farmers from michigan, wisconsin to alabama to california and everywhere in between. as you know, we passed our farm bill with wide bipartisan support a week ago, and in the debate we talked a lot about risk management and making sure that farmers have a safety net when they experience a disaster, whether it be a drought, a late freeze or other severe weather. but what about when the weather's good, the sun shines, there's enough rain but not too much and it falls all at the right times and the crops grow and ripen and then there aren't enough people to harvest it? which has happened too many times in michigan. when that happens, crops rot in the fields unpicked, unsorted and unsold. in california last year, peach growers saw much of their crop

rot on the trees because they couldn't find enough workers. one farmer outside marysville, california, said that he was losing 5% of his peaches every day. every day. because he couldn't get enough farm workers. and the system didn't work. and this year, grapefruit growers are already behind on picking by two weeks because of the labor shortage. we need a legal system that works. in alabama in 2011, thousands of farm workers fled the state as a new immigration law was passed and undermined the ability to get quality legal workers. brian cashe, a tomato grower on chandler mountain, that said one day he had 64 workers and the next day when the new law made it a crime to not carry valid documents at all times and forced police to check on anyone

they suspect was here illegally, and the way that this was put together, which was not workable, he went from 64 workers to 11. so we need a system that works, that's realistic, that makes sure that everyone, in fact, is here documented legally, but it has to be done in a way that works for farmers and workers. and because he didn't have enough workers to harvest his 125 acres, he watched his tomato crop rot in the field and that loss cost him $100,000. in my home state of michigan last year, we couldn't get enough workers to help harvest the crops up and down the west side of the state. asparagus grower jim baker, who runs the michigan asparagus advisory board, reports that 97% of michigan asparagus is harvested by hand and almost all

of our hand harvest labor comes from migrant workers and that that means that much of our asparagus crop unfortunately last year was left in the field. this is all left in the field. all of this and what's happened. allen overheiser from costco township, michigan, grows peaches and apples on 20 -- on 225 acres. he typically hires 25 to 30 seasonal workers, but right now he only has two. he said, i think one people -- one thing people don't understand is that people we normally hire are skilled at this work, they work hard. it's just not something that anyone can do or wants to do. we have skilled people that we need every year. i think that's probably the myth out there, that somehow this isn't important or skilled work. the reality is that we're in the

business of providing safe, high-quality food that people want to buy. it takes a skilled work force. it's hard work. and they just aren't everywhere. we need to have a legal system that farmers can count on to be able to have the skilled labor that they need. diane smith, the executive director of the michigan apple committee, said that because last year's crop harvest was lost to weather disaster, many farm workers, of course, moved on to different jobs. in fact, she said, apple growers from michigan to washington are desperate to get back the skilled workers that they need. and that growers are hearing that until immigration is worked out, until there is a legal system they can trust and count on, that workers they've worked with for years aren't willing to come back to the u.s. russ kastanza grows swawsh,

peppers, cucumbers, tomatoes and eggplants on his michigan farm. in the 1960's, every farm worker his father hired came from nearby baton harbor, michigan. as of 2010, not a single worker came from that city. again, the challenges of finding farm workers, those who are skilled who want to do this kind of work. fred leetz, who also farms near baton harbor says that american workers don't want to work in the fields. he's reached out to find workers and finds it's a particular kind of work that -- that most american workers are not interested in doing. in 2009, migrant workers held 200 of the 225 jobs at his apple orchard and he says he'd be out of business without their help and he has to have a legal system that works. so that he knows he's following the law, so that people know they're following the law, they can count on it and they can have the skilled workers that

they need every year. today, 77% of our country's farm workers are foreign born. these are men and women who work in extremely difficult jobs. they -- they are people who need and want to follow the law. we've got to make sure the law works. we need immigration reform to make sure we have an accountable system. and for our workers who put in so much effort all year long only to watch their crops rot in the fields, we need immigration reform. we need a legal system that works. if they don't have workers to pick all their crops, then farmers are going to plant fewer acres. the effect of a labor shortage can be just as devastating and disastrous on our food supply and our family's grocery bills as a drought or a freeze. so there's no two ways about it.

we need to pass this bill. we need immigration reform. we need a system that's accountable, that's credible, that's legal and that works. farmers and farm workers' organizations are strongly endorsing this bill because fixing our immigration system is what the bill before us is all about. and i'm very pleased that people have come together, those representing workers, those representing farmers have come together to find something that actually is a good balance and works for everyone in this sector of the economy. this bill first creates a way for current undocumented workers to obtain legal status through the blue card program if they've worked at least a hundred workdays or 575 hours from january 1, 2010 through december 31, 2012. all the blue cardholders will

receive biometric identification. employers will be required to provide a record of their employment to the department of agriculture as well. and to be eligible, then, for a green card, the workers must have worked for at least a hundred days per year for eight years prior to enactment or 150 days for five years prior to enactment and they also would have to show that they pay taxes on their income that they earn while in blue card status, that they have not been convicted of any felony or violent misdemeanor as well. next, the bill also establishes an agricultural worker program to assign work visas for immigrant workers who don't wish to live in the united states but want to be able to come to the united states to be able to work legally. workers must register with the usda and pay a registration fee and the usda will create an

electronic employment monitoring system similar to our current student and exchange visitor information system to track temporary workers. this bill ensures a review of the visa cap after five years so we can see how the program's working for farmers and for farm workers. it also gives the secretary of agriculture the power to increase the number of visas in an emergency, as in a situation where we don't have enough workers and the crops are actually rotting in the fields. in addition, any workers who are unemployed for more than 60 days or breach a contract with an employer, the employee will have to leave the united states. furthermore, the bill provides much-needed certainty for farmers and for workers when it comes to wages. under the bill, farmers will know how much to plan to spend on help and workers will know how much to plan on earning for

their work. finally, farm workers must hire eligible and qualified american workers -- farm employers must hire eligible and qualified american workers before filing any -- filling any shortages of workers through the visa progr program. so as always, and certainly a high priority for me is to make sure american workers have the first opportunity for these jobs and it's only a situation in which there are not americans applying and wishing to have this employment that we would then turn to those who are legally here who are foreign born. we are the top agriculture export country in the world, the top. it's one of the bright spots for us. and as i've said so many times, 16 million people work in this industry. we can't continue to be the top export country if we leave crops in the fields or on the trees

because we don't have a legal system that works and we don't have legal employees who are here, workers who are here legally who can do the work. so we need to pass this bill. there are many reasons to pass this bill. one is to make sure that we are actually picking from the trees, the fruit trees, not letting things fall and rot on the ground, the precious food that we are growing across the country. we need to pass this bill because our food supply and the world's food supply depends on being able to get the crops out of the fields. we have done a great job working together to produce a five-year farm bill that addresses everything from research and support for farmers when they have disasters to conservation

practices, trade, local food systems, rural development, on and on and on. the one piece that we can do now that will really give american agriculture a positive one-two punch is to pass this bill. it is a balanced -- it is a balance. it's been worked out among all those involved in the agricultural economy, both from a business standpoint and a worker standpoint, and everyone is very clear. the system is broken, it doesn't work. it doesn't work for anybody right now. we need a system that works, that's accountable, that has the right kind of balance, that, of course, puts american workers first but allows our farmers to be able to have the legal workers that they need as well in that process. this bill makes sense, and, madam president, i would urge that my colleagues support it.

thank you. mr. cruz: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment so that i may call up my amendment numbered 1320, which is at the desk. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from texas, mr. cruz, proposes an amendment numbered 1320. on page 896 -- mr. cruz: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: madam president, central to any debate over immigration is the need to secure our borders.

the american people are overwhelmingly unified on that proposition -- we must secure our borders. and, i feel, the bill before this body, the gang of eight immigration bill, does not secure our borders. right now our borders are anything but secure. in fiscal year 2012, there were 364 4,768 apprehensions along te southwest border. 49% of those apprehensions were in texas. the border patrol reported in 2012 463 deaths, 549 assaults, and 1,312 rescues, and these are just a tiny fraction of those actually harmed crossing the border illegally. in fiscal year 2012, there were

2,297,662 pounds of marijuana and nearly 6,000 pounds of cocaine seized at the southwest border. the trafficking we're seeing is not just human life but it is also drugs that are destroying the lives of countless young people and americans across our country. from april 2006 to march of 20 2013, over 9 million pounds of marijuana, cocaine, meth and heroin have been seized just in texas. $182 million in currency has been seized. over 4,000 weapons have been seized. 392 cartel members have been arrested in texas since 2007. 33 cartel-related homicides in texas just since 2009. and there have been 78 instances where shots were fired at law enforcement officers in texas.

the insecurity of our borders is causing human tragedies in our country, many of which are occurring in in my home state of texas. a brutal example can be found by my constituents in brooks county, texas, a county in south texas 60 miles southwest of corpus christi, 90 miles from laredo. seemingly peaceful, brooks county is the site of an are extreme problem. hundreds of thousands coming illegally, many coming from countries other than mexico attempting to cross the harsh terrain on foot, cutting across private property to avoid detection by the understaffed border patrol. according to news sources, 400 to 500 illegal immigrants cross brooks county on foot every single night. 400 to 500 a night.

"the washington post" recently ro a piece about brooks county and described the situation as follows, -- quote -- "there has been a surge in illegal migrants mostly from central america trying to sneak around the checkpoint by cutting through the desolate ranches and labyrinths of mesquite brunch brush that parallel the highway. they arrive by riding the freight trains up through southern mexico and along the gulf coast. smugglers float them across the rio grande to safe houses in brownsville and mccowan and drive them north towards houston and san antonio along u.s. route 281. several mimes before the furious border patrol checkpoint, the smugglers pull over and that's where the migrants start walking. because they're either paid in advance or based solely on how many people they successfully deliver, smugglers often leave illegal immigrants who -- in places such as the sometimes

30-mile overland hike which is undertaken at a brutally fast pace, and sadly, the harsh land and climate leads to the death of many. "the washington post" interviewed one of my states, mr. persnell cage on that point. he said -- quote -- "i don't want the bodies here anymore." said pesnell cage whose property is directly west of the highway check point. a more secure border would mean fewer deaths. the system we have is not humane, it is cruel and it results in terrible human tragedies. "the washington post" went on to describe the situation mr. cage is facing. quote, "some of the any grants find their way to cage's ranch house as 300 people had done the week before. i feel so sorry for them.

cage has placed dozens of water faucets around his property but a sinking feeling sets in whenever he sees a pair of sneakers or a shirt tied to a branch near a road, typical last-ditch distress signals. when the quail hunters come with dogs, more bodies show up. last year, 16 bodies were found on wage's ranch. 16 men, women, and children who lost their lives because of our broken immigration system. and sadly, the 16 found on mr. cage's ranch represent only a nawl small fraction. 129 bodies found in just brooks county last year. the county spent $159,000 last year to recover and bury those who went unclaimed. they are buried at the sacred heart burial park. they spread across three sections of the cemetery.

in these three sections, the graves do not have names. the remains of a human being lie marked only by simple aluminum markers carrying serial numbers or sterile descriptions. unknown female. bones. or skull. no one who cares about our humanity would want to maintain a system where the border isn't secure, where vulnerable women and children entrust themselves to corrupt coyotes and drug dealers and are left to die in the desert. this is a system that produces human tragedy, and the most heartbreaking aspect of this gang of eight bill is it will perpet debate this -- perpetuate this tragedy. it will not fix problem, it will not secure the borders. linda vickers, who is a constituent from brooks county, wrote me about the situation she

faces. quote, "in all the years i've lived here since 1996 i have never seen or been confronted by so many illegal immigrants. since may of last year, the numbers have continued to rise. but i've never seen it like this. nor have i ever felt this unsafe in my own home and on my own ranch as i do right now. i have so many gang members, m.s. 13, et cetera, around my house that i now feel it is not if i will be assaulted but when. linda vickers' husband is a veterinarian, dr. mike vices are. like many other ranchers in brooks county, mike speaks spanish and worked for mexican ranchers for years as a vet until the travel became too dangerous. dr. vickers sent the following staples staiment on his own, -- quote -- "i live on a brooks county ranch with my wife, linda. in 2012, 129 bodies were found

in our body on private lavernland. most were found within 15 minutes of our front door in any given direction. we believe these bodies represent only 20% to 25% of the actual number of illegal immigrants dying in this area. in one week of last july i personally rescued 15 people, most were central americans that were lost and close to dying from dehydration and heat exhaustion. that same week i found a deceased person that had been laid across a dirt road in order to be found. he was a 31-year-old man from el salvador. a system that perpetuates these human tragedies is cruel. it is the opposite of humane. and yet the bill before this senate, the gang of eight bill, encourages illegal immigration now and more in the future if it's passed.

preep hentions in the rio grande valley are projected to be higher in fiscal year 2013 than any year since 2000 and the number of apprehensions to date is already more than the total an prehengdz in fiscal years 2002 through 2004 and 2007 through 2011. if you look at this chart and the chart of an prehengdz of what homeland security refers to as o.f. nmplet's, other than mexico mexicans, a significant number of people coming illegally are not from mexico mexico but from other nations. if you see the chart, the black line represents apprehensions of o.t.m.'s along the southwest border, the white line represents apprehensions in texas. you see two clear spikes. one in the mid 2000's coming up right upon the consideration of the last major amnesty bill and we saw apprehensions spike

dramatically as people were incentivized by that offered amnesty to risk their lives coming here illegally and see see again a seconds spike happening right now. d.h.s. statistics show apprehensions are up 13% versus the same time last year from 170,223 to 192298. the gang of eight bill encourages illegal immigration in many ways one of which is by prohibiting immigration law enforcement from detaining or deporting any apprehended illegal immigrant if they -- quote -- "appear to be eligible for instant legalization and requiring that they be allowed to apply for amnesty." in other words, what this bill does is it handcuffs law enforcement from enforcing our immigration laws. we should not be surprised when you hand tough law enforcement -- handcuff law

enforcement when the result is more and more breaking the law. the gang of eight bill allows illegal aliens who have been previously removed to in the secretary's discretion be eligible for legalization even if they illegally reentered the country yet again again. and neither the gang of eight bill nor many of the alternative border security proposals that have been introduced do enough to meaningfully secure our boards. the last time this body passed major immigration reform was 1986. in 1986 the federal government made a promise to the american people. the federal government said we will grant amnesty to some three million people here illegally in exchange, we will secure the borders. we will stop illegal immigration, we will fix the problem. the american people accepted that offer. what happened in 1986 was the amnesty happened, three million people received it, and yet the

border security never did. i was struck last week when the senior senator from new york stood at his desk acknowledged said when this bill passes, illegal immigration will be a thing of the past. it was an echo from the debate in 1986. in 1986 that same promise was made to the american people. just grant amnesty, and illegal immigration will be a thing of the past. you know what we've learned, is if legalization comes first, border security never happens. one of the major questions before this body is what which should come first, legalization or border security. i can tell you the overwhelming majority of americans, republicans and democrats, want border security first. before any legalization. and yet the gang of eight bill and the alternatives before this body don't require even a single additional border patrol agent prior to legalization.

the gang of eight bill does not require a single foot of fencing be built along the border prior to legalization. the gang of eight bill does not require a biometric exit spri system prior to -- exit-entry system prior to legalization. and unlike the gang of eight bill the amendment i have called up does provide real border security. it does what we've been telling the american people, but it actually follows through on it. prior to legalization, my amendment would do a number of things. number one, it would triple the number of border patrol agents on the soirn border -- southern border. today there are a little over 18,000 border patrol agents on the border but our border is not secure. this bill triples them. this bill quadruples the number of cameras, sensors, helicopters, fixed-wing assets, technology and infrastructure on the border.

this bill requires that we complete all 700 miles of the fencing, required by law in the secure fence act. this bill requires real-time sharing of information among federal law enforcement agencies. this bill requires that we complete and fully implement the us-visit system including biometric exit-entry and this bill requires that we establish operational control over 100% of the southern borders. now, proponents of the bill of eight -- the gang of eight suggest we don't need additional border patrol. i have to tell you it is interesting seeing senators who represent states very, very far away from the border standing up with complete confidence sharing what we need to do to secure the border. i can tell you every time i have been to the border in my home state of texas the number-one answer given from people on the

ground, how do we secure the border, how do we make it so you're not at risk from mexican drug cartels and the human tragedy of illegal immigration, the number-one answer from law enforcement on the ground is more boots on the ground. and let me put things in perspective in terms of what exactly we're talking about with boots on the ground. we need to have sufficient resources to secure the border. and let's take as a comparison the border versus new york city. in new york city, there are 34,500 nypd officers. the area that those 34,000 officers are policing is 468 square miles. that's a density of about 73 officers per square mile. by contrast, the border has 18,516 border patrol agents but instead of policing 468 square

miles, they're policing approximately 200,000 square miles. that's a density of 0.1 agents per square mile. way. to get a sense of just the differential there is right now in new york city, 34,500 nypd officers, as represented by this chart. it is policing 470 square miles, that little dot. by comparison, roughly half the number of border patrol agents are policing a square that large. and it's why law enforcement on the border say that whenever you spot those who are coming here illegally, even if you spot them, even if you find them, there's a delay of getting border patrol thraghts to apprehend them -- agents there to apprehend them and by the time there they're, many have escaped and fled into the interior. now, why focus on inputs, what are the reasons to focus on inputs?

one of the reasons to focus on inputs is that this administration in particular has demonstrated a willingness to disregard the law and less than a complete fidelity to truth. proponents of the gang of eight say there are provisions in this statute that require that d.h.s. fix the problem. i'd like to put out a couple of provisions of current law. if you look right now at current law, today current federal law requires that ports of entry shall use equipment and software to allow the biometric comparison and authentication of all travel documents. that was enacted in law in 20002. has it happened? no. it's one of the things in the civics classes we teach our kids that congress passes a law, the president signs it and suddenly it occurs. it doesn't occur if the executive doesn't implement it. and the statement of the head of the travel entry programs at

c.b.p. in 2011 was as follows -- quote -- "the operational costs of a biometric program at this time would be inordinately expensive and the benefits not commensurate with the costs." so despite the fact that the statute, the words on the paper say we've got to have a biometric system, we don't. and the obama administration's made perfectly clear they don't intend to change that. if you look at another provision of current law, current law right now provides the d.h.s. secretary shall -- not may, not might, shall -- "shall provide at least two layers of reinforced fencing" over 700 specified miles. how much of that has happened? 36.6 miles of double-layered fencing currently standing. the statute says there shall be 700. d.h.s. has built only 36. words on a paper don't secure the border. a third example of current law

right now that the obama administration is disregarding, current law provides the d.h. secretary must -- quote -- "achieve and maintain operational control over the entire border." what is d.h.s. secretary janet napolitano say? she says, "look, operational control, it's a anarchaic term." d.h.s. doesn't even measure it anymore, much less require it. why? because when they were measuring it, they discovered it wasn't being achieved, the border wasn't secure. so rather than just fix the problem, they just erased the metric that demonstrated they weren't fixing the problem. there are two fundamental questions this body needs to consider when it comes to border security. number one, do we have real border security, do we fix the problem, do we stop providing empty promises? the gang of eight bill has empty promises that will do nothing to secure the border. i think the american people are tired of empty promises.

the amendment i have offered will put real teeth in border security, triple the number of border patrol officers, quadruple planes, helicopters, technology, and ensure that we fix the problem. and, number two, there's a fundamental question -- which comes first, legalization or border security? the gang of eight bill says, let's have legalization first and then border security is a promise that will happen in the future. madam president, we've been down that road. that was the exact same path we took in 1986. in 1986, congress told the american people, we will grant legalization now and on tuesday i'll pay you the cost of a hamburger. in the future, we'll secure the border. and three decades later, it still hasn't happened. the only way to make it happen is to require border security first, to put the incentives on the federal government. talk is cheap.

we need to fix the problem. in closing, madam president, i would ask you and i would ask the american people to focus on the cost, the human tragedy of our current system. in 1986, there were 3 million people here illegally. they were granted amnesty and the federal government promised the problem would be solved. three decades later, the border's still not secure and there are 11 million people here illegally. if this body passes the gang of eight bill, it will grant immediate legalization and it still won't secure the border. and in another 10 or 20 years, we'll be back here. but it won't be 3 million, it won't be 11 million, it will be 20 million or 30 million people here illegally. and, madam president, if that happens, there are going to be a lot more graves like this, a lot more little boys, little girls, a lot more men and women who

will never achieve the potential they could because our system, it is a perverse system that encourages good people who just want a better life, they want a better life for their kids, and our system, because we don't enforce the law, they risk their lives, they entrust themselves to human traffickers who assault them, who sexually violate them, who leave them to die in the desert. the american people are overwhelmingly unified that, number one, we need to secure the border. and, number two, any bill that this body passes should have border security first and then legalization, not the other way around. you know, there's an old saying that's popular in texas, "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." in 1986, congress asked the american people, trust us with legalization first and border security later, and we learned it never happened. and you know what? i don't think the american people are ready to be fooled a

second time. i hope that this body will adopt the amendment i've introduced to provide real border security and to ensure that border security occurs first before legalization. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. hatch: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: madam president, i ask that my remarks be as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: madam president, the senate is so far -- has so far this year confirmed 26 judicial nominees, including six appeals court nominees. the majority was right on cue complaining about what they still insist is unprecedented confirmation obstruction and threatening to fundamentally change the confirmation process itself. now, the late senator from new york, daniel patrick moynihan, once said that you're entitled to your own opinion pn but not o your own facts. so let's look at the real confirmation facts.

the senate confirmed a higher percentage of president obama's first-term appeals court nominees and did so faster than it had for president bush. the 111 judges confirmed in the previous congress was the highest total in more than 20 years. now, we are at the beginning of president obama's second term. the senate is on a faster second-term confirmation pace than under any president in american history. and, by the way, we have already confirmed more judges as the democratic majority allowed to be confirmed in all of 2005, the first year of president bush's second term. i was chairman of the judiciary committee and we moved those judges through when there were democrat presidents and we're moving them through with this democrat president. or we can look specifically at nominees to the u.s. court of

appeals. the six appeals court nominees already confirmed this year are more than 60% above the average annual confirmation pace during the entire time that i've been in the senate. i've only been here 37 years but this is 60% above the average annual confirmation pace during the entire time i've been in the u.s. senate. in fact, the senate confirmed more appeals court nominees by this time in only eight of those 37 years that i've been here. despite those confirmation facts, the majority wants the public to believe that legions of judicial nominees are piling up, waiting to be confirmed and that the only thing holding back this confirmation flood is republican obstruction in general and republican filibusters in particular. democratic senators claim that there have been hundreds of filibusters. in january 2011, they claimed that there had been 275 filibusters in the previous four

years alone. last december, the claim had risen to 391. my democratic colleagues would be no less accurate if they claimed thousands or even millions of filibusters. there is no other way to say it, mr. president, but the majority is committing filibuster fraud. and it's pathetic. here's how they do it. the senate must end debate on a bill or a nomination before we can vote on it. the process for ending debate or invoking cloture has two steps: a cloture motion and a cloture vote. a cloture motion is nothing more than a request to end debate and requires only the signature of 16 senators. mr. hatch: the little secret behind those wild claims of filibusters in the hundreds is that democrats are counting cloture motions, not filibusters. most of which they filed. on january 1 of this year, one democratic senator actually let slip what the majority is up to when he referred to -- quote -- "the use of the filibuster as

measured by the number of cloture motions." cloture motions and filibusters are two different things. in a report dated just last month, the congressional research service says that -- quote -- "senate leadership has increasingly made use of cloture at times when no evident filibuster has yet occurred." the current majority leader -- now, that was the congressional research service that said that. the current majority leader files cloture motions left and right, sometimes at the same time and in virtually the same breath as when he brings up a matter for consideration. that gimmick boosts the number that the majority uses as false evidence of a filibuster problem but it is simply filibuster fraud. so many of these cloture motions are unnecessary that a higher percentage is withdrawn without any cloture vote at all than under previous majority leaders

of either party. here is one recent example. the judiciary committee unanimously reported the appeals court nomination of sri srinivasan on may 16, 2013. i helped to get him through the judiciary committee. no one opposed this nominee in the judiciary committee. and no one was ever going to oppose this nominee on the flo floor. the majority leader still filed a cloture motion even though the minority leader had already agreed to a confirmation vote. i will not be surprised if the majority claims that this unanimously confirmed nominee was somehow filibustered because a completely unwarranted and totally unnecessary cloture motion was filed and promptly withdrawn. it is time to stop the gimmicks and fake numbers. it is time to stop the filibuster fraud. a cloture motion is simply a request to end debate while a cloture vote is an actual

attempt to end debate. a filibuster occurs when that attempt to end debate fails. let's look specifically at judicial filibusters. the majority should know the judicial filibuster facts because, after all, they pioneered the use of filibusters to defeat judicial nominees who would otherwise be confirmed. let me just refer to this. -- let me just refer to this chart right here. the democrats are the large red line and the republicans are the smaller one. the senate has taken a total of 51 cloture votes on 36 different judicial nominations since the first one in 1968. remember, that a vote against cloture is a vote for a filibuster. as this chart shows, 79% of all votes by senators for judicial filibusters in american history have been cast by democrats.

one reason why the majority uses fake definition and made-up numbers is that the number of real judicial filibusters is much lower today than in the past, especially during the previous administration of george w. bush. here's another chart. the red line is votes taken. the green line are the votes that failed. the large lines on the left are during the time of george w. bush and the short lines are during the time of obama. at this point under president bush, the senate had taken 24 cloture votes on judicial nominees and 20 of them had failed. in other words, there had been 20 judicial filibusters by democrats. not cloture motions but actual filibusters that prevented confirmation votes.

but under president obama, the senate has taken only nine cloture votes on judicial nominees and only four of those have failed. there have been only four judicial filibusters since president obama took office. it's no wonder that the majority today would rather use fake numbers than talk about real filibusters and then threaten to have a nuclear option. that's ridiculous, and i can tell you it's a dangerous thing for democrats to do. i admit, there are a lot of democrats that are here for the first time, have never been in the minority, but they better think it through. democrats led five times as many filibusters of president bush's judicial nominees than there have been filibusters of president obama's judicial nominees. five times as many. not only that, but the very same majority party leaders who today most loudly condemn judicial

filibusters, the majority leader, the majority whip and the judiciary committee chairman, each voted no less than 21 times for judicial filibusters by this point under president bush. they voted for real filibusters then. they condemn fake filibusters today. another example of filibuster fraud is the claim that the senate today is bound by a 2006 agreement among a group of senators who came to be known as the gang of 14. just a few months ago, the majority whip said that the senate is supposed to use this agreement today as the standard for justifying a filibuster. in the judiciary committee and here on the floor, senators on the other side of the aisle lecture us about how we supposedly have violated that agreement. that agreement was never binding on more than those 14 senators. it offered a standard that was to be interpreted and applied individually, and it never applied to anyone after 2006.

here's what happened. by the spring of 2005, democrats have led 20 filibusters that prevented confirmation votes on 10 different appeals court nominees. the majority leader threatened to prevent judicial filibusters through a parliament ruling that could be sustained by a simple majority vote. a group of seven democrats and seven republicans joined to head off that confrontation. with a 55-45 republican majority, the seven democrats were enough to prevent judicial filibusters and the seven republicans were enough to prevent a ban on judicial filibusters. i have here, right here the memorandum of understanding signed by those 14 senators. three things stand out. first, it says that it -- quote -- "confirms an understanding among the signatories." unquote. the agreement applied to only

those 14 senators, only five of whom are serving today. second, it says that this agreement is -- quote -- "related to spending and future nominations in the 109th congress." unquote. in other words, it was related only to that congress. the agreement expired more than six years ago. third, it says that those 14 senators will support judicial filibusters only under -- quote -- "extraordinary circumstances " -- unquote -- and that each senator decides individually whether those circumstances exist. there never was any objective standard that applied to the senate as a whole or to any group of senators, for that matter. it could not be clearer. this was an agreement among those senators to use that standard during that congress in order to avoid that confrontation over changing confirmation procedures. individual senators may certainly use whatever standard they choose for their cloture or confirmation votes, including

whatever this extraordinary circumstances standard might mean, but it is pure fiction to say that this temporary agreement ever bound let alone binds us today those senators who explicitly agreed to it, most of whom are gone now. today we have the bizarre phenomenon of democratic senators who voted for nearly two dozen filibusters of bush nominees telling us that an expired agreement that they had never even -- that they had never joined somehow prevents us from voting for filibusters of obama nominees today. why is the majority using such sleight of hand in trying to enforce nonexistent agreements? why are they engaging in filibuster fraud? it's a big question. one possibility is that the majority wants to cover up the fact that president obama has consistently lagged behind his predecessors in making judicial

nominations consistently lagged behind. the senate, after all, cannot confirm nominations that do not exist. now, the administrative office of the courts tracks pending nominees for current judicial vacancies. you can see here the record based on that data. the first one is president clinton on the left, then george w. bush, then obama and then today. as you can see, obama's way below clinton and bush. you can see here the record based on that data. that's the data of the administrative office of the u.s. courts. the senate had pending nominations for an average of 41% of current vacancies under president clinton, 53% under president bush but only 35% under president obama, and today it is even lower at only 33%.

during his first term, president obama was more than 30% behind president bush's nominations pace but ended up only 10% behind in total confirmations. that hardly looks like a partisan obstruction to me. not all vacancies, of course, are created equal. some are more pressing than others. president obama recently sent to the senate nominees for the three remaining vacancies on the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit, and the majority is demanding -- the majority, the democrats over here are demanding swift confirmation. by the democrats' own standards, however, these nominations would not even be considered. in 2006, judiciary committee democrats wrote then-chairman arlen specter to oppose considering a d.c. circuit nominee. that letter which i have here

said that another d.c. circuit nominee -- quote -- "should under no circumstances be considered, much less confirmed, before we first address the very need for that judgeship and deal with the genuine judicial emergencies identified by the judicial conference." that's an interesting letter. it was signed by a number of the democrats. i ask that both of these documents be placed in the record at the appropriate places. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: my democratic colleagues have two criteria for filling a d.c. circuit vacancy. the need for the judgeship to be filled had to be established and particularly pressing vacancies elsewhere had to be addressed. let's apply those democratic criteria to these new d.c. circuit nominees. the first democratic standard is

that there must clearly be a need for the particular judgeship to be filled. in 2006, democrats offered specific criteria, including the total number of appeals filed. now, as you can see here, based on the most recent data from the judiciary's administrative office, the number of appeals filed shown here in green has been below the 2006 -- have been below the 2006 level every year since and far below the average of all circuits across the country shown here in red. as you can see, the appeals filed for the year ending, the green happens to be the d.c. circuit and the red happens to be the circuit average.

another democratic benchmark is the number of appeals resolved on the merits per active judge. based on the same data from the judiciary's administrative office, even with a lower number of active judges, this benchmark has risen a mere 4% from 2006. whether you look at new cases or completed cases, judges on the d.c. circuit handle about 40% fewer cases than judges on the next busiest circuit. based on these democratic benchmarks, these d.c. circuit vacancies do not need to be filled. there is hypocrisy here. the second democratic standard for considering d.c. circuit nominees is that more pressing vacancies designated judicial emergencies should first be addressed. vacancies get that label the older they are and the heavier a

court's caseload. here we have again judicial emergency vacancies and nominees. the red is judicial emergencies, the green happens to be judicial nominees. as you can see, judicial emergencies are off the charts in this administration. and yet, he's going to put three people on the d.c. circuit that doesn't need them, where they are not justified in spite of the comments of our democratic friends back in 2006 and thereafter? give me a break. the contrast between 2006 and today is really drama particular. when democrats in july, 2006, rejected consideration of a single d.c. circuit nominee, president bush had made nominations for 12 of the 20 existing judicial emergencies. now, when democrats demand consideration of not one but

three d.c. circuit nominees, president obama has sent us nominees for only eight of the 30 judicial emergencies. that exist today. so the d.c. circuit's caseload is down while judicial emergencies without nominees are up. i'm not accusing my colleagues in the majority of flip-flopping because their party controls the white house, but it seems to me that their own criteria clearly compels the conclusion that these new d.c. circuit nominees should not be considered at this time. the second reason for the majority's filibuster fraud is that they want to manufacturer some justification, even if they have to make it up out of thin air for eliminating judicial filibusters. they want to do today exactly what the gang of 14 prevented in 2006, but with far less

justification. i don't think there was much justification done either, but far less today. the minority leader, senator mcconnell, has daily reminded us of the majority leader's explicit promise not to pursue changing confirmation procedures except through the steps provided for in our standing rules. in addition, if we look at the facts rather than the fiction, there is no conceivable reason to pursue such a change by any means. there have been far fewer judicial filibusters today, 1/5 as many than during the bush administration. there is less justification to change confirmation procedures today than there was when democrats opposed doing so in conviction. let me summarize this journey through the real world of judicial confirmations. there is a very real, very serious debate about the kind of judges america needs on the

federal bench. the process of considering president obama's judicial nominees, however, is being conducted reasonably and fairly. the majority apparently will do anything, even engaging in filibuster fraud to avoid admitting the facts while hoping that no one will be the wiser. the truth is that filibusters are down, not up, and that there have been far fewer judicial filibusters of obama nominees than there were of bush nominees. the d.c. circuit's caseload is down while the number of judicial emergencies without nominees is up. there is a better course than provoking unnecessary confrontations by nominees to positions that should not even exist or by threatening to change confirmation procedures that should not be changed. the majority should abandon their strategy of filibuster fraud and priorityize filling the most pressing vacancies. all i can say is that it's time

to be real about these things and quit playing politics with the judges in this country. i think i have a reputation that allows me to speak on these matters because i have worked so hard to try and fill the judicial vacancies throughout the years that i have served on the judiciary committee 37 years now, and i believe in the federal judges in this country and in the federal judiciary, and i believe we ought to pick the highest quality people and not worry about -- so much about their ideology as we do about doing justice for the american people under the law. that, to me, is what we should be concentrating on instead of political advantage in hypocritical ways. madam president, i yield the -- i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: thank you, madam president. i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: i wanted to come to the floor today to talk about the floor that's been before us for the last week and a half or so to fix our broken immigration system. as you know, madam president, this bill has been the product of bipartisan work, both in the so-called gang of eight that i've been privileged to be part of, but also in the judiciary committee, where it ran a process that set a standard, i think, for the way this place ought to operate. we considered over 300 amendments, the judiciary committee did, they accepted 141 amendments, many of them from republicans and democrats alike.

and now we're on the floor. and those that want to delay immigration, that want to defeat immigration, are using every tactic they can find to try to stop this bill. but fortunately there are others, people of goodwill on both sides of the aisle that are trying to come to an agreement. we focused a lot in the last week, as we should, talking about the border. i spoke about the progress we've already made in securing our southern border where there is more to do and there's progress that's reflected in the underlying bill and if that can be improved in a way that doesn't make the pathway to citizenship contingent or unreal, i think there are those of us that are willing to hear what that looks like. what we have not spent time on is actually what people in colorado have spent their time on when it comes to the question of firming our broken immigration system which is the way the current system defeats them in their efforts to build their businesses in this economy

and the promise that could be achieved if we actually were able to pass this bill as it's been written. i've heard from people from every walk of life across the state of colorado that have been hurt by our outdated and unreasonable and unimaginative and un-american immigration laws. and they understand in their gut the velocity we can add to the economy by firming the system, if washington would just do its work. they include high-tech companies on the front range including the bioscience, engineering, and aerospace industries among others. one of these companies, news gator, a software company based in denver, makes a compelling case. its chairman and founding c.e.o., j.b.holston told our office -- quote -- "i've been watching the immigration debate closely because my company relies on high skilled tooling workers. in the 21st century global

economy, we're in an arms race, we are in an arms race for recruiting, attacking, and retraining the -- retaining the world's best and brightest. the current immigration system is a barrier to american businesses winning that race. stalled progress on immigration sidelines growth capital for growth companies. that's a toxic combination for broat 0 growth. the proposed overhaul bill is a great step forward." and it's not just the high-tech sector feeling these pain points. farmers, peach growers on the western slope, cattle ranchers, onion growers in the northern part of our state, tourism and the ski industry across colorado, dreamers from the denver public school system and other school districts struggle to go to college and work towards a career because of their legal status.

now, we made a commitment when we set out as a gang of eight, democrats and republicans, working together, that our legislation would be deficit neutral, that it wouldn't add one dime, not one dollar to our deficit. that was an important principle for the members of this group, because as you know, madam president, we faced significant deficits and significant national debt. well, yesterday the nonpartisan congressional budget office not only affirmed the stories that i'm hearing from my tech community and my agricultural community, from businesses all across the state about economic growth, it also had some incredible news with respect to our deficit. c.b.o. estimates that if we pass this bill, we will reduce the deficit by almost $200 billion in the first decade and almost $700 billion in the second decade. almost a trillion dollars.

even in washington, d.c. that's real money. almost a trillion dollars of deficit reduction over the next two decades as a consequence of this bill. so let's break down what the c.b.o. is saying. this bill will increase employment and jobs in the country, more workers will come here, more people will build businesses here. they'll consume more and invest more. this will spur economic growth. these are not my opinions, these are not the opinions of the gang of eight, although we share these opinions, these are the opinions of the nonpartisan congressional budget office when they read this bill. our bill also adds millions of americans who are currently undocumented to step out of the shadows of the cash economy and start contributing more to our economy and earning more. and when you crunch the numbers based on the congressional budget office's score, this bill will significantly increase

our gross domestic product adjusted for inflation and reduce deficits. the c.b.o. found that projected deficits will decline significantly over the next decade as a consequence of this legislation. every year from 2015 on, they expect deficits to go down. it's going to end up, as i said earlier, saving us $197 billion between now and 2023. and it turns out that based on this estimate, we'll only begin to see the benefits of this bill in the first decade. the economic benefits of this bill actually accelerate in the second decade from 2024 to 2033, the bill would reduce deficits by $696 billion. i realize we have gotten in the habit around this place of thinking in 30-day increments or 60-day increments. it's driving folks at home crazy. this is a chance for us to reset

for the 21st century and the c.b.o. has done the math, and what that math tells you, despite what other people have said who don't want to have immigration reform for whatever reason, who claim that this was going to drive our deficits through the roof, that math tells us we have a total of $887 billion in deficit reduction over the next 20 years. and here is the surprising effect that's buried in the congressional budget office's office. those deficit reduction estimates are actually conservative. c.b.o.'s only counting the most obvious savings in their estimate. it's not including other more indirect economic benefits like increased productivity that will likely yield additional savings. here is what c.b.o. actually says in its report. this is a direct quote. according to c.b.o.'s central estimates within a range that reflects the uncertainty about two key economic relationships in c.b.o.'s analysis, the

economic impacts not included in the cost estimate would have no further net effect on budget deficits over the 2014-2023 period and would further reduce deficits relative to the effects reported in a cost estimate by about $300 billion over the 2024-2033 period. let me put that another way, madam president. the c.b.o. is saying that this bill could actually, when you factor in the economic effects, reduce deficits by $300 billion more in the second decade than it actually projects in the cost estimates. one way or another, we're either just below or just above a trillion dollars, and that is real money. particularly in light of the sequester, the law that we had written to be so terrible and so ugly, it would never, ever go into effect that now is the law of the land. what a more constructive way to get a trillion dollars in

savings than a bunch of automatic across-the-board cuts. in fact, a prominent conservative economist doug holtz-eakin said a few months ago that he thought using a dynamic scoring model, that the immigration bill could reduce deficits by even more, shaving as much as $2.7 trillion off our deficit. so until yesterday, we hadn't heard what this nonpartisan group, the congressional budget office, had to say about this immigration bill, but it supports what we have already heard from businesses at home, our industry leaders across the country and economists, no matter what political stripe they are, that fixing our immigration system is going to help strengthen our economy. and we know we'll secure our borders and we know it will reunite families and we know it will bring people who came to this country for a better life a chance to come out of the shadows and contribute to our

democracy and contribute to our economy in the 21st century as they did in the 20th century and as they did in the 19th century before them. and what we have not heard is a convincing case to maintain the status quo that is holding back our economy, that is keeping unresolved the question about what to do with the 11 million people that are living in our shadow economy and what we are to do to reinvite talented people from around the world to make their best contribution in america. that's what this bill represents. madam president, this bill is a reaffirmation of the idea that we are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants, and the senate should pass this bill. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: i rise today to talk about trade agreements and the impact they have on our economy. trade agreements affect access

to foreign markets and our level of imports and exports. they also affect a wide variety of public policy issues, everything from wages, jobs, the environment, the internet to monetary policy, pharmaceuticals and financial services. many people are deeply interested in tracking the trajectory of trade negotiations, but if they don't have reasonable access to see the terms of the agreements under negotiation, then they can't have any real input. without transparency, the benefits of an open marketplace of ideas are reduced enormously. i am deeply concerned about the transparency record of the u.s. trade representative and with one ongoing trade agreement in particular, the transpacific partnership. for months, the trade representative who negotiates on our behalf has been unwilling to provide any public access to the

composite bracketed text relating to the negotiations. now, the composite bracketed text includes proposed language from the united states and also from other countries, and it serves as the focal point for negotiations. the trade representative has allowed members of congress to access the text, and i appreciate that, but there is no substitute for public transparency. i've heard the argument that transparency would undermine the trade representative's policy to complete the trade agreement because public opposition would be significant. in other words, if people knew what was going on, they would stop it. this argument is exactly backwards. if transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the united states. i believe in transparency and

democracy, and i think that the u.s. trade representative should, too. so i ask the president's nominee to be the trade representative, michael froman, three questions. the first -- would he commit to releasing the composite bracketed text? the second -- if not, would he commit to releasing a scrubbed version of the bracketed text that made anonymous which country proposed which provision. and i want to note here, even the bush administration put out a scrubbed version during the negotiations around the free trade area of the americas agreement. and third, i asked mr. froman if he would provide more transparency behind what information is made available to outside advisors. currently, there are about 600 outside advisors that have access to sensitive information,

and the roster includes a wide diversity of industry representatives and some from labor and some from n.g.o.'s, but there is no transparency around who gets what information or whether they are all getting the same things, and i think that's a real problem. mr. froman's response to my three questions was clear -- no, no and no. he will not commit to making this information public so that the public can track what's going on. so i am voting against mr. froman's nomination later today because i believe we need a new direction from the trade representative, a direction that prioritizes transparency and public debate. the american people have the right to know more about our negotiations that will have a dramatic impact on our working men and women, on our environment, on our economy, on

the internet. we should have a serious conversation about our trade policies because these issues matter, but it all starts with the transparency of the u.s. trade representative. thank you, madam president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: mr. grassley: i ask the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i want to speak

for a few minutes on the progress that we're making on the immigration bill. and speaking about the progress, it also gives me a chance to say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that i hope we can get agreement to vote on amendments this afternoon because it isn't only democrat that want amendments, we've got a lot of republicans that want to put some amendments up. and if we can get this tranche of amendments out of the way, then that gives us a chance to put up another tranche of eight to ten amendments is what i think we have the possibility of doing. now, we've been on this bill for one week. we had one vote last week. that was on my own amendment and that dealt with border security. and, of course, that vote wasn't a vote up or down on the amendment, it was a vote to table.

so we were refused by the majority to have an up-or-down vote on legislation that's -- part of the legislation that's some of the most important to the people of this country, securing the border before we have legalization. and i quoted yesterday a cnn poll that say that 60% of the people say that border security is the number-one issue as far as immigration's concerned and it's a necessary predecessor t to -- to legalization. now, yesterday we had three votes. unfortunately they were 60-vote threshold and obviously most of the time you have a 60-vote threshold, it's set up so that any amendment under that rule would fail. now, yesterday the majority leader threatened again to keep us working all weekend. he stated that he could file a

cloture motion to cut off debate as early as friday, and, of course, i hope that's not the case because we need a open and fair amendment process. we do immigration reform about once every 25 years. my colleagues hear me say that we made a lot of mistakes in 1986 so -- that's the last time we had a major immigration bill pass the senate. so we need to get it right. people don't want us to do it in a fast and haphazard way. people want us to be very cautious about something we do about once every 25 years. the chairman of the judiciary committee and i had a very good working relationship in committee. we still have a good working relationship with this bill out here on the floor of the united states senate.

but there's 98 other senators involved. in committee -- and so that's a different situation now in the senate -- we didn't limit -- in committee, we didn't limit the ability of any member to raise an amendment. we had some tough votes that we were all forced to take in committee. but now there -- there are other members who want their chance to improve the bill and, of course, i just said at the beginning of my remarks that we get these eight amendments out of the way that are in this tranche, then we can bring other amendments up, both republican and democrat amendments. now, i realize that there's a bipartisan group of senators working on border security amendment. this is supposed to be some grand compromise. the group is trying to find common ground somewheres between

the bill as drafted, this 1,175-became -- or 10,000 -- what am i saying? -- 1,075 pages in that bill, as drafted, and the cornyn amendment. middle ground. which at this point i'm hearing from the other side, as well as the group of eight, that they think that -- that the cornyn amendment goes too far. some would say that the democrats won't negotiate in good faith because they have the votes to pass the bill as is. it's no secret that the democrats would like to have 70 votes at the end of the day. but even with 70 votes, in my view, that isn't a big victory and may very well be a failure. it shouldn't take much to get 15 republican votes and it doesn't guarantee that the house will take up the bill. in fact, this bill may be dead

on arrival in the other body since they have their own approach and they have their own ideas. it was reported today that this bipartisan group of senators trying to find middle ground between this big bill and the cornyn amendment on border security are having trouble finding that consensus. they're having trouble because the democrats don't want any triggers or roadblocks to legalization. that's clear. in other words, some people are not willing to learn from the mistakes that we made in 1986. we thought in good faith that we were writing a piece of legislation that would people crossing the border without papers. we did that by making it illegal for the first time to hire

undocumented workers. we did it by adding a $10,000 fine. so take away the magnet to work, the border is security, legalize 3 million people at that time. we found that legalizing illegality brings yet more illegality. so now there are 12 million people that either overstay visa or cross the border without -- without papers. so we should learn from that mistake of 25 years ago, the last time an immigration bill was up. we should do something about border security. that something has to be stronger than what's in this piece of legislation. but it's appalling to me that i hear rumors that a lot of people on the other side of the aisle

don't want any triggers or roadblocks to legalization. that isn't saying that you don't want legalization. that's only saying that certain preconditions ought to happen before there's legalization and those out to be meaningful steps to take. now, just yesterday the majority leader, as i said, said he wasn't in favor of triggers. secretary napolitano and this administration made it clear that legalization should come first and that triggers shouldn't be a roadblock to legalization. the very same mistakes we made in 1986. the bipartisan group negotiating this broader amendment is trying to do the right thing, but i have real doubts that the other side of the aisle wants to do

anything to really secure the border, and because of this, the misguided, mislabeled bill before us could be falling apa apart. those of us who have questioned this big-government bill appear to be making headway in exposing the bill for what it truly is -- legalization first, enforcement later. despite repeated promises, it is that -- legalization first, border security, when? sometime down the road. and sometime -- sometimes, sometime never happens. sure, the proponents can throw money and dictate how many cameras and drones to buy, but that doesn't more -- mean the border will be stronger or more secure. we need to do more than give

them capability of achieving specific metrics. we need them to prove their success. one more thing on the possibility of working this weekend. i've -- since i've been in the senate, we've had a lot of weekend sessions and generally what happens is that you have a lot of debate and a lot of talk and a lot of wasted time on saturdays and you have one vote at 2:00 on sunday. and for a guy like me, i'm going to be here regardless, not because i'm manager of this bill solely, but i haven't missed a vote in the united states senate since july 1993 so i've cast about 6,700 votes without missing a vote. so if there's only one vote on sunday afternoon this weekend, i'm going to be here. but i would suggest, if we're going to have a weekend session, that action be taken to make sure that we're actually doing

something and voting. and that if we're going to be in session, that there isn't some sort of accommodation made -- usually for the majority party, and sometimes the republican party, but right now it's the democratic party -- make provisions so people that want to fly home to do something can fly home to do it. either we're here to work on the weekend or we shouldn't be here. i yield the floor. mr. grassley: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

[inaudible] the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: i ask unanimous

consent for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have been agreed to by the majority and minority leaders. i ask they be agreed to and printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: mr. president, senate democrats have come to the floor now 13 times and requested unanimous consent to move to bipartisa bipartisan but negotiations with the house. we are ready to get to work. we've been ready for 88 days now, which is how long it's been since this senate passed a budget. now, back in march, we assumed that once the two chambers passed their budgets, republicans would be eager to join us in a formal budget conference since they have spent years talking about the need to return to regular order. but instead, mr. president, we have seen delay after delay. now the republicans have gotten exactly what they wished for,

they seem to be running as quickly as they can in the other direction. and they have offered up excuse after excuse after excuse. first they said they wanted a framework before they would start a conference even though a framework is exactly what a budget is. in other words, they wanted to negotiate behind closed doors when we should be negotiating in a conference. then they said they wouldn't allow us to go to conference unless we guaranteed that the wealthiest americans and biggest corporations would be protected from paying a penny more in taxes. then many republicans indicated they didn't want negotiations happening too early to take away the leverage they think they have on the debt ceiling. then some of them called for a do-over of the budget debate, including another 50 hours of debate and a whole new round of

unlimited amendments, even after they praised the open and thorough floor debate we had on the senate budget. and now, in what seems to be the latest delaying tactic, some republicans are saying that before we can work to solve short-term problems, we first need to agree on the budget outlook 30 years down the road. mr. president, enough is enough. the american people are sick and tired of the constant lurching from crisis to crisis. they are looking to their elected officials to come together, to compromise, find common ground, and that is exactly what we would be doing in a conference. and it's not just democrats saying so. over the past few weeks, we've heard a number of republicans step forward and agree with us that the tea party and senate republican leadership is wrong here. senator coburn said blocking conference is -- and i quote -- "not a good position to be in." senator boozman said he would -- quote -- "very much like to see

a conference." senator wicker said, weeks ago now, that by the end of the next week we probably should be ready to go to conference. and now, according to "politico" -- quote -- "more republicans appear to favor heading to conference than blocking it." mr. president, as many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said, it's certainly true there are big differences between the parties' budget values and priorities, but that would give us all the more reason to sit down and try to find some common ground. because the fact is, we've got a lot of work that needs to be done in the next few weeks. we have 11 days until the next state work period and then just 3 1/2 weeks before we all go back to our home states again for august. and because some republicans want to continue the harmful austerity measures resulting from sequestration, we now have a $91 billion gap between the house and senate spending bills for next fiscal year.

if we don't reconcile those differences, we're going to find ourselves in a very tough, bad situation come september. and a lot of hardworking families and communities are going to feel the consequences. mr. president, it does not have to be that way. i am confident that if both sides come together now in a conference committee and are ready to compromise, we can find a way to reach a fair and bipartisan and responsible agreement. mr. president, the american people shouldn't worry -- have to worry that the government is going to lurch into another crisis that's been manufactured by this congress. it doesn't have to happen. instead of fighting over whether or not we should be engaging in bipartisan talks, we should be working together to get more americans back to work, to protect our economic recovery, and lay the foundation for strong middle-class growth in the future. i think we can all agree on those important goals, and they're very urgent ones. but, mr. president, we cannot

move forward on them if we are consumed with constant artificial crises. so, mr. president, i believe it's time for senate republican leaders to listen to many members of their own party who prefer commonsense bipartisanship over delay and disorder and allow the house and senate to begin a bipartisan budget conference. so, mr. president, i'm here this afternoon to ask unanimous consent to do just that. and i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 33, h. con. res. 25, the amendment which is at the desk, the text of s. con. res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the senate be inserted in lieu thereof, that h. con. res. 25, as amended, be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that the senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the house on the disagreeing votes of the two houses, and the chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the senate.

that following the authorization, two motions to instruct conferees be in order from each side: a motion to instruct relative to the debt limit and a motion to instruct relative to taxes and revenue. that there be two hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to votes in relation to the motions and that no amendments be in order to either of the motions prior to the votes, all of the above occurring with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, reserving the right to object and i hope i'm not going to have to object because i want to suggest a very modest and sensible alteration to the u.c. request from my colleague, th the -- the chair of the budget committee, so that hopefully we can get on to this. because i'd like to see us go to conference. i was very critical of the three years when my democratic colleagues absolutely refused to do a budget.

this is progress that this year they decided to do one. i'm glad. i'm on the budget committee. i think we ought to have a budget and i think we ought to go to the conference committee despite the fact that we're very, very far apart. my democratic friends supported, voted for a budget with at least a trillion dollars of new tax increases and i strongly oppose that. but i agree, that's the sort of thing that ought to be discussed in conference. my democratic friends, the budget that was passed uses that big tax increases for additional spending. i strongly disagree with that. but, again, that's exactly the kind of thing that ought to be the subject of negotiations in a conference. we're very far apart. i don't know whether we could narrow that gap but we ought to try. the reason, in fact, the only reason that i've been objecting and that some of my colleagues have been objecting thus far is that our democratic friends want to insist on retaining the opportunity to use the conference report on a budget resolution to raise the debt ceiling.

and i would point out that the debt ceiling issue was not even contemplated in the senate budget resolution, never came up, wasn't discussed, there was no amendment, there was no vote. it's not in the document. in the house budget, the debt limit increase is not contemplated. it's not there, it wasn't voted on, it's completely absent. and so consistent with the rules of the senate, i would simply suggest that we go right ahead to conference, that we have a conference on the budget but that we follow the normal procedure of the senate, which is that matters that are not in either bill, either the house or the senate bill, be excluded from consideration in a conference report so that we don't airdrop in some extraneous, unrelated matter that was never contemplated by either body. that i think is a sensible approach and i think necessary because i think a debt limit -- the debt limit is a very important issue. we have a staggering amount of debt that we've allowed to

accumulate. it's already damaging our economy. it's a huge threat. and we know that the president and many of our democratic friends think that we ought to just raise that debt ceiling with no strings, no conditions, no reforms. so we have a very real concern that this budget -- this conference committee, as contemplated by my friends on the other side, would be a vehicle for the backroom deal that would allow them to exclude republicans and come back here and jam through a debt ceiling increase with no reforms. so in order to avoid that but so that we can go to conference, which i think we should do, i would simply ask that we modify the unanimous consent request as follows so that it would not be in order for the senate to consider a conference report that includes reconciliation instructions to raise the debt limit. and if the chair of the budget committee would agree to that modification of her unanimous consent request, then i would agree to it. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington.

mrs. murray: mr. president, i would like to point out to everyone that we had hours and hours of debate, over a hundred amendments offered. no one offered an amendment on the debt ceiling limit. as part of the agreement in order to go to conference, we have offered to have a vote now on whether we should have motions to instruct. and i would be willing, as chair, to abide by that vote once our unanimous consent is agreed to. but i have to say as a matter of principle, for a chair of any committee to say, once we have gone through hundreds of hours of debate and a lot of amendments that then before we go to conference we have to agree to a principle that has not been voted on or offered in the senate as part of that is not how we can proceed in this body. it would be the same as if i would come out here and say, well, i'm going to not allow us to go to conference on whatever bill because i have a small provision and unless you absolutely agree, even though i don't have the votes, that that has to be in there, we're not going to conference. we would never get anything

done. mr. president, the -- the unanimous consent that i've offered allows my republican friends to have a vote on this even though they didn't ask for a vote in all those hours of debate and hundreds of hours that we amended on this issue before we move to conference. mr. president, the principle here is this -- our republican colleagues want to have an open debate, they say. but we're not having an open debate because of their insistence that we don't go to conference. so i would object to the senator's request and again renew my request, as i stated before, with the provision that we have a motion to instruct and allow those senators who have a feeling about this to vote on it before we go to conference. and finally, mr. president, i would add, remember who i'm going to conference with, republicans and democrats from our side of the aisle and republicans and democrats, a majority of which are on their side of the aisle, with the chairman, paul ryan, republican, conservative chairing their side.

so, mr. president, this is an issue that is going to have plenty of debate, plenty of open discussion if it should come up and we'll all have an opportunity to vote on it. it should not be what blocks this. so i renew my unanimous consent. mr. toomey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: reserving the right to object and i'll wrap up quickly here. i just -- i thank my colleague, the chair of the budget committee, but as she knows -- and i want to make sure everyone is clear -- the motion to instruct conferees that the chairman of the budget committee is recommending is completely nonbinding. it is nothing more than a recommendation. the fact remains that she is insisting on retaining the ability to do a backroom deal that would raise the debt ceiling without allowing any republican input in this body whatsoever. this i think is a very bad policy. it was not contemplated in either bills. i'd be delighted to go to conference with a budget resolution from the house and the senate that does contemplate everything that is in those two respective agreements but not

some extraneous matter that could be very damaging to our economy, that was never contemplated. and so i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments and call up my amendment 1200 which is cosponsored by the senator from missouri, senator roy blunt, with a modification at the desk. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. paul, proposes an amendment numbered 1200 as modified. at the appropriate place in title 1, insert the following -- mr. paul: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. mr. president, i rise today to speak about my amendment which we have entitled trust but

verify. i'm in full support of immigration reform. as most of these members of this body are and most americans, but part of that reform must be that we insist on border security. recently the authors of the current bill made clear that legalization will not be made contingent on border security. most conservatives like myself believe just the opposite, that legalization or documentation of workers absolutely must depend on border security first. my amendment does that. trust but verify makes documentation of undocumented workers contingent on border security. i believe that the american people should not rely on bureaucrats or a commission to enforce border security. we have been promised security in the past, and it never happens. my amendment is different than any other amendments because i

want congress to institute border security, not wait for a plan from the administration. with trust but verify, congress will vote every year for five years on whether or not the border is secure. the power to enforce border security will be in our hands, the people's representatives, and it is congress that will be held accountable if we fail. if congress believes that the border is not secure, then the processing of the undocumented workers stops until the board becomes secure. to be clear, my amendment doesn't replace any triggers of the underlying bill. it simply adds new conditions to build on border security, measures that are already in the bill. the only way to put real pressure on the department of homeland security is to have tough triggers that ensure that the border is secure before immigration reform can proceed. my amendment is tiled trust but

verify. my amendment legislates exactly how we secure the border. the current bill merely requests a plan to secure the border. this legislation, my amendment, requires 100% border surveillance capability, 95% apprehension rate and a completion of a double-layered fence. instead of having a plan to build a fence, we just tell them build a fence and we monitor the building of the fence as it progresses. and we make these plans -- these triggers transparent to the public. this amendment also would end the practice of releasing people who are caught crossing the border. 95% of the people caught are released and they never come back. they go to the interior of the country. legalization of undocumented workers is allowed to commence after one year if congress agrees that the border is secure. the resolution would be simple

and will simply state every year it's the sense of congress that the u.s. border is increasingly secure. congress will determine if the department of homeland security has met the goals that congress has written into law. my amendment mandates that 100% exit tracking for u.s. visitors is accomplished through all portals, air, land and water. one of the biggest problems our nation is experiencing is that individuals here on temporary visas tend to overstay and some never exit the country. my amendment solves this problem. my amendment also has two important national security elements. one provision sets up a student visa national security registration system as a means to track young men and women who come to this country on student visas. also, individuals here under asylum or refugee status must register in a program, providing increasing screening and a means

to make sure that the federal government has an idea where people in these programs reside. we should remember that most of the 9/11 hijackers were here on student visas and were not being properly monitored, and i still don't think that problem has been fixed. this amendment is fully paid for by taking funds that would have gone towards this commission, because we won't need a commission because we're actually going to put border security in the bill, and requires no additional funding. if my amendment is implemented, there won't be a need for this commission. now, one big problem with immigration reform is the dire need to reform our immigration court system. my amendment empowers immigration judges to have power over implementation orders. judges make decisions and then no one will carry out the orders. it's a completely broken system. both the left and the right agree that we need to fix the immigration court system. this amendment would do it. my amendment would convert our

courts from administrative courts to article 1 courts with enhanced jurisdiction. my amendment also protects the privacy of all americans by placing in-law protections against -- in law protections against citizens being subject to basic biometric identification cards. most second amendment supporters rightly see universal background checks as a step too far in invading citizens' personal business. any national i.d., biometric or otherwise, raises the same constitutional concerns. finally, my amendment does not allow the processing of this new category called registered provisional immigrants until congress votes that the border is secure. then we limit the number to two million per year, and each year we vote is the border more secure. if the border is not becoming more secure, the process stops until we agree that the border is secure. this will allow the department of homeland security to do an effective job of conducting background checks on the

estimated 11 million to 12 million people. if congress votes that the border is not secure, the processing of people into this category stops and won't start again until congress, the representative of the people, believe that the border is secure. we desperately need immigration reform. if we don't have reform, i think we will have another 10 million people come over the next decade, so something should be done but it has to be done in a way that fixes the system. this amendment will fix the system. i ask my colleagues to support senate amendment 1200, trust but verify, and i yield the floor.

mr. paul: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments and to call up my amendment number 1251. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from texas, mr. cornyn, for himself and others, proposes an amendment numbered 1251. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i have been working on immigration policy for all the time i have been in the united states senate, about 10 years now, so i have some familiarity with the issues and the arguments that have been made and it's always

amazing to hear a lot of the same arguments being repeated now that we have heard before in 2007 and before, but one of the differences is we have 43 senators, new senators who weren't here in 2007, the last time we had a major debate on immigration reform, so i think the discussions have been useful and hopefully they will be productive, but there is one obstacle, in my view, to immigration reform which is something that i would hike to see. when it comes to securing our borders and making sure that the flow of illegal immigration across our borders stops or gets as close as we can to zero, the federal government has zero credibility. the reason is simple -- we have been making promises since 1986 about border security and

enforcement. again, you remember that 1986 was the year that ronald reagan, a model to republicans and conservatives, he signed an amnesty for three million people premised on the representation and the expectation that enforcement would ensue and the problem would be solved. in other words, he and the american people said we will have a compassionate resolution of the condition of the three million people who are here but we want to make sure that the rule of law is restored and that we don't want to have to do this again. when the gang of eight, the four republicans and four democrats who authored the underlying bill announced their product, i was hopeful they would produce a bill with solid mechanisms for gaining secure borders. unfortunately, the bill contains no guarantees or results, no real trigger, only more promises reminiscent of 1986 and many

years subsequent. 1996 when bill clinton signed a law saying we're going to implement an entry-exit system, a biometric entry-exit system, when that didn't happen, after 2011, the 9/11 commission said one of the things we need and is revealed as a vulnerability for national security is the absence of a biometric entry-exit system. but despite the passage of all of those years and the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, we still have not implemented a biometric entry-exit system. entry system, yes, but exit, no. and 40% of illegal immigration occurs as a result of the fact that people enter the country legally and don't leave when their visa expires. so unfortunately this bill contains more hollow promises and no real trigger, and by that i mean a conditioning on the

transfer to either probationary status or to legal permanent residency based on hitting the standards that are met in the underlying bill. 100% situational awareness, 90% apprehensions which we defined in the bill -- as defined in the bill as operational control of the border. so the mes -- so the message is we don't have any enforcement mechanism here. we're going to put a lot of money, a lot of resources into this but we can't control what future administrations do and we know no current congress can bind future congresses. and so these promises once again, i am very concerned, and i think the american people should be concerned are promises only and not delivering the results that i think they insist upon before they will accept a resolution of the 11 million people in compassionate terms.

but i don't think that promises alone are good enough. so you shouldn't take my word for it. you want to see, for example, what the congressional budget office came out with yesterday. i think people would be serious about serious solutions to illegal immigration, but the congressional budget office, which love them or hate them, agree or disagree, they are the gold standard congress is bound by when evaluating legislation. what they said is the number of new unauthorized immigrants in the united states by the year 2033 will go up, it will be 7.5 million people. if we didn't pass any bill at all, it would be 10 million. that's what the congressional budget office said. that's not my figures. that's their figures. and i think it's incumbent upon anybody who disagrees to

challenge these figures, and so far we've heard no challenge forthcoming. make no mistake, border security is not an alternative to immigration reform. it is a necessary complement to the sensible reforms i think a large majority of the chamber could agree on such as allowing the united states to retain highly skilled immigrants who get ph.d.'s and masters degrees at our colleges and universities in stem fields, science, technology, engineering, mathematic and the like. i know there's been a fair amount of disinformation scattered about the proposals in my results amendment, so let me explain what it actually does once more. my amendment requires the federal government to have 100% situational awareness on the border. with technology that the american taxpayers already paid for and which has been deployed in afghanistan and iraq and

owned by the department of defense, i'm absolutely convinced that we can get 100% situational awareness on the border. senator mccain yesterday said he agreed with that. he cited a letter which i'm sure we'll see forthwith, by the head of the border patrol said that's attainable. senator bennet of colorado and senator flake said they agree it is attainable. it is attainable. that is one requirement. secondly, my amendment requires full operational control of the border. that doesn't mean 100% detentions of people coming across. it means we have a deterrent effect by at least 90% of people coming across being detained. now i've been in and around law enforcement most of my adult life, and it's not how many people we detain. it's the deterrent value of the knowledge of people who violate our laws that if they do so,

that they will be apprehended and they'll receive the appropriate punishment. so the deterrence factor is very important here. it's not just how many people you catch, but there has to be some metric that can be objectively measured. next, and i alluded to this a phoebgs -- moment ago, there has to be a nationwide biometric entry system. this has been the law since 1996 when bill clinton signed it into law yet never implemented. what has been implemented is that when foreign nationals visit the united states, they do have to give a set of finger prints, but there's no complement heary exit system to make those same people leave the country when their visas expires, whether they're a student, guest worker or something of the like. that's 40% of our illegal immigration is people who enter legally and simply don't leave when their visa expires.

this biometric entry-exit system would allow us to identify them and then allow immigration and customs enforcement to do their job. fourth, my amendment requires nationwide everify. in other words, a means not to make the employers the police and sort of sift through documents to try to figure out from your utility bill whether you actually are a legal resident of the united states and can qualify to work, but actually an electronic system that all employees of the federal government, all of our employees in our senate offices have to go through anyway to make through this is uniformly observed so that the economic magnet that attracts so much illegal immigration is removed. and that only people who can legally work in the country are allowed to do so. my amendment could have taken a much tougher position and said that this trigger must be met

before people can progress or sign up for probationary status. i voted for such an amendment but knowing that that amendment would not pass the senate, i said that the trigger ought to be between the probationary status and the time when people transition from probationary status to legal permanent residency. the whole rationale is not to be punitive, not to create an obstacle that can't be met but to realign the incentives for the executive branch and the bureaucracy for republicans, for democrats, for independents, for conservatives, liberals to come together and say we're going to make sure that this target is hit. 100% surveillance, 90% apprehensions or full operational control of the border. an everify system and biometric exit-entry system. is it realistic to believe these goals can be met in the next

decade? many exerts including members of the gang of eight which i mentioned a moment ago believe it is. some of those experts include people like robert bonner, former head of customs and border protection. asa hutchison, former underscare for department -- for security e department of homeland security. senator bennet, senator flake, senator mccain have said they believe this requirement of situational awareness at our southern border is feasible and can be accomplished and is a reasonable and attainable goal. my question for them and for others is if they believe it is attainable fanned they believe we are suffering -- attainable and if they believe we are suffering from a trust deficit and that trust being exploited and violated so many times in the past with promises not kept,

why not agree to a reasonable condition after probationary status before people transfer to legal permanent residency where we know that the forces will be aligned in order to make sure that's met, that we can regain the american people's confidence and say we restored law and order and legality out of a current lawless and chaotic system which exploits and preys on many innocent people who die, who are subjected to human slavery as a result of trafficking and you name it. but there is a crisis of confidence in washington these days, and the only way i think we're going to regain that confidence and demonstrate to the american people we're serious about making this happen is a trigger and a conditioning of that transition from r.p.i. status to l.p.l. status contained in my amendment. if it's attainable and if it's something that is important in terms of regaining the public's

confidence instead of just saying trust us, why not support the amendment? why not demand real results on border security other than repetitive promises that have not been kept in the past and which the american public is in deep doubt will be kept in the future? without a genuine border security trigger, this bill, i would dare say, mr. president, has zero chance of passing the house of representatives. for those of us who would like to see an improvement in the status quo because we believe the status quo is simply unacceptable, for those of us who would like to see a good immigration reform bill passed, why not pass this bill with my amendment? why not give this bill some momentum as it goes over to the house of representatives and as we come together as a senate and a house to reconcile those differences of the bill and send a good bill, an enforceable bill, not just full of hollow promises but one that will actually gain results when it comes to security?

everybody in this chamber knows that the senate bill is dead on arrival in the house. they have their own ideas. they're going to take up immigration reform on a piecemeal basis. but ultimately my hope is that they will cobble together one or more smaller bills and be able to get to conference with the house to work out the differences. but this is the kind of sleight of hand which i think undermines our credibility and increases the skepticism of the american people that we're actually going to deliver as represented when it comes to immigration reform. you've seen this before. senator durbin, the distinguished majority whip, said in january 2013, a pathway to citizenship needs to be contingent upon securing the border. i agree with senator durbin. i agree that that is the essential bargain that the american people are willing to accept. there was a cnn poll yesterday,

said six out of ten of the american people would accept the pathway to citizenship, perhaps grudgingly, if they actually felt like the results that they demand be provided on border security and enforcement are contained in this bill. that's why i believe it was so important for senator durbin to say as part of their announcement of the goals of the gang of eight that a pathway to citizenship would be contingent upon securing the border. but here's the disconnect. unfortunately six months later, june 11, 2013, senator durbin was quoted in "national journal" that the gang has now decided that the pathway to citizenship and border enforcement may be delinked." in other words, the pathway to citizenship is guaranteed and good luck on the border security and the enforcement. good luck, present congress, trying to enforce your will ten years hence on a future

congress. good luck, president obama, trying to dictate exactly what a future president ten years from now will do. the only way, i believe, that we can credibly go back and defend our position for immigration reform before our constituents, certainly my constituents, is to look them in the eye, say we have fixed the problem. we have done everything humanly possible to make sure that all incentives are aligned so that border security, interior enforcement and everify are actually in place before people transition to legal permanent residency. mr. president, we've now had three decades to fix our broken promises on border security, and now is the time to demand real results and to create a mechanism for achieving them. it's time to make good on our promises to the american people by securing america's borders. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: mr. president, i

rise to speak about amendment 1311, the hire americans first amendment, which i thoep to call up -- which i hope to call up later. nearly 8% of americans are unemployed or underemployed and our immigration policy obviously must be a jobs policy. any successful immigration plan must take a closer look at the h-1b program which serves an important but specific and limited purpose. the h-1b visa was created so businesses, particularly in high tech but not exclusively that, so businesses could recruit foreign workers to help fill the void created by a lack of american workers with those specific skills. yet, this bill comes to the floor -- as this bill comes to the floor something very important was excluded. the bill lacks a requirement which was in earlier versions of the bill that employers hire an equally or better qualified american worker when one is

available rather than a potential h-1b worker. i'll repeat that. the bill lacks a requirement that employers hire a qualified equally or better qualified american worker when one is available rather than a potential h-1b foreign worker. with this bill we're enshrining a process, without this amendment, at that allows companies to pass over skilled americans for foreign workers after they have been required to actually actively recruit those americans. so the bill provides -- the bill has provisions to recruit americans for these jobs that might have gone to an h-1b foreign worker, but it doesn't -- it falls short, doesn't require the employer to actually, after going through that process, to actually hire the american worker who is as qualified or better qualified than the h-1b foreign worker. this approach only undermines support for the h-1b program, as it will be seen as a tool to

avoid hiring workers, hiring american workers. understand the american public as they start to kind of understand and digest the provisions of this propertied new law of this legislation when they hear that, yes, companies have to recruit and look for american workers, but in the end even if the american worker is as qualified or more qualified, the company is under no obligation to actually hire the american. senator grassley has been a champion in the fight to end h-1b abuse. that is why i'm proud to join senator grassley in our bipartisan amendment to introduce the h-1b and l-1 visa fraud and abuse prevention act of 2013. the h-1b program should only be used when there is no qualified worker available in the united states. that's clearly what the american people overwhelmingly say they want, that the program should only be used when there's foe qualified worker available here. this amendment would increase

protections to workers by requiring that employers only hire h-1b workers, as i said before, when there's no equally qualified or better qualified american. this amendment would make sure that a worker from wuhan won't be hired rather than one from ohio. it means employers will seek out american workers before seeking visas for foreign workers. but that's not included in this version of the bill where debating on the senate floor, in this version of the immigration bill. the bill in its current form says companies have to look for qualified americans. it doesn't require them to actually hire the equally qualified or better qualified american when they find a chem mist in cleveland or computer scientist in sly in a. the underlying bill increases the number of h-1b eligible visas. that's fine.

but it also cracks down on employers who take advantage of the system but without the requirement to also hire qualified u.s. workers, the recruitment steps simply mean standing on an escalator that leads to nowhere. again, mr. president, what this legislation now says is that companies that want -- that consider h-1b visa hires need to recruit americans, but they -- the bill falls short of saying if the american is as qualified or more qualified, that they need to hire that american. if there are qualified americans that can do the work there is no need to fill the work with an h-1b worker. passing this amendment, the brown-grassley amendment also cosponsored by senator sessions, republican from alabama, and senator manchin, democrat from west virginia, the hire americans first amendment is important in fixing that. mr. president, i yield the floor.

# a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, i ask to call up my amendment 12 # 37 as modified. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk: the senator from oregon mr. merkley proposes amendment 1237 as modified. mr. merkley: thank you,

mr. president. i thought i'd take a few moments to share the contents of this amendment and why it's an important addition to the bill that we're considering currently. this is related to a very critical part of oregon's economy, which are timber jobs, forest jobs. forest jobs have long been a pillar of our rural economy in my state. in fact, my father worked as a mill right when he first came to oregon. he worked as a mechanic, basically keeping the sawmill operating. when the sawmill shut down, he pursued other jobs as a mechanic. we traveled with the timber economy, as so many families in oregon did. and many of our rural towns are mill towns, towns closely related to the production of lumber from our national forests and from private forests. over the past several decades times have been pretty tough in the timber economy. and we have many forest workers who have suffered through these

tough times. their families have gone with the ups and downs of the timber economy. and certainly the recession added insult to injury and the unemployment rates in many of our timber counties soar and have been stuck at 15%. that's why in 2009 i and others fought to get funding in the recovery bill to expand thinning and wildlife -- excuse me -- wildfire prevention. the concept was that we have millions of acres of overgrown second-growth forests that is not ideal for ecosystems. it is not ideal for producing timber. what it is ideal for are forest fires and disease. and so, thinning these forests made a lot of sense and you et funding fort of folks to work

forest health. but in 2010 we had a little shock. one of our newspapers in oregon, "the ben bolton" started reporting about how the forest service contracts intended to put americans to work, and for the oregon forests, oregonians to work were instead being awarded to contractors who were bringing in foreign workers under the h-2b visa program. these contractors using cheap labor were underbidding the local companies that were employing oregonians. oregonians from these rural communities, communities deeply steeped in the tradition of forest jobs. in 2011, we found out from a department of labor audit that some of these contracts, more than $7 million worth, not one oregonian was hired. in fact, the audit concluded it

was likely oregonians didn't even know the jobs existed. now why is that? because the contractor seeking to underbid the contractors who would hire americans proceeded to advertise in california for jobs in oregon, proceeded to advertise well in advance of the jobs. there was a disconnect in time. proceeded to imply in the advertisements that a second language was required. and when applications were received by the few oregonians who found out about these jobs, they put them through the shreder rather than using our tax money to thin our forests to prevent forest fires and disease from going to jobs here for americans. the information provided to my office showed that in 2010 and 2011 in oregon and washington, more than a third of the contracts being awarded by the forest service were going to companies that self-attested that they couldn't find a single

american worker who wanted to do these jobs. now these companies are operating in rural communities with very high unemployment rates in the middle of a terrible recession. and we have thousands of oregonians who have signed up on a jobs seeker data base saying they want to work in our forests. in oregon, that list involves more than 5,000 individuals. 5,000 individuals who are on a state list wanting to work in the woods, and the contractors said they couldn't find anyone who wanted one of these jobs. this is exactly the type of abuse that undermines the entire program. this is the type of abuse that was not -- that must not be allowed. as i go from county to county doing town halls as i do in each county every year, folks say time and time again we need more jobs in the woods. well, those jobs that we do have

in the woods, we may need to make sure they know about. so when our taxpayer dollars are funding the work we need to make sure the money goes to create jobs where they are needed. that's why i'm proposing a narrowly tailored amendment to address this problem with three simple changes to the h-2b program for forestry jobs. first, enhanced recruitment. employers before smith a petition to hire -- before submitting a petition to hire h-2b workers would be required to use appropriate recruitment strategies to find american workers interested in these jobs. this could be advertising at job fairs with local and state workforce agencies and nonprofits or advertising on reputable internet job search sites or radio. the key is that they must work with the state workforce agency to advertise in the places where local residents are likely to hear about the jobs. exactly what did not happen in oregon in 2009 and 2010.

the second provision of this amendment is that the secretary of labor could grant a temporary labor certification to an employer to hire h-2b forest workers. the director -- to do that, the director of the state workforce agency would have to certify that the employer has complied with the recruitment requirements and the director of the state workforce agency would have to make a determination that local workers were not qualified or available to fill the jobs. that way you connect the contractor who is responsible to make sure that folks know about these jobs with the workforce agency that has the expertise in finding people who want to know about these jobs. if in the situation the contractor was simply to say we've advertised, we can't find anyone, the workforce agency

would know whether that was a legitimate and valid conclusion. the third point is that if an employer seeks to be certified for a work itinerary that covers multiple states and if the work outside the primary state lasts for seven days or longer, then the employer needs to contact the agency in each state so that you don't simply have someone starting work in california for a day or two, shifting to oregon, shifting to washington, shifting to idaho perhaps for a month in each place but never advertising in the state where the work is being done. these are three simple changes to our h-2b program for forest workers that could make a real difference for individuals struggling to find work in the woods. now, we can't go back and fix the contracts that have already been issued and abused in the past, but we can fix the problems we know about now so

that those forest workers do get the jobs in the future. those oregonians, those americans who want to work in the woods. let me tell you, in places like myrtle creek where i was born, roseburg, where i went to first grade, in these timber communities, when you're born, you're practically born with a chain saw in your hand. the timber economy is the heart of the local economy. and to have folks who are unemployed trying to support their families, desperate for jobs in the woods to find out that our tax money that was supposed to go to put them to work has been put to work hiring people from outside our country, that is outrageous and it's unacceptable, and this amendment will address it in a responsible manner. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. thank you for the time, and i yield the floor.

my colleague is preparing to speak. thank you. mr. blumenthal: mr. president? thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor today to discuss h.r. 1797, a number of my colleagues, senators murray and boxer, have been here this morning to talk about the bill passed yesterday in the house of representatives that would prohibit all abortion beyond 20 weeks with very, very limited exceptions. this topic is critically important to the women of connecticut and our country, and the bill is yet another example lamentably and regrettably, another example of legislation that feigns concern for women's health when actually it would

endanger the lives and well-being of women across this great country. the bill would take decisions regarding health care away from women and their doctors and would force the doctors to decide between incurring criminal penalties and helping their patients. that choice is unacceptable professionally and morally. the decision to have an abortion is a serious decision that a woman should make in consultation with her doctor. when those decisions are made later in a pregnancy, they most often result in serious health risk to the mother or discovery that the fetus is not viable. they are the result of those risks or the discovery that a fetal is not viable. political interference is object

hornet and unacceptable in these personal and private decisions and violate the constitutional right of privacy. in another scenario many women may encounter if they seek an abortion later in pregnancy, the decision may be due to an inability to access services earlier, whether financial restrictions or lack of access to health care or other extenuating circumstances. in fact, 58% of abortion patients say they would have preferred to have an abortion earlier. low-income women were more than twice as likely than their wealthier counterparts could be delayed because of financial limitation and difficulty in making arrangements. as politicians, we should not be placing additional

restrictions on women in these circumstances. the house bill blatantly ignores constitutional protections that are necessary, vitally necessary to protect the health of women as decided in roe v wade and planned parenthood v casey because these kind of restrictions place limitations that interfere with constitutional rights and have no place in these personal and very private decisions. the limited exceptions in this bill would require a woman to report a rape or incest to law enforcement or a specific government agency when she is seeking much-needed health care services. those restrictions affect women when they have been the victims of a crime or face serious health risks and will have no

effect on reducing abortions. that's theirported purpose. -- their purported purpose, to reduce abortions, but that purpose will be in no way served by these restrictions. victims of incest or rape may be too young or too fearful of retaliation to report to a law enforcement agency. why create a needless, lawless obstacle to vital health care? we should be working to ensure that women have the ability to access safe and affordable contraception so there are fewer unintended pregnancies in this country. yet supporters of this bill would also restrict access to contraception and they're the ones who have tried to make it more difficult to get access to the information and services necessary to prevent unintended pregnancies.

we need to do more. our nation needs to do better. to ensure that women have access to preventive and maternal health care so they can be prepared to face the responsibility of pregnancy and parenthood. this bill would do very little, if anything, to actually help women to protect their health care and the health care of their families and so i urge my colleagues to reject any consideration of this ill-intended and i hope also ill-fated measure that endangers women's health across the country and urge my colleagues to focus on the real priority that face this congress -- job creation and economic recovery, for example, and stop this attack on women's health. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. coats: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: we're debating the fraying and i'm one who believes the immigration system is broken and the way in which we deal with those who want to come here illegally. mr. portman: i have concerns about the underlying legislation. i have concerns about the workplace magnet. the e-verification proposals are an improvement on the current system but still not as strong as they would need to be to be an effective deterrent for those unauthorized to work. i don't think the system will work, frankly, unless we strengthen those provisions at the workplace. most people want to come here for economic reasons, and i think if you don't feel diehl with the workplace you're not going to be able to affect much at the border if people want to come for their families and to

get a job. second, we learn now that 40% of those who are here illegally actually overstayed their visas meaning they came legally but overstayed their visas. we learned under e-verification, unfortunately, about 54% of those unauthorized are getting through now under the pilot programs. that needs to be strengthened. i'm working with the eight members of our body here who have put together this legislation and other senators on both sides of the aisle to try to strengthen those provisions because i don't think, again, a bill will hold together without real enforcement. second, i think the border enforcement needs to be strengthened and the triggers strengthened. i'm working with john cornyn, i hope on both sides of the aisle we will agree with having workplace verification that does determine who is eligible to work and whether the document is fraudulent or not that we also would have a secure border moving forward.

third, on the benefit side i have concerns about some of the benefits that would be offered to people in this intertrum -- interim status, legal status but not receiving a green card and so the question is what benefits should they get. we want to be sure people are not enticed to come here for benefits but rather come legally to work. but finally i have concerns about some of the criteria for this status that would be a legal status. as it relates to crimes that they have committed. as a result, i rise today to urge my colleagues to support two amendments that i have filed to the underlying bill. i believe those serve to clarify what kinds of criminal acts would render violent offenders inadmissible under the immigration reform bill we're debating. the first addresses domestic violence, stalking or child abuse. under the current bill they

would be inadmissible if they served at least one year in prison. my language changes. anyone who could have been sentenced to no less than one year imprisonment for the time at the time of conviction. this is really a clarification and a simple amendment that should be accepted by both sides because it's in keeping with the original purpose of the language. and that's to allow a more consistent and fair application of the law. if my amendment is accepted, two individuals convicted of the same crime under the same circumstances would be treated in the same way under our nation's immigration laws. that's not the case as the bill is currently written. the current language puts emphasis on the time served rather than the offense committed. as we all know the amount of time a person might serve is dpenlt on a whole lot of factors unrelated to the purposes of this legislation from the disposition of the sentencing judge to the overcrowding in many state prisons so this amendment would take those extraneous considerations

applying the same standards to all application for citizenship ensuring the spirit remains, preventing violent christmas from reaping the benefits of this legislation. the second amendment would exclude crimes against children involving moral turpitude, child abuse, neglect, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor through sexual act. it would remove from discretion of the secretary with regard to removal, deportation or inadmissibleity of an individual. it would anne ensure anyone who endangers our children is not eligible to become a citizen of this country. mr. president, nothing is more precious than american citizenship. we see that every day with people coming to to this country, some legal, some illegal. we have to ensure this legislation does not extend the privilege to hose who commit crimes against the most vulnerable among us. these amendments would achieve

that goal. so along with the strengthening of the everify, ensuring our border will be secure, that the appropriate benefits are provided to those who are not disins, i do urge my colleagues to adopt these two amendments to ensure those who would like to become citizens of the united states are those who deserve it and are not individuals who have engaged in the kind of criminal acts that would make them inappropriate to become citizens of the united states. mr. president, i thank you and i yield back the time. i don't see any colleagues stepping forward so i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i ask consent that the call. quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, on behalf of senators man chip,

pryor and reed, i ask that manchin 1268, pry improper number 1298, and reed of rhode island number 1224 amendments be called up. officer without objection, the clerk will report. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. leahy proposes amendments en bloc as follows: iring's manchin 1268, pryor 1298, reed of rhode island 1224. mr. leahy: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorm be suspended. officer without objection. mr. grassley: yesterday we had the good fortune of receiving the congressional budget office cost estimate of the immigration bill before the senate, and i'd like to mention two findings from the c.b.o. report. it will say the bill will drive down wages for legal american workers. the c.b.o. estimates the bill would drive down their average wages. secondly, it says the bill will not stop illegal immigration,

despite promises of a secure border, the bill would slow future illegal immigration by only 25%, according to the c.b.o. in the next couple of decades, that would mean 7.5 million new, undocumented immigrants coming into the country. before i dive into these two findings, let me remind my colleagues what was said by the authors of the bill. they said that undocumented immigrants and, hence, illegal migration, would be a think of the past. they said their bill included the toughest enforcement measures in history. in their framework, the group of eight said that they would write a bill that would ensure that the problem doesn't have to be

revisited. they implied that their bill, like the 1986 bill, would take care of the problems once and for all, and the obvious fact of that -- the obvious fact there is that the 1986 legislation said that it would secure the border, but it never did secure the border. so we see the group of eight legislation before us as making the same mistakes that we made in 1986. so what the group of eight said that they would write a bill that would ensure that the problem doesn't have to be revisited, we find today the congressional budget office thinks entirely different. i may not always agree with c.b.o. i disagree with the fact that c.b.o. has used dynamic economic effects to score this bill when they don't use it on anything

else. yet they refuse to provide the dynamic scoring, particularly on revenue bills. but everyone knows what the c.b.o. says goes. and, you know, i always say on the senate floor, c.b.o.'s god. you know, they say something is going to cost something, and you want to dispute what they say, you got to have 60 votes in this body to overturn a point of order against the c.b.o. so it's very difficult to get 60 votes in the united states senate, so that's when they say something is something, it is something, and that makes them god around this town. so i asked the proponents about these two key findings that i have pointed out. what do the proponents say about the fact that the influx of new immigrants would have the effect of bringing down the average wage for the american workforce? this is exactly the point that

peter kircinow argued before our judiciary committee on april 19. he said that illegal immigration has a negative effect on the wages and employment levels of low-skilled workers, particularly african-americans. is the fact that s. -- the second question to the group is, is the fact that s. 44 will drive down wages acceptable to those who support the bill? in the report -- quote -- "c.b.o. estimates that under the bill, the net annual flow of unauthorized residents would decrease by about 25% relative to what would occur under current law." end of quote. now, i want to put in front of that 25% my own words.

you mean that we pass this legislation and, according to c.b.o., this legislation is only going to have the effect of lowering the illegal immigration by only 25% when we're led to believe that they're imping to - they're going to overcome the problems that we didn't see in 1986 when we legalized, thought we did it once and for all, that would take care of it. we find out now it didn't take care of it -- legalize 3 million people and now we have 12 million undocumented people here as well. so let's just see. if the c.b.o. is correct and that the net flow of unauthorized residents would only decrease by about 25%, doesn't that indicate that we'll have to revisit the immigration issue again? it is obvious that this bill

won't ensure that we're not back in the same position down the road. contrary to the promise of the group of eight that we're going to write this legislation in a way that we won't have to revisit it again, we said that very same thing in is th 1986. but here we are years later with four times the amount of undocumented workers that we had then. the c.b.o. stated that "enforcement and verification requirements in the legislation would probably reduce the size of the u.s. population." other aspects of the bill will in fact -- quote -- "probably increase the number of unauthorized residents; in particular, people overstaying their visas issued under the new program for temporary workers." end of quote. this bill favors legalization before border security, and

apparently will have no noticeable decrease in the net annual flow of unauthorized residents. the c.b.o. says the bill will not stop the flow of illegal immigration. if proponents are serious about stopping people from living here illegally, contrary to our law, a nation based upon the rule of law, they need to adopt commonsense legislation that will stop this flow, not merely by reducing it by just 25%. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. reid: i ask consent it be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: it's my understanding regular order would be my calling paul amendment 1200 as modified, is that right? the presiding officer: the senator may call for regular order with respect to that amendment. mr. reid: i so move, mr. president. the presiding officer: the amendment's now pending. mr. reid: pardon me? the presiding officer: the amendment is now pending. mr. reid: it is pending? i move to table the paul amendment and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote?

the yeas are 61, the nays are 37. the motion to table is agreed to. the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: mr. president, has this matter that we just voted on been tabled? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. leader is correct. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the time until 4:25 tonight be equally divided between the two leaders h.r. their designees with senator sessions controlling seven minutes of the republican time and this be for debate on the followempts a: manchin 1268, lee 1208 as modified with the changes at the desk you pryor 1228, heller 1227, and mercury as modified. we still have a umin of eermts that the mearption are working on. we'll goat those later, try to at least. so, mr. president, continuing my request, at 4:25 then the senate proceed to votes in relation to the amendments in the order lists. the amendments be subject to

60-vote aif i amative thretion hold, all after the first vote be 10 minutes in duration. ms. landrieu: observe bing the right to object -- reserving the right to object, i'd like to ask the leader and the managers of the bill, both senator sessions and senator leahy, there are about 100 or so other amendments pending, and i know that we've been sort of held up the last couple of days. but there are amendments -- and this is a question -- that i have that don't really touch the heart of the bill but that are important to connect to this bill that have no opposition that i know of. i'm 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? mr. reid: well, i say through the chair to my dear friend from louisiana, the managers have been working through these amendments.

and i know my friend says there's no opposition. but having said that that doesn't mean there isn't opposition. ms. landrieu: i should do more checking on them then. mr. reid: but we have a number of people who are trying to get amendments on the list. we're going to continue to work 0en that. i.tit's not because senators hae tried the managers. i would ask that my request be modified to have the votes start at 4:35, other than 4:25. otherwise, senator sessions wants to have two minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection to the majority leader's request? without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by me in consultation with senator mcconnell, the senate proceed to executive session to calendar calendar number 182, there be two minutes for deviate equally divided in the usual form, the senate proceed to vote on the nomination, the motion to r

reconsider be laid on the table, no further motions being made in order and any sphaiments be placed in the record and the president be notified of the senate's action. it is michael froman to be the trade representative. the presiding office the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: we will have the vote after this batch of votes unless senator mcconnell has a problem with it. the presiding officer: who yields time?

the presiding officer: the time will be equally charged to both sides. mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama is recognized. mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: there is no quorum call. the senator is recognized. mr. sessions: the congressional budget office analysis of the gang of eight immigration bill confirms in dramatic fashion our most significant concerns about the bill. indeed, i would say that the history of the movement of this bill through the senate, this

is the most dramatic event yet. combaiskally, it -- basically, it says these things in explicit phrases after careful analysis. number one, it will reduce the wages of american citizens. number two, it will increase unemployment in america. number three, it will reduce g.d.p. per capita in america, the growth in our economy will be reduced by the passage of this bill. and it will -- and it concludes that illegality will not be stopped but only reduced by 25%. so we're talking about a bill that's supposed to be the toughest ever that's going to promote economic growth in america, a bill that's supposed to make us economically stronger and be a bill that ends

illegality in the future. and it just doesn't do that. as i've read the bill, i've studied the bill and looked at the bill, that's what i've been concluding and saying for weeks, each one of those things. and it's not -- and the score confirms that. so i would ask colleagues how can we vote for a bill that pulls down wages of americans, that increases unemployment, and only has a modest reduction in the illegality that's occurring today? reduces g.d.p. and increases the debt. how can we do that? so the bill, for example, would increase welfare spending by $259 billion in the first ten years and increase the onbudget deficits by $14 billion. the onbudget deficits will increase by $14 billion. and it's been said, well, the

overall deficit when you account for the off-budget items, looks better. but that is a direct result of -- of counting the social security, medicare, fica withholding on people's%. that -- payrolls. that money for the people paying in is being set aside in trust funds and set aside to pay for their social security and retirement when they draw it in the future. you can't count that money as being -- improving the debt situation of the united states, and as soon as the prohibition, ten years or so that limits welfare is off, then they -- the cost of the legislation is going to go up much more. the bill would make no meaningful reduction in future illegal immigration. c.b.o. estimates about 350,000 illegal immigrants would be added each year, as senator

cornyn has said, it's about the difference in 7.5 million people would enter illegally in the next ten years instead of the current level of about 10 million. so that's -- 25% reduction. c.b.o. writes -- quote -- "other aspects of the bill would probably increase the number of unauthorized residents, in particular people overstaying their visas under the new programs for temporary workers." i've been pointing out that for weeks. people are going to come here with their families, supposedly to work temporarily for three years with the ability to extend for three years, and then who's going to be able to tell them to go home? they're not going to go home. and any realistic way, we're going to have a substantial increase in visa overstays, c.b.o. concludes that's correct. it's a guaranteed policy that will not work.

so the bill would result in massive increase in the future legal flow of immigration. current law estimates we will add 10 million people in ten years, including the legalized illegal immigrants. that means 30 million immigrants by 2023. that's the number i've been using. i felt that was a fair, legitimate number. it's complicated. i asked senator schumer twice in the committee committee how many people will be admitted in the next ten years and given legal status? he wouldn't say. the bill's sponsor won't tell us how many but c.b.o. now has said the figure i've used, 30 million basically is correct. that's triple the number that would be admitted under the current legal flow of immigrants into our country. we admit a million a year. that would be ten million over ten years, and this would be 30 million. so we have to ask those questions. finally, c.b.o. tells us under this bill -- quote -- "the

average wage would be lower than under current law over the first 12 years" -- close quote. let me read that again. quote, "the average wage would be lower than under current law over the first dozen years" -- close quote. actually used the word "first dozen years." that should be the end of the bill right there. this is the chart that's in c.b.o.'s book, and their analysis, their report, it's the exact same chart they prepared, not the chart i prepared. i know the presiding officer cares about this issue. this is the impact on average wages. and this is where we start today at the zero factor and it drops down to 2024. ten years of lower wages than if we didn't pass the bill, which

only makes sense because we're flowing in a huge flow and supply of low skilled workers and they're going to pull down the wages particularly of our lower-income workers. this is going to happen, mathematics, free markets, tell you that. the country, the nation, the congress should try to determine what the right flow of immigrant labor is and get it right so we're not hammering american workers today who are unemployed, who are struggling for jobs trying to get better pay, and, in fact, average workers' pay has declined since 1999. i thank the chair and would mention one more thing. in the c.b.o.'s estimate of per capita gun, this is their -- g.d.p., this is chr chart

through their report and it shows through 2030 we have lowered g.d.p. per capita than if the bill never passed. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama is recognized. mr. sessions: i believe we have a few more minutes and no one else seeking the floor. i would just note that c.b.o.'s quote on employment noiment rate, quote, s. 744 would cause the unemployment rate to increase slightly between 2014 and 2020. six years of higher unemployment

rates. so we've heard a lot of talk over the years about the decline in wages, and i do think that's important for us to discuss. but how is that decline in wages that started over a decade ago, would be accelerated with this legislation, how is it we're not talking about it? senator menendez one of the intrepid authors of the immigration bill before us made some leader remarks this morning that i thought were pretty remarkable. he says not to worry about these first ten years of lower growth, lower wages, and higher unemployment because -- quote -- "the analysis actually gets better in the next ten years." but if you look at that and how it plays out, what you would see is this: you would see that there is an improvement in the wages in the second ten years,

which let me tell you their projections are always better the first ten years. but in the second ten years even if you saw some growth, the growth still does not get back to the level it would have been had the bill never been passed. we have to know that. the growth does not recover from the spot we already are. and respectfully, the inconvenient truth that he referred to is that this rube goldberg scheme that's been hatched will certainly help certain economic interests and certain political interests will be served for showers but it will be devastating for american workers at a time they're already hurting. i just don't see how we can justify that. can you sustain -- so we are supposed to tell the american

people that they are to accept declining wages for another ten years? how can that be the policy of the congress of the united states? how can we tell the american people at a time when unemployment is way too high that we're going to pass a bill that makes unemployment higher? how can we tell them that the onbudget deficit is going to be increased? am i hearing this correctly? to the public i would ask, can you, american people, afford that? can you sustain declining wages for another ten years? do you want your congress to pass a law that will reduce your wages? that will increase unemployment? and what about after that? well, because of the sustained downward pressure on wages, american wages 20 years from now will still be lower than they

would have been had the legislation not passed. and particularly as i indicated, it falls on the lower-wage people today who are falling further behind and impact of the immigration legislation that's before us, the thousand-page bill, experts will tell us will fall heavily -- more heavily on the poorer people. so it will cause them to fall even further behind. working people in this country are going to be hammered by this legislation. we need to be passing laws that help them get jobs, help them have higher wages, help them have higher and better benefits, and more full-time jobs, not fewer full-time jobs. i don't see how we owe loyalty to mr. zuckerberg whose facebook billionaires, running ads telling us what we're supposed

to do. does he know real people out there suffering today? doesn't impress me. claims he's some convention of conservatives running this ad. i'm not aware mr. zuckerberg is a conservative. do we owe our loyally to -- loyalty to him because he brilliantly produced facebook or do we owe our loyalty to the working men and women who vote for us, who fight our wars, pay our taxes and try to serve our country every year? well, i suspect if mr. zuckerberg were to post job openings tonight on his facebook, put out his salaries what he wants to pay, he'd find there might be plenty of americans that want to take these jobs. i suspect so. so i -- i -- i'd ask him to do so, put on your website what kind of qualifications, what

kind of salaries you'll pay and let's see if we don't have more applications than you've suggested exist out there. we know we have college graduates in large numbers in stem fields also having a hard time finding work. we know that's a fact. we've got senior -- senior engineers and scientists and computer people that would like to go to work, too. maybe they've been laid off. maybe there's been downsizing and they've got experience. are they not to be considered? we've got to bring people in through the -- some of these work programs for a period of time to take the jobs? well, a good immigration plan can work. we may need to bring in some workers. we certainly need seasonal workers that we can bring in to america if we do it right, and we need a guest worker program. i support that. and i support the million people

a year that are admitted into our country who work here every year. but this is a huge increase. the guest worker program will double under this legislation. so i -- i'm afraid that we're not serving the legitimate interest of the american working men and women. immigrant, native born, black, asian, white, hispanic that are here today, struggling today, are we serving them if we bring in more people than the economy can absorb, that we can see will pull down their wages, make it harder for them to have a job? as the "national review" wrote recently -- and this is very wise, i think, and inciteful -- insightful -- "we are a nation with an economy, not an economy with a nation." and what that means is, to me,

that we represent people, human beings and we have an obligation to help them make their lives better and not to make their lives tougher. so it seems to me that we have such a pell-mell rush for amnesty that we haven't seen the enforcement. we've -- we've agreed to too much legal flow. and we have very little reduction in the illegal flow over the next ten years. and for that reason, the bill should not become law. that's why the bill is in trouble. that's why we need to be listening to the house. they're having serious hearings step by step on this legislation. the first legislation that they -- i've seen that they've produced is really good. so we can reform the system. we can make it better. we can have a generous

immigration system for america as we've already had. we can be compassionate to people who've been here for a long time and -- and not try to deport everybody that's been here and done well but are not legally here. we can do something about that. but we need to be sure that the amount of workers coming are an am that can readily be absorbed, that can be assimilated, and we need to be sure that the illegality ends. and c.b.o. says it will not under this bill. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask unanimous consent that the lee amendment number 1208 be modified with the changes that are at the desk. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. sessions: i yield the floor and note the absence of a

quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader is recognized. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 1268, offered by the senator from west virginia, mr. manchin. mr. manchin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia is recognized. mr. manchin: mr. president, i rise today to introduce an important amendment to senate bill 744, the immigration now before us. my amendment would cap compensation for private contractors employed for border security at $230,700 a year. that's the same cap that we now have on a nonelected civilian employee of the federal government. i'm offering this amendment because over the last couple of decades, mr. president, the

united states has increasingly relied on private contractors to do the work that the men and women in our armed services used to do and they are getting exorbitant salaries to do it. in some cases, up to $763,000 a year. that's almost twice the salary of the president of the united states and it's almost four times the salary of the secretary of defense and homeland security. if we do nothing, that will soon rise to $951,000 a year. with the war in afghanistan winding down, defense contractors looking for new opportunities, and border security is at the top of their list. "new york times" says some of the men will demonstrate military-grade surveillance equipment this summer in an effort to win homeland security contracts worth billions of dollars. mr. president, i urge this commonsense amendment to be adopted. it caps it at $230,000. it stabilizes it across the board with all civilian employees. thank you very much. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. who yields time in opposition?

mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: the subcommittee, which i was not a member, gave a lot of thought to this. their number reduced by half the amount that could be charged. i think it's somewhat higher than senator manchin's amendment but it went from -- it could have been $900,000 a year and i believe they cut it to under $500,000 a year. and the committee and armed services discussed it and i believe the manchin amendment did not pass and i supported the subcommittee's mark on that. i think they've come to a reasonable number. and you're asking top executives maybe to move across the country to lead an engineering project and maybe that is a right figure. but i respect the senator's interest and i understand the meaning behind his -- the effort

behind his bill. the presiding officer: the question is on amendment number 1268. a senator: ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: