Floor Statements

Madam President, I regret having missed the July 31, 2013 vote on the confirmation of Byron Jones, of Minnesota, to be Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of the confirmation of Mr. Jones.

I also regret having missed three votes on August 1, 2013. The three votes that I missed are as follows: the nomination of Raymond Chen to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit; cloture on S. 1243, Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations; and the nomination of Samantha Power to serve as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of all three votes.

Madam President, today I honor and celebrate the life of an extraordinary American: Marie Corinne Morrison Claiborne Boggs, who we all knew as ``Lindy.'' She was a remarkable national leader, trailblazer for women everywhere, wife, mother, and a friend. Lindy taught me--and an entire generation of Louisianians, both men and women, through her example--to answer the call of public service.

With her death last Saturday, July 28, 2013, our entire State is in mourning but we are also celebrating a life well lived.

Throughout her life, she shaped the world to become a better and more just place. When she was born in 1916, women could not vote and segregation reigned supreme. But she refused to accept the world as it was and set about to change it. She lived through both World Wars and the Great Depression. Despite all of these daunting obstacles, Lindy--a graceful woman with a strong, passionate calling to serve others--was not deterred.

Like many women of her time, she married a man of great promise--and ultimately great power--Hale Boggs. But

when he was lost in a tragic plane accident in Alaska, she--unlike many--stepped up and into his shoes, trusting God to lead her forward.

She was elected to succeed her husband in Congress on March 20, 1973, and became the first woman elected to the House of Representatives from our State. At the time, there were only 15 women in the U.S. House of Representatives and none in the U.S. Senate.

But Lindy never let the novelty of this, the pressure of work and family, or any other challenge she faced throughout her career stand in her way or deter her from serving her State and her country.

Her keen political mind, iron will and graceful Southern charm helped her become one of the most formidable forces Congress has ever known. She was known for bridging the gap between Republicans and Democrats and convincing her colleagues to do what was right with poise, kindness and reason.

As her colleague Bill Frenzel, a Republican from Minnesota said of her: ``It was impossible not to like Lindy. She liked everybody. She was nice to everybody. She achieved more with less huff and puff and bluster than any of the rest of us did.''

She used her formidable influence to help lead the fight for civil rights, pay equity for women and the right for women to hold a mortgage on her own home without the necessity of a husband's signature.

As a member of the Banking Committee she inserted a provision barring discrimination over sex or marital status into the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974. She did not tell her colleagues before she did it and simply told them:

Knowing the members composing this committee as well as I

do, I'm sure it was just an oversight that we didn't have

`sex' or `marital status' included. I've taken care of that,

and I trust it meets with the committee's approval.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on an issue that is of great importance to my home state of Louisiana: disaster preparedness. As you know, along the Gulf Coast, we keep an eye trained on the Gulf of Mexico during hurricane season. This is following the devastating one-two punch of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita of 2005 as well as Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008. Unfortunately, our region also has had to deal with the economic and environmental damage from the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010 and more recently Hurricane Isaac. For this reason, as Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, ensuring Federal disaster programs are effective and responsive to disaster victims is one of my top priorities. While the Gulf Coast is prone to hurricanes, other parts of the country are no strangers to disaster. For example, the Midwest and Southeast have tornadoes, California experiences earthquakes and wildfires, and the Northeast sees crippling snowstorms. So no part of our country is spared from disasters--disasters which can and will strike at any moment. This certainly hit home when the northeast was struck by Hurricane Sandy in October of last year and when Moore, Oklahoma was hit by a massive tornado earlier this summer. With this in mind, we must ensure that families have the resources they need to be better prepared the next time disasters strike their communities.

In order to give families in tornado prone areas more resources to protect lives and property, I am proud to file the Tornado Family Safety Act of 2013. Representative Tom Cole from Oklahoma is filing the House companion bill today as well. I want to thank him for being my partner in this effort as his district has seen firsthand how destructive these tornadoes can be to homes and businesses. In particular, our bill would allow U.S. Small Business Administration, SBA, disaster home mitigation loans to go towards the construction of tornado safe rooms. Under current law, SBA can increase the size of a home disaster loan by 20 percent of the total damage to decrease future disaster risk. The Small Business Act lists out examples of mitigation activities such as ``. . . retaining walls, sea walls, grading and contouring land, relocating utilities and modifying structures . . .'' The bill would add safe rooms as an eligible activity so homeowners would have access to these low-interest loans. It does not replace or duplicate other programs, but instead provides a backstop for families in disaster prone areas.

Under guidelines from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, and the International Code Council, ICC, a safe room should withstand 250 mph winds and the impact of a 15-pound plank hitting a wall at 100 miles per hour, according to the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, IBHS. Safe rooms designed to the FEMA and ICC standards are recommended for both tornadoes and hurricanes. For individual homes, a safe room could range anywhere from $3,000 to $12,000.

The concept for the bill came about after discussions with the FEMA and the SBA on recent disasters. We learned that safe rooms are not allowable under FEMA preparedness grant programs. Safe rooms would be considered construction and FEMA only allows for limited construction under the preparedness grants for very specific items, such as communications towers, as specified in the appropriations acts. Safe rooms are an eligible activity under the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, HMGP. States decide how they use their HMGP, and reimbursing safe room construction for homeowners could be eligible. However, given the larger cost involved in reimbursing individual homeowners, HMGP funded safe rooms are oftentimes community-owned not residential.

As I have indicated, FEMA Individual Assistance does not allow the construction of safe rooms. FEMA does allow HMGP grants for safe rooms and states can decide to reimburse safe room construction for homeowners. However, most are typically community-owned not residential since HMGP funds both single and multi-use facilities--schools, community centers, etc. For example, according to FEMA data, out of 21 states funding safe rooms, only four states, Oklahoma, Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas, represent the bulk of residential safe rooms, appproximately 21,600 of the 21,880 funded.

But let me give you an example of how the needs for these types of structures are often outpacing the resources currently available. Following the May 20, 2013 tornado there, Moore, OK, Mayor Glenn Lewis proposed a requirement that all new homes built in the city include a safe room. Oklahoma Governor Fallin also told the Associated Press that only 100 of the 1,752 public schools in Oklahoma have a safe room. In a subsequent June 9, 2013, interview, Albert Ashwood, Director of the Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management, estimated that putting safe rooms in 1,000 Oklahoma schools, via traditional FEMA grant programs, would cost between $500 million to $1 billion alone. So in the near future, there is likely to be less, not more, Federal funding available at the State level for these types of residential safe rooms. Our bill would allow a backstop to homeowners in the event that other Federal/State funds are not available for safe rooms for that particular disaster.

In closing, I believe that this commonsense disaster reform will greatly benefit homeowners impacted by future tornadoes and other disasters.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on an issue that is of great importance to my home state of Louisiana: disaster preparedness. As you know, along the Gulf Coast, we keep an eye trained on the Gulf of Mexico during hurricane season. This is following the devastating one-two punch of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita of 2005 as well as Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008. Unfortunately, our region also has had to deal with the economic and environmental damage from the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010 and more recently Hurricane Isaac. For this reason, as Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, ensuring Federal disaster programs are effective and responsive to disaster victims is one of my top priorities. While the Gulf Coast is prone to hurricanes, other parts of the country are no strangers to disaster. For example, the Midwest and Southeast have tornadoes, California experiences earthquakes and wildfires, and the Northeast sees crippling snowstorms. So no part of our country is spared from disasters--disasters which can and will strike at any moment. This certainly hit home when the northeast was struck by Hurricane Sandy in October of last year and when Moore, Oklahoma was hit by a massive tornado earlier this summer. With this in mind, we must ensure that families have the resources they need to be better prepared the next time disasters strike their communities.

In order to give families in tornado prone areas more resources to protect lives and property, I am proud to file the Tornado Family Safety Act of 2013. Representative Tom Cole from Oklahoma is filing the House companion bill today as well. I want to thank him for being my partner in this effort as his district has seen firsthand how destructive these tornadoes can be to homes and businesses. In particular, our bill would allow U.S. Small Business Administration, SBA, disaster home mitigation loans to go towards the construction of tornado safe rooms. Under current law, SBA can increase the size of a home disaster loan by 20 percent of the total damage to decrease future disaster risk. The Small Business Act lists out examples of mitigation activities such as ``. . . retaining walls, sea walls, grading and contouring land, relocating utilities and modifying structures . . .'' The bill would add safe rooms as an eligible activity so homeowners would have access to these low-interest loans. It does not replace or duplicate other programs, but instead provides a backstop for families in disaster prone areas.

Under guidelines from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, and the International Code Council, ICC, a safe room should withstand 250 mph winds and the impact of a 15-pound plank hitting a wall at 100 miles per hour, according to the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, IBHS. Safe rooms designed to the FEMA and ICC standards are recommended for both tornadoes and hurricanes. For individual homes, a safe room could range anywhere from $3,000 to $12,000.

The concept for the bill came about after discussions with the FEMA and the SBA on recent disasters. We learned that safe rooms are not allowable under FEMA preparedness grant programs. Safe rooms would be considered construction and FEMA only allows for limited construction under the preparedness grants for very specific items, such as communications towers, as specified in the appropriations acts. Safe rooms are an eligible activity under the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, HMGP. States decide how they use their HMGP, and reimbursing safe room construction for homeowners could be eligible. However, given the larger cost involved in reimbursing individual homeowners, HMGP funded safe rooms are oftentimes community-owned not residential.

As I have indicated, FEMA Individual Assistance does not allow the construction of safe rooms. FEMA does allow HMGP grants for safe rooms and states can decide to reimburse safe room construction for homeowners. However, most are typically community-owned not residential since HMGP funds both single and multi-use facilities--schools, community centers, etc. For example, according to FEMA data, out of 21 states funding safe rooms, only four states, Oklahoma, Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas, represent the bulk of residential safe rooms, appproximately 21,600 of the 21,880 funded.

But let me give you an example of how the needs for these types of structures are often outpacing the resources currently available. Following the May 20, 2013 tornado there, Moore, OK, Mayor Glenn Lewis proposed a requirement that all new homes built in the city include a safe room. Oklahoma Governor Fallin also told the Associated Press that only 100 of the 1,752 public schools in Oklahoma have a safe room. In a subsequent June 9, 2013, interview, Albert Ashwood, Director of the Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management, estimated that putting safe rooms in 1,000 Oklahoma schools, via traditional FEMA grant programs, would cost between $500 million to $1 billion alone. So in the near future, there is likely to be less, not more, Federal funding available at the State level for these types of residential safe rooms. Our bill would allow a backstop to homeowners in the event that other Federal/State funds are not available for safe rooms for that particular disaster.

In closing, I believe that this commonsense disaster reform will greatly benefit homeowners impacted by future tornadoes and other disasters.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Reserving the right to object, I am not going to object, but I wanted to ask the majority leader, as you know, we have lost a great American, Ambassador Lindy Boggs. Senator Begich and I just wanted 10 minutes on the floor sometime today or tomorrow to honor her. Could we include that in some agreement for tomorrow?

Mr. President, today I wish to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Tom Ed McHugh, who will retire as executive director of the Louisiana Municipal Association. Mr. McHugh will step down on December 31, 2013, after 13 years of dedicated service.

Mr. McHugh began his career in public service in 1966 as a teacher in the East Baton Rouge Parish School System after receiving a Bachelor's degree in education from Louisiana State University. In 1989, Mr. McHugh was elected mayor-president of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge and served three terms in this position. Under his leadership, East Baton Rouge Parish experienced its greatest years of growth and prosperity. Through his years of service as an elected official, Mr. McHugh created enduring changes in a wide breadth of programs to impact and improve the lives of every individual within and throughout his community.

Mr. McHugh has worked tirelessly for 13 years as executive director of the Louisiana Municipal Association to maintain and promote the independence and self-sufficiency of Louisiana's municipalities while strengthening the relationship between the local, State, and Federal levels of government. He created municipal structures in which all people are taken care of, no matter their situation in life. Mr. McHugh had a vision to reach the lives of the citizens he vigorously worked to improve through dynamic enhancement models that provided quality management and services at all levels of government. Mr. McHugh also worked continuously to build a strong economic agenda to ensure the prosperity of Louisiana's municipalities and communities for generations to come.

Mr. McHugh's distinguished career includes many prestigious recognitions. Among them are memberships to the United States Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, and the governing boards of the Louisiana Conference of Mayors and the Louisiana Municipal Association. Mr. McHugh's career leaves a legacy of accomplishment and dedication to his family and all those who are a part of the educational systems and municipalities that he served. Together with his high school sweetheart, Betty Schilling McHugh, Mr. and Mrs. McHugh are the proud parents and grandparents of three children and eight grandchildren, all of whom have continued to inspire Mr. McHugh as a professional, a father, and a grandfather.

Mr. McHugh has been and continues to be an inspiration to all of those who have been impacted by his tireless efforts. It is with my heartfelt and greatest sincerity that I ask my colleagues to join me along with Mr. McHugh's family in recognizing the life and many accomplishments of this incredible leader and his impact in so many communities.

Mr. President, today I wish to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing September 6, 2013, as Coach Alton ``Red'' Franklin Day in the State of Louisiana. On this date, Coach Franklin's 35 years of leadership and service to the football program at Haynesville High School as head coach

will be honored in a ceremony to rename Haynesville High School Memorial Stadium to Red Franklin-Memorial Stadium.

Coach Franklin's talent and leadership in athletics grew in high school where he lettered each year of his career in football, baseball, and basketball. After receiving a scholarship to play football at the University of Alabama, Coach Franklin transferred to Louisiana College where he met his beloved wife, Beth Langford. Mr. and Mrs. Franklin, who have been together 50 years, are the proud parents of three sons who played football under Coach Franklin's leadership and grandparents of seven grandchildren, all of whom continue to inspire him as a coach, father, and grandfather.

Coach Franklin began his coaching career in Marksville, LA, in 1961. He later became an assistant coach at Haynesville High School. He was then promoted to head coach in 1967, and served in that position for 35 years. During his career as head coach, Coach Franklin accumulated 366 wins, 8 ties, and only 76 losses in a total of 450 games, earning the rank of second place for Louisiana's best all time, all-class, head coaching record. Throughout his tireless professional efforts, Coach Franklin also devoted much of his time to the youth in his community and the State as an educator, leader, and role model.

Coach Franklin's distinguished career includes many awards, honors, and decorations. Among them are State Coach of the Year for 6 years, District Coach of the Year for 23 years, Region Five Coach of the Year for 2 years, and inductions into the Louisiana Sports, Louisiana College, National Federation of State High School Associations, and North Louisiana Chapter of the National Football Foundation Halls of Fame. Coach Franklin's career leaves a legacy of accomplishment, service, and dedication to all those who are a part of Louisiana's strong communities and football tradition.

Coach Franklin has been and continues to be an inspiration to those who have been impacted by his legendary coaching tenure. It is with my greatest sincerity that I ask my colleagues to join me along with Coach Franklin's family in recognizing the hard work, devotion, and many achievements of this incredible leader.

Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the 9th and 10th (Horse) Cavalry Association of the Buffalo Soldiers, who on July 22-28, 2013, will celebrate their 147th Anniversary Reunion in New Orleans, LA. The cavalry association will honor allied members who have demonstrated tremendous work and leadership in the association, their community, or the United States through their exceptional service.

On July 28, 1866, the 29th Congress passed the Army Organization Act, creating two cavalry and six overall regiments of African-American troops. The 9th Cavalry was activated in New Orleans, LA, and the 10th was called into service at Fort Levenworth, KS, beginning the Buffalo Soldiers' rich heritage of professional service to their communities and the Nation. The cavalry units of the Buffalo Soldiers played an integral role in the settlement and development of the West in the crucial years that followed the Civil War, serving courageously and victoriously on the frontier from Texas to Montana.

Buffalo Soldiers wear the name proudly and respectfully, sharing a common passion for the historical significance and contributions of those who have served before them. The Buffalo Soldiers performed admirably in and out of battle, assisting in the economic growth and cultural development of Western territories and communities. Today, the Buffalo Soldiers honor their heritage through mentorship, community service, and volunteerism. In this capacity, the soldiers work tirelessly to provide education and support services in numerous communities throughout the Nation. Their outstanding leadership in these endeavors and services they perform continue to provide unparalleled contributions to the citizens and communities impacted and will benefit generations to come.

In 2001, at the 135th Anniversary Reunion of the 9th and 10th Cavalry Association, Mr. George Jones, along with nine members of the cavalry association, was awarded a national charter to form the Greater New Orleans Area Chapter #22. This chapter was the first in the State of Louisiana to receive a chapter charter from the national office. The Greater New Orleans Area Chapter has embodied the values and mission embraced by the 9th and 10th Cavalry for 147 years, and has continuously educated Louisiana's communities on the invaluable traditions and contributions of the Buffalo Soldiers in the service of the United States.

The 9th and 10th (Horse) Cavalry Association of Buffalo Soldiers has been and continues to be an inspiration to all those who have been impacted by their tireless service. It is with my greatest sincerity that I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the hard work, dedication, and many accomplishments of these incredible leaders.

Mr. President, my friend, Mrs. Cynthia M.A. Butler McIntyre, will be retiring her role as the national president of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc, this year. She has served as president since July 2008, and has been a great asset to the organization.

Mrs. McIntyre became a member of Delta Sigma Theta on November 30, 1973, and has served as a leader at the local, State, regional, and national levels. Mrs. McIntyre has an impressive professional resume that includes director of Human Resources for the Jefferson Parish Public School System in Harvey, LA, kindergarten teacher, assistant principal, summer school principal, and personnel administrator in her school district.

Her professional and honorary degrees reflect her passion for education. She received a bachelor of arts in early childhood education from Dillard University and a master of education in curriculum and instruction as well as educational administration from the University of New Orleans. She also received an honorary doctorate of divinity degree in religious education from the Louisiana Bible College.

Under the leadership of Mrs. McIntyre, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority has partnered with Water in Education International, WEI, to open The Cynthia M.A. Butler-McIntyre Campus in Cherette, Haiti which is dedicated to providing access to clean water for children. Members of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority have donated funds to support the Clean Water Haiti Fund and under Mrs. McIntyre's direction, the sorority is set to open a new elementary school in Haiti this summer.

Mrs. McIntyre is a national leader who currently serves on the board of the New Orleans Convention Center and the Martin Luther King, Jr. Task Force. Previously, she served as executive director of the Tech- Prep Summer Program at Delgado Community College in New Orleans and has worked as the assistant coordinator of field experiences and college education supervisor for early childhood student teaching experiences for the University of New Orleans. In 2011, she was appointed by President Barack Obama to the Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation board of trustees.

Delta Sigma Theta Sorority has truly benefitted from Mrs. McIntyre's leadership as a pioneer of education reform. Her accolades include Distinguished Delta of the Year, Distinguished Public Servant Award, MLK Outstanding Activist Recognition, Hall of Fame, Distinguished Women of Honor, Who's Who in American Education, YMCA Role Model Recognition, Elementary Assistant Principal of the Year, and Teacher of the Year, just to name a few.

Delta Sigma Theta Sorority will have big shoes to fill in the absence of their president, Mrs. McIntyre. She has made invaluable contributions to the state of education, and her uncompromised leadership has impacted communities, nationally and internationally. I wish her continued success for the future.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship will meet on July 17, 2013, at 3 p.m. in room 428A Russell Senate Office building to hold a roundtable entitled ``Small Business Tax Reform: Making the Tax Code Work for Entrepreneurs and Startups.''

Madam President, let me begin by thanking the majority leader for his extraordinary leadership on this bill--and both sides, it has been a very tough negotiation. The Gang of 8--Senator Flake, Senator Bennet, Senator Rubio, Senator Menendez, Senator Graham, Senator Durbin, Senator McCain, and Senator Schumer--have worked very hard to bring a bill to the floor that, in my view, is not perfect, but it is balanced. It accomplishes many of the principles of fixing our broken immigration system. They have worked extraordinarily hard.

Let me also thank Senator Leahy and Senator Grassley as the chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee that considered more than 300 amendments and voted on 121. I am disappointed, as are many people, that we did not get more votes on the floor, but I came to the floor earlier in the week and predicted that would happen. It is unfortunate, but it is not the first time. I have seen this movie.

Members on the other side are disappointed, some of us are disappointed, and we are hoping we can find a more

productive way forward. That is why I have spent some time on the floor talking about a step toward a more productive way.

A few of us on both sides of this debate--some of us are voting against the bill, and some of us are voting for the bill--have been working on a small package of amendments that have bipartisan support, no substantive objection, and we are trying to get a short, small list cleared by both sides. We have been working on this all week.

I appreciate the patience of every Member of the Senate because this has been a very tense, very emotional debate for many Members. As I have said, in a goodwill attempt to get the Senate moving in a little bit better direction toward bipartisanship and goodwill, I am not going to ask to push this vote back--which would be my right to do, but I will not. Many Members have important schedules to keep and commitments to keep, as do I.

I will be circulating a list. I believe I will be circulating it with Senator Coats, who is going to be voting against the bill. I am going to be voting for the bill. We are going to be circulating within the next 2 hours a short list of the amendments that we believe have been cleared by both the Judiciary Committee and the majority and minority. I am not going to provide the list at this period because it has been reviewed in various shapes and ways throughout the week.

We are working with Senator Leahy and working with Senator Grassley. Just so people understand--hopefully, if they are not convinced how sincere I am about this, I want my colleagues to know I am removing my amendments from this list. There will be no Landrieu amendments on this list. This is not an attempt to get Landrieu amendments passed, as important as I think they are. I am fortunate that I got in at least one amendment for adopted kids on the bill. I am not complaining. That is the way it goes. But I don't want people to think I am trying to get a unanimous consent on my amendments, so I am taking my amendments off the list. It will not be circulated.

The list that will be circulated is by leaders, both Republicans and Democrats, who have--could I have order, please?

The list of amendments that will be circulated has Democratic and Republican sponsors that have been cleared by Senator Grassley and Senator Leahy. They will work with their individual Members to see if the list can be cleared. There will be no votes, as is the unanimous consent. It will have to be done, as we call it here, hot-lined, and we will have to have 100 of us say yes. But I am asking my colleagues to say yes. I am asking them to say yes, to take a step in the right direction. I am not accusing anyone of anything. I am not blaming the Democrats or the Republicans.

I am just saying I think we should take a small step toward trying to get the Senate back on track. I don't know what is going to happen after the immigration bill, if we are going to engage in any rule change. I have tried not to make any inflammatory statements about that one way or the other.

This is a sincere effort on my part--and Senator Coats has been helpful as well--to try to put forth a small package. I am not asking for a debate or a rollcall vote. It would have to be done by consent in a small package, and I am removing my amendments.

I thank the Senate. I am asking all of my colleagues--it is going to take 100 of us. If one person says no, this will be stopped. I hope we can end on a more positive note. A lot of hard work has gone into this bill. I know there are terrible disappointments. I am not one of those who are disappointed. I am happy with the outcome.

I am trying to help get a small package that people have been working on that will not affect the number of this vote in any way. The vote is going to be the same. It is going to be 68 to 32. Was that the final vote? That is what it is going to be at 4 p.m. It is not going to change a thing. It will solve some problems several people have on subjects that are important to the constituents we represent at home.

Again, I am taking my amendments off the list.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I appreciate both leaders for giving some time for this.

Several of us have been working all week on a package of amendments that were bipartisan and cleared by both Senator Grassley's and Senator Hatch's staff. We appreciate their work so much. We are, unfortunately, not able to get unanimous consent. We tried. I thank them very much for their effort. They stuck with us all the way to the end.

Hopefully this bill will begin to build a bipartisan coalition of Senators who wish to truly solve problems for our country. Our coalition that worked on this is both people for and against the bill. We were not able to get it cleared. We are not discouraged and will continue to work.

I thank Senator Hatch and Senator Grassley.

Madam President, I come to the floor this morning to talk to an issue I have been speaking about for a couple of days. I most certainly can appreciate the frustration of the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Iowa.

The Senator from Alabama has been opposed to this bill from the beginning. He may have a different view. I am not sure any amendments would satisfy him, but of course he has been debating in good faith, and that is part of this process that needs to go on.

The Senator from Iowa has been working very hard. He has spent so much time both in the committee and on the floor trying to work out a bill he is comfortable with, but sometimes that happens and sometimes it doesn't.

I think what should happen, no matter what, is that after all the controversial issues are debated, there should be a coming together on both sides at a certain time, recognizing that all time has expired, all probability of any serious negotiation on any bills or any amendments that have to be voted on is over, and as friends and partners and as the leaders trying to move--appropriately and maturely--forward, we could come together at least with a short list of amendments that are completely uncontested and cleared on both sides. I am going to continue to ask for this because I think it will send a very positive signal to people that even though things have broken down some in the Senate, it is not completely broken.

To frame this issue so people can understand why I might be concerned is that there have been 800 amendments filed on this bill--300 in committee, about 150 of which were debated and voted on or dispensed with, 500 filed on this floor. So in order for those amendments to get any consideration at all--which they haven't in any large measure--good will has to prevail, and the good will flew out of this Chamber a long time ago. I would like to get a little piece of it back. I wish I could get all of it back. I wish we would act as we did 4 or 5 or even 6 years ago. It is not happening. Maybe it will.

I would like to begin to move in that direction by asking my colleagues for consideration of a small group of amendments that, to our knowledge, have no opposition. I am going to read a few of those. Senator Grassley and his staff have been working on this. Senator Leahy and his staff have been working on this. I provided a list to Senator McCain and to every Member of the Gang of 8. I am hoping we can salvage some effort.

What people might not realize: When a major bill such as this is being debated, there is a lot more going on besides what they see in committee or what they hear on the floor. The evidence of that would be that 800 amendments have been filed. Someone had to write all of those 800 amendments. Staff worked very hard to think about ideas--not to derail the bill but to help the bill. No draft is perfect. Very smart staffers and Members actually do read the text and come up with ideas to improve.

One in particular: I had a hearing in my Small Business Committee. I notified the immigration subcommittee, Judiciary. We conducted our hearing with the blessing of the chair. We didn't talk about any of the major pieces of the legislation except for the one or two that talked about small business. In all the discussion of major businesses needing skilled workers and major businesses and hotel chains, I thought maybe someone could gather some information about what small businesses might need and maybe improve the bill.

I am supporting immigration reform. I think all Democratic Members--I don't know of anyone who is not. There are some Republican Members who are not supporting the bill, but there are some who are. So one amendment is requiring a mobile ap to be developed so a farmer, for instance, or a person in a rural area who has either high-speed connection or particularly wireless connection could pull up E-Verify on their mobile ap. They wouldn't have to drive 200 miles, as in the Presiding Officer's State in North Dakota or South Dakota or Louisiana or Mississippi. We have areas that people are working hard, and they are not right next door to an Internet cafe. So one idea we had was for mobile aps. That is what one of these amendments is. Wouldn't that be a big help? There is no one I know who is opposed to that. There are billions of dollars in this bill. Some of it most certainly could be spent helping small businesses access better E-Verify.

There is another provision in this bill from Klobuchar, Landrieu, Coats, Blunt, Barrasso, and Enzi. This is as broad a coalition as could reflect broad-based support. Klobuchar is from Minnesota, Landrieu is from Louisiana, Coats is from Indiana, Blunt is from Missouri, Barrasso is from Wyoming, and we are Republicans and Democrats. I appreciate that this amendment has been cleared by both sides, and it requires certificates of citizenship and other Federal documents to reflect the name and date of birth determination made by State courts to help ensure that name and date of birth changes for adopted children are reflected in Federal records.

We adopt about 100,000 children in America every year. I think these parents should be given our best efforts. These are parents who are adopting children domestically, keeping them off the streets, out of mental institutions, pouring their hearts and souls into helping raise children who others have either thrown away or given up. Yet we make it difficult.

A few of us who work on this issue a lot know how things need to be fixed. This is a bill that comes to the floor. We think, gosh, this bill is not big enough to command its own attention on the Senate floor, so we are going to prepare an amendment for when the immigration bill comes up and we hope the Members will allow it to go through.

I am not going to give up on my Members yet. I am going to remain very optimistic and very hopeful that even Senators who are opposed to this bill and have done everything they can to stop it or people opposed to the original draft who have done everything they can to amend it--some of that has been successful, some of it has not been. But I am hoping at the end of the day, even those who have been making these great efforts will step back and understand and be respectful that other work should go on as well. This amendment is an example.

There is another amendment that Senator Cochran and I have, amendment No. 1383. It simply requires reports on the EB-5 visa program. The requirement for reports is not in this bill. It is a program everyone here is familiar with. It has many problems. The underlying bill fixes it, and I think to those of us supporting the bill, fixes it adequately. I am not sure what the opponents think. But there is no requirement to report back to the committee so we can continue to monitor this program. Because it has been so off-track in the past, let's make sure we get it on-track in the future. This is just standard Senate operations. Unfortunately, we are now at a place in time in the history of the Senate, there are no standard operating procedures anymore, and it is a sad day.

There is another amendment that I understand has been completely cleared. Murray-Crapo amendment No. 1368 prohibits the use of restraint on pregnant women in DHS detention facilities during labor and childbirth except in extraordinary circumstances. Now, please, the amendment simply would say you cannot shackle women during childbirth and labor. Is anyone on the Senate floor opposed to this? If so, please make yourself known.

Nelson-Wicker is a very important amendment to Senator Wicker, who is a Republican, and Senator Nelson, who is a Democrat. I am a cosponsor of this amendment, but it is Senator Nelson's amendment. I can't believe there would be anyone in this Chamber who would disagree. All it is saying is since we are spending now--and I might need to ask the Senator from Iowa to give

me the final update on the number because the number keeps going up--if Senator Grassley would mind giving me the number--$46.3 billion on the southern border, California, Texas, New Mexico.

So $30 billion on the land border, and it could be something between 30 and 46 and those numbers keep changing. But it is a lot of money. Senator Nelson's amendment says that at least $1 billion of that money be spent on maritime border security, not land border. As he said so eloquently, if we continue to put up fences and borders on the land and make it secure--which we all want to do--there are maritime assets that need to be stepped up. I think most everybody understands that and would say that is a very good amendment.

These are amendments that don't need to be voted on. I am not asking for votes on these amendments. They don't need to be voted on. They would normally go by voice vote en bloc--no votes required. Out of the 800 amendments, this list has less than 45 amendments that probably don't need any vote, no time, just a simple--it is a consent. Staff has been given these and looked at these amendments.

I am going to continue to come to the floor today in hopes that after the leaders negotiate on the contested amendments--and I have a list of the contested amendments. It looks quite different than the list I am talking about. The list that is being contested has names such as: Vitter, Vitter, Vitter, Vitter, Vitter, Vitter, Vitter, Lee, Lee, Lee, Lee, Cruz, Cruz, Cruz, Cruz, Cornyn, Cornyn, Cornyn, Cornyn. That is a list. There is another list: Chambliss, Portman, Vitter, Inhofe, Toomey, and Fischer. These lists are lists from Members who really believe they need to get a vote on their amendments. I would like them to get a vote. I am not opposed to them getting a vote.

What I am opposed to is this list which is not one Senator, it is numbers of Senators who have worked very hard to get bipartisan support for amendments that improve the underlying bill, which is going to pass.

The bill is going to pass. It is either going to pass with 69 votes, 72 votes, or 74 votes. There is no way this bill is not going to pass the Senate. It is clear it is going to pass. People don't like that it is going to pass, but it is going to pass.

So before it passes, I am asking with all of my heart for the consideration of amendments that have been brought by Democrats and Republicans who have been working in good faith to make the bill better and to solve problems for our constituents. Our constituents are not trying to negotiate on the number of Border Patrol agents. The Gang of 8 did that. They are not trying to negotiate whether we are going to have 40,000 or 80,000 Border Patrol agents. My constituents want help for the kids they adopted. Some of these amendments are to get help for Holocaust survivors. There are only a few of them left in the world. We would like to give some attention to them. Some of them spent 6 years, 7 years, or 4 years in a prison camp, and this might help them to die in peace.

Madam President, I ask that there be order on the floor.

I--as well as many colleagues--have gotten to the point where we would like to try to get back to a place where after all the fighting is over, all the yelling is done, all the posturing is done, all the message amendments are done, we could at least trust each other enough to have a consent package of items that would be helpful to the people we represent. That is a simple request.

I will yield the floor. Others want to speak, but I will come back once we have a clear list and again ask unanimous consent for these amendments. But I will not do that now.

Will the Senator from Texas yield for 30 seconds?

Madam President, I thank Senator Grassley for those comments. I will continue to work with him in good faith on this list. I realize not all of these amendments are under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, so that is why we have been working with leaders of other committees that have jurisdiction over these amendments to help get them passed.

I appreciate my friend's work and will continue to move forward.

Mr. President, I will speak as in morning business for up to 2 or 3 minutes. I just wish to take a point of personal privilege.

As we get to the end of this immigration debate and hopefully have a final vote on this bill sometime this week, it is a very important issue for our country, and there have been any number of Senators who have been involved in trying to negotiate a very complex and tough bill. The Gang of 8 has done a terrific job, in my view, of managing lots of very controversial aspects to this bill. But a group of us, not connected directly to the Gang of 8, have been working on a group of amendments that are not central to the bill or rather potentially-- potentially, let me say--noncontroversial. We have been working with Republicans and Democrats parallel to the Gang of 8. I only ask the leadership on both sides, the Republican leadership, the Democratic leadership, to please look at the list that has been submitted for the record not once, not twice, not three times but five times--a list that has been well circulated--and if there are any objections to the specific ideas in the bill--not objections to the amendments but specific objections to the ideas of the amendments, the substance of the amendments--please talk with me and I will be happy to do everything I can to resolve any concerns.

As the Senator from Arizona knows so well--he has been in the middle of this debate for a long time now--there have been hundreds of amendments offered in the Judiciary Committee and voted on and there are over 250 amendments pending on the floor, some of

which are extremely controversial. The Republicans would like to vote on some of those, there are others the Democrats want to vote on, and I am fine to vote on all of them or none of them. I will stay here all night and vote on them. I don't have a dog in that hunt. What I have is a relatively small group of amendments that Republicans and Democrats who are not in the Gang of 8 have voted on or have been talking about and working on that, to our knowledge--and our knowledge may not be complete--have no voiced opposition against them, and we are hoping that whatever agreement is reached, this list of noncontroversial amendments would at least be given a chance for a voice vote in global. We don't need individual votes. We don't need a record vote. We just would like to have our voices heard.

I see the Senator from Arizona, and I don't know if he wants to respond to this, but I am happy if he wants to ask me a question or two.

I thank the Senator from Arizona, and I will show more patience. Everyone on the floor is showing a lot of patience with this very complicated bill, but I have asked privately and I will ask publicly for the process of clearing--clearing--noncontroversial amendments to begin.

There is also a process going on to clear votes on controversial amendments. I am aware of that--to clear votes--and a time agreement on controversial amendments. I am not asking for that. I am asking for clearances to begin for no votes, voice vote only, on noncontroversial amendments, and I am glad I have the Senator's support to look at that and, hopefully, we can work something out.

I will yield to the Senator.

Correct, by voice.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as part of Small Business Week, I would like to mention a fact that is sometimes overlooked: minorities and women open small businesses at lower rates, and when they are able to open businesses, they earn less than their white counterparts.

We have received many studies from all over the country that look at the utilization of minority- and women-owned businesses by public contracting agencies. As the studies show, minority- and women-owned businesses are routinely and disproportionately underutilized in public contracting. In fact, one report that looked at almost 100 studies showed that regardless of where the study was done or who did it, what was seen over and over again was a stark underutilization of minority and women owned contractors.

Studies and litigation about mortgage rates also show us that minorities face additional, discriminatory hurdles when it comes to borrowing money. Minority business owners are more likely to have loan applications turned down than similar white business owners and, if the minority business owner is lucky enough to get the loan, he or she is more likely to pay a higher interest rate.

Minority and women business owners are less likely to have the wealth to start their own businesses because of a history of discrimination in employment. As a result, when they do start out, they are at a significant disadvantage.

We have also heard repeated testimony that minorities and women are excluded from the networks that are essential for small businesses. Minorities and women are quoted higher prices for supplies or excluded from the meetings or the clubs where contacts are formed and decisions are made.

Federal programs that open doors and require outreach to minority- owned businesses are essential. In fact, when the Federal or local government stops requiring that prime contractors reach out to minority- or women-owned businesses, those businesses' participation in public contracts plummets. For example, when States in the western part of the U.S. stopped their programs after a court decision that invalidated some applications of the program, participation in Federal contracting by minority-owned businesses measurably decreased.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of studies that demonstrate these facts.

Mr. President, I came to the floor to speak about and follow up on a 2-hour debate we had last night on the floor about amendments pending to this bill that are uncontested.

But before I do, let me acknowledge the leadership for allowing Senator Toomey to come to the floor and offer his amendment. It is not one--although he has made some good points--that I can agree with or others will agree with. But at least he had the opportunity to come to the floor, present his amendment and ideas, make his arguments, and hopefully at some time the Senate can vote on that amendment. That is the process.

In the underlying bill, these quotas and goals and numbers of visas were carefully and very fragilely compromised among Democrats and Republicans that serve as the basis of the underlying bill. So any major adjustments to that would undermine a comprehensive immigration bill.

The bill we have to consider is not the perfect bill. We could have all written it differently. But the overriding objective to fix a system that is broken, to secure the border, to require taxes be paid, English spoken, behind the line after people who have come here legally, close these borders, improve technology, and give an economic impact to this country overrides, in my view, these important but not major issues.

Having said that, there is an issue that I think deserves a tremendous amount of attention, and it is not just one amendment, it is 27 amendments. The issue is there are currently 278 amendments filed, including Senator Toomey's amendment. So besides his, there are 277 amendments pending to this bill.

Senator Harry Reid has said actually for 6 weeks now that he wants this bill finished by July 4. Because the leadership has not been able to negotiate--which is very difficult, I understand; some of these are very controversial amendments and who is going to get votes on what, et cetera, et cetera--it has really slowed us down.

I am not new to the Senate. I have seen this happen before. I am not whining about it; I am acknowledging that is the world in which we live. There is no magic button that can be pushed to fix this, but what we can do is come together in a trusting way to pass uncontested amendments--amendments that are not contested on the Republican side and that are not contested on the Democratic side. I am aware of about 27.

The staff, both Republicans and Democrats, has been working through the night to identify off the list of 277 amendments besides that of Senator Toomey, some of those that are actually really good ideas that Republicans and Democrats agree to, that do not upset the balance of the bill, do not spend any major additional funding or minor funding, that are in the principle and scope of the bill. It is our responsibility as Senators to legislate. That is what we are trying to do.

I would like to read this list of amendments that to my knowledge have no contest. No one is opposing them. This is a list that was put together by Republicans and Democrats. Perhaps there is another list of which I am unaware. My only goal is to get the Senate to accept amendments that are uncontested, that improve the bill, because that is what we are sent here to do.

I see the ranking member on the floor. I will yield in a minute, but I am going to take my full time and I will stay on the floor until we can resolve these things.

But I point out that there are only 17 members of the Judiciary Committee. I am not one of them. Those 17 members of the Judiciary Committee, led by Senator Leahy and ably by Ranking Member Grassley, met for 2 weeks, morning, noon, and night, hours and hours. Senator Grassley himself filed 77 amendments, and 38 were considered, 16 were adopted, and 22 were rejected. Senator Grassley as the ranking member is entitled to more amendments than anyone. The chair gets the most, the ranking member gets the second most, and I think that is actually what happened.

The problem for those of us who are not members of the Judiciary Committee, who are not authorized to offer amendments at the committee level because we are not on the committee--although we can informally work with members, and I did that, as many Members did because we know what our job is around here--the only way we can have input into this bill acting on behalf of constituents who have come to us with very good ideas.

Let me say the best ideas come not only from the little group here in Washington. We have very smart people out in the rest of the United States who follow things very carefully. They call their Senators and Representatives--elected officials, nonprofit groups, citizens, businesspeople--and say: I read the bill. I am thinking this might be a better idea.

We get our staffs to work on it, and, voila, that is how many amendments come forward.

What I am so angry about--and I will use the power I have as a Senator to push this point--is that when these ideas come and we have Republicans and Democrats supporting them, we cannot even get a process to get these uncontested good ideas forward because we give all the time and attention to the most controversial amendments. They are usually the ones that have no chance of passing whatsoever, that are message amendments for both sides, that undermine the bill we are trying to work on, and our ability to legislate has gone out the window. I am not going to be a Senator with that window closed, so I plan to open it. I am going to use all the power of my office to open the window of opportunity to legislate.

I am going to ask for 3 more minutes to read something into the Record. I have a list of amendments in front of me, starting with Senator Begich, 1285; Cardin and Kirk, 1286; Carper, 1408; Carper- Coburn, 1344; Collins, as modified, 1255; Coats, 1288; Feinstein, 1250; Hagan, 1386; Heinrich, 1342, Heller, 1234; Kirk and Coons, 1239; Klobuchar and Coats, 1261; Landrieu, 1338; Landrieu, 1382; Leahy and Hatch, 1183; a Leahy technical amendment that has no number; Leahy, EB- 5 clarification that has no number but is technical; Murray-Crapo, 1368; Landrieu, 1341; Landrieu-Cochran 1383; Nelson, 1253; Reed, 1223; Schatz and Kirk, 1416; Shaheen, 1272; Stabenow, Collins, and King, 1405; Udall, 1241; and Udall, 1242.

To my knowledge, none of these amendments are contested. Some of them are Democratic amendments, and some of them are Republican amendments. At some point I am going to ask for these amendments to be included in the base of this bill. I am not going to ask that at this exact moment, but I am going to ask--well, I might ask the chair and ranking member, is this a list the Senator recognizes? If not, is there another list I could see, observe, and put into the Record for this discussion? I ask the ranking member of the committee, the Senator from Iowa.

No, I have not. I understand these amendments to be noncontroversial. It is my understanding that there is no Republican opposition to the substance of these amendments. I could be wrong. If someone can tell me what the substantive objections to these amendments are, I will go back to work. I am happy to work on this all day. It is very important. We have several days to finish this. If somebody could tell me either in writing or verbally what are any substantive objections to these amendments, I promise I will do the work necessary to see what can be done to work them out.

I am going to ask because no one has come to me. I filed this list, talked about this 2 hours last night. Everyone knows these amendments. Everyone has had a chance to look at them. No one has come to me to say they object to any of these amendments. I am going to simply ask unanimous consent for them to be added to the bill.

Let me say that after these are added to the bill, we still will have--let me do my math--we still will have 251 amendments to fight about. So, you know, we will really enjoy the fight. I can fight as tough as the next guy. But could we possibly get amendments that Members have worked together on?

How fascinating that Democrats and Republicans actually worked together to answer constituent letters and phone calls and concerns about immigration and found a way to work together and put an amendment together. But, you know what. We go to the back of the line while everybody who has not worked, who just wants headlines--and I am not speaking of Senator Grassley. He has done a great job in his leadership. But there are others who want to have press conferences and headlines. I do not. I just want to legislate on behalf of the constituents who have sent me here now for three terms.

I am going to ask unanimous consent to agree to these uncontested, to my knowledge, amendments.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Is there a physical copy of the list you have presented to the Democrats? Could it be submitted to the Record?

I would like to ask that that list be read into the Congressional Record.

I ask unanimous consent for that list to be submitted to the Record.

Mr. President, do I have the floor?

I ask unanimous consent that the time until 2 o'clock be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees and that the majority leader be recognized at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask that I take the Democratic leader's time for 10 minutes.

Well, I am next because there was just a Republican on the floor.

What is the next order, please, after the Senator from Texas?

I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes after the Senator from Texas.

Mr. President, before the Senator from Texas leaves the floor, could I ask a question unrelated to his speech? I am sorry I didn't get to hear most of it. I stepped off the floor temporarily.

The Senator has been so active on the debate on immigration, I wonder if the Senator is aware of a list of 27 noncontroversial amendments that are from both Republicans and Democrats. Has the Senator from Texas had a chance to look at that list? And if not, could the Senator look at it? If he has looked at it, does the Senator have any objections to the amendments on the list?

I thank the Senator for his answer. I ask the Senator and any other Senators who have not had a chance to look at this list that has been widely circulated to take the time to look at the list. I know my colleague is very busy and has many important issues to debate on this bill, but these are important amendments to colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Again, I thank the Senator from Texas for agreeing to look at the list and let us know.

I am going to come back to the floor in a few minutes and ask unanimous consent for this list of amendments. I want to read the amendments into the Record. These are noncontroversial amendments. What I mean by noncontroversial is, to my knowledge, is they are uncontested. They are Republican and Democratic amendments that seek to improve the bill in response to communications from our constituents at home. It is not just people around Washington and the beltway who have good ideas about immigration issues. I am sure people in New Mexico have great ideas, and people have very good ideas in Louisiana. The way they get their ideas into the debate is by calling their Member of Congress, calling their Senators' office, writing letters, sending e- mails, giving us suggestions. This list represents some of that communication. That is why we come here, to represent those interests and to say: Look, this was an idea I had; it will strengthen the bill. One of these ideas which I am very excited about came up through our small business roundtable for small businesses. They said: Senator, why don't you mandate a mobile app for us, particularly in rural areas, because we don't have high-speed Internet. We can't run back 200 miles to check the local Internet to do this E-Verify. Why doesn't Homeland Security have a mobile device for the iPhone which everybody is carrying--either iPhones or BlackBerrys--where a person hits a button or a mobile app for E-Verify. What an amazing, wonderful idea.

This bill is going to spend billions and billions and billions of dollars securing the border. Could we spend just a little bit of effort helping every small businessperson in America to use the E-Verify system smartly and efficiently? It would be such a relief to them to know they don't have to put themselves at risk hiring people who don't have the right certification. They can just go to the mobile app and pull it up. That is what we are hoping.

We have 3 years to put this system into place. No small business is mandated to use the E-Verify system under the bill until these new systems are in place. That is one of our amendments. There is no one who has come to me to say: We hate the mobile app idea. We don't want to do the mobile app idea. It is a terrible idea. So let's put it in the bill.

There are some other amendments in here--I don't know all of them because only some of them are mine. Let me read one from Tom Udall. I don't know it specifically, but it says it makes $5 million available for strengthening the border infectious disease surveillance project.

I know $5 million is a good amount of money, but compared to the billions of dollars we are spending in some of our rural States-- including New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and Louisiana is rural--I don't think there is anybody objecting to spending $5 million to strengthen the border infectious disease surveillance project. That kind of smart investment--I am sure the Senator has done his homework. That kind of smart investment could save taxpayers and the livelihoods of farmers everywhere. What a wonderful idea. We can't even get that adopted by a voice vote because we have broken down the trust and respect of the Senate. I am going to do my very best, as calmly as I can, to try to get that trust and respect back.

One of the other amendments prohibits the shackling of pregnant women. Now, we shackle a lot of people--and this is Senator Murray's amendment--when they do wrong things. But I think people can understand the benefit of expressing some strong views to not put shackles on the ankles or wrists of a woman who is pregnant. It is a very stressful situation. We want to support healthy births even in conditions where the mother may not have all the legal paperwork. I think we can understand why that would be a sensitive thing to do, and I don't think there is any Republican who would object to that. I don't think there is a Democrat who would object to that. That is on the list.

There are a lot of people who wish to speak, so I will just take 5 more minutes.

There is a great amendment by Senators Klobuchar and Coats that requires certification of citizenship and other Federal documents to reflect the name and date of birth determinations made by a State court in the situation of intercountry adoption. Some of our parents are getting really hassled, American parents are getting hassled by American courts because they have done God's will, adopted children from overseas. They have followed all the rules, all the laws, at tremendous expense to themselves, trying to help a child who is orphaned or unparented, only to come back to the United States and because of some technical difficulties with our law, their birth certificates are not honored.

This isn't right. I realize the Judiciary Committee cannot spend their time talking about this matter. In the scheme of things, it is minor. But let me tell my colleagues as an adoptive mother, to an adoptive American parent who has spent thousands of dollars and days and months trying to do what their pastors and ministers asked them to do, to take in the orphaned, this is an outrageous situation, and with one breath--just a breath--this could be done. But we don't have the breath anymore because we have just completely fallen apart.

This can be fixed. There is nobody objecting to it, and that is what I am going to stand here and argue for.

How much time do I have remaining?

I see my colleague so I am going to wrap up in 30 seconds and then yield the floor.

I will come to the floor again this afternoon and talk about these amendments.

These Members have worked very hard, Republicans and Democrats, amazingly, together, coming up with amendments that improve the bill. Some of these amendments are from Senators who are going to vote no on the bill; some of these amendments are from people who are going to vote yes on the bill. It is not going to change the outcome of the vote. That is why I am so aggravated. If it did, then I could understand not taking them up. The acceptance of these amendments, yes or no, is not going to change the outcome of this bill, but it will change the outcome of situations on the ground that are not good for American citizens.

We are here to fix things, to help, to streamline, to save money, to improve, to relieve pain, to help and expand opportunity. I am tired of being around here and not being able to do that. So I am going to ask for this list--of course, it has been circulated widely and publicly. It is on our Web site. It is on several Web sites. People can look at what we are talking about. If anybody on the Senate floor has an objection, let us know.

Let me say one thing in closing. The counterlist that I am still not in physical receipt of but have seen, but it is a part of the Congressional Record because I required it to be, is a list of seven amendments that are very controversial. So the Republicans have given us a list of seven very controversial amendments. That is not the list I am looking for. Maybe Senator Leahy is looking for that. Maybe Senator Reid is looking for that. I am not in charge of controversial amendments. I don't even know how we are going to vote on those controversial amendments. I am not on the committee. I am not the leader of the floor. I don't know--I will take that and I will be happy to give it to the leadership.

I am just here on a list of noncontroversial amendments that I think Republicans and Democrats can agree to that will not change the outcome of the bill, that will improve the bill. I hope we can make progress.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I don't know if there is any particular order. I see other colleagues on the floor. I am not in a particular rush. I would be happy for them to speak, but I wish to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

I thank the Senators.

I know the leadership--Senator Leahy and Senator Grassley--are working very hard to negotiate some very controversial and serious amendments to the underlying bill, and there have been negotiations going on all day on the immigration bill, and actually for weeks, both in the Judiciary Committee, where 17 Members serve, and then here on the Senate floor, where the rest of us have our only opportunity to engage and to be part of legislating a bill that is likely to pass. There is no guarantee, but it looks as though it is moving in that direction.

The bill has been strengthened as it has gone on, and we have had a very vigorous debate. But I have come to the floor several times only to say this: There is a series of amendments that are completely uncontested. In other words, there is no opposition to them. The list is approximately, from what we can tell at this point, potentially around 30 to 35. It could be more, but there are clearly 30 to 35 amendments that have been filed by Republicans, by Democrats, and some of these amendments are cosponsored by Republicans and Democrats, each together.

I have been talking about this for a couple of days because I think we have to get back to trusting each other and working together across party lines on major bills such as this and actually working to pass amendments that nobody objects to. Wouldn't that be amazing. We used to do that routinely through a practice called the managers' amendment. In the last couple of months or years everybody is so angry and aggravated at the end of the debate there is no managers' package. So I have decided to start early identifying amendments while the leadership is focused on the more controversial amendments both sides are still arguing about that are significantly meritorious. I have been focused on amendments that are very good ideas, and to which, to my knowledge, there is literally no opposition.

I want to adjust the list and remove from the Landrieu list Collins amendment No. 1255. There has been some objection on our side to that. Heller No. 1234, there has been some objection to that. Now, this is not final. I am not managing the bill. I am just saying, to be honest, we have heard objections as to these two.

There are additional amendments that come to our attention that may not have any opposition that I may want to add to this list. One is Toomey No. 1236 which clarifies that personnel, infrastructure, and technology used in the comprehensive border security strategy is procured through existing or new programs. It is a clarification to the underlying bill. I don't think anyone objects to that.

Senator Grassley has an amendment No. 1306 that he is well aware of that authorizes the Attorney General to appoint counsel to represent an unaccompanied alien child with serious mental disabilities. I most certainly would support that. He and I have worked together on many pieces of child welfare legislation. There is no one opposing that amendment.

Johanns amendment No. 1345 requires CBO to report on revenues and costs generated by the bill and requires the DHS Secretary to generally adjust fees under the bill to cover costs that are not fully offset. As the cosponsors of this bill have said, this bill will not cost taxpayers any money. It is offset by fees. This amendment is simply clarifying that statement. It would be a good amendment. I think that is an example.

Senator Coats' amendment No. 1372 requires, similar to Senator Grassley, to consult on children coming through with mental disabilities to make sure they have legal counsel. No one would object to that.

Finally, Senator Flake, amendment No. 1472, requires the GAO to study the use of non-Federal roads by Customs and Border Protection.

These amendments are not striking lightning anywhere, not upsetting

Western civilization. These are perfecting amendments that we came here to legislate on behalf of our constituents because there are people or groups or entities in our States that are following the big bill and the big controversies of it, but some people are actually following the specifics and want to make suggestions to make the bill better. So people who are going to vote against the bill can still vote against it. People who are going to vote for it can still vote for it. But we can make the bill better. That is what we are here to do.

I can't, under the order, have any motions, but I will just bring it to the attention of the Senate that I am going to submit this to the Record. If there are any objections to those that I have talked about, please let us know.

Mr. President, I am happy to report that there has been a lot of progress made in the last few hours on the package of amendments that are completely uncontested and there is no objection on any side.

I wish to thank the Members who have been attentive and supportive of trying to get back to a more normal way of operating, which is, simply, we can argue about the big controversial issues. There are always going to be those on every bill we debate. But there will be some amendments that absolutely have no opposition because they are very well-thought- out ideas that do not generate any heartburn on either side, that people can reason and say it helps the bill; it does something that improves the bill.

We used to do that all the time around here. We have gotten away from it, and it is hurtful. It is not just hurtful to the individual Members, it is hurtful to our constituents who would like their ideas brought up for consideration.

As I said earlier in the day--and before the Senator from Maine leaves the floor, I wish to make this perfectly clear. I am not holding up the debate on any controversial amendments. I am not objecting to any controversial amendments. Anybody who wants to debate an amendment, whether it is 60 votes or 50 votes, that is the leadership's job, and they are managing this bill very well. I have no complaints or criticism about it at all.

But as they are managing these very controversial amendments that are part of any debate, what I am simply saying is that of the hundreds of amendments that have been filed--and we have been spending a lot of time on this with Republican and Democratic staff--there are potentially about 25 to 30 amendments that have absolutely no objection.

The list has changed a little bit, and I am not going to go over all the details. I have put it in the Record. There could potentially be 7 Democratic amendments, 5 Republican amendments, and 10 bipartisan amendments that have no known opposition. All I am asking is sometime between now and when the leadership managing this bill calls cloture, we have these votes en bloc, by voice. There would be no reason to have any more debate on them. No one is objecting to them. So we could take them en bloc, by voice. It will improve the bill. Then people can vote on the bill.

Many people already know they are going to vote against the bill. Some people are going to vote for the bill. That is the process. I think it would be very healthy for the Senate to get back to this kind of negotiation. But for these amendments that are noncontroversial, that simply have been worked on across the aisle in good faith, to be held hostage until somebody can get a vote on an amendment that causes one side or the other lots of political difficulties is not right.

There are 350 amendments filed on this bill. I am only talking about 35 or less. All the other amendments have pros and cons; people are for them, people are against them. I don't know how the leadership is going to decide on how we vote or dispense of those, but I am not managing the bill. Senator Leahy is doing a very good job of that with Senator Grassley, Leader McConnell, and Leader Reid. But there are approximately 35 amendments, maybe a little more, that have bipartisan support that people have really worked on--people such as myself--who are not on the Judiciary Committee. The Senator had his hands full with the 17 Members he has on the committee. There were 228 amendments filed on the Judiciary Committee. Senator Grassley himself filed 34, and he had 13 that passed and 21 that failed. That is a lot of amendments.

Some of us who are not on the Judiciary Committee have been very fortunate. At least I have had one of my eight, which the Senator from Vermont helped with adopting.

I would love to.

I thank the Senator from Vermont, and I appreciate his support.

But actually, having started out wanting to get a vote on my amendments--and I still do--I am now more focused on this principle of getting uncontested amendments adopted because I am not the only one in this vote. I have friends such as Senator Begich, Senator Carper, Senator Hagan, Senator Heinrich, Senator Coons, Senator Kirk, Senator Coats--from both sides of the aisle--Senator Hatch, Senator Shaheen--I could go on and on--who are in the same boat I am.

We fashioned amendments with bipartisan support. We have done our due diligence with the leaders of the committee of jurisdiction, which is what you are supposed to do, which is normal. We have gotten their blessing, if you will. We have published the details of our amendments. We have circulated the amendments. There is no opposition.

So to the Senator from Vermont, I wish to be very clear. I have four amendments on this list. I am not here just arguing for the four Landrieu amendments. I am here arguing for all amendments by anybody, Republican or Democrat, that are noncontroversial, uncontested, germane to this bill. They should go on the bill.

We need to get back to legislating in the Senate. This is not a theater. It is a legislative body, and I came to legislate. It will be 18 years that I have been here at the end of this term, a long time. There are Members who have been here longer than I have. But it has been a while now, 2 or 3 years, that we just sort of stopped legislating. We give speeches. We do headlines. We posture. We position. That has always been a part of the Senate. I have no problem with it. What I do have a problem with is doing that and nothing else. That is where I have a serious problem. Those of us who did not come here to be on the stage have had to sit on the sidelines and watch this theater for a long time. The people I represent are tired of it.

We should know that, since the rating for Congress is now at 10 percent, I think the lowest level ever or at least in the last 50 years, ten percent--this could have something to do with it.

Contrary to popular opinion on the floor, many people in America are very interested in this bill and are actually sending suggestions in through e-mail, through telephone, through all sorts of communications saying, look, I read the bill. You all should think about this. This could be improved. Some of us actually take those suggestions, work with Members on the other side of the aisle, and fashion them into amendments. The people we represent deserve respect.

If anyone thinks my amendments are controversial and you cannot vote for them because they upset the balance of power in the world or upset Western civilization, then come tell me. I will work with you on it. I will take the amendments off the list. I will put my amendments on a list to be debated.

But the days of us coming to the floor and absolutely not accepting bipartisan amendments so we can spend all of our time talking about partisan amendments that have no chance of passing are over with because I have enough power--just as Senators on the other side have enough power to push us the other way, I have enough power to push back and I plan to use it. Those days are over.

When we come to the floor, you can have all of your controversial amendments. We can set aside as many hours of the day to vote on controversial amendments, an equal number on both sides or none. But the uncontroversial amendments, the ones Members actually do the work of the Senate--research, writing, talking, debating privately, and coming up with good ideas--no longer are those going to be swept under the rug. It is not respectful to our constituents, it dishonors the Senate, and it causes the public to

have serious doubts as to whether anybody around here is actually working in a bipartisan way to improve the bill.

These are minor amendments. None of these amendments undermine the bargains, the tough negotiations by Republicans and Democrats, on this bill. I wish to give a lot of respect to the Gang of 8. They have taken on the tough big issues, very controversial. Those are not these. These are amendments that would help parents who are trying to adopt children. Now I have to wait for a bill to come to the floor to help these parents. They may be waiting 10 years. They are American citizens. They have a right for Senators to represent their interests and I intend to do it. There are amendments here that would make sure children with mental illness or who are mentally disabled--this is not my amendment but it is a good one--make sure they have a lawyer. Why can't we do that? Because we are so angry with each other that we will not help a child? That is cruel and it is not correct.

I am going to end here. There are other Members who want to speak. I have no idea when the cloture vote will be. I am not sure. But if these noncontroversial amendments are not adopted by voice vote or by rollcall vote, en bloc or separately, before cloture, all of them will fall away, which means we will not be able to consider any of them. That is because after cloture they are no longer germane because we cannot get them pending. OK?

So this is the problem. I thank my colleagues for being understanding. I actually think it might help us move forward.

I yield the floor and I will be back when the cloture motion is propounded.

Mr. President, may I respond?

Mr. President, as I said many times, I have the deepest respect for the Senator from Iowa. He and I hardly ever disagree so this is quite unusual. We cosponsor so many amendments together for foster care, adoption--his work is legendary. But I do want to say this. I have tried to be extremely constructive here. Again, this is not about our list or their list. I am not even in charge of our list or their list. I literally am not a floor manager of this bill. I am not even a member of the committee. I do not even have access to our list or their list. I don't want it. I do not want to review the 200 amendments that are pro-gay, anti-gay, pro-fence, anti-fence. I am not interested--I am interested, but it is not in my lane. I have issues that I have to focus on as chair of Homeland Security. I am not a Gang of 8 Member, I am not on the Judiciary Committee, but I am a Senator and I came here to legislate.

There are amendments. I am not sure this list is perfect but I promise you, out of 350 amendments filed, just by the nature of averages, at least 10 percent of them have to be noncontroversial. Not every amendment that is filed is going to arouse suspicion or concern or violate any principles we hold. Just by nature you are going to have 10 percent or 15 or 20 percent of all amendments that actually, with a little bit of work, should be adopted.

What Senator Leahy said is absolutely correct. We used to do that when we trusted each other, when we respected our constituents.

I intend to push this body back to that place. I may be unsuccessful because I am only one Senator, but Senators have a lot of power, if you haven't noticed. We have been held up for weeks over one Senator because they did not get everything they wanted every day.

Again, I want to say to my colleagues, I am not fighting for Landrieu amendments. I am fighting for a principle and a process that is vital to the functioning of this body. I am going to continue to fight and hope we get a breakthrough.

Please, the other side, do not send me your list or the Democratic list. I am not interested. I am interested in a list of amendments that I believe, based on conversations with Senators, are not controversial and would improve the bill. We were sent here to do that. I intend to do it.

I yield the floor.