Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. I have expressed my frustration many times, and more often in the last week, about the lack of progress on getting votes. We have been on this bill for 3 weeks. Yet we have only dealt with nine amendments. It is unclear if any more amendments will be debated and voted on. We have provided a list to the majority on amendments that we believe will make the bill better. It seems as though the only amendments that will be made in order before we vote on final passage will be the Schumer-Hoeven-Corker so-called grand compromise. This is the one that was concocted behind closed doors for days, stalling progress 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. 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. We get the impression from hearing the authors debate their amendment that tomorrow we are going to have a secure border. This is not going to happen, and I will explain that in a moment.

Let's get back to basics. We are 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 10 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 the visa overstays are being punished. Being punished means leave our country when your visa says you are supposed to leave the country.

Unfortunately, too many people have been led to believe the bill before us, and this grand compromise amendment, will force the Secretary of Homeland Security to secure the border. The fact is, it doesn't do that, but we are led to believe that tomorrow the border will be secure. The amendment basically is a continuation of the basic premise of the underlying bill--legalization first, enforcement later, if ever.

It is very simple and it is wrong. People will be legalized merely on the submission of a plan by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Will that plan secure the border? Who is going to know until a long way down the road. In the meantime, you have legalization and possibly enforcement, but you aren't going to know. Then you end up making the same mistake I made by voting for the bill in 1986. I don't intend to make that mistake again.

We are 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 we submitted to her 2 months ago about how she might interpret some of this legislation. She obviously hasn't been forthright in answering what those department policies would be.

The amendment puts additional agents on the border, yes. It does it, quite frankly, 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. Maybe I should be satisfied we are going to have more agents. The point is, it is so far down the road--don't sell this amendment to me as border security.

Let's be honest with the American people. This amendment, this grand compromise concocted behind closed doors, may call for more Border Patrol agents, but it surely doesn't require it until the undocumented population, who are now RPIs, apply for adjustment status or a green card, and that is down the road several years.

I am all for putting more agents along the border, but why should we wait? It ought to be enforcement now, legalization later. Why allow legalization now and simply promise more agents in the future?

Even then, who believes the Secretary, like the one we have today, will actually enforce the law? When I say like the Secretary we have today, I mean the policy. She says the border is secure.

In this amendment there is the issue of fencing. One of the conditions that must be met before the Secretary can process green cards for people here illegally is 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. Note that this is not double layered, as in current law, so current law is weakened.

The amendment states the second layer is to be built only if the Secretary deems it necessary and appropriate. This is another delegation of authority to a Secretary who 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. Yes, they talk about this being a strong border-secure grand compromise, but it leaves so much discretion to a Secretary who already says the border is secure.

Another part of the amendment requires an electronic entry-exit system is in use at all international air and sea ports. This sounds like all international air and sea ports--and look at this caveat--but only ``where U.S. Customs and Border Protection are currently deployed.''

This is actually weaker than the underlying bill which required the electronic entry-exit system be used at air and sea ports, not just international. Here again we have a grand compromise, supposed to get more votes for this bill, but it is weaker than the underlying legislation, because the underlying legislation requires biometric entry-exit at all ports of entry, including air, sea, and land.

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 am not sure if this came from the Department or some defense contractor.

Have no fear, the border will be secure because the amendment calls for fixed towers and cameras, unattended ground sensors, night-vision goggles, fiberoptic tank inspection scopes, a license plate reader, and backscatters. Obviously, I am facetious when I say the border will be secured by this concocted, behind-closed-doors grand compromise.

What is not so funny is the spending of taxpayer dollars in this amendment. Originally the legislation allocated $6.5 million for the Secretary to carry out the law, and $6.5 billion is a lot of money. When we got to committee, the Gang of 8 increased the trust fund allocation by $6.5 billion to $8.3 billion, and $8.3 billion is still a lot of money. We have this grand compromise concocted behind closed doors before us, and now we are looking at not $8.3 billion but $46.3 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 throw money at a problem. This grand compromise measures the success of their amendment by the amount of money that is going to be spent, not by outcomes. The American people, in the polls of this country, want the outcomes to be a secure border, not the amount of money that is going to be spent on the success of a piece of legislation.

Of course, the money has to come from somewhere, so the amendment requires the government to raid the Social Security trust fund. It is ObamaCare all over again, where the Medicare trust fund was raided to help finance that. It is irresponsible and unacceptable.

Moreover, the amendment's sponsors will claim that people here illegally will pay for our border security needs. But 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 the taxpayers will not bear the burden. Yet there is no requirement the funds be paid back. There is no time limit or accountability to ensure the taxpayers or the Treasury gets its 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. Talking about employers, students, and tourists, these are people who abide by the law who are paying the price. Meanwhile, the amendment says for those being legalized--in other words, people who came here undocumented, those people having not subjected themselves to American 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 RPI or blue card status, and those are the people who came to this country without papers, in violation of our law.

The amendment in the underlying bill will not end illegal immigration because the border is not going to be secure. The Congressional Budget Office says illegal immigration would only be reduced by 25 percent due to the 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 apprehend, detain, and deport illegal immigrants.

Just as with the 1986 amnesty--and I voted for that, which was a mistake I regret--we are going to be back in the same position in 10 years, facing the same problem.

The authors have talked a lot about the border surge in their amendment, but they seem to be hiding from the fact 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 were put in there specifically to get Senators to support passage of this bill, because they think if they can get 70 votes, the House of Representatives is going to buy into this thing. I expect to vote against the bill, 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, so we can vote for a bill going to the President that has border security before we have legalization.

That is going to happen. I trust the other body isn't going to buy into the argument the Senators in this body want to use; that somehow, if this gets 70 votes, it is so bipartisan how could the other body not do it? This body is not the deliberative body on this amendment that history tells the American people the Senate is. This is a body that for 3 weeks, with 451 amendments, didn't deliberate. We stalled and voted on 9 or 10 amendments. The House of Representatives is going to be the deliberative body on immigration reform, and it is going to put the Senate to shame.

I encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment. It does nothing to change the legalization first philosophy and offers little more than false promises the American people can no longer tolerate.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Let me correct that. That is money total to be spent, not necessarily all on the border. But about $30 billion was added in this amendment for the border.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

I want to give an update, not only to Senator Landrieu, but for all the Senators. First of all, 10 days ago we started out with 27 amendments that were noncontroversial--or supposedly noncontroversial. Obviously, they were not all noncontroversial. That grew to 44 or 45, and I think we are 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 sweetener--to buy people off to get their votes on final passage. So there are 14 that will probably 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 are making progress. Some are noncontroversial, but others are not. The one that the Senator from Louisiana mentioned that appeared to her to be noncontroversial, we suggested some technical changes to make it more definitive. If that is done, we can probably accept that.

Also, everyone has to remember that there are amendments on this list which are under the jurisdiction of other committees and not under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. Some of the amendments were rejected for that reason. Some of the amendments are technical, but some are more complicated.

I give my assurance to all of my colleagues that we will continue to work on this list.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of whatever time is left when Senator Cornyn is done.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, this grand compromise makes false promises to the American people and throws money at the border, but there is no accountability to get the job done. We need to see the results, but the only result we are being assured of is legalization--legalization first, border security later.

On top of all the earmarks that are in this amendment, the grand compromise also has a grand plan for spending taxpayers' dollars, and we have to raid the Social Security trust fund to get it.

The American people expect us to get this right. This amendment is the wrong answer. I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield the floor, and I yield the remainder of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. I object.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. In the last 3 weeks, I have pointed out several flaws in the immigration bill. Within a couple of days, we will have a bill through the Senate. I think I owe to my colleagues and to my constituents, since I have been pointing out flaws, what it would take for me to vote for an immigration bill because I am just like most everybody and maybe everybody in the Senate who will tell you that the status quo is not legitimate to maintain and that we have to reform the system.

So there are, I would like to say, 100 Senators who believe the immigration system needs to be fixed. I can guarantee that there are also 100 different ways to fix it. Nobody has a perfect solution, but I bring an experience to the table that very few others have.

My deep-rooted concern with this bill stems from my strong belief that we made a mistake in 1986. We allowed legalization and ignored the laws on the books. Another major shortcoming was that we allowed legalization without creating adequate avenues for people to enter, live, and work in this country legally. In other words, if we had a system that works, where we had a shortage of workers, if they could legally come to the country, we would not have the problems we have today. We did not do that in 1986.

These were crucial flaws that have led us to the debate we have been having the last 3 weeks, and I am not willing to pass that mistake on to future Congresses.

What will it take for somebody such as I, a Senator who voted for amnesty in 1986 and wasn't a part of the Group of 8 or Group of 10, to vote for immigration reform this year? This is what I need to see in an immigration bill in order to support it and send it to the President.

When I mentioned four different points, it doesn't mean that takes care of everything, but if these things were taken care of, regardless of the other things, I would feel I would have to support it. They are:

No. 1, legalization after border security; No. 2, meaningful interior enforcement, including allowing ICE to do its job and work with State and local people; No. 3, strengthening, not weakening, current law with regard to criminals; and, No. 4, protecting American workers while enhancing legal avenues.

I will explain them at this point, starting with legalization after border security. Most Americans contend that a legalization program is a compassionate way to help those who are unlawfully in the country. However, those compassionate people who support such a program of legalization do so only on the promise that the government will secure the border and stop the flow of illegal immigration.

We are a nation based upon the rule of law. We have a right to protect our sovereignty, and, of course, a duty to protect our homeland. Any border security measures we pass must be real and immediate. We can't wait 10 years 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 that illegal entries are under complete control and that visa overstays are to be punished.

Unfortunately, too many people have been led to believe this bill before us will force the Secretary of Homeland Security to secure the border. It doesn't.

A fundamental component of any legislation is border security first and foremost, not legalization now and enforcement later, if ever.

There has to be pressure on the executive branch to get the job done. We must tie legalization to results. Only then will advocates and a future administration truly try to secure the border.

Secondly, meaningful interior enforcement, including ICE being allowed to do its job and work with State and locals. Enforcement of the immigration laws has been lax and increasingly selective in the last few years. As a result, States have been forced to deal with the criminal activity that surrounds the flow of people here who are undocumented.

They have stepped up efforts to control the effects of illegal immigration in some States, and the States should be able to protect their people and stem the lawlessness within their border. Yet time and again this administration has denied States the opportunity and tried to stop them from enforcing immigration laws.

Federal immigration enforcement officers have also been handicapped from doing their job. The bill would practically render these officers useless since they are required to verify a person's eligibility for legalization before apprehending and detaining. They need to be provided the resources to fulfill their mission and not be told by Washington to sit idly by.

The unfortunate reality is that the bill does almost nothing to strengthen and enhance our interior enforcement efforts. The bill does nothing to encourage Federal, State, and local law enforcement efforts to apprehend and detain individuals who pose a risk to our community. The Federal Government will continue to look the other way as millions of new people enter the country undocumented.

Meanwhile, the bill gives the States no new authority to act when the Federal Government refuses. I will be the first to say that border security is a must, but people who enter illegally and overstay their visas and are residing in the interior of the country, this cannot be ignored. This is something that if it is fixed, I would feel very comfortable voting for an immigration bill.

Strengthening, not weakening, current law with regard to criminals. It is not going to go over well back home if we say one can have criminal activity, even be deported from the country, and make application again to have the benefits of this legislation.

One of the major reasons why immigration is a subject of such significant public interest is the failure of the Federal Government to enforce existing laws. Eleven million people have unlawfully entered the country or overstayed their visas because the Federal Government did not deter them or take action to remove them.

This bill before us significantly weakens current criminal law and will hinder the ability of law enforcement to protect Americans from criminal undocumented aliens.

The bill weakens current law regarding passport fraud, only charging those who make or distribute illegal passports three or more times. It allows a person to knowingly purchase materials for making illegal passports but only charge the person with a crime if 10 or more passports are made.

It also weakens current law for those who illegally enter the country, changing existing laws by removing the crime of illegally attempting to enter the United States. This essentially incentivizes foreign citizens to attempt to illegally enter the country as many times as they wish.

Further, once they successfully enter the United States illegally, the alien would only be subject to criminal punishment if they are removed from the country three or more times. Why isn't once enough?

Taken together, the bill weakens current law and will make it easier for undocumented aliens to enter the country illegally by not criminalizing their attempts to enter, nor their actual illegal entry, unless they had been previously removed three or more times. This is a drastic change that will encourage future entries by undocumented people.

Given the serious nature of criminal street gangs, we need to pass an immigration bill that prevents entry into the country if one is a gang member. More important, we need to ensure that gang members are not being rewarded with legal status. Regrettably, the bill is weak on foreign national criminal street gang members in several regards. In addition to weakening current law, the bill does very little to deter criminal behavior in the future. The bill ignores sanctuary cities, allowing criminals to seek safe harbor in jurisdictions where they have policies aimed to protect people in the country illegally.

It increases the threshold required for actions to constitute a crime. It punishes persons only if they have already been convicted of three or more misdemeanors on different days, and it only punishes undocumented aliens who are removed from the country three or more times.

I am committed to making sure any bill that is sent to the President makes a more serious effort to penalize those who attempt to enter or reenter the United States. It needs to be tough on lawbreakers and send a signal that fraud and abuse, including identity theft, will not be tolerated. It needs to ensure that gang members are not granted legalization but rather made deportable and inadmissible.

We need to protect victims of crime and ensure that child abusers and domestic violence perpetrators do not receive benefits under the immigration law. Finally, we need to ensure that dangerous, undocumented criminals are not released in our country but are detained until they are properly returned to their home country.

Fourth and last, we need to protect American workers while enhancing legal avenues.

While I support allowing businesses to bring in foreign workers, they should only do so when qualified Americans are not available. There have been too many stories about U.S. workers who have had to train their replacements who come in through the H-1B visa program. Foreign nationals are being hired but then working in locations not specified in their application. Other work visa programs are not free of controversy.

I agree with the creation of a temporary worker program, such as the W visa program created in this bill. I have long argued we must enhance and expand opportunities for people who wish to work legally in this country. Yet as we do that, we cannot forget the American worker. We need to fight for them and ensure that they are not disadvantaged, displaced, and underpaid because of our generation laws.

The bill before the Senate makes that move in the right direction by increasing worker protection for Americans and by providing more authority to the executive branch to investigate fraud in the H-1B visa program. Unfortunately, the bill is slanted to ensure that only certain employers undergo more scrutiny. All employers who bring in visa holders should be held to the same standard. All employers, not just some, should be required to make a good-faith effort to recruit U.S. workers. All employers, not just some, should be required to attest that they did not or will not displace a U.S. worker within 180 days of applying for an H-1B worker. All employers, not just some, should be required to offer the job to a U.S. worker who is equally or better qualified.

Our employment-based immigration program, including the H-1B program, has served and could again serve a valuable purpose if used properly. However, they are being misused and abused. They are failing the American worker and not fulfilling the original purpose that Congress intended when it was created.

Reforms are needed to put integrity back into the program and to ensure that American workers and students are given every chance to fill vacant jobs in this country.

Again, how I vote on the final bill coming out of conference with the House is undecided. I want to be able to support something that will make Americans proud, that will not make the same mistakes we did in 1986, and will stand the test of time so future generations can benefit. I need to see at least these four key changes before I can cast a vote in support.

I have said to Iowans and to my colleagues that the bill before the Senate is precooked, but I have faith that a better bill is achievable, a bill that can gain more votes, including mine. This body, the Senate, is described as the most deliberative parliamentary body in the world--and I believe it is--but when we had 451 amendments offered to this bill, we were promised free and open debate. We have only dealt with about a dozen of them, and we can't say we had a fair and open debate as we were promised.

It surely did not meet the standard that was set by Chairman Leahy when he promised in committee a free and open debate. There was free and open debate and no limit on amendments. We stuck with it until we got done.

We could have just as well stuck with this bill until we got it done and we could have had votes on more amendments.

Now we are going to pass a bill that is not the best for the country and doesn't accomplish even what the authors of the legislation hoped to accomplish, particularly when they say secure the border first and then legalize. We have to rely upon a body that is not considered a deliberative body, the House of Representatives, to correct these mistakes that are made in this bill. I think they will, I hope they will, and then I hope I can vote for the product that will go to the President of the United States.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to give my colleagues a point of view on the immigration bill before the Senate from somebody other than a Senator.

In the weekend Des Moines Register, there was an article called ``Another View: Immigration reform plan adds disorder to a failing system'' by Mark H. Metcalf, who had been an immigration judge and now is a county attorney in the State of Kentucky.

I am quoting:

The most recent push for immigration reform is compelling. True to our heritage of inclusion, it succeeds. False to our tradition of rule of law, it fails.

For any law to forge consensus, it must appeal to both fairness and common sense. The measure now on the U.S. Senate floor fails this litmus.

What is sold as a means to simplify and dignify one of our most important national institutions--immigration and naturalization--mandates complexity and much of the same disorder that got us where we are today. The bill's neglect of an effective court system only aggravates this disorder.

America's immigration courts are weak, and this latest measure keeps them that way. Put simply, immigration courts cannot impose order. Few aliens ordered removed after years of litigation are ever deported.

Edward Grant, a senior immigration appeals judge, noted this impasse in 2006.

Then he quotes Edward Grant: ``All should be troubled that only a small fraction of [deportation orders] ..... is actually executed.''

And he was right. A 2003 Justice Department report found only 3 percent of aliens free during trial were actually removed after courts ruled against them. Those who deserve relief fare just as poorly.

By last count, more than 330,000 cases were backlogged. This historic dysfunction offers a glimpse of things to come if the current version of reform passes.

The cause of this dysfunction is simple. Immigration courts have no authority over immigration enforcement agencies. Unlike federal district courts that have U.S. marshals, among others, to execute their orders, federal immigration courts have no such muscle.

Numbers tell the story.

Some 11 million illegal aliens now live in the U.S. Visa overstayers--those who entered America legally and then refused to leave--comprise 40 percent of this total. The rest crossed unguarded borders and entered illegally. Both groups brought children with them. From these two populations, 1.2 million deportation orders remain unexecuted.

The immigration courts observed this dysfunction first hand. From 1996 through 2012, the U.S. permitted some 2.2 million aliens to remain free before trial. Nearly 900,000 of these individuals--39 percent of the total--skipped court and disappeared.

In the shadow of 9/11, things were even worse. From 2002 through 2006, half of all aliens free awaiting trial vanished. Nothing in the details now being debated addresses this systemic defect, and continued neglect will only diminish public support for worthy initiatives intended to elevate the foreign-born.

Fine improvements dot the present legislation. Enhancements that protect lawful American workers, recruitment of the highly skilled into our tech-driven economy, and real-time tracking of visa holders into and out of ports of entry provide overdue fixes.

Emphasis on border security demonstrates a seriousness absent from earlier proposals. Those illegally brought to the U.S. as children--better known as ``Dreamers''--earn tracks to citizenship incentivized through higher education and military service.

Now, let me editorialize here. There are two paragraphs where he says good things about this legislation. I do not necessarily agree with a couple of those points.

Now continuing to quote:

Some reworking is needed; but this value-added approach appeals to our better instincts as a nation. Problems persist, though, in that essential mechanism upon which a rule of law nation depends: effective courts.

While the bill authorizes 225 new judges, judicial authority declines. Deportation orders are further enfeebled. Aliens deported from the U.S. may apply to come back, and the thousands who skipped court can request a waiver--and get in line with the many who played by the rules.

Fraud is enabled. Courts and immigration agencies alike will be required to accept--without independent verification--aliens' claims to work and residency that make them eligible for the path to citizenship.

Constitutional protections are turned upside down.

Here I editorialize. Listen to this on how our laws are turned upside down. Continuing to quote:

Aliens in civil deportation proceedings will receive counsel on demand, while citizens receive counsel only when facing criminal charges and only after proving they are indigent.

So again editorializing, it gives more constitutional rights and more legal counsel than the common criminal in this country might get.

Order is subverted. Even felons who are subject to deportation may seek injunctions that allow them to remain in the U.S. In the end, courts that spent years deciding the cases of those who should be removed will see their orders overturned by waivers that mock the judicial process.

America's immigration courts express fundamental confidence in those who embrace our shores and the redemptive power of our democracy. For the immigrant in particular, they reveal the beginnings of accountability that are a surety of our exceptionalism.

But ignored by administrations both Republican and Democrat, these courts have ceased to do the critical work for which they were created--to definitively decide the claims of those who ask to join our nation and see that those decisions are impartially enforced.

So now, instead of debating how we extend the great prize of American citizenship to more of the world's bright and talented, Congress argues whether felons should be deported. This is the small-ball politics that has sabotaged public confidence in immigration. It shows how far we have fallen both in the mission of these special courts and with immigration in general.

Courts without authority cannot provide order. Even less can they assure liberty.

Only independent and empowered courts are an equal match for the certain risks and superior opportunities that American immigration offers. History proves them not just a priceless check against tyranny, but also an effective antidote for drifting government agencies that delay relief to the deserving and deny sanction to the offender.

Such courts are a necessary complement to immigration reform that is inclusive, accountable and commands consensus.

That is the end of the article in the Des Moines Register by this former immigration judge, Mark H. Metcalf.

I thank my colleagues for listening to this, and I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the only unanimous consent request I am going to make is at the end of my remarks I will ask for inclusion of something in the Record.

I wish to share with the public what is taking place on the immigration bill before us. Unfortunately, very little is taking place. We have been on the floor of the Senate considering this bill for 2 1/2 weeks, and only 13 amendments have been disposed of. We have had nine rollcall votes on amendments, and three of those amendments were tabling votes. Yet over 550 amendments have been filed to this bill. Senators are still filing amendments. The fact is less than 3 percent of all amendments filed have actually been considered. For a process that was labeled as ``fair and open,'' with the invitation to file amendments, even from the people who wrote the bill, the Gang of 8, it has become laughable.

Our side has been asking for votes. We have tried to call up amendments. Last night we sent a list of 34 amendments over to the majority and requested votes on them. I am told they have refused that list, and I think it is because there are some tough votes on those amendments. They want to limit the number of amendments that can be considered. They want to choose the amendments. In a sense, they want to tell Republicans which amendments we can offer from our side.

That is not right. I am very disappointed not just for myself but for a lot of other Members of the body. There is no deliberation. It seems as though there is no path forward to have votes to make the bill better. And, of course, this isn't the way to legislate. Immigration reform is an important matter. We have to get it right. We shouldn't rush a bill just to get it done, especially if we are going to pass a bad bill. This bill shouldn't be rushed if we are getting it wrong. We have to get it right. It is unfortunate that what has happened on the floor of the Senate--9 rollcall votes out of 550 amendments, and counting, that have been filed. So much for the world's greatest deliberative body.

Immigration reform hasn't been debated on this floor since 2007, and as far as I can remember, a major piece of legislation such as this on immigration hasn't passed the Senate since 1986.

It may seem that we have been on the bill for a long time. Compared to a lot of other issues, it has been a longer time. But most of the time has been spent delaying actual debate and consideration of amendments, while Members craft a grand bargain compromise behind closed doors. Of course, that has been adopted at this point in the process.

Unfortunately, it appears this bill has been precooked, deals have been made, and apparently having an open debate on amendments to the bill isn't part of that deal on any more than the few amendments we have discussed--particularly those amendments that could substantively change the underlying bill for the better. So we get the impression that, sorry, the kitchen is closed.

What has happened? We are supposed to be the most deliberative body in the world. We pride ourselves on that. But now we are going to rely on the House of Representatives to do our job to be deliberative and to fix this legislation. I have great hopes when this process is done through conference that I can vote for a bill that will go to the President of the United States.

As I have said before, the Judiciary Committee markup was full and open, and I have complimented Chairman Leahy many times on that point. It is too bad that process couldn't have been carried out here on the floor of the Senate.

Whether members were pleased in committee with the vote results for their amendments, in committee the members at least had the opportunity to offer amendments for debate and consideration. Amendments were debated. Amendments were voted on. But that hasn't been the case in the last 2 1/2 weeks here on the Senate floor.

We have tried to offer amendments to this over 1,000-page-long bill. The majority is shutting us out. They have gotten the votes they need to pass this bill through Members getting their favorite amendments into the bill, and some of these seem to me to be special interest provisions and some of them tend to be like the cornhusker kickback sweeteners of ObamaCare fame. Now we are getting the door to the shop closed.

It is important for the public to know we have tried to make this bill better by trying to offer amendments. We have given the other side a list, and I think it has been flatly refused. It is not too much to ask for this number of amendments to be considered. That list had 34 amendments--that is 34 amendments out of 550 filed. Senators want to see a lot more amendments considered and voted on, but we have limited the number to 34.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the list of amendments we asked the majority to consider before final passage.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. I object, and I ask for the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my colleagues--I better say on behalf of myself and some of my colleagues--I have to object. The majority party has offered an agreement from our point of view that is insufficient and clearly not serious, even though I know they consider it a serious offer.

Last night, our side offered a list of amendments that could be voted upon. We asked for votes on 34 amendments and those 34 amendments are less than 10 percent of all of the amendments that are filed, right now about 550. But now the majority wants to limit the number of amendments and, in a sense, limit our rights, because each Senator ought to have an opportunity to put down the amendments they want to offer. It doesn't preclude the majority party from offering any amount of their amendments they want to offer.

It seems to me the majority wants to pick and choose the amendments they like. They don't want to take tough votes so they have chosen just a few of
our amendments to make it look as though it is very accommodating.

I have to say I feel a bit used and abused in this process. For 2 1/2 weeks we have been pushing to get votes on our amendments. We have had a measly 10 votes on amendments. I will remind my colleagues that there were 550 filed. That is pretty embarrassing for the majority after they promised a fair and open debate.

I wish to remind my colleagues about fair and open debate. One Republican Member of the Group of 8 said:

I am confident that an open and transparent process, one that engages every Senator and the American people, will make it even better. I believe that this kind of open debate is critical in helping the American people understand what is in the bill, what it means for you, and what it means for our future.

That same Senator also wrote to Chairman Leahy on March 30 before the bill was brought up in committee:

I wish to express my strong belief that the success of any major legislation depends on the acceptance and support of the American people. That support can only be earned through a full and careful consideration of legislative language and an open process of amendments.

In a letter to me on April 5, that same Senator wrote:

If the majority does not follow regular order, you can expect that I will continue to defend the rights of every Senator, myself included, to conduct this process in an open and detailed manner.

When the bill was introduced, the senior Senator from New York said:

One of the things we all agree with is that there ought to be an open process so that people who don't agree can offer their amendments.

So it is very clear the Gang of 8, the authors of the legislation, called for a robust floor debate. They said they supported regular order.

So I ask now: Do they think that having only a few amendments considered, and this list that has just been put before us, is that a robust and open process? Do they think the majority party has used regular order?

After spinning our wheels for a couple of weeks, we had an important vote a couple of days ago. The proponents have been bragging for weeks that they were going to get over 70 votes for their legislation and somehow force the House to take up their bill. Of course, that won't happen if they don't get 70 votes. But I saw the shock of some that they had on their faces when their vote count fell short here a couple of days ago.

So now what are they doing? They need to pick up some votes and they need to make it look as though we have had a more fair process. So after less than the expected vote yesterday, the proponents came to me wanting to strike a deal that would give us votes on amendments. The problem is they still want to limit our amendments, but they want to make sure we include amendments that will help them pick up some votes.

Well, I happen to be a farmer and I am proud to be a farmer, but I want them to know I haven't just fallen off of the hay wagon. It is pretty clear what is going on around here. Regardless of the reasons for the majority now trying to look as though they are accommodating us, I am still willing to negotiate votes, but it needs to be a lot of votes.

Some on my side may be less charitable than I am since they also understand what is going on around here. So in the end, we may very well not be having any more votes on amendments. It is too bad the majority led us down this road and is aiming for the ditch. In other words, we have not had the fair and open process we were promised as we had in committee--a fair and very open process there, but it ended up completely contrary to what the Gang of 8 told us we were going to have when we got to the floor.

In the end they have only themselves to blame. In the end I think the end is right now. We are going to have votes on cloture. We are going to have a vote on final passage. I am telling people on my side of the aisle that if you are going to be against this bill, there is no sense in debating it anymore; we might as well carry our story to the other body because that is where this bill is going to be perfected, if it can be perfected, in a way that is going to be sent to the President and to solve the problems we have and not make the same mistakes we made in 1986.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. I reserve the right to object, and I will object.

I want the Members of this body to know that I very much am interested in E-Verify, because I have legislation in for mandatory E-Verify. I was involved with several

Senators in 2007 as we tried to get an amendment put together in those negotiations. It is a case of something very important. I happen to support this amendment, but it is one of 34 others we sent over to the majority to give us votes on. Our side isn't going to let the other side pick our amendments and choose our amendments that are going to be adopted any more than they would let us decide what Democratic amendments are going to be offered. That applies to the Portman amendment as well and the amendment of which Senator Tester is a cosponsor.

We had this set up where we were asked to put together amendments. It happens to be that a Republican Senator, somebody who just spoke and was involved in this colloquy, asked me to put together some amendments. I worked hard with a lot of dissenting Republicans about how we should do this process, put together 34 amendments and gave them to that Senator. He was going to negotiate with the leader or the majority.

It seems to me I ended up giving my amendments to an errand boy, didn't do much negotiation. We are here where we are.

Also for that Senator, I wish to tell him that he said we could do 15 vote amendments now, then maybe 15 more, and then maybe 15 more.

The unanimous consent request said after we do those amendments we were asked to do, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on final passage of the bill. There wouldn't have been a tranche of so many and then another tranche.

Here we are, even though I think it is a pretty good amendment. We were promised a free and open process of amendments, and the Group of 8 promised that from day one that they put their bill down, that this bill can be approved.

We have had a chance to improve it by a dozen votes, and that is it. I am sorry for Mr. Portman and for Mr. Tester that I have to object to their amendment, but I do object.

I think if we had 2 1/2 weeks, we could have been doing a lot of these other things we are going to have to rely on the other body to do to get a decent bill to go to the President of the United States.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source