Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, this legislation has been pending on the floor since the beginning of last week. We should have started disposing of amendments during the first week the bill was on the Senate floor. But we have seen objection after objection by those who are opposed--and they are very much in the minority--to this legislation. They objected to proceeding to comprehensive immigration reform. That cost us several days. To show that they are a minority, we finally ended that filibuster so we could proceed to the bill with 84 Senators voting to proceed.

I realize some would rather not have any votes one way or the other. That allows someone to go home and say, whether they are for or against it, yes, I am working on that because I voted maybe. Well, is there any wonder why we are at such a low level of approval in the American people's eyes, the whole Congress? They expect us to vote yes or no. Sometimes you have to vote for something that is unpopular. Well, we are elected to 6-year terms. We are supposed to do that. We are supposed to represent over 300 million Americans, 100 of us. The American people do not want us to delay and delay so we do not have to vote, so we can go back home and say: Oh, I am on your side, no matter what your side is. No. They expect us to vote yes or no even though it may be controversial.

Last week and this week I have been working closely with the majority leader and Senator Grassley and others to make progress. We started voting on amendments in an orderly fashion, but we still faced objections. There have been 250 amendments filed to this bill. So far, we have considered 11--11 votes, endless delays. We could be spending months on it. The American people expect us to have the courage to vote yes or no.

A lot of Senators who are not on the Judiciary Committee have amendments. Some of these amendments are noncontroversial. Many have widespread support. There ought to be a way to just adopt those. Some of these amendments are controversial. Well, then, let's vote on them. In the Judiciary Committee, we considered a total of 212 amendments over an extensive markup, 35 hours of debate. More than half of the amendments considered were offered by Republican members of the committee. We adopted 135 amendments to improve this legislation. All but three were passed with both Democratic and Republican votes.

I hope Republicans will join me in making an effort to dispose of the many noncontroversial items. The amendments, including the managers' amendment, are noncontroversial. They have widespread support. They have been filed by Senators on both sides over the past two weeks, and many have already been discussed at length on the Senate floor. The package contains bipartisan amendments to improve oversight of certain immigration programs. It also contains non-controversial technical amendments.

I see the distinguished majority leader on the floor. I am going to yield the floor. I am going to speak on this further, but my whole point is that we have all kinds of noncontroversial amendments cosponsored by Republicans and Democrats alike, both Republicans and Democrats on the same amendment. We ought to be adopting them and not stalling because a stall says: I want to vote maybe. I do not want to vote yes or no, I want to vote maybe.

I have served in this body longer than any current Member. I have served here with nearly one-fifth of the Senators who have had the privilege of serving in the body since the beginning of the country. I have known great Republicans and great Democrats who must be wondering--in the past--what are we doing?

I yield the floor.

You know, I hear a lot of speeches that we should support family values, as both the Senator from Nevada and I do, but when you try to put it in a bill--that it is obviously a family value, protecting children--then we have an objection. Well, if you do not like the amendment, vote against it. Let's vote on it.

Mr. President, I support the tabling of the amendment. There may be some good parts in it, but most of it is bad. The billions of additional taxpayer dollars I cannot support, with all of the billions we already have in here.

The biggest reason I will not support it is because it imposes new unrealistic triggers. It says to people, we want to give you the pathway to citizenship, but, guess what. We are going to keep the door closed. You can pretend you are going to get citizenship, but we are going to make it impossible as we have a fully biometric entry-exit system at all air and seaports as a trigger.

Most airports will not be able to do this, certainly not the little airports many of us use to fly in and out. That is unrealistic.

I appreciate the effort the Senator from Texas has put into this amendment. But I must strongly oppose it.

This amendment would impose new, unrealistic triggers that must be met before the pathway to citizenship becomes a reality.

To take one example, the amendment includes a fully biometric exit system at all air and seaports as a trigger before those in provisional status can earn green cards. But this presents extensive technological and infrastructure challenges that could take many years to fully address. U.S. airports were not designed to accommodate immigration exit lanes, where biometrics could be collected.

This approach will not work. An attainable pathway to citizenship is a central component of this bill. It is how we will bring people out of the shadows so that we know who is here and can focus instead on who is dangerous--a critical step if we are serious about national security.

The triggers in this amendment will have the opposite effect. They are unrealistic. People will not come forward and register if they believe that they will remain in limbo.

In addition to making the triggers unattainable, the amendment also makes the pathway to citizenship unfair and irrationally difficult. It would make immigrants ineligible for Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status if they have been convicted of a single misdemeanor offense related to domestic violence and child abuse.

I know this may sound reasonable on its face and we all agree that domestic violence is unacceptable and that abusers should be punished for their crimes. I am concerned, however, that this amendment may have the unintended consequence of harming the very victims it seeks to protect.

When we considered a similar proposal in committee, more than 150 organizations who work with the victims of domestic violence expressed their concerns that such a measure would have a chilling effect on reporting, and could even lead to victims getting caught up in the criminal justice system. That's why the committee rejected the proposal.

The amendment would also dramatically increase the cost of the bill. It would require billions of additional taxpayer dollars be spent on the border each year. At some point, we must simply say that is too much. This amendment reaches that point.

This amendment does have some good provisions in it. It takes steps that would help facilitate cross-border travel and commerce by improving land ports of entry. I would welcome the opportunity to work with the Senator from Texas on a few of those proposals.

But overall, the amendment goes much too far, and I cannot support it.

I strongly oppose this amendment, and I would vote to table the amendment.

I object.

Madam President, I object.

Madam President, will the Senator, before he yields the floor, yield for a question?

Madam President, I believe the Senator is aware of this. I ask, does he know when we passed the farm bill last year by a huge bipartisan margin, and again this year, that on the Senate committee are several former chairs of that committee in both parties as well as a former Secretary of Agriculture, and we came together as Republicans and Democrats to pass a bill that saves $23 to $28 billion? I believe the Senator is aware of that.

Mr. President, I object.

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

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

Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. President, I object.

Would the Senator withhold, please.

Would the Senator yield?

Mr. President, the Senator has several excellent amendments which I support and agreed to.

We have given the other side over and over again a list of amendments that under normal circumstances would be agreed to in about 5 minutes by voice vote, including a number of the amendments of the distinguished Senator from Louisiana. I keep hoping we might do that.

We had more than 200 amendments in the Judiciary Committee that were voted on. Of those that were adopted, all but three passed with bipartisan votes. We demonstrated we were willing to do this on a bipartisan basis.

To assure the Senator from Louisiana--who is a wonderful Senator and dear friend--that I support these, I keep trying to get them accepted. I hope, after 2 weeks on this bill--and realizing we did the very extensive and open markup in the Judiciary Committee--that we can get to the point where we could start accepting a number of amendments-- both Democratic and Republican--that we all agree on, including those from the Senator from Louisiana.

I am sorry to interrupt her. But she has worked so hard on this. She has gotten bipartisan support. She has talked to all of us. At some point, she should be allowed to have her amendments.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, several Senators have mentioned this legislation has been pending on the Senate floor since the beginning of last week. Now we are here at the end of this week. If everybody here had been in favor of at least getting a vote one way or the other on the immigration bill, we would have started disposing of amendments during the first week the bill was on the Senate floor.

Unfortunately, there are some who do not want any bill, no matter what we write. They will have every objection to every amendment; they will use every delaying tactic possible. But they are a tiny minority. What we ought to do is show the majority--Republicans and Democrats-- who is for and who is against the bill. The people who object to it, they objected to proceeding to comprehensive immigration reform--that cost us several days. Then when we proceeded, we got 84 Senators who voted in favor of proceeding. That should tell the American people something.

This week I have been working closely with the majority leader and the ranking member, Senator Grassley, and others to make progress. But every time we try to bring matters up and get them passed we face objection. So far, there about 350 amendments that have been filed. In a week and a half we have gotten to 12. That is not progress. That is not. No wonder the American people wonder what is going on. If we continue at this rate, we are going to be singing Christmas carols as we come to the end of this legislation and we will have done nothing else. Some would like that. They would like to have this take up all the time. We do not do judges, we do not do the budget. The other side objects even going to a conference on the budget, which would have more Republicans on it than Democrats. What is this? If people are that opposed to government at all, to any form of democratic government, let them set up an alternative government. But this is ridiculous.

We have a system. The people who claim ``we are for the Constitution''--let the Constitution work. Let people vote up or down. This is important. It is long overdue legislation to repair our immigration system. Let's vote on it.

Senator Landrieu came to the floor last night. She came again today to talk about the delays we have had. I agree with her. Senators on both sides of the aisle worked hard on the amendments that were filed on this legislation. Senators who are not on the Judiciary Committee have been waiting for their opportunity to contribute to this bill.

Many of the amendments are bipartisan and ought to be heard. Many of the amendments are noncontroversial and have widespread support. Some of the amendments are controversial, but the amendments that have been proposed to me as noncontroversial all are intended to improve and strengthen this legislation.

In the past we would take them up quickly and vote them all through. Except we have some who give great speeches about worrying about people coming into this country, but they are determined not to let anybody into this country. The Presiding Officer and I--and virtually everybody in this body--would not be here if these had been the rules when our parents or our grandparents or our great grandparents came to this country.

Let's vote. The Judiciary Committee considered a total of 212 amendments over an extensive markup that involved more than 35 hours of debate, and we made sure it was public. We streamed it live. People all over the Nation watched it. About half of the amendments considered were offered by the Republican members of the committee. I went back and forth, one Democrat, one Republican, one Democrat, one Republican. We adopted over 135 amendments to this legislation all but three were bipartisan votes.

We set a gold standard. This body should do the same thing the 18 of us did.

I filed a managers' amendment that combines a number of the noncontroversial amendments that have been offered to this legislation. I hope the Republicans and Senator Grassley, the Judiciary Committee's ranking member, will join with me in disposing of these noncontroversial amendments. We did it in the committee. Incidentally, when the bill finally came out of the committee, it was by a bipartisan vote.

Look at what the managers' amendments includes. They are noncontroversial and have widespread support. They have been filed by Senators on both sides of the aisle over the last 2 weeks. Many have been discussed at length on the Senate floor. We improve oversight of certain immigration programs.

There is an amendment from the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, Senators Carper and Coburn, to establish an office of statistics within the Department of Homeland Security. There is an amendment by Senator Cochran and Senator Landrieu, chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, that requires increased reporting on the EB-5 program. There is an amendment by Senator Heller requiring DHS to report to Congress about an implementation of the biometric exit program that was added to the bill in committee by Senator Hatch.

There are bipartisan amendments offered by Senators Kirk and Coons to support the naturalization process for Active-Duty members in the Armed Forces who receive military awards. Who could possibly disagree with that? It contains a trio of amendments championed by Senators Coats, Landrieu, and Klobuchar to ease the process for international adoptions. There is an amendment by Senator Hagan to reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Program.

Incidentally, that program had begun as a bipartisan program. There is an amendment by Senator Nelson to provide additional research for maritime security. Chairman Carper has an amendment that requires DHS to submit a strategy to prevent unauthorized immigration transiting through Mexico.

These are sensible, noncontroversial amendments. If we had a rollcall vote of these amendments, they would get 90 or 95 votes, or even 100 votes. Well, let's vote on them. Let's adopt them. Let's show the American people we actually care about having immigration reform.

The Senator from Louisiana and others are right. We ought to take up those amendments where we share common ground. We so often get bogged down by divisive amendments. Why not join together and pass those that we agree on--Republicans and Democrats? If we do that, we might actually fix our immigration system.

The one thing everybody agrees on is that the system does not work today. We are trying to fix it. Let's at least bring up, vote on, and pass those provisions that both Republicans and Democrats support--more importantly, the American people support--and get them passed.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Nevada getting this unanimous consent agreement and that it was agreed to. I commend the majority leader for the work he is doing. It is a slow process. It would be an awful lot slower if it wasn't for the very accomplished hand of our majority leader.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

Mr. President, again, I thank the majority leader.

I have heard some talk tonight from some saying they wished there would be votes.

I finally have given up handing long lists of amendments we are prepared to vote on to the Republican side, both Republican and Democratic amendments. Each time, that was rejected. Most of them were amendments with no controversy, Republican and Democratic alike, and would have been accepted.

I think back to the debate we had in the Senate Judiciary Committee where we actually voted on amendments. We brought up 140 or so. All but two or three passed with bipartisan votes. About 40 Republican amendments passed on bipartisan votes. Yet when it came onto the floor of the Senate, my friends on the other side, time and time again, objected to bringing up amendments that would pass unanimously, both Republican and Democratic.

I suppose in one case we have some who don't want any immigration bill, and others are probably waiting for a cloture vote.

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

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer and my neighbor.

I thank the Senator from Utah for his kind words about the markup in the Senate Judiciary Committee. As he knows, we had some 300 amendments before the committee and I brought them up and had them all filed online a week and a half prior to our committee meeting. I called them all up one by one, Republicans and Democrats. We debated them and voted on them. But the difference between what we were able to do in the committee--incidentally, we voted on something like 140 or so amendments. About 40 of them were Republican amendments that were accepted. Of the 140 amendments accepted, all but 2 or 3 were accepted with both Democratic and Republican votes. Then we passed the immigration bill by a bipartisan majority. The difference is people cooperated when we would bring them up.

I have given the Republicans a list of 20 or 30 amendments, both Republican and Democratic amendments, most of which could be accepted by voice vote, if they would allow us to bring them up. There are actually 29 of them. They won't let us bring them up. Talk about regular order in voting.

We have Begich amendment No. 1285 regarding the Social Security Administration. We have Cardin-Kirk No. 1286, providing social service agencies the resources to help holocaust survivors. We have Carper- Hoeven-Pryor No. 1408, preventing unauthorized immigration transiting through Mexico. We have Carper-Coburn No. 1344, establishing a DHS office of statistics; amendment No. 1255, as modified; a Coats amendment No. 1288, changing alternatives to detention programs. We have Feinstein-Kirk No. 1250, authorization for the use of the CIR trust fund; Hagan No. 1386, reauthorizing the bulletproof vest program--something that began as a bipartisan bill, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, a Republican from Colorado and myself. We have Heinrich No. 1342, extending hours of operation at port of entry in Santa Teresa, NM; another requiring DHS to submit a report to Congress on how the 10 airport biometric exit pilots impact wait times. We have Kirk-Coons No. 1239, allows certain naturalization requirements be waived for U.S. Air Force active-duty members to receive military awards; Klobuchar-Coats, adoption amendment; a Landrieu No. 1338 about E-Verify; Landrieu- Murkowski No. 1302, public-private partnerships expanding land ports of entry; Landrieu-Cochran No. 1383, requires reports on EB-5 programs. We have Landrieu No. 1341, requiring DHS to attempt to reduce detention daily bed rate; Leahy-Hatch No. 1183, and I mention that one only because it is cosponsored by the senior Democrat and the senior Republican. Leahy No. 1454, a technical amendment; Leahy No. 1455, EB-5 clarification; Murray-Crapo No. 1368, prohibiting the shackling of pregnant women absent extraordinary circumstance in all DHS detention facilities. Gosh, there is one we can pass unanimously. We have Nelson No. 1253, providing additional resources for maritime security; Reed 1223, increasing the role of public libraries in the integration of immigrants; Schatz-Kirk No. 1416, GAO report on visa processing; Shaheen-Ayotte No. 1272, expands the INVEST visa program; Stabenow- Collins No. 1405, requiring a number of administrative changes; Tom Udall No. 1241, expanding the Border Enforcement Security Task Force; Tom Udall No. 1242, $5 million available to strengthen border infectious disease surveillance.

We have a few others. These are all totally noncontroversial, both Republican and Democrat. Normally--and I hate to sound like here is the way we did it in the old days, but normally on a bill of this complexity, we take all the noncontroversial Republican and Democratic amendments, lump them together, voice vote them, and then start voting on the controversial ones.

There is the list we gave the other side. We said they are all noncontroversial, can't we accept them? It takes 10 minutes, 20 minutes, to do a unanimous consent request and accept them all. They said no. They said, We have to have controversial amendments. Well, why not do the noncontroversial ones and then set up a time for boom, boom, boom, controversial ones. We did it in the committee and it worked.

I see my colleague from Utah. I will yield to him without losing my right to the floor.

I would say to the distinguished Senator from Utah, I made such suggestions to the Republican side. They were unable to accept it, or unwilling. That was not objected to by the distinguished Senator from Utah but by some on his side who have said they won't accept any agreement, and that is why we are here.

It makes me think when the distinguished Republican came to the floor and asked the majority leader: What is holding up the judge from my State?

The leader said: Every single Democrat is prepared to vote for your judge.

And we said, Let's have a unanimous consent and let's bring up the judge that the Republican Senator asked for and we will have a vote on it right now. Now, to his credit, that Republican Senator was perfectly willing to, but he was told no by his leadership. And weeks and months and a long time later we finally voted on that judge. I think it was a unanimous vote.

But we have cleared every one of the amendments I have talked about, Republicans and Democrats. There are 28 or 29 amendments. If we are really serious, let's pass them all and then take whatever is left that is controversial and take them up one by one. I am happy to vote all night long, all day tomorrow, an hour equally divided on each vote. But the fact is, with the distinguished majority leader's concurrence, we proposed 29 or more amendments that could be done in 2 minutes and we were told by the other side they

don't want to bring up any of these amendments.

We have to understand, a majority of Senators in both parties--we had 84 who voted for cloture--want to finish this bill. The fact is there are a small number on the other side who want no immigration law and they will try to stall it forever.

I talked about us all being here in December singing Christmas carols. I hope we can avoid that for two reasons. One, it would be a terrible way to legislate. Secondly, now that we have TV coverage in the Senate--something that wasn't here when I came here--for the American people to be subjected to my singing voice, it would be cruel and unusual punishment. I believe it is something that is prohibited by the Constitution. And as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I would hate to be the one to violate the Constitution by inflicting such cruel and unusual punishment.

So I would suggest as an alternative we listen to the distinguished majority leader, the senior Senator from Nevada: Get an agreement, go forward, vote on all of these things, avoid my friend from Utah and others having to hear me sing Christmas carols as we wrap this thing up, and do as we did in the Judiciary Committee.

I think it was about this time, the Senator from Utah may remember, or maybe it was a little bit earlier than this, the last evening we were voting and we finished. I had provided so-so pizza in the back room. I think some liked it, some didn't, but it encouraged everybody to finish and we finished. We passed out a bill to the floor.

I see the distinguished majority leader has arrived.

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

Mr. President, I urge all Senators who say that deficit reduction is important to them to join us and support the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Our bill will help us achieve nearly $1 trillion in deficit reduction according to the estimation of the Congressional Budget Office, CBO.

To those Senators who are interested in growing our economy, I say join us and support this bill that CBO expects will lead to hundreds of billions of dollars of economic activity, and help increase our gross domestic product by 5.4 percent when its full impact is reached over the next 20 years. If we are able to pass and implement a fair program reflective of American values, the beneficial economic impact should be even better. I think passing comprehensive immigration reform is the right thing to do and will be good for the economy and the country.

One of the themes of the Senator from Alabama throughout committee consideration of the bill and now before the Senate is his contention that bringing undocumented people out of the shadows and into the economy as full participants will hurt the wages of American workers at the lowest end of the pay scale. I disagree because I believe that wages are already being depressed by the reality that undocumented workers are often forced to work for subminimum pay and that already depresses wages and job opportunities for other American workers.

The recent CBO report uses conservative assumptions to estimate that once immigration reform is implemented, average wages would actually increase and be one-half of 1 percent higher than they would be if we did not pass it. That is their estimate of the longer term impact of the legislation.

It is also notable, if not surprising, that opponents of comprehensive immigration reform focus on isolated numbers without acknowledging the overall impact of the bill. Senators need to remember that CBO has estimated that the bill will decrease Federal deficits by nearly $1 trillion when implemented.

Moreover, the CBO report explains that the limited period in which average wages are estimated to be slightly lower is ``primarily because the amount of capital available to workers would not increase as rapidly as the number of workers.'' It concludes, however, that ``the rate of return on capital would be higher under the legislation . . . throughout the next two decades.''

Further, CBO expressly notes that it does not mean to imply what opponents contend; namely, that current U.S. residents would be worse off, on average, under the legislation. Finally, CBO concludes that the legislation would result in raising the productivity of both labor and capital and boost the amount of capital investment in this country.

That is not what the Senator from Alabama said on Wednesday afternoon. Instead, he incorrectly asserted a number of points. In particular, he said that the CBO report indicates that the comprehensive immigration reform legislation ``will reduce the wages of American citizens.'' That is not true. The CBO report does not say that. I wish the Senator from Alabama were more precise in his analysis and his statements.

The CBO cost estimate and report go out of their way to note that the initial estimate is on ``average wages'' and ``do[es] not imply that current U.S. residents would be worse off, on average, under the legislation.'' The estimate is a ``difference between the averages of all U.S. residents under the legislation.''

The report continues to clarify that ``the additional people who would become residents under the legislation would earn lower wages, on average, than other residents, which would pull down the average wage.'' That does not mean that current U.S. citizens will be paid any less than they are currently making or be worse off, which is what the Senator from Alabama was implying.

Here is what I think this all means. Those coming out of the shadows, who had been exploited and working for less than even minimum wage, would as registered provisional immigrants be expected to make more than they had been making.

Adding them to the work force would nonetheless mean that ``average wages'' for the working population would be slightly lower at the outset of the implementation period. Average wages do not mean that any American citizen's wages will be ``reduce[d],'' which is what the Senator from Alabama said. He made it sound like passing the bill will mean a pay cut for citizens. That is not true.

Moreover, the Senator from Alabama either stopped reading or stopped caring when the report went on to say that average wages would increase thereafter. The report goes on to say that ``over time, as capital investment increased,'' ``average wages would be higher than under current law.'' Opponents of the bill should stop trying to use scare tactics and misleading statements to stir up emotional reactions against the bill and against the undocumented immigrants we should be encouraging to come out of the shadows and fully join American life.

America protects the most vulnerable among us, which include survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking, as well as pregnant women, and children. I am proud to report that there are strong protections in this bill for the treatment of kids caught in the broken immigration enforcement system.

I know that some may want to punish the 11 million undocumented people currently living here in the shadows, and the bill specifically contains a steep financial penalty for that purpose. The undocumented also need to go to the back of the line and take classes to learn English, but those tough steps are not enough for those who oppose the bipartisan bill.

While some may want to look like they are being even tougher on the undocumented population, we all need to consider how further punitive measures may deter people from coming out of the shadows. When kids and pregnant women are put at risk by an urge to punish millions of people who are trying to make a better life for their families, we do not live up to our American values and we do not make this a safer country.

I oppose amendments to deny or delay protections for the millions of people who will apply for Registered Provisional Immigrant status. If we are talking about programs that literally feed the hungry or provide vaccinations to children, we hear lectures about how we cannot afford those programs in the current fiscal environment. It is a cruel irony that when some on the other side of the aisle consider programs that help kids who live near the poverty line, they raise fiscal concerns, but they have no problems with massive Government expenditures on fencing and expensive visa exit technology and programs.

The bill we are considering prohibits immigrants in Registered Provisional Immigrant status from access to any Federal means-tested public benefit programs throughout their time in provisional status.

In addition, as a result of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, even qualified Legal Permanent Resident immigrants must wait an additional 5 years after they are legalized to receive any safety net protections. Most immigrants who are working their way through the path to legalization will have to wait anywhere from 13 to 15 years before having any access to safety net programs. Given the penalties and fines they have to pay, it is wrong to further deny these low-income families protections that some may desperately need.

I have seen similarly harmful amendments on the issues of the Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC, and the Child Tax Credit, CTC, which were designed to help hardworking families who pay taxes. The Earned Income Tax Credit is available only to families that are working and paying payroll taxes. The EITC is a core part of the tax code--like any other tax credit that adjusts Federal tax liability based on families' circumstances. It is not, and has never been considered a ``public benefit.''

Yet, amendments have been filed seeking to deny the EITC for all registered immigrants for eternity, even after the individual has obtained legal status. One of these amendments was offered during the committee process, and was rightly rejected. I will strongly oppose any amendment to deny hard working families from participating in these tax credits when they are paying payroll taxes.

While CBO estimates refundable tax credits may total $127 million during the first 10 years after passage of comprehensive immigration reform, those tax credits are more than fully offset by the payment of taxes. Remember that revenues increase and the deficit decreases under our legislation. So when those tax credits are seen in the context of the increased taxes being paid, they are offset by increased revenues every year.

Some who oppose comprehensive immigration reform had raised the false alarm that this immigration bill would drain our Social Security Trust Fund and bankrupt our Medicare system. Nothing could be further from the truth. In an editorial dated June 2, 2013, entitled ``A 4.6 Trillion Dollar Opportunity,'' The Wall Street Journal stated unequivocally that ``Immigration reform will improve Social Security's finances.'' That has now been substantiated by the CBO report, which estimates decreases in the off-budget deficit every year beginning in 2014 following enactment this year.

The goal of this bill is to encourage undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows so we can bring them into our legal system and so everyone will play by the same rules. If we create a reason for people not to come out and register, then it will defeat the purpose of this bill. Amendments that seek to further penalize the undocumented will encourage them to stay in the shadows. These steps will not make us safer and will not spur our economy.

One of the many reasons we need immigration reform is to ensure that there is not a permanent underclass in this great Nation. As part of this effort, we need to continue the vital safety net programs that protect children, pregnant women, and other vulnerable populations. Too often, immigrants have been unfairly blamed and demonized as a drain on our resources. The facts are--as substantiated by the CBO report--just the opposite. Immigrants reinvigorate and grow our economy.

The bottom line is that enacting our judiciary committee reported bill will significantly reduce our budget deficit and grow the economy. It is the smart thing to do and the right thing to do.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Manchin, Pryor, and Reed, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up en bloc: Manchin No. 1268, Pryor No. 1298, and Reed No. 1224.

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

Mr. President, I oppose this amendment because it would significantly delay even the initial registration process.

I have said the pathway to citizenship should not be a false promise. We either make the promise or we don't. It should be attainable, not something that is always over the next mountain.

The drafters worked long and hard to reach a bipartisan agreement. Similar efforts to this were defeated on a bipartisan basis in the Judiciary Committee's consideration because we did not want to make the legalization program inappropriately subject to partisan disputes.

This amendment would simply remove a real promise of citizenship. I oppose the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I am encouraged that later today the Senate will vote on four amendments to the

immigration bill. I hope it is an indication that the Senate is going to begin considering amendments in an orderly and efficient way. I would encourage Senators to file their amendments and come to the floor and offer them. I share the majority leader's wish to make progress on this important legislation. We know the immigration system is sorely in need of reform and now is the time to do it.

Last week we should have disposed of several amendments to the bill before us, but in the Senate, progress requires cooperation. Instead of going forward and actually having Senators take positions and vote up or down, we had objection after objection from the opponents of this legislation who put the Senate in the unenviable position of having the public see us as voting ``maybe.'' We know why people get discouraged with Congress. They don't realize that there is a small number of people blocking any voting. They expect us to vote for or against something. There are going to be political costs to voting for or voting against, but they expect us to vote. It comes with the job. And when people objected to proceeding to comprehensive immigration reform, that cost us several days. Again, the American public sees the Senate as voting ``maybe.''

Well, I am one Senator willing to take the consequences of voting for or against something and not voting ``maybe.'' I think most Senators would prefer voting yes or no and not maybe. In fact, when we finally ended the filibuster and were able to vote to proceed to the bill, 84 Senators stood up and said, Let's proceed. They voted in favor of doing so. They know they are going to risk some criticism for doing that, but at least they had the courage to do it.

We still have a tiny handful of Senators who keep on trying to say vote ``maybe.'' It is frustrating because that initial delay was not necessary. It didn't add to the debate. It simply hindered the Senate's consideration of the bill. In fact, opponents of the bipartisan legislation have even objected to adoption of the Judiciary Committee substitute bill despite widespread praise from both Republicans and Democrats for how we conducted our proceedings and our overwhelming bipartisan vote to get the bill to the full Senate. This was a bill where almost all of the amendments accepted in Committee were on a bipartisan vote. Additionally, over 40 amendments offered by Republicans were accepted by the Committee.

So the votes against even proceeding to this bill indicate that at least 15 Members of the minority are so dug in against comprehensive immigration reform that they are unalterably opposed. They want us to vote maybe to duck the issue. They want to duck the issue. That is not a profile in courage. Those few Senators should not further obstruct the 84 Senators who appear ready to go to work on this bill and vote for or against it. The question is whether the other Members of the Republican Party will follow those who seek to delay the Senate's consideration or whether they will work with us to pass a good bill.

More than 100 amendments have been filed to the comprehensive immigration reform bill, but over the last 2 weeks we have only voted once on the motion to table an amendment that already had been defeated in committee.

I began this process with a spirit of cooperation. I offered an amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Hatch, the senior member of the Republican Party, to strengthen our visa program for visiting foreign artists who come to perform with nonprofit arts organizations. I was then willing, following the procedures and the cooperation I have known here in the Senate for decades, to give consent to Senator Grassley to set aside my amendment and offer his amendment relating to border security. Unfortunately, when we asked for the same courtesy so that other Senators, Republicans and Democrats alike, could call up additional amendments, there was an objection. I was expected to cooperate and follow this normal procedure, but the second we asked for the other side to do that, it was: Oh, no, we can't do it. The rules have to be different.

Then when the majority leader offered a unanimous consent request to have votes on the Grassley amendment and others in a manner that Senate Republicans, including the Senate Republican leader just a few days ago, had been insisting on with respect to amendments and legislation and nominations, the minority objected.

Then when the majority leader asked that a group of amendments offered by Senators on both sides of the aisle be allowed to be offered, again there was an objection.

So it is with great effort that we are trying to work through amendments. But like the minority's treatment of nominations, even consensus amendments are being objected to and delayed. We have been unable to get an amendment by the Republican Senator from Nevada pending because there is Republican objection to a Republican Senator offering an amendment which is probably going to pass with overwhelming support from both Republicans and Democrats. It is no wonder public approval of Congress in last week's Gallup poll is 10 percent. At a time when so many Americans are in favor of reforming the Nation's broken immigration system, we in the Senate should be working together to meet that demand and reflect what the people of America want.

The President spoke again last week about immigration reform and what is needed. The President had with him a broad cross-section of those supporting our efforts from business and labor to law enforcement, clergy, and from both sides of the aisle. Just as I worked with President Bush in 2006 when he supported comprehensive immigration reform, I urge Senate Republicans to work with us now. Senators from both sides of the aisle worked together to develop this legislation-- Senators from both sides of the aisle.

Then Senators from the Judiciary Committee considered it and adopted more than 130 amendments to improve it, almost all of them with a bipartisan vote. Senators from both sides of the aisle need to come together now to defeat debilitating amendments and pass this legislation.

One of the procedural disputes that has delayed us is the application of what the Majority Leader has termed the ``McConnell rule'' to provide for 60-vote thresholds for adopting amendments. Senate Republicans are now objecting to their leader's own rule. That is why the Majority Leader on Thursday took the action left to him to move forward on the bill and moved to table Senator Grassley's amendment, which I had worked with Senator Grassley to allow him to offer and have pending. I am glad that we have now gotten agreement to treat Republican and Democratic amendments equally.

Though I am encouraged that we will begin voting on this legislation, I believe that the Senate should not have gone down the path insisted upon by the Republican leader when he demanded supermajority votes of 60 by the Senate on so many amendments and legislation. He has made everything subject to a filibuster standard. I have tried to have the Senate act by a majority vote, which is the practice I would favor. Unfortunately, the Republican leader has prevailed over and over again and Republicans have insisted on 60-vote thresholds for the adoption of amendments. That is the rule on which they have insisted. And late last week, the minority objected to its own rule when the Majority Leader asked for consent to set votes for the Senate. They cannot insist upon a rule for one side and not the other. They cannot have it both ways. I understand why the Majority Leader has asked for the same consents on which the Republican leader has insisted for years, following what the Majority Leader has termed the ``McConnell rule.''

What Republican Senators were insisting upon is a simple majority threshold for their amendments and a 60-vote barrier for Democratic Senators' amendments. That is not fair. I am ready to work with the Majority Leader, the Republican leader, the Chairman and ranking member of the Rules Committee, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and other interested Senators on reestablishing majority rule in the Senate except in special circumstances. That new arrangement will have to follow our work on this bill and not delay or be applied retroactively to undermine comprehensive immigration reform.

With respect to Senator Grassley's amendment, which was tabled last

week, I note that it was tabled by a bipartisan majority of 57 votes. That included five Republican votes. Of course, this was an amendment, as most people knew on the floor, that had been considered by the Judiciary Committee. It was defeated by a bipartisan vote of two-thirds of the committee. It would have undermined and unfairly preempted the pathway to earn citizenship. It would have made the fates of millions seeking to come out of the shadows to join American life unfairly depend on circumstances way beyond any control they might have. I am troubled by proposals that contain false promises in which we promise citizenship, but it is always over the next mountain: We are going to give citizenship, but not quite yet. It is almost like Sisyphus pushing that rock up the hill. I want the pathway to be clear and the goal of citizenship attainable. It can't be rigged by some elusive precondition. We should treat people fairly and not have their fates determined by matters beyond their control. No undocumented American controls the border or is responsible for its security. The things that are being set up to kill this bill would have blocked my grandparents from coming to Vermont from Italy and would have blocked the parents and grandparents of many of the Senators now serving in the Senate. So I don't want people to move out of the shadows or to be stuck in some underclass. Just as we should not fault the DREAMers who were brought here as children, we should not make people's fates and future status dependent on border enforcement conditions over which they have no control.

This legislation is far too important to be subject to needless delay, and I hope the votes today signal an end to the delay we have experienced until this point. We should have a healthy and vigorous debate on the bill reported out of the Judiciary Committee. Central to that debate is considering and voting on amendments.

One of the bright moments so far during this debate, in the view of the American public, was the way Republicans and Democrats alike worked in the Senate Judiciary Committee to get this bill before us in the full Senate. The public debate was followed online by thousands of people. We brought up amendments, we debated them, and then we voted on them. Nobody voted maybe; they voted yes and they voted no. The American public responded overwhelmingly, saying this was the way to go, and I think Republicans and Democrats on the floor justly praised the way it was done in the Judiciary Committee. There were 18 of us working together, and I compliment the distinguished Senator from Iowa for working with us. Although he disagreed with the outcome, we worked together to get that debate finished. We went into the evenings and we worked all day for a couple of weeks and we got it done. But now all 100 of us should stand here and do the same thing. Demands for different voting standards for Republican and Democratic amendments are wrong.

A couple of weeks ago, the distinguished Republican leader spoke at an event. I was sitting there. He knew I was following him to speak. He said, On a matter of this importance, all amendments should be subject to a 60-vote threshold. Well, I have had a different view in the past, but I said, OK then, we will do that for both Democratic and Republican amendments, but let's get it done. Having different standards for Republicans and Democrats is not how the Judiciary Committee considered this legislation. It is also not how the majority of Americans expect us to conduct the debate. The tactics of last week undermine the Senate's work on this important bill. Those who have already decided to oppose this bill at the end of the Senate's consideration can vote against it, but they should not dictate the work of 84 Senators who are ready to go forward and vote.

I call on all Senators to please file their amendments to this bipartisan legislation by Thursday and work with us, if need be, on Friday and Saturday and through the weekend, so we can make much-needed progress on this legislation without further delay.

Mr. President, is there a division of time?

I reserve the remainder of my time.

I yield to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. President, I have spoken with the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Grassley. I understand we are able to agree to the Landrieu amendment by voice vote.

I ask unanimous consent that the 60-vote threshold with respect to the Landrieu amendment be waived.

Mr. President, I urge the question.

Before we do that, I wish to remind everybody the next vote will be a 10-minute vote.

I agree that we need to better track visa overstays. But a fully biometric entry-exit system at all air, sea, and land ports of entry is the kind of unrealistic trigger we can't adopt. Implementation of this amendment would be prohibitively expensive and cause all kinds of delays.

In the Judiciary Committee we adopted an amendment offered by Senator Hatch which presents a more reasonable approach.

I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1198

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as always, I commend the distinguished majority leader for his words on immigration reform. We are on this bill because he set this time aside, and he, like I, hopes we will soon be voting on amendments. There are a lot of potential amendments, just as we had 300 amendments filed in the Senate Judiciary Committee. We were able to work through them. I know we do not expect that many here on the floor, but I know the leader has set aside time for us, and I know his commitment to get this filed and fulfilled, and I joined him on that. I think the time is right. We either do it now or we are never going to do it.

So I thank the leader again.

Mr. President, there are two matters I want to talk about. Before I speak about the immigration, I want to speak about the Supreme Court ruling today in Alleyne v. the United States, that facts underlying mandatory minimum sentences must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

I continue to believe our criminal justice system's reliance on mandatory minimum sentences is a mistake.

In March, Senator Paul and I introduced the Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013, to give Federal judges greater flexibility in sentencing in cases where a mandatory minimum is not only unnecessary but often counterproductive.

Mandatory minimum sentences imprison some people, particularly nonviolent offenders, for far longer than is just or beneficial.

Looking at it just from a fiscal point of view, as a result of mandatory minimums the Federal prison population has exploded in recent years. This has placed enormous strain on the Justice Department's budget. That means less money for Federal law enforcement, less aid to State and local law enforcement, less funding for crime prevention programs that make us safer, plus less money for prisoner reentry programs.

Sentencing reform has worked at the State level. The Justice Safety Valve Act is an important step toward the sentencing reform our Federal system desperately needs. I applaud the Supreme Court decision today in Alleyne.

I have long felt that when legislative bodies pass mandatory minimums, it is a feel-good response to crime, but it does no good.

Judges need discretion. Every case that comes before a judge is different. Now, do judges always get it right out of the tens of thousands of cases that come before them? No. Of course not. Sometimes they might not, but they are far more often right than wrong. They are always more right than a legislative one-size-fits-all approach. Mandatory minimum laws are one size fits all. Anybody who has spent time in the criminal justice system either as a defense counsel or as a prosecutor or as a judge knows that one size does not fit all. We should get rid of all of our mandatory minimums, have real standards

that judges will follow, and then let the individual men and woman who sit on the bench make the decision.

Mr. President, as we continue yet another week debating S. 744, the bipartisan immigration bill, I hope we can start making some progress on this vital legislation. The American people know what some of us have to realize: our immigration system is broken; it has to be fixed. If we are going to have an effective solution to this complex problem, we cannot focus simply and effectively on one border or any single aspect of our immigration system. We have to address all parts of our immigration system.

Of course, we all agree we have to secure our borders, but we must also reduce the incentives people have to come here illegally or to overstay their visas. It means we have to implement E-Verify so employers stop hiring those who are not authorized to work here. We also have to eliminate the extensive backlogs that tear so many families apart.

We have to respond to the needs of American farmers and technology companies and investors who create jobs in this country. We also need to remember that our history and the future of the Nation is based on immigrants when we are considering the legalization process provided in this bill.

Almost 4 weeks ago the Judiciary Committee voted to report this immigration reform bill with a strong bipartisan vote of 13 to 5. I understand the Congressional Budget Office's task is a difficult one, with complex, comprehensive measures such as this. We expected their score today. I hope they are able to get the official score early tomorrow so we can move forward and complete consideration of this bill. As we closed out each title during our extended mark ups, we forwarded the text to the CBO, so they have had the border security title and the non-immigrant visa title for well over a month. I look forward to reviewing their analysis when we receive it.

In addition to the CBO score we are awaiting, we should also credit the extensive testimony the Judiciary Committee received from former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin. He testified that immigration reform ``will increase the productivity growth in the U.S. economy, the fundamental building block of higher standards of living, and generate larger economic growth numbers than we have seen in recent years.''

Specifically, he estimated reform of this nature would increase growth so that ``the overall growth rate and real GDP would rise from 3 percent to 3.9 percent, on average annually, over the first 10 years. The upshot of GDP after 10 years would be higher--a difference of $64,700 per capita versus $62,900 per capita. This higher per capita income of $1,700 after 10 years is a core benefit of immigration reform.''

According to Holtz-Eakin this increase in growth would also help lower our deficit. In fact, he testified that ``Over 10 years an additional 0.1 percentage in average economic growth will reduce the federal deficit by a bit over $300 billion. In this context, the rules imply that over the first 10 years of the benchmark immigration reform the federal deficit would be reduced by a cumulative amount of $2.7 trillion.''

Also, the Judiciary Committee received powerful testimony from Grover Norquist. He was asked repeatedly by those who oppose this bill whether legalizing immigrants would lead to a drain on our safety net. His response was that just the opposite would occur. He testified that ``immigrants come at the beginning of their working lives, which means they will have years to pay taxes and contribute to the economy before being eligible for entitlements.'' Furthermore, Mr. Norquist testified that ``Some argue that the fiscal burden of America's entitlement programs make more immigration cost prohibitive. That is a false choice. That our entitlement systems are broken is not an argument for less immigration; it is an argument to fix our entitlement systems.''

It is not every day that I agree with these very conservative commentators and advocates, but I was happy to invite them to testify before the committee and commend their analysis to Members who are concerned about the approximate `cost' of reforming our broken immigration system. All the valid testimony--all the valid testimony we received says that fixing the broken immigration system adds to our bottom line in a beneficial way.

One of the hallmarks of this country is how we have historically treated those who have sought shelter and refuge on our shores. America protects the most vulnerable among us. This includes survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking, as well as pregnant women and children. I am proud to report that there are strong protections in this bill for the treatment of children caught in the broken immigration enforcement system.

In the Judiciary Committee we added to those protections for domestic violence and human trafficking victims. But the Judiciary Committee also considered and rejected, as it should, several amendments that sought to take away protections in our safety net programs for immigrants who need them. I know some may want to punish the 11 million undocumented people currently living here in the shadows. The bill specifically contains a steep financial penalty for that purpose. The undocumented also need to go to the back of the line and take classes to learn English, but even these tough steps are not enough for those who oppose this bipartisan bill.

While some may want to look like they are being even tougher on the undocumented population, we all need to consider how further punitive measures may deter people from coming out of the shadows. When children and pregnant women are put at risk by an urge to punish millions of people who are trying to make a better life for their families, as my grandparents did, we do not live up to our American values and we do not make this a safer country. Last week, Senator Hatch filed several amendments to deny or delay protections for the millions of people who apply for registered provisional immigrant status. I will oppose all of those amendments. They are not fair. They deter people from coming forward to register. That makes us all less safe.

It is a cruel irony when my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about border security, the high cost of implementing their proposed measures is always absent from the discussion. But when we are talking about programs that help children who live near the poverty line, well, then suddenly fiscal concerns are paramount.

So if we are talking about a specific type of fencing, or a new expensive exit program, our concern is supposed to trump any hesitancy about government spending. Spend whatever it takes. Spend whatever it takes, and at the same time dramatically increase the boon that their proposals give to the government contracting firms that make money off of them.

However, if we are talking about programs literally to feed the hungry or provide vaccinations to children, vaccinations which make us all healthier because of the disease it stops, then we hear lectures as to how we cannot afford those programs in the current fiscal environment. Maybe some of these contractors with their lobbyists ought to be covering those programs. Maybe we will hear more need for them.

I would say from a moral point of view, as an indication of how great a country we are, we ought to be saying: Hungry children, children who can be saved from childhood illnesses, it is in our moral core as a Nation, the most wealthy, powerful Nation on Earth to help them. The bill we are considering prohibits immigrants in registered provisional immigrant status from accessing Federal means-tested public benefit programs throughout their time in provisional status.

In addition, as a result of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, even qualified legal permanent resident immigrants must wait an additional 5 years after they are legalized to receive any safety net protections. We have already put all kinds of barriers up here.

So including the 5-year bar, most immigrants who are working their way through the path to legalization will have to wait anywhere from 13 to 15 years before having any access to safety net programs. Given the penalties and the fines they have to pay, it is wrong to further deny these low-income families protection that some may desperately need.

We have seen amendments that try to designate an immigrant a ``public charge'' and thus deportable simply because the individual's child received health or nutrition benefits. If a child is an American citizen, would we really want that child's parents deported simply because the child needed food stamps while the parent was in provisional status?

We should protect the children of immigrants and their families. In 2009, President Obama signed the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA). Under Senator Rockefeller's strong leadership, CHIPRA included a provision which allowed states the option to waive the five-year bar to the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and Medicaid for lawfully residing immigrant children and pregnant women. Today, 25 states offer this safety net for children and 20 states offer it to pregnant women. My own state of Vermont offers this protection to both pregnant women and children. I commend my friend, Chairman Rockefeller, for allowing states the option to immediately provide CHIP and Medicaid for immigrant children and pregnant women.

Like so many harsh amendments that have been filed with respect to the safety net, I have seen similarly harmful amendments on the issue of the earned income tax credit, the EITC, or the child tax credit, CTC, which were designed to help hard-working families pay their taxes.

The earned income tax credit is available only to families who are working and paying payroll taxes, not some kind of giveaway. They have to be working and paying taxes. EITC is a core part of the Tax Code like any other tax credit that adjusts Federal tax liability, based on family circumstances. It is not, and it has never been, considered a ``public benefit.'' But some amendments have been filed seeking to deny the EITC for all registered immigrants for eternity, even after they have obtained legal status. One of these amendments was offered during the committee process, and was rejected.

Similarly, the Child Tax Credit was enacted in 1998 for the benefit of U.S. citizens or U.S. resident alien children under the age of 17. In practice, it first requires that an individual work and pay her taxes. If the person meets this basic requirement, undocumented or otherwise, the Child Tax Credit may be claimed for the benefit of the U.S. citizen or U.S. resident alien child. Undocumented immigrants who use an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number are able to benefit from the Child Tax Credit since they work and pay taxes. However, there are numerous workers who are lawfully present that also use Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers to pay taxes. During the Committee markup, one senator proposed an amendment that would have denied the Child Tax Credit to low-wage workers who pay their taxes using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number. This overreach would have harmed numerous U.S. citizen children and their families. Fortunately, this unduly harsh amendment was rejected by the Committee as well.

I would strongly oppose any amendment to deny hard-working families from participating in these tax credits when they are paying payroll taxes. We know that these credits are vital to working families and we have a moral obligation not to harm children in our communities and their families by denying their families these credits.

We give huge tax benefits and loopholes to millionaires. Yet a hard- working family, should they not be entitled to these tiny benefits? They are dwarfed by what we give to millionaires. Let's start paying attention to the people who need our help.

Some who oppose comprehensive immigration reform have raised the false alarm this immigration bill would drain the Social Security trust fund and bankrupt our Medicare system. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Wall Street Journal and Commentary are two publications that almost never agree with my positions. In fact, the opposite is true. In an editorial dated June 2, 2013, entitled, ``A $4.6 Trillion Opportunity,'' the Wall Street Journal states unequivocally that ``Immigration reform will improve Social Security's finances''--not take away from it, but will improve it. In fact, it notes that

The Senate bill raises immigration quotas by about 500,000

a year over the next decade (to reduce backlogs) and by about

150,000 a year after that. Thus the net effect of the

immigration bill on the long-range Social Security trust fund

``actuarial balance will be positive,'' Mr. Goss recently

wrote in a letter to Senator Marco Rubio. These higher post-

reform levels of immigration would mean an extra $600 billion

into the trust fund to about $4.6 trillion over 75 years.

It is true that ``Immigration won't solve all of Social Security's financial problems.'' However, it said ``immigrants unquestionably narrow the funding gap. More generous immigration is a wise step toward solving the entitlement crisis in Washington.''

I ask unanimous consent to have the editorial printed in the Record.

Likewise, an article dated June 6, 2013 in Commentary debunks the myth that immigration would bankrupt the Medicare trust fund. The title of the article is notable: ``Message to Congress: Immigrants Pay More Than Their `Fair Share' of Medicare.'' According to the article, ``it turns out that closing the borders would deplete Medicare's trust fund.'' In fact, ``over a seven-year period, immigrants paid in $115.2 billion more than they took out. Meanwhile, native-born Americans drained $28.1 billion from Medicare. In other words, immigrants are keeping Medicare afloat. And it's non-citizen immigrants who make the biggest contribution. On average, each one subsidizes Medicare by $466 annually.'' It concludes that ``Scare- mongering about the cost of immigration has become a staple of political debate . . . But our findings indicate that economic fairness, not just morality, argues for immigrants' rights to care.''

The goal in this bill is to encourage undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows so we can bring them into our legal system and then do what all Vermonters tell me, what Americans everywhere tell me: Play by the same rules. I mean, that is a sense of fairness we should agree to. If we create a reason for people not to come out and register, this is going to defeat the purpose of this whole bill. It makes all of this work: the hearings, the hours and days and weeks of markups and consideration, makes it for naught. Amendments that seek to further penalize the undocumented would just encourage them to stay in the shadows. These steps are not going to make us safer and they are not going to spur our economy.

One of the many reasons we need immigration reform is to ensure there is not a permanent underclass in this Nation. As part of this effort, we need to continue the vital safety net programs that protect children, pregnant women, and other vulnerable populations.

Too often immigrants have been unfairly blamed and demonized as a drain on our resources. Facts prove the opposite.

We are a nation of immigrants. As I have said many times before, my maternal grandparents came from Italy to Vermont seeking a better life. They created many jobs when they did that. They sent their children to college and saw their grandson become a Senator.

My wife's parents came from the Province of Quebec, speaking French. She was born here. Her family contributed to the economy of Vermont, and our whole region, with the jobs they created. They raised three wonderful children at the same time.

We are a nation of immigrants. Let's fight to maintain our tradition of protecting the vulnerable. Let's allow the American dream to be a reality for all those who are in this country because they want to be in this country.

Time is not now divided from one side to the other, is it?

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on the question of nominations, I attended President Obama's announcement of the nomination to the DC Circuit a couple of weeks ago. I have heard some of my colleagues on the Republican side being very critical of the President for not sending nominations for judicial vacancies to the Senate, even though when he has, some of them have held them up for 6 months to a year before they then vote overwhelmingly for the person. They hold him up and then say: Why don't you send more people? Frankly, a lot of people say: Why should I spend 6 months or a year waiting while they hold me up? Now the President has sent nominees for the multiple vacancies that continue on the DC Circuit. So the same Senators who are complaining that he was not sending up nominees now say he is sending up too many. My friends on the other side of the aisle are saying: You are not sending up enough, but you are sending up too many. I think maybe the American people see the fallacy of that argument.

Having been unfairly criticized in connection with the nomination of Judge Srinivasan, with some Senate Republicans saying: Why didn't you get him up here earlier for a vote, even though Republicans had asked us to delay him, I have learned from that that when cooperating and delaying at their request, I am going to get criticized for delaying, so going forward I will be making every effort to schedule prompt hearings for these impressive nominees, each of whom received the highest possible rating of ``well qualified'' from the nonpartisan ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. We have three people with the highest possible rating.

The last time we had someone for the DC Circuit, even though Republicans kept saying: Let's delay, keep delaying--and I did so at their request--and they criticized me for delaying, here we are and we are going forward with them.

Frankly, I voted for a lot of President Bush's nominees. In fact, I would say I voted for 97 or 98 percent of all Republican nominees over 38 years. I voted for more Republican judicial nominees than any Republican presently in the Senate. There is no Republican in the Senate who has voted for more Republican nominees of Republican Presidents, nominees for judgeships, than I have. So I do not need a lecture about holding things up.

I have consulted with the ranking Republican on the committee and informed him that I plan to notice the first hearing for July 10. That gives plenty of time for everybody to read all the nominee's materials. We will be on vacation for the Fourth of July week; they can read it during vacation. That will be 36 days since the nominations and on a slightly slower timeline than we followed for the more recent confirmation of the nominee to the Eighth Circuit. I am delighted to include the nomination of Patricia Millett of Virginia, who should have broad bipartisan support, in our July 10 confirmation hearing.

It is disappointing that the same Republican Senators who said during the George W. Bush administration that the DC Circuit should have 11 filled judgeships and who voted to confirm President Bush's nominees for the 9th, 10th and 11th seats, now that there is a Democratic President of the United States in the White House, they say no,

no, they should not be filled. It seems this President has to be treated differently than the previous Presidents. I am not sure why the difference, but that is what they want. It is disappointing as well that Republican Senators I have helped fill circuit vacancies with nominees from their home states, over opposition from their own Republican Senate caucus, are ready to tow their party's line when it comes to the D.C. Circuit.

Following President Obama's reelection, Senate Republicans are even proposing to eliminate those D.C. Circuit judgeships legislatively. Their claims of concern about the caseloads of the Second and Eleventh Circuits but not the most overburdened Ninth Circuit are difficult to reconcile with their votes for President Bush's D.C. Circuit nominees. As one scholar at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution has said, this ``fooled no one who was paying attention.''

I cannot help but wonder where Senate Republicans' concern about the caseload of the Second Circuit was when they needlessly delayed the confirmation of Gerard Lynch for three months; when they needlessly delayed the confirmation of Raymond Lohier for seven months; when they needlessly delayed the confirmation of Susan Carney for five months; when they unfairly stalled the nomination of Judge Robert Chatigny and then needlessly delayed the confirmation of the next Connecticut nominee, Chris Droney, for four months; or when they needlessly delayed the confirmation of Denny Chin for four months and forced the Majority Leader to file cloture to get a confirmation vote.

I wonder where their concern about the caseload of the Eleventh Circuit was when they needlessly delayed the confirmation of Beverly Martin for four months, or when they needlessly delayed the confirmation of Adalberto Jordan for four months and forced a cloture vote before his confirmation. I am prepared to help alleviate concern about the caseload of the Eleventh Circuit by scheduling a hearing on the nomination of Jill Pryor, a ``well qualified'' nominee from Georgia to the Court, if her home State Senators would return their blue slips indicating that they do not object to her nomination going forward.

The American people are not fooled. Senate Republicans are now playing by a different set of rules. Politifact has looked at their argument that President Obama is trying to ``pack'' the D.C. Circuit, and rated it ``false.'' It goes on to note that the Republican bill to eliminate D.C. Circuit judgeships ``comes closer to the kind of structural meddling typical of court packing than does Obama's approach.'' In the last 30 years, Republican presidents have appointed 15 of the last 19 judges named to the D.C. Circuit. Now that these three vacancies exist during a Democratic presidency, Senate Republicans are trying to use legislation to lock in their partisan advantage, and thwart the will of the American people, who elected Barack Obama. Even conservative columnist Byron York has tweeted: ``It doesn't strike me as `packing' to nominate candidates to available seats.''

The Washington Post's ``Fact Checker'' blog has also looked at the arguments about the D.C. Circuit's caseload that Senate Republicans are using to justify their attempt to eliminate three seats on that court, and has judged them worthy of two ``Pinocchios,'' meaning: ``Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people.''

Senate Republicans should know that their argument about the D.C. Circuit's caseload is misleading. While they claim expertise in the matter because of a hearing they held in 1995, the fact is that their current claims fly in the face of the actual testimony from that hearing. They are fond of citing the testimony of Judge Laurence Silberman, a Reagan appointee, that he felt the 12th seat was not necessary. What Senate Republicans do not mention is that Judge Silberman believed that 11 judgeships was the proper number on that Circuit, and that the notion that the D.C. Circuit should have only nine judges was ``quite farfetched.'' Judge Silberman also said that ``the unique nature of the D.C. Circuit's caseload'' means that it is not directly comparable to the other circuit courts. Even though their own witness contradicted them, 18 years later Senate Republicans continue to make their partisan argument. In addition, we eliminated that twelfth seat years ago.

In its April 5, 2013 letter, the Judicial Conference of the United States, chaired by Chief Justice John Roberts, sent us recommendations ``based on our current caseload needs.'' They did not recommend stripping judgeships from the D.C. Circuit but stated that they should continue at 11. Three are currently vacant. According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, the caseload per active judge for the D.C. Circuit has actually increased by 46 percent since 2005, when the Senate confirmed President Bush's nominee to fill the eleventh seat on the D.C. Circuit. When the Senate confirmed Thomas Griffith-- President Bush's nominee to the eleventh seat--in 2005, the confirmation resulted in there being approximately 121 pending cases per active D.C. Circuit judge. According to the most recent data, there are currently 177 pending cases for each active judge on the D.C. Circuit, 46 percent higher.

Further, concerns about low caseloads did not bother Senate Republicans voting this past February to confirm a Tenth Circuit nominee from Oklahoma, giving that Court the lowest number of pending appeals per active judge in the country. It did not bother Senate Republicans voting this past April to confirm an Eighth Circuit nominee from Iowa, giving that Court the lowest number of pending appeals per active judge in the country. Yes, lower than the D.C. Circuit. I do not recall seeing any bills from Senate Republicans to eliminate the Oklahoma and Iowa judgeships.

This falls into a pattern that we have seen from Senate Republicans over the past 20 years. While they had no problem adding a twelfth seat to the D.C. Circuit in 1984, and voting for President Reagan's and President George H.W. Bush's nominees for that seat, they suddenly ``realized'' in 1995, when a Democrat served as President, that the Court did not need that judge. Judge Merrick Garland was finally confirmed in 1997 after President Clinton was reelected but Senate Republicans would not act on his final two nominees to the D.C. Circuit.

In 2002, during the George W. Bush administration, the D.C. Circuit's caseload had dropped to its lowest level in the last 20 years. During that Republican administration, Senate Republicans had no problem voting to confirm President Bush's nominees to the ninth, tenth and eleventh seats. These are the same seats they wish to eliminate now that Barack Obama is President, even though the Court's current caseload is consistent with the average over the past 10 years. Even on its own terms, it is apparent that this argument has nothing to do with caseload, and everything to do with who is President. When Senate Republicans get serious about ensuring our Federal courts are adequately staffed, I am more than happy to work with them on a long- overdue judgeship bill. But this selective concern about the D.C. Circuit, and the fact that in 2008 the minority blocked a Judiciary Committee hearing on ``The Growing Need for Federal Judgeships,'' does not reflect such seriousness.

I urge those Republicans who say first that the President is not moving fast enough and then, when he does move, say he is moving too fast, to reconsider their approach, work with the President, and let's have fair hearings on these three nominees and go forward with them. If we do, I am confident we will agree that they are well-qualified judicial nominees.

Restrepo and Gonzales Nominations

Last week the Senate failed to complete action on one of the three nominations pending for vacancies in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Even though Senate Democrats had expedited three of President Bush's nominees to that court, confirming them all by voice vote just 1 day after they had been reported by the Judiciary Committee, Senate Republicans refused to do the same for President Obama's nominees. They refused even though all three had the bipartisan support of their home State Senators and the

unanimous support of all Republicans on the Committee. Two were confirmed last week but one was held back. After waiting 98 days for a vote, Judge Alejandro and Judge Schmehl were confirmed unanimously last week. Today, after another unnecessary delay, the Senate will finally vote on the nomination of Judge Luis Restrepo, more than 100 days after he was voted out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously. When the Senate is finally allowed to act, we will confirm a judge to fill a 4- year vacancy.

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania is a court that needs judges. Even with today's vote, it will remain nearly 20 percent vacant. The Senate should be taking swift action to fill these kinds of vacancies, not delaying for no good reason. This obstruction does a disservice to the people of Pennsylvania, and to all Americans who depend on our Federal courts for justice.

I regret that I must correct the Record, again. The recent assertion by Senate Republicans that 99 percent of President Obama's nominees have been confirmed is not accurate. President Obama has nominated 237 individuals to be circuit or district judges, and 195 have been allowed to be confirmed by the Senate. That is 82 percent, not 99 percent. By way of comparison, at the same point in President Bush's second term, June 17 of his fifth year in office, President Bush had nominated four fewer people, but had seen 215 of them confirmed, which is 20 more confirmations. The truth is that 92 percent of President Bush's judicial nominees had been confirmed at the same point, 10 percentage points more than have been allowed President Obama. That is an apples to apples comparison, and it demonstrates the undeniable fact that the Senate has confirmed a lower number and lower percentage of President Obama's nominees than President Bush's nominees at the same time in their presidencies.

I noted at the end of last year, while Senate Republicans were insisting on delaying confirmations of 15 judicial nominees that could and should have taken place then, that we would not likely be allowed to complete work on them until May. That was precisely the Republican plan. So when Senate Republicans now seek to claim credit for their confirmations in President Obama's second term, they are inflating the confirmation statistics. The truth is that only nine confirmations have taken place this year that are not attributable to those nominations Senate Republicans held over from last year and that could and should have taken place last year. To return to the baseball analogy, if a baseball player goes 0-for-9, and then gets a hit, we do not say he is an all-star because he is batting 1.000 in his last at bat. We recognize that he is just 1-for-10, and not a very good hitter. Nor would a fair calculation of hits or home runs allow a player to credit those that occurred in one game or season to the next because it would make his stats look better.

If President Obama's nominees were receiving the same treatment as President Bush's, today's votes would bring us to 215 confirmations, not 197, and vacancies would be far lower. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has noted that it will require 31 more district and circuit confirmations this year to match President Bush's 5-year total. Even with the confirmations finally concluded during the first 6 months of this year, Senate Republicans have still not allowed President Obama to match the record of President Bush's first term. Even with an extra 6 months, we are still 10 confirmations behind where we were at the end of 2004.

Luis Restrepo has served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania since 2006. Prior to his appointment to the Federal bench, he was a founding partner of Krasner & Restrepo, a firm that focused on civil rights and criminal defense work. He has also worked as an adjunct professor at Temple University, Beasley School of Law and the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Before co-founding his own law firm, Judge Restrepo was an Assistant Federal Defender for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, an Assistant Defender for the Defender Association of Philadelphia, and a Law Clerk for the ACLU's National Prison Project. The nonpartisan ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has unanimously rated Judge Restrepo ``well qualified.'' He is supported by both his home State Senators, Senator Casey and Senator Toomey.

Kenneth Gonzales has been the United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico since 2010. He served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in that office for the previous 11 years. Prior to working with the U.S. Attorney's Office, Kenneth Gonzales spent 3 years as a Legislative Assistant to former Senator Jeff Bingaman and 2 years as law clerk to the Honorable Joseph F. Baca of the New Mexico Supreme Court. He also serves in the United States Army Reserve as a Judge Advocate General. Kenneth Gonzales has the support of his home State Senators, Senator Tom Udall and Senator Martin Heinrich, and was reported unanimously from the Judiciary Committee 2 months ago.

I want the Senate to make real progress on filling judicial vacancies so that the American people have access to justice. In President Bush's first term, half of his consensus district nominees waited 18 days or fewer for a vote, so we know the Senate is capable of swift action on nominations. There is no reason consensus nominees like Judge Restrepo and Kenneth Gonzales should have to wait 2 or 3 months for a vote. The only reason for these delays is because of Republican refusal to allow votes. These nominees deserve better, and the American people deserve better.

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

Mr. President, I ask that any time remaining be yielded back.

Mr. President, I request the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, this amendment offered by my friend from Iowa would significantly delay even the initial registration process for the 11 million undocumented individuals in the country.

We believe the pathway to citizenship has to be earned, but it also has to be attainable. This amendment would further delay a process that already would take at least 13 years.

Bringing these 11 million people out of the shadows is not only the right thing to do, it is the best thing to do. It keeps our country safe. We would know who is here. We could focus our resources on who poses a threat.

This amendment is also unnecessary. We have been pouring billions of dollars into border security in recent years. We have made enormous progress since the last immigration bills in 2006 and 2007, and this bill takes even more steps.

As I said yesterday on the floor, I am going to have to oppose this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, does the other Senator from Pennsylvania wish to say something?

I just want to make sure I have time prior to the vote at noon. How long does the Senator from Pennsylvania wish to speak?

OK. Then, Mr. President, I simply ask unanimous consent that there be 4 minutes for the Senator from Vermont at the conclusion of the comments of the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Because these nominees are from his State, I will step aside and let the Senator go forward.

Mr. President, I appreciate the words of both Senators from Pennsylvania. I would note there are currently three nominations pending for vacancies in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. All three have the bipartisan support of their home State Senators. All three were reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee 3 months ago. Yet Senate Republicans are permitting votes on only two of them. They are forcing Judge Luis Restrepo to continue to wait for a vote even though he would fill a seat that has been vacant for 4 years.

I mention this because we talk about how things move during this President's tenure as compared to that of his predecessor. At the end of President Bush's second term, I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee and I expedited confirmations of three of his nominees to this same court--three, not just allowing two to go through, as my friends on the other side of the aisle are today--and not having to wait for months and months. Those three were confirmed by voice vote. So you know how long it took, we had reported them out of the Judiciary Committee the day before. They were confirmed along with 7 other district court nominees for a total of 10 that day. We got them out of committee and voted them by voice vote. But now we have seven judicial nominees on the calendar, and Republicans are only allowing us to vote on two of them.

This is just the latest example of Senate Republicans insisting that President Obama play by a different set of rules than they had for President Bush. It was perfectly fine to expedite President Bush's three nominees to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and to confirm them all on the same day, along with seven others. We had Democratic control of the Senate, and we moved them that way. But now with President Obama they refuse to proceed with the seven nominees who are pending on the Calendar. They will not even proceed with the three judicial nominees needed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

So let's not talk about how Presidents are treated. I am not sure what it is that is different about President Obama, but his nominees get delayed, delayed, and delayed, unlike--and I use Pennsylvania as an example--where we vote out three, unanimously, of President Bush's nominees on one day and confirm them by voice vote the next day, along with seven others. Here they are refusing to proceed with the seven

nominees on the Calendar. They will not even proceed with all three of the judicial nominees for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. There are currently seven vacancies on that court--seven. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania needs judges.

Like the two nominees we will be permitted to vote on today, Judge Restrepo has the support of his Republican home State Senator as well as every single Republican member of the Judiciary Committee. So let's not make him and the people of Pennsylvania wait.

Frankly, there is no good reason Nitza Quinones Alejandro and Jeffrey Schmehl should have waited this long for a vote. There is no good reason why, when half of President Bush's consensus district nominees waited 18 days or fewer after being sent to the Senate by the Judiciary Committee during his first term, these consensus nominees should have had to wait almost 100 days. This contributes to the unprecedented delays and obstruction of President Obama's consensus judicial nominees.

I read comments last week by Judge James Brady of the Middle District of Louisiana expressing concern about what has happened to the judicial confirmation process. Shelly Dick was confirmed this year to that court after months of delay, and the Advocate article noted the ``strain the empty judgeship had on a district overburdened with cases.'' Judge Brady was quoted saying of the confirmation process: ``It's just crazy, and we need to do something about that.'' I could not agree more. Judge Brady added that the delays in the process are ``driving away a lot of really good folks that would make excellent judges because they're saying, `I don't need to go through that process and be in limbo for 18, 20, 24 months.' That's something I'm very, very concerned about.'' We should all share that concern, especially Senators who are looking for district nominees to recommend to the President. I ask that this article, entitled ``Nomination Delays Hurting Courts, Federal Judge Says,'' be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

The recent assertion by Senate Republicans that 99 percent of President Obama's nominees have been confirmed is just not accurate. He has nominated 237 individuals to be circuit or district judges, and 193 have been confirmed. That is 81 percent. By way of comparison, at the same point in President Bush's second term, June 13 of his fifth year in office, President Bush had nominated four fewer people, but had seen 214 of them confirmed, or 92 percent. That is an apples to apples comparison, and it demonstrates the undeniable fact that the Senate has confirmed a lower number and lower percentage of President Obama's nominees than President Bush's nominees at the same time in their presidencies.

I noted at the end of last year while Senate Republicans were insisting on delaying confirmations of 15 judicial nominees that could and should have taken place then, and that we would not likely be allowed to complete work on them until May. That was precisely the Republican plan. So when Senate Republicans now seek to claim credit for their confirmations in President Obama's second term, they are falsely inflating the confirmation statistics. The truth is that only seven confirmations have taken place this year that are not attributable to those nominations they held over from last year and that could and should have taken place last year. To return to the baseball analogy, if a baseball player goes 0-for-9, and then gets a hit, we do not say he is an all-star because he is batting 1.000 in his last at bat. We recognize that he is just 1-for-10, and not a very good hitter. Nor would a fair calculation of hits or home runs allow a player to credit those that occurred in one game or season to the next because it would make his stats look better.

I was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for 17 months during President Bush's first term, so I know something about how President Bush's nominees were treated. During those 17 months, 100 of them were confirmed. In the 31 months that Republicans controlled the Senate during President Bush's first term, 105 of his circuit and district nominees were confirmed. That is, it took them almost twice as long to make as much progress as I had as Chairman. Even when Senate Democrats were in the minority, we worked with the Republicans to bring the number of vacancies all the way down to 28. Vacancies have remained near or above 80 for 4 years during the Obama presidency. In the last 4 years, Senate Republicans have never let vacancies get below 72. At this point in the fifth year of the Bush presidency there were 44 vacancies. Today they remain almost double that amount. Despite Senate Republicans who make self-congratulatory statements about ``progress'' this year, we are not even keeping up with attrition. Vacancies have increased, not decreased, since the start of this year.

If President Obama's nominees were receiving the same treatment as President Bush's, Judge Srinivasan would have been the 210th confirmation, not the 193rd and vacancies would be far lower. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has noted that it will require 33 more district and circuit confirmations this year to match President Bush's 5-year total. Even with the confirmations finally concluded during the first 6 months of this year, Senate Republicans have still not allowed President Obama to match the record of President Bush's first term. Even with an extra 6 months, we are still a dozen confirmations behind where we were at the end of 2004.

In addition to the obstruction of circuit and district nominees, I am deeply concerned about the impact of sequestration on our Federal courts. I continue to hear from judges and legal professionals around the country who worry about the impact of these senseless budget cuts, and I share their concern. A recent evaluation of sequestration concluded: ``Its impact on the operation of the [F]ederal courts will be devastating and longlasting.'' Sequestration will exacerbate the delays our courts already face due to persistent understaffing, both for civil and criminal cases. According to the Executive Summary of ``FY 2013 Sequestration Impacts on the Federal Judiciary,'' ``Delays in cases will harm individuals, small businesses, and corporations,'' while the ``cuts to funding for drug testing, substance abuse and mental health treatment of federal defendants and offenders have also been made, increasing further the risk to public safety.'' I ask that the full summary be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Judge Nitza Quinones Alejandro has served as a judge on the Court of Common Pleas for the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania since 1991. Prior to being a judge, Judge Quinones worked as a solo practitioner, a staff attorney with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, an Attorney Advisor with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, and a staff attorney at Community Legal Services, Inc. When confirmed, Judge Quinones will be the first openly gay Latina judge to serve on the Federal bench. Judge Quinones was also Pennsylvania's first Latina judge.

Judge Jeffrey Schmehl currently serves as the President Judge in Berks County, where he has been an active member of the bench since 1997. Prior to becoming a judge, Judge Schmehl served in various capacities in private practice, including as an associate and partner at Rhoda, Stoudt & Bradley and as a solo practitioner at the Law Offices of Jeffrey L. Schmehl, Esq. While working in private practice, Judge Schmehl was also a Berks County Solicitor from 1989 to 1997. In addition to his experience in private practice, Judge Schmehl has served as an assistant district attorney and as an assistant public defender for Berks County.

I want the Senate to make real progress on filling judicial vacancies so that the American people have access to justice. Before the recess, the minority leader asked during a floor debate when Gregory Phillips, the Wyoming nominee to the Tenth Circuit, would receive a vote.

Majority Leader Reid said: OK, let's vote on him right now.

They said: Well, we are not ready.

I hope the American people were watching, because there should be no ambiguity about this: The only reason the Senate is not voting today on Judge Restrepo, Attorney General Phillips, or the other seven judicial nominees pending on the Calendar is because of Republican refusal to allow

such votes. They could be voted on today. We ought to do it. These nominees deserve better, and the American people deserve better.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, on Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the nomination of B. Todd Jones to serve as the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, ATF. I thank Senator Klobuchar for the exceptional job she did in chairing this hearing and setting the record straight with respect to distortions of the nominee's record.

Todd Jones continues to serve this country honorably. He volunteered for the U.S. Marine Corps in 1983, serving on active duty as a judge advocate and infantry officer until 1989. In 1991, he was recalled to Active Duty to command the 4th Marine Division's Military Police Company in Iraq. He also served as commanding officer of the Twin Cities Marine Reserve Unit. He has twice been considered for the important law enforcement position of U.S. attorney and twice unanimously reported out of the Judiciary Committee and unanimously confirmed by the Senate. In 1998 he was first appointed to be the U.S. attorney for the District of Minnesota and became the first African American U.S. attorney in Minnesota's history. In 2009, when that office was at a low point and needed a strong hand to lead it back, he answered the call, again.

When the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives needed new leadership after its poorly conceived and executed Fast and Furious operation, the President called upon him, again. He was called upon to clear up the mess and deserves our thanks for having made great progress in doing so. He has done so while all the while continuing to serve as the U.S. attorney for the District of Minnesota and has had to restore leadership and effectiveness in two important law enforcement agencies.

We have received numerous letters of support for Todd Jones' nomination from law enforcement, respected legal professionals, and veterans of the U.S. Marine Corps. He has critics; he has taken on difficult assignments. As he noted at his hearing, sometimes you have to take action to make a change and change is not always something that everyone is going to favor. A fair evaluation of what he has accomplished leads me to support his nomination to be confirmed as the director of ATF.

The ATF has been without a permanent director since that position was made a confirmable position in 2006. We lean heavily on the expertise of the ATF. For example, under the leadership of Todd Jones, since September 2011, ATF has been called on to analyze the bombs left near the finish line at the Boston Marathon, to sift through burned debris at the chemical plant explosion in West, TX, and to trace the weapons used in the Newtown and Aurora mass killings. Agents of the ATF have played a major role in investigating some of our Nation's worst tragedies. The agency needs a confirmed head. Todd Jones is the ATF's fifth acting director since 2006. The Senate should be doing everything it can to ensure that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has the tools it needs to keep Americans safe, and that starts with a Senate-confirmed director.

I had accommodated the ranking member on requests for further information and delay on this nomination for months. Senator Grassley insisted on the production of documents from the Department of Justice that his staff had already had access to for months. He insisted that his staff be able to interview Todd Jones in his capacity as U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota, as well as two other Justice Department officials, in order to try to build a case against another nomination, that of Tom Perez to be Labor Secretary. Those interviews have taken place. Senator Grassley requested additional background information from the administration not usually required by the committee for an executive nomination and he received that information. When he sought information about an ATF operation in Milwaukee, I arranged a bipartisan briefing for our staffs from the agency.

Some are criticizing the nominee based on a complaint filed against him by an AUSA from the earlier Bush-era U.S. attorney office. After learning about the complaint, I had initially put on hold a planned hearing on this nomination. In late April, a news article reported that ``an aide to Senator Grassley'' had released a letter from OSC that the ranking member and I had received about the existence of that preliminary inquiry. It was at that time that I determined that this hearing should move forward to allow the nominee an opportunity to defend his reputation. When a private complaint against him was disclosed publicly, I thought it unfair that the nominee could not respond. He did at his hearing and in my view that matter is put to rest.

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, OSC, closed the file on the underlying allegation made against the nominee of ``gross mismanagement and abuses of authority.'' The allegation involving alleged retaliation has been referred to mediation. In deference to the complaining party and the request of the

investigating agency that the complaint not be made public, it has not been. I wish it were. It is not substantial or even substantially about Todd Jones. It is certainly not reason to oppose the confirmation.

The ranking member requested that the long-delayed June 4 confirmation hearing on the nomination to head ATF be postponed further, and I postponed it another week. During that postponement, over that last weekend, the ranking member threatened to use Senate rules for the minority to call an outside witness to testify at the hearing. There is no precedent for outside witnesses at a Judiciary Committee hearing for a subcabinet executive level position. I nonetheless sought to accommodate his last-minute demand by agreeing to his calling a witness.

The hearing proceeded on Tuesday and should have cleared the air. For instance, those opposing this nomination were unaware that Todd Jones had terminated a supervisor of the Fast and Furious operation.

The Judiciary Committee had for decades followed a tradition and practice of examining allegations against nominees in a bipartisan manner from the outset. That has not been the practice Republicans have followed during the last several years. They have, instead, not brought matters to the bipartisan staff but chosen to proceed on their own.

Sometimes we do delay committee consideration of nominations to allow a complaint to be resolved. Sometimes we proceed despite lawsuits involving nominees, such as the way we proceeded last year with the nomination of Judge Stephanie Rose of Iowa to the United States District Court for the District of Iowa even though there was a lawsuit pending in which there were allegations against her actions as the U.S. attorney for Iowa. Earlier this year, when defense counsel filed a motion against the U.S. attorney for the District of New Mexico making allegations, we independently examined the matter. The committee proceeded with that nomination rather than delay it.

I have reached out to the ranking member staff about getting back to our tradition of conducting bipartisan inquiries into allegations made against nominees. I hope that practice will be restored. With respect to the nomination of Todd Jones, we are further examining the matter, but I believe him qualified and at this time know of no good reason the Senate should not confirm his nomination to serve as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Mr. President, today, I would like to pay tribute to the Wayside Restaurant--a trusted and venerated Vermont fixture and a staple of the community surrounding Montpelier, our State capital. The Wayside is a local business that has remained true to the values of its humble beginnings. For nearly a century, the Wayside Restaurant has been a place where Vermonters can count on quality service, reasonable prices, and a quality meal that is sure to satisfy both the stomach and the heart. I am honored to join Vermonters in celebrating the Wayside Restaurant's 95th anniversary.

In 1918, when Effie Ballou first opened the Wayside's doors, many of the restaurant's offerings were prepared in the kitchen of her home and carried down to her roadside eatery. Never did she imagine that her small eating house would become the bustling spot that it is today, drawing both locals and out-of-State travelers and serving nearly 1000 customers daily. Every day, diners--from families to office workers pile into the Wayside Restaurant. Its warm environment, familiar staff and signature Vermont cooking make the restaurant a home away from home for locals and visitors alike.

The owners and staff of the Wayside Restaurant are devoted to providing extraordinary service to the crowds of loyal customers who stop in to pile their plates high with Wayside's fine fare. Regular customers of the Wayside Restaurant can order their meals to-go or can dine in while enjoying friendly conversation and classic Wayside dishes like the salt pork and gravy, honeycomb beef tripe, or maple cream pie.

Current owners Karen and Brian Zecchinelli have remained true to the restaurant's early virtues--preparation of quality, old-time favorites as well as modern cuisine, and a focus on family and community values. As a member of the Vermont Business Environmental Partnership, the Wayside Restaurant has implemented earth-friendly initiatives that are kind to our natural environment. In 2012, the Wayside Restaurant was recognized as the first and only ``green'' restaurant in Montpelier and was praised for its support of small business by buying locally produced products, a tradition they have kept throughout the years.

Today the Wayside Restaurant continues as a symbol of both longstanding tradition and effective progress. From Effie Ballou's humble beginnings to the eatery's current, booming success, the Wayside Restaurant holds a special place in Vermonters' hearts. Marcelle and I are always delighted to join them for a meal and visit with other patrons. I want to join the many others congratulating the Wayside on 95 successful years of enriching its community and supporting Vermont's local economy.

Every time I go there to eat I remember going with my parents, brother, and sister when I was a child. It was great then and still is.

Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Is there a division of time?

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, it is good that the Nation is having this debate on immigration, but I think we ought to talk about what is truly involved. For the last several months--even before our bill was drafted, people were saying we cannot proceed with immigration reform until we do more to secure our borders. Now that we have a bill--a bill that takes extraordinary steps to further secure an already strong border--we continue to hear we must wait. We are told that the immigration bill reported from the Senate Judiciary Committee last month, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, S. 744, does not do enough.

It is so easy to wait. Oh, let's wait until next year or the year after or the year after that, because then the 100 Members of the Senate don't have to vote. We can be on everybody's side. That is not why we were elected. We were elected to vote yes or to vote no. Let's start moving forward and stand up to vote, because when they say we have to wait for more security it ignores the facts.

We have been pouring billions of dollars into border security for years--billions. Keep this in mind: Sometimes we argue over $15, $20, $30 million to help educate our children and that becomes a big issue. We have put billions of dollars into border security. Since the Senate last considered immigration reform in 2006 and 2007, we have made enormous strides on border security. This bill takes even more steps to prevent and deter illegal immigration.

We can talk about philosophy and we can talk about things people have heard. I would like to talk about facts. It may be inconvenient to some of those who don't want to have immigration reform, but the facts speak for themselves. The Border Patrol has doubled in the past 10 years. It now has more than 21,000 agents. That is more than at any time in its history. The Obama administration has more than 21,000 Border Patrol agents, which is more than they have ever had under either Democratic or Republican administrations.

The Department of Homeland Security has deployed additional technology in aircraft and hundreds of miles of fencing along the southern border. The Department has built more than 650 miles of fencing along the southern border, including more than 350 miles of pedestrian fencing.

There has been talk about illegal crossing. Here is a fact: Illegal border crossing is at a near 40-year low under this administration because fewer people are trying to cross. In 2005, Border Patrol apprehended more than 1.1 million individuals who unlawfully crossed the border. In 2012, that number went down to one-third--roughly 365,000. At the same time, deportation, as we all know, is at a record high level.

Here is one of the things we should talk about: People ignore the fact that we spend more money on enforcing immigration and customs laws--$18 billion each year--than we do on all of

our other Federal law enforcement agencies put together. For those who care about law enforcement, that is kind of a striking number. So we have done ``enforcement first.''

This legislation goes even further to build on what has been a successful record. Chairman Carper of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and I wrote a letter to our colleagues yesterday.

In fact, I ask unanimous consent that our letter be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

In the letter, we point out that the bill appropriates up to another $6.5 billion to secure the border. It authorizes another 3,500 Customs and Border Protection officers. It allows Governors to deploy the National Guard to the southwest border region. It expands border security and use of technology at the border. I mean, this is not a bill that ignores enforcement; it expands it.

It increases the already strict criminal penalties against those unlawfully crossing the border and provides additional resources for their criminal prosecution. It sets clear statutory goals: The prevention of 90 percent of illegal entries and persistent surveillance of the entire southern border. If DHS doesn't meet these goals within 5 years, the bill establishes a bipartisan commission to develop further concrete plans and provides an additional $2 billion to carry out those plans.

Some say: I have a better plan. Come on. The needs at the border change all the time, so we built in flexibility to meet those needs.

The bill sets tough border security triggers. In fact, before DHS can register any undocumented individuals for provisional status, it has to provide Congress with two detailed plans laying out exactly how it is going to meet statutory goals: a comprehensive strategy and another specific to fencing. This is one of the toughest pieces of legislation on the security of our borders that has ever been before the Senate.

The Department of Homeland Security cannot issue green cards to these individuals for 10 years--and even then only after four triggers are satisfied: Comprehensive border security strategy is substantially deployed; the fencing strategy is substantially completed; a mandatory electronic employment verification system is established for all employers; and an electronic exit system based on machine-readable travel documents is in place at airports and seaports. Even then we added more during the Judiciary Committee's markup of this bill. We adopted an amendment offered by Senator Grassley that expands the bill's 90 percent effectiveness rate to the entire southern border, not just high-risk sectors.

So those who say they want more security than what we have here--it is virtually impossible to have more security. I think we might ask: Are you saying you don't want any immigration bill? This is similar to debates we have had--and I use the example of the work we did to bring about peace in Northern Ireland during the Clinton administration.

The former majority leader of this body, Senator George Mitchell, did a heroic effort, along with others, on both the Protestant and Catholic side in Northern Ireland. There were some who said we cannot have a peace agreement until we do not have a single act of violence. I said, OK. Senator Mitchell and President Clinton said, so in other words, you are going to let one disgruntled person on either side veto any peace agreement?

Let us not say we will have no immigration bill until not one person crosses our border illegally. That is making the perfect the enemy of the good, and that means we will never have it.

I was pleased the committee also looked at two border-related amendments I offered with Senator Cornyn--the Leahy-Cornyn amendments. I mention this because there are a number of amendments offered which are bipartisan from Democrats and Republicans alike. One helps protect cross-border travel and tourism by prohibiting land border crossing fees. The other ensures that DHS has flexibility to spend the bill's fencing fund on the most effective infrastructure and technology available, while still requiring that $1 billion be allocated to fencing. It also requires consultation with relevant stake holders and respect for State and local laws when DHS implements fencing projects. Again, knowing that what we do or want today may be different from what we want a few years from now.

I might say, parenthetically, the amendment I offered with Senator Cornyn to stop border crossing fees on either the southern border or northern border--some say we are going to turn our customs agents into toll collectors. I live an hour's drive from the Canadian border. We go back and forth like it is another State.

The distinguished Presiding Officer lives in a State that borders Canada. She knows what it is like going back and forth, and she also knows how important that is to the economy of her State and my State, just as it is to Canada. We ought to luxuriate in the fact that Canada is such a friendly neighbor and the relationship we have with them is so good. Some of us are even related to people who have Canadian ancestry. I have been married to a woman whose parents came from Canada. She was born in the United States. We have been married for almost 51 years. I am delighted Canadians come across our border and settle in Vermont.

I am also working on another amendment for Senate consideration regarding the use of vehicle checkpoints in the 100-mile border zone.

I simply do not understand how some can argue that this bill does not do enough to secure the border. We do that in this bill. We massively increase the money, the agents, the technology used on the border, and this is in addition to the billions--yes, billions--of dollars we already spend each year to physically stop people from crossing.

Some of the same people who want more security are the same people who say we are spending too much money in the Federal government. Well, short of putting up a steel wall, it is hard to imagine what more we can physically do from stopping people from crossing. As Chairman Carper said, if we build a 25-foot wall, I will show you somebody with a 26-foot ladder. We know people will still come. Because--and let's be serious for a moment--a fence does not address the root causes of illegal immigration. People come here looking for jobs, and American businesses hire them because they will do the jobs nobody else will. Yes, some come here to join their families, as the current backlogs for family-sponsored green cards would otherwise force them to wait years.

If we are serious about stopping illegal immigration, we have to do more than build a bigger, longer, and higher fence. That won't work. We have to create legal ways for people to enter the country--people who want to come here for work and to join family members. Then we have to make it harder for people to find work if they do not use legal avenues, by requiring a nationwide employment verification system known as E-Verify--some have called this a virtual fence--and by increasing penalties on employers who hire undocumented workers. This bill does exactly that.

The distinguished senior Senator from New York, Senator Schumer, talks about riding his bicycle around Brooklyn and seeing people who are probably undocumented and contractors coming up to them and saying, I will hire you for $15 a day, and they have to take the job. If we have real teeth, as our bill does, real penalties on employers who hire undocumented workers, they would instead have to hire those who are legal and have to pay at least minimum wage and have to put money into Social Security and so on. It makes a big difference.

As Grover Norquist said in his testimony, our bill, if adopted, would improve the finances of our Nation. But more than that, this legislation provides workable, flexible, affordable, humane solutions. It is tough, it is fair, and it is practical. Yet, just as in 2006 and 2007, we are still hearing from some Senators who oppose comprehensive immigration reform that we must do more to secure the border and enforce our laws.

I welcome additional ideas on how to enhance border security and public safety. I want people to bring forth their amendments to be voted on up or down. Our goal must be to secure the border, not seal it.

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will oppose efforts that

impose unrealistic, excessively costly, overly rigid, inhumane, or ineffective border security measures, and I will oppose efforts to modify the triggers in ways that could unduly delay or prevent the earned legalization path--such as efforts to require Congress to ratify the trigger certifications. We have waited too long already. That includes the amendment offered by my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, which would significantly delay even the initial registration process for the 11 million undocumented individuals in this country.

The bottom line is this: The pathway to citizenship must be earned, but it also must be attainable.

Let's not forget that bringing 11 million people out of the shadows is not only the moral thing to do, it helps keep this country safe so we know who is here and we can focus our resources on those who actually pose a threat.

I don't often quote the Wall Street Journal editorial board, but I will quote them here. They said:

[Those] who claim we must ``secure the border first''

ignore the progress already made, because their real goal

isn't border security, it is to use border security as an

excuse to kill immigration reform.

We need immigration reform. It is a moral issue. It speaks to the greatness of our country. But it is also a national security issue and a public safety issue. Attempts to undermine immigration reform may come in the guise of promoting border security, but let us not be fooled. As 76 former State attorneys general recently wrote: ``Put simply, practical, comprehensive reform to our Federal immigration laws will make us all safer.''

We must fix our broken immigration system once and for all. As I have said many times on this floor, I think of my maternal grandparents coming to Vermont from Italy and making Vermont a better State with the jobs they created, and their grandson became a Senator. I think of my wife's parents, coming from Quebec, bringing their French language but also bringing English, and my wife was born in Vermont as a result of that. But I think of her extended family--her father, uncle, and others--creating many jobs in Vermont and making Vermont better. Every one of us can tell stories such as that. Let's not forget those people.

Let's not say that what worked for our ancestors is no longer available. Let's speak as the conscience of the Nation. One hundred Senators can be the conscience of the Nation and sometimes are, as we were on the Violence Against Women Act. It can now be so now, on the immigration bill.

Madam President, I see my good friend, and I yield the floor.

While the distinguished senior Senator from Arizona is still on the floor, I would like to note that during the process of putting this bill together in the committee and having the votes, we had a number of quiet meetings, bipartisan meetings in the President pro tem office. It was extraordinarily helpful to have the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, there because I feel very knowledgeable about the northern border, living an hour's drive from it, and we needed the Senator's expertise on the southern border. But more importantly, he and I, Senator Kennedy, and President George W. Bush worked for hours and hours, days and days, weeks and weeks, months and months trying to get a comprehensive immigration reform bill through once before. We now have the possibility of one.

He said something every one of us can echo: It is not exactly the bill any one of us individually might have written. But by the time we get done, we can have legislation that will make America better and be true to our principles and be realistic.

I could use a lot of other adjectives, but I want to personally thank the distinguished senior Senator from Arizona.

The distinguished senior Senator from Louisiana is about to speak. Before she does, I would add that she is going to talk about an amendment I strongly support. I mention that support because we have a number of amendments that both Republicans and Democrats will support. I would hope that after the other party has their noon caucus, we can get to the point where we start voting on some of these.

There are a lot of amendments that Republicans and Democrats would vote for together. There are some that will be opposed on one side or the other. But either way, vote on them. Vote them up or vote them down.

Now, as manager of the bill, I can start calling up amendments and move to table. I do not want to do that. We have a lot of good amendments, a lot of good ideas from both Republicans and Democrats, but they cannot be in the bill until we vote on them. The distinguished Senator from Louisiana has one. I hope the other side will let her amendment come up soon.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin.) The Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. President, will the Senator from Nevada yield to me?

Mr. President, if the Senator would yield on that point, I was privileged in my capacity as President pro tempore to speak to the graduating class of pages, the group of pages who graduated just ahead of the distinguished group we have here now. There had been discussion about immigration coming up. Then the distinguished Republican leader spoke and went on at great length to the pages about how these important issues must have 60 votes on everything, must have 60 votes on amendments and so forth. I am sure the distinguished Senator from Kentucky would confirm that is what he said. There were 100-and-some- odd people in the room who heard him say it. And here we have offered-- the distinguished majority leader has offered to have three Republican votes and two votes by Democratic Senators, all under exactly the same rule, the rule Senator McConnell proposed.

We have talked and given great speeches that we have all given time and time again both in the committee and on the floor. I would like to have votes on something so we can finish this because, frankly, given my choice of spending the Fourth of July week in Washington--salubrious as the weather is--or being in Vermont for the Fourth of July, I would much rather be in Vermont.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

There has been some discussion about whether this might be a closed thing, and the eight Senators came together on this and did a tremendous job. There were four Democrats and four Republicans putting it together. They were saying it was closed. Isn't it true that when the bill came to the Judiciary Committee, isn't it true there were 301 amendments filed in the committee?

Isn't it true that 136 of those amendments were then adopted?

Forty-nine of those amendments were proposed by Republicans; is that not correct?

Isn't it possible to say that of the eight Senators we have talked about, four of them, two Democrats and two Republicans, serve on the Judiciary Committee? They were helpful in voting for most of these changes that were changes to the original; is that not correct?

To finish putting my question to the Senator from New York, I wish to make sure, because I thought I heard some comment that this was a closed process, and I appreciate that the Senator from New York agreed it was anything but.

Mr. President, I understand Senator Vitter, the Senator from Louisiana was on the floor earlier discussing the amendment Senator Hatch and I have proposed, Amendment No. 1183. I have read the remarks the Senator from Louisiana made, and I wish he had read our amendment more carefully. His remarks seem to be describing a different amendment than the one Senator Hatch and I have proposed.

Our amendment is very simple. Under current law, foreign performing artists who come to the United States must get either an ``O'' or ``P'' visa. The Immigration Statute requires that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS process these visas in 14 days. This statutory requirement is a reflection of the time sensitivity involved with scheduling these artists for engagements in the United States, and permitting them to meet their obligations, which of course benefit the American organizations that hire them. Our amendment, which is limited to non-profit organizations, provides that if the 14-day statutory requirement for processing is not met, then the foreign artist's petition would automatically be given expedited processing, and the associated additional fee is waived. But let me be clear, the visiting artist is already paying a fee of several hundred dollars for the petition. All our amendment would do is provide the petitioner with free expedited processing if the deadline were not met by the agency.

Senator Vitter expressed concern that providing expedited processing in a case where the immigration agency does not adhere to its statutory deadline would take funding away from the enforcement of immigration law. Surely Senator Vitter knows that U.S. Citizenship and Immigrations Services is a fully fee-funded agency, and has no enforcement responsibilities. When Congress reorganized the former Immigration and Naturalization Service and created the Department of Homeland Security, the visa adjudication and immigration enforcement functions were separated. So let me be clear--the waiver of an expedited processing fee has absolutely no effect on the funding that goes to immigration enforcement. Moreover, as I discussed this morning, the bill we debate provides $6.5 billion to border security and enforcement. Our amendment is not some giveaway to, as Senator Vitter described, ``well-heeled'' individuals. Rather, it is an incentive for USCIS to process these petitions in a timely way as they are required under the law.

But the most important distinction that the Senator from Louisiana failed to explain to the Senate was that our amendment applies only to non-profit organizations. Organizations like the Greater New Orleans Youth Orchestra, the Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra, Louisiana State University Opera, and the New Orleans Ballet Association. I suspect that these are not the ``well-heeled'' individuals the Senator from Louisiana is describing. In fact, I would ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of 83 Louisiana Arts Organizations and supporters of the amendment Senator Hatch and I have offered.

The Senator from Louisiana called our amendment misguided. Again, I wish he had read the amendment more carefully. I suspect the dozens of non-profit performing arts organizations across Louisiana that are enriching their communities with performances from international musicians and dancers would not think it is misguided to help them continue their important work. With such an incredibly rich musical history and tradition, I suspect the people of Louisiana, like Americans across the country, place a very high value on the performing arts.

So with that clarification, I hope I have addressed the concern of the Senator from Louisiana and that he will reconsider his opposition.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 12, 2013, at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 12, 2013, at 4 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 12, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate office building.

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 12, 2013, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 12, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 12, 2013, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 12, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room SR-418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 12, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1183, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I note that amendment is on behalf of Senator Hatch and myself.

I will yield for that purpose.

Mr. President, I believe I still have the floor.

Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator for that purpose without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. President, on amendment No. 1183, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished senior Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, be a cosponsor.

Mr. President, I will speak on this amendment at greater length just before the vote. It makes a small but important improvement in the processing of visas that are required by foreign performing artists before performing in American orchestras and other arts organizations. It has to be processed in a timely way.

We have had instances where orchestras, for example, in this country have had the privilege of having a visiting artist, maybe the best in their field--violinist, pianist, or whatever else--but the process of getting a visa is slowed up. Yet they plan performances on a certain date. This measure was included in the comprehensive immigration bills of 2006 and 2007 but not enacted. This would not give an automatic visa to these artists but simply says their application, instead of being in the bottom of the pile, would be considered in a timely fashion.

On another matter, as we get into this debate, I have defended the First Amendment, American's right to speak. I have done it even when people have said things about me that I wish they didn't. But I also have a right as a Senator to comment on such speech. I saw a couple of paid political advertisements today in Politico, one that personally attacks Senator Rubio and the other directly attacks the Senators who drafted the legislative proposal before us, four Republicans and four Democrats. The attacks are so far off the mark. They have a right to make the attacks, and certainly the publication has the right to print them. I would suggest that something this far out of line, this completely unfair type of attack, doesn't do anything to help the public debate we are having.

We had a debate with the 18 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and had before us some 300 amendments, passed 141, including second- degree amendments, and we did it in a respectful way. Both Republican and Democratic amendments came up. In some areas we had major disagreements among the members, but we did it respectfully and did not impugn the motives of people on either side. I would say this kind of personal insult, this level of discourse, is not conducive to real debate. It helps neither side. It helps neither side.

I don't think this is a time for name-calling. Let's work together. We know the immigration system we now have in this country is not adequate for the needs of the country or the people in this country. So let's stop the name calling. Let's stop the false accusations. I say this in defense of Senator Rubio, as well as all members of the Gang of 8, the four Republicans and four Democrats named in these ads. Let's work together to have a better debate.

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

Madam President, I appreciate the words of my friend of decades, the Senator from Iowa. He and I worked very closely to have an open and transparent process. Whether we agreed or disagreed on an issue, we tried to move it on. After all, it worked better that way because of the 18 members of the committee, we were the two who had to spend the most time during it.

All the time. I appreciate working with him. We were able to pretty well decide when matters would come up and make sure that both Republicans and Democrats had a chance to bring up all their amendments, and we adopted 136 or so amendments, including second- degree amendments, and all but one or two of them were bipartisan votes. I appreciate what he said and I enjoyed working with him on that.

I will have more to say at another time about his amendment. But I just note for the past several days Senators have been discussing the immigration bill, and I am glad the Senate has now turned to actually consider it. We have had a lot of talk about getting to it, including, of course, the time spent in the Judiciary Committee.

I intend to file a handful of amendments to the bill today, and I would encourage others to do the same so we can get to work without further delay.

The bipartisan immigration bill is a measure the Senate should come together on to pass. We should send to the House the best bill we can, and I think the large majority of Senators want to do that.

We should do what is right, what is fair, and what is just. The House has to consider comprehensive immigration reform legislation without any further delay.

This year one of the most important bills we enacted into law was the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. From the outset I worked with my Republican colleague Senator Crapo to develop that legislation in a bipartisan way. We called in Senators from both sides of the aisle. We had cosponsors from both parties. We took suggestions and amendments from both Democrats and Republicans. Then we built a majority of Senators in support.

I worked very hard to keep that as a bipartisan issue when, frankly, we had

some on both sides of the aisle who wanted to make it a partisan issue.

Last year we were able to have our bill considered. It passed the Senate with 68 votes--obviously, a bipartisan majority. Parenthetically, I would note that yesterday we passed the farm bill with fewer votes than that, but the New York Times described that farm bill, and rightly so, as having ``overwhelming bipartisan support.''

In fact, last fall, when the House of Representatives would not take up our VAWA legislation--the violence against women legislation--we redoubled our efforts during the lameduck session. We had many meetings in my office between Republicans and Democrats to find where we could go. We then reintroduced our bill with some modifications at the beginning of this year.

I sought to make it our first legislative priority of the new Congress. With the strong support and leadership of the majority leader Senator Reid, the Senate turned to it, we considered it, and we passed it as one of our very first legislative matters in February. We actually passed it with an even stronger bipartisan majority this year than last, although many of those who now oppose immigration reform continued voting against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. But we passed a strong, principled, bipartisan bill.

I had people urge me to abandon my efforts in the Violence Against Women Act to protect all victims. I was glad to see they were proven wrong. I was told repeatedly that the House of Representatives would never consider, let alone pass, our bill that provided fairness for gay and lesbian victims and that we would never be able to provide meaningful protections for Native American women being brutalized by non-Indians on reservations.

But I said from my own experience early as a prosecutor and since as chairman of the Judiciary Committee: A victim is a victim is a victim. When I would go to crime scenes, I never heard a police officer, who would see a victim of violence against women, say: Wait a minute. Before we can get involved, is this victim gay or straight? Is this victim Native American? They said a victim is a victim is a victim, and let us see what we can do to protect not only this person but others.

In spite of all the dire predictions and political naysayers, our bipartisan group of Senators stuck to our principles. The Senate stood firm. We did the right thing.

What happened then? How were we able to enact this bill into law?

The American people spoke up. They supported our bill. They demanded action. There were some Republican Members of the House, such as Tom Cole of Oklahoma, who knew the right thing to do and were willing to say they wanted to do it. Then more and more House Republicans came around to our view.

The House, to its credit, changed its stance and considered our bill. They passed it with no changes whatsoever--exactly as it came out of the Senate--and it is now law.

I was proud to stand with President Obama on March 7 in an emotional ceremony in which he thanked legislators from both sides of the aisle for protecting all victims of domestic violence and human trafficking.

Relevant to the pending immigration bill, there was one piece of the original Leahy-Crapo VAWA bill that was requested by law enforcement to help immigrant victims of violence. We sought to increase U visas for abused immigrant women so they could be protected and help law enforcement go after their abusers.

So often immigrant women are afraid to go and report their abusers because they think they themselves may be deported. In fact, we have had evidence and testimony that people are being abused. If they are immigrants, they are told: If you report what I am doing to you, I will get you deported.

That provision had a technical budget affect that last year the House used as an excuse not to consider our bill.

I promised at the beginning of this year that I would continue fighting to enact that measure. We would take it out of the VAWA bill to avoid the technicality of having it blocked by the House, but I never forgot that. I never forgot my promise to those immigrant women. I am happy to report that these important U visas are now part of comprehensive immigration reform legislation before us.

I tell this history because some have argued the Senate immigration reform bill has to be undermined from what we brought out of committee. We have to do that to conform to demands intended to appease some in the House Republican majority. I disagree. I disagree. Just as we did not back off on VAWA, I say: Do not do it now. Let's consider not a partisan reason, but let's consider America. The Senate should pass the best bill for the economy, for our families, and for our Nation. We should do what we think is right.

The House of Representatives is clearly in a different place than those who support the Senate bill. Just last Thursday House Republicans voted to end President Obama's administrative program to help DREAMers, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, until such time as we can pass the DREAM Act.

The DREAM Act is in our Senate immigration reform bill. It recognizes that young people here without fault of their own, who are in school or in the military, and in good standing should not be deported because they are undocumented. They are Americans. They should be part of this Nation's future.

Senator Durbin--I am so proud of him for this--has been right to fight for them, as he has for years. He is a national voice for those who want the DREAM Act to pass. Senator Durbin has insisted on the DREAM Act being included in our legislation, and President Obama was right today to highlight the achievements and contributions these young people make to our country and will continue to make if the bill becomes law.

Should we now abandon them? Should we say let's just strike those measures from the Senate bill because Representative King of Iowa and other House Republicans do not like them? Of course not. The Senate is a separate body--100 people to represent over 300 million Americans-- and we should be the conscience of our Nation. That means the Senate should do what is right if we are to reflect the conscience of the Nation.

I am inspired by the young DREAMers I have met over the last several years and by the courageous testimony of Juan Antonio Vargas and Gaby Pacheco during our hearings this year.

Our bill should include the DREAM Act, just as we should protect and include the fair but tough pathway to citizenship included in the bill reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

These provisions are the core of our bill. Let's not start negotiating against ourselves. Let's not start backing off what we came together to pass. The vote by the Republicans in the House of Representatives to prevent DREAMers from being able to stay in the United States is not the example that the Senate should follow, especially if we really want to be the conscience of the Nation.

A few days ago the New York Times had a lead editorial that accurately describes where we are. It cautions against making bad modifications to the bill. It urges bipartisanship and courage and that we stand up to bad politics and bad policy. I hope the Senate will heed this call.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this past Sunday's editorial be printed in the Record.

Madam President, over the past weekend, I was happy to hear from my neighboring State of New Hampshire that Senator Ayotte pledged her support to this bipartisan legislation. I know how much I appreciated working with her and Senator Shaheen earlier this year to get the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Act reauthorized. Senator Ayotte, of course, was an important leader in her caucus on that bipartisan bill. I hope and expect she will be on the bipartisan immigration bill as well, especially since it also contains several protections for victims of domestic violence and human trafficking.

Just this morning the President of the United States spoke to all of us in this country, to all of America, about the need for Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform. He called our commonsense bipartisan bill the best chance we have had in years to fix the broken immigration system. He urged us to do the right thing and do it now. He was joined by a cross-section of distinguished Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, from DREAMers to former President Bush administration officials to business leaders and law enforcement representatives and clergy and laymen. It was interesting to see the coalition that oftentimes will not stand together on an issue or be opposed to each other standing together in unity on this issue.

I know I am meeting later this week with the President along with a bipartisan group of Senators so we can work together to pass comprehensive immigration reform. I would encourage him to keep on speaking about this because there are Senators in both parties who want real immigration reform.

Because it is an important economic issue, it is also a civil rights issue. It is an issue of fundamental fairness. It speaks to where we are as a nation. The other day when I was speaking about this bill, and they referenced the fact that--something I never expected when I came to the Senate--I have become the President pro tempore of the Senate. It means I have been here a long time.

The distinguished Presiding Officer that day, the Acting President pro tempore, a colleague of ours, she herself is an immigrant. She came to this country with her mother. She has explained that they had all of their possessions in one suitcase. Her mother was fleeing an abusive spouse and came to this country. Now that mother's daughter is a Senator.

I think of my wife. She was born in this country, but her parents came here from Canada speaking a different language and became very successful in their careers, helped employ a lot of people in our State of Vermont. My maternal grandparents came from Italy not speaking the language, had a business, employed a lot of people, became a very important part of our country. Their children, one became the highest decorated pilot in World War II, other distinguished careers, one, of course, I am closest to is my mother.

I remember her pride and my father's pride when they saw their son, one generation removed, become a Senator. Well, there is going to be success stories all over this country if we stand for true immigration reform, if we make it possible for people of different backgrounds and different races, different cultures to come here and make this country a better country. They speak of us as being the melting pot but the melting pot that brings about a wonderful combination. We see that in a nation--not a nation of such unity of thought and religion and politics and appearance that becomes bland and not vibrant. Instead, we are a country of different cultures and languages and backgrounds, and we all become Americans. The sum of the whole is greater than the parts. We are a better country for it.

So if we stand together, if we stay true to our values and agreements, I believe we can pass legislation that will be a continuing renewal of our spirit, our creativity, our vitality as a nation, which upholds our great traditions and compassion in humanity as a welcoming nation. That is what I believe the Senate should do, what I believe our ancestors should have done, I believe generations before us that made this a great country should have done, and I believe we will be a better country if we will because of the people who have become citizens in this country.

I look forward to the day when we come together, we 100 Senators come together and pass a bill that reflects the conscience of our Nation, the conscience of the Senate, a bill that will make us all proud and America proud.

I yield the floor.