers, an entry-exit system in place, $1.5 billion in additional funding for the southern border fencing strategy that has to be submitted within 180 days of passage of this legislation and signed by the President.

It sets the goal of a 90-percent effectiveness rate for all southern border States. If that goal is not reached within 5 years, there will be a bipartisan commission formed and authorized to spend $2 billion in additional funds to secure the border.

It will add an additional 3,500 Customs and Border Patrol agents. Remember, in 1986, there was a total of 4,000.

It will authorize the National Guard to provide assistance along the border if requested. The National Guard has had tremendous success on our border. No, they don't carry weapons, but they do incredibly important work, and I am glad they don't carry weapons, to tell the truth.

The bill funds additional Border Patrol stations and forward operating bases.

It increases something called Operation Stonegarden funding, which is vital, in my view, in disincentivizing people to frequently cross the border, and strengthens Border Patrol training.

It authorizes funds to triple the border-crossing prosecutions in the Tucson sector. Why do I mention the Tucson sector? Not because I am from the State of Arizona but because the Tucson sector for years has been a major thoroughfare for both people and drugs.

The current bill will authorize funds to help States and localities incarcerate criminal unauthorized illegal immigrants.

It grants the Department of Homeland Security access to Federal lands. That is a problem on our border, where we have an Indian reservation that is right on the border. They are sovereign nations, and this will authorize a greater ability for us to have access to those lands. There are wildlife refuges we need access to as well.

The bill removes the discretion from the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop the southern border strategy and provides the minimum requirements recommended by the Border Patrol. Those are the people on the ground. These are the people who today, in 120-degree heat at the Sonora, AZ, border, are sitting in vehicles and patrolling our border to keep our Nation secure. This is recommended by them and must be included in the strategy that we want to achieve and must achieve, which is 100 percent situational awareness of each and every 1-mile segment of the southern border.

The technology list will include, but is not limited to, sector-by- sector requirements for integrated fixed towers, VADER radar systems. These radar track people back from where they came.

The list includes unmanned aerial systems--what we know as drones-- fixed cameras, mobile surveillance systems, ground sensors, handheld thermal imaging systems, infrared cameras, thermal imaging cameras, license plate readers, and radiation detection systems. All of these are part of this legislation and the billions of dollars we are going to spend to improve border security. We all admit the border is more secure, but where I disagree with the Secretary of Homeland Security is that it is not secure enough.

So we want to prevent the adjustment of status RPI, which is registered permanent status, for people who will be granted it once the passage of this bill is achieved until that strategy is deployed and operational--deployed and operational. This is just to achieve a legal status in this country; also, a technology list before anybody can adjust RPI to green card status.

It removes the sole discretion from the Department of Homeland Security to certify the strategy is complete. It requires written, third-party certification to the President and Congress that affirms the elements required by the strategy are operational and capable of achieving effective control of the border.

With these tools in place, we can achieve situational awareness and be guaranteed this technology is deployed and working along the border. So I say to my friends who say we do not have sufficient provisions for border security, we will be glad to do more, but let's look at this.

Look at what we are doing: billions of dollars of technology as well as additional people, as well as other measures, including the E- Verify. The magnet that draws people to this country is jobs, and if the word is out that unless an E-Verify is in operation--unless a person can get a job in this country they are not going to come here unless it is through a legal means and not through illegal means.

We are a nation of immigrants. I would remind my colleagues again, 40 percent of the people who are in this country illegally did not cross our border. They came on a visa that expired. So we need to have footprints and other physical evidence of illegal crossings. It is a tool for Border Patrol agents to identify and locate illegal border crossers. But it is imprecise. That is why we need to have this technology, so we can surveil and have situational awareness of the entire border.

The General Accounting Office is an organization all of us over time begin to rely on enormously, and I will quote from them:

In terms of collecting data, Border Patrol officials

reported that sectors rely on a different mix of cameras,

sign cutting--

That is tracking footprints--

credible sources, and visual observation to identify and

report the number of turn backs and gotaways.

Turnbacks are those we catch and turn back, and gotaways are those we see come across and do not apprehend.

Again, quoting the GAO:

According to Border Patrol officials, the ability to obtain

accurate or consistent data using these identification

sources depends on various factors such as terrain and

weather. For example, data on turn backs and gotaways may be

understated in areas with rugged mountains and steep canyons

that can hinder detection of illegal entries. In other cases,

data may be overstated--for example, in cases where the same

turn back identified by a camera is also identified by

tracks. Double counting may also occur when agents in one

zone record as a gotaway an individual who is apprehended and

then reported as an apprehension in another zone. As a result

of these data limitations, Border Patrol headquarters

officials said that while they consider turn back and gotaway

data sufficiently reliable to assess each sector's progress

toward border security and to inform sector decisions

regarding resource deployment, they do not consider the data

sufficiently reliable to compare--or externally report--

results across sectors.

That is why we need this technology.

Now, I wish to point out that from the Border Patrol, not from the Department of Homeland Security, I got a detailed list of what they believe is necessary, using their experience, as to the specific equipment and capabilities they need on each of the nine sectors of the border.

For example, in the Arizona sectors, including Yuma and Tucson, we need 56 towers, 73 fixed camera systems, 28 mobile surveillance systems, 685 unattended ground sensors, and 22 handheld equipment devices.

At points of entry or checkpoints we need one nonintrusive inspection system, and the list goes on. It is a specific list of what the Border Patrol believes we need in each of the nine sectors on our southern border in order to give us 100 percent situational awareness and put us on the path to a 90-percent effective control of the border.

So I say to my friends who say we cannot control our border, I respectfully disagree because of what we are doing in this legislation. And those who say we are unable to keep track of what goes on at our border, I would argue that the minimum requirements to be included in the southern border security strategy as provided by the Border Patrol should convince anyone of what we need.

I ask unanimous consent that these minimum requirements be printed in the Record.

I see my distinguished friend from Vermont on the floor, who is always worth listening to, so I will be brief.

I wish to share with our colleagues another aspect of this problem that we really have not talked about very much, and that is the issue of drugs. Drugs are a problem of enormous proportion in this country. We see the effects of illegal drugs such as methamphetamine and others, and we see it is doing incredible damage to our Nation and particularly to our young people.

This document is called the Arizona High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Threat Assessment of 2013. Now, I am not going to go into a lot of the details, but there are some stark facts about the flow of drugs across our southern border that should disturb all of us. I quote:

The Tucson and Phoenix areas remain the primary

distribution hubs for ton quantities of marijuana in the

southwest region--

Ton quantities of marijuana in the southwest region--

as Tucson and Phoenix-based sources sell throughout the

United States.

In other words, the drugs come up across the Arizona-Sonora border, they are tracked by guides on mountaintops and into Phoenix, and from Phoenix they are distributed throughout the country.

The Phoenix field DEA--Drug Enforcement Agency--Phoenix field division's biannual drug price list for 2012 indicates marijuana in the Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas remained stable during the period January 2011 to 2012.

Why is that important? Because the only real indication as to whether we are reducing a supply is the price of that supply. So when we see the price of marijuana on the street in Phoenix and Tucson is exactly what it was for the entire year, no matter what we see in the papers and on television of these large apprehensions, unless the price is going up, then we are not apprehending these drugs.

So I just want to mention a couple of other facts to my colleagues and why I think we are not addressing the drug problem sufficiently in this legislation.

The assessment continues:

The retail price of methamphetamine decreased in the

Phoenix area and now ranges from $500 to $1,000 per ounce.

If there is a terrible drug on the market today, it has to be methamphetamine. I am told that one--one--ingestion of methamphetamine makes a person an addict. So what have we been able to do as far as methamphetamine? The retail price of methamphetamine decreased, which obviously means the supply has certainly not been impacted.

Wholesale black tar heroin prices in Arizona have remained

stable or decreased slightly, including market stability.

Only 35 percent of the HIDTA--

The high density trafficking area--

respondents reported high cocaine availability in their

respective jurisdictions. Intelligence indicates cocaine

price increases in Mexico and Arizona during the past year

may have impacted the supply of cocaine to the Arizona

drug market, thus impacting other drug markets.

So that is good news.

Continuing to read from the threat assessment: The price per kilogram of cocaine increased $5,000 to $6,000 per kilogram in the Phoenix area.

My friends, I know my colleagues are very busy, but I would at least have your staff read this threat assessment of 2013 in the State of Arizona. Again, I do not say that because I represent the State of Arizona. But these same people--the Drug Enforcement Agency--will tell you still the bulk of illegal drugs crossing our southern border comes through the Arizona-Tucson sector.

So what is my recipe on this situation? Frankly, I do not know a real good recipe because clearly demand is either stable or on the rise in the United States of America depending on to whom you talk. In some places in America, the use of drugs is glamorized. In some places, it is kind of the sophisticated thing to do. I do not think there is any doubt that there are influences in the United States of America that increase the attractiveness of drugs to our citizens.

I am not saying I know the answer, but I do think that as we address the issue of border security, we have to understand that if there is a demand for drugs in the streets of every major city in America, they will use all ultralights, they will use submarines, they will use tunnels, they will do whatever is necessary in order to get that supply to where there is a market.

I will never forget being down in Colombia, where the government people there showed me a submarine the drug cartel people had built--a very sophisticated submarine. They had hired engineers to build it. It was one that travels under the water--not far but under the water.

I said: How much did it cost them to build this?

He said: Five million dollars.

I said: Five millions dollars. That is a lot of money.

The guy said: They make $15 million in one load--in one load.

So I am not coming to this floor with a lot of answers, but I am coming to the floor of this Senate and saying that the drug issue in this country is a serious one, and if anybody thinks we are reducing the supply of those drugs, I think the facts contradict that, and it is time we started seriously as a society addressing what is killing our young and old Americans.

So, again, I thank my colleagues for their consideration of this legislation. I really came to the floor to convince them that this is a far different situation from 1986. We have gone from 4,000 border agents to 21,000. We have put in all kinds of barriers to the border. But, most importantly, as the Presiding Officer from Delaware pointed out earlier today, we now have technology that can surveil and interdict people from crossing our border. Our challenge is to get it done.

I thank my colleague from Vermont for his patience, and I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business and engage in a colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. President, in a couple of minutes the President of the United States will be announcing it is now conclusive that Bashar al-Asad and the Syrian butchers have used chemical weapons, which is, as we all know, a red line which the President of the United States announced that Bashar al-Asad cannot cross.

Asad has been very clever in using small amounts rather than large amounts. But the fact is we are not the first country to conclude the Asad regime has used chemical weapons in their attacks on the population of Syria.

The President also will announce we will be assisting the Syrian rebels in Syria by providing them with weapons and other assistance. I applaud the President's decision, 93,000 people dead later, over 1 million refugees, and the countries in the surrounding region erupting into sectarian violence, the clear spreading of this conflict into a regional conflict: Sunni, Shia, Saudi, Iran, Russia, all major players.

We see that Jordan is overwhelmed with refugees. Lebanon is experiencing sectarian violence. Iraq is unraveling and the entire region is bordering on chaos, not to mention the massacre and genocide that is taking place in Syria.

I applaud the President's decision, and I appreciate it. The President of the United States had better understand that just supplying weapons is not going to change the equation on the ground of the balance of power. These people, the Free Syrian Army, need weapons and heavy weapons to counter tanks and aircraft. They need a no-fly air zone. Bashar Asad's air assets have to be taken out and neutralized. We can do that without risking a single American airplane. We can do it by cratering the runways with cruise missiles, moving the PATRIOT missiles closer to the border, and protecting a safe zone where they can organize, they can work, and they can coordinate with the civilian side of the Syrian National Army, and they can have a chance of success.

Today--thanks to Iranians, thanks to Russia, thanks to Hezbollah pouring in by the thousands, thanks to people flowing in from all over the Middle East--including from Iraq back into Syria--they are losing. They are being massacred and they are sustaining incredibly heavy casualties. It is terrible.

I applaud the President's decision. I applaud the fact that he has now acknowledged what the French, the others, and all the rest of us knew, that Bashar Asad is using chemical weapons.

Just to provide weapons to the Syrian National Army is not enough. We have to change the equation on the battleground. If I might say, I have seen and been in conflicts where there was gradual escalation. They don't win. If all we are going to do is supply weapons, then there will be a commensurate resupply by the Iranians, Russians, and others.

I thank the President for acknowledging the Syrians are using chemical weapons and massacring their own people. I applaud his decision to provide additional weapons.

Every ounce, every bone in my body knows that simply providing weapons will not change the battlefield equation, and we must change the battlefield equation; otherwise, we are going to see a regional conflict, the consequences of which we will be paying for for a long time.

I yield to my colleague from South Carolina.

May I ask my colleague if he remembers when the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff appeared before our committee well over a year ago and said, unsolicited, it is inevitable, it is inevitable that Bashar Asad will fall? Does the Senator remember that?

This is from our highest ranking official and from our highest defense official, the Secretary of Defense.

At that time I said: What makes you so sure? How can you be so sure with the help from Hezbollah, with the help from the Russians at the time, the equipment and arms they are getting?

They said: Don't worry. The fall of Asad is inevitable.

Is there anybody today who believes he is going to fall? I don't think so. Because the facts on the ground are he is

winning and the slaughter continues. The latest is 93,000 people have been massacred. As the Senator from South Carolina indicated, there are well over 1 million refugees overwhelming the neighboring countries.

It is my understanding the President has not made the final decision on arming, but he has made the decision that chemical weapons are being used. I think it is obvious they will be providing weapons. They need a no-fly zone. I would say there are military officials in the Pentagon who will say we can't do it, and we have to have total mobilization of every single Reserve in the world and the United States, and it is so hard.

We spend tens of billions of dollars a year on defense. If our military can't establish a no-fly zone, then, by God, American taxpayer dollars have been terribly wasted and we ought to have an investigation as to why we can't handle a situation in a third-rate country. I believe we can, I know we can. I know, because I talked to people, such as the head of our Central Command, a former head of our Central Command, our former head of NATO, and others, such as General Keane, the architect of the surge. We can go in and establish a no-fly zone, and we can change this equation on the battlefield.

Finally, I would ask my colleague, we understand the American people are war weary. They are weary because of what happened in Iraq. We remain in Afghanistan. Iraq is unraveling, by the way, but Americans are weary. They are tired of reading the casualty lists, of the funerals, and the terrible tragedies that have befallen American families. That is why neither I nor the Senator from South Carolina is saying we want boots on the ground. In fact, we don't want boots on the ground. We know it would be counterproductive. We know it would not lead to victory. We do know we can provide incredible assistance and change this battlefield equation.

Finally, because a lot of Americans haven't paid perhaps as much attention as some of us, and maybe because they are war weary, I think it would be wise for the President of the United States to go on national television to explain to the American people why we are stopping this genocide, explain why we are assisting these people who are struggling for the same things we stand for and believe in, why the United States of America went to Bosnia with air power, not boots on the ground, and why we went to Kosovo and didn't put boots on the ground. Explain how we can help these people while alleviating the unspeakable misery of the Syrian people.

Does my colleague from South Carolina agree with that?

I would mention one other thing, as I know one of my colleagues is waiting on the floor. There is no other experience that I think anyone can have to see the terrible ravage of war than to go to a refugee camp. The Senator from South Carolina and I have been to refugee camps on both the Turkish and the Jordanian border to see thousands of people living in terribly primitive conditions; to see, as I did in one camp we visited--there had been a rainstorm the night before and people were literally living in water--the desperation on the faces of the people and the children.

I have had many moving experiences while visiting these refugee camps, but I also think there is an aspect we ought to understand and appreciate as Americans. They are angry and they are bitter because we wouldn't come to their assistance.

I will never forget a woman who was a schoolteacher escorting me around the refugee camp. She said: Senator McCain, do you see all these children here? Do you see all these children?

She said: These children are going to take revenge on those who refused to help them stop this slaughter by Bashar Asad.

So there are long-term implications both on the humanitarian side as well as other aspects of this issue. Believe me, it is the greatest blow to Iran in 25 years if Bashar Asad fell. So it is not just a humanitarian issue. If Bashar Asad goes, Hezbollah is disconnected from Iran, and the whole equation in the Middle East dramatically changes. If Iran and Bashar Asad succeed, we will see a direct threat of the State of Israel, which the Israelis understand, coming from the Golan Heights.

So this is not only a humanitarian issue, it is a national security issue. If Iran succeeds, keeping Bashar Asad in power, that will send a message throughout the Middle East about Iranian power, Iranian ability, and the Iranian ability to change governments throughout the Middle East. So there is a lot at stake.

I hope the President will go to a no-fly zone and give these people the weapons with which to defend themselves, as Russian arms and Iranian arms pour into the country on the side of Bashar Asad. My friends, it is not a fair fight, and we know, in that kind of climate and terrain, air power is the deciding factor.

I thank my colleague from South Carolina, and I appreciate the patience of the Senator from Texas.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity for all Members of this body to participate in a debate and amendments and discussion of the bill that was reported out through the Judiciary Committee in the regular order. If my colleagues have any doubt about this so-called Group of 8, I wish to assure them we are continuing to look for ways to improve the legislation. In fact, I have a couple amendments myself that I believe would help improve the legislation and make it better and stronger.

But the fact is this legislation is absolutely needed. It is needed for a variety of reasons, most of which I will not go into at this time. But right now I hope my colleagues and the American people understand--and I think they do because recent polling overwhelmingly supports this legislation--I hope they understand that the status quo is totally unacceptable. The status quo is de facto amnesty. The status quo is 11 million people living in the shadows, and they are not going home. Anybody who thinks we are going to round up 11 million people and send them back to the country they came from--most of them from south of our border--obviously is unaware of the logistics that would be required.

So if the status quo is unacceptable, don't we all share the same goal of a secure border, of addressing the issue of these 11 million people who are in this country living in the shadows and, by the way, being exploited in incredible fashion because they do not have the rights of citizens. They did break our laws by coming here, and we are making them pay a heavy price for doing so, including a fine, including learning English, including paying back taxes, including waiting 10 years before they would be eligible for a green card. Most important to many Americans, they get in line behind everybody who waited--who waited legally either inside this country or outside it. They have to get in line behind them and they have to be working for those 10 years and they have to pay fees of $500, another $500 after 5 years, another $1,000 as they apply for a green card. They have to undergo a background check. Anyone who has committed crimes in this country is going to be deported. Most important, this legislation dries up the magnet that pulls people into this country where they believe they can find work.

Over 40 percent of the people who are in this country illegally never crossed a single border. They came to this country on a visa and it is expired. So

that is why E-Verify, which we do not hear a lot about in this debate, is so important. Because under the E-Verify system--which means a document that is verifiable which identifies the individual--that employer who hires someone who does not have that documentation can be subject to prosecution and heavy fines and even more if they are repeat offenders.

Once the word gets out all over the world--and especially south of our border, where living conditions are far worse than in the United States of America--then they are going to say: I am not going to come because I can't get a job once I am here.

Today, in the streets of Sonora, Mexico, you can buy a birth certificate for about $40. So that person comes and shows it to the employer and they are hired. The E-Verify system will make that impossible. That is one of the key elements of this legislation.

I have been on the border in Arizona for the last 30 years. I have seen the Border Patrol grow from 4,000 to 21,000. I have seen the National Guard deployed to the border. I have seen drones flying along the border. I have seen fences built. We have to do more. We have to do a lot more, and those are provisions in this bill. But to somehow say there has not been significant advancements in border security defies the facts on the ground.

The border is still not secure, despite what we might hear the Secretary of Homeland Security say. It is not secure. But the provisions in this bill, I am confident--I can tell my colleagues from 30 years of experience--I am confident it will make this border secure, as much as is humanly possible, remembering that there is an aspect of this issue we do not talk about; that is, the flow of drugs. Because, my friends, as long as there is a demand in this country for drugs, drugs are going to find a way into this country. It is just a fundamental of economics. We have not had nearly the discussion nationally, much less in this body, about the issue of the drugs that flow across our border. Believe me, if there is a demand, they will find a way, whether it is an ultralight, whether it is a tunnel or whether it is a submarine.

But the fact is that we can get this border secured. The answer, my friends, as is proposed in the Cornyn amendment--that we hire 10,000 more Border Patrol--is not a recognition of what we truly need. What we need is technology. We need to use the VADER radar that was developed in Iraq, where we can track people back to where they came from. We need to have more drones. We need to have more sensors on the ground, and I have gotten from the Border Patrol--not from the Department of Homeland Security but from the Border Patrol--a detailed list of every single piece of equipment that they believe is necessary in all nine sectors of our border in order to make our border secure, and it is detailed. It talks about, for example, at the Yuma and Tucson sectors: 50 fixed towers, 73 fixed camera systems, 28 mobile surveillance systems, 685 unattended ground sensors, 22 hand-held equipment devices.

The list goes on and on. It is detailed. I will be proposing this as an amendment on this bill to let my colleagues know that this is the recommendation of the men and women who are on our border, who are taking this issue on every single day they are at work--in fact, under very difficult conditions. I note that the temperature in southern Arizona is over 110 degrees today. It is very tough on individuals as they are patrolling our border. But we need helicopters. We need VADER radar. We need a whole lot of things. That will be paid for with approximately $6 billion that we provide in this bill--over $6 billion. We can purchase a lot of equipment that way. We are going to use the Army. We are going to use the Army to tell us how we can best surveil and enforce this border because of the experience they have had overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I say to my colleagues, I am not apologizing for this legislation we have proposed and as sent through the Judiciary Committee, I am proud of it. I am confident we will secure this border by taking the measures that will be required in this legislation.

I also have to say in all candor, my friends, there are amendments that will be proposed that will assist and make this bill better and improve it. There are also amendments that will be designed to kill it. I intend to do everything I can to reflect the will of the American people. I will be entering into the Record poll after poll after poll that shows that over 70 percent of the American people, if they are confident that we are going to secure our borders and if they are confident that these people will be brought out of the shadows, they will have to pay a fine, back taxes, learn English, and get in line behind everybody else, they support this path to citizenship after a 10-year period of having legal status in this country.

Why is it important for them to have a legal status if they have not committed crimes and they qualify? My friends, today on street corners all over America, particularly in the Southwest, there are men and women who are standing on a street corner waiting to be picked up by someone and taken to repair their roof or to cut their grass or to do menial labor. Do you know what they are getting out of that? They are getting below minimum wage because they have no recourse. They have no recourse as to any mistreatment they might suffer. So we want to bring these people out of the shadows.

Yes, they broke our laws. That is why they have to pay such a big penalty. I doubt if there is a Member of this body who at one time or another has not broken a law, but we paid a penalty for it, hopefully, and we moved on with our lives. These people have broken our laws, and they have to pay a heavy penalty.

There has been pushback, frankly, from our friends in the Hispanic community that this is too tough, this is too hard, this is too demanding. I understand that. I pushed back against them. But to somehow base this opposition on the fact that we cannot get our borders secure--it frankly is in defiance in a belief in what the United States of America can do. There have been significant failures on the border. There was a $787 million failure called SBI Net--I believe that was the name of it. That was supposed to secure our border. But I am confident that we have the technology and we have the ability and we can get this legislation through with confidence.

I see the Senator from Louisiana is waiting. I am not going to take too much longer.

The other key to this is workers. Frankly, I was not happy--nor were my friends--that we did not raise the cap higher than we did for guest workers to come into this country. But I would remind my colleagues that anybody who graduates from a U.S. college with a science, technology, engineering, or math degree and has an offer of employment will be eligible to have a green card to stay in this country.

Today, in postgraduate schools in STEM--science, technology, engineering and math--the majority of the students are from foreign countries. If they want to stay here and work in this country and they have that degree, which we all know there is a shortage of, we will let them.

High-tech companies will be able to bring in and keep more highly skilled workers through H-1B. The bill would raise the cap to 110,000 a year.

All I am saying is that one of the keys to this is if we secure our borders and we dry up the magnet, then we have to have a way of attracting the workers we need to keep our economy going. Let's be honest. It is pretty tough picking lettuce down in Yuma. There are not a lot of American workers who want to do that. That has been the history of this country. Immigrants have come to this country, they have grabbed the bottom rung, and they have moved up. The bottom rung is pretty tough. We are going to have those people as guest workers. If they want to become citizens, then they apply for a green card, et cetera.

Finally, I just want to say that the Grassley amendment would ``prevent anyone currently illegally in the country from earning RPI status until effective control.'' Sounds good. Let me give my colleagues the testimony from Michael Fisher, who is the Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol, who testified in February about this very issue.

First of all, 90 percent really would not make sense

everywhere. We put 90 percent as a goal, because there are

sections along the border where we have not only achieved, we

have been able to sustain 90 percent effectiveness.

By the way, that is the case in the Yuma sector on our Arizona border.

So it is a realistic goal, but I wouldn't necessarily and

just arbitrarily say 90 percent is across the board, because

there are other locations where there is a lot less activity

and there won't be a lot of activity simply because of

terrain features, for instance.

So where it makes sense, we want to go ahead and start parsing that out within these corridors and within these specific sectors. That is exactly one of the things my amendment does. It has specific provisions of hardware and capabilities that need to be installed in each section.

I thank my friend from Louisiana for her patience. I would like to again say to my colleagues that I have seen this movie before. I have been through it before. We failed in the past. We failed for a variety of reasons. This is our opportunity. If we enact this comprehensive bill now, we will remove a very huge stain on the conscience of the United States of America.

We need to bring these people out of the shadows, but we must also assure all our citizens, especially in the southern part of my State, that they will live in a secure environment. We can do that. We can send a message to employers that they cannot hire someone who is in this country illegally without paying a very heavy price for doing so. That is what this legislation is all about.

I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for the way he took this bill through his committee and brought it to the floor of the Senate. I am in favor of vigorous debate and discussion. We will have plenty of time for amendments and votes on those amendments. This is not a perfect bill that I am proud of. There are many ways we can improve it. But fundamentally we have the basics of a package that I believe is vitally needed for the good of this Nation.

I yield the floor.

I would ask my friend from Texas, if you are adding additional either Border Patrol or Customs agents in addition to what is already in the underlying bill, where does your money come from? We are talking about personnel costs that are incredibly expensive. So I would ask him

where the money comes from if there is not additional cost. He would have to take it from someplace else.

You are adding personnel into your version of the bill. The money has to come from somewhere. Where is it coming from? You are saying it is ``reallocated.'' From where is it reallocated?

There is a finite amount of money that is authorized. If the Senator takes money from one and adds money one place, it has to come from someplace else. That is simply first grade mathematics. I think it is incredible that the Senator should stand there and say: Yeah, we are adding these thousands of personnel, but there is no additional cost. That is not possible.

With a finite amount of money in it.

Will the Senator yield? Is it not true that whether or not it has been scored by CBO, the legislation calls for the expenditure of certain amounts of money--in other words, about $6.2 billion, I believe? So if it calls for the expenditure of a certain amount of money and it designates what that money is for, and if you are going to add thousands of Border Patrol agents onto it, then it seems logical that is going to cost more money.

May I finish my question? Is it not true that we have said: Look, we welcome any suggestion to improve the bill.

I would say respectfully to my friend from Texas it is not true that this is written in golden tablets. In fact, the Senator from Ohio, who is coming here, is going to have some suggestions for improvements on the exit-entry visa, which I think will make the bill much better.

Isn't it true that somehow to allege that we said there could be no changes is patently false?

Third, isn't it true this amendment would break the agreement that was a hard-fought agreement? We are willing to compromise and make agreements in certain areas but not to a bill that billions and billions of dollars are added to, especially in the area of personnel, when we have gone from 4,000 members of the Border Patrol several years ago to 21,000. We are adding National Guard to the border.

Personnel is not the challenge, whether it be the Texas border or the Arizona border, what the challenge is, is to use the technology that is existing so we can surveil and intercept. That is what this bill is all about; is that true?

May I be recognized.

The Senator from Ohio is working on E-Verify. I think he has come up with some very good ideas on how we can improve a vital part of the bill; that is, verification of someone who applies for a job. That is the magnet that draws people across the border.

Again, we look forward to those kinds of improvements and many other suggestions that have been made.

How you can manufacture 3,500 new personnel and say it doesn't add to the cost and it will be reallocated, I want to know where it has been reallocated from.

Will the Senator yield for one more question?

I hope the Senator from New York understands what the Chief of the Border Patrol said on this issue of 90 percent effectiveness. We are going to hear this over and over.

In a hearing on February 26, 2013, at a House Homeland Security Committee hearing, the Chief of the Border Patrol--not the Secretary of Homeland Security--said:

First of all, 90 percent wouldn't really make sense

everywhere. . . . We put 90 percent as a goal because there

are sections along the border where we have not only

achieved, we've been able to sustain 90 percent

effectiveness. So it's a realistic goal but I wouldn't

necessarily and just arbitrarily say 90 percent is across the

board because there are other locations where there is a lot

less activity and there won't be a lot of activity because of

terrain features, for instance.

So where it makes sense we want to go ahead and start

parsing that out within those corridors and within those

specific sectors.

That is why we think that what we came up with in this legislation is effective control, 100 percent surveillance, and the use of technology, which

I am confident will give us a border that all Americans can be happy with. No border is ever going to be sealed. Anybody who stands in this body and says if you want to hire 10,000, 20,000 or 50,000 more Border Patrol agents, you still aren't going to secure the border completely.

We can have effective control of that border, we can have 100 percent surveillance, and we can get the border to the point where American people can have confidence in it while we move forward with the rest of the legislation.

I thank my colleague.

Madam President, I would like to make a few remarks about the farm bill that's before the Senate this week.

As my colleagues know, this is our second attempt in 2 years to pass a new 5-year farm bill. The Senate passed its version last Congress, which is essentially the same bill we are debating today. Last year, the House refused to consider the Senate bill with good reason. This bill is loaded with costly farm subsidies and hidden pet-projects. I believe most Americans would be angered to know how we are wasting their hard-earned tax dollars.

Congress already plunged our Nation into $16 trillion worth of debt partially through farm bills like this. On average, Congress spends about $1 trillion more annually than the Federal budget allows. According to the Congressional Budget office, the budget deficit for fiscal year 2014 will be about $624 billion. This bill alone--all one- thousand pages--will cost nearly $1 trillion. That's almost $1 billion per page. We must reduce the size of the Federal Government and the farm bill is certainly ripe for cuts.

I will concede that my colleagues on the Senate Agriculture Committee did make some effort to eliminate our more outdated farm subsidy programs like the Direct Payments Program, which spends about $5 billion a year to pay farmers of staple crops like corn whether or not they grow anything. Direct payments have held on for decades until now. Perhaps that gives the American public a sense of the shelf-life of the new farm subsidies we are debating today.

Unfortunately, the savings generated by eliminating direct payments are plugged back into the farm bill to finance new, more expensive subsidies like those that are part of the Federal Crop Insurance Program. While I agree that our farmers need some form of safety net, farm bill crop insurance isn't ``insurance'' as most people know it. Crop insurance is just a roundabout way to influence the free market, subsidize overproduction and ultimately fleece consumers. Taxpayers spend $14 billion a year subsidizing about 60 percent of insurance premiums for everything from oysters to almonds. Even non-food products like tobacco get $33 million a year in crop insurance handouts. Worse yet, crop insurance isn't about protecting famers against crop losses due to weather or infestation; it protects farmers against revenue loss. I am hard pressed to think of any other industry in America that can take out an insurance policy at the taxpayer's expense to ensure their profits. This is clearly egregious when one realizes that commodity prices are at record-highs.

This is all part of farm bill politics. In order to pass a farm bill, Congress must find a way to appease every special interest and every commodity association. Here are some other examples of hand-outs that special interests win in this year's farm bill: $150 million to establish a ``Citrus Research Trust Fund'' as well as a ``Wool Apparel Manufacture Trust Fund''; $25 million to study the health benefits of lima beans and peas; $1.4 million to study commercial mushroom growing; $1.3 million to study the DNA sequencing of Christmas trees; $25 million to teach school children how to grow food in backyard gardens; $10 million for eliminating ``feral swine''; $200 million for the Market Access Program, which subsidizes overseas advertising campaigns for large corporations, like handing out samples of Tennessee whiskey in India or subsidizing a sampling tour of mint candies in the U.K.

This is how we pass behemoth farm bills the Capitol Hill-rule of ``dispersed costs and concentrated benefits.''

Take for example the protectionist provision concerning catfish inspections that was added in conference to the 2008 Farm Bill. It forces USDA to create a special catfish inspection office that will cost taxpayers $15 million a year. GAO has said it is duplicative and wasteful of FDA seafood inspection services. But it helps prop up domestic catfish farmers in southern States from having to compete with Asian catfish imports. I had an amendment to repeal this office but was denied the courtesy of a vote despite it having 15 cosponsors and overwhelming support in the Senate. My statement on this matter is in the Record of last week when I attempted to call up my amendment and make it pending.

I also sought a vote on another amendment that I introduced with Senator Toomey concerning the repeal of something known as ``permanent farm law.'' Because of permanent farm law, it's not an option for my colleagues or I who want to put our feet down and say enough is enough to reckless farm bills. Permanent farm law is essentially old farm bills from 1938 and 1949 that are still on the books that automatically kick-in if we fail to renew the farm bill or pass a temporary extension.

Reverting to permanent farm law requires USDA to implement economic Soviet-style ``command and control'' policies that require farmers to achieve ``parity prices'' rooted in 1914 which bear no resemblance to today's market. Nobody wants permanent farm law because it would severely disrupt planting decisions for farmers and, according to USDA, will cost taxpayers up to $50 billion in subsidies and increase food prices by $20 billion. Yet these Depression-era farm bills work as a ``deadman's switch'' to pressure Congress into passing modern farm bills. This almost happened last year when the Senate passed a farm bill and the House did not. Americans may remember we faced a ``dairy cliff'' in December when milk would double to $7 per gallon of milk. Within one week of the pressure from national media coverage over the ``dairy cliff,'' Congress rushed through a business-as-usual extension of the 2008 farm bill that was absent of any reform.

There's no reason to keep a 1938 farm law on the books except to force Congress into passing farm bills by holding consumers hostage. My amendment would have repealed this permanent farm law to prevent this budgetary gamesmanship from repeating. But again, the Senate's farm bill managers refused to allow us a vote on this amendment as well.

At the end of the day, this farm bill will be hailed by its supporters as reform-minded. But let me assure the American public, it is anything but. It was managed under a closed-amendment process and will prove to be just as wasteful and costly as any farm bill we have seen to date.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.

Madam President, I understand that one of my colleagues who will object is coming to the floor, so perhaps I would reserve the right to object on his behalf even though I am in stark disagreement. But instead I will just make a comment, and I am sure my colleague on this side of the aisle will voice an objection when he arrives.

He is here.

If it is OK with the Senator, because we know what is going to happen, I would like to make remarks, and then the Senator from Florida will make the same argument that was made the last few days, and fortunately I do not have to listen again.

For 4 years Members on this side of the aisle argued strenuously that we were doing a great disservice to the country by not taking up and debating and amending a budget that would then go to conference with the other side of the Capitol, the House of Representatives, and then we would do what we expect and, unfortunately, every family in America has to do, and that is to pass a budget under which we would be guided in our authorization and appropriations process.

Now my colleague from Florida will come to the floor and say that we have amassed a debt because of the budget. But we did not have a budget for 4 years. So how can you argue that the fact that we may go to conference on a budget--that somehow that would be responsible for the debt? Obviously, it is nonsense. Obviously, it is nonsense, just as, frankly, it was nonsense when the same group of Senators said we should not even debate gun measures in light of a tragedy that took place in Connecticut and another tragedy that took place in Tucson, AZ. They did not even want to take up and debate ideas that some of us had to try to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the hands of the mentally ill.

So now we have a Senate where we refuse to move forward on issues and have open debate and discussion and votes. I have always believed, in the years I have been here, with Republican and Democratic majorities, that the way we are supposed to function is to say: OK, let's give it our best shot, and let's do the best we can, and let's have votes.

One of our objections against the majority leader was that he would not let us have votes on amendments. We had--I have forgotten how many--votes on the budget that lasted until I believe around 7 o'clock in the morning. So the opponents of moving forward on anything cannot argue we did not have votes on the budget, cannot argue they were blocked from whatever amendment they wanted to have voted on.

So now we are faced with a situation where we will not go to conference. And I want to tell my colleagues who continue to do this that, with my strenuous objections, the majority will become frustrated and the majority

can change the rules of the Senate. They can do that. And I must say that although I would strenuously object to a change in the rules, I can understand the frustration many of my friends on the other side of the aisle feel at a failure of a simple process of going to conference when the majority on the other side of the Capitol is of our party. That is really very difficult to understand, unless you take the word of one of my colleagues who came to the floor and said: I do not trust Democrats, and I do not trust Republicans. Let me repeat what he said: I do not trust Democrats, and I do not trust Republicans. It is not a matter of trusting Democrats or Republicans. What this is a matter of is whether we will go through the legislative process that people sent us here to do. And I have probably lost many more times than I have won, but I have been satisfied in the times that I have lost that I was able to make my argument, put it to the will of the body, and it was either accepted or rejected. That is how people, schoolchildren all over America, expect us to behave. That is the way our Constitution is written. That is what this body is supposed to be about.

So when we have a--by the way, Madam President, this is the last time I am going to come to the floor on this exercise because it is obviously a fruitless kind of effort until something changes, and obviously that is not going to happen in the short term.

My friends will be saying they are Reagan Republicans, they are Reagan Republicans. Well, I was here when Ronald Reagan was President of the United States. President Reagan, rightly or wrongly, passed amnesty for 3 million people who were in this country illegally. Ronald Reagan sat down with Tip O'Neill, and they saved Social Security from bankruptcy. Ronald Reagan sat down with the Democrats, and they agreed on ways of increasing revenues and cutting spending. Ronald Reagan's record is very clear, and by the way, it was one of an assertive role of the United States of America and leadership in the world and not come home to ``fortress America.'' So sometimes when I hear my colleagues here talk about how they are Ronald Reagan Republicans, I do not think Ronald Reagan would have disagreed that we should have a budget, we should have a budget to guide the legislative agenda of the Congress of the United States.

So, as I said, I will not be coming back to the floor again while my colleagues object. And I see my colleague from Utah who was so unfamiliar with what we do here that he claimed it was behind closed doors in back rooms. The fact is that the budget conference is on C- SPAN and open to all.

So I can just say to my colleagues that this is not a proud moment for me, as we block a process that was agreed to and enacted for many, many years; was not enacted for 4 years over the strenuous objections of myself and my colleagues that we did not enact a budget. We enacted a budget after an all-night marathon of vote after vote after vote on literally any issue, and there was not a single vote proposed by my colleagues here that said that we cannot agree to a lifting of the debt limit. Now, the floor was open for that amendment, and I do not know why my colleagues now view this as the criteria for us moving forward on the bill. So I wish them luck, and I will not be coming to the floor again to object to their objection, and we will let the American people make a judgment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Vermont that I appreciate much of what he had to say, and I look forward to working with him to see how we can best address some of his very legitimate concerns.

I would point out to my friend from Vermont that there is going to be a requirement for any of these foreign workers that first the job be advertised in a variety of ways to make sure there are no American workers who would take these jobs. I hope that to some degree resolves some of his concerns. But I paid close attention to his statement, and I look forward to addressing some of those very legitimate concerns. I thank the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up McCain amendment No. 956.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Louisiana allowing me to discuss my amendment. I am deeply appreciative.

This amendment would eliminate a proposed catfish inspection program within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA. The Government Accountability Office, GAO, warns that this catfish program will be ``duplicative'' and ``wasteful'' of federal resources. I am grateful for the support of my colleagues who have cosponsored this amendment: Senators Shaheen, Crapo, Coburn, Cantwell, Murray, Warner, Ayotte, Risch, Kirk, Lautenberg, and Inhofe.

Mr. President, I will ask to add the following senators as cosponsors to this amendment: Senators Whitehouse, Reed, Heller, and Cowan.

When Congress passed the 2008 Farm Bill, a small provision was quietly added in conference that requires USDA to establish an office to inspect catfish. Just catfish. According to USDA, setting up the catfish office will cost taxpayers about $30 million, and then cost another $15 million a year to operate. At least 95 new government inspectors would be hired, trained, and placed throughout the United States to inspect catfish. I support ensuring that our Nation's food supply is safe--except that USDA is not in the business of inspecting catfish or any other seafood. USDA is responsible for inspecting meat, poultry, and egg products. All other food, including seafood, is inspected and certified by the Food and Drug Administration, FDA.

There is no such thing as ``USDA Grade A seafood.'' So why should we spend millions in taxpayer dollars every year to inspect catfish? GAO asked the same question and in 4 different reports concluded that the catfish office is duplicative of FDA functions and explicitly recommended that Congress repeal it.

It's ``duplicative'' because we would be wasting tax dollars on having USDA inspectors doing the same work alongside FDA inspectors. This would be a burden to any business that stores, processes or distributes seafood.

According to a GAO report titled ``Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication,'' GAO said: ``We suggest that Congress repeal the provisions that assigned USDA responsibilities for examining and inspecting catfish'' because ``USDA plans are essentially the same as FDA's hazard analysis requirements.''

In another report published in 2011, GAO said the USDA catfish program ``fragments our food safety system'' and ``splits up seafood oversight between FDA and USDA, expending scarce resources.''

In another GAO report, simply titled--``Responsibility for Inspecting Catfish Should Not Be Assigned to USDA,'' GAO said: ``[USDA] uses outdated and limited information as its scientific bases for catfish inspection'' and that ``the cost effectiveness of the catfish inspection program is unclear because USDA would oversee a small fraction of all seafood imports while FDA, using its enhanced authorities, could undertake oversight of all imported seafood.''

GAO is not the only critic of the catfish office. The Centers for Disease Control reports that of the 1.8 billion catfish meals enjoyed by Americans, only two people get sick a year. FDA requires foreign producers to abide by the same food safety standards as domestic facilities and turns away unsafe seafood. In fact, USDA itself says there is no benefit for having them inspect catfish. A report issued in 2010 by the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service said, ``There is substantial uncertainty regarding the actual effectiveness of the catfish inspection program'' and that there is ``no rational relationship'' between the Catfish Office and human health. That is probably why the President's Budget for FY2014 proposes to eliminate the program. If USDA can't justify a catfish inspection program--how can anyone in Congress?

The USDA catfish does nothing to enhance food safety. GAO says it's a sham. USDA says it's a sham. FDA says it's a sham. OMB says it's a sham. So why did Congress propose it in 2008? It turns out there's a group of domestic catfish farmers in two or three southern States that are having a difficult time competing against catfish importers. In classic Farm Bill politics, they worked up some talking points about how Americans need a whole new government agency to inspect foreign catfish imports.

Unfortunately, there are grave trade implications if we don't repeal the catfish program. Trade experts warn that Vietnam and other Asian exporters of catfish have a strong case that the USDA Catfish Office would constitute a WTO violation.

I have a letter from former Congressman and WTO appellate judge Jim Baucus to Congress concerning the WTO risk posed by this catfish office. He says, ``There was, and still is no meaningful evidence that catfish, domestic or imported, posed a significant health hazard when Congress acted in 2008 to shift [catfish] jurisdiction from FDA to USDA, in essence singling out catfish from all other seafood products.'' He goes on to say, ``the United States would face a daunting challenge in defending the catfish rule . . . it will be giving other nations an opening to enact `copycat legislation' which will disadvantage our exports.'' This is ``particularly inopportune'' in the face of Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP, negations that are important to American exporters.

The trade concern is that USDA catfish office is a de facto trade barrier on foreign imports. It is meant to enrich the domestic catfish industry. The USDA would ban catfish imports for 5-7 years while USDA duplicates FDA's rules for foreign catfish farms. During that time, American farmers, dairymen, cattle growers risk WTO retaliation against a $20 billion export market for American soybean, pork, beef, dairy, and poultry exports.

Is it worth sacrificing the export markets of our American beef producers, wheat and soy farmers just because southern catfish farmers don't want to compete? Absolutely not.

USDA catfish office serves no public health purpose and duplicates FDA work in inspecting catfish. It wastes millions of tax dollars just so that southern catfish farmers will have less competition. My amendment would eliminate the USDA catfish office just as GAO recommends.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I also wish to say to the distinguished managers of the bill that there are a number of amendments--my colleague from Oklahoma has them-- and it is going to be regrettable if we are not able to take up and address these amendments. It is not really what we had agreed to when we took up the bill. So I hope there will be another opportunity.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I honor a superb leader, liaison, and warrior. After more than 3 years of service as Director of the Navy Senate Liaison Office, CAPT James T. Loeblein is very deservedly moving on and moving up to assume the responsibilities of a rear admiral, lower half. On this occasion, I believe it is fitting to recognize Captain Loeblein's distinguished service and dedication to fostering the relationship between the U.S. Navy and this Chamber.

The captain is a 1985 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. In addition to serving as the executive officer of the USS John S. McCain DDG 56, he has held both command-at-sea and major command. Captain Loeblein has also served as executive assistant to commander, U.S. Third Fleet, and as chief of staff and Maritime Operations Center (MOC) director, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/U.S. Fifth Fleet in Manama, Bahrain. Captain Loeblein reported as director, Navy Senate Liaison, in May 2010.

Over the course of the last 3 years, Captain Loeblein has led 37 congressional delegations to 47 different countries. He has escorted 44 Members of Congress, 48 personal and professional staff members, and I have had the pleasure of traveling with Captain Loeblein on many of these trips. He has distinguished himself by going above and beyond the call of duty to facilitate and successfully execute each and every trip, despite any number of weather, aircraft, and diplomatic complications.

This Chamber will feel Captain Loeblein's absence. I join many past and present Members of Congress in my gratitude and appreciation to Captain Loeblein for his outstanding leadership and his unwavering support of the missions of the U.S. Navy, the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and others. I wish him and his wife CAPT Carol Loeblein ``fair winds and following seas.''

Reserving the right to object, and I will object to the modification.

First of all, I think what is being done here, if we agree that a small number of Senators could basically change the way the Senate does business, could have serious ramifications for the future.

The Senator from Utah said he doesn't want to be deprived of his vote. We are ready to vote, I say to my colleague from Utah. We are ready to vote. We are ready to vote on a motion that would send this bill, which was the subject of an enormous amount of

debate and discussion for hours and hours--until perhaps 7 in the morning--to a conference, with motions to instruct the conferees.

I would be more than happy to vote on instructions to the conferees concerning his previous concern about a tax increase, which somehow has been removed, and/or that of increasing the debt limit--instructing those conferees. That is the way the Senate should do business.

If the Senator from Utah will allow this body to vote on whether we should move to conference with instructions to conferees, that is the regular order. It is not the regular order for a number of Senators, a small number--a minority within a minority here--to say we will not agree to go to conference because of a particular problem with an issue, which I grant is important to the Senator from Utah, and it is important to many Senators as to whether we raise the debt limit.

We are on the agriculture bill right now, I say to my colleague from Mississippi. Suppose we pass the agriculture bill and the House of Representatives passes the agriculture bill and we want to appoint conferees, but there is a burning issue that a number of my colleagues might have. Are we then going to block going to conference?

Look, this isn't just about the budget conferees, this is about whether we will ever be able to appoint conferees on a bill that has been passed by the House and also by the Senate; that we will come together and do what we have been doing since the Congress of the United States started functioning, and that is to sit down and iron out our differences.

If the Senator from Utah is worried about the result, I understand. I am worried about the result. I am worried about a bill right now that is just outrageous, porkbarrel spending on catfish and all kinds of stuff I have concerns about, subsidies for the tobacco companies and all that. But that does not mean I am going to object that we move for conferees, not when the will of the Senate and the Congress and the people is heard in open and honest debate and voting. We are here to vote. We are not here to block things. We are here to articulate our positions on the issues in the best possible and most eloquent way we can and do what we can for the good of the country and then let the process move forward.

I say to my friend from Utah, he is not going to win every fight here. He is not going to win every battle here. But if he is right, I can tell him from the experience I have had in the Senate, he will win in the end if his cause is just. But he can only win if he articulates his argument before his colleagues in the Congress and the American people.

We are about to, I hope--I hope--conclude the immigration reform bill. There will be portions of that bill I do not like. There will be portions of that bill that many of my colleagues do not like. But we are not counting on 100 votes in the Senate. But we are counting on a majority of votes in passing it, and we are hoping the House will do the same. Then we will go to conference.

Does that mean that if a group of Senators--4, 5, 10; I don't know how many colleagues the Senator has on this issue--object to us going to conference on the immigration bill that therefore it should stop?

I am very worried, if this happens, about the precedent that will be set on how the Congress of the United States does business. Just a couple or few weeks ago, after the Newtown massacre, my colleague from Utah and my colleague--I believe from Florida, I am not sure who else-- said we do not want to take up the gun bill. We do not want to discuss the gun bill.

I happen to have disagreed with many of the proposals, but was it right? Would it have been right for us not even to debate in light of the Newtown massacre? But the Senator from Utah thought it was the best thing for us not to move forward. Thank God there was a group of us who said let's move forward, let's debate the gun bill, let's do what we can to prevent these further massacres. That is our obligation and our duty to the American people. So here we are again. So here we are again.

The budget that for 4 years I loved beating the daylights out of my friend from Missouri, who would not insist on a budget being brought to the Senate--now a budget has been passed. Everybody was talking about what a great moment it was. We stayed up all night--at my age that is not nearly as enjoyable as it once was--and now, after being so proud, we cannot observe at least a vote?

If the Senator from Utah wants a vote on whether we should appoint conferees and what those instructions to the conferees should be, then that is what we should be doing. I understand how important it is for the Senator from Florida or the Senator from Utah--I don't know how many there are. But I can tell you there is a majority of us who want the Congress to work the people's will.

All I would do is say I hope my colleagues will agree with motions to instruct the conferees. If it is the concern of the Senator from Utah that the conferees should not address the issue of the debt ceiling, then let's vote to instruct the conferees to do that. That is the regular process. That is regular order around here.

But I can also tell my colleague from Utah something else. If we continue to block things such as this and block what is the regular order, then the majority will be tempted to change the rules of the Senate. That would be the most disastrous outcome I could ever imagine. I do not begrudge anybody--whether they have been here 6 months or they have been here 30 years--their rights as Senators. But I hope my colleagues will look at the way the Senate has functioned in the past.

Are the American people unhappy with us? Of course they are unhappy with us. One reason is because they do not see us accomplishing anything.

What I have done for these years, and the people whom I have respected in this body on both sides of the aisle--we fight the good fight. We make our case to our colleagues and the American people, and then we accept the outcome of a regular order while preserving our rights as an individual Senator. We have maintained that balance to a large degree. I hope my colleagues will understand how important that is. I urge my colleagues to do what we have been doing; that is, to have motions to instruct the conferees--if their issue is taxes, if their issue is the debt ceiling--and we vote to instruct those conferees and those conferees carry out the will of the majority of the Senate.

[Several Senators addressed the Chair.]

Mr. President, we have been through it before. In a nutshell, what the Senator from Utah has just said is that if we pass this legislation, and if the House passes this legislation, we will not go to conference unless certain conditions are imposed on those conferees that happen to be important to a small group of Senators. Obviously, that will paralyze the process. Obviously, we can predict the outcome.

The Senator from Utah keeps talking about backroom, closed-door deals. It is the process of the Senate and the House to appoint conferees. Those conferees come to agreement and then subject their agreement to an overall vote in both bodies.

If the Senator from Utah wants to get rid of the ``backroom''--and all of the other adjectives and adverbs he used--then what is the process? What is the process? How do we reconcile legislation that is passed by one body and the other body? That is what we have been doing for a couple of hundred years.

All I can say is, Does the Senator from Utah have another way of reconciling legislation between the House and Senate? Of course not. Of course he doesn't. Of course he doesn't. Of course he doesn't because that is the only way we can get legislation that will be passed by both bodies and signed by the President of the United States. That is the only way.

I tell the Senator from Utah again, if this condition is imposed then there is no reason why any group of Senators should impose conditions on conferees from now on, which will then mean, of course, we would not go to conference.

I would be glad to answer a question.

Perhaps the Senator from Utah doesn't know about that, and the fact that even if they did raise the debt limit, it could not become law because it doesn't go to the President of the United States.

Again, maybe the Senator from Utah ought to learn a little bit more about how business has been done in the Congress of the United States. Budget resolutions are not signed by the President of the United States, so even if we did vote to increase the debt limit as a result of the conference--which, by the way, would be irrelevant to the work of the conference--it would not have any meaning whatsoever.

This business of secret backroom dealmaking, that is what conferences are about, and conference results are subject to a vote of both Houses as to the conference result.

I would be glad to yield for a question.

It is my understanding since the conference is open to the public, it will also be broadcast on C-SPAN so all the American people can watch the deliberations.

I wonder, why would the Senator from Utah say it is a backroom, closed-door deal when, in fact--doesn't the Senator from Utah know this conference is open to the public and seen by everybody?

I mean, for the Senator from Utah to say this is a backroom, closed- door deal, he is either directly misleading or my colleague has no knowledge of how the budget conference works. I don't know which one it is, and I don't know which one is worse.

All I can say is we know, one, even if we had a restriction on allowing raising of the debt limit, it would not matter because it is not legislation that would be signed by the President of the United States--no matter what the budget conferees did. We also know the budget conferees--I will admit, unlike many--meet in open session with C-SPAN so the American people are able to observe it.

So I at least hope the Senator from Utah would withdraw his comment that this is a backroom, closed-door deal because it is not. Those are fundamental facts.

Again, it is disappointing that we are spending this time when we should be on the farm bill. The Senator from California and I have an important amendment to remove a lot of the corruption that is in that bill.

I will yield the floor.

Does the Senator admit it is not a deal that is made behind closed doors? Does the Senator admit that? Does the Senator admit he misspoke on that issue? It is not behind closed doors.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

In the case of the appointment of conferees, will that be open to the public on C-SPAN or any other media coverage that wishes to come in the room?

How many amendments were considered?

How many were voted on?

But there was not one amendment on the debt ceiling?

I thank the Senator.

I object.

Mr. President, we have been through this quite a bit, but, again, I wish to respond by saying that if it were part of the budget resolution, it would have no effect in law. So one has to then question what the knowledge of those who are advocating this is about fundamental procedures.

Second of all, if this is a prerequisite, then for every conference we send, Senators will be allowed, according to this precedent, to set certain parameters of those conferences, which is a procedure we use now--instructions to conferees. We are willing to have votes on instructions to conferees on any issue any Senator feels necessary for the conferees to do their job.

I will be glad to.

Thank God.

Well, I think that is a danger and I think it is a significant danger if a number of Senators, either large or small, should insist that certain conditions be imposed unilaterally without motions to instruct. That is what we have the motions to instruct for. It is not that we don't want the conferees to do certain things, but we have motions to instruct. That is the regular order of how we do business.

The Senators who are here who say the debt ceiling should not be part of any negotiations, fine. Let's have a vote, motions to instruct the conferees. It has been my experience that the conferees have stuck with the instructions that were voted on by the majority of the Senate.

So this is kind of a sad time because here we are debating as to whether we should allow the debt limit to be part of negotiations, which would have no meaning in law whatsoever because it is not signed by the President. We have pressing issues. The Senator from California and I have an issue that has to do with tobacco and the health of our kids that we would like to have considered before the Senate. We could be debating on the instructions to the conferees. We could be doing so many things, and we are not. We are not doing those things.

Finally, I would again share my experience with my colleagues. I have lost a lot more times than I have won, but I have come to the floor of the Senate using the rules of the Senate and made the argument on those things I believe in and stand for. I have been passionate on those issues, and sometimes I have irritated my colleagues, but at least I have had my say.

But then after I have had my say, there have been votes, and the body has decided, and the body has decided whether I was right or wrong. When I have been voted down, I have gone back on those issues and I have tried to convince my colleagues of the rightness of my position, rather than, as with the gun bill, after people were slaughtered in Newtown, CT, my colleagues didn't even want to debate the issue of gun control and what we should do about that. That is not how the Senate should function. The Senate is supposed to debate and discuss and give our passionate appeals and beliefs and then put it to the will of the body. That is the protection of the individual Senator, not to just say we are not going to do anything. That is not the way the American people want us to act. And to throw in all this stuff about the debt and the deficit--I will match my record on opposing the debt and the deficit against certainly my colleagues here.

But that is not the point. The point is, will this deliberative body, whether it is the greatest in the world or the worst in the world, go ahead and decide on this issue so we can have a budget so we can at least tell the American people we are going to do what we haven't done for 4 years and what every family in America sooner or later has to do, and that is to have a budget.

So, as I say, we have gone on too long. The farm bill is of the utmost importance, and the Senator from California and I have amendments on it. I hope my colleagues will realize the best way to get their point of view over and sway the opinion of our colleagues and the American people is to engage in honest and open debate, as the Senate does, instruct the conferees, let them go to conference in an open--not closed-door, not behind closed doors, not backroom--process that is the procedure employed by the Budget Committee in conference.

I yield the floor.