Mike Lee

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, amendment No. 1208 would require fast-track congressional approval at the introduction of the Department of Homeland Security border security strategies before the award of registered provisional immigrant, or RPI, status--before the eligibility of that status begins, as well as at the certification of the strategy's completion, before those receiving RPI status may become eligible to become lawful permanent residents and eligible to receive green cards. This would be a fast-track vote, one that would have to occur within 30 days after the triggering event within the executive branch. It would also be subject to a 51-vote threshold and would not be subject to a filibuster. It is a basic function of Congress to oversee the executive branch and to ensure that the executive branch is enforcing the law as enacted by Congress. In the area of border security, the executive branch, in both Republican and in Democratic administrations, has failed to fully enforce the laws passed by Congress. To give a few examples, the Secure Fence Act, which was enacted in 2006, still has not been fully implemented, and the fencing requirement--the fence segments required by that act--still have not been fulfilled. The US-VISIT entry-exit system, which was put into place by legislation enacted in 1996, still is not fully implemented. It is worth noting that 40 percent of our current illegal immigrants are people who have overstayed their visas. It is very reasonable to assume there is a significant connection between our failure to implement this entry-exit system called for by existing law and the fact that a sizable chunk--several millions of our current illegal aliens--are people who have overstayed their visas. Polls overwhelmingly show Americans do not believe the border is secure. They also believe we should secure our borders first before moving on to certain areas of immigration reform. These are failures of the Federal Government. The American people cannot hold unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch--people such as the Secretary of Homeland Security--accountable for those failures. The most direct line of accountability is from the American people to their Members of Congress. In order to ensure the voice of the American people is heard, Congress must be able to vote on the border security strategy and on the certification of that strategy as a condition precedent to allowing these RPI provisions to kick in and to allowing people to enter into the pathway to citizenship and advance toward citizenship in the coming years. To cut out Congress cuts out the American people, and that is exactly what this bill, without an amendment such as this one, would do. So it is important to remember that to cut out Congress cuts out the American people, and that is what we are trying to protect against. Opponents of my amendment have argued they would be unwilling to rely on a majority of Congress to approve a border security plan as a condition for allowing the RPI period to open and to proceed. Has it ever occurred to them that it might be precisely because a majority of Americans would not approve the border security plan or at least they might not approve of it or, perhaps, it is not a good idea to move forward on sweeping new policies that will affect generations to come without the support of the American people? It is, after all, the American people who have to deal with the consequences of a dangerous and unsecured border. They will have to deal with cross-border violence. They will have to deal with the heartbreaking stories of human trafficking. They will have to deal with the drugs imported into their communities. They will have to deal with the economic effects and the added costs of public services associated with an ongoing unsecure border. Therefore, it is the American people who should be the ones who get to say whether the border is secure and not the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who have a long track record of failing to implement the objectives established by Congress and embodied in law. My amendment would restore the voice of the American people to this process because, again, cutting out Congress means cutting out the American people. I strongly urge my colleagues to defend the rights of the American people, to weigh in on this important issue, and to support my amendment. Finally, I wish to commend the House Judiciary Committee for passing the SAFE Act out of committee last night. The SAFE Act is an important step forward in improving interior enforcement, securing the border, and strengthening our national security. It also demonstrates that we can effectively pursue significant immigration reforms in a step-by- step approach with individual reform measures. The SAFE Act is by no means a small piece of legislation but, importantly, it focuses reform on particular areas that should receive bipartisan support in both Chambers of Congress. First, let's secure the border. Let's set up a workable entry-exit system and create reliable employment verification systems that will protect immigrant citizens and businesses from bureaucratic mistakes. Let's also fix our legal immigration system to make sure we are letting in the immigrants our economy needs in numbers that make sense for our country. Once these and other tasks, which are plenty big in and of themselves, are completed or at least in progress to the American people's satisfaction, then and only then can we address the needs of current undocumented workers with justice, compassion, and sensitivity. Since the beginning of this year, more than 40 immigration-related bills have been introduced in the House and in the Senate. By a rough count, I can support more than half of them, eight of which have Republican and Democratic cosponsors. We should not risk forward progress on these and other bipartisan reforms simply because we are unable to iron out each of the more contentious issues. So, again, with respect to this amendment No. 1208, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment because we were elected not to delegate the power to make laws to other people, we were elected to make law. Identifying the precise moment at which the border is sufficiently secure--that it is a good time to open the pathway to legalization, the pathway to citizenship, whatever we end up calling it--it makes a lot of sense to put that decision in the hands of the elected people precisely because that decision is one that is difficult to identify. It is difficult for us to identify exactly what standards will satisfy the American people. We can make a rough approximation, but we should require a vote by both Houses of Congress and an act of Congress submitted to the President for signature or veto before the RPI period is open. We were elected to make decisions such as these, and we should not be outsourcing those decisions to others who are not elected. Those who are not elected who, under the text of Senate bill 744, would be empowered to make these decisions, are--make no mistake--well- educated people and well-intentioned people, and I am not saying they categorically cannot be trusted. What I am saying is that those people who are well educated and well intentioned do not stand for reelection at regular intervals as we do. They are not elected by the people. They don't stand for election at regular intervals. For the most part they are insulated and isolated from the electoral process which keeps all of us accountable to the people in whom the ultimate sovereign authority lies. For those reasons I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 1208. Thank you. I yield the floor and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1208.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. I would suspect that in most circumstances a lawyer giving up that procedural right would be committing malpractice. Perhaps a lawyer in that circumstance could say to the client: I am going to do this because opposing counsel has asked it of me, and I want to get along with her. I want to make sure I maximize our chances of settling this litigation perhaps before the litigation has been completely resolved. If that were the argument opposing counsel was making to me, I suspect I would tell the client: If that is the case and our objective is to try to settle the litigation rather than wait until the Court resolves it, then by doing that and giving up that procedural right to file the reply brief, I would be forfeiting a lot of bargaining power that I would otherwise have. And so too here we would be forfeiting a tremendous amount of bargaining power relative to the budget discussions, relative to the debt limit discussion, a discussion that needs to take place in full sunlight and not under cover of darkness. It needs to take place in the two Chambers and not in some back-room deal. That is what we are talking about. That is why these procedural rights are so important. People can disagree with the rules of the Senate, and a lot of people do. People can want to change the rules of the Senate, and there are some who do--some even in this body. But the fact is the rules are what they are. We have the power to make those rules under article 1, section 5 of the Constitution, and we have the power to change those rules under article 1, section 5 of the Constitution. But those rules being what they are, those rules being in place as they are today, and those rules having the application they do as of this very moment, people cannot ask someone such as me or my friend from Texas to give our consent to something we think is fundamentally wrong and that we think will substantially diminish the bargaining power we have in undertaking that policy approach we think is most necessary today. One of the questions I have been asked by some of our friends on the other side of the aisle, and a few of our friends who are even on the same side of the aisle as myself and the Senator from Texas, is: You are a Republican, I am a Republican, so why can't you guys trust that the Republicans who control the House of Representatives will adequately secure your interests? Why don't you therefore feel comfortable effectively forfeiting your right to a 60-vote threshold on the debt ceiling debate?

Mr. LEE. Indeed, we each have an obligation to utilize our own voice and to make our own judgments with regard to the best course of action to take in any debate and in any discussion. The problems in this country are significant. There is not one of us in this body who wishes to minimize them. There is not one of us in this body who is not concerned about these problems. Each of us might take, advocate, or firmly believe in a different course of action, but it is precisely because of the diversity of opinion in this Nation that this Nation is great. It is precisely because of the viewpoint and diversity we have in this body that this body has been called the world's greatest deliberative legislative body. We need to make sure that that remains. In order for that to be the case, it is appropriate that Members of the Senate who have a good-faith, genuine disagreement with an issue as to which a unanimous consent has been made come forward and they object. On that basis, I object. I will continue to object as long as it remains necessary to ensure that the debate we have surrounding the debt limit occurs under the regular order of the Senate. I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEE. I ask my colleague from Texas--who has on occasion expressed similar concerns to those I have just expressed with this kind of posture--so I ask my friend from Texas, is it in fact his interest, his objective to be obstructionist? Is he trying to obstruct here and in fact being unreasonable in raising these objections?

Mr. LEE. Madam President, to respond to my distinguished colleague and friend from Virginia, in the first place it is important for us to remember, yes, we are a bicameral Congress. Yes, in order to pass legislation you have to have something pass in the House and pass in the Senate and then be signed into law by the President. But the fact is there are a number of ways to accomplish this. Yes, it is certainly true that one way we reconcile competing versions of legislation passed in the House and Senate respectively is through conference committee. It is not the only way, it is one way. It is also true that under Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 of the Constitution, each body of Congress has the power to write its own rules for its own operation. The way the rules of the Senate are written it is such that in our current posture, in order to get to a conference committee it requires unanimous consent. That means all of us have to agree it is a good idea to take that particular route. But we don't have to take that route. There are other ways that, under the rules of the Senate, would allow us to address differences in the House-passed budget and Senate-passed budget without going to conference. We could, for example, take up the House-passed budget right now. We could debate that and discuss that. That is a way of addressing this that does not require us to go to conference. But going to conference right now under the rules of the Senate as they apply to this set of facts does require unanimous consent. There are a handful of us who are not willing to grant that consent if in fact the possibility remains that they will use that as a back- room effort to raise the debt limit, a back-room effort that would not require utilization of the Senate's traditional rules, including the 60-vote threshold that often applies. You are asking us to agree with something with which we fundamentally disagree. My friend from Virginia has also made the argument that it is somehow unreasonable of us to make this objection because of the fact that none of these amendments were brought up in connection with the budget. I actually think the argument goes exactly the opposite way. Because the debt limit was not part of the deliberations in this body on the budget, and because the debt limit was not part of the deliberations or the final text in the other body in connection with the budget, there is no need for the conference committee to address the debt limit. There certainly is no need to circumvent the otherwise applicable rules of the Senate that would govern this in this posture in this context. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleague, the junior Senator from Texas.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, in that case, I object.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would like to explain briefly the overall situation. We are not objecting to budget. We are not objecting to conference. We just want the debt limit left out. It is a separate issue that warrants its own debate. It is a simple request: no backroom deals on the debt limit. I would like to focus on one particular argument we have heard from the other side. Critics argue that conference committees are transparent and that they don't involve backroom deals. If this were ever the case, today it is not. The purpose of conference committees is to reconcile differences in similar bills passed by the House and by the Senate. It is not the only way, but it is one way. In theory, conference committees are an open, accountable, and trustworthy means of resolving bicameral differences. But in recent years, the conference process--such as so much else in this town and in this Chamber--has become corrupted. Today, conference committees are just another mechanism to exclude the American people from the legislative process. Secret closed doors, they usually don't even begin until the deal is already completed, as a practical matter. Speaker Boehner himself said recently: We don't typically go to conference until such time that they are well on their way. A recent example was the conference last year on the highway bill. The Senate passed its bill in March. The House passed its version in April. On May 8, the conference committee met for about 2\1/2\ hours on C-SPAN, but no amendments, no substantive legislating. Members mostly gave just opening statements, but that was just the first meeting, after all--plenty of time to get to the real work. But then at the end of it all, the Chair of the conference thanked everyone for coming and then said something peculiar: We will be back here, if necessary. Maybe we can do this out of this room, but we may be able to agree and get signatures on a conference report. But, if necessary, we will be back here in 20-some days. A strange thing that the conference--which hadn't done anything yet-- would only meet again, if necessary. How else could they do their work if they didn't meet again? But then, without meeting again, the conference filed its 670-page report in the early morning hours of Thursday, June 28. As if by magic, without any debate or amendments or votes or public meetings, all the differences simply got ironed out. What is more, the highway bill suddenly included major provisions that had nothing to do with highways. Out of thin air the conference committee had added to the highway bill the flood insurance program and the student loan program. We might call it the miraculous deception. So Thursday morning they presented to Congress their massive bill-- intentionally waiting until only hours before the entire highway program was set to expire. It was a classic cliff deal: negotiated in secret, immune from amendment, including unrelated provisions air- dropped into the bill, presented as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition up against a manufactured deadline crisis. Faced with this situation, the House and Senate passed the report without reading it and patted each other on the back for their bipartisanship. This, unfortunately, is how Washington too often works, and it is why the American people hold Washington in such low esteem. People don't trust the government because they know the government doesn't trust them. If my colleagues truly want a backroom deal on the budget, we will give them their chance to have it. We just ask that they leave the debt ceiling out of it. But make no mistake, my colleagues and I are not objecting because we don't understand how Washington works, as some have suggested. We are objecting because we know exactly how Washington works in this regard, and we mean to change it. So I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Virginia modify his request so it not be in order for the Senate to consider a conference report that includes reconciliation instructions to raise the debt limit.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, this week we continue a very important discussion about how to fix our broken immigration system. One of the most important concerns we have is that the border is simply not secure. Despite the fact that this assertion is almost universally held on both the left and on the right, the bill we are debating has very little, if anything, to make the border more secure or at least to guarantee that it will become more secure as a result of its passage. Instead, the bill offers more of what the American people are used to from Washington--plans, promises, commissions, studies, and spending lots and lots of money but requires almost no action on border security. Many on my side of the aisle have placed heavy emphasis on strengthening the border security provisions to ensure that certain goals are met before granting permanent legal status to illegal immigrants. The reason for this is not merely academic; it is based in common sense. Failing to secure the border is the quickest way to repeat the mistakes we have made in the past. It means we will be back here in another 20 years dealing with a much larger and far less manageable problem. That is what we are trying to prevent today and why we need to make sure this bill secures the border. The problem with this bill isn't just the weak border security measures. Even if we can come to some satisfactory conclusion on the security issues, this bill still would fail to reform many of the challenges we face and it makes most of them worse. If all we do is fix the border security portion, this bill is still considerably weak in four major areas and would still be unworthy of support without major changes. First, there is no congressional oversight of how the executive branch implements these reforms. By passing this bill, Congress would turn over almost all authority to the executive branch to secure or not secure the border, verify or not verify workplace enforcement, and certify or not certify visa reforms. Of course, the administration will begin the legalization of 11 million illegal immigrants with no input from Congress as soon as possible regardless of how much progress has been made on border security, fencing provisions, and on the other priorities outlined in the bill. Congress is the branch of government that is most accountable to the American people. If the people don't believe the border is secure or that our visa system actually works or that the country's economic needs are being met, it is Congress that should be held accountable. It is also Congress that can most readily be held accountable through regular elections that occur every 2 years in both Houses, with each Senator being held accountable every 6 years. Therefore, Congress must play a predominant role in approving, overseeing, and verifying these reforms, as well as ensuring that these reforms are being implemented correctly and achieving desired results. This bill, however, leaves Congress and the American people dangerously out of the loop. Second, the bill surrenders control of immigration law to the Secretary of Homeland Security, as well as to a handful of other unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington. This is a problem that permeates the Federal Government in general. For example, last year Congress passed and the President signed into law 1,519 pages of legislation. Meanwhile, the Federal Government published 82,349 pages of new and updated rules and regulations in the Federal Register. That is more than 82,000 pages of rules that never came before Congress, never had a chance to be amended, and never received a vote in this body. This bill will make that problem worse by granting similarly broad discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security to create the rules and regulations that will determine how the bill is to be implemented as well as authorize the Secretary in hundreds and hundreds of instances to simply ignore immigration law as it is enacted by Congress. While I can certainly see why Members of Congress might not want to take responsibility for the consequences of this bill, that is not how our Republic is supposed to function. Third, this bill is inherently unfair to the countless thousands of people who have tried to navigate our current broken immigration system. Let me cite just one example. I received a letter just a few months ago from a constituent in Utah, from a person who immigrated to this country lawfully, a person who was teaching school at American Fork, UT, and here on a nonimmigrant visa. As she explained, she spent years of her life and thousands of dollars making sure that she came to the country legally. But she understands that her visa will expire in a few years, in 2017. She anticipates that she will be unable to get a renewal on that same visa and that she will effectively be deported at that point--voluntarily, but her visa term will expire and she anticipates she will have to go back to her home country. She explained to me it is very difficult for her to accept the fact that she has been here a few years teaching lawfully, developing friendships, developing her career, and because she did it legally she will have to go home. Meanwhile, those who have broken the law by their illegal presence in the United States will not only be allowed to stay where they are, not only be allowed to live where they now live, not only be allowed to work where they now work, but they will be put on a path toward eventual citizenship at the same time she and many others like her will have to go back to their home country. This policy seems to be rewarding those who have broken our laws while, in relative terms, punishing those who have attempted to abide by our laws in good faith. So this bill must be fair to those who have tried to come to the country the right way. As my colleague from Iowa Senator Grassley explained in painstaking detail yesterday, the claims of those who say there will be stiff penalties for those who have broken the law have proven to be almost entirely false. There is no requirement to learn English or to pay all back taxes. And it is quite possible many noncitizens will be eligible for our country's generous benefits, or at least a number of them. That brings me to the final concern that must be addressed before anyone should support this bill: the cost. One study conducted by the Heritage Foundation says the Gang of 8 bill could cost the taxpayers more than $6 trillion. Some on the right and on the left have criticized that study, and I welcome the debate surrounding that criticism. But the proponents of this bill have so far refused to do their own corresponding cost analysis. If they believe the Heritage Foundation is wrong, that is fine, but they should tell us how much they think it is going to cost the taxpayers. So far we have heard nothing. So far we don't have a corresponding study replacing the Heritage Foundation study that responds to the same points. There are reports some Democrats have asked the Congressional Budget Office to evaluate the bill, but the report won't be published until next week. That is unfortunate. If they are concerned about the cost, and if they want it to be part of the debate, this should have been done a long time ago. These are major portions of the bill that need to be addressed, major aspects of the bill I think we need the full opportunity to debate, discuss, and consider. Even if we are able to come to a deal that makes the security portions incrementally better, as long as it still lacks congressional oversight, grants excessive authority to the executive branch, unfairly penalizes those who are trying to follow the law, and costs taxpayers trillions of dollars, we should reject this reform unless major changes have been made. Some have suggested by pointing out the flaws of the bill we are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. That vastly understates the problems in this bill. Far from good, this bill repeats the mistakes of the past. It makes our immigration system worse than the one we have today and will only lead to bigger and less manageable problems in the future. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose it. There is one more point I wish to make as we continue this debate. I realize this issue is very personal to some. Moments ago, I recounted a story from a constituent who takes this issue to heart. It has affected her family, her employment, and almost every aspect of her life. I understand when Congress is taking on tough challenges sometimes emotions get heated. That is understandable. But let us not forget we are all on the side of immigration reform. I don't know a single Member of this body or the other body of Congress, anyone on the left or on the right, who is not on the side of immigration reform. Perhaps such a person exists, but if that is the case, I have not met him or her. As I said last week, and as I have said on countless occasions--in interviews, op-ed pieces, newsletters, and online--I stand here today in support of real and comprehensive immigration reform. And I stand here today as someone who supports legal immigration into our country. I understand, as all of my colleagues do, that immigration is necessary to our country's prosperity and to its ultimate success. There are those who unfairly suggest that I and my fellow Senators who oppose this bill are somehow ``anti-immigrant'' or ``anti- immigration.'' Unfortunately, those are the voices that are diminishing the prospects of getting real immigration reform done this year. I am well aware if this bill does not pass the Senate we will have an immigration problem that very next day. That is why I have been encouraging Members of Congress to support a step-by-step approach to immigration reform. Let's not hold hostage the things we can't get done today because we are unable to iron out every contentious issue. There are more than 40 individual pieces of immigration-related legislation that have been introduced in this Congress alone, half of which I have sponsored, cosponsored, or that I could support. Indeed, the only reason immigration reform is controversial, in my opinion, is because the Senate refuses to take it step by step. First, let's secure the border. Let's set up a workable entry-exit system and create a reliable employment verification system that protects immigrants, citizens, and businesses. Then let's fix our legal immigration system to make sure we are letting in the immigrants our economy needs in numbers that make sense for our country. We don't need another 1,000-page bill full of unintended consequences. We need, and the American people deserve, real reform. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE. If I might ask, Madam President, of my friend from Texas, why wouldn't one want the usual rules of the Senate to apply? That is, why would one want to block or prevent the 60-vote threshold from applying with a debt ceiling increase, just as the 60-vote threshold applies to much of the most important, contentious, closely watched legislation that moves through this body?

Mr. LEE. The Senator from Texas is a seasoned constitutional scholar, a graduate of Princeton University and of Harvard Law School. He went on to clerk for Judge Michael Ludick on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, now general counsel to Boeing. He later clerked for late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist on the U.S. Supreme Court. Having argued a total of nine cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Senator from Texas is a seasoned litigator in addition to being a scholar of the Constitution. So I ask my colleague a couple of questions related to that. It has occurred to me sometimes as a lawyer myself that there are sometimes some similarities between being a Senator and being a lawyer. They are not perfect, but we are retained for a limited period of time, in 6-year increments generally, to represent a group of people. It is our job to do what we can to act in the absence of those people. In my case there are 3 million people from my State, the State of Utah. They cannot all fit inside this Chamber so I am one of the people who is elected to represent them in their absence. I ask my colleague from Texas, No. 1, how do the people of Texas feel about the idea of raising the debt limit yet again? In particular, how do they feel about the idea of raising the debt limit yet again without any kind of permanent structural reform put in place as condition precedent to that action? And finally, how do the people of Texas feel as their elected representative, representing those people here in this body, you surrender one of your biggest bargaining chips, you abandon one of the tools that allows you to make sure we do not the raise the debt limit too casually, too cavalierly, without putting in place the adequate precautions?

Mr. LEE. Is my colleague suggesting that we stop altogether the practice of issuing U.S. treasuries to finance the operations of government or is he suggesting that we go without a budget or that we simply halt the issuance of Treasury instruments altogether or is my colleague suggesting something more long term?

Mr. LEE. We are talking about a procedural strategy. We are not even talking about an outcome here. We are talking about the full utilization of the procedural rights of each and every Member of this body. We have been asked to give our consent and to effectively vote for a procedure that people on both sides of the Capitol have now admitted could and may well be utilized as a mechanism for raising the debt limit in a way that circumvents the 60-vote threshold of the Senate. It seems to me that is troubling, and if we analogize that yet again to other circumstances where we have to represent someone else, that can be troubling. Let's suppose the Senator from Texas is representing a client in court--let's say in the U.S. Supreme Court. For example, when the Senator is in the position of the petitioner, he has the right, as the petitioner--meaning the person filing the petition for a writ of certiorari--to seek review by the Supreme Court of the United States, and let's say review is granted. After review is granted, a briefing schedule kicks in and the petitioner has the opportunity to file the first brief. That is the Senator's prerogative as the petitioner. The other side then has about a month to file its brief, and then the Senator gets something the other side doesn't get to file--the Senator gets a reply brief. Procedurally, under the rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, that is the Senator's client's right. Once the Senator has a case in front of the Supreme Court and in the middle of the briefing schedule, what would the Senator from Texas say to a client if you came to them and said: My opposing counsel has asked me to waive my right to file a reply brief even though it is my right to do that? The client has asked me to do it. What would the client think if the Senator actually said: I am not going to file a reply brief even though procedurally I have every right to do that?

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, our current immigration system is a travesty. It is inefficient, uncompassionate, and dangerous. It doesn't serve America's economic or social interests, and it undermines respect for the rule of law and for our Democratic institutions. Fundamental reform is both badly needed and long overdue. That is why I support immigration reform, and it is also why I initially joined a bipartisan group of Senators to try to find common ground on this issue. But it is also why I left that group and why today I must oppose the so-called Gang of 8 immigration bill. At the outset of this debate, the gang promised a grand immigration bargain: strict border security in exchange for a pathway to citizenship for approximately 11 million illegal immigrants already here. Even before the bill was introduced, gang members distributed talking points that lauded the bill's beefed-up security provisions, new visa reforms, and measures that would make the pathway to citizenship long and tough. But once the gang produced actual legislation, and Senators, the media, and members of the public began to read the bill, it was clear the talking points did not reflect the reality of the legislation itself. After pointing out glaring discrepancies between claims about the bill and the actual text, Senators were told they would have an opportunity to make changes during the markup in the Judiciary Committee. But the four gang members on the committee banded together as a block with Democrats to defeat virtually all substantive amendments proposed to the bill. Congressional approval of the border security plan? No. Improve interior enforcement and strengthen workplace verification? Rejected. Manage the flow of new legal immigrants? Failed. Limit access to some of America's most generous welfare programs? Blocked. As a result, the bill that will come to the Senate floor this week is essentially the same huge, complex, unpredictable, expensive, and special interest-driven, big government boondoggle it was when it first came to the committee. The bill does not secure the border, it doesn't build a fence, and it doesn't create a workable biometric entry-exit system for immigrants to this country. What standards and benchmarks it does set, the bill simultaneously grants the Secretary of Homeland Security broad discretion to waive. It will, however, immediately legalize millions of currently illegal immigrants, make them eligible for government services, and put them on a pathway to citizenship. Many critics compare the gang bill to the failed 1986 immigration law, which, similar to this one, also promised border security in exchange for amnesty but did not deliver on its promises. But the gang bill actually reminds me of a more recent piece of legislation: ObamaCare. Similar to the President's health care law, the gang bill was negotiated in secret by insiders and special interests who then essentially offered it to Congress as a single take-it-or-leave-it proposition. The bill grants broad new powers to the same executive branch that is mired in scandal for incompetence and abuse of power. Total cost estimates are in the trillions, according to some. Rather than fix our current immigration problems, the bill makes many of them worse. However well-intentioned, the Gang of 8 bill is just an immigration version of ObamaCare. That is why true immigration reform must be pursued on a step-by-step basis, with individual reform measures implemented and verified in the proper sequence. Happily for immigration reformers such as I, this appears to be the approach being pursued in the House of Representatives. It is the only one that makes sense. First, let's secure the border. Let us set up a workable entry-exit system and create a reliable employment verification system, one that protects immigrants, citizens and businesses alike from bureaucratic mistakes. Then let's fix our legal immigration system to make sure we are letting in the immigrants our economy needs in the numbers that make sense for our country. Once these and other tasks--which are plenty big in and of themselves--are completed to the satisfaction of the American people, then we can address the needs of current undocumented workers with justice, compassion, and sensitivity. Since the beginning of this year, more than 40 immigration-related bills have been introduced in Congress between the House and the Senate. By a rough count, I could support more than half of them, eight of which have Republican and Democratic cosponsors. We should not risk forward progress on these other bipartisan reforms just because we are unable to iron out each of the more contentious issues. The Gang of 8 bill is not immigration reform. It is big government dysfunction. It is an immigration version of ObamaCare. All advocates of true immigration reform, advocates on both the left and the right side of the aisle, should therefore oppose it. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. As surely as past is prologue, this will happen again if we do it in the wrong sequence. Sequencing matters. When I was 6 or 7 years old, my mother pointed out to me that you don't try to butter the toast before you toast it. You toast it first and then put the butter on top. There are all kinds of examples where we need to follow the right sequence. If they don't follow the right sequence, they don't get the results they want. This is another area where sequence matters. I am convinced we can treat those 11 million people who are currently here illegally with the dignity, respect, and compassion we want to treat them with as Americans. I am convinced we can find a way to do that. I am convinced we can find a broad-based bipartisan solution to do that. I am less convinced that it makes any sense to do that now before we fix the underlying problem. Again, it is a matter of simple sequencing. We have to first stop the flow of illegal immigration. After that, we will be in a better position to ascertain the needs of those who are currently here illegally. It is only in that circumstance that we will know best how to address that. Along those lines, I would like to address an issue which sometimes comes up. Sometimes arguments are made by the proponents of this bill that if we don't support this bill--not just if we don't support immigration reform generally, but if we don't support this particular bill--we are somehow anti-immigrant or uncategorically uncompassionate people. If we don't support the bill, our hearts are made of stone, our ribs are made of concrete, and we have no heart. I think that is a reckless argument and an argument beneath the dignity of this august body. During the markup, one of my colleagues--I think the junior Senator from Texas--introduced another amendment. It was an amendment which would have in some way limited the ability of those currently illegally in the country to participate in certain entitlement benefits, certain antipoverty benefits that would otherwise be available to them. Perhaps it was the earned-income tax credit. I don't remember the exact information, but it would have had some broad application to make sure that those who are currently here illegally would not--during this RPI period--be able to benefit from federally funded entitlements. To my great dismay, one of our colleagues on that committee--who was a devout supporter of this bill--personally attacked the junior Senator from Texas simply for having introduced that amendment. It wasn't enough for him to say: I disagree with this amendment or that this amendment is bad policy. He attacked with something like this: You don't care about these people. You don't care about their children. You are willing to let their children remain hungry and uneducated. You don't care about them. You are not compassionate. With respect, I think that kind of comment has no place here. It is not helpful. It is not productive, and it is something that completely clouds the issue. It is because we are compassionate that we do need to ask these questions. Look, we are in a difficult spot as a country. We are trying to do everything we can to make those programs solvent which are designed specifically to alleviate some of the needs of the most vulnerable in our society. Unless we make sure we are in a position economically to be able to sustain those programs, we are going to run out of money. And when we run out of money, it will be the poor and the vulnerable who suffer most as a result of our inability to pay for those programs. So with respect, I advise all of my colleagues--particularly those who have made comments like that one--to resist the temptation that some of them have succumbed to in recent weeks to say that anyone who opposes this bill is somehow uncompassionate. It is because we are compassionate that we have to ask these difficult questions. It is because we are compassionate that we have to propose amendments we think are necessary in order to make the programs upon which our society's most vulnerable have come to depend on more sustainable.

Mr. LEE. The American people are a compassionate people. They are a people who welcome immigrants because we are a nation of immigrants and we always have been. I think most of us hope we always will be. We want people to continue to come to this country. It is this sense of compassion that causes many of us to have some sense of concern about this particular legislation. This legislation goes far beyond simply showing compassion. This legislation in some ways is the opposite of compassion when you consider it from the perspective of those who, like this woman who wrote this letter to me, have come here legally. And those who, unlike her, have waited--in some cases for years outside the United States. There are many people who have spent a lot of money and time hoping and praying that one day they too will get to immigrate to this country legally. We do them a great disservice when we say the effort, time, blood, sweat, and tears they devoted to this process is all for naught, because all they had to do was come here illegally, and not only were they put on a pathway to legalization but on a pathway to citizenship. One of the more enlightening moments in the Senate Judiciary Committee during the markup of this bill was when our friend and colleague, the junior Senator from Texas, introduced an amendment which would have done one simple thing to adjust that process. All hell broke loose. Senator Cruz introduced an amendment which would have left everything else about the bill intact and kept everything else in the bill identical to what it says now with only one change. It would have said those people who entered into RPI status--entered into the pathway of legalization--would not ultimately become citizens. They could ultimately become lawful, permanent residents or the functional equivalent thereof, but they would not become citizens under the bill. Everything else would be left intact. They still would be allowed to come out of the shadows, stay here, work here, and we could have a separate debate and discussion over whether that would be the right approach in and of itself. This particular amendment focused simply on the citizenship aspect of it, and yet one would have thought by the reaction that it was offering up something horrible and Draconian. The proponents of this bill could not even handle the change that would have said: Let's have there be some consequence, at least, for the fact that this group of people entered here illegally. At least at this point let's not put them on a pathway to citizenship so they can vote and all the other rights which accompany citizenship to this great country. Yes, I do think this is strange. I do think the American people--not in spite of the fact they are compassionate, but because of the fact they are compassionate--deserve more than to have the rule of law turned on its head and deserve more than to have those who have taken the time and expended the energy and financial resources to immigrate here legally, to have their sacrifice denigrated to the point that it means nothing or less than nothing.

Mr. LEE. Yes, it certainly could be and it certainly would be if at the end of the day you have literally hundreds of instances of Secretarial discretion built into the bill. If every one of these important decisions that have to be made along the way, or through the process, on legal immigration--if any of the critical decisions that have to be made along the way are subject to certain rules but those rules can be waived by the Secretary at the Secretary's unfettered discretion, it is not much of a law. It becomes something else. It becomes a set of guidelines with ultimate discretionary decisionmaking vested in the Secretary. That is something very different than a law. I do not doubt that there were lots of people who had input on this bill, nor do I necessarily blame any one group for being involved. They have every right to give their input into a law. But at the end of the day we have to ask the question: Whose job is it to legislate? It is not their decision to legislate. The accountability to legislate or the accountability for flaws in this bill therefore must not rest with any outside group, any group of lawyers or activists of any stripe or at either end of the political spectrum. The accountability for the legislation that moves through this body must rest ultimately with us, and that includes legislation that gives someone else the effective power to legislate, as this one does, in literally hundreds of instances. If at the end of the day this bill--assuming it is passed out of this body and passed by the House of Representatives and signed into law by the President--if this bill at the end of the day says, for instance, that the Secretary may at her discretion waive certain exclusions, waive exclusions that would otherwise prevent somebody from entering onto the pathway to citizenship on grounds that they had reentered the country after previously being deported, that is a pretty big issue. At that moment somebody who has reentered the country after previously being deported has committed a felony. The point has been made many times that it is not necessarily a crime to enter this country illegally. It is considered by most to be a civil violation. But that changes when you have been previously deported. A previously deported illegal alien who reenters following deportation has committed a felony offense. So if the legislation we are considering now becomes law and if at the end of the day it is enacted, it allows for those people to enter onto a pathway to citizenship, and I think that is cause for concern. It is one of many areas in which we need to be very cautious in granting this much discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security. I got a letter from a woman in my home State of Utah, a woman who is a schoolteacher in American Fork, UT. She is an immigrant to this country. She is here on a nonimmigrant visa. She sent me a letter saying: I spent years of my life and thousands of dollars immigrating to this country legally, the right way. I have a job. It is a good job, a job that I love, a job teaching school. But I am here on a visa, and that visa expires in a few years. I know when that visa expires unless somehow I am able to get that visa extended or able to get another visa, I will be sent home. I will have to leave this country. And it breaks my heart, she wrote, that at the same time that I am going to have to leave this country, there will be lots of people--in fact, 11 million or more--who are currently here illegally, who have broken the law coming here, many of whom have been working here illegally, who will not only be allowed to stay, not only allowed to stay in their current job, but put on a pathway to citizenship. She said: This seems like a profound unfairness, that we are rewarding those who have broken the law while we are punishing people who, like me, a schoolteacher, came here on a nonimmigrant visa and have spent years of their lives and thousands of dollars trying to do it the right way. Does the Senator think that is cause for concern that relates to this excessive granting of discretion?

Mr. LEE. I certainly do. I think that would make a big difference. If we had to vote on it, it would have a couple of effects. First of all, the fact that we would have to vote on it would have an impact on the executive branch of government whose job it is to implement laws that we pass. The executive branch of government would normally have a duty--a duty that we would be following up on not just in some amorphous oversight committee hearing context, but we would be exercising oversight in a very real way in the sense that we would have to vote on whether they had done something adequately within a specified period of time. There would be consequences, real consequences, if we were to refuse to exercise that vote. This vote would go through the normal process. It would be debated, discussed, and acted upon in both Houses of Congress and then submitted to the President for signature or veto and would therefore be wholly consistent with the presentment clause of the Constitution. Some have suggested this might be a bad idea because it would perhaps get held up through some procedural mechanism or another, but the way the amendment was written, that would not, in fact, be the effect. This would be a privileged motion through which it could come on the floor. It would go through the Senate on a 51-vote threshold and would therefore be able to move through quite quickly. That is why it is important for this kind of mechanism to be in a bill such as this.

Mr. LEE. Yes, that is exactly why I introduced Lee amendment No. 4 in the committee and why I think it should have been passed. Because the whole reason we entrust the legislative power only to people who are elected at regular intervals and stand accountable to their electors at regular intervals is because of the fact it is perhaps the most dangerous power of government. We can do a lot of damage when we make law. And as a result of that potential for damage, that potential for harm we can inflict on the people, we have to stand accountable in incremental time periods of either 6 or 2 years to make sure we don't abuse that power. That is why it is so harmful when we take that very dangerous, potentially destructive power and we outsource it. To some extent, in different ways, this has been going on for many decades. It started more or less during the New Deal era, when Congress discovered as the Federal Government was dramatically expanding Congress physically couldn't come up with the immense and steadily building task of legislating--of doing all the lawmaking and all the rulemaking it needed to do. So it started passing broader pieces of legislation, setting out very broad objectives, and then outsourcing to some outside body--sometimes a Cabinet-level official, other times a so- called independent commission to do the real lawmaking. During this time period, Congress discovered an interesting and important tool. During this time period it discovered sometimes we, as Members of Congress, are not going to like the way the outside body or the outside official within the executive branch might exercise this delegated lawmaking authority. So they reserved to themselves, they reserved for Congress an out--a legislative veto, as it became known. In some instances, this legislative veto allowed Congress, either the House or the Senate, to undo a rulemaking or an important decision made by an executive branch official or entity. In other cases it required both Houses to act in unison. But these legislative veto provisions did not require subsequent presentment to the President who could then sign or veto that legislative veto. This went on for several decades. It went on until the mid-1980s when the Supreme Court intervened in a case called INS v. Chada, occurring, interestingly enough, in the immigration context; occurring, interestingly enough, in the specific context of a decision by the Attorney General to exercise delegated authority from Congress to issue a discretionary waiver of deportability to an otherwise removable alien. The Supreme Court said this legislative veto was itself unconstitutional because it amounted, in essence, to a subsequent enactment by Congress that was not subject to the presentment requirement of article I, section 7 of the Constitution. Thus, the Supreme Court concluded in INS v. Chada the legislative veto provision, as it had been used for many decades, was itself unconstitutional, it was invalid, and was stricken. Some might have predicted that, as of the moment of the issuance of this decision in INS v. Chada, Congress would say: That is it, we are not going to delegate this much authority anymore because we can't trust these outside officials, these outside entities within the executive branch of government to do the lawmaking. That is our job. But that is not what happened. Shockingly, in the eyes of some, Congress continued to delegate its lawmaking authority left and right. If anything, it has accelerated its delegation of lawmaking authority. In part because Members of Congress, first and foremost, like to wash their hands of things, in the grand tradition of Pontius Pilate we are sometimes inclined to wash our hands of things and push important decisions off to someone else to make them, someone else who can take accountability for those decisions. It makes it easier for us. And in some ways that is what is happening here. In some ways that is what we are doing here by pushing off to the Secretary of Homeland Security the decision to make a decision we ourselves ought to be making. That decision ought to rest here so we ourselves can be held accountable. We are not sovereigns unto ourselves. We certainly ought not be making sovereigns out of others who do not stand accountable to the people.

Mr. LEE. I certainly would. I would be happy to. In the Judiciary Committee, on which the Senator from Alabama and I both sit, during the markup session on this bill we were able to propose a number of amendments. One of the amendments I proposed--Lee amendment No. 4--addressed this very problem, the problem inherent in the fact that much of what this bill accomplishes is to outsource and delegate many of the delicate tasks. Many of the delicate decisions that have to be made along the way in the implementation of this bill are outsourced to the Secretary of Homeland Security--the task of coming up with a border security plan and a border fencing plan. Once those plans are in place, and once the Secretary makes the necessary findings under the bill, which she has basically complete discretion to do, then the RPI status begins--the pathway to citizenship commences. And citizenship from that moment forward, for those who meet the basic eligibility standards, becomes more or less a virtual certainty or becomes, at the very least, very likely. So my concern was Congress would have no subsequent input in this decision. Each of us has been elected to this body, and each of our colleagues in the House of Representatives has been elected to that body, to make decisions, to make law, and not simply to make outside lawmakers who will make incremental pieces of law on the outside. Each of us will stand accountable at regular 6-year intervals in this body and 2-year incremental periods in the other body to the voters who placed us here. Each of us should have the opportunity to decide whether and to what extent the border has adequately been secured and whether and to what extent we have enough fencing along the border in order for us to begin this legalization process and the pathway to citizenship. So Lee amendment No. 4 to this bill would have said simply the RPI status, this pathway, would not have commenced until such time as Congress had the chance to vote on whether we had made sufficient progress toward securing the border and fencing the border before the period of legalization started. It is a very simple question, and it is the question that lies at the heart of the concerns surrounding this very bill. It is the question that lies at the heart of the lingering concerns regarding what we did back in 1986. I was only 14 years old at the time that debate commenced, so it was not at the forefront of my mind, although perhaps it should have been. But the lingering concerns surrounding what happened in 1986 relate to the fact that Congress said, in effect, we are going to go ahead and legalize the several million people who are here illegally right now, and then, once and for all, we are going to secure the border. We are going to stop the flow of illegal immigration once and for all. Well, that didn't happen because they sort of put it off and said at some unknown point in the future the border will in fact be secured. That would have solved that problem. At the very least it would have kept Members of Congress on the hook for finding the border was adequately secured by a subsequent vote before a pathway to legalization commenced. To my surprise, to my dismay, and to my frustration my amendment was rejected, and it was rejected along the lines of a particularly odd argument. The argument went something like this, from those who professed their undying loyalty to the Gang of 8 bill as it was originally drafted. The argument said, in essence: We cannot adopt Lee amendment No. 4 because we can't trust Congress to do the right thing. We can't trust Congress to do what we want Congress to do. In particular, the argument was made that we can't be certain the House of Representatives, currently under the control of the Republican Party, will in fact vote to commence the legalization process. Well, if that is the case, aren't we saying we can't trust the democratic process? If that is the case, aren't we saying the American people aren't yet comfortable with that? So I would ask my colleague from Alabama, why should we not trust the elected representatives of the American people to make critical decisions such as these? And why should we, instead, outsource them to someone having been appointed by the President and confirmed by the President, who doesn't respond, at least not directly, to the people at regular intervals in elections?

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, today I rise in favor of immigration reform. The current immigration system is a travesty. It is inefficient, it is uncompassionate, and it is dangerous. It doesn't serve America's economic or social interests, and it undermines respect for the rule of law while simultaneously undermining respect for our democratic institutions. Comprehensive reform is both badly needed and long overdue. The comprehensive immigration reform I envision includes real border security, visa modernization, employment verification, robust programs for both high- and low-skilled workers, and a compassionate approach to addressing the needs of those currently in the country illegally. But I believe each of these vital components must be addressed incrementally and sequentially in order to ensure meaningful results. I understand our reluctance to admit it, but Congress is simply very bad at overhauling and creating massive bureaucratic systems all at once. Every new law, no matter how big, carries with it some unintended consequences. The bigger the law, the more accidental problems we tend to create. History teaches us that trying to fix lots of problems all at once is the surest way to avoid fixing any of them very well. ObamaCare is and will continue to make our health care system worse, not better. It promised to lower health insurance premiums. Yet they are exploding all across the country. The Dodd-Frank financial reform measure was supposed to end too-big-to-fail and prevent another financial meltdown. Yet Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are still on the taxpayers' books, and today the very biggest banks on Wall Street are bigger than ever. Do the American people have any idea that the PATRIOT Act would empower the National Security Agency to spy on all Americans through their cell phones and their computers? What makes any of us, least of all any conservative, believe this immigration bill is going to work out any better? The lesson we should be taking from our recent mistakes is not that we need to pass better, huge, sweeping new laws, but that we should, instead, undertake major necessary reforms incrementally, one step at a time, and in the proper sequence. We need to face the fact that 1,000- page bureaucratic overhauls simply do not achieve their desired goals, and they create far more problems than they tend to solve. We can achieve comprehensive immigration reform without having to pass another 1,000-page bill full of loopholes, carveouts, and unintended consequences. Therefore, from my perspective there is no one amendment that can fix this bill. Indeed, there is no series of tinkering changes that will turn this mess of a bill into the reform the country needs and that Americans deserve. The only way to guarantee successful reform of the entire system is through a series of incremental reforms that ensure the foundational pieces, like the border security pieces and an effective entry and exit system, are done first and done directly. Such a commonsense process will allow Congress--and, more importantly, will allow the American people--to monitor policy changes as they are implemented with each step. That way we can isolate and fix unintended consequences before they grow out of control and before we move on to the next phase. A step-by-step approach would also allow Congress to move quickly on those measures on which Republicans and Democrats both tend to agree. We ought not hold commonsense and essential measures hostage to unavoidably contentious ones, and that is what this bill does. Both sides largely agree on many essential elements. These measures are relatively uncontroversial and could pass incrementally with broad bipartisan support in Congress. Indeed, the only reason immigration reform is controversial is that Congress refuses to adopt the incremental approach. That is why true immigration reform must be pursued step by step, with individual reform measures implemented and verified in the proper sequence. Happily for immigration reformers like me, this appears to be the approach being pursued by the House of Representatives. It is the only one that makes sense. First of all, let's secure the border. Let's set up a workable entry- exit system and create a reliable employment verification system that protects immigrants, protects citizens, and protects businesses from bureaucratic mistakes. Then let's fix our legal immigration system to make sure we are letting in the immigrants our economy needs in numbers that make sense for our country. There is no good reason why we must, or even why we should, try to do it all at once, all in one bill, all in the same legislative package. Once these and other tasks, which are plenty big in and of themselves, are completed to the American people's satisfaction, then we can address the needs of current undocumented workers with justice, compassion, and sensitivity. Since the beginning of this year, more than 40 immigration-related bills have been introduced in the House and the Senate. By a rough count, I could support more than half of them. Eight of them have Republican and Democratic cosponsors. We should not risk progress on these and other bipartisan reforms simply because we are unable to iron out each and every one of the more contentious issues. This is not the bill to fix our immigration system. I want to pass immigration reform. I want to debate immigration reform. That is exactly why we should not proceed to the Gang of 8 bill. We are being presented with a choice between the Gang of 8 bill or nothing. Common sense, recent history, and the ongoing legislative process of the House of Representatives confirmed that is a false choice. There is another way. It is a more sensible and a more successful way. We can do better than another 1,000-page mistake. Haven't we learned our lesson in this regard? Isn't it time that we try? Rather than fix our current immigration problems, the Gang of 8 bill will make many of them worse. It is not immigration reform, it is big government dysfunction. All advocates of true immigration reform on the left and on the right should oppose it. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, it is with a heavy heart that I address the Senate today, as I rise to honor a recently fallen soldier. PFC Cody J. Towse, one of Utah's finest, was killed last month when his patrol was hit by an improvised explosive device in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan. PFC Towse loved to help others. He served as a combat medic in the Army, and was a certified EMT and a volunteer firefighter prior to enlistment. He put his special skills to use in serving the United States by saving other soldiers. He recently received a Combat Medic award for performing his medical duties while being actively engaged by the enemy. Before enlisting in the Army, Cody started a blog to chronicle his time in the military, which he hoped would help other prospective recruits. His blog is filled with comical posts, as well as insightful truths and prophetic statements. In his first post, he wrote, ``I've never been quite so excited for anything in my life. I've grown tired of living a mediocre life and can't wait to start a journey full of responsibility, honor, and dedication.'' PFC Towse lived up to that ideal, and left a shining example for the world to follow. A Utah newspaper wrote that PFC Towse ``was known as the `Candy Doctor'--a name he earned by showering the children with countless handfuls of fruity or chocolate treats.'' His father, Jim Towse said that Cody ``was my boy. He was me. I love old cars, he loves old cars. Seems like everything I love, he loved.'' Their special relationship was the kind that only a father and his son could have. Jim also said, ``It comforts me to know [Cody] went for a noble cause. He told me, `You know, Dad, if I go out in a blaze of glory, don't worry. If I can save somebody doing it, all the better.' '' In another blog post, written just before leaving for Afghanistan, PFC Towse poignantly wrote of the deeper thoughts and conflicting feelings our soldiers often face: I feel like we all walk a fine edge, emotionally at least. A man can't sit around and contemplate the impending possibility of his death all day or he'll go crazy. It can be just as bad for a man to sit around and joke like nothing could ever happen to him and breed a lackadaisical outlook on his mission and get himself or his buddies killed. Now I'm just rambling. I guess in short I just wanted to say that sometimes the biggest obstacle a man faces is himself and his mind. Yeah, that sounded educated, I'll go with that. Indeed, each of us would do well to remember and apply the truth of which PFC Towse wrote. In order to overcome challenges in our lives, we must first overcome our own fears and perceived inadequacies. I believe that Cody Towse lived his life according to this truth. His commander in Afghanistan reported that when the patrol was attacked, PFC Towse began assisting the wounded. As PFC Towse was performing his duties, a second IED was detonated and the resulting injuries took his life. When I heard of Cody's story, I was reminded of Christ's teaching: ``Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'' PFC Towse's dutiful actions were unquestionably an ultimate display of love for his brothers in arms. I imagine that Cody, like many of our service men and women, would deny the claim that he is a hero. To Cody, and all of our soldiers, I would say that you are among the few heroes left in our modern world. As Americans, we all feel a profound sense of pride and honor when we see a uniformed soldier, and we would be wise to remember our heroes in all that we do, especially in this body. I thank PFC Cody J. Towse for his honorable service in defense of the Constitution and our freedom, and I thank all of our men and women who have also given the ultimate sacrifice. I would like to convey my condolences and profound gratitude to Cody's parents, Jim and Jamie, his brothers Will and Christian, and his sister Callan. Our thoughts and prayers are with you. It is my solemn hope that we, as Senators, will always remember the tremendous sacrifice, laid upon the altar of freedom, of our brave soldiers and their families.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Terry Schow for his exemplary work in behalf of Veterans in the State of Utah. Mr. Schow has provided a strong voice and steady hand in fighting for the critical services our veterans need and deserve. Three Utah Governors recognized and tapped into his tremendous talent and unchallenged commitment to our veterans. He was appointed as Director of the Utah Division of Veterans Affairs in October 2001 by Governor Michael O. Leavitt. Governor Jon M. Huntsman Jr. then appointed Mr. Schow as Executive Director of the Utah Department of Veterans Affairs and Governor W. Herbert named him to the same post. Terry Schow is a U.S. Army Veteran who served in the 5th and 10th Special Forces Groups and the 25th Infantry Division. He also served a tour of duty in Southeast Asia. Mr. Schow has demonstrated through his long years of service what it means to honor the promises we make as a country to those who stand in harms way defending our freedom. He paid special attention to our veterans who suffer from mental and emotional challenges and the troubling trend of suicide among veterans. Terry Schow worked tirelessly to ensure we never lose a member of the military whether on the battlefield or long after they have left active duty. Terry Schow's efforts have improved the quality of life for countless Utah veterans through increased access to critical care and specialized services. I thank Mr. Terry Schow for his extraordinary impact on our veterans.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, for 62 days several of my colleagues and I have objected to the majority's request for unanimous consent to circumvent regular order to go to conference with the House on the budget. They want permission to skip a few steps in the process, and jump straight to the closed-door back-room meetings. There, senior negotiators of the House and Senate will be free to wait until a convenient, artificial deadline and ram through their compromise-- un-amended, un-debated and mostly un-read. And with the country backed up against another economic cliff crisis, we are concerned they will exploit that opportunity to sneak a debt- limit increase into the budget. We think that is inappropriate. And yet, objecting to this dysfunctional, unrepublican, undemocratic process has invited anger and criticism from colleagues here on both sides of the aisle. We just don't get it, you see. Proceeding to a secret, closed-door, back-room, 11th-hour deal, we are told, is the way the process works. It is the way the Senate works. It is the way the House works. It is the way Washington works. We know this. That is why we're objecting. In case nobody has noticed, the way Washington works stinks. Closed-door, back room, cliff deals are not the solution, they are the problem. The unspoken premise of every argument we have heard in favor of going to conference on this budget without conditions is that Congress knows what it is doing. ``Trust us--to go into a back room and cut a deal.'' ``Trust us--to ignore special interests and only work for the good of the country.'' ``Trust us--to not wait until the 11th hour, to not hold the full faith and credit of the United States hostage, to not ram through another thousand-page, trillion-dollar bill, sight unseen.'' ``Trust us--We're Congress!'' As it happens, the American people don't trust Congress--or either party. And we have given them at least 17 trillion reasons not to. I can even provide physical evidence to support my claim. If the American people had confidence in the way the Senate works I know for a fact I would not be here. I do not think my colleagues joining me in this objection would be here either. We were not sent here to affirm ``the way the Senate worked'' as Congress racked up trillions in debt, inflated a housing bubble, doled out favors to special interests, squeezed the middle class and trapped the poor in poverty. We were sent here to change all that. We are fully aware that ``Washington'' and the establishments of both parties do not like what we are doing--but as computer programmers say, ``that's a feature, not a bug.'' The tactics of Washington serve the interests of Washington--of Congress itself, the Federal bureaucracy, corporate cronies and special interests. And does so at the expense of the American people, their wallets, and their freedom. The only time I can think of when it has not worked out that way was with the recent budget sequestration and that was--literally--an accident; a mistake. The sequestration process worked out exactly the opposite of how Washington expected and intended. There is a reason that six of the ten wealthiest counties in the United States are suburbs of Washington, D.C.--a city that produces almost nothing of actual economic value. And it is not because the two parties have been so effective taking on the special interests and doing the people's business. There is a reason Tea Partiers on the right and Occupiers on the left protest their shared perception that our economy, our politics, and our society seem rigged. That elites on Wall Street, K Street, and Pennsylvania Avenue get to play by one set of rules and people on Main Street have to play by another. It is because they are mostly right. This is our true inequality crisis: not between rich and poor, but between Washington and everyone else. The national debt, and its statutory limit, is a hidden part of this inequality crisis. After all, what is new debt but a tax increase on future Americans? On those who cannot yet vote? On those who have not yet been born? Raising the debt limit thus results in a form of taxation without representation. That is why the American people resent it. And it is why Washington desperately wants to raise the debt limit with as little public scrutiny and accountability as possible. And that is why we're objecting. Our critics say we should allow the process to move forward so we can have a debate. I don't know if they've noticed, but we are having the debate. We have had it several days in a row. More than that, we are having the debate here on the floor, open to public scrutiny, and not secretly behind closed doors. This, right here, is how the process is supposed to work. The only way the American people can have any hope of supervising their Congress--not ours, their Congress--is for us to do our work above board and in the open, according to the rules. That is all we are asking for--and only on one issue. For all our concerns, we have still said all along that we will not block a budget conference. We can go to conference right now. We are willing to give the majority permission to break from regular order and scurry off to closed door negotiations to cut their back room deal. All we have asked is one thing, a very small and simple request: leave the debt limit out of it. Do everything else you want, spend all the money you want, use all the accounting gimmicks you want, but when you go into that back room, check the debt limit at the door. That way the American people can have that separate debate, on its own merits, here on the floor. This should not be controversial. The House Republican budget did not include a debt limit increase or instructions to include one. The Senate Democratic budget does not include it either. House and Senate negotiators, therefore, have no procedural or democratic justification for including a debt limit hike in their talks. They have no right to do it. Yet they won't promise not to. Once again: Trust us, we are Congress. ``This is how the Senate works,'' they say. ``This is how we do things.'' Respectfully, this is how we fail. This is how we earn our 15 percent approval rating. We know this is business as usual around here. That is why we're objecting. If the majority wants to proceed to a budget conference through regular order, we can not stop them. But again, that is not their request. Their request is for permission to break from regular order, skip a few steps, and go straight to the secret negotiations, behind closed doors, where in the Washington-centered view of the world, the real governing can be done. The American people do not trust secret, back-room deals, and neither do I. Unless and until the American people are assured that we will not sneak a debt limit increase into the Conference report, I will happily continue to object. I object to the motion on the floor.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I thank my friend and my colleague, the Senator from Texas, for his remarks and I speak briefly to respond to a couple of points that have come up today. First of all, it is important for us to remember that although the rules of our body might allow for a conference committee to meet in public, and although that may have happened in the past from time to time, it is not the norm. In asking around to some senior staff members who have been here longer than I have, it typically has not happened in recent years. In fact, it has become relatively rare in recent years. So to suggest it necessarily is an open process because it has the capacity to be made into an open process, those are not the same things. Typically, we can legitimately expect for this to be a backroom, closed-door process. That is not the end of the world; we, of course, need conference committees. They do valuable, important work. We are not disputing that. We are not disputing the fact that sometimes it is important for conference committees to meet in order to reconcile competing versions of the same legislation--one passed in the House and one passed in the Senate. But what we are talking about here is a very limited request: to limit the scope of their work so as to exclude the possibility of a debt limit increase without the 60-vote threshold. It is also important to remember that although this is the procedure the majority has chosen to use in order to try to get to a conference committee, it is not the only way. In fact, it is possible to do this without unanimous consent. It is possible to do this without, in other words, all of us being willing to do it--all of us--by withholding our objection as effectively voting to do that. If, as has been suggested, the other body does, in fact, want to go to conference, the other body could take the budget we passed, could slap their amendments on top of it, could even replace most or even all of our budget with theirs, send it back over, and at that point it is my understanding we could go to conference without the need for a unanimous consent. So there are other ways. This is just the way the majority has chosen to go. The majority has every right to do that, and we have every right to object. That we do and that we will continue to do until such time as it either becomes unnecessary or until such time as the majority agrees to modify the request along the lines we have specified so as to permit and ensure that any debt limit discussions and votes will take place subsequent to the normal order and subject to a 60-vote threshold. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.