    [Senate Hearing 117-808]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 117-808

                             H.R. 6, AMERICAN DREAM
                                AND PROMISE ACT

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 15, 2021

                                   __________

                              Serial No. J-117-21

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

             GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

                            www.judiciary.senate.gov

                                www.govinfo.gov

                                ______

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
     54-506          WASHINGTON : 2025

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                       RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chair
    PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking
    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California             Member
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
    AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             JOHN CORNYN, Texas
    CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware       MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
    RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      TED CRUZ, Texas
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              BEN SASSE, Nebraska
    CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey           JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
    ALEX PADILLA, California             TOM COTTON, Arkansas
    JON OSSOFF, Georgia                  JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
                                         THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
                                         MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
                     Joseph Zogby, Majority Staff Director
                    Kolan L. Davis, Minority Staff Director
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page

    Durbin, Hon. Richard J...........................................     1
    Grassley, Hon. Charles E.........................................     4
    Feinstein, Hon. Dianne...........................................     8
    Padilla, Hon. Alex...............................................     5
    Cornyn, Hon. John................................................     7

                                   WITNESSES

    Edlow, Joseph....................................................    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    55
        Responses to written questions...............................    76

    Mejia, Dr. Manuel Bernal.........................................    10
        Prepared statement...........................................    69

    Ponthieux, Rony..................................................    17
        Prepared statement...........................................    73

    Rodriguez, Leon..................................................    14
        Prepared statement...........................................    71
        Responses to written questions...............................    79

    Root, Michelle...................................................    15
        Prepared statement...........................................    52

                                    APPENDIX

    Items submitted for the record...................................    51

                             H.R. 6, AMERICAN DREAM

                                AND PROMISE ACT

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 2021

                                  United States Senate,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in Room
    106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
    Chair of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Durbin [presiding], Leahy, Feinstein,
    Klobuchar, Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono, Padilla, Grassley,
    Cornyn, Lee, Cruz, Sasse, Hawley, Cotton, Kennedy, Tillis, and
    Blackburn.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,

               A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Chair Durbin. This hearing will come to order.
        I was mentioning to several witnesses that the hearing on
    the DREAM Act, or DACA, has an interesting, somewhat checkered
    history.
        The first hearing on the DREAM Act was scheduled for the
    week of September 11th, 2001. Obviously, it was postponed. It
    wasn't until 10 years later that the actual hearing--first
    hearing on the DREAM Act occurred. So, this is the second
    hearing on the DREAM Act.
        Ten years and two administrations ago, I was honored to
    gavel in the first hearing on this legislation. Today, I'm
    honored to gavel in this hearing as Chair of the Committee. It
    was 20 years ago--20 years ago, that I first introduced the
    DREAM Act with the Chair of the Committee at the time,
    Republican Senator Orrin Hatch. Senator Hatch said it was his
    idea. There was some dispute over that, but since he was in the
    majority, I deferred to him as the lead sponsor of the first
    DREAM Act.
        Our stories about the DREAM Act have touched the hearts of
    Americans. The phrase itself, DREAMers, which was not
    identified early on with this cause, has now become common
    parlance. We revel in the stories of those who are affected by
    the DREAM Act and DACA because they are the stories of America
    and our history of immigration.
        Before we get started, I'd like to ask my colleagues to
    join me in viewing a video on this issue.
        [Video is shown.]
        Chair Durbin. It was 9 years ago today when President Obama
    walked into the Rose Garden and announced a new policy that
    would change the lives of hundreds of thousands of young people
    in our country. It is called Deferred Action for Childhood
    Arrivals, better known as DACA.
        DACA allows young immigrants who arrived in America as
    children to safely remain in the only home they've ever known.
    If they register with the Government, pay a substantial fee,
    clear criminal and national security background checks, then
    they can receive temporary, renewable protection from
    deportation.
        Since 2012, more than 800,000 DREAMers have stepped out of
    the shadows to enroll in DACA. The program has been a life-
    changer. It has allowed them to work, pursue higher education,
    and serve in America's military. DACA has unleashed the full
    potential of DREAMers.
        August 15th, 2012, is a date I will never forget. It was
    the first day that DACA applications were accepted. I was at
    Navy Pier in Chicago for a workshop to help DREAMers apply for
    DACA. We weren't sure if anyone would show up. Then we weren't
    sure how many would show up, and then what happened astonished
    us. Thousands, thousands of young people showed up on that day.
    Filled the entire boardwalk. Some gathered with their parents
    at midnight before the actual opening that morning. Some drove
    in from neighboring States.
        That's how eager these young people were to officially
    become part of America, even if on a temporary, renewable
    basis, and that's what's really the key word when it comes to
    DACA. It's temporary. When President Obama first announced it,
    he said, ``Because this is temporary, Congress needs to act.
    There's still time for Congress to pass the DREAM Act this
    year,'' he said. ``Because these kids deserve to plan their
    lives in more than 2-year increments.''
        Well, that year has turned into 9 years. Over the years,
    the DREAM Act has been a victim of a filibuster on the floor of
    the Senate five different times. As the DREAM Act has
    languished in the Senate, hundreds of thousands of young people
    have been left with their futures in doubt.
        But that hasn't stopped them from fighting for their dreams
    and giving everything they can to this country. It has been my
    honor to be the voice of the DREAMers for 20 years. They have
    been an inspiration. I've had the privilege of sharing over 125
    of their personal stories on the Senate floor. The posters,
    colored photographs that you see around you represent just a
    small fraction of the stories that I've told.
        DREAMers have taught children in our Nation's classrooms,
    dazzled audiences at world class music venues like Carnegie
    Hall, fought in American wars, and have started American
    businesses. During the past year, as our Nation was ravaged by
    a pandemic, and we were cheering on the healthcare heroes who
    risked their lives for us every minute of every day, DREAMers
    were saving American lives.
        According to the classification used by President Trump,
    more than 200,000 DACA recipients are essential, critical,
    infrastructure workers. Among them are thousands of frontline
    healthcare workers: doctors, intensive care nurses, paramedics,
    respiratory therapists.
        We are lucky to be joined by one of those heroes today.
    Manuel Bernal Mejia--or Doctor Bernal, as I'm going to call
    him--first arrived in the United States at the age of 2. Grew
    up in Memphis, Tennessee, graduated at the top of his class in
    high school, and developed a passion for medicine. That passion
    led him to my home State of Illinois, where he enrolled in the
    very first medical school in the Nation to admit DACA
    recipients, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of
    Medicine.
        Today, Dr. Bernal has taken a break from the work that he's
    doing in an emergency room on the South Side of Chicago in one
    of the busiest trauma hospitals in our community. During this
    pandemic, Dr. Bernal has literally risked his life every day to
    serve our country and save lives.
        In 2017, the former President attempted to terminate DACA.
    Just imagine what it would have meant for our country if the
    Supreme Court had not stopped him from deporting heroes like
    Dr. Bernal to countries they hardly remember.
        The legislation we're focusing on today, the Dream and
    Promise Act, recognizes DREAMers aren't the only immigrants
    with a dream. They are far from the only people falling through
    the cracks of our broken system. This includes 400,000 people
    living in the United States under Temporary Protected Status,
    TPS. Like DACA recipients, TPS recipients have saved lives
    during this pandemic. More than 130,000 TPS holders are
    essential, critical, infrastructure workers, including 11,600
    healthcare workers.
        We're going to hear from one of them this morning. His name
    is Rony Ponthieux. I think I pronounced that close to correct.
    Is it? Good. Bien. He was granted TPS after a devastating
    earthquake hit Haiti in 2010. He and his wife resettled in
    Florida, where they've raised two children, and where Mr.
    Ponthieux works as a nurse in the respiratory unit of his
    hospital treating COVID-19 patients.
        After former President Trump attempted to eliminate TPS for
    Haiti in 2017, Mr. Ponthieux pleaded with him to ``Help us stay
    in this country with peace of mind, so we can save the most
    people possible.'' That is all TPS recipients like Mr.
    Ponthieux and DREAMers like Dr. Bernal are asking for. They're
    not asking for a handout, but an opportunity to continue to
    serve and save lives in America.
        We need people just like them. DACA and TPS recipients and
    their households contribute an estimated $17.4 billion in
    Federal taxes, and $9.7 billion in State and local taxes every
    single year.
        By enacting the Dream and Promise Act, we can increase our
    Nation's GDP by an estimated $799 billion over 10 years and
    create more than 285,000 new jobs. There is a mistaken notion
    that we have a static number of jobs in America, and we all
    have to fight over them. We are finding that by bringing
    talented people in to serve this country and to create
    businesses, we actually have a dynamic that increases the size
    of employment in our economy.
        We need a functioning immigration system that welcomes
    immigrants, so we can grow our economy and put America on track
    to be a winner in the 21st century. The challenges we face at
    the border are no excuse for inaction. I've spoken to Senator
    Cornyn and Senator Sinema about the southern border. We are not
    going to ignore that reality, but this is a reality as well.
    There is no excuse for inaction. For too many years, Congress
    has looked the other way and found another excuse to put off
    this decision. It's time to allow these individuals, these
    future Americans, to finally become American citizens. That's
    why we must join the House in passing the Dream and Promise
    Act. I recognize Senator Grassley.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY,

                 A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

        Senator Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to
    all of our witnesses that will be testifying today and
    answering our questions.
        Today's hearing addresses a topic of interest to many
    Members of Congress and Americans around the country, and it's
    a very important issue for me because, like you, Mr. Chairman,
    I have worked to find a legislative solution to addressing the
    DACA populations. In 2018, I did just that when I introduced
    the Secure and Succeed Act with several Members of this
    Committee.
        I know this is an issue of great importance to you, and I
    know that you have been leading bipartisan discussions in
    recent weeks to try and reach an agreement. As Ranking Member
    of this Committee, I look forward to participating in those
    discussions moving forward.
        I'd like to take two brief points that I'd like to make
    about the ongoing debate over legal status of undocumented
    young people brought here as children. I start with the
    assumption that children brought here by their parents did not
    violate our laws, but their parents did by violating our laws
    coming to this country.
        First, any legislation providing legal status for those
    young people must include meaningful border security and
    immigration enforcement measures. The need for robust border
    security and enforcement measures has been demonstrated by the
    current crisis at our southern border, a crisis that is in
    direct result of this administration's policies.
        Whether it be terminating physical barrier construction at
    the border, severely limiting the ability of ICE to enforce our
    border immigration laws, or supporting sanctuary cities, the
    administration has actively sought to undermine border security
    and immigration enforcement. Therefore, it shouldn't be a
    surprise that last month, the total encounters at the southern
    border were up 675 percent from May 2020. For unaccompanied
    children, encounters were up 1,305 percent from last May, and
    for family units, it was 4,143 percent up. These numbers are
    staggering.
        The administration doesn't seem to be doing much about it.
    The President and Vice President still have not even been to
    the border to see firsthand the problems. When the Vice
    President was asked about it last week, her response was, ``And
    I haven't been to Europe either.'' Like most of this
    administration's responses to crisis at the border, it was a
    truly baffling statement.
        If we want to provide legal status for DREAMers, we must
    secure our border so that we don't find ourselves in the same
    situation again 20 or 30 years from now. Unfortunately, the
    administration doesn't appear to be serious about doing that,
    and the bills we're discussing today don't even attempt to do
    that.
        When I was at the border a couple months ago, I had the
    opportunity to hear the Border Patrol say to us that they had
    an opportunity to brief the incoming administration before the
    January 20th date of Inauguration, and they advised the
    incoming administration to leave everything that was then in
    place in place, and obviously, on January the 20th, the
    administration took contrary action. What do we have? We have
    the crisis that you see on television every day with people
    crossing, wading through the Rio Grande to get here.
        Finally, it is important that any bill providing legal
    status to undocumented young people, especially DACA recipients
    be properly sculped. The act that we're having the hearing on
    and the DREAM Act fail that test in a number of ways. Highlight
    just a few.
        First, they would provide legal status to millions of
    illegal immigrants who have no connection at all to the DACA
    program, including illegal immigrants who were not even in the
    United States when DACA was created. In the case of the
    American Dream and Promise Act, the illegal immigrants need
    only have been in the United States since January 1st of this
    year in order to qualify.
        Second, as we will hear from some of the witnesses, these
    bills would allow illegal immigrants with criminal records to
    be eligible for legal status. That simply defies common sense.
        Third, they would allow illegal immigrants with a Final
    Order of Removal to legalize anyway.
        Finally--this is finally--they don't contain a cutoff date
    for entrance or maximum age. As an example, it seems like I've
    read about a 68-year-old person entering the country illegally,
    in the United States, illegally, at the age of 17 in 1970,
    would qualify as a DREAMer under these bills. Again, that
    defies common sense.
        All that being said, I look forward to hearing from our
    witnesses today, and hope that we can ultimately come up with a
    rational and bipartisan solution, because as I said previously,
    people who were brought here by their parents did not violate
    the laws, but people that brought them here violated our laws.
    I see justice being done for DACA as a legitimate thing to do.
        Chair Durbin. We have Senator Padilla has asked for
    recognition, and he is Member of--Chairman of the Judiciary
    Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and Border Safety.
    Senator Padilla.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALEX PADILLA,

              A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Senator Durbin. Colleagues, as
    a proud son of immigrants, I am honored to participate in this
    hearing, and to help highlight the contributions of DREAMers
    and TPS recipients. Contributions that they're making to this
    country each and every day.
        You know, in California, we are lucky to be home to more
    than 250,000 DACA and TPS recipients, the most of any State in
    the Nation. It's safe to say that no State has more at stake in
    passing a solution for these individuals than California.
        I want to start by thanking Senator Durbin for your
    tireless leadership on behalf of DREAMers. I've seen you work
    diligently across the aisle to build support of the DREAM Act
    year after year after year. As you mentioned, this marks the
    20th anniversary of the first time you introduced a DREAM Act
    in the U.S. Senate.
        As you referenced, we're also marking the 9th anniversary
    of the DACA program, an executive action by President Obama,
    intended to provide temporary protection for undocumented young
    people while Congress took action on a permanent solution. The
    last 9 years are a testament to the passion and resilience of
    DACA recipients and advocates.
        Hundreds of DREAMers have come forward to share their
    stories with the world, risking deportation to fight for their
    futures. For 4 years, DREAMers successfully opposed efforts to
    destroy the DACA program. They even demonstrated the
    unlawfulness of these efforts before the U.S. Supreme Court.
        The past 9 years also represents a failure on the part of
    this body. Congress has repeatedly failed to pass a permanent
    solution, creating a pathway to citizenship for DREAMers and
    other long-term residents of our communities. DACA was enacted
    as a stopgap measure. It was never enough, nor intended to be
    enough, for the hundreds of thousands of undocumented
    immigrants who work, study, and have made their lives here in
    the United States.
        Over the last 20 years, DREAM Act measures have received
    support of bipartisan majorities, in both the House and Senate,
    only to be blocked by the filibuster. It's no surprise that
    protecting DREAMers is a bipartisan issue in Congress. In fact,
    overwhelming majorities of the American people, yes, Democrats,
    Republicans, and Independents, support a path to legalization
    for undocumented young people.
        The American people recognize our urgent need to do justice
    by DREAMers. Still, Congress has left hundreds of thousands of
    young people and their families to live in limbo for years, and
    years, and years. In that time, DREAMers have continued to make
    their lives in communities across America, as have TPS
    recipients. They've shared their intelligence, their
    dedication, and their skills, despite constant living in fear
    of a potential change in their status.
        Twenty-nine thousand DACA recipients and more than 11,000
    TPS holders are healthcare workers. Essential, frontline
    workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. These brave individuals
    were able to pursue their ambitions to serve others only
    because of the temporary legal status. They risked their lives
    to care for COVID-19 patients throughout the country. That's
    just in healthcare. Another more than 500,000 DACA recipients
    and TPS holders have held jobs in industries classified as
    essential. From agriculture and food service to sanitation and
    construction, these immigrants have put their own health, and
    their families' health, on the line to keep America running.
    Most DACA and TPS holders only know the United States as their
    home.
        Colleagues, it is past time for Congress to recognize that
    reality into law. Creating a pathway to citizenship for
    DREAMers and TPS holders isn't just the right thing to do, it's
    also key to strengthening our economy. A new report from UC
    Davis and the Center for American Progress finds that the
    American Dream and Promise Act would create hundreds of
    thousands of new jobs and raise wages for all American workers.
        DREAMers, TPS holders and other long-term permanent
    residents of our country have been waiting too long for
    Congress to act. Lady, a DACA beneficiary who advocates on
    behalf of farmworkers like her parents, needs our help.
    Patricia, a TPS beneficiary from El Salvador, who works for a
    cleaning company in San Francisco, needs our help. Erica, a
    DACA beneficiary, whose parents are TPS beneficiaries from El
    Salvador, is working as a medical assistant at a pediatric
    hospital in Dublin, California. She needs our help.
        The names and the stories go on and on and on. The American
    people are calling on us to pass permanent protections for the
    people that they know as doctors, as teachers, as neighbors, as
    parents.
        Mr. Chair, I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses
    about the urgent need for a path to citizenship, and the
    strength that immigrants bring to our Nation. Thank you.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein. Chairman, may I just say a few words?
        Chair Durbin. I'm going to first recognize Senator Cornyn,
    and then I'll be right--you'll be the next.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        Chair Durbin. Please. Chairman Padilla, thank you. As
    Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, I'd like to
    allow Senator Cornyn the opportunity to make opening remarks.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN,

                 A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

        Senator Cornyn. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that very much.
    Thank you. In the 9 years since President Obama announced the
    DACA program, the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals, the
    young men and women whose futures it sought to secure have been
    sent on a high-stakes roller-coaster journey. Their lives have
    hung in the balance of court rulings, even though they
    themselves did nothing wrong. They were brought here by their
    parents as children, and in America, we do not hold children
    responsible for the actions of their parents.
        The only way to eliminate the uncertainty caused by
    President Obama's likely unconstitutional action is through
    legislation. I say that because there's a pending court case in
    the Southern District of Texas challenging the legality of the
    DACA program that's been pending before Judge Hanen for some
    time now, and he could well issue a permanent injunction
    enjoining the DACA program, causing further chaos and
    disruption.
        I have previously voted for legislation to let these young
    people stay multiple times over the years, but each time,
    Congress has failed to muster the necessary support to get a
    bill on the President's desk.
        Every person in this room can tell you the bill being
    reviewed by this Committee today will not move us any closer.
    In fact, the American people would like to know, I bet, that
    there is not a single bill that deals with the DREAM Act or the
    DACA recipients. In fact, the original DACA made 1.3 million
    young people eligible, but only 640,000 are still active today.
        Then there was the Secure and Succeed Act of 2018, which
    sought to provide a pathway to citizenship for 1.3 million DACA
    recipients, and unfortunately, that was not successful. Then
    there's the DREAM Act of 2021, sponsored by our Chairman, which
    would extend a pathway to citizenship for 3 million migrants.
    Then finally, the bill that we're talking about here today, the
    American Dream and Promise Act would extend a pathway to
    citizenship for more than 4.4 million people.
        As an example of how far afield we've gotten, the American
    Dream and Promise Act would not just apply to those who come to
    our country as children, but this would extend a pathway to
    citizenship to adults who've entered the United States as
    recently as January 1, 2021.
        This legislation, of course, goes far beyond the original
    DACA issued by President Obama to include TPS. What Temporary
    Protected Status has to do with the DREAM Act or the DACA
    population is lost on me.
        This bill would also create a pathway to citizenship, as I
    said, for adults who've entered the country illegally as
    recently as January 1, 2021.
        To be clear, I support DACA recipients because they were
    brought here at a young age, through no fault of their own, and
    they know no other country. The American Dream and Promise Act
    has completely abandoned the justification in favor of
    rewarding very recent illegal entries a pathway to citizenship,
    and further incentivizing other migrants who may want to
    illegally immigrate to the United States, contributing to the
    flood of humanity that we are seeing at our border now that the
    President refuses to acknowledge as the crisis that it is.
        Radical policies that reward illegal immigration will not
    pass the Senate, and it's unfair to the DACA recipients to tie
    their fate to such ill-considered legislation. If our
    Democratic colleagues are truly interested in passing
    legislation on DACA, especially the 640,000 active DACA
    recipients, a clean, bipartisan bill is the only path forward.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. Senator Feinstein.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,

              A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    want to begin by thanking you for really your tireless efforts
    over 2 decades to pass the DREAM Act. I also want to say that I
    really believe now this bill will pass. I think people are
    beginning to realize certain facts.
        This bill can secure a better future for millions of people
    who live in a lot of uncertainty about their place in our
    country, really through no fault of their own. Let me just put
    a few things--facts in the record.
        According to the Migration Policy Institute, there are
    nearly 198,000 DACA recipients in California. That's more than
    any other State. They pay $2 billion in Federal taxes, and
    nearly $1 billion in State and local taxes every year.
    Nationwide, 80 percent of them are working or in school, and in
    California, 8,600 are medical workers who have been on the
    frontline of the pandemic.
        Like DREAMers, TPS recipients have established deep roots
    through many American communities. On average, TPS recruits
    have lived in the United States for nearly 20 years. In
    California alone, Mr. Chairman, they contribute $446 million in
    Federal taxes, and $237 million in State and local taxes. These
    are our colleagues, our neighbors, our friends, and they should
    not have to live in fear that they could be deported if the
    future administrations end TPS or a court strikes down DACA.
        I'm very proud to be one of your cosponsors, and I want to
    thank you for 20 years of service in bringing this legislation,
    I hope, finally to passage.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. You're more
    than a cosponsor, you have been a steadfast ally in this
    effort, and I thank you for the kind words that you expressed
    this morning.
        We have five witnesses who are going to testify about the
    Dream and Promise Act. I'm going to introduce the majority
    witnesses, and then I'm going to turn to Senator Grassley to
    introduce his.
        Our first witness is Dr. Manuel Bernal Mejia, third-year
    emergency medicine resident of Advocate Christ Medical Center
    in Chicago. That is his photograph, taken at an earlier time.
    Thank you.
        The Honorable Leon Rodriguez served as Director of U.S.
    Citizenship and Immigration Services at USCI's CIS from 2014 to
    2017. Prior to that, he served in Civil Rights leadership post
    in the Obama administration, and worked as a Federal and State
    prosecutor. Currently a partner at Seyfarth Shaw Law Firm.
        The third witness is Mr. Rony Ponthieux. Serves as a
    registered nurse at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami Gardens,
    Florida.
        Ranking Member Grassley, would you like to introduce your
    witnesses?
        Senator Grassley. Yes. Today, I have the pleasure of
    introducing Ms. Michelle Root. Michelle's daughter, Sarah Root,
    was killed by an illegal immigrant drunk driver in Omaha,
    Nebraska on January 31, 2016. Sarah, a native of Iowa, had just
    graduated from college with a 4.0 GPA hours just before she was
    killed. Sarah's killer fled the country within 3 days after
    making bail.
        The Obama administration's U.S. Customs and Immigration
    Enforcement refused to place a detainer on him, despite
    repeated outreach from the Omaha Police Department requesting
    that they do so. He remains at large to this very day. I've
    known Michelle for a number of years, and I'm a proud cosponsor
    of Sarah's Law, which would require ICE to detain illegal
    immigrants who have been charged with a crime that resulted in
    death or serious bodily injury of another person.
        Michelle has previously testified in Congress regarding the
    same about Sarah's tragic death. Her testimony at this hearing
    will highlight the importance of making sure that we don't
    offer legal status to illegal immigrants with a criminal
    record. I just don't understand the opposition to such a simple
    bill to bring justice to the injustice of the lack of
    prosecution of crimes like Sarah's death.
        We thank Durbin very much for his leadership in this area.
    We also thank somebody like Michelle for her constant fight for
    justice for her daughter.
        I also am introducing Mr. Joseph Edlow. Mr. Edlow is
    founder of the Edlow Group. He served as Deputy Director for
    Policy at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and in
    that role, served as Acting Director of the agency from
    February 2020--January 2021. Prior to that, he served as chief
    counsel of USCIS from July 2019 to February 2020, after serving
    as Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the Department of
    Justice from June 2018 to July 2019.
        Prior to joining the executive branch, Mr. Edlow served as
    legal counsel in the office of Congressman Raul Labrador, and
    as a counsel to the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on
    Immigration and Border Security.
        He began his career in Federal service in Baltimore, where
    he spent almost 7 years as an assistant chief counsel with
    U.S.--ICE, litigating before the U.S. Immigration Courts. Mr.
    Edlow received his undergraduate degree at Brandeis University
    in Waltham, Massachusetts, and a JD degree Case Western Reserve
    University School of Law, Cleveland, Ohio.
        I welcome both witnesses, and all witnesses.
        Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Grassley. The procedure will
    be well known to the Members, but I'll repeat it for our
    guests. After we swear in the witnesses, each witness will be
    given 5 minutes to provide opening statements. There will be a
    round of questions, with each Senator having 5 minutes, and I
    ask them to please do their best to remain within the allotted
    time.
        We'll start with administration of the oath. Would all of
    the witnesses please stand.
        [Witnesses are sworn in.]
        Chair Durbin. Let the record reflect that the witnesses all
    responded in the affirmative. They will each be given an
    opportunity for opening statements, then I will ask a round of
    questions, and invite Senator Padilla to come up and Chair the
    remainder of the hearing, as Chairman of the Immigration
    Subcommittee. We've done this as a joint hearing for the full
    Committee and Subcommittee. Thank you.
        Dr. Bernal, please proceed with your opening statement.

                 STATEMENT OF DR. MANUEL BERNAL MEJIA,

                 EMERGENCY MEDICINE RESIDENT, ADVOCATE

                CHRIST MEDICAL CENTER, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

        Dr. Mejia. Good morning, Senators. My name is Dr. Manuel
    Bernal Mejia. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share
    my journey of becoming an emergency medicine physician as an
    undocumented individual. First, I want to make sure to thank
    Chair Durbin and Ranking Member, Senator Grassley, as well as
    Senator Graham for introducing the DREAM Act with Senator
    Durbin. I would also be remiss if I also did not thank Senator
    Blackburn for her service to my home State of Tennessee.
        It is an honor to be with you all and share a bit of my
    story. Also, I want to recognize my sister, Jasmine Bernal, who
    is here with me today to share this special moment.
        My mother was 24 and my father was 27 when they made the
    difficult decision to leave everything known to them to come to
    the United States in search of a better life for their 2-year-
    old son. Little did they know their decision would lead to my
    career as an emergency medicine doctor.
        Day after day, I provide critical care to save American
    lives on the front lines of the pandemic, even as my own future
    in this country remains uncertain. My memories of my birth
    country are shaped only by family pictures that were shown to
    me as a child. To be honest, the United States is the only home
    that I know.
        Home is the beautiful State of Tennessee, where I grew up
    and had quite the average upbringing as a kid. As a kid, I was
    enrolled in way too many extracurriculars, from karate to swim
    team, all while living in blissful ignorance of the gravity of
    what it meant to be undocumented. It was not until I first
    attempted to obtain a driver's permit that I started to grasp
    the extent of the many barriers I would face as an undocumented
    person. Nonetheless, I forged ahead, diving deeper into my
    studies to distract myself from what my undocumented status
    might mean for my future.
        I'm proud to tell you that I was 1 of 36 individuals
    accepted to the university honor's program at the University of
    Tennessee at Chattanooga, where I eventually graduated summa
    cum laude. I developed an appreciation for the medical
    profession early on when I witnessed the compassionate care a
    loved one received at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital.
    This transformative experience served as my first true exposure
    to field of medicine and helped me embrace the idea that my
    unique skill sets and talents could be best utilized delivering
    medical care to others.
        In college, and later on as a medical student, I realized
    that a career in emergency medicine was the best avenue for
    combining my love for serving marginalized communities and
    pursuing medicine. While in college, I had the unique
    opportunity to serve as a medical scribe for doctors in the ER
    of a small hospital in Chattanooga, Tennessee. There, I worked
    side by side with emergency medicine doctors, and I eagerly
    absorbed as much as possible about serving ill patients. I saw
    first-hand the inherent vulnerability that patients face in the
    ER, and how the vulnerability is exacerbated by language,
    cultural, and educational barriers.
        I observed the ER's role in the community as the axis point
    to healthcare for people from marginalized communities. And all
    while my desire to become an emergency medicine physician grew
    stronger by the day, I knew that being accepted to medical
    school as an undocumented student would be almost impossible.
        I spent endless nights drafting emails to numerous medical
    schools, inquiring whether my undocumented status would
    obstruct my dreams of becoming a doctor. Repeatedly, those
    conversations would end in disappointment. It seemed like my
    hopes of becoming a doctor were getting further out of reach.
        The DACA program changed everything and opened many new
    doors for me. Importantly, it allowed me to enroll at Loyola
    University of Chicago's Stritch School of Medicine, where I
    eventually went on to graduate within the top third of my
    class.
        Fast forward to today, I am now less than 1 week away from
    completing a 3-year residency training program, specializing in
    emergency medicine. While DACA has been a lifeline, only a
    pathway to citizenship granted by Congress would allow me the
    ability to live free from fear, safe with the knowledge that I
    can continue to serve my community.
        As an ER doctor, I have taken care of patients at all
    stages of life, from delivering babies taking their first
    breath to providing comfort care measures for dying patients
    during their last moments of life. I trained during the height
    of a global pandemic, taking care of a too high to count number
    of critically ill COVID-19 patients, all while fearing the
    possibility of deportation because the previous administration
    was working relentlessly to dismantle DACA.
        I know that no protections are truly permanent save for the
    ones provided by legislation, which only you all have the power
    to grant. I'm honored to serve my community during this
    pandemic, and to help save lives when our country has
    collectively experienced great loss, even as I face my own
    uncertain future. While it is true that most DREAMers are not
    doctors, we all contribute to this country in our own special
    way.
        America is our home, and on behalf of the millions of
    DREAMers living in the U.S., I ask that we be allowed to give
    back to our home permanently after being allowed to earn
    citizenship.
        I've been offered a position as an attending doctor in a
    hospital in Illinois, where I will continue to serve the
    American people. While I know I'll work my hardest every day,
    only a pathway to citizenship will allow me to serve fully and
    continue my career as an ER doctor.
        I encourage the Members of this Committee to help ensure
    that young people like me who have built our lives here can
    contribute fully to the communities we know and love by passing
    a pathway to citizenship. Thank you again for allowing me to
    share my story with you today.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Bernal appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Dr. Bernal. I'm going to take the
    privilege of the Chair for just one moment and salute Loyola
    University in Chicago. With their School of Medicine, they were
    the first medical school in the United States to open
    competition to DACA recipients. There was no quota, no
    guarantees. You were just in the running with all the other
    applicants, and I believe over 30 were accepted to this school,
    and you're, of course, one of the best and most successful
    graduates. I wanted to give Loyola a shout out for that
    opportunity they gave you and so many others.
        Our next witness is Mr. Joseph Edlow.

                     STATEMENT OF MR. JOSEPH EDLOW,

                FOUNDER, EDLOW GROUP, POTOMAC, MARYLAND

        Mr. Edlow. Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Grassley, and
    Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    present testimony on H.R. 6, the American Promise and Dream Act
    of 2021. Before we discuss the bill, it is imperative to begin
    with the current landscape. We have an unmitigated disaster at
    the southern border that threatens the integrity of the U.S.
    immigration system. With border apprehensions rising,
    inconsistency in the processing of aliens arriving at the
    border, and the administration taking actions in contravention
    of U.S. immigration laws, we are at great risk of the entire
    immigration system failing.
        So far in this fiscal year, almost 930,000 aliens have been
    encountered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP, over
    633,000 of whom were encountered from February through May
    2021. With 4 months left in the fiscal year, this country is on
    track to see a record number of apprehensions along the
    southwest border. These are just the numbers we know. It is
    estimated that at least another 40,000 people per month cross
    illegally and are not apprehended.
        Apprehensions of aliens with criminal convictions has
    increased significantly in this fiscal year, as well. In the
    first 8 months of this year--this fiscal year, Border Patrol
    has encountered over 6,900 aliens with criminal convictions,
    more that twice as many as in all of FY 2020.
        Make no mistake, this is a humanitarian crisis as everyone
    who makes this journey, from adults to families to
    unaccompanied minors, are putting their lives at risk while
    relying on smugglers, often associated with cartels and other
    criminal organizations. As smugglers get bolder, the trip gets
    more arduous and perilous.
        Accordingly, Border Patrol has seen an uptick in life-
    saving efforts this fiscal year. Through May, agents at the
    southwest border have performed almost 6,900 search and
    rescues, eclipsing the totals for all of FY 2020 and FY 2019.
        As the Department of Homeland Security continues to make
    its own rules and ignore the statutory and regulatory
    mechanisms and procedures provided under law, the magnet
    drawing migrants to the United States grows exponentially.
        President Biden's DHS has waged war on immigration
    enforcement. It has ended successfully implemented programs,
    such as the Migrant Protection Protocols, attempted to halt
    deportations, limited ICE enforcement priorities under the
    guises of limited resources and prosecutorial discretion, and
    has disregarded expedited removal and released thousands of
    aliens into the interior of the country in the vain hope that
    they will report to ICE at a later date.
        In short, the President has opened the borders. It is a
    constitutional crisis when the President abandons a core
    function of the executive branch and allows lawlessness and
    invasion along our borders. Congress must focus on the root
    cause of this surge. The Senate should be focusing on undoing
    the Biden border crisis and securing our borders. It must
    ensure that the law is being followed, and that the executive
    branch is enforcing the law as it is written, and not merely by
    executive and departmental memos.
        It must then address the other pull factors, such as the
    Flores Settlement Agreement and the disparate treatment of
    unaccompanied minors under the Trafficking Victims
    Reauthorization Act.
        The haunting images that we have seen over the past few
    months at the border will only get worse and more frequent
    unless the United States makes clear that disregard for our
    laws and our borders will simply not be tolerated. One of the
    largest pull factors is the continued promise of amnesty.
        Today's hearing on H.R. 6 is an advertisement for that
    promise, and ultimately will make the crisis worse. The bill is
    bad policy and will propagate hopes of amnesty for generations
    yet to come. Among H.R. 6's many problems are that the bill
    would overwhelm USCIS resources, create blanket waivers for
    criminal aliens, invite fraud through low standards of proof,
    impose stringent and unnecessary confidentiality requirements
    on DHS, and ultimately overwhelm many of our Federal district
    courts.
        H.R. 6 is simply the wrong bill at the wrong time. It will
    exacerbate the crisis along the southern border, and if passed,
    will serve as an impetus for any foreign national with no legal
    right to enter or remain in the United States, to flagrantly
    disregard the law while they await their turn for amnesty down
    the road.
        Thank you for the opportunity to appear today, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Bernal appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chair Durbin. Mr. Leon Rodriguez.

                    STATEMENT OF MR. LEON RODRIGUEZ,

                 PARTNER, SEYFARTH SHAW, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, Chairman,
    Ranking Member Grassley, Members of the Committee. As I sit
    here before you today, I can't help but recall my confirmation
    hearing as USCIS Director now more than 7 years ago. I remember
    pretty much every question that Senator Grassley asked, every
    question that Senator Durbin asked, and every question that
    Senator Feinstein asked.
        Even though those questions were difficult questions from
    both sides of the aisle and challenging to answer, that day for
    me was one of the joyous days of my life because as the child
    of refugees from Cuba who was born just a month after they had
    fled that dictatorship, it was, in many respects, a miracle for
    me to be here. In fact, the vagaries of U.S. law could easily
    have meant that I would have grown up in that dictatorship,
    rather than in freedom here in the U.S.
        I remember the topic we were talking about that day 7 years
    ago was pretty much the same topic we're talking about today.
    We were talking about the southern border, we were talking
    about DACA, we were talking about the DREAM Act. I wasn't
    surprised to hear Senator Durbin early this morning cite to a
    version of the DREAM Act being introduced 20 years ago. In
    other words, we have been trying to tackle this issue through
    separate legislation dealing with the plight of the
    undocumented, as well as in comprehensive immigration reform
    packages, one during President Bush's administration, and
    another during President Obama's administration.
        I think we've reached the point where we need to simply get
    this done. If we look at the history, the bar has always moved.
    It has always been the wrong time, the wrong formula. I think
    we've run out of time. We've run out of time for the simple
    reason that the cost of not finding a pathway for wonderful
    individuals like Dr. Bernal, like Mr. Ponthieux, is
    unacceptable to the American people.
        For them to live at the mercy of a biannual DACA renewals,
    and for us to be at the mercy of not, as Senator Padilla
    suggested, be able to fully benefit as a country from their
    skills, is an unaccepted reality.
        It is one of the many criticisms I've heard of the DREAM
    Act, of DACA, and in the positions that Democrats have taken
    those Acts, that we only lift up the cases like Dr. Bernal's
    and Mr. Ponthieux--the doctors, the lawyers, the nurses, the
    teachers. The fact that if you look at the DACA population, 89
    percent are employed in and contributing to our economy.
    Thousands of them are going to school. They are doing exactly
    the kinds of things that we would want them to do.
        They are, with some exceptions, law-abiding. The way the
    DACA program has been administered is in many respects the
    blueprint and the test case for how this DREAM Act would be
    administered, and has resulted in a population that, on the
    whole, has been a remarkably law-abiding and productive
    population whose contributions could only be that much greater
    if this Act passes.
        I have to very specifically respond to the proposition that
    the fate of the DREAMers needs to be linked to our solution to
    what's going on on the border. The idea, and I agree with my
    colleague, Mr. Edlow, we do need to address the root causes.
    The root causes are the desperation of the people coming to our
    borders. They are the result of coming from countries that
    boast the first, second, and fifth highest homicide rates in
    the world.
        There is nothing that we will do that will stop that
    migration, notwithstanding the exploitation by smugglers,
    notwithstanding whatever walls we built, unless those
    conditions that are driving them to migrate are addressed.
        In the meantime, though, we can't wait to solve the case of
    the DREAMers. It is one thing to treat people as pawns in
    larger political debates for 3 months, 5 months, 6 months. It's
    quite another for 20 years to have passed without a solution.
        What I love about our country is that we are a country that
    fixes things, solves things, and makes them better. The time
    has come to do exactly that.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. Ms. Root.

              STATEMENT OF MS. MICHELLE ROOT, CO-FOUNDER,

                  ANGEL FAMILIES, COUNCIL BLUFFS, IOWA

        Ms. Root. I don't think it's going on. Can you hear me?
    Okay. Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Grassley, and
    distinguished Members of Committee, thank you so much for
    inviting me to testify on this important topic today.
        I'm here to honor my daughter, Sarah, who was murdered by
    an illegal immigrant who was driving drunk on my daughter's
    graduation night. Sarah had just received her Bachelor's in
    Criminal Investigation and a 4.0 the night she was killed by
    Eswin Mejia. Sarah was just starting to get to the best years
    of her life. She was taken way too soon because people failed
    to follow our laws, and the administration at the time failed
    to secure our borders. To date, justice has not been served for
    my daughter, and her killer remains on the loose.
        Sarah was my only daughter, and she made me want to be a
    better person because she was so kind, caring, loving. She put
    others before herself, and no matter how busy she was, and she
    was busy, she made time for family and friends. She was smart,
    worked hard. She treated people with kindness, and had a great
    relationship with her only brother, my son, Scotty. She wanted
    to pursue a master's degree after graduating.
        My baby girl had dreams, too. Sarah was a true dreamer, and
    her dreams were crushed because people believe they can enter
    our country illegally, carry out criminal acts without
    recourse, and because some Members of Congress are determined
    to let them.
        As a parent, I sympathize with those who want a better life
    for their children. We would all do what it takes to make a
    better life for them. However, you have to understand that
    rewarding illegal behavior only means we get more of it. The
    DREAM Act, if enacted into law, would benefit people who are
    charged with crimes. It would legalize people in this country
    who have been convicted of violent crimes. This isn't about
    rewarding valedictorian DREAMers. Even the data shows criminals
    are getting to use this.
        Allow me to talk about a few problems with this House bill.
    This is a legalization bill for more than just children.
    There's no age limit. This is a legalization bill for
    criminals. Charges, even the most serious criminal offenses,
    are completely ignored. This bill allows illegal immigrants who
    have been deported from the United States previously, to still
    apply. This bill protects people who simply apply by giving
    them safe harbor to remain in the United States while their
    application is pending.
        This Committee needs to urgently consider bills like
    Sarah's Law. This bill, in honor of my daughter, would require
    the Government to detain someone who entered the country
    illegally and is charged with a crime resulting in death or
    serious bodily injury. I thank those who have sponsored this
    bill, including my home State Senators, Senator Grassley,
    Senator Ernst, and then our neighboring State of Nebraska,
    Senator Sasse and Senator Fischer.
        Another key provision of Sarah's Law, which is missing from
    the DREAM Act, would ensure that there is an office for the
    American people devoted to helping them when they are harmed or
    affected by the actions of an illegal immigrant. An Office that
    does this, the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement, or
    VOICE, was established by the Trump administration, and without
    it, many families, like mine, would not find answers or be able
    to seek justice. This Office has helped many families, and it
    appears that the Biden administration wants to dismantle it.
        In fact, last week, they changed the name of the Office and
    vowed to help illegal immigrants who claim to be victims to
    gain access to support services, diminishing its sole mission
    of helping Americans. The administration has also removed the
    VOICE's Office most wanted list, which Eswin Mejia, the killer
    of my daughter, is on. It is no longer on their website.
        I urge you all to make the VOICE Office stronger. It's very
    important to the American people and important to families that
    have nowhere to turn. Put American families first. Give other
    mothers and dads an avenue to get answers.
        Today, there is no trust in our Federal Government to carry
    out our laws. Let me close by saying that it has been 5 years
    and almost 5 months since we lost Sarah. The pain doesn't go
    away. Every day I grieve her loss. I hope none of you ever have
    to endure what I have.
        I know people come here to live a better life, to live out
    their dreams. My family, like many American families, holds no
    ill will toward people who desire the American dream. But there
    have to be limits and boundaries. People need to be vetted, and
    they have to be deported when not eligible for immigration
    benefits.
        We cannot forget that our laws are intended to keep us
    safe, and this legislation does not do that. It rewards the
    illegal behavior that my daughter's killer carried out. It
    excuses their criminal history and does not make America
    better. Thank you for allowing me to testify and share my
    daughter's story.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Root appears as a submission
    for the record.]
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Ms. Root. Mr. Ponthieux.

                    STATEMENT OF MR. RONY PONTHIEUX,

                   REGISTERED NURSE, JACKSON MEMORIAL

                    HOSPITAL, MIAMI GARDENS, FLORIDA

        Mr. Ponthieux. Good morning, Senators. I would like to
    start by thanking Senator and Chair of the Judiciary Committee,
    Dick Durbin, and his phenomenal staff for your leadership and
    this opportunity. I would like to thank and greet Ranking
    Member Senator Chuck Grassley and the other Members of this
    important Committee.
        My name is Rony Ponthieux. I'm a Haitian immigrant, a
    worker with temporary protected status, a registered nurse, and
    essential worker during COVID-19. I'm also a member of Family
    Action Network Movement, FANM. I would like to thank the
    Almighty for protecting me during the pandemic period. I would
    also like to send some words of comfort to those who lost their
    loved one, a family member or friend.
        I work at Jackson Memorial Hospital, COVID-19 battleground,
    where I save lives every day. I've been here for 22 years now,
    since 1999, and since 2006, I've been a nurse. I'm currently
    working for Jackson Memorial Hospital in a unit specialize for
    COVID-19. I put my life in danger and on the line to save
    American lives. Every day, I'm exposed to COVID-19 in order to
    save other people's lives.
        Many TPS holders are healthcare providers. I'm one of them.
    I put my life on the line every day to save American lives. I'm
    asking the U.S. Government to permit me to remain here with
    permanent residency.
        I came to the U.S. 22 years ago with my wife, Marjorie
    Ponthieux, and we have established our lives here. I was
    granted Temporary Protected Status, TPS, by immigration
    officials when the earthquake left Haiti in shambles a decade
    ago. My wife and I have had two U.S.-born children, Christopher
    Ponthieux and Eunid Christina Ponthieux.
        We put ourselves through nursing school and bought a house
    in Miami-Dade. My son, Christopher is an E4 specialist in the
    U.S. Army. Christina is a young leader at FANM. She's the co-
    chair of CFR, Children for Family Reunification. My family
    risks their lives for this country. We have served this country
    and feel that we are Americans, but our immigration status has
    remained temporary.
        Given the contribution of TPS holders to this country. I
    respectfully urge the U.S. Senate to support the Dream and
    Promise Act that includes a pathway to permanency for immigrant
    youth and Temporary Protected Status holders. Permanent status
    will allow TPS recipients to be more productive, continue
    paying more taxes. Thirty percent of TPS holders are homeowners
    who add to our local economies through sales and property
    taxes.
        TPS holders play an active role in our children's lives. We
    attend the school meetings, recitals, and sports games. As of
    2017, 273,000 children have parent with TPS status. Over 50,000
    of these children live in Florida. If permanency is not
    granted, our children would face serious risk. These children
    would be forced to face separation from their parents or be
    forced to relocate to a country that is foreign to them.
        It would be current extremely difficult for me and my
    family if I were to be forced to leave after 20 years of living
    in the American States and return to a country in shambles. Not
    only am I thinking daily about saving lives and taking care of
    my family, but in addition to that, I have to think about the
    possibility of leaving the United States eventually if I'm not
    granted permanent status.
        We believe in your compassion. We believe in your
    understanding. We believe in your good judgment, and more
    importantly, we believe in your leadership. We believe you will
    make the Dream and Promise Act a reality. More than 300,000 TPS
    holders are waiting. More than 270,000 U.S.-born children are
    waiting. Let's walk together, Democrats and Republicans, to
    have immigration reform that will change the lives of millions.
        TPS recipients will keep their ends of the bargain by
    working hard, paying taxes, contributing to build the social,
    economic, and political fabric of this great nation. May God
    bless you. May God bless America. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ponthieux appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, Mr. Ponthieux. Let me
    also thank your family, and especially your son, who is serving
    the American people in the U.S. military. We thank you very
    much for all of your presence today. Let me say, Ms. Root, it
    breaks my heart to hear Sarah's story. I'm sorry for the loss
    that you and your family have suffered as a result of that. I
    strongly support any efforts of law enforcement to locate the
    person responsible, and to bring them to justice.
        I want to address one issue that you mentioned, and Mr.
    Edlow mentioned, as well. That is the provisions in the law
    related to past criminal behavior. Dangerous criminals are not
    eligible for status under the Dream and Promise Act. In fact,
    all of the bars that apply to immigration and naturalization
    automatically apply to anyone who's seeking to become a citizen
    under the Dream and Promise Act.
        It also bars individuals who are guilty of any felony, any
    three misdemeanors, or any crime of domestic violence. I will
    readily concede that in 20 years and 20, at least, different
    versions of this bill, there have been a lot of different
    definitions, but that is the standard of H.R. 6 that we are
    considering today. The notion that somehow, as Mr. Edlow said,
    we are going to give amnesty to criminal aliens couldn't be
    further from the truth. I'm sorry that you said that in the
    record, because it doesn't reflect the reality of this bill.
        I might also say that to call Dr. Mejia and Mr. Ponthieux
    somehow flagrant violators of the law is to ignore the obvious.
    Mr. Mejia had very little to say when his family decided to
    come to this country. Mr. Ponthieux came here under
    extraordinary circumstances in his own country. They don't
    really fit in a definition of flagrant violators of the law, as
    I see it. That's why the DACA population has been considered in
    a difference context as others.
        In terms of the current situation at our southern border,
    as Mr. Rodriguez said, it is challenging, and I could certainly
    give a defense to what we face today. It's not the first
    challenge, and if our standard on changing any immigration law
    is that we must have perfect compliance of all other laws,
    we'll never do anything. I think that would be a mistake.
        Personally, I support comprehensive immigration reform.
    Join the Gang of Eight, put the bill to the floor. It passed
    the Senate. I believe we should consider the fact that our
    immigration system is broken at this point. The fact is it
    didn't pass the House of Representatives; did not become of
    law.
        In terms of where we go from here, I have accepted Senator
    Cornyn's invitation rather than challenge, I'll call it, to act
    on the southern border as part of any conversation that we have
    about any aspect of immigration. I think that is a good faith
    effort to try to find some common ground on a very challenging
    situation.
        Dr. Mejia, before we go any further, have you run into
    obstacles in terms of your medical licensure and such because
    of your undocumented status?
        Dr. Mejia. Thankfully, I have not. In the State of
    Illinois, I have not. I'm sure that I would run into issues if
    I want to expand my medical license to other States in the
    United States.
        Chair Durbin. It's State by State in terms of your status?
        Dr. Mejia. That is correct.
        Chair Durbin. You, thank goodness, are going to continue to
    practice in the State of Illinois. Yes?
        Dr. Mejia. Yes.
        Chair Durbin. That is good news. Mr. Rodriguez, you've
    heard the testimony of Mr. Edlow and others about the situation
    with those with a criminal status. I can't recall a version of
    the DREAM Act or DACA that has not included a bar to those who
    were guilty of criminal misconduct.
        Mr. Rodriguez. That is correct from my understanding, as
    well, and I think your point that the existing
    inadmissabilities that run across all of immigration law will
    continue to apply here, as well. Those are structured
    specifically to exclude felons, serious criminals, even in many
    cases, those who've only committed one misdemeanor.
        Chair Durbin. That is the case--with TPS, I believe, that
    is exactly the case. TPS holders, they make ineligible anyone
    with one felony or more than one misdemeanor conviction under
    the bill. There's no waiver for a crime that makes someone
    eligible for TPS included in the bill, so, we maintain these
    standards, as we must, and if we expect any bipartisan support
    for this bill, we're going to have to watch that very
    carefully. I'm sure that's an important consideration. Senator
    Grassley.
        Senator Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks all of
    you for your testimony. I'm going to start with Ms. Root. I
    know in your testimony that you discussed the VOICE Office
    established during the Trump administration. I was concerned to
    see that last Friday, this administration announced changes to
    the VOICE Office that appeared designed to dismantle it. Can
    you just describe in a little more detail how that Office
    helped your family and other families that have lost loved ones
    to crimes committed by illegal immigrants, and why it is
    important to maintain it?
        Ms. Root. As I said in my testimony, for me, it was a place
    I felt I could go and get answers, you know? Again, I'm
    grateful for the State that I live in, because I had a lot of
    support from my Senators and my Congressmen. However, if I did
    not have that support, it was nice to have the VOICE Office to
    call, get any updates on anything dealing with Eswin Mejia.
        Other families that I know that use the VOICE Office, they
    felt the same way. It was nice to have a contact that would
    direct them in what they needed to do or help them through the
    weeds, as we call it. Because when you are mourning the loss of
    a loved one, you don't know where to turn, and there was
    nothing out there for us. Then once the VOICE Office started,
    there was an avenue for us to go to and get answers and get the
    help we needed.
        Senator Grassley. Mr. Edlow, in your testimony, you point
    out a number of facts about the DREAM Act and Promise Act that
    concern me. Facts that are also relevant to the Senate
    counterpart, the DREAM Act. Could you comment on how these
    bills benefit those with criminal records, and how very broad
    the criminality waivers are? After that, can you comment on how
    the eligibility provisions of these bills are so different that
    the eligibility parameters of the DACA program, specifically
    when it comes to issues such as age cutoffs and maximum ages?
    Isn't it true that these bills go far beyond the kids that we
    so often hear about?
        Mr. Edlow. Thank you, Senator. Let's start with the
    criminality. I appreciate Senator Durbin's comments, but let me
    correct a couple things there. First of all, in terms of
    dangerous criminals, we're not talking about dangerous
    criminals under this bill, we're talking specifically
    misdemeanors, felonies, and there are plenty of misdemeanor
    convictions that would be someone that I think we would all
    consider to be dangerous.
        Drunk drivers, as Ms. Root has testified about, would be
    dangerous, and yet, that's a misdemeanor. They're certainly
    potentially eligible for relief under this bill. Same thing
    with potentially a misdemeanor child sex offense. That is
    something, in certain States, that would give rise to a
    misdemeanor conviction that again, somebody would then be
    eligible.
        The waivers that we see here excuse behavior for things
    that we've always found to be inadmissible, including crimes
    involving moral turpitude, commercialized vice, and even
    misdemeanor convictions that would involve smuggling--drug
    smuggling and prostitution. In terms of the term felony,
    definitions do matter. In this bill, we see a definition of
    felony to be more than 365 days.
        Certain States have a different definition of felony. For
    example, in California, you can have a felony conviction for
    364 days, so that was somebody who would be convicted of a
    felony under State law but would not be considered a felon
    under this definition.
        Additionally, the expungements that are allowed under this
    bill would include expungements for vacaturs for any reason,
    including for rehabilitative purposes to get relief under this
    bill. That is new, that is something that is completely outside
    the scope of what we've normally seen in immigration law,
    where, typically, a vacatur for that purpose is not
    appropriate.
        In terms of the DACA eligibility, very quickly, Senator,
    you're, of course, correct. We have no age cutoff here, so
    anyone who has been here for 4 years as of the 1st of January
    who have previously entered when they were 18 is eligible for
    this. Under DACA, it's 16, and they would have to have been
    here by June 2012--20, I'm sorry. That's certainly a 5\1/2\
    year gap that we add additional people in.
        Additionally, in terms of the lack of an age cutoff, your
    example is absolutely accurate. Somebody who entered years and
    years ago, and then even potentially went home, as long as they
    entered initially when they were 18, they could be 70, 80 years
    old now, entered 4 years ago, and they're going to be eligible
    under this. It's a lot more--a lot larger population that just
    the DREAMers.
        Senator Grassley. My time's up. I'll have some questions
    for answer in writing.
        Senator Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Padilla. [Presiding]. Thank you. Senator Leahy.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you very much, and I just want to take
    a moment to compliment Senator Durbin, who has fought on this
    issue for years, and has been really the clearest and best
    voice in the U.S. Senate on the issue of DREAMers.
        We're a nation of immigrants. It becomes almost a cliche,
    but we are. My parents and I immigrated to this country, my
    wife was born here, and we've been married now for 59 years. My
    grandparents--maternal grandparents immigrated to this country,
    and my mother was born here, and I still have relatives in
    Italy that we--I meet often. It's important we're having this.
        It's important to note that everybody--some seem to be
    talking about everything except DREAMers, the reason for this.
    Maybe that's because they know the majority of Americans, and
    that includes almost 70 percent of 2016 voters who supported
    Donald Trump, believe that DREAMers deserve to live and work
    legally in the United States. Certainly, I do. I think
    Americans who believe in equal opportunity for DACA recipients,
    and that is the majority of Americans, would be dismayed to
    learn that DREAMers are currently banned from working in the
    Federal Government.
        While DREAMers bring their considerable talents to
    virtually every other U.S. employer, including Fortune 500
    companies, including State and local governments, as in my
    State, they're shut out from working as Federal public servants
    in the country they love.
        Mr. Rodriguez, it makes no sense every other employer in
    the country could benefit from DREAMer's talents and skills
    except the Federal Government. Do you agree with that, and if
    so, why?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Yes, I have to say that that is an issue
    that I think requires some careful study. Many positions
    throughout the Federal Government actually require U.S.
    citizenship as a prerequisite of admission, so I would be--I
    simply lack the expertise to make a representation today on
    that point.
        Senator Leahy. There are some positions in the Federal
    Government that require very specific things. Certain security
    clearances and everything else. This is blanket. Every employer
    in this country can hire DREAMers except the Federal
    Government. Does that seem a little bit weird?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I certainly think a lot of potentially
    helpful talent is being lost by the Federal Government,
    probably in places where it could be used, but again, I would
    be hesitant to make a sweeping statement about how citizenship
    status and immigration status should be applied by the Federal
    Government without having fully studied the issue.
        Senator Leahy. The reason I say this, we're seeing, and all
    of us have seen this, the Federal Government experiencing a
    very serious brain drain. I look at a March 2021 report by the
    House Science Committee. There's been a concerning decline in
    our Federal scientific workforce at agencies that are in the
    frontline of keeping America competitive, or trying to keep
    America globally competitive.
        There are thousands of DREAMers with undergraduate STEM
    degrees pursuing advanced STEM degrees who would jump at the
    opportunity to use their skills in service to America to help
    fill that gap that we acknowledge exists.
        As you know, the Senate just passed an overwhelmingly
    bipartisan bill, Democrats and Republicans alike voted for it,
    to improve America's competitiveness against global
    adversaries. Do you think that allowing DREAMers to work in our
    Federal Government would bolster--help bolster America's global
    competitiveness, something that both parties have voted for?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I have no reason to think otherwise. I have
    met, and particularly during my time as USCIS Director, but
    even after in the community where I live, literally hundreds of
    DREAMers doing all kinds of things. Doctors, nurses, investment
    bankers, lawyers, teachers, HVAC technicians, all of whom I
    think are people who could contribute in every part of our
    society. I have no problem with that idea.
        Senator Leahy. I'll simply close with this. I think this
    country, almost goes a cliche, this country built on
    immigrants, but I think if we all go to swearing in ceremonies
    of new citizens, and I think of one where a Federal judge in
    our State spoke at one. He had had a blood clot in his brain,
    came within a very short time of dying, was on the operating
    table. The physician successfully operated on him and saved his
    life. As he said when he woke up, he realized a number of years
    before, he had given the oath of citizenship to the doctor that
    saved his life. Let's start opening our doors. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Padilla. Senator Cornyn.
        Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mister Chairman. Is it Dr.
    Mejia?
        Dr. Mejia. Yes, that's fine.
        Senator Cornyn. Thank you, doctor. What year did you apply
    for a deferred action?
        Dr. Mejia. I applied the year--as soon as it was available
    to me.
        Senator Cornyn. Okay. There's no question that you've made
    incredible contributions to our country as an emergency room
    physician, and I think the reason you're here is because an
    exemplary of the type of young person who's applied for and
    received DACA who's life has been cast into uncertainty because
    of the fact that this has not been something that actually
    resulted from congressional action and consensus building. I
    personally support trying to provide a permanent solution for
    people like you.
        I think you heard me say that there is a number of
    different iterations of the DREAM Act and DACA, starting with
    the original DACA, which now has 640 active individuals. The
    bill before us today would provide a pathway to citizenship for
    4.4 million people. If it is politically unlikely for us to be
    able to pass something like the American Dream and Promise Act,
    which I agree--I believe it is impractical and unlikely to
    happen, would you support Congress passing a bill that would
    provide relief for a smaller population that could be agreed on
    by Republicans and Democrats alike, say, the 640,000 active
    DACA recipients?
        Dr. Mejia. I can only speak on behalf of my personal
    experiences, and I know--I personally have watched the DREAM
    Act throughout the years from the very beginning, and I
    remember watching C-SPAN as a high schooler when the DREAM Act
    was first being talked about and discussed on the Senate floor
    in Congress. Personally, I would support such a legislation if
    it meant a permanent solution for me and all the other DACA
    recipients currently, because it's been many years and,
    frankly, we're all tired of waiting and having our life up in
    the air. I think we're ready for a permanent solution.
        Senator Cornyn. As you probably heard me mention, as well,
    there's a pending court case in the Southern District of Texas
    which could result in a permanent injunction against the DACA
    program because of legal problems associated with the original
    action. I think that should give all of us a sense of urgency.
        As many people have said earlier, Senator Durbin has
    championed this issue for many, many years. What's different
    today is that Chairman Durbin is Chairman of the Judiciary
    Committee, and Senator Schumer is the floor Leader, the
    Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate. If Senator Durbin wanted to
    put a bill--to mark up a bill in this Committee, he could do
    it, and he wouldn't have to ask permission of everybody. Then
    the Judiciary Committee could work its will if we were able to
    report a bill, then Senator Schumer could schedule it for floor
    action.
        I think we've been talking about this issue for as long as
    I've been in the Senate and trying to solve a very complex
    issue. An emotional issue for many, which is immigration
    reform, but I think, for me, I think starting with the original
    DACA recipients, that would be a good place to start. We
    wouldn't have to stop the discussion beyond that, but Senator
    Durbin could put that bill here before the Committee, we could
    mark it up, Senators could offer amendments, and then once it
    received a majority of support, it could go to the Senate floor
    for action. I think what we need is action and less discussion,
    which seems to continue without end.
        Mr. Edlow, I wanted to ask you--you made a statement that
    we could well see the failure of our immigration system
    completely unless the situation at the border that's currently
    occurring--this surge of humanity. One hundred eighty thousand
    new migrants just last month. The cartels and human smugglers
    have figured out our immigration laws and how to exploit the
    vulnerabilities and overwhelm our capacity to deal with them.
    Fully 40 percent of the border patrol are off the front lines
    because they're taking care of children.
        Particularly with Title 42, the Public Health Title
    expiring on June 21st, could you explain to the Committee what
    you think the consequences would be if there's not some other
    plan put in place when the Title 42 expires?
        Mr. Edlow. Senator, without Title 42, there's going to be
    no way to remove people based on the public health crisis that
    we've seen. You know, in terms of how many more migrants we're
    going to see coming to either the ports of entry or between the
    ports of entry, I couldn't tell you, but it will--it will
    expand exponentially.
        I would also note that in terms of what the Border Patrol
    and what Office of Field Operations are seeing, they're seeing
    this increase because yes, we're at one point saying don't come
    to the country, but then at the same time, we're giving mixed
    messages as we've dismantled the interior enforcement, and
    people are able to essentially move through the ports of entry
    as quickly as possible. No one is staying there, no one is
    being processed under expedited removal. They're just being
    released.
        I think that is ultimately what the draw is going to
    continue to be, and yes, without Title 42 in place, it's just
    going to expand.
        Senator Padilla. Senator Feinstein.
        Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I want
    to concentrate my questions on unaccompanied children. I'm
    really very concerned about it, and in 2008, we passed the
    Trafficking Victims' Protection Reauthorization Act. It
    includes legislation I authored to ensure unaccompanied
    children are transferred to Health and Human Services
    facilities consistent with their best interests while they
    await. I'm told that today we have 17,000 children in custody.
    That is mind blowing, candidly.
        I would like to know more about these 17,000 children. We
    may disagree over the best way to address their arrival, but
    they should be treated humanely at all times, placed with their
    parents or other appropriate adults as soon as possible.
        Mr. Rodriguez, would you begin with this 17,000 number, and
    break it down for us as to what is happening today with
    children in custody, please?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Senator, not having been in the Government
    now for about 4\1/2\ years, and knowing most of what I know
    from reading the papers, I can only agree with the proposition
    that we do need to break down and understand why that
    population is what it is, what the component parts of that
    population are, and why it is that that population has not been
    moved out of a detention setting. That's horrifying by any
    definition.
        Senator Feinstein. Can anybody else respond on that
    question? Seventeen thousand children, and we don't know where
    they are?
        Mr. Edlow. Senator, I'm sorry. We don't know--know where
    they are.
        Senator Feinstein. Then, perhaps you would tell us.
        Mr. Edlow. Senator, of course, I'm no longer in the
    Government either, and I was not with Health and Human
    Services, but when the children are put into Health and Human
    Services custody, they are then moved to sponsors, as you
    noted. My concern there is I don't know that the sponsors are
    always close family, there is not follow-up with those sponsors
    to make sure that these children are put into safe places, so,
    there's a humanitarian crisis there.
        Going back to TVPRA, I think the treatment--disparate
    treatment of children, unaccompanied minors, between those that
    can be quickly returned to countries, contiguous countries, and
    those that can't, from other countries, is really what is
    driving this because we have to find a safe way to address
    that, and a humane way to address that. The best way would be
    to return them to their family if their family is back in their
    home countries, which we cannot do right now.
        Senator Feinstein. This is an area that I have some
    interest in, and I would appreciate other members of the panel
    commenting--what actions would you recommend Congress take to
    better protect unaccompanied children in immigration custody?
        Anybody have any suggestions?
        Mr. Edlow. May I give you another suggestion, Senator?
        Senator Feinstein. Sure.
        Mr. Edlow. Okay. For those that are placed with sponsors,
    ensure that those sponsors are, in fact, their parents or their
    legal guardian, and ensure that either Health and Human
    Services or the Department of Homeland Security, whether it be
    HSI, with ICE, or somebody else takes responsibility for
    ensuring that those children have been safely placed.
        We have seen far too many instances where children have
    been placed in homes and have been the victim of sexual abuse
    and other horrific crimes. We've got to make sure, but right
    now, there's no one in the Federal Government that's going to
    take responsibility for that role of making sure that they're
    okay.
        HHS says it's not them, and HSI--I don't think it's them
    either, so, we've got to figure something out there.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you for that. Mr. Chairman, this
    is an area that I've had a lot of interest in. What's happening
    with 17,000 unaccompanied children? Where are they? What is the
    oversight? In 2008, we passed a bill, it's called the
    Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. It included
    legislation I authored to ensure that these unaccompanied
    children were transferred to Health and Human Services.
        I thought they would have a better plan to take care of
    them. I don't know what the plan is at this point of time, but
    I would like to know it, and so, I would like to ask that the
    Department give this Committee exactly what the status is of
    these 17,000 children. I am hopeful that this Committee will
    follow up and see if we are doing the best we possibly can to
    see that they are in good and secure circumstances.
        Chair Durbin. Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Padilla. Senator.
        Chair Durbin. I share your concerns, Senator. We don't have
    a current representative of the administration on this panel,
    but we certainly should be doing our duty in oversight in this
    important area.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Thank you.
        Senator Padilla. I, too, commit, as Chair of the
    Subcommittee on Immigration and your colleague from California
    to work with you to follow up with the appropriate agencies to
    get you the information.
        Senator Feinstein. Good. Good. Thank you, thank you very
    much.
        Senator Padilla. Senator Lee.
        Senator Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In
    September 2019, then Presidential candidate Biden promised
    that, should he be elected as President of the United States,
    there would be immediate surges at the border. He said, ``If
    you want to flee, flee oppression, you should come.''
        Given President Biden's open invitation while he was a
    Presidential candidate, it's not at all surprising, in my view,
    that we have record-breaking surges at our southern border that
    are causing a full-blown crisis at the border.
        Since February, over 632,000 people, that is, that we know
    of, embarked on an incredibly dangerous journey, and have
    entered the country illegally, with hope of eventual amnesty. I
    went to the border in March with nearly two dozen of my
    colleagues, and I saw this crisis firsthand, and I saw it as
    one who had spent 2 years of my life living along the U.S.-
    Mexico border, and saw that the risks had gone up substantially
    since I had last visited.
        What exactly are we here to do today? The majority has
    scheduled a hearing, not to address the crisis at the border,
    at least not in a way that would make it better or alleviate
    it, but rather to discuss amnesty. The amnesty proposal in this
    bill would ensure that this unprecedented crisis at our
    southern border continues indefinitely, in perpetuity, perhaps.
        What we should be discussing today is what can be done and
    what should be done to stop the border crisis that we now face,
    and to stop the abuse of women and children who embark along
    this perilous journey, and to stop the smugglers and the
    cartels from earning record-high profits from exploiting this
    crisis.
        Mr. Edlow, what's the difference, if you can explain it to
    us, between the I-95--I-85 Notice to Report, which we're told
    that CBP currently is issuing to those crossing the border
    illegally. What's the difference between the I-85 Notice to
    Appear on the one hand, and a mandatory Notice to Appear?
        Mr. Edlow. Thank you, Senator. I believe it's the I-385 is
    the Notice to Report, and frankly, Senator, it's a new one on
    me in terms of seeing this being given with any regularity
    along the border. Essentially, what that document is, is
    telling--it's a document that says that the person has been
    encountered, and that when they get to where they're going,
    they, per that document, are supposed to report themselves,
    turn themselves in to ICE in whatever city, community that
    they're in.
        This is not the same thing as a Notice to Appear. A Notice
    to Appear is a statutory document that has a--all of the
    elements are laid out in the Immigration Nationality Act that
    commences an immigration court proceeding. It says how the
    person entered, it alleges certain facts about the situation,
    and then gives a charge of either inadmissibility or
    moveability for the court to ultimately make a determination.
        It's essentially the civil immigration version of almost--a
    little different, but kind of like an indictment. It gets the
    immigration court process moving. The expanded use--we're
    seeing, I've heard numbers upwards of 30,000 plus Notices to
    Report that have been handed out along the border. This is not
    even catch and release. I mean this is catch and release beyond
    anything we've seen. This is almost catch and welcome, so that
    people can then find where they're going.
        Senator Lankford spoke on the Senate floor, I believe it
    was back in March, and said that out of 24,000 people that he
    knew of that had received this Notice to Report, only about
    1,800 had ever actually turned themselves in to ICE when they
    got to where they were going.
        Senator Lee. How will this bill that's likely to extend to
    include at least three million people, quite arguably more, how
    will that impact the crisis at our southern border? Will it end
    it? Will it slow it?
        Mr. Edlow. I think it exacerbates it. I think it adds to
    the crisis as more people will see that the comments, the
    promises that have been made by the current administration, by
    the Biden administration are coming to fulfillment.
        Senator Lee. Does it contain any provision--enforcement
    provisions that might deter future illegal immigration, or even
    that might deter people from voting illegally while they're
    here illegally?
        Mr. Edlow. No, in fact--thank you for mentioning voting.
    Voting illegally is one of the factors that is easily waived in
    this bill. There is a specific waiver here for any alien that
    has come into this country and voted illegally.
        Senator Lee. Why would we want to do that?
        Mr. Edlow. I don't have any idea. We wouldn't want to do
    that, nor do we want to waive criminal activity that we're
    seeing in this bill.
        Senator Lee. Thank you very much.
        Chair Padilla. Next, we have Senator Klobuchar virtually.
    Senator Klobuchar, are you still with us?
        Senator Klobuchar. All right. Thank you, and thank you so
    much, Senator Padilla for your great leadership and for doing
    this hearing, and also thank you, of course, to our Chair.
    Minnesota is actually home to thousands and thousands of
    DREAMers. We also have a really strong history of TPS people
    because Somalia was designated for TPS. We had the biggest
    number of Somalians in the country, and we have fought for that
    to be extended for all of our, of course, TPS groups, both in
    my State and across the country. Like DREAMers, for many TPS
    and DED recipients, the U.S. is the only home they've ever
    known, and I am a strong supporter of this bill.
        Along those lines, I just want to clear up one thing at the
    beginning, Mr. Rodriguez. When we are talking about DREAMers
    and people with TPS and DED status, are we talking about people
    seeking asylum at the southern border by any means?
        Mr. Rodriguez. No, and actually, I had meant to talk about
    that in my opening statement. No, those are distinct. While
    they are different kinds of humanitarian relief, we're talking
    about distinct pathways to that relief.
        Senator Klobuchar. Would any of the recent arrivals after
    January 1st at the border be eligible for the pathway to
    citizenship provided by the American Dream and Promise Act?
        Mr. Rodriguez. No, they would not.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Is providing a pathway to
    citizenship to DREAMers and people with TPS and DED going to
    slow down the administration's efforts at the border to either
    reunite families or other things? Would that be a deterrent to
    some of the work that's being done there.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Not at all. In fact, you know, I'm a former
    State and Federal prosecutor. I was a prosecutor in Brooklyn,
    New York at the height of the crack epidemic, and I know that
    one thing we need to do in the law enforcement world is to
    prioritize where we're going to focus not only our
    prosecutorial efforts, but also our administrative resources,
    and how we're going to focus those.
        Part of what we're doing here is taking the focus away from
    people like Dr. Bernal and Mr. Ponthieux, and really focusing
    them on illegal border crossing and focusing them on criminal
    conduct, and not places where those energies don't need to be.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Very good. I wanted to just turn
    to something a little bit related here, the Conrad 30 Program.
    I am the lead sponsor of that bill, but we also have Senator
    Collins, Rosen, Ernst, King, Boone, Merkley, Capito, Blunt, and
    I hope our colleagues will consider sponsoring it. This is the
    one that helps underserved areas, particularly rural areas, for
    doctors to complete their postgraduate medical training in the
    U.S. and practicing in the U.S. after they've completed that
    training, rather than having to leave the country for 2 years,
    which to me is just nuts given that we need these doctors in
    the rural areas.
        Of course, there's other provisions that we're looking at
    for nurses and the like. Could you talk about why this is
    important, this program?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Yes, actually a significant part of my
    current law practice actually is with healthcare providers of
    different types. We do have shortages at many--many different
    levels of the healthcare industry, not only shortages of
    doctors in certain places, which I think is what Conrad 30 is
    trying to address, but also other types of healthcare
    providers. Nurses, in particular--thank you, Mr. Ponthieux--is
    one particular area of shortage. This is, I think, a very
    important step for the American people.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay, thank you. Thank you, and thank
    you for that segue to Mr. Ponthieux, your wife is also a nurse
    serving your community in Florida, your 20-year-old son is in
    the Army, your daughter is a middle school honors student. How
    has living with this constant uncertainty affected your family,
    and maybe prevented you from making investments that you would
    normally have made?
        Mr. Ponthieux. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for the
    question, and I would like to say that after I finished my
    registered nurse license, I planned to go to the University to
    do--to pursue a career to become a nurse practitioner. Because
    of this uncertainty--that means the possibility of being
    deported--that told me I could not go further. I even went to
    the hospital because of high blood pressure, and I'm on
    medication at this time. Even I'm saving lives, I'm taking care
    of patients, but also I have to think of myself because now I
    have high blood pressure.
        With the--if you vote yes for this bill, I already wishes
    to for--to go to the University to pursue this career, to go
    for nurse practitioner. I would like to become a nurse
    practitioner to serve this country, because I feel that this is
    my calling. Even sometimes nurses call in sick because they are
    afraid of the COVID. I always there, and I pray God to help me,
    not only to give the medication to take care of the patient,
    but to save their lives.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
        Mr. Ponthieux. Now, I will be able, with this bill,
    continue to go to school for higher education and be able to
    take care of my family. Thank you.
        Senator Klobuchar. Oh, so beautifully said. Beautifully
    said. I want to thank you, and also you, Mr. Mejia. I'll send
    you a question on the record but thank you both for being here
    and all of the witnesses.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you. Senator Cruz.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Right now, we have a
    massive crisis at our southern border. My home State of Texas
    is bearing the brunt of this crisis. In the last month, CBP
    agents encountered 180,034 illegal immigrants crossing the
    border. That is a 674 percent increase from last May. That is
    stunning. We are on path to have over 2 million people cross
    the border illegally this year, the highest rate in 20 years.
        Where were we last year? Last year, we had the lowest rate
    of illegal immigration in 45 years. To my Democratic colleagues
    on this Committee, I ask you, why haven't you gone down to the
    border? Joe Biden refuses to go to the border. Kamala Harris
    refuses to go to the border. Indeed, Kamala Harris seems to go
    everywhere else except our southern border.
        In 6 months, the Senate Judiciary Committee has not had a
    hearing on the crisis at the border. The approach of
    Congressional Democrats is they don't want to know. The
    approach of President Biden and Vice President Harris is they
    don't want to know. When asked about it, Vice President Harris
    laughed and said, ``Well, I haven't been to Europe, either.''
    You know what? Joe Biden's in Europe right now. Maybe it's time
    for the person ostensibly in charge of the border from this
    Administration to go to the border.
        There's a reason Joe Biden doesn't want to go to the
    border. There's a reason Kamala Harris doesn't want to go to
    the border. There's a reason Senate Democrats on this Committee
    don't want to go to the border. Because they know if they go to
    the border, the TV cameras will come with them, and they have
    no answer for this humanitarian crisis that is playing out.
        I challenge my colleagues on the Committee. Go look at the
    Biden cages. I've seen them, cage after cage after cage of
    little boys and little girls packed in. Seventeen hundred
    percent capacity. COVID rate of positivity, 10 percent. Go look
    at the children that are paying the price for this failed
    immigration policy. Let's be clear. This crisis is the direct
    result of decisions made by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
        The very first week in office, Joe Biden immediately halted
    construction of the border wall. The very first week in office,
    Biden returned to the failed policy of catch and release. The
    very first week of office, Biden ripped to shreds the Remain in
    Mexico international agreement that had produced the lowest
    rate of illegal immigration in 45 years.
        Joe Biden and Kamala Harris caused this crisis and
    congressional Democrats are perpetuating this crisis by hiding
    from it and keeping the policies that aren't working. Let's be
    clear. It is evident to anyone who looks at the problem what
    the cause is. Here's what the President of Guatemala said when
    Joe Biden took office. ``The very next day, the coyotes were
    here organizing groups of children to take them to the United
    States.'' That's the President of Guatemala.
        How about the President of Mexico? Here's what he said. He
    said that people see Biden, ``as the migrant President. So many
    feel that they're going to reach the United States.'' The
    message from Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to the traffickers, to
    the cartels is the gates are open, come on in. The message is
    give us your children, and I will tell you, to my colleagues,
    look in the eyes of the little girls and little boys that are
    being physically abused, that are being sexually abused.
        This is not compassionate. This is not humane. Children are
    suffering because of your policies. What do Senate Democrats
    do? Don't have a hearing on the crisis, let's have a hearing on
    amnesty instead. The two bills here, one would grant amnesty to
    3 million people, another would grant amnesty to 4.4 million
    people.
        Mr. Edlow, what message do the traffickers hear? What
    message do the people thinking about coming illegally hear?
    What message do the parents getting ready to give their small
    children to traffickers to come to America hear when Congress'
    message is we will grant amnesty if you come? What's the effect
    of that message?
        Mr. Edlow. Now is the time to come. That is the message.
    Come across now. You have a good chance of being able to stay
    here, either under the radar and wait for the next amnesty, or
    you may even be able to benefit from this one, because the
    availability for documentary requirements here include, at
    minimum, two affidavits from people. It's very easy. That
    invites fraud. It's so easy to get two affidavits to say that
    you've been here since before January 1st of this year, even if
    you haven't.
        Now is the time to come because nothing is going to happen.
    The enforcement mechanism of this country--immigration
    enforcement, has been turned off. Prosecutorial discretion is
    ruling the day just like it did back in the Obama era, and the
    result is going to be the same with flagrant disregard for the
    law by criminal aliens and by those that want to exploit our
    laws now like the smugglers.
        That's why we see things--even months ago, like horrific
    car accidents where close to 20 migrants were found in an SUV
    that was overturned and many were killed and seriously injured.
    That's because of these policies. There is absolutely no
    enforcement along the southern border. There is absolutely no
    enforcement except for a small, little bit of what's left from
    ICE in the interior of this country and immigration courts are
    being told to just go ahead and terminate cases if they don't
    meet the stringent requirements that they're needing to for
    priority. Because suddenly, priority is based on limited
    resources that seemingly just turned up overnight.
        I don't understand what's going on right now because I can
    tell you, Senator, how it's supposed to be at the border. I can
    tell you how we're supposed to see people when they come over
    and what's supposed to happen under Section 235 of the Act. I
    have no idea what is going on and I can tell you, Senator,
    whatever border patrol and ports of entries you visited--
    whatever border patrol sectors you visited, you are only seeing
    what's going on there. I don't know what's going on at the
    other ones and I don't believe there's any consistency in the
    way that it's being administered.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you. Senator Coons.
        Senator Coons. Thank you. Senator Padilla, I'd like to open
    by thanking Chairman Durbin for his two decades of tireless
    effort to focus our attention on DREAMers, on those who've been
    brought here by their parents when they were children and who
    have contributed to our society over decades. There are
    literally millions of undocumented people who are working here,
    living here, paying taxes, serving in our military or, in the
    case of two of our witnesses today, as frontline essential
    workers who have contributed to saving lives in this pandemic.
        None of these people should have to live in the shadows of
    the only home they have ever known. It was in 2018 that I was
    honored to partner with the late Senator John McCain in
    introducing and advancing the Uniting and Securing America Act,
    which was a bipartisan proposal to pair the DREAM Act with
    commonsense border security measures. While that got just 52
    votes on the floor of the Senate, I'm happy to be continuing
    conversations across the aisle now with Chair Durbin and
    Senators Graham and Cornyn, Tillis and others in an attempt to
    try and find some compromise that can address these issues that
    have challenged us for decades.
        While all of us have the ability to give stemwinders and
    soliloquies to grow our viewers and supporters by attacking
    each other, I think our real challenge is to try and solve this
    problem. What I hear in Delaware and what I've heard across the
    country is that Americans would like us to actually solve the
    problem rather than swing wildly back and forth from on
    administration to the next in our tone, tenor, and actions with
    regards to immigration.
        I want to thank the witnesses today for sharing your
    relevant and inspiring perspectives. The challenges you've
    faced or the work that you've done or the service you're
    currently providing and for those who are essential workers who
    testified today, I just want to thank you for being on the
    front lines of both advocating for TPS and DREAMers but
    providing lifesaving support for Americans with COVID-19.
        Dr. Mejia, if I might, I think it's important for folks
    watching to recognize the impact on your life of having an
    uncertain status, of lacking a permanent legal status here. You
    have two younger siblings who were born citizens, so you've got
    a personal experience around this, yet you continue to persist,
    and engage, and advance, and I'm so grateful to Loyola for
    providing you the opportunity at a medical education and
    hopeful that your residency will soon conclude and lead to your
    position as a physician in Oak Lawn.
        Delaware State University, in my own home State, offers
    opportunity scholarships that Don Graham funded. More than 150
    DREAMers have now attended and graduated from Delaware State
    University, including one, Indra Isles, who I got to know, who
    is also interested in following your footsteps as a medical
    professional. In Delaware, we've seen the same sorts of things.
    I've heard from her, but I'd like to hear from you. What was
    the impact on your life of having uncertainty as you grew up
    and as you pursued your dream of becoming an emergency medical
    room physician?
        Dr. Mejia. Sure. Thank you for your question, Senator.
    Throughout my career, from, like I mentioned earlier, from the
    very beginning of me trying to attempt to get a driver's
    permit, that's when I first started noticing these barriers.
    They were only more evident after that. From me applying to
    colleges to me later on trying to see if I could even go to
    medical school, there was barrier after barrier. Somehow, you
    know, whether it was the time when President Obama's DACA
    memorandum or my innate resiliency, somehow, I found ways to
    overcome these barriers, and that's led to my successes as an
    ER doctor and will continue to lead to my success.
        There's no doubt that I've faced many barriers, and I will
    continue to face barriers, but, as long as I'm given the
    opportunity to reapply for DACA every 2 years, I will continue
    to do so because that just takes one thing away. It gives a
    little bit of security. Although temporary, it does give a
    little bit of security to my career and everything I've faced.
        Senator Coons. Both you and Mr. Ponthieux, who has served
    as a nurse in a critically necessary role in an important
    hospital, have no permanent status, and that uncertainly, I
    think, must impact your service in your communities.
        I was proud to reintroduce this year, along with Senators
    Cornyn, and Young, and Collins, Leahy and Durbin, the
    Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act to recapture 25,000 Visas
    for nurses, 15,000 for doctors to help in the fight against
    COVID.
        Mr. Ponthieux, could you also speak to the impact
    uncertainty has had on your career, and what you've seen in
    terms of staffing shortages at the hospital where you serve,
    and what impact it might have if we were to provide some
    certainty in a path forward for medical professionals like
    nurses?
        Mr. Ponthieux. Yes, like I say there earlier, as a
    healthcare provider, I've been facing death every day because
    of the COVID-19, and every day I go to work, and I think that I
    have a responsibility to take care of patients to save lives.
    It is my goal to save as many as possible, and with my
    temporary status, I always think that I'm limited. I cannot go
    further, but now, if the Senate were to vote to give the yes, I
    will be able not only to continue to work to help more
    patients, to save more lives, but I will be able to continue to
    pay taxes and to take care of my family. This is what we want.
    We only want the chance.
        In 2006, I've been given a chance to go to school. I have
    financial aid, and I went to Sheridan Technical Center, where I
    get my practical nurse license, and since then, I was able to
    work, and after that, when I went to college, I was able to pay
    the tuition from my pocket because the school didn't have
    financial aid.
        The same way I want the Senate to give those 200,000 people
    a chance to have a higher education, and to continue to work to
    take care of their family, and to stay in the United States.
        Senator Coons. Thank you. Thank you both for your testimony
    and thank you to all the witnesses for participating in today's
    hearing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Padilla. Senator Cotton.
        Senator Cotton. Thank you. I have to say that we heard from
    Senator Coons terms that we often here about children who are
    brought here through no fault of their own who have never known
    another country, and that's why we need a solution like the
    House bill. The House bill would give a green card, though, to
    say, an 18-year-old who arrived here in December. That's very
    different than what Senator Coons portrayed, or what the
    Democrats portrayed that this legislation would do. That's why
    this hearing itself is so ill-advised. We have a crisis at the
    border. Illegal migrant flows that we haven't seen in a
    generation.
        The Vice President galivanted around Central America and
    Mexico last week, looking for the root causes. I could have
    saved the taxpayer the travel expenses. The root causes are
    right up the street at 1600 Pennsylvania. It's Joe Biden and
    Kamala Harris running on an open borders campaign, that message
    being heard across the world, and hundreds of thousands of
    illegal aliens showing up at our border. Not just from Mexico
    and Guatemala, but literally all across the world, to include
    Europe and Africa and Asia, because they know that our borders
    are open.
        As Mr. Edlow testified earlier, the very fact that the U.S.
    Senate is having hearing on granting a massive amnesty under
    these conditions will simply exacerbate this crisis. It will be
    used tonight, tonight, by traffickers and smugglers to induce
    more desperate parents to send their children to our border, to
    encourage more people from around the world to make that very
    dangerous trip that will then put even more stress on our
    border and our law enforcement agencies. Lead to more crime in
    this country, to lower wages and fewer jobs for the American
    people.
        Mr. Edlow, I'd like to ask a few more questions about this
    bill that my Democratic colleagues are promoting today. The so-
    called DREAM Act portion of this bill is falsely portrayed as
    being focused only on those children, as I mentioned earlier,
    but isn't it true that the bill allows green cards and
    citizenship for illegal aliens who enter the United States
    before January 1, 2021, as long as they were under 19?
        Mr. Edlow. Yes.
        Senator Cotton. In my hypothetical, an 18-year-old shows up
    at our border on December 31st and gets in. He is just as
    entitled to a green card under this legislation as some of the
    witnesses that we have here today and many other of the DACA
    program recipients that were, in fact, children when they came
    here, and who have, in fact, lived in this country for decades.
    Seems to me like a very inequitable piece of legislation.
        Another question, Mr. Edlow. Let me give you another
    hypothetical. Let's suppose there's a Colombian family of
    three. A married couple and their 13-year-old adult son, who
    also happens to be a gang member. They heard Joe Biden in the
    campaign last year. They also began to immigrate here, but they
    didn't quite make it by December 31st. They arrived in January,
    so technically, they're not eligible under this legislation.
    Isn't it true that all they have to do is find two other
    illegal aliens to attest in a document that they arrived here
    before January 1, and they also will be eligible for a green
    card?
        Mr. Edlow. They can certainly present that as the evidence,
    the documentary evidence.
        Senator Cotton. In your long history--in your long history
    of enforcing our Nation immigration laws, have you ever known
    illegal aliens to commit fraud in an effort to stay in our
    country?
        Mr. Edlow. Absolutely. When I was in immigration court, all
    the time.
        Senator Cotton. Shocking. I can't believe that people who
    have risked everything and spent their life's savings to come
    from places, again, not just Mexico, as far afield as Romania
    and Bangladesh have been encountered on our southern border in
    the last few months, would also be willing to lie on a piece of
    paper to a Federal bureaucrat so they can stay here in this
    country.
        Mr. Edlow, isn't it also the case that President Obama's
    DACA program, even if you included all the expansions, never
    had more than about a million and a half people eligible under
    its terms?
        Mr. Edlow. As it's already been said here, we had about
    640,000-650,000 who are currently enrolled in DACA, and then,
    looking at the Migration Policy Institute, they were estimating
    somewhere around 1.5 to 1.8 million would have been eligible,
    but that's an estimate.
        Senator Cotton. Who were eligible?
        Mr. Edlow. Yes.
        Senator Cotton. This bill, this bill from the House would
    not make those 650,000 to 700,000 DACA recipients eligible
    alone. It wouldn't even make those 1.5 to 1.8 million DACA-
    eligible persons covered. This bill would allow more than 4
    million people to gain amnesty. Isn't that correct, Mr. Edlow?
        Mr. Edlow. That's correct, Senator, and I would also just
    quickly point out that the second part of the bill, dealing
    with--the Promise Act, dealing with TPS, right now, under the
    statute cannot be considered by the U.S. Senate. Statutory bar
    under INA 244(h) requires a supermajority of the Senate to
    allow any measure that would consider adjustments of status or
    permanent residency for temporary protective status-holders to
    pass through that supermajority before it can even be
    considered or brought up on the floor of the Senate. That part
    of the bill, in my opinion, can't even be brought up at this
    point.
        Senator Cotton. Thank you, Mr. Edlow. One final point, Ms.
    Root. I would be remiss if I didn't express my deepest
    condolences and sympathy for your loss and your family's loss,
    and my great admiration for your courage in appearing here
    today and speaking out over the years for all the thousands of
    American citizens who have been the victims of illegal alien
    crime. I'm very sorry.
        Chair Durbin. Senator Blumenthal.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    for holding this hearing. Outside of this building, outside of
    the bubble that is the U.S. Congress and its neighborhood,
    DREAMers are wildly popular, and the reason is that they have
    such a profoundly sympathetic story. It's the American story.
    As we all know, they were brought here at ages where they made
    no decision, they had no part in the decision to come here.
    English is usually the only language they know. America is the
    only country that they know, and they are part of this great
    Nation, and they make it greater.
        The more Americans know about DREAMers, the more they
    believe that they should be given a chance at the American
    dream, which their situation represents.
        DREAMers and holders of TPS and Deferred Enforcement are by
    and large really remarkable people, not only for their
    accomplishments, which are impressive in their own right, but
    also because they've been able to attain those accomplishments
    and live day to day in the face of uncertainty and instability,
    and I have met countless numbers of them that face life with a
    bravery and strength that is awe-inspiring.
        I hear incredible stories from DREAMers and others all over
    Connecticut, stories like Evelyn Garcia, a 26-year-old who
    immigrated to Danbury, Connecticut at the age of 3, grew up
    undocumented, later received DACA status. Put simply, she
    embodies the American dream. Evelyn Garcia. In 2017, she
    graduated summa cum laude from Western Connecticut State
    University, with a degree in biology and community health, and
    thanks to the benefits provided by DACA, Evelyn was able to
    pursue various rewarding academic and professional experiences,
    including prestigious fellowships at places like the Yale
    School of Medicine and the University of Pennsylvania Perelman
    School of Medicine.
        After college, she worked at a research lab at Harvard on a
    family centered obesity prevention program for low-income
    immigrant families enrolled in Head Start in the greater Boston
    area. She's now a full-time student and Presidential Scholar at
    the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, where she
    studied global health and infectious disease, epidemiology.
        I could go on with other stories, and I have on the floor
    of the U.S. Senate, and I will do it again, just as Chairman
    Durbin has done, because the American Dream and the Promise Act
    will ensure that Evelyn and millions of others like her have
    the opportunity to continue their lives and make positive
    contributions to society here in the United States. It is
    beyond me why we would do anything other than welcome Evelyn
    Garcia and her contemporaries and everyone like her with open
    arms to the United States.
        Let me ask you, Director Rodriguez, one thing I've heard
    from opponents of the Dream and Promise Act is that USCIS is
    not capable of effectively and safely implementing the
    legislation. You touched on this issue briefly in your
    testimony, but I'd like you to elaborate because it is an
    important issue. As a former Director of USCIS, can the agency
    handle the practical challenge of implementing the American
    Dream and Promise Act?
        Mr. Rodriguez. If you take the DACA experience, which I
    think, as I alluded in my oral testimony, was the test case,
    the pilot, in essence, for implementation of this Act, that
    was, in fact, certainly during my tenure and I believe since my
    tenure, one of the most cost-effective adjudication lines at
    USCIS. It paid for itself. The fees paid by the requestors of
    DACA status were sufficient to pay for the activity, including
    the very rigorous background checks.
        It is the case that USCIS has experienced some pretty
    significant financial and operational challenges over roughly
    the last year and a half, maybe a little bit more. Those do
    need to be addressed, but I am confident, because I have
    tremendous confidence in the USCIS workforce, including its
    career managers, that they can remedy those challenges and be
    able to meet the challenge of implementing this bill.
        Mr. Edlow. Senator, may I respond to that?
        Senator Blumenthal. If the Chairman allows you to. My time
    is expired, but please go ahead.
        Mr. Edlow. As a more recent Acting Director of USCIS, I do
    not believe right now without a significant appropriation,
    which as you know, is not something that we typically get at
    USCIS, and with the ability to have at least a year and a half
    to hire additional adjudicators, and to train those
    adjudicators to handle these types of applications, the agency
    would simply not be able to handle it. The backlogs continue to
    grow. Frankly, there's a front log now that continues to grow.
    We've got to address that first. USCIS must address that first
    before it could begin to tackle a new application, and I think
    at the end of the day, what you would see----
        Senator Blumenthal. What I hear you saying is that fiscally
    strangling the USCIS, as the Trump administration did, it would
    have to be reversed.
        Mr. Edlow. Senator, you and I had conversations when we
    were having financial issues, and we've gone through why we had
    those financial issues when I was there, and it was nothing to
    do with what the Trump administration had done. It was COVID
    and then it was other factors that came in, and we were able--I
    was able to successfully salvage that and to prevent a shutdown
    that would have frankly eviscerated our ability to handle any
    immigration adjudication.
        You know, we made the progress that we needed to, but--
    we're still--that agency needs to continue to grow before it
    can--financially--before it can handle something like this, and
    I just don't think the resources are there in place right now
    to be able to handle that, and frankly, your going to see--your
    constituents who are calling you and calling all of you already
    about long backlog and wait times for adjudications of their
    petitions, you're going to see that grow exponentially if we
    had 4.4--potentially 4.4 million new applications into the
    pipeline.
        Senator Blumenthal. As you know, when we spoke, I'm a
    strong supporter of resources necessary to do the job, and----
        Mr. Edlow. Absolutely, you and I had great conversations
    about this. Yes.
        Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. You can look back and heap
    blame.
        Chair Durbin. Senator, we have----
        Senator Blumenthal. I want to look forward, provide the
    resources necessary to do the job here because America deserves
    it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chair Durbin. Senator, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but
    there are other Members we want to give a chance to speak, but
    I want to make one point. Since we've extended it into this
    conversation, Mr. Edlow, when you contacted Members of the
    Judiciary Committee on behalf of the USCIS last May, you
    stated, at least to my office, that a previous Trump
    administration official made a decision to spend hundreds of
    millions of dollars from the USCIS rainy day fund at the
    agency, reducing the rainy day fund from $1 billion to $400
    million, and you said you would have not made that same
    decision if you'd been at the agency at that time.
        I wanted to put that in the record as part of the
    conversation about the funding of this important agency.
        Mr. Edlow. May I respond to that, Senator?
        Chair Durbin. I'm going to defer to the other Senators here
    waiting.
        Mr. Edlow. Okay.
        Chair Durbin. Senator Hawley.
        Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'm glad that
    we have the opportunity today to talk about what is happening
    on the border, and to have a chance to look at and examine what
    is, I think, a humanitarian crisis. It is a national security
    crisis. It is a drug crisis. It's also frankly a moral crisis.
    When you see what these cartels are doing on our border, when
    you see the children being exploited and smuggled for profit by
    these cartels at the border, when you see the lies that these
    cartels are telling innocent people to get their money and
    bring them across the border, and when you see the effects of
    the drugs that are flowing across this border into every
    community of my State--I come from the State of Missouri.
        You can't visit a community in my State that is not frankly
    awash in drugs. From where? From across the border. Our border
    is in a state of total crisis, and it is a crisis that is
    affecting every single person in my State and in this country,
    and I suggest to you we have a moral obligation, and this
    administration has a moral obligation, to address the crisis it
    has created at the border for children, for families, for
    American citizens. I'm glad we get to talk about this.
        You know, the statistics tell the story. I mean the number
    of family units crossing the border is up 4,143 percent from
    last May. Four thousand one hundred forty-three percent. That
    border crossing is not safe. The border is not open, and yet
    the Biden administration has sent the message that it is open,
    and it has effectively encouraged this illegal smuggling, it
    has encouraged this exploitation of children, it has encouraged
    the drug crisis we see with its policies.
        That's a hard truth, but it is the truth, and the American
    people are owed the truth, and the moral consequences of these
    policies have to be confronted and addressed and owned up to.
    I'm afraid I can't support the legislation we're considering
    today because I think it goes in exactly the opposite
    direction. I think creating new loopholes for illegal
    immigrants who have criminal records, sending the message that
    more people ought to come here illegally while devaluing legal
    immigration is exactly the wrong way to go.
        Mr. Edlow, let me just ask you about some of the details of
    this bill. It allows individuals to receive permanent residency
    status regardless of age. It contains no commitments to reduce
    illegal immigration, no commitments to strengthen our border,
    and it seems to allow the Federal Government to waive
    restrictions on all sorts of criminal violations that you have
    experienced in administering immigration laws. If we enact this
    legislation into law, what would be the practical effect of
    these criminal waiver provisions, for example?
        Mr. Edlow. Thank you, Senator. In terms of the criminal
    waiver provisions, this bill has them in the full discretion of
    the Secretary to make determinations as to whether those
    waivers are appropriate, and also to whether an individual
    should be deemed a public safety risk. There are many
    exceptions to that. The ultimate effect would be a series of
    very severe crimes, including crimes that are considered
    aggravated felonies under our immigration laws, crimes of
    violence, and theft offenses that would carry a year sentence
    at least that would not be deemed felonies--that could
    potentially not be deemed felonies under this Act because this
    Act defines felonies as a year or more, where certain States
    would--I'm sorry--with a year or more, whereas that would only
    require a year sentence.
        I'm sorry. Let me repeat that. More than a year, not a year
    or more, but more than a year. Three hundred sixty-six days,
    not 365. That is a huge difference there. Additionally, looking
    at the DACA provisions from when DACA was initially introduced,
    there was no felonies or significant misdemeanors, and that is
    not here, either. Pretty much most misdemeanors can be waived,
    especially if they're aged. Old misdemeanors, one within 5
    years or two within 10 years can be waived, and that does have
    serious consequences in terms of the types of crime that we
    could see people then getting this done.
        No, Senator, if I may, I think I misspoke briefly when I
    was answering Senator Grassley's questions about the DACA
    eligibility versus this. I said that the DACA enrollees had to
    be here by June 2012. I misspoke. It was June 2007 they have to
    be here, and they have to be under 31 in 2012. I just wanted to
    correct that for the record.
        Senator Hawley. Thanks for that. Back to the criminal
    violations, the waiver restrictions. Am I right in thinking the
    bottom line here that very serious criminal offenders could
    find a way under this legislation to obtain lawful residency
    status?
        Mr. Edlow. I absolutely think so, and even if the waiver
    doesn't apply to them--the waivers are broad, but even if the
    waiver doesn't apply to them, the definition of expungement
    under this Act, which would allow any expungement for any
    reason or any vacatur of any reason to be the bases--to allow
    consideration under this bill would create a real problem.
    That's very contrary to our understanding of immigration law,
    to the precedent that we have in certain matters that have been
    decided before the Board of Immigration Appeals.
        Senator Hawley. Thank you for that. My time has expired. I
    just want to say in closing that I think what today's hearing
    and this legislation betrays is a pretty fundamental difference
    of opinion between us on these sides of the aisle about what
    our immigration system is about and should be trying to do.
    I'll just say, Mr. Chairman, from my point of view, the reason
    I can't support this legislation is I think the point of our
    immigration system should be to encourage and facilitate legal,
    lawful immigration, should be to protect the American people,
    to prioritize American workers and American families, and to
    secure and protect our border, and I think this does exactly
    the opposite. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chair Padilla. Senator Hirono.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There was a time
    when there was bipartisan agreement that our immigration system
    is broken in effect, and 2013, we actually worked on a
    bipartisan immigration bill that passed the Senate. Perhaps
    we'll be able to get there, but obviously, that's not where we
    are now.
        I have a question for Dr. Mejia. I hope I'm pronouncing
    your last name correctly.
        Dr. Mejia. Yes.
        Senator Hirono. Your hard work and dedication to emergency
    medicine is impressive, and yes, you are 1 of some 800,000 DACA
    participants, one of the exemplary people in the DACA program,
    but you don't have to be exemplary in order to get the
    protections that DACA affords. These are hundreds of thousands
    of people who were brought to this country as children who just
    want to have a chance at a good life in our country.
        In the meantime, Dr. Mejia, you talked about what DACA
    meant to you. If the DACA program wasn't created, what do you
    imagine your life would be like right now?
        Dr. Mejia. Sure. Thank you for your question, Senator. DACA
    was a major life changer for me. Particularly, it allowed me to
    fund my education and fund my medical school degree to a degree
    that was not possible beforehand. If DACA was never
    implemented, I'm not exactly sure what my life would look like
    right now. All I can say is that whatever I had chosen to
    pursue that I would have done a good job at it and done well at
    it and continued to contribute to the American society in
    whatever capacity I would be allowed to.
        Certainly, I think that becoming a doctor would have been
    close to impossible without DACA, and then even downstream,
    there's no way that I would have been employed as a doctor
    without DACA, even if I had been able to get medical degree.
        Senator Hirono. Of course, you would have faced
    deportation----
        Dr. Mejia. Of course.
        Senator Hirono [continuing]. Especially after the DACA
    program was summarily ended, there were hundreds of thousands
    of you who faced deportation.
        This is for Mr. Ponthieux. The Trump administration tried
    to end the TPS designation for Haiti, declaring the country
    safe for people to return, despite it being declared a level
    four do not travel country by the State Department.
        Just last month, the Secretary Mayorkas announced a new 18-
    month TPS designation for Haiti due to serious security
    concerns, a social unrest, an increase in human rights abuses,
    crippling poverty, and lack of basic resources which are
    exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. What would have happened
    to you--to your family had you been forced to return to Haiti?
        Mr. Ponthieux. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I
    appreciate that. This is the situation. I've been here for 22
    years, and I built a life here. I have two U.S.-born children
    that never know Haiti. My daughter is with me, she's always
    with me coming to Washington, DC, and she never knew Haiti. You
    know the situation in Haiti. The country is in shambles, and
    there's no way I can go back to Haiti with my kids to have a
    life. In order for me to be here for them--like my daughter
    wants to become a lawyer, so she will need me to help her--to
    guide her, because if I go back to Haiti, it's going to be
    disaster.
        With the new rule of the TPS, that helped me to take care
    of my children, to take care of myself, my children, my family,
    and to continue to serve the community to work as a nurse as a
    healthcare provider to save lives.
        Senator Hirono. Clearly, this 18-month extension is
    critical to you and your family.
        For Mr. Rodriguez, last week, the U.S. Supreme Court held
    in Sanchez v. Mayorkas that TPS recipients who enter the
    country without inspection are generally not eligible to adjust
    status to a lawful permanent resident. This decision resolved a
    circuit court split, which means that TPS holders who are in
    this situation across the Nation will not be able to adjust
    their status. H.R. 6 addresses this issue and will allow TPS
    holders to use existing pathways to citizenship.
        Of course, the process itself of going through and getting
    TPS status, even if they did not go through that process upon
    entry into our country, in my opinion, should have enabled them
    to be able to get citizenship. Some argue that TPS was always
    meant to be temporary. Can you talk about why it's important to
    give these TPS holders a path to a permanent status?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I think as I mentioned in my written
    testimony, many TPS recipients, when they first request a TPS
    never imagined that the conditions that would enable them to
    return safely to their country would not come to pass, that
    years and years would pass before that was a realistic
    possibility. In that time, careers have been launched, families
    have been built, homes have been bought, contributions have
    been made to our economy.
        Very similar to the DREAMers, they are now part of the
    fabric of our society, and so I do believe that it makes sense.
    I don't think, by the way, that the few circuits that were
    permitting adjustment based on TPS ended up having that much
    impact, because you still had to be qualified for a green card,
    either through marriage or through some other path. There
    really weren't that many people who were able to take advantage
    of that construct.
        I do think that what this bill is doing with TPS recipients
    is necessary.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Padilla. Senator Kennedy.
        Senator Kennedy. Mr. Edlow, I'm pleased we're having this
    hearing today, but it just seems to me the timing is bad. The
    house is on fire, and we're discussing new tires for the fire
    truck. Does a fire truck need good tires? Sure. Is that
    important? Of course. Not when the house is on fire. I want to
    talk about the house fire.
        I've been to the border. I used to have a beagle. His name
    was Roger. I loved Roger. I cried like a baby when he died. But
    Roger, like most beagles, was incorrigible. About every third
    day, he'd run away, and eventually he'd come home, and he like
    to collect roadkill. He'd bring that roadkill into my backyard
    and hide it under my back porch.
        The border enforcement that I've seen looks like some of
    the roadkill that Roger kept hidden under my back porch. Why
    are we having a crisis now at the border? In 1 minute.
        Mr. Edlow. It's the administration policies that we've seen
    since the first day after Inauguration, with the first
    Executive order to halt deportations with executive action to--
    I'm sorry, not Executive order, but Executive order to make
    things easier for immigration with the Department of Homeland
    Security halting deportations, with ICE guidance to return to
    prosecutorial discretion where only certain types of offenses
    can be prosecuted--I'm sorry, can be enforced and can be put
    into immigration court, or set for removal, where we ignore the
    fact that there are over a million people in this country with
    final orders of removal, none of which seem to be a priority
    for----
        Senator Kennedy. Mr. Edlow, let me interrupt you. I
    apologize. If we had the same policies in place today that we
    had on December 31st, 2020, in your considered judgment, would
    we be having this crisis?
        Mr. Edlow. No.
        Senator Kennedy. Did the Biden administration--strike that.
    Let me try it another way. Did you meet with Representatives of
    the Biden administration to talk about border security?
        Mr. Edlow. I can tell you that I had at least one meeting
    with the transition team, with Ur Jaddou, who was running the
    transition team, and I know that that team met with many people
    at USCIS, every different department at USCIS, and same with
    other agencies within DHS.
        Senator Kennedy. Did the people--good people on the Biden
    transition team express an interest in changing border policy?
        Mr. Edlow. I don't--based on my conversation, Senator, no.
    It was more just trying to understand what was going on and
    where things were.
        Senator Kennedy. Did you and your colleagues explain to
    them what would happen if we changed border policy?
        Mr. Edlow. I did not, and that was not the questions that
    were being asked to me, but I know that others within the
    Department did have that frank conversation with those team
    members.
        Senator Kennedy. The members of the Biden transition team
    knew if they changed the border policies, we would have a
    crisis?
        Mr. Edlow. I think any change in border policy that is so
    extreme would result in this, and I think they had to have
    known that.
        Senator Kennedy. They did it anyway.
        Mr. Edlow. Correct. Especially the withdrawal and the
    ending of the MPP, Migrant Protection Protocols.
        Senator Kennedy. Why do you think they did it if they knew
    there was going to be a crisis? If they knew that people from
    all over the world were going to be able to walk into our
    country? We don't have the slightest idea who they are. Why do
    you think they would allow that to happen?
        Mr. Edlow. It could be several reasons. It could have been
    a tactic, a political tactic to then come back and try to fix
    the border themselves. It could have also been what we've seen
    time and time again, that Trump equals bad, so anything the
    President would have done--that the former President would have
    done had to be overturned, no matter how successful and how
    important it was in maintaining order at the border. That's
    what I see this as.
        President Trump did a phenomenal job of giving the right
    people the keys to make sure that we could address the crisis
    along the border. That we could make sure that enforcement was
    where it needed to be, and unfortunately, that was just
    derailed on January 20th.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Padilla. Colleagues, in order of the questioning
    here, it's my opportunity to ask a few questions before
    recognizing the next Senator. I want to begin by commenting on
    what I thought was an original analogy of the house being on
    fire. Sadly, we've heard it previously in the meeting of the
    Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration. At the time, it was,
    ``When the house was on fire, it's not time to start painting
    the house.'' Today, it's, ``When the house is on fire, it's not
    time to buy tires for a truck,'' when I think the reality is
    when the house is on fire, let's not forget the people who are
    inside the house. Including people inside the house who may be
    risking their own lives to save life and property, if you want
    to have that analogy.
        Let's get back to the actual topic of today's hearing. When
    the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or the DACA program
    was first announced by President Obama 9 years ago today, he
    said that the program was not a path to citizenship or a
    permanent fix. It was a temporary stopgap that would provide
    some relief and hope to talented young people while Congress
    would work on the permanent fix.
        DACA was rescinded by President Trump in 2017 and has been
    litigated in the courts for years. So far, it's been largely
    upheld by the Federal courts. Those are the facts.
        My first question is for Mr. Rodriguez. You were part of
    the Obama administration when DACA was announced. Why do you
    think the Obama administration focused on this specific
    population, and why do you think the program has largely
    remained intact over the last 9 years, particularly in light of
    legal challenges?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Yes, I think Members actually in this
    Committee on both sides have alluded to the reason, and that is
    that it is a population that is viewed as blameless. They came
    here by whatever different means as children, and therefore,
    there is actually a broad consensus among the American people
    and among our political leadership that this is a population
    that deserved that relief. For that reason, this was meant as a
    stopgap in two ways, actually, Senator.
        One is a stopgap for the DACA recipients themselves, but
    also as a stopgap in terms of addressing this population first.
    Not saying that this would be the only population that would
    benefit from relief.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you. Changing the topic slightly for
    the next question. I want to make reference to a 2018 article
    by The Military Times, where they estimate that there's nearly
    12,000 service members who have a spouse or family member at
    risk of deportation. This means that there's currently American
    troops who, in addition to carrying the heavy burden of
    protecting our Nation and taking care of themselves in
    dangerous situations, have the additional worry that one of
    their family members may be deported when they come home.
        These are service members putting their lives on the line
    for our country and yet we cannot provide for them the peace of
    mind that their families will be there intact when they get
    back. The military prides itself on providing support for
    family members for service members. This seems like a pretty
    big oversight, so, my question is for Mr. Ponthieux. According
    to your written testimony, you have a United States citizen son
    who is currently serving in the U.S. Army. Can you just share
    with us how he may feel about you and your wife not having
    permanent status in the United States while he's on active
    duty?
        Mr. Ponthieux. His name is Christopher Ponthieux, and he is
    a reserve in the U.S. Army. He just came from deployment. He
    was deployed for 10 months, and he feels that it's unjust. It's
    not fair that his family are facing deportation when he put his
    life on the line to protect the country. I think we can change
    that. I cannot do anything, but you, you can change it and make
    it fair for the TPS holders and DACA recipients.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you both and thank you to all the
    witnesses. We now turn to Senator Tillis.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
    being here. You know, if somebody were watching this hearing
    right now on this specific bill, they may think that there are
    not willing Members on both sides of the aisle to come up and
    address some of these problems along with Senator Durbin and
    Senator Padilla.
        I'm participating in a bipartisan working group trying to
    solve this problem, and if time allows, I'll get into some of
    that, but Ms. Root, I want to make sure that the record
    accurately reflects what you said. When you were referring to
    criminal--illegally present criminals, you weren't talking
    about the violation of crossing the border. You were talking
    about other egregious acts that occurred after that, is that
    correct?
        Ms. Root. That is correct.
        Senator Tillis. Yes. I just wanted to be absolutely certain
    for the record, because there seemed to be some confusion
    earlier on. Mr. Edlow, I also want to get down to what's really
    causing a fundamental--I voted for a path to citizenship, not
    only for the 600,000 plus who are already enrolled, but for
    those who are eligible under the DACA program, as have more
    than 40, almost 45 Republican Members a couple of years ago. We
    favor a bill that has those provisions in it.
        Mr. Edlow, when we look at the bill before us, the Dream
    and Promise Act, I am really concerned with the form of blanket
    waiver. I want to go back and talk about what that waiver would
    enable an administration to do. It would allow them to waive
    assault on a law enforcement officer, assault on a Member of
    Congress, blackmail, bank robbery, and unlawful voting in a
    Federal election. It would allow them to issue a waiver for
    persons who have violated State law that include assault, child
    abuse, child molestation, prostitution, certain weapons
    possession offenses, burglary, theft, sex abuse, sexual
    misconduct, public lewdness, and perjury. And gang membership.
        Am I--because I've heard other people say, no, that
    waiver's not really in there. Am I misreading section three of
    this bill?
        Mr. Edlow. I don't believe you are, Senator. That waiver is
    in there, and all of those crimes potentially could be waived.
        Senator Tillis. Yes. That's the concern. Because if you
    remove that, then you change the population, and you get it
    back to the exemplary models that we have right here. Mr.
    Ponthieux, I've got a certain affinity for nurses. My daughter,
    who was pregnant with my second grandchild, was on the front
    lines last year before she had her--our baby, my grandbaby back
    in August.
        When you, in your opening testimony, talked about
    permanence, are you asking for an amnesty or citizenship, or
    just some permanence and maybe some path in the future to where
    if you chose to pursue citizenship you would have it? Are you
    just looking for permanence, not worrying about in any given
    day, your temporary status could be removed?
        Mr. Ponthieux. We ask for a permanent status.
        Senator Tillis. Do you think that in providing you
    permanence that we should have a waiver that would somebody
    that's under the same protected status that you have that's
    guilty of any of these crimes that I just delineated in the
    Dream and Promise Act? Do you think that they, too, should be
    given permanence?
        Mr. Ponthieux. I don't have to go there, but there is a
    Justice Department to do its job. I think they should do their
    job, but as for me and most of the TPS recipients, we are not
    criminals.
        Senator Tillis. You deserve it, and you and your family
    deserve it and you--
        Mr. Ponthieux. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Tillis. I also thank your son for his services.
    Over 820 people who are DACA eligible who are serving in the
    military. They deserve some permanence, as well.
        Mr. Rodriguez, I have to say--you know how Congress works,
    and I have to say that we can't turn a blind eye toward the
    crisis at the border, and only solve the permanence problem
    that some of the witnesses have legitimately testified here
    today. Vice President Harris has made a pledge of $130 million
    to Mexico to try and work on some of the systemic problems in
    Mexico to reduce future flows. That's roughly $1 per Mexican
    citizen.
        Every 9 days, the cartels make about $130 million dollars
    through human trafficking across the border. Those same cartels
    are responsible for abandoning people on this side of the
    border. Over 7,000 lifesaving rescues have occurred this year.
    Why are they doing that? Because then they can get the 300 or
    400. This is something that's very important for those of you
    that were trying to get to a good outcome, 300 or 400 got
    aways, people who are trying to evade border patrol to get into
    this country.
        Thousands come in, 180,000 last month, they submit
    themselves to border patrol because they want to be processed.
    They know how the policy's going to favor them. They'll be
    released. What do you think those 300 or 400, where the cartel
    set a pick. They send these children, men, women, and children
    300over to engage border patrol so they can have 300 or 400
    people cross this border every single day, evading arrest.
        Do you really think that they're likely to become a doctor?
    Or a nurse? Or are they likely coming here because they
    themselves are already criminals in their country of origin?
    Three hundred to 400 a day. When you hear this conversation
    here--I'm about to wind up, Chair Padilla. When you hear this
    conversation is we're trying to strike a balance between a fair
    outcome for you all and thousands, hundreds of thousands like
    you, but we also have an obligation to the American people to
    protect our borders and to protect our populations.
        Ms. Root, I also want to mention I'm on Sarah's Law, I'm a
    cosponsor on that bill. We have an obligation to protect this
    Nation, because one of the reasons why people are fleeing here
    is that they know when they get here, they'll be protected. If
    we continue to erode public safety, we can't do what is one of
    the most important things we can do as Members of Congress. I
    hope that we continue to work on a bipartisan basis to provide
    you all with some permanency, to reward you for your exemplary
    behavior. At the same time, understand our obligation to
    protect this country, and to defend its borders. Thank you, Mr.
    Chair.
        Senator Padilla. Senator Blackburn.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to
    each of you for being here today. I appreciate your time, and I
    want to start with one question. It's a yes or no, so we'll
    just go right down the list. Is it Dr. Bernal? You have a
    Memphis tie, and I appreciate knowing that. Here's my question
    to each of you. Do you support the rule of law in this country?
    Yes or no? Dr. Bernal, start with you.
        Dr. Mejia. Yes.
        Mr. Edlow. Yes.
        Ms. Root. Yes.
        Mr. Ponthieux. Yes.
        Senator Blackburn. Mr. Rodriguez?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Yes.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you. You know, we're here because
    we all support the rule of law, but what is frustrating, and
    you've heard it from my colleagues, there are hundreds of
    thousands of people that have come across our southern border
    since President Biden raised his hand and took the oath of
    office. There was 183,000 alone in the month of May, and this
    is not right. Those are individuals who are choosing to evade
    the rule of law. Because there is a right way and a wrong way
    to come to this country, and why in the world would we make any
    decision that encourages people to evade U.S. law?
        Another yes or no. Dr. Bernal, starting with you. Should we
    encourage--should we, as elected officials, encourage people to
    break the rule of law in this country? Yes or no.
        Dr. Mejia. To simply answer your question, I would say----
        Senator Blackburn. No, no. Yes or no? Yes or no?
        Dr. Mejia. No.
        Senator Blackburn. Okay.
        Mr. Edlow. No, Senator.
        Mr. Rodriguez. No, but I think it's a far more complex
    question that deserves a far more elaborated answer.
        Senator Blackburn. No, just yes or no.
        Ms. Root. No.
        Mr. Ponthieux. No.
        Senator Blackburn. Okay. See, and I agree with that. We
    should not take actions that are going to encourage people
    around the rule of law. Ms. Root, I want to come to you. My
    heart breaks for you. It honestly does. As a mom and a
    grandmother, I can only imagine the heartbreak you experience
    every single day. It was Mr. Mejia?
        Ms. Root. Mejia.
        Senator Blackburn. Mejia. Okay, there was a warrant out for
    his arrest prior to the accident, right?
        Ms. Root. Correct.
        Senator Blackburn. Do you remember what the warrant was
    regarding?
        Ms. Root. Failure to appear was what the warrant was for.
        Senator Blackburn. Okay. How many days did he spend in jail
    after killing your daughter?
        Ms. Root. I want to say he was in jail 5 days maybe when he
    posted bond and fled.
        Senator Blackburn. What was that bond amount?
        Ms. Root. It was $50,000 and he paid 10 percent, which was
    $5,000.
        Senator Blackburn. In other words, this is a guy who has a
    warrant out. Did he have a criminal record?
        Ms. Root. Prior misdemeanors.
        Senator Blackburn. Okay. A criminal record, there is an
    outstanding warrant for his arrest, and he's in jail for 5 days
    and pays $5,000 and he's gone, and your daughter is still dead.
        Ms. Root. Correct.
        Senator Blackburn. That's right. Never coming home.
        Ms. Root. No. No. Separated permanently.
        Senator Blackburn. You said in your testimony that she was
    a dreamer.
        Ms. Root. Yes.
        Senator Blackburn. That she had dreams.
        Ms. Root. She did.
        Senator Blackburn. Give me a couple of things that she
    wanted to do.
        Ms. Root. Like I said, she was going to go on for her
    Master's. She had just graduated with a 4.0 in criminal
    investigations, and she had dreamed to, again, become a wife,
    have children, get her Master's. Hard telling what else she
    would have done that was cut too short, I'll never know.
        Senator Blackburn. That was her version of the American
    dream.
        Ms. Root. Correct.
        Senator Blackburn. It all ended----
        Ms. Root. Yes.
        Senator Blackburn [continuing]. Because someone who was
    illegally in the country who had prior convictions with an
    outstanding warrant took your daughter's life.
        Ms. Root. That is correct.
        Senator Blackburn. That to me is absolutely heartbreaking.
    In FY 2020, ICE said that they account for 103,603 arrests. 90
    percent, 90 percent of these illegal immigrants that were
    arrested. One hundred and three thousand and six hundred and
    three. They had criminal convictions or pending criminal
    charges at the time of the arrest. This is why we are very
    concerned about this issue. I've spent a good bit of time
    talking to Angel Moms and to Angel Families and hearing their
    concerns about what has happened since the DACA program, and as
    Senator Cornyn mentioned to you all, this is something that was
    not legislative action.
        Mr. Chairman, I'll finish is just a second. This is an
    action, an executive memo. This is a program that got stood up
    on executive memo by President Obama, and you know, while we
    know that there has been a push to find a way for people such
    as yourself, Dr. Bernal, to find a way to be legally
    recognized, we also know that any kind of blanket amnesty with
    a wide net would involve so many people who have come to this
    country with ill intent, or with criminal convictions, and have
    cut the lives of many American citizens short, and deprived
    them and their families of the right to pursue their version of
    the American dream. I yield.
        Senator Padilla. This concludes questions from Senators,
    and before some brief closing comments, I feel compelled to
    allow Mr. Rodriguez to briefly, emphasize briefly, respond to a
    statement, an accusation we heard, frankly, we heard from
    several of our colleagues here today that DACA serves as a
    magnet. Again, just briefly, can you give us--given your
    experience and observations, does DACA serve as a magnet?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I think you have to look at the propeller,
    not the magnet. When we're talking about the rule of law, the
    complete absence of the rule of law in the Northern Triangles,
    the highest homicide rates on the planet, are what's driving
    migration. Until rule of law in those countries is addressed,
    and they're not going to be able to do it without international
    support, we will--and, by the way, these high levels of
    migration, except for last year, the COVID year, there were
    high levels of migration across the southern border, even
    during the Trump administration; even with all of the bellicose
    rhetoric of that administration.
        The fact is that, while those conditions exist in the
    Northern Triangle, we will continue to see people at our
    border.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you. I want to thank all your
    witnesses for your participation in today's hearing. I hope
    this hearing--I have found it helpful in shedding light on the
    human impact of our broken immigration system. A lot of
    references have been made today about the ``situation'' at the
    southern border, where the reality is numbers are way down
    compared to just a couple of months ago.
        You know, this hearing is in context of broader discussions
    and negotiations going on about immigration reform. If there's
    a question about whether or not Democrats are willing to
    discuss border security, let me answer it now. The answer is
    yes, as long as it's smart and driven by data and experience,
    and we know specifically at the ports of entry is where the
    vast majority of the security concerns are, and they need
    border security elements of a single bill, multiple bills
    should be driven by that.
        Let me be clear, the questions concerns raised about people
    approaching the southern border today, tonight or in recent
    months is a population very much separate and apart from
    DREAMers, TPS holders and other long-term immigrant residents
    of this country who have been living here, have been working
    here, have been contributing to the economic success and
    resiliency of the country.
        That's why the Dream and Promise Act was approved by the
    U.S. House of Representatives on a bipartisan basis. Because
    people across the aisle recognize that.
        I also want to make a quick comment about one of the
    questions or concerns, if I'm generous here, about the numbers
    are growing. As you said repeatedly today, the DACA program was
    put in place 9 years ago, and when it was put in place, it did
    recognize folks that came through no fault of their own,
    children, brought here by their parents.
        When the program was put in place, there was a sort of a
    look back date set for people who had been here prior to a
    certain year. The reason the numbers change is because that
    year has changed, because 9 years later, Congress still hasn't
    done its job, and so, we shouldn't be surprised that we're now
    talking about a larger number of people who still fit the same
    criteria established in DACA many years later, because the
    dynamic has continued.
        It also highlighted the distinction between folks who might
    have been eligible to apply for DACA versus those who actually
    did apply for DACA, given their courage, as we have again heard
    here today from our witnesses.
        With that, I want to thank again all you witnesses for your
    participation and your testimony today, and for highlighting
    once again the urgency for Congress to act. I turn it back now
    to Chairman of the Committee, Senator Durbin.
        Chair Durbin. Chairman Padilla, it was an honor to have you
    preside over this hearing, and I thank the witnesses as well,
    and I will be very brief.
        If you were wondering at the introduction why this measure
    has been pending for 20 years, and witnessed this hearing, you
    have some indication why. There clearly are differences of
    opinion on immigration policy. It is interesting that a nation
    of immigrants has such mixed feeling about the next immigrant
    to come into this country.
        It is pretty clear that some of my colleagues don't want to
    see that next immigrant, whoever it might be, though the fact
    is about a million people are legal immigrants of the United
    States each year. Still, when we talk about those eligible
    under DACA or the DREAM Act, there are people who are hesitant,
    clearly on this Committee, for fear of sending a message to
    others that this is a welcoming nation.
        I think we can find justice for people who are eligible
    under TPS and the DREAM Act without suggesting that the door is
    open and anyone can come to this country without any kind of
    scrutiny whatsoever. Incidentally, we have faced serious
    challenges at the border since the beginning of this year. We
    are being tested by coyotes and others to see just how far our
    system will go, and whether it will work, and I believe that's
    a very real challenge.
        I'm working on a bipartisan basis, Senator Padilla, Senator
    Cornyn, Senator Tillis and others to put together a southern
    border security bill. We are not ducking the issue, we are
    addressing it directly, as we should.
        I will say it's interesting when people hear we're
    referring to this border crisis, they talked about the
    thousands that were presenting themselves at the border. They
    didn't finish the thought. Seventy-four percent of the
    individuals encountered at the border have been expelled.
    Seventy-four percent have been expelled of the people who come
    to the border. The Biden administration is up against large
    numbers, but they are clearly not welcoming and opening the
    door to everyone who presents themselves in this situation.
        Let me say a word, too, about criminal background. You
    cannot be in the DACA program except on a biennial basis going
    through a criminal investigation about yourself, and anything
    you have done to break the law disqualifies you from DACA. The
    suggestions have been wildly across the field here as to what
    DACA eligibility includes.
        From the beginning with the DREAM Act, we have always said
    that if you are guilty of serious criminal misconduct, you are
    ineligible for the DREAM Act and DACA. The definition has
    changed over the years, but for the bill that's before us now,
    H.R. 6, the so-called waivers that we've heard over and over
    again, the testimony back and forth, I commend to my colleagues
    the section, it's waivers for certain misdemeanors--
    misdemeanors, not felonies. In terms of the inability of one of
    our witnesses to figure out what a felony offense might be, I
    refer him to the definition section of this same bill that
    defines the term felony offense. It's already there.
        We're going to be serious about this. If we can make this
    the law of the land, it's going to be clearly with the
    intention to make sure that our national security is never
    compromised. Second, to make sure that we have opportunities,
    not for people to sell drugs in this country, but for people
    like Dr. Bernal to prescribe them to save the lives of
    Americans. Mr. Ponthieux, in your work, as well.
        I also want to make a point. It's been made a couple times.
    It should be made again. Your son tells the story better than
    any testimony that can be given. The fact that he came as your
    son, an American citizen now, and turned quickly to volunteer
    for this country tells a great story of what we're here for
    today. We clearly have challenges and many more to come, but we
    know that we have work to be done.
        I ask that a number of statements be entered into the
    record from a wide variety of organizations supporting the bill
    before us today, and without objection, they will be so
    entered.
        [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
        Chair Durbin. Thanks again to the witnesses. Thank you all
    for being here, regardless of your point of view, we welcome
    your participation in this, and I can assure you that the
    battle will continue.
        The Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:02 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

                                A P P E N D I X

    Miscellaneous submissions:

     American Business Immigration Coalition (ABC)....................   106

     American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
        Organizations (AFL-CIO).......................................   112

     American Friends Service Committee...............................   151

     Anti-Defamation League (ADL).....................................   109

     Bradley, Neil, Vice President and CPO, U.S. Chamber of Commerce..   179

     Business Roundtable (BR).........................................    83

     CASA Statement...................................................    91

     Children Thrive Action Network...................................   128

     Coalition for the American Dream.................................   123

     Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA)...................   124

     Communities United for Status and Protection (CUSP)..............   134

     Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC)..............................    97

     County of Ventura................................................   140

     Church World Service (CWS).......................................   139

     Dorsonville-Rodriguez, Reverend Mario E., testimony..............    98

     Fair Immigration Reform Movement Action (FIRM)...................   141

     IBM Corporation (IBM)............................................   155

     Immigration Hub..................................................   153

     Improve The Dream................................................   157

     Intuit, global technology platform...............................   162

     Latin American Working Group.....................................   163

     Loyola University Chicago........................................   165

     Montoya, Reyna, Testimony........................................   116

     Nascimento, Juliana, Senior Advocacy Manager.....................   188

     National Association of Manufacturers............................    86

     National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW)..........................   174

     National Domestic Workers Alliance...............................   169

     National Immigration Law Center..................................   175

     National Retail Federation (NRF).................................   177

     New American Economy (NAE).......................................   168

     Powderly, Timothy, Senior Director...............................   150

     Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration.........    94

     Roybal-Allard, Representative Lucille (CA-40)....................   149

     Schulte, Todd, Statement.........................................   144

     TheDream.US Statement............................................    88

     UnidosUS.........................................................   180

     Workday..........................................................    82