Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the M.W. Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Louisiana and the State of Louisiana Order of the Eastern Star, who have collectively provided 225 years of continuous service and devotion to the State of Louisiana.

For 150 years and 75 years respectively, the Prince Hall Grand Lodge, formed in 1863, and the Order of the Eastern Star, formed in 1938, have served the State of Louisiana through their tireless leadership and dedication. During this tenure, members of the grand lodge have served in community and elected leadership positions both in the State and throughout the Nation. During the Civil Rights movement, members provided invaluable management, direction, and guidance to countless organizations that contributed to the effort. Throughout their illustrious years of service, the grand lodge has worked with local partners to invest in and improve communities, strengthen opportunities, and expand the impact of public service. The passing of each year brings a greater appreciation for the values of community, education, and civic activism that the grand lodge and order provide to the State of Louisiana.

The Prince Hall Grand Lodge and Order of the Eastern Star inspire noble principles, moral values, and profound convictions in the lives of each individual they touch. Through commitment they teach the principles of family; through charity and volunteerism they teach the values of community and philanthropy; and through honor, integrity, and respect, they teach the convictions of acceptance and compassion. Their teachings and work have provided outstanding support and service to the citizens of Louisiana and will continue to benefit generations to come.

The M.W. Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Louisiana and the State of Louisiana Order of the Eastern Star have been and continues to be an inspiration to all those who have been impacted by their tireless efforts. It is with my heartfelt and greatest sincerity that I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the service, heritage, and tradition of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge and the Louisiana Order of the Eastern Star.

Reserving the right to object.

I wish to address the leader and the managers of the bill, both Senator Sessions and Senator Leahy. I know there are about 100 or so other amendments pending, and I know we have been sort of held up the last couple of days, but there are amendments--and this is the question I have--that don't touch the heart of the bill but that are important to connect to this bill that have no opposition that I know of.

I am asking the leader, for amendments that have no opposition and have bipartisan support, when could we possibly get on amendments that don't have opposition.

So I should do more checking on them then.

Mr. President, I am not going to ask unanimous consent to call up any amendments or to have any votes or anything, so everybody can relax. But I do want to speak for a minute about the process we are in.

We have now been considering a major piece of legislation for weeks. The chairman and the ranking member of the committee did a masterful job. Even though there are some people still against the bill, there are people for the bill, we are not exactly sure how it is going to come out, but I want to say Senator Leahy and Senator Sessions--but Senator Leahy particularly, as the chair--could not have done a better job getting the bill printed, printing all of the amendments, staying here through the night, letting the members of the committee have a lot of time to debate the bill, to amend the bill. The committee did a very good job.

I am planning to vote for the bill. I have not kept that a secret or said anything to the contrary. Of course the amendment process is important. I cannot make that commitment until we see it. If an amendment gets on this bill that undermines some of the important principles, I might have to change my mind. I don't think that is going to happen.

But there is the problem and this is why I am going to stay on the floor until, hopefully, something can be worked out. I am not on the committee. Most of the people on this floor are not on the committee. The committee is representative of a minority group of Republicans and Democrats. The majority of us do not serve on the Judiciary Committee. While we were interested and worked with our friends who are on the committee to suggest important changes that would improve the bill or correct the bill or fix the bill or save money, we were not on the committee to do it. That is the process. I am not complaining about that.

What I am complaining about is when it gets to the floor, you would think the process would allow amendments to be debated so Members such as myself--I serve as chair of the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee. I am not a distant third party to this debate. My whole budget funds this bill. This is what I spend good bit of my time on. The people in my State and constituencies I represent have a lot of interest in this bill. I am not a Johnny-come-lately to this issue. I have things I want to say about it. I wish to have some amendments talked about and voted on. If people want to vote them down, fine. If they want to vote for them, fine. If they want to have 50 votes, fine. If they want to have 60 votes--I just want a chance to talk about my amendment, so I am going to do so right now.

I also want to say there are some amendments--I have a short list of eight or so. Some of them are quite minor. One or two are fairly significant and might need a debate. But part of my group of amendments is completely, to my knowledge, unopposed by anyone. I have Senator Coats as a cosponsor. I have worked openly. I filed amendments, the text of which have been out there for days now. Senator Coats, who is my ranking member--we try to work together in a bipartisan fashion. He has cosponsored several of these amendments.

What I am strongly suggesting is the staff and the leadership managing this bill try to identify, of the amendments that have been filed, those that are noncontroversial, that everyone would agree to. I think there are probably 20 or 30 such amendments. They do not change the underlying agreement. They do not spend any additional money. They fix or modify or improve sections of the bill. That is our job. That is what we are supposed to do. That is the legislative process.

You know what. If it were not meant to be that way, we should have a rule that says the bill goes to committee and then it doesn't even come to the Senate floor, then it goes over to the House of Representatives, and their committee works on it and they send it to the President.

But that is not what our laws say. Our laws say we should have some debate on the Senate floor.

I have also been here long enough to realize the leadership is trying its best and there are some amendments that are very controversial. I am not new to the Senate. Fine. But what I am talking about is when we get on a major bill such as this and Members work hard to build support and to get bipartisan support, our amendments that are noncontroversial should go first and then controversial amendments could go last.

But that is not what happens around here. What happens around here is the guys who cause all the trouble all the time on every bill--I don't want to name their names because it is not appropriate--but there is a group on the other side, and a few maybe on our side, who are never happy with anything so they file tons of amendments and we spend all of our time worrying about their amendments. Those of us who spend a lot of our time building bipartisan support, who offer amendments that have no opposition, actually never get to those amendments.

This is sad. I basically have had enough. I have tried to be patient all week. I have come every day and said: Are any of these amendments going to get in the queue? That is not the way we are working right now. We are taking the worst amendments, the most controversial amendments, the guys who cause trouble on every single bill, and give them votes on their amendments. Some of them have been defeated 99 to 1, and then everybody gets tired and aggravated and everybody says we are tired, we are aggravated, we are calling cloture. And do you know what happens when cloture is called. All amendments that are not pending, even ones that no one opposes, that could actually help a human being--imagine that, an amendment that actually could help someone--crumble up on the Senate floor and everybody goes home and says, well, that was a wonderful debate.

I am just venting here, but I am saying this is one Senator who is tired of it. More important, my constituents are tired of it. It is not about me, it is about them. They look at this and they say why can't you get that amendment passed? There is no opposition to it. It is good. We have worked on it. It would help.

That is a good question, and I have to say ``I have no idea.''

We have voted on all kinds of amendments that are controversial, that are

very high-level kind of message amendments. When the authors offer them or sponsor them, they know they are never going to pass but they are looking for a headline.

I am not looking for any headline. I don't care if any reporter writes about these amendments. But I happen to know some things in this bill. As chair of the Small Business Committee, I have had some hearings myself--amazing, that other committees actually have hearings. I have had hearings and have had dozens of small business owners say to me as chair of the Small Business Committee: Look, Senator, we are not getting any attention here because everybody is talking about all sorts of things such as the fence, the border, this and that. Could anybody pay attention to the 7 million small businesses that are going to have to abide by this E-Verify? By the way, we like the program, we are for the program, but we have some suggestions to make it better.

Some of that happened in the Judiciary Committee, but the Judiciary Committee is not the Small Business Committee. I have excellent members on my committee and they have a voice, and this is an amendment many of them support that I do not think the Judiciary Committee--either the Republicans or the Democrats--opposes. The small business community is for it. I don't know what to say other than I can't even get in the queue, I cannot even get on the list to be considered.

Then I have a small group of amendments, because--you know, I am happy to do it and I do it joyfully--I am the chair of the Adoption Caucus. You, Mr. President, have been wonderful. Senator Klobuchar has been wonderful. Orphans do not have lobbyists. I am not sorry, they just don't. They don't have any money to pay lobbyists. Through all the good people who volunteer to represent them, they come to my office, they ask for help. I try to do my best. I don't always succeed, but I try.

Amy Klobuchar and I, because she is a Senator who has also been terrific about this, with others, not just myself--we have some amendments that have nothing to do with the English language or any language, the fence, any money, anything, just a few technical corrections that could help some American families trying to adopt.

I was able to get one of my adoption amendments up. I thank Senator Leahy. But we have four or five. I am not trying to be hoggish about it, but they are not controversial. I have 15 amendments that are noncontroversial--maybe I am making that up, maybe there is an opponent--I can't get that discussed. But only people who have controversial amendments with no chance of passing them, only people who want headlines in newspapers, only people who have amendments nobody over here is going to vote for, get to talk about it and the rest of us who work hard and get bipartisanship and present amendments that could actually help the bill, make the country stronger--we never get to talk.

I am going to stay on the floor and object until I get an answer for that question: Why is it that people who play by the rules, Senators who work across the aisle, who work hard to build bipartisan support, who work hard to get amendments that do not cost any money, that will not really cause too much trouble--why do our amendments get the last consideration?

I think it has ramifications for the way the Senate operates. Then it is like behavior: The better behaved you are, the quieter you are, the more team player you are, you don't get anything. The only way you get something is to become obnoxious and to get your amendments that have no bipartisan support, those who have amendments that cost a gazillion dollars or take away a gazillion dollars. That is not encouraging good behavior on the Senate floor.

I want to be a good team player. The people I represent want this body to work. We want bipartisan solutions to real problems, and even people who do not have lobbyists and even people who do not have a lot of money deserve time on the Senate floor. And I intend to provide it to orphans whom I support to try to help, and to the parents who are adopting kids and don't ask for much but do ask: Could the Senator from Louisiana please have an amendment that nobody opposes to help us and our kids?

I am going to stand here and support the small businesses that get overlooked all the time. They are not asking for much. They like the E- Verify Program. I thought they had a few very positive suggestions, so I thought I would put them in an amendment and offer it. Silly me. Then this EB-5 reporting is one of the worst run programs in the government, and everyone acknowledges that. Everyone knows it is not working, so the committee does a good job to fix it. But my staff and I worked pretty hard.

We are very close with those who work on immigration, and we talked with them about some perfecting amendments. But, silly me, to think we could make any improvements to the underlying bill on the EB-5 program which could create millions of jobs in Louisiana, Texas, the gulf coast--which is the area I pay the most attention to--California, New York, Rhode Island, and other places.

I am going to sit here--I know other Senators may want to talk, but sorry. Until I get some answers about some of our amendments, not just mine but other amendments. There are Republican and Democratic amendments that are not controversial and are cleared on all fronts. I want those amendments to go first, and then we can say congratulations to the Members who worked hard to minimize opposition and to write their amendments in a way that people could be supportive. That is what Senators are supposed to do.

We have turned from a Senate to a theater, and I am tired of being part of a theater. If I wanted to be part of a theater, I would have gone to New York. Not that anybody would have put me on the stage because I can't sing or dance, but I don't want to. I want to lead, but it is getting very difficult in this place to do any leadership. So I am just going to sit here until maybe somebody who is a leader around here can come talk to us about what we are going to do with amendments on an immigration bill that is controversial, the bill itself--let me not understate that.

There will be people who don't want to vote for this bill no matter what shape it is in. I am not one of them. I want to know the answer to my question: How many amendments of the 140 pending are noncontroversial that Republicans and Democrats will agree to? That is my question, and I would like an answer.

My second question is, When could we possibly vote on those amendments before cloture is called? Cloture is going to be called on this bill, and the reason is because we cannot get a lot of cooperation. So what will happen is all these noncontroversial amendments will fall by the wayside, and what a shame. I am just tired of it.

It is the same group around here that causes all the trouble, and the rest of us try to be supportive, try to go along, try to work in a bipartisan way, and we get shut out. I have had enough, and the people I represent have said: We are finished.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I know the staff is working hard to figure out the best way forward, and there are lots of views about different amendments that may be controversial, but I am going to stay here and work for the next hour or two tonight to see if we can just do one simple thing--just one simple thing: that we can look at the list of all amendments pending and all of those amendments that are noncontroversial--no one objects to anything in the amendment--I would like that list put together. It could be either voice-voted tomorrow or all of those amendments could just get pending and be voted on later. I am not even particular about when the vote would occur or under what circumstances. The leadership can make all of those decisions. But what I would like right now is to stop this operation until we can get the noncontroversial amendments out of the way.

There are Republican amendments that nobody over here objects to. There are Democratic amendments that Republicans don't object to. I think those sponsors--which I would be included in, but I am not the only one--could be rewarded for their good work, for coming up with amendments that nobody is angry about, that people think, oh, that is a good idea; we should do it. Why don't we do those amendments first. Then all the other amendments people have filed for various reasons-- some in good fashion. People feel very strongly about them and want to discuss them. They want to have a vote on them. They know it might not pass, but it is important for them to represent that position. I have no problem with that. I understand that.

What I and my constituents don't understand is why we can't take noncontroversial amendments that everyone supports and get those passed.

So until I get an answer to that, I am going to just suggest the absence of a quorum and spend a couple of hours trying to find the answer. Thank you.

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

Mr. President, in the last few minutes, we have made a little bit of progress. I am doing the best I can to work with both sides of the aisle to simply get a list of amendments that are not controversial. There are approximately 230 amendments pending on the immigration bill. Many of them are controversial, but there are some, potentially as many as 20, maybe even 30 amendments that are pending that are public record, that have been filed, that Members on both sides of the aisle have worked on very hard.

We have known about this debate. Some of us have been following it more closely than others. But I dare to say there is not a Senator as a Member of this body who has not been focused on what our constituents want us to do to either improve this bill or to fight against this bill. You have heard a lot of that debate.

I think this bill will probably pass. But who knows at this point, because there are 200 amendments pending. What I am suggesting as a way forward is to take those amendments that are noncontroversial. Republicans have not come up with their list of noncontroversial yet. The Democrats are very close to coming up with our list of noncontroversial amendments. We think it is about 12 or 15. They can have 12, 15 or 20 or 30 that are noncontroversial. No one on their side objects, no one on our side objects, and they could do some good on this bill in a variety of different ways.

I am suggesting we take those noncontroversial amendments and make them pending and vote on them sometime, anytime, tonight, tomorrow. We can voice vote them all as a package. We can vote them individually. I am not trying to be overly prescriptive. But what I am saying, and I am very serious about this, is my days of working on a major piece of legislation--working your heart out for weeks getting ready for the debate. You are so proud of your amendments. You have worked with the other side. You have Republicans. You have Democrats. You have vetted it with all the different input and organizations. You have worked so hard on your amendment, and then we come to the bill. We cannot discuss any amendments that people have worked hard to work out the problems. We can only discuss the problem amendments.

It is not the right way to legislate. It is not the way the Senate was created. It is not the way Congress should function. It is a disservice to every one of our constituents. There are lots of arrangements and understandings and compromises that go on off this Senate floor. That is what Senators do all day long. I am proud to be a Senator. I work with my colleagues. We work throughout the day, late at night, in meetings, and say, listen, I have this great idea. Oh, I think that is a wonderful idea. It will improve the bill. Can we work on it together?

Our staffs work very hard, spend hours and hours on the phone talking with people, negotiating, only to be told those amendments that people have really worked on and eliminated all opposition by being openminded, thoughtful, and willing to compromise, those amendments go to the back of the line.

Only those amendments that have no chance of passing, that do not have bipartisan support, get to be discussed on the Senate floor. That is not the Senate I signed up for. I am not whining. I am just saying, I am going to use my

power to change the Senate. I am starting right now. I am not doing it anymore.

The people whom I represent are exhausted by it. I am getting exhausted by it. My staff is exhausted by it. It is rewarding very bad behavior. So the worse your amendment is, the more controversial your amendment is, the least likely to get any votes on the other side, you get to go first. The rest, everybody who has done it sort of the old- fashioned way, the way we are supposed to do it, the way we learned about it in school, the way our parents taught us, the way we observe other great Senators, we come and cannot even get in the queue.

Then when you do in this new system of rewarding bad behavior, those of us--and it is a big group of us. It is not just me. It is a very large group and Republicans as well. We get told: All your amendments that are noncontroversial that you have worked so hard to put together, great ideas that are middle of the road and could actually solve some problems of someone out in America, which is why I thought we should come here, to help solve problems, you all only get 1 amendment or you only get 2 amendments because we have 240.

That is not the way it should work. I am not going an inch further, not 1 inch. This is the way it should work. A bill is brought to the floor and everybody files their amendments. Senators work very hard with the other side to try to get amendments that both sides could agree to--because that is a democracy.

Then those amendments get identified, and those amendments go first. All of the other amendments that are message amendments or controversial amendments, they should get votes. I am not saying they should not. I am happy to vote on them. Some of them are tough votes. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with, and I think if every Senator was honest, they have a problem with it too, are the good amendments, the noncontroversial amendments, the ones that everybody works on, never get a vote. All the bad amendments get the attention and votes.

I do not think that is right. We have to get back to the regular order--not to the regular order. We have to get back. It is not regular order. We have to get back to collegiality and common sense and trust. That is what the Senate is best at. That has been lost. We better find it pretty quickly.

I am going to stay here. We are not going anywhere. We are not going to go to any unanimous consent requests until the list of noncontroversial amendments is produced. The Republicans can produce their list; we produce our list of noncontroversial amendments. Then the leadership can say to me: Senator Landrieu, we will voice vote these and everybody will be happy or they can say: Senator Landrieu, we have to vote on these individually and we will do that at the end or some time certain--I am fine with that--or they can say: We are going to vote on them individually and they all need 60 votes, even though they have 100 percent of the body. I would be fine. I am not trying to be difficult, but I am trying to be a Senator.

I am trying to say that I, for one, am tired of the bullies on this floor and the small group that thinks that on every single solitary bill they should get the first amendment, the biggest amendment, and we spend all of our time talking about them. It may be important. They are not going to pass. That is OK. I do not even mind that. But what I do mind is, after all of us who try to work in a bipartisan fashion have to listen to this, bill after bill, day after day, then we cannot even get our amendments that are noncontroversial. That is where I draw the line.

Please, do not anybody write: Senator Landrieu is on the floor and is pitching a fit because she cannot get her amendment. This is not about my amendment. This is about the Senate. This is about the Senate and noncontroversial amendments which cannot even get on any list. Why? I do not know. Why? Why would that be? How is this possible?

No one objects. I am going to read just a few that we are talking about. Some of them are mine. I know two others that are by Amy Klobuchar. One of mine is amendment No. 1340. It simply reiterates in this bill that everything done with children and families will be done in the best interests of the child. ``Best interests of the child'' is done in every State, in every court.

When we are making decisions about families, it is always in the best interests of the child. It is modern child welfare practice. It will clarify this bill. I do not know of anyone opposing it. You know what. If someone is opposing it, then take it off the list--just take it off the list. I am not even opposed to that.

I do not think anyone is opposing it. But if they do, they just have to call the Democratic cloakroom and say: I do not think we should be making decisions in the best interests of the child. I will take it off the list. But I am not going to lose this amendment because the Senate cannot function.

There is another amendment I have with Senator Coats. We have worked very hard on this amendment. I had a hearing in my committee as chair of the Senate Small Business Committee. Our committee worked very hard, similar to most committees around here. My members are wonderful. I believe that when I call a meeting and they come and we spend hours looking at an issue and we actually all come to an agreement, maybe this is something we could do. It deserves a chance, but not in the system that we have because, again, the amendments that really work are noncontroversial and never get discussed, never get in the queue--only the other ones.

One that Senator Coats and I have is entitled E-Verify Early Adoption for Small Employees or the EEASE Act. We even took the extra time to come up with a creative name because we like legislating. We think that is what we are supposed to do.

The EEASE Act, which is a small amendment to this bill, does three things. I think one of them the small businesses will love: It directs DHS to create a mobile app for E-Verify. Wouldn't that be convenient for small businesses? Picture yourself in your pickup truck out in your field or out in your garage, and someone walks up to you and wants a job. You have a ``For Hire'' sign posted, and the guy comes up to you. He says: Here is my driver's license. Here is my paperwork. The employer picks up their iPhone, hits a button, goes to the app, and it is E-Verify. They know the person is legal, and they hire them for a job. How wonderful would that be? That is one of our amendments.

There is enough money in this bill to do that, but the bill doesn't say that now. Our amendment would say: Make a mobile app for E-Verify. Small businesses don't have time to run back to the farm, try to dial in on the Internet in a rural area, such as the Presiding Officer's, in New Mexico. Not everybody has high-speed Internet. Not everybody can go run back to the farm in the middle of the day, and then when they come back, they are tired. Why don't they just have everybody carry a pocket communication system? That is an amendment. I don't know one single solitary person on this floor who is against it, but we can't even get a vote on it.

This idea came out of a roundtable with 24 representatives of very important small business groups. I tell my committee and I tell people in the Congress that my committee is going to be a voice for small business. Well, that is great. They come up and they talk to me in committee. I hear them. I take what they say, write it in an amendment, and can't get it in the queue even when no one opposes it.

We have another amendment, and this one may be controversial--I don't know. I would be willing, again--if somebody says: We object because it messes up the compromise we have--I would maybe even withdraw this amendment after I spoke about it because I think it is important or I would be happy to get into any queue, any time, any day, to have a vote on it.

This amendment provides an access lane for small business for H-1B visas. It dawned on me after the bill came out of the Judiciary Committee and after we had our roundtable that, yes, we were increasing the number of H-1B visas, which I support and most people who support the bill. It dawned on me and it became apparent to some of the small business advocates that there was no express lane for them. The 7 million small businesses that were--many of them are high-tech companies

that are relatively small, some of them are startups, and 40 percent of all the patents are held by small businesses. It kind of dawned on us maybe about a week ago that maybe we should have been paying more attention, that the H-1B visas might all go to big businesses and maybe we should have an express lane for the 7 million small businesses that don't have a fleet of lawyers and a fleet of human resources people. They are just trying to create jobs in America. How terrible. They are just the ones creating all the new jobs. Could we please maybe help them? I don't think this is controversial. Do you know what. Maybe someone objects to it. Take it off the list.

Senator Klobuchar has two amendments, and I am sure she has been fighting very hard to get them up, like everyone. These amendments have to do with streamlining and removing obstacles for intercountry adoption.

You would have to be walking in your sleep to not understand that we have a problem in intercountry adoption. Guatemala has closed, Vietnam has closed, Russia has closed. Parents have gone to great expense. I have seen them weeping in the halls of Congress, begging their Congressmen, Congresswomen, and Senators to please help them. They were in the process, in the middle of an adoption, they had been matched with a child, and the adoption has been closed. There are sad stories in this world. I wish we could fix every one, but we can't.

This amendment actually would solve the problem for some families-- not all but some families who went through the international process-- not to help with Russia or Guatemala. I am sorry, we haven't come up with a solution for that.

No one opposes this amendment. It could help hundreds, if not thousands, of families to eliminate one or two more barriers to intercountry adoption. Why would we want to do that? I will say why because I think it is very important and I would imagine 100 Members of the Senate would think it is very important for children to be raised by parents. What a novel, extreme idea that children should actually be with parents or with a responsible, loving adult. Why would the Senate of the United States not spend any time at all eliminating barriers so that children could be with parents? I don't know. I kind of think that is important. I have two children. I am one of nine siblings. My family made a big impact on me to help me to be the leader I am today, so I kind of think that is important.

Senator Klobuchar filed this bill. I am very proud of Minnesota. We are all proud of Minnesota. Minnesota adopts more children per capita internationally than any State in the Union. Minnesota has a very strong ethic when it comes to this. Do we help Minnesota? No. We punish Minnesota by not even allowing an amendment that is noncontroversial. Senator Klobuchar has people in her State who could be helped by this amendment. I am certain there are people in Louisiana who could be helped. There are people in every State from New Mexico to New York. No one is objecting to it, but we cannot get it on the list.

There is an interesting problem with some of these adoptive parents. I spend an awful lot of time with them. I am happy to do it, and they do need champions in Congress, and I am not the only one. Senator Blunt has been fabulous, Senator Coats has been fabulous, Senator Boozman of Arkansas has been fabulous, Senator Shaheen has been terrific, Senator Gillibrand, and Senator Levin. I mean, literally, you don't hear the Senators talking about it as much as me because I am kind of the chairman. I listen to them, and I try to voice our opinions, but trust me, there are many Members.

These amendments are not controversial, and they will help orphans, and they will help families who are trying to adopt children. Could we get it on the list of noncontroversial amendments?

There is another amendment that I think is noncontroversial, and it has to do with a program that is absolutely dysfunctional today and everyone knows it. It is the EB-5 program. Not only is the program dysfunctional and expensive, it is not being operated correctly, and Judiciary knows this. In their bill, in the underlying bill, they have made some great modifications to the program. That is very good, and that is very good legislating. If this program could operate correctly, efficiently, transparently, and without fraud and corruption, it could create millions of jobs. The last time I checked, there were a few people in Louisiana who need them. This is not a little thing, this is a big thing. There are people in my State who would cut off their right arm for a good-paying job right now. That is true in many parts of this country.

Instead of taking up an amendment that is noncontroversial, that actually could pass, that creates jobs, we can't take up this amendment because we have to take up the amendments that raise the most ruckus, that create the most firestorm, that satisfy the theatrical needs of some Members on the floor. We can't do anything that is kind of boring, noncontroversial, and bipartisan.

This amendment would strengthen the work the Judiciary Committee did. It is amendment No. 1383. I literally do not know anyone who is opposing this.

I am going to read these numbers out because, again, I am not agreeing to unanimous consent for anything until both sides get a list of noncontroversial amendments. Some are amendments Nos. 1338, 1383, 1340, 1261, and 1297. Potentially, there is no opposition to amendment No. 1406, and I think there are some others that might not be controversial, but I haven't completely checked, so I am not going to put them on the list.

Some of these are mine, and some of these are from other Senators. The Republican staff may have a list of noncontroversial amendments, and when we get those lists and we can get those in the queue first, then I will be happy for the queue to go on. If not, we are just going to call cloture, and it is just not going to work.

I am supporting the bill. I want my leader to know, and I have to say this, but I know he is going to speak, and I most certainly would give the floor to him at this moment, but I wish to say something about what a wonderful leader I think we have.

Senator Reid, this is no criticism of you. You are the most patient person--one of the most patient people I have ever observed in my professional life or in my whole life. I honestly do not know how you do your job. Even if the caucus elected me, I would have to decline. I do not have the patience, as you can tell, to do the job of a leader. It would not work. They would never let me, but I wouldn't accept if they did.

Let me say I hope I am doing a favor for the Senate because what I want to do is be Senator. I have been here long enough to remember when we actually were Senators, when we actually could come to the floor with a bill, sort among ourselves what were really tough amendments, what were kind of sort of tough amendments, and what were easy amendments. We would do the easy amendments because that is just the way you legislate--go ahead and get some things done that we all know to do. We have all graduated from college. Some of us have master's degrees and Ph.Ds. We do not sit around eating bonbons all day.

We are talking to our constituents. That is our job. We write amendments based on those meetings and conversations because people come to us and say: Senator, I have a problem. Can you fix it?

What am I going to say to them?

I wish to, but I can't. I can't fix any of your problems because there is no way to fix them because I can't even get a simple amendment on the floor on any bill, any day, any week, any month.

Mr. Leader, I have had enough. I know you have too. I want you to know I am not trying to be difficult. Do you know what. I came here to be a Senator, and I would like to be one again. I am sorry, but until I get a list of uncontroversial amendments, I don't care if they have 20 and we have 5. I don't care if we have 20 and they have 5. I have no idea. The ones that are uncontroversial I want to move forward. Then we can debate all day long how to put the other ones in any kind of list, and we may put mine last--just trying to show how generous I am trying to be. We may take all of my amendments that are controversial and put them last, but I want all the amendments that are not controversial to go first. I am not going to yield until we do.

I yield the floor.

If the Senator will yield for a question.

I think that is an excellent suggestion. Again, let me just thank the Senator sincerely for his patience, and I appreciate the compliments.

As he knows, there are many other Senators who feel just like I do. It is time to be Senators again, and it is just time to trust one another to at least move amendments that are noncontroversial, that no one objects to. Then we can whittle the list down to those that do need debate and discussion, and, as you said, a little trading may have to go on. That is normal.

What is not normal is coming to this floor, and those of us who have worked so hard to get cosponsors, to tap down resistance, to modify, to compromise, don't get any time at all because--I don't know. I don't know who decided we don't. But I have enough power to try to change it, and I am going to.

So I just want to say in closing, I have in front of me a list of 24 amendments--amendments by Senators Begich, Cardin, Collins, Hagan, Heller, Kirk, Klobuchar, Landrieu, Leahy, Hatch, Murray, Nelson, Reed, Schatz, Stabenow, Udall, Udall, and a few others--about 24--that the Republicans and Democrats think no one objects to. I would ask the leader if he would review this list tonight, ask the managers of the bill if they would review this list tonight, and if we could just get these noncontroversial amendments agreed to either by voice vote, individual vote, or en bloc vote. It doesn't matter to me. It could be this week or next week.

These amendments have been worked on by Members of both sides genuinely. We don't want any headlines. We don't want any press releases. We would just like our amendments passed. There is no opposition to them. I will provide this list to the Senator and, hopefully, tomorrow morning, when everybody has calmed down a little bit, maybe that is the way we can proceed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed for the Record the list of amendments I have just referred to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a speech I delivered on June 1, 2013 in New Orleans, LA to commemorate the commissioning of the Coast Guard Fast Response Cutter Margaret Norvell.

Mr. President, I offer this amendment. It is a technical amendment, three technical but important changes to the Child Citizenship Act of 2000. Senator Coats, Senator Blunt, and Senator Klobuchar have helped lead this effort. I have explained it numerous times on the floor. I think the leaders have agreed on a voice vote.

Madam President, I come to speak on S. 415, the ``Small Business Disaster Reform Act of 2013.'' As Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, as well as a senator from a state hard hit by disasters, I am proud that yesterday our committee reported out S. 415 favorably on a bipartisan basis. In particular, Section 2 of S. 415 modifies the SBA requirement that borrowers must use their personal home as collateral for business disaster loans less than $200,000. This is a very important provision for businesses impacted by natural and manmade disasters. For that reason, I want to provide additional information on the need to enact this provision.

In terms of the legislative history of Section 2, a similar provision passed the House of Representatives twice in 2009: on October 29, 2009 by a vote of 389-32 as Section 801 of H.R. 3854 and again by voice vote on November 6, 2009 as Section 2 of H.R. 3743. The same provision that is in S. 415 passed the Senate 62-32 on December 28, 2012 as Section 501 of H.R. 1, the Hurricane Sandy Supplemental. However, it was not included in H.R. 152, the House-passed ``Disaster Relief Appropriations Act'' that subsequently was enacted into law. Despite the setback earlier this year, I remind my colleagues that this provision has a history of bipartisan Congressional support and has previously passed both chambers of Congress.

This Congress, we also have significant bipartisan support. S. 415 has six cosponsors: Senators Thad Cochran, Roger Wicker, Heidi Heitkamp, Kirsten Gillibrand, Mark Pryor, and Ben Cardin. The House companion to S. 415, H.R. 1974, was introduced by Representative Patrick Murphy last month and has 11 cosponsors: Reps. Mick Mulvaney, Judy Chu, Mike Coffman, Ted Deutch, Peter King, Alan Nunnelee, Donald M. Payne, Jr., Cedric Richmond, Tom Cole, Trey Radel, and Frederica Wilson.

While I understand the need to secure the loans and minimize risk to the taxpayers; SBA has at its disposal multiple ways to secure these loans. If business owners have literally lost everything, requiring a $400,000 home as collateral for a $150,000 loan is maddening especially when other repayment options are available. One can understand that requirement for loans of $750,000 or $2 million. For the smaller disaster loans, however, it is a non-starter for many businesses we have heard from. The bill requires the SBA to seek other business assets--such as commercial real estate, equipment, or inventory--before requiring a primary residence be used as collateral.

I want to reiterate that Section 2 is very clear that these business assets should be of equal or greater value than the amount of the loan. Also, to ensure that this is a targeted improvement, the bill also includes additional language that this bill in no way requires SBA to reduce the amount or quality of collateral it seeks on these types of loans. I want to especially thank my former Ranking Member Olympia Snowe for working with me to improve upon previous legislation on this particular issue. The provision that I am re-introducing, as part of this disaster legislation, is a direct result of discussions with both her and other stakeholders late last year. I believe that this bill is better because of improvements that came out these productive discussions.

Furthermore, SBA has repeatedly said publicly and in testimony before my committee that it will not decline a borrower for a lack of collateral. According to a July 14, 2010 correspondence between SBA and my office, the agency notes that ``SBA is an aggressive lender and its credit thresholds are well below traditional bank standards . . . SBA does not decline loans for insufficient collateral.'' SBA's current practice of making loans is based upon an individual/business demonstrating the ability to repay and income. The agency declines borrowers for an inability to repay the loan. In regards to collateral, SBA follows traditional lending practices that seek the ``best available collateral.'' Collateral is required for physical loans over $14,000 and Economic Injury Disaster Loans, EIDL, loans over $5,000. SBA takes real estate as collateral when it is available, but as I stated, the agency will not decline a loan for lack of collateral. Instead it requires borrowers to pledge what is available. However, in practice, SBA is requiring borrowers to put up a personal residence worth $300,000 or $400,000 for a business loan of $200,000 or less when there are other assets available for SBA.

This provision does not substantively change SBA's current lending practices and it will not have a significant cost. I believe that this legislation would not trigger direct spending nor would it have a significant impact on the subsidy rate for SBA disaster loans. Currently for every $1 loaned out, it costs approximately 10 cents on the dollar. Most importantly, this bill will greatly improve the SBA disaster loan programs for businesses ahead of future disasters. If a business comes to the SBA for a loan of less than $200,000 to make immediate repairs or secure working capital, they can be assured that they will not have to put up their personal home if SBA determines that the business has other assets to go towards the loan. However, if businesses seek larger loans than $200,000 or if their business assets are not suitable collateral, then the current requirements will still apply. This ensures that very small businesses and businesses seeking smaller amounts of recovery loans are able to secure these loans without significant burdens on their personal property. For the business owners we have spoken to, this provides some badly needed clarity to one of the Federal government's primary tools for responding to disasters.

To be clear though, while I do not want to see SBA tie up too much of a business' collateral, I also believe that if a business is willing and able to put up business assets towards its disaster loan, SBA should consider that first before attempting to bring in personal residences. It is unreasonable for SBA to ask business owners operating in very different business environments post-disaster to jeopardize not just their business but also their home. Loans of $200,000 or less are also the loans most likely to be repaid by the business so personal homes should be collateral of last resort in instances where a business can demonstrate the ability to repay the loan and that it has other assets.

As I have mentioned, there are also safeguards in the provision that ensures that this provision will not reduce the quality of collateral required by SBA for these disaster loans nor will it reduce the quality of the SBA's general collateral requirements. These changes will assist the SBA in cutting down on waste, fraud and abuse of these legislative reforms. In order to further assist the SBA, I believe it is important to clarify what types of business assets we understand they should review. For example, I understand that SBA's current lending practices consider the following business assets as suitable collateral: commercial real estate; machinery and equipment; business inventory; and furniture and fixtures.

At our markup of S. 415 yesterday, there were concerns raised by some Minority members of our committee regarding the impact of this provision. One argument was that SBA has not seized many personal homes in the last five years. However, the SBA has been more aggressive since 2011 on foreclosures--sending out 113 foreclosure letters since then. This year alone they have seized 4 homes in Minnesota, Virginia, Illinois, and Texas. Furthermore, borrowers my office has spoken to are less concerned about a personal home being seized than they are about liens tying up personal property and the general roadblock this requirement

sets up in applying for SBA disaster assistance. This requirement is discouraging successful businesses from applying to SBA and causing current applicants to withdraw their applications. As of May 2013, 35 percent of Sandy business applications were withdrawn, most citing burdensome lending requirements like this as the main factor.

Also, it is my understanding that another concern that has been cited was that business equipment depreciates over time so this is a riskier asset for the Federal government than a personal home. This argument, however, is false. As it relates to equipment, the SBA factors in depreciation when considering collateral from potential borrowers. They value equipment or inventory significantly less than real estate, due to depreciation. If equipment is not deemed a suitable asset to collateralize the loan, SBA will not take it. Also, Section 2 still allows SBA to determine the appropriate business asset if not the home. It is not specific to equipment. Other assets the SBA could consider include commercial real estate; machinery and equipment; business inventory; and furniture and fixtures.

Yet another concern that was raised was that, in utilizing business assets instead of personal homes, this makes it tougher for SBA to recover funds in the event of a default. As I previously mentioned, the SBA factors in depreciation and potential recovery in the event of a default when considering collateral from potential borrowers. SBA will not make a loan if it deems the business assets being offered will be difficult to recover or that it does not have sufficient value to collateralize the loan. Also, again the bill does not prohibit homes outright nor require business assets as collateral. It strikes a delicate balance to instead require the SBA to review if suitable business assets are available before using a personal home. If business assets are sufficient, SBA can use them. If business assets are not sufficient and the borrower is unwilling to put up their home, the SBA will not make the loan.

Lastly, it was also put forward that that if Congress allows business assets to be used as collateral instead of homes, this increases the likelihood of defaults. Again, this argument is false. In an April 1, 2013 letter to my office, the SBA Inspector General confirmed that there are no findings relative to business assets increasing defaults. The Inspector General wrote that it has ``. . . conducted numerous reviews of key aspects of the SBA Disaster Assistance Program; however, there are no specific findings relative to the `type' of collateral secured relative to disaster assistance loans.'' Furthermore, the Inspector General also confirmed that the SBA is still required to secure the loans and Section 2 does not change that. The Inspector General wrote that ``. . . Section 2 does not remove SBA's policy for securing loans with collateral equivalent to 100 percent equity of the loan. Section 2 also explicitly provides that nothing in the Section can be construed to require the Administrator to reduce the amount of collateral required to secure the loan.'' Again, if the business does not have sufficient business assets or the SBA deems them risky, Section 2 does not change their ability to not make the loan.

In closing, I would like to note that Section 2 addresses a key issue that is serving as a roadblock to business owners interested in applying for smaller SBA disaster loans. After the multiple disasters that hit the Gulf Coast, my staff has consistently heard from business owners, discouraged from applying for SBA disaster loans. When we have inquired further on the main reasons behind this hesitation, the top concern related to SBA requiring business owners to put up their personal home as collateral for smaller SBA disaster loans for their business. So let me provide you with two examples of businesses impacted by this requirement.

The first example is LiemCo, a Long Island, NY specialty beverage repair service with 15 employees. Think of ``Starbucks"-type espresso machines in restaurants and coffee shops--LiemCo fixes them. The company is family-owned and the son of the owners, Dominic Chieco runs it. His parents are still partial owners and he pays them a quarterly draw which serves as their retirement income. Ownership is being gradually transferred to Dominic.

Prior to Hurricane Sandy, they did everything right. Dominic moved his vehicles to higher ground; loaded key inventory in the trucks-- inventory with high value or long delivery times; raised items to 6 feet above the floor; purchased extra gas; and withdrew $5,000 in cash in case electricity went out at the banks. According to their local Small Business Development Center, SBDC, they are well run and these preparations show that.

Despite that, Hurricane Sandy flooded his building about 4 to 5 feet. The water went down after a couple of days but power was out for 3 weeks. The day after it came back on, a Nor'easter snow storm knocked out power for another week and a half. This caused physical property damages of more than $250,000. Dominic kept employees on payroll--full time--throughout recovery. He could not give them the customary Christmas bonus but once they re-opened after Christmas, he gave 1 employee their bonus each week.

Dominic's biggest concern was the collateral requirement from SBA. His building is valued at $1.2 million and only carried a $150,000 mortgage. The parents are still partial owners, so notwithstanding the value of the building, SBA still wanted a lien against the parents' home for the guarantee for a $200,000 loan. This bothered them tremendously as it was their retirement security. Much of this would have been eliminated if the collateral position on the parents' home had not been required when sufficient collateral existed with the business.

Another business impacted by this burdensome requirement is Water Street Bistro in Madisonville, LA. Water Street Bistro is a small family-owned restaurant overlooking the sail boats on the Tchefuncte River just across the street. Tony Monroe and his wife Constance have owned their business for 9 years and have about 9 employees. Monroe started his culinary career at Cafe Sbisa in New Orleans and then went to Colorado before returning to the place he was born and raised.

Fortunately, after Hurricane Katrina, the Monroe's escaped damage to their restaurant and did not need to apply for SBA assistance. However, this was not the case following Hurricane Isaac. Hurricane Isaac brought 6 to 10 inches of water into their restaurant which caused them to close their business for 3 weeks. The Monroe's had to start all over and buy all new food and replace equipment, such as refrigerators, which cost around $30,000. In addition to the physical damage to their property, the Monroe's could not pay their staff during this time.

Mr. and Mrs. Monroe's biggest concern in applying to the SBA was the collateral requirement. SBA required them to pledge their family home for a loan of around $40,000 to $45,000. Once they found out the requirement for pledging primary residence was firm, the Monroe's decided not to pursue the loan. The Monroe's are in their 60's and could not imagine using their home--valued around $200,000 to $250,000--as collateral. They ended up doing all of the repairs, for the restaurant, on their own because they could not afford to pay for these services.

I thank the Chair and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the April 1, 2013, letter from the SBA Inspector General and other letters of support for S. 415 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship will meet on June 17, 2013, at 5:30 p.m. in the Mansfield Room of the Capitol (S-207) to hold a markup on Committee legislation.

Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship will meet on Thursday, June 20, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 428A Russell Senate Office building to hold a roundtable entitled ``Sequestration: Small Business Contractors Weathering the Storm in a Climate of Fiscal Uncertainty.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1222, the Child Citizenship Act, for lawful adoptees.

Mr. President, I am going to speak about this amendment in just a minute, but first I want to respond to Senator Thune. I wish we could get a vote on my amendment as well as this one because I would like to vote and strongly express my objection to his amendment. I will comment for just a minute.

I chair the Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee that is actually building the fence. The money that builds it comes through my committee. I have looked at the fence they are trying to build. It is shocking to me, and would be shocking to everyone in America if they could see it. No matter if we build a single fence or double fence with spacing in between, it will be easy for people to get over it or under it.

I will vote against Senator Thune's amendment because I am not going to waste taxpayer money on a dumb fence, and that is what his fence would be. We need to build a smart fence. A fence is not just a physical structure which can be built out of a variety of different materials with or without barbed wire on the top.

A smart fence is what Senator McCain and I want to build. Since he is from Arizona, I think he knows a little bit more about this than the Senator from South Dakota who doesn't have a border with Mexico but only with Canada, and that is quite different. If Senator McCain were on the Senate floor, I think he would say we absolutely want to build a barrier of security, and this would be a combination of a physical structure that is built to the great standards we can with the technology that will actually shut down illegal immigration.

It is not correct for anybody listening to this debate to think that people on the Democratic side of this aisle or people supporting this bill do not want to secure the border. Nothing could be further from the truth. I may be overridden, and people may vote against it, but I am going to hold the position that we cannot waste billions and billions of dollars building a fence that doesn't hold anybody on one side or the other. We have wasted enough taxpayer money.

While I didn't come here to talk about this at this moment, I am going to talk about it for just a few minutes.

This immigration bill is about fixing a broken system, not dumping taxpayer money down a rat hole. And some people want to talk about building a fence. I went to look at the fence. I have been in tunnels that go under the fence. I watched people climb over the fence, and so has anybody who actually lives along the border, which is why Senator McCain's voice is so important in this debate.

No one should think that Senator McCain, who has been the leader on border security in this Senate for 20 years, is not interested in building a strong fence. His State gets affected--just like California and Texas--more directly than any of us.

The Presiding Officer knows geography well. So for my colleagues to come to the floor and suggest that the eight people who put this bill together are not interested in border security is just truly false, misleading, and unfortunate. That is what this debate is going to be about.

I have respect for my colleague. I absolutely oppose his amendment, but I am going to come back and give some more facts about how we are building a smart fence, how we are going to keep using new technologies to keep people out that we don't want and keep people in we want to keep in.

I want to say one thing about this immigration bill as well. We are the most open society in the world. It is a great source of pride to our country. We are an open, transparent democracy that is trying to create a broad middle class not only here in America but around the world, and trade and commerce are essential. We need secure borders that open for trade and create jobs. As chairman of this committee, I am not going to waste more money building something that doesn't work just so some people can get a headline in their local press. It is just not going to happen.

So we are going to put money in this bill to build a smart barrier that is going to have all the new technology we need to track down illegal immigrants and close that off. Then we are also--which is in this bill--going to use new technology, such as what we have seen on television and these fancy shows, to find the 40 percent of immigrants who came here under visas and overstayed, for the queue so they can pay their taxes, learn English, and become citizens.

I will come back and speak more on the record about this issue, and I am sure the Senator from South Dakota will have a response.

Happily, I don't think there is an objection to my amendment, the citizenship for lawful adoptees. I am very happy I have the cosponsorship of Senator Coats, Senator Blunt, and Senator Klobuchar. This amendment does not go to the heart of the immigration bill, but it does touch the hearts of many parents and children who have been caught up in a very unfortunate situation.

A couple of years ago Senator Nickles from Oklahoma, whom I had the great pleasure of working with across the aisle on many important adoption bills, and I passed a bill that is very important to the adoption community. The bill basically says when a child is adopted overseas--we mostly do adoptions in America, but we have anywhere from 10,000 to 20,000 adoptions internationally.

When somebody adopts a child overseas, it is very expensive, time consuming, and more bureaucratic than it needs to be. Several years ago our bill said once that process is over and the adoption is finalized, those children will automatically become citizens. It was a great step forward because now we have at least 10,000 to 20,000 kids who are all various ages--infants, teenagers, all the way up to 18--who, once they come to the United States, don't have to go through another process to get their citizenship; otherwise, we would obviously have a backlog of millions.

This is sort of giving the adopted kids a little express lane, which is what we wanted to do, and we did. Unfortunately, when we pass bills, many times the bureaucracy gets ahold of the law and starts to interpret it in a different way than we wanted and starts throwing barriers in the way.

Simply put, my amendment, which is supported by the Members I said, is going to fix three important provisions in that law. First, it says if a child is adopted into this country and later commits a misdemeanor or felony--just as if it was a biological child who committed a misdemeanor or felony--that person would not be deported. Deportation is not an option for adoptees. It may be an option for illegal immigrants but not children who have been adopted by American citizens. So we are going to correct that. They are going to have the full penalties against them. They can go to jail for a long time. They can do whatever the law

says, but deportation is not one of the options.

There have been very sad circumstances where adults were brought here as children, but the parents failed to get their certification. Many of them have been deported back to a country they never lived in a day, and they don't speak the language. As far as they know, in their mind they are completely American, even if they did know their country of origin. It is very unfortunate, and it has happened. This is going to bring help to maybe dozens and hundreds--it is not going to be more than that--of families to prevent any deportation of adoptees in the future.

Secondly, it will clarify the residency requirement. Over time the Child Citizenship Act has been misinterpreted so that the adopted children of Americans living abroad--particularly for military, diplomatic, and other reasons--do not receive automatic citizenship upon entering the United States. We intended, when we passed our bill, for this to apply to our military families and diplomats. As a result of serving in a foreign country, they have the opportunity to take in a child who is completely homeless and has no parents. They are doing God's work, and many times they end up in some bureaucratic haggling. So we are going to try to correct that.

Finally, it clarifies that when parents are required to travel overseas to adopt a child--some countries require two parents, some countries require one. Whether the country requires one or two parents, one will be sufficient to meet our standard. If two are required, then two have to go; but if only one is required, one is enough to meet our standard.

There have been months and months and years and years where parents who go through all of this trouble to do something they really believe God has called them to do--to adopt a homeless or unparented child or a sibling group--have come home to find that their own government, which would be our government, is nitpicking this law to prevent them from getting an easy path forward.

I hope there will be no opposition to this amendment. I am happy if we are required to have 51 votes or 60 votes. I will take any vote of any number for this bill. I hope the Members will support it.

I am sorry I have to oppose Senator Thune's amendment, but I will be opposing all amendments that I don't think support the underlying nature of a smart barrier, which is a fence that is both physical and virtual and has new technologies that will actually do the job.

I could not even express how shocking it was to go down to the border and see the number of tunnels that were built under the fence. If we build three fences, they will still build tunnels under those fences. They could build four fences. I am very sorry, but I am not going to waste people's money on that.

We are going to figure out a way to use technology to find these improper entrances to our country and close them down. It may be an actual fence in some places. It is going to be a virtual fence in other places. It is going to be special technology, lasers, helicopters, infrared, et cetera, et cetera.

Senator McCain actually had a list of the equipment that we intend to buy with taxpayer money, and I am going to come to the floor and maybe spend some hours reading off the list so people know about this. We most certainly are not saying no to a fence because we don't want to secure the border. We are saying no to the fence because it is a waste of money, and we don't have any money to be wasted around here. We need smart technologies.

Now, I am going to read Senator Thune's entire amendment because I have not read the details of it. I do believe I will be opposing it. It may be that his words did not appropriately say what his amendment does, but if it is an amendment that requires a complete fence and not a virtual fence, I will oppose it. If his amendment says I want a smart fence and we need to build more of a smart fence, then I will support it.

I want everyone to know there are going to be amendments about the fence, and this is the position I will take. I will try to encourage as many people as I can to assume the position I have because I think it is the right position, and I think the taxpayers will support this.

We want a secure border that is smart with the smartest technology possible, not one that just spends untold amounts of money decade after decade and fail and fail again.

I yield the floor, and I see the Senator is still on the floor.

Mr. President, I would just simply respond by saying I know the Senator is quite sincere, and he is correct. I voted for the dumb fence once. I am not going to do it again because I learned from my mistake. I went down there to look at it and realized we could build two dumb fences or three dumb fences and it would not work.

I am simply not going to waste the money to do something I know will not work. So if somebody else wants to vote for the dumb fence for the second or third time, go right ahead. But I was raised such that when you make a mistake, admit it and then fix it. I intend to fix it.

The fence we are going to build--Senator Carper, Senator Coburn, Senator McCain, and I--is a real and virtual fence that is actually going to work. We will have further debate on this issue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that all time be allocated equally as previously agreed to.

I thank the chairman and the manager of this bill for his support of this particular amendment, which I hope is going to be noncontroversial. It has to do with clarifying some technical parts of the law dealing with adoptees and how they are able to claim citizenship.

It does not have anything really to do with the larger pieces of this bill, but it is an opportunity to provide help and support to thousands of children, young people, and even adults who come to this country through the wonderful process of adoption, to clear up a couple of matters.

I will talk about that in just a minute, but I want to associate myself with the extraordinarily powerful comments of the Senator from Arizona John McCain. Without his leadership and without his strong knowledge of the issue we are dealing with, I do not think the bill would be on the floor of the Senate, and I do not think we would have a chance to be voting on this important piece of legislation.

He particularly--along with Senator Rubio and Senator Graham but particularly Senator McCain--has spent his adult life on the border in Arizona and has been in public office and has served this country so admirably in so many ways and fashions and understands this issue just about as well if not better than anyone on the floor.

I have had the pleasure of working with him over many years to secure the border, as the chair of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee. I can attest that what he says is actually true and factual. The border is not as secure as it could be, but it is significantly stronger and more secure than it was just 5 years ago, let alone 10 years ago.

He is also correct that we can make improvements on border security. Hopefully we will as this bill moves through, but the underlying bill itself takes huge steps in that direction by applying new resources to the technologies that are going to help us secure the border.

Anyone who has been to the border--and I have traveled there to see with my own eyes, at the invitation of Senator McCain, which was a greet eye-opener to me. As a Senator from Louisiana, the only borders I am aware of are water borders. We do not have land borders like Arizona and California and Texas and other States, so it was the first time I had seen such a thing. I was absolutely amazed and somewhat taken aback by how quickly a person could scale the fence, how quickly tunnels can be built under the fence.

I do not think some of my friends who are on the Republican side who are really concerned--and we all are, but they talk a lot about it. I am not sure they do as much as they talk about it, but that is my view. But they talk a lot about spending taxpayer money wisely. Putting more agents on the border and building a higher fence is not going to do it. Senator McCain is absolutely correct. What is going to do it is smart technology leveraged with the resources he has written in his bill.

So if we want to secure the border more, which is my intention--and as chair of this committee, I intend to continue leading in that way, both our southern border and our northern border, as well as providing the Coast Guard with the resources they need to interdict drug smugglers who are coming into this country.

I learned the other day--I would like to share this with people who potentially could be listening--that the Coast Guard has intercepted more illegal drugs than the entire land operation last year. They intercept drugs at a wholesale level before they even get to the country. This is about creating a perimeter that secures us against things we don't want to come into this country--illegal workers, illegal drugs, or illegal human trafficking, which is also a concern to many people in Louisiana and around the country.

It is also important to have a border that allows for trade and commerce. We cannot lock ourselves away from the world. What Senator McCain is saying is so true.

We have to be the smartest Nation on the Earth to protect our borders because we are the most open society and a model of what an open society should look like. We have to have that balance of security and trade. This is important for every American.

I say to my colleague how proud I am of the Senator, and I would hope my

colleagues on the other side of the aisle would follow his good and steady advice.

Yes, this bill could be improved on the floor of the Senate, but it should not be undermined with rhetoric that makes no sense. I am hearing that from some colleagues on the other side. I would hope they would have the good judgment to follow the very wise and mature leadership of the Senator from Arizona.

I want to call my colleagues' attention to an amendment Senator Coats and I have filed, and I am very grateful for his leadership. I know of no opposition to this amendment. I am hoping that after lunch the caucuses can meet and we can maybe take up a few noncontroversial amendments that seek to clarify some provisions in the law that could be helpful to a few hundred and potentially even a few thousand Americans who desperately need our help. It is one amendment, the Citizenship for Lawful Adoptees amendment, supported by Senator Klobuchar, Senator Coats, and me. We hope there will be many more cosponsors.

It does three simple but important things. First, a couple of years ago I helped lead the fight--with many of my colleagues still serving here--to pass the intercountry adoption act or the Child Citizenship Act of 2000. That was a very significant breakthrough in the adoption community.

As my colleagues know, I am the chair of the adoption caucus. We have Democrats and Republicans who support the idea that every child in the world needs a family. We try to minimize and reduce barriers to children getting the family they need--either staying with the one to whom they were born, trying to help that family or, if they are abandoned, neglected, or grossly abused, by finding them another family.

Governments do a lot of things well, but raising children isn't one of them. Parents raise children, and a responsible, loving adult is necessary for a child's physical, emotional, and spiritual development. Both our faith and the new science tell us that. It is really nondebatable.

A group of us worked on this, and we are proud of the progress we are making. One part of this amendment would make it clear that if a person had been adopted and is now an adult but because of some circumstances never went through the process of citizenship before this law--because when we passed the law 10 years ago, any child now adopted overseas is automatically a citizen. It is as if the child was born to an American. That is what happens if you are overseas and you give birth to a child--the child is automatically American. You don't need to go through the immigration process to bring your child to the United States. We made it the same for adopted children because that truly is what adoption is like. It is like having your own biological child.

So we made a great step forward, and we said that at the time for anybody under 18. Well, what has happened is, before 2000, for people older than 18--and they might be adults now; they are clearly in their thirties, forties, or fifties. They were adopted as infants or young children, but their paperwork never went through. Some of these individuals are being deported.

It would be like deporting a child who came from Korea at 6 months. They have never spoken a word of Korean and have never been to Korea. If they were adopted from Korea, they shouldn't be deported to Korea. If they have committed some misdemeanor or even a felony, they should be penalized under the laws of the United States. They could be put in jail for life. For criminal activity, they should be treated like any other American. Deportation is not and should not be an option for this very small group. This amendment makes that clear.

It also clarifies a residency requirement. The Child Citizenship Act was passed with overwhelming support from Republicans and Democrats. Don Nickles, as I recall, the Senator from Oklahoma, was the lead sponsor on this bill. He was a very strong supporter of many of the things of which I was speaking. He is no longer here, but his work lives on.

The Child Citizenship Act also requires that Americans living abroad for military, diplomatic, and other reasons do not receive automatic citizenship upon entering the United States. When we wrote this bill, we intended for that to be the case, but because we put the word ``reside'' instead of ``permanently physically present,'' we have to clarify that. With that minor change, it will basically say that if you are a diplomat living overseas and you adopt a child through a lawful, legal adoption process, this act applies to you.

The third thing it will do is what we call the one-parent fix. There are many countries--and we hope Russia one day will again open. We hope Guatemala will one day get its 112 cases that we are still waiting for moved through very quickly.

Some of the countries are requiring--and rightly so--that parents come to the country to adopt the child physically and then bring the child to the United States. In the past things could be done through agents or through adoption agencies, et cetera. I am perfectly fine with that. Many adoption advocates are. Parents should travel to the country.

My sister did an intercountry adoption with Russia, so I am fairly familiar with our family's experience, which was quite a joy--an added expense but a joy to travel to the orphanage. And some Members of Congress have adopted children and gone through that process.

The problem is that our agencies are saying--which is not according to the law, I believe--that if both parents don't travel, that adoption is not automatic. That was never the intention of our law. We are simply saying that if one parent travels and it is a legal adoption, that law still applies. It doesn't have to be both.

There are three minor changes to this bill which have helped so many children come to the United States, and they have been such a joy to their parents. It is a help to the world in providing homes and loving support for kids who need it. It takes another barrier, another headache, and another heartache away from them for us to encourage adoption of all orphaned children and unparented children in the world who need families.

I see the leader of the bill on the other side, the Senator from Utah. I would hope he could also be a cosponsor, if he would, and take a look at this amendment and give his support. I know there are many people in Utah, Minnesota, Louisiana, and Indiana whom this could potentially help. It is not going to touch millions, but it will touch thousands of people who I think could benefit.

I will have several other amendments that I think can tighten the underlying bill, particularly for E-Verify, which Senator McCain spoke about. I wanted to get this hopefully small, uncontroversial amendment out of the way to help this small group and then turn my attention to some other things that are very important in the other underlying parts of the bill.

I ask that whenever this amendment may be considered, the Senator from Utah would ask me personally, through the Chair, if he would consider putting this amendment on the short list to be reconciled potentially today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee will soon bid farewell to our congressional fellow, Coast Guard CDR. George Kovatch, who has served the Committee on Appropriations over the past 3 years. Unfortunately, Commander Kovatch is retiring, so not only is his departure a loss for the Committee on Appropriations, but it is also a loss for the Coast Guard.

Commander Kovatch has been detailed to the committee from the U.S. Coast Guard since 2010 and is a key member of our professional staff. Commander Kovatch performed admirably in his role on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee. He did everything we asked of him, with pinpoint accuracy, and always beat the deadlines given to him. I would also add that he served the committee during interesting times, perhaps more interesting than he imagined when he accepted the job. He was here for the Deepwater Horizon oilspill, the Times Square bombing attempt, the air cargo printer scare, Hurricanes Isaac and Sandy, and the Boston marathon bombing.

The Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee has greatly benefited from the experience Commander Kovatch gained as a Coast Guard officer, in particular his insights into the operations of a complex military organization that is combined with a large domestic agency. He has superb analytical skills that have been critical in our review of a $39 billion budget request and in developing complex spreadsheets that synthesize funding issues into easily understood documents we have used in hearings, closed briefings, in full committee, and on the floor. He made critical recommendations that were adopted to improve key components within the Department of Homeland Security, most notably carefully overseeing integrity efforts following the rapid hiring of agents and officers at Customs and Border Protection as well as Immigration and Customs Enforcement to ensure that all agents, but especially new hires, receive comprehensive training in ethics and public integrity. His unqualified professionalism, perception, superb analytic focus and technical skills, combined with a keen sense of humor, a cool head, and a modesty rarely seen on Capitol Hill, have helped keep the momentum for these bills moving forward. His high standards of professionalism and thoroughness are beyond reproach, and his contributions have been highly valued.

Through all of this, George maintained the decorum and professionalism that we have all come to expect from our military officer corps, and he has represented the Coast Guard with the highest integrity and competence. Commander Kovatch has served me, this subcommittee, and the Senate well. We are sorry to see him leave and will miss him as our colleague but are glad to count him as a friend. Each of us on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee wish George all the best as he moves forward in the next phase of his career, where we anticipate seeing great things of him in the coming years.

Mr. President, as chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I join the small business community throughout our country in mourning the death of Mr. Henry T. ``Hank'' Wilfong, Jr., president of the National Association of Small Disadvantaged Businesses, NASDB. Mr. Wilfong was a valued partner in promoting, improving, and increasing opportunities for firms owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. He not only was a CPA, with an MBA from UCLA, he also served in a number of capacities for Presidents, Governors, and local municipalities. Most notably, Mr. Wilfong was the first Black Pasadena City Councilman. He was also a three-time Presidential appointee, which included the Small Business Administration's Associate Administrator of the 8(a) Program. Later, he founded NASDB, a trade organization representing over 300 minority, women-owned, service-disabled, veteran-owned, and HUBZone small businesses.

Whether it was his advocacy for parity among the set-aside programs or his passion for strengthening the women-owned small business and 8(a) Programs, we have all been touched by his legacy, which promotes equal opportunity for all small businesses to succeed and live the American dream of entrepreneurship. With his passing, we also lose a U.S. Army Korean War veteran. He was a fighter his entire life, and we are all grateful for his service to our country, both in the military and as an advocate. Our deepest condolences go out to his family and all those whose lives he touched. We will greatly miss Hank Wilfong, Jr., who served as the voice for so many small businesses that deserved to be heard.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship will meet on June 13, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 428A, Russell Senate Office Building to hold a markup of pending legislation.

Mr. President, I object. Reserving the right to object, I have some difficulty with the amendment the Senator from Arizona wishes to discuss. I have been trying to get a vote on amendment No. 1113 on flood insurance, and one of the Members from the other side is holding it up. So until we get things worked out--and I hope the Senator from Arizona will appreciate the predicament we are in. I am happy for the Senator to discuss his amendment, but to call up an amendment and to then vote on it, I would have to object.

Mr. President, I do not like at all objecting to the McCain amendment, but I am compelled to because I have been literally trying for several weeks now--not just on this bill but the previous bill--to get a vote, just a vote. I will even take a 60-vote threshold. I am not asking for a 53-vote threshold; I will accept a 60-vote threshold on an amendment that will make it clear that we could grandfather in flood insurance rates until an affordability study that was supposed to be done is done.

The interesting thing about this is that my amendment has no score. It wouldn't cost the Federal Government anything if this amendment were to pass. It is a zero score. It simply delays for 3 years a certain category of flood insurance premium until an affordability study can be conducted. It is a zero score.

Unfortunately, the Senator from Pennsylvania, to my knowledge, is still holding up this amendment. So I know there are other Republicans who would like to offer amendments, but I am going to object to the offering or voting on any Republican amendments until the Senator from Pennsylvania allows me to have a vote on my amendment.

I hate to be here because I don't like being in this position, but I have no choice because I can't even get the Republicans to vote on the flood insurance amendment. They can vote no. The amendment may not pass. I think I have the 60 votes to pass it. I hope it will. We have explained it. It is important not just to Louisiana but to New York, California, New Jersey, and even Virginia has some issues.

Please understand, because I have a lot of respect for Senator Coburn--he and I work together on the Homeland Security Committee. I know this program has to be self-sustaining over time. No one depends on it to be self-sustaining more than the people in Florida and Louisiana and California. But there is a right way to get it self- sustaining and there is a wrong way. The wrong way is going to blow up the dreams of people who built their homes according to official flood maps, who did everything they were supposed to do under the official flood maps, and then when those maps changed, their rates then can go up 25 percent, compounded for the next 5 years, not only pricing them out of the market but making their homes unsellable, and it affects banks in these communities.

This is not just a Louisiana issue. I am proud to advocate so much for my State that when people come here and see me, they say: Oh, there she goes again, advocating for Louisiana. I wear that as a badge of honor. Let me be clear. My State has the 32 lowest kinds of rates of insurance on these claims. I am not even in the top three. This is affecting States--and I read them out earlier. Let me just say for the record that the top 10 States affected are Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, New York, Maine, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Alaska, New Hampshire, Illinois, Michigan, West Virginia, Missouri, Indiana, Iowa, California, and Ohio. These are the States with the highest premiums now, and they could double or triple--actually almost triple--in the next 5 years.

Maybe some of these rates need to go up. Interestingly, when the recalculations are done, some of the rates around the country will go down. I am not disagreeing with that. What I am disagreeing with is the rapid rate in which it is going to happen, and it is going to have catastrophic effects on many communities--not all but many--and I happen to represent some of those on which it will. So my realtors have asked me to stand up for this. My homebuilders have called with concerns. My community bankers are very concerned.

I wish to thank the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Mississippi. I know they are doing their very best job to move this bill forward. I think they have been quite fair, giving people on both sides an opportunity for amendments. I have been very patient. I have not objected to many amendments. The irony of this is that even the Toomey amendment--the Senator from Pennsylvania, my friend, who was going to end a program that was vitally important to my State, I even allowed him to have a vote on that. I mean, it is a terrible amendment for Louisiana. We were happy we beat the amendment, but I even allowed him to have a debate. I could have stopped it. I am one Senator here. One Senator can stop anything. But I am not trying to stop this, I am just trying to advance a vote on flood insurance.

So maybe Senator Coburn and Senator McCain can be more convincing to their colleague from Pennsylvania than I have been. But I will just say for the record that if I have to stay on the floor until the end of the week, I will have to stay here, but I will object to any Republican amendment until we get a vote on the Landrieu-Vitter, et al., Schumer, Gillibrand, Menendez--and our good friend Senator Lautenberg who just passed was also a supporter. I would like to keep his name on it, if I could.

I yield the floor, and I am very sorry, I say to my colleague from Oklahoma.

I object.

Mr. President, I object to that as well, but I know the Senator wants to speak about it.

I object.

I object. May I say something? First of all----

I would ask the Senator, does he know that some of us are very sympathetic with the amendments he is offering, and does he know some of us would actually really like to vote on some of those amendments? I am sure he is aware. Is he aware that I am sorry that I have to object, but it is the only way I can get my amendment up.

Reserving the right to object, may I ask the good Senator from Oklahoma, since he has talked about three amendments, may I ask unanimous consent for my amendment, to see if anybody would object to it?

I will try to do this in less than 3 minutes.

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and the following amendments be made pending en bloc: Landrieu No. 1113, Johnson No. 1117, Cardin No. 1159, and Grassley No. 1097; that the time until 5 p.m. today be equally divided and controlled in the usual form and that at 5 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote on the amendments listed; that there be 2 minutes of debate prior to each vote; that no second- degree amendments be in order to any of the amendments prior to the votes and that the amendments be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold.

I would also like to add that I would not object personally to having one of Senator Coburn's amendments added to this list, but this is the list I was given to ask unanimous consent for--just four amendments, two on flood insurance and the Grassley amendment on freedom of information regarding EPA.

So we would have votes, all of them requiring a 60-vote threshold, with both sides having a side-by-side, which we sometimes do in this body so if someone wants to vote no they can then have something to vote yes for. This is the most reasonable way I could present this list to help us get a vote on flood insurance and another important amendment to Senator Grassley, a Republican. I am a Democrat, Senator Grassley is a Republican, so it is very balanced on each side.

So I am asking unanimous consent to try to get a vote this afternoon.

Mr. President, I would respond to the Senator from Pennsylvania, then I will relinquish the floor to the managers of the bill because it is their responsibility and they have been doing a great job trying to help us get through the farm bill.

I wish to thank the Senator from Pennsylvania because this is real progress. He said he will not object to a vote on our amendment on flood insurance. I appreciate that because I know he has strong objections to it. I may not win the vote, but the people in my State have asked me to do everything I can to fight for them. This is a very serious issue in the State of Louisiana, in Texas, in Florida, in Rhode Island, in Maine, in Massachusetts, in Vermont, and even in Pennsylvania.

So I thank the Senator. Let me yield the floor back to the chairman of the committee to see what could potentially be worked out, but I am so happy the Senator will not object to a flood insurance amendment if we can ever get to one.

Mr. President, on our side, let me tell my colleagues if they want to preserve jobs, vote against the Shaheen-Toomey amendment. The U.S. policy on sugar defends more than 142,000 jobs in 22 States and nearly $20 billion in annual economic activity. Their amendment is bad policy. The taxpayers do not pay a penny on the Sugar Program. Domestic production is supported by import restrictions which have been used wisely over time, so this amendment would effectively kill America's no-cost Sugar Program.

Senator Cochran will take the last 30 seconds.

Mr. President, if it pleases the Chair, I would like to say a few remarks about sugar, but I am not sure about the chairwoman's plans.

I thank the chairwoman of the committee and the ranking member. I know they are deciding what other amendments we are going to take up later this evening and how the votes will proceed. But let me again just thank my colleague from Michigan for her great lead and leadership on the farm bill.

This sugar amendment was very important to the people of Louisiana whom I represent, and I want to just thank my colleagues for their vote to keep a program in place that has worked at no cost to the taxpayer-- no direct cash. It is monitored or organized or designed through an import restriction program that allows for the robust production of sugarcane and sugar beets in our Nation.

I thank Senator Shaheen for the wonderful way she handled the debate. We have different views about this, but we are colleagues and we work together very well. There are two sides to this issue. I think the evidence on our side is stronger. She would probably disagree. But I thank our colleagues for supporting the sugar caucus.

In Louisiana, sugarcane is being produced on over 427,000 acres in 22 parishes. Production is about 14 million tons, which is about 20 percent of the total sugar grown in the United States.

Last year, in 2012, Louisiana sugar mills produced 1.6 million tons of raw sugar, the largest amount we have ever produced in our State. This production represents a huge part of our State's economy. The loss of market for this product would be devastating. Let me say that the State of Hawaii, the State of Florida, states such as Minnesota and North Dakota and South Dakota that have strong sugar beet crops, it is very important for them as well.

Are the consumers hurt by this? Absolutely not. The U.S. sugar price is 14 percent below the world average, and 24 percent below the average for developed nations. So our policy is a good balance of encouraging domestic production and keeping prices stable and affordable for the consumer.

Let me say for candy production--and I have a small amount of candy produced in Louisiana. I am very proud of these companies. American food manufacturers say they are shedding jobs, but in my view this has nothing to do with U.S. sugar policy. In fact, U.S. sweetened product manufacturers are prospering and expanding. Candy production is rising, not falling, up by 9 percent since 2004. In addition, sugar represents just a tiny portion of the price these food retailers charge for their products--1 percent of the cost of a cupcake, 2 percent of the cost of a candy bar, 3 percent of the cost of a carton of ice cream, and 5 percent of a bag of hard candy. So I think our arguments won the day. I appreciate our colleagues supporting the sugar caucus. We thank you for keeping this bill intact with the balance it needs to move forward so we can have a robust farm agriculture reauthorization bill for this United States.

I yield the floor.