Floor Statements

Thank you, Senator Rockefeller. The issues we are discussing today are extremely important, and I appreciate your leadership during CHIPRA to allow States to extend Medicaid and CHIP benefits to pregnant women and children in the first place.

Last week, I came to the floor to express my opposition to amendments that were designed to punish immigrant families who are living on the verge of poverty by preventing them from accessing our Federal safety net. The Judiciary Committee refused to add many of these amendments to the bill, and I am pleased that the Senate heeded my call to reject the harshest of these amendments as well.

Now, I would like to repeat something that Senator Rockefeller just said. The bipartisan immigration reform bill explicitly states that children and pregnant women granted RPI, Blue Card, and V-visa status are considered ``lawfully present'' in the United States. It is true that the bill contains language making these three categories of immigrants ineligible for ``any Federal means-tested public benefits'' as ``defined and implemented'' in section 403 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act,--PRWORA, the Federal law that limits some noncitizens' eligibility for certain Federal programs. However, this language does not eliminate the States' right to exercise the ICHIA option.

Yes, that is correct. Nor was it our intention throughout the negotiations to eliminate this State right.

Senator Rockefeller is correct. The Senate had full knowledge of CBO's interpretation and cost estimate when it negotiated a bipartisan amendment that became the text of the final bill. We chose not to modify the provisions relating to the application of benefits under PRWORA, thus retaining the language that permits coverage under ICHIA of individuals with RPI, Blue Card, or V-visa status.

During the negotiations, the Senate did accept an amendment which states that ``No officer or employee of the Federal Government may waive'' compliance with PRWORA, or the bill's prohibition on accessing benefits that are defined and implemented in PRWORA. But these provisions, too, are inapplicable to a State's option under ICHIA. As my colleague Senator Rockefeller mentioned before, the ICHIA option is not a product of PRWORA. It exists as an independent right under the Social Security Act and is therefore unaffected by this section.

I would like to point to one final, yet unfortunate, indication of the Senate's intent to preserve benefits under Medicaid and CHIP for children and pregnant women granted RPI, Blue Card, and V- visa status--section 4417. This section was added during negotiations on the amendment that became the final text of the bill. It directly amends ICHIA to prohibit States from covering certain individuals who are lawfully present in the United States on student and tourist visas. Had the Senate intended to similarly exclude from ICHIA individuals granted RPI, Blue Card, and V-visa status, it would have explicitly done so.

I thank the Senators from Maine for raising this issue. I would be glad to clarify that the intent of the legislation is not to exclude logging employment as defined in title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations in section 655.103(c)(4) from the definition of ``agriculture employment'' for purposes of the new W agricultural visa, which will eventually replace the H-2A program. Consequently, logging employment would be covered in the definition of ``agricultural employment'' for purposes of the new W agricultural visa program. I also understand from Senator Feinstein, the author of these provisions, that it was not the intent of the measure to exclude logging employment from the new W visa program for agricultural workers.

Madam President, if I may have the attention of the Senator from Iowa.

Will the Senator from Iowa yield for 5 minutes?

I thank the distinguished Senator for his comments. He also deserves credit. We worked very closely together on this schedule and everything else to make sure all people were heard, as the Senate completes its work on this historic legislation, I want to recognize Senators and staff members who were instrumental to our effort.

Senator Durbin, who has championed the DREAM Act for many years, deserves special recognition. I commend him as the Senate approves his hard-fought effort that is included in this bill. Senator Durbin has helped to bring these compelling stories out of the shadows. He has been dedicated to the young people who will be helped by his legislation, like Gaby Pacheco. These brave and patriotic DREAMers have inspired all of us who support the bill's passage.

Senator Schumer's tenacity and commitment to this effort should be commended. He worked hard to build bipartisan support and was relentless in his advocacy for passage. Senator Menendez fought hard to protect the principles that make this legislation something we can be proud of. Senator Bennett and Senator Feinstein were committed to our agreement between agricultural workers and employers that is fair and that will help America's farmers and farm workers.

Senator McCain, Senator Flake, Senator Graham, and Senator Rubio bravely led the Republican Senators throughout this process. I appreciate that their leadership has been a challenge in their caucus. I thank Senator McConnell for his advice as the Judiciary Committee prepared to consider this legislation.

And I thank Senator Whitehouse, Senator Coons, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Klobuchar, and Senator Franken for their work in the Judiciary Committee and for their amendments to make this legislation better. I especially thank Senator Hirono for her personal efforts and determination to make sure that the interests of women and families were protected in this legislation. All of these Senators deserve recognition for their dedication.

The work of the Senate could not be successful without the staff members who work behind the scenes. The work of our staff is especially important when the Senate considers legislation of the magnitude that we have completed today. I take a few moments to recognize the many staff members who contributed to this legislation.

I want to recognize and give my thanks to Bruce Cohen and Kristine Lucius. My former Chief Counsel and Staff Director Bruce Cohen, who is well known to many Senators, has been at my side for nearly 20 years. Though Bruce is leaving the Senate, his mark is on this legislation and he leaves his mark on the Senate Judiciary Committee after years of service. His dedication to the Senate, to the people of Vermont, and the United States has been of the highest caliber and he will be missed.

Kristine Lucius, who has so ably and seamlessly taken over as my Chief Counsel and Staff Director on the Judiciary Committee has proven herself many times over during the Judiciary Committee's markup of this legislation, and through the Senate's debate of this legislation. Without her leadership, instincts, and intellect, our Committee process would not have been the example of democracy that it was. Both Bruce and Kristine deserve my deepest gratitude.

My Chief of Staff, JP Dowd and my Legislative Director Erica Chabot were central to this process. In addition to leading my office, JP guided my entire staff with a steady hand as we considered this legislation. And in addition to coordinating the legislative work of my office, Erica made great contributions to the process this legislation followed through the Committee. Erica's work was only interrupted by the arrival of a baby boy on June 21st.

I thank Adrienne Wojciechowski, Tom Berry, Susan Sussman, Diane Derby, and John Tracy for relating this complex bill to Vermont priorities. Their outreach to Vermont farmers, business owners, law enforcement officials, and Vermonters impacted by our broken immigration system was crucial to my priorities in this bill.

And our work in the Committee could not have been conducted without the incredible efforts of our Chief Clerk Roslyne Turner, Deputy Clerk Theresa Reuss, Hearing Clerk Melanie Kartzmer, and former Hearing Clerk Halley Ross, all of whom make our committee run at the highest standard.

And I thank Brian Hockin, who keeps the Committee's technology running and provided real-time updates during our five Committee markups by posting amendments online as they were modified. I give them my thanks and appreciation for their role in making the Judiciary Committee so productive and transparent.

I want to thank my staff members who worked long and hard on this legislation. My Judiciary Committee counsels Matt Virkstis, John Amaya, Chris Leopold, Alexandra Reeve-Givens, Josh Hsu, April Carson, Emily Livingston, Lara Flint, and Anya McMurray all committed themselves to this process with professionalism and dedication to advancing this important legislation. My team of lawyers carefully negotiated, reviewed, and drafted thousands of pages of amendments. They worked across the aisle to create consensus and improve our proposal.

I thank the Committee's Legislative Staff Assistants Emma Van Susteren, Charles Smith, Kelsey Kobelt, and Clark Flynt for their commitment and passion to making this process run smoothly. And I thank my Communications Director David Carle and my Judiciary Committee Press Secretary Jessica Brady for helping to make our process a transparent one and to tell the story of the Senate's consideration of this legislation.

The staff members of Senators in the group of eight who serve on the Judiciary Committee deserve recognition. Joe Zogby, Mara Silver, Leon Fresco, Stephanie Martz, Chandler Morse, Elizabeth Taylor, and Sergio Sarkany served the Senate well.

I want to recognize the staff of the Judiciary Committee's Ranking Member Senator Grassley, Kolan Davis and Kathy Nuebel. They served Senator Grassley and the Senate with weeks of tireless effort to make our committee process a productive one. I thank Ranking Member Grassley for his cooperation during the Committee's consideration of this legislation.

The floor staff that keep the Senate running deserve special recognition and thanks. The Democratic Secretary Gary Myrick, Assistant Secretary Tim Mitchell, and Reema Dodin serve the Senate admirably and their assistance to Senators is indispensable. The Majority Leader's staff members Bill Dauster and Serena Hoy lent their broad experience and expertise to this process. I thank them all.

I thank the members of President Obama's staff who provided invaluable technical expertise and assistance to the Senate. My former Chief of Staff, Ed Pagano, along with Miguel Rodriguez, led a tremendous effort in the Senate for the President. The President's Director of the White House Policy Council Cecilia Munoz and her team, Felicia Escobar and Tyler Moran were instrumental in this effort.

And I want to especially thank Esther Olavarria. Esther served Senator Kennedy for many years on the Judiciary Committee, and has lent her intellect, her vast knowledge of immigration law, and her genuine sense of humanity to previous efforts in the Senate. I know Senator Kennedy would be very proud of her service to the President.

Finally, I want to recognize the tremendous work done by the Office of the Senate Legislative Counsel. They are the attorneys who serve the United States Senate to turn ideas into legislative text. I especially thank Matt McGhie and Stephanie Easley who moved mountains to meet the requests from Senate offices to draft this legislation. I thank them and all of the attorneys and staff in that office who serve all Senators with tremendous professionalism and skill.

Many other staff members in the Senate contributed to this effort in ways that will be largely unheralded by the public. But it is important to recognize the role that the dedicated men and women who serve Senators play in doing the business of the American people. Their work behind the scenes on this historic bill allowed Members to agree in principle and make their compromise a meaningful reality.

I am proud of the Senate's work today and I thank everyone who made this process a successful one.

Our American story is a story of immigration. It is not only our history, it is our future. Over the last few weeks, many of us have spoken about our own families' immigration stories. We all have such stories. I heard the distinguished Democratic whip, Senator Durbin, speak of the very moving story of his family and also what he has done with DREAMers. We have talked about our parents and grandparents seeking better lives for us. We can all relate to the most compelling, innate urge to sacrifice for the ones we love.

We are inspired by our forebears who wished better lives for us and for themselves, and found those opportunities here in America. They taught us the fundamental values of family, hard work, and fairness. With this legislation, we honor those American values.

We honor their search for freedom, for prosperity, and for the promise that America has held out to so many for so long.

I am proud to be a Member of the Senate. Today is a good day for the Senate, and, more importantly, it is a good day for the country. Today, with the help of many Senators, we will address a complex problem that is hurting our families, stifling our economy, and threatening our security.

Several months ago four Democrats and four Republicans began negotiating and drafting immigration reform legislation. They produced a carefully balanced, fair, and humane proposal that at its core is intended to make meaningful improvements to border security and, most importantly, will help millions of people who dream the same dreams our ancestors did.

I am proud of the role the Judiciary Committee has played in this process, and I thank the Senators of both parties who have praised that role.

In late April, with the full participation of all 18 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, with unprecedented transparency, and with fairness to all members in offering amendments and having the chance to debate them, we held several public markups to consider that legislation. Over 37 hours during the course of 3 weeks, we engaged in vigorous debate in full view of the American public. We considered 212 amendments from Democrats and Republicans. We approved 136 amendments in a room filled with spectators on both sides of the issue. Of the amendments approved in committee, 47 were Republican amendments and all but three were adopted with bipartisan support. Even the staunchest opponents of this legislation have praised that fairness.

The world has never seen such a vibrant, cohesive, economically exuberant, and democratically successful experiment as our country. Every one of us as Americans should be proud of that.

A key ingredient of our successful formula has been and will continue to be immigrants anxious to be part of the American experience. They have helped us to be a Nation in constant renewal, welcoming and using this constant influx of fresh talent and energy. Just as my grandparents and my wife Marcelle's parents made Vermont and America better, they have made us better.

Today is another historic day in the Senate. The Senate will soon complete its work on remedies for a difficult and complex set of issues that has eluded us for years. We passed immigration reform legislation in 2006 under the leadership of the distinguished Presiding Officer's predecessor, Senator Ted Kennedy. After the Senate's work, the House of Representatives declined to take up the Senate bill. I hope that won't happen again. This issue is far too important to ignore or to allow it to languish. We shouldn't play politics with what is quintessentially an American issue.

At this moment I would like to think my dear friend Senator Kennedy is smiling down on this Chamber. He sat right over there. He would be overjoyed to see us pass this legislation on an issue he cared about so deeply. I would like to think our old friend would be proud of what we are doing.

In a very few minutes the Senate will vote to pass a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system. It will reunite families. It will bring millions of people out of the shadows and into our legal system. It will spur job growth and reduce our deficit. It will make us safer.

I would urge all Senators to join with us to ensure a bright future for this great Nation we all love by passing comprehensive immigration reform. In doing so, you make us an even greater Nation than we are.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this Independence Day will mark the 47th anniversary of the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. For more than four decades, FOIA has translated our great American values of openness and accountability into practice, by guaranteeing access to government information. In so doing, this premier open government law has helped to guarantee the public's ``right to know'' for generations of Americans.

The anniversary of the enactment of FOIA is a timely opportunity to take stock of the progress we have made in improving transparency in government, as well as the challenges that remain when citizens seek information from the Federal Government. Today, we are witnessing an erosion of the public's trust in the institutions of government. According to a recent study by the Pew Research Center, trust in the Federal Government is at an historic low. In addition, a majority of Americans believe that the Federal Government threatens their personal rights and freedoms, according to the study.

To be sure, there are many reasons for the decline in the public's trust in the Federal Government. But more importantly, there is a time- proven cure for this troubling trend--an increase in government transparency.

To accomplish this, our Federal agencies must commit to the spirit, as well as the letter, of the President's pledge to keep the Federal Government open and accessible to the American people. While the Obama administration has made significant progress in improving the FOIA process, too many of our Federal agencies are not keeping up with the FOIA reforms that Congress enacted in the OPEN Government Act. A recent audit conducted by the National Security Archive found that more than half of all Federal agencies have not updated their Freedom of Information Act regulations to comply with this law.

Our Federal Government must also do a better job of balancing the need to protect sensitive government information with the equally important need to ensure public confidence in our national security policies. According to the Associated Press, during the past year, the Obama administration withheld more information for national security reasons in response to FOIA requests than at any other time since the President took office. Of course no one would quibble with the notion that some government information must be kept confidential. But as we have seen in the unfolding events surrounding the unauthorized disclosure of information about the NSA's secret electronic surveillance programs, excessive government secrecy can harm both the public's trust and our own national interests. That is why I have proposed and cosponsored legislation that will provide for greater openness and public reporting with regard to these broad surveillance authorities, as well as the legal opinions that interpret those statutes.

As we mark another FOIA anniversary, I join Americans from across the political spectrum in celebrating all that this law has come to symbolize about our vibrant democracy. After four decades, we have much to celebrate about this open government law. We in Congress also have much more work to do to help ensure that FOIA's values of openness and accountability remain in place for future generations of Americans.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my Vermont colleague Senator Sanders to introduce the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Designation Act.

The Upper Missisquoi River gathers itself from snowmelt and from pristine springs and cedar bogs in the forests of Vermont's Northeast Kingdom. As it flows from the town of Lowell to the town of Westfield, this lovely mountain brook grows large enough to float a small canoe during its winding journey through Vermont's forests and meadows. A paddler on this section is treated to a stream that runs crystal clear and abounds with trout and other fish as it winds through pine forest and silver maple flood plains, to meadows dotted with grazing Holstein cows.

The beauty and wildness of the river is undiminished as it swells on its journey north through the towns of Westfield, North Troy, and Troy, and crosses into the Canadian Province of Quebec. Not far downstream the river reenters the United States and winds its way across more miles of pastoral countryside in Northern Vermont through Richford, Berkshire, and Enosburg. Along the way it gathers the ice-cold, pristine flow of the Trout River in the town of Montgomery.

The scenery along the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers in these towns is spectacularly beautiful, the water quality is superb, public access is unlimited, and Vermonters along the shores are eager to share these treasures with visitors from near and far. The Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers epitomize Wild and Scenic Recreational Rivers of national significance, and I am proud to join Senator Sanders in introducing this legislation.

A Federal Wild and Scenic Recreational River designation should only be considered after the resource has been closely studied and if this designation is actively sought by people living in the area. We can report to the Senate that both of these tests are met for the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers.

Seven years ago a group of people living along the rivers asked Vermont's delegation to the Congress to request a Wild and Scenic River Study, and for more than 5 years these Vermonters--with tremendous support from their neighbors, the neighboring towns, and the National Park Service--have assessed the river, turn by turn, mile by mile, and they have worked hard to plan for its protection and recreational use. The study committee kept their neighbors along the rivers and local elected leaders fully engaged at every step. Their hard work paid off this past March when the citizens of each of the affected, towns, at Vermont town meetings--those revered democratic institutions of self- government in our State--voted in favor of seeking the Wild and Scenic River designation.

This has been one of the most locally driven and strongly supported resource conservation initiatives to come before the Congress, and I commend the study committee and all of Vermonters in these towns for their hard work and cooperation.

A National Wild and Scenic River designation will help these two rivers reach their full potential as major engines of the Northeast Kingdom's tourism economy and at the same time help to ensure that the ecosystem is protected and enhanced for future generations.

The Upper Missisquoi River and the Trout River meet each of the criteria for a National Wild and Scenic River designation. The management of the rivers has been carefully planned, and the designation is actively sought by Vermonters living in communities along the rivers. I am proud to join Senator Sanders and Peter Welch, Vermont's Representative in the other body, in introducing this bill and taking this commendable effort to the next level.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my Vermont colleague Senator Sanders to introduce the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Designation Act.

The Upper Missisquoi River gathers itself from snowmelt and from pristine springs and cedar bogs in the forests of Vermont's Northeast Kingdom. As it flows from the town of Lowell to the town of Westfield, this lovely mountain brook grows large enough to float a small canoe during its winding journey through Vermont's forests and meadows. A paddler on this section is treated to a stream that runs crystal clear and abounds with trout and other fish as it winds through pine forest and silver maple flood plains, to meadows dotted with grazing Holstein cows.

The beauty and wildness of the river is undiminished as it swells on its journey north through the towns of Westfield, North Troy, and Troy, and crosses into the Canadian Province of Quebec. Not far downstream the river reenters the United States and winds its way across more miles of pastoral countryside in Northern Vermont through Richford, Berkshire, and Enosburg. Along the way it gathers the ice-cold, pristine flow of the Trout River in the town of Montgomery.

The scenery along the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers in these towns is spectacularly beautiful, the water quality is superb, public access is unlimited, and Vermonters along the shores are eager to share these treasures with visitors from near and far. The Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers epitomize Wild and Scenic Recreational Rivers of national significance, and I am proud to join Senator Sanders in introducing this legislation.

A Federal Wild and Scenic Recreational River designation should only be considered after the resource has been closely studied and if this designation is actively sought by people living in the area. We can report to the Senate that both of these tests are met for the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers.

Seven years ago a group of people living along the rivers asked Vermont's delegation to the Congress to request a Wild and Scenic River Study, and for more than 5 years these Vermonters--with tremendous support from their neighbors, the neighboring towns, and the National Park Service--have assessed the river, turn by turn, mile by mile, and they have worked hard to plan for its protection and recreational use. The study committee kept their neighbors along the rivers and local elected leaders fully engaged at every step. Their hard work paid off this past March when the citizens of each of the affected, towns, at Vermont town meetings--those revered democratic institutions of self- government in our State--voted in favor of seeking the Wild and Scenic River designation.

This has been one of the most locally driven and strongly supported resource conservation initiatives to come before the Congress, and I commend the study committee and all of Vermonters in these towns for their hard work and cooperation.

A National Wild and Scenic River designation will help these two rivers reach their full potential as major engines of the Northeast Kingdom's tourism economy and at the same time help to ensure that the ecosystem is protected and enhanced for future generations.

The Upper Missisquoi River and the Trout River meet each of the criteria for a National Wild and Scenic River designation. The management of the rivers has been carefully planned, and the designation is actively sought by Vermonters living in communities along the rivers. I am proud to join Senator Sanders and Peter Welch, Vermont's Representative in the other body, in introducing this bill and taking this commendable effort to the next level.

Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished

Senator from North Dakota, and I ask unanimous consent that the last 5 minutes be reserved for the Senator from Vermont.

Madam President, the Hoeven-Corker amendment is subject to a budget point of order because it increases the net on-budget deficit over both the 5- and 10-year periods and exceeds the Judiciary Committee's allocation for direct spending. But on-budget effects do not take into account the significant off-budget savings.

Last week the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that our bill is going to help us achieve nearly $1 trillion in deficit reduction. We have also learned that the Hoeven-Corker amendment would significantly increase our border security, and, as the CBO said and as my friends from Tennessee and North Dakota have said, the

amendment would reduce both illegal entry into the country and the number of people who stay in the country beyond the end of their authorized period.

So when we vote on waiving the point of order, I will vote to waive it because the Hoeven-Corker amendment and the overall amendment will spur job growth and will dramatically reduce our deficit.

Then we are going to vote on the substitute. The substitute is the product of many months of hard work and bipartisan collaboration in a very transparent process. No one should oppose the cloture motion on the committee-reported substitute, as amended.

The Senate Judiciary Committee held lengthy and extensive public markup sessions to consider the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, S. 744. This was after a couple dozen hearings over the last few Congresses. We did it in as transparent a way as possible.

Madam President, over 300 first-degree amendments were filed. We had them online for a week and a half before the Senate Judiciary Committee even took up the bill.

Over the course of 3 weeks, we debated the bill for nearly 40 hours. We often worked late into the evening. That was online. That was streamed. That was open to everybody. And certainly the thousands and thousands and thousands of e-mails that came in from all over the country showed people were watching.

The committee considered a total of 212 amendments--we had 212 amendments during that time--136 of which were adopted. Every member of the committee--Democratic or Republican--who filed amendments to the legislation was afforded the opportunity to offer multiple amendments. Nearly every member of the committee, in both parties, who offered an amendment had an amendment adopted. All but three of the amendments adopted passed on a bipartisan vote, and the committee reported the legislation by a bipartisan vote of 13 to 5.

So, as I said, the public witnessed what we did. They saw us streamed live on the committee's Web site. They saw broadcasts on C-SPAN. All our amendments were posted, and as we had developments, they were reported in real time. Members from both sides of the aisle praised the transparent process and the significant improvements to the bill made by the Judiciary Committee.

Let me also compliment the ranking Republican on the committee, the senior Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley. We were on different sides of the legislation, but we worked very well together. We talked numerous times throughout the whole markup to make sure it would go. He would come to me at times when some of their members had to be out for one reason or another--other committees--and we worked around that. We made sure everything went--we made sure neither side was surprised. I appreciate the cooperation I received from Senator Grassley. I think it is one of the reasons we could actually show the Senate the way the Senate is supposed to work.

I hope colleagues will vote for the committee-reported substitute, as amended.

This is one of our Nation's toughest problems, but we were not elected to do easy things. In fact, if all we had were easy things, I do not know why anybody would want to be in the Senate. We were elected, the men and women of this body, from all over the country-- from both parties, with philosophical differences--and we are supposed to fix our Nation's toughest problems.

We are on the eve of coming one step closer to fixing our Nation's broken immigration system. I hope the vast majority of Senators will vote yes. There has been a great deal of work on this. Is this bill perfect? No. Is any bill perfect? No. Is this much better than what we have today? Yes. Is it exactly the bill I would have written? No. It is not the bill Senator Grassley would have written. It is not the bill any one of us individually would have written. But we are not a monarchy. We are not a dictatorship of one. We have 100 people here representing over 300 million Americans, and we are supposed to mold, as best as possible, the sentiments and needs of those 300 million Americans but also the aspirations of those who would be Americans, like my grandparents and my wife's parents and even Members of this body.

So, Madam President, I hope that, one, we will waive the budget point of order and then, secondly, we will vote for the amendment, as with the substitute.

I believe we are ready to vote.

Madam President, I yield my time to the Senators from Tennessee and North Dakota.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time.

Mr. President, we have been talking about a couple of things, including the schedule. We are moving forward. This vote suggests it is obvious that a very large and bipartisan majority of the Senate will support an immigration bill. I know there have been proposals for amendments. I am not going to make a proposal at this time. I will leave that for the leader. There have been efforts to get a finite number of amendments from both Republicans and Democrats so we can vote. Under normal circumstances, we would probably have voice votes on some of those amendments. I hope we can do that because I think we would be able to complete this immigration bill.

Our staffs have a great deal of work to do in putting everything together. The staffs on both sides of the aisle have worked long hours. They have been here working even after the rest of us have left. After this is completed, maybe they can actually have some time with their families and prepare for this great Nation's celebration next week.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to continue to speak for 5 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. President, today the Supreme Court struck down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. I think that helped this Nation take a major step toward full equality. The ruling confirms my belief that the Constitution protects the rights of all Americans--not just some but all of us--and that no one should suffer from discrimination based on who they love. I share the joy of those families who had their rights vindicated today, including many legally married couples in my home State of Vermont. I have already heard from many and the joy they have expressed is so overwhelming.

In August, my wife Marcelle and I will celebrate our 51st wedding anniversary. Our marriage is so fundamental to our lives that it is difficult for me to imagine how it would feel to have the government refuse to acknowledge it. Without her love and support over the past 51 years, there is nothing I could have ever accomplished that would have been noteworthy in my life. It has taken the joining together of two people who love each other.

Today we have thousands of gay and lesbian individuals and families across the country who have had their rights vindicated by the Supreme Court's decision, including the same rights Marcelle and I have had for 51 years.

Despite today's historic ruling, there are still injustices in our Federal laws that discriminate against these married couples. I will continue to work with Senator Feinstein on legislative fixes to protect all families.

As we continue to fight for equality and against discrimination in our Nation's laws, I am hopeful today's ruling will address a serious injustice. By just striking down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, the Supreme Court has pronounced that our Federal laws cannot discriminate against individuals based on who they love. I believe this should extend to our immigration laws as well.

Last month I was forced to make one of the most difficult decisions in my 38 years as a Senator when I withdrew my amendment that would have provided equality in our immigration laws by ensuring that all Americans--all Americans--may sponsor their lawful spouse for citizenship. It was one of the most disappointing moments of my 38 years in the Senate, but I took Republicans, many who spoke in good faith, at their word that they would abandon their own efforts to reform the Nation's immigration laws if my amendment had been adopted. I believed what they said, and I withdrew it.

However, with the Supreme Court's decision today, it appears the antidiscrimination principle I have long advocated will apply to our immigration laws, and binational couples and their families can now be united under the law. As a result of this very welcome decision, I will not be seeking a floor vote on my amendment.

Today's decision should be seen as a victory for all of those who support justice, equality, and family values.

I had the privilege of serving with a wonderful Senator from Vermont when I first came here, Robert Stafford. He was ``Mr. Republican'' in our State. When we were debating the question of same-sex marriage in the Vermont Legislature, Senator Stafford said: If we have two people who love each other and make each other better--two Vermonters who love each other and make each other better because of that love--what difference does it make to us whether they are the same sex or not? Vermont is better because they make it better.

I agree with him. There is still important work to be done so all families are protected under our Federal laws. Until we fully achieve the motto engraved in Vermont marble above the Supreme Court building that declares ``equal justice under the law,'' I will continue to fight for the equal treatment of all Americans.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as we look forward to bringing our debate on comprehensive immigration reform to a close, I especially want to recognize the work of one Senator who made a major contribution to this legislation. Provisions contained in this legislation will rewrite our entire agricultural visa program, and they will do so for the better. For the first time, America's dairy farmers will have access to temporary foreign workers, and the population of undocumented farm workers will have the chance to come out of the shadows and into the lawful immigration system, where they will have rights and the protection of the law. I am grateful for the work she has done, and I am proud to support her important contributions to this legislation.

The work of the senior Senator from California on this legislation should be recognized and commended. She worked long and hard to bring agricultural workers and employers together to find consensus.

She spent many hours keeping these negotiations going, and she did not give up until a fair agreement was reached. And just this week I know that Senator Feinstein stood up for farmers in the Northeastern part of the United States and resisted last-minute efforts related to this bill to create a divide between farmers in different parts of the country. For this, I thank her.

Yesterday, the Washington Post published an article about Senator Feinstein's distinguished service in the Senate, her leadership, her incredible work ethic, and her tenacity. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Would the Senator from Montana yield for 1 minute?

Mr. President, I think of myself as one of the calmest people around here, but a lot of facts and numbers have been tossed around here. Let's get a few in perspective.

When this bill was before the Judiciary Committee, there were 301 amendments filed. We put them online. Every single person saw a week and a half in advance what the amendments were. We then brought them up. I would bring up one from one party and then one from another. We did this day after day after day into the night until people said we have no more amendments we want to bring up.

We adopted 136 of those amendments, all but 3 of them with Republican and Democratic votes. To say nobody has had a chance to amend this--we had nearly 140 amendments, including amendments from the Senator from Iowa, others, and myself. All but 3 of these 136 were by bipartisan votes.

I well remember the last night of that markup, late in the evening. I said, does any Senator, Republican or Democratic, have another amendment they want? No. There were not any more amendments, and we voted out the bill.

We have offered to have rollcall votes on 15 Democratic amendments, 17 Republican amendments, and then another 29 amendments that everybody agrees should be passed and do them en bloc in the managers' package.

Now I know some--not the Senator from Iowa because he has been here a long time, but I know some Senators are new to this body. I have been here 38 years. I have seen great legislators in the Republican Party and great legislators in the Democratic Party. We always talk about the hundreds of amendments we know we are going to get down to a finite number. Then you agree to vote on those, and you usually have a managers' package where both Republicans and Democrats agree these can be done en bloc. This is what we have done. There are several amendments here on the floor. We have offered 15 Democratic, 17 Republican, and another 29 en bloc.

The objection did not come from the Democratic side. It came from the Republican side, including some who said they would never vote for any immigration bill whatsoever.

The distinguished majority leader has more patience than the Senator from Vermont. I applaud him for his patience.

I have not spoken on this point, and I apologize for taking the time, but it is frustrating to me to hear these numbers when so much work has been done by both Republicans and Democrats on this bill to get to the point we are.

I respect my friend Senator Portman, but he was offered the opportunity to put his amendment in the package which was agreed to. I had amendments. I would love to have the glory of saying: Here is the Leahy amendment passed on the floor. I said: No, I am more interested in getting it passed. I will put it in the package and let it go through. I don't need to have my name on it. I just want to get it to the floor.

I thank the Senator from Montana.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 26, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``From the Lab Bench to the Courtroom: Advancing the Science and Standards of Forensics.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 26, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Health Care Quality: The Path Forward.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 26, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 26, 2013, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Renewing the Conversation: Respecting Patients' Wishes and Advance Care Planning''

The Committee will meet in room 124 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building beginning at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, one, I wish to applaud the senior Senator from Illinois for his statement, and I will say publicly on the floor of the Senate what I have said to him privately, what I have said to him in our leadership meetings, and what I have said to him in our caucuses, that he is the champion of the DREAM Act. That act--when it finally passes, will give these DREAMers a better life, and there will be one person they can thank most and that will be Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois. Because for the time I have known him--and it has been years--this has been first and foremost over and over again, and I just want to state my admiration for the Senator from Illinois for doing that.

Mr. President, yesterday the Senate voted to adopt an amendment offered by Senators Corker and Hoeven relating to border security.

I have some misgivings about the policy contained in that amendment, and I have spoken to that on the floor. But, at the same time, I commend these Senators for engaging on this legislation and taking the steps they feel are necessary to gain broader support for the underlying bill. We are now one step--one big step--closer to a

Senate vote on comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

I would like to take just a few moments to reflect on why this legislation is so important and to remind the Senate that as we consider the bill, we should remember that at its core it is about people. It is about families seeking the promise of America. It is about children whose parents want what any parent wants for their child--the opportunity to succeed, to prosper, to live in a free, open and welcoming society.

To me, the bill is less about numbers and metrics or border fences and technology than it is about human beings and the natural desire we all have to better ourselves, our families, and to give our children the lives we wish for them.

The measures in this legislation will give those affected by it the freedom to get on the path to becoming Americans. Our history of immigration is one that honors our free and open society and which has strengthened it.

Immigration has, in part, been the story of enlarging a society made up of individuals who, no matter their vast differences, all believe in the promise of American democracy and the values given to us in our Constitution. When we welcome those who yearn for these values, we strengthen and renew them.

Of course, we are a nation of immigrants. Past immigration has helped shape this country and deepen its economic and cultural vibrancy, touching every State and every community--from the Presiding Officer's far western State of Hawaii to my own northeastern State of Vermont.

After the Revolutionary War and into the early 1880s, for example, Vermont had been the slowest growing State in the Union. Old growth forests had been stripped and farms had been worn out. But immigrants helped reclaim forsaken farms and build and operate budding new factories in new centers of industry across the Green Mountain State.

The United States has been made stronger by the diverse cultural background that has been woven into our national fabric. This Vermonter is the grandson of immigrants to Vermont from Ireland and Italy, and our heritage is one of which my family and I are fiercely proud.

To appreciate the values inherent in our immigration policy, I need only to look at the experiences of my own family and the family of my wife Marcelle. Marcelle's mother and father, Louis Philippe Pomerleau and Cecile Bouchard Pomerleau, immigrated to the United States from the Province of Quebec in Canada. Marcelle is a first-generation American born in Newport, VT, and, of course, to me, is the greatest contribution her mother and father made to Vermont and America.

But Marcelle's mother and father contributed much to Vermont and to America in business, in music, and enriched their own community. Members of her family went on to establish successful businesses and become leaders in their communities and they have given greatly to Vermont. Marcelle grew up to serve the communities in which she lived as a registered nurse, caring for others in Burlington, VT, in Washington, DC, and in Arlington, VA.

Similar to many young immigrants in our country, Marcelle grew up in a bilingual household, knowing two different cultures. But this is America for so many, where young people grow up in families where multiple languages are spoken, where traditions from multiple cultures are observed. This enriches America.

My maternal grandparents came to this country from Italy. My grandfather, similar to many others who came to Vermont from Italy, was a granite carver. He opened a granite business in central Vermont. The hard work and determination of my maternal grandparents--who did not speak English when they arrived--to settle in this country laid the foundation for my mother and our family.

My paternal great-grandparents came from Ireland, and my grandfather, who was named Patrick Leahy--and I am named after him--worked in a stone quarry as well. They worked hard. They had a family. I grew up the son of printers in Montpelier, our State capital.

But nearly every American family has a story similar to mine and Marcelle's. We are more alike than we are different from today's immigrants and first-generation Americans.

The majority of new immigrants will continue this proud tradition of hard work, the drive toward prosperity, and embracing the values that make America great. They will someday tell their children and grandchildren of their own immigrant histories, as Marcelle and I learned from our parents and our grandparents. The bill we consider will continue to cycle growth and renewal. It will improve on many aspects of our immigration system.

The bill before us contains measures that are important to many Vermonters. I have a provision that takes an important step toward restoring privacy rights to millions of people who live near the northern border by injecting some oversight into the decisionmaking process for operating Federal checkpoints and entering private land without a warrant far from the border.

The bill contains significant measures to assist dairy farmers and other Vermont growers who have long relied on foreign workers and are going to need them in the future. It contains a youth jobs program proposed by Senator Sanders to help young people gain employment. It contains a measure I proposed to make sure that no Canadian citizen traveling to Vermont to see a family member will ever be charged a fee for crossing our shared and long and wonderful border.

It contains an improvement to the visas used by nonprofit arts organizations around the country, such as the Vermont Symphony Orchestra that invites talented foreign artists to perform in America. It contains measures to improve the lives and future of refugees and asylum seekers who call Vermont home.

It contains improvements to the H-2B program to help small businesses. It contains a measure to ensure that the job-creating E-B5 program be made permanent so the State of Vermont and other States can continue the great work that is being done--in our State, done to improve Vermont communities.

This is a bill that will help Vermont families and businesses alike. So I discuss this legislation today in the context of my personal history. I do it to take a moment to remind all of us that immigration is about more than border security. It is about more than politics. It is about the lives and hopes and dreams of human beings. It is about those who go on to do great things in America. It is about American communities that benefit from immigration.

That has been our history; it should also be our future. As I said before, the legislation before us will help write the next great chapter in America's history of immigration. I see the distinguished ranking member on the floor.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 11:30 a.m. Wednesday, June 26, all postcloture time on the Leahy amendment No. 1183, as modified, be considered expired; that the pending amendment No. 1551 be withdrawn; that if a budget point of order is raised against the Leahy amendment No. 1183, as modified, during its consideration, and the applicable motion to waive is made, that at 11:30 a.m., the Senate then proceed to vote on the motion to waive the budget point of order; that if the point of order is waived, the Senate proceed to vote on the Leahy amendment No. 1183, as modified; that upon the disposition of the Leahy amendment, the Senate proceed to the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the committee-reported substitute, as amended; that if cloture is invoked, it be considered as if cloture had been invoked at 1 a.m., Wednesday, June 26; and, finally, that the majority leader be recognized following the cloture vote, if cloture is invoked.

I have no objection.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, and section 4(g)(3) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to

waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the pending bill and amendments, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I agree with the President that climate change represents one of the greatest challenges of our time, but it is also a challenge uniquely suited to our strengths as a country. Our scientists, researchers, universities and entrepreneurs stand ready to design and build new, less polluting energy sources. Vermont's and our country's farmers and forestland owners stand ready to grow renewable fuels. American businesses will innovate and develop new energy technologies that will reduce pollution and grow our economy with jobs that cannot be shipped overseas. Our workforce stands ready to modernize our power plants and retrofit our buildings to meet 21st century efficiency standards.

I stand ready to support the President, and Vermonters want to do our part. The important goals the President has laid out today will create jobs, save lives and protect and preserve our treasured natural resources for future generations.

No single step can accomplish the goals that President Obama has presented today, but we must begin now, and take these critical first steps together. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to address these threats and be responsible stewards of the earth. Just as any Vermonter who has hiked the 200 miles of Vermont's beautiful Long Trail can tell you, the journey begins with a commitment to reach a goal, and a first step in that direction.

Climate change is not a far-off or remote challenge. The impacts are overtaking us today around the globe and

in Vermont. In the past 2 years, hurricanes Irene and Sandy devastated the Northeast, while huge swaths from Texas to the Midwest have been gripped in a historic drought, and tornadoes have raked the heartland.

We can no longer willfully ignore these impacts or continue to deny the facts: The science is clear and definitive that human-induced climate change is happening and it is happening rapidly. We are obligated to reduce carbon emissions, and efforts to do so have the support of the American people.

Not only is the science clear, but the human and economic costs of climate change are hitting home. The severe weather events of just the past 2 years have caused damages in the United States in excess of $188 billion and left more than 1100 people dead. If we do not act now then the toll is sure to mount, with ever more destructive and deadly weather pounding our coasts, parching our Nation's agricultural center, and rising sea levels threatening our coastal communities. If we do not act now, the devastating impacts of climate change will only get worse.

But climate change is not just about weather disasters. For instance, we also have seen asthma rates double in the past 30 years, and our children and grandchildren will only suffer more asthma attacks as air pollution worsens. We already reduced smog and acid rain and have set limits for mercury, lead, and arsenic. It is time to set a limit on carbon pollution that causes climate change and assaults the public health.

The President's proposal will allow the United States to take further important steps toward the environmental quality and good jobs that will come with a cleaner and safer energy future. We can act now so that future generations--our children and grandchildren--will know that we took the steps that helped make their world safer and cleaner.

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

In answer to my friend from Florida, who has been a friend for decades and knows the coastal area far better than anyone else, the more secure we make the land border for those who want to have illegal entry into the United States, the more they are going to look for other ways. Water is one of them.

The distinguished Senator from Florida has seen everything from boat lifts on through coming into his State. Without naming the countries, we know them all. So that is long way around of saying ``of course.''

Mr. President, I would note that there are some in this body, I am sure, who want no immigration bill. I get the feeling that is a smaller and smaller group. I imagine they would love to just keep killer amendments going for weeks and weeks and hope the bill might die.

On the other hand, we have some very legitimate requests made on both sides of the aisle. I have been told that some of the ones we might want to bring up that we would pass probably unanimously, the other side will not allow them to come up unless we allow these other amendments.

I would hope that during the next 2 days both sides would allow the distinguished ranking member and me to sit down and go through and accept--as we normally do on a bill such as this--a package of amendments that are acceptable.

I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be equally divided.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Is it not a fact that the first amendment that was brought up was a bipartisan one of Senator Hatch's and mine? Shortly thereafter, the Senator from Iowa came with an amendment. Following the normal courtesy done, I allowed mine to be set aside so he could bring up his, but isn't it a fact that when we asked if we could set that aside for some noncontroversial amendments on either side, he told me he could not?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as if in morning business, without delaying or affecting the time of the cloture vote today.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be equally divided.

Would the Senator yield for a question?

The Senator is probably aware of the fact that we have a large number of amendments that were from both Republicans and Democrats. We suggested that they are all acceptable, could probably be adopted by a voice vote, both these Republican and Democratic amendments, but that has been rejected by the other side. Is the Senator aware of that?

I might ask another question. The Presiding Officer has an amendment involving women that would be easily accepted, but we cannot get that agreement. The Senator has been here a long time in both bodies. It is my recollection--is it correct at least in the past--that when we have a group like that, both sides should come together and accept them. Is that the normal practice?

I appreciate that. The Senator from New Jersey has the floor. I appreciate him coming here and saying this. Nobody in this body of either party has worked harder and more diligently than the Senator from New Jersey on comprehensive immigration reform.

Madam President, at 5:30 p.m. today the Senate is going to vote on the modification to the Leahy amendment, which is the package that was put together by Senators Hoeven and Corker. The distinguished senior Senator from New York who has led

the so-called Gang of 8 in putting this bill together has just spoken on the floor, as will, I believe, the distinguished majority whip, who is also on the floor.

As I indicated on Friday when I spoke about this, this is not the amendment I would have drafted. I think every one of us, if we drafted the bill, would have drafted it differently. Republicans demanded these aggressive border measures to secure their support for the overall legislation. And while it means spending an enormous amount of money, because their amendment will increase Republican support by spending this money for this historic, comprehensive legislation, I will support it. Ultimately, the comprehensive legislation is most important.

I appreciate that this package includes a provision Senator Murray and I worked on that takes an important step toward restoring privacy rights to millions of people who live near the northern border. Over the past decade, the Department of Homeland Security has periodically set up a Border Patrol vehicle checkpoint nearly 100 miles from the Canadian border in Vermont. Many Vermonters have questioned whether this is an effective border security measure or whether it is just a waste of money. Some have wondered why we are doing it when we are 100 miles from the friendliest border any country has ever known.

My provision will make significant progress in addressing that checkpoint by injecting oversight into the decisionmaking process for operating checkpoints so far from the border. While this is an important step in the right direction, I am disappointed that the version of the Hoeven-Corker amendment is limited to the northern border, and I will continue to work on this issue so that all Americans can have their privacy rights protected. Most of us appreciate our privacy rights and don't like to be stopped for no particular reason.

Today's vote for cloture on this Republican package is a vote for bipartisan support for comprehensive immigration reform. It is a vote in favor of taking the bold steps needed to confront the current situation and give the many millions of people living in the shadows the opportunity to come into the lawful immigration system. I applaud those Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, who have come together to get us here. Now is the time for this whole body to come together in support of fixing a broken immigration system that hurts all of us. It stifles our economy and keeps our families apart. We have gotten to this point through compromise, but we have not compromised on the core of this legislation that is intended to set so many on the path to become full and lawful participants in American life. And in that spirit of compromise and cooperation, which was fostered through almost 140 amendments that were agreed to by bipartisan votes in the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will support this amendment and urge my colleagues to also support this amendment.

Regular order.

Mr. President, for more than a decade the government's ability and authority to gather information and electronic communications data about those suspected of, or connected to, potential terrorists has greatly increased. You only need to read the newspaper or listen to the news in order to realize how extraordinary this expansion has been. As an American, I believe that if the government is going to have such powerful authorities, it should only be if there is proper oversight, accountability, and transparency. We have to ensure that we maintain both our Nation's security and the fundamental civil liberties upon which our Nation was founded.

I have long been troubled by the expansive nature and scope of the USA PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act. There is not enough oversight and ability for Americans to know what their government is doing and be able to get into the debate of whether they want their government to do this. That is why I have consistently fought to include strong protections for the privacy rights and civil liberties of American citizens, as well as sunsets to help ensure proper congressional oversight. Nothing focuses oversight like knowing a law is about to come to an end. So I will introduce at the end of my remarks, along with a bipartisan group of Senators, the FISA Accountability and Privacy Protection Act of 2013.

In fact, those of us who are introducing this legislation go across the political spectrum. This is not a partisan issue--this is an American issue. This is an issue about wanting to know what our government is doing and why. As Americans, we have the right to know what our government does and why.

In each of the last two Congresses, I introduced legislation to improve and reform the powerful law enforcement tools of the USA PATRIOT Act while at the same time increasing judicial oversight, public accountability, and transparency. Both those bills were reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support, but Congress ultimately decided to extend all of these authorities, without any modifications or improvements, until 2015.

Likewise, when Congress considered reauthorizing the FISA Amendments Act last year, I pushed for a shorter sunset, greater transparency for the American people, and better oversight. I regret the Senate rejected these efforts to apply stricter oversight over these sweeping authorities.

The recent public revelations about two classified data collection programs have brought renewed attention to the government's broad surveillance authorities, but they also underscore the need for close scrutiny by Congress. The Director of National Intelligence has acknowledged that they are being conducted pursuant to section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act.

We have also raised questions about lax oversight by the National Security Agency, when a 29-year-old contract employee can walk off with huge amounts of data without being stopped. It is not enough for the National Security Agency to come here and say that they are doing this to protect the country. I want them to protect the things they are already holding. So the comprehensive legislation I am introducing today will not only improve the privacy protections and accountability provisions associated with these authorities, but it is going to strengthen oversight and transparency provisions in other parts of the USA PATRIOT Act.

In recent days, much attention has been rightly focused on section 215 of the PATRIOT Act and the bulk collection of phone call metadata by the National Security Agency and their inability to keep that from being stolen by a 29-year-old contract worker.

This measure will narrow the scope of section 215 orders by requiring the government to show both relevance to an authorized investigation and a link to a foreign group or power.

The bill also adds more meaningful judicial review of section 215 orders but strikes the one-year waiting period before a recipient can challenge a nondisclosure order for section 215 orders. Now the order comes in and you are told you can't talk about it. No matter whether it damages your business, your relations, or people you are supposed to protect, you can't talk about it for one year. That is a broad generalization of what the nondisclosure orders are. I think those orders should be changed. I think when we have these kinds of ``gag orders'' on Americans, you are going into a very dangerous area.

Moreover, this measure would require court review of minimization procedures when information concerning a U.S. person is acquired, retained, or disseminated pursuant to a section 215 order. This is a commonsense oversight requirement already required for other FISA authorities such as wiretaps, physical searches, pen register and trap and trace devices.

As I likened it before, we all understand that if a law enforcement agency gets a search warrant to go into your home and search for things, you usually know about it and are able to question that authority. Now if they are collecting things electronically, you don't know about it, you don't know what this is doing to your reputation, to your work, or anything else. We have to have more accountability.

The FISA Accountability and Privacy Protection Act will also reform and improve other authorities contained in the PATRIOT Act that, while

perhaps not a topic of recent public debate--and I will not go into some of those aspects here on the floor, also significantly impact the privacy rights of Americans.

Some of the things we can talk about, things such as national security letters, so-called NSLs, are used extensively by law enforcement and the intelligence community. They can be issued without the approval of a court, a grand jury, or a prosecutor. Most Americans would be amazed to know that authority exists. Frankly, in a State such as mine where people value their privacy, I think most Vermonters would be really concerned about it.

I propose applying a new sunset to the NSL authority. That would require Congress to look at it again and come up with a better idea, or it would end right there. I have long been concerned about the broad scope of these secret requests and the potential for expansive collection of sensitive information without appropriate limitations and a sunset provision would help to ensure proper accountability.

Just because we can go out and gather all of this information on Americans, often doing it secretly, doesn't mean we should. Some of us enjoy our privacy. Some of us like to think we are innocent unless proven guilty.

My bill would also address constitutional deficiencies regarding the nondisclosure or ``gag orders'' by finally allowing individuals to challenge these orders in court. You grow up hearing from everybody, Well, you can have your day in court. Actually, you don't get your day in court with these ``gag orders.''

The bill would also expand public reporting on the use of NSLs and FISA authorities, including an unclassified report on the impact of the use of these authorities on the privacy of U.S. persons. I have heard a great deal in the last few weeks from people not only in Vermont but elsewhere asking, Can't we have a report the American people can see-- not just those of us like myself who have access to classified material, but have an unclassified report on the impact of the use of these authorities on the privacy of Americans?

My bill will also address shortcomings in the FISA Amendments Act and apply improvements that I sought during last year's reauthorization debate in the Senate. The existing December 2017 sunset would be shortened to June 2015 to focus attention and ensure timely reexamination of how these authorities are being utilized.

The June 2015 sunset will also align with the PATRIOT Act sunset, allowing Congress--and in fact requiring Congress--to address all of these provisions at once, rather than a little piece here and a little piece there. This legislation will also increase accountability by clarifying the scope of annual reviews currently required by law extends to all agencies that have a role in developing targeting and so-called minimization procedures.

Finally--and I think this is extremely important--the bill seeks to increase oversight by requiring the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community to conduct a comprehensive review of the FISA Amendments Act and its impact on the privacy rights of all Americans.

These are commonsense, practical improvements to ensure that the broad and powerful surveillance tools being used by the government are subject to appropriate limitations, transparency, and oversight. The American people deserve to know how laws such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act are being used to conduct electronic surveillance, particularly when the surveillance is not just on those that we have reason to be suspicious of, but of all Americans--totally innocent Americans. The American people also deserve to know whether these programs have proven sufficiently effective to justify their extraordinary breadth. If you can collect billions of phone calls, and we have proven technologically you can do that, do we get anything out of it? Or, do we get our information about terrorists the old-fashioned way by actually talking to people, infiltrating terrorist groups, and so forth?

Let us make sure we are not doing something just because we can do it, regardless of how it impacts the rights of Americans. The enhanced layers of transparency, oversight, and accountability included in this legislation will ensure we are protecting national security without undermining the privacy rights and civil liberties of law-abiding Americans.

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

Mr. President, for more than a decade the government's ability and authority to gather information and electronic communications data about those suspected of, or connected to, potential terrorists has greatly increased. You only need to read the newspaper or listen to the news in order to realize how extraordinary this expansion has been. As an American, I believe that if the government is going to have such powerful authorities, it should only be if there is proper oversight, accountability, and transparency. We have to ensure that we maintain both our Nation's security and the fundamental civil liberties upon which our Nation was founded.

I have long been troubled by the expansive nature and scope of the USA PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act. There is not enough oversight and ability for Americans to know what their government is doing and be able to get into the debate of whether they want their government to do this. That is why I have consistently fought to include strong protections for the privacy rights and civil liberties of American citizens, as well as sunsets to help ensure proper congressional oversight. Nothing focuses oversight like knowing a law is about to come to an end. So I will introduce at the end of my remarks, along with a bipartisan group of Senators, the FISA Accountability and Privacy Protection Act of 2013.

In fact, those of us who are introducing this legislation go across the political spectrum. This is not a partisan issue--this is an American issue. This is an issue about wanting to know what our government is doing and why. As Americans, we have the right to know what our government does and why.

In each of the last two Congresses, I introduced legislation to improve and reform the powerful law enforcement tools of the USA PATRIOT Act while at the same time increasing judicial oversight, public accountability, and transparency. Both those bills were reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support, but Congress ultimately decided to extend all of these authorities, without any modifications or improvements, until 2015.

Likewise, when Congress considered reauthorizing the FISA Amendments Act last year, I pushed for a shorter sunset, greater transparency for the American people, and better oversight. I regret the Senate rejected these efforts to apply stricter oversight over these sweeping authorities.

The recent public revelations about two classified data collection programs have brought renewed attention to the government's broad surveillance authorities, but they also underscore the need for close scrutiny by Congress. The Director of National Intelligence has acknowledged that they are being conducted pursuant to section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act.

We have also raised questions about lax oversight by the National Security Agency, when a 29-year-old contract employee can walk off with huge amounts of data without being stopped. It is not enough for the National Security Agency to come here and say that they are doing this to protect the country. I want them to protect the things they are already holding. So the comprehensive legislation I am introducing today will not only improve the privacy protections and accountability provisions associated with these authorities, but it is going to strengthen oversight and transparency provisions in other parts of the USA PATRIOT Act.

In recent days, much attention has been rightly focused on section 215 of the PATRIOT Act and the bulk collection of phone call metadata by the National Security Agency and their inability to keep that from being stolen by a 29-year-old contract worker.

This measure will narrow the scope of section 215 orders by requiring the government to show both relevance to an authorized investigation and a link to a foreign group or power.

The bill also adds more meaningful judicial review of section 215 orders but strikes the one-year waiting period before a recipient can challenge a nondisclosure order for section 215 orders. Now the order comes in and you are told you can't talk about it. No matter whether it damages your business, your relations, or people you are supposed to protect, you can't talk about it for one year. That is a broad generalization of what the nondisclosure orders are. I think those orders should be changed. I think when we have these kinds of ``gag orders'' on Americans, you are going into a very dangerous area.

Moreover, this measure would require court review of minimization procedures when information concerning a U.S. person is acquired, retained, or disseminated pursuant to a section 215 order. This is a commonsense oversight requirement already required for other FISA authorities such as wiretaps, physical searches, pen register and trap and trace devices.

As I likened it before, we all understand that if a law enforcement agency gets a search warrant to go into your home and search for things, you usually know about it and are able to question that authority. Now if they are collecting things electronically, you don't know about it, you don't know what this is doing to your reputation, to your work, or anything else. We have to have more accountability.

The FISA Accountability and Privacy Protection Act will also reform and improve other authorities contained in the PATRIOT Act that, while

perhaps not a topic of recent public debate--and I will not go into some of those aspects here on the floor, also significantly impact the privacy rights of Americans.

Some of the things we can talk about, things such as national security letters, so-called NSLs, are used extensively by law enforcement and the intelligence community. They can be issued without the approval of a court, a grand jury, or a prosecutor. Most Americans would be amazed to know that authority exists. Frankly, in a State such as mine where people value their privacy, I think most Vermonters would be really concerned about it.

I propose applying a new sunset to the NSL authority. That would require Congress to look at it again and come up with a better idea, or it would end right there. I have long been concerned about the broad scope of these secret requests and the potential for expansive collection of sensitive information without appropriate limitations and a sunset provision would help to ensure proper accountability.

Just because we can go out and gather all of this information on Americans, often doing it secretly, doesn't mean we should. Some of us enjoy our privacy. Some of us like to think we are innocent unless proven guilty.

My bill would also address constitutional deficiencies regarding the nondisclosure or ``gag orders'' by finally allowing individuals to challenge these orders in court. You grow up hearing from everybody, Well, you can have your day in court. Actually, you don't get your day in court with these ``gag orders.''

The bill would also expand public reporting on the use of NSLs and FISA authorities, including an unclassified report on the impact of the use of these authorities on the privacy of U.S. persons. I have heard a great deal in the last few weeks from people not only in Vermont but elsewhere asking, Can't we have a report the American people can see-- not just those of us like myself who have access to classified material, but have an unclassified report on the impact of the use of these authorities on the privacy of Americans?

My bill will also address shortcomings in the FISA Amendments Act and apply improvements that I sought during last year's reauthorization debate in the Senate. The existing December 2017 sunset would be shortened to June 2015 to focus attention and ensure timely reexamination of how these authorities are being utilized.

The June 2015 sunset will also align with the PATRIOT Act sunset, allowing Congress--and in fact requiring Congress--to address all of these provisions at once, rather than a little piece here and a little piece there. This legislation will also increase accountability by clarifying the scope of annual reviews currently required by law extends to all agencies that have a role in developing targeting and so-called minimization procedures.

Finally--and I think this is extremely important--the bill seeks to increase oversight by requiring the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community to conduct a comprehensive review of the FISA Amendments Act and its impact on the privacy rights of all Americans.

These are commonsense, practical improvements to ensure that the broad and powerful surveillance tools being used by the government are subject to appropriate limitations, transparency, and oversight. The American people deserve to know how laws such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act are being used to conduct electronic surveillance, particularly when the surveillance is not just on those that we have reason to be suspicious of, but of all Americans--totally innocent Americans. The American people also deserve to know whether these programs have proven sufficiently effective to justify their extraordinary breadth. If you can collect billions of phone calls, and we have proven technologically you can do that, do we get anything out of it? Or, do we get our information about terrorists the old-fashioned way by actually talking to people, infiltrating terrorist groups, and so forth?

Let us make sure we are not doing something just because we can do it, regardless of how it impacts the rights of Americans. The enhanced layers of transparency, oversight, and accountability included in this legislation will ensure we are protecting national security without undermining the privacy rights and civil liberties of law-abiding Americans.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 24, 2013, at 5:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 24, 2013, at 3 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Curbing Prescription Drug Abuse in Medicare.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 24, 2013 at approximately 5:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I understand the Leahy amendment No. 1183 is now pending; is that correct?

Mr. President, I modify my amendment with the changes I have at the desk.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1551 to Amendment No. 1183, As Modified

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the distinguished majority leader, and I will be speaking further on this matter later in the coming week. I thank him and everybody who worked with him for getting us here.

I am reminded today that legislating is about making tough choices; it is not about standing on the sidelines and complaining that we can't get a perfect solution enacted. I have been privileged to serve in this great body for 38 years because of the trust of the people of Vermont. In my time here, those 38 years, I have rarely seen such commitment to an issue as I have seen over the last 6 months to comprehensive immigration reform.

I think of the dozens of witnesses who came before the Judiciary Committee, such as Jose Antonio Vargas and Gaby Pacheco, who called on the Senate to achieve bipartisan immigration reform. I think of the hours we spent, Republicans and Democrats alike, in the Judiciary Committee considering amendments and debating this bill. What was initially a proposal from the Gang of 8 became, through an extensive committee process, the product of a Group of 18. Since the bill was reported to the Senate floor, bipartisan talks have continued and the circle of Members supporting it has continued to grow.

I will speak next week more about those Members, but I hope my friend and neighbor from New York, Senator Schumer, will not be embarrassed when I mention something very few people know about him. He has a 10- pound battery on his cell phone. It is the only way he could keep making those calls that harass and nudge and move us, at all hours of the day and night. So I just gave away that secret. That is the way he is able to do it--that and the fact he hasn't slept for several weeks.

Senators have been negotiating for days, late into the night, trying to gain more Republican support for this important immigration reform legislation. Senators Hoeven and Corker put together an aggressive package that will add new Republican support to our bipartisan effort, and for that progress I am grateful. However, it is an understatement to say that this is not the amendment I would have drafted. I am disappointed in many parts of it. The modification to the Leahy amendment before us reads like a Christmas wish list for Halliburton.

I am sure there are Federal contracting firms high-fiving at the prospect of all of the spending demanded by some of our friends on the other side in this amendment. The litany of expensive services, technology, and hardware mandated by this package is combined with--the thing that bothers me--an inexplicable waiver of many of our normal contracting rules. That is a potential we must watch out for--for waste and fraud.

It is astounding that we have not learned the hard lessons we learned in Iraq. All of us should remember the disgraceful conduct demonstrated by some private companies in Iraq--companies that will now be seeking contracts here--which was uncovered by the work of the special inspector general for Iraq. I believe all of my friends, both Republicans and Democrats on this floor, will join with me in saying these border provisions are going to require significant congressional oversight, and I add oversight of the inspectors general. It is when the inspectors general looked into Iraq that we found out what was going on.

I worry that when many of my friends talk about border security, the high cost of these projects are absent from the discussion. Yet when we talk about programs that help children who live near the poverty line or people who need medical research for what otherwise would be an incurable disease, then suddenly fiscal concerns are paramount. I think we hear too much about spending money on one border rather than coming up with a comprehensive solution that takes pressure off that border.

This package is border security on steroids. Some are calling it a surge, and that military reference makes sense because it is going to militarize hundreds of American communities in the Southwest. But with a border surge--I say this as a compliment to my friends on the other side of the aisle--comes additional Republican support for the rest of the essential pieces to reunite families, provide a path to citizenship for millions, and spur significant job growth in our country. And that I do support, and I thank all of the Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, for helping to bring that about.

One of the reasons I stayed on as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is because of this once-in-a-generation chance for us to truly reform our immigration system. It is a tragic problem that calls out for a comprehensive solution. There are too many people, too many families kept apart because of our broken immigration system, and there are too many people living in the shadows who should be allowed to gain their citizenship. We cannot fail. We owe it to them--to people like Jose and Gaby and so many others--to get legislation passed.

So while I do not agree with many of the border demands, I will support this modification of my amendment because I am making the tough choice that it is better than not making progress toward passage of this critical bill. But I do not want anybody to mistake what I am saying--there are many, many areas where both Republicans and Democrats have come together, and that I applaud.

I yield the floor.