[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 92 (Tuesday, June 25, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5112-S5119]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND IMMIGRATION MODERNIZATION
ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 744, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 744) to provide for comprehensive immigration
reform and for other purposes.
Pending:
Leahy modified amendment No. 1183, to strengthen border
security and enforcement.
Boxer-Landrieu amendment No. 1240, to require training for
National Guard and Coast Guard officers and agents in
training programs on border protection, immigration law
enforcement, and how to address vulnerable populations, such
as children and victims of crime.
Cruz amendment No. 1320, to replace title I of the bill
with specific border security requirements, which shall be
met before the Secretary of Homeland Security may process
applications for registered immigrant status or blue card
status and to avoid Department of Homeland Security budget
reductions.
Leahy (for Reed) amendment No. 1224, to clarify the
physical present requirements for merit-based immigrant visa
applicants.
Reid amendment No. 1551 (to modified amendment No. 1183),
to change the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 1552 (to the language proposed to be
stricken by the reported committee substitute amendment to
the bill), to change the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 1553 (to amendment No. 1552), of a
perfecting nature.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate voted to adopt an
amendment offered by Senators Corker and Hoeven relating to border
security.
I have some misgivings about the policy contained in that amendment,
and I have spoken to that on the floor. But, at the same time, I
commend these Senators for engaging on this legislation and taking the
steps they feel are necessary to gain broader support for the
underlying bill. We are now one step--one big step--closer to a
[[Page S5113]]
Senate vote on comprehensive immigration reform legislation.
I would like to take just a few moments to reflect on why this
legislation is so important and to remind the Senate that as we
consider the bill, we should remember that at its core it is about
people. It is about families seeking the promise of America. It is
about children whose parents want what any parent wants for their
child--the opportunity to succeed, to prosper, to live in a free, open
and welcoming society.
To me, the bill is less about numbers and metrics or border fences
and technology than it is about human beings and the natural desire we
all have to better ourselves, our families, and to give our children
the lives we wish for them.
The measures in this legislation will give those affected by it the
freedom to get on the path to becoming Americans. Our history of
immigration is one that honors our free and open society and which has
strengthened it.
Immigration has, in part, been the story of enlarging a society made
up of individuals who, no matter their vast differences, all believe in
the promise of American democracy and the values given to us in our
Constitution. When we welcome those who yearn for these values, we
strengthen and renew them.
Of course, we are a nation of immigrants. Past immigration has helped
shape this country and deepen its economic and cultural vibrancy,
touching every State and every community--from the Presiding Officer's
far western State of Hawaii to my own northeastern State of Vermont.
After the Revolutionary War and into the early 1880s, for example,
Vermont had been the slowest growing State in the Union. Old growth
forests had been stripped and farms had been worn out. But immigrants
helped reclaim forsaken farms and build and operate budding new
factories in new centers of industry across the Green Mountain State.
The United States has been made stronger by the diverse cultural
background that has been woven into our national fabric. This Vermonter
is the grandson of immigrants to Vermont from Ireland and Italy, and
our heritage is one of which my family and I are fiercely proud.
To appreciate the values inherent in our immigration policy, I need
only to look at the experiences of my own family and the family of my
wife Marcelle. Marcelle's mother and father, Louis Philippe Pomerleau
and Cecile Bouchard Pomerleau, immigrated to the United States from the
Province of Quebec in Canada. Marcelle is a first-generation American
born in Newport, VT, and, of course, to me, is the greatest
contribution her mother and father made to Vermont and America.
But Marcelle's mother and father contributed much to Vermont and to
America in business, in music, and enriched their own community.
Members of her family went on to establish successful businesses and
become leaders in their communities and they have given greatly to
Vermont. Marcelle grew up to serve the communities in which she lived
as a registered nurse, caring for others in Burlington, VT, in
Washington, DC, and in Arlington, VA.
Similar to many young immigrants in our country, Marcelle grew up in
a bilingual household, knowing two different cultures. But this is
America for so many, where young people grow up in families where
multiple languages are spoken, where traditions from multiple cultures
are observed. This enriches America.
My maternal grandparents came to this country from Italy. My
grandfather, similar to many others who came to Vermont from Italy, was
a granite carver. He opened a granite business in central Vermont. The
hard work and determination of my maternal grandparents--who did not
speak English when they arrived--to settle in this country laid the
foundation for my mother and our family.
My paternal great-grandparents came from Ireland, and my grandfather,
who was named Patrick Leahy--and I am named after him--worked in a
stone quarry as well. They worked hard. They had a family. I grew up
the son of printers in Montpelier, our State capital.
But nearly every American family has a story similar to mine and
Marcelle's. We are more alike than we are different from today's
immigrants and first-generation Americans.
The majority of new immigrants will continue this proud tradition of
hard work, the drive toward prosperity, and embracing the values that
make America great. They will someday tell their children and
grandchildren of their own immigrant histories, as Marcelle and I
learned from our parents and our grandparents. The bill we consider
will continue to cycle growth and renewal. It will improve on many
aspects of our immigration system.
The bill before us contains measures that are important to many
Vermonters. I have a provision that takes an important step toward
restoring privacy rights to millions of people who live near the
northern border by injecting some oversight into the decisionmaking
process for operating Federal checkpoints and entering private land
without a warrant far from the border.
The bill contains significant measures to assist dairy farmers and
other Vermont growers who have long relied on foreign workers and are
going to need them in the future. It contains a youth jobs program
proposed by Senator Sanders to help young people gain employment. It
contains a measure I proposed to make sure that no Canadian citizen
traveling to Vermont to see a family member will ever be charged a fee
for crossing our shared and long and wonderful border.
It contains an improvement to the visas used by nonprofit arts
organizations around the country, such as the Vermont Symphony
Orchestra that invites talented foreign artists to perform in America.
It contains measures to improve the lives and future of refugees and
asylum seekers who call Vermont home.
It contains improvements to the H-2B program to help small
businesses. It contains a measure to ensure that the job-creating E-B5
program be made permanent so the State of Vermont and other States can
continue the great work that is being done--in our State, done to
improve Vermont communities.
This is a bill that will help Vermont families and businesses alike.
So I discuss this legislation today in the context of my personal
history. I do it to take a moment to remind all of us that immigration
is about more than border security. It is about more than politics. It
is about the lives and hopes and dreams of human beings. It is about
those who go on to do great things in America. It is about American
communities that benefit from immigration.
That has been our history; it should also be our future. As I said
before, the legislation before us will help write the next great
chapter in America's history of immigration. I see the distinguished
ranking member on the floor.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. As we have seen over the past 2 weeks, immigration is a
very emotional issue. It is an issue that engenders strong feelings
from both sides of the aisle and maybe out in the grass roots of
America even stronger feelings than are expressed on the floor of the
Senate.
Everyone wants reform in the Senate. I have not heard anybody say the
present situation is A-OK, but everyone has their own ideas and
different solutions.
Now, at the grass roots of America, there are people who say we ought
to give citizenship yesterday. There are people on the other side who
say 12 million people ought to be rounded up and shipped out of the
country. Neither one of those are very realistic today, but those are
even stronger voices than you hear on the floor of the Senate.
Now, we are trying to find some reasonable solution. I do not think
the bill that is eventually going to pass is a reasonable solution. But
I will not know whether this is a reasonable solution until we get
through the entire legislative process, meaning the House of
Representatives and the conference. But I think down the road we can do
much better than is going to be done in the Senate.
Now, as I said, everybody has their own ideas and different
solutions. Unfortunately, the process has not allowed us to
fundamentally improve this bill on the floor of the Senate like we were
able to have that chance--not too successfully--but at least we had
that chance in committee with that
[[Page S5114]]
fair and open process. So out here on the floor of the Senate we have
not been able to vote up or down on commonsense amendments or very many
amendments at all. I think to this point about 9, 10, 11 amendments are
all that we have considered out of 451 that have been offered.
Despite the fact that the American people want the border secured
before we provide a path to legalization, this bill appears to be
favored by a majority in the body who believe that legalization must
come before border security. I ought to say that again. Despite the
fact that the American people want border security before we provide a
path to legalization, there appears to be a majority in this body who
believe that legalization must come before border security.
The polls around America show just the opposite. Border security
first, everything else after the border is secured. This approach of
legalization first is concerning, not only because the border will not
be secured for years down the road, but more importantly because it
devalues the principle that is very basic to our country and our
constitutional system of government, the rule of law. The rule of law
means the government will follow the laws it writes, and we expect the
people to do likewise. People need to be able to trust their government
and trust that the government will be fair.
I empathize with people who come into this country to have a better
life. Who is going to blame them for doing that? We would do anything
to give our kids a better life. Some people see no other choice but to
cross the border without papers to find work and sacrifice everything
they have to do it and to take a chance that they are going to run up
against the law and be deported. But they do it because they want a
better life. That is very basic to the American way of life. It is a
natural right of most people around the world, a natural right that
most of them are not able to bring to fruition.
The American people happen to be very compassionate. I know they are
just trying to find a better opportunity and live the American dream,
those people who come here undocumented. We are the best country in the
world. We should be proud of it. We are an exceptional nation. But we
are a great country because we have always abided by the rule of law.
The rule of law is what makes all opportunities we have possible.
In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt sent a message to the Congress,
the State of the Union Message. He talked about how man must be
guaranteed his liberty and the right to work. But so long as a man does
not infringe upon the rights of others, he said this:
No man is above the law and no man is below it, nor do we
ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it.
Meaning the law.
Obedience to the law is demanded as a right, not as a
favor.
I am a believer, just like everybody in this body, in the rule of
law, despite what some say, including the majority leader. That does
not mean we want to deport 11 million people. I want a humane and fair
process for them to live, work, and remain here. I have said many
times, and I have said it many times particularly in the past few
months, that we do not necessarily need more laws, but rather we need
to enforce the laws that are already on the books.
That is what I hear at my townhall meetings when people come to them
and I start to explain about immigration. Somebody pops up: Right. We
do not need more laws; we just need to enforce what we have on the
books.
I agree. We need to enhance and expand legal avenues for people who
want to enter, live, and work in this country. But we have laws that
have gone ignored for 17 years. We have laws that are undermined and
disregarded. The country will benefit if we have sensible immigration
laws. One of the failings of the 1986 law was that it did not do enough
to create avenues for people to work here. Advocates for reform claim
they want a long-term solution, but what we have before us is nothing
but a short-term bandaid. Really, what the bill does is clean the
slate.
Those words ``clean the slate'' was a phrase that we used in 1986.
That was the goal, to clean the slate, and we would start all over
again. I referred many times--it is probably sickening to a lot of
people in this body when I refer to the mistakes we made in 1986, not
to repeat them. But here we are. We want to clean the slate again and
start over. The problem is, if we just do the same thing we did in
1986, we will be back here in 25 years or less wanting to do the same
thing.
So some Senators are going to say: In 2038, all we need to do is
clean the slate. Well, we said that in 1986. We did clean the slate. We
are back here in 2013 cleaning the slate again. We should have a long-
term solution to these immigration issues. We should pass true and
meaningful reform; and in doing so, we should not be ignoring the very
principle on which our country was founded, on the rule of law.
We should not have to in any way be apologetic for taking this
position either. One would get the opinion by hearing some speeches on
the floor of the Senate that some people have more respect for people
who violated our law than they have respect for the rule of law or
people who have abided by the law. We have people from all over the
world at our embassies, standing in line for long periods of time to
come to this country legally. Those are the people whom we ought to be
respecting.
I do not mean we disrespect people who come here to work. But there
is one thing: They did violate our laws to come here. We do not have to
apologize for not accepting the fact that it is OK to violate the laws.
So we should not be apologetic for any position we take that is backed
by the rule of law, the foundation of our society.
Why should we have to apologize for wanting to ensure people live by
the laws that we set? We will not survive as a country if we allow
people to ignore the law and be rewarded for it. We just cannot be a
country of lawlessness. Why is wanting to secure the border anti-
immigration? It is not. We are a sovereign nation. It is our duty to
protect the people of this country. That is the first responsibility of
the Federal Government, to guarantee our sovereignty because it is
basic to our security. It is our right to create procedures whereby
others can come to this country and make a living for themselves.
This does not mean we do not want other people from other countries.
After all, except for Native Americans we are all a country of
immigrants, some first generation and some, I suppose, fifth or sixth
generation. We want to ensure that we protect our sovereignty. We want
to protect the homeland.
So I ask my colleagues to think about how our country's immigration
laws will survive the test of time. If this bill passes as is, will it
be a temporary fix or something that we can be proud of for generations
to come?
It is my understanding that, so far, 449 amendments have been filed
to this underlying bill, including second-degree amendments. We started
off the debate on the Senate floor with my amendment that would have
required the border to be ``effectively controlled'' for 6 months
before the Secretary could legalize people who are already present. We
would call them, under this bill, registered provisional immigrants,
and we referred to it as RPI status.
Clearly, the other side was afraid of the amendment I offered because
it would have fundamentally changed the bill by requiring that the
border be secured before granting 11 million undocumented workers a
pathway to citizenship--but not, contrary to what the polls of the
people of this country are telling us--they want security first,
legalization after security of the borders. They have already cooked
the books on this bill and don't want to make fundamental changes,
regardless of whether they are good changes, because they don't want to
upset their deal. They have insisted on a 60-vote threshold for
amendments to pass.
When my amendment was up, I refused that 60-vote requirement and so
they tabled my amendment. This raises the question: What about the open
and fair process that we were promised? We learned on day one of the
immigration debate that all of this talk about ``making the bill
better'' was just plain hogwash. It was all just a phony and empty
promise.
The sponsors would take the floor and say they were ready to vote on
amendments, but in reality they were afraid of any good change. They
refused to let Members offer amendments
[[Page S5115]]
of their own choosing. Instead, they wanted to pick what amendments
Members would offer. They want to decide who, what, when, and how it
would be disposed of. Of course, that is not right, that is not the
open process that was promised.
In the last 2 weeks we have only debated nine amendments on this
bill. Of those amendments, the majority leader tabled three amendments
on a rollcall vote. Of the nine, we adopted three amendments by a
rollcall vote. We rejected three amendments by a rollcall vote, and we
adopted another three amendments by a voice vote.
I am sure everyone would agree that debating 9 amendments out of 450
is not a fair and open process. We have a lot more amendments that have
been filed and not considered. These amendments would make this bill
better. The sponsors of the bill are arguing that because we had a
process in the Judiciary Committee that I have applauded as fair and
open, that means we don't need such an open and fair process on the
floor of the Senate.
What does that say about the other 82 Members of this body, that they
shouldn't be allowed to offer amendments? The problem is while the
committee process was open, many amendments were defeated, and no
amendments were offered that substantially changed the bill in
committee.
In order to address many issues with this bill, we would like to vote
on more amendments before the end of the week. I wish to discuss some
of the amendments we would like to see debated and considered before
this immigration debate comes to an end, so people have a flavor of the
kind of issues we believe have not been fully vetted on the floor of
the Senate in this process that we were promised was going to be fair
and open.
A number of amendments we would like considered would strengthen
provisions of the bill dealing with border security, something that the
current bill fails to do in a satisfactory manner. As everyone knows,
this has been a serious deficiency in the immigration reform bill,
regardless of the fact that the polls in this country say people want
the border secured first and then legalization. This does it the
opposite way: legalizes and then maybe the border will be secure.
For example, Lee amendment No. 1207 would prohibit the Secretaries of
the Interior and Agriculture from restricting or prohibiting activities
of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection on public lands and authorize
Customs and Border Protection access to Federal lands to secure the
border.
Coats amendment No. 1442 would require the Secretary of Homeland
Security to certify that the Department of Homeland Security has
effective control of high-risk border sections at the southern border
for 6 months before the Department can process RPI status applications.
The Coats amendment would also require the Secretary to maintain
effective control of those high-risk sections for at least 6 months
before the Secretary may adjust the status of the RPI applicants.
Coburn amendment No. 1361 would allow Customs and Border Protection
to enforce immigration laws on Federal lands. What is wrong with that
amendment, to enforce immigration laws on Federal lands?
Other amendments would beef up our interior enforcement, which we all
know is absolutely critical with respect to the success of our
immigration system. This is an area where the underlying bill doesn't
do enough.
An excellent amendment we haven't had an opportunity to debate and
vote on is Sessions amendment No. 1334. That amendment would give a
number of tools to State and local governments to enforce the
immigration laws, including giving States and localities the ability to
enact their own immigration laws, withholding specific grants from
sanctuary cities that defy Federal immigration enforcement efforts,
facilitating and expediting the removal of criminal aliens, improving
the visa issuance process, and, lastly, assisting U.S. Immigration and
Customs and Enforcement officers in carrying out their jobs.
Another amendment is Wicker amendment No. 1462, which would require
information sharing between Federal and non-Federal agencies regarding
removal of aliens, which would allow for quick enforcement against
individuals who violate immigration laws. The Wicker amendment would
also withhold certain Federal funding from States and local governments
that prohibit their law enforcement officers from assisting or
cooperating with Federal immigration law enforcement.
Some of the amendments that we haven't considered would ensure that
our criminal laws are not weakened by the bill. I have an amendment,
No. 1299, that would address some of the provisions in the underlying
bill that severely weaken our current criminal laws.
Isn't that funny. We want to have a better immigration bill, and we
are going to weaken certain laws that are already on the books?
Specifically, my amendment No. 1299 would address language in the
bill that creates a convoluted and ineffective process for determining
whether a foreign national in a street gang should be deemed
inadmissible or be deported. I offered a similar amendment in committee
where even two Members of the Gang of 8 supported it. My
amendment would have closed a dangerous loophole created by the bill
that will allow criminal gang members to gain a path to citizenship.
Specifically, in order to deny entry and remove a gang member,
section 3701 of the bill requires that the Department of Homeland
Security prove a foreign national, No. 1, has a prior Federal felony
conviction for drug trafficking or a violent crime; No. 2, has
knowledge that the gang is continuing to commit crimes; and, No. 3, has
acted in furtherance of gang activity.
Even if all of these provisions could be proven, under the bill the
Secretary can still issue a waiver. As such, the proposed process is
limited only to criminal gang members with prior Federal drug
trafficking and Federal violent crime convictions and does not include
State convictions such as rape and murder.
The trick is while the bill wants you to believe that this is a
strong provision, foreign nationals who have Federal felony drug
trafficking or violent crime convictions are already subject to
deportation if they are already here and denied entry as being
inadmissible.
The gang provisions, as written in the bill, add nothing to current
law and will not be used. It is, at best, a feel-good measure to say we
are being tough on criminal gangs while really doing nothing to remove
or deny entry to criminal gang members.
It is easier to prove that someone is a convicted drug trafficker
than both a drug trafficker and a gang member. As currently written,
why would this provision ever be used and, simply put, it wouldn't be
used.
My amendment, No. 1299, would strike this do-nothing provision and
issue a new, clear, simple standard to address the problem of gang
members. It would strike this do-nothing provision and include a
process to address criminal gang members where the Secretary of
Homeland Security must prove, No. 1, criminal street gang membership;
and, No. 2, that the person is a danger to the community.
Once the Secretary proves these two things, the burden shifts to
foreign nationals to prove that either he is not dangerous, not in a
street gang, or he did not know the group was a street gang. It is
straightforward and it will help remove dangerous criminal gang
members.
My amendment also eliminates the possibility of a waiver. Amendment
No. 1299 should have a vote to make sure the bill doesn't weaken our
current law.
There are a number of other amendments that we would like to see
considered that would help ensure that individuals comply with the
immigration law requirements and ensure that the RPI process does not
allow individuals to game the system.
For example, Rubio amendment No. 1225 would require RPI immigrants 16
years old or older to read, write, and speak English.
Fischer amendment No. 1348 would also insert an English-language
requirement as a prerequisite to RPI status.
Cruz amendment No. 1295 would require States to require proof of
citizenship for registration to vote in Federal elections.
Hatch amendment No. 1536 would ensure that undocumented immigrants
[[Page S5116]]
actually pay their back taxes before gaining legalization.
Another amendment, Toomey amendment No. 1440, would increase the
number of W nonimmigrant visas available during each fiscal year and
would help improve the visa system.
Other amendments that we should debate and vote on would strengthen
our immigration system by making sure that we don't allow criminal
immigrants to stay in our country and be put on a path to American
citizenship.
For example, Vitter amendment No. 1330 would make sure that
undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of crimes of domestic
violence, child abuse, and child neglect would be inadmissible.
Inhofe amendment No. 1203, entitled ``Keep Our Communities Safe
Act,'' would allow the Department of Homeland Security or a subsidiary
agency to keep dangerous individuals in detention until a final order
of removal of that individual from the United States.
Cornyn amendment No. 1470 would make sure undocumented immigrants who
have committed an offense of domestic violence, child abuse, child
neglect, or assault resulting in bodily injury, violated a protective
order or committed a drunk-driving violation, would be ineligible for
legalization.
Portman amendment No. 1389 would limit the discretion of immigration
judges and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the
removal, deportation, and inadmissibility of undocumented individuals
who have committed crimes involving child abuse, child neglect, and
other crimes of moral turpitude concerning children.
Finally, Portman amendment No. 1390 would ensure that undocumented
immigrants who have been convicted of crimes of domestic violence,
stalking, and child abuse would be inadmissible.
I have gone through a whole bunch of amendments. These are all
extremely important amendments that would ensure that the worst kinds
of criminal immigrants do not gain a path to citizenship.
I urge the majority to allow us to consider these and other
amendments that we would like to offer to improve the bill, instead of
cutting us off and shutting off full and open debate of this very
important issue--something that we were told from day one, that we
would have an open and fair process.
What we are doing, voting this amendment to the House of
Representatives on Thursday and Friday, ends up not being a fair and
open process.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I rise to speak on the immigration
bill, and I will do so, particularly on the amendment process my friend
and colleague from Iowa has discussed, but first let me say a few words
about two of the President's nominees whose confirmations we will
address later today or within the next day or so.
Nominations
Penny Pritzker will truly be a great Secretary of Commerce, in my
view. She has experience and acumen and ability that will serve her
well in building strong relationships in the Federal Government, but
also strong partnerships with the business community in promoting job
creation and fostering sustained economic growth. She has been a strong
leader not only in her own business, but in her community, and I look
forward to working with her as the Chair of the Subcommittee on
Competitiveness, Innovation, and Export Promotion in the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation where I serve.
Mayor Anthony Foxx, if he becomes Secretary of Transportation,
likewise has a record of accomplishment as a local official, as a
strong mayor, and I look forward to working with him on investment in
high-speed rail, distracted and drunk driving, air safety, rail safety,
and all of the issues that are so important to the infrastructure of
our country and to the transportation issues that will help promote
jobs and increase economic progress.
I will be submitting statements for the Record at greater length on
these two nominees who I believe embody the principle of excellence and
dedication in public service.
Madam President, we are reaching a fateful and extremely important
moment in the history of our country when we have the great
opportunity, the exciting and energizing prospect, of providing a path
to earned citizenship for 11 million of our fellow residents. They live
alongside us, in our neighborhoods and communities, and they serve on
community boards and all kinds of activities where they are
indistinguishable from citizens except for the fact they are not
citizens. There are 11 million people living in the shadows, including
young people brought to this country when they were infants or as
children, who know only English as a language, whose home is here, and
who know only this country as their home, whose friends and life are
here, their schools, and even the military many of them serve. The
DREAMers are among those 11 million, and their parents and loved ones
who came with them to this country.
We have this historic opportunity to provide them with a path to
earned citizenship. To earn citizenship they are paying back taxes and
penalties, learning English, if they do not know it already, and
meeting the other strong standards and criteria this act provides.
Along with enhanced border security and a crackdown on illegal
employment, this act provides better skilled people more opportunities
to come to this country in a program I have helped to lead on, as well
as lower skilled workers who want to fulfill the American dream.
This legislation is about the American dream, and it culminates a
careful and cautious and deliberate process led by Chairman Leahy in
the Judiciary Committee, where abundant opportunity was afforded to
offer amendments and have them pass. In fact, a number of my amendments
adopted in the Judiciary Committee strengthen due process, fight human
trafficking, afford opportunities for people to seek release from
solitary confinement, and protect American workers, and standards and
compensation for American workers, against unfair and illegal
competition from other businesses and other workers based on
substandard conditions and exploitation of workers here.
Those kinds of amendments have improved on the very important work
done by the Group of 8. I join in thanking them, the Group of 8, those
eight Senators who labored so long and helped to provide such a great
model for us to move forward and improve further.
I believe this legislation can be improved. Two amendments I have
offered would help improve it. The little DREAMers, who are too young
to qualify right now for the expedited path to citizenship that is
provided the DREAMers under S. 744, would be helped by an amendment I
have drafted, with support from the great champion of the DREAM Act,
Senator Durbin, who deserves so much credit for spearheading this
effort over so many years. I have done this at the State level before
coming here as a Senator, when I was attorney general, but Senator
Durbin has championed their cause year after year, Congress after
Congress, and so I have joined him in supporting an amendment to this
bill that would help those littlest of DREAMers, too young now to
qualify for that expedited citizenship, and to do so if they are in
school or otherwise satisfy the criteria the amendment would provide.
I also thank Senator Murkowski for cosponsoring this very bipartisan
measure with me so that anyone left out of the DREAM Act because they
are too young would be covered.
A second amendment I believe would improve this bill would provide
more whistleblower protections for H-2B visa workers. They come to this
country to work here and they are dependent on their employers to
remain here. So, naturally, if they are exploited, if illegal working
conditions subject them to hazards, and if they provide the basis for
unfair competition because they are paid less than the minimum wage,
they are fearful of retaliation when they make complaints because their
employer can discharge them and they are then automatically deported.
So this whistleblower amendment would provide them with protection.
This is essential to making possible their redress and remedy when they
are victims of illegal violations.
Both those amendments would improve this law. But I recognize this
bill is a huge and historic step forward. It
[[Page S5117]]
is imperfect, but I will not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the
good. I will continue to fight for these amendments, these improvements
in this law--enabling the little DREAMers to have those same
opportunities as the DREAMers who have been brought to this country and
now are here and can contribute so much to our Nation; and I will
continue to fight for whistleblower protections for all workers who may
be exploited if they are brought here under visa because whistleblowers
deserve that protection. They are protecting not just themselves when
they complain, but all workers. But I will vote for this measure even
if there are no more amendments because I believe this measure fulfills
the American dream of opening this country--a Nation of immigrants--to
others who have the American dream and see this country as a beacon of
hope and opportunity.
Anyone who doubts it should do what I do regularly. Whenever I have
the opportunity on a Friday in Connecticut, I go to our Federal
courthouse and attend the naturalization ceremonies. People come there
with tears in their eyes, accompanied by their families, neighbors, and
loved ones to celebrate one of the biggest moments in their lives--
becoming a citizen of the United States of America. Many of them come
after years of struggle to achieve that status--physical struggle to
reach our shores, emotional separation from their families abroad, and
professional hard work embodying the best about America. I thank them
for becoming U.S. citizens. I thank them for not taking for granted
what all too many of us do--the great privilege and right of being a
citizen of the United States.
Let us seize this moment as a Nation of immigrants to open our doors
once again, open our hearts to those 11 million people who want simply
a path to earned citizenship--a historic and rare moment in our history
where the American people have come together in a deep and enduring
consensus that now is the time to strengthen border security, as the
amendment we are considering would do, to crack down on illegal hiring,
as this bill would do, and to make possible for millions of Americans
what my father did, what others did, which is to become citizens of the
greatest country in the history of the world.
We owe it to ourselves, as well as to our children, to give them that
opportunity, and we owe our Nation the opportunity to benefit from
their strengths and talents and energy and, yes, their dedication to
the country that has given them this historic opportunity.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. REID. Madam President, could I ask the distinguished Senator to
allow me to offer a unanimous consent request?
Mrs. FISCHER. Of course.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I express my appreciation to the Senator for the courtesy.
Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding rule XXII, at 2:15 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to
executive session to consider Calendar No. 180, under the previous
order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. For the information of all Senators, at 2:15 p.m., there
will be 30 minutes for debate followed by a vote on the confirmation of
Penny Pritzker to be Secretary of Commerce.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise today to express my deep
disappointment with the current immigration reform legislation and the
extremely limited opportunity for Senators to amend this bill. Although
I was not a Member of the Senate in 2009, I watched the debate on
ObamaCare closely. I was amazed the world's greatest deliberative body
could vote on such a massive change to Federal policy without having
time to read or adequately amend the bill.
Failure to fully comprehend the consequences--intended or otherwise--
left many Americans skeptical, and rightfully so. We were told the need
to act justified passage of this massive bill, and we were admonished
that we needed to pass the bill to find out what is in it. The American
people were not pitched sound policy, the American people were pitched
sound bites. Public polling suggests the American people still haven't
bought it, and with good reason.
A few years later, Americans are starting to learn the devastating,
real-life impact of the flawed health care policy, including the loss
of current benefits and the sticker shock of rising premiums. The
litany of broken promises seems endless. Yet here we are again, another
dire problem in desperate need of a solution, and this time it is
immigration.
I agree, and Nebraskans agree, we must address the problem of illegal
immigration. The status quo is unacceptable. Our border remains
dangerously insecure, and 11 million illegal immigrants currently enjoy
de facto amnesty.
We are told there is only one solution--rather, we are only allowed
to vote on one solution that has been agreed upon behind closed doors
by the majority leader and a small group of Senators. We are told we
have no choice but to pass this bill.
The pundits in Washington tell us the failure to pass comprehensive
immigration reform will leave the Republican Party in an uncertain
electoral wilderness. Well, I, for one, am more concerned about the
future of this Nation--the future America I will leave to my children
and my grandchildren--than I am about any political party's electoral
prospects.
We are told that simply devoting tens of billions of dollars, with no
plan, will solve the problem.
We have tried throwing big money at big problems in the past. It
didn't work then, and it won't work now.
Some have suggested there has been plenty of time to read the revised
bill. They argue there are only 119 pages of changes that have been
added to the 1,200-page legislation before us. But those changes are
spread across and throughout the entire language of this bill. There
have been little fixes here and there. But if you blink, you might miss
an important word that has been dropped or a clause that has been
added, and the result is a lasting effect for generations to come.
Some of these changes include special carve-outs similar to the
cornhusker kickback that helped bring ObamaCare across the finish line.
Nebraskans know exactly what I am talking about. These new carve-outs
include special treatment for the seafood industry, special treatment
for Hollywood, and extensions of the failed stimulus program.
I am disappointed the majority leader has once again rushed a bill of
this magnitude and impact. It is another artificial deadline imposed by
the leader, so members can make it back for some backyard barbecues.
That is disappointing.
I don't sit on the Judiciary Committee. The only opportunity I and 82
other Members of the Senate have to offer amendments to reform the
flawed aspects of this bill is through floor debate. Yet we are being
denied that opportunity by the majority leader. So far, we have only
voted on nine amendments. Given the emotional, controversial, and
complicated nature of this issue, reforms are not made easily. We have
a duty to make sure we get it right and that we avoid the mistakes of
the past.
I have always believed that before we address any form of legislation
that deals with legalization for our undocumented population, we must
first fully secure the border. Without a fully secure border, the
United States will find itself in the same dire straits down the road.
Yet the amendment offered by Senators Schumer, Corker, and Hoeven falls
short of this very necessary goal. We need a proposal that brings about
verifiable, measurable results along the southern border.
I support a carefully crafted border security plan that is strategy
driven, cost effective, accountable, and responsive to the needs of law
enforcement officials, and those law enforcement officials have
expressed concerns with the legislation before us.
The attempt of the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment to reach a
compromise on border security metrics has resulted in vague ineffective
standards. The border security amendment I filed
[[Page S5118]]
would provide needed oversight to ensure border security goals are
being achieved and maintained in a timely fashion.
The border security amendment I filed requires that the Secretary of
Homeland Security and the Commissioner of the Customs and Border Patrol
submit a written certification that all border goals have been met. The
Homeland Security inspector general must also sign off on
certification. And, finally, congressional approval must be obtained.
Importantly, the definition of operational control in my amendment
would maintain the current law's definition, rather than watering it
down. But my amendment hasn't received a vote.
The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment also fails to require a biometric
entry and exit system at land, air, and sea ports. Instead, it simply
provides a basic electronic screening system--and only at sea and air
ports, not land ports of entry.
This is absolutely unacceptable--and it is remarkably weaker than the
border security provisions in the 2006 and 2007 comprehensive
immigration bills, which required implementation of a biometric entry-
exit system.
The border security amendment I filed implements a biometric entry-
exit system at all points and ports of entry. But my amendment hasn't
received a vote.
Border security is a question of national security. It is not a
position that can be watered down or compromised. The Schumer-Corker-
Hoeven amendment does just that.
We also need to make sure we are being fiscally responsible. Last
time I checked, we are still $17 trillion in debt. Yet this amendment
throws $46.3 billion at border security with no plan from the
Department of Homeland Security detailing how that money is going to be
used. There is no clear justification for the amount detailed in this
request. There is absolutely no strategy driving this funding request.
There is also not nearly enough accountability. The reporting
requirements to Congress are toothless. I reject--and I suspect
Nebraskans reject--the idea that massive amounts of spending alone are
the solution to our border security problem.
In addition to the lack of strategy behind the funding, I am
concerned this legislation provides legalization first and border
security second. Specifically, this legislation creates a loophole
allowing certain people who have overstayed their nonimmigrant visas to
obtain a green card without returning home. The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven
amendment also creates a number of loopholes for criminal aliens to
remain in our country.
Under their proposal the Secretary of Homeland Security has broad
authority to waive deportations for certain criminal activity. For
example, it would allow many members of criminal gangs to gain entry
and the legal right to remain in the country.
In a written statement, Immigration and Customs Enforcement council
president Chris Crane stated:
The 1,200 page substitute bill before the Senate will
provide instant legalization and a path to citizenship to
gang members and other dangerous criminal aliens, and
handcuff ICE officers from enforcing immigration laws in the
future. It provides no means of effectively enforcing visa
overstays which account for almost half of the nation's
illegal immigration crisis.
The list of problems goes on.
In short, this legislation and the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment
remains fatally flawed. The American people demand--and they deserve--
better policy.
I am committed to working on lasting solutions that will reform our
immigration system once and for all. But let me be clear: I will not
support legislation simply because it might be vogue or politically
expedient or could ingratiate me with the inside-the-Beltway club. I
vote for legislation if it is sound policy, if it will improve the
lives of hard-working taxpayers, and if it reflects the values of
Nebraskans. This legislation has a long way to go.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mrs. FISCHER. Yes, I will.
Mr. McCAIN. Has the Senator ever been to the Arizona-Mexico border?
Mrs. FISCHER. I have been, at the Texas border.
Mr. McCAIN. May I ask when that was?
Mrs. FISCHER. That was in the early 2000s.
Mr. McCAIN. In the early 2000s. I would say to the Senator from
Nebraska, she is so ill-informed from the statement I just heard. I
don't know where to begin, except to say that if she doesn't think this
legislation secures the border, she hasn't spent any time on the
border--certainly not meaningful time. And I can't express my
disappointment in the series of false statements the Senator just made.
Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I would say I believe my statement is
correct. It reflects the values of my State, it reflects the values of
Americans, and it truly reflects their concerns with this piece of
legislation that is before us now.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I would welcome the Senator from
Nebraska to come to the border and see what has been done and what can
be done with the use of technology. And to somehow believe our border
cannot be secured by this legislation argues strenuously for a visit,
and I invite the Senator. I would be glad to join her at any time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague and
friend, Senator McCain from Arizona, and I look forward to accepting
his invitation to visit his fine State.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to
speak for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I rise again to talk about
the critical importance of passing comprehensive immigration reform
such as my good friend from Arizona Senator McCain has advocated.
When I look at my State, Coloradans from all walks of life--business
leaders, religious leaders, our agricultural community, and our civic
leaders, regardless of political party--agree our immigration system is
broken. Now we have run out of excuses to sit on our hands.
I see this problem as an opportunity, and I want to discuss why I see
it as an opportunity.
It has touched every corner of our society, and this call for action
has become too loud to ignore. But despite such widespread agreement on
the need to move forward, there remains a vocal minority in our
Chamber--and across the country--concerned about the consequences of
reform.
There is a worry, and that worry that persists is that immigrants
will somehow steal the American opportunity, that immigrants will take
our tax dollars and take our jobs. But let me say this. All of us here
in the Senate agree strongly we should not be writing policy in
Washington that would endanger American jobs, and I want to speak to
that.
Ever since the economic downturn, Coloradans who have been fortunate
enough to keep their jobs or recently find employment as we dig out of
recession are holding on tightly to those opportunities.
Coloradans who have been laid off or who have lived through the
bitter desperation of extended unemployment look with increasing
concern at anything that might stand between them and opportunity.
In the context of these worries, some people look at employed
immigrants and see only unemployed Americans. To see things in that
light misunderstands this legislation as well as our roots as a country
and our long tradition of opportunity.
This bill--the idea of fixing our broken immigration system and
providing millions of Americans a pathway to citizenship, which is
earned--is not a zero-sum game. In fact, it is built off of one of the
reasons our Nation is so exceptional: The broad spirit that any man or
woman can pull themselves up from the most challenging circumstances
and succeed.
This bill is carefully crafted and balanced. It will extend the
American dream to millions now living in the shadows. Important for
Coloradans, this legislation creates certainty for businesses and
residents already legally here today. This is exactly the
[[Page S5119]]
sort of certainty our labor markets need.
It is true--maybe except for the great State of North Dakota--that we
have made steady progress, but overall unemployment remains too high.
We all want to be similar to North Dakota, with a very low unemployment
rate. Our economy--the American economy--continues to grow, with
Colorado growing at the fourth fastest rate in the Nation. In doing so,
many of our business sectors, economic sectors, and industries are
experiencing higher labor demand than there is available domestic
supply.
Taking agriculture, for example, which is important to the Presiding
Officer's State as well, the demand for labor on farms and ranches
across the Nation far exceeds the supply of Americans who are willing
to fill those jobs. That labor shortage has resulted in crops left to
rot in the fields and, therefore, unacceptable economic losses to our
communities.
Farmers and ranchers tell me that today they are often left to hire
undocumented workers to fill this labor gap. This unregulated, under-
the-table hiring hurts immigrants who experience frequent exploitation,
constant fear, and often debilitating poverty. It also hurts Americans
who experience depressed wages and higher unemployment as a result of
competition with this cheap underground workforce. That doesn't make
sense.
This immigration reform bill eliminates this unfair competition and
ensures that all Americans receive fair wages.
Our current labor supply challenges extend to many other sectors as
well. Jobs in science, technology, engineering, and math are growing at
three times the rate of other jobs in the United States. With that in
mind, and in spite of high levels of unemployment, nearly 100,000
valuable American-based positions in critical high-tech firms, such as
IBM, Microsoft, and Intel, have been left unfilled. By 2018, estimates
are that this number will increase to 230,000.
This bill, which we are so close to getting across the finish line,
focuses heavily on breaking down barriers in our current immigration
and visa system to help fill this staggering labor gap and spur our
economy in the process. The more flexible market-based system for visas
included in this bill will ensure our immigration system only brings
workers businesses need. Moreover, this bill will ensure that Americans
get a first pass at jobs before foreign workers are eligible to fill
them. That is an important element, one that Coloradans have told me
they demand.
But it is not only about ensuring that the bill before us doesn't
displace current U.S. citizens, I would point out to my friends who are
skeptical of this effort that immigrants in this country also have an
incredible and phenomenal history of creating jobs.
Let me share a couple numbers with everybody. Between 1990 and 2005,
immigrants started 25 percent of the highest growth companies in this
country, directly employing over 200,000 people. Since 2007, immigrant-
founded small businesses have provided employment for 4.7 million
people and generated almost $800 billion in revenue.
Big-time American companies, such as Intel, Google, eBay, and Sun
Microsystems, were all created by immigrants--companies that helped to
form the very roots of our thriving tech industry.
I wish to take a minute to thank the Gang of 8 specifically for their
efforts to include a section in the bill that creates the INVEST
Program, which focuses on incentivizing entrepreneurs, such as the
founders of these iconic companies, to come to the United States. This
program, which draws on the bipartisan Startup Visa Act I introduced
with Senator Flake--and includes the work of Senators Moran, Warner,
and others--will ensure that the next generation of entrepreneurs and
job creators can stay in the United States and create good American
jobs. Last week, after listening to advocates, Senator Warner and I
filed an amendment that we think will bolster these provisions even
further, and we certainly hope our colleagues will think it is a good
enough idea to include in the final legislation.
Programs in the underlying bill, such as INVEST, will help
supercharge our economy by helping to create thousands of jobs over the
next decade.
Ralph Waldo Emerson once said: ``America is another word for
opportunity.'' We take pride in our rich history of being a country
where the key to earning a valued place in society is through ability
and determination, where immigrants from all over the world--alongside
third-and fourth-generation Americans--can earn an honest living or
start a business. It is incumbent on us, as Members of Congress, to
actively ensure that America remains the land of opportunity.
As the Presiding Officer knows, that starts with our children,
including undocumented children, our DREAMers, who know of no other
place but here as their home.
I wish to close by talking about a DREAMer. His name is Oscar. I wish
to make the case for Oscar and his family.
Oscar and his brothers, Juan and Hugo, are the children of parents
who illegally immigrated into the United States and brought their kids
with them. They now live in my State of Colorado. Throughout their
entire lives, they lived in fear of the black cloud of deportation that
has hung over them.
I had the pleasure of meeting Oscar here in Washington a couple of
months ago. He had a very simple request for a kid who grew up in the
United States. He wanted the opportunity for himself and his brothers
to come out of the shadows and become someone.
Where are Oscar and his brothers right now? They are in college
pursuing degrees in engineering and psychology. Let's design a
commonsense policy that will allow them to work after they graduate.
Let's give Oscar, and the millions like him, the opportunity to come
out of the shadows and become the next generation of American leaders,
innovators, and job creators.
This week we are faced with a choice: We can put into place a bill
that was negotiated by Members of both sides of the aisle, one that
takes historic and far-reaching steps to secure our borders and
provides a tough but fair pathway to legal status and an exit from the
shadows for those who are here illegally. This bill will help crack
down on employer exploitation and help give American businesses the
secure and stable workforce they deserve. The other option would be to
try and delay this bill and continue on with a broken system that
continually undermines our economy by keeping millions in the shadows.
We could keep the system that denies the best and the brightest a
viable path to citizenship and instead would encourage them to create
jobs abroad for our global competitors such as China and India.
Let's not deny Oscar and his brothers the opportunity to come out of
the shadows and be the next generation of American workers. Let's
continue to work on amendments, and let's pass this comprehensive
immigration reform bill this week.
I thank the Presiding Officer for her patience, for her forbearance.
I yield the floor.
____________________