Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate the words of both Senators from Pennsylvania. I would note there are currently three nominations pending for vacancies in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. All three have the bipartisan support of their home State Senators. All three were reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee 3 months ago. Yet Senate Republicans are permitting votes on only two of them. They are forcing Judge Luis Restrepo to continue to wait for a vote even though he would fill a seat that has been vacant for 4 years. I mention this because we talk about how things move during this President's tenure as compared to that of his predecessor. At the end of President Bush's second term, I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee and I expedited confirmations of three of his nominees to this same court--three, not just allowing two to go through, as my friends on the other side of the aisle are today--and not having to wait for months and months. Those three were confirmed by voice vote. So you know how long it took, we had reported them out of the Judiciary Committee the day before. They were confirmed along with 7 other district court nominees for a total of 10 that day. We got them out of committee and voted them by voice vote. But now we have seven judicial nominees on the calendar, and Republicans are only allowing us to vote on two of them. This is just the latest example of Senate Republicans insisting that President Obama play by a different set of rules than they had for President Bush. It was perfectly fine to expedite President Bush's three nominees to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and to confirm them all on the same day, along with seven others. We had Democratic control of the Senate, and we moved them that way. But now with President Obama they refuse to proceed with the seven nominees who are pending on the Calendar. They will not even proceed with the three judicial nominees needed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. So let's not talk about how Presidents are treated. I am not sure what it is that is different about President Obama, but his nominees get delayed, delayed, and delayed, unlike--and I use Pennsylvania as an example--where we vote out three, unanimously, of President Bush's nominees on one day and confirm them by voice vote the next day, along with seven others. Here they are refusing to proceed with the seven nominees on the Calendar. They will not even proceed with all three of the judicial nominees for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. There are currently seven vacancies on that court--seven. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania needs judges. Like the two nominees we will be permitted to vote on today, Judge Restrepo has the support of his Republican home State Senator as well as every single Republican member of the Judiciary Committee. So let's not make him and the people of Pennsylvania wait. Frankly, there is no good reason Nitza Quinones Alejandro and Jeffrey Schmehl should have waited this long for a vote. There is no good reason why, when half of President Bush's consensus district nominees waited 18 days or fewer after being sent to the Senate by the Judiciary Committee during his first term, these consensus nominees should have had to wait almost 100 days. This contributes to the unprecedented delays and obstruction of President Obama's consensus judicial nominees. I read comments last week by Judge James Brady of the Middle District of Louisiana expressing concern about what has happened to the judicial confirmation process. Shelly Dick was confirmed this year to that court after months of delay, and the Advocate article noted the ``strain the empty judgeship had on a district overburdened with cases.'' Judge Brady was quoted saying of the confirmation process: ``It's just crazy, and we need to do something about that.'' I could not agree more. Judge Brady added that the delays in the process are ``driving away a lot of really good folks that would make excellent judges because they're saying, `I don't need to go through that process and be in limbo for 18, 20, 24 months.' That's something I'm very, very concerned about.'' We should all share that concern, especially Senators who are looking for district nominees to recommend to the President. I ask that this article, entitled ``Nomination Delays Hurting Courts, Federal Judge Says,'' be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement. The recent assertion by Senate Republicans that 99 percent of President Obama's nominees have been confirmed is just not accurate. He has nominated 237 individuals to be circuit or district judges, and 193 have been confirmed. That is 81 percent. By way of comparison, at the same point in President Bush's second term, June 13 of his fifth year in office, President Bush had nominated four fewer people, but had seen 214 of them confirmed, or 92 percent. That is an apples to apples comparison, and it demonstrates the undeniable fact that the Senate has confirmed a lower number and lower percentage of President Obama's nominees than President Bush's nominees at the same time in their presidencies. I noted at the end of last year while Senate Republicans were insisting on delaying confirmations of 15 judicial nominees that could and should have taken place then, and that we would not likely be allowed to complete work on them until May. That was precisely the Republican plan. So when Senate Republicans now seek to claim credit for their confirmations in President Obama's second term, they are falsely inflating the confirmation statistics. The truth is that only seven confirmations have taken place this year that are not attributable to those nominations they held over from last year and that could and should have taken place last year. To return to the baseball analogy, if a baseball player goes 0-for-9, and then gets a hit, we do not say he is an all-star because he is batting 1.000 in his last at bat. We recognize that he is just 1-for-10, and not a very good hitter. Nor would a fair calculation of hits or home runs allow a player to credit those that occurred in one game or season to the next because it would make his stats look better. I was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for 17 months during President Bush's first term, so I know something about how President Bush's nominees were treated. During those 17 months, 100 of them were confirmed. In the 31 months that Republicans controlled the Senate during President Bush's first term, 105 of his circuit and district nominees were confirmed. That is, it took them almost twice as long to make as much progress as I had as Chairman. Even when Senate Democrats were in the minority, we worked with the Republicans to bring the number of vacancies all the way down to 28. Vacancies have remained near or above 80 for 4 years during the Obama presidency. In the last 4 years, Senate Republicans have never let vacancies get below 72. At this point in the fifth year of the Bush presidency there were 44 vacancies. Today they remain almost double that amount. Despite Senate Republicans who make self-congratulatory statements about ``progress'' this year, we are not even keeping up with attrition. Vacancies have increased, not decreased, since the start of this year. If President Obama's nominees were receiving the same treatment as President Bush's, Judge Srinivasan would have been the 210th confirmation, not the 193rd and vacancies would be far lower. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has noted that it will require 33 more district and circuit confirmations this year to match President Bush's 5-year total. Even with the confirmations finally concluded during the first 6 months of this year, Senate Republicans have still not allowed President Obama to match the record of President Bush's first term. Even with an extra 6 months, we are still a dozen confirmations behind where we were at the end of 2004. In addition to the obstruction of circuit and district nominees, I am deeply concerned about the impact of sequestration on our Federal courts. I continue to hear from judges and legal professionals around the country who worry about the impact of these senseless budget cuts, and I share their concern. A recent evaluation of sequestration concluded: ``Its impact on the operation of the [F]ederal courts will be devastating and longlasting.'' Sequestration will exacerbate the delays our courts already face due to persistent understaffing, both for civil and criminal cases. According to the Executive Summary of ``FY 2013 Sequestration Impacts on the Federal Judiciary,'' ``Delays in cases will harm individuals, small businesses, and corporations,'' while the ``cuts to funding for drug testing, substance abuse and mental health treatment of federal defendants and offenders have also been made, increasing further the risk to public safety.'' I ask that the full summary be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement. Judge Nitza Quinones Alejandro has served as a judge on the Court of Common Pleas for the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania since 1991. Prior to being a judge, Judge Quinones worked as a solo practitioner, a staff attorney with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, an Attorney Advisor with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, and a staff attorney at Community Legal Services, Inc. When confirmed, Judge Quinones will be the first openly gay Latina judge to serve on the Federal bench. Judge Quinones was also Pennsylvania's first Latina judge. Judge Jeffrey Schmehl currently serves as the President Judge in Berks County, where he has been an active member of the bench since 1997. Prior to becoming a judge, Judge Schmehl served in various capacities in private practice, including as an associate and partner at Rhoda, Stoudt & Bradley and as a solo practitioner at the Law Offices of Jeffrey L. Schmehl, Esq. While working in private practice, Judge Schmehl was also a Berks County Solicitor from 1989 to 1997. In addition to his experience in private practice, Judge Schmehl has served as an assistant district attorney and as an assistant public defender for Berks County. I want the Senate to make real progress on filling judicial vacancies so that the American people have access to justice. Before the recess, the minority leader asked during a floor debate when Gregory Phillips, the Wyoming nominee to the Tenth Circuit, would receive a vote. Majority Leader Reid said: OK, let's vote on him right now. They said: Well, we are not ready. I hope the American people were watching, because there should be no ambiguity about this: The only reason the Senate is not voting today on Judge Restrepo, Attorney General Phillips, or the other seven judicial nominees pending on the Calendar is because of Republican refusal to allow such votes. They could be voted on today. We ought to do it. These nominees deserve better, and the American people deserve better.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the nomination of B. Todd Jones to serve as the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, ATF. I thank Senator Klobuchar for the exceptional job she did in chairing this hearing and setting the record straight with respect to distortions of the nominee's record. Todd Jones continues to serve this country honorably. He volunteered for the U.S. Marine Corps in 1983, serving on active duty as a judge advocate and infantry officer until 1989. In 1991, he was recalled to Active Duty to command the 4th Marine Division's Military Police Company in Iraq. He also served as commanding officer of the Twin Cities Marine Reserve Unit. He has twice been considered for the important law enforcement position of U.S. attorney and twice unanimously reported out of the Judiciary Committee and unanimously confirmed by the Senate. In 1998 he was first appointed to be the U.S. attorney for the District of Minnesota and became the first African American U.S. attorney in Minnesota's history. In 2009, when that office was at a low point and needed a strong hand to lead it back, he answered the call, again. When the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives needed new leadership after its poorly conceived and executed Fast and Furious operation, the President called upon him, again. He was called upon to clear up the mess and deserves our thanks for having made great progress in doing so. He has done so while all the while continuing to serve as the U.S. attorney for the District of Minnesota and has had to restore leadership and effectiveness in two important law enforcement agencies. We have received numerous letters of support for Todd Jones' nomination from law enforcement, respected legal professionals, and veterans of the U.S. Marine Corps. He has critics; he has taken on difficult assignments. As he noted at his hearing, sometimes you have to take action to make a change and change is not always something that everyone is going to favor. A fair evaluation of what he has accomplished leads me to support his nomination to be confirmed as the director of ATF. The ATF has been without a permanent director since that position was made a confirmable position in 2006. We lean heavily on the expertise of the ATF. For example, under the leadership of Todd Jones, since September 2011, ATF has been called on to analyze the bombs left near the finish line at the Boston Marathon, to sift through burned debris at the chemical plant explosion in West, TX, and to trace the weapons used in the Newtown and Aurora mass killings. Agents of the ATF have played a major role in investigating some of our Nation's worst tragedies. The agency needs a confirmed head. Todd Jones is the ATF's fifth acting director since 2006. The Senate should be doing everything it can to ensure that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has the tools it needs to keep Americans safe, and that starts with a Senate-confirmed director. I had accommodated the ranking member on requests for further information and delay on this nomination for months. Senator Grassley insisted on the production of documents from the Department of Justice that his staff had already had access to for months. He insisted that his staff be able to interview Todd Jones in his capacity as U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota, as well as two other Justice Department officials, in order to try to build a case against another nomination, that of Tom Perez to be Labor Secretary. Those interviews have taken place. Senator Grassley requested additional background information from the administration not usually required by the committee for an executive nomination and he received that information. When he sought information about an ATF operation in Milwaukee, I arranged a bipartisan briefing for our staffs from the agency. Some are criticizing the nominee based on a complaint filed against him by an AUSA from the earlier Bush-era U.S. attorney office. After learning about the complaint, I had initially put on hold a planned hearing on this nomination. In late April, a news article reported that ``an aide to Senator Grassley'' had released a letter from OSC that the ranking member and I had received about the existence of that preliminary inquiry. It was at that time that I determined that this hearing should move forward to allow the nominee an opportunity to defend his reputation. When a private complaint against him was disclosed publicly, I thought it unfair that the nominee could not respond. He did at his hearing and in my view that matter is put to rest. The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, OSC, closed the file on the underlying allegation made against the nominee of ``gross mismanagement and abuses of authority.'' The allegation involving alleged retaliation has been referred to mediation. In deference to the complaining party and the request of the investigating agency that the complaint not be made public, it has not been. I wish it were. It is not substantial or even substantially about Todd Jones. It is certainly not reason to oppose the confirmation. The ranking member requested that the long-delayed June 4 confirmation hearing on the nomination to head ATF be postponed further, and I postponed it another week. During that postponement, over that last weekend, the ranking member threatened to use Senate rules for the minority to call an outside witness to testify at the hearing. There is no precedent for outside witnesses at a Judiciary Committee hearing for a subcabinet executive level position. I nonetheless sought to accommodate his last-minute demand by agreeing to his calling a witness. The hearing proceeded on Tuesday and should have cleared the air. For instance, those opposing this nomination were unaware that Todd Jones had terminated a supervisor of the Fast and Furious operation. The Judiciary Committee had for decades followed a tradition and practice of examining allegations against nominees in a bipartisan manner from the outset. That has not been the practice Republicans have followed during the last several years. They have, instead, not brought matters to the bipartisan staff but chosen to proceed on their own. Sometimes we do delay committee consideration of nominations to allow a complaint to be resolved. Sometimes we proceed despite lawsuits involving nominees, such as the way we proceeded last year with the nomination of Judge Stephanie Rose of Iowa to the United States District Court for the District of Iowa even though there was a lawsuit pending in which there were allegations against her actions as the U.S. attorney for Iowa. Earlier this year, when defense counsel filed a motion against the U.S. attorney for the District of New Mexico making allegations, we independently examined the matter. The committee proceeded with that nomination rather than delay it. I have reached out to the ranking member staff about getting back to our tradition of conducting bipartisan inquiries into allegations made against nominees. I hope that practice will be restored. With respect to the nomination of Todd Jones, we are further examining the matter, but I believe him qualified and at this time know of no good reason the Senate should not confirm his nomination to serve as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I would like to pay tribute to the Wayside Restaurant--a trusted and venerated Vermont fixture and a staple of the community surrounding Montpelier, our State capital. The Wayside is a local business that has remained true to the values of its humble beginnings. For nearly a century, the Wayside Restaurant has been a place where Vermonters can count on quality service, reasonable prices, and a quality meal that is sure to satisfy both the stomach and the heart. I am honored to join Vermonters in celebrating the Wayside Restaurant's 95th anniversary. In 1918, when Effie Ballou first opened the Wayside's doors, many of the restaurant's offerings were prepared in the kitchen of her home and carried down to her roadside eatery. Never did she imagine that her small eating house would become the bustling spot that it is today, drawing both locals and out-of-State travelers and serving nearly 1000 customers daily. Every day, diners--from families to office workers pile into the Wayside Restaurant. Its warm environment, familiar staff and signature Vermont cooking make the restaurant a home away from home for locals and visitors alike. The owners and staff of the Wayside Restaurant are devoted to providing extraordinary service to the crowds of loyal customers who stop in to pile their plates high with Wayside's fine fare. Regular customers of the Wayside Restaurant can order their meals to-go or can dine in while enjoying friendly conversation and classic Wayside dishes like the salt pork and gravy, honeycomb beef tripe, or maple cream pie. Current owners Karen and Brian Zecchinelli have remained true to the restaurant's early virtues--preparation of quality, old-time favorites as well as modern cuisine, and a focus on family and community values. As a member of the Vermont Business Environmental Partnership, the Wayside Restaurant has implemented earth-friendly initiatives that are kind to our natural environment. In 2012, the Wayside Restaurant was recognized as the first and only ``green'' restaurant in Montpelier and was praised for its support of small business by buying locally produced products, a tradition they have kept throughout the years. Today the Wayside Restaurant continues as a symbol of both longstanding tradition and effective progress. From Effie Ballou's humble beginnings to the eatery's current, booming success, the Wayside Restaurant holds a special place in Vermonters' hearts. Marcelle and I are always delighted to join them for a meal and visit with other patrons. I want to join the many others congratulating the Wayside on 95 successful years of enriching its community and supporting Vermont's local economy. Every time I go there to eat I remember going with my parents, brother, and sister when I was a child. It was great then and still is.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Is there a division of time?

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

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

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, it is good that the Nation is having this debate on immigration, but I think we ought to talk about what is truly involved. For the last several months--even before our bill was drafted, people were saying we cannot proceed with immigration reform until we do more to secure our borders. Now that we have a bill--a bill that takes extraordinary steps to further secure an already strong border--we continue to hear we must wait. We are told that the immigration bill reported from the Senate Judiciary Committee last month, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, S. 744, does not do enough. It is so easy to wait. Oh, let's wait until next year or the year after or the year after that, because then the 100 Members of the Senate don't have to vote. We can be on everybody's side. That is not why we were elected. We were elected to vote yes or to vote no. Let's start moving forward and stand up to vote, because when they say we have to wait for more security it ignores the facts. We have been pouring billions of dollars into border security for years--billions. Keep this in mind: Sometimes we argue over $15, $20, $30 million to help educate our children and that becomes a big issue. We have put billions of dollars into border security. Since the Senate last considered immigration reform in 2006 and 2007, we have made enormous strides on border security. This bill takes even more steps to prevent and deter illegal immigration. We can talk about philosophy and we can talk about things people have heard. I would like to talk about facts. It may be inconvenient to some of those who don't want to have immigration reform, but the facts speak for themselves. The Border Patrol has doubled in the past 10 years. It now has more than 21,000 agents. That is more than at any time in its history. The Obama administration has more than 21,000 Border Patrol agents, which is more than they have ever had under either Democratic or Republican administrations. The Department of Homeland Security has deployed additional technology in aircraft and hundreds of miles of fencing along the southern border. The Department has built more than 650 miles of fencing along the southern border, including more than 350 miles of pedestrian fencing. There has been talk about illegal crossing. Here is a fact: Illegal border crossing is at a near 40-year low under this administration because fewer people are trying to cross. In 2005, Border Patrol apprehended more than 1.1 million individuals who unlawfully crossed the border. In 2012, that number went down to one-third--roughly 365,000. At the same time, deportation, as we all know, is at a record high level. Here is one of the things we should talk about: People ignore the fact that we spend more money on enforcing immigration and customs laws--$18 billion each year--than we do on all of our other Federal law enforcement agencies put together. For those who care about law enforcement, that is kind of a striking number. So we have done ``enforcement first.'' This legislation goes even further to build on what has been a successful record. Chairman Carper of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and I wrote a letter to our colleagues yesterday. In fact, I ask unanimous consent that our letter be printed in the Record at the end of my statement. In the letter, we point out that the bill appropriates up to another $6.5 billion to secure the border. It authorizes another 3,500 Customs and Border Protection officers. It allows Governors to deploy the National Guard to the southwest border region. It expands border security and use of technology at the border. I mean, this is not a bill that ignores enforcement; it expands it. It increases the already strict criminal penalties against those unlawfully crossing the border and provides additional resources for their criminal prosecution. It sets clear statutory goals: The prevention of 90 percent of illegal entries and persistent surveillance of the entire southern border. If DHS doesn't meet these goals within 5 years, the bill establishes a bipartisan commission to develop further concrete plans and provides an additional $2 billion to carry out those plans. Some say: I have a better plan. Come on. The needs at the border change all the time, so we built in flexibility to meet those needs. The bill sets tough border security triggers. In fact, before DHS can register any undocumented individuals for provisional status, it has to provide Congress with two detailed plans laying out exactly how it is going to meet statutory goals: a comprehensive strategy and another specific to fencing. This is one of the toughest pieces of legislation on the security of our borders that has ever been before the Senate. The Department of Homeland Security cannot issue green cards to these individuals for 10 years--and even then only after four triggers are satisfied: Comprehensive border security strategy is substantially deployed; the fencing strategy is substantially completed; a mandatory electronic employment verification system is established for all employers; and an electronic exit system based on machine-readable travel documents is in place at airports and seaports. Even then we added more during the Judiciary Committee's markup of this bill. We adopted an amendment offered by Senator Grassley that expands the bill's 90 percent effectiveness rate to the entire southern border, not just high-risk sectors. So those who say they want more security than what we have here--it is virtually impossible to have more security. I think we might ask: Are you saying you don't want any immigration bill? This is similar to debates we have had--and I use the example of the work we did to bring about peace in Northern Ireland during the Clinton administration. The former majority leader of this body, Senator George Mitchell, did a heroic effort, along with others, on both the Protestant and Catholic side in Northern Ireland. There were some who said we cannot have a peace agreement until we do not have a single act of violence. I said, OK. Senator Mitchell and President Clinton said, so in other words, you are going to let one disgruntled person on either side veto any peace agreement? Let us not say we will have no immigration bill until not one person crosses our border illegally. That is making the perfect the enemy of the good, and that means we will never have it. I was pleased the committee also looked at two border-related amendments I offered with Senator Cornyn--the Leahy-Cornyn amendments. I mention this because there are a number of amendments offered which are bipartisan from Democrats and Republicans alike. One helps protect cross-border travel and tourism by prohibiting land border crossing fees. The other ensures that DHS has flexibility to spend the bill's fencing fund on the most effective infrastructure and technology available, while still requiring that $1 billion be allocated to fencing. It also requires consultation with relevant stake holders and respect for State and local laws when DHS implements fencing projects. Again, knowing that what we do or want today may be different from what we want a few years from now. I might say, parenthetically, the amendment I offered with Senator Cornyn to stop border crossing fees on either the southern border or northern border--some say we are going to turn our customs agents into toll collectors. I live an hour's drive from the Canadian border. We go back and forth like it is another State. The distinguished Presiding Officer lives in a State that borders Canada. She knows what it is like going back and forth, and she also knows how important that is to the economy of her State and my State, just as it is to Canada. We ought to luxuriate in the fact that Canada is such a friendly neighbor and the relationship we have with them is so good. Some of us are even related to people who have Canadian ancestry. I have been married to a woman whose parents came from Canada. She was born in the United States. We have been married for almost 51 years. I am delighted Canadians come across our border and settle in Vermont. I am also working on another amendment for Senate consideration regarding the use of vehicle checkpoints in the 100-mile border zone. I simply do not understand how some can argue that this bill does not do enough to secure the border. We do that in this bill. We massively increase the money, the agents, the technology used on the border, and this is in addition to the billions--yes, billions--of dollars we already spend each year to physically stop people from crossing. Some of the same people who want more security are the same people who say we are spending too much money in the Federal government. Well, short of putting up a steel wall, it is hard to imagine what more we can physically do from stopping people from crossing. As Chairman Carper said, if we build a 25-foot wall, I will show you somebody with a 26-foot ladder. We know people will still come. Because--and let's be serious for a moment--a fence does not address the root causes of illegal immigration. People come here looking for jobs, and American businesses hire them because they will do the jobs nobody else will. Yes, some come here to join their families, as the current backlogs for family-sponsored green cards would otherwise force them to wait years. If we are serious about stopping illegal immigration, we have to do more than build a bigger, longer, and higher fence. That won't work. We have to create legal ways for people to enter the country--people who want to come here for work and to join family members. Then we have to make it harder for people to find work if they do not use legal avenues, by requiring a nationwide employment verification system known as E-Verify--some have called this a virtual fence--and by increasing penalties on employers who hire undocumented workers. This bill does exactly that. The distinguished senior Senator from New York, Senator Schumer, talks about riding his bicycle around Brooklyn and seeing people who are probably undocumented and contractors coming up to them and saying, I will hire you for $15 a day, and they have to take the job. If we have real teeth, as our bill does, real penalties on employers who hire undocumented workers, they would instead have to hire those who are legal and have to pay at least minimum wage and have to put money into Social Security and so on. It makes a big difference. As Grover Norquist said in his testimony, our bill, if adopted, would improve the finances of our Nation. But more than that, this legislation provides workable, flexible, affordable, humane solutions. It is tough, it is fair, and it is practical. Yet, just as in 2006 and 2007, we are still hearing from some Senators who oppose comprehensive immigration reform that we must do more to secure the border and enforce our laws. I welcome additional ideas on how to enhance border security and public safety. I want people to bring forth their amendments to be voted on up or down. Our goal must be to secure the border, not seal it. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will oppose efforts that impose unrealistic, excessively costly, overly rigid, inhumane, or ineffective border security measures, and I will oppose efforts to modify the triggers in ways that could unduly delay or prevent the earned legalization path--such as efforts to require Congress to ratify the trigger certifications. We have waited too long already. That includes the amendment offered by my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, which would significantly delay even the initial registration process for the 11 million undocumented individuals in this country. The bottom line is this: The pathway to citizenship must be earned, but it also must be attainable. Let's not forget that bringing 11 million people out of the shadows is not only the moral thing to do, it helps keep this country safe so we know who is here and we can focus our resources on those who actually pose a threat. I don't often quote the Wall Street Journal editorial board, but I will quote them here. They said: [Those] who claim we must ``secure the border first'' ignore the progress already made, because their real goal isn't border security, it is to use border security as an excuse to kill immigration reform. We need immigration reform. It is a moral issue. It speaks to the greatness of our country. But it is also a national security issue and a public safety issue. Attempts to undermine immigration reform may come in the guise of promoting border security, but let us not be fooled. As 76 former State attorneys general recently wrote: ``Put simply, practical, comprehensive reform to our Federal immigration laws will make us all safer.'' We must fix our broken immigration system once and for all. As I have said many times on this floor, I think of my maternal grandparents coming to Vermont from Italy and making Vermont a better State with the jobs they created, and their grandson became a Senator. I think of my wife's parents, coming from Quebec, bringing their French language but also bringing English, and my wife was born in Vermont as a result of that. But I think of her extended family--her father, uncle, and others--creating many jobs in Vermont and making Vermont better. Every one of us can tell stories such as that. Let's not forget those people. Let's not say that what worked for our ancestors is no longer available. Let's speak as the conscience of the Nation. One hundred Senators can be the conscience of the Nation and sometimes are, as we were on the Violence Against Women Act. It can now be so now, on the immigration bill.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I see my good friend, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. While the distinguished senior Senator from Arizona is still on the floor, I would like to note that during the process of putting this bill together in the committee and having the votes, we had a number of quiet meetings, bipartisan meetings in the President pro tem office. It was extraordinarily helpful to have the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, there because I feel very knowledgeable about the northern border, living an hour's drive from it, and we needed the Senator's expertise on the southern border. But more importantly, he and I, Senator Kennedy, and President George W. Bush worked for hours and hours, days and days, weeks and weeks, months and months trying to get a comprehensive immigration reform bill through once before. We now have the possibility of one. He said something every one of us can echo: It is not exactly the bill any one of us individually might have written. But by the time we get done, we can have legislation that will make America better and be true to our principles and be realistic. I could use a lot of other adjectives, but I want to personally thank the distinguished senior Senator from Arizona. The distinguished senior Senator from Louisiana is about to speak. Before she does, I would add that she is going to talk about an amendment I strongly support. I mention that support because we have a number of amendments that both Republicans and Democrats will support. I would hope that after the other party has their noon caucus, we can get to the point where we start voting on some of these. There are a lot of amendments that Republicans and Democrats would vote for together. There are some that will be opposed on one side or the other. But either way, vote on them. Vote them up or vote them down. Now, as manager of the bill, I can start calling up amendments and move to table. I do not want to do that. We have a lot of good amendments, a lot of good ideas from both Republicans and Democrats, but they cannot be in the bill until we vote on them. The distinguished Senator from Louisiana has one. I hope the other side will let her amendment come up soon. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin.) The Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nevada yield to me?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield on that point, I was privileged in my capacity as President pro tempore to speak to the graduating class of pages, the group of pages who graduated just ahead of the distinguished group we have here now. There had been discussion about immigration coming up. Then the distinguished Republican leader spoke and went on at great length to the pages about how these important issues must have 60 votes on everything, must have 60 votes on amendments and so forth. I am sure the distinguished Senator from Kentucky would confirm that is what he said. There were 100-and-some- odd people in the room who heard him say it. And here we have offered-- the distinguished majority leader has offered to have three Republican votes and two votes by Democratic Senators, all under exactly the same rule, the rule Senator McConnell proposed. We have talked and given great speeches that we have all given time and time again both in the committee and on the floor. I would like to have votes on something so we can finish this because, frankly, given my choice of spending the Fourth of July week in Washington--salubrious as the weather is--or being in Vermont for the Fourth of July, I would much rather be in Vermont.

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

Mr. LEAHY. There has been some discussion about whether this might be a closed thing, and the eight Senators came together on this and did a tremendous job. There were four Democrats and four Republicans putting it together. They were saying it was closed. Isn't it true that when the bill came to the Judiciary Committee, isn't it true there were 301 amendments filed in the committee?

Mr. LEAHY. Isn't it true that 136 of those amendments were then adopted?

Mr. LEAHY. Forty-nine of those amendments were proposed by Republicans; is that not correct?

Mr. LEAHY. Isn't it possible to say that of the eight Senators we have talked about, four of them, two Democrats and two Republicans, serve on the Judiciary Committee? They were helpful in voting for most of these changes that were changes to the original; is that not correct?

Mr. LEAHY. To finish putting my question to the Senator from New York, I wish to make sure, because I thought I heard some comment that this was a closed process, and I appreciate that the Senator from New York agreed it was anything but.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand Senator Vitter, the Senator from Louisiana was on the floor earlier discussing the amendment Senator Hatch and I have proposed, Amendment No. 1183. I have read the remarks the Senator from Louisiana made, and I wish he had read our amendment more carefully. His remarks seem to be describing a different amendment than the one Senator Hatch and I have proposed. Our amendment is very simple. Under current law, foreign performing artists who come to the United States must get either an ``O'' or ``P'' visa. The Immigration Statute requires that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS process these visas in 14 days. This statutory requirement is a reflection of the time sensitivity involved with scheduling these artists for engagements in the United States, and permitting them to meet their obligations, which of course benefit the American organizations that hire them. Our amendment, which is limited to non-profit organizations, provides that if the 14-day statutory requirement for processing is not met, then the foreign artist's petition would automatically be given expedited processing, and the associated additional fee is waived. But let me be clear, the visiting artist is already paying a fee of several hundred dollars for the petition. All our amendment would do is provide the petitioner with free expedited processing if the deadline were not met by the agency. Senator Vitter expressed concern that providing expedited processing in a case where the immigration agency does not adhere to its statutory deadline would take funding away from the enforcement of immigration law. Surely Senator Vitter knows that U.S. Citizenship and Immigrations Services is a fully fee-funded agency, and has no enforcement responsibilities. When Congress reorganized the former Immigration and Naturalization Service and created the Department of Homeland Security, the visa adjudication and immigration enforcement functions were separated. So let me be clear--the waiver of an expedited processing fee has absolutely no effect on the funding that goes to immigration enforcement. Moreover, as I discussed this morning, the bill we debate provides $6.5 billion to border security and enforcement. Our amendment is not some giveaway to, as Senator Vitter described, ``well-heeled'' individuals. Rather, it is an incentive for USCIS to process these petitions in a timely way as they are required under the law. But the most important distinction that the Senator from Louisiana failed to explain to the Senate was that our amendment applies only to non-profit organizations. Organizations like the Greater New Orleans Youth Orchestra, the Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra, Louisiana State University Opera, and the New Orleans Ballet Association. I suspect that these are not the ``well-heeled'' individuals the Senator from Louisiana is describing. In fact, I would ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of 83 Louisiana Arts Organizations and supporters of the amendment Senator Hatch and I have offered. The Senator from Louisiana called our amendment misguided. Again, I wish he had read the amendment more carefully. I suspect the dozens of non-profit performing arts organizations across Louisiana that are enriching their communities with performances from international musicians and dancers would not think it is misguided to help them continue their important work. With such an incredibly rich musical history and tradition, I suspect the people of Louisiana, like Americans across the country, place a very high value on the performing arts. So with that clarification, I hope I have addressed the concern of the Senator from Louisiana and that he will reconsider his opposition.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 12, 2013, at 2 p.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 12, 2013, at 4 p.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 12, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate office building.