Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Well, I am next because there was just a Republican on the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU. What is the next order, please, after the Senator from Texas?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes after the Senator from Texas.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, before the Senator from Texas leaves the floor, could I ask a question unrelated to his speech? I am sorry I didn't get to hear most of it. I stepped off the floor temporarily. The Senator has been so active on the debate on immigration, I wonder if the Senator is aware of a list of 27 noncontroversial amendments that are from both Republicans and Democrats. Has the Senator from Texas had a chance to look at that list? And if not, could the Senator look at it? If he has looked at it, does the Senator have any objections to the amendments on the list?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator for his answer. I ask the Senator and any other Senators who have not had a chance to look at this list that has been widely circulated to take the time to look at the list. I know my colleague is very busy and has many important issues to debate on this bill, but these are important amendments to colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Again, I thank the Senator from Texas for agreeing to look at the list and let us know. I am going to come back to the floor in a few minutes and ask unanimous consent for this list of amendments. I want to read the amendments into the Record. These are noncontroversial amendments. What I mean by noncontroversial is, to my knowledge, is they are uncontested. They are Republican and Democratic amendments that seek to improve the bill in response to communications from our constituents at home. It is not just people around Washington and the beltway who have good ideas about immigration issues. I am sure people in New Mexico have great ideas, and people have very good ideas in Louisiana. The way they get their ideas into the debate is by calling their Member of Congress, calling their Senators' office, writing letters, sending e- mails, giving us suggestions. This list represents some of that communication. That is why we come here, to represent those interests and to say: Look, this was an idea I had; it will strengthen the bill. One of these ideas which I am very excited about came up through our small business roundtable for small businesses. They said: Senator, why don't you mandate a mobile app for us, particularly in rural areas, because we don't have high-speed Internet. We can't run back 200 miles to check the local Internet to do this E-Verify. Why doesn't Homeland Security have a mobile device for the iPhone which everybody is carrying--either iPhones or BlackBerrys--where a person hits a button or a mobile app for E-Verify. What an amazing, wonderful idea. This bill is going to spend billions and billions and billions of dollars securing the border. Could we spend just a little bit of effort helping every small businessperson in America to use the E-Verify system smartly and efficiently? It would be such a relief to them to know they don't have to put themselves at risk hiring people who don't have the right certification. They can just go to the mobile app and pull it up. That is what we are hoping. We have 3 years to put this system into place. No small business is mandated to use the E-Verify system under the bill until these new systems are in place. That is one of our amendments. There is no one who has come to me to say: We hate the mobile app idea. We don't want to do the mobile app idea. It is a terrible idea. So let's put it in the bill. There are some other amendments in here--I don't know all of them because only some of them are mine. Let me read one from Tom Udall. I don't know it specifically, but it says it makes $5 million available for strengthening the border infectious disease surveillance project. I know $5 million is a good amount of money, but compared to the billions of dollars we are spending in some of our rural States-- including New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and Louisiana is rural--I don't think there is anybody objecting to spending $5 million to strengthen the border infectious disease surveillance project. That kind of smart investment--I am sure the Senator has done his homework. That kind of smart investment could save taxpayers and the livelihoods of farmers everywhere. What a wonderful idea. We can't even get that adopted by a voice vote because we have broken down the trust and respect of the Senate. I am going to do my very best, as calmly as I can, to try to get that trust and respect back. One of the other amendments prohibits the shackling of pregnant women. Now, we shackle a lot of people--and this is Senator Murray's amendment--when they do wrong things. But I think people can understand the benefit of expressing some strong views to not put shackles on the ankles or wrists of a woman who is pregnant. It is a very stressful situation. We want to support healthy births even in conditions where the mother may not have all the legal paperwork. I think we can understand why that would be a sensitive thing to do, and I don't think there is any Republican who would object to that. I don't think there is a Democrat who would object to that. That is on the list. There are a lot of people who wish to speak, so I will just take 5 more minutes. There is a great amendment by Senators Klobuchar and Coats that requires certification of citizenship and other Federal documents to reflect the name and date of birth determinations made by a State court in the situation of intercountry adoption. Some of our parents are getting really hassled, American parents are getting hassled by American courts because they have done God's will, adopted children from overseas. They have followed all the rules, all the laws, at tremendous expense to themselves, trying to help a child who is orphaned or unparented, only to come back to the United States and because of some technical difficulties with our law, their birth certificates are not honored. This isn't right. I realize the Judiciary Committee cannot spend their time talking about this matter. In the scheme of things, it is minor. But let me tell my colleagues as an adoptive mother, to an adoptive American parent who has spent thousands of dollars and days and months trying to do what their pastors and ministers asked them to do, to take in the orphaned, this is an outrageous situation, and with one breath--just a breath--this could be done. But we don't have the breath anymore because we have just completely fallen apart. This can be fixed. There is nobody objecting to it, and that is what I am going to stand here and argue for. How much time do I have remaining?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I see my colleague so I am going to wrap up in 30 seconds and then yield the floor. I will come to the floor again this afternoon and talk about these amendments. These Members have worked very hard, Republicans and Democrats, amazingly, together, coming up with amendments that improve the bill. Some of these amendments are from Senators who are going to vote no on the bill; some of these amendments are from people who are going to vote yes on the bill. It is not going to change the outcome of the vote. That is why I am so aggravated. If it did, then I could understand not taking them up. The acceptance of these amendments, yes or no, is not going to change the outcome of this bill, but it will change the outcome of situations on the ground that are not good for American citizens. We are here to fix things, to help, to streamline, to save money, to improve, to relieve pain, to help and expand opportunity. I am tired of being around here and not being able to do that. So I am going to ask for this list--of course, it has been circulated widely and publicly. It is on our Web site. It is on several Web sites. People can look at what we are talking about. If anybody on the Senate floor has an objection, let us know. Let me say one thing in closing. The counterlist that I am still not in physical receipt of but have seen, but it is a part of the Congressional Record because I required it to be, is a list of seven amendments that are very controversial. So the Republicans have given us a list of seven very controversial amendments. That is not the list I am looking for. Maybe Senator Leahy is looking for that. Maybe Senator Reid is looking for that. I am not in charge of controversial amendments. I don't even know how we are going to vote on those controversial amendments. I am not on the committee. I am not the leader of the floor. I don't know--I will take that and I will be happy to give it to the leadership. I am just here on a list of noncontroversial amendments that I think Republicans and Democrats can agree to that will not change the outcome of the bill, that will improve the bill. I hope we can make progress. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I don't know if there is any particular order. I see other colleagues on the floor. I am not in a particular rush. I would be happy for them to speak, but I wish to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business. I thank the Senators. I know the leadership--Senator Leahy and Senator Grassley--are working very hard to negotiate some very controversial and serious amendments to the underlying bill, and there have been negotiations going on all day on the immigration bill, and actually for weeks, both in the Judiciary Committee, where 17 Members serve, and then here on the Senate floor, where the rest of us have our only opportunity to engage and to be part of legislating a bill that is likely to pass. There is no guarantee, but it looks as though it is moving in that direction. The bill has been strengthened as it has gone on, and we have had a very vigorous debate. But I have come to the floor several times only to say this: There is a series of amendments that are completely uncontested. In other words, there is no opposition to them. The list is approximately, from what we can tell at this point, potentially around 30 to 35. It could be more, but there are clearly 30 to 35 amendments that have been filed by Republicans, by Democrats, and some of these amendments are cosponsored by Republicans and Democrats, each together. I have been talking about this for a couple of days because I think we have to get back to trusting each other and working together across party lines on major bills such as this and actually working to pass amendments that nobody objects to. Wouldn't that be amazing. We used to do that routinely through a practice called the managers' amendment. In the last couple of months or years everybody is so angry and aggravated at the end of the debate there is no managers' package. So I have decided to start early identifying amendments while the leadership is focused on the more controversial amendments both sides are still arguing about that are significantly meritorious. I have been focused on amendments that are very good ideas, and to which, to my knowledge, there is literally no opposition. I want to adjust the list and remove from the Landrieu list Collins amendment No. 1255. There has been some objection on our side to that. Heller No. 1234, there has been some objection to that. Now, this is not final. I am not managing the bill. I am just saying, to be honest, we have heard objections as to these two. There are additional amendments that come to our attention that may not have any opposition that I may want to add to this list. One is Toomey No. 1236 which clarifies that personnel, infrastructure, and technology used in the comprehensive border security strategy is procured through existing or new programs. It is a clarification to the underlying bill. I don't think anyone objects to that. Senator Grassley has an amendment No. 1306 that he is well aware of that authorizes the Attorney General to appoint counsel to represent an unaccompanied alien child with serious mental disabilities. I most certainly would support that. He and I have worked together on many pieces of child welfare legislation. There is no one opposing that amendment. Johanns amendment No. 1345 requires CBO to report on revenues and costs generated by the bill and requires the DHS Secretary to generally adjust fees under the bill to cover costs that are not fully offset. As the cosponsors of this bill have said, this bill will not cost taxpayers any money. It is offset by fees. This amendment is simply clarifying that statement. It would be a good amendment. I think that is an example. Senator Coats' amendment No. 1372 requires, similar to Senator Grassley, to consult on children coming through with mental disabilities to make sure they have legal counsel. No one would object to that. Finally, Senator Flake, amendment No. 1472, requires the GAO to study the use of non-Federal roads by Customs and Border Protection. These amendments are not striking lightning anywhere, not upsetting Western civilization. These are perfecting amendments that we came here to legislate on behalf of our constituents because there are people or groups or entities in our States that are following the big bill and the big controversies of it, but some people are actually following the specifics and want to make suggestions to make the bill better. So people who are going to vote against the bill can still vote against it. People who are going to vote for it can still vote for it. But we can make the bill better. That is what we are here to do. I can't, under the order, have any motions, but I will just bring it to the attention of the Senate that I am going to submit this to the Record. If there are any objections to those that I have talked about, please let us know.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am happy to report that there has been a lot of progress made in the last few hours on the package of amendments that are completely uncontested and there is no objection on any side. I wish to thank the Members who have been attentive and supportive of trying to get back to a more normal way of operating, which is, simply, we can argue about the big controversial issues. There are always going to be those on every bill we debate. But there will be some amendments that absolutely have no opposition because they are very well-thought- out ideas that do not generate any heartburn on either side, that people can reason and say it helps the bill; it does something that improves the bill. We used to do that all the time around here. We have gotten away from it, and it is hurtful. It is not just hurtful to the individual Members, it is hurtful to our constituents who would like their ideas brought up for consideration. As I said earlier in the day--and before the Senator from Maine leaves the floor, I wish to make this perfectly clear. I am not holding up the debate on any controversial amendments. I am not objecting to any controversial amendments. Anybody who wants to debate an amendment, whether it is 60 votes or 50 votes, that is the leadership's job, and they are managing this bill very well. I have no complaints or criticism about it at all. But as they are managing these very controversial amendments that are part of any debate, what I am simply saying is that of the hundreds of amendments that have been filed--and we have been spending a lot of time on this with Republican and Democratic staff--there are potentially about 25 to 30 amendments that have absolutely no objection. The list has changed a little bit, and I am not going to go over all the details. I have put it in the Record. There could potentially be 7 Democratic amendments, 5 Republican amendments, and 10 bipartisan amendments that have no known opposition. All I am asking is sometime between now and when the leadership managing this bill calls cloture, we have these votes en bloc, by voice. There would be no reason to have any more debate on them. No one is objecting to them. So we could take them en bloc, by voice. It will improve the bill. Then people can vote on the bill. Many people already know they are going to vote against the bill. Some people are going to vote for the bill. That is the process. I think it would be very healthy for the Senate to get back to this kind of negotiation. But for these amendments that are noncontroversial, that simply have been worked on across the aisle in good faith, to be held hostage until somebody can get a vote on an amendment that causes one side or the other lots of political difficulties is not right. There are 350 amendments filed on this bill. I am only talking about 35 or less. All the other amendments have pros and cons; people are for them, people are against them. I don't know how the leadership is going to decide on how we vote or dispense of those, but I am not managing the bill. Senator Leahy is doing a very good job of that with Senator Grassley, Leader McConnell, and Leader Reid. But there are approximately 35 amendments, maybe a little more, that have bipartisan support that people have really worked on--people such as myself--who are not on the Judiciary Committee. The Senator had his hands full with the 17 Members he has on the committee. There were 228 amendments filed on the Judiciary Committee. Senator Grassley himself filed 34, and he had 13 that passed and 21 that failed. That is a lot of amendments. Some of us who are not on the Judiciary Committee have been very fortunate. At least I have had one of my eight, which the Senator from Vermont helped with adopting.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I would love to.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Vermont, and I appreciate his support. But actually, having started out wanting to get a vote on my amendments--and I still do--I am now more focused on this principle of getting uncontested amendments adopted because I am not the only one in this vote. I have friends such as Senator Begich, Senator Carper, Senator Hagan, Senator Heinrich, Senator Coons, Senator Kirk, Senator Coats--from both sides of the aisle--Senator Hatch, Senator Shaheen--I could go on and on--who are in the same boat I am. We fashioned amendments with bipartisan support. We have done our due diligence with the leaders of the committee of jurisdiction, which is what you are supposed to do, which is normal. We have gotten their blessing, if you will. We have published the details of our amendments. We have circulated the amendments. There is no opposition. So to the Senator from Vermont, I wish to be very clear. I have four amendments on this list. I am not here just arguing for the four Landrieu amendments. I am here arguing for all amendments by anybody, Republican or Democrat, that are noncontroversial, uncontested, germane to this bill. They should go on the bill. We need to get back to legislating in the Senate. This is not a theater. It is a legislative body, and I came to legislate. It will be 18 years that I have been here at the end of this term, a long time. There are Members who have been here longer than I have. But it has been a while now, 2 or 3 years, that we just sort of stopped legislating. We give speeches. We do headlines. We posture. We position. That has always been a part of the Senate. I have no problem with it. What I do have a problem with is doing that and nothing else. That is where I have a serious problem. Those of us who did not come here to be on the stage have had to sit on the sidelines and watch this theater for a long time. The people I represent are tired of it. We should know that, since the rating for Congress is now at 10 percent, I think the lowest level ever or at least in the last 50 years, ten percent--this could have something to do with it. Contrary to popular opinion on the floor, many people in America are very interested in this bill and are actually sending suggestions in through e-mail, through telephone, through all sorts of communications saying, look, I read the bill. You all should think about this. This could be improved. Some of us actually take those suggestions, work with Members on the other side of the aisle, and fashion them into amendments. The people we represent deserve respect. If anyone thinks my amendments are controversial and you cannot vote for them because they upset the balance of power in the world or upset Western civilization, then come tell me. I will work with you on it. I will take the amendments off the list. I will put my amendments on a list to be debated. But the days of us coming to the floor and absolutely not accepting bipartisan amendments so we can spend all of our time talking about partisan amendments that have no chance of passing are over with because I have enough power--just as Senators on the other side have enough power to push us the other way, I have enough power to push back and I plan to use it. Those days are over. When we come to the floor, you can have all of your controversial amendments. We can set aside as many hours of the day to vote on controversial amendments, an equal number on both sides or none. But the uncontroversial amendments, the ones Members actually do the work of the Senate--research, writing, talking, debating privately, and coming up with good ideas--no longer are those going to be swept under the rug. It is not respectful to our constituents, it dishonors the Senate, and it causes the public to have serious doubts as to whether anybody around here is actually working in a bipartisan way to improve the bill. These are minor amendments. None of these amendments undermine the bargains, the tough negotiations by Republicans and Democrats, on this bill. I wish to give a lot of respect to the Gang of 8. They have taken on the tough big issues, very controversial. Those are not these. These are amendments that would help parents who are trying to adopt children. Now I have to wait for a bill to come to the floor to help these parents. They may be waiting 10 years. They are American citizens. They have a right for Senators to represent their interests and I intend to do it. There are amendments here that would make sure children with mental illness or who are mentally disabled--this is not my amendment but it is a good one--make sure they have a lawyer. Why can't we do that? Because we are so angry with each other that we will not help a child? That is cruel and it is not correct. I am going to end here. There are other Members who want to speak. I have no idea when the cloture vote will be. I am not sure. But if these noncontroversial amendments are not adopted by voice vote or by rollcall vote, en bloc or separately, before cloture, all of them will fall away, which means we will not be able to consider any of them. That is because after cloture they are no longer germane because we cannot get them pending. OK? So this is the problem. I thank my colleagues for being understanding. I actually think it might help us move forward. I yield the floor and I will be back when the cloture motion is propounded.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, may I respond?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as I said many times, I have the deepest respect for the Senator from Iowa. He and I hardly ever disagree so this is quite unusual. We cosponsor so many amendments together for foster care, adoption--his work is legendary. But I do want to say this. I have tried to be extremely constructive here. Again, this is not about our list or their list. I am not even in charge of our list or their list. I literally am not a floor manager of this bill. I am not even a member of the committee. I do not even have access to our list or their list. I don't want it. I do not want to review the 200 amendments that are pro-gay, anti-gay, pro-fence, anti-fence. I am not interested--I am interested, but it is not in my lane. I have issues that I have to focus on as chair of Homeland Security. I am not a Gang of 8 Member, I am not on the Judiciary Committee, but I am a Senator and I came here to legislate. There are amendments. I am not sure this list is perfect but I promise you, out of 350 amendments filed, just by the nature of averages, at least 10 percent of them have to be noncontroversial. Not every amendment that is filed is going to arouse suspicion or concern or violate any principles we hold. Just by nature you are going to have 10 percent or 15 or 20 percent of all amendments that actually, with a little bit of work, should be adopted. What Senator Leahy said is absolutely correct. We used to do that when we trusted each other, when we respected our constituents. I intend to push this body back to that place. I may be unsuccessful because I am only one Senator, but Senators have a lot of power, if you haven't noticed. We have been held up for weeks over one Senator because they did not get everything they wanted every day. Again, I want to say to my colleagues, I am not fighting for Landrieu amendments. I am fighting for a principle and a process that is vital to the functioning of this body. I am going to continue to fight and hope we get a breakthrough. Please, the other side, do not send me your list or the Democratic list. I am not interested. I am interested in a list of amendments that I believe, based on conversations with Senators, are not controversial and would improve the bill. We were sent here to do that. I intend to do it. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the M.W. Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Louisiana and the State of Louisiana Order of the Eastern Star, who have collectively provided 225 years of continuous service and devotion to the State of Louisiana. For 150 years and 75 years respectively, the Prince Hall Grand Lodge, formed in 1863, and the Order of the Eastern Star, formed in 1938, have served the State of Louisiana through their tireless leadership and dedication. During this tenure, members of the grand lodge have served in community and elected leadership positions both in the State and throughout the Nation. During the Civil Rights movement, members provided invaluable management, direction, and guidance to countless organizations that contributed to the effort. Throughout their illustrious years of service, the grand lodge has worked with local partners to invest in and improve communities, strengthen opportunities, and expand the impact of public service. The passing of each year brings a greater appreciation for the values of community, education, and civic activism that the grand lodge and order provide to the State of Louisiana. The Prince Hall Grand Lodge and Order of the Eastern Star inspire noble principles, moral values, and profound convictions in the lives of each individual they touch. Through commitment they teach the principles of family; through charity and volunteerism they teach the values of community and philanthropy; and through honor, integrity, and respect, they teach the convictions of acceptance and compassion. Their teachings and work have provided outstanding support and service to the citizens of Louisiana and will continue to benefit generations to come. The M.W. Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Louisiana and the State of Louisiana Order of the Eastern Star have been and continues to be an inspiration to all those who have been impacted by their tireless efforts. It is with my heartfelt and greatest sincerity that I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the service, heritage, and tradition of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge and the Louisiana Order of the Eastern Star.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I wish to address the leader and the managers of the bill, both Senator Sessions and Senator Leahy. I know there are about 100 or so other amendments pending, and I know we have been sort of held up the last couple of days, but there are amendments--and this is the question I have--that don't touch the heart of the bill but that are important to connect to this bill that have no opposition that I know of. I am asking the leader, for amendments that have no opposition and have bipartisan support, when could we possibly get on amendments that don't have opposition.

Ms. LANDRIEU. So I should do more checking on them then.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am not going to ask unanimous consent to call up any amendments or to have any votes or anything, so everybody can relax. But I do want to speak for a minute about the process we are in. We have now been considering a major piece of legislation for weeks. The chairman and the ranking member of the committee did a masterful job. Even though there are some people still against the bill, there are people for the bill, we are not exactly sure how it is going to come out, but I want to say Senator Leahy and Senator Sessions--but Senator Leahy particularly, as the chair--could not have done a better job getting the bill printed, printing all of the amendments, staying here through the night, letting the members of the committee have a lot of time to debate the bill, to amend the bill. The committee did a very good job. I am planning to vote for the bill. I have not kept that a secret or said anything to the contrary. Of course the amendment process is important. I cannot make that commitment until we see it. If an amendment gets on this bill that undermines some of the important principles, I might have to change my mind. I don't think that is going to happen. But there is the problem and this is why I am going to stay on the floor until, hopefully, something can be worked out. I am not on the committee. Most of the people on this floor are not on the committee. The committee is representative of a minority group of Republicans and Democrats. The majority of us do not serve on the Judiciary Committee. While we were interested and worked with our friends who are on the committee to suggest important changes that would improve the bill or correct the bill or fix the bill or save money, we were not on the committee to do it. That is the process. I am not complaining about that. What I am complaining about is when it gets to the floor, you would think the process would allow amendments to be debated so Members such as myself--I serve as chair of the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee. I am not a distant third party to this debate. My whole budget funds this bill. This is what I spend good bit of my time on. The people in my State and constituencies I represent have a lot of interest in this bill. I am not a Johnny-come-lately to this issue. I have things I want to say about it. I wish to have some amendments talked about and voted on. If people want to vote them down, fine. If they want to vote for them, fine. If they want to have 50 votes, fine. If they want to have 60 votes--I just want a chance to talk about my amendment, so I am going to do so right now. I also want to say there are some amendments--I have a short list of eight or so. Some of them are quite minor. One or two are fairly significant and might need a debate. But part of my group of amendments is completely, to my knowledge, unopposed by anyone. I have Senator Coats as a cosponsor. I have worked openly. I filed amendments, the text of which have been out there for days now. Senator Coats, who is my ranking member--we try to work together in a bipartisan fashion. He has cosponsored several of these amendments. What I am strongly suggesting is the staff and the leadership managing this bill try to identify, of the amendments that have been filed, those that are noncontroversial, that everyone would agree to. I think there are probably 20 or 30 such amendments. They do not change the underlying agreement. They do not spend any additional money. They fix or modify or improve sections of the bill. That is our job. That is what we are supposed to do. That is the legislative process. You know what. If it were not meant to be that way, we should have a rule that says the bill goes to committee and then it doesn't even come to the Senate floor, then it goes over to the House of Representatives, and their committee works on it and they send it to the President. But that is not what our laws say. Our laws say we should have some debate on the Senate floor. I have also been here long enough to realize the leadership is trying its best and there are some amendments that are very controversial. I am not new to the Senate. Fine. But what I am talking about is when we get on a major bill such as this and Members work hard to build support and to get bipartisan support, our amendments that are noncontroversial should go first and then controversial amendments could go last. But that is not what happens around here. What happens around here is the guys who cause all the trouble all the time on every bill--I don't want to name their names because it is not appropriate--but there is a group on the other side, and a few maybe on our side, who are never happy with anything so they file tons of amendments and we spend all of our time worrying about their amendments. Those of us who spend a lot of our time building bipartisan support, who offer amendments that have no opposition, actually never get to those amendments. This is sad. I basically have had enough. I have tried to be patient all week. I have come every day and said: Are any of these amendments going to get in the queue? That is not the way we are working right now. We are taking the worst amendments, the most controversial amendments, the guys who cause trouble on every single bill, and give them votes on their amendments. Some of them have been defeated 99 to 1, and then everybody gets tired and aggravated and everybody says we are tired, we are aggravated, we are calling cloture. And do you know what happens when cloture is called. All amendments that are not pending, even ones that no one opposes, that could actually help a human being--imagine that, an amendment that actually could help someone--crumble up on the Senate floor and everybody goes home and says, well, that was a wonderful debate. I am just venting here, but I am saying this is one Senator who is tired of it. More important, my constituents are tired of it. It is not about me, it is about them. They look at this and they say why can't you get that amendment passed? There is no opposition to it. It is good. We have worked on it. It would help. That is a good question, and I have to say ``I have no idea.'' We have voted on all kinds of amendments that are controversial, that are very high-level kind of message amendments. When the authors offer them or sponsor them, they know they are never going to pass but they are looking for a headline. I am not looking for any headline. I don't care if any reporter writes about these amendments. But I happen to know some things in this bill. As chair of the Small Business Committee, I have had some hearings myself--amazing, that other committees actually have hearings. I have had hearings and have had dozens of small business owners say to me as chair of the Small Business Committee: Look, Senator, we are not getting any attention here because everybody is talking about all sorts of things such as the fence, the border, this and that. Could anybody pay attention to the 7 million small businesses that are going to have to abide by this E-Verify? By the way, we like the program, we are for the program, but we have some suggestions to make it better. Some of that happened in the Judiciary Committee, but the Judiciary Committee is not the Small Business Committee. I have excellent members on my committee and they have a voice, and this is an amendment many of them support that I do not think the Judiciary Committee--either the Republicans or the Democrats--opposes. The small business community is for it. I don't know what to say other than I can't even get in the queue, I cannot even get on the list to be considered. Then I have a small group of amendments, because--you know, I am happy to do it and I do it joyfully--I am the chair of the Adoption Caucus. You, Mr. President, have been wonderful. Senator Klobuchar has been wonderful. Orphans do not have lobbyists. I am not sorry, they just don't. They don't have any money to pay lobbyists. Through all the good people who volunteer to represent them, they come to my office, they ask for help. I try to do my best. I don't always succeed, but I try. Amy Klobuchar and I, because she is a Senator who has also been terrific about this, with others, not just myself--we have some amendments that have nothing to do with the English language or any language, the fence, any money, anything, just a few technical corrections that could help some American families trying to adopt. I was able to get one of my adoption amendments up. I thank Senator Leahy. But we have four or five. I am not trying to be hoggish about it, but they are not controversial. I have 15 amendments that are noncontroversial--maybe I am making that up, maybe there is an opponent--I can't get that discussed. But only people who have controversial amendments with no chance of passing them, only people who want headlines in newspapers, only people who have amendments nobody over here is going to vote for, get to talk about it and the rest of us who work hard and get bipartisanship and present amendments that could actually help the bill, make the country stronger--we never get to talk. I am going to stay on the floor and object until I get an answer for that question: Why is it that people who play by the rules, Senators who work across the aisle, who work hard to build bipartisan support, who work hard to get amendments that do not cost any money, that will not really cause too much trouble--why do our amendments get the last consideration? I think it has ramifications for the way the Senate operates. Then it is like behavior: The better behaved you are, the quieter you are, the more team player you are, you don't get anything. The only way you get something is to become obnoxious and to get your amendments that have no bipartisan support, those who have amendments that cost a gazillion dollars or take away a gazillion dollars. That is not encouraging good behavior on the Senate floor. I want to be a good team player. The people I represent want this body to work. We want bipartisan solutions to real problems, and even people who do not have lobbyists and even people who do not have a lot of money deserve time on the Senate floor. And I intend to provide it to orphans whom I support to try to help, and to the parents who are adopting kids and don't ask for much but do ask: Could the Senator from Louisiana please have an amendment that nobody opposes to help us and our kids? I am going to stand here and support the small businesses that get overlooked all the time. They are not asking for much. They like the E- Verify Program. I thought they had a few very positive suggestions, so I thought I would put them in an amendment and offer it. Silly me. Then this EB-5 reporting is one of the worst run programs in the government, and everyone acknowledges that. Everyone knows it is not working, so the committee does a good job to fix it. But my staff and I worked pretty hard. We are very close with those who work on immigration, and we talked with them about some perfecting amendments. But, silly me, to think we could make any improvements to the underlying bill on the EB-5 program which could create millions of jobs in Louisiana, Texas, the gulf coast--which is the area I pay the most attention to--California, New York, Rhode Island, and other places. I am going to sit here--I know other Senators may want to talk, but sorry. Until I get some answers about some of our amendments, not just mine but other amendments. There are Republican and Democratic amendments that are not controversial and are cleared on all fronts. I want those amendments to go first, and then we can say congratulations to the Members who worked hard to minimize opposition and to write their amendments in a way that people could be supportive. That is what Senators are supposed to do. We have turned from a Senate to a theater, and I am tired of being part of a theater. If I wanted to be part of a theater, I would have gone to New York. Not that anybody would have put me on the stage because I can't sing or dance, but I don't want to. I want to lead, but it is getting very difficult in this place to do any leadership. So I am just going to sit here until maybe somebody who is a leader around here can come talk to us about what we are going to do with amendments on an immigration bill that is controversial, the bill itself--let me not understate that. There will be people who don't want to vote for this bill no matter what shape it is in. I am not one of them. I want to know the answer to my question: How many amendments of the 140 pending are noncontroversial that Republicans and Democrats will agree to? That is my question, and I would like an answer. My second question is, When could we possibly vote on those amendments before cloture is called? Cloture is going to be called on this bill, and the reason is because we cannot get a lot of cooperation. So what will happen is all these noncontroversial amendments will fall by the wayside, and what a shame. I am just tired of it. It is the same group around here that causes all the trouble, and the rest of us try to be supportive, try to go along, try to work in a bipartisan way, and we get shut out. I have had enough, and the people I represent have said: We are finished. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know the staff is working hard to figure out the best way forward, and there are lots of views about different amendments that may be controversial, but I am going to stay here and work for the next hour or two tonight to see if we can just do one simple thing--just one simple thing: that we can look at the list of all amendments pending and all of those amendments that are noncontroversial--no one objects to anything in the amendment--I would like that list put together. It could be either voice-voted tomorrow or all of those amendments could just get pending and be voted on later. I am not even particular about when the vote would occur or under what circumstances. The leadership can make all of those decisions. But what I would like right now is to stop this operation until we can get the noncontroversial amendments out of the way. There are Republican amendments that nobody over here objects to. There are Democratic amendments that Republicans don't object to. I think those sponsors--which I would be included in, but I am not the only one--could be rewarded for their good work, for coming up with amendments that nobody is angry about, that people think, oh, that is a good idea; we should do it. Why don't we do those amendments first. Then all the other amendments people have filed for various reasons-- some in good fashion. People feel very strongly about them and want to discuss them. They want to have a vote on them. They know it might not pass, but it is important for them to represent that position. I have no problem with that. I understand that. What I and my constituents don't understand is why we can't take noncontroversial amendments that everyone supports and get those passed. So until I get an answer to that, I am going to just suggest the absence of a quorum and spend a couple of hours trying to find the answer. Thank you.

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, in the last few minutes, we have made a little bit of progress. I am doing the best I can to work with both sides of the aisle to simply get a list of amendments that are not controversial. There are approximately 230 amendments pending on the immigration bill. Many of them are controversial, but there are some, potentially as many as 20, maybe even 30 amendments that are pending that are public record, that have been filed, that Members on both sides of the aisle have worked on very hard. We have known about this debate. Some of us have been following it more closely than others. But I dare to say there is not a Senator as a Member of this body who has not been focused on what our constituents want us to do to either improve this bill or to fight against this bill. You have heard a lot of that debate. I think this bill will probably pass. But who knows at this point, because there are 200 amendments pending. What I am suggesting as a way forward is to take those amendments that are noncontroversial. Republicans have not come up with their list of noncontroversial yet. The Democrats are very close to coming up with our list of noncontroversial amendments. We think it is about 12 or 15. They can have 12, 15 or 20 or 30 that are noncontroversial. No one on their side objects, no one on our side objects, and they could do some good on this bill in a variety of different ways. I am suggesting we take those noncontroversial amendments and make them pending and vote on them sometime, anytime, tonight, tomorrow. We can voice vote them all as a package. We can vote them individually. I am not trying to be overly prescriptive. But what I am saying, and I am very serious about this, is my days of working on a major piece of legislation--working your heart out for weeks getting ready for the debate. You are so proud of your amendments. You have worked with the other side. You have Republicans. You have Democrats. You have vetted it with all the different input and organizations. You have worked so hard on your amendment, and then we come to the bill. We cannot discuss any amendments that people have worked hard to work out the problems. We can only discuss the problem amendments. It is not the right way to legislate. It is not the way the Senate was created. It is not the way Congress should function. It is a disservice to every one of our constituents. There are lots of arrangements and understandings and compromises that go on off this Senate floor. That is what Senators do all day long. I am proud to be a Senator. I work with my colleagues. We work throughout the day, late at night, in meetings, and say, listen, I have this great idea. Oh, I think that is a wonderful idea. It will improve the bill. Can we work on it together? Our staffs work very hard, spend hours and hours on the phone talking with people, negotiating, only to be told those amendments that people have really worked on and eliminated all opposition by being openminded, thoughtful, and willing to compromise, those amendments go to the back of the line. Only those amendments that have no chance of passing, that do not have bipartisan support, get to be discussed on the Senate floor. That is not the Senate I signed up for. I am not whining. I am just saying, I am going to use my power to change the Senate. I am starting right now. I am not doing it anymore. The people whom I represent are exhausted by it. I am getting exhausted by it. My staff is exhausted by it. It is rewarding very bad behavior. So the worse your amendment is, the more controversial your amendment is, the least likely to get any votes on the other side, you get to go first. The rest, everybody who has done it sort of the old- fashioned way, the way we are supposed to do it, the way we learned about it in school, the way our parents taught us, the way we observe other great Senators, we come and cannot even get in the queue. Then when you do in this new system of rewarding bad behavior, those of us--and it is a big group of us. It is not just me. It is a very large group and Republicans as well. We get told: All your amendments that are noncontroversial that you have worked so hard to put together, great ideas that are middle of the road and could actually solve some problems of someone out in America, which is why I thought we should come here, to help solve problems, you all only get 1 amendment or you only get 2 amendments because we have 240. That is not the way it should work. I am not going an inch further, not 1 inch. This is the way it should work. A bill is brought to the floor and everybody files their amendments. Senators work very hard with the other side to try to get amendments that both sides could agree to--because that is a democracy. Then those amendments get identified, and those amendments go first. All of the other amendments that are message amendments or controversial amendments, they should get votes. I am not saying they should not. I am happy to vote on them. Some of them are tough votes. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with, and I think if every Senator was honest, they have a problem with it too, are the good amendments, the noncontroversial amendments, the ones that everybody works on, never get a vote. All the bad amendments get the attention and votes. I do not think that is right. We have to get back to the regular order--not to the regular order. We have to get back. It is not regular order. We have to get back to collegiality and common sense and trust. That is what the Senate is best at. That has been lost. We better find it pretty quickly. I am going to stay here. We are not going anywhere. We are not going to go to any unanimous consent requests until the list of noncontroversial amendments is produced. The Republicans can produce their list; we produce our list of noncontroversial amendments. Then the leadership can say to me: Senator Landrieu, we will voice vote these and everybody will be happy or they can say: Senator Landrieu, we have to vote on these individually and we will do that at the end or some time certain--I am fine with that--or they can say: We are going to vote on them individually and they all need 60 votes, even though they have 100 percent of the body. I would be fine. I am not trying to be difficult, but I am trying to be a Senator. I am trying to say that I, for one, am tired of the bullies on this floor and the small group that thinks that on every single solitary bill they should get the first amendment, the biggest amendment, and we spend all of our time talking about them. It may be important. They are not going to pass. That is OK. I do not even mind that. But what I do mind is, after all of us who try to work in a bipartisan fashion have to listen to this, bill after bill, day after day, then we cannot even get our amendments that are noncontroversial. That is where I draw the line. Please, do not anybody write: Senator Landrieu is on the floor and is pitching a fit because she cannot get her amendment. This is not about my amendment. This is about the Senate. This is about the Senate and noncontroversial amendments which cannot even get on any list. Why? I do not know. Why? Why would that be? How is this possible? No one objects. I am going to read just a few that we are talking about. Some of them are mine. I know two others that are by Amy Klobuchar. One of mine is amendment No. 1340. It simply reiterates in this bill that everything done with children and families will be done in the best interests of the child. ``Best interests of the child'' is done in every State, in every court. When we are making decisions about families, it is always in the best interests of the child. It is modern child welfare practice. It will clarify this bill. I do not know of anyone opposing it. You know what. If someone is opposing it, then take it off the list--just take it off the list. I am not even opposed to that. I do not think anyone is opposing it. But if they do, they just have to call the Democratic cloakroom and say: I do not think we should be making decisions in the best interests of the child. I will take it off the list. But I am not going to lose this amendment because the Senate cannot function. There is another amendment I have with Senator Coats. We have worked very hard on this amendment. I had a hearing in my committee as chair of the Senate Small Business Committee. Our committee worked very hard, similar to most committees around here. My members are wonderful. I believe that when I call a meeting and they come and we spend hours looking at an issue and we actually all come to an agreement, maybe this is something we could do. It deserves a chance, but not in the system that we have because, again, the amendments that really work are noncontroversial and never get discussed, never get in the queue--only the other ones. One that Senator Coats and I have is entitled E-Verify Early Adoption for Small Employees or the EEASE Act. We even took the extra time to come up with a creative name because we like legislating. We think that is what we are supposed to do. The EEASE Act, which is a small amendment to this bill, does three things. I think one of them the small businesses will love: It directs DHS to create a mobile app for E-Verify. Wouldn't that be convenient for small businesses? Picture yourself in your pickup truck out in your field or out in your garage, and someone walks up to you and wants a job. You have a ``For Hire'' sign posted, and the guy comes up to you. He says: Here is my driver's license. Here is my paperwork. The employer picks up their iPhone, hits a button, goes to the app, and it is E-Verify. They know the person is legal, and they hire them for a job. How wonderful would that be? That is one of our amendments. There is enough money in this bill to do that, but the bill doesn't say that now. Our amendment would say: Make a mobile app for E-Verify. Small businesses don't have time to run back to the farm, try to dial in on the Internet in a rural area, such as the Presiding Officer's, in New Mexico. Not everybody has high-speed Internet. Not everybody can go run back to the farm in the middle of the day, and then when they come back, they are tired. Why don't they just have everybody carry a pocket communication system? That is an amendment. I don't know one single solitary person on this floor who is against it, but we can't even get a vote on it. This idea came out of a roundtable with 24 representatives of very important small business groups. I tell my committee and I tell people in the Congress that my committee is going to be a voice for small business. Well, that is great. They come up and they talk to me in committee. I hear them. I take what they say, write it in an amendment, and can't get it in the queue even when no one opposes it. We have another amendment, and this one may be controversial--I don't know. I would be willing, again--if somebody says: We object because it messes up the compromise we have--I would maybe even withdraw this amendment after I spoke about it because I think it is important or I would be happy to get into any queue, any time, any day, to have a vote on it. This amendment provides an access lane for small business for H-1B visas. It dawned on me after the bill came out of the Judiciary Committee and after we had our roundtable that, yes, we were increasing the number of H-1B visas, which I support and most people who support the bill. It dawned on me and it became apparent to some of the small business advocates that there was no express lane for them. The 7 million small businesses that were--many of them are high-tech companies that are relatively small, some of them are startups, and 40 percent of all the patents are held by small businesses. It kind of dawned on us maybe about a week ago that maybe we should have been paying more attention, that the H-1B visas might all go to big businesses and maybe we should have an express lane for the 7 million small businesses that don't have a fleet of lawyers and a fleet of human resources people. They are just trying to create jobs in America. How terrible. They are just the ones creating all the new jobs. Could we please maybe help them? I don't think this is controversial. Do you know what. Maybe someone objects to it. Take it off the list. Senator Klobuchar has two amendments, and I am sure she has been fighting very hard to get them up, like everyone. These amendments have to do with streamlining and removing obstacles for intercountry adoption. You would have to be walking in your sleep to not understand that we have a problem in intercountry adoption. Guatemala has closed, Vietnam has closed, Russia has closed. Parents have gone to great expense. I have seen them weeping in the halls of Congress, begging their Congressmen, Congresswomen, and Senators to please help them. They were in the process, in the middle of an adoption, they had been matched with a child, and the adoption has been closed. There are sad stories in this world. I wish we could fix every one, but we can't. This amendment actually would solve the problem for some families-- not all but some families who went through the international process-- not to help with Russia or Guatemala. I am sorry, we haven't come up with a solution for that. No one opposes this amendment. It could help hundreds, if not thousands, of families to eliminate one or two more barriers to intercountry adoption. Why would we want to do that? I will say why because I think it is very important and I would imagine 100 Members of the Senate would think it is very important for children to be raised by parents. What a novel, extreme idea that children should actually be with parents or with a responsible, loving adult. Why would the Senate of the United States not spend any time at all eliminating barriers so that children could be with parents? I don't know. I kind of think that is important. I have two children. I am one of nine siblings. My family made a big impact on me to help me to be the leader I am today, so I kind of think that is important. Senator Klobuchar filed this bill. I am very proud of Minnesota. We are all proud of Minnesota. Minnesota adopts more children per capita internationally than any State in the Union. Minnesota has a very strong ethic when it comes to this. Do we help Minnesota? No. We punish Minnesota by not even allowing an amendment that is noncontroversial. Senator Klobuchar has people in her State who could be helped by this amendment. I am certain there are people in Louisiana who could be helped. There are people in every State from New Mexico to New York. No one is objecting to it, but we cannot get it on the list. There is an interesting problem with some of these adoptive parents. I spend an awful lot of time with them. I am happy to do it, and they do need champions in Congress, and I am not the only one. Senator Blunt has been fabulous, Senator Coats has been fabulous, Senator Boozman of Arkansas has been fabulous, Senator Shaheen has been terrific, Senator Gillibrand, and Senator Levin. I mean, literally, you don't hear the Senators talking about it as much as me because I am kind of the chairman. I listen to them, and I try to voice our opinions, but trust me, there are many Members. These amendments are not controversial, and they will help orphans, and they will help families who are trying to adopt children. Could we get it on the list of noncontroversial amendments? There is another amendment that I think is noncontroversial, and it has to do with a program that is absolutely dysfunctional today and everyone knows it. It is the EB-5 program. Not only is the program dysfunctional and expensive, it is not being operated correctly, and Judiciary knows this. In their bill, in the underlying bill, they have made some great modifications to the program. That is very good, and that is very good legislating. If this program could operate correctly, efficiently, transparently, and without fraud and corruption, it could create millions of jobs. The last time I checked, there were a few people in Louisiana who need them. This is not a little thing, this is a big thing. There are people in my State who would cut off their right arm for a good-paying job right now. That is true in many parts of this country. Instead of taking up an amendment that is noncontroversial, that actually could pass, that creates jobs, we can't take up this amendment because we have to take up the amendments that raise the most ruckus, that create the most firestorm, that satisfy the theatrical needs of some Members on the floor. We can't do anything that is kind of boring, noncontroversial, and bipartisan. This amendment would strengthen the work the Judiciary Committee did. It is amendment No. 1383. I literally do not know anyone who is opposing this. I am going to read these numbers out because, again, I am not agreeing to unanimous consent for anything until both sides get a list of noncontroversial amendments. Some are amendments Nos. 1338, 1383, 1340, 1261, and 1297. Potentially, there is no opposition to amendment No. 1406, and I think there are some others that might not be controversial, but I haven't completely checked, so I am not going to put them on the list. Some of these are mine, and some of these are from other Senators. The Republican staff may have a list of noncontroversial amendments, and when we get those lists and we can get those in the queue first, then I will be happy for the queue to go on. If not, we are just going to call cloture, and it is just not going to work. I am supporting the bill. I want my leader to know, and I have to say this, but I know he is going to speak, and I most certainly would give the floor to him at this moment, but I wish to say something about what a wonderful leader I think we have. Senator Reid, this is no criticism of you. You are the most patient person--one of the most patient people I have ever observed in my professional life or in my whole life. I honestly do not know how you do your job. Even if the caucus elected me, I would have to decline. I do not have the patience, as you can tell, to do the job of a leader. It would not work. They would never let me, but I wouldn't accept if they did. Let me say I hope I am doing a favor for the Senate because what I want to do is be Senator. I have been here long enough to remember when we actually were Senators, when we actually could come to the floor with a bill, sort among ourselves what were really tough amendments, what were kind of sort of tough amendments, and what were easy amendments. We would do the easy amendments because that is just the way you legislate--go ahead and get some things done that we all know to do. We have all graduated from college. Some of us have master's degrees and Ph.Ds. We do not sit around eating bonbons all day. We are talking to our constituents. That is our job. We write amendments based on those meetings and conversations because people come to us and say: Senator, I have a problem. Can you fix it? What am I going to say to them? I wish to, but I can't. I can't fix any of your problems because there is no way to fix them because I can't even get a simple amendment on the floor on any bill, any day, any week, any month. Mr. Leader, I have had enough. I know you have too. I want you to know I am not trying to be difficult. Do you know what. I came here to be a Senator, and I would like to be one again. I am sorry, but until I get a list of uncontroversial amendments, I don't care if they have 20 and we have 5. I don't care if we have 20 and they have 5. I have no idea. The ones that are uncontroversial I want to move forward. Then we can debate all day long how to put the other ones in any kind of list, and we may put mine last--just trying to show how generous I am trying to be. We may take all of my amendments that are controversial and put them last, but I want all the amendments that are not controversial to go first. I am not going to yield until we do. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU. If the Senator will yield for a question.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I think that is an excellent suggestion. Again, let me just thank the Senator sincerely for his patience, and I appreciate the compliments. As he knows, there are many other Senators who feel just like I do. It is time to be Senators again, and it is just time to trust one another to at least move amendments that are noncontroversial, that no one objects to. Then we can whittle the list down to those that do need debate and discussion, and, as you said, a little trading may have to go on. That is normal. What is not normal is coming to this floor, and those of us who have worked so hard to get cosponsors, to tap down resistance, to modify, to compromise, don't get any time at all because--I don't know. I don't know who decided we don't. But I have enough power to try to change it, and I am going to. So I just want to say in closing, I have in front of me a list of 24 amendments--amendments by Senators Begich, Cardin, Collins, Hagan, Heller, Kirk, Klobuchar, Landrieu, Leahy, Hatch, Murray, Nelson, Reed, Schatz, Stabenow, Udall, Udall, and a few others--about 24--that the Republicans and Democrats think no one objects to. I would ask the leader if he would review this list tonight, ask the managers of the bill if they would review this list tonight, and if we could just get these noncontroversial amendments agreed to either by voice vote, individual vote, or en bloc vote. It doesn't matter to me. It could be this week or next week. These amendments have been worked on by Members of both sides genuinely. We don't want any headlines. We don't want any press releases. We would just like our amendments passed. There is no opposition to them. I will provide this list to the Senator and, hopefully, tomorrow morning, when everybody has calmed down a little bit, maybe that is the way we can proceed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed for the Record the list of amendments I have just referred to.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a speech I delivered on June 1, 2013 in New Orleans, LA to commemorate the commissioning of the Coast Guard Fast Response Cutter Margaret Norvell.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I offer this amendment. It is a technical amendment, three technical but important changes to the Child Citizenship Act of 2000. Senator Coats, Senator Blunt, and Senator Klobuchar have helped lead this effort. I have explained it numerous times on the floor. I think the leaders have agreed on a voice vote.