[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.

                          ____________________