Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, my colleagues have often heard me speak of my opposition to the legislation that is before us. They have not heard me speak about my opposition to immigration reform. As I have said so many times on this floor and in committee, or even to the press, I have not heard a single Senator say the existing system status quo ought to be maintained. There are a lot of opinions about what should be done. So as we have seen over the last few weeks, immigration is an emotional issue that engenders strong feelings on both sides of the aisle. Saying it for a second time: Everyone wants reform, but everyone has their own ideas and different solutions. Coming into the debate, I think my position has been very clear. I made it very clear because I have the experience of the 1986 legislation. That was legislation legalizing; it did not solve the problem. We screwed up in 1986 by not securing the border first, even though we had the intention that would happen. Today, we are right back at the same place talking about the same problems, proposing the same solutions. Unfortunately, the process has not allowed us to fundamentally improve the bill. We have not been able to vote up or down on commonsense amendments. There has been 550 amendments filed. We have taken up about a dozen. Despite the fact that the American people want the border secured before we provide a path to legalization, there appears to be a majority of this body who believes legalization must come first. Next Monday and Tuesday I will be holding 11 townhall meetings in Iowa. I know what I am going to hear from my people: Yeah, we need immigration legislation. But first we need to enforce the laws that are already on the books before you consider anything new. Despite what the Gang of 8 wrote in their framework for immigration reform, legalization is not--emphasis upon ``not''--contingent upon our success in securing our borders and addressing visa overstays. The bill will not ensure that a future Congress is not back 25 years from now dealing with the very same problems. We need a bill that insures results. We need a bill that puts security before legalization, not the other way around. We are a nation based upon the rule of law. We have a right to protect our sovereignty and a duty to protect the homeland. Any border security measures we pass must be real and, more importantly, be immediate, not 10 years down the road. We also need meaningful interior enforcement, including allowing immigration officers to do their job and work with State and local officials. Enforcement of the immigration laws has been lax and increasingly selective in the last few years because Federal immigration enforcement officers have been handicapped from doing their job. The States have tried to step in, but every time the States tried to step in under the 10th Amendment to protect their citizens when the Federal Government would not do it, they have been denied the opportunity to control their own borders. The unfortunate reality is the bill does almost nothing to strengthen interior enforcement efforts. It does nothing to encourage cooperation between Federal, State, and local governments. The Federal Government will continue to look the other way--look the other way as millions of new people enter this country undocumented. Meanwhile, the bill gives the States no new authority to act when the Federal Government refuses. One of the major reasons immigration is a subject of significant public interest is the failure of the Federal Government to enforce existing laws. Some 11 million people have unlawfully entered the country or overstayed their visas because the Federal Government did not deter them or take action to remove them. The bill subsequently weakens current criminal laws and will hinder the ability of law enforcement to protect Americans from criminal undocumented aliens. In addition to weakening current law, the bill does very little to deter criminal behavior in the future. It ignores sanctuary cities and increases the threshold required for action of what constitutes a crime. Regrettably, the bill is weak on foreign national criminal street gang members, an amendment that I tried to offer, but we could not get the other side to vote on whether gang members ought to be denied benefits in this immigration law. Furthermore, the bill falls short in protecting American workers who need and want jobs in this country. While I support allowing businesses to bring in foreign workers, they should only do so when qualified Americans are not available. I have long argued that we must enhance and expand opportunities for people who wish to work legally in the country. Yet as we do that, we cannot forget the American worker. We need to fight for them as well. Finally, I empathize with people who come into this country to have a better life. We are proud of our country. Those of us born here do not appreciate how great this country is. When I talk at a naturalization ceremony in my State, I tell the new citizens: You are new here. You came from another land where you know things are a lot different than they are here. When you hear Americans bellyaching about our great country, I hope you will tell these Americans who were born here-- including this American--that this is the best country in the world, and how it is different in your own country and that you came here for a better life. We are a compassionate people, and we are also the best country in the world. We are a great country because we have always abided by the rule of law. The rule of law is what makes opportunities that we have possible. I am going to vote against this bill today. That is no surprise to anybody. I have hopes for a better product to come out of a conference committee. I hope for a bill to go to the President of the United States. My hope is that we will send a bill to the President that will make America stronger, make our borders more secure, and make our immigration system more effective. This is what Americans deserve and what we have a responsibility to deliver. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield to the Senator for 6\1/2\ minutes. As far as I know, nobody on my side wants the time, and the Senator may have the time. Once again, I wish to thank everybody who maybe hasn't heard me say it. The Senator had a fair and open process in our committee. There wasn't a single Member who didn't get a chance to offer amendments. This is the way the process ought to work, and the chairman made it work that way.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I have expressed my frustration many times, and more often in the last week, about the lack of progress on getting votes. We have been on this bill for 3 weeks. Yet we have only dealt with nine amendments. It is unclear if any more amendments will be debated and voted on. We have provided a list to the majority on amendments that we believe will make the bill better. It seems as though the only amendments that will be made in order before we vote on final passage will be the Schumer-Hoeven-Corker so-called grand compromise. This is the one that was concocted behind closed doors for days, stalling progress we wanted to make in the public. In other words, we lost a lot of time while this grand compromise was being concocted behind closed doors. Even while that was going on, we could have been debating amendments and voting on amendments. Not only is the amendment before us, meaning the Schumer-Hoeven- Corker amendment, loaded with provisions that some would call earmarks, but it continues to promote false promises that the border will be truly secured. We get the impression from hearing the authors debate their amendment that tomorrow we are going to have a secure border. This is not going to happen, and I will explain that in a moment. Let's get back to basics. We are a Nation based upon the rule of law. In that concept, every Nation has a right to protect its sovereignty. In fact, it has a duty to protect the homeland. Any border security measures we pass then must be real and, more importantly, immediate. We can't wait 10 years down the road to put more agents on the border or to implement a tracking system to track foreign nationals. We have to prove to the American people today that illegal entries are under complete control and the visa overstays are being punished. Being punished means leave our country when your visa says you are supposed to leave the country. Unfortunately, too many people have been led to believe the bill before us, and this grand compromise amendment, will force the Secretary of Homeland Security to secure the border. The fact is, it doesn't do that, but we are led to believe that tomorrow the border will be secure. The amendment basically is a continuation of the basic premise of the underlying bill--legalization first, enforcement later, if ever. It is very simple and it is wrong. People will be legalized merely on the submission of a plan by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Will that plan secure the border? Who is going to know until a long way down the road. In the meantime, you have legalization and possibly enforcement, but you aren't going to know. Then you end up making the same mistake I made by voting for the bill in 1986. I don't intend to make that mistake again. We are saying the Secretary puts forth a plan. This very same Secretary is the one who thinks the border is already strong enough, the same Secretary who has refused to even answer questions we submitted to her 2 months ago about how she might interpret some of this legislation. She obviously hasn't been forthright in answering what those department policies would be. The amendment puts additional agents on the border, yes. It does it, quite frankly, in opposition to people on the other side of the aisle. Some of the sponsors of the bill have argued already that more agents aren't necessary. Maybe I should be satisfied we are going to have more agents. The point is, it is so far down the road--don't sell this amendment to me as border security. Let's be honest with the American people. This amendment, this grand compromise concocted behind closed doors, may call for more Border Patrol agents, but it surely doesn't require it until the undocumented population, who are now RPIs, apply for adjustment status or a green card, and that is down the road several years. I am all for putting more agents along the border, but why should we wait? It ought to be enforcement now, legalization later. Why allow legalization now and simply promise more agents in the future? Even then, who believes the Secretary, like the one we have today, will actually enforce the law? When I say like the Secretary we have today, I mean the policy. She says the border is secure. In this amendment there is the issue of fencing. One of the conditions that must be met before the Secretary can process green cards for people here illegally is the southern border fencing strategy has been submitted to Congress and implemented. This fencing strategy will identify where 700 miles of pedestrian fencing is in place. Note that this is not double layered, as in current law, so current law is weakened. The amendment states the second layer is to be built only if the Secretary deems it necessary and appropriate. This is another delegation of authority to a Secretary who says the border is already secure. Additionally, the underlying bill still specifically states that nothing in this provision shall be interpreted to require her to install fencing. Yes, they talk about this being a strong border-secure grand compromise, but it leaves so much discretion to a Secretary who already says the border is secure. Another part of the amendment requires an electronic entry-exit system is in use at all international air and sea ports. This sounds like all international air and sea ports--and look at this caveat--but only ``where U.S. Customs and Border Protection are currently deployed.'' This is actually weaker than the underlying bill which required the electronic entry-exit system be used at air and sea ports, not just international. Here again we have a grand compromise, supposed to get more votes for this bill, but it is weaker than the underlying legislation, because the underlying legislation requires biometric entry-exit at all ports of entry, including air, sea, and land. The amendment dictates to the Secretary which equipment to purchase and deploy at the border. The Members who wrote the bill were apparently given some secret list of technology that agents need, but I am not sure if this came from the Department or some defense contractor. Have no fear, the border will be secure because the amendment calls for fixed towers and cameras, unattended ground sensors, night-vision goggles, fiberoptic tank inspection scopes, a license plate reader, and backscatters. Obviously, I am facetious when I say the border will be secured by this concocted, behind-closed-doors grand compromise. What is not so funny is the spending of taxpayer dollars in this amendment. Originally the legislation allocated $6.5 million for the Secretary to carry out the law, and $6.5 billion is a lot of money. When we got to committee, the Gang of 8 increased the trust fund allocation by $6.5 billion to $8.3 billion, and $8.3 billion is still a lot of money. We have this grand compromise concocted behind closed doors before us, and now we are looking at not $8.3 billion but $46.3 billion upon date of enactment for the Secretary to spend as she wishes. As is often the case here in Washington, the solution always seems to be throw money at a problem. This grand compromise measures the success of their amendment by the amount of money that is going to be spent, not by outcomes. The American people, in the polls of this country, want the outcomes to be a secure border, not the amount of money that is going to be spent on the success of a piece of legislation. Of course, the money has to come from somewhere, so the amendment requires the government to raid the Social Security trust fund. It is ObamaCare all over again, where the Medicare trust fund was raided to help finance that. It is irresponsible and unacceptable. Moreover, the amendment's sponsors will claim that people here illegally will pay for our border security needs. But money has to come into the trust fund, and after it gets into the trust fund it has to be repaid to the Treasury. Where will the American people be reimbursed? The sponsors of the bill say the taxpayers will not bear the burden. Yet there is no requirement the funds be paid back. There is no time limit or accountability to ensure the taxpayers or the Treasury gets its money back. The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment increases fees on visas for legal immigrants in order to replenish the trust fund and the Treasury. Employers, students, and tourists will pay the price. Talking about employers, students, and tourists, these are people who abide by the law who are paying the price. Meanwhile, the amendment says for those being legalized--in other words, people who came here undocumented, those people having not subjected themselves to American law by crossing the border illegally--they cannot be charged more than what is allowed already. The Secretary cannot adjust the fees or penalties on those who apply for or renew their RPI or blue card status, and those are the people who came to this country without papers, in violation of our law. The amendment in the underlying bill will not end illegal immigration because the border is not going to be secure. The Congressional Budget Office says illegal immigration would only be reduced by 25 percent due to the increased numbers of guest workers coming into the country. The amendment does nothing to radically reduce illegal immigration in the future and does not provide any resources to interior enforcement agents whose mission it is to apprehend, detain, and deport illegal immigrants. Just as with the 1986 amnesty--and I voted for that, which was a mistake I regret--we are going to be back in the same position in 10 years, facing the same problem. The authors have talked a lot about the border surge in their amendment, but they seem to be hiding from the fact the border changes only account for about half of the total amendment. There are changes to every title. There are changes to exchange visitor programs, the future guest worker program, and visas, even for the performing arts. This isn't just a border amendment. There are provisions in the bill that were put in there specifically to get Senators to support passage of this bill, because they think if they can get 70 votes, the House of Representatives is going to buy into this thing. I expect to vote against the bill, and I expect the House of Representatives to fix this miserable failure, both the underlying legislation as well as the grand compromise amendment before us, so we can vote for a bill going to the President that has border security before we have legalization. That is going to happen. I trust the other body isn't going to buy into the argument the Senators in this body want to use; that somehow, if this gets 70 votes, it is so bipartisan how could the other body not do it? This body is not the deliberative body on this amendment that history tells the American people the Senate is. This is a body that for 3 weeks, with 451 amendments, didn't deliberate. We stalled and voted on 9 or 10 amendments. The House of Representatives is going to be the deliberative body on immigration reform, and it is going to put the Senate to shame. I encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment. It does nothing to change the legalization first philosophy and offers little more than false promises the American people can no longer tolerate. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Let me correct that. That is money total to be spent, not necessarily all on the border. But about $30 billion was added in this amendment for the border.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Texas. I want to give an update, not only to Senator Landrieu, but for all the Senators. First of all, 10 days ago we started out with 27 amendments that were noncontroversial--or supposedly noncontroversial. Obviously, they were not all noncontroversial. That grew to 44 or 45, and I think we are back at 35 now on that list. Remember, about 14 of those were included in the Hoeven-Corker amendment. They were included in that for sweetener--to buy people off to get their votes on final passage. So there are 14 that will probably be passed when we vote on final passage. Last night my staff cleared 12 amendments, and that does not count several Republican amendments that were added to the list. We are making progress. Some are noncontroversial, but others are not. The one that the Senator from Louisiana mentioned that appeared to her to be noncontroversial, we suggested some technical changes to make it more definitive. If that is done, we can probably accept that. Also, everyone has to remember that there are amendments on this list which are under the jurisdiction of other committees and not under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. Some of the amendments were rejected for that reason. Some of the amendments are technical, but some are more complicated. I give my assurance to all of my colleagues that we will continue to work on this list. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of whatever time is left when Senator Cornyn is done.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, this grand compromise makes false promises to the American people and throws money at the border, but there is no accountability to get the job done. We need to see the results, but the only result we are being assured of is legalization-- legalization first, border security later. On top of all the earmarks that are in this amendment, the grand compromise also has a grand plan for spending taxpayers' dollars, and we have to raid the Social Security trust fund to get it. The American people expect us to get this right. This amendment is the wrong answer. I urge a ``no'' vote. I yield the floor, and I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I object.

Mr. GRASSLEY. In the last 3 weeks, I have pointed out several flaws in the immigration bill. Within a couple of days, we will have a bill through the Senate. I think I owe to my colleagues and to my constituents, since I have been pointing out flaws, what it would take for me to vote for an immigration bill because I am just like most everybody and maybe everybody in the Senate who will tell you that the status quo is not legitimate to maintain and that we have to reform the system. So there are, I would like to say, 100 Senators who believe the immigration system needs to be fixed. I can guarantee that there are also 100 different ways to fix it. Nobody has a perfect solution, but I bring an experience to the table that very few others have. My deep-rooted concern with this bill stems from my strong belief that we made a mistake in 1986. We allowed legalization and ignored the laws on the books. Another major shortcoming was that we allowed legalization without creating adequate avenues for people to enter, live, and work in this country legally. In other words, if we had a system that works, where we had a shortage of workers, if they could legally come to the country, we would not have the problems we have today. We did not do that in 1986. These were crucial flaws that have led us to the debate we have been having the last 3 weeks, and I am not willing to pass that mistake on to future Congresses. What will it take for somebody such as I, a Senator who voted for amnesty in 1986 and wasn't a part of the Group of 8 or Group of 10, to vote for immigration reform this year? This is what I need to see in an immigration bill in order to support it and send it to the President. When I mentioned four different points, it doesn't mean that takes care of everything, but if these things were taken care of, regardless of the other things, I would feel I would have to support it. They are: No. 1, legalization after border security; No. 2, meaningful interior enforcement, including allowing ICE to do its job and work with State and local people; No. 3, strengthening, not weakening, current law with regard to criminals; and, No. 4, protecting American workers while enhancing legal avenues. I will explain them at this point, starting with legalization after border security. Most Americans contend that a legalization program is a compassionate way to help those who are unlawfully in the country. However, those compassionate people who support such a program of legalization do so only on the promise that the government will secure the border and stop the flow of illegal immigration. We are a nation based upon the rule of law. We have a right to protect our sovereignty, and, of course, a duty to protect our homeland. Any border security measures we pass must be real and immediate. We can't wait 10 years to put more agents on the border or to implement a tracking system to track foreign nationals. We have to prove to the American people that illegal entries are under complete control and that visa overstays are to be punished. Unfortunately, too many people have been led to believe this bill before us will force the Secretary of Homeland Security to secure the border. It doesn't. A fundamental component of any legislation is border security first and foremost, not legalization now and enforcement later, if ever. There has to be pressure on the executive branch to get the job done. We must tie legalization to results. Only then will advocates and a future administration truly try to secure the border. Secondly, meaningful interior enforcement, including ICE being allowed to do its job and work with State and locals. Enforcement of the immigration laws has been lax and increasingly selective in the last few years. As a result, States have been forced to deal with the criminal activity that surrounds the flow of people here who are undocumented. They have stepped up efforts to control the effects of illegal immigration in some States, and the States should be able to protect their people and stem the lawlessness within their border. Yet time and again this administration has denied States the opportunity and tried to stop them from enforcing immigration laws. Federal immigration enforcement officers have also been handicapped from doing their job. The bill would practically render these officers useless since they are required to verify a person's eligibility for legalization before apprehending and detaining. They need to be provided the resources to fulfill their mission and not be told by Washington to sit idly by. The unfortunate reality is that the bill does almost nothing to strengthen and enhance our interior enforcement efforts. The bill does nothing to encourage Federal, State, and local law enforcement efforts to apprehend and detain individuals who pose a risk to our community. The Federal Government will continue to look the other way as millions of new people enter the country undocumented. Meanwhile, the bill gives the States no new authority to act when the Federal Government refuses. I will be the first to say that border security is a must, but people who enter illegally and overstay their visas and are residing in the interior of the country, this cannot be ignored. This is something that if it is fixed, I would feel very comfortable voting for an immigration bill. Strengthening, not weakening, current law with regard to criminals. It is not going to go over well back home if we say one can have criminal activity, even be deported from the country, and make application again to have the benefits of this legislation. One of the major reasons why immigration is a subject of such significant public interest is the failure of the Federal Government to enforce existing laws. Eleven million people have unlawfully entered the country or overstayed their visas because the Federal Government did not deter them or take action to remove them. This bill before us significantly weakens current criminal law and will hinder the ability of law enforcement to protect Americans from criminal undocumented aliens. The bill weakens current law regarding passport fraud, only charging those who make or distribute illegal passports three or more times. It allows a person to knowingly purchase materials for making illegal passports but only charge the person with a crime if 10 or more passports are made. It also weakens current law for those who illegally enter the country, changing existing laws by removing the crime of illegally attempting to enter the United States. This essentially incentivizes foreign citizens to attempt to illegally enter the country as many times as they wish. Further, once they successfully enter the United States illegally, the alien would only be subject to criminal punishment if they are removed from the country three or more times. Why isn't once enough? Taken together, the bill weakens current law and will make it easier for undocumented aliens to enter the country illegally by not criminalizing their attempts to enter, nor their actual illegal entry, unless they had been previously removed three or more times. This is a drastic change that will encourage future entries by undocumented people. Given the serious nature of criminal street gangs, we need to pass an immigration bill that prevents entry into the country if one is a gang member. More important, we need to ensure that gang members are not being rewarded with legal status. Regrettably, the bill is weak on foreign national criminal street gang members in several regards. In addition to weakening current law, the bill does very little to deter criminal behavior in the future. The bill ignores sanctuary cities, allowing criminals to seek safe harbor in jurisdictions where they have policies aimed to protect people in the country illegally. It increases the threshold required for actions to constitute a crime. It punishes persons only if they have already been convicted of three or more misdemeanors on different days, and it only punishes undocumented aliens who are removed from the country three or more times. I am committed to making sure any bill that is sent to the President makes a more serious effort to penalize those who attempt to enter or reenter the United States. It needs to be tough on lawbreakers and send a signal that fraud and abuse, including identity theft, will not be tolerated. It needs to ensure that gang members are not granted legalization but rather made deportable and inadmissible. We need to protect victims of crime and ensure that child abusers and domestic violence perpetrators do not receive benefits under the immigration law. Finally, we need to ensure that dangerous, undocumented criminals are not released in our country but are detained until they are properly returned to their home country. Fourth and last, we need to protect American workers while enhancing legal avenues. While I support allowing businesses to bring in foreign workers, they should only do so when qualified Americans are not available. There have been too many stories about U.S. workers who have had to train their replacements who come in through the H-1B visa program. Foreign nationals are being hired but then working in locations not specified in their application. Other work visa programs are not free of controversy. I agree with the creation of a temporary worker program, such as the W visa program created in this bill. I have long argued we must enhance and expand opportunities for people who wish to work legally in this country. Yet as we do that, we cannot forget the American worker. We need to fight for them and ensure that they are not disadvantaged, displaced, and underpaid because of our generation laws. The bill before the Senate makes that move in the right direction by increasing worker protection for Americans and by providing more authority to the executive branch to investigate fraud in the H-1B visa program. Unfortunately, the bill is slanted to ensure that only certain employers undergo more scrutiny. All employers who bring in visa holders should be held to the same standard. All employers, not just some, should be required to make a good-faith effort to recruit U.S. workers. All employers, not just some, should be required to attest that they did not or will not displace a U.S. worker within 180 days of applying for an H-1B worker. All employers, not just some, should be required to offer the job to a U.S. worker who is equally or better qualified. Our employment-based immigration program, including the H-1B program, has served and could again serve a valuable purpose if used properly. However, they are being misused and abused. They are failing the American worker and not fulfilling the original purpose that Congress intended when it was created. Reforms are needed to put integrity back into the program and to ensure that American workers and students are given every chance to fill vacant jobs in this country. Again, how I vote on the final bill coming out of conference with the House is undecided. I want to be able to support something that will make Americans proud, that will not make the same mistakes we did in 1986, and will stand the test of time so future generations can benefit. I need to see at least these four key changes before I can cast a vote in support. I have said to Iowans and to my colleagues that the bill before the Senate is precooked, but I have faith that a better bill is achievable, a bill that can gain more votes, including mine. This body, the Senate, is described as the most deliberative parliamentary body in the world-- and I believe it is--but when we had 451 amendments offered to this bill, we were promised free and open debate. We have only dealt with about a dozen of them, and we can't say we had a fair and open debate as we were promised. It surely did not meet the standard that was set by Chairman Leahy when he promised in committee a free and open debate. There was free and open debate and no limit on amendments. We stuck with it until we got done. We could have just as well stuck with this bill until we got it done and we could have had votes on more amendments. Now we are going to pass a bill that is not the best for the country and doesn't accomplish even what the authors of the legislation hoped to accomplish, particularly when they say secure the border first and then legalize. We have to rely upon a body that is not considered a deliberative body, the House of Representatives, to correct these mistakes that are made in this bill. I think they will, I hope they will, and then I hope I can vote for the product that will go to the President of the United States. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to give my colleagues a point of view on the immigration bill before the Senate from somebody other than a Senator. In the weekend Des Moines Register, there was an article called ``Another View: Immigration reform plan adds disorder to a failing system'' by Mark H. Metcalf, who had been an immigration judge and now is a county attorney in the State of Kentucky. I am quoting: The most recent push for immigration reform is compelling. True to our heritage of inclusion, it succeeds. False to our tradition of rule of law, it fails. For any law to forge consensus, it must appeal to both fairness and common sense. The measure now on the U.S. Senate floor fails this litmus. What is sold as a means to simplify and dignify one of our most important national institutions--immigration and naturalization--mandates complexity and much of the same disorder that got us where we are today. The bill's neglect of an effective court system only aggravates this disorder. America's immigration courts are weak, and this latest measure keeps them that way. Put simply, immigration courts cannot impose order. Few aliens ordered removed after years of litigation are ever deported. Edward Grant, a senior immigration appeals judge, noted this impasse in 2006. Then he quotes Edward Grant: ``All should be troubled that only a small fraction of [deportation orders] . . . is actually executed.'' And he was right. A 2003 Justice Department report found only 3 percent of aliens free during trial were actually removed after courts ruled against them. Those who deserve relief fare just as poorly. By last count, more than 330,000 cases were backlogged. This historic dysfunction offers a glimpse of things to come if the current version of reform passes. The cause of this dysfunction is simple. Immigration courts have no authority over immigration enforcement agencies. Unlike federal district courts that have U.S. marshals, among others, to execute their orders, federal immigration courts have no such muscle. Numbers tell the story. Some 11 million illegal aliens now live in the U.S. Visa overstayers--those who entered America legally and then refused to leave--comprise 40 percent of this total. The rest crossed unguarded borders and entered illegally. Both groups brought children with them. From these two populations, 1.2 million deportation orders remain unexecuted. The immigration courts observed this dysfunction first hand. From 1996 through 2012, the U.S. permitted some 2.2 million aliens to remain free before trial. Nearly 900,000 of these individuals--39 percent of the total--skipped court and disappeared. In the shadow of 9/11, things were even worse. From 2002 through 2006, half of all aliens free awaiting trial vanished. Nothing in the details now being debated addresses this systemic defect, and continued neglect will only diminish public support for worthy initiatives intended to elevate the foreign-born. Fine improvements dot the present legislation. Enhancements that protect lawful American workers, recruitment of the highly skilled into our tech-driven economy, and real-time tracking of visa holders into and out of ports of entry provide overdue fixes. Emphasis on border security demonstrates a seriousness absent from earlier proposals. Those illegally brought to the U.S. as children--better known as ``Dreamers''--earn tracks to citizenship incentivized through higher education and military service. Now, let me editorialize here. There are two paragraphs where he says good things about this legislation. I do not necessarily agree with a couple of those points. Now continuing to quote: Some reworking is needed; but this value-added approach appeals to our better instincts as a nation. Problems persist, though, in that essential mechanism upon which a rule of law nation depends: effective courts. While the bill authorizes 225 new judges, judicial authority declines. Deportation orders are further enfeebled. Aliens deported from the U.S. may apply to come back, and the thousands who skipped court can request a waiver--and get in line with the many who played by the rules. Fraud is enabled. Courts and immigration agencies alike will be required to accept--without independent verification--aliens' claims to work and residency that make them eligible for the path to citizenship. Constitutional protections are turned upside down. Here I editorialize. Listen to this on how our laws are turned upside down. Continuing to quote: Aliens in civil deportation proceedings will receive counsel on demand, while citizens receive counsel only when facing criminal charges and only after proving they are indigent. So again editorializing, it gives more constitutional rights and more legal counsel than the common criminal in this country might get. Order is subverted. Even felons who are subject to deportation may seek injunctions that allow them to remain in the U.S. In the end, courts that spent years deciding the cases of those who should be removed will see their orders overturned by waivers that mock the judicial process. America's immigration courts express fundamental confidence in those who embrace our shores and the redemptive power of our democracy. For the immigrant in particular, they reveal the beginnings of accountability that are a surety of our exceptionalism. But ignored by administrations both Republican and Democrat, these courts have ceased to do the critical work for which they were created--to definitively decide the claims of those who ask to join our nation and see that those decisions are impartially enforced. So now, instead of debating how we extend the great prize of American citizenship to more of the world's bright and talented, Congress argues whether felons should be deported. This is the small-ball politics that has sabotaged public confidence in immigration. It shows how far we have fallen both in the mission of these special courts and with immigration in general. Courts without authority cannot provide order. Even less can they assure liberty. Only independent and empowered courts are an equal match for the certain risks and superior opportunities that American immigration offers. History proves them not just a priceless check against tyranny, but also an effective antidote for drifting government agencies that delay relief to the deserving and deny sanction to the offender. Such courts are a necessary complement to immigration reform that is inclusive, accountable and commands consensus. That is the end of the article in the Des Moines Register by this former immigration judge, Mark H. Metcalf. I thank my colleagues for listening to this, and I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the only unanimous consent request I am going to make is at the end of my remarks I will ask for inclusion of something in the Record. I wish to share with the public what is taking place on the immigration bill before us. Unfortunately, very little is taking place. We have been on the floor of the Senate considering this bill for 2\1/ 2\ weeks, and only 13 amendments have been disposed of. We have had nine rollcall votes on amendments, and three of those amendments were tabling votes. Yet over 550 amendments have been filed to this bill. Senators are still filing amendments. The fact is less than 3 percent of all amendments filed have actually been considered. For a process that was labeled as ``fair and open,'' with the invitation to file amendments, even from the people who wrote the bill, the Gang of 8, it has become laughable. Our side has been asking for votes. We have tried to call up amendments. Last night we sent a list of 34 amendments over to the majority and requested votes on them. I am told they have refused that list, and I think it is because there are some tough votes on those amendments. They want to limit the number of amendments that can be considered. They want to choose the amendments. In a sense, they want to tell Republicans which amendments we can offer from our side. That is not right. I am very disappointed not just for myself but for a lot of other Members of the body. There is no deliberation. It seems as though there is no path forward to have votes to make the bill better. And, of course, this isn't the way to legislate. Immigration reform is an important matter. We have to get it right. We shouldn't rush a bill just to get it done, especially if we are going to pass a bad bill. This bill shouldn't be rushed if we are getting it wrong. We have to get it right. It is unfortunate that what has happened on the floor of the Senate--9 rollcall votes out of 550 amendments, and counting, that have been filed. So much for the world's greatest deliberative body. Immigration reform hasn't been debated on this floor since 2007, and as far as I can remember, a major piece of legislation such as this on immigration hasn't passed the Senate since 1986. It may seem that we have been on the bill for a long time. Compared to a lot of other issues, it has been a longer time. But most of the time has been spent delaying actual debate and consideration of amendments, while Members craft a grand bargain compromise behind closed doors. Of course, that has been adopted at this point in the process. Unfortunately, it appears this bill has been precooked, deals have been made, and apparently having an open debate on amendments to the bill isn't part of that deal on any more than the few amendments we have discussed--particularly those amendments that could substantively change the underlying bill for the better. So we get the impression that, sorry, the kitchen is closed. What has happened? We are supposed to be the most deliberative body in the world. We pride ourselves on that. But now we are going to rely on the House of Representatives to do our job to be deliberative and to fix this legislation. I have great hopes when this process is done through conference that I can vote for a bill that will go to the President of the United States. As I have said before, the Judiciary Committee markup was full and open, and I have complimented Chairman Leahy many times on that point. It is too bad that process couldn't have been carried out here on the floor of the Senate. Whether members were pleased in committee with the vote results for their amendments, in committee the members at least had the opportunity to offer amendments for debate and consideration. Amendments were debated. Amendments were voted on. But that hasn't been the case in the last 2\1/2\ weeks here on the Senate floor. We have tried to offer amendments to this over 1,000-page-long bill. The majority is shutting us out. They have gotten the votes they need to pass this bill through Members getting their favorite amendments into the bill, and some of these seem to me to be special interest provisions and some of them tend to be like the cornhusker kickback sweeteners of ObamaCare fame. Now we are getting the door to the shop closed. It is important for the public to know we have tried to make this bill better by trying to offer amendments. We have given the other side a list, and I think it has been flatly refused. It is not too much to ask for this number of amendments to be considered. That list had 34 amendments--that is 34 amendments out of 550 filed. Senators want to see a lot more amendments considered and voted on, but we have limited the number to 34. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the list of amendments we asked the majority to consider before final passage.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I object, and I ask for the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my colleagues--I better say on behalf of myself and some of my colleagues--I have to object. The majority party has offered an agreement from our point of view that is insufficient and clearly not serious, even though I know they consider it a serious offer. Last night, our side offered a list of amendments that could be voted upon. We asked for votes on 34 amendments and those 34 amendments are less than 10 percent of all of the amendments that are filed, right now about 550. But now the majority wants to limit the number of amendments and, in a sense, limit our rights, because each Senator ought to have an opportunity to put down the amendments they want to offer. It doesn't preclude the majority party from offering any amount of their amendments they want to offer. It seems to me the majority wants to pick and choose the amendments they like. They don't want to take tough votes so they have chosen just a few of our amendments to make it look as though it is very accommodating. I have to say I feel a bit used and abused in this process. For 2\1/ 2\ weeks we have been pushing to get votes on our amendments. We have had a measly 10 votes on amendments. I will remind my colleagues that there were 550 filed. That is pretty embarrassing for the majority after they promised a fair and open debate. I wish to remind my colleagues about fair and open debate. One Republican Member of the Group of 8 said: I am confident that an open and transparent process, one that engages every Senator and the American people, will make it even better. I believe that this kind of open debate is critical in helping the American people understand what is in the bill, what it means for you, and what it means for our future. That same Senator also wrote to Chairman Leahy on March 30 before the bill was brought up in committee: I wish to express my strong belief that the success of any major legislation depends on the acceptance and support of the American people. That support can only be earned through a full and careful consideration of legislative language and an open process of amendments. In a letter to me on April 5, that same Senator wrote: If the majority does not follow regular order, you can expect that I will continue to defend the rights of every Senator, myself included, to conduct this process in an open and detailed manner. When the bill was introduced, the senior Senator from New York said: One of the things we all agree with is that there ought to be an open process so that people who don't agree can offer their amendments. So it is very clear the Gang of 8, the authors of the legislation, called for a robust floor debate. They said they supported regular order. So I ask now: Do they think that having only a few amendments considered, and this list that has just been put before us, is that a robust and open process? Do they think the majority party has used regular order? After spinning our wheels for a couple of weeks, we had an important vote a couple of days ago. The proponents have been bragging for weeks that they were going to get over 70 votes for their legislation and somehow force the House to take up their bill. Of course, that won't happen if they don't get 70 votes. But I saw the shock of some that they had on their faces when their vote count fell short here a couple of days ago. So now what are they doing? They need to pick up some votes and they need to make it look as though we have had a more fair process. So after less than the expected vote yesterday, the proponents came to me wanting to strike a deal that would give us votes on amendments. The problem is they still want to limit our amendments, but they want to make sure we include amendments that will help them pick up some votes. Well, I happen to be a farmer and I am proud to be a farmer, but I want them to know I haven't just fallen off of the hay wagon. It is pretty clear what is going on around here. Regardless of the reasons for the majority now trying to look as though they are accommodating us, I am still willing to negotiate votes, but it needs to be a lot of votes. Some on my side may be less charitable than I am since they also understand what is going on around here. So in the end, we may very well not be having any more votes on amendments. It is too bad the majority led us down this road and is aiming for the ditch. In other words, we have not had the fair and open process we were promised as we had in committee--a fair and very open process there, but it ended up completely contrary to what the Gang of 8 told us we were going to have when we got to the floor. In the end they have only themselves to blame. In the end I think the end is right now. We are going to have votes on cloture. We are going to have a vote on final passage. I am telling people on my side of the aisle that if you are going to be against this bill, there is no sense in debating it anymore; we might as well carry our story to the other body because that is where this bill is going to be perfected, if it can be perfected, in a way that is going to be sent to the President and to solve the problems we have and not make the same mistakes we made in 1986. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I reserve the right to object, and I will object. I want the Members of this body to know that I very much am interested in E-Verify, because I have legislation in for mandatory E- Verify. I was involved with several Senators in 2007 as we tried to get an amendment put together in those negotiations. It is a case of something very important. I happen to support this amendment, but it is one of 34 others we sent over to the majority to give us votes on. Our side isn't going to let the other side pick our amendments and choose our amendments that are going to be adopted any more than they would let us decide what Democratic amendments are going to be offered. That applies to the Portman amendment as well and the amendment of which Senator Tester is a cosponsor. We had this set up where we were asked to put together amendments. It happens to be that a Republican Senator, somebody who just spoke and was involved in this colloquy, asked me to put together some amendments. I worked hard with a lot of dissenting Republicans about how we should do this process, put together 34 amendments and gave them to that Senator. He was going to negotiate with the leader or the majority. It seems to me I ended up giving my amendments to an errand boy, didn't do much negotiation. We are here where we are. Also for that Senator, I wish to tell him that he said we could do 15 vote amendments now, then maybe 15 more, and then maybe 15 more. The unanimous consent request said after we do those amendments we were asked to do, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on final passage of the bill. There wouldn't have been a tranche of so many and then another tranche. Here we are, even though I think it is a pretty good amendment. We were promised a free and open process of amendments, and the Group of 8 promised that from day one that they put their bill down, that this bill can be approved. We have had a chance to improve it by a dozen votes, and that is it. I am sorry for Mr. Portman and for Mr. Tester that I have to object to their amendment, but I do object. I think if we had 2\1/2\ weeks, we could have been doing a lot of these other things we are going to have to rely on the other body to do to get a decent bill to go to the President of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. As we have seen over the past 2 weeks, immigration is a very emotional issue. It is an issue that engenders strong feelings from both sides of the aisle and maybe out in the grass roots of America even stronger feelings than are expressed on the floor of the Senate. Everyone wants reform in the Senate. I have not heard anybody say the present situation is A-OK, but everyone has their own ideas and different solutions. Now, at the grass roots of America, there are people who say we ought to give citizenship yesterday. There are people on the other side who say 12 million people ought to be rounded up and shipped out of the country. Neither one of those are very realistic today, but those are even stronger voices than you hear on the floor of the Senate. Now, we are trying to find some reasonable solution. I do not think the bill that is eventually going to pass is a reasonable solution. But I will not know whether this is a reasonable solution until we get through the entire legislative process, meaning the House of Representatives and the conference. But I think down the road we can do much better than is going to be done in the Senate. Now, as I said, everybody has their own ideas and different solutions. Unfortunately, the process has not allowed us to fundamentally improve this bill on the floor of the Senate like we were able to have that chance--not too successfully--but at least we had that chance in committee with that fair and open process. So out here on the floor of the Senate we have not been able to vote up or down on commonsense amendments or very many amendments at all. I think to this point about 9, 10, 11 amendments are all that we have considered out of 451 that have been offered. Despite the fact that the American people want the border secured before we provide a path to legalization, this bill appears to be favored by a majority in the body who believe that legalization must come before border security. I ought to say that again. Despite the fact that the American people want border security before we provide a path to legalization, there appears to be a majority in this body who believe that legalization must come before border security. The polls around America show just the opposite. Border security first, everything else after the border is secured. This approach of legalization first is concerning, not only because the border will not be secured for years down the road, but more importantly because it devalues the principle that is very basic to our country and our constitutional system of government, the rule of law. The rule of law means the government will follow the laws it writes, and we expect the people to do likewise. People need to be able to trust their government and trust that the government will be fair. I empathize with people who come into this country to have a better life. Who is going to blame them for doing that? We would do anything to give our kids a better life. Some people see no other choice but to cross the border without papers to find work and sacrifice everything they have to do it and to take a chance that they are going to run up against the law and be deported. But they do it because they want a better life. That is very basic to the American way of life. It is a natural right of most people around the world, a natural right that most of them are not able to bring to fruition. The American people happen to be very compassionate. I know they are just trying to find a better opportunity and live the American dream, those people who come here undocumented. We are the best country in the world. We should be proud of it. We are an exceptional nation. But we are a great country because we have always abided by the rule of law. The rule of law is what makes all opportunities we have possible. In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt sent a message to the Congress, the State of the Union Message. He talked about how man must be guaranteed his liberty and the right to work. But so long as a man does not infringe upon the rights of others, he said this: No man is above the law and no man is below it, nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Meaning the law. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right, not as a favor. I am a believer, just like everybody in this body, in the rule of law, despite what some say, including the majority leader. That does not mean we want to deport 11 million people. I want a humane and fair process for them to live, work, and remain here. I have said many times, and I have said it many times particularly in the past few months, that we do not necessarily need more laws, but rather we need to enforce the laws that are already on the books. That is what I hear at my townhall meetings when people come to them and I start to explain about immigration. Somebody pops up: Right. We do not need more laws; we just need to enforce what we have on the books. I agree. We need to enhance and expand legal avenues for people who want to enter, live, and work in this country. But we have laws that have gone ignored for 17 years. We have laws that are undermined and disregarded. The country will benefit if we have sensible immigration laws. One of the failings of the 1986 law was that it did not do enough to create avenues for people to work here. Advocates for reform claim they want a long-term solution, but what we have before us is nothing but a short-term bandaid. Really, what the bill does is clean the slate. Those words ``clean the slate'' was a phrase that we used in 1986. That was the goal, to clean the slate, and we would start all over again. I referred many times--it is probably sickening to a lot of people in this body when I refer to the mistakes we made in 1986, not to repeat them. But here we are. We want to clean the slate again and start over. The problem is, if we just do the same thing we did in 1986, we will be back here in 25 years or less wanting to do the same thing. So some Senators are going to say: In 2038, all we need to do is clean the slate. Well, we said that in 1986. We did clean the slate. We are back here in 2013 cleaning the slate again. We should have a long- term solution to these immigration issues. We should pass true and meaningful reform; and in doing so, we should not be ignoring the very principle on which our country was founded, on the rule of law. We should not have to in any way be apologetic for taking this position either. One would get the opinion by hearing some speeches on the floor of the Senate that some people have more respect for people who violated our law than they have respect for the rule of law or people who have abided by the law. We have people from all over the world at our embassies, standing in line for long periods of time to come to this country legally. Those are the people whom we ought to be respecting. I do not mean we disrespect people who come here to work. But there is one thing: They did violate our laws to come here. We do not have to apologize for not accepting the fact that it is OK to violate the laws. So we should not be apologetic for any position we take that is backed by the rule of law, the foundation of our society. Why should we have to apologize for wanting to ensure people live by the laws that we set? We will not survive as a country if we allow people to ignore the law and be rewarded for it. We just cannot be a country of lawlessness. Why is wanting to secure the border anti- immigration? It is not. We are a sovereign nation. It is our duty to protect the people of this country. That is the first responsibility of the Federal Government, to guarantee our sovereignty because it is basic to our security. It is our right to create procedures whereby others can come to this country and make a living for themselves. This does not mean we do not want other people from other countries. After all, except for Native Americans we are all a country of immigrants, some first generation and some, I suppose, fifth or sixth generation. We want to ensure that we protect our sovereignty. We want to protect the homeland. So I ask my colleagues to think about how our country's immigration laws will survive the test of time. If this bill passes as is, will it be a temporary fix or something that we can be proud of for generations to come? It is my understanding that, so far, 449 amendments have been filed to this underlying bill, including second-degree amendments. We started off the debate on the Senate floor with my amendment that would have required the border to be ``effectively controlled'' for 6 months before the Secretary could legalize people who are already present. We would call them, under this bill, registered provisional immigrants, and we referred to it as RPI status. Clearly, the other side was afraid of the amendment I offered because it would have fundamentally changed the bill by requiring that the border be secured before granting 11 million undocumented workers a pathway to citizenship--but not, contrary to what the polls of the people of this country are telling us--they want security first, legalization after security of the borders. They have already cooked the books on this bill and don't want to make fundamental changes, regardless of whether they are good changes, because they don't want to upset their deal. They have insisted on a 60-vote threshold for amendments to pass. When my amendment was up, I refused that 60-vote requirement and so they tabled my amendment. This raises the question: What about the open and fair process that we were promised? We learned on day one of the immigration debate that all of this talk about ``making the bill better'' was just plain hogwash. It was all just a phony and empty promise. The sponsors would take the floor and say they were ready to vote on amendments, but in reality they were afraid of any good change. They refused to let Members offer amendments of their own choosing. Instead, they wanted to pick what amendments Members would offer. They want to decide who, what, when, and how it would be disposed of. Of course, that is not right, that is not the open process that was promised. In the last 2 weeks we have only debated nine amendments on this bill. Of those amendments, the majority leader tabled three amendments on a rollcall vote. Of the nine, we adopted three amendments by a rollcall vote. We rejected three amendments by a rollcall vote, and we adopted another three amendments by a voice vote. I am sure everyone would agree that debating 9 amendments out of 450 is not a fair and open process. We have a lot more amendments that have been filed and not considered. These amendments would make this bill better. The sponsors of the bill are arguing that because we had a process in the Judiciary Committee that I have applauded as fair and open, that means we don't need such an open and fair process on the floor of the Senate. What does that say about the other 82 Members of this body, that they shouldn't be allowed to offer amendments? The problem is while the committee process was open, many amendments were defeated, and no amendments were offered that substantially changed the bill in committee. In order to address many issues with this bill, we would like to vote on more amendments before the end of the week. I wish to discuss some of the amendments we would like to see debated and considered before this immigration debate comes to an end, so people have a flavor of the kind of issues we believe have not been fully vetted on the floor of the Senate in this process that we were promised was going to be fair and open. A number of amendments we would like considered would strengthen provisions of the bill dealing with border security, something that the current bill fails to do in a satisfactory manner. As everyone knows, this has been a serious deficiency in the immigration reform bill, regardless of the fact that the polls in this country say people want the border secured first and then legalization. This does it the opposite way: legalizes and then maybe the border will be secure. For example, Lee amendment No. 1207 would prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from restricting or prohibiting activities of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection on public lands and authorize Customs and Border Protection access to Federal lands to secure the border. Coats amendment No. 1442 would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to certify that the Department of Homeland Security has effective control of high-risk border sections at the southern border for 6 months before the Department can process RPI status applications. The Coats amendment would also require the Secretary to maintain effective control of those high-risk sections for at least 6 months before the Secretary may adjust the status of the RPI applicants. Coburn amendment No. 1361 would allow Customs and Border Protection to enforce immigration laws on Federal lands. What is wrong with that amendment, to enforce immigration laws on Federal lands? Other amendments would beef up our interior enforcement, which we all know is absolutely critical with respect to the success of our immigration system. This is an area where the underlying bill doesn't do enough. An excellent amendment we haven't had an opportunity to debate and vote on is Sessions amendment No. 1334. That amendment would give a number of tools to State and local governments to enforce the immigration laws, including giving States and localities the ability to enact their own immigration laws, withholding specific grants from sanctuary cities that defy Federal immigration enforcement efforts, facilitating and expediting the removal of criminal aliens, improving the visa issuance process, and, lastly, assisting U.S. Immigration and Customs and Enforcement officers in carrying out their jobs. Another amendment is Wicker amendment No. 1462, which would require information sharing between Federal and non-Federal agencies regarding removal of aliens, which would allow for quick enforcement against individuals who violate immigration laws. The Wicker amendment would also withhold certain Federal funding from States and local governments that prohibit their law enforcement officers from assisting or cooperating with Federal immigration law enforcement. Some of the amendments that we haven't considered would ensure that our criminal laws are not weakened by the bill. I have an amendment, No. 1299, that would address some of the provisions in the underlying bill that severely weaken our current criminal laws. Isn't that funny. We want to have a better immigration bill, and we are going to weaken certain laws that are already on the books? Specifically, my amendment No. 1299 would address language in the bill that creates a convoluted and ineffective process for determining whether a foreign national in a street gang should be deemed inadmissible or be deported. I offered a similar amendment in committee where even two Members of the Gang of 8 supported it. My amendment would have closed a dangerous loophole created by the bill that will allow criminal gang members to gain a path to citizenship. Specifically, in order to deny entry and remove a gang member, section 3701 of the bill requires that the Department of Homeland Security prove a foreign national, No. 1, has a prior Federal felony conviction for drug trafficking or a violent crime; No. 2, has knowledge that the gang is continuing to commit crimes; and, No. 3, has acted in furtherance of gang activity. Even if all of these provisions could be proven, under the bill the Secretary can still issue a waiver. As such, the proposed process is limited only to criminal gang members with prior Federal drug trafficking and Federal violent crime convictions and does not include State convictions such as rape and murder. The trick is while the bill wants you to believe that this is a strong provision, foreign nationals who have Federal felony drug trafficking or violent crime convictions are already subject to deportation if they are already here and denied entry as being inadmissible. The gang provisions, as written in the bill, add nothing to current law and will not be used. It is, at best, a feel-good measure to say we are being tough on criminal gangs while really doing nothing to remove or deny entry to criminal gang members. It is easier to prove that someone is a convicted drug trafficker than both a drug trafficker and a gang member. As currently written, why would this provision ever be used and, simply put, it wouldn't be used. My amendment, No. 1299, would strike this do-nothing provision and issue a new, clear, simple standard to address the problem of gang members. It would strike this do-nothing provision and include a process to address criminal gang members where the Secretary of Homeland Security must prove, No. 1, criminal street gang membership; and, No. 2, that the person is a danger to the community. Once the Secretary proves these two things, the burden shifts to foreign nationals to prove that either he is not dangerous, not in a street gang, or he did not know the group was a street gang. It is straightforward and it will help remove dangerous criminal gang members. My amendment also eliminates the possibility of a waiver. Amendment No. 1299 should have a vote to make sure the bill doesn't weaken our current law. There are a number of other amendments that we would like to see considered that would help ensure that individuals comply with the immigration law requirements and ensure that the RPI process does not allow individuals to game the system. For example, Rubio amendment No. 1225 would require RPI immigrants 16 years old or older to read, write, and speak English. Fischer amendment No. 1348 would also insert an English-language requirement as a prerequisite to RPI status. Cruz amendment No. 1295 would require States to require proof of citizenship for registration to vote in Federal elections. Hatch amendment No. 1536 would ensure that undocumented immigrants actually pay their back taxes before gaining legalization. Another amendment, Toomey amendment No. 1440, would increase the number of W nonimmigrant visas available during each fiscal year and would help improve the visa system. Other amendments that we should debate and vote on would strengthen our immigration system by making sure that we don't allow criminal immigrants to stay in our country and be put on a path to American citizenship. For example, Vitter amendment No. 1330 would make sure that undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of crimes of domestic violence, child abuse, and child neglect would be inadmissible. Inhofe amendment No. 1203, entitled ``Keep Our Communities Safe Act,'' would allow the Department of Homeland Security or a subsidiary agency to keep dangerous individuals in detention until a final order of removal of that individual from the United States. Cornyn amendment No. 1470 would make sure undocumented immigrants who have committed an offense of domestic violence, child abuse, child neglect, or assault resulting in bodily injury, violated a protective order or committed a drunk-driving violation, would be ineligible for legalization. Portman amendment No. 1389 would limit the discretion of immigration judges and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the removal, deportation, and inadmissibility of undocumented individuals who have committed crimes involving child abuse, child neglect, and other crimes of moral turpitude concerning children. Finally, Portman amendment No. 1390 would ensure that undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of crimes of domestic violence, stalking, and child abuse would be inadmissible. I have gone through a whole bunch of amendments. These are all extremely important amendments that would ensure that the worst kinds of criminal immigrants do not gain a path to citizenship. I urge the majority to allow us to consider these and other amendments that we would like to offer to improve the bill, instead of cutting us off and shutting off full and open debate of this very important issue--something that we were told from day one, that we would have an open and fair process. What we are doing, voting this amendment to the House of Representatives on Thursday and Friday, ends up not being a fair and open process. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. I know that when I come to the floor and remind my colleagues about my involvement in the 1986 immigration bill, it sounds like a broken record. I said early on this year that I wanted to educate my colleagues about the mistakes we made in 1986 so those mistakes were not repeated in the first immigration bill to pass the Senate since 1986. Because I was here in 1986, I thought I could share the experience we had. I know firsthand that we screwed up in that 1986 legislation. I was certain other Members in this body could learn from our mistakes. However, today we are right back to the same place, talking about the same problems, proposing the same solutions. In 1981, as a freshman Member of the Senate, I joined the Judiciary Committee and was very active in the subcommittee process. We sat down and wrote the legislation. We had 100 hours of hearings and 300 witnesses before we marked up that bill in May of 1982. Hundreds more hours and a dozen more hearings would take place before the bill actually became law in 1986. This year we had 6 days of hearings. We spent 18 hours and 10 minutes listening to outside witnesses. The Judiciary Committee received the bipartisan bill at 2:24 a.m. April 17. We held hearings April 19, 22, and 23. We heard from 26 witnesses in those 3 days. We heard from the head of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency union. We heard from economists and employers, law enforcement and lawyers, professors and advocacy groups. We even heard from people who are undocumented, proving that only in America would we allow somebody who has violated our laws, is not right with the laws, to be heard by the American people. One of the witnesses on April 23 was Secretary Napolitano. We attempted to learn about how the bill would affect the functions of the executive branch--after all, that is where it is going to be carried out--and whether she saw some flaws, the same flaws many of us were finding in the legislation. We asked follow-up questions of the Secretary that were thoughtful and focused on the mechanics of the legislation. We wanted to know the Secretary's thoughts since she would be implementing the legislation. Unfortunately, we still have not received responses to questions we raised. Today it has been 2 months since the Secretary has failed to answer our questions--in a sense, ignoring us. She has refused to cooperate. She has refused to tell us how the bill would be implemented by her department. Is it amazing--at least it is to me--that the majority puts up with this, let alone some of my own Republican colleagues? After the committee hearings, we started the markup process on May 9. We held five all-day sessions where Members were able to raise questions, voice concerns, and offer amendments. Commonsense amendments offering real solutions were repeatedly rejected. Those that were accepted made some necessary improvements. But the core provisions of the bill have remained the same yet to this very day. I respect the process we had in committee. It was open, fair, and transparent, even though the end result was almost determined. We had a good discussion and debate on how to improve the bill. It was a productive conversation focused on getting immigration reform right for the long term, not to make the same mistakes we did in 1986. Yet I was disappointed that alliances were made that actually ensured nothing passed in that committee process that would make substantial changes and improvements to the bill. Those alliances remain in effect when we are out here on the floor of the Senate. As of this morning, 349 amendments have been filed to the underlying bill. We started off the debate on the Senate floor with my amendment that would require the border to be effectively controlled for 6 months before the Secretary could process applications for registered provisional immigrant status, RPI, or another way of saying it: legalizing those who crossed the border without papers. That is pretty darn important because we have been told since this bill was put to the public by the Gang of 8 that we were going to secure the border. Well, we are going to secure the border after legalization because a plan put before Congress is not securing the border. Securing the border is only if that plan actually secures the border. But legalization is going to take place before the plan is put into effect. That is what I consider a major shortcoming of this legislation because it makes the same mistakes we did in 1986. We thought we secured the border. We did not secure the border, but we legalized. My amendment was surely feared by the other side because it would fundamentally change the bill. It would not fundamentally change what the authors of the bill said they were going to do--secure the border and then legalize--but it changed what was actually in the language of the bill. So in order to keep my amendment from being adopted, they insisted on a 60-vote threshold for the amendment to pass, which I refused. So in response they moved to table my amendment. We were promised an open and fair process. Why wasn't that promise kept? We learned on day one that all the talking about making the bill better was just hogwash. It was a phony and empty promise. They would take to the floor and they would say they were ready to move and vote on amendments. Boy, that sounds very fair and open, doesn't it? Yet, in reality, they were afraid of all of the amendments that could be offered. They refused to let Members offer any amendment of their own choosing. They wanted to pick which amendments would be considered on the floor of the Senate. Does that sound fair and open? Well, it obviously does not. They wanted to decide who, what, when, and how it would be disposed of. That is not right. What is even more disturbing is the fact that the alliances made thwarted the ability of the minority to have any say whatsoever. Republicans were obstructed even by Members of our own party. They voted to table amendments, and they refused an open amendment process. One Republican said: I am confident that an open and transparent process, one that engages every Senator and the American people, will make it even better. I believe this kind of open debate is critical in helping the American people understand what's in the bill, what it means for you, and what it means for our future. That was never carried out here on the floor of the Senate. The same Senator also wrote Chairman Leahy on March 30, saying: I write to express my strong belief that the success of any major legislation depends on the acceptance and support of the American people. That support can only be earned through full and careful consideration of legislative language and an open process of amendments. That was a letter to Senator Leahy on March 30. It was well-intended, but I don't see a defense of that position out here on floor of the Senate as we are steamrolled. In a letter to me on April 5, the Senator wrote: If the majority does not follow regular order, you can expect that I will continue to defend the rights of every Senator, myself included, to conduct this process in an open and detailed manner. As we are being steamrolled with just a few amendments being considered, we can see that may have been well-intended, but it is not carried out. When the bill was introduced, the senior Senator from New York said: One of the things we all agree with is that there ought to be an open process so that the people who don't agree can offer their amendments. Well-intended. The Gang of 8 called for a robust floor debate. They said they supported regular order. I asked them do they think that having only considered nine amendments equates to a robust and open process.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I will yield for a question. I may not answer it, but I will yield.

Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator is correct.

Mr. GRASSLEY. We only had nine amendments. Is that a robust and open process? Do they think the majority has allowed regular order? From my point of view, the answer is a clear and resounding no. We are at a point where the process has been halted. It is unclear if any more amendments will be debated and voted on. The only amendment that is in order is the one that was concocted behind closed doors and is loaded full of provisions that are shockingly close to what can be called earmarks. We are back where we started--with a gang of Members promising that their legislative text is the best thing to happen to immigration reform, that their solution is the end of future illegal immigration. Does anyone really think this will solve the problem once and for all? From my point of view, based upon my experience in 1986 and since, the answer is a clear and resounding no. There are fundamental flaws in this amendment we call the Schumer- Corker-Hoeven amendment--legalization first. I am going to take the opportunity to walk through some changes. The authors claim the amendment is a border ``surge'' that leaves no more doubt about whether the border will be secure. Yet the border changes only account for about half of the total amendment. There are changes to every title. There are changes to exchange visitor programs, the future guest worker program, and visas for the performing arts. This isn't just a border amendment; there are provisions in the bill to attract other Senators to support its passage. I will dive into those provisions in detail in a moment, but first I wish to focus on border measures. The sponsors of this bill want you to believe it is different from the 1986 legislation. They say it will be a tough and expensive road and it would be easier for individuals to go home than to go through the process. What the sponsors don't like to admit is that the bill is legalization first, enforcement later--and I have to add, enforcement later, if ever. Take, for example, the fact that one of the sponsors who went on Spanish television tried to apologize for speaking the truth. He said: Let's be clear, nobody is talking about preventing the legalization. The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence. He spoke the truth. The fundamental flaw underlying the bill has not changed with this amendment. Let's be clear. No one is preventing the legalization. It is going to happen, as opposed to the promise when this bill was put forward that the bill was going to secure the border first. There is a lot of money in this bill, there is a lot of micromanaging in this amendment, and there are more waivers. Remember, this is already on top of--I think one Member counted 222 waivers for the Secretary. We write a piece of legislation. We are supposed to legislate. We legislate and then say to the Secretary: Well, you can ignore what we legislate in certain conditions. We ought to be making broad policy here and not delegating to the administration the way that we too often do--not just in this legislation but, as a matter of fact, on most everything. What the amendment does is require more boots on the ground. It increases the presence of Border Patrol even though the Members of the Gang of 8 had long opposed that idea. They said it was unnecessary and costly. But let's be honest with the American people. The amendment may call for more Border Patrol agents, but it doesn't require it until the undocumented population, who are now called RPIs, apply for adjustment of status or a green card. It is legalization first, border security long down the road. I am all for putting more agents on the border, but why wait? Why allow legalization now and simply promise more agents in the future? Even then, who really believes that the Secretary, like the one we have today, will actually enforce the law? Then there is the fencing. One of the conditions that must be met before the Secretary can produce green cards for people here illegally is that the southern border fencing strategy has been submitted to Congress and implemented. This fencing strategy will identify where 700 miles of pedestrian fencing is in place. Note that this is not double- layered, as in current law; the amendment states that a second layer is to be built only if the ``Secretary deems necessary or appropriate.'' Can the authors of this amendment say that is a promise to the American people to build a fence if somehow the Secretary is given the authority of whether it is necessary or appropriate? Additionally, the underlying bill still specifically states that nothing in this provision shall be interpreted to require her to install fencing. The amendment also requires that an electronic entry-exit system is in use at all international air and sea ports but only ``where U.S. Customs and Border Protection are currently deployed.'' This is actually weaker than the bill that came before the Senate a few weeks ago. That bill required that an electronic entry-exit system be in use at air and sea ports, not just internationally. It is still weaker than current law, which requires biometric entry and exit at all ports of entry, including air, sea, and land. That current law has been on the books for a long period of time--not carried out by both Republican and Democratic administrations. So what certainty do we have that this is going to be carried out? The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment border proposal adds technology in addition to manpower at the southern border. It authorizes the Secretary to purchase and deploy certain border technology. I will give some examples that are included in this amendment. In Arizona, the Secretary is allowed to deploy 50 fixed towers, 73 fixed camera systems, 28 mobile surveillance systems, 685 unattended ground sensors, and 22 hand-held equipment devices, including night vision goggles. In San Diego, the Secretary is allowed to deploy the same type of equipment but of different quantities. They also will deploy nonintrusive inspective systems, a radiation portal monitor, and a littoral detection and classification network. In El Centro, CA, the Secretary is allowed to deploy the same equipment, but the list also includes two sensor repeaters and two communications repeaters. They will also get 5 fiber optic tank inspection scopes, a license plate reader, a backscatter, 2 portable contraband detectors, 2 radiation isotope identification devices, 8 radiation isotope identification devices updates, 3 personal radiation detectors, and 16 mobile automated targeting systems. That is not all. The list goes on. It includes certain helicopters and aircraft upgrades. It includes 10 Black Hawk helicopters and 30 marine vessels. I would like to know what some of these items are. Who provided the amendment sponsors with this list? We had a hearing in January, and not once did the list appear. Secretary Napolitano did not provide the committee with any list. Did Sikorsky, Cessna, and Northrop Grumman send a wish list to certain Members of the Senate? While the Senate micromanages what technology is to be purchased and deployed, we should take note that the bill allows the Secretary to ``reallocate'' the personnel, infrastructure, and technologies laid out. It is pretty simple: A Secretary who says the border is secure right now can change all of this stuff specifically mentioned in this amendment. Let's also not forget about the litigation exception. The triggers or conditions may never have to be met. Green cards can be issued if the Supreme Court grants review of litigation on the constitutionality of the implementation of the conditions. Under the bill, if any court in this country issues a stay on implementing one of the conditions, then green cards are to be issued after 10 years. The bill does not specify what sort of ruling must prevent implementation or even that the ruling be on the merits, nor does the bill require that appeals run their course, even if the appeal upholds the conditions. We still maintain this toothless commission called the southern border security commission, but it retools it a little bit. It still does not give it any teeth whatsoever. The amendment requires the creation of the commission 1 year after the enactment, which is probably better than the 5 years that is in the bill. They would also be required to hold public hearings once a year. Under the original version of the bill, the commission would be in existence until they submitted a plan. Under this amendment, the commission will live for 10 years. Yet, the recommendations they provide still do not hold any weight. They can be ignored. They are nonbinding. There is a lot of spending in this amendment as well. In addition to micromanaging resources in each sector, the amendment increases taxpayer spending by $40 billion over the introduced version of the bill before this amendment was added to it. Originally, the legislation called for spending $100 million for startup costs and $6.5 billion for the Secretary to carry out the law. When we got to committee, there was a technical amendment that increased that startup cost from $100 million to $1 billion. During markup, Senator Schumer and his allies increased the trust fund allocation from $6.5 billion to $8.3 billion. The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment increases the trust fund to $46.3 billion. Now, think, going from $8.3 billion to $46.3 billion. Add the $3 billion for the Secretary to have startup costs, and we are at $50 billion. That is over a 500-percent increase in spending. You know, a billion here and a billion there, and it soon adds up to real money. Note that this isn't shifting money from the trust fund, such as the Cornyn amendment would have done. And that amendment was defeated on the floor of the Senate. Instead, it is just plain old brand new spending. The sponsors found a money tree to pay for the wish list provided by Secretary Napolitano and the aerospace industry. Based on reports of how this deal was struck, we have a pretty good idea of why spending has increased. According to a Politico article from last week, negotiations for this deal were at a standstill until the Congressional Budget Office's score was released. The CBO's score stated if the bill becomes law it would cut the deficit by almost $1 trillion over the next 20 years. Thus, with this estimate in hand, the Politico report tells us how the negotiators were able to find a solution: ``Throw money at it.'' According to the article, it was suggested Senators could funnel some of the savings into border security, and that is what has been done. Again, as is often the case in Washington, the solution always seems to be just throw more money at the problem. But the money has to come from somewhere. Furthermore, paying for the agents requires raiding the Social Security trust fund. Indeed, the bill sets aside $30 billion to pay for Border Patrol agents. But when asked on the floor how the Gang of 8 found the money, Senator Hoeven said he and Senator Corker were able to add the $30 billion in spending because the CBO projects that S. 744 will bring in more revenue than it requires in expenditures. Upon closer examination, it is clear the projected revenue under CBO analysis is due to an increase in Social Security and Medicare taxes. This money must be set aside if Social Security and Medicare are to remain solvent. Thus, taking that tax revenue and using it for the fence means raiding the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. You know how the Medicare trust fund was raided for health care reform? Sounds like the same thing is happening here. On the date of enactment, the Treasury will transfer $46.3 billion to the trust fund. The sponsors claim the Treasury will be repaid. But when will the funds be paid back to the Treasury? When will the American people be reimbursed? The sponsors of the bill are saying taxpayers would not bear the burden. Yet there is no requirement the funds be paid back. There is no time limit or accountability to ensure they are repaid. The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment increases fees on the visas for legal immigrants in order to replenish the trust fund and the Treasury. It happens that employers, students, and tourists will pay the price. The bill allows the Secretary to increase those fees, so employers who bring in high-skilled workers will bear the burden. Students and tourists who come in the legal way will bear the burden. But guess what. The amendment goes on to say the fees for those who cross the border in violation of our laws cannot be charged more than what is allowed. The Secretary cannot adjust fees and penalties on those who apply for or renew RPI status or even blue card status. There is no interior enforcement in here, and there is a real problem when we don't have more interior enforcement than is here because we will have more people coming here who are undocumented. The amendment in the underlying bill will not end undocumented immigration. The Congressional Budget Office reports that illegal immigration will only be reduced by 25 percent due to the increased number of guest workers coming into the country. The amendment does nothing to radically reduce illegal immigration in the future and does not provide any resources to interior enforcement agents whose mission it is to apprehend, detain, and deport undocumented immigrants. Just like with the 1986 legislation, we will be back in the same position in 10 years facing the same problems. The amendment, for instance, in section 1201, attempts to address people who overstay their visas. It says the Secretary shall, one, initiate removal proceedings; two, confirm that immigration relief or protection has been granted or is pending; or, three, otherwise close 90 percent of the cases of nonimmigrants who were admitted and extended their authorized period of admission by more than 180 days. So while it appears to be tough on overstays, it only affects people who overstay their visa by 180 days or 6 months. It also allows the Secretary to close the cases. What does it mean for the Secretary to close these cases? Under current law, an immigration judge has the power to administratively close a case. It is used to temporarily remove a case from the calendar. Sometimes a judge waits for further action to be taken. An administrative closure is not a final order. Closure does not mean termination. It does not mean deportation. So I think it is unclear what this language does and who it is applying to. Moreover, it is unclear how the Secretary would know who has overstayed if no exit data or tracking system exists. Also, why doesn't the amendment require the Secretary to deal with 100 percent of the people who overstay their period of authorization? Given there are no ramifications for the Secretary if she does not capture 90 percent of visa overstays, this, again, is another law that will not be followed. It does nothing to end this administration's anti-enforcement policies but, instead, gives the Secretary of Homeland Security vast discretion to ignore serious criminal convictions of immigration violators, including gang-related crime, domestic violence, drunk driving, and child abuse. The bill would not only create an immediate legalization program for those here illegally today but also a permanent legalization program for future undocumented immigrants. The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment includes a provision that would make individuals admissible despite the 3- and 10-year bars. I would like to know more about the rationale from the sponsors as to why this language was included. There is no doubt this amendment was crafted in the back rooms on Capitol Hill, and it is no secret some Members were able to insert provisions in the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment while the rest of us attempted to work out an agreement on pending and filed amendments. While some of us were trying to legislate and bring up amendments for votes on the floor, others were taking advantage of the pay-to-play game. Clearly, some of the amendments filed were included. Let me share some examples. No. 1, the amendment now authorizes funds for an educational campaign to help deter illegal crossings into Mexico from the South. This amendment would put American taxpayer money toward training for law enforcement officials in Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, and other countries. It would allow for taxpayer expenditures to educate nationals of other countries ``about the perils of the journey to the United States.'' This amendment should have been considered under regular order. No. 2, the amendment now includes a provision that would require Customs and Border Protection officials to reduce airport wait times. This amendment which was filed should have been considered under regular order. No. 3, the amendment now makes it harder for Border Patrol agents to enforce U.S. immigration law along the northern border by limiting the mileage or distance agents can search vehicles or other forms of transportation. This amendment which was filed should have been considered under regular order. No. 4, the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment includes amendment No. 1283 that creates a ``Youth Jobs Fund'' using $1.5 billion from the U.S. Treasury to be repaid through fees. The goal of the fund is to ``provide summer and year-round employment opportunities to low-income youth.'' This amendment should have been considered under regular order. No. 5, the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment includes amendment No. 1493, which designates zones 1, 2, and 3 occupations involving seafood processing in Alaska as shortage occupations. It also includes amendment No. 1329, which extends the J visa Summer Work Travel Program to seafood processing positions only in Alaska. These amendments should have been considered under regular order. No. 6, the amendment now includes amendment No. 1183, which was actually pending before the Senate. It would allow for fee waivers on certain visa holders, namely O and P nonimmigrants, who come to the United States to work in Hollywood or play professional sports. We could have voted on this and had regular order on that amendment. Well, there are a lot more amendments I could go through, but I will just suggest some clarifying amendments. And there probably should have been more clarifying amendments. The amendment by Schumer, Hoeven, and Corker also includes so-called ``technical fixes.'' One fix is related to the H-1B visa cap. The sponsors of the bill, and those who worked behind closed doors to devise an H-1B visa package, stated the annual cap would not exceed 180,000. Yet the language didn't do what they said it did. As written, it provided 20,000 more than they claimed. So this amendment includes a clarification to say the cap shall not exceed 180,000. The second clarifying change in the amendment is related to visas for countries that have entered into free-trade agreements with the United States. During committee consideration, the Senator from New York added an amendment that would provide 10,500 visas for countries in the African Growth and Opportunity Act and the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act. The change in this amendment clarifies that only a total of 10,500 may go to those countries rather than to each country that is described under the act. Still, it is not 100 percent clear the clarification achieves the goal. So it is legitimate with these clarifications and fixes, but how many more clarifying amendments are necessary? These two provisions were included because my staff caught them and brought them to the sponsors' attention. But how many more provisions are not written properly that we do not know about? At the end of the day the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment doesn't do what the sponsors say it will. As we have seen all along, we are being promised one thing and sold another. I am frustrated with how the majority has processed this bill. We should have had 3 genuine weeks on this bill processing amendments and having votes. Yet we are forced to vote on packages that were concocted behind closed doors. We were given 72 hours to read the legislative text. That may be plenty of time to read it, but it is not plenty of time to actually study it and know what is in it. Even then, the American people would have had a difficult time getting their hands on the bill over the weekend or understanding its true ramifications. It is quite obvious I am going to vote against this amendment. It does nothing to change the legalization first philosophy and offers little more than false promises the American people can no longer tolerate. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Has the Senator yielded the floor? I don't think I want to speak until I have it.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Is there a time limit for me to speak?