Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I came to the floor to speak about and follow up on a 2-hour debate we had last night on the floor about amendments pending to this bill that are uncontested.

But before I do, let me acknowledge the leadership for allowing Senator Toomey to come to the floor and offer his amendment. It is not one--although he has made some good points--that I can agree with or others will agree with. But at least he had the opportunity to come to the floor, present his amendment and ideas, make his arguments, and hopefully at some time the Senate can vote on that amendment. That is the process.

In the underlying bill, these quotas and goals and numbers of visas were carefully and very fragilely compromised among Democrats and Republicans that serve as the basis of the underlying bill. So any major adjustments to that would undermine a comprehensive immigration bill.

The bill we have to consider is not the perfect bill. We could have all written it differently. But the overriding objective to fix a system that is broken, to secure the border, to require taxes be paid, English spoken, behind the line after people who have come here legally, close these borders, improve technology, and give an economic impact to this country overrides, in my view, these important but not major issues.

Having said that, there is an issue that I think deserves a tremendous amount of attention, and it is not just one amendment, it is 27 amendments. The issue is there are currently 278 amendments filed, including Senator Toomey's amendment. So besides his, there are 277 amendments pending to this bill.

Senator Harry Reid has said actually for 6 weeks now that he wants this bill finished by July 4. Because the leadership has not been able to negotiate--which is very difficult, I understand; some of these are very controversial amendments and who is going to get votes on what, et cetera, et cetera--it has really slowed us down.

I am not new to the Senate. I have seen this happen before. I am not whining about it; I am acknowledging that is the world in which we live. There is no magic button that can be pushed to fix this, but what we can do is come together in a trusting way to pass uncontested amendments--amendments that are not contested on the Republican side and that are not contested on the Democratic side. I am aware of about 27.

The staff, both Republicans and Democrats, has been working through the night to identify off the list of 277 amendments besides that of Senator Toomey, some of those that are actually really good ideas that Republicans and Democrats agree to, that do not upset the balance of the bill, do not spend any major additional funding or minor funding, that are in the principle and scope of the bill. It is our responsibility as Senators to legislate. That is what we are trying to do.

I would like to read this list of amendments that to my knowledge have no contest. No one is opposing them. This is a list that was put together by Republicans and Democrats. Perhaps there is another list of which I am unaware. My only goal is to get the Senate to accept amendments that are uncontested, that improve the bill, because that is what we are sent here to do.

I see the ranking member on the floor. I will yield in a minute, but I am going to take my full time and I will stay on the floor until we can resolve these things.

But I point out that there are only 17 members of the Judiciary Committee. I am not one of them. Those 17 members of the Judiciary Committee, led by Senator Leahy and ably by Ranking Member Grassley, met for 2 weeks, morning, noon, and night, hours and hours. Senator Grassley himself filed 77 amendments, and 38 were considered, 16 were adopted, and 22 were rejected. Senator Grassley as the ranking member is entitled to more amendments than anyone. The chair gets the most, the ranking member gets the second most, and I think that is actually what happened.

The problem for those of us who are not members of the Judiciary Committee, who are not authorized to offer amendments at the committee level because we are not on the committee--although we can informally work with members, and I did that, as many Members did because we know what our job is around here--the only way we can have input into this bill acting on behalf of constituents who have come to us with very good ideas.

Let me say the best ideas come not only from the little group here in Washington. We have very smart people out in the rest of the United States who follow things very carefully. They call their Senators and Representatives--elected officials, nonprofit groups, citizens, businesspeople--and say: I read the bill. I am thinking this might be a better idea.

We get our staffs to work on it, and, voila, that is how many amendments come forward.

What I am so angry about--and I will use the power I have as a Senator to push this point--is that when these ideas come and we have Republicans and Democrats supporting them, we cannot even get a process to get these uncontested good ideas forward because we give all the time and attention to the most controversial amendments. They are usually the ones that have no chance of passing whatsoever, that are message amendments for both sides, that undermine the bill we are trying to work on, and our ability to legislate has gone out the window. I am not going to be a Senator with that window closed, so I plan to open it. I am going to use all the power of my office to open the window of opportunity to legislate.

I am going to ask for 3 more minutes to read something into the Record. I have a list of amendments in front of me, starting with Senator BEGICH, 1285; Cardin and Kirk, 1286; Carper, 1408; Carper-Coburn, 1344; Collins, as modified, 1255; Coats, 1288; Feinstein, 1250; Hagan, 1386; Heinrich, 1342, Heller, 1234; Kirk and Coons, 1239; Klobuchar and Coats, 1261; Landrieu, 1338; Landrieu, 1382; Leahy and Hatch, 1183; a Leahy technical amendment that has no number; Leahy, EB-5 clarification that has no number but is technical; Murray-Crapo, 1368; Landrieu, 1341; Landrieu-Cochran 1383; Nelson, 1253; Reed, 1223; Schatz and Kirk, 1416; Shaheen, 1272; Stabenow, Collins, and King, 1405; Udall, 1241; and Udall, 1242.

To my knowledge, none of these amendments are contested. Some of them are Democratic amendments, and some of them are Republican amendments. At some point I am going to ask for these amendments to be included in the base of this bill. I am not going to ask that at this exact moment, but I am going to ask--well, I might ask the chair and ranking member, is this a list the Senator recognizes? If not, is there another list I could see, observe, and put into the Record for this discussion? I ask the ranking member of the committee, the Senator from Iowa.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LANDRIEU. No, I have not. I understand these amendments to be noncontroversial. It is my understanding that there is no Republican opposition to the substance of these amendments. I could be wrong. If someone can tell me what the substantive objections to these amendments are, I will go back to work. I am happy to work on this all day. It is very important. We have several days to finish this. If somebody could tell me either in writing or verbally what are any substantive objections to these amendments, I promise I will do the work necessary to see what can be done to work them out.

I am going to ask because no one has come to me. I filed this list, talked about this 2 hours last night. Everyone knows these amendments. Everyone has had a chance to look at them. No one has come to me to say they object to any of these amendments. I am going to simply ask unanimous consent for them to be added to the bill.

Let me say that after these are added to the bill, we still will have--let me do my math--we still will have 251 amendments to fight about. So, you know, we will really enjoy the fight. I can fight as tough as the next guy. But could we possibly get amendments that Members have worked together on?

How fascinating that Democrats and Republicans actually worked together to answer constituent letters and phone calls and concerns about immigration and found a way to work together and put an amendment together. But, you know what. We go to the back of the line while everybody who has not worked, who just wants headlines--and I am not speaking of Senator Grassley. He has done a great job in his leadership. But there are others who want to have press conferences and headlines. I do not. I just want to legislate on behalf of the constituents who have sent me here now for three terms.

I am going to ask unanimous consent to agree to these uncontested, to my knowledge, amendments.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for a questio

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LANDRIEU. Is there a physical copy of the list you have presented to the Democrats? Could it be submitted to the RECORD?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LANDRIEU. I would like to ask that that list be read into the Congressional Record.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent for that list to be submitted to the Record.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, do I have the floor?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent that the time until 2 o'clock be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees and that the majority leader be recognized at 2 p.m.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask that I take the Democratic leader's time for 10 minutes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, before the Senator from Texas leaves the floor, could I ask a question unrelated to his speech? I am sorry I didn't get to hear most of it. I stepped off the floor temporarily.

The Senator has been so active on the debate on immigration, I wonder if the Senator is aware of a list of 27 noncontroversial amendments that are from both Republicans and Democrats. Has the Senator from Texas had a chance to look at that list? And if not, could the Senator look at it? If he has looked at it, does the Senator have any objections to the amendments on the list?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator for his answer. I ask the Senator and any other Senators who have not had a chance to look at this list that has been widely circulated to take the time to look at the list. I know my colleague is very busy and has many important issues to debate on this bill, but these are important amendments to colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Again, I thank the Senator from Texas for agreeing to look at the list and let us know.

I am going to come back to the floor in a few minutes and ask unanimous consent for this list of amendments. I want to read the amendments into the Record. These are noncontroversial amendments. What I mean by noncontroversial is, to my knowledge, is they are uncontested. They are Republican and Democratic amendments that seek to improve the bill in response to communications from our constituents at home.

It is not just people around Washington and the beltway who have good ideas about immigration issues. I am sure people in New Mexico have great ideas, and people have very good ideas in Louisiana. The way they get their ideas into the debate is by calling their Member of Congress, calling their Senators' office, writing letters, sending e-mails, giving us suggestions. This list represents some of that communication. That is why we come here, to represent those interests and to say: Look, this was an idea I had; it will strengthen the bill. One of these ideas which I am very excited about came up through our small business roundtable for small businesses. They said: Senator, why don't you mandate a mobile app for us, particularly in rural areas, because we don't have high-speed Internet. We can't run back 200 miles to check the local Internet to do this E-Verify. Why doesn't Homeland Security have a mobile device for the iPhone which everybody is carrying--either iPhones or BlackBerrys--where a person hits a button or a mobile app for E-Verify. What an amazing, wonderful idea.

This bill is going to spend billions and billions and billions of dollars securing the border. Could we spend just a little bit of effort helping every small businessperson in America to use the E-Verify system smartly and efficiently? It would be such a relief to them to know they don't have to put themselves at risk hiring people who don't have the right certification. They can just go to the mobile app and pull it up. That is what we are hoping.

We have 3 years to put this system into place. No small business is mandated to use the E-Verify system under the bill until these new systems are in place. That is one of our amendments. There is no one who has come to me to say: We hate the mobile app idea. We don't want to do the mobile app idea. It is a terrible idea. So let's put it in the bill.

There are some other amendments in here--I don't know all of them because only some of them are mine. Let me read one from Tom Udall. I don't know it specifically, but it says it makes $5 million available for strengthening the border infectious disease surveillance project.

I know $5 million is a good amount of money, but compared to the billions of dollars we are spending in some of our rural States--including New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and Louisiana is rural--I don't think there is anybody objecting to spending $5 million to strengthen the border infectious disease surveillance project. That kind of smart investment--I am sure the Senator has done his homework. That kind of smart investment could save taxpayers and the livelihoods of farmers everywhere. What a wonderful idea. We can't even get that adopted by a voice vote because we have broken down the trust and respect of the Senate. I am going to do my very best, as calmly as I can, to try to get that trust and respect back.

One of the other amendments prohibits the shackling of pregnant women. Now, we shackle a lot of people--and this is Senator Murray's amendment--when they do wrong things. But I think people can understand the benefit of expressing some strong views to not put shackles on the ankles or wrists of a woman who is pregnant. It is a very stressful situation. We want to support healthy births even in conditions where the mother may not have all the legal paperwork. I think we can understand why that would be a sensitive thing to do, and I don't think there is any Republican who would object to that. I don't think there is a Democrat who would object to that. That is on the list.

There are a lot of people who wish to speak, so I will just take 5 more minutes.

There is a great amendment by Senators Klobuchar and Coats that requires certification of citizenship and other Federal documents to reflect the name and date of birth determinations made by a State court in the situation of intercountry adoption. Some of our parents are getting really hassled, American parents are getting hassled by American courts because they have done God's will, adopted children from overseas. They have followed all the rules, all the laws, at tremendous expense to themselves, trying to help a child who is orphaned or unparented, only to come back to the United States and because of some technical difficulties with our law, their birth certificates are not honored.

This isn't right. I realize the Judiciary Committee cannot spend their time talking about this matter. In the scheme of things, it is minor. But let me tell my colleagues as an adoptive mother, to an adoptive American parent who has spent thousands of dollars and days and months trying to do what their pastors and ministers asked them to do, to take in the orphaned, this is an outrageous situation, and with one breath--just a breath--this could be done. But we don't have the breath anymore because we have just completely fallen apart.

This can be fixed. There is nobody objecting to it, and that is what I am going to stand here and argue for.

How much time do I have remaining?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LANDRIEU. I see my colleague so I am going to wrap up in 30 seconds and then yield the floor.

I will come to the floor again this afternoon and talk about these amendments.

These Members have worked very hard, Republicans and Democrats, amazingly, together, coming up with amendments that improve the bill. Some of these amendments are from Senators who are going to vote no on the bill; some of these amendments are from people who are going to vote yes on the bill. It is not going to change the outcome of the vote. That is why I am so aggravated. If it did, then I could understand not taking them up. The acceptance of these amendments, yes or no, is not going to change the outcome of this bill, but it will change the outcome of situations on the ground that are not good for American citizens.

We are here to fix things, to help, to streamline, to save money, to improve, to relieve pain, to help and expand opportunity. I am tired of being around here and not being able to do that. So I am going to ask for this list--of course, it has been circulated widely and publicly. It is on our Web site. It is on several Web sites. People can look at what we are talking about. If anybody on the Senate floor has an objection, let us know.

Let me say one thing in closing. The counterlist that I am still not in physical receipt of but have seen, but it is a part of the Congressional Record because I required it to be, is a list of seven amendments that are very controversial. So the Republicans have given us a list of seven very controversial amendments. That is not the list I am looking for. Maybe Senator Leahy is looking for that. Maybe Senator Reid is looking for that. I am not in charge of controversial amendments. I don't even know how we are going to vote on those controversial amendments. I am not on the committee. I am not the leader of the floor. I don't know--I will take that and I will be happy to give it to the leadership.

I am just here on a list of noncontroversial amendments that I think Republicans and Democrats can agree to that will not change the outcome of the bill, that will improve the bill. I hope we can make progress.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LANDRIEU. I see my colleague so I am going to wrap up in 30 seconds and then yield the floor.

I will come to the floor again this afternoon and talk about these amendments.

These Members have worked very hard, Republicans and Democrats, amazingly, together, coming up with amendments that improve the bill. Some of these amendments are from Senators who are going to vote no on the bill; some of these amendments are from people who are going to vote yes on the bill. It is not going to change the outcome of the vote. That is why I am so aggravated. If it did, then I could understand not taking them up. The acceptance of these amendments, yes or no, is not going to change the outcome of this bill, but it will change the outcome of situations on the ground that are not good for American citizens.

We are here to fix things, to help, to streamline, to save money, to improve, to relieve pain, to help and expand opportunity. I am tired of being around here and not being able to do that. So I am going to ask for this list--of course, it has been circulated widely and publicly. It is on our Web site. It is on several Web sites. People can look at what we are talking about. If anybody on the Senate floor has an objection, let us know.

Let me say one thing in closing. The counterlist that I am still not in physical receipt of but have seen, but it is a part of the Congressional Record because I required it to be, is a list of seven amendments that are very controversial. So the Republicans have given us a list of seven very controversial amendments. That is not the list I am looking for. Maybe Senator Leahy is looking for that. Maybe Senator Reid is looking for that. I am not in charge of controversial amendments. I don't even know how we are going to vote on those controversial amendments. I am not on the committee. I am not the leader of the floor. I don't know--I will take that and I will be happy to give it to the leadership.

I am just here on a list of noncontroversial amendments that I think Republicans and Democrats can agree to that will not change the outcome of the bill, that will improve the bill. I hope we can make progress.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I don't know if there is any particular order. I see other colleagues on the floor. I am not in a particular rush. I would be happy for them to speak, but I wish to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

I thank the Senators.

I know the leadership--Senator Leahy and Senator Grassley--are working very hard to negotiate some very controversial and serious amendments to the underlying bill, and there have been negotiations going on all day on the immigration bill, and actually for weeks, both in the Judiciary Committee, where 17 Members serve, and then here on the Senate floor, where the rest of us have our only opportunity to engage and to be part of legislating a bill that is likely to pass. There is no guarantee, but it looks as though it is moving in that direction.

The bill has been strengthened as it has gone on, and we have had a very vigorous debate. But I have come to the floor several times only to say this: There is a series of amendments that are completely uncontested. In other words, there is no opposition to them. The list is approximately, from what we can tell at this point, potentially around 30 to 35. It could be more, but there are clearly 30 to 35 amendments that have been filed by Republicans, by Democrats, and some of these amendments are cosponsored by Republicans and Democrats, each together.

I have been talking about this for a couple of days because I think we have to get back to trusting each other and working together across party lines on major bills such as this and actually working to pass amendments that nobody objects to. Wouldn't that be amazing. We used to do that routinely through a practice called the managers' amendment. In the last couple of months or years everybody is so angry and aggravated at the end of the debate there is no managers' package. So I have decided to start early identifying amendments while the leadership is focused on the more controversial amendments both sides are still arguing about that are significantly meritorious. I have been focused on amendments that are very good ideas, and to which, to my knowledge, there is literally no opposition.

I want to adjust the list and remove from the Landrieu list Collins amendment No. 1255. There has been some objection on our side to that. Heller No. 1234, there has been some objection to that. Now, this is not final. I am not managing the bill. I am just saying, to be honest, we have heard objections as to these two.

There are additional amendments that come to our attention that may not have any opposition that I may want to add to this list. One is Toomey No. 1236 which clarifies that personnel, infrastructure, and technology used in the comprehensive border security strategy is procured through existing or new programs. It is a clarification to the underlying bill. I don't think anyone objects to that.

Senator Grassley has an amendment No. 1306 that he is well aware of that authorizes the Attorney General to appoint counsel to represent an unaccompanied alien child with serious mental disabilities. I most certainly would support that. He and I have worked together on many pieces of child welfare legislation. There is no one opposing that amendment.

Johanns amendment No. 1345 requires CBO to report on revenues and costs generated by the bill and requires the DHS Secretary to generally adjust fees under the bill to cover costs that are not fully offset. As the cosponsors of this bill have said, this bill will not cost taxpayers any money. It is offset by fees. This amendment is simply clarifying that statement. It would be a good amendment. I think that is an example.

Senator Coats' amendment No. 1372 requires, similar to Senator Grassley, to consult on children coming through with mental disabilities to make sure they have legal counsel. No one would object to that.

Finally, Senator Flake, amendment No. 1472, requires the GAO to study the use of non-Federal roads by Customs and Border Protection.

These amendments are not striking lightning anywhere, not upsetting
Western civilization. These are perfecting amendments that we came here to legislate on behalf of our constituents because there are people or groups or entities in our States that are following the big bill and the big controversies of it, but some people are actually following the specifics and want to make suggestions to make the bill better. So people who are going to vote against the bill can still vote against it. People who are going to vote for it can still vote for it. But we can make the bill better. That is what we are here to do.

I can't, under the order, have any motions, but I will just bring it to the attention of the Senate that I am going to submit this to the Record. If there are any objections to those that I have talked about, please let us know.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am happy to report that there has been a lot of progress made in the last few hours on the package of amendments that are completely uncontested and there is no objection on any side.

I wish to thank the Members who have been attentive and supportive of trying to get back to a more normal way of operating, which is, simply, we can argue about the big controversial issues. There are always going to be those on every bill we debate. But there will be some amendments that absolutely have no opposition because they are very well-thought-out ideas that do not generate any heartburn on either side, that people can reason and say it helps the bill; it does something that improves the bill.

We used to do that all the time around here. We have gotten away from it, and it is hurtful. It is not just hurtful to the individual Members, it is hurtful to our constituents who would like their ideas brought up for consideration.

As I said earlier in the day--and before the Senator from Maine leaves the floor, I wish to make this perfectly clear. I am not holding up the debate on any controversial amendments. I am not objecting to any controversial amendments. Anybody who wants to debate an amendment, whether it is 60 votes or 50 votes, that is the leadership's job, and they are managing this bill very well. I have no complaints or criticism about it at all.

But as they are managing these very controversial amendments that are part of any debate, what I am simply saying is that of the hundreds of amendments that have been filed--and we have been spending a lot of time on this with Republican and Democratic staff--there are potentially about 25 to 30 amendments that have absolutely no objection.

The list has changed a little bit, and I am not going to go over all the details. I have put it in the Record. There could potentially be 7 Democratic amendments, 5 Republican amendments, and 10 bipartisan amendments that have no known opposition. All I am asking is sometime between now and when the leadership managing this bill calls cloture, we have these votes en bloc, by voice. There would be no reason to have any more debate on them. No one is objecting to them. So we could take them en bloc, by voice. It will improve the bill. Then people can vote on the bill.

Many people already know they are going to vote against the bill. Some people are going to vote for the bill. That is the process. I think it would be very healthy for the Senate to get back to this kind of negotiation. But for these amendments that are noncontroversial, that simply have been worked on across the aisle in good faith, to be held hostage until somebody can get a vote on an amendment that causes one side or the other lots of political difficulties is not right.

There are 350 amendments filed on this bill. I am only talking about 35 or less. All the other amendments have pros and cons; people are for them, people are against them. I don't know how the leadership is going to decide on how we vote or dispense of those, but I am not managing the bill. Senator Leahy is doing a very good job of that with Senator Grassley, Leader McConnell, and Leader Reid. But there are approximately 35 amendments, maybe a little more, that have bipartisan support that people have really worked on--people such as myself--who are not on the Judiciary Committee. The Senator had his hands full with the 17 Members he has on the committee. There were 228 amendments filed on the Judiciary Committee. Senator Grassley himself filed 34, and he had 13 that passed and 21 that failed. That is a lot of amendments.

Some of us who are not on the Judiciary Committee have been very fortunate. At least I have had one of my eight, which the Senator from Vermont helped with adopting.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LANDRIEU. I would love to.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Vermont, and I appreciate his support.

But actually, having started out wanting to get a vote on my amendments--and I still do--I am now more focused on this principle of getting uncontested amendments adopted because I am not the only one in this vote. I have friends such as Senator Begich, Senator Carper, Senator Hagan, Senator Heinrich, Senator Coons, Senator Kirk, Senator Coats--from both sides of the aisle--Senator Hatch, Senator Shaheen--I could go on and on--who are in the same boat I am.

We fashioned amendments with bipartisan support. We have done our due diligence with the leaders of the committee of jurisdiction, which is what you are supposed to do, which is normal. We have gotten their blessing, if you will. We have published the details of our amendments. We have circulated the amendments. There is no opposition.

So to the Senator from Vermont, I wish to be very clear. I have four amendments on this list. I am not here just arguing for the four Landrieu amendments. I am here arguing for all amendments by anybody, Republican or Democrat, that are noncontroversial, uncontested, germane to this bill. They should go on the bill.

We need to get back to legislating in the Senate. This is not a theater. It is a legislative body, and I came to legislate. It will be 18 years that I have been here at the end of this term, a long time. There are Members who have been here longer than I have. But it has been a while now, 2 or 3 years, that we just sort of stopped legislating. We give speeches. We do headlines. We posture. We position. That has always been a part of the Senate. I have no problem with it. What I do have a problem with is doing that and nothing else. That is where I have a serious problem. Those of us who did not come here to be on the stage have had to sit on the sidelines and watch this theater for a long time. The people I represent are tired of it.

We should know that, since the rating for Congress is now at 10 percent, I think the lowest level ever or at least in the last 50 years, ten percent--this could have something to do with it.

Contrary to popular opinion on the floor, many people in America are very interested in this bill and are actually sending suggestions in through e-mail, through telephone, through all sorts of communications saying, look, I read the bill. You all should think about this. This could be improved. Some of us actually take those suggestions, work with Members on the other side of the aisle, and fashion them into amendments. The people we represent deserve respect.

If anyone thinks my amendments are controversial and you cannot vote for them because they upset the balance of power in the world or upset Western civilization, then come tell me. I will work with you on it. I will take the amendments off the list. I will put my amendments on a list to be debated.

But the days of us coming to the floor and absolutely not accepting bipartisan amendments so we can spend all of our time talking about partisan amendments that have no chance of passing are over with because I have enough power--just as Senators on the other side have enough power to push us the other way, I have enough power to push back and I plan to use it. Those days are over.

When we come to the floor, you can have all of your controversial amendments. We can set aside as many hours of the day to vote on controversial amendments, an equal number on both sides or none. But the uncontroversial amendments, the ones Members actually do the work of the Senate--research, writing, talking, debating privately, and coming up with good ideas--no longer are those going to be swept under the rug. It is not respectful to our constituents, it dishonors the Senate, and it causes the public to have serious doubts as to whether anybody around here is actually working in a bipartisan way to improve the bill.

These are minor amendments. None of these amendments undermine the bargains, the tough negotiations by Republicans and Democrats, on this bill. I wish to give a lot of respect to the Gang of 8. They have taken on the tough big issues, very controversial. Those are not these. These are amendments that would help parents who are trying to adopt children. Now I have to wait for a bill to come to the floor to help these parents. They may be waiting 10 years.

They are American citizens. They have a right for Senators to represent their interests and I intend to do it. There are amendments here that would make sure children with mental illness or who are mentally disabled--this is not my amendment but it is a good one--make sure they have a lawyer. Why can't we do that? Because we are so angry with each other that we will not help a child? That is cruel and it is not correct.

I am going to end here. There are other Members who want to speak. I have no idea when the cloture vote will be. I am not sure. But if these noncontroversial amendments are not adopted by voice vote or by rollcall vote, en bloc or separately, before cloture, all of them will fall away, which means we will not be able to consider any of them. That is because after cloture they are no longer germane because we cannot get them pending. OK?

So this is the problem. I thank my colleagues for being understanding. I actually think it might help us move forward.

I yield the floor and I will be back when the cloture motion is propounded.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as I said many times, I have the deepest respect for the Senator from Iowa. He and I hardly ever disagree so this is quite unusual. We cosponsor so many amendments together for foster care, adoption--his work is legendary. But I do want to say this. I have tried to be extremely constructive here. Again, this is not about our list or their list. I am not even in charge of our list or their list. I literally am not a floor manager of this bill. I am not even a member of the committee. I do not even have access to our list or their list. I don't want it. I do not want to review the 200 amendments that are pro-gay, anti-gay, pro-fence, anti-fence. I am not interested--I am interested, but it is not in my lane. I have issues that I have to focus on as chair of Homeland Security. I am not a Gang of 8 Member, I am not on the Judiciary Committee, but I am a Senator and I came here to legislate.

There are amendments. I am not sure this list is perfect but I promise you, out of 350 amendments filed, just by the nature of averages, at least 10 percent of them have to be noncontroversial. Not every amendment that is filed is going to arouse suspicion or concern or violate any principles we hold. Just by nature you are going to have 10 percent or 15 or 20 percent of all amendments that actually, with a little bit of work, should be adopted.

What Senator Leahy said is absolutely correct. We used to do that when we trusted each other, when we respected our constituents.

I intend to push this body back to that place. I may be unsuccessful because I am only one Senator, but Senators have a lot of power, if you haven't noticed. We have been held up for weeks over one Senator because they did not get everything they wanted every day.

Again, I want to say to my colleagues, I am not fighting for Landrieu amendments. I am fighting for a principle and a process that is vital to the functioning of this body. I am going to continue to fight and hope we get a breakthrough.

Please, the other side, do not send me your list or the Democratic list. I am not interested. I am interested in a list of amendments that I believe, based on conversations with Senators, are not controversial and would improve the bill. We were sent here to do that. I intend to do it.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source