brown and congress pittinger and the congressman meadows. my name is work en chao, i'm here to testify about the cyber attacks against me that occurred over the last few years. [speaking chinese] >> translator: in september 2009 i discovered that my gmail account was set up for forwarding and that it would forward all my e-mails i received to another e-mail account not under my control. this was the first time i realized that my e-mail was attacked. [speaking chinese]

>> translator: in february 2011, the so-called jasmine revolution broke in china. it refers to anonymous online calls for mass gatherings and public venues in major cities across china. at the time i was working and living in the hong kong starting at that time, all my electronic communications including telephone and the internet products and the services were under severe attack. [speaking chinese]

[speaking chinese] >> translator: on june 2nd, 2011, i discovered that rather sophisticated hacking was being used against my gmail account. that day i received an e-mail with the subject -- [inaudible] unviolates you to participate in voting. the e-mail provided the link. on clicking it, a gnash document opened up, and the account would authorize other users to visit. when i reported this to google, they responded that they weren't

even aware of such attacks. the content of the e-mail had to do with a well known chinese author's campaign for election to the local congress of the people's representatives. and that was sent two days before the anniversary of the tiananmen massacre on june 4th. i believe the hacking was politically motivated and most likely an act of the government. i recorded the hacking process and published it on youtube. [speaking chinese] >> translator: on june 2011 i was attending the u.n. human rights council's meeting in

geneva as part of the internet freedom fellows program, and i gave a speech to call for support for chinese citizens who had been persecuted because of the jasmine revolution. on june 8th, the day before the speech, i received a text message warning. [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] >> translator: after i gave the speech and before i left geneva, my phone began to receive a

large volume of incoming calls. my phone was attacked in such a manner between june and august 2011. at its heaviest on july 31st, i received 311 calls in one day. all the calls hung up after the ring. i did a statistic study of the calls between late july and early august, and i found that hackers had a very regular time when they start working and when they went off work. it was not a random person acting alone. [speaking chinese] >> translator: in july 2011 personal information of my be

wife, my son and other relatives were published online including the numbers of my wife and my son's hong kong travel permits. this is not information average people can easily access unless they are police authorities. [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] >> translator: for about a year starting april 2011, in that time i identified -- unidentified persons bombed me on twitter with trash information using a software to

filter the trash, i found the heaviest attack placed on april 25th, 2012. a staggering 590,000 spam posts within 24 hours. the unidentified persons also posted viciously-defaming information about me online at the rate of over 10,000 times per day. as far as i know, the -- [inaudible] has also been similarly attacked. [speaking chinese]

[speaking chinese] >> translator: starting august the 24, 2011, my gmail account was spammed with astonishing number of messages. at its peak in mid march 2012, the data flow was as high as five gigabytes per hour, and if this were a personal attack, it would take more than 20 users to attack my account simultaneously to reach that kind of a data volume. therefore, i believe it was an organized attack.

the attackers also put my name and garbage messages to make it harder for me to filter them. i reported attacks to google through a third party. a google official contacted me subsequently and google made specific efforts to deal with the attack on me, but the results were not that great. [speaking chinese] >> translator: around the same time, unidentified persons also published hundreds of articles online to denigrate me, and i believe it was an organized campaign to destroy my personal reputation. [speaking chinese]

>> translator: at 4 p.m. on may 28, 2012, attacks on twitter and gmail stopped simultaneously. this also shows these were organized behaviors. [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] >> if you can try to wrap up in the next minute or two, okay. >> translator: yeah, we're just about done. thanks. from april 2009 to the present time, i have received an untold number of e-mails from the one

attack system that i successfully broke into myself, i find 192 people who were objects of attack, and they included chinese dissidents, rights lawyers and foreign journalists reporting on china. from the sources of attack, i was able to identify and also from the mandarin i heard in the background in the earlier stage of the telephone harassment, i believe all the attacks came from mainland china. speez peez. [speaking chinese] >> translator: i hope that the u.s. congress and the government will recognize such cyber attacks against human rights defenders as human rights persecution and impose sanctions and visa restriction on organizations, companies and their employees whoen gauge in

such -- who engage in such malicious activities. thank you. >> thank you, very much. ms. greve? thank you for joining us. >> for chinese, tibetan and uighur activists, cyber hacking reaches across state boundaries to undermine their ability to exercise the fundamental political freedoms they should be enjoying in democratic countries. being under sustained cyber attack means these groups are not, in practice, able to routinely access free communications media in the public square. and the hackers' success in hampering the ability of these groups to do their work normally results from a combination of specific targeting and the use of up to the minute hacking skills. be some examples. first, the activists have to contend with realtime and preemptive interference with their communications. increasingly, hackers are no longer having the misfelled e-mails we've all experienced when somebody's misspelled their

own naming it's a giveaway. now the hackers are obtaining genuine e-mails and sending them on within a malicious e-mail within hours which greatly increases their plausibility, especially when they're related to an ongoing conversation, upcoming event or conference. i have an example from the uighur o when a staff member received an immediate reply from a colleague which turned out to be the work of a hacker. second, there's all device harassment. mr. wen has talked about the jamming of his telephone. this happened in 2011 in a number of places, the world uighur congress experienced for a full week continuous jamming of the landlines in munich of the personal apartment and office telephone lines for a week. and during the same time which was the sensitive political anniversary of the july 5th riots, the web site was down can, and there was the massive spam attack.

you know, 15,000 e-mails in one week. and then the third example has to do with the innovation, there is some innovation having to do with software for cyber attacking. and this was the first-ever documented attack against android devices. now, this is getting to the smartphones and the tablets. in fact, a research company has issued a report saying that in march they discovered the first-ever use of spear phishing e-mail that attacked and succeeded in damaging android users' equipment. and the vehicle for this attack did have to do with the uighurs, the wiewger human rights -- the world uighur congress having sent an e-mail to speakers who had attended a conference. the sender of this copied text was purportedly a high level tibetan activist. the malware that was attached

extracted data about the phone itself. the phone number, the os version, the phone model and the contacts stored both on the phone and on the sim card and call logs and their messages and their geolocation. now, the frequency and sophistication after owl these attacks reveal -- all these attacks reveal a significant investment of resources and, in fact, activists note an upgrading of the resources devoted to this campaign including increased knowledge of the social networks that they're trying to attack, the language proficiency and the technical means. and we should note another example, another piece of evidence of the nature of the political targeting, the attacks always surge before sensitive political anniversaries, june 4th, july 5th and others. as we look at this deliberate, targeted hacking, why is it such a to tent tactic -- potent

tactic? it silences activists' ability to communicate with the wider public when their web sites are down for weeks at a time when they have something to say. it compromises the ability of research groups to keep information confidential which is essential when helping refugees. it diverts the energies of the activists because they have to deal with recovering from the cyber attacks and double checking all their communications to insure their authenticity. it raises the cost, the financial cost by requiring expensive backup systems, very expensive technical assistance and so on. it undermines cooperation with the wider world. international organizations, the journalists, the media, experts are also frustrated with these fake and malicious e-mails and other hacking interference. and finally, hacking, frankly, increases fear, again, even for those who are outside of china, even for those living in free countries. this is a great deterrent effect making people afraid to be in

touch with each other, to have solitarity and, again, whether outside of china they don't want to compromise their strategies as congressman smith mentioned or their confidential information and certainly in communicating with people inside china given the potential for harassment and arrest. so this portfolio of effects, silencing critical voices, undermining credible, undermining trust, increasing isolation, raising costs and inducing fear, this is the panoply of tactics of repression perfected by authoritarian regimes, and it is now being globalized. it deserves our unqualified condemnation. thank you. >> thank you very much, ms. greve. mr. wen, first of all, thank you for your courage in speaking out. i know that you're in new york at least for a while. i also know you have a wife and a son, and you are speaking out. if your speaking out does endanger you in any ways or expose you to any problems,

please let us know. and we will help you any way that we can. i think i can speak for all members of this committee if you would keep us informed of potential retribution. so thank you for that. my question is why didn't they just shut you down? [speaking chinese] >> translator: in 2011 i was awarded a human rights award in france, and since then i have not been able to dare to return to china, and i was working in hong kong until recently. that's why today i'm able to sit here to tell you my story. [speaking chinese]

>> translator: towards late last year they refused to renew my hong kong residence permit, so i couldn't stay in hong kong anymore. that's why i came to new york. >> thank you. ms. greve, it seems that -- thank you for, particularly, your last comments about the draining resources, increasing costs and instilling fear. did the -- it seems that a number of u.s. companies are reluctant to speak out because of fear of economic retribution and that the chinese government or state-owned enterprises or others could levy against them. do human rights and civil service and civil -- and civil society organizations both inside and outside china, do

they, do they feel though -- you talked about fear. explore that a little more, the fear they may fear, they may feel in speaking out or pointing fingers or whatever they might want to do in response. >> a number of groups report that it's very hard to even do the basic documentation because victims and witnesses are afraid to speak. this can be true before the cyber age, but it's true in spades now, as dr. mulvenon said about stealing intellect chul property. your family can suffer back home in china. so this there is an effect of fr silences individual victims to speak up, and it then makes it hard for journalists and human rights groups to provide the documentation so the world can

know the extent of the problem. >> so what do u.s. lawmakers do to help to protect these civil organizations, civil society organizations and human rights groups and all? >> i certainly believe that the work of the national endowment for democracy, my organization which is supported by an annual appropriation from the congress, is one lifeline. we give grants to human rights groups outside china who are doing their best. then they have money for server space and the ability to travel to meet each other. so some kind of offsetting of the financial cost is the very least that can be done, and that's certainly being done through my organization. there are a number of programs that the state department has done for, to help human rights defenders, and these are all worth doing even though they're at a very micro level. and certainly the voices of those in china who are still in china and subject not only to harassment and impeding of their normal work but, of course, under the thumb of the security apparatus of the state, when they raise their voices, it's very gratifying for them to hear

members of the congress echo their concerns and recognize the justice of their cause. >> does it always matter when -- we sort of sometimes walk this line of, you know, of judging others, of speaking out, and does that sometimes jeopardize people whom we defend as american elected officials speaking out individually in support of a chinese citizen? does it, does that cut both ways? is that something we should always do? does that always help them? >> it's a good idea to ask. the individual or advisers, but most of the time activists tell us that when they're ready to stand up and be counted, they are -- it can only help them to have solidarity around the world with based on universal values after all. >> thank you. mr. pittinger? >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. wen, thank you for europe testimony. i would like to got -- for your testimony. i would like to get some idea of the penalties that are enforced against the chinese citizens in their efforts to expose human rights and how they are targeted in china. [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] >> translator: the internet hacking, cybersecurity is only one problem they face. in real life their real problem

is in real life their security, their physical security. they could be disappeared, their internet ability could be invaded, and their telephones monitored and so on and so fort. so forth. >> are these penalties -- thank you. are these penalties pervasive throughout the country? does it matter where in china? [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese]

>> translator: the internet attack probably the most, the more prominent dissidents, activists are suffering more. but e-mail like phishing, it's very, very common, very widespread. as for disappearance and detention, there might be little difference in some provinces. it might be little bit better than elsewhere, but it's also very common. >> thank you. as it relates to religious freedoms and religious practices, do you see that there's greater openness and freedom in some provinces, and given than there are in others? does the official church, is it more, is it demanded in some

provinces? is the underground church able to live in greater freedom in some areas than in other areas? [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] >> translator: as far as i know, in the northeastern and just the greater northern area in china, religious persecution is very,

very serious. we all know, of course, well know about what happens in -- [inaudible] in the southern provinces, religious persecution might be little milder. but depends on what's your farred. if your -- standard. if your standard is universal values, the persecution even in what we consider the milder provinces are still very severe. >> thank you for that. ms. greve, thank you, also, for your testimony. as it relates to these organizations, you said that, certainly you said you appreciated the support from our government. i find myself in a predicament sometimes when i'm addressing, for example, the chinese chamber that i've spoken to and others in how direct i am.

and i'd like -- i know chairman brown brought this up some, but i would like to get a better feel how you could counsel me on addressing the human rights issues and concerns that i could have the greatest impact. my, my challenge has been to not to be overbearing, but to be real and understanding. i have 25-year experience in terms of working with the underground church in that country and deep appreciation for what they've gone through. and i want to be as direct as i can without losing them in the discussion. my argument has been that people of faith are the most dependable, moral, ethical people, that they could be constructive inside their own government. given all the reports of pervasive problems with crime and other issues inside the

government. so i just think i'd like a bit more input in how you would help us as legislators bring better focus and light to this issue that could put pressure on the chinese government. >> even the work of this commission proves that there is extensive, detailed, undeniable documentation. the annual report just full, and yet merely the naming and shaming, merely the exposure does not bring it, bring the facts always to the forefront. and when there are face to face encounters, there's always opportunity. sometimes people who are coming from china are not aware or sometimes believe active government propaganda about hostile forces outside china who want to needlessly smear the good name of china. and i think the calm repetition

of facts has to have a place in all of this. i think the investment in the work of documentation has a role, and there's also the question of the long long-term versus the short term. you have to stand for what's right maybe long term you're planting seeds. >> thank you very much. >> we'll leave this program here as the u.s. senate is about to gavel in to continue work on the immigration bill creating a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and allowing additional high and low-skilled workers.e and now to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal spirit, we believe, but we need you to remove our doubts. as our lawmakers face daunting challenges, give them an unwavering faith that will not shrink when facing obstacles.

imbue them with greater patience and make them constant in their commitment to do your will. lord, help them to cast their cares on you and leave to you the consequences of their faithful service. prosper all they do today in accordance with your will, and with your almighty power, annul and overrule any poor decisions they make. and lord, thank you for the faithful service of senator mo cowan. bless him as he prepares to leave the u.s. senate.

we pray in your strong name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., june 26, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable william cowan , a senator from the commonwealth of massachusetts, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks, the senate will resume consideration of the immigration

bill. the time until 11:30 will be equally divided between the two managers. the filing deadline for all second-degree amendments to both the substitute and to the bill is 10:30 today. at 11:30, there will be three roll call votes and a motion to waive the applicable budget points of order, adoption of the leahy amendment as modified, and a cloture vote on the committee-reported substitute amendment. mr. president, i think it's appropriate that i say just a word or two about the eight senators who have worked to get us to the point where we are now. i was thinking this morning this is really america at its best. each one of those eight senators don't know, as i don't know, whether this work they have done is going to help them or hurt

them, their political careers, but this is one of those opportunities where i'm confident that they believe they're doing it for the right reasons, no matter what the political consequences are. we have a broken immigration system, and they have led us to a path to be able to fix it. but for them, we would continue with this broken immigration system, which as we know now from the reports we got from the congressional budget office is going to help tremendously reduce our deficit. for the next two decades by $1 trillion, $1 trillion. people came before this legislation and said we have to do this legislation because it's good for the security of this nation and good for the economy. people really didn't know if they were speaking the truth. well, we know now that is absolutely true, that it improves the security, we see what's going to happen with the border, we're going to have

40,000 border patrol agents, and all other methods to make sure that board is secure and the northern border is secure. in addition to that, mr. president, it's going to improve our economy significantly, so i applaud and congratulate those eight senators for that remarkably good work that they have done. mr. president, it was 6:00 a.m. when immigration officials came to take maria espinosa's husband away in handcuffs. she walked out the front door to hand her husband his lunch money and watched as he was loaded into a truck and carted to an immigration detention center. that's a fancy word for a jail. he wasn't a criminal. he works hard, pays his taxes. he's a good father and a good husband. but jorge is in the country without the proper immigration paperwork, so he spent a month in this jail. maria, who is also an

undocumented immigrant, was also set to be deported but was able to remain at home with her teenaged daughter, who is, by the way, a united states citizen. maria and jorge were eventually able to secure a stay of deportation, but they live with the fear that they will be torn away from their family and deported to a country they haven't set foot in in 25 years. they came from mexico. they have made their home in las vegas. they have been there for 25 years. almost as long as they have been married. in nevada, maria and jorge is a large and vibrant family. they have two daughters and a son, and now they have an 8 month old grandson as well. they have loving friends and a tight-knit community. in mexico, the country where they were born, they don't know a single soul except for really an old relative.

but because maria and jorge are undocumented immigrants, they live with the fear every minute of every day, and sometimes they awaken at night that they will have to leave the country they love, the united states. maria lives with fear that she will have to say goodbye to their children and their grandson. here's what she said yesterday, and i quote -- "when you lose your mother or your father, you're an orphan. when you lose your husband, you're a widow. what do they call it when you lose a child, when you're separated from a child? there is no name for that." she said. that's the end of the quote. maria and jorge's family members are all legally present in the united states. maria and jorge's youngest daughter, a freshman in college, was born in the united states. so was their grandson. a directive issued last year by president obama allowed their two oldest children, both of whom are married to united states citizens, to obtain their legal residency.

the president's directive suspended deportation for 800,000 dreamers, young people brought to america illegally when they were children, in many instances just babies. but millions of family members of those young dreamers don't qualify for legal status or earn a pathway to citizenship. millions of mixed status families worry every day that a loved one, a parent, spouse, sibling will be torn away from them at any time. that's why it's crucial that congress pass this bipartisan legislation. this is reform legislation that protects and preserves families, and we need to do it right now. i'm happy that the united states senate will pass such a bill this week, a permanent commonsense solution to our dysfunctional system is really in sight. it is my hope our colleagues in the house will follow the senate's lead and work to pass bipartisan reform and do it now. because whether we serve in the

house or the senate, whether we hail from red states or blue states, we should all be able to agree the current system is broken, and we should all be able to agree that congressional action is necessary. i have seen firsthand the devastation caused by a broken system, but each time i have an opportunity to speak with nevadans about the urgent need for action on immigration, i'm reminded this issue is personal to them also. it's personal, as i have indicated, to me, but it's just as personal to maria and jorge and it's personal to 11 million other undocumented immigrants and tens of millions of their united states citizen relatives whose eyes are turned toward washington and whose hearts are filled with hope.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: yesterday morning, i made a prediction about a speech the president was expected to give later in the day. i said we could expect him to announce a plan to impose the will of some of his most radical backers on the american middle class. i said he would be undeterred by congress' rejection of his national energy tax, even when democrats held commanding majorities in both houses. i said he would announce his intention to push through job-crushing regulations anyway. but this time, largely through the back door. over the objections of many working class americans, rather than through the regular democratic process. and lo and behold, that's essentially what he did.

i was surprised by one thing, though. that was his continued effort to play politics with the keystone x.l. pipeline jobs. remember, we all know that the oil this pipeline would carry is going to come out of the ground either way. it is going to come out of the ground. whether he approves it or not. in other words, whether he gives approval to the pipeline or not, the oil's coming out of the ground. the only question is whether that energy and those jobs will go to america or whether they will be allowed to travel across the pacific to governments that harbor terrible environmental records to begin with. that's just one reason why the keystone pipeline has enjoyed such broad bipartisan support here in the senate. and even big labor, a sector that's usually supportive of the president, is all behind the keystone pipeline. and yet yesterday when the president had the opportunity to

side with the working class families across the country by approving the pipeline, he took another pass, just took a pass. sometimes you just have to wonder if this -- about this administration in making decisions like these, you have got to wonder if they truly understand the worries that most americans have to contend with in the obama economy. i have long warned, for example, that the white house was determined, determined to wage a war on coal. they denied it, of course, but only just long enough to get through the last election. so it's not a coincidence that the president didn't give his speech before the election or that he gave it at a university that symbolizes the d.c. elite rather than somewhere in coal country. should have made this speech down at morehead state university in my state or the university of pika in my state.

that would have been the place to make the speech, not here in town. now the president's supporters seem all too happy to admit that there is a war on coal. just yesterday, an advisor to the white house said -- quote - ""a war on coal is exactly what is needed." you have to give him points for candor. "a war on coal is exactly what is needed," said a white house advisor. look, republicans are all for developing the fuels and the energies of the future, we're all for that. we just think it should come about as a part of an all of the above strategy, which is exactly what the white house said it supported, too, back before the election. but now with the election year over, the truth comes out, and in truth the administration seems to adhere to a dogma that

could best be described as none of the above. not all of the above but none of the above except a couple of things that make our base happy. none of the above -- none of the above except a couple things that make our base happy. i'd note that such an approach is basically nonsense, since it ignores what is necessary to keep our country growing, energy needs have to be met in order to move toward a future where renewables look set to play a greater role, because it simply tries to pretend that it will not take years if not decades for these other types of energy to come online in a way that will truly meet our energy needs. in a phrase, it's a strategy that subordinates almost everything to politics. that's why republicans believe a true all of the above strategy means developing wind and solar and natural gas and oil and coal, and coal and embracing

american jobs that come along with producing american energy, and here's what we believe it absolutely does not mean. it does not mean picking out a class of vulnerable people and declaring war on them. picking out a class of vulnerable people and declaring war on them. i mean, there is a depression in central apa lay charks which includes eastern kentucky -- because of the government itself, this administration. sometimes people in washington forget that decisions made here actually affect the lives of others, and i'm often left to wonder, do they just not care? do they just not care? of course, coal is an important industry to my state, and i'm going to defend kentucky workers from out-of-touch washington attacks, but it is pretty naive to think it is just about kentucky or pennsylvania.

a war on coal, is actually a war on jobs. a war on coal is a war on jobs. coal is important to our entire country. it is critical to the growth of manufacturing, and it is important to our national economy. one could say that a coal miner in kentucky relies on coal for their well-being just as a line worker at a manufacturing plant that uses coal relies on it, too. and pretty much anyone who lives and works in a building with electricity relies on coal in some way. that's why even some in the president's party are trying to distance themselves from his approach. as one of my senate democratic colleagues put it yesterday, "the fact is clear: our own energy department reports that our country will get 37% of ash energy -- of our energy from coal until 2040." that's this administration's energy department. removing coal from our energy mix will have disastrous consequences for our recovering

economy. i couldn't degree more with that democratic colleague. and it is time for the white house to stop pivoting from job-destroying policies to p.r. pitches for jobs right back to job-destroying policies. i.t. time for the administration to get -- it's time for the extra etion to get serious about pursuing a workable strategy for this country, for energy, for the economy, and for jobs. mr. president, briefly on another matter, another day has gone by -- another day has gone by, and we're still not clear that the majority leader is going to keep his word given back at the beginning of this congress that the issue of the rules of the senate for this congress have been settled -- have been settled as a result of bipartisan discussions that occurred back in january, leading to the passing of two rules changes and two standing orders, after which the majority leader said it had been settled;

that we had the rules for this congress. and then later we learned that maybe we didn't, and there were these implied threats issued to groups around the country that he would exercise the so-called nuclear option. the definition of the nuclear option is to break the rules of the senate in order to change the rules of the senate. so the minority -- and i suspect a reasonable number of the majority -- are waiting to find out whether the majority leader intends to keep his word. your word is the currency of the realm here in the senate. his word has been given. we expect it to be kept. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 744, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 80,

s. 744, are a bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes. the presiding officer: yoshed -- under the previous order, the time until 11:30 a.m. will be equally divided between the two managers or their designees. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i have expressed my frustration and more often in the last weeks about the lack of progress on getting votes. we have been on this bill for three weeks, yet we've only dealt with nine amendments. it's unclear if anymore amendments will be debated and voted on. we've provided a list to the majority on amendments that we believe will make the bill better, but it seems as though the only amendments that will be in order before we vote on final

passage will be the schumer-hoeven-corker so-called grand compromise. this is the one that was conco concocted behind closed doors for days, stalling progress that we wanted to make in the public; in other words, we lost a lot of time while this grand compromise was being concocted behind closed doors when even while that was going on we could have been debating amendments and voting on amendments. not only is the amendment before us -- meaning the schumer-hoeven-corker amendment -- loaded with provisions that some would call earmarks, but it continues to promote false promises that the border will be truly secured. you get the impression from hearing the authors debate their

amendment that tomorrow we're going to have a secure border. that's not going to happen, and i will explain that in just a moment. let's get back to basics. we're a nation based upon the rule of law. in that concept, every nation has a right to protect its sovereignty. in fact, it has a duty to protect the homeland. any border security measures we pass, then, must be real and, more importantly, immediate. we can't wait ten years down the road to put more agents on the border or to implement a tracking system to track foreign nationals. we have to prove to the american people today that illegal

entries are under complete control and that the visa overstays are being punished. by being punished means leave our country when your visa says you're supposed to leave the country. unfortunately, too many people have been led to believe that the bill before us and this grand compromise amendment will force the secretary of homeland security to secure the border. now, the fact is, it doesn't do that. but you're led to believe that tomorrow the border will be secure. the amendment basically satiation of the basic premise of the -- the amendment basically is a continu satin isf the premise of enforcement

later. people will be legalized merely on the submission of a plan by the secretary of homeland security. now, will that plan secure the border? well, who's going to know until a long ways down the road. in the meantime, you have legalization and possibly enforcement, but you aren't going to know. so you end up making the same mistake that i made by voting for the bill in 19 86. i don't intend to make that mistake again. now, we're saying the secretary puts forth a plan. this very same secretary is the one who thinks the border is already strong enough, the same secretary who has refused to even answer questions that we submitted to her two months ago about how she might interpret

some of this legislation, and she obviously hasn't been forthright in answering what those department policies would be. the amendment puts additional agents on the border, yes, and it does it, quite frankly, from -- in opposition to people on the other side of the aisle. some of the sponsors of the bill have argued already that more agents aren't necessary. now then, maybe i should be satisfied that you're going to have more agents. but the point is, it's so far down the road that don't sell this amendment to me as border security. so let's be honest with the american people. the amendment -- this grand compromise concocted behind closed doors -- may call for

more border control agents, but it surely doesn't require it until the undocumented population who are now r.p.i.'s apply for adjustment are status or a green card, and that's down the road several years. i'm all for putting more agents along the border, but why should we wait? it ought to be enforcement now, legalization later. so why allow legalization now and simply promise more agents in the future? and even then, who really believes that the secretary, like the one we have today, will actually enforce the law? and when i say "like the secretary we have today," i mean the policy. she says that the border is secure. then in this amendment there's the issue of fencing. one of the conditions that must

be met before the secretary can process green cards for people here illegally is that the southern border fencing strategy has been submitted to congress and implemented. this fencing strategy will identify where 700 miles of pedestrian fencing is in place. neat thiplace note that this is not double-layered as in current law. so current law is weakened. the amendment states that the second layer is to be built only if the secretary deems it necessary and appropriate. another delegation of authority to the secretary, to a secretary that says the border is already secure. additionally, the underlying bill still specifically states that nothing in this provision shall be interpreted to require her to install fencing.

so, yes, they talk about this being a strong border-secure grand compromise, but it leaves so much discretion to a secretary that already says the border is secure. now, another part of the amendment requires that an electronic entry-exit system is in use at all international air and seaports. well, that sounds like all international air and seaports. but look at this caveat. but only where the "u.s. cuss comes is currently deployed." this is actually weaker than the underlying bill, which required that the electronic entry-exit system be used at air and seaports, not just international. so here again, you have a grand

compromise, supposed to get more votes for this bill, but it's weaker than the underlying legislation. because the underlying legislation requires biometric entry-exit at all ports of entry, including air, sea, and land p. p the amendment dictates to the secretary which equipment to purchase and deploy at the border. the members who wrote the bill were apparently given some secret list of technology that agents need, but i'm not sure if this came from the department or some defense contractor. but, have no fear, the border will be secured because the amendment calls for fixed towers and cam remarks unattended -- camera, unattended ground seine serks night-vision goggles, fiber optic inspection scopes,

license plate readers, and back scatters. well, now obviously i'm if a she schuss when i say -- i'm facetious when i say the border will be secured by this concoc concocted behind-closed-doors grand compromise. now, what's not so funny is the spending of taxpayers' dollars in this amendment. originally the legislation allocated $6.5 million for the secretary to carry out the law. now, $6.5 billion is a lot of money, but when we got to committee, the gang of eight increased the trust fund allocation by $6.5 billion to $8.3 billion, and $8.3 billion is still a lot of money. now we have this grand compromise congress cocted coct- grand compromise connecticut co- --concocted behind closed doors. now we're looking at $46 billion upon date of enactment for the

secretary to spend as she wishes. as is often the case here in washington, the solution always seems to be just to throw money at a problem, and this grand compromise measures the success of their -- of their amendment by the amount of money that's going to be spent, not by outcomes. and the american people and the polls of this country want the outcomes to be a secured border. not the amount of money that's going to be spent on the success of a piece of legislation. and of course the money has to come from somewhere, so the amendment requires the government to raid the social security trust fund. it's obamacare all over where the medicare trust fund was raided to help finance it. it's irresponsible and unacceptable. moreover, the amendment sponsors

will claim that people here illegally will pay for our border security needs. money has to come into the trust fund, and after it gets into the trust fund, it has to be repaid to the treasury. where will the american people be reimbursed? the sponsors of the bill say that the taxpayers won't bear the burden, yet there is no requirement that the funds be paid back. there is no time limit or accountability to ensure that the taxpayers or the treasury gets this money back. the schumer-corker-hoeven amendment increases fees on visas for legal immigrants in order to replenish the trust fund and the treasury. employers, students and tourists will pay the price. now, you're talking about employers, students and tourists, people that abide by the law, paying the price. meanwhile, the amendment says that the fees on those being legalized -- in other words, people that came here

undocumented, those people having not subjected themselves to america law by crossing the border illegally, they cannot be charged more than what is allowed already. the secretary cannot adjust the fees or penalties on those who apply for or renew their r.p.i. or blue card status, and those are the people that came to this country without papers, violating our law. the amendment in the underlying bill will not end illegal immigration because the border is not going to be secured. the congressional budget office says that illegal immigration would only reduce by 25% due to increased numbers of guest workers coming into the country. the amendment does nothing to radically reduce illegal immigration in the future and

does not provide any resources to interior enforcement agents whose mission it is to apply, detain and deport illegal immigrants. just like with the 1986 amnesty -- and i voted for that, and it was a mistake that i regret -- we're going to be back here in the same position ten years, facing the same problem. the authors have talked a lot about border surge in their amendment, but they seem to be hiding from the fact that the border changes only account for about half of the total amendment. there are changes to every title. there are changes to exchange visitor programs, the future guest worker program and visas even for the performing arts. this isn't just a border amendment. there are provisions in the bill that are put in there specifically to get senators to

support passage of this bill, because they think if they can get 70 votes that the house of representatives is going to buy into this thing. i expect to vote against the bill here, and i expect the house of representatives to fix this miserable failure, both the underlying legislation as well as the grand compromise amendment before us, to fix it up so that we can vote for a bill going to the president as border security before we have legalization, and that's going to happen. i trust the other body isn't going to buy into the argument a lot of senators in this body want to use, that somehow if this gets 70 votes, it is so bipartisan that how could the other body not do it. this body is not the deliberative body on this amendment that history tells the american people that the united states senate is.

this is a body for three weeks with 451 amendments. we didn't deliberate. we stalled. and voted on nine or ten amendments. the house of representatives is going to be the deliberative body on immigration reform, and it's going to put the united states senate to shame. so i encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment. it does nothing to change the legalization first philosophy and offers little more than false promises that the american people can no longer tolerate. i yield the floor. ms. hirono: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: mr. president, i

rise to speak about an agreement i have reached with senator graham on the hirono-murray-murkowski amendment number 1718 which has been cosponsored by senators boxer, gillibrand, cantwell, stabenow, klobuchar, warren, baldwin, mikulski, shaheen, leahy, franken, menendez and schumer. and i ask unanimous consent that senator landrieu be added as a cosponsor. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hirono: i have been speaking on the senate floor and talking with my colleagues about my concerns that the immigration bill that we are considering inadvertently disadvantages women who are trying to emigrate to the united states. i believe that the new merit-based points system for employment green cards will significantly disadvantage women who want to come to this country, particularly unmarried women. many women overseas do not have the same educational or career advancement opportunities available to men in those

countries. this new merit-based system will prioritize green cards for immigrants with high levels of education or experience. by favoring these immigrants, the bill essentially cements unfairness against women into u.s. immigration law. that is not the way to go. after i brought these concerns to senators schumer and graham, senator graham graciously agreed to sit down with me. we were able to work out a way to address the concerns about women in the merit-based system that i believe will significantly improve this bill. the new hirono-murray-murkowski amendment reflects a few changes which we agreed to after working with senator graham. the changes we made include limits on the ability for certain types of health care workers to obtain points multiple times based solely on their employment. clarification that there must be a personal relationship to

obtain points under the humanitarian concerns sections of the amendment. elimination of the provision that awarded points for being a last surviving relative of a u.s. citizen. harmonization of tier three with tiers one and two by adding points for english language skills. and ensuring that the tier three visas do not, do not reduce the overall numbers of tier one and tier two visas available. we should continue to increase the opportunities for women in our immigration system, but i believe that this agreement will help level the playing field for women. our amendment would establish a new tier three merit-based points system that will provide a fair opportunity for women to compete for merit-based green

cards. complementary to the high-skilled tier one and lower skilled tier two, the new tier three would include professionals -- professions commonly held by women so as to not limit women's opportunities for economic focus for immigration into our country. this system would provide 30,000 tier three visas and would not reduce the visas available in the other two merit-based tiers. i want to thank senator graham for working with me to modify this proposal in such a way that he can agree to lend his support while still addressing the real concerns that women will be at a disadvantage under the new merit-based system. i believe our amendment is a step in the right direction toward addressing the disparities for women in the new merit-based system and over 100 organizations, including faith-based organizations, support the hirono-murray-murkowski

amendment. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment to improve the new merit-based immigration system and make this bill better for women, and i hope that we can reach an agreement to bring this amendment to the floor for a vote. i yield my time. the presiding officer: the snowe from hawaii. ms. hirono: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama.

mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, we'll have a vote before very much longer on the question of whether or not the legislation before us violates the budget, and i think that's going to be established quite clearly. the chairman of the budget committee, senator murray, i'm ranking republican on it, is going to acknowledge that, and the parliament will so rule that the legislation violates the budget and violates it in a number of ways, and it's contrary to the promises made by the sponsors of the bill. they proposed a large piece of legislation. they told everyone a great deal of facts about their bill, and

one after another, those promises and representations have been shown to be inaccurate. they just are not accurate, and that's unfortunate. that's why the bill is having the difficulties that it does. if it simply was a bill that provided a legal status for people who had been here a long time and haven't had difficulties and it was a bill that actually fixed the border, fixed the workplace enforcement, fixed the entry-exit visa, created an effective internal enforcement mechanism for the future, the legislation would have a good chance of popular support. but as people have found out more about it, they find that all of those factors are not going to be achieved effectively, even in some instances weakened from current law, and as a result, the legislation is in trouble. well, one of the things that was

plainly advocated in the talking points, and so when you get a legislation that's 1,200 pages and the people are really unable to digest it, it boils down to talking points, so the sponsors produced a series of talking points that they said reflects what's in the legislation, and one of their talking points was this bill is not going to cost the taxpayers money. we're going to have fines on the people here illegally, and they will pay the costs of this bill and it won't impact the budget, so we were promised that. in the senate committee, judiciary committee, when this legislation came up, senator schumer made that explicitly clear. this is the quote that he gave us in the committee, and this is what their talking points said and what their members have been saying repeatedly. and here what we are simply

doing is making sure that all the expenses in the bill are fully funded by the income that the bill brings in. this is to make sure that the bill does not incur any cost on the taxpayers. it's to make it revenue neutral. that was the promise we have heard. people like to hear that. they are pleased to hear that. it was a positive spin for the bill. and he goes on to say -- quote -- "section 6 provides start-up costs to implement the bill, repaid by fees that come in later." then he goes on to say that there will be -- money will be paid from companies and workers and by the immigrants who get the legal status in terms of -- quote -- "their fines as they go through the process." close quote. so that was the promise that was there.

and now we have demonstration and a score that demonstrates that's plainly not correct. first, the congressional budget office before we added the extra money last week -- or we'll vote on today, before they added the substitute corker-hoeven-schumer amendment, that substitute, which adds a lot more money, c.b.o. analyzed the cost. what our experts in the budget office tell us is it would add $14 billion to the debt of the united states. but it's really more than that. to the on-budget debt of the united states. which is what counts. but because most of the individuals who will be legalized and will be able to have social security cards and

will pay fica, medicare, social security withholding on their paychecks every week, those -- that will incur extra revenue for the united states government, and our colleagues, to try to justify their claim that they are within the budget and that you shouldn't just count the c.b.o. score that on-budget deficit increases, they claim credit for the fica money. buff tbut you have to know that the fica money is money that goes to the social security and medicare trust funds. and every one of the individuals who is average age now in their 30's will vauntsl eventually cle benefit of medicare and social security. they'll draw out of the medicare and social security trust funds the money that they paid in, and statistically speaking, they'll draw out a lot more than they paid in, because those funds are not on a sound basis.

medicare and social security are on an unsound basis today. so they are counting that money to pay for their bill when that money is dedicated to the social security and medicare trust funds. and by spending that money today, you're sumly adding to the -- simply adding to the debt of the united states. you can't claim that twice. you can't claim that the individuals who are going to be given social security cards and will be on path to receive social security and medicare when they retire, that they're paying their social security and medicare, if their money is being spent on funding this program. that's double-counting, and mr. elmendorf of c.b.o. shows that. now, this chart shows it's really more than just the $14 billion, which is significant. this chart shows how much really

the deficit of the united states is impacted by this legislation. the unified budget surplus counts all the social security money and all the tax money in one pot. it's one way to do the accounting of the united states. but it's not accurate in this case. it shouldn't be used. it claims $197 billion surplus. they'that's the social securityd medicare money. but if you take away the social security surplus that this bill creates -- $211 billion -- then the money that they pay into the social security -- excuse me, the medicare trust fund, $56 billion -- the net difference is $70 billion. and we have to get our minds correct, colleagues. the reason this country is going broke -- the reason this country is so far off a sound fiscal path is that we continue to persist in using a unified

budget number when that money for social security and medicare is dedicated money. it's set aside to pay for something in the future. and if you set aside money in your saving account for your retirement, you can't spend it today and pretend you still have it for your retirement account. it's just that simple. this is a bad trend we've been in. it wasn't so obvious when social security and medicare were bringing in a lot more money than was going out, but now that's not so. and we'll soon be in deficit and very serious deficit. so we should not in any way suggest, believe, or tell the american people that this bill is paid for. it is not paid for, and as a result it violates the budget act and that's a point of order that senator vitter has made, and we'll vote on it. but in addition to that, it's worse.

there are ten more budget violations in the bill, one for a new direct spending to exceed judiciary committee's authorization levels over a five-year period. another one, a ten-year violation of spending over authorized levels in violation of the committee allocations. another emergency designation to increase spending pursuant to emergency spending for the comprehensive trust fund, emergency designation violation for the comprehensive reform trust fund in violation of the paygo act. emergency designation in violation of the 2010 budget resolution. emergency designation for social security cards in violation of the statutory paygo act, calli g

it an emergency to have funds for social security implementation. that's not an emergency. emergency designation for the everify system. that's a system we've had up and should be able to expand rapidly. that's not an emergency to expand that, in violation of the 2010 budget resolution. emergency designation of everify in violation of the paygo act. emergency designation that pas passenger manifest expenditures in violation of the 2010 budget resolution. emergency designation in violation of the statutory paygo act for passenger manifest information. so all of those represent violations of the budget act, and i think -- so senator vitter raised the one, one that plainly violates the flat spending limit we're now operating under that

we agreed to, and he raised that. and when the response came from senator leahy, he moved to waive that, and he moved to waive not only that but all the other ten violations of the budget act. he only raised one at 00 time -- he only raised one at a time. senator vitter only raised one. they moved to waive them all. get rid of this pesky complaint. we'll be voting on that, colleagues. this senate has been in recent months doing well with regard to adhering to the budget limits that we agreed to. we've had seven consecutive votes in which the senate has voted not to violate the budget when a bill hit the floor that violated the bucket. -- that violated the budget. and we've sefnts th sent the bir

reform. so if it comes back, it has to be in harmony with the bill. sew seven consecutive votes. my colleagues who've been there, who believe they have the responsibility to honor the budget limitations we agreed to, should not vote to waive the budget. let's stay with the budget. let's require the bill's sponsors to do what they promised to do. and by right they should be able to do: produce a bill that comes in within cost, without raiding the social security and medicare trust funds, as they now intend to do. and that's just the way it is. that's just the way it is, and i wish it weren't so, but it is. i briefly would take a minute to point out that we've had members on the floor recently -- last night, late yesterday, senator

benninbennet, one of our most ae members of the senate, a member of the gang of eight, promoting this bill, claiming that the bill requires before jobs are offered -- quote -- "requires an american is offered the job first." close quote. and went on to say, "that we're not bringing in a whole bunch of new people when there are americans looking for work." close quote. we're not bringing in a whole bunch of new people when there are americans looking for work. well, we are. the guest worker program that's in this bill, in addition to the legalization process of normal immigration, doubles the number of guest workers that will be coming to america over current law. these are people who come not to be permanent residents and emigrate to america, but come to take a job.

and they work for a certain period of time, really up to three years, and they can extend for three years, and they become really permanent job takers in america in many instances. and he says, first of all, you have to certify that an american has been offered the job first. and he claims -- which others supporting the bill have also said -- is not going to impact wages, is not going to impact jobs; don't worry about it. well, i'm worried about it. first and foremost, we're going to have 1.1 million people, many of those not able to work in the economy fully today because they're illegally here, they will be given legal status, a social security card, a driver's license, and the abet t abilityo apply for any job in america. so all of a sudden you're going to have 1.5 million people, perhaps, competing for jobs that

americans can't find today because unemployment is very high. that's going to happen promptly. en this you're going to accelerate another 4.5 million people into the country, without regard to their scicialtion and they'll be -- without regard to their skills, and they'll be looking for jobs also, probably most of them in the lower-skilled workforce area. and then in addition to that, the normal flow of immigration in america, the people who will be coming here that we welcome, immigrants every year, and we now welcome a million aer i do not, this will welcome 1.5 million a wre year. in addition to that, the guest worker program will double, all at a time when we are not doing wwell economically. today's announcement that the government revised downward

substantially the growth in the first quarter is a real problem. we're not seeing job growth here. let me just show this chart about the impact on wages and workers in america that will occur as a result of this legislation. i think probably these numbers are modest. i think it'll be more dramatic than this. this is our congressional budget office, and they looked at the numbers, and they say that "the average wage would be lower" -- close quote -- if this bill passes. "the average wage in america will be lower if this bill passes." over the first dozen years" -- close quote. for 12 years if we pass this bill, the average wages of americans will be lower than would have been the case if the bill had not passed, according to our own c.b.o.

now, somebody came and said to the floor, well, we won't worry about that because in 20 and 30 years, they say, it might be better. well, first of all, our problem is today. people are working -- are unemployed today. and they can't find work today. and wages have been declining every year since 200 -- since 199. the working wages of americans today is declining relative to inflation steadily for over a decade. this bill will accelerate that. it takes us in exactly the wrong direction. why would we do that? then it says, "c.b.o." -- this is their own report. and this chart is in their own courreport. "c.b.o. estimates that is $744 would cause the unemployment rate to increase slight lay between 2014 and 2020." so for the next 17 year 7 yearse

talking about increasing unemployment. the bill passes, wages drop. and they start going up out here, according to c.b.o., in year 2025, but they still are going -- if the bill hadn't passed, the growth would have been higher still. but now it knocked it down dramatically. even though i.t it's growing dot mean it's getting back to where it would have been had the bill not been passed. so people say this bill will not adversely effect americans is facing economic reality here. they say it will make the economy stronger. you heard that. well, you bring in under this bill we'll give legal status in the next ten years to 30 million people, permanent legal status, 30 million people instead of 10

million neem would be given -- people that would be given legal statistic news america if we followed -- status in america if we followed current law. 30 million instead of 10 million. and virtually all of those will be able to work and you would see some increase in g.d.p. -- g.n.p. if that were to occur. however, how much increase do you get and how does it compare out per person in america? c.b.o. says 744 would reduce per capita g.d.p. by .7% in 2023. that's page 14. in fact, per-capita g.d.p., according to their own chart that i have reproduced in their report, drops from 2017, 2021, 2025, 2030.

it takes 2030 before it starts getting back. and if the bill hadn't passed, per-capita g.d.p. would be going up, hopefully. way below what would happen. and this hurts americans when per-capita g.n.p. is reduced. everybody will feel that, maybe not the masters of the universe in their suites out here that are nipping off extra profits because they have lower wages, it may not impact them. they may make more money. in fact, professor borjas has at harvard says that people who gain the most from this immigration bill will be the people who rir the most low-wage workers because wages will go down. they will make bigger profits. but the people who will be hurt is a vastly more numerous workers whose wages will go down. this needs to be talked about. people don't want -- just seem to be pretty much in denial.

we have just got to talk about that. i ask my colleagues to consider this as they decide on how to vote on this important piece of legislation. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. ms. landrieu: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, madam president. i come to the floor this morning to talk about an issue that i have been speaking about for a couple of days now, and i most certainly can appreciate the senator from alabama's frustration and the senator from iowa's frustration. the senator from alabama has been opposed to this bill from the beginning. he may have a different view, but i'm not sure any amendments would satisfy him, but of course he has been debating in good faith and that's the part of this process that needs to go on. the senator from iowa i think has been trying to work very hard. he has spent so much time, both in the committee and here on the floor, trying to work out a bill

that he's comfortable with, but sometimes that happens and sometimes it doesn't. but i think what really should happen no matter what, madam president, is that after all of the controversial issues are debated, that there should be a coming together of both sides at a certain time, recognizing that all time is expired, all probability of any serious negotiation on any bills or any amendments that have to be voted on is over, and just as friends and as partners and as leaders trying to move appropriately and maturely forward, we could come together at least with a short list of amendments that are completely uncontested and cleared on both sides. and i'm going to continue to ask for this because i think it will send a very positive signal to

people that even though, you know, things have broken down, some in the senate, it's not completely, completely broken. now, just to frame this issue so people can understand why i might be kind of -- not upset but concerned about this, concerned is a better word, sincerely concerned is that there have been 800 amendments filed on this bill, 800. 300 in committee, about 150 of which were debated, voted on or dispensed with. 500 have been filed on this floor. so in order for those amendments to get any consideration at all, which they really haven't in any large measure, goodwill has to prevail and the goodwill has felony out of this chamber a long time ago.

i'd like to get a little piece of it back. just a little piece. i wish i could get all of it back. i wish that i could -- you know, we would act like we did four, five or even six years ago. it's not happening. maybe it will. i'd like to begin moving in that direction by asking my colleagues for a small consideration today of a small group of amendments that to our knowledge have no opposition. and i'm going to read a few of those, and senator grassley and his staff have been working on this. senator leahy and his staff have been working on this. i provided a list to senator mccain, to every member of the gang of eight. and i'm hoping that we can salvage some effort here. now, what people might not realize when a major bill like this is being debated, there is

a lot more going on besides what you see in committee or what you hear on the floor. the evidence of that would be that 800 amendments have been filed. someone had to write every one of those 800 amendments. staff worked very hard to think about ideas. not to derail the bill but to help the bill. no draft is perfect. and staffers, very smart staffers and members actually do read the text, come up with ideas to improve, one in particular. i had a hearing in my small business committee, i notified the immigration subcommittee, judiciary. we conducted our hearing with the blessing of the chair. we didn't talk about any of the major pieces of the legislation, except for the one or two that talked about small business. and in all this discussion of

major businesses needing skilled workers and major businesses, hotel chains, i thought maybe someone could gather some information about what small businesses might need and maybe improve the bill. i'm supporting immigration reform. many members, i think all democratic members, i don't know of anyone that's not. there are some republican members that are not supporting -- that are not supporting the bill, but there are some that are. so one amendment is requiring a mobile app to be developed so that a farmer, for instance, or a person in a rural area that had either wireless or a high-speed connection, particularly wireless connection, could just pull up everify on their mobile app. they wouldn't have to drive 200 miles to, you know, like in your state, madam president, in north dakota or south dakota or

louisiana or mississippi, we have areas that, you know, people are really working hard, and they are not like right next door to an internet cafe. and so one idea we had was for a mobile app. that's what one of these amendments is. wouldn't that be a big help. there is no one i know that's opposed to that. there is billions of dollars in this bill. some of it most certainly could be spent helping small businesses access better everify. there is another provision in this bill that klobuchar-landrieu-coats-blunt- b arrasso-enzi. this is as broad a coalition as you can -- not gather, but it could gather broad-based support. but klobuchar is from minnesota, landrieu is from louisiana, coats is from indiana, barrasso

is wyoming, and we're republicans and democrats. this amendment has been cleared, and i appreciate it on both sides, requires the certificates of citizenship and other documents to reflect the name and date of determination made by state court to help ensure that name and birth dates for adopted children are reflected in federal records. because a couple hundred -- you know, we adopt about 100,000 children in america every year. i think these parents should be given our best effort. these are parents who are adopting children domestically, keeping them off the streets, out of mental institutions, pouring their hearts and soul into helping raise children that others have either thrown away or given up, and yet we make it difficult. so the few of us that work this issue a lot know how things need to be fixed. this is a bill that comes to the floor. we think gosh, this bill is not big enough to command its own attention on the senate floor, so we are going to prepare an

amendment for when the immigration bill comes up, and we hope that the members will allow it to go through. now, i am not going to give up on my members yet. i am going to remain very optimistic and very hopeful that even senators that are opposed to this bill and have done everything they can to stop it or people opposed to the original draft who have done everything they can to amend it, some of that has been successful, some of it has not been, but i am hoping at the end of the day even those that have been making these great efforts will step back and understand and be respectful that other work should go on as well. and so this amendment is an example. there is another amendment that senator cochran and i have, amendment 1383. it simply requires reports on the eb-5 visa program.

the requirement for reports is not in this bill. it's a program that everyone here is familiar with, has many, many problems. the underlying bill fixes it, and i think to those of us supporting the bill fixes it adequately. i am not sure what the opponents think. but there is no reporting requirement to report back to the committee so that we can continue to monitor this program because it's been so off track in the past, let's make sure we get it on track in the future. this is just standard senate operations. but unfortunately, we're now at a place in time in the history of the senate, there are no standard operating procedures anymore. and it's a sad day. there is another amendment that i understand has been completely cleared. murray-crapo 1368.

prohibits the use of restraint on pregnant women in d.h.s. detention facilities during labor and childbirth, except in extraordinary circumstances. now, please, during childbirth or labor, the amendment would simply say you cannot shackle women during childbirth and labor. is anyone on the senate floor opposed to this? if so, please make yourself known. nelson-wicker. this is a very important amendment to senator wicker, who is a republican, senator nelson who is a democrat. i'm a cosponsor of this amendment, but it's senator nelson's amendment. all essaying -- and i can't believe there would be anyone in this chamber that would disagree -- since we're spending now -- and i might need to ask the senator from iowa to give me the final update on the number because the number keeps going

up, if the senator would just give me a number, how much are we spending, senator grassley? would you mind giving me that number of on the border with the new amendment? is it $46 billion? $46.3 billion. on the border southern border, california, texas, new mexico -- mr. grassley: that's money totally being spent, not necessarily all on the border, but about $30 billion of it was added in this amendment. ms. landrieu: for the border. okay. $30 billion on the land border, and it could be somewhere between $30 billion and $46 billion. and those numbers keep changing, so i'm sorry i don't have it right in front of me. but it's a lot of money. senator nelson's amendment says that at least $1 billion of that money be spent on maritime border security, not land border, because if you, as he said so eloquently, if you continue to put up fences and

borders on the land and make it secure, which we all want to do, there are maritime assets that need to be stepped up. i think most everybody understands that and would say that's a very good amendment. now, these are amendments that don't need to be voted on. i am not asking for votes on these amendments. they don't need to be voted on. they would normally go in just a consent. a voice vote en bloc. no votes required. now, there right be out of the -- as i said, 800 amendments, this list has less than 45, out of 800, 45 amendments that might not need -- that probably don't need any vote, no time, just a simple it's a consent. and staff has been given these and looked at these amendments. so i am going to continue to come to the floor today in hopes that after the leaders negotiate on the contested amendments and

whether they are going to get votes on the big -- and i have a list of the contested amendments. it looks quite different than the list i'm talking about. the list that is being contested has names like -- and i'm going to read them straight down. vitter, vitter, vitter, vitter, vitter, lee, lee, lee, lee, cruz, cruz, cruz, cruz, cornyn, cornyn, cornyn, cornyn. that's a list. there's another list -- chambliss-port man, vitter, vitter, vitter, tomby -- this list is a list of senators that they'd like to get a vote on their amendments. i am not topped them getting a -- i am not opposed to them getting a vote. what i am opposed to is this list, which is not senator. it is numbers of senators who have worked very hard to get bipartisan support for amendments that improve the

underlying bill, which is going to pass. the bill is going to pass. it's either going to pass with 69 votes or 72 votes or 74 votes. there's no way this bill is not going to pass the senate. it is clear it's going to pass. people don't like that it's going to pass, but it is going it pass. so before it passes, i'm asking with all of my heart for consideration of amendments that have been brought with democrats and republicans working in good faith to make the bill better and to solve problems for our constituentconstituents in a, yr constituents are not trying to negotiate on the number of border control. the gang of eight did that. whether we're going to have 40,000 or 80,000, my constituents want help for their kids they adopted. some of these amendments want to get help for holocaust survivors. there are only a few of them

left in the world. we'd like to give some attention to them so maybe since they spent six years or seven years or four years in a prison camp, they might be able to die in peace. and i'd like order on the floor. the presiding officer: order please. the senate will be in order. ms. landrieu: you know, and i have about -- and many colleagues here have sort of gotten to the point where we really, really would like to try to get back to a place where after all the fighting is over, all the yelling is done, all the posturing is done, all the message amendments are done, that we could at least trust each other enough to have a consent package of things that would be helpful to the people we represent. that is a simple request. i'm going to yield the floor. others want to speak. but i will come back and ask again when we have this list more clear for unanimous consent

for these amendments. i will not do that now. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i yield ten minutes to the senator from texas. so the rest of my time i want to give an update, not only for senator landrieu, but for all the senators. first of all, ten days ago we started out with 27 amendments that were noncontroversial -- or supposedly noncontroversial. obviously they all weren't noncontroversial. that grew to 44 or 45. i think we're back at 35 now on that list. remember, about 14 of those were included in the hoeven-corker amendment. they were included in that for sweeteners, so buying people off to get their votes on final passage. so 14 are there, probably going

to be passed when we vote on final passage. last night my staff cleared 12 amendments, and that does not count several republican amendments that were added to the list. we're making progress. some are noncontroversial, but others are not. one that the senator from louisiana mentioned that appeared to her to be noncontroversial, we've suggested some technical changes to make more defensiv definitiv. if that's done, we can probably accept that. also, you go the t got to rememn this list, were amendments under the jurisdiction of other committees, not under the jurisdiction of the judiciary committee. so since they were rejected fo d for that reason.

some are technical and some are more complicated. i'll give my assurance to all colleagues that we'll continue to work on this list. i yield the floor. i reserve the balance of whatever time is left on my side. ms. landrieu: will the senator from texas yield for 30 seconds and then i will be gone? mr. cornyn: i will be glad to yield if it doesn't come out of my ten minutes. ms. landrieu: i thank the senator. i thank senator grassley, the senator from iowa, for those comments, and i'll t to work wih him in good faith. i realize that not all of these amendments are under the jurisdiction of judiciary, so that's why we have been working with leaders of other committees that have jurisdiction over these amendments to help get them passed, and i appreciate his work and will continue to move forward. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president --

madam president, we've been on this bill about two and a half weeks now, and we find ourselves in a very strange position where we've had votes on ten amendments, and now senators are talking about clearing another 45 amendments here two days before the majority leader has basically set a deadline and said we're going to be through with this bill one way or the other. this strikes me as a strange way to do business, but here we are. i've always believed that even though you want something -- and in this case, i believe virtually every senator in this chamber wants an immigration bill -- that you can want something so bad, you can be so desperate that you'll get a bad deal. and here i think we're beginning to see some elements in this

bill, which i want to talk about briefly, that i think ought to give all of us pause and wonder whether this is the way we should be doing business. one of the things my constituents in texas found sow infuriating about -- my constituents in texas found so infuriating about the prospect of passing the affordable care act was the way there were backroom deals and special boondoggles that help garner the necessary 60 votes to pass obamacare back in 2010ment some of them became somewhat famous. the cornhusker kickback, gator gator-aid, the louisiana purchase. it suggested that if in fact individual members got

sweeteners that were sufficient to get their vote that that was the way we ought to be doing business. unfortunately, we're starting to see similar tactics break out here on this immigration issue, suggesting that some members are so desperate to get a deal, any deal, they're willing to take a bad deal, one in which none of these standing alone would pass muster or scrutiny. immigration reform is a nationwide challenge, and immigration reform should promote the national interest, not the special interest of individual senators or any region or state or lobbying group. yet when we look at the underlying bill, i see a litany of dephake de facto earmarks, carve-outes and pet spending initiatives. i know since we've been in such a rush since last friday to move to the designated deadline the majority leader has set for this

bill that there may be many members who are unfamiliar with these special carve-outs, de facto earmarks, and pet spending initiatives. so i want to just talk about a few of them. eric thhe can,for example, the s $450 billion to boost criminal prosecutions in a single sector. the tucson sector is the surprise beneficiary of $250 million in a special earmark in this bill. i would just ask the simple question, don't all of the border sectors need increased funding for prosecutions? well, i believe the answer is "yes." and so carving out the tucson sector for special treatment, i believe, is entirely inappropriate. and so we see that even longtime oangtszs of earmarks are now --

opponents of earmarks are now cosponsoring legislation. we wouldn't see this sort of thing, i believe, if we had a stand-alone bill. but jammed in here in order to get the maximum number of votes, you see strange things happen. this bill also creates a bureaucracy to determine which occupational category should be prioritized under the new guest worker program. however, it requires a new bureaucracy to automatically designate alaska seafood processing as a shortage occupation that receives special treatment. we might as well call this the alaska seafood special. i'll mention just one more boondoggle and that's the jobs for youth pet program, which authorizes $1.5 billion to expand an obama stimulus program that could conceivably be used to give free cars, motorcycles, scooters and other vehicles to young people who participate.

and i'm referring to page 1182 of the jobs for youth amendment. it is title 5 under the bill, which says the funds made available under this section shall be used, including to provide -- maybe used to provide supportive services such as transportation or child care that is necessary to enable the participation of such youth in the opportunities. so this is an open-ended invitation, i believe, to take this $1.5 billion and to to uset for purposes that i think many of us would cringe at if we really understood it. i want to make two final points about the spending in the bill. first, we're going to be asked to waive all 11 budget points of order under the bill. at a time when there's bipartisan concern about our fiscal standing, at a time when our debt is $17 billion, we have been, i think, pretty good

recently in not waiving budget points of order, recognizing on a bipartisan basis that it's important we hold the line against increased deficit spending and increased debt. but we're going to be asked to vote to essentially violate our own paygo rules, and to designate certain spending as emergency spending, even though it is obviously not. so much for fiscal responsibility. supporters of the underlying bill continue to argue that this legislation will actually reduce the federal deficit. it's a bizarre situation where you can spend almost $50 billion and claim that it actually reduces the deficit, but that's the argument. and yet, as i explained on monday, the only way you can transform this bill is by double-counting more than $211

billion of social security revenue. money paid in this terms of social security taxes is vauntsly going to have to be -- eventually going to have to be paid out in benefits. you can't say you'll pay it out in benefits and the then also ut to double-fund the bill. only in washington can you get away with such magical accounting techniques. in the real world, this bill actually increases the federal government's on-budget deficit over the next ten years. so i'm just suggesting that in our rush to get a bill that we're making concessions that we ordinarily would not make on stand-alone legislation, whether it is in these sweetener divisions, the de facto earmarks and special carve-outs or in double-counting revenue. but to add it all up, you are least with a bill that's -- you're left with a bill that's

chockful of earmarks and pork-barrel spending and special interest sweeten,a bill that fails to guarantee a border that's secure and offers only promises, which historically congress has been very, very, very, very bad about keeping. does that sound like real immigration reform? i know we can do better, and i know we must do better if we're ever going to solve our biggest immigration problems. again, madam president, i would love to support an immigration reform bill. unfortunately, the way this bill is shaping up, i cannot and will not. but my hope is that the house of representatives, when they take up this issue on a step-by-step basis in smaller increments that people can actually read and understand, that by working through this issue in the house, eventually we'll be able to come up with a conference committee that will be -- produce a

responsible immigration reform bill, one that doesn't offer de facto earmarks and various sweeteners to people who will support it but one which will stand on its own merits and one which will not bust the budget by double-counting social security funds paid into the bill in the future. madam president, i would yield the floor. mr. corker: madam president? the presiding officer: who yields time? mr. corker: it is my understanding that senator leahy is yielding time. senator landrieu is yielding time. somebody's yielding time. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: thank you, madam president. i want to speak today on the amendment. i know the senator from texas, my friend, someone i respect, made numerous comments about the bill, but actually the vote we have today is about the amendment, the border security amendment, that has been negotiated, and a lot of people have worked on. some of his comments i know refer to some portions of the

amendment. mostly he was talking about the bill itself. but the issue before us today is the border security amendment that the senator from north dakota and myself and many others worked on. so i want to just put this in context, if i can. 15 days ago in the republican caucus, at what we call our conference lunch, there was a discussion about ways of trying to make this immigration bill better. the senator from north dakota had a base bill dealing with border security, and many of us at that time talked about the fact that what we could do is take a base border security amendment, expand it and try to accommodate many of the desires of people in our caucus -- the presiding officer: will the

senate be in order, please. the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: about 15 days ago, we began working on a border security amendment that had some other provisions in it that many senators here in this body wanted to see happen. last -- two fridays ago, we actually had about 12 offices come together for a meeting to talk about many of those attributes that they felt would make this bill better, and so we developed over time a 115-page amendment, some people say 119-page amendment, dealing with not just border security but many issues that people in this body thought would make this bill be better. there has been some dispute about the size of this amendment, and i know we have had some people down here, and it's unfortunate that sometimes people will come to the senate floor and say things that are a little over the top in order to make a point, but i will note that today some of my friends on

my side of the aisle received multiple pinocchios, if you will, from a very well-respected publication because the fact is the amendment is as we have said. now, because of the rules of construction in the senate, when you add 119 or 115-page amendment to an 1,100-page bill and you intersperse the amendment throughout it, no doubt you come up with a 1,200-page bill, if you will, but the fact is 1,100 of those pages we have had since april. they have been through committee. people offered amendments. so let me just say i think the amendment size issue has been totally rebutted, and i would say the senator from north carolina -- north dakota and myself have -- have certainly carried the day on that issue. i think it's a fact now, we understand the size. we know that this amendment has some things in it other than border security. and that was part of the process

in getting to a place where we enhance the bill. now, some people are talking about the cost, and my friend from texas was just talking, if you noticed -- and it's very important around here to listen -- he talked about off-budget or on-budget costs. first of all, i think everybody in this body knows that the problem we have in america today is the off-budget items, that our entitlement programs are what are driving the huge deficits that we have in this nation. and so it's the entitlement issue that most people who focused on deficit reduction are focused on because we have done so much already on what we call the discretionary side, which is the on-budget piece. c.b.o. has scored this bill, and basically they have said -- not basically. they have said that if this bill were to pass, when you take into account the entitlements and you

take into account the discretionary spending, which is what's called on budget, we will reduce the deficit by $197 billion. and one of the main reasons that's the case is when immigrants move into what's called the temporary status, they pay in for ten years, and one of the toughest provisions of this bill is they cannot receive any benefits for ten years. now, think about that. so we have this huge amount of money that's going to be coming into the social security program and coming into the medicare program, which candidly helps people in this nation because it makes those programs more solvent. so you have to listen to the words here, so let's think about it. when people talk about the cost of this border security amendment, yes, it costs $46 billion to implement these items, which, by the way, almost every republican has championed for years all the items that are

in this border surge, if you will, but it costs $46 billion. now, i'm just going to just tell you, i have been here six and a half years. i would cut my credentials on focusing on deficit issues with anybody in this body. i have never had an opportunity to vote for a bill that costs $46 billion over a ten-year period but generated $197 billion into the treasury without raising anybody's taxes, and i might add also generating economic growth for our country. so i just wanted to debunk that. this is a tremendous opportunity for us to actually reduce our deficit while at the same time securing our border. now, people are talking about process, and i'm coming to the end here. it's interesting to me, the very people, i hate to say it, on my side of the aisle that have been raising cane, if you will, about

the fact that there aren't enough amendments are the very people that are objecting to amendments being heard. look, this is the old game that's played around here. you know, well, we think we ought to have 35 amendments. somebody on my side is objecting. most people don't understand that in the united states senate we have something called unanimous consent. and if one senator disagrees, it cannot happen, one senator. so we have had this situation going back and forth where we have tried to have amendments. i agree, let's have amendments. there is one amendment in particular, i wish we could vote on it and pass. i'd love to see it. but guess what, i just want everybody to know the very people that are saying they want to have more amendments are objecting to more amendments. so just understand what's happening here on the senate floor. so there will be some people who say well, i'm going to vote against this because of the process. i just want america to

understand what's happening in this body right now. as a matter of fact, i don't know if it's true or not, but my understanding was the other side was actually going to agree to 35 amendments. people heard my gosh, they might accept 35 amendments. go down there and file more amendments because we're afraid, we're afraid they are actually going to agree to what it is we are asking for, so we'll see. let me close with this. nobody this this body can say that the amendment that we are voting on today does not do anything someone can imagine relative to border security. my good friend from texas spent a lot of time drafting a border security bill that had 5,000 border patrol agents. this one has 20,000, 20,000 border patrol agents.

20,000 border patrol agents. it doubles the number of border patrol on our southern border. we are asking $4.5 billion worth of technology that the chief of border patrol has been trying to get for years, bought and paid for in this bill. we are adding an entry-exit visa program that has to be fully in place. we're adding -- we're adding everify for every employer in the country, and we're adding 350 miles of fencing. people are saying we don't know if this will ever happen, but we should read the triggers. if it doesn't happen, nobody gets a green card, okay? and every american can see whether this has happened. so then people are saying well, but on the fencing piece -- nobody, by the way, debates the 20,000 border patrol. nobody debates everify, nobody debates the $4.5 billion in

technology, but then people are saying well, wait a minute, on the fencing piece, though, the homeland homeland security secretary can decide where it goes. well, my friends in good government -- and i happen to be with one of those -- it does say that she can decide in section 5 of the bill which places work best. we know the people from texas don't even want a fence. people in arizona would like to have a fence, but it still says under the triggers, and people are trying to malign and trying to fool people all out across america because they know what's getting ready to happen. fact is without the 350 miles, iron-clad in place, there is no green card. so all five provisions have to be in place, and i know that people when they try to spin things and they get on television, they try to say these things that confuse america, what i would say to america, read the bill.

i think you would be proud of border security, which brings me to a close here today. here's what i want to say. on the procedural vote that took place two days ago, every single democrat voted to end debate on this border security measure. we had 15 republicans that voted for that. the process issue is behind us, and today we're voting on the amendment itself. i don't know how any republican could look a tv camera or a constituent in the eye and not say that this amendment strengthens, surges on the border and makes our border more secure. so if for some reason republicans come to the floor today, a majority of republicans and they vote against this border security amendment, what

really is going to happen is the democrats are going to own the border security issue, and basically republicans whose constituents i think in some cases care more about this issue than many people on the other side, they will be giving up this issue. i don't know how any republican could go back home and say to their constituents i voted against adding border patrol agents and i voted against adding a fence on the southern border and i voted against an everify system and i voted against an entry-exit program and i voted against technology, i voted against it because i didn't like the process. i voted against it because this bill has been before us now for over two months. and i had a chance to make amendments in judiciary, and i had a chance to make amendments on the floor, but candidly i didn't really want that to happen but i kept that from

occurring. so i would ask my friends, please, today is about an amendment to a bill that makes it stronger. you may not like every providing, but you cannot look folks in the eye back home and say that this isn't something that those who care about border security would know, surges the border, makes this country safer and i would say makes this bill a much stronger bill. so with that, madam president, i yield the floor. i hope my good friend and great partner from the state of north dakota will make some comments, and i want to thank senator leahy from vermont for his generosity of time this morning. mr. leahy: madam president, just before i yield, i will, i have four unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent the requests be agreed to and that it be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. leahy: and, madam president, i would yield to the distinguished senator from north dakota ten minutes, but i can consent the last five minutes be reserved to the senator from vermont. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: i would like to thank the distinguished senator and i would like to particularly thank my distinguished colleague from the state of tennessee for all his work on this border surge amendment. that's what we are talking about, is a border surge amendment. the amendment we have offered, hoeven-corker, is about securing the border first. as the good senator from tennessee just described, that is absolutely the focus of what we are doing here. and we're willing to work with everybody on both sides of the aisle in this body and in the house to come up with legislation that secures the border. we believe that's what americans want. that's what we're working so hard to do. what i'd like to start with, though, this morning in terms of my comments is this budget point

of order that we're going to be voting on here in just a few minutes, and i'd like to cite right from the congressional budget office report. so i'm just going to take facts, statistics right out of the c.b.o. report, because as the good senator from tennessee explained just a minute ago, so much of this is getting either misunderstood or misinterpreted. so let's go rate to the c.b.o. report, and let's just look at exactly what it says. according to c.b.o., it is clear that this legislation will reduce our deficit. the c.b.o. report shows that in the first decade there's $197 billion provided from this legislation that we can use for deficit reduction, less -- obviously, as senator corker so well just explained a minute ago -- we are putting significant reduces into securing the border. so if you take out that additional $40 billion that our amendment costs to make sure we

secure the border, to make sure we have everify system, to make sure that we have electronic entry and he can i -d exatal all of our air sported and seaports, that's additional money we have available in the first decade and according to c.b.o. in the second decade, $700 billion. so that's about $850 billion over the next two decades that's available to help us reduce the deficit, and that's after putting the five triggers in place that we provide in this legislation to secure the border first. that means a comprehensive southern border strategy, 20,000 additional border agents, 700 miles of fence in total, in addition to the 350 miles we have. a national mandatory everify system and electronic entry and exit system must be in place at

all international air ports and seaports. so these things must be done up front. these triggers must be met and illegal immigrants must be in provisional status for ten years before anyone can get green cards. other than dreamers or some blue card ag workers. so the cost of border enforcement is paid for, and we still have $850 billion available for deficit reduction. so you might ask, well why the budget point of order then? why the budget point of order when we're trying to get the debt and the deficit under control? well, the budget point of order goes to the amount of dollars coming in on budget and off budget. what do we mean by off budget? that means entitlement programs, and so the amount of dollars coming in don't match up with what's exactly in the budget, now both on budget and off budget. but that's understandable, isn't

it. this is new, significant legislation. so of course we have to adjust the on-budget and the off-budget to account for this $850 billion which we didn't have before. okay? almost $1 trillion now that we have, okay? and so of course we have to make some adjustments. so the real question here -- the real question on this budget point of order is, would you rather have $850 billion available to reduce the deficit or would you rather not have it? because if you don't pass the legislation, you don't get the $850 billion in funds to help with deficit reduction. that's, if you will, kind of the bottom line here, isn't it? now it's time -- now it's triewrks like true,like i say, t our budget categories. overall, c.b.o. scoring, after paying for an incredible amount of additional resources to secure the border first, $850

billion over the next two decades. also this funding strengthens entitlement programs, right? why? because the funding we're talking about is paid into social security and medicare. now, c.b.o. shows 245 in first the decade and the second decade, more is paid into those programs to make them solvent. but opponents say, well cialg -, yes, sure. but they'll get benefits someday. but c.b.o. shows that the amount being paid in is more than the benefits being paid out and the amount is on a growth tra trek john kerrytory, not the -- trajectory. not the reverse. meaning more is paid in in the second decade than in the first decade so we make those programs even more solvent and it gets us on the right trajectory. that's why we should defeat the budget point of order.

because, quite simply, we want the $850 billion to help reduce the deficit and that's the real issue we're dealing with here. also, i want to take just a minute again to address the g.d.p.-g.n.p. wages, and unemployment. i just want to quote from the c.b.o. because i really believe these things are getting misinterpreted. g.d.p. -- gross domestic product -- first decade it grows 3.3% more with the legislation. in the second decade, it grows 5.4% more, okay? now g.n.p. -- gross national product -- per capita in the first ten years, .7% less it's true in the first decade, but after that, we get more g.n.p. so long-term, more g.n.p., more g.d.p. unemployment, unemployment -- this talk about increasing unemployment? .1% in the first ten years or in

the first six years, as you adjustment after that, no difference in unemployment. same thing with wages. initially, .1% lower because you've got immigrants coming in who earn a lower wage, but over time the second ten years, wages go up. okay? what's my point here? the point is that for all of these categories, in all four of these categories, we do as well or better -- as well or better -- over the long run. and isn't that what we want? so i'll summarize. let me summarize. the first order of business for immigration reform is to secure the border. americans want immigration reform. of that there's no ubility do. but they want us to get it right and that means securing the border first. our amendment, as the senator from tennessee said, is 119 new pages, not 1,200.

1,100 is in the base bill that's been out here since may. our amendment secures the border with five tough provisions or triggers that must be met before green cards are allowed. and we've talked about that. a comprehensive high-tech plan on the southern border must be in place, 20,000 border agents, a total of 700 miles of fence, things that our colleagues on our side of the aisle have been asking for. they are here. national mandatory everify system, electronic entry and exit at international airports and seaports. that is about securing the border first. that is what this amendment is about. it is objective, and it is verifiable. that's what the technology on the border -- $4.5 billion in technology -- sensors, radars, drones, helicopters bs planes -- that's what it's all about. so we know that we have the border secure. we ask our colleagues on both ideas of the aisle to join with

us. -- on both sides of the aisle to join with us. let's join and meet this challenge for the american people and let's address border security. that's what this legislation does. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. leahy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, the hoeven-corker a.m. is subject to a -- amendment is subject to a budget point of order. it increases on-budget deficit over both the five and ten-year periods and exceeds the judiciary committee's alloy indication for direct spending but on-budget effects do not take into account the significant off-budget savings. and last week the nonpartisan congressional budget office concluded the bill is going to especially help us achieve nearly $1 trillion in deficit reduction. and we also have learned that the hoeven-corker amendment would significantly increase our

border security and would, as the c.b.o. said, i would say to my friends from tennessee and north dakota, the amendment would reduce both illegal entry into the country and the number of people who stay in the country beyond the end of their authorized period. so when we vote on the -- waiving the point of order, i will vote to waive it because the hoeven-corker amendment and the overall amendment will spur job growth and will dramatically reduce our deficit. then we're going to vote on the substitute. now, the substitute is the product of many months of hard work and bipartisan collaboration and a very transparent process. no one should oppose the cloture motion on the committee-reported substitute, as amended. the senate judiciary committee held lengthy and extensive public markup sessions to consider the border security

economic opportunity and immigration modernization act, s. 744. this was after a couple dozen hearings over the last year and a half. we did it in as transparent a way as possible. 300 first-degree amendments were filed. we had them online for a week and a half before the senate judiciary committee even took up the bill. over the course of three weeks, we debated the bill for nearly 40 hours. we often worked late into the evening. that was online. that was streamed. that was open to everybody. and certainly the thousands and thousands and thousands of e-mails that came in from all over the country show people are watching. the committee considered a total of 212 amendments -- 212 amendments during that time. 136 of which were adopted. every member of the committee --

democratic and republican -- who filed amendments to the legislation was afforded the opportunity to offer multiple amendments. nearly every member of the committee that hoferredz an amendment had -- that offered an amendment had an amendment adopted in both parties. all but three of the amendments passed on a bipartisan vote. and the committee reported the legislation by a bipartisan vote of 13-5. so i. as i said, the public witness what had we did. it was streamed live on the committee's web site. they saw it broadcast live on c-span. all of our amendments were posted. as we had developments, it was reported in real-time. members from both sides of the aisle praised the transparent process and the significant improvements made by the judiciary committee. let me also compliment the ranking republican on the committee, the senior senator

from iowa, senator grassley. we were on different sides of the legislation, but i would worked very well -- but we worked very well together. we talked numerous times throughout the whole markup to make sure it would go. he would come to me at times with some of the members having to be out for one reason or another. we worked around that. we made sure that everything went -- we made sure that neither side was surprised. and i appreciate the cooperation that i received from senator grassley. i think it is one of the reasons we could actually show the senate the way the senate is supposed to work. so i hope that colleagues will vote for the committee-reported substitute, as amended. you know, this is one of our nation's toughest problems. we weren't elected to do easy things. in fact, if all we had were easy things, i don't know anybody would want to be in the united states senate. we were elected -- the men and

women of this body from all over the country, both parties, philosophical differences, we're supposed to fix our nation's toughest problems. we're on the eve of coming one step closer to fixing our nation's broken immigration system. i hope the vast majority of senators will vote "yes." there has been a great deal of work on this. is this bill perfect? no. is any bill perfect? no. is this much better than what we have today? yes. is it exactly the bill that i would have written? no. it's not the bill senator grassley would have written. it is not the bill any one of us individually would have. but we are not a monarchy. we're not a dictatorship of one. we have 100 people here representing over 300 million americans, and we are supposed to mold as well as possible the sentiments and needs -- and

needs -- of 300 million americans but also the aspirations of those who would-be americans, like my grandparents and my wive's parents and even members of this body. and so, madam president, i hope that, one, we will waive and then secondly we'll vote for the amendment with the substitute. i i believe we're ready to vote. oh, i am he sorry. the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: 52 seconds i have left. thank you very much. first of all, to my republican colleagues who have just spoken, i raise the question rhetorically, what happens if 19,000 border patrol antiquities are agents are never hired or deployed? well, the people who are here have been legalized to r.p.i. status. it is quite obvious they will

not be removed. then to another senator, they keep talking about border security. we're going to have border security. well, you're going to have border security under this amendment ten years down the road. not today. the grand compromise makes false promises. it may throw more money at the border, but there's no accountability to get the job done. we need to see results but the only results that we're being assured is legalization -- legalization first, border security -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the majority leader. mr. reid: i'm going to use some of my leader time. until i can talk. we're going to be in a vote in just a few minutes on a -- to waive the budget act and then we're going to have two more. one is on adoption of the leahy amendment, as modified, and cloture vote on the committee-reported substitute

amendment. madam president, i met you on the floor this morning -- i mentioned on the floor this morning the work done by the gang of eight. extremely important. as i indicated at that time, as i look at the republicans and democrats who did this, i don't know anything in the -- in it for them politically. it was done because they believe that the immigration system is broken and broken badly and needed some repair work, and they did a remarkably good job. but i would like to add to that the senator from tennessee, the junior senator from tennessee, senator corker, and senator hoeven. what they have done to help us with this bill is remarkably important and good. could we have passed this without them? maybe. but the point is, they have strengthened this legislation,

because always, when i worked on this seven years ago, always the issue, is there going to be a border -- a secure border? what they have done is made that without any question a fact. and so i admire what they've done. again, not for any political benefit, because as i look, i doubt they'll get any from this, but they will get the benefit of doing what they believed was right for our country. and i appreciate that. and history will indicate that i'm right. maybe in the short term, it may not be, but history will indicate when the books are written that these two good men allowed us to do something that was important for our country. what if we didn't fix this broken immigration system today, in 2013, this week? what would the future be for this country? number one, as we've said, the security of this nation would be really not as good as it would

be had we passed this bill. and secondly, the economic security of this country would be not nearly as good as it will be if we pass this bill. a trillion-dollars debt will be reduced in this country. so i admire all six of these senators for the good work they've done for the country. we've been working for the last couple weeks and very intensely for the last couple days to come up with a list of amendments. i've got people on my side of the aisle that are very, very interested in having a vote on their amendment. and i know that i have even have a number of republican colleagues come to me and say, we've got to do something to allow us to have some amendments. now, we've tried very hard to do that, mr. president, but i have to say honestly, i'm not really happy what's taken place since i left here last night and got here this morning, because we're going backwards, not frontwards. and so i hope that we get these

three votes out of the way, people will agree, let's do the possible. there's a way we can come up with some amendments here. and so i understand both sides want their amendments heard, and i -- and voted on, it's important to them. if it's important to them, it should be important to us. so we're going to continue to work on this to see if we can come up with a list of amendments. i have -- would be remiss if i didn't mention, together with the ten senators i've already talked about, the chairman of the committee. we wouldn't be where we are without a fair, open markup. that isn't the way it always is around here. this man is the president pro tempore of the senate, he's the chairman of the committee. he has a lot of power. he could run that power any way he wants. that's the way it is here. and he did. he ran it the way that it should be run, and i admire and appreciate the work that he's done. so let's get these votes out of the way, see if we can come up with a list of amendments and

have a list of amendments that is something we can work on. and each side's going to have to give a little on this. so i ask unanimous consent the second and third votes in this list of amendments be ten minutes in duration and that there be two minutes of debate equally divided between the two votes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. under the previous order, all postcloture time has been expired. amendment number 1551 is withdrawn and the question occurs on the motion to waive budget points of order for consideration of this measure. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: