Floor Statements

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I know many of my colleagues are very talented attorneys. I am reminded of the adage that when you are a lawyer, if you have the law on your side, you argue the law. If you have the facts on your side, you argue the facts. But if you have neither the law nor the facts on your side, you bang on the table and create a diversion.

What I have heard a lot about here today is clearly a diversion because it is not either the law we are promoting or the facts, which seem to be pretty stubborn, but sometimes for people in this Chamber I guess the facts are not an impediment toward their arguments.

I will try to get to what this law is and what the facts are. My colleague from Alabama Senator Sessions likes to whip out the phrase ``welfare benefits.'' Let's make it clear to the American people we have not permitted welfare benefits for anyone under existing law who is undocumented in this country. We extend that and actually to some degree enlarge it in this law we are promoting. So to throw that out carelessly and suggest: Oh, there are welfare benefits--there are no welfare benefits. The existing law stops welfare benefits for anyone who is undocumented in the country, and we extend it in this law.

I must say I am chagrined when I hear my colleagues speak about certain Americans who are part of civil society, part of our civic fabric, part of national organizations such as La Raza and somehow are spoken of as if they are second-class citizens and that I should bend at the altar of some others who Senator Sessions believes are somehow superior. They have every right, as a U.S. citizen, to voice their opinions about what our government

should do in this question of immigration reform. I don't care for the categorization of people who are engaged as ordinary citizens of this country to be treated as if they were some second-class citizen.

Only in Washington could we hear an argument that somehow public safety will be ``endangered'' as a result of this legislation. There are 20,000 additional border agents and more resources are going to immigration enforcement than all other Federal criminal enforcement agencies, and somehow that creates greater endangerment of the public safety? So 20,000 more Border Patrol agents will somehow make the Nation less secure? Only in Washington could some of the detractors of this legislation suggest that 20,000 additional border agents and doubling the Border Patrol makes us less secure. Only in Washington could 700 miles of fencing make the Nation less secure. Only in Washington could the suggestion be made that an entrance-exit visa program to check who is coming in and making sure they leave or else they can be pursued is making us less secure. Only in Washington could we think about a mandatory universal E-Verify Program that has been enhanced under this legislation and somehow that makes the public less secure.

This comes from some of the very voices that for so long have said, we need more Border Patrol agents and more fencing. When they finally get the Border Patrol agents, fencing, and E-Verify system nationally mandated so everybody who gets a job or seeks to get a job is going to have to go through the system, as well as an entrance-exit visa program that is going to be implemented, and they still say: Oh, no, it is either not what we wanted or it is not enough.

And triggers--my God. Personally, from my perspective, we are trigger happy in this bill. We have more triggers in this bill than I have seen in virtually any other legislation. I believe we have up to five triggers. We have five triggers that have to be pulled, which means they have to be achieved before they can move forward to citizenship. That is a pretty significant period of time.

Now to the suggestion about costs. Well, this is one of the elements of where facts are a stubborn thing to overcome. Truth crushed to the ground still springs back. So what does it say? Well, let's start off with what it says about the deficit. This isn't me saying it as a proponent of the bill, as the Gang of 8. The Congressional Budget Office--the nonpartisan entity of the Congress that both Democrats and Republicans rely on for an analysis of whether a piece of legislation will cost money, what sort of economic impact it will have, and what the consequences will be--came to their own independent conclusion.

They said the gross domestic product would ultimately grow by 3.3 percent in the first 10 years after enactment. What does that mean? That means from all the output of this Nation, gross domestic product would grow dramatically. When we see growth at that additional rate, it means every American prospers as a result of it.

Then it went on to say an additional 5.4 percent of gross domestic product increase would exist in the second 10 years. That means even greater growth, which means greater opportunities for all Americans here at home. It also means the bipartisan immigration reform we have been debating in the Senate will actually grow our economy, not harm it, as some of the most ardent opponents have tried to argue. I have been saying that, as well as many others, all along.

What else did the Congressional Budget Office tell us? It told us we are going to reduce the deficit. We are going to reduce the deficit by--I think I have the wrong chart. Let me look. This is actually taxes paid. We had a chart, but basically what it says is that it is going to reduce the deficit by $197 billion over the first 10 years, and an additional $700 billion over the second 10 years. That is $900 billion of deficit reduction.

We will have nearly $1 trillion of deficit reduction as a result of this legislation. That deficit reduction is critical for the Nation's economic growth, prosperity, and to make sure the next generation doesn't bear that burden. According to the Congressional Budget Office, that is what we are going to get from achieving passage of this legislation and ultimately moving it into law.

The report went on to say revenue will come in a whole host of ways, such as payroll taxes, income taxes, fees, and fines estimated to be about $459 billion in the first 10 years and $1.5 trillion in the second 10 years. It also found there were fewer unauthorized individuals coming into the United States under the bill.

One of the things the CBO said was: Well, there will be those whom we are concerned will overstay future visas. Two things on that score, and one point my colleagues have used consistently: No. 1, which visas are they talking about? Are they talking about the visas our Republican colleagues have largely championed for businesses in this country they want to see grow? Some have amendments to grow it even more. Those are the visas CBO talked about ultimately having the concern that people may overstay. That is why the entrance-exit visa program is so important to ensure that doesn't happen.

It is ironic, again, how they can argue all sides here. Because if we look at what CBO said, they said the potential for overstay of those new visas would be the issue. That is why this employment verification system and the entrance-exit visa program is so important.

The bottom line of the Congressional Budget Office report is pretty clear. It tells us the 11 million people who are living in fear in the shadows are not, as some would have us believe, part of America's problem, but by bringing them out of the shadows will be part of our solution. It is the key to economic growth.

Also, immigration reform, according to their views, will also save Medicare and Social Security trust funds. In so many ways these are so incredibly important.

I heard that somehow this will create challenges on the question of wages. Well, as I listened to some of my colleagues make their remarks about the CBO's reports on wages, I don't think the numbers say what they believe they say. They were talking about how American families' wages would go down. The report explicitly says that is not the case. In fact, Ezra Klein wrote in the Washington Post that the idea that immigration would lower wages of already-working Americans is ``actually a bit misleading.''

As for folks who are already here, the Congressional Budget Office is careful to note that their estimates ``do not necessarily imply the current U.S. resident would be worse off in the first 10 years.'' And in the second 10 years they estimate the average American wages will actually rise as a result of immigration reform to the tune of about $470 billion, an average annual increase in jobs of 121,000 per year for 10 years. That is 1.2 million additional jobs to the United States. It is $470 billion in increased wages of all Americans.

The truth is stubborn. Crush it to the ground and it springs back.

In addition to that, I have to remind my colleagues as they come closer to having to cast a vote--and I hear some voices who say: Oh, I would be open to vote for the bill if this or that. Immigrants constituted 12 percent of the population in the year 2000, but they accounted for 26 percent of the Nobel Prize winners based in the United States. Twelve percent of the population, immigrants; 26 percent Nobel Prize winners. They made up 25 percent of public venture-backed companies that started between 1990 and 2005. The fact is immigrants receive patents in our country at twice the rate of native-born populations.

So the bill's overall effect on the overall economy is unambiguously positive. One can try to distort it any way one wants, but that is simply the case.

Those are the economic benefits refuting some of the things I have heard here. Wages go up for all Americans, jobs get increased, GDP growth takes place, the deficit is reduced. How many things will we do in the Senate that can bring all of those elements together? Maybe some pieces of legislation might be about job growth. Maybe some pieces of legislation might be about GDP growth. Maybe some pieces of legislation might be about how to reduce our deficit. But what singular piece of legislation, according to the

Congressional Budget Office, brings all of those elements together? I would suggest not one that I have seen in the last 7 years.

I know there is a lot of thrashing and gnashing and banging on the table because when a person doesn't have the law on their side and when a person doesn't have the facts on their side, they create a diversion. There have been a lot of crocodile tears related to the request for amendments.

Let me just say, first of all, this whole process began with a bipartisan group of Senators who had input from their colleagues. They did not, in and of themselves, the Gang of 8, just say this is my view of what needs to be done. They went back to their caucuses. They asked: What are the foundations, what are the principles we need? There was a lot of input during that whole period of time. I constantly heard from my four Republican colleagues of the Gang of 8 how they had spoken to X or Y Senator and how they believed this was necessary, what were some of the essential elements, and those got incorporated through the process. They got incorporated through the process in which the legislation was ultimately devised and put forth. They got incorporated, unlike the 2007 bill referred to by several of my colleagues. The 2007 bill on immigration did not go through the process of the Judiciary Committee. It didn't go through the Judiciary Committee process. This bill did. It went through that regular order. Over 212 amendments--212 amendments--were considered. Over 136 changes, amendments, were accepted; 43 Republican amendments were adopted, and all but 3 of those 212 votes, from what I understand, were bipartisan votes.

So we had 136 changes to the law that the Gang of 8 proposed. Then we came to the floor. What happened on the floor? This bill, which has been on the floor for 20 days--this didn't just pop up. It has been on the floor for 20 days, which is nearly 3 weeks of Senate floor time. What happened at the beginning is that every time there was an effort to offer unanimous consent requests on the question of amendments, there were objections by the other side. There were objections against amendments offered by their own Members because those who oppose this legislation, no matter what, did not want to give Members an opportunity for a vote on their side, because they believed if their amendments were adopted, the Member would agree to vote for the bill because they had made the improvement they sought to the underlying bill they otherwise could support but with the change they were offering.

So, strategically, they decided not to allow their Members to ultimately have amendments because they were afraid they would join in the growing cadre of Members who were supporting the bill. It wasn't about who gets to pick or choose amendments; it was a strategic decision and that took the better part of the first 2 weeks.

We did have nine amendments; overwhelmingly, they were Republican. Then we had the Corker-Hoeven amendment, which of course had the most dramatic, significant impact on border security. But there were an additional nine amendments that were included in Corker-Hoeven. All of them, I understand, were Republican. We would have had a 10th amendment because, I understand, as has been said here--and I was asked as part of the Gang of 8, can you accept this. The Portman amendment on E- Verify would have been part of that package, and we wouldn't be debating about whether that is here; it would have been part of that package.

Then we had an offer by the majority leader of 17 additional Republican amendments and that was rejected. A whole host of those amendments were from some of the most ardent opponents of this legislation.

So this thrashing and gnashing about process--look, I understand if one doesn't want to get to a final judgment and they want to do everything possible not to get there; they want to do everything possible not to see the legislation move forward because they fundamentally disagree. Let's be honest. Let me make my final point. There is a universe of our colleagues in which no pathway to citizenship would ever be accepted. That is the unseen elephant in the room, but there is a universe of our colleagues--as a matter of fact, some of them are more overt about it. They show it by virtue of even some of the amendments they wanted to offer in which there would be no pathway for citizenship whatsoever--trigger, no trigger, any set of circumstances. We have seen the consequences of that in Europe. The consequence of that is that we create unrest in the community.

It is not OK to exploit 10 or 11 million people and not let them have the chance to make themselves right and earn their way into citizenship in the United States. It is not OK to say there can never be a pathway to citizenship when they are the ones who are bending their backs over, picking up the crops my colleagues and I get to eat every day for dinner or for breakfast. It is not OK to have that immigrant who is taking care of a loved one with a tender heart and warm hand, helping with their daily necessities, and say they can never get a pathway to citizenship. It is not OK to have had chicken for dinner tonight and not understand that this is from the cut-up hands of an immigrant worker. It is not OK to say the country is somehow less secure by virtue of what we are doing.

I have said it many times: I don't know who is here to pursue the American dream versus who might be here to do it harm unless I bring people out of the shadows and into the light. They go through a criminal background check which they have to pass, and if they don't, they get deported right away. If they do, then they have an opportunity to earn their way after a decade in this country toward permanent residency and then later on to U.S. citizenship.

So let's say it as it is. If you don't want a pathway to citizenship, then stand in the Chamber and make a case, if a Member doesn't want a pathway to citizenship under any circumstances. My colleagues have the right to have that opinion. I would strongly disagree but don't hide behind procedures and amendments. Tell me what legislation has come before the floor grows GDP in our country, grows jobs in our country, increases wages of all Americans, and reduces the debt by nearly $1 trillion. I haven't seen it.

That is what the opportunity is before the Senate. That is why no diversion will ultimately sell with the American people. In poll after poll after poll across the landscape of this country, Americans have said across the political spectrum--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--they want to see our broken system fixed. When the elements of this legislation--all of its elements--have been tested, they have overwhelmingly won support.

That is why I am proud of our colleagues, both Democratic and Republican, who have chosen to finally tackle a tough challenge and actually do something to fix this problem and to show America this institution can actually work. That is the other side benefit of everything I have just talked about in terms of economics, of security, of promoting our future, of creating greater jobs, of creating growth and prosperity, of having the best and the brightest in the world be able to help us continue to be a global economic leader, which is that the Senate can actually function.

That is the opportunity before us: fixing our broken immigration system, showing this institution can function in a bipartisan process, and ultimately preserving our legacy as a nation of immigrants.

I always say that the greatest experiment in the history of mankind is the United States, the greatest country on the face of the Earth. A part of American exceptionalism is that experiment we have had, to bring from different lands different people who have contributed enormously to this country.

Tomorrow, I hope to show a series of Americans whom we have proudly held up as examples of greatness, who, in fact, would not be here today but for the opportunities--sometimes under a legal immigration system and sometimes not through a legal immigration system--who have served this country greatly, whom we admire and, at the end of the day, we show as examples to our children of what a person can do for one's country, what a person can achieve for one's Nation, and models to hold up to the world. I can't wait to share that with the rest of my colleagues in the Senate.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any quorum call time be equally divided on both sides.

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

Madam President, I wish to make some observations. I know several of my other colleagues will continue to pursue their views on the floor. I did not intend, when I was asked to sit in for Senator Leahy for a while, to say anything. But some things just cannot go unresponded to.

I heard a lot about the 2007 bill, how that process took place. But what has failed to be mentioned is that the 2007 bill did not go to the Judiciary Committee. It went straight to the floor. Now, this bill, in addition to the time that it was out there when the Gang of 8 proposed it, went through weeks--weeks--of the Judiciary Committee going through its process: 140 amendments were heard and adopted, many of them Republican and most of them bipartisan. So there were 140 changes made to this legislation through the regular order process.

So there is a fundamental difference between 2007 and this legislation. There is another fundamental difference; that is, for the 2 weeks this bill has been on the Senate floor, Republicans, on a series of offers, opposed allowing amendments to go forward, including amendments of their own Republican colleagues. Why? Because they believed amendments being offered by some of their Republican colleagues would make the bill more acceptable to Members on their side of the aisle. So instead of allowing their own colleagues to have the amendments and have their say, they opposed unanimous consent agreements to move forward because they did not want their colleagues to have an opportunity to have that amendment, and maybe if that amendment was adopted then find a way to vote for this bill.

That is pretty outrageous. Then to come to the floor and suggest that there has been an impediment over at least the last 2 weeks to being able to

consider a variety of amendments, when they themselves opposed amendments, including from their colleagues on their side of the aisle----

Yes, I will.

I am aware of that. I heard the distinguished chairman make that offer at various times and I heard that offer rejected various times.

The Senator is right. When there is a series of amendments that would improve the bill and are agreed to by both sides and are, in fact, noncontroversial, it has been the regular order to get those amendments disposed of and on the way.

The reality is this is a different process. Now, I know there are allusions that this amendment is 1,100 pages long. We all know this amendment only took the underlying bill and added the amendment to the underlying bill. So to suggest that there is a new 1,100 pages is disingenuous. It is not the case.

Everybody has known what the amendment is about. The underlying bill has been on the floor for 2 weeks. Before that, it came out of the Judiciary Committee. I think everybody knew what it was. So I think it is not fair to have the American people believe that somehow this legislation just came onto the desks of Senators and they are voting in the blind.

I find it interesting--you know, I have listened over the years, the 7 years I have been here, and before that in the other body, in the House of Representatives--I hear those who want a fence. A fence is a significant part of the solution to the question of border security. Yet here we go. There is nearly 700 miles of fencing in this legislation by virtue of this amendment that will be considered. Oh, no, no, no, no. We do not want a fence.

Then we have heard that having greater Border Patrol agents at the border would dramatically help us achieve border security. Well, this amendment doubles--doubles--the amount of Border Patrol agents at the border. It brings it from about 21,000 to 40,000, 41,000 Border Patrol agents through the course of this legislation. Now we hear: That is just wasting money.

Well, what is your plan? I have heard all of these things that this amendment includes that were part of your plan in the past. But because it is not your amendment, even though it is offered by Members on your side of the aisle, including from border States, suddenly it is not acceptable. Suddenly it is not acceptable.

There is the suggestion that there is somehow a backroom deal. I see this amendment as the personification of what the American people are trying to see this body do, which is Republicans and Democrats from different parts of the country, from different ideological views, coming together in order to compromise, in this case to seek a very strong compromise on border security as part of comprehensive immigration reform legislation, which in poll after poll across the party spectrum has been sought by the people in this country.

That is the essence of what this amendment is all about. So if you bemoan the lack of bipartisanship, then you should not be bemoaning this amendment because this amendment is, in fact, the essence of that bipartisanship and moves us in a direction on border security that I do not believe has existed in any legislative proposal that has come before the Senate. It is an incredible movement toward border security, and it becomes one of several triggers.

What do we mean by a trigger? A condition precedent. We believe these condition precedents can be met because at the end of the day we want to achieve greater security for our country both at the border and in entrance-exit visa issues and interior enforcement issues and in workplace verification, with the E-Verify system. All of these elements are in the legislation. All of them. And many of them are enhanced so that we can get to where we want.

Now the problem is that there are colleagues here who, if 10 angels came swearing from above in the heavens that this is the best legislation to secure the Nation, to promote its economic opportunity, to make sure we have and preserve family reunification as a core value, that we have the future flow of workers so that we can deal with the abilities of different sectors of our economy to have the human capital like the high-tech industry, to be able to produce that human capital so that America can continue to be at the apex of the curve of intellect and globally competitive, they would say: No, these angels lied. We will never satisfy those individuals.

I respect their right to have that view. But to suggest that it is the process, when really what they want to see is no comprehensive immigration reform, I think they should say what they really believe. So that is what is before us.

Finally, on a series of issues that have been raised, for example, on waivers, the reality is the limited waivers do not give anyone a free pass or take away the government's ability to say no to any given individuals. They do not grant unlimited discretion to decisionmakers. Decisionmakers would not be able to exercise discretion in cases involving immigrants who have multiple criminal convictions, who have committed particularly serious offenses or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety. Those restrictions, by way of example, apply to terrorists, gang participants, drug traffickers, human traffickers, money launderers, international child abductors, unlawful voters, just to name a few. So I think there is a mischaracterization in order to create the fear.

Finally, they will question that no matter what, no matter what is done in this bill, no matter how many enforcement provisions exist-- interior enforcement, an entrance-exit visa requirement, and systems to check that whoever comes in this country, make sure they exit and that there is a follow-up in the E-Verify system, which means everyone in the country, when they go for a job, now they are going to have to go to a system to make sure they, in fact, have the right to work in this country; all of the Border Patrol agents, all of the fencing--despite all of that, there are those--and that the individual who is undocumented in the country will have to wait a decade--a decade-- before they will even have the opportunity to adjust their status to permanent residency, assuming, as the legislation calls for, all of these elements I have just talked about are in place--are in place--who suggest that that is amnesty.

Amnesty means you do something wrong and you get forgiven. But you do not have to do anything to be forgiven, you just get forgiven. This is not amnesty. These individuals have to come forth, they have to register with the government, which is incredibly important because I cannot secure America unless I know who is here to pursue the American dream versus who may be here to do it harm. We have millions of people in the shadows, undocumented. We do not know what their purpose is.

Then, after they come forward and register with the government, they have to go through a criminal background check. If they fail it, they get deported. If they pass it, then they get a temporary opportunity to stay here with a permit to work and visit their families.

They have to earn their way, pay their taxes, learn English over the course of a decade, and then, finally,

after a course of a decade, finally be eligible when all of those conditions have been met. That is not amnesty; that is earned. That is earned opportunity toward legalizing their status in this country.

So this is what poll after poll of Americans say they want to fix this broken immigration system. For some of my friends, there will never be a fix sufficient for their view. For some of my friends, it is very clear they do not support any pathway to citizenship under any set of circumstances. That is a view they have the right to hold, but it is a view not supported by the American people. It is a view that does not honor our Nation, which has a history of immigrants. It is a view that has created enormous problems in Europe because immigrants in those respective countries never find a way to earn their way to become a citizen of that country, and you have seen the unrest in those countries. We do not want that in America.

I intend to vote for cloture for the bipartisan amendment. It does a lot that I think in many respects goes way beyond what I contemplated. That is the essence of compromise. It is the essence of moving forward. It is the essence of solving a problem that has vexed us way too long. It is an opportunity to fix our broken immigration system.

I urge my colleagues to cast their votes and be not only on the right side of what is necessary for the country, but be on the right side of history.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I come to the floor with even more good news about the Gang of 8's immigration reform proposal that is being debated before the Senate. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that this legislation we are considering is good for the American economy.

We in the Gang of 8 have spent months working on this bipartisan effort because we knew it was good for the United States. Now we have the official word from the Congressional Budget Office confirming that it will reduce our Nation's deficit and grow our Nation's economy.

As you can see in this graph, the Congressional Budget Office's analysis shows that our bill will increase the U.S. gross domestic product by 3.3 percent in the first 10 years after its enactment and 5.4 percent in the second 10 years after its enactment. This means the bipartisan immigration reform we are debating in the Senate will actually grow our economy, not harm it as some of the ardent opponents have tried to argue.

I have been saying this all along: bringing 11 million people out of the shadows will increase our economic growth, and now we know by how much.

The Congressional Budget Office also tells us we reduce the deficit by $197 billion over the next decade and by another $700 billion more between 2024 and 2033 through changes in direct spending and revenues. We are talking about almost $1 trillion in deficit spending that we can lift from the backs of the next generation by giving 11 million people a pathway to productive citizenship.

I have been saying all along, bringing 11 million people out of the shadows and fixing our broken immigration system will increase the gross domestic product and decrease the deficit, and now we know by how much. The report says it will come in payroll taxes, income taxes, fees, and fines estimated to be about $459 billion in the first 10 years and $1.5 trillion in the second 10 years. It also found that there will be fewer unauthorized individuals coming into the United States as a result of our bill.

Contrary to what my colleague from Alabama has continuously claimed on the floor of the Senate, the CBO found ``that the border enforcement and security provisions of the bill, along with the implementation of the mandatory employment verification system, would decrease the net future flows of unauthorized people into the United States.''

The bottom line of this report is clear. What the CBO numbers tell us is that 11 million people living in fear and in the shadows are not, as some would have us believe, part of America's problem, but bringing them out of the shadows is actually part of the solution and part of strengthening America's economic future. They are a key to economic growth, and immigration reform will help save the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.

What we realize today is that giving 11 million people a pathway, an arduous pathway, nonetheless a tough pathway, go through a criminal-- come forth and register with the government, first of all, and let us know who is here, go through a criminal background check; they must pass that background check because if they don't, they are deported; and then ultimately they pay their taxes, learn English, and after more than a decade earn their way toward citizenship; fixing that broken immigration system, in effect, is an economic growth strategy and exactly the right thing to do.

Frankly, the CBO numbers negate any reasonable argument the opponents of this legislation have. Every argument they have made is based on one thing and one thing only: that ``those people'' living in the shadows, ``those people'' trying to earn a living, ``those people'' trying to keep their families together are a symptom of American decline. Our history of immigration clearly contradicts those arguments, and the CBO numbers confirm it.

The opponents of this legislation couldn't be more wrong. Giving 11 million people a pathway to citizenship, while strengthening our enforcement efforts, is not a symptom of decline. On the contrary, it is a symbol of America's hope and a validation of American values, what we stand for as a nation and who we are as a people.

I believe a new generation of immigrants willing to work hard and contribute to the economy will help make this another century of American exceptionalism.

I say to my friends on the other side, and I say to my friend from Alabama

who appears to have only gotten the CBO score for the first 10 years but not the second 10 years, even though I understand he was the one who asked for the CBO to score the second 10 years, apparently the second 10 years holds an inconvenient truth for my friend. The good news in this analysis actually gets better in the second 10 years. The CBO reports that immigration reform will reduce the deficit by $700 billion, increase wages by half a percent, increase GDP by 5.4 percent, and increase productivity and innovation.

As I listen to the Senator from Alabama make his remarks about the CBO report on wages, I don't think the numbers say he believes what they say. He was talking about how American family wages would go down, and the report explicitly says that is not the case.

In fact, Ezra Klein wrote yesterday in the Washington Post that the idea that immigration would lower wages of already working Americans is ``actually a bit misleading. . . . As for folks already here, CBO is careful to note that their estimates ``do not necessarily imply that current U.S. residents would be worse off'' in the first 10 years, and in the second 10 years, they estimate that the average American's wages will actually rise.''

In addition, in case my friend from Alabama missed it, the report also says:

Although immigrants constituted 12 percent of the

population in the year 2000, they accounted for 26 percent of

U.S. based Nobel Prize winners, and they made up 25 percent

of public venture-backed companies started between 1990 and

2005.

The fact is, immigrants receive patents at twice the rate of the native-born U.S. population. The bottom line, as Ezra Klein states:

The bill's overall effect on the overall economy is

unambiguously positive.

This is encouraging news for the American economy and it validates what many of us have known all along. I would only say let's not take a report from the Congressional Budget Office, twist it for political purposes, and then preach to the fears of those who would oppose this legislation no matter how encouraging and positive the CBO numbers are. I am already beginning to hear the voices who, of course, are rejecting the CBO's analysis. I find it interesting. I stand on this floor very often and listen to my colleagues who use the CBO numbers when it inures to their benefit but reject them when it doesn't. You can't do it. You can't have it both ways. This is a reason to move forward, not a reason for further obstruction.

The Congressional Budget Office report is encouraging enough, in my view, to make this legislation part of an economic recovery strategy and a long-term competitiveness strategy. I say to the opponents of the legislation: Don't stand in the way of economic growth. Don't stand in the way of economic recovery. Let's say yes to immigration reform.

Even a voice I normally am not in concert with--Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, said yesterday:

Today's CBO score is more evidence that immigration is key

to economic growth. Immigration reform will jumpstart

America's economy and reduce our national debt. . . . I urge

Congress to fix our broken immigration system for the sake of

the American economy.

I don't usually agree with Grover Norquist, so the fact that we can actually agree on this issue means we have done something right in the Gang of 8, something worthy of the support even of some of my most conservative colleagues.

I think my friends on the other side are out of arguments. Ezra Klein does a good job of bottom-lining the CBO analysis. He says:

This isn't just a good CBO report. It's a wildly good CBO

report. They're basically saying immigration reform is a free

lunch: It cuts the deficit by growing the economy. It makes

Americans better off and it makes immigrants better off. At a

time when the U.S. economy desperately needs a bit of help,

this bill, according to CBO, helps. And politically, it

forces opponents of the bill onto the ground they're least

comfortable occupying: They have to argue that immigration

reform is bad for cultural or ethical reasons rather than

economic ones.

The good news in this CBO report about the economic benefits of immigration reform is exactly one of the reasons 70 percent of Americans support it. It is good for the economy. Once again, we realize the breadth of support for this legislation goes far beyond politics, demographics, or elections. It goes to our responsibility to the economy and to our country.

We have an obligation to pass this legislation if we want to fix our immigration system and rebuild our economy.

To those opponents of immigration reform who tell us ``those people'' will come here and use services, demand more and bankrupt the system, I would point them to this graphic.

The sizable deficit reduction from immigration reform in the first 10 years is actually dwarfed by the amount that immigrants will continue to contribute in reducing the national deficit in the second 10 years.

This clearly shows immigration reform is good for America now and in the long term. People have long realized, and the CBO numbers show us, that this legislation is, without a doubt, the right thing to do. It benefits all of us as an issue.

These are people who have come here to work, contribute to our economy, our economic competitiveness, pay their taxes, and be part of the dream. The CBO report simply puts numbers to what that dream is all about and what we have known all along.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I come to the floor because I have been listening to some of the discussions of my colleagues about the immigration reform bill that is before the Senate.

As I have said before, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. I have heard references, time and time again, to 1986, the last time immigration reform legislation was passed. This is not 1986. Selective memory loss seems to be at work in the Senate today, so I wish to respond to some of these claims made by my colleagues.

On one hand, critics of the immigration bill keep harking back to the Immigration Control Act of 1986, commonly known as IRCA, arguing we haven't learned the lessons of 1986. On the other hand, they insist on their slogan of securing the border first, before a legalization process can begin. But if there are lessons to be learned from 1986, there are just as many to be learned from the last 10 years in which ``enforcement first'' has been the mantra of Congress's immigration policy, with disastrous results.

First, with respect to 1986, the overriding lesson learned from that bill was that if we don't deal with the reasons people come to the United States, we don't solve the problem. A promise to end illegal immigration ultimately could not be fulfilled because the 1986 law did not address the question of future immigration flows.

The Migration Policy Institute and the Immigration Policy Center have identified one cause of future illegal immigration after IRCA to be not legalization--not legalization--but the failure of legislation to address future flows of immigration. S. 744, the bill we are debating, however, does not follow in the failed footsteps of the 1986 act and addresses future flow in real and meaningful ways.

But we have learned other lessons in the intervening years, most notably that the enforcement-first policy does not serve our country well. Despite an extraordinary allocation of resources and personnel, the flow of illegal immigrants has steadfastly been affected more by the economy than by enforcement efforts. As deportations have gone up, the tragic impact on families and children has been well documented and the impact on the economy continues to grow.

So if one of the pull factors is the opportunity to earn money to send back to families, S. 744 undermines that opportunity by mandating a universal--a universal--employment verification system and provides for a reasonable implementation schedule. What that basically means is that virtually every employer in America is going to have to make sure that regardless of who a person is, when they come forth and seek to be employed by an employer that has a job available, they are going to go through the system and verify whether the person has the legal status to be able to work in the United States. That undermines that factor of drawing people to this country for employment opportunities much more than anything else about interdiction.

If anything, the growing outrage over a broken immigration system helped to change the political dynamic last year. It was a rejection of both the enforcement-only strategy and the idea that we must secure the border first.

Finally, the Migration Policy Institute explained that the 1986 limited legalization program left many people in the shadows, which led to substantial backlogs in family-based immigration categories. Illegal immigration did not decrease dramatically until after the passage of enforcement-only bills starting in 1996 that trapped many in an undocumented status despite their family or employment ties. So our legislation learns from the mistakes of the past and creates a balanced 21st century immigration system.

Despite what many have said, our legislation, in moving forward with legalization, does not abandon border security but, rather, addresses it in tandem with the significant problems that face our immigration system. We can, for example, reap enormous benefits from legalizing the undocumented, both in terms of their economic and social contributions--making sure they fully pay taxes and are law abiding in every other respect--and in terms of creating a more secure and accountable system, as we will know who is in the United States and who can lawfully work here, but we can't do it if we have to wait years-- years--under some of the amendments our colleagues are offering to begin the process of transitioning undocumented people into a legal status.

I have heard a lot about national security. I would prefer to know who is in the United States. Let them come forth, register with the government, go through a criminal background check, and those who can't pass that background check--maybe they don't think their background is going to come up--get deported. Then I know who is here to do harm to America versus who is here to pursue the American dream. But my colleagues would continue through their amendments to keep these people in the shadows--millions--and, therefore, I don't know how we promote national security if we don't know who is here and for what purposes. So we reap enormous benefits, both in terms of economic benefits as well as security, by bringing those people out of the shadows and into the light--registering with the government, going through a criminal background check, paying taxes, learning English, and earning their way to make their situation right in the United States.

Certain impossible border security standards must be seen for what they are, which, in my view, is a cynical attempt to deny a pathway to legalization. My colleagues can flower it all they want, they can cover it up all they want, they can put all the lipstick on it they want, but it is still what it is. It is a cynical attempt to ultimately undermine a pathway to legalization. The standards some of my colleagues are trying to propose have not been met by the Federal Government in virtually any other responsibility the government has. Pretty amazing. Tying the two together, as so many have tried to do, is simply institutionalizing the status quo.

What does the status quo do? The status quo allows millions to be in this country without knowing what their purpose is here. The status quo allows families to be divided. The status quo allows U.S. citizens and permanent residents--legal permanent residents of the United States--to be unlawfully detained in immigration raids, treated as second-class citizens of this country because of the happenstance of where they live, who they are, what they look like. Who among us is willing to be a second-class citizen in America?

The status quo permits an underclass to be exploited and creates downward pressures on the wages of all Americans, and that exploitation takes place. The status quo doesn't allow for the challenges, even in a tough job economy, to be fulfilled so our economy can grow. I listen to all different sectors of our economy, including the agricultural sector. I listen to the seafood industry. I listen to the hospitality industry. I listen to the restaurant industry. I listen to the high- tech industry. They all clamor for individuals to do these critical jobs that very often support the high-paying jobs above them but are essential in order to be able to produce that product or deliver that service. Yet we would have the status quo be preserved because that is, in essence, what the amendments being offered include, which are unattainable standards that my colleagues know simply cannot be met. They are not about border security but about undermining the pathway to legalization.

So let's look at what this bill does do, however, about border security, among many other provisions. It includes $6.5 billion in addition to the greatest amount of resources, including money, border patrol, customs enforcement, physical impediments on the border, aerial surveillance that already exists. It adds $6.5 billion to bolster our border security efforts, and that is in addition to the annual appropriations for border security.

Effective border controls? Yes. As a matter of fact, these provisions of the Gang of 8 were largely drafted by the Senators who came from border States and who had a real sense and a real conversation with those who secure the border every day about what is needed.

It requires all employers to verify their workers are authorized to work in this country, which cuts off the job magnet--another effective control, perhaps the most effective control. It has

a whole entry-exit system that is far more advanced than that which exists today, and before any legalization can begin--before any legalization can begin--the Secretary of Homeland Security is designated to come up with a plan for how to deploy $4.5 billion of those resources on infrastructure, technology, fencing, and personnel such as the Border Patrol, so it will be able to catch 9 out of every 10 undocumented immigrants who might attempt to cross the border. So there is more border control.

Only after this plan has been presented to the Congress and the E- Verify system--which is that employment check--is ready for nationwide implementation and the deployment of the resources has commenced, may the legalization program begin to adjust undocumented individuals to that provisional status. Before anyone in that provisional status can ever be granted a green card, which basically means permanent residency, all of the resources in the plan must be deployed on the ground and be working.

That is not enough for some of my colleagues because they create standards for which we, in essence, could never, ever have even a provisional status in the country.

Some Senators have also claimed our bill allows immigrants to receive welfare and other public benefits. That is just simply not true. S. 744, the bill before us, bars individuals granted even provisional status and blue card status--which are agriculture workers and V nonimmigrant visas--they will not be eligible for the following Federal means-tested public benefit programs for the duration of their provisional status: nonemergency Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, otherwise known as SNAP or food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, and Supplementary Security Income.

In fact, when most of these individuals adjust to LPR/green card status, they will be forced to wait at least 5 additional years before becoming eligible for these programs, and all the while they are paying taxes, which is a prerequisite. As a result, an individual with RPI status, who is otherwise eligible for public benefits, would not be able to enroll in programs such as Medicaid and SNAP for 15 years.

Now, during the duration of their provisional status, individuals will not be eligible for the Affordable Care Act's premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions that help make health insurance affordable for low- and middle-income working families. They will not be eligible for that. Individuals granted RPI--the provisional status--blue card or V nonimmigrant visa status will be able to purchase private health insurance at full cost--at full cost--without subsidies, without tax credits through the insurance marketplaces created under the Affordable Care Act.

We want to give them the opportunity out of their own pocket and with full cost to be able to do so if they can because that means we lessen the burden on our health care system, particularly in an emergency room setting, which is what happens right now.

This does not give tax credits, it does not give subsidies, but it does say to the individual: If you have the wherewithal, go buy insurance and protect yourself.

This bill denies benefits to legalized immigrants. It is a tough bill and, frankly, for many of us, some of these provisions, because we say to someone: Come forth, register, pay fines, pay fees, pay your taxes, and, by the way, for a decade or more, even though you are paying taxes like anybody else, you have absolutely no right to anything--that is virtually what we are saying. So I wanted to clarify the record so the American people understand the truth about this bill. It is a tough and fair compromise that respects the American taxpayer.

Finally, I would like to clarify the record about taxes and the economic benefits of this bill. This bill increases the gross domestic product of the United States by a cumulative $832 billion over 10 years--$832 billion over 10 years--and that is only by virtue of looking at the legalization aspect. If we look at the totality of all the elements of the bill, it exceeds $1 trillion. It increases the wages of all Americans by $470 billion, and it creates an average of 121,000 new jobs each year for the next 10 years. That is an additional 1.2 million jobs over the next decade.

The Senate bill says individuals who do not pay their taxes cannot-- cannot--renew their legal status or obtain green cards. Legalizing immigrants can be required to pay assessed taxes going back as for as 10 years before legalization.

This requirement is tougher than the back tax requirements in the 2006 and 2007 bipartisan Senate immigration bills, which only required legalizing workers to pay back taxes when they obtained their green cards. Under this bill, workers are held responsible for back taxes at three points: when first transitioning to legal status, when renewing their status, and when obtaining a green card. On top of the back tax requirement, legalizing workers will have to pay significant penalties and fees at registration and renewal and when obtaining their green cards.

Everyone who works, regardless of their immigration status, is liable for the payment of taxes. ``Assessed liability'' simply means legalizing workers will be held responsible for all of the back taxes the IRS says they owe--all the back taxes the IRS says they owe--going back as far as 10 years before legalization.

The back tax requirement is written in the way that is most straightforward for the IRS to implement and enforce, saving resources and making sure that individuals with past-due liability can actually be blocked from adjusting their status.

It provides an efficient way for the Department of Homeland Security to confirm that individuals have satisfied their tax liabilities. It is much easier for the Department of Homeland Security to work with IRS to confirm that individuals have paid all their assessed liabilities instead of sifting through tens of millions of tax returns, which would not reflect taxes that may have been assessed by the IRS.

I look at the Congressional Budget Office. We will await their score, but they and other experts in the past have found that undocumented workers will pay billions of dollars more in taxes--more in taxes--once they come out of the shadows and work legally.

I had thought, with poll after poll after poll where Democrats and Republicans and Independents said they wanted to see this broken immigration system fixed, where, in fact, we had a national election last November for the Presidency, for the Congress, in which this debate raged on quite a bit--and ultimately a new demographic in the country showed, in those election results, as they marched to the polls, that they were looking at how this Congress would deal with the question of reforming our broken immigration system--that, in fact, we would have a different day in the Senate, that instead of voices that are seeking to undermine the very essence of reform--that includes border security, that includes a pathway to legalization, that includes provisions in our economy that are incredibly important both to grow and not suppress the wages of Americans, that improves the protections to make sure American workers have the first shot at getting any job that exists in America first and foremost, that looks at the future in terms of flows and says: This is how we are going to deal with this to ensure that our economic vitality grows by virtue of who we allow in this country but that still preserves a very core value, an American value, a value I often hear my colleagues talk about, which is about family values and the family unit--well, that still preserves the very essence of that value, even as it reduces it somewhat, and at the same time preserves our history as a nation of immigrants, the greatest experiment in the history of mankind, which has made us the greatest country on the face of the Earth--that we would hear a different approach by some of our colleagues.

But I have heard the same tired refrain, and it may sound good, but when you read what the amendments are all about, you understand what they are really trying to do. I believe those efforts will be rejected. Legitimate efforts to improve this bill, as it was improved in the Senate Judiciary Committee, in which 136 amendments were offered and passed--many of them were Republican amendments, many of them were bipartisan amendments that were

passed, and they, in fact, refined, improved, and made more specific elements of the bill that were great additions--those opportunities exist here as well.

But what we cannot allow is to nullify the hopes and dreams and aspirations of millions of people in our country who are waiting for this moment. We cannot nullify the opportunity to really move toward securing our country in a way far beyond the status quo. We cannot lose the opportunity to grow our economy, get more taxpayers into our system, and strengthen our overall revenue sources. That is what this bill is all about. That is why I believe at the end of the day it will prevail and receive the votes necessary to move forward and be sent to the House so we can finally get this broken immigration system fixed.

Mr. President, I have a more robust statement that I intend to make later. But since I understand the time is truncated, I will wait for that because I am not going to equivocate on something that I feel passionately about and something that I have worked on a long time as part of the Gang of 8 to achieve. So, hopefully, I will get to that later today.

I did want to take advantage of the time that is available to just create a certain context having just heard from my colleague from Texas. I am glad he acknowledges this bill will pass the Senate. I believe the bill will pass the Senate because the American people are tired of a broken immigration system that neither meets our values, preserves our security, or promotes our economy. That is what is driving the American people in poll after poll and saying it is time to fix our broken system.

Now, I have heard the comments about this bill will pass the Senate, but it will not pass the House. Well, having served in the House, I am not quite sure anybody can make that determination. Part of it will be what leadership wants to achieve in the House and what it does not seek to achieve.

I would not negotiate against myself, against a process in the House which I am unaware of at this moment of exactly how they are going to pursue it. So why would I seek to diminish the Senate's prerogative to send what they think is the appropriate reform on immigration to the House for their consideration. I would not want to do that. That is what conferences are all about.

So if the House has a different view as to how we reform our broken immigration system, has a different view as to how we ensure the national security of the United States, has a different view as to how we promote the economic interests that immigration reform does promote, has a different view as to how we ensure that workers' wages are not suppressed by having an underclass of millions of people who are exploited and therefore bringing down the wages of all other American workers, fine. Let them express their view and then we can come together in a conference and negotiate what hopefully can be a final version to be sent to the President.

I find it ironic that my colleague from Texas consistently refers to Senate Democrats insisting on a pathway to citizenship. I assume he takes the mantle of the Republican Party and says all Republicans believe there should be no pathway to citizenship. That, obviously, is rejected by the four

colleagues who worked with me for months: Senator McCain, Senator Graham, Senator Flake, and Senator Rubio, who believe a pathway to citizenship is an important ingredient toward achieving the comprehensive reform we all want, as well as others who have expressed support for that concept.

I know it may be popular with some of my colleagues to invoke President Obama's name as some type of red herring in this process. The bottom line is the bill we are debating, or I hope we will be debating after the motion to proceed shortly, is about finding the fixes to our broken immigration system that was devised by four Democrats and four Republicans and has since been supported by more. So it is not about President Obama. It is about getting the Senate to function and to solve one of the critical issues facing this country.

I heard the suggestion that only Senate Democrats got amendments they wanted and they opposed amendments of Republicans in the Judiciary Committee. My understanding is that there were 136 amendments adopted in the Judiciary Committee, of which all but three were bipartisan amendments or Republican-sponsored amendments. So I respect that the Senator had amendments and maybe his view did not prevail, but it is not true that there was not a bipartisan process that led to 136 amendments to the original proposition of the Gang of 8 put forward in order to be able to move forward. As a matter of fact, I think some of those who have opposed and still oppose comprehensive immigration reform--I know there are some that if 10 angels came swearing from above that this would be the right policy for America, they would say, no, you are wrong to the 10 angels.

I get it. I understand where they are, but the process held in the Judiciary Committee was about as open, transparent, and fair as you could have. That is why there are 136 changes to our proposal by virtue of the Judiciary Committee.

Finally, this reference to union bosses. I don't know any union bosses who were in any room. As a matter of fact, part of the compromise is that labor didn't get everything it wanted, neither did the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. But they both agreed, and they were standing behind us when we announced this legislation, in saying this is good for America.

Big business, the AFL-CIO, United Farm Workers with the big agro growers in this country, the most progressive pro-immigrant groups with Grover Norquist and the Americans for Tax Reform, all say this legislation is what is important and necessary for America.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. I expect, during the course of this debate, to make sure that at least when we are debating, we are debating the same facts.

This legislation is good for our country. It will reform our broken immigration system. It will let me know who is here to pursue the American dream versus who might be here to do it harm. It will create economic opportunity for all Americans. It will add more taxpayers to the rolls of this country so there can be true, shared burden at the end of the day. It will create greater enterprise, as is exhibited by the high-tech companies, of which so many have been created by immigrants in this country.

I look forward to a fuller opportunity to present all of the reasons why this legislation, including tough border security provisions, more than ever before, more money spent than ever before--that this, in fact, will be spent in an intelligent way and in a way that ultimately, cumulatively, creates for border security more money than we are spending in domestic law enforcement as a whole.

I look forward to that opportunity.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, let me first recognize the incredible work of the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee who worked through a very open, transparent, fair process that led to 130- some-odd amendments being considered and voted upon, in many cases adopted, and almost all of them adopted, from what I understand, many of them bipartisan.

I think even those who oppose immigration reform acknowledge the chairman's evenhandedness and his willingness to have an open and free debate. That got us to where we are today. So he has my appreciation and my admiration for the way in which he conducted that process that brings us to today.

As a member of the Senate bipartisan Gang of 8, I believe we come to this floor if not in complete harmony, at least on the same sheet of music with a very solid legislative process. Let me take this opportunity to thank our staffs who have worked extraordinarily hard to put all of the pieces of this bill together and make this day possible.

You know, Senator Schumer calls Leon Fresco his genius. I like to think of my counsel, Kerri Talbot, as the conscience of the Gang of 8. I want to thank Kerri for her dedication, for always believing that if we put our heads in the yoke and pull hard enough we could pull our plow all of the way to a workable compromise, and we have.

I want to thank all of those other staffers who put in so many hours and who will no doubt put in many more until this bill is passed and put on the President's desk.

This bill before us is the essence of compromise. During this long process, no one in the Gang of 8 got everything they wanted. But everyone got a workable bill worthy of support. That is the very definition in my mind of compromise. We did what we were elected to do. That is democracy in action. We may not all agree all the time, but all of us were elected to govern, and the hard work of compromise is the only way to get things done in a democracy.

We all bring certain core principles to our job. Those are the things we should not compromise. But there is a difference between compromising your principles and compromising on issues. It is not about holding out for political or ideological gain but letting your core principles guide you to a compromise that benefits the Nation. We were all elected. It is up to all of us to govern together.

So I urge my colleagues to stand with us on this comprehensive reform package that is so critical to the national security of the United States, to the national economy of the United States, and to preserve our values as a nation of immigrants. Let's come together as we have in the Gang of 8 and give every American what they have been asking for, which is a way to fix our broken immigration system.

Now, we need to know who is here to pursue the American dream versus who is here to do it harm. That is what immigration reform will do. It will bring people out of the shadows, into the light, and they will have to register with the government, go through a criminal background check, pay taxes, learn English, and go to the back of the line after all of those who are waiting under the existing system so that they would be processed first. So they are not going to break into the line and get to the top of the line.

It is not only in the national security interests of the United States, it is in the economic interests of the United States to harness the economic power of millions of new Americans. Let's be honest with ourselves about who these new Americans are. If you had fruit for breakfast this morning, it was probably picked in the hot Sun by an immigrant worker with a bent back and sunburned skin.

If you had chicken for dinner last night, it was probably plucked by the calloused, cut-up hands of an immigrant worker. If you have someone in your family who is infirm and needs constant care, chances are, it is an immigrant worker who works the third shift to attend to their needs with a warm heart and steady hand.

If you are wondering who is spurring American innovation, chances are it is an immigrant high-tech, startup entrepreneur who, according to the National Venture Capital Association, has started 25 percent of public U.S. companies backed by venture capital investors. In fact, as of 2010 nearly one-fifth, 18 percent, of all Fortune 500 companies had at least one founder who was an immigrant. That is who the new Americans are. You know it, I know it. Immigrant workers have been there every day working hard, providing services, an integral part of our economy in tourism and farming and the restaurant industry, in small businesses and high-tech startups. The simple fact is immigration reform is good for our economy.

We want to be sure every American who wants to work hard at any job has the opportunity in America to do it first. We also do not want to exploit an underclass in America that would suppress all wages of workers in the economy. And if, in fact, you have an underclass of undocumented individuals who can be exploited, and very often are very much exploited, you create a system in which you suppress the wages of all workers. Eliminating that is an opportunity to ensure that wages rise.

The fact is that immigration reform will increase tax revenue. As we can see from this chart, as a direct result of this legislation, we will increase tax revenues over 10 years by $109 billion. That is $69 billion in Federal revenue and $40 billion in badly needed increases in revenue to the States.

Our second chart shows cumulative economic gains over 10 years after passage of this legislation. Look at these numbers. Just look at them. Fixing the broken immigration system would increase America's GDP, its gross domestic product, by $832 billion over the next 10 years.

It will increase wages of all Americans by $470 billion over 10 years, and it will increase the number of jobs created in America by 121,000 per year. Immigrants will start small businesses, and they will create jobs for all American workers. In fact, small businesses owned by immigrants employed an estimated 4.7 million people in 2007 and created more than $776 billion in revenue annually.

I ask my colleagues, knowing we have a broken immigration system, knowing millions of families are in the shadows, knowing we have to address this problem now, can we, in good conscience, afford not to pass a bill that would increase GDP over 10 years by $832 billion? Really, can we? Can we afford not to pass a bill that will increase wages of all Americans by $470 billion? Can we afford not to pass a bill that will create 121,000 jobs every year for the next 10 years, 1.2 million more jobs in the next decade, because we had the wisdom and the will to act?

Immigrants have been a silent force on this economy, working in the shadows. It is time to bring them into the light. It is time to harness that economic power. They are working hard providing services, working in every industry at every level, even sacrificing their lives to serve in our military.

In wave after wave, season after season, immigrants have been the backbone of the agricultural industry, willing to work the fields and pull the crops that feed our families. That work is being done by immigrant workers, and God bless them for their willingness to do it.

God bless men such as LCpl Jose Gutierrez, who was not even a citizen of the United States when he became the first American soldier to die in Iraq. He wore the uniform of this Nation. He was willing to do battle for this Nation. He died on behalf of the country. He was not, although he aspired to be, even a citizen of the United States.

Let's send a message to every American to stand with us on immigration reform in memory of LCpl Jose Gutierrez and every soldier like him. Let's send a message that no longer will immigrant families be separated from loved ones. No longer will U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents be caught up in immigration raids and detained unlawfully in violation of their constitutional rights simply because of the way they look, the way they speak, or the color of their skin.

We have many cases of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents who have been unlawfully detained in immigration raids until their citizenship was established or their permanent residency was established. Who among us in this Chamber would be willing to be a second-class citizen in this country? I don't know about others, but right now I have nothing in my possession that says I am a U.S. citizen. I am not carrying my passport. I was born in the United States, but I don't carry my birth certificate. I certainly don't expect to be stopped because, as some said in this Chamber in 2007, I am one of those people--one of those people--that I am different, that I am somehow not American.

We know the history of this Nation. History has taught us when there is a story of one group of people becoming a suspect class, when one group of people is blamed for all the ills of the Nation, that story always has a sad ending. We cannot let that happen again in the greatest country on the face of the Earth.

As the son of Cuban-American immigrants growing up in Union City, I understand too many families have waited too long for commonsense immigration reform, too long to have the chance to raise their hands, take the oath, and say they ``will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic,'' and ``bear true faith and allegiance to the same.''

Too many have waited too long to say those words that will change their lives. They changed my mother's life and, in turn, changed mine, giving me the chance to stand here today, one of 100 U.S. Senators, one of eight who has spent months negotiating a very tough

but fair proposal to fix our broken immigration system.

I know what is at stake. We know what is at stake. We have lived it, and we see it every day. I believe we can finally say today there is some light at the end of the long dark tunnel that has been before us.

This bill represents a lot of hard work. It is the essence of compromise. We have come a long way in the Gang of 8, but there is still a long way to go.

Are there legitimate amendments that can improve this bill? Of course. Are there still those who would amend this bill solely to undermine immigration reform? Absolutely. They may cloak their words in suggesting they want to see reform, but the reality is they are dead set against it. Are there those who still decry this as amnesty? We hear it every day. We have already heard it in this debate. Some of these roles are being reprised from 2007. Every day they are still wrong and could not be more wrong.

Amnesty means you did something wrong and are forgiven without having to make yourself right. This bill is certainly not amnesty. This bill says you must make yourself right by registering with the government, going through criminal background checks, and if you are a criminal, or you are found to be a criminal under that background check, you will get deported, as you should. It says you have to pay taxes, you have to learn English, and you have to wait your turn and go to the back of the line.

Are there those who think we have not done enough to control the border? Yes, there are those voices, even though we have included $6.5 billion to increase technology and finish the job. We have already started to secure our borders, even though the border provisions of this bill were largely written by Senators representing border States. They live it with every day. They had some of the biggest input in the Gang of 8 to say this is what we feel we need to deal with border security--so much so, on these provisions and with these dollars, that the New York Times reported on Friday that defense contractors favor immigration reform because of what we have included for border security. The facts are clear. The truth is here for all to see.

Let me show you our next chart.

Since 1986, spending on border security has increased. As you can see from this chart, immigration enforcement spending, adjusted to 2012 dollars, has dramatically increased over the last 26 years, over two decades. Border spending has gone from $1.2 billion in 1986 to $6.2 billion in the year 2002, peaking in 2009 at $20 billion annually. We are increasing it again in this legislation by over $6.5 billion. That is more than four times as much as 2002 and more than 20 times as much border spending as in 1986. No one can say we have neglected border security in this bill.

Here is another chart to put it in a different context. Let's put this in this context. When we look at spending, as you can see from this chart, we now spend more on immigration enforcement than all other criminal enforcement agencies combined--all of them combined.

In 2012 we spent almost $18 billion on Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Patrol, and US-VISIT, $18 billion, compared to about $14 billion, $4 billion less on all other principal law enforcement agencies such as the FBI.

As I said, we are adding over $6.5 billion to the immigration and enforcement side of the ledger in this bill. That will put us in the position of spending twice as much on border security as we do on all other law enforcement agencies in this country.

It is not only the money we spend but how we spend it.

The fact is border enforcement is at an all-time high. We are enacting a strategy to have 100 percent surveillance and prevent at least 90 percent of all illegal border crossings across the highest risk areas of our southern border, but there are still those who say it is not enough.

We are investing in new technologies to secure the borders. The number of Border Patrol agents has doubled over the past 8 years, but there are still those who say not enough.

Let's be clear, we are making significant additional investments in border security and technology to make sure at least 90 percent of all illegal border crossings are prevented. There are some who say: Oh, we have to have 100 percent. I don't know anything the Federal Government does 100 percent. Do we catch 100 percent of all the criminals? Do we collect 100 percent of all taxes? Do we do 100 percent of anything? No. Those who try to invoke that type of standard are simply trying to undermine the pathway toward citizenship.

Let's be clear. We are making very significant strides and this is very tough in all of the border provisions. I have only mentioned a few. There are a lot more.

On the flip side, there are those who believe we have done all we can on border security in this legislation but have not gone far enough in other areas, that there are too many obstacles to citizenship and a 13- year path is too long. A 13-year path--certainly not an easy road or anything anyone could call amnesty--is a compromise I am willing to accept so we can finally bring 11 million people out of the shadows and give them a chance for better lives for themselves, their families, to earn their way here in America to fulfill their hopes, dreams, and aspirations, as well as our hopes, dreams, and aspirations as a country.

The fact is, at the end of the day, when all of the political posturing has subsided, we have an obligation to govern. We have met, in this proposal, that obligation. We have come up with a good, solid, bipartisan product. The time has come and the moment is here. The opportunity is before us to make history, and I hope we don't miss that opportunity.

Let me urge my colleagues, let's not begin this debate with toxic amendments that would test the basic values and principles of those on one side or the other, force us all to our respective corners, no lines in the sand. Let's get the job done. We don't need amendments that would establish manipulable border security benchmarks before we could even bring one person out of the shadows. This is not finding a way to govern, that is about killing the bill.

We do not need to retreat to lines drawn in the sand on every issue covered by this legislation. We can either come together, both sides, both parties, and govern, as the American people want to see us do, or once again blow it up and do nothing.

I believe we have come too far and the demands of the American people in poll after poll are rather clear: It is time to fix our broken immigration system. Join us and make history.

Eleven million people live in the shadows of fear and hope they will one day--if they do all the right things--have a chance, however difficult it will be, to become American citizens. This bill would give them that chance. Citizenship will not be easy, but the rules are clear: It will take up to 13 years to complete after background checks, fines, penalties, paying taxes, working, and learning English.

They want to reunite their families, and this bill will finally-- finally--do what we should have done long ago to keep families together under a provision to allow immediate reunification of green card holders with their spouses and minor children. How can we in good conscience not support the reunification of families who have been separated for far too long? For those who come to this floor and proclaim their commitment to family values, this is the time to show it.

This bill will clear the current backlog for those already waiting in line--those who have been patient and waiting in line--and put the additional 11 million at the back of that line. It is a long line indeed. Let no one come to this floor and misrepresent this compromise language as amnesty. It clearly isn't amnesty. This is not a free ride but a pathway for undocumented individuals to earn; for those who have been here contributing to America's economy while living in constant fear of deportation, constant fear of exploitation, constant fear of waking up in the morning and wondering if they will see their family at night.

The bill provides a simple, fair opportunity for DREAMers. These are young people who, through no fault of their own, came to America because their parents brought them here. The only country they know is that of the United States. The only flag they have ever pledged allegiance to is the American flag. The only national anthem

they know is the ``Star-Spangled Banner.'' How can we not give them a chance, when they were brought here by their families and they want to belong to the only country they have ever known?

Madam President, this has been a hard road to compromise, with months of hard work and hard negotiations. But the hard work of trying to achieve comprehensive immigration reform has paid off with the support of the broadest spectrum of groups and organizations I have seen in my nearly 20 years between the House and the Senate. From the U.S. Chamber of Commerce representing business in this country, to the AFL-CIO representing labor; from agro-growers to farm workers, from high-tech entrepreneurs to restaurant owners and every religious sector--the evangelical community is strongly supportive of this, as are Christians and Jews and everything in between. People on all sides of every issue are finding common ground to say this is the right legislation for America.

We have a chance to make history, but we cannot make history without uniting behind a deep and abiding belief in the need to govern, the need to fulfill our responsibilities to the people we represent. The time has come. If we cannot come together on comprehensive immigration reform at a time when the American people have clearly spoken, if we cannot push back against the extremes that will always prevent us from ever finding the center, if we choose only to obstruct and not solve, destroy and not build, then we will have lost a perfect chance not only to make history but to do what is right by our country.

This is a good bill. It is a fair compromise, a chance for us to come together and govern and do what a majority of the American people are demanding we do. Last year's national election evidenced a new American demographic, and the new America spoke resoundingly about who they will support and not support based on how they vote on comprehensive immigration reform. Let's listen to what that new America had to say and do the right thing.

I am confident we can get this bill passed, and I hope--I sincerely hope--our colleagues in the House will take our lead and pass comprehensive immigration reform this year. I hope they will join us in realizing the time has come.

Si, se puede--yes, we can.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before I begin my remarks, I ask unanimous consent that Molly Groom, a detailee to the Foreign Relations Committee from the Department of Homeland Security, be given floor privileges for the duration of the debate on S. 744.

Mr. President, I wish to join the distinguished majority leader and the Republican leader in welcoming my new colleague from the great State of New Jersey, Jeff Chiesa, and his family to the Senate. I look forward to working with him closely on the issues of importance to New Jersey and to the Nation.

We have heard some of his exemplary milestones in his career. He is a career attorney and someone who has served in public service. He certainly has the Governor's confidence, as is evidenced by the time he spent with him at the U.S. Attorney's Office, then in the Governor's transition, which he led, as well as being his chief counsel and the attorney general of the State of New Jersey, for which he has had some extraordinary opportunities to both protect

and promote the general welfare of the people of the State of New Jersey.

Jeff's father was a chemical plant worker who died when Jeff was 8 years old. So he and his two sisters were raised by his mother who was a teacher. I am sure his family is very proud of him today as the father of two children. They are extremely proud of him for all he has done throughout his career and particularly today as he becomes the newest Member of the Senate.

He was asked at the press conference with the Governor, when the Governor announced him as his designee, what did he intend to accomplish in the Senate. For those of us who have served in the Senate for a while, we know it takes a little while, and that is a tough question to ask someone, what they are going to be able to accomplish in 5 months.

But I think Senator Chiesa comes at a time in which we are having some momentous debates in this Nation. Certainly, as it is ongoing on immigration reform, he will have an opportunity to cast some critical votes in that regard. I look forward to talking with him about some of those issues as well as other critical issues that will come before the country over the next 5 months.

I look forward to working with him on behalf of the people of the State of New Jersey and our Nation. I am sure, even though it is only 5 months, he is going to make a significant mark in the Senate.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. HIRONO.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, today I come to the floor shaken and deeply saddened, as we all are, by the loss of our colleague, my good friend and ally, the senior Senator from New Jersey, Senator Frank Lautenberg. When I think of Senator Lautenberg, I think of the word ``tenacity.'' Frank Lautenberg was tenacious. When he had a setback, he always got right back into the game. He was as tenacious in life as he was here in the Senate, where that tenacity paid off for the people of New Jersey and for the Nation.

When he had a setback with cancer, he did not let himself take 1 minute more than he had to before he got back up and went right back at it. I will always remember his tenacity, a strength of will, and an unshakable resolve that helped him in his own life and in making life better for others.

Frank Lautenberg loved the Senate. He loved his job and the people who elected him time and time again--five times, in fact; the longest serving Senator for the State of New Jersey--people he cared deeply about: working families, seniors, single moms, and the hard-working folks who trusted him always to be on their side, and he was. He was a man for New Jersey, a man for his time--one of the ``greatest generation,'' the last in the Senate to have served in World War II.

His story was a quintessential American story. His father Sam worked in the silk mills of Paterson, NJ. He sold coal, he farmed, and he once ran a tavern. Frank lost his father to cancer when he was 19 and he learned the lesson of hard work, having to take on a job nights and weekends until he graduated from Nutley High School, when he joined the Army and went to Europe. When he came back, he went to Columbia University on the GI bill, and he got a degree in economics. He understood the value of that opportunity given to him as a veteran and he extended that forward when he later coauthored the new 21st century GI bill.

Anyone who knew Frank Lautenberg knew he was destined to make something of himself, and he did. He joined two of his boyhood friends to found a very successful business, ADP, and he did it well. But if losing his father, working his way through high school, going to war, starting a business and making a success of himself wasn't enough, Frank wanted to give something back. He was very comfortable in life and he could have said: I am going to enjoy this hard work and sacrifice that has brought me to this comfortable stage in life, but he considered himself lucky and he wanted to help others. That is why he ran for office. It is why he served and it is why the people of New Jersey kept electing him.

New Jerseyans loved and admired Frank for what he did for the Nation

and what he did to help them and every American build a better life for themselves and their families. In death, those accomplishments and the love and admiration New Jerseyans have always had for Frank Lautenberg will not diminish, whether it was his landmark drunk driving law, coauthoring the 21st century GI bill, or introducing the toxic right to know law that empowered the public to know what pollutants were being released into their neighborhood, Frank gave something back to all of us.

We can talk about how hard he fought for the victims of Superstorm Sandy this year. Even in illness he came back to the Senate to try to make sure New Jerseyans and all those who suffered from Superstorm Sandy were taken care of. Or we can talk about how he worked to make the Paterson Great Falls--his hometown he loved so dearly--a national park. But above all, he was Mr. Transportation here in the Senate. Whether it was roads or bridges, airlines or the rail system, he believed in having the best and safest transportation system in the world. And when it comes to air travel, he was way ahead of his time when it came to safety. Let's not forget it was Frank Lautenberg who ended the dangers of smoking on airlines so none of us would be subjected to sitting in a smoke-filled aircraft and with the dangers of smoking on a plane. Today, when I took the Amtrak from Newark to Union Station, I thought through most of that ride of Frank. I remembered how many times he came to this floor to fight for America's railways, how much he believed in the importance of rail travel and what it meant to keeping this Nation's transportation system competitive.

Given all those accomplishments, it still would not adequately reflect the gift of governing he gave this Nation in the 9,000 votes he cast in this Chamber. Maybe not all of them made the headlines, but they made a difference for every American family. With each of those votes, Frank Lautenberg helped shape the history of America, and not just for his time but for all generations to come.

When I think of Frank I also certainly not only look back to the fact he was part of that ``greatest generation'' of World War II veterans, but I also think Frank may have left us too soon at the age of 89 because he never missed a beat. He lived in the moment. I remember about 3 years ago, in January, he and his wife Bonnie celebrated his 86th birthday in what some might say was an unusual way. Frank wanted to spend his birthday with his favorite singer. He was a fan of Lady Gaga, and so to celebrate his birthday, he and Bonnie went to Radio City Music Hall for Lady Gaga's Monster Ball Tour.

No, Frank was not yesterday's news. He was always about today's news, and he lived in the moment. But that moment is gone now. We remember well, and we were lucky to share that moment with him. Time goes by all too quickly, but the memories last forever. His accomplishments will last forever. They will touch the lives of people well beyond his death, and our image of what it means to learn to live, to learn, to earn, and then give something back will never be forgotten because it lives in Frank Lautenberg's legacy to this Chamber, this Nation, and to the people of my home State.

There is a quote from the Old Testament, from Daniel, chapter 12, and it says:

Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall

awake . . . and the wise shall shine brightly like the

splendor of the firmament . . . And those who lead the many

to justice shall be like the stars forever.

Frank Lautenberg stood for justice in all of its forms for every American every day he served in this Chamber, and his memory shall be like a constellation showing us the way.

Today we say: Thank you, Senator Lautenberg, for a life well lived and a job well done. Thank you, on behalf of a grateful State and Nation.

Our deepest thoughts and prayers are with his wife Bonnie and his entire family. I know we will miss him as they will miss him, as the Nation will miss his incredible work.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDENT OFFICER (Mr. Cowan). The clerk will call the roll.

I am always willing to allow Senator McCain to speak.

Mr. President, is there a division of time?

I recognize myself for such time as I may consume.

Let me start off by thanking and congratulating my colleague Senator Graham for joining with me, for engaging me on this critical question. He knows my concerns about Iran's march toward nuclear weapons, and together we thought it was an important statement to make. I appreciate his leadership on this issue and bringing us to a point where I think we will have a remarkably strong bipartisan vote today to send a very clear message. The message is that we seek full implementation of U.S. and international sanctions on Iran and urge the President to continue to strengthen enforcement of those sanctions.

I cannot emphasize enough my strong concerns about Iran's nuclear program and the extraordinary threat it poses, yes, to Israel but, very importantly, to the United States of America and to the entire international community. Iran's provocative actions threaten to not just undo regional stability, but they pose an existential threat to our ally Israel and clearly a very clear threat to the national security of the United States. Iran continues to export terrorist activity directly and through proxies, such as Hezbollah. It continues to actively support the Asad regime Syria with fighters, arms, and petroleum. It continues its unrelenting drive for nuclear weapons, placing it at the top of our list of national security concerns. In my view it remains the paramount national security challenge we face, certainly in the Middle East, if not the world.

We are at a crossroads in our Iran policy, and the question today is, What do we do next? The Obama administration, in concert with the Congress, has pursued a dual-track approach of diplomacy and sanctions. Two weeks ago members of the Foreign Relations Committee met with Lady Ashton, who has led the diplomatic track with the P5+1, along with Under Secretary Sherman. The talks have been central in demonstrating to the world that it is

Iran and not the United States that is acting in bad faith and it is Iran that, through its obstinacy, has helped galvanize the international community to increase the pressure. But the talks have failed to achieve their central objective, which is getting Iran to make concessions on its nuclear program.

It is clear to me that we cannot allow the Iranians to continue to drag their feet by talking, while all the while they grow their nuclear program. Iran is proceeding at a fast pace. Today, as has been mentioned, the International Atomic Energy Agency, in its quarterly report, said that Iran has installed almost 700 advanced IR2m centrifuges at Natanz, an increase of more than 500 centrifuges since February of this year. These are centrifuges that can more efficiently and more quickly enrich uranium. The IAEA's report also again expressed concern about the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program.

We cannot allow Iran to buy more time by talking even as the centrifuges keep spinning. There is no doubt and there has never been a doubt--certainly not in my mind--that a nuclear-armed Iran is not an option for U.S. national security. That is why I have been fully dedicated to doing everything we can to stop Iran from ever crossing that threshold. That is why I introduced, along with Senator Graham, this resolution that makes clear that a nuclear Iran is not an option and that the United States has Israel's back. It is why I have come to this floor time after time as an author of some of the toughest sanctions that one country has ever levied against another, the sanctions against Iran.

Working closely with my colleague Senator Kirk and with the Obama administration, we have implemented these sanctions in a way that is truly strangling the Iranian economy. Iran's leaders must understand that unless they change their course, their situation will only get worse and economic struggles and international isolation will grow. They must understand that at the end of the day their pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability will make them less, not more, secure.

I also want to say something about Iran's unacceptable and deplorable approach to the State of Israel and its continued threats to the Jewish State. As the President has made clear time and again, America's commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable. I share the President's commitment to Israel's security, and I know my colleagues do as well. Every time Iran makes outrageous threats, it only succeeds in further uniting the world against it and strengthening America's resolve.

I strongly support the close and unprecedented security cooperation that the administration has pursued with Israel, and I know this cooperation will only continue. I am deeply committed to doing everything I can to ensure that Israel is able to defend itself.

While this resolution makes absolutely clear we are not authorizing the use of force, it does also make clear that we have Israel's back and, specifically, that if Israel is compelled to take military action in self-defense against Iran's nuclear program, we should stand with Israel, using all the tools of our national power to assist Israel in defense of its territory, its people, and its very existence.

The bottom line is that Israel should always understand the United States has its back; that we will not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons capability, and if we are forced to, we will take whatever means necessary to prevent this outcome.

As the President has reiterated on numerous occasions, all options-- all options--are on the table. That message, along with the solidarity of this Chamber, I intend to take with me on my visit to Israel later this week.

The simple fact is we need to continue to apply pressure and we must bring along the international community in our effort. This has been incredibly important, because while we have led, we have had a multiplier effect with the multilateral support of the European Union and others so our sanctions can bite, and they have been biting. Iran's crude oil exports have been cut in half, from 2\1/2\ million barrels per day in 2011 to approximately 1.25 million barrels now per day. Iran still had energy sector exports, however, of $83 billion in 2012, including $60 billion in oil and another $23 billion in natural gas, fuel oil, and condensates. The sanctions are working, but they aren't enough, and they aren't working fast enough.

In my view, we need to double down on four fronts.

First, we need to encourage further reductions in energy sector purchases from Iran, including purchases of petroleum, fuel oil, and condensates and prevent Iran from engaging in trade in precious metals to circumvent sanctions; second, we need to ensure we have prohibited trade with Iran with respect to all dual-use items that can be used in Iran's nuclear program. That means adding additional industry sectors to the trade prohibition list; third, we need to ask the international community to ramp up the pressure and change Teheran's calculus. A nuclear Iran, after all, isn't only an American problem; and fourth, the time may have also come to look more seriously at all options and that would include increasing military presence and pressure against Iran.

I believe there still may be time for diplomacy to work, but increased military pressure could signal to the supreme leader a nuclear program will undermine the security of his regime, not improve it.

Fundamentally, the challenge remains a difficult one and we are walking a fine line. But this resolution says to the supreme leader of Iran that we will not let up, we will continue to apply pressure, and this continued pursuit of nuclear weapons is threatening the very existence of his regime.

I urge my colleagues to support the Graham-Menendez resolution and full implementation of U.S. international sanctions on Iran. We are considering other options before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as well as working with our colleagues on the Senate Banking Committee to make it very clear we will exercise and exhaust all options that are peaceful diplomacy to achieve our ultimate goal.

This resolution makes it very clear to the world we stand behind the President as he stands behind Israel, and it says to Israel: We continue to be your faithful ally. We recognize you as a clear democracy in a challenging part of the world, as a major security partner of the United States, and the one country most likely to be voting with us in international organizations in common cause with common values.

That is what I think this vote will be about tonight.

I reserve the remainder of my time because I do believe I have a colleague who wishes to speak, but I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period of morning business until 7 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the conclusion of my remarks Senator Boxer be recognized for her remarks.

Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished Senator from California for her courtesy in allowing me to move forward first.

Mr. President, before I begin, let me offer my thoughts and prayers for the people of Oklahoma, who are in the middle of a devastating disaster. We in New Jersey know what that kind of devastation can mean, and our hearts go out to the victims and their families who have lost everything.

Mr. President, I rise today to reiterate my strong support for Tom Perez, a man eminently qualified to serve our country as the next Secretary of Labor.

I am pleased that the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee voted last Thursday to favorably report Mr. Perez's nomination to the full Senate. But we must remember this step forward came only after weeks of delay.

This is the week we should have been on this floor debating and voting on the confirmation of Tom Perez, but we are not. Instead, delaying tactics on this and other nominees have now needlessly, pointlessly pushed this debate into next month.

Let me state for the record that the obstruction we have seen thus far in the confirmation process is completely unacceptable and, for the sake of the American people, for the sake of good governance, it must end.

It does not stop at the Department of Labor. Republicans have refused to take up nominees at the National Labor Relations Board, threatening the operation of this critical agency. It appears any agency that stands up for workers' rights is under attack. Let's just do the job the American people sent us here to do.

Tom Perez is a quintessential public servant, but apparently that is not enough for my colleagues on the other side. He is a consensus builder, but that is not enough. As secretary of labor in Maryland, he brought together the chamber of commerce and Maryland labor unions to make sure that workers received the level of wages and benefits they deserved and that businesses had the skilled workforce they needed, but that experience of bringing both sides together is not enough. It is not enough that he is the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, where he increased prosecutions of human trafficking by 40 percent, won $50 million for armed services members whose homes were improperly foreclosed on while they served, and settled the three largest fair lending cases in the history of the Fair Housing Act, recovering more money for victims in 2012 than in the previous 23 years combined. But none of those accomplishments on human trafficking, on servicemembers, on people who were abused in fair housing--that is not enough. It is not enough that he spent his entire career in public service. It is not enough to be a Brown University graduate or have a master's in public policy from the Kennedy School or a juris doctorate from Harvard Law.

The truth is that my friends on the other side are looking to block his nomination because Tom Perez is not enough of a Republican to pass muster. He is too much of an advocate for people with disabilities, achieving the largest ever disability-based housing discrimination settlement. He is too much of a civil rights champion. He obtained the first convictions under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act. He has been a strong supporter of ending discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They seem to hate the Civil Rights Division, but who could deny the importance of their work?

Tom Perez is just too much for my friends on the other side who want to block this nominee and insist on obstructing, obfuscating, and politicizing everything that comes before the Congress. The fact is that this is not even about Tom Perez. It is about rendering government helpless and standing in the way of any effort to govern.

Tom Perez is a good man. He is qualified and competent. He is a professional public servant nominated by the President and already confirmed by the Senate to the post he holds today. I endorsed Tom Perez after meeting him. I continue to stand firmly by him as a nominee. But what I will not stand for is Republicans blocking his nomination for no valid reason, without any real objection, only an ideological objection to allowing this President or this Congress to govern or to at least select a Cabinet that will help us do so, and in this case particularly the Department of Labor that stands for working men and women of this country.

I said, when the President nominated him, he was an outstanding nominee to be the Secretary of Labor. He has ``dedicated his career to championing the rights of workers and all Americans, and I am confident he will continue to do the same if confirmed.''

I also marvel that I listen to all the election postmortem about how the Republican Party has to reach out to Hispanic Americans in this country, how they have to do a better job of engaging them and selling their vision of America. This is the President's first nominee for this second term of a Hispanic American who is eminently qualified.

To try to stop this nominee is reverting back to the same old failed political strategies during the last election. It is unfortunate that the President's first Hispanic choice for his second-term Cabinet comes under such attack, no valid attack. It does not have to be that way. Mr. Perez deserves an up-or-down vote, and he deserves to be swiftly confirmed as the next Secretary of Labor.

To my friends on the other side, I would say to you it is time to stop the obstructionism. I would say to you the empty rhetoric and baseless objections to Tom Perez's nomination are not going to serve you well in the Hispanic community. You should allow, as I have heard so many times--give us an up-or-down vote--an up-or-down vote. Working families in this country, those who depend upon the Labor Department to have a sense of fairness and justice, deserve an up-or-down vote. Hispanic Americans who want to see someone from that community represented in the President's Cabinet want to see an up-or-down vote. That is what justice would be all about.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to thank the distinguished ranking member for her courtesy. I intend to support this nominee for all of the reasons the distinguished chairman has said.

(The remarks of Mr. Menendez pertaining to the introduction of S. 980 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, the clerk will call the roll.