Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. LEAHY. Would the Senator withhold, please.

Mr. LEAHY. Would the Senator yield?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator has several excellent amendments which I support and agreed to. We have given the other side over and over again a list of amendments that under normal circumstances would be agreed to in about 5 minutes by voice vote, including a number of the amendments of the distinguished Senator from Louisiana. I keep hoping we might do that. We had more than 200 amendments in the Judiciary Committee that were voted on. Of those that were adopted, all but three passed with bipartisan votes. We demonstrated we were willing to do this on a bipartisan basis. To assure the Senator from Louisiana--who is a wonderful Senator and dear friend--that I support these, I keep trying to get them accepted. I hope, after 2 weeks on this bill--and realizing we did the very extensive and open markup in the Judiciary Committee--that we can get to the point where we could start accepting a number of amendments-- both Democratic and Republican--that we all agree on, including those from the Senator from Louisiana. I am sorry to interrupt her. But she has worked so hard on this. She has gotten bipartisan support. She has talked to all of us. At some point, she should be allowed to have her amendments. I yield the floor.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, several Senators have mentioned this legislation has been pending on the Senate floor since the beginning of last week. Now we are here at the end of this week. If everybody here had been in favor of at least getting a vote one way or the other on the immigration bill, we would have started disposing of amendments during the first week the bill was on the Senate floor. Unfortunately, there are some who do not want any bill, no matter what we write. They will have every objection to every amendment; they will use every delaying tactic possible. But they are a tiny minority. What we ought to do is show the majority--Republicans and Democrats-- who is for and who is against the bill. The people who object to it, they objected to proceeding to comprehensive immigration reform--that cost us several days. Then when we proceeded, we got 84 Senators who voted in favor of proceeding. That should tell the American people something. This week I have been working closely with the majority leader and the ranking member, Senator Grassley, and others to make progress. But every time we try to bring matters up and get them passed we face objection. So far, there about 350 amendments that have been filed. In a week and a half we have gotten to 12. That is not progress. That is not. No wonder the American people wonder what is going on. If we continue at this rate, we are going to be singing Christmas carols as we come to the end of this legislation and we will have done nothing else. Some would like that. They would like to have this take up all the time. We do not do judges, we do not do the budget. The other side objects even going to a conference on the budget, which would have more Republicans on it than Democrats. What is this? If people are that opposed to government at all, to any form of democratic government, let them set up an alternative government. But this is ridiculous. We have a system. The people who claim ``we are for the Constitution''--let the Constitution work. Let people vote up or down. This is important. It is long overdue legislation to repair our immigration system. Let's vote on it. Senator Landrieu came to the floor last night. She came again today to talk about the delays we have had. I agree with her. Senators on both sides of the aisle worked hard on the amendments that were filed on this legislation. Senators who are not on the Judiciary Committee have been waiting for their opportunity to contribute to this bill. Many of the amendments are bipartisan and ought to be heard. Many of the amendments are noncontroversial and have widespread support. Some of the amendments are controversial, but the amendments that have been proposed to me as noncontroversial all are intended to improve and strengthen this legislation. In the past we would take them up quickly and vote them all through. Except we have some who give great speeches about worrying about people coming into this country, but they are determined not to let anybody into this country. The Presiding Officer and I--and virtually everybody in this body--would not be here if these had been the rules when our parents or our grandparents or our great grandparents came to this country. Let's vote. The Judiciary Committee considered a total of 212 amendments over an extensive markup that involved more than 35 hours of debate, and we made sure it was public. We streamed it live. People all over the Nation watched it. About half of the amendments considered were offered by the Republican members of the committee. I went back and forth, one Democrat, one Republican, one Democrat, one Republican. We adopted over 135 amendments to this legislation all but three were bipartisan votes. We set a gold standard. This body should do the same thing the 18 of us did. I filed a managers' amendment that combines a number of the noncontroversial amendments that have been offered to this legislation. I hope the Republicans and Senator Grassley, the Judiciary Committee's ranking member, will join with me in disposing of these noncontroversial amendments. We did it in the committee. Incidentally, when the bill finally came out of the committee, it was by a bipartisan vote. Look at what the managers' amendments includes. They are noncontroversial and have widespread support. They have been filed by Senators on both sides of the aisle over the last 2 weeks. Many have been discussed at length on the Senate floor. We improve oversight of certain immigration programs. There is an amendment from the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, Senators Carper and Coburn, to establish an office of statistics within the Department of Homeland Security. There is an amendment by Senator Cochran and Senator Landrieu, chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, that requires increased reporting on the EB-5 program. There is an amendment by Senator Heller requiring DHS to report to Congress about an implementation of the biometric exit program that was added to the bill in committee by Senator Hatch. There are bipartisan amendments offered by Senators Kirk and Coons to support the naturalization process for Active-Duty members in the Armed Forces who receive military awards. Who could possibly disagree with that? It contains a trio of amendments championed by Senators Coats, Landrieu, and Klobuchar to ease the process for international adoptions. There is an amendment by Senator Hagan to reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Program. Incidentally, that program had begun as a bipartisan program. There is an amendment by Senator Nelson to provide additional research for maritime security. Chairman Carper has an amendment that requires DHS to submit a strategy to prevent unauthorized immigration transiting through Mexico. These are sensible, noncontroversial amendments. If we had a rollcall vote of these amendments, they would get 90 or 95 votes, or even 100 votes. Well, let's vote on them. Let's adopt them. Let's show the American people we actually care about having immigration reform. The Senator from Louisiana and others are right. We ought to take up those amendments where we share common ground. We so often get bogged down by divisive amendments. Why not join together and pass those that we agree on--Republicans and Democrats? If we do that, we might actually fix our immigration system. The one thing everybody agrees on is that the system does not work today. We are trying to fix it. Let's at least bring up, vote on, and pass those provisions that both Republicans and Democrats support--more importantly, the American people support--and get them passed. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Nevada getting this unanimous consent agreement and that it was agreed to. I commend the majority leader for the work he is doing. It is a slow process. It would be an awful lot slower if it wasn't for the very accomplished hand of our majority leader. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, again, I thank the majority leader. I have heard some talk tonight from some saying they wished there would be votes. I finally have given up handing long lists of amendments we are prepared to vote on to the Republican side, both Republican and Democratic amendments. Each time, that was rejected. Most of them were amendments with no controversy, Republican and Democratic alike, and would have been accepted. I think back to the debate we had in the Senate Judiciary Committee where we actually voted on amendments. We brought up 140 or so. All but two or three passed with bipartisan votes. About 40 Republican amendments passed on bipartisan votes. Yet when it came onto the floor of the Senate, my friends on the other side, time and time again, objected to bringing up amendments that would pass unanimously, both Republican and Democratic. I suppose in one case we have some who don't want any immigration bill, and others are probably waiting for a cloture vote. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask the time be equally divided.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer and my neighbor. I thank the Senator from Utah for his kind words about the markup in the Senate Judiciary Committee. As he knows, we had some 300 amendments before the committee and I brought them up and had them all filed online a week and a half prior to our committee meeting. I called them all up one by one, Republicans and Democrats. We debated them and voted on them. But the difference between what we were able to do in the committee--incidentally, we voted on something like 140 or so amendments. About 40 of them were Republican amendments that were accepted. Of the 140 amendments accepted, all but 2 or 3 were accepted with both Democratic and Republican votes. Then we passed the immigration bill by a bipartisan majority. The difference is people cooperated when we would bring them up. I have given the Republicans a list of 20 or 30 amendments, both Republican and Democratic amendments, most of which could be accepted by voice vote, if they would allow us to bring them up. There are actually 29 of them. They won't let us bring them up. Talk about regular order in voting. We have Begich amendment No. 1285 regarding the Social Security Administration. We have Cardin-Kirk No. 1286, providing social service agencies the resources to help holocaust survivors. We have Carper- Hoeven-Pryor No. 1408, preventing unauthorized immigration transiting through Mexico. We have Carper-Coburn No. 1344, establishing a DHS office of statistics; amendment No. 1255, as modified; a Coats amendment No. 1288, changing alternatives to detention programs. We have Feinstein-Kirk No. 1250, authorization for the use of the CIR trust fund; Hagan No. 1386, reauthorizing the bulletproof vest program--something that began as a bipartisan bill, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, a Republican from Colorado and myself. We have Heinrich No. 1342, extending hours of operation at port of entry in Santa Teresa, NM; another requiring DHS to submit a report to Congress on how the 10 airport biometric exit pilots impact wait times. We have Kirk-Coons No. 1239, allows certain naturalization requirements be waived for U.S. Air Force active-duty members to receive military awards; Klobuchar-Coats, adoption amendment; a Landrieu No. 1338 about E-Verify; Landrieu- Murkowski No. 1302, public-private partnerships expanding land ports of entry; Landrieu-Cochran No. 1383, requires reports on EB-5 programs. We have Landrieu No. 1341, requiring DHS to attempt to reduce detention daily bed rate; Leahy-Hatch No. 1183, and I mention that one only because it is cosponsored by the senior Democrat and the senior Republican. Leahy No. 1454, a technical amendment; Leahy No. 1455, EB-5 clarification; Murray-Crapo No. 1368, prohibiting the shackling of pregnant women absent extraordinary circumstance in all DHS detention facilities. Gosh, there is one we can pass unanimously. We have Nelson No. 1253, providing additional resources for maritime security; Reed 1223, increasing the role of public libraries in the integration of immigrants; Schatz-Kirk No. 1416, GAO report on visa processing; Shaheen-Ayotte No. 1272, expands the INVEST visa program; Stabenow- Collins No. 1405, requiring a number of administrative changes; Tom Udall No. 1241, expanding the Border Enforcement Security Task Force; Tom Udall No. 1242, $5 million available to strengthen border infectious disease surveillance. We have a few others. These are all totally noncontroversial, both Republican and Democrat. Normally--and I hate to sound like here is the way we did it in the old days, but normally on a bill of this complexity, we take all the noncontroversial Republican and Democratic amendments, lump them together, voice vote them, and then start voting on the controversial ones. There is the list we gave the other side. We said they are all noncontroversial, can't we accept them? It takes 10 minutes, 20 minutes, to do a unanimous consent request and accept them all. They said no. They said, We have to have controversial amendments. Well, why not do the noncontroversial ones and then set up a time for boom, boom, boom, controversial ones. We did it in the committee and it worked. I see my colleague from Utah. I will yield to him without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. I would say to the distinguished Senator from Utah, I made such suggestions to the Republican side. They were unable to accept it, or unwilling. That was not objected to by the distinguished Senator from Utah but by some on his side who have said they won't accept any agreement, and that is why we are here. It makes me think when the distinguished Republican came to the floor and asked the majority leader: What is holding up the judge from my State? The leader said: Every single Democrat is prepared to vote for your judge. And we said, Let's have a unanimous consent and let's bring up the judge that the Republican Senator asked for and we will have a vote on it right now. Now, to his credit, that Republican Senator was perfectly willing to, but he was told no by his leadership. And weeks and months and a long time later we finally voted on that judge. I think it was a unanimous vote. But we have cleared every one of the amendments I have talked about, Republicans and Democrats. There are 28 or 29 amendments. If we are really serious, let's pass them all and then take whatever is left that is controversial and take them up one by one. I am happy to vote all night long, all day tomorrow, an hour equally divided on each vote. But the fact is, with the distinguished majority leader's concurrence, we proposed 29 or more amendments that could be done in 2 minutes and we were told by the other side they don't want to bring up any of these amendments. We have to understand, a majority of Senators in both parties--we had 84 who voted for cloture--want to finish this bill. The fact is there are a small number on the other side who want no immigration law and they will try to stall it forever. I talked about us all being here in December singing Christmas carols. I hope we can avoid that for two reasons. One, it would be a terrible way to legislate. Secondly, now that we have TV coverage in the Senate--something that wasn't here when I came here--for the American people to be subjected to my singing voice, it would be cruel and unusual punishment. I believe it is something that is prohibited by the Constitution. And as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I would hate to be the one to violate the Constitution by inflicting such cruel and unusual punishment. So I would suggest as an alternative we listen to the distinguished majority leader, the senior Senator from Nevada: Get an agreement, go forward, vote on all of these things, avoid my friend from Utah and others having to hear me sing Christmas carols as we wrap this thing up, and do as we did in the Judiciary Committee. I think it was about this time, the Senator from Utah may remember, or maybe it was a little bit earlier than this, the last evening we were voting and we finished. I had provided so-so pizza in the back room. I think some liked it, some didn't, but it encouraged everybody to finish and we finished. We passed out a bill to the floor. I see the distinguished majority leader has arrived.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I urge all Senators who say that deficit reduction is important to them to join us and support the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Our bill will help us achieve nearly $1 trillion in deficit reduction according to the estimation of the Congressional Budget Office, CBO. To those Senators who are interested in growing our economy, I say join us and support this bill that CBO expects will lead to hundreds of billions of dollars of economic activity, and help increase our gross domestic product by 5.4 percent when its full impact is reached over the next 20 years. If we are able to pass and implement a fair program reflective of American values, the beneficial economic impact should be even better. I think passing comprehensive immigration reform is the right thing to do and will be good for the economy and the country. One of the themes of the Senator from Alabama throughout committee consideration of the bill and now before the Senate is his contention that bringing undocumented people out of the shadows and into the economy as full participants will hurt the wages of American workers at the lowest end of the pay scale. I disagree because I believe that wages are already being depressed by the reality that undocumented workers are often forced to work for subminimum pay and that already depresses wages and job opportunities for other American workers. The recent CBO report uses conservative assumptions to estimate that once immigration reform is implemented, average wages would actually increase and be one-half of 1 percent higher than they would be if we did not pass it. That is their estimate of the longer term impact of the legislation. It is also notable, if not surprising, that opponents of comprehensive immigration reform focus on isolated numbers without acknowledging the overall impact of the bill. Senators need to remember that CBO has estimated that the bill will decrease Federal deficits by nearly $1 trillion when implemented. Moreover, the CBO report explains that the limited period in which average wages are estimated to be slightly lower is ``primarily because the amount of capital available to workers would not increase as rapidly as the number of workers.'' It concludes, however, that ``the rate of return on capital would be higher under the legislation . . . throughout the next two decades.'' Further, CBO expressly notes that it does not mean to imply what opponents contend; namely, that current U.S. residents would be worse off, on average, under the legislation. Finally, CBO concludes that the legislation would result in raising the productivity of both labor and capital and boost the amount of capital investment in this country. That is not what the Senator from Alabama said on Wednesday afternoon. Instead, he incorrectly asserted a number of points. In particular, he said that the CBO report indicates that the comprehensive immigration reform legislation ``will reduce the wages of American citizens.'' That is not true. The CBO report does not say that. I wish the Senator from Alabama were more precise in his analysis and his statements. The CBO cost estimate and report go out of their way to note that the initial estimate is on ``average wages'' and ``do[es] not imply that current U.S. residents would be worse off, on average, under the legislation.'' The estimate is a ``difference between the averages of all U.S. residents under the legislation.'' The report continues to clarify that ``the additional people who would become residents under the legislation would earn lower wages, on average, than other residents, which would pull down the average wage.'' That does not mean that current U.S. citizens will be paid any less than they are currently making or be worse off, which is what the Senator from Alabama was implying. Here is what I think this all means. Those coming out of the shadows, who had been exploited and working for less than even minimum wage, would as registered provisional immigrants be expected to make more than they had been making. Adding them to the work force would nonetheless mean that ``average wages'' for the working population would be slightly lower at the outset of the implementation period. Average wages do not mean that any American citizen's wages will be ``reduce[d],'' which is what the Senator from Alabama said. He made it sound like passing the bill will mean a pay cut for citizens. That is not true. Moreover, the Senator from Alabama either stopped reading or stopped caring when the report went on to say that average wages would increase thereafter. The report goes on to say that ``over time, as capital investment increased,'' ``average wages would be higher than under current law.'' Opponents of the bill should stop trying to use scare tactics and misleading statements to stir up emotional reactions against the bill and against the undocumented immigrants we should be encouraging to come out of the shadows and fully join American life. America protects the most vulnerable among us, which include survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking, as well as pregnant women, and children. I am proud to report that there are strong protections in this bill for the treatment of kids caught in the broken immigration enforcement system. I know that some may want to punish the 11 million undocumented people currently living here in the shadows, and the bill specifically contains a steep financial penalty for that purpose. The undocumented also need to go to the back of the line and take classes to learn English, but those tough steps are not enough for those who oppose the bipartisan bill. While some may want to look like they are being even tougher on the undocumented population, we all need to consider how further punitive measures may deter people from coming out of the shadows. When kids and pregnant women are put at risk by an urge to punish millions of people who are trying to make a better life for their families, we do not live up to our American values and we do not make this a safer country. I oppose amendments to deny or delay protections for the millions of people who will apply for Registered Provisional Immigrant status. If we are talking about programs that literally feed the hungry or provide vaccinations to children, we hear lectures about how we cannot afford those programs in the current fiscal environment. It is a cruel irony that when some on the other side of the aisle consider programs that help kids who live near the poverty line, they raise fiscal concerns, but they have no problems with massive Government expenditures on fencing and expensive visa exit technology and programs. The bill we are considering prohibits immigrants in Registered Provisional Immigrant status from access to any Federal means-tested public benefit programs throughout their time in provisional status. In addition, as a result of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, even qualified Legal Permanent Resident immigrants must wait an additional 5 years after they are legalized to receive any safety net protections. Most immigrants who are working their way through the path to legalization will have to wait anywhere from 13 to 15 years before having any access to safety net programs. Given the penalties and fines they have to pay, it is wrong to further deny these low-income families protections that some may desperately need. I have seen similarly harmful amendments on the issues of the Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC, and the Child Tax Credit, CTC, which were designed to help hardworking families who pay taxes. The Earned Income Tax Credit is available only to families that are working and paying payroll taxes. The EITC is a core part of the tax code--like any other tax credit that adjusts Federal tax liability based on families' circumstances. It is not, and has never been considered a ``public benefit.'' Yet, amendments have been filed seeking to deny the EITC for all registered immigrants for eternity, even after the individual has obtained legal status. One of these amendments was offered during the committee process, and was rightly rejected. I will strongly oppose any amendment to deny hard working families from participating in these tax credits when they are paying payroll taxes. While CBO estimates refundable tax credits may total $127 million during the first 10 years after passage of comprehensive immigration reform, those tax credits are more than fully offset by the payment of taxes. Remember that revenues increase and the deficit decreases under our legislation. So when those tax credits are seen in the context of the increased taxes being paid, they are offset by increased revenues every year. Some who oppose comprehensive immigration reform had raised the false alarm that this immigration bill would drain our Social Security Trust Fund and bankrupt our Medicare system. Nothing could be further from the truth. In an editorial dated June 2, 2013, entitled ``A 4.6 Trillion Dollar Opportunity,'' The Wall Street Journal stated unequivocally that ``Immigration reform will improve Social Security's finances.'' That has now been substantiated by the CBO report, which estimates decreases in the off-budget deficit every year beginning in 2014 following enactment this year. The goal of this bill is to encourage undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows so we can bring them into our legal system and so everyone will play by the same rules. If we create a reason for people not to come out and register, then it will defeat the purpose of this bill. Amendments that seek to further penalize the undocumented will encourage them to stay in the shadows. These steps will not make us safer and will not spur our economy. One of the many reasons we need immigration reform is to ensure that there is not a permanent underclass in this great Nation. As part of this effort, we need to continue the vital safety net programs that protect children, pregnant women, and other vulnerable populations. Too often, immigrants have been unfairly blamed and demonized as a drain on our resources. The facts are--as substantiated by the CBO report--just the opposite. Immigrants reinvigorate and grow our economy. The bottom line is that enacting our judiciary committee reported bill will significantly reduce our budget deficit and grow the economy. It is the smart thing to do and the right thing to do.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Manchin, Pryor, and Reed, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up en bloc: Manchin No. 1268, Pryor No. 1298, and Reed No. 1224.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment because it would significantly delay even the initial registration process. I have said the pathway to citizenship should not be a false promise. We either make the promise or we don't. It should be attainable, not something that is always over the next mountain. The drafters worked long and hard to reach a bipartisan agreement. Similar efforts to this were defeated on a bipartisan basis in the Judiciary Committee's consideration because we did not want to make the legalization program inappropriately subject to partisan disputes. This amendment would simply remove a real promise of citizenship. I oppose the amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am encouraged that later today the Senate will vote on four amendments to the immigration bill. I hope it is an indication that the Senate is going to begin considering amendments in an orderly and efficient way. I would encourage Senators to file their amendments and come to the floor and offer them. I share the majority leader's wish to make progress on this important legislation. We know the immigration system is sorely in need of reform and now is the time to do it. Last week we should have disposed of several amendments to the bill before us, but in the Senate, progress requires cooperation. Instead of going forward and actually having Senators take positions and vote up or down, we had objection after objection from the opponents of this legislation who put the Senate in the unenviable position of having the public see us as voting ``maybe.'' We know why people get discouraged with Congress. They don't realize that there is a small number of people blocking any voting. They expect us to vote for or against something. There are going to be political costs to voting for or voting against, but they expect us to vote. It comes with the job. And when people objected to proceeding to comprehensive immigration reform, that cost us several days. Again, the American public sees the Senate as voting ``maybe.'' Well, I am one Senator willing to take the consequences of voting for or against something and not voting ``maybe.'' I think most Senators would prefer voting yes or no and not maybe. In fact, when we finally ended the filibuster and were able to vote to proceed to the bill, 84 Senators stood up and said, Let's proceed. They voted in favor of doing so. They know they are going to risk some criticism for doing that, but at least they had the courage to do it. We still have a tiny handful of Senators who keep on trying to say vote ``maybe.'' It is frustrating because that initial delay was not necessary. It didn't add to the debate. It simply hindered the Senate's consideration of the bill. In fact, opponents of the bipartisan legislation have even objected to adoption of the Judiciary Committee substitute bill despite widespread praise from both Republicans and Democrats for how we conducted our proceedings and our overwhelming bipartisan vote to get the bill to the full Senate. This was a bill where almost all of the amendments accepted in Committee were on a bipartisan vote. Additionally, over 40 amendments offered by Republicans were accepted by the Committee. So the votes against even proceeding to this bill indicate that at least 15 Members of the minority are so dug in against comprehensive immigration reform that they are unalterably opposed. They want us to vote maybe to duck the issue. They want to duck the issue. That is not a profile in courage. Those few Senators should not further obstruct the 84 Senators who appear ready to go to work on this bill and vote for or against it. The question is whether the other Members of the Republican Party will follow those who seek to delay the Senate's consideration or whether they will work with us to pass a good bill. More than 100 amendments have been filed to the comprehensive immigration reform bill, but over the last 2 weeks we have only voted once on the motion to table an amendment that already had been defeated in committee. I began this process with a spirit of cooperation. I offered an amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Hatch, the senior member of the Republican Party, to strengthen our visa program for visiting foreign artists who come to perform with nonprofit arts organizations. I was then willing, following the procedures and the cooperation I have known here in the Senate for decades, to give consent to Senator Grassley to set aside my amendment and offer his amendment relating to border security. Unfortunately, when we asked for the same courtesy so that other Senators, Republicans and Democrats alike, could call up additional amendments, there was an objection. I was expected to cooperate and follow this normal procedure, but the second we asked for the other side to do that, it was: Oh, no, we can't do it. The rules have to be different. Then when the majority leader offered a unanimous consent request to have votes on the Grassley amendment and others in a manner that Senate Republicans, including the Senate Republican leader just a few days ago, had been insisting on with respect to amendments and legislation and nominations, the minority objected. Then when the majority leader asked that a group of amendments offered by Senators on both sides of the aisle be allowed to be offered, again there was an objection. So it is with great effort that we are trying to work through amendments. But like the minority's treatment of nominations, even consensus amendments are being objected to and delayed. We have been unable to get an amendment by the Republican Senator from Nevada pending because there is Republican objection to a Republican Senator offering an amendment which is probably going to pass with overwhelming support from both Republicans and Democrats. It is no wonder public approval of Congress in last week's Gallup poll is 10 percent. At a time when so many Americans are in favor of reforming the Nation's broken immigration system, we in the Senate should be working together to meet that demand and reflect what the people of America want. The President spoke again last week about immigration reform and what is needed. The President had with him a broad cross-section of those supporting our efforts from business and labor to law enforcement, clergy, and from both sides of the aisle. Just as I worked with President Bush in 2006 when he supported comprehensive immigration reform, I urge Senate Republicans to work with us now. Senators from both sides of the aisle worked together to develop this legislation-- Senators from both sides of the aisle. Then Senators from the Judiciary Committee considered it and adopted more than 130 amendments to improve it, almost all of them with a bipartisan vote. Senators from both sides of the aisle need to come together now to defeat debilitating amendments and pass this legislation. One of the procedural disputes that has delayed us is the application of what the Majority Leader has termed the ``McConnell rule'' to provide for 60-vote thresholds for adopting amendments. Senate Republicans are now objecting to their leader's own rule. That is why the Majority Leader on Thursday took the action left to him to move forward on the bill and moved to table Senator Grassley's amendment, which I had worked with Senator Grassley to allow him to offer and have pending. I am glad that we have now gotten agreement to treat Republican and Democratic amendments equally. Though I am encouraged that we will begin voting on this legislation, I believe that the Senate should not have gone down the path insisted upon by the Republican leader when he demanded supermajority votes of 60 by the Senate on so many amendments and legislation. He has made everything subject to a filibuster standard. I have tried to have the Senate act by a majority vote, which is the practice I would favor. Unfortunately, the Republican leader has prevailed over and over again and Republicans have insisted on 60-vote thresholds for the adoption of amendments. That is the rule on which they have insisted. And late last week, the minority objected to its own rule when the Majority Leader asked for consent to set votes for the Senate. They cannot insist upon a rule for one side and not the other. They cannot have it both ways. I understand why the Majority Leader has asked for the same consents on which the Republican leader has insisted for years, following what the Majority Leader has termed the ``McConnell rule.'' What Republican Senators were insisting upon is a simple majority threshold for their amendments and a 60-vote barrier for Democratic Senators' amendments. That is not fair. I am ready to work with the Majority Leader, the Republican leader, the Chairman and ranking member of the Rules Committee, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and other interested Senators on reestablishing majority rule in the Senate except in special circumstances. That new arrangement will have to follow our work on this bill and not delay or be applied retroactively to undermine comprehensive immigration reform. With respect to Senator Grassley's amendment, which was tabled last week, I note that it was tabled by a bipartisan majority of 57 votes. That included five Republican votes. Of course, this was an amendment, as most people knew on the floor, that had been considered by the Judiciary Committee. It was defeated by a bipartisan vote of two-thirds of the committee. It would have undermined and unfairly preempted the pathway to earn citizenship. It would have made the fates of millions seeking to come out of the shadows to join American life unfairly depend on circumstances way beyond any control they might have. I am troubled by proposals that contain false promises in which we promise citizenship, but it is always over the next mountain: We are going to give citizenship, but not quite yet. It is almost like Sisyphus pushing that rock up the hill. I want the pathway to be clear and the goal of citizenship attainable. It can't be rigged by some elusive precondition. We should treat people fairly and not have their fates determined by matters beyond their control. No undocumented American controls the border or is responsible for its security. The things that are being set up to kill this bill would have blocked my grandparents from coming to Vermont from Italy and would have blocked the parents and grandparents of many of the Senators now serving in the Senate. So I don't want people to move out of the shadows or to be stuck in some underclass. Just as we should not fault the DREAMers who were brought here as children, we should not make people's fates and future status dependent on border enforcement conditions over which they have no control. This legislation is far too important to be subject to needless delay, and I hope the votes today signal an end to the delay we have experienced until this point. We should have a healthy and vigorous debate on the bill reported out of the Judiciary Committee. Central to that debate is considering and voting on amendments. One of the bright moments so far during this debate, in the view of the American public, was the way Republicans and Democrats alike worked in the Senate Judiciary Committee to get this bill before us in the full Senate. The public debate was followed online by thousands of people. We brought up amendments, we debated them, and then we voted on them. Nobody voted maybe; they voted yes and they voted no. The American public responded overwhelmingly, saying this was the way to go, and I think Republicans and Democrats on the floor justly praised the way it was done in the Judiciary Committee. There were 18 of us working together, and I compliment the distinguished Senator from Iowa for working with us. Although he disagreed with the outcome, we worked together to get that debate finished. We went into the evenings and we worked all day for a couple of weeks and we got it done. But now all 100 of us should stand here and do the same thing. Demands for different voting standards for Republican and Democratic amendments are wrong. A couple of weeks ago, the distinguished Republican leader spoke at an event. I was sitting there. He knew I was following him to speak. He said, On a matter of this importance, all amendments should be subject to a 60-vote threshold. Well, I have had a different view in the past, but I said, OK then, we will do that for both Democratic and Republican amendments, but let's get it done. Having different standards for Republicans and Democrats is not how the Judiciary Committee considered this legislation. It is also not how the majority of Americans expect us to conduct the debate. The tactics of last week undermine the Senate's work on this important bill. Those who have already decided to oppose this bill at the end of the Senate's consideration can vote against it, but they should not dictate the work of 84 Senators who are ready to go forward and vote. I call on all Senators to please file their amendments to this bipartisan legislation by Thursday and work with us, if need be, on Friday and Saturday and through the weekend, so we can make much-needed progress on this legislation without further delay. Mr. President, is there a division of time?

Mr. LEAHY. I reserve the remainder of my time.