[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 92 (Tuesday, June 25, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5121-S5122]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Immigration Reform
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to speak once again on the
immigration bill before us.
Before there was a Judiciary Committee markup, before there was an
immigration bill, and before there was even a Gang of 8, most Senators
had three basic beliefs: The immigration system is broken, fixing it
will be neither simple nor easy, and it absolutely needs to be done.
I share those beliefs. I also rely on two sets of experience.
I served in this body and on the Judiciary Committee during the 99th
Congress when we considered the Immigration Reform and Control Act of
1986, commonly called the Simpson-Mazzoli bill, and during the 110th
Congress when we considered the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of
2007.
I voted against both of them. I opposed the 1986 legislation because
it was self-proclaimed amnesty. I opposed the 2007 legislation because
it had been developed outside of the Judiciary Committee.
My participation in the current immigration reform effort has been
informed by those beliefs and those experiences. We simply must fix our
broken immigration system, but in doing so we must not repeat either
the substantive errors from 1986 or the procedural errors from 2007.
As we all know, most of the media and political attention has focused
on the border security and legalization parts of this bill. But there
is much more to it than that.
I initially focused on two areas. First, working with Senators Rubio,
Coons, and Klobuchar, I focused on increasing opportunities for high-
skilled immigrants. The bill we introduced, the I-Squared bill, now has
28 bipartisan cosponsors.
Second, working with Senators Rubio, Feinstein, and Bennet, I focused
on developing the guest worker program that will be so important for
the agricultural sector of our economy. Those discussions were led by
Senator Feinstein, and there is no question I played a significant role
in those. This program is the product of true compromise between farm
workers and growers. I had real questions whether that could be done,
but it was. I was glad to see it included as part of the Gang of 8
original bill.
Another important provision that was made part of the original bill
was my proposal for permanently extending a visa program for religious
workers. This provision will provide up to 5,000 visas for foreign
nationals to work with religious organizations that help America's
neediest people and underserved communities. I have supported this
program for many years and am very grateful that the Gang of 8 offered
to include it in the bill at my request.
In addition, I commend the Judiciary Committee chairman, Senator
Leahy, for conducting an open, fair, and thorough markup of S. 744.
Thankfully, this bill--unlike the bill in 2007--is being handled
through regular order.
During the committee's consideration of S. 744, I filed 24
amendments, 20 of them within Judiciary Committee jurisdiction. I am
proud of the fact that 15 of those 20 amendments were made part of the
legislation that is before us now. I do not think ``proud'' is the
word; I am pleased rather than proud.
For example, the committee adopted by voice vote my amendment
establishing strong penalties for cultivating marijuana on Federal
lands. Mexican drug cartels are driving the expansion of this plague,
using chemicals and diverting water sources that also harm the
environment. My amendment will reduce the illegal drugs that enter the
market and protect America's natural resources at the same time.
The committee also adopted my amendment to establish a mandatory
biometric exit system at the 10 busiest international airports.
Preventing individuals from entering the country illegally is only one
side of the coin; the other side, of course, is preventing individuals
from overstaying their visas. We know if that works in those airports,
we then will be encouraged to expand that in many other ways.
Nearly half of those who are currently here illegally came into the
country legally but did not leave when they were supposed to. My
amendment tackles part of that equation.
I do want to respond to what some of my colleagues have said about
this new biometric system. Some have claimed that my amendment dials
back current law.
Let me be clear: I fully support the biometric exit system provided
for under current law. Sadly, it has not been properly implemented.
What good is it if legislation simply remains on paper? Do the
critics of my amendment prefer the status quo, which has accomplished
absolutely nothing?
My amendment will actually deploy a real biometric exit system--
something that current law has failed to do. And, by the way, it is
fully paid for.
Trust me. This is more than just a figleaf. The Judiciary Committee
also adopted--once again by voice vote--my amendment to improve
education and training in the fields of science, technology,
engineering, and math, or the STEM fields.
While foreign high-skilled workers play an important part in our
economy, we need to invest more in developing the American workforce,
especially the next generation. I look forward to seeing the STEM
account grow and provide hundreds of millions of dollars directly to
the States for this critical education and training. That is in the
bill now.
I am particularly pleased that the Judiciary Committee adopted a
package of my amendments establishing a coherent and constructive
approach to high-skilled immigration. These provisions will ensure that
the H-1B and L-1 visa categories actually work for a change. I
especially want to thank Senators Schumer and Durbin for their genuine
willingness to compromise because these complex issues require a
delicate balance of interests.
This is the path I have pursued so far. From the outset of this
process, I have made it clear that there are issues with this bill
under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. As the ranking member
of the Finance Committee, I have been working in good faith to ensure
that those matters are addressed in a responsible and productive way.
Toward that end, I filed amendments both in committee and on the
Senate floor and have been working with my colleagues to get them
included.
These are important issues that simply cannot be overlooked. For
example, there was the issue of whether immigrants receiving a change
in status would be allowed to receive welfare benefits. Under a
longstanding provision of Federal law, noncitizens, including legal
immigrants, are not eligible for Federal cash welfare benefits for
their first 5 years in the country.
While S. 744 preserved that 5-year ban for RPIs, I know the Obama
administration believes it has the authority to permit States to spend
Federal welfare dollars on cash benefits to previously prohibited
individuals. In order to prevent this or future administrations from
contravening Federal welfare law, we needed to clarify that the
Secretary of Health and Human Services cannot permit Federal welfare
dollars from being spent on noncitizens. That is a system I am not
willing to support, and I am pleased they accepted my amendment in
solving that problem.
Today I am pleased to report that we have successfully negotiated
provisions that will prevent the administration from waiving the 5-year
ban on welfare benefits as well as prohibiting the Secretary from
permitting this type of spending. They have been included as part of
the compromise package we will be voting on later this week.
Another problem with the original bill was that it did not adequately
address Social Security. Specifically, the bill did not state how
periods of unauthorized employment would be treated in the calculation
of Social Security benefits.
Once again, I have worked with my colleagues to reach an agreement on
a provision that says that periods of unauthorized earnings do not
count toward determining Social Security benefits. The provision will,
among other things, prevent people who did not
[[Page S5122]]
have authorization to work in this country from going back and
retroactively claiming unauthorized periods of work in which they used
made-up or stolen Social Security numbers.
This is a necessary step that will help to preserve the integrity of
our Social Security system. As with the provision on welfare benefits,
this provision is part of the Leahy compromise amendment.
According to the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee
on Taxation, this provision will result in lower spending for Social
Security and Medicare.
While I am pleased that we have been able to reach agreement on these
important issues, there are other Finance Committee issues that have
not been addressed. There is the issue of when those on the RPI or blue
card pathways will be eligible for tax credits and health insurance
premium subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. I filed an amendment
that would have placed those subsidies in the same category as other
Federal means-tested programs, which, of course, includes a 5-year
waiting period once an immigrant attains the status of a lawful
permanent resident.
There is also the issue of back taxes. I filed an amendment that
would have required all RPI applicants to pay their back taxes as a
condition of receiving a change in status.
Neither of these two issues is adequately addressed by the current
version of the legislation. In my view, these are serious problems that
will need to be fixed before the bill is suitable for the President's
signature.
On top of that, there is still the issue of border security. While
the compromise legislation we will be voting on this week significantly
improves upon the original draft of this bill, I believe we can and
should do more.
So as you see, Madam President, there is still a number of issues
that need to be resolved. However, as I have said all along, this is a
process. Reporting the bill out of the Judiciary Committee was one step
in that process, and passing the bill on the Senate floor is another
step--a first step.
I do not think anyone should be under any illusions that when the
Senate completes its work on the legislation this week, the process is
finished. The House of Representatives is working on its own bill with
an entirely different approach. I have already begun reaching out to my
House colleagues to help address these issues that I believe are
important, particularly those that fall under the jurisdiction of the
Senate Finance Committee.
I hope the House will work to address what I see as significant
shortcomings in the Senate bill, and I will work hard to ensure that
those issues are resolved should the bill go to conference.
With that in mind, I plan to vote in favor of S. 744 later this week.
As I said before, I share the belief of most of my colleagues that the
current immigration system is broken and that reform is absolutely
necessary. As I see it, the only way we can reach that goal is to allow
the process to move forward.
Once again, I would like to commend my colleagues for their work on
this legislation thus far. I hope they will keep an open mind on future
changes as well. While the final product is far from perfect, I believe
we are on a path to reaching a reasonable solution to the problems that
continue to plague our Nation's immigration system.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle and on both sides of the Capitol to move this process forward
toward a successful conclusion.
Madam President, I yield the floor. In fact, I suggest the absence of
a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of Penny Pritzker, of Illinois, to be Secretary of Commerce?
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr.
Whitehouse) is necessarily absent.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Utah (Mr. Lee).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 1, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 161 Ex.]
YEAS--97
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Chiesa
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cowan
Crapo
Cruz
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Warren
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--1
Sanders
NOT VOTING--2
Lee
Whitehouse
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Under the previous order, the
motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and
the President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
____________________