[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.

                          ____________________