[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 92 (Tuesday, June 25, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5106-S5108]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           IMMIGRATION REFORM

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, yesterday was good news. It was good news 
for the eventual passage of S. 744, the comprehensive immigration 
reform bill. It is good news the Senate is on the verge of being able 
to pass this legislation because 11 million people who live in the 
shadows will now have hope they will be able to stay in America, work 
in America, and one day become citizens of this great country.
  But the real winners of immigration reform are the American people 
and our government. We have a broken immigration system today, and this 
bill will allow us to replace that broken immigration system with a 
balanced approach on how to deal with immigration in this country. It 
is balanced first by recognizing border security is important. We have 
to make sure people coming to this country come in lawfully; that they 
come in through a door, not over a fence, and this bill clearly deals 
with the issues of border security.
  The bill also deals with E-Verify for employers, to make sure 
employers only hire those who are legally present in this country. It 
also provides a way in which those who are currently here can come out 
of the shadows, get legal status, and earn a pathway to citizenship.
  I say earn a pathway to citizenship because those individuals have to 
comply with our laws, pay our taxes, learn English, and then wait for 
the entire working backlog within the immigration system to be cured 
before they can apply for citizenship. So it is a way in which 
individuals who are currently here, who are law-abiding and are 
prepared to comply with our laws have a reasonable pathway to 
citizenship.
  It also deals with realistic numbers for people who want to come to 
America, who want to make America their home, for family 
reunifications, as well as those who want to work in this country. By 
having reasonable numbers, we can get the skilled workers we need and 
we can get the seasonal workers we need.
  The bill replaces a badly broken immigration system. As I mentioned 
to Senator Durbin, it includes the DREAM Act. This gives children who

[[Page S5107]]

have been here most of their lives, within a relatively short period of 
time, a pathway to citizenship in America.
  I regret that border surge modifications were added to this 
legislation. I say that for many reasons. I thought the bill reported 
out of the Judiciary Committee, although it was not the bill I would 
have written, was well balanced on border protection. I think the 
additions that will be added later today will spend a lot of money with 
little results for the taxpayers of this country.
  I think we have thrown money at a problem rather than trying to look 
at what should be done in the most cost-effective way. The cost 
benefits of these billions of dollars being spent are very marginal.
  Most of the problems deal with employment. The E-Verify system is an 
important improvement in the bill, as reported out by the Judiciary 
Committee. When we look at who is likely in the future to be illegal in 
this country, it is more likely to be people who entered the country 
lawfully and then are out of status than it is someone sneaking over 
the border. So I think we could have used the money in a much more 
effective way, and we are micromanaging border security, which, in the 
long run, will not be to the benefit of this country.
  I couldn't agree with Senator Leahy more in the statement he gave. We 
are waiving contractor rules by the amendment that is currently on the 
floor, and that is going to cause waste, fraud, and abuse. There is no 
question in my mind about that.
  But what I find very hypocritical is that the same Senators who are 
on the floor day after day complaining about the size of government and 
government spending when it comes to educating our children, when it 
comes to dealing with our most vulnerable, when it comes to dealing 
with our health care system, are the ones who propose spending more 
money on border security than anyone thought was necessary.
  We could have done this better. I am disappointed, and I think if one 
takes a look at it, the amount of money being spent exceeds any of the 
earmarked funds we were complaining of wasting in the past. I thought 
there was some benefit to earmarks. We talked about that, but we got 
rid of earmarks, and now we have a bill that is spending billions of 
dollars in an effort to deal with border security when we could have 
done it in a much more cost-effective way.
  I am also disappointed in the amendment process that has been used in 
this legislation. I don't blame the majority leader at all. I do blame 
those who have been obstructionists in considering amendments on the 
floor. Republicans have complained about amendments being offered on 
the floor of the Senate in the past. We have given the opportunity on 
this immigration bill for us to consider amendments, but it was the 
same Republicans who objected to us considering the bill.
  Senator Leahy offered a group of noncontroversial amendments. It was 
a large group. Senator Landrieu has talked about this frequently. She 
offered her amendment to deal with children. In that group of 
noncontroversial amendments was an amendment I offered, and I still 
hope we will have a chance to deal with this--the RUSH Act. What does 
that deal with? It is amendment No. 1286, a bipartisan amendment. I am 
pleased Senators Kirk and Portman have joined me in cosponsoring this 
amendment. It deals with Holocaust survivors, some of our most 
vulnerable citizens. On average, they are over 80 years of age. Many 
live alone, many live below the Federal poverty level, and they are 
desperately concerned about being institutionalized, as I think 
everyone can understand. This amendment makes it easier for them to 
access services under the Older Americans Act.
  This is noncontroversial. It was before us, and it was objected to by 
a Republican, so we couldn't offer that series of amendments. That is 
not what we should be doing. We should be considering these amendments 
in an orderly way, but that was not allowed.
  Let me mention one other amendment I hope we will get a chance to 
consider. That is amendment 1469, offered by Senator McCain, and I have 
joined him. It deals with gross violations of human rights, 
internationally recognized human rights. Someone who has violated the 
basic international standards for human rights shouldn't be given a 
visa to come to America. We took action last Congress in dealing with 
the Magnitsky circumstances in Russia, denying gross human rights 
violators in Russia the opportunity to come to America and getting a 
visa. At that time, we talked about there being an international 
standard. Senator McCain and I have led the charge with other Senators, 
and I wish to thank Senator Wicker for his work on these issues.
  We should now have the opportunity. It is noncontroversial. No one 
has raised an objection to this amendment, so it should be considered. 
Yet because of the obstructionist policies to date, we have not had 
that opportunity.
  I wish to mention a few other issues in the underlying bill that I 
think we can improve upon if we have the opportunity to consider 
reasonable amendments. One deals with profiling.
  I have introduced legislation that would ban profiling. When law 
enforcement profiles based upon race, religion, national origin or 
ethnicity, it is bad police policy. It is bad law enforcement policy. 
It leads to sloppy work. It leads to a waste of resources, and 
resources are very scarce. It causes communities to turn against law 
enforcement rather than working with law enforcement.
  All of us have said we want to get rid of racial profiling, and this 
bill does provide a way--a statement against profiling. But it is not 
as strong as it should be, and there are some unintended consequences 
as a result of the language included in it.
  I think it is very appropriate I am talking about this today as the 
Trayvon Martin case starts in our courts--the youngster who, as a 
result of racial profiling, lost his life. I have introduced amendment 
No. 1267, which would add to the basic bill against profiling, 
profiling based upon religion or national origin. It would remove a 
broad exception to the bill that is included, and that is well intended 
but I think compromises the purpose of the underlying bill, which is to 
prevent profiling.
  I have also offered amendment No. 1266, which deals with additional 
scrutiny and screening given to certain individuals. The underlying 
bill says it can be done by country or region. That is profiling. If we 
have specific information, let us use specific information; otherwise, 
again, we are going to be wasting the resources of our security system. 
The best use of resources would have us use information for additional 
screening rather than just saying from one region of one country.
  By the way, if you can get a visa from those countries, then there is 
obviously a reason for an individual to be here. So unless we have a 
specific reason for additional screening, we shouldn't be doing that by 
region or country.
  The two amendments I referred to are supported by many groups. They 
are supported by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, 
by the NAACP, by the AFL-CIO, and I can mention other groups that have 
urged us to modify the underlying bill with these changes.
  I held several townhall meetings in Maryland on the immigration 
reform bill. They were well attended. I thought the discussions were 
very positive. They were focused on how we can make this bill a better 
bill and eliminate some of the unintended consequences. Several at 
these townhall meetings talked about the registered provisional 
immigrant status and certain requirements in order to stay in that 
status and have a pathway to citizenship. One of the requirements is an 
individual has to be regularly employed. We understand that. That is a 
good requirement. However, there are times when we have to understand 
that may not be practical--during an economic downturn, when someone is 
in school. The bill recognizes school, education, is an acceptable 
substitute for regular employment. But if someone is unemployed for a 
60-day period, they run the risk of losing their legal status in this 
country.
  I offered an amendment that said volunteering in community service 
would be an acceptable substitute. This is a win-win situation. Someone 
who volunteers is helping our community and also learning more about 
the needs of our community. This had the support

[[Page S5108]]

of the AFL-CIO. They understand the reasonableness of our labor 
circumstances. I hope we will still have a chance to consider that 
modification.
  I was also in discussions that came out of these townhall meetings 
dealing with those who have violated our laws perhaps many years ago on 
maybe not a very serious issue. There should be at least some 
flexibility in the law for extenuating circumstances, so someone is not 
jeopardized to be deported because of something that is not relevant to 
today--that person being law-abiding. I hope we can consider that.
  I offered amendment No. 1264, which deals with private prisons. I 
think our colleagues were surprised to find out that about half of the 
14,000 ICE detentions are detained in private penal facilities, not 
Federal facilities.
  We want accountability. This law provides for accountability for 
those who are detained. But a FOIA application, where one can get 
information, only applies to Federal prisons. It doesn't apply to non-
Federal prisons. I offered a commonsense amendment that I don't think 
is controversial that would apply the same oversight to private non-
Federal prisons as we do to Federal prisons. We all talk about 
accountability and responsibility of accountability. I think that 
amendment makes good sense.
  So this is not the bill I would have drafted. I would have done other 
things. I would have spent money a little bit differently than is spent 
here, and certainly not as much money. I would have taken care of some 
of the problems on profiling, and I certainly would have dealt, on some 
of the other issues, with Holocaust survivors. I still have hope that 
some of these amendments can be considered and adopted. I know people 
are working on that, and I hope we can work on a package that will 
improve the bill, particularly the noncontroversial amendments.
  I spoke on the floor a couple weeks ago as to why I support this 
bill. I talked about a high school student who found out he was 
eligible for a scholarship, only to find out he couldn't take it 
because of his legal status. I talked about young people who were 
separated from their parents who have been deported. I talked about 
employers who have seasonal needs and workers who are well-trained, 
highly skilled. There are scientists who are desperate for immigration 
reform so they can meet their economic needs. I have talked at great 
length how this bill will help the American economy, help us be more 
competitive internationally, and how this bill is compassionate as to 
what America should stand for on its immigration policies.
  So this is not a difficult choice for me to make. I support this 
legislation and will be voting for this legislation because I do think 
it is in the best interests of our country. I do hope we have an 
opportunity to improve this legislation before we vote on it. I hope we 
can adopt some of these noncontroversial amendments, but I do hope we 
will send this bill to the House of Representatives.
  I urge my colleagues in the House to follow the example of the 
Senate, to listen to each other and work across party lines so we can 
pass comprehensive immigration reform and send it to the President of 
the United States for his signature.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the 
quorum call the time be equally charged to the majority and to the 
Republicans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________