Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Moran and King in reintroducing the Veterinary Medicine Mobility Act of 2013. This legislation comes in response to a Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, interpretation of the Controlled Substances Act, which requires veterinarians to treat animals with controlled substances at the location in which they are registered. This interpretation of the law is very burdensome to both farmers and veterinarians, and it shows a lack of common sense by the DEA. In many cases a sick animal such as a horse, cow or pig cannot be transported to the veterinarian's office, and has to be treated on the farm or even in the pasture. When a larger animal is ill and needs treatment it has been common practice for the veterinarian to make a house call to treat the affected animal. The ability for veterinarians to make house calls is a key component in the ability to effectively treat livestock animals. I am very concerned about the problems we face in the diversion of controlled substances especially powerful narcotics. However, efforts to control the diversion of controlled substances need to take into account the needs of legitimate patients whether human or livestock. Forcing a farmer to load a sick animal into a trailer for a trip to the veterinarian's office is not a practical solution to ward off the diversion of controlled substances. Rules governing the use and transportation of controlled substances must be practical and not overly burdensome. In the case of veterinary medicine the Veterinary Medicine Mobility Act of 2013 strikes the right balance. This legislation allows a veterinarian to transport a controlled substance ``in the usual course of veterinary medicine practice at a site other than the registrants registered principal place of business or professional practice.'' The bill also requires the veterinarian to only dispense controlled substances in a State where they are licensed to practice veterinary medicine, which will help to eliminate the transportation of controlled substances across State lines. I have heard from numerous veterinarians and other stakeholders that this bill is needed in order to provide certainty that our veterinarians will be able to use the necessary tools available to them without interference from the DEA. Overly burdensome regulations can have a detrimental impact on businesses in this country. This is an instance of the Federal Government not using common sense, and causing unnecessary problems for the people responsible for maintaining the health of our Nation's livestock herds. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this commonsense bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Moran and King in reintroducing the Veterinary Medicine Mobility Act of 2013. This legislation comes in response to a Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, interpretation of the Controlled Substances Act, which requires veterinarians to treat animals with controlled substances at the location in which they are registered. This interpretation of the law is very burdensome to both farmers and veterinarians, and it shows a lack of common sense by the DEA. In many cases a sick animal such as a horse, cow or pig cannot be transported to the veterinarian's office, and has to be treated on the farm or even in the pasture. When a larger animal is ill and needs treatment it has been common practice for the veterinarian to make a house call to treat the affected animal. The ability for veterinarians to make house calls is a key component in the ability to effectively treat livestock animals. I am very concerned about the problems we face in the diversion of controlled substances especially powerful narcotics. However, efforts to control the diversion of controlled substances need to take into account the needs of legitimate patients whether human or livestock. Forcing a farmer to load a sick animal into a trailer for a trip to the veterinarian's office is not a practical solution to ward off the diversion of controlled substances. Rules governing the use and transportation of controlled substances must be practical and not overly burdensome. In the case of veterinary medicine the Veterinary Medicine Mobility Act of 2013 strikes the right balance. This legislation allows a veterinarian to transport a controlled substance ``in the usual course of veterinary medicine practice at a site other than the registrants registered principal place of business or professional practice.'' The bill also requires the veterinarian to only dispense controlled substances in a State where they are licensed to practice veterinary medicine, which will help to eliminate the transportation of controlled substances across State lines. I have heard from numerous veterinarians and other stakeholders that this bill is needed in order to provide certainty that our veterinarians will be able to use the necessary tools available to them without interference from the DEA. Overly burdensome regulations can have a detrimental impact on businesses in this country. This is an instance of the Federal Government not using common sense, and causing unnecessary problems for the people responsible for maintaining the health of our Nation's livestock herds. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this commonsense bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to remind my colleagues that we were promised an open and fair process on this legislation. The fact that the majority is moving to table my amendment proves this so-called open and fair process is a farce. The majority is afraid to have an up- or-down vote on my amendment. They are apparently afraid to have an open debate and vote on a provision that ensures true border security before legalization, and that is what the people of this country want. They claim to be open to improving the bill, but this motion to table shows they are not ready to fundamentally change the bill. By tabling my amendment, the majority is stifling progress on this bill. They are refusing to have an amendment process to improve it. This is not the right way to start off on a very important bill. You know, we only do immigration reform once every 25 years. So what is the hurry? Surely, we need an amendment process in which true immigration reform can succeed. There is a lesson to be learned from the 1986 legislation that is now the law of the land. Then, we legalized first and thought we were going to secure the border later, which we never did. So this amendment is the first of many that will improve the bill and do what the authors of the bill say they want to do, secure the border and do what the American people expect us to do. If the American people are being asked to accept a legalization program in exchange for that compassionate approach, they should be assured that the laws are going to be enforced. But as we read the details of the bill, it is clear the approach taken is legalize first, enforce later, the same mistake that was made in 1986. My amendment would fundamentally change that. The amendment that is now pending would require the Secretary to certify to Congress that the Secretary has maintained effective control over the entire southern border for at least 6 months before processing applications for legalization. It is a commonsense approach: border security first, like promised, legalize next. If the bill passes as is, the Secretary only needs to submit two plans before processing people through the legalization program. We do not need to pass any more legislation that tells this administration to do a job that is already required of them that they are not doing. People want laws enforced. Nevertheless, the bill would start legalization even if the strategies the Secretary submits to Congress are flawed and inadequate. What if this Secretary is not committed to fencing? What if this Secretary believes the border is more secure than ever? Well, in fact, this Secretary told the committee she thought the borders were secure. That should concern all of us. Legalization status is more than probation. This RPI status is, in fact, legalization. Once a person gets RPI, they get the freedom to live in the United States. They can travel, work, and benefit from everything our country offers. RPI status is de facto permanent legalization. We all know it will never be taken away. People who say 10 years down the road if we do not have the borders secure, that they are going to take back and classify these people as illegal again, that is naive. Given the history of these types of programs, we know it will never end. My amendment improves the trigger and fulfills the wish of the American people. My amendment ensures that the border is secured before one person gets legal status. If we pass this bill as it is, there will be no pressure on this administration or future administrations to secure the border. There will be no push by the legalization advocates to get that job done. We need to work together. We need to secure the border for several reasons, so that we are not back here in the same position 25 years from now saying we made a mistake 25 years ago, like we know now we made a mistake. We need to protect our sovereignty and to protect the homeland and improve national security. Under my amendment the Secretary would have to prove that we have effective control, as defined in the bill, for 6 months before the applications for registered provisional immigration status are processed. I agree with at least one of the authors of this bill that if the border security title is not improved this bill does not stand a chance of getting to the President. So my amendment is a first and necessary step to fixing this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object----

Mr. GRASSLEY. I have a suggestion: that we agree to everything for the first four amendments on the list. I object.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Reserving the right to object----

Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest to the majority leader we can agree to what he has suggested except for Heller amendment No. 1227.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote for the nominees who are before the Senate today. At this point in President Obama's term, when we get done with these two today, we will have approved 195 of the President's judicial appointments, and we have only disapproved 2. That is a 99-plus percent voting record. It would help if the President would speed up getting his nominees to the Senate. There are 81 vacancies now. The President has only submitted 29. That means there are 52 vacancies that could be filled by the White House that the Senate would have an opportunity to work on as well. So far this year, the Senate has confirmed 22 lower court nominees. Today, after these nominees are confirmed, we will have confirmed more than twice the number of district and circuit judges that were confirmed at this point in President Bush's second term. In fact, we will have confirmed more lower-court nominees than were confirmed in the entire first year of President Bush's second term. Think about that--I will repeat it. In the 5 months of this President's second term while we have been in session, we have confirmed more district and circuit judges than were confirmed in the entire first year of President Bush's second term. The bottom line is that the Senate is processing the President's nominees exceptionally fairly. He is being treated much more fairly than Senate Democrats treated President Bush in 2005. So I just wanted to set the record straight before we vote on these nominees. I expect they will both be confirmed and I congratulate them on their confirmations. Judge Quinones received her B.B.A. from the University of Puerto Rico in 1972 and her J.D. from the University of Puerto Rico School of Law in 1975. Upon graduation, she worked as a staff attorney with Community Legal Services in Philadelphia, where she focused on strictly civil and administrative matters, appearing predominately in family court and before administrative judges. From 1977 to 1979, Judge Quinones wrote opinions in support of decisions rendered by an Administrative Judge at the Department of Health & Human Services. From 1979 to 1991, she was a staff attorney at the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, where her practice involved the interpretation and application of the VA's administrative rules and regulations. During this time, she also appeared in State court and administrative agencies to represent the VA before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Merit Systems Protection Board. Additionally, from 1980 to 1991, Quinones worked as an arbitrator for the Arbitration Center at the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, designed to dispose of small civil cases. In 1991, Judge Quinones left the VA and established a solo practice. During this time she represented a criminal defendant and sat as an arbitrator in insurance matters. As a practicing attorney, Judge Quinones appeared in court with occasional frequency. She estimates that over the course of her pre- judicial career, she tried 20 cases in family court, 300 commitment hearings before a Mental Health officer, pursuant to her work at the VA, and 600 administrative hearings. In 1990, Judge Quinones was nominated by then Governor Robert Casey to a judgeship on the Court of Common Pleas for the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, a court of general jurisdiction. She was confirmed, but also engaged in a judicial election, and secured the first of three 10-year terms in 1992. She won the later terms in November 2001 and 2011. Judge Quinones has experience in both criminal and civil divisions, has presided over both jury and nonjury trials, and has supervised nearly every step in the trial process. Judge Quinones has presided over approximately 1,500 criminal trials and 300 civil trials. The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave her a Majority ``Qualified'' and Minority ``Not Qualified'' rating. Judge Schmehl received his B.A. from Dickinson College in 1977 and his J.D. from University of Toledo School of Law in 1980. Early in his career, he focused on criminal law, first as an Assistant Public Defender, then as an Assistant District Attorney. In these capacities, he tried all types of criminal cases, from DUI to murder. During his time as Assistant District Attorney, Judge Schmehl also had his own private civil practice, handling wills, estates, real estate matters, workers' compensation cases, and unemployment compensation cases. In 1986, Judge Schmehl left private practice and the District Attorney's office to join the private law firm Rhoda, Stoudt, & Bradley. There he worked on insurance defense work and plaintiffs' personal injury cases. As a practicing attorney, he has tried approximately 200 cases to verdict, judgment, or final decision, serving as sole counsel or chief counsel in almost all of them. In 1997, Judge Schmehl was nominated by both the Democratic and Republican parties for a judicial position in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas and later elected to the bench. In 2007, he was appointed to a 5-year term as President Judge in the same court and remains there today. Judge Schmehl has presided over approximately 180 cases that have gone to verdict. The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave him a majority ``Well Qualified'' and minority ``Qualified'' rating. I also am going to take a couple minutes to discuss something I would have discussed in the Judiciary Committee meeting this morning, but because of our vote I was not able to do it. First, I want to talk about the nominations hearing we had earlier this week on B. Todd Jones. There is an open investigation in the Office of Special Counsel regarding very troubling allegations that Mr. Jones retaliated against a whistleblower in the U.S. Attorney's Office. He is now up for confirmation for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Mr. President, how much time remains until the vote?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Last week Carolyn Lerner, the special counsel who leads the office, wrote us a letter explaining the status of the matter. She wrote that the parties had agreed to participate in mediation. She also wrote, ``If mediation is unsuccessful, the case would return to the Office of Special Counsel's Investigation Prosecution Division for further investigation.'' On Monday, she wrote us another letter confirming that the case was still open. We were told the reason we had to move forward with the hearing was because an April letter from the Office of Special Counsel was made public. The justification for holding the hearing was since that issue was made public, the nominee should have had an opportunity to respond at the hearing. But, of course, there was nothing confidential in the Office of Special Counsel's letter. I am not about to hide this issue from the public. It is relevant to our inquiry as to the qualifications of the nominee. Moving forward under these circumstances is not consistent with past committee practices. Of course, there are sensible reasons for that committee practice. First, none of us knows what the results of that investigation might be. How are we supposed to make an assessment of the matter while it is still open? Second, how are we supposed to ask the nominee about the results of the investigation when the investigation has not been completed? And, third, how are we supposed to ask the nominee about an open investigation when the nominee will claim he cannot talk about it for that exact reason? I would also note that an assistant U.S. attorney who filed the complaint against Mr. Jones gave his consent on Monday for the Office of Special Counsel to provide the complaint to the committee. I must say the allegations in the complaint are extremely troubling. So I began my questions by asking Mr. Jones about these allegations. Here is what he had to say: Because those complaints are confidential as a matter of law I have not seen the substance of the complaints nor can I comment on what they are. I have learned more from your statement today-- meaning, from this Senator, than what I knew before I came here this morning about the nature and substance in the complaints. In other words, Mr. Jones said he could not answer questions about the Office of Special Counsel investigation because it remains open. This is precisely why it is imprudent to move forward with a hearing in this way. At his hearing, I followed up with another question to Mr. Jones, had he ever taken adverse personnel action? He responded: I'm not familiar with the OSC complaint. I'm at somewhat of a disadvantage with the facts. I can say that the privacy act considerations do fit into the picture. As another followup, I asked him how we were supposed to ask about the complaint if he would not answer it. Here is what Mr. Jones said: Well, quite frankly, Senator, I'm at a disadvantage with the facts. There is a process in place. I have not seen the OSC complaints. So we have a problem. So again, even though there is an open investigation, we were told we were going forward with the hearing so that Mr. Jones had an opportunity to answer the allegations. But whenever he was asked about it, he said he could not answer our questions because he had not seen the Complaint. So, my point about the hearing being premature was overwhelmingly proven. I also want to make a few comments about Tony West, nominated to be the Associate Attorney General. He is currently the Acting-Associate Attorney General and has generally done a good job. However, I remain concerned about his time serving as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division. He was involved in the quid pro quo deal between the Department and the City of St. Paul, Minnesota that was orchestrated by Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez. That quid pro quo involved the Department agreeing to decline two False Claims Act cases pending against the City of St. Paul in exchange for the City dropping a case pending before the Supreme Court. Perhaps the most concerning part to me is that Mr. West essentially let Tom Perez take control of the Civil Division and cut this deal which hurt the whistleblower, Frederick Newell, leaving him to fight his case all alone. This is not how I expect the Department to treat good faith whistleblowers. On top of all that, I believe it is contrary to the assurances that I was given by Mr. West that he would protect whistleblowers and vigorously enforce the False Claims Act when we held his confirmation hearing in 2009. If this nominee is ultimately confirmed, I sincerely hope he does not let politics within the Department control, instead of supporting good faith whistleblowers who stick their necks out. I also wanted to address the nomination of Ms. Caproni, to be a District Judge. I have concerns over the fact that I made a request to the FBI over 6 years ago, asking for documents regarding exigent letters. In March 2007, Chairman Leahy and I requested copies of unclassified emails related to the use of National Security Letters issued by the FBI. I only received a few of these emails, and they were heavily redacted, so in 2008 I asked for the rest. Ms. Caproni, was general counsel of the FBI at the time and told me that the documents I was waiting for were on her desk, awaiting her review. Well, it is now 2013 and as of her hearing, I had never received these documents. I asked Ms. Caproni about this in her hearing and she had no specific recollection of this request. So, I asked her again in writing. This led to a set of FOIA documents being produced, which are a poor substitute for properly answering a committee request. It also raises further questions as to why it took 6 years and why Ms. Caproni told me years ago that she was working on responding to our request. I have followed up with the FBI with specific requests regarding Ms. Caproni's involvement in the matter. Therefore, while I did not hold Ms. Caproni's nomination in committee, I reserve my right to do so on the Senate floor. Concerning S. 394, the metal theft bill that we reported out this morning, I appreciate the changes that the sponsors made at my request to the criminal portion of the bill. The nature of the offense is clarified, and limited to the federal interest of critical infrastructure. The bill also now requires criminal intent as an element of the proposed offense. The negligence standard in the bill has been eliminated. However, I still have a number of concerns with this bill. The reality is that theft is already illegal everywhere in the country. So is receipt of stolen goods. That raises questions about the necessity of a new federal offense. The civil provisions are also duplicative of many State laws. The regulatory elements of this bill apply to any transaction in specified metal products exceeding $100. In my opinion, $100 seems to be a very low threshold. We should not impose federal obligations unless the transaction is of a significant amount. States can enforce their own laws if they have enacted a lower threshold. Some of the recordkeeping requirements are of questionable value. For instance, the recipient must record the license plate number and make of the car used to deliver the metal. Although the sponsors agreed to reduce the maximum amount, the dealer still faces up to a $5,000 penalty if he knowingly commits a paperwork violation, unless it is minor. This is true even if the metal is not stolen. That strikes me as excessive. And the sponsors declined to accept the changes that I sought in the civil provision, especially as enforced by the state attorneys general. Those provisions effectively allow a private right of action, even a class action, to enforce these paperwork violations at up to $5,000 per violation. Not only can federal authorities enforce the bill's civil authorities, but so can the States. If metal theft continues, then that diffuse authority undermines the ability of citizens to hold accountable the responsible level of government. This would allow the States to bring these cases in friendly State courts and expand the number of cases by outsourcing them to private lawyers paid under contingency fees. This leads to more enforcement than would occur if these cases had to compete for attention with other priorities that state attorneys general would bring. Excessive government can derive not only from broad laws, but from overzealous enforcement. The bill sponsors rejected my request that suits by the State AGs be filed only in federal court, and that any federal actions would supersede them. There should be transparency and accountability for these lawsuits that are brought under authority of federal law. I had amendments to discuss in markup, but will not do that here. However, when the full Senate takes up the bill, I will not be able to support it in its current form. I hope to work with the sponsors to address the concerns I have with this bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 13, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 13, 2013, at 10 a.m., to hold a International Operations and Organizations, Human Rights, Democracy and Global Women's Issues & European Affairs joint subcommittee hearing entitled, ``A Dangerous Slide Backwards: Russia's Deteriorating Human Rights Situation.''

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 13, 2013, at 10:30 a.m., in S-216 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 13, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 428A Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 13, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 13, 2013, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Lessons Learned From the Financial Crisis Regarding Community Banks.''

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I listened to my colleague from Wyoming. He states it very well. I have come to the floor for roughly the same reason, but I don't know how many times you have to say it, because I think basically what the Senator from Wyoming was saying, and what I want to say is it is very difficult to reach agreements in the Senate. But when you reach an agreement, particularly only if it involves two Senators but particularly if they are leaders of the Senate, a person's word is his bond. That bond ought to be kept--as far as I know, always kept. At least that has been my relationship with fellow Senators. You say you are going to do something and you continue that until it is successful. So here we are, no Senator has not kept their word yet, but we hear this threat. So I come to the floor to give my comments on it. At the beginning of this Congress, the majority and minority leaders reached an agreement as to how to proceed with rules changes. An agreement was reached. We agreed to two rule changes: One change to the standing rules and one to the standing order. Senate Republicans gave up certain rights and protections in those rules changes. That was the first part of the agreement. In exchange for these rules changes, the majority leader gave his word to Republican Senators he would not utilize what is called around here and around this town the ``nuclear option'' and not use it during this Congress. Let me review the exact wording of that agreement as it is recorded for history in the Congressional Record. This year, on January 24, 2013, the following exchange took place in the Senate. Senator McConnell stated: Finally, I would confirm with the majority leader that the Senate would not consider other resolutions relating to any standing order or rules in this Congress unless they went through the regular order process? The majority leader replied: This is correct. Any other resolution related to Senate procedure would be subject to a regular order process, including consideration by the rules committee. In fact, the majority leader gave his word at the beginning of the last Congress as well. He stated: The minority leader and I have discussed this issue on numerous occasions. I know that there is a strong interest in rules changes among many in my caucus. In fact, I would support many of these changes through regular order. But I agree that the proper way to change Senate rules is through the procedures established in those rules and I will oppose any effort in this Congress or the next to change the Senate rules other than through regular order. Let me just say when a Senator reaches an agreement and gives his word that he will stick to that agreement, that should mean something around here. As far as I am concerned, it means something all the time. I don't think I have been subject to entering an agreement with a colleague that hasn't been kept. Let me emphasize something further. There was no contingency on that agreement. Republicans agreed to a change in the rules, and the majority leader gave his word he would not invoke the so-called nuclear option. That was the extent of the agreement, period. I trust the majority leader will keep his word and his commitment. If he pulls back on that commitment, it will irreparably damage the Senate. Moreover, the notion there is now a crisis that demands another rules change is completely manufactured. The minority leader has spoken about the culture of intimidation. I am troubled it is finding its way into the Senate. For the record, in regard to why there is some talk around this institution of changing the rules--something to do with nominations and particularly judicial nominations not moving fast enough--I am in the middle of that as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. So far this year, we have confirmed 22 lower court nominees, with two more scheduled for this week. That is more than double the number of judges who were confirmed at this point during the previous President's second term--President Bush. With the nominations this week, we have confirmed 195 of President Obama's nominees as lower court judges. We have defeated only two. That is a batting average of 99-plus percent. I don't know how much better we can get unless it is expected the Senate will not raise any questions about anybody appointed by any President to the judgeships of our country. The claim we are obstructing nominees is plainly without foundation. I have cooperated with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee in moving forward on consensus nominees, and on the Senate floor there has been a consistent and steady progress on judicial nominations. Yet it seems as if the majority is intent on creating a false crisis in order to effect changes in longstanding Senate practices. They are now even threatening--can you believe this--to break the rules to change the rules. Again, I hope the majority leader keeps his word. We have certainly upheld our end of the bargain. May I inquire of the Chair how many minutes are remaining for the minority in morning business?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Fifteen minutes more?

Mr. GRASSLEY. In regard to this whole issue about the Senate as an institution and where I said if this nuclear option holds it is going to destroy the Senate, I think it is very appropriate for us to remember the Senate is the only institution in our political branch of government where minority views are protected. In the House of Representatives, whether it is a Republican majority or a Democratic majority, as long as they stick together, they can do anything they want to and they can ignore the minority. But in the Senate, where it takes a supermajority of 60 to get something done, whether there is a Republican or Democratic minority, that minority is protected. Today, where we have 54 Democrats and 46 Republicans, nothing is going to get done unless it is done in a bipartisan consensus way, and that is why it is so very important we do not destroy that aspect of the uniqueness of the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I want to visit with my colleagues about border security. It refers to an amendment that I have pending to enhance the bill's provisions on border security. I would like to take a few minutes to discuss why I think my amendment is a good first step to restore the faith of the American people in government. That faith has to be restored on the issue of immigration because we promised so much in the 1986 bill on border security and stopping undocumented workers from coming to this country, so, consequently, for the institution of Congress and the executive branch both, because we are not enforcing existing law, the credibility on immigration is at stake. On this issue the American people have lost faith that, at least from the immigration point of view, we are really a nation based on the rule of law. It is no secret that we in Washington, particularly in the congressional branch, have low approval ratings. A lot of people, especially in recent weeks, wonder about the trust of government--you know, Benghazi, IRS, AP investigations. They have also lost confidence, then, in the leaders. They question our ability to protect their privacy. They question our capacity to protect their security. This is especially true when we talk about border security with average Americans. They do not think we are doing enough. They say we do not need to pass another law. They just do not understand why we cannot stop the flow and simply enforce the laws on the books. To them it is that simple. It comes up in my town meetings in Iowa, but the bill before us complicates things. It takes a step backwards on an issue about which Americans care deeply. It says we will legalize millions now--that means millions of undocumented workers--and we will worry about border security down the road, in 5 or 10 years. The authors of this document before us, the Group of 8, say they are open to improving the bill. My amendment now before the Senate does just that. My amendment improves the trigger that jump-starts the legalization program. It ensures that the border is secure before one person gets legal status under this act. The American people have shown they are very compassionate, not just willing to deal with this issue of 12 million undocumented workers here but in a lot of other ways so numerous and well-known we do not even need to mention them. Many can come to terms with a legalization program. But many would say that a legalization program should be tied to border security or enforcement. That is what is very simple for the American people: secure the borders. Let me give some examples. Bloomberg recently released a poll in which they asked the following question: Congress is debating changing immigration laws. Do you support or oppose a revision of immigration policy that would provide a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States? Madam President, 46 percent said they would support it. The poll then went on to ask the same respondents about elements in the immigration bill, and 85 percent said they favored ``strengthening border security and creating a system to track foreigners entering and leaving the country.'' So we have 46 percent saying they support immigration, but 85 percent of the same group say it is very necessary to strengthen border security. In Iowa, a poll by the Des Moines Register found that 58 percent of the respondents were OK with a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants after--and I emphasize the word ``after''--the border is secure. Almost every poll shows the same results. Sure, people would consider a legalization program, but it is almost always tied to the condition of border security. The American people do not think we are doing enough to secure the border. In a poll conducted by Anderson Robbins Research and Shaw & Company, 60 percent of those polled said the current level of security at the country's border is not strict enough. Also, 69 percent of the respondents said they favor requiring completion of a new border security measure first before making other changes in immigration policies. Unfortunately, too many people have been led to believe this bill will force the Secretary of Homeland Security to secure the border. In fact, it does not guarantee that before legalization. That is why we need to pass my amendment on file now. It is a good first step to ensuring that we stop the flow of undocumented workers coming to this country. We need to prove to the American people that we can do our job. We need to show them we are committed to security. Bottom line: Nobody says the existing immigration system is as it should be. People support reform, but they support reform if we have border security first. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suppose when some of us raise a lot of questions about this legislation and point out shortcomings in it that some question our sincerity. When we say we need a piece of legislation, we might be questioned by a lot of people who are listening. That may also sound like we question the sincerity of the Group of 8 when we raise questions about this bill that they worked hard to put together. I don't question their sincerity, and I do believe that legislation must pass the Senate. There are those of us who have said for such a long time that the system we have is not satisfactory, we cannot maintain the status quo, and we have to be working for a product. All of us in the Senate are working toward a product. There is a difference of what that product should be in the final analysis. I continue to come to the floor to raise some questions about, not the intent of the authors, but what I think is the practical effect of the legislation by these authors. I come to the floor today to respond to what my friend, the senior Senator from Arizona, said earlier today on this legislation. He is one of those hard-working Senators who have worked hard, hours I am sure I cannot comprehend, to put together this piece of legislation. Today that Senator argued that poll after poll shows Americans support a legalization process if--and that is a very important ``if''--people pay back taxes, pay a fine, and get at the end of the line, and if we secure the border. I pointed out before that the problem with the legislation before us, as well intended, is that people do not really have to pay back taxes, or a fine, or go to the end of the line, and secure the border. So these polls are being misused if the practical effect of the language in the bill makes it possible that those things may never happen, even though it is well intended that they ought to happen. Nobody disagrees they ought to happen. I will probably be somewhat repetitive, but I want to remind my colleagues, as I take a few minutes to discuss this, how the authors have tried to sell this particular immigration bill and what I see as false advertising. You see, the American people are being sold a product. In fact that is what politics is, it is a sale of ideas. A political party does not have any reason to exist if it does not have good ideas. Then the idea is to get in a position to put those ideas into effect. This product is being sold, and I wish it comes out the way they say it does, but I have some questions about that. The American people are being asked to accept a legalization program. In exchange, they would be assured that the laws were going to be enforced. Normally, consumers are able to read the labels of things they are about to purchase. They have to read 1,175 pages to really know what is truly in this bill. Even a quick read of the bill would have many shaking their heads in confusion. This bill is full of delegations of authority to the Secretary, possibilities for waivers, things of that nature--that really would be well down the road after the President signs legislation that you are really going to know how it is being carried out. We have all heard the phrase ``the devil is in the details.'' At first the proposal the bipartisan group put forward sounded reasonable, but we need to examine the fine print and take a closer look at what the bill really does. As I noted yesterday, I thought the framework held hope, but I realize the assurances the Group of 8 made did not really translate when the language of the bill emerged. They professed that the border would be secured and that people would ``earn'' their legal status. However, the bill as drafted is legalization first and enforcement later, if at all. So I would like to dive into these details and give a little reality check to those who expect this bill to do exactly what the authors promise. I have on this chart four points that I would like to make and statements that have been made about this legislation. No. 1, they say ``people will have to pay a penalty'' to obtain legal status. The reality is the bill lays out the application procedures, and on page 972 a penalty is imposed on those who apply for registered provisional immigration status. Those are the words in the bill for legalization. We refer to that as RPI. It says those who apply must pay $1,000 to the Department of Homeland Security. What is the certainty of getting that $1,000? For instance, it waives the penalty for anyone under the age of 21. Yet, on the next page, it allows the applicant to pay the penalty in installments. The bill says: The Secretary shall establish a process for collecting payments . . . that permit the penalty to be paid in periodic installments that shall be completed before the alien may be granted an extension of status. In effect, this says the applicants have 6 years to pay the penalty. Six years is how long it takes to get RPI status, and at the end of 6 years, they have to extend it. In addition to the penalty, applicants would pay a processing fee. That level is set by the Secretary. So here we have two instances of excessive delegation of authority to the Secretary. The bill says the Secretary has a discretion to waive the processing fee for any ``classes of individuals'' she chooses and may limit the maximum fee paid by a family. The bill doesn't require everyone to pay a penalty. It doesn't require anyone to pay it when they apply for legal status. In fact, they may never have to pay a penalty. No. 2, they say ``people have to pay back taxes.'' Who is going to argue with the fact that people have to pay back taxes to receive legal status? The reality: Members of the Group of 8 stated over and over again their bill would require undocumented individuals to pay back taxes prior to being granted legal status. However, the bill before us fails to make good on that promise. Proponents of the bill point to a provision of the bill that prohibits people from filing for legal status ``unless the applicant has satisfied any applicable federal tax liability.'' Doesn't that sound right? Absolutely it sounds right. As always, the devil is in the details. There are two important weaknesses with how the bill defines ``applicable federal tax liability.'' The first one is: The bill limits the definition to exclude employment taxes, such as for Social Security and Medicare. For a lot of people, that may be the only taxes they pay, but they don't have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes. Second, the bill does not require the payment of all back taxes legally owed. What it requires is the payment of taxes previously assessed by the Internal Revenue Service. Well, there are a lot of problems with the IRS assessing somebody for taxes if they have been in the underground, as an example. In order to assess taxes, it is quite obvious the IRS must first have information on which to base its assessment. Our tax system is largely a voluntary system, relying on everybody to self-report their income on their tax return. But it also relies on certain third-party reporting, such as wage reporting by employers. That is why we get a W-2 form at the end of every year, so we and the IRS know exactly what we owe and what we paid and so they can figure out what more we might owe or how much we might get back. If someone has been working unlawfully in this country and working off the books, it is likely that neither an individual return nor a third-party return will even exist; thus, no assessment will exist and no taxes will be paid. Similarly, it is very unlikely any assessment will exist for those who have worked under a false Social Security number and have never filed a tax return. A legal obligation exists to pay taxes on all income from whatever source derived, and nothing in this bill provides a requirement or a mechanism to accomplish this prior to granting legal status. One of the Group of 8 members in January said: Shouldn't citizens have to pay back taxes? We can trace their employment back. It doesn't take a genius. While it may be a well-intended statement, it obviously meets the test of common sense, but I showed how difficult it is to make that happen. The other side of the aisle, for instance, is going to argue that establishing a requirement for back taxes owed rather than taxes assessed is unworkable and costly. They will also claim imposing additional tax barriers on this population could prevent undocumented workers and their families from coming forward in the first place. But the sales pitch has been clear: To get legal status, one has to pay their back taxes. So let me provide a reality check. This bill doesn't make good on the promises made. Let's go to the third item on the chart. ``People will have to learn English.'' The reality: The bill, as drafted, is supposed to ensure that new Americans speak a common language. Learning English is a way for new residents to assimilate. This is an issue that is very important to Americans. Immigrants before us made a concerted effort to learn English. The proponents are claiming their bill fulfills this wish. However, the bill does not require people here unlawfully to learn English before receiving legal status or even a green card. Under section 2101, a person with RPI status who applies for a green card only has to pursue a course of study to achieve an understanding of English and knowledge and understanding of civics. If the people who gain legal status ever apply for citizenship--and some doubt this will happen to a majority of the undocumented population--they would also have to pass an English proficiency exam, as required under current law. So, yes, after 13 years, one would have to pass an exam, but the bill does very little to ensure that those who come out of the shadows will cherish or use the English language. The reality is English is not as much of a priority for the proponents of this bill as they claim it is. The fourth thing on the chart: They say ``people won't get public benefits'' if they choose to apply for legal status. The reality: Americans are very compassionate and generous people. Many people can understand providing some legal status to people here illegally, but one major sticking point for those who question the legalization program is the fact that lawbreakers could become eligible for public benefits and taxpayer subsidies. The authors of the bill understood this. In an attempt to show that those who receive RPI status would not receive taxpayer benefits, they included a provision that prohibited the population from receiving certain benefits. There are two major problems with this point in the bill. First, those who receive RPI status will be immediately eligible for State and local welfare benefits. For instance, many States offer cash, medical, and food assistance through State-only programs to ``lawfully present'' individuals. Second, the bill contains a welfare waiver loophole that could allow those with RPI status to receive Federal welfare dollars. The Obama administration has pushed the envelope by waiving the welfare laws. If this loophole is not closed, they could waive existing law and allow funds provided under the welfare block grant known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to be provided to noncitizens. Senator Hatch had an amendment during committee markup that would prohibit the U.S. Department of HHS from waiving various requirements and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program. His amendment would also prohibit any Federal agency from waiving restrictions on eligibility of immigrants for future public benefits. But the reality check for the American people is there are loopholes and the potential for public benefits to go to those who are legalized under the bill. Again, the devil is in the details, and I hope this reality check will encourage proponents of this bill to fix these problems before the bill is passed by the Senate. The American people deserve truth in advertising. I want to speak about the provision that deals with the commission. Aside from the claims I just gave on the promises to pay taxes, et cetera, one of the authors of the immigration bill before us stated early on that if the Department of Homeland Security has not reached 100 percent awareness and 90 percent apprehension at the southern border within 5 years, the Secretary would lose control of the responsibility and it will be turned over to the border governors to get the job done. The fact is the border governors and the commission they serve with are not going to have any power, and that is the point I am going to make. There was a lot of talk about how the Secretary would be pushed to fulfill the congressional mandate to secure the border. I pointed out yesterday how this Secretary said: We don't need to secure the border. It is already secured. But at the end of the day, as far as this bill is concerned, the legislative text doesn't match up with the rhetoric. The border commission created is not made up primarily of border governors, doesn't have any real power, and the Secretary is not held accountable for not getting the job done. Again, it is false advertising. The bill states that effective control--and those words ``effective control'' are the legal language in the bill--of the border is the ability to achieve and maintain ``persistent surveillance and an effectiveness rate of 90 percent or higher.'' It defines the effectiveness rate as ``the percentage calculated by dividing the number of apprehensions and turn backs in the sector during a fiscal year by the total number of illegal entries in the sector during such fiscal year.'' First, the bill only states that effective control requires ``persistent surveillance.'' It does not require 100 percent awareness. Second, there is nothing in the bill that turns over the issue of border security to border governors if the Department here in Washington, DC, is unable to secure the border. The bill provides for a commission to be created if the Secretary of Homeland Security tells Congress she has not achieved effective control in all border sections during any fiscal year within 5 years. The southern border security commission is then created with the primary responsibility to make recommendations to the Secretary. There will be 10 members of the commission. While border States have a seat at the table, only 4 of the 10 members need to be southern border Governors or appointed by them. The members are allowed travel expenses and administrative support. They have to have some knowledge and experience in border security. The commission is required to submit a report to the President, the Secretary, and the Congress with specific recommendations for achieving and maintaining the border security goals established in the bill. The members have 6 months to come up with a plan to achieve what the Secretary failed to do in 5 years. The bill does not grant the commission any grand or impressive authorities. The bill simply states that the commission shall make recommendations. Nothing in the bill requires that the recommendations be acted upon or implemented by the administration. The bill provides $2 billion to the Secretary to carry out the recommendations made by the commission. But, again, there is nothing in this bill requiring the Secretary to take any further action on those recommendations. Why not then give the commission actual authority to enforce border security? Then, if we don't do that, why create the commission at all? In recent years, we in Congress have become accustomed to outsourcing our work. We have a responsibility to legislate. The executive branch has a responsibility to enact. These are basic tenets of government. The commission called for in this bill is kind of irrelevant. This administration and any future administration must get the job done, no outsourcing the job to some commission, no excuses. This is so important because we quote these polls, and I refer to the polls the senior Senator from Arizona referenced before he made his remarks. They are all based upon certain propositions. They are well intended, but they do not provide the certainty they are going to be carried out, and legalization is based on that--the same for the polls that say people want the borders secure. So this commission ought to have some power if the Secretary isn't going to act. But already the Secretary has the responsibility to see that the border is secure. She has testified it is secure, more secure than it has ever been, but I think the facts are that it has not been and we need to do better. For us to sell this bill to the American people, it must be based upon the proposition that the border be secured first and then legalization. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I object.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Will the Senator yield?