Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as if in morning business, without delaying or affecting the time of the cloture vote today.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be equally divided.

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

Mr. LEAHY. The Senator is probably aware of the fact that we have a large number of amendments that were from both Republicans and Democrats. We suggested that they are all acceptable, could probably be adopted by a voice vote, both these Republican and Democratic amendments, but that has been rejected by the other side. Is the Senator aware of that?

Mr. LEAHY. I might ask another question. The Presiding Officer has an amendment involving women that would be easily accepted, but we cannot get that agreement. The Senator has been here a long time in both bodies. It is my recollection--is it correct at least in the past--that when we have a group like that, both sides should come together and accept them. Is that the normal practice?

Mr. LEAHY. I appreciate that. The Senator from New Jersey has the floor. I appreciate him coming here and saying this. Nobody in this body of either party has worked harder and more diligently than the Senator from New Jersey on comprehensive immigration reform.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, at 5:30 p.m. today the Senate is going to vote on the modification to the Leahy amendment, which is the package that was put together by Senators Hoeven and Corker. The distinguished senior Senator from New York who has led the so-called Gang of 8 in putting this bill together has just spoken on the floor, as will, I believe, the distinguished majority whip, who is also on the floor. As I indicated on Friday when I spoke about this, this is not the amendment I would have drafted. I think every one of us, if we drafted the bill, would have drafted it differently. Republicans demanded these aggressive border measures to secure their support for the overall legislation. And while it means spending an enormous amount of money, because their amendment will increase Republican support by spending this money for this historic, comprehensive legislation, I will support it. Ultimately, the comprehensive legislation is most important. I appreciate that this package includes a provision Senator Murray and I worked on that takes an important step toward restoring privacy rights to millions of people who live near the northern border. Over the past decade, the Department of Homeland Security has periodically set up a Border Patrol vehicle checkpoint nearly 100 miles from the Canadian border in Vermont. Many Vermonters have questioned whether this is an effective border security measure or whether it is just a waste of money. Some have wondered why we are doing it when we are 100 miles from the friendliest border any country has ever known. My provision will make significant progress in addressing that checkpoint by injecting oversight into the decisionmaking process for operating checkpoints so far from the border. While this is an important step in the right direction, I am disappointed that the version of the Hoeven-Corker amendment is limited to the northern border, and I will continue to work on this issue so that all Americans can have their privacy rights protected. Most of us appreciate our privacy rights and don't like to be stopped for no particular reason. Today's vote for cloture on this Republican package is a vote for bipartisan support for comprehensive immigration reform. It is a vote in favor of taking the bold steps needed to confront the current situation and give the many millions of people living in the shadows the opportunity to come into the lawful immigration system. I applaud those Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, who have come together to get us here. Now is the time for this whole body to come together in support of fixing a broken immigration system that hurts all of us. It stifles our economy and keeps our families apart. We have gotten to this point through compromise, but we have not compromised on the core of this legislation that is intended to set so many on the path to become full and lawful participants in American life. And in that spirit of compromise and cooperation, which was fostered through almost 140 amendments that were agreed to by bipartisan votes in the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will support this amendment and urge my colleagues to also support this amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. Regular order.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for more than a decade the government's ability and authority to gather information and electronic communications data about those suspected of, or connected to, potential terrorists has greatly increased. You only need to read the newspaper or listen to the news in order to realize how extraordinary this expansion has been. As an American, I believe that if the government is going to have such powerful authorities, it should only be if there is proper oversight, accountability, and transparency. We have to ensure that we maintain both our Nation's security and the fundamental civil liberties upon which our Nation was founded. I have long been troubled by the expansive nature and scope of the USA PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act. There is not enough oversight and ability for Americans to know what their government is doing and be able to get into the debate of whether they want their government to do this. That is why I have consistently fought to include strong protections for the privacy rights and civil liberties of American citizens, as well as sunsets to help ensure proper congressional oversight. Nothing focuses oversight like knowing a law is about to come to an end. So I will introduce at the end of my remarks, along with a bipartisan group of Senators, the FISA Accountability and Privacy Protection Act of 2013. In fact, those of us who are introducing this legislation go across the political spectrum. This is not a partisan issue--this is an American issue. This is an issue about wanting to know what our government is doing and why. As Americans, we have the right to know what our government does and why. In each of the last two Congresses, I introduced legislation to improve and reform the powerful law enforcement tools of the USA PATRIOT Act while at the same time increasing judicial oversight, public accountability, and transparency. Both those bills were reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support, but Congress ultimately decided to extend all of these authorities, without any modifications or improvements, until 2015. Likewise, when Congress considered reauthorizing the FISA Amendments Act last year, I pushed for a shorter sunset, greater transparency for the American people, and better oversight. I regret the Senate rejected these efforts to apply stricter oversight over these sweeping authorities. The recent public revelations about two classified data collection programs have brought renewed attention to the government's broad surveillance authorities, but they also underscore the need for close scrutiny by Congress. The Director of National Intelligence has acknowledged that they are being conducted pursuant to section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. We have also raised questions about lax oversight by the National Security Agency, when a 29-year-old contract employee can walk off with huge amounts of data without being stopped. It is not enough for the National Security Agency to come here and say that they are doing this to protect the country. I want them to protect the things they are already holding. So the comprehensive legislation I am introducing today will not only improve the privacy protections and accountability provisions associated with these authorities, but it is going to strengthen oversight and transparency provisions in other parts of the USA PATRIOT Act. In recent days, much attention has been rightly focused on section 215 of the PATRIOT Act and the bulk collection of phone call metadata by the National Security Agency and their inability to keep that from being stolen by a 29-year-old contract worker. This measure will narrow the scope of section 215 orders by requiring the government to show both relevance to an authorized investigation and a link to a foreign group or power. The bill also adds more meaningful judicial review of section 215 orders but strikes the one-year waiting period before a recipient can challenge a nondisclosure order for section 215 orders. Now the order comes in and you are told you can't talk about it. No matter whether it damages your business, your relations, or people you are supposed to protect, you can't talk about it for one year. That is a broad generalization of what the nondisclosure orders are. I think those orders should be changed. I think when we have these kinds of ``gag orders'' on Americans, you are going into a very dangerous area. Moreover, this measure would require court review of minimization procedures when information concerning a U.S. person is acquired, retained, or disseminated pursuant to a section 215 order. This is a commonsense oversight requirement already required for other FISA authorities such as wiretaps, physical searches, pen register and trap and trace devices. As I likened it before, we all understand that if a law enforcement agency gets a search warrant to go into your home and search for things, you usually know about it and are able to question that authority. Now if they are collecting things electronically, you don't know about it, you don't know what this is doing to your reputation, to your work, or anything else. We have to have more accountability. The FISA Accountability and Privacy Protection Act will also reform and improve other authorities contained in the PATRIOT Act that, while perhaps not a topic of recent public debate--and I will not go into some of those aspects here on the floor, also significantly impact the privacy rights of Americans. Some of the things we can talk about, things such as national security letters, so-called NSLs, are used extensively by law enforcement and the intelligence community. They can be issued without the approval of a court, a grand jury, or a prosecutor. Most Americans would be amazed to know that authority exists. Frankly, in a State such as mine where people value their privacy, I think most Vermonters would be really concerned about it. I propose applying a new sunset to the NSL authority. That would require Congress to look at it again and come up with a better idea, or it would end right there. I have long been concerned about the broad scope of these secret requests and the potential for expansive collection of sensitive information without appropriate limitations and a sunset provision would help to ensure proper accountability. Just because we can go out and gather all of this information on Americans, often doing it secretly, doesn't mean we should. Some of us enjoy our privacy. Some of us like to think we are innocent unless proven guilty. My bill would also address constitutional deficiencies regarding the nondisclosure or ``gag orders'' by finally allowing individuals to challenge these orders in court. You grow up hearing from everybody, Well, you can have your day in court. Actually, you don't get your day in court with these ``gag orders.'' The bill would also expand public reporting on the use of NSLs and FISA authorities, including an unclassified report on the impact of the use of these authorities on the privacy of U.S. persons. I have heard a great deal in the last few weeks from people not only in Vermont but elsewhere asking, Can't we have a report the American people can see-- not just those of us like myself who have access to classified material, but have an unclassified report on the impact of the use of these authorities on the privacy of Americans? My bill will also address shortcomings in the FISA Amendments Act and apply improvements that I sought during last year's reauthorization debate in the Senate. The existing December 2017 sunset would be shortened to June 2015 to focus attention and ensure timely reexamination of how these authorities are being utilized. The June 2015 sunset will also align with the PATRIOT Act sunset, allowing Congress--and in fact requiring Congress--to address all of these provisions at once, rather than a little piece here and a little piece there. This legislation will also increase accountability by clarifying the scope of annual reviews currently required by law extends to all agencies that have a role in developing targeting and so-called minimization procedures. Finally--and I think this is extremely important--the bill seeks to increase oversight by requiring the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community to conduct a comprehensive review of the FISA Amendments Act and its impact on the privacy rights of all Americans. These are commonsense, practical improvements to ensure that the broad and powerful surveillance tools being used by the government are subject to appropriate limitations, transparency, and oversight. The American people deserve to know how laws such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act are being used to conduct electronic surveillance, particularly when the surveillance is not just on those that we have reason to be suspicious of, but of all Americans--totally innocent Americans. The American people also deserve to know whether these programs have proven sufficiently effective to justify their extraordinary breadth. If you can collect billions of phone calls, and we have proven technologically you can do that, do we get anything out of it? Or, do we get our information about terrorists the old-fashioned way by actually talking to people, infiltrating terrorist groups, and so forth? Let us make sure we are not doing something just because we can do it, regardless of how it impacts the rights of Americans. The enhanced layers of transparency, oversight, and accountability included in this legislation will ensure we are protecting national security without undermining the privacy rights and civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for more than a decade the government's ability and authority to gather information and electronic communications data about those suspected of, or connected to, potential terrorists has greatly increased. You only need to read the newspaper or listen to the news in order to realize how extraordinary this expansion has been. As an American, I believe that if the government is going to have such powerful authorities, it should only be if there is proper oversight, accountability, and transparency. We have to ensure that we maintain both our Nation's security and the fundamental civil liberties upon which our Nation was founded. I have long been troubled by the expansive nature and scope of the USA PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act. There is not enough oversight and ability for Americans to know what their government is doing and be able to get into the debate of whether they want their government to do this. That is why I have consistently fought to include strong protections for the privacy rights and civil liberties of American citizens, as well as sunsets to help ensure proper congressional oversight. Nothing focuses oversight like knowing a law is about to come to an end. So I will introduce at the end of my remarks, along with a bipartisan group of Senators, the FISA Accountability and Privacy Protection Act of 2013. In fact, those of us who are introducing this legislation go across the political spectrum. This is not a partisan issue--this is an American issue. This is an issue about wanting to know what our government is doing and why. As Americans, we have the right to know what our government does and why. In each of the last two Congresses, I introduced legislation to improve and reform the powerful law enforcement tools of the USA PATRIOT Act while at the same time increasing judicial oversight, public accountability, and transparency. Both those bills were reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support, but Congress ultimately decided to extend all of these authorities, without any modifications or improvements, until 2015. Likewise, when Congress considered reauthorizing the FISA Amendments Act last year, I pushed for a shorter sunset, greater transparency for the American people, and better oversight. I regret the Senate rejected these efforts to apply stricter oversight over these sweeping authorities. The recent public revelations about two classified data collection programs have brought renewed attention to the government's broad surveillance authorities, but they also underscore the need for close scrutiny by Congress. The Director of National Intelligence has acknowledged that they are being conducted pursuant to section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. We have also raised questions about lax oversight by the National Security Agency, when a 29-year-old contract employee can walk off with huge amounts of data without being stopped. It is not enough for the National Security Agency to come here and say that they are doing this to protect the country. I want them to protect the things they are already holding. So the comprehensive legislation I am introducing today will not only improve the privacy protections and accountability provisions associated with these authorities, but it is going to strengthen oversight and transparency provisions in other parts of the USA PATRIOT Act. In recent days, much attention has been rightly focused on section 215 of the PATRIOT Act and the bulk collection of phone call metadata by the National Security Agency and their inability to keep that from being stolen by a 29-year-old contract worker. This measure will narrow the scope of section 215 orders by requiring the government to show both relevance to an authorized investigation and a link to a foreign group or power. The bill also adds more meaningful judicial review of section 215 orders but strikes the one-year waiting period before a recipient can challenge a nondisclosure order for section 215 orders. Now the order comes in and you are told you can't talk about it. No matter whether it damages your business, your relations, or people you are supposed to protect, you can't talk about it for one year. That is a broad generalization of what the nondisclosure orders are. I think those orders should be changed. I think when we have these kinds of ``gag orders'' on Americans, you are going into a very dangerous area. Moreover, this measure would require court review of minimization procedures when information concerning a U.S. person is acquired, retained, or disseminated pursuant to a section 215 order. This is a commonsense oversight requirement already required for other FISA authorities such as wiretaps, physical searches, pen register and trap and trace devices. As I likened it before, we all understand that if a law enforcement agency gets a search warrant to go into your home and search for things, you usually know about it and are able to question that authority. Now if they are collecting things electronically, you don't know about it, you don't know what this is doing to your reputation, to your work, or anything else. We have to have more accountability. The FISA Accountability and Privacy Protection Act will also reform and improve other authorities contained in the PATRIOT Act that, while perhaps not a topic of recent public debate--and I will not go into some of those aspects here on the floor, also significantly impact the privacy rights of Americans. Some of the things we can talk about, things such as national security letters, so-called NSLs, are used extensively by law enforcement and the intelligence community. They can be issued without the approval of a court, a grand jury, or a prosecutor. Most Americans would be amazed to know that authority exists. Frankly, in a State such as mine where people value their privacy, I think most Vermonters would be really concerned about it. I propose applying a new sunset to the NSL authority. That would require Congress to look at it again and come up with a better idea, or it would end right there. I have long been concerned about the broad scope of these secret requests and the potential for expansive collection of sensitive information without appropriate limitations and a sunset provision would help to ensure proper accountability. Just because we can go out and gather all of this information on Americans, often doing it secretly, doesn't mean we should. Some of us enjoy our privacy. Some of us like to think we are innocent unless proven guilty. My bill would also address constitutional deficiencies regarding the nondisclosure or ``gag orders'' by finally allowing individuals to challenge these orders in court. You grow up hearing from everybody, Well, you can have your day in court. Actually, you don't get your day in court with these ``gag orders.'' The bill would also expand public reporting on the use of NSLs and FISA authorities, including an unclassified report on the impact of the use of these authorities on the privacy of U.S. persons. I have heard a great deal in the last few weeks from people not only in Vermont but elsewhere asking, Can't we have a report the American people can see-- not just those of us like myself who have access to classified material, but have an unclassified report on the impact of the use of these authorities on the privacy of Americans? My bill will also address shortcomings in the FISA Amendments Act and apply improvements that I sought during last year's reauthorization debate in the Senate. The existing December 2017 sunset would be shortened to June 2015 to focus attention and ensure timely reexamination of how these authorities are being utilized. The June 2015 sunset will also align with the PATRIOT Act sunset, allowing Congress--and in fact requiring Congress--to address all of these provisions at once, rather than a little piece here and a little piece there. This legislation will also increase accountability by clarifying the scope of annual reviews currently required by law extends to all agencies that have a role in developing targeting and so-called minimization procedures. Finally--and I think this is extremely important--the bill seeks to increase oversight by requiring the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community to conduct a comprehensive review of the FISA Amendments Act and its impact on the privacy rights of all Americans. These are commonsense, practical improvements to ensure that the broad and powerful surveillance tools being used by the government are subject to appropriate limitations, transparency, and oversight. The American people deserve to know how laws such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act are being used to conduct electronic surveillance, particularly when the surveillance is not just on those that we have reason to be suspicious of, but of all Americans--totally innocent Americans. The American people also deserve to know whether these programs have proven sufficiently effective to justify their extraordinary breadth. If you can collect billions of phone calls, and we have proven technologically you can do that, do we get anything out of it? Or, do we get our information about terrorists the old-fashioned way by actually talking to people, infiltrating terrorist groups, and so forth? Let us make sure we are not doing something just because we can do it, regardless of how it impacts the rights of Americans. The enhanced layers of transparency, oversight, and accountability included in this legislation will ensure we are protecting national security without undermining the privacy rights and civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 24, 2013, at 5:30 p.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 24, 2013, at 3 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Curbing Prescription Drug Abuse in Medicare.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 24, 2013 at approximately 5:30 p.m.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand the Leahy amendment No. 1183 is now pending; is that correct?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I modify my amendment with the changes I have at the desk.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 1551 to Amendment No. 1183, As Modified

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the distinguished majority leader, and I will be speaking further on this matter later in the coming week. I thank him and everybody who worked with him for getting us here. I am reminded today that legislating is about making tough choices; it is not about standing on the sidelines and complaining that we can't get a perfect solution enacted. I have been privileged to serve in this great body for 38 years because of the trust of the people of Vermont. In my time here, those 38 years, I have rarely seen such commitment to an issue as I have seen over the last 6 months to comprehensive immigration reform. I think of the dozens of witnesses who came before the Judiciary Committee, such as Jose Antonio Vargas and Gaby Pacheco, who called on the Senate to achieve bipartisan immigration reform. I think of the hours we spent, Republicans and Democrats alike, in the Judiciary Committee considering amendments and debating this bill. What was initially a proposal from the Gang of 8 became, through an extensive committee process, the product of a Group of 18. Since the bill was reported to the Senate floor, bipartisan talks have continued and the circle of Members supporting it has continued to grow. I will speak next week more about those Members, but I hope my friend and neighbor from New York, Senator Schumer, will not be embarrassed when I mention something very few people know about him. He has a 10- pound battery on his cell phone. It is the only way he could keep making those calls that harass and nudge and move us, at all hours of the day and night. So I just gave away that secret. That is the way he is able to do it--that and the fact he hasn't slept for several weeks. Senators have been negotiating for days, late into the night, trying to gain more Republican support for this important immigration reform legislation. Senators Hoeven and Corker put together an aggressive package that will add new Republican support to our bipartisan effort, and for that progress I am grateful. However, it is an understatement to say that this is not the amendment I would have drafted. I am disappointed in many parts of it. The modification to the Leahy amendment before us reads like a Christmas wish list for Halliburton. I am sure there are Federal contracting firms high-fiving at the prospect of all of the spending demanded by some of our friends on the other side in this amendment. The litany of expensive services, technology, and hardware mandated by this package is combined with--the thing that bothers me--an inexplicable waiver of many of our normal contracting rules. That is a potential we must watch out for--for waste and fraud. It is astounding that we have not learned the hard lessons we learned in Iraq. All of us should remember the disgraceful conduct demonstrated by some private companies in Iraq--companies that will now be seeking contracts here--which was uncovered by the work of the special inspector general for Iraq. I believe all of my friends, both Republicans and Democrats on this floor, will join with me in saying these border provisions are going to require significant congressional oversight, and I add oversight of the inspectors general. It is when the inspectors general looked into Iraq that we found out what was going on. I worry that when many of my friends talk about border security, the high cost of these projects are absent from the discussion. Yet when we talk about programs that help children who live near the poverty line or people who need medical research for what otherwise would be an incurable disease, then suddenly fiscal concerns are paramount. I think we hear too much about spending money on one border rather than coming up with a comprehensive solution that takes pressure off that border. This package is border security on steroids. Some are calling it a surge, and that military reference makes sense because it is going to militarize hundreds of American communities in the Southwest. But with a border surge--I say this as a compliment to my friends on the other side of the aisle--comes additional Republican support for the rest of the essential pieces to reunite families, provide a path to citizenship for millions, and spur significant job growth in our country. And that I do support, and I thank all of the Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, for helping to bring that about. One of the reasons I stayed on as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is because of this once-in-a-generation chance for us to truly reform our immigration system. It is a tragic problem that calls out for a comprehensive solution. There are too many people, too many families kept apart because of our broken immigration system, and there are too many people living in the shadows who should be allowed to gain their citizenship. We cannot fail. We owe it to them--to people like Jose and Gaby and so many others--to get legislation passed. So while I do not agree with many of the border demands, I will support this modification of my amendment because I am making the tough choice that it is better than not making progress toward passage of this critical bill. But I do not want anybody to mistake what I am saying--there are many, many areas where both Republicans and Democrats have come together, and that I applaud. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this legislation has been pending on the floor since the beginning of last week. We should have started disposing of amendments during the first week the bill was on the Senate floor. But we have seen objection after objection by those who are opposed--and they are very much in the minority--to this legislation. They objected to proceeding to comprehensive immigration reform. That cost us several days. To show that they are a minority, we finally ended that filibuster so we could proceed to the bill with 84 Senators voting to proceed. I realize some would rather not have any votes one way or the other. That allows someone to go home and say, whether they are for or against it, yes, I am working on that because I voted maybe. Well, is there any wonder why we are at such a low level of approval in the American people's eyes, the whole Congress? They expect us to vote yes or no. Sometimes you have to vote for something that is unpopular. Well, we are elected to 6-year terms. We are supposed to do that. We are supposed to represent over 300 million Americans, 100 of us. The American people do not want us to delay and delay so we do not have to vote, so we can go back home and say: Oh, I am on your side, no matter what your side is. No. They expect us to vote yes or no even though it may be controversial. Last week and this week I have been working closely with the majority leader and Senator Grassley and others to make progress. We started voting on amendments in an orderly fashion, but we still faced objections. There have been 250 amendments filed to this bill. So far, we have considered 11--11 votes, endless delays. We could be spending months on it. The American people expect us to have the courage to vote yes or no. A lot of Senators who are not on the Judiciary Committee have amendments. Some of these amendments are noncontroversial. Many have widespread support. There ought to be a way to just adopt those. Some of these amendments are controversial. Well, then, let's vote on them. In the Judiciary Committee, we considered a total of 212 amendments over an extensive markup, 35 hours of debate. More than half of the amendments considered were offered by Republican members of the committee. We adopted 135 amendments to improve this legislation. All but three were passed with both Democratic and Republican votes. I hope Republicans will join me in making an effort to dispose of the many noncontroversial items. The amendments, including the managers' amendment, are noncontroversial. They have widespread support. They have been filed by Senators on both sides over the past two weeks, and many have already been discussed at length on the Senate floor. The package contains bipartisan amendments to improve oversight of certain immigration programs. It also contains non-controversial technical amendments. I see the distinguished majority leader on the floor. I am going to yield the floor. I am going to speak on this further, but my whole point is that we have all kinds of noncontroversial amendments cosponsored by Republicans and Democrats alike, both Republicans and Democrats on the same amendment. We ought to be adopting them and not stalling because a stall says: I want to vote maybe. I do not want to vote yes or no, I want to vote maybe. I have served in this body longer than any current Member. I have served here with nearly one-fifth of the Senators who have had the privilege of serving in the body since the beginning of the country. I have known great Republicans and great Democrats who must be wondering--in the past--what are we doing? I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. You know, I hear a lot of speeches that we should support family values, as both the Senator from Nevada and I do, but when you try to put it in a bill--that it is obviously a family value, protecting children--then we have an objection. Well, if you do not like the amendment, vote against it. Let's vote on it.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I support the tabling of the amendment. There may be some good parts in it, but most of it is bad. The billions of additional taxpayer dollars I cannot support, with all of the billions we already have in here. The biggest reason I will not support it is because it imposes new unrealistic triggers. It says to people, we want to give you the pathway to citizenship, but, guess what. We are going to keep the door closed. You can pretend you are going to get citizenship, but we are going to make it impossible as we have a fully biometric entry-exit system at all air and seaports as a trigger. Most airports will not be able to do this, certainly not the little airports many of us use to fly in and out. That is unrealistic. I appreciate the effort the Senator from Texas has put into this amendment. But I must strongly oppose it. This amendment would impose new, unrealistic triggers that must be met before the pathway to citizenship becomes a reality. To take one example, the amendment includes a fully biometric exit system at all air and seaports as a trigger before those in provisional status can earn green cards. But this presents extensive technological and infrastructure challenges that could take many years to fully address. U.S. airports were not designed to accommodate immigration exit lanes, where biometrics could be collected. This approach will not work. An attainable pathway to citizenship is a central component of this bill. It is how we will bring people out of the shadows so that we know who is here and can focus instead on who is dangerous--a critical step if we are serious about national security. The triggers in this amendment will have the opposite effect. They are unrealistic. People will not come forward and register if they believe that they will remain in limbo. In addition to making the triggers unattainable, the amendment also makes the pathway to citizenship unfair and irrationally difficult. It would make immigrants ineligible for Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status if they have been convicted of a single misdemeanor offense related to domestic violence and child abuse. I know this may sound reasonable on its face and we all agree that domestic violence is unacceptable and that abusers should be punished for their crimes. I am concerned, however, that this amendment may have the unintended consequence of harming the very victims it seeks to protect. When we considered a similar proposal in committee, more than 150 organizations who work with the victims of domestic violence expressed their concerns that such a measure would have a chilling effect on reporting, and could even lead to victims getting caught up in the criminal justice system. That's why the committee rejected the proposal. The amendment would also dramatically increase the cost of the bill. It would require billions of additional taxpayer dollars be spent on the border each year. At some point, we must simply say that is too much. This amendment reaches that point. This amendment does have some good provisions in it. It takes steps that would help facilitate cross-border travel and commerce by improving land ports of entry. I would welcome the opportunity to work with the Senator from Texas on a few of those proposals. But overall, the amendment goes much too far, and I cannot support it. I strongly oppose this amendment, and I would vote to table the amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. I object.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I object.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, will the Senator, before he yields the floor, yield for a question?

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I believe the Senator is aware of this. I ask, does he know when we passed the farm bill last year by a huge bipartisan margin, and again this year, that on the Senate committee are several former chairs of that committee in both parties as well as a former Secretary of Agriculture, and we came together as Republicans and Democrats to pass a bill that saves $23 to $28 billion? I believe the Senator is aware of that.