The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND IMMIGRATION MODERNIZATION ACT--Continued” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Labor was published in the Senate section on pages S4663-S4670 on June 19, 2013.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND IMMIGRATION MODERNIZATION
ACT--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am not going to ask unanimous consent to call up any amendments or to have any votes or anything, so everybody can relax. But I do want to speak for a minute about the process we are in.
We have now been considering a major piece of legislation for weeks. The chairman and the ranking member of the committee did a masterful job. Even though there are some people still against the bill, there are people for the bill, we are not exactly sure how it is going to come out, but I want to say Senator Leahy and Senator Sessions--but Senator Leahy particularly, as the chair--could not have done a better job getting the bill printed, printing all of the amendments, staying here through the night, letting the members of the committee have a lot of time to debate the bill, to amend the bill. The committee did a very good job.
I am planning to vote for the bill. I have not kept that a secret or said anything to the contrary. Of course the amendment process is important. I cannot make that commitment until we see it. If an amendment gets on this bill that undermines some of the important principles, I might have to change my mind. I don't think that is going to happen.
But there is the problem and this is why I am going to stay on the floor until, hopefully, something can be worked out. I am not on the committee. Most of the people on this floor are not on the committee. The committee is representative of a minority group of Republicans and Democrats. The majority of us do not serve on the Judiciary Committee. While we were interested and worked with our friends who are on the committee to suggest important changes that would improve the bill or correct the bill or fix the bill or save money, we were not on the committee to do it. That is the process. I am not complaining about that.
What I am complaining about is when it gets to the floor, you would think the process would allow amendments to be debated so Members such as myself--I serve as chair of the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee. I am not a distant third party to this debate. My whole budget funds this bill. This is what I spend good bit of my time on. The people in my State and constituencies I represent have a lot of interest in this bill. I am not a Johnny-come-lately to this issue. I have things I want to say about it. I wish to have some amendments talked about and voted on. If people want to vote them down, fine. If they want to vote for them, fine. If they want to have 50 votes, fine. If they want to have 60 votes--I just want a chance to talk about my amendment, so I am going to do so right now.
I also want to say there are some amendments--I have a short list of eight or so. Some of them are quite minor. One or two are fairly significant and might need a debate. But part of my group of amendments is completely, to my knowledge, unopposed by anyone. I have Senator Coats as a cosponsor. I have worked openly. I filed amendments, the text of which have been out there for days now. Senator Coats, who is my ranking member--we try to work together in a bipartisan fashion. He has cosponsored several of these amendments.
What I am strongly suggesting is the staff and the leadership managing this bill try to identify, of the amendments that have been filed, those that are noncontroversial, that everyone would agree to. I think there are probably 20 or 30 such amendments. They do not change the underlying agreement. They do not spend any additional money. They fix or modify or improve sections of the bill. That is our job. That is what we are supposed to do. That is the legislative process.
You know what. If it were not meant to be that way, we should have a rule that says the bill goes to committee and then it doesn't even come to the Senate floor, then it goes over to the House of Representatives, and their committee works on it and they send it to the President.
But that is not what our laws say. Our laws say we should have some debate on the Senate floor.
I have also been here long enough to realize the leadership is trying its best and there are some amendments that are very controversial. I am not new to the Senate. Fine. But what I am talking about is when we get on a major bill such as this and Members work hard to build support and to get bipartisan support, our amendments that are noncontroversial should go first and then controversial amendments could go last.
But that is not what happens around here. What happens around here is the guys who cause all the trouble all the time on every bill--I don't want to name their names because it is not appropriate--but there is a group on the other side, and a few maybe on our side, who are never happy with anything so they file tons of amendments and we spend all of our time worrying about their amendments. Those of us who spend a lot of our time building bipartisan support, who offer amendments that have no opposition, actually never get to those amendments.
This is sad. I basically have had enough. I have tried to be patient all week. I have come every day and said: Are any of these amendments going to get in the queue? That is not the way we are working right now. We are taking the worst amendments, the most controversial amendments, the guys who cause trouble on every single bill, and give them votes on their amendments. Some of them have been defeated 99 to 1, and then everybody gets tired and aggravated and everybody says we are tired, we are aggravated, we are calling cloture. And do you know what happens when cloture is called. All amendments that are not pending, even ones that no one opposes, that could actually help a human being--imagine that, an amendment that actually could help someone--crumble up on the Senate floor and everybody goes home and says, well, that was a wonderful debate.
I am just venting here, but I am saying this is one Senator who is tired of it. More important, my constituents are tired of it. It is not about me, it is about them. They look at this and they say why can't you get that amendment passed? There is no opposition to it. It is good. We have worked on it. It would help.
That is a good question, and I have to say ``I have no idea.''
We have voted on all kinds of amendments that are controversial, that are very high-level kind of message amendments. When the authors offer them or sponsor them, they know they are never going to pass but they are looking for a headline.
I am not looking for any headline. I don't care if any reporter writes about these amendments. But I happen to know some things in this bill. As chair of the Small Business Committee, I have had some hearings myself--amazing, that other committees actually have hearings. I have had hearings and have had dozens of small business owners say to me as chair of the Small Business Committee: Look, Senator, we are not getting any attention here because everybody is talking about all sorts of things such as the fence, the border, this and that. Could anybody pay attention to the 7 million small businesses that are going to have to abide by this E-Verify? By the way, we like the program, we are for the program, but we have some suggestions to make it better.
Some of that happened in the Judiciary Committee, but the Judiciary Committee is not the Small Business Committee. I have excellent members on my committee and they have a voice, and this is an amendment many of them support that I do not think the Judiciary Committee--either the Republicans or the Democrats--opposes. The small business community is for it. I don't know what to say other than I can't even get in the queue, I cannot even get on the list to be considered.
Then I have a small group of amendments, because--you know, I am happy to do it and I do it joyfully--I am the chair of the Adoption Caucus. You, Mr. President, have been wonderful. Senator Klobuchar has been wonderful. Orphans do not have lobbyists. I am not sorry, they just don't. They don't have any money to pay lobbyists. Through all the good people who volunteer to represent them, they come to my office, they ask for help. I try to do my best. I don't always succeed, but I try.
Amy Klobuchar and I, because she is a Senator who has also been terrific about this, with others, not just myself--we have some amendments that have nothing to do with the English language or any language, the fence, any money, anything, just a few technical corrections that could help some American families trying to adopt.
I was able to get one of my adoption amendments up. I thank Senator Leahy. But we have four or five. I am not trying to be hoggish about it, but they are not controversial. I have 15 amendments that are noncontroversial--maybe I am making that up, maybe there is an opponent--I can't get that discussed. But only people who have controversial amendments with no chance of passing them, only people who want headlines in newspapers, only people who have amendments nobody over here is going to vote for, get to talk about it and the rest of us who work hard and get bipartisanship and present amendments that could actually help the bill, make the country stronger--we never get to talk.
I am going to stay on the floor and object until I get an answer for that question: Why is it that people who play by the rules, Senators who work across the aisle, who work hard to build bipartisan support, who work hard to get amendments that do not cost any money, that will not really cause too much trouble--why do our amendments get the last consideration?
I think it has ramifications for the way the Senate operates. Then it is like behavior: The better behaved you are, the quieter you are, the more team player you are, you don't get anything. The only way you get something is to become obnoxious and to get your amendments that have no bipartisan support, those who have amendments that cost a gazillion dollars or take away a gazillion dollars. That is not encouraging good behavior on the Senate floor.
I want to be a good team player. The people I represent want this body to work. We want bipartisan solutions to real problems, and even people who do not have lobbyists and even people who do not have a lot of money deserve time on the Senate floor. And I intend to provide it to orphans whom I support to try to help, and to the parents who are adopting kids and don't ask for much but do ask: Could the Senator from Louisiana please have an amendment that nobody opposes to help us and our kids?
I am going to stand here and support the small businesses that get overlooked all the time. They are not asking for much. They like the E-
Verify Program. I thought they had a few very positive suggestions, so I thought I would put them in an amendment and offer it. Silly me. Then this EB-5 reporting is one of the worst run programs in the government, and everyone acknowledges that. Everyone knows it is not working, so the committee does a good job to fix it. But my staff and I worked pretty hard.
We are very close with those who work on immigration, and we talked with them about some perfecting amendments. But, silly me, to think we could make any improvements to the underlying bill on the EB-5 program which could create millions of jobs in Louisiana, Texas, the gulf coast--which is the area I pay the most attention to--California, New York, Rhode Island, and other places.
I am going to sit here--I know other Senators may want to talk, but sorry. Until I get some answers about some of our amendments, not just mine but other amendments. There are Republican and Democratic amendments that are not controversial and are cleared on all fronts. I want those amendments to go first, and then we can say congratulations to the Members who worked hard to minimize opposition and to write their amendments in a way that people could be supportive. That is what Senators are supposed to do.
We have turned from a Senate to a theater, and I am tired of being part of a theater. If I wanted to be part of a theater, I would have gone to New York. Not that anybody would have put me on the stage because I can't sing or dance, but I don't want to. I want to lead, but it is getting very difficult in this place to do any leadership. So I am just going to sit here until maybe somebody who is a leader around here can come talk to us about what we are going to do with amendments on an immigration bill that is controversial, the bill itself--let me not understate that.
There will be people who don't want to vote for this bill no matter what shape it is in. I am not one of them. I want to know the answer to my question: How many amendments of the 140 pending are noncontroversial that Republicans and Democrats will agree to? That is my question, and I would like an answer.
My second question is, When could we possibly vote on those amendments before cloture is called? Cloture is going to be called on this bill, and the reason is because we cannot get a lot of cooperation. So what will happen is all these noncontroversial amendments will fall by the wayside, and what a shame. I am just tired of it.
It is the same group around here that causes all the trouble, and the rest of us try to be supportive, try to go along, try to work in a bipartisan way, and we get shut out. I have had enough, and the people I represent have said: We are finished.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. First, over the last few moments I had a chance to listen to the Senator from Louisiana. I just want to applaud the tenacity with which she approaches her duties in this Chamber. She is a terrific colleague. When there is something she thinks is the right thing to do, she will fight very hard to get that done.
I am here to say a word in support of the bipartisan immigration legislation we are looking at. In the months that led up to this debate, I have met with people across Rhode Island to discuss our pressing need for national immigration reform. Rhode Island, like Connecticut--perhaps even more than Connecticut--is a State with a proud tradition of immigration, and our many immigrant communities make our State stronger and more vibrant.
I have heard from leaders of our Latino communities which are the fastest growing share of our State's population and workforce. I have heard from leaders of my State's other immigrant communities, particularly including members of our Liberian community, many of whom fled civil war in their home country but are unable to fully participate in the American dream because of the uncertainty of their immigration status. I have heard from leaders in Rhode Island's technology industry who often have trouble recruiting talented employees they want to hire to fill a specific need, but the people they are looking for cannot obtain a timely green card. I met with men and women who are struggling to find work after losing their jobs to temporary foreign workers.
From all of those stories, one message comes through loudly and clearly: Our immigration system is broken. There are 11 million people living in the shadows. These are people who want to work to support their families and contribute to our communities. Eligible, legal immigrants can wait years, even decades to gain entry to this country. Then we educate the best and brightest from around the world, but too often we tell them they cannot remain in this country after they graduate.
The bill before us offers a bipartisan solution to these problems. It provides a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented immigrants already in this country, including the DREAMers, the children who were brought here at an early age and who are American already in every meaningful sense of the word.
The pathway that is created by this bill is tough, but it is fair. It prevents dangerous criminals from becoming citizens. It requires undocumented immigrants to pay a fine, to learn English, and to work. But for the vast majority of undocumented immigrants in our Nation, it offers a way out of the shadows. That is why, as this debate continues, we should reject amendments that would place further obstacles in that path to citizenship.
This bill also significantly improves the security of our southern border--a border that is already more secure than at any time in our Nation's history. Under President Obama, the number of Border Patrol agents has nearly doubled. Border crossings are down. This bill will build on these successes by giving the Department of Homeland Security tools to further strengthen border enforcement. This bill makes real improvements to our legal immigration system. It will allow spouses and children of permanent residents to come to this country without unnecessary delay.
I recently heard a heartbreaking story from a woman in Cranston, RI, who told me her husband might be forced to return to his native country while he waits for up to 2 years to receive a green card--leaving her at home alone for those 2 years to care for her disabled child.
This bill will also make our Nation more competitive by helping us to attract the best and brightest from around the world. Two years ago I met with a talented young man named Love Sarin who studied for his doctorate at Brown University and then founded a company in Providence that developed technology to help protect communities from the harm of mercury exposure. But when he applied for a green card, he was denied even though he had been educated at one of our universities, was creating jobs in our country, and was helping to protect our health and environment.
More recently, I received a letter from Charles in East Providence who says this issue is ``close to [his] heart,'' and it is. His girlfriend just finished her second master's degree program at Johnson and Wales University. But unless she finds an employer willing to sponsor her for a visa, she may have to return to her native China.
``These young people want to stay here and want to succeed,'' Charles wrote.
This bill will allow more talented individuals in the sciences and other fields to stay here and contribute to our economy. Let me compliment the eight sponsors of this legislation for their tireless efforts to find a reasonable middle ground. This bill is a compromise. No one can say they got everything they wanted, but on balance this bill is our best opportunity to fix our Nation's broken immigration system. It is our best opportunity in years.
As we now know, this bill will reduce our deficit by nearly $900 billion over the next 20 years.
Let me also compliment our Judiciary Chairman Senator Leahy for his leadership in getting us to this point. The markup of this legislation by Chairman Leahy's committee was thorough, fair, and transparent. The committee adopted 141 amendments--nearly all of them on a bipartisan basis--and the bill is stronger and better today than when it was introduced.
I was proud that three of my amendments were adopted, all of them unanimously, by the committee. My first amendment provided both American workers and workers on H-1B visas with a way of reporting H-1B program violations. At my community dinners back home, I heard stories of Rhode Island workers who were replaced by foreign workers on H-1B visas. One day they are at work, the next day they are gone, and a foreign worker is doing their job. Some were even forced to train their replacements.
These workers had nowhere to turn. My amendment creates a Department of Labor toll-free hotline and a Web site for American and foreign workers to report possible violations of H-1B visa rules and an inspector general audit.
My second amendment expands the bill's INVEST visa, which is issued to qualified foreign-born entrepreneurs so they can come and create businesses in the United States. My amendment added funding from startup accelerators to the INVEST Program criteria.
As many of my colleagues know, startup accelerators help entrepreneurs get off the ground by providing training, support, and often initial funding. In Providence, one such accelerator called Betaspring has helped launch 57 different companies, creating jobs in our State and across the country. So they will now benefit from the INVEST visa.
I also offered an amendment to allow scientists and researchers with unique skills who wish to serve our country by working in our prestigious National Laboratories to obtain citizenship on an expedited basis provided they pass the necessary rigorous background checks.
I want to thank my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee for working with me to include these important provisions on a bipartisan basis. I do believe further improvements can be made on the floor, and I intend to offer several more amendments during this debate.
I am working on two amendments that would leverage our immigration laws to strengthen our Nation's cyber security. One amendment would set aside some entry visas for potential witnesses in investigations and prosecutions of cyber crime. We allow visas to those who help our law enforcement agencies to bring cases against those who are hacking us and trying to steal our intellectual property and potentially even sabotaging our critical infrastructure. Another amendment would ensure that enablers and beneficiaries of hackers who steal our American intellectual property do not benefit from our immigration system. It would allow our government to designate entities and individuals who are associated with criminal hackers and say: Forget it. If you are involved in supporting criminal hacking of our cyber networks, you are not getting a visa. Your employees are not getting visas, and your organizations cannot support visa applications.
I also intend to offer an amendment relating to the E-Verify system, clarifying that employers need not reverify the authorization of workers retaining the same position under the new employers. As new companies take over existing service contracts, workers in certain low-
skilled positions can find themselves working for dozens of employers over their careers without ever changing their job. They are not changing their job, the employers are changing, and they should not have to reverify every time. That is a needless burden on both the employer and the employee.
In addition, I filed an amendment to close what is referred to as the terror gap. Right now, believe it or not, nothing in our laws prevents a suspected terrorist from legally purchasing a firearm even if a background check reveals he is on the terrorist watch list. My amendment would give the Attorney General the authority to prohibit the transfer of firearms to suspected terrorists on the terrorist watch list. That seems like common sense, and this amendment was based on legislation introduced by our late colleague, Senator Frank Lautenberg. I am very aware of his presence as I stand here because with his departure, his desk moved over to the other side of the aisle, and my desk moved into his space. So now I am actually standing in Frank's spot.
Frank was a tireless advocate for protecting our communities from the scourge of gun violence. I know as Democrats and Republicans we are divided on gun issues. But if there is a gun issue we ought to be able to come together on, it is that the people who are on the terrorist watch list should not be able to buy firearms legally in this country. I hope we can at least agree on that.
Finally, Chairman Leahy has also put forward an important and worthy amendment that would provide for the equal treatment of all families under our immigration laws. I was extremely proud to stand with Rhode Island's Governor Lincoln Chafee last month as he signed into law legislation making Rhode Island the 10th State in the country to provide for marriage equality. It is time that our immigration system catches up with States such as Rhode Island, and I was pleased to vote for this amendment in the committee.
I will say I also understand and appreciate and indeed honor the position the group of Senators who put this bill together have taken, that they need to vote to protect their bill and their agreement. So on our side, Senator Schumer, Senator Durbin, Senator Bennet, and Senator Menendez may have to take positions to make sure this bill goes forward and passes, and I wish to be on record as saying that I may vote differently than they do, but I certainly appreciate the position they are in, and I think it is honorable on their part to stick with the deal they have agreed to and to work hard to make sure this immigration bill passes.
Chairman Leahy, the chairman of our committee, has worked for years to ensure that all families are treated fairly under immigration law. I have been very proud to support his efforts. I see no reason why treating all marriages equally should be so controversial, much less a reason for blocking our best hope for comprehensive immigration reform.
I will conclude by saying I look forward to working in earnest with my colleagues toward an immigration system that is worthy of our great Nation. It is time to come together, fix our broken immigration system, and make this a system of which we can be proud. I urge all of my colleagues to join in this important task.
I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know the staff is working hard to figure out the best way forward, and there are lots of views about different amendments that may be controversial, but I am going to stay here and work for the next hour or two tonight to see if we can just do one simple thing--just one simple thing: that we can look at the list of all amendments pending and all of those amendments that are noncontroversial--no one objects to anything in the amendment--I would like that list put together. It could be either voice-voted tomorrow or all of those amendments could just get pending and be voted on later. I am not even particular about when the vote would occur or under what circumstances. The leadership can make all of those decisions. But what I would like right now is to stop this operation until we can get the noncontroversial amendments out of the way.
There are Republican amendments that nobody over here objects to. There are Democratic amendments that Republicans don't object to. I think those sponsors--which I would be included in, but I am not the only one--could be rewarded for their good work, for coming up with amendments that nobody is angry about, that people think, oh, that is a good idea; we should do it. Why don't we do those amendments first. Then all the other amendments people have filed for various reasons--
some in good fashion. People feel very strongly about them and want to discuss them. They want to have a vote on them. They know it might not pass, but it is important for them to represent that position. I have no problem with that. I understand that.
What I and my constituents don't understand is why we can't take noncontroversial amendments that everyone supports and get those passed.
So until I get an answer to that, I am going to just suggest the absence of a quorum and spend a couple of hours trying to find the answer. Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, in the last few minutes, we have made a little bit of progress. I am doing the best I can to work with both sides of the aisle to simply get a list of amendments that are not controversial. There are approximately 230 amendments pending on the immigration bill. Many of them are controversial, but there are some, potentially as many as 20, maybe even 30 amendments that are pending that are public record, that have been filed, that Members on both sides of the aisle have worked on very hard.
We have known about this debate. Some of us have been following it more closely than others. But I dare to say there is not a Senator as a Member of this body who has not been focused on what our constituents want us to do to either improve this bill or to fight against this bill. You have heard a lot of that debate.
I think this bill will probably pass. But who knows at this point, because there are 200 amendments pending. What I am suggesting as a way forward is to take those amendments that are noncontroversial. Republicans have not come up with their list of noncontroversial yet. The Democrats are very close to coming up with our list of noncontroversial amendments. We think it is about 12 or 15. They can have 12, 15 or 20 or 30 that are noncontroversial. No one on their side objects, no one on our side objects, and they could do some good on this bill in a variety of different ways.
I am suggesting we take those noncontroversial amendments and make them pending and vote on them sometime, anytime, tonight, tomorrow. We can voice vote them all as a package. We can vote them individually. I am not trying to be overly prescriptive. But what I am saying, and I am very serious about this, is my days of working on a major piece of legislation--working your heart out for weeks getting ready for the debate. You are so proud of your amendments. You have worked with the other side. You have Republicans. You have Democrats. You have vetted it with all the different input and organizations. You have worked so hard on your amendment, and then we come to the bill. We cannot discuss any amendments that people have worked hard to work out the problems. We can only discuss the problem amendments.
It is not the right way to legislate. It is not the way the Senate was created. It is not the way Congress should function. It is a disservice to every one of our constituents. There are lots of arrangements and understandings and compromises that go on off this Senate floor. That is what Senators do all day long. I am proud to be a Senator. I work with my colleagues. We work throughout the day, late at night, in meetings, and say, listen, I have this great idea. Oh, I think that is a wonderful idea. It will improve the bill. Can we work on it together?
Our staffs work very hard, spend hours and hours on the phone talking with people, negotiating, only to be told those amendments that people have really worked on and eliminated all opposition by being openminded, thoughtful, and willing to compromise, those amendments go to the back of the line.
Only those amendments that have no chance of passing, that do not have bipartisan support, get to be discussed on the Senate floor. That is not the Senate I signed up for. I am not whining. I am just saying, I am going to use my power to change the Senate. I am starting right now. I am not doing it anymore.
The people whom I represent are exhausted by it. I am getting exhausted by it. My staff is exhausted by it. It is rewarding very bad behavior. So the worse your amendment is, the more controversial your amendment is, the least likely to get any votes on the other side, you get to go first. The rest, everybody who has done it sort of the old-
fashioned way, the way we are supposed to do it, the way we learned about it in school, the way our parents taught us, the way we observe other great Senators, we come and cannot even get in the queue.
Then when you do in this new system of rewarding bad behavior, those of us--and it is a big group of us. It is not just me. It is a very large group and Republicans as well. We get told: All your amendments that are noncontroversial that you have worked so hard to put together, great ideas that are middle of the road and could actually solve some problems of someone out in America, which is why I thought we should come here, to help solve problems, you all only get 1 amendment or you only get 2 amendments because we have 240.
That is not the way it should work. I am not going an inch further, not 1 inch. This is the way it should work. A bill is brought to the floor and everybody files their amendments. Senators work very hard with the other side to try to get amendments that both sides could agree to--because that is a democracy.
Then those amendments get identified, and those amendments go first. All of the other amendments that are message amendments or controversial amendments, they should get votes. I am not saying they should not. I am happy to vote on them. Some of them are tough votes. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with, and I think if every Senator was honest, they have a problem with it too, are the good amendments, the noncontroversial amendments, the ones that everybody works on, never get a vote. All the bad amendments get the attention and votes.
I do not think that is right. We have to get back to the regular order--not to the regular order. We have to get back. It is not regular order. We have to get back to collegiality and common sense and trust. That is what the Senate is best at. That has been lost. We better find it pretty quickly.
I am going to stay here. We are not going anywhere. We are not going to go to any unanimous consent requests until the list of noncontroversial amendments is produced. The Republicans can produce their list; we produce our list of noncontroversial amendments. Then the leadership can say to me: Senator Landrieu, we will voice vote these and everybody will be happy or they can say: Senator Landrieu, we have to vote on these individually and we will do that at the end or some time certain--I am fine with that--or they can say: We are going to vote on them individually and they all need 60 votes, even though they have 100 percent of the body. I would be fine. I am not trying to be difficult, but I am trying to be a Senator.
I am trying to say that I, for one, am tired of the bullies on this floor and the small group that thinks that on every single solitary bill they should get the first amendment, the biggest amendment, and we spend all of our time talking about them. It may be important. They are not going to pass. That is OK. I do not even mind that. But what I do mind is, after all of us who try to work in a bipartisan fashion have to listen to this, bill after bill, day after day, then we cannot even get our amendments that are noncontroversial. That is where I draw the line.
Please, do not anybody write: Senator Landrieu is on the floor and is pitching a fit because she cannot get her amendment. This is not about my amendment. This is about the Senate. This is about the Senate and noncontroversial amendments which cannot even get on any list. Why? I do not know. Why? Why would that be? How is this possible?
No one objects. I am going to read just a few that we are talking about. Some of them are mine. I know two others that are by Amy Klobuchar. One of mine is amendment No. 1340. It simply reiterates in this bill that everything done with children and families will be done in the best interests of the child. ``Best interests of the child'' is done in every State, in every court.
When we are making decisions about families, it is always in the best interests of the child. It is modern child welfare practice. It will clarify this bill. I do not know of anyone opposing it. You know what. If someone is opposing it, then take it off the list--just take it off the list. I am not even opposed to that.
I do not think anyone is opposing it. But if they do, they just have to call the Democratic cloakroom and say: I do not think we should be making decisions in the best interests of the child. I will take it off the list. But I am not going to lose this amendment because the Senate cannot function.
There is another amendment I have with Senator Coats. We have worked very hard on this amendment. I had a hearing in my committee as chair of the Senate Small Business Committee. Our committee worked very hard, similar to most committees around here. My members are wonderful. I believe that when I call a meeting and they come and we spend hours looking at an issue and we actually all come to an agreement, maybe this is something we could do. It deserves a chance, but not in the system that we have because, again, the amendments that really work are noncontroversial and never get discussed, never get in the queue--only the other ones.
One that Senator Coats and I have is entitled E-Verify Early Adoption for Small Employees or the EEASE Act. We even took the extra time to come up with a creative name because we like legislating. We think that is what we are supposed to do.
The EEASE Act, which is a small amendment to this bill, does three things. I think one of them the small businesses will love: It directs DHS to create a mobile app for E-Verify. Wouldn't that be convenient for small businesses? Picture yourself in your pickup truck out in your field or out in your garage, and someone walks up to you and wants a job. You have a ``For Hire'' sign posted, and the guy comes up to you. He says: Here is my driver's license. Here is my paperwork. The employer picks up their iPhone, hits a button, goes to the app, and it is E-Verify. They know the person is legal, and they hire them for a job. How wonderful would that be? That is one of our amendments.
There is enough money in this bill to do that, but the bill doesn't say that now. Our amendment would say: Make a mobile app for E-Verify. Small businesses don't have time to run back to the farm, try to dial in on the Internet in a rural area, such as the Presiding Officer's, in New Mexico. Not everybody has high-speed Internet. Not everybody can go run back to the farm in the middle of the day, and then when they come back, they are tired. Why don't they just have everybody carry a pocket communication system? That is an amendment. I don't know one single solitary person on this floor who is against it, but we can't even get a vote on it.
This idea came out of a roundtable with 24 representatives of very important small business groups. I tell my committee and I tell people in the Congress that my committee is going to be a voice for small business. Well, that is great. They come up and they talk to me in committee. I hear them. I take what they say, write it in an amendment, and can't get it in the queue even when no one opposes it.
We have another amendment, and this one may be controversial--I don't know. I would be willing, again--if somebody says: We object because it messes up the compromise we have--I would maybe even withdraw this amendment after I spoke about it because I think it is important or I would be happy to get into any queue, any time, any day, to have a vote on it.
This amendment provides an access lane for small business for H-1B visas. It dawned on me after the bill came out of the Judiciary Committee and after we had our roundtable that, yes, we were increasing the number of H-1B visas, which I support and most people who support the bill. It dawned on me and it became apparent to some of the small business advocates that there was no express lane for them. The 7 million small businesses that were--many of them are high-tech companies that are relatively small, some of them are startups, and 40 percent of all the patents are held by small businesses. It kind of dawned on us maybe about a week ago that maybe we should have been paying more attention, that the H-1B visas might all go to big businesses and maybe we should have an express lane for the 7 million small businesses that don't have a fleet of lawyers and a fleet of human resources people. They are just trying to create jobs in America. How terrible. They are just the ones creating all the new jobs. Could we please maybe help them? I don't think this is controversial. Do you know what. Maybe someone objects to it. Take it off the list.
Senator Klobuchar has two amendments, and I am sure she has been fighting very hard to get them up, like everyone. These amendments have to do with streamlining and removing obstacles for intercountry adoption.
You would have to be walking in your sleep to not understand that we have a problem in intercountry adoption. Guatemala has closed, Vietnam has closed, Russia has closed. Parents have gone to great expense. I have seen them weeping in the halls of Congress, begging their Congressmen, Congresswomen, and Senators to please help them. They were in the process, in the middle of an adoption, they had been matched with a child, and the adoption has been closed. There are sad stories in this world. I wish we could fix every one, but we can't.
This amendment actually would solve the problem for some families--
not all but some families who went through the international process--
not to help with Russia or Guatemala. I am sorry, we haven't come up with a solution for that.
No one opposes this amendment. It could help hundreds, if not thousands, of families to eliminate one or two more barriers to intercountry adoption. Why would we want to do that? I will say why because I think it is very important and I would imagine 100 Members of the Senate would think it is very important for children to be raised by parents. What a novel, extreme idea that children should actually be with parents or with a responsible, loving adult. Why would the Senate of the United States not spend any time at all eliminating barriers so that children could be with parents? I don't know. I kind of think that is important. I have two children. I am one of nine siblings. My family made a big impact on me to help me to be the leader I am today, so I kind of think that is important.
Senator Klobuchar filed this bill. I am very proud of Minnesota. We are all proud of Minnesota. Minnesota adopts more children per capita internationally than any State in the Union. Minnesota has a very strong ethic when it comes to this. Do we help Minnesota? No. We punish Minnesota by not even allowing an amendment that is noncontroversial. Senator Klobuchar has people in her State who could be helped by this amendment. I am certain there are people in Louisiana who could be helped. There are people in every State from New Mexico to New York. No one is objecting to it, but we cannot get it on the list.
There is an interesting problem with some of these adoptive parents. I spend an awful lot of time with them. I am happy to do it, and they do need champions in Congress, and I am not the only one. Senator Blunt has been fabulous, Senator Coats has been fabulous, Senator Boozman of Arkansas has been fabulous, Senator Shaheen has been terrific, Senator Gillibrand, and Senator Levin. I mean, literally, you don't hear the Senators talking about it as much as me because I am kind of the chairman. I listen to them, and I try to voice our opinions, but trust me, there are many Members.
These amendments are not controversial, and they will help orphans, and they will help families who are trying to adopt children. Could we get it on the list of noncontroversial amendments?
There is another amendment that I think is noncontroversial, and it has to do with a program that is absolutely dysfunctional today and everyone knows it. It is the EB-5 program. Not only is the program dysfunctional and expensive, it is not being operated correctly, and Judiciary knows this. In their bill, in the underlying bill, they have made some great modifications to the program. That is very good, and that is very good legislating. If this program could operate correctly, efficiently, transparently, and without fraud and corruption, it could create millions of jobs. The last time I checked, there were a few people in Louisiana who need them. This is not a little thing, this is a big thing. There are people in my State who would cut off their right arm for a good-paying job right now. That is true in many parts of this country.
Instead of taking up an amendment that is noncontroversial, that actually could pass, that creates jobs, we can't take up this amendment because we have to take up the amendments that raise the most ruckus, that create the most firestorm, that satisfy the theatrical needs of some Members on the floor. We can't do anything that is kind of boring, noncontroversial, and bipartisan.
This amendment would strengthen the work the Judiciary Committee did. It is amendment No. 1383. I literally do not know anyone who is opposing this.
I am going to read these numbers out because, again, I am not agreeing to unanimous consent for anything until both sides get a list of noncontroversial amendments. Some are amendments Nos. 1338, 1383, 1340, 1261, and 1297. Potentially, there is no opposition to amendment No. 1406, and I think there are some others that might not be controversial, but I haven't completely checked, so I am not going to put them on the list.
Some of these are mine, and some of these are from other Senators. The Republican staff may have a list of noncontroversial amendments, and when we get those lists and we can get those in the queue first, then I will be happy for the queue to go on. If not, we are just going to call cloture, and it is just not going to work.
I am supporting the bill. I want my leader to know, and I have to say this, but I know he is going to speak, and I most certainly would give the floor to him at this moment, but I wish to say something about what a wonderful leader I think we have.
Senator Reid, this is no criticism of you. You are the most patient person--one of the most patient people I have ever observed in my professional life or in my whole life. I honestly do not know how you do your job. Even if the caucus elected me, I would have to decline. I do not have the patience, as you can tell, to do the job of a leader. It would not work. They would never let me, but I wouldn't accept if they did.
Let me say I hope I am doing a favor for the Senate because what I want to do is be Senator. I have been here long enough to remember when we actually were Senators, when we actually could come to the floor with a bill, sort among ourselves what were really tough amendments, what were kind of sort of tough amendments, and what were easy amendments. We would do the easy amendments because that is just the way you legislate--go ahead and get some things done that we all know to do. We have all graduated from college. Some of us have master's degrees and Ph.Ds. We do not sit around eating bonbons all day.
We are talking to our constituents. That is our job. We write amendments based on those meetings and conversations because people come to us and say: Senator, I have a problem. Can you fix it?
What am I going to say to them?
I wish to, but I can't. I can't fix any of your problems because there is no way to fix them because I can't even get a simple amendment on the floor on any bill, any day, any week, any month.
Mr. Leader, I have had enough. I know you have too. I want you to know I am not trying to be difficult. Do you know what. I came here to be a Senator, and I would like to be one again. I am sorry, but until I get a list of uncontroversial amendments, I don't care if they have 20 and we have 5. I don't care if we have 20 and they have 5. I have no idea. The ones that are uncontroversial I want to move forward. Then we can debate all day long how to put the other ones in any kind of list, and we may put mine last--just trying to show how generous I am trying to be. We may take all of my amendments that are controversial and put them last, but I want all the amendments that are not controversial to go first. I am not going to yield until we do.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. I can remember when the Senator first came here 10 years ago, approximately. There was an issue dealing with the military. Mary Landrieu was a new Senator. She was over here, she had her desk on the other side, and she went on, and, wow, it was quite an impressive speech. For a long time after that, I called her Military Mary.
The reason that it is such a memorable time for me is her good father, ``Moon'' Landrieu, was watching his daughter. I called him and told him what a great job she had done. Of course, he was very proud of all 10 of his children but especially that night of his daughter Mary.
I have no problem with Mary Landrieu coming to the floor and doing what she thinks is appropriate. She is absolutely right. We have a lot of trouble now getting simple things done. On a bill like this, it used to be that we would have two managers, whip through all these amendments. We would just accept them. I mean, I listened to Senator Landrieu talk about the best interests of the child. Who in the world would oppose that?
The problem we have is that if we get a lot of amendments pending, it will be hard to get rid of them. So Senator Leahy, who is a very experienced legislator, Senator Grassley, their staffs, I hope what Senator Landrieu has done is maybe to give the impetus to do what we used to do routinely; that is, the amendments that couldn't be taken care of on the floor would be in what was called a managers' amendment where the two managers would agree on matters most of which were noncontroversial. Sometimes there was a little trading going on--this is a Republican amendment, this is a Democratic amendment; we don't totally love this one, we don't totally love that one, but let's put it together and have that be part of the managers' package. We haven't done that much anymore. We can't agree even on the simple things. She is right.
So I hope, Mr. President, that the night will bring the ability for us to move to these amendments of hers or have a managers' package. I am here to inform the Senate that one of my goals is to work very hard to try to finish as much of this bill as we can as soon as we can. I have told everyone many times we are going to finish the immigration bill before we leave for the July 4 recess. We are going to do that. I hope we don't have to work this Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. I hope that is the case, but right now we don't know. The odds right now are that is where we are headed.
I am going to come tomorrow morning at 11:30 and be recognized, and I will move to table one of the pending amendments. That will get everybody over here, and maybe in the light of the day, prior to noon, people will be more reasonable. By that time maybe I will have a better idea as to how we are going to move forward.
As I have said in the past, we can file cloture Friday, Saturday, or Sunday or maybe even Monday. But right now it looks like we may have to move that up a day and maybe I will have to file cloture on something tomorrow.
So I have really appreciated everyone's movement on this bill today. I think basically there is a good feel there is an end in sight. We have a number of Senators who have been working with the Gang of 8 to come up with some suggestions and, hopefully, they will have an amendment they can offer tomorrow sometime that will put forth what they think they need to improve this bill.
The focus for the last several days has been on border security. So let's see what they have to offer on border security. The one thing everyone has to understand is, while I am happy to look at anything they think will help border security, it cannot get in the way and take away from this bill a pathway to citizenship, which the American people want.
So we are going to continue working. Staff will work on it all night. The managers of this bill and others interested in this bill will work on it. There are calls being made to the White House tonight. So at 11:30 tomorrow I will come in and see if we have a path forward to getting this bill in a position where we can finish it next week without working the weekend. But if we can't, the weekend is still in play.
Ms. LANDRIEU. If the Senator will yield for a question.
Mr. REID. Of course.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I think that is an excellent suggestion. Again, let me just thank the Senator sincerely for his patience, and I appreciate the compliments.
As he knows, there are many other Senators who feel just like I do. It is time to be Senators again, and it is just time to trust one another to at least move amendments that are noncontroversial, that no one objects to. Then we can whittle the list down to those that do need debate and discussion, and, as you said, a little trading may have to go on. That is normal.
What is not normal is coming to this floor, and those of us who have worked so hard to get cosponsors, to tap down resistance, to modify, to compromise, don't get any time at all because--I don't know. I don't know who decided we don't. But I have enough power to try to change it, and I am going to.
So I just want to say in closing, I have in front of me a list of 24 amendments--amendments by Senators Begich, Cardin, Collins, Hagan, Heller, Kirk, Klobuchar, Landrieu, Leahy, Hatch, Murray, Nelson, Reed, Schatz, Stabenow, Udall, Udall, and a few others--about 24--that the Republicans and Democrats think no one objects to. I would ask the leader if he would review this list tonight, ask the managers of the bill if they would review this list tonight, and if we could just get these noncontroversial amendments agreed to either by voice vote, individual vote, or en bloc vote. It doesn't matter to me. It could be this week or next week.
These amendments have been worked on by Members of both sides genuinely. We don't want any headlines. We don't want any press releases. We would just like our amendments passed. There is no opposition to them. I will provide this list to the Senator and, hopefully, tomorrow morning, when everybody has calmed down a little bit, maybe that is the way we can proceed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed for the Record the list of amendments I have just referred to.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Noncontroversial Amendments
1. Begich 1285: Requires social security to establish special procedures for updating social security records for those living more than 150 miles from a social security office.
2. Cardin 1286: Provides social service agencies with resources to help Holocaust survivors age in place comfortably.
3. Carper 1408: Requires strategy to prevent unauthorized immigration transiting through Mexico.
4. Collins 1255: Retains existing risk-based allocation of Operation Stonegarden grants [with modification to come].
5. Feinstein 1250: Provides authorization for the use of the CIR Trust Fund to alleviate the burdens on the Judiciary.
6. Hagan 1368: Reauthorizes Bullet Proof Vest program and establishes a Border Crime Prevention grant program.
7. Heller 1234: Requires DHS to submit a report to Congress on how the 10 airport biometric exit pilots impact wait times and CBP staffing needs.
8. Kirk-Coons 1239: Allowing certain naturalization requirements to be waived for USAF active-duty members who receive military awards.
9. Klobuchar-Coats 1261: Adoption amendment. Requires certificates of citizenship and other Federal documents to reflect name and date of birth determinations made by a State court.
10. Klobuchar-Coats 1297: Provides that an adoption processed by the Central Authority of another Convention Country will permit an alien child adopted abroad to immigrate before the child has been in the legal and physical custody of the adoptive parent for two years.
11. Landrieu 1338: Requires DHS to consult the Administrator of the SBA during its analysis of impact of E-Verify on businesses. Requires the DHS to create a smart-phone app, which will make it easier for small businesses to use E-Verify.
12. Landrieu 1382: Authorizes public-private partnerships to expand land ports of entry.
13. Landrieu-Cochran 1383: Requires reports on EB5 program.
14. Landrieu 1341: Requires DHS to attempt to reduce detention daily bed rate through a competitive bid process and still maintain current health and management practices.
16. Leahy-Hatch 1183: Encourages international participation in the performing arts.
17. Murray 1368: Prohibits the shackling of pregnant women, absent extraordinary circumstances, in all DHS detention facilities.
18. Nelson 1253: Provides additional resources for maritime security [with modification to come].
19. Reed 1223: Increases role of public libraries in the integration of new immigrants.
21. Schatz 1296: Requires GAO report on visa processing at US embassies and consulates.
22. Stabenow 1405: This amendment requires a number of administrative changes and studies all aimed at administering the refugee resettlement program more efficiently and effectively.
23. Tom Udall 1241: Expands the Border Enforcement Security Task Force in the Southwest border region.
24. Tom Udall 1242: Makes $5 million available for strengthening the Border Infectious Disease Surveillance Project.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, to my friend from Louisiana, I reiterate what I said earlier: I understand her concern. The only thing I would say in regard to her statement is, she wants to do things in the normal way. I am sad to report the normal way is what we have been doing the last 6 or 8 months. And that is the sad commentary that this has become the normal way.
I will be happy to review that list. I will do it looking at every amendment. There are some people, you know, who don't want this bill to pass. They don't want to do anything to improve the bill. No matter what side you are on, these are people who offered these amendments in good faith that they believe will improve the bill. But understand some people don't want the bill improved; they just want the bill to go away.
So I will work on this. I haven't talked to Senator Leahy tonight, but I will. I talked to Senator Grassley earlier today. So I heard the Senator loudly and clearly, and I will do the best I can.
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I am here today to briefly discuss an amendment to an important provision in the immigration bill that the Senate is considering concerning Stateless persons. Section 3405 of the comprehensive immigration bill would, for the first time, recognize and provide protections to those people in the United States that have no nationality--they are Stateless. There are countless men, women, and children in the United States today who cannot claim any nation as their home. Many lost their nationality when their country of origin ceased to exist as a result of political upheaval, rampant persecution, or violent conflict. The comprehensive immigration bill would encourage these people in the United States to come forward and apply to be recognized as Stateless persons. Under the proposed law, if an individual is recognized as Stateless, they could seek conditional lawful status, provided they meet the appropriate requirements, and be protected from being deported back to a State they no longer recognize as their home.
The amendment I am offering to the immigration bill would advance this important effort to recognize and protect Stateless persons living in the United States.
We live in a time when political turmoil, persecution, and war are no longer the only conditions creating Stateless persons. Today, rapid and extreme environmental change threatens to erode national boundaries and make States uninhabitable to people.
This is not an abstract challenge. Low-lying island States and atolls in the Pacific and Indian Oceans today face an existential crisis due to inexorable sea level rise that is making them uninhabitable. In Kiribati, for example, rising seas are contaminating local water tables with salt water, denuding fertile land and decimating island crops. The threat of higher seas also makes Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, and other island States more vulnerable to extreme weather that will inundate these countries with swells of storm surge and leave whole communities literally underwater. And in a short time, these island States will disappear beneath the waves.
Sea level rise is just one of the dramatic challenges the world faces as a result of climate change. Other environmental stressors are manifesting in States around the world that carry similar consequences as well. In North Africa, for instance, countries such as Morocco, Tunisia, and Libya lose hundreds of square miles of fertile land each year to desertification, driving away farming communities that are accustomed to living off the land. In Southeast Asia, salt water intrusion from sea level rise is destroying aquaculture ponds that communities rely on for economic development and food, uprooting families from their homes and driving them inland in search of new ways to support their livelihoods. And rapidly receding glaciers in the Himalayan Plateau threaten to make the headwaters of the region's major rivers run dry, with consequences for downstream communities that may eventually be forced from their homes in search of new water sources.
Scientists expect that climate change will exacerbate these environmental stressors, including drought, glacial melt, and heat waves, transforming once fertile landscape into barren and uninhabitable land. Besides these slow onset challenges, there are more people at risk today of being made permanently homeless by extreme weather events like typhoons, hurricanes, and other storms that threaten to decimate communities. And, unfortunately, the populations most at risk also happen to be the world's poorest people who too often have no other choice but to abandon their homes once disaster strikes.
By the end of the century, climate change will eclipse war as the greatest driver of homelessness around the world. We can and must protect those people who are in the United States from being deported to a country that is no longer inhabitable due to sea level rise or other environmental changes that leave the state uninhabitable to people.
The amendment I am proposing is quite simple. If enacted, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may designate individuals or a group of individuals displaced permanently by climate change as Stateless persons.
Again, let me be clear about what this amendment does. It simply recognizes that climate change, like war, is one of the most significant contributors to homelessness in the world. And like with States torn apart and made uninhabitable by war, we have an obligation not to deport people back to a country made uninhabitable by sea level rise and other extreme environmental changes that render these states desolate. It does not grant any individual or group of individuals outside the United States with any new status or avenue for seeking asylum in the United States.
Finally, the amendment also recognizes that the climate challenges that other States face are not unique to people beyond U.S. borders. Indeed, Hawai'i, Alaska and other States are and will continue to experience increased environmental pressures, with sea level rise, drought, wild fires and extreme weather driving Americans from their homes.
As such, the amendment would require the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study assessing the impact of climate change on internal migration in the United States and U.S. territories. The GAO report will assess the impacts and costs on existing Federal, State, and local services of various regions resulting from climate change-
induced migration of U.S. citizens. This important study will help the United States chart a path forward for responding to internal persons displaced by environmental change and extreme weather events, and identify what resources the Federal, State, and local governments need to invest in to adequately respond to climate-induced migration.
Climate change is one of the greatest challenges the United States will confront this century. But with the kinds of forward-thinking and pragmatic policies I am proposing today, we can put the United States on a path to respond to the challenges the country will face, and help protect those communities most at risk. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this important effort.
____________________
