[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 92 (Tuesday, June 25, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5110-S5112]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IMMIGRATION REFORM
Mr. CORNYN. Now that cloture was invoked on the underlying Leahy
amendment, I think it is very important the American people and Members
of Congress look more closely at what actually is in the immigration
bill we will be voting on during the course of this week and,
presumably, if the majority leader has his way, will see pass this
Chamber and head over to the House of Representatives.
It was three years ago when the Democratic House leader and the
former head of that Chamber Nancy Pelosi famously said we would have to
pass ObamaCare in order to find out what was in it. We have all said
things we regret, and I bet if she had it to say over again, she would
not have said it that way. Indeed, it seemed to strike such a
responsive chord in people because the public realizes what we should
acknowledge, which is when it comes to 2,700 pages of legislation
passed through without adequate deliberation and an understanding of
what is in it, purely on a partisan vote, we are bound to make
mistakes.
Unfortunately, we know how ObamaCare turned out. We have now seen
bipartisan votes to repeal certain portions of it such as the 1099
requirement. We have seen an overwhelming bipartisan vote that would
suggest sooner or later we will repeal the medical device tax, which is
a gross receipts tax on the people who are innovating and creating jobs
right here in America and creating access to high-quality health care,
which makes us second to none. We saw how it turned out with ObamaCare.
Now, once again, we are being urged to enact a massive piece of
legislation before the American people are fully aware of what is in
it. Indeed, some supporters of the immigration bill are hoping some of
its more outrageous elements will go unnoticed. Well, that is not going
to happen. We are going to be spending the next few days, until this
bill passes this Chamber, to point out some of the more indefensible
provisions in the underlying bill.
Today I wish to talk about what I think is arguably the most
indefensible portion of the bill--the part that grants immediate legal
status to immigrants with multiple drunk driving or domestic violence
convictions.
As we know, in the underlying bill, those who apply for and qualify
for registered provisional immigrant status can stay in the United
States and work for up to 5 years, providing they meet the terms of
that probationary status, and they can actually reapply for another 5
years and then eventually, after 10 years, they can qualify for legal
permanent residency, which is the pathway to American citizenship as
early as 3 years from that time. But under the provisions of this bill,
immigrants who are out of status--undocumented immigrants--can get
access to probationary status and get on a pathway to legal permanent
residency and citizenship, even though they have committed multiple
incidents of driving while intoxicated or domestic violence. Most
Americans aren't aware of these provisions, but I can assure my
colleagues everyone will suffer the consequences if this ill-considered
provision becomes the law of the land.
In fiscal year 2011, Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported
36,000 individuals with DUI convictions; that is, driving under the
influence convictions--nearly 36,000 people. That gives us an idea of
how big this problem is and what the consequences are of turning a
blind eye to this provision in the underlying bill and what impact it
might have on the public.
Last week I shared a few stories from my State of Texas, including
the story of the sheriff's deputy in Harris County named Dwayne Polk,
who was killed last month by an illegal immigrant drunk driver who had
previously been arrested for, No. 1, driving under the influence and,
No. 2, carrying an illegal weapon. Today I wish to share two more
stories.
In August 2011, an illegal immigrant drunk driver crashed his car in
Brenham, TX, killing four other people, all of whom were under the age
of 23 years old. We subsequently learned
[[Page S5111]]
the driver of the car had been arrested just weeks before that deadly
accident for--you guessed it--drunk driving. Yet because his initial
offense was technically a class C misdemeanor, he was not taken into
Federal custody and deported.
In March 2012, an illegal immigrant drunk driver crashed his vehicle
into an apartment building in Houston, killing a 7-year-old boy and
leaving a 4-year-old boy with severe burns on nearly half of his body.
Not surprisingly, the drunk driver had been arrested for DUI once
before in 2008, and in 2011, he had been charged with attacking his
wife by punching her in the face.
We know drunk drivers and domestic abusers tend to be serial or
repeat offenders. In other words, it is rare that people who have
engaged in domestic violence only do it once and people who drive while
intoxicated only do it once. By offering registered provisional
immigrant status to illegal immigrants with multiple DUI convictions or
domestic violence convictions, we are virtually guaranteeing more
innocent people will lose their lives or become victims of violent
crime. That is unconscionable and it is indefensible.
Last week I challenged any Member of this Chamber to come down to the
floor and defend these provisions, and I repeat that challenge today. I
don't think we will find any takers, because we cannot defend the
indefensible, and granting legal status to drunk drivers and violent
criminals is just that: an indefensible policy that will inevitably
have tragic circumstances.
Provisions such as this one are one more reason why this bill is dead
on arrival in the House of Representatives.
One final point. Many critics of my border security amendment called
it a poison pill which, of course, was ridiculous because it used the
same criteria used in the underlying framework written by the Gang of
8. But leave that aside. Here is what I would say to those critics: If
we want to know what a real poison pill is, all we have to do is read
through these provisions with regard to criminal justice in the Gang of
8 bill. We should not be supporting legislation that grants immediate
legal status to drunk drivers and domestic abusers. I can understand
why the American people are asked to extend an act of uncommon
generosity for people who enter our country in order to work and
provide for their families, but for those who have demonstrated their
contempt for the rule of law and for the legal standards which govern
all Americans, I don't think they deserve this sort of extraordinary
treatment. I hope there is somebody who will come to the floor and
explain why these provisions are in the bill.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we have an historic opportunity here in
the Senate. It doesn't happen very often. This is a bipartisan bill.
How about that. Yesterday we had 67 votes in favor of this immigration
reform package. We would have had 69, but two Democratic Members were
held up because their flights were delayed and they couldn't make it.
Sixty-nine. It basically means we had somewhere in the range of 17
Republicans joining with the Democrats. That is amazing on an issue
this controversial.
I have been engaged in meetings on this measure for quite a few
months. Eight of us, four Democrats and four Republicans, all over the
political spectrum, sat down and said we were going to come up with a
bill. It wouldn't be perfect and not one single individual Senator was
going to like it, but together were are going to agree on something,
and we did. There are parts of it I don't like at all. There are parts
of it I think are great. That is the nature of a compromise, and that
is what we are expected to do.
It is a long bill. This is the bill we voted on yesterday. Even
though many Members are complaining about the size of this bill, most
of it has been out there now for almost 2 months. Even a slow-reading
Senator should have been able to get through it. One hundred new pages
were brought in yesterday, I will concede, over the last 4 or 5 days,
but at least 100 pages can be addressed by most Senators and their
staff.
Why do we need to do this? Why don't we take the easy way, find
something wrong in here and vote no? I guarantee I can point to five or
six sections I would rewrite. If we do that, where do we leave our
country? We leave 11 million people who are undocumented living in the
shadows, fearing they may be deported tomorrow, working for below-
minimum wage under intolerable conditions, competing with American
workers. We don't know who they are officially, where they live, or
what they do. For the security of the United States, for the
competitiveness of American workers, this is a bad situation.
What we do is say to these people, Come forward. Come forward and
register with the government. That is the first step. If a person was
here before December 31 of 2011, he or she can qualify, but they have
to go through a criminal background check.
The Senator from Texas raises questions about whether that background
check should be modified this way or that way. I can certainly argue
one way or the other as to how it should be modified. But in a 1,200-
page bill, that is one very small section--an important one but only
one.
What I am suggesting is we are better off as a Nation to have 11
million people come forward, identify themselves, register with our
government, pay their taxes, pay a fine, and submit themselves to a
criminal background check before we allow them to stay in this country.
That is certainly better than the current situation.
On the other side, this bill also creates an opportunity for them.
After 10 years--10 years of being monitored by our government--they
have a chance to move into a status where they can start working toward
immigration in a 3-year period of time--working toward citizenship in a
3-year period of time. Thirteen years. This is no amnesty. During that
period of time before they become citizens, they will have paid, under
our bill, some $2,000 in fines, paid their taxes for every single day
they worked, learned English, and, of course, submitted themselves to
this continuing background check. We are a better Nation when that
occurs.
In addition to that, there are provisions in here that relate to a
group of undocumented that mean an awful lot to me personally. Twelve
years ago I introduced the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act said if a person
was brought here as a baby, an infant, or a child, and that person had
been educated in the United States, graduated high school, has no
serious criminal problems, they then have a chance to become a citizen
by completing at least 2 years of college or enlisting in our military.
I have been trying to pass that for 12 years. It was I think 2 years
ago we had the last vote on the Senate floor on the DREAM Act. Every
time we have called it we got a majority, but we couldn't pass it
because of the Republican filibuster.
The last time we had this debate, those galleries were filled with
young people who were undocumented in caps and gowns. They were sitting
there to remind us they were graduating from our schools--among them
valedictorians, many who had been accepted to college but could not
afford to go because they were undocumented.
This bill deals with these DREAMers, as we call them today, and gives
them a chance to become citizens. About 500,000 of them have come
forward already under the President's Executive order. Their stories
are amazing and inspiring.
At a meeting with President Obama 2 weeks ago, we talked about the
DREAM Act. He said: When the DREAMers came into my office and told
their stories, there was not a dry eye in the room--the sacrifices they
are making in the hope they can become part of America's future.
I have the greatest faith in them, and I know they are not going to
let me down. Their stories are going to continue to inspire us, and
they are part of this bill.
Can I find one section in this bill I disagree with? Sure I can. But
can I turn my back on 11 million people being given a chance to come
forward, register, and become part of America with some strict
conditions? Can I turn my back on 1\1/2\ million DREAMers--and that is
an estimate--who would finally get their chance to be part of America's
future? No. I am not going to turn my back on them. I will work to
improve this bill, but I am not going to walk away from it. Walking
away from legislation, voting no may be an
[[Page S5112]]
easy thing for some, but when it comes to this, it is not easy for me.
It is something I will not do. I want to stand by it.
Let me say a word about the rest of the bill. There are provisions in
this bill that deal with things we do not think about. Here is the
reality: If you happen to be a grower, growing fruits and vegetables in
America, and you put out a sign ``Help Wanted''--would you like to come
and pick strawberries in Salinas Valley in California; would you like
to come pick apples in southern Illinois--there are not a lot of local
kids who sign up. It is hard work, some say dangerous work, and I
believe it is. Those who do these jobs--the migrants who come in and
work--do it for a living. It is hard, tough labor. Without them, these
crops do not get picked and processed and we suffer as a nation.
This bill has a provision on agricultural workers that is
extraordinary. Michael Bennet of Colorado and Dianne Feinstein of
California are two who sat down with Marco Rubio of Florida, and
others, and they worked out an agreement that has been signed on to by
the growers and the unions representing the workers. How about that. A
business, management, and labor agreement when it comes to ag workers.
That is in this bill too. Should we walk away from that?
There is a provision as well to try to tap into the talent that is
educated in America that can help us create jobs.
Let me say that one of the things I insisted on in this bill is that
before anyone is brought in to fill a job from overseas, you first
offer the job to an American. That, to me, is the bottom line. That is
my responsibility as a Senator who represents many of the people who
are unemployed today. But this bill takes a step beyond that. If you
cannot fill that position, you have an opportunity to fill it with
someone brought in from overseas.
I will give an illustration. The Illinois Institute of Technology--
which is an extraordinary school for engineering and science in the
city of Chicago--at their commencement a few years ago when I spoke,
virtually every advanced degree was awarded to someone from India.
Today, virtually every advanced degree is awarded to someone from
China.
I have met some of these graduates, and I have said to them: With
this education--the best in the world--would you stay in America if you
were offered that chance? They said yes. Why would we educate them and
send them off to compete with American companies? If they can be
brought into our companies and create American jobs and opportunities
with them, it is good for all of us. That is part of this bill as well.
As I look at this bill, this is a historic opportunity to solve a
problem which has not been addressed seriously in 25 years, a problem
which we know confounds us as we deal with 11 million undocumented
people within our borders and one which truly reflects on our values as
a nation.
I gave a speech last week to a group in Chicago, and I talked about
the diversity of this group, the group that was gathered--Black, White,
and Brown, young and old, men and women--and I said: If I asked
everybody in this ballroom to write their family story, their personal
story, each would be different. But there would be two chapters in that
story that would be the same. The first chapter you might entitle ``Out
of Africa'' because that is where we all started. It was 70,000 years
ago when the very first immigrants left Ethiopia, crossed the Red Sea
into the Arabian Peninsula, and literally populated the world. How do
we know that? Because we can find chromosomal DNA that dates back to
those original immigrants in every person on Earth. We all started in
the same place 70,000 years ago, emigrating out of Africa.
The second chapter would be entitled ``Coming to America.'' Every
single one of us has a different story. My chairman is proud of his
Irish and Italian heritage. His wife is proud of her French-Canadian
heritage. I stand here proud of the fact that my mother was an
immigrant to this country from Lithuania, brought here at the age of 2.
Now it is my honor to stand on the floor of the Senate and represent 12
or 13 million people in the great State of Illinois.
As I have said before, that is my story, that is my family's story,
that is America's story.
We have to get this right because immigration is not just a
challenge, it is part of the American heritage. It is who we are. The
courage of Senator Leahy's family, the courage of my grandparents, to
pick up and move and come to a place where many of them did not even
speak the same language is part of our American DNA. That is what makes
us different, and that is what makes us better, I guess I might say
with some pride in where I came from.
We have to honor that tradition with this immigration reform bill,
and I believe we do. To walk away from it at this point in time, to
find some fault or some section that you disagree with is just not good
enough. We have to accept our responsibility.
Yesterday 67--maybe 69--Senators were ready to do that. By the end of
the week, stay tuned. We have a chance to pass this bill and make
America a stronger nation, be fair and just to people who are here, and
honor that great tradition of immigration.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
____________________