Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, and I ask unanimous consent that the last 5 minutes be reserved for the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Hoeven-Corker amendment is subject to a budget point of order because it increases the net on-budget deficit over both the 5- and 10-year periods and exceeds the Judiciary Committee's allocation for direct spending. But on-budget effects do not take into account the significant off-budget savings. Last week the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that our bill is going to help us achieve nearly $1 trillion in deficit reduction. We have also learned that the Hoeven-Corker amendment would significantly increase our border security, and, as the CBO said and as my friends from Tennessee and North Dakota have said, the amendment would reduce both illegal entry into the country and the number of people who stay in the country beyond the end of their authorized period. So when we vote on waiving the point of order, I will vote to waive it because the Hoeven-Corker amendment and the overall amendment will spur job growth and will dramatically reduce our deficit. Then we are going to vote on the substitute. The substitute is the product of many months of hard work and bipartisan collaboration in a very transparent process. No one should oppose the cloture motion on the committee-reported substitute, as amended. The Senate Judiciary Committee held lengthy and extensive public markup sessions to consider the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, S. 744. This was after a couple dozen hearings over the last few Congresses. We did it in as transparent a way as possible. Madam President, over 300 first-degree amendments were filed. We had them online for a week and a half before the Senate Judiciary Committee even took up the bill. Over the course of 3 weeks, we debated the bill for nearly 40 hours. We often worked late into the evening. That was online. That was streamed. That was open to everybody. And certainly the thousands and thousands and thousands of e-mails that came in from all over the country showed people were watching. The committee considered a total of 212 amendments--we had 212 amendments during that time--136 of which were adopted. Every member of the committee--Democratic or Republican--who filed amendments to the legislation was afforded the opportunity to offer multiple amendments. Nearly every member of the committee, in both parties, who offered an amendment had an amendment adopted. All but three of the amendments adopted passed on a bipartisan vote, and the committee reported the legislation by a bipartisan vote of 13 to 5. So, as I said, the public witnessed what we did. They saw us streamed live on the committee's Web site. They saw broadcasts on C-SPAN. All our amendments were posted, and as we had developments, they were reported in real time. Members from both sides of the aisle praised the transparent process and the significant improvements to the bill made by the Judiciary Committee. Let me also compliment the ranking Republican on the committee, the senior Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley. We were on different sides of the legislation, but we worked very well together. We talked numerous times throughout the whole markup to make sure it would go. He would come to me at times when some of their members had to be out for one reason or another--other committees--and we worked around that. We made sure everything went--we made sure neither side was surprised. I appreciate the cooperation I received from Senator Grassley. I think it is one of the reasons we could actually show the Senate the way the Senate is supposed to work. I hope colleagues will vote for the committee-reported substitute, as amended. This is one of our Nation's toughest problems, but we were not elected to do easy things. In fact, if all we had were easy things, I do not know why anybody would want to be in the Senate. We were elected, the men and women of this body, from all over the country-- from both parties, with philosophical differences--and we are supposed to fix our Nation's toughest problems. We are on the eve of coming one step closer to fixing our Nation's broken immigration system. I hope the vast majority of Senators will vote yes. There has been a great deal of work on this. Is this bill perfect? No. Is any bill perfect? No. Is this much better than what we have today? Yes. Is it exactly the bill I would have written? No. It is not the bill Senator Grassley would have written. It is not the bill any one of us individually would have written. But we are not a monarchy. We are not a dictatorship of one. We have 100 people here representing over 300 million Americans, and we are supposed to mold, as best as possible, the sentiments and needs of those 300 million Americans but also the aspirations of those who would be Americans, like my grandparents and my wife's parents and even Members of this body. So, Madam President, I hope that, one, we will waive the budget point of order and then, secondly, we will vote for the amendment, as with the substitute. I believe we are ready to vote.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I yield my time to the Senators from Tennessee and North Dakota.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have been talking about a couple of things, including the schedule. We are moving forward. This vote suggests it is obvious that a very large and bipartisan majority of the Senate will support an immigration bill. I know there have been proposals for amendments. I am not going to make a proposal at this time. I will leave that for the leader. There have been efforts to get a finite number of amendments from both Republicans and Democrats so we can vote. Under normal circumstances, we would probably have voice votes on some of those amendments. I hope we can do that because I think we would be able to complete this immigration bill. Our staffs have a great deal of work to do in putting everything together. The staffs on both sides of the aisle have worked long hours. They have been here working even after the rest of us have left. After this is completed, maybe they can actually have some time with their families and prepare for this great Nation's celebration next week. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to continue to speak for 5 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Supreme Court struck down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. I think that helped this Nation take a major step toward full equality. The ruling confirms my belief that the Constitution protects the rights of all Americans--not just some but all of us--and that no one should suffer from discrimination based on who they love. I share the joy of those families who had their rights vindicated today, including many legally married couples in my home State of Vermont. I have already heard from many and the joy they have expressed is so overwhelming. In August, my wife Marcelle and I will celebrate our 51st wedding anniversary. Our marriage is so fundamental to our lives that it is difficult for me to imagine how it would feel to have the government refuse to acknowledge it. Without her love and support over the past 51 years, there is nothing I could have ever accomplished that would have been noteworthy in my life. It has taken the joining together of two people who love each other. Today we have thousands of gay and lesbian individuals and families across the country who have had their rights vindicated by the Supreme Court's decision, including the same rights Marcelle and I have had for 51 years. Despite today's historic ruling, there are still injustices in our Federal laws that discriminate against these married couples. I will continue to work with Senator Feinstein on legislative fixes to protect all families. As we continue to fight for equality and against discrimination in our Nation's laws, I am hopeful today's ruling will address a serious injustice. By just striking down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, the Supreme Court has pronounced that our Federal laws cannot discriminate against individuals based on who they love. I believe this should extend to our immigration laws as well. Last month I was forced to make one of the most difficult decisions in my 38 years as a Senator when I withdrew my amendment that would have provided equality in our immigration laws by ensuring that all Americans--all Americans--may sponsor their lawful spouse for citizenship. It was one of the most disappointing moments of my 38 years in the Senate, but I took Republicans, many who spoke in good faith, at their word that they would abandon their own efforts to reform the Nation's immigration laws if my amendment had been adopted. I believed what they said, and I withdrew it. However, with the Supreme Court's decision today, it appears the antidiscrimination principle I have long advocated will apply to our immigration laws, and binational couples and their families can now be united under the law. As a result of this very welcome decision, I will not be seeking a floor vote on my amendment. Today's decision should be seen as a victory for all of those who support justice, equality, and family values. I had the privilege of serving with a wonderful Senator from Vermont when I first came here, Robert Stafford. He was ``Mr. Republican'' in our State. When we were debating the question of same-sex marriage in the Vermont Legislature, Senator Stafford said: If we have two people who love each other and make each other better--two Vermonters who love each other and make each other better because of that love--what difference does it make to us whether they are the same sex or not? Vermont is better because they make it better. I agree with him. There is still important work to be done so all families are protected under our Federal laws. Until we fully achieve the motto engraved in Vermont marble above the Supreme Court building that declares ``equal justice under the law,'' I will continue to fight for the equal treatment of all Americans. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as we look forward to bringing our debate on comprehensive immigration reform to a close, I especially want to recognize the work of one Senator who made a major contribution to this legislation. Provisions contained in this legislation will rewrite our entire agricultural visa program, and they will do so for the better. For the first time, America's dairy farmers will have access to temporary foreign workers, and the population of undocumented farm workers will have the chance to come out of the shadows and into the lawful immigration system, where they will have rights and the protection of the law. I am grateful for the work she has done, and I am proud to support her important contributions to this legislation. The work of the senior Senator from California on this legislation should be recognized and commended. She worked long and hard to bring agricultural workers and employers together to find consensus. She spent many hours keeping these negotiations going, and she did not give up until a fair agreement was reached. And just this week I know that Senator Feinstein stood up for farmers in the Northeastern part of the United States and resisted last-minute efforts related to this bill to create a divide between farmers in different parts of the country. For this, I thank her. Yesterday, the Washington Post published an article about Senator Feinstein's distinguished service in the Senate, her leadership, her incredible work ethic, and her tenacity. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Would the Senator from Montana yield for 1 minute?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I think of myself as one of the calmest people around here, but a lot of facts and numbers have been tossed around here. Let's get a few in perspective. When this bill was before the Judiciary Committee, there were 301 amendments filed. We put them online. Every single person saw a week and a half in advance what the amendments were. We then brought them up. I would bring up one from one party and then one from another. We did this day after day after day into the night until people said we have no more amendments we want to bring up. We adopted 136 of those amendments, all but 3 of them with Republican and Democratic votes. To say nobody has had a chance to amend this--we had nearly 140 amendments, including amendments from the Senator from Iowa, others, and myself. All but 3 of these 136 were by bipartisan votes. I well remember the last night of that markup, late in the evening. I said, does any Senator, Republican or Democratic, have another amendment they want? No. There were not any more amendments, and we voted out the bill. We have offered to have rollcall votes on 15 Democratic amendments, 17 Republican amendments, and then another 29 amendments that everybody agrees should be passed and do them en bloc in the managers' package. Now I know some--not the Senator from Iowa because he has been here a long time, but I know some Senators are new to this body. I have been here 38 years. I have seen great legislators in the Republican Party and great legislators in the Democratic Party. We always talk about the hundreds of amendments we know we are going to get down to a finite number. Then you agree to vote on those, and you usually have a managers' package where both Republicans and Democrats agree these can be done en bloc. This is what we have done. There are several amendments here on the floor. We have offered 15 Democratic, 17 Republican, and another 29 en bloc. The objection did not come from the Democratic side. It came from the Republican side, including some who said they would never vote for any immigration bill whatsoever. The distinguished majority leader has more patience than the Senator from Vermont. I applaud him for his patience. I have not spoken on this point, and I apologize for taking the time, but it is frustrating to me to hear these numbers when so much work has been done by both Republicans and Democrats on this bill to get to the point we are. I respect my friend Senator Portman, but he was offered the opportunity to put his amendment in the package which was agreed to. I had amendments. I would love to have the glory of saying: Here is the Leahy amendment passed on the floor. I said: No, I am more interested in getting it passed. I will put it in the package and let it go through. I don't need to have my name on it. I just want to get it to the floor. I thank the Senator from Montana.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 26, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``From the Lab Bench to the Courtroom: Advancing the Science and Standards of Forensics.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 26, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Health Care Quality: The Path Forward.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 26, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 26, 2013, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Renewing the Conversation: Respecting Patients' Wishes and Advance Care Planning'' The Committee will meet in room 124 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building beginning at 2 p.m.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate voted to adopt an amendment offered by Senators Corker and Hoeven relating to border security. I have some misgivings about the policy contained in that amendment, and I have spoken to that on the floor. But, at the same time, I commend these Senators for engaging on this legislation and taking the steps they feel are necessary to gain broader support for the underlying bill. We are now one step--one big step--closer to a Senate vote on comprehensive immigration reform legislation. I would like to take just a few moments to reflect on why this legislation is so important and to remind the Senate that as we consider the bill, we should remember that at its core it is about people. It is about families seeking the promise of America. It is about children whose parents want what any parent wants for their child--the opportunity to succeed, to prosper, to live in a free, open and welcoming society. To me, the bill is less about numbers and metrics or border fences and technology than it is about human beings and the natural desire we all have to better ourselves, our families, and to give our children the lives we wish for them. The measures in this legislation will give those affected by it the freedom to get on the path to becoming Americans. Our history of immigration is one that honors our free and open society and which has strengthened it. Immigration has, in part, been the story of enlarging a society made up of individuals who, no matter their vast differences, all believe in the promise of American democracy and the values given to us in our Constitution. When we welcome those who yearn for these values, we strengthen and renew them. Of course, we are a nation of immigrants. Past immigration has helped shape this country and deepen its economic and cultural vibrancy, touching every State and every community--from the Presiding Officer's far western State of Hawaii to my own northeastern State of Vermont. After the Revolutionary War and into the early 1880s, for example, Vermont had been the slowest growing State in the Union. Old growth forests had been stripped and farms had been worn out. But immigrants helped reclaim forsaken farms and build and operate budding new factories in new centers of industry across the Green Mountain State. The United States has been made stronger by the diverse cultural background that has been woven into our national fabric. This Vermonter is the grandson of immigrants to Vermont from Ireland and Italy, and our heritage is one of which my family and I are fiercely proud. To appreciate the values inherent in our immigration policy, I need only to look at the experiences of my own family and the family of my wife Marcelle. Marcelle's mother and father, Louis Philippe Pomerleau and Cecile Bouchard Pomerleau, immigrated to the United States from the Province of Quebec in Canada. Marcelle is a first-generation American born in Newport, VT, and, of course, to me, is the greatest contribution her mother and father made to Vermont and America. But Marcelle's mother and father contributed much to Vermont and to America in business, in music, and enriched their own community. Members of her family went on to establish successful businesses and become leaders in their communities and they have given greatly to Vermont. Marcelle grew up to serve the communities in which she lived as a registered nurse, caring for others in Burlington, VT, in Washington, DC, and in Arlington, VA. Similar to many young immigrants in our country, Marcelle grew up in a bilingual household, knowing two different cultures. But this is America for so many, where young people grow up in families where multiple languages are spoken, where traditions from multiple cultures are observed. This enriches America. My maternal grandparents came to this country from Italy. My grandfather, similar to many others who came to Vermont from Italy, was a granite carver. He opened a granite business in central Vermont. The hard work and determination of my maternal grandparents--who did not speak English when they arrived--to settle in this country laid the foundation for my mother and our family. My paternal great-grandparents came from Ireland, and my grandfather, who was named Patrick Leahy--and I am named after him--worked in a stone quarry as well. They worked hard. They had a family. I grew up the son of printers in Montpelier, our State capital. But nearly every American family has a story similar to mine and Marcelle's. We are more alike than we are different from today's immigrants and first-generation Americans. The majority of new immigrants will continue this proud tradition of hard work, the drive toward prosperity, and embracing the values that make America great. They will someday tell their children and grandchildren of their own immigrant histories, as Marcelle and I learned from our parents and our grandparents. The bill we consider will continue to cycle growth and renewal. It will improve on many aspects of our immigration system. The bill before us contains measures that are important to many Vermonters. I have a provision that takes an important step toward restoring privacy rights to millions of people who live near the northern border by injecting some oversight into the decisionmaking process for operating Federal checkpoints and entering private land without a warrant far from the border. The bill contains significant measures to assist dairy farmers and other Vermont growers who have long relied on foreign workers and are going to need them in the future. It contains a youth jobs program proposed by Senator Sanders to help young people gain employment. It contains a measure I proposed to make sure that no Canadian citizen traveling to Vermont to see a family member will ever be charged a fee for crossing our shared and long and wonderful border. It contains an improvement to the visas used by nonprofit arts organizations around the country, such as the Vermont Symphony Orchestra that invites talented foreign artists to perform in America. It contains measures to improve the lives and future of refugees and asylum seekers who call Vermont home. It contains improvements to the H-2B program to help small businesses. It contains a measure to ensure that the job-creating E-B5 program be made permanent so the State of Vermont and other States can continue the great work that is being done--in our State, done to improve Vermont communities. This is a bill that will help Vermont families and businesses alike. So I discuss this legislation today in the context of my personal history. I do it to take a moment to remind all of us that immigration is about more than border security. It is about more than politics. It is about the lives and hopes and dreams of human beings. It is about those who go on to do great things in America. It is about American communities that benefit from immigration. That has been our history; it should also be our future. As I said before, the legislation before us will help write the next great chapter in America's history of immigration. I see the distinguished ranking member on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one, I wish to applaud the senior Senator from Illinois for his statement, and I will say publicly on the floor of the Senate what I have said to him privately, what I have said to him in our leadership meetings, and what I have said to him in our caucuses, that he is the champion of the DREAM Act. That act--when it finally passes, will give these DREAMers a better life, and there will be one person they can thank most and that will be Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois. Because for the time I have known him--and it has been years--this has been first and foremost over and over again, and I just want to state my admiration for the Senator from Illinois for doing that.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 11:30 a.m. Wednesday, June 26, all postcloture time on the Leahy amendment No. 1183, as modified, be considered expired; that the pending amendment No. 1551 be withdrawn; that if a budget point of order is raised against the Leahy amendment No. 1183, as modified, during its consideration, and the applicable motion to waive is made, that at 11:30 a.m., the Senate then proceed to vote on the motion to waive the budget point of order; that if the point of order is waived, the Senate proceed to vote on the Leahy amendment No. 1183, as modified; that upon the disposition of the Leahy amendment, the Senate proceed to the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the committee-reported substitute, as amended; that if cloture is invoked, it be considered as if cloture had been invoked at 1 a.m., Wednesday, June 26; and, finally, that the majority leader be recognized following the cloture vote, if cloture is invoked.

Mr. LEAHY. I have no objection.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, and section 4(g)(3) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the pending bill and amendments, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I agree with the President that climate change represents one of the greatest challenges of our time, but it is also a challenge uniquely suited to our strengths as a country. Our scientists, researchers, universities and entrepreneurs stand ready to design and build new, less polluting energy sources. Vermont's and our country's farmers and forestland owners stand ready to grow renewable fuels. American businesses will innovate and develop new energy technologies that will reduce pollution and grow our economy with jobs that cannot be shipped overseas. Our workforce stands ready to modernize our power plants and retrofit our buildings to meet 21st century efficiency standards. I stand ready to support the President, and Vermonters want to do our part. The important goals the President has laid out today will create jobs, save lives and protect and preserve our treasured natural resources for future generations. No single step can accomplish the goals that President Obama has presented today, but we must begin now, and take these critical first steps together. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to address these threats and be responsible stewards of the earth. Just as any Vermonter who has hiked the 200 miles of Vermont's beautiful Long Trail can tell you, the journey begins with a commitment to reach a goal, and a first step in that direction. Climate change is not a far-off or remote challenge. The impacts are overtaking us today around the globe and in Vermont. In the past 2 years, hurricanes Irene and Sandy devastated the Northeast, while huge swaths from Texas to the Midwest have been gripped in a historic drought, and tornadoes have raked the heartland. We can no longer willfully ignore these impacts or continue to deny the facts: The science is clear and definitive that human-induced climate change is happening and it is happening rapidly. We are obligated to reduce carbon emissions, and efforts to do so have the support of the American people. Not only is the science clear, but the human and economic costs of climate change are hitting home. The severe weather events of just the past 2 years have caused damages in the United States in excess of $188 billion and left more than 1100 people dead. If we do not act now then the toll is sure to mount, with ever more destructive and deadly weather pounding our coasts, parching our Nation's agricultural center, and rising sea levels threatening our coastal communities. If we do not act now, the devastating impacts of climate change will only get worse. But climate change is not just about weather disasters. For instance, we also have seen asthma rates double in the past 30 years, and our children and grandchildren will only suffer more asthma attacks as air pollution worsens. We already reduced smog and acid rain and have set limits for mercury, lead, and arsenic. It is time to set a limit on carbon pollution that causes climate change and assaults the public health. The President's proposal will allow the United States to take further important steps toward the environmental quality and good jobs that will come with a cleaner and safer energy future. We can act now so that future generations--our children and grandchildren--will know that we took the steps that helped make their world safer and cleaner.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. In answer to my friend from Florida, who has been a friend for decades and knows the coastal area far better than anyone else, the more secure we make the land border for those who want to have illegal entry into the United States, the more they are going to look for other ways. Water is one of them. The distinguished Senator from Florida has seen everything from boat lifts on through coming into his State. Without naming the countries, we know them all. So that is long way around of saying ``of course.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would note that there are some in this body, I am sure, who want no immigration bill. I get the feeling that is a smaller and smaller group. I imagine they would love to just keep killer amendments going for weeks and weeks and hope the bill might die. On the other hand, we have some very legitimate requests made on both sides of the aisle. I have been told that some of the ones we might want to bring up that we would pass probably unanimously, the other side will not allow them to come up unless we allow these other amendments. I would hope that during the next 2 days both sides would allow the distinguished ranking member and me to sit down and go through and accept--as we normally do on a bill such as this--a package of amendments that are acceptable. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be equally divided.

Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. LEAHY. Is it not a fact that the first amendment that was brought up was a bipartisan one of Senator Hatch's and mine? Shortly thereafter, the Senator from Iowa came with an amendment. Following the normal courtesy done, I allowed mine to be set aside so he could bring up his, but isn't it a fact that when we asked if we could set that aside for some noncontroversial amendments on either side, he told me he could not?

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator.