[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 101 (Thursday, June 26, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4103-S4109]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Immigration

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I wish to spend a few moments this 
morning talking about realistic solutions to the ongoing crisis along 
American's southern border.
  Obviously, I come from a border State where we have 1,200 miles of 
common border with the nation of Mexico--which, of course, has been the 
gateway now to this humanitarian wave of unaccompanied children coming 
from Central America into the United States. I will talk more about 
that in detail, but I first want to comment on something the majority 
leader said this morning in his opening remarks.
  With what has now become his trademark hyperbole and frequent 
disregard for the facts, the majority leader suggested that the 
Republican platform was: Deport first, find solutions later--or never.
  I find that offensive, and it is certainly not true. I can just 
assume that the majority leader has had other things that have taken 
his attention and he has ignored completely the concrete solutions I 
and others have been promoting, some of which I will talk about here in 
a moment.
  The last thing I would say specifically to this offensive and untrue 
comment of the majority leader this morning is: If you are truly 
concerned about this issue, Senator Reid, you might want to focus on 
Members of your own party. After all, no less than Vice President Joe 
Biden has said of the unaccompanied minors flooding across from the 
U.S.-Mexican border:

       It is necessary to put them back in the hands of a parent 
     in the country from which they came.

  He went on to say:

       Once an individual's case is fully heard, and if he or she 
     does not qualify for asylum, he or she will be removed from 
     the United States and returned home.

  That is Vice President Biden. Perhaps the majority leader should talk 
to him or he could talk to our former Senate colleague Hillary Clinton, 
former Secretary of State, who said this about these unaccompanied 
children:

       [They] should be sent back as soon as it can be determined 
     who the responsible adults in their families are.

  That is former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and, in all 
likelihood, the Democratic Party's nominee for the President of the 
United States in 2016. Perhaps the majority leader should talk to her 
or he could talk to the Secretary of Homeland Security under whose 
purview this issue falls most directly, who said that:

       Under current U.S. laws and policies, anyone who is 
     apprehended crossing our border illegally is a priority for 
     deportation, regardless of age.

  Perhaps the majority leader should pick up the phone and talk to him.
  So rather than make offensive, politically motivated allegations, 
perhaps the majority leader should get his facts straight, talk to 
leaders of his own political party, and then work with us on this side 
of the aisle to try to find some realistic solutions.
  As the insurgency rages in Iraq and the border between Syria and Iraq 
has collapsed and attention here in Washington has turned to other 
parts of the globe, I can say, without a doubt, the attention of my 
constituents in Texas is still very much focused on what is happening 
on our southwestern border and this surge of unaccompanied minor 
children who are making a dangerous and treacherous journey from 
Central America through Mexico and ending up on our doorstep.
  First of all, though, when the facts began to unfold the 
administration said that human smuggling operations are responsible for 
creating a misinformation campaign, and that is why we are seeing this 
surge of unaccompanied minors.
  There may actually be an element of truth to that if we think about 
it, because if the human smuggling operations--the drug cartels, 
organizations such as the Zetas and the associated gangs that work with 
them--make money on each and every migrant who passes through these 
corridors of human trafficking and human smuggling, then they probably 
are making money--more money the more people who come. They probably 
make more money with children and women and other migrants whom they 
kidnap and hold for ransom. So there is some element of that.
  But then we have been told by the administration that the surge is 
entirely the result of gang violence and poverty in Central America, 
and that it has nothing to do with President Obama's policies or his 
perceived commitment to our immigration laws, including the enforcement 
that only the executive branch can do.
  A few days ago, however, Secretary of Homeland Security Johnson 
published what he called ``an open letter to the parents of children 
crossing our

[[Page S4104]]

Southwest border,'' in which he implicitly acknowledged that the 
President's immigration policies or the perception that he was less 
than committed to enforcing those policies has indeed become a magnet 
for illegal border crossings.
  Referring to the so-called deferred action program President Obama 
announced in June of 2012--remember the President said, ``I have a pen 
and I have a phone''? Basically saying: I am going to go it alone, I am 
not going to work with Congress anymore? That was a product of the 
mentality and approach by the President.
  But referring to the so-called deferred action program that President 
Obama announced in June of 2012, Secretary Johnson felt compelled in 
this open letter to inform his readers that:

       The U.S. Government's Deferred Action for Childhood 
     Arrivals, also called ``DACA,'' does not apply to a child who 
     crosses the U.S. border illegally today, tomorrow or 
     yesterday.

  It doesn't apply. Secretary Johnson reiterated this point in the very 
next paragraph when he said:

       There is no path to deferred action or citizenship, or one 
     being contemplated by Congress, for a child who crosses our 
     border illegally today.

  If the sole driver of the border crisis was in fact Central American 
violence and poverty, or smuggling organizations, then there is no 
reason to believe that Secretary Johnson needed to clarify the details 
of U.S. immigration policy. After all, if the migrant surge has nothing 
to do with U.S. policy, as the White House initially insisted, then 
clarifying what that policy is won't affect it at all. But it has 
become simply undeniable that President Obama's policies--including his 
unilateral deferred action program, as well as the perception that he 
less than seriously committed to enforcing current law and in fact has 
ordered Secretary Johnson to investigate and recommend a further 
relaxation of his enforcement policies--all of this has played a huge 
role in creating the perception to tens of thousands of unaccompanied 
children that you should risk your life and travel unaccompanied in the 
hands of the cartels to the United States, because there won't be any 
consequences associated with it.

  It is that perception that the President continues to create by his 
silence that is the magnet for this illegal immigration.
  Don't take my word for it. According to an internal Department of 
Homeland Security memo:

       The main reason the subjects chose this particular time to 
     migrate to the United States was to take advantage of the 
     ``new'' U.S. ``Law'' that grants a ``free pass'' or permit . 
     . .

  In other words, they came because of a widespread perception that 
unaccompanied minors and women traveling with children would be allowed 
to stay, even after crossing the border illegally.
  I think there is more to this story. In fact, what we have learned is 
that women traveling with children are frequently given a notice to 
appear once they are processed by the Border Patrol--a notice to appear 
for a hearing in a court that would then determine any claims of asylum 
or then determine whether they can stay in the United States or they 
would have to return to their country of origin. This is called a 
notice to appear.
  Strangely enough, the vast majority of immigrants who get a notice to 
appear never show up. It makes one wonder about the ones who do show 
up, because there is absolutely no followthrough.
  This is what is perceived, has been this ``permission'' or ``free 
pass'' or ``permiso'' in Spanish.
  Meanwhile, a study by the Department of Homeland Security's Office of 
Science and Technology Directorate concluded that the unaccompanied 
minors:

       . . . are aware of the relative lack of consequences they 
     will receive when apprehended at the U.S. border.

  Relative lack of consequences. In other words, nothing happens to 
them. If you make it here, you will be able to stay. That is the 
perception.
  Again, it is puzzling to me that even though the administration's own 
documents show a clear reason for the surge, they initially continue to 
offer the public a shifting narrative.
  There is no doubt that drug- and gang-related violence in Central 
America is bad. It is a matter of tremendous concern for U.S. 
policymakers. It is terrible, it is heartbreaking, and it is something 
I propose we try to address. I had a great conversation, for example, 
on the floor a couple days ago with the senior Senator from California, 
Mrs. Feinstein, who said: Maybe there is something we can do, as we 
have done in the past, in countries such as Colombia, countries such as 
Mexico, and elsewhere, where we have worked with our partners there to 
try to help them restore security and the rule of law. That certainly 
is a conversation I look forward to continuing.
  But the fact is the violence in Central America didn't just begin a 
couple years ago. As a matter of fact, the murder rates in Guatemala 
and El Salvador were higher in 2009 than they were in 2012 and 2013. 
But the massive spike in illegal immigration by unaccompanied minors 
didn't start until 2012--the very same year, not coincidentally, when 
the President announced his unilateral deferred action program, again 
creating the perception that if you came here, you would be able to 
stay. Thus, there is no wonder that people felt as though the 
floodgates had opened, creating the humanitarian crisis and 
overwhelming the capacity of local, State, and Federal authorities to 
deal with all of these children.
  By fiscal year 2013, the number of unaccompanied minors detained on 
our southern border had grown to nearly 25,000--up from 6,500 2 years 
earlier. From 6,500 to 25,000 in 2 years' time.
  According to the New York Times:

       From October to June 15th, 52,000 unaccompanied minors were 
     caught at the American border with Mexico, twice the number 
     for the same period in the previous year.

  There are estimates that could turn out to be 60,000 or more this 
year and could double next year. One begins to wonder: Where does this 
end? How does this end?
  So between the President's refusal to enforce our immigration laws 
and his ever-shifting explanation as to the source of the ongoing 
crisis, it is no wonder that the President has lost so much credibility 
on this issue.
  Indeed, if the President wants to know why he hasn't been able to 
pass immigration reform in the House and the Senate, all he has to do 
is look at the fact that people have lost confidence in his willingness 
to enforce the law.
  I know the senior Senator from New York has suggested: Well, we 
should pass an immigration law and postpone its effective date until 
after President Obama leaves office. I would say that is a shocking 
statement, it seems to me, which has been reiterated by the majority 
leader Senator Reid.
  There is an enormous amount of distrust about the Federal 
Government's commitment to enforce the law. So I don't care what the 
law might ultimately be; if the American people don't believe the 
President and the Attorney General and the executive branch will 
enforce the law, we have lost their confidence entirely, and we will 
never be able to improve and fix our broken immigration system, 
something I am committed to do.
  Given all the different narratives coming out of the White House 
concerning the surge of unaccompanied minors, I think it would be good 
for the President to directly address the issue.
  He has sent Vice President Biden to Central America. That is a 
positive step. I know Secretary Johnson has visited the Rio Grande 
Valley and some of these detention centers for unaccompanied minors. 
That is a positive step. And he has written this open letter to the 
parents of children in Central America discouraging them from sending 
their children on this long, perilous journey from Central America to 
the United States through these drug-smuggling and human-smuggling 
corridors controlled by the Zetas and other cartels.
  Yesterday I submitted a resolution with my friend the junior Senator 
from Florida, Mr. Rubio, that calls on the President to do five things:
  No. 1, it calls on the President to publicly declare that the 
deferred action program he unilaterally announced in June 2012 will not 
apply to the recent waves of children who have been illegally crossing 
our southwestern border.

  That is the same thing that Secretary Johnson and others have been 
saying, but it is different coming from the President of the United 
States. It

[[Page S4105]]

will be covered by the press. It will be communicated to parents in 
Central America: Don't send your children to the United States, making 
them an additional part of this humanitarian crisis, and subject them 
to all the perils I have talked about repeatedly of that treacherous 
trip from Central America to the United States.
  Secondly, this resolution calls on the President to publicly 
discourage parents in Central America and Mexico and elsewhere from 
sending their kids on one of the most dangerous migration journeys in 
the world.
  Third, it calls on the President to fully and faithfully enforce U.S. 
immigration laws.
  I don't know what the facts are, but I do know some of the Members of 
the House of Representatives--Luis Gutieerrez has very recently said 
that if we can't pass immigration reform that suits him, he wants the 
President to take further unilateral action declining to enforce our 
immigration laws. That just contributes to the impression that is 
causing this wave of humanity to come to the United States and creating 
the humanitarian crisis. It doesn't fix it. It makes it worse.
  I hope the President is watching and listening and decides that he 
needs to be the one to make the statement, because only the President 
has the bully pulpit necessary to deal with this.
  Fourth, our resolution calls on the President to ensure that States 
such as Texas--and I see my colleague from Arizona; I would include 
Arizona, California, and other border States--have the resources we 
need to handle the crisis and to guarantee humane treatment of 
unaccompanied migrant children.
  Some of my colleagues from Texas visited the facility in Lackland Air 
Force Base on Monday, including Senator Cruz and others, and they 
reported back conditions which, frankly, are very disturbing.
  Fifth, this resolution calls on the President to work closely with 
Mexico and Central American officials to improve security at Mexico's 
southern border. Mexico has a 500-mile southern border with Guatemala 
which is insecure and porous, through which all of the unaccompanied 
minors from Central America come.
  I realize how controversial and polarizing the whole discussion about 
immigration can be, but I suggest we need to try to work together on a 
bipartisan basis to deal with it. Hopefully, by making this above 
partisan politics and doing our job, we can help resolve this immediate 
crisis, but then we can help regain the public's confidence so they 
will allow us to take the reasonable steps we know we need to take 
moving forward to fix our broken immigration laws.
  I believe passing this resolution would send a powerful message about 
our commitment and the President's commitment to the rule of law, our 
commitment to resolving the current border crisis, and our commitment 
to saving these young children from unimaginably treacherous journeys 
through Mexico which I previously described.
  I urge all of our colleagues to work together with us to send that 
message, and encourage the President to use the bully pulpit to send 
the message I have outlined.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CORNYN. I will.
  Mr. McCAIN. First, I thank him for the resolution.
  On behalf of myself and others, I appreciate the representation of 
the people of Texas who are literally experiencing a crisis on the 
southern border of our States--of the Senator's State as well as mine.
  I note the presence of the Senator from Illinois. There is no greater 
advocate for the DREAMers, the children who were brought here, not 
willfully, and I believe that in our immigration reform bill we address 
that issue in a humane and compassionate fashion.
  But I ask my colleague now: Isn't it terribly inhumane to see these 
children taken from these countries by some of the most unspeakable 
people on Earth--these coyotes? And their trip along the way these 
hundreds of miles is so cruel and inhumane to many of these children 
that it is chilling. These coyotes are terrible people. They commit 
crimes to these people and on these young children. They do terrible 
things. They sometimes ride on the top of a train where the safety is--
obviously, their lives are literally in jeopardy.
  Again, I appreciate the work that has been done on behalf of the 
DREAMers. But shouldn't we care a great deal about these children, even 
if they are not in the United States, for what they are undergoing now? 
And isn't it a humanitarian issue of the highest order, and wouldn't we 
be better served if we told these children and the people who are 
motivating them and making a lot of money bringing them here--wouldn't 
it be better for us to say: Look, anybody who shows up at our border is 
not going to be allowed to stay in this country. But if you go to our 
consulate, if you go to our embassy in the country in which you reside 
and make a case that your life is being threatened, you are being 
persecuted--whatever the conditions are for asylum in our country--then 
those cases can be judged, and then if it is a humanitarian case that 
warrants it, we can bring them into the United States of America.
  But say: If you come to our border, you cross those--how many miles 
is it from the Guatemalan border?
  Mr. CORNYN. It is 1200 miles.
  Mr. McCAIN. Don't subject yourself to a 1,200-mile trip, which is 
hazardous to your life and terrible things can happen to you.
  Why don't we send a message: If you think you deserve asylum, then go 
to the consulate, go to the embassy, and we will have sufficient 
personnel there to take up your case. And if your case is compelling 
and meets our standards for asylum, then we are going to give it to 
you. But whatever you do, don't risk your life and your well-being to 
travel 1,200 miles in the hands of a coyote.
  I would say to the Senator from Texas, sometimes when we say we have 
to have a secure border and the things we need to do, we are viewed 
sometimes as inhumane.

  My question is: What is more inhumane than what is happening to these 
children now? Some of them are only 4, 5, 6 years old. What is more 
inhumane than what is happening to them as we speak?
  Shouldn't the President of the United States do as the Secretary of 
Homeland Security did yesterday and say: You cannot stay in our country 
even if you show up on the border, but you can apply for humanitarian 
asylum in the United States of America?
  Mr. CORNYN. I appreciate the question. I would say there is nobody in 
this Chamber who has been more involved in trying to fix our broken 
immigration laws than the senior Senator from Arizona. And certainly 
the senior Senator from Illinois has been very much involved. Both of 
them are members of the so-called Gang of 8 who were the primary 
authors of the Senate-passed immigration bill.
  But I would point out that not even under that bill would these 
children be covered, because they wouldn't qualify for the so-called 
DREAM Act provisions authored by the senior Senator from Illinois.
  That is the point the Secretary of Homeland Security has been trying 
to make--this is not a green light to anybody and everybody who wants 
to come to the United States.
  For their protection, for the protection and safety of the American 
people, and in the interest of an orderly immigration flow and the rule 
of law, we need people to play by the rules, and it is the perception 
that there are no rules and that if you make it here, you will be able 
to stay regardless of whether you qualify under the law that created 
this flood of humanity. The second thing I would say, the Senator is 
exactly right. I think people underestimate the horror inflicted on 
migrants who are transported from Central America through Mexico up 
into the United States at the hands of transnational criminal 
organizations. The ``coyotes'' as we always called them are the human 
smugglers. They now have to pay the cartels for protection or they 
cannot travel through the corridors up through Mexico and the United 
States. These migrants in the process of being transported here, riding 
on the train the Senator alluded to called The Beast, are prone to 
accidents. They could lose their life, leg or limb, be kidnapped, held 
for ransom. Women will be raped and assaulted. It is horrific.

[[Page S4106]]

  Who in their right mind would subject their family to those sorts of 
horrors only to end up in the United States when our laws do not permit 
their entry into this country? Somehow the President or the Secretary 
of Homeland Security are the only ones who have the bully pulpit who 
can send that message in a way none of us can to convince them we are 
going to enforce our law.
  Mr. McCAIN. The only way we are going to stop this right now is to 
convince these people not to listen to the coyotes who are advertising 
on regular television in these countries and to convince these people 
that trip will not lead to the result of being able to stay in the 
United States of America. Until that happens, they are going to believe 
that if they can get here, they can stay here.
  All of our hearts and sympathies go out to people who live in these 
countries in terrible conditions. We understand why they want to come 
to the United States of America, but they are on a fool's 
errand. Meanwhile, they are putting their very lives at risk by taking 
that arduous journey to Texas from Honduras, Guatemala, or some other 
Central American country.

  I see my friend--and there is no greater advocate for the DREAMers 
than Senator Durbin--on the floor. He was one of the earliest and most 
outspoken on this issue. I hope he will join us in recognizing that the 
only way we can stop this is to make sure people know there is no pot 
of gold at the end of this terrible trip they are on.
  Mr. CORNYN. I say to the senior Senator from Arizona and the senior 
Senator from Illinois--and I will turn the floor over to Senator Durbin 
in a moment--that there are two big problems: This wave of children is 
coming and not allowed to legally stay in the United States and thus 
subject to being returned to their country of origin. Both Vice 
President Biden and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that 
is the law of the land.
  If the President doesn't step up and use his bully pulpit to send 
this message in a way that none of us can because people pay attention 
to him and not as much to us--I think that is a fair statement--then 
this wave is going to continue, and it is going to get worse and worse.
  I ask through the Chair to the senior Senator from Arizona and the 
senior Senator from Illinois--both of whom I know care passionately and 
are committed to fixing our broken immigration laws, although we have 
had our differences--how will the American people let us do this if 
they have lost confidence in the executive branch's willingness to 
enforce the current law? I think it makes it much, much harder.
  In fact, as I alluded to a moment ago, the majority leader and the 
senior Senator from New York said: Let's pass immigration reform but 
delay its implementation until after President Obama leaves office.
  That sounds like an embarrassing proposal.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CORNYN. I will yield in a moment.
  That has to be embarrassing. It shows a lack of confidence in the 
President's commitment to enforce the rule of law. I think it is a 
problem. I think the President can help mitigate that problem and help 
restore the impression that you are not going to get a free pass if you 
make it to our southern border.
  I will gladly turn the floor over to my colleague.
  Mr. DURBIN. Through the Chair, I would like to ask the Senator from 
Texas a question. He said repeatedly that the President is not 
enforcing the existing law. We all acknowledge that there is a 
humanitarian crisis on our border, and I think we agree more than we 
disagree, but I do want to question the Senator's premise. Will the 
Senator from Texas tell me which existing law the President is not 
enforcing that has created this crisis?
  Mr. CORNYN. I say to my friend from Illinois that I tried to make 
clear that the current law bars the entry of these children and people 
across the border because they would not even meet the terms of the 
President's Executive order, that is, if you believe the President's 
Executive order has the effect of law, which I don't.
  There are a couple of issues. It is both the impression that the 
President is not committed to enforcing the law and the fact that now 
when these adults are detained and children are placed with relatives 
in the country, virtually none of them show up for their hearing. So 
the perception--because we don't have a comprehensive system to enforce 
our immigration laws even after people come to our country--and reality 
of how that works tells them that if they make it here, they will never 
have to leave.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
  Mr. CORNYN. Sure.
  Mr. DURBIN. Does the Senator know the origin of the law which 
requires that an unaccompanied child be turned over within 72 hours by 
the Department of Homeland Security to the Department of Health and 
Human Services, specifically the Office of Refugee Resettlement? Does 
the Senator from Texas know who introduced that bill and who signed it 
into law?
  Mr. CORNYN. I say to the distinguished Senator through the Chair that 
I don't know who introduced the bill, but I do know who signed it into 
law, and that was President George W. Bush.
  Mr. DURBIN. I say through the Presiding Officer that the bill was 
introduced by the Senator's former colleague from Texas, Richard Armey, 
and signed into law by President George W. Bush, which required what is 
currently taking place--that within 72 hours, unaccompanied children 
need to be taken out of the Department of Homeland Security--a law 
enforcement agency--and placed, through the Department of Health and 
Human Services, into some protective situation. The President is 
enforcing a law signed by President Bush and authored by the 
Congressman from Texas, Congressman Army.
  I ask the Senator from Texas through the Chair, on what basis is he 
saying the President is not enforcing the law?
  Mr. CORNYN. I say to the Senator from Illinois, here is how it 
works--I don't think we disagree about the law or the origin of the law 
but how it works in application. These children are now being placed 
with family members who may not be documented. They may have entered 
the country in violation of the immigration law, but because it is 
perceived as a relatively safe place for them to temporarily reside 
pending further court proceedings, they place the children with a 
family member in the United States. Absent a family member, I presume 
they will be placed with a legal guardian or foster family or the like 
while the legal proceedings go forward.
  Here is the practical problem: Once they make it here to the United 
States, if they never return to the court in response to their notice 
to appear, then they are lost forever to the immigration enforcement 
system and they become a part of the great American melting pot, never 
to be heard from or seen again unless they commit some other crime. 
That is how the press reports it in Central America and elsewhere. At 
least that is the report we hear from migrants themselves. They refer 
to it as a permiso, which is a notice to appear. At that point they 
think they are home free and never have to show up for their court 
hearing, and that it is as good as permission to enter the country. I 
believe that is what actually is happening.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator would yield for a question.
  Mr. CORNYN. I will.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I understand what he said, the law governing this 
situation is a law that was authored by a Republican Congressman from 
Texas, signed into law by a Republican President, George W. Bush, and 
is currently enforced by this President. And what the Senator from 
Texas is suggesting is that the law in and of itself has at least a 
loophole or an opening that if the person doesn't appear in court--the 
young child or the parent with the child--then they could be lost in 
our system. The Senator from Texas seems to be suggesting we need to 
change the law or at least address the law.
  I have two questions. Will the Senator concede the fact that 
President Obama is enforcing the law as it is written? Secondly, what 
would the Senator do with these children once they show up in the 
United States?
  Let's assume you had a 12-year-old child--which is a case I heard 
last

[[Page S4107]]

night--on top of a freight train for 4 days; finally made it into the 
United States, possibly at the hands of a coyote or smuggler--I make no 
excuse for them--pushed across the river, or Rio Grande, in a raft and 
told to report to the first person in uniform? What would the Senator 
have us do with the child at that point?
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I would respond to my friend from 
Illinois and say I would have them enforce the law, which is as the 
Senator has just described. Once the Border Patrol processes the child 
or migrant, then they turn them over to Health and Human Services, 
where they can be placed in humanitarian and hopefully clean conditions 
so their interests can be looked after while their legal case proceeds.
  The problem is not just the fact that there are no consequences once 
these children or others are released on a notice to appear, which is 
never enforced, it is also the perception that people--for example, 
this morning Congressman Luis Gutieerrez said that he was so frustrated 
by our inability to pass immigration reform, that the President needs 
to withhold any deportations or radically, essentially, refuse to 
enforce the law even further.
  America is the most generous country in the world when it comes to 
our legal immigration system. We naturalize about 800,000 people a 
year. It has been up to as many as 1 million people. We are very 
generous. But it is not too much to insist that people do it through 
legal means for their protection and ours.
  The statements the President has been making and the unilateral 
actions he continues to take give the perception he doesn't care what 
Congress says; he is going to go it alone. As a matter of fact, this 
morning the Supreme Court rebuked the President on an illegal recess 
appointment--unconstitutional recess appointment.
  I think it is not just the law as it is written on the books, it is 
also how the law is actually implemented. It is also the further 
perception that the President is going to continue to basically refuse 
to repatriate people who enter the country illegally.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I went to the White House last night. 
The President invited Democratic Members of the Senate, and we met with 
Cabinet and staff members. One of the President's close advisers I met 
with described what she had seen in McCallum, TX, and there were tears 
in her eyes when she told heartbreaking stories of babies, children, 
and infants who are coming to this country. Many of them are in the 
hands of smugglers and coyotes who have gotten money from their parents 
or family to transport them to the border of the United States.
  She told me the story of a 12-year-old boy, whom I mentioned earlier, 
from Guatemala. He was put on the top of a freight train and told to 
hang on for 4 days. For 4 days this 12-year-old boy, scared to death, 
was on top of this freight train as it barreled through Central America 
on its way to the United States. He had with him the name of a relative 
in the United States, and that is it. He was told that as soon as he 
got across the border, look for somebody in a uniform, don't show any 
resistance, and present yourself, which he did. He now sits in a 
facility in Texas.
  This is a horrible humanitarian situation. The numbers that are 
involved here--I will give for the record the numbers that have been 
reported, which are worth noting. Some people may think we are talking 
about hundreds of children. This year, and this year alone, as of June 
15, unaccompanied children apprehended by the Border Patrol: Honduras, 
15,000; Guatemala, 12,000; El Salvador, 11,000; and Mexico, 12,000. 
Almost 80 percent of these kids come from the countries Honduras, El 
Salvador, and Guatemala.
  Why are they coming here? They are coming here for a number of 
reasons: No. 1, there is this criminal network that gets money to 
transport children. They promise the families they will get them to the 
border. God only knows what will happen to those kids on their way. 
Some of them will die, some of the girls will be raped, and their lives 
may never be the same. It is a desperate, awful, tragic situation, and 
there is no getting around the fact that it is occurring.
  Why are the families doing this? Why would you turn a fourth or fifth 
grader in your household loose to make that awful, deadly journey? 
Well, part of the reason is those three countries--Honduras, El 
Salvador, and Guatemala--are virtually lawless. They are three of the 
top five countries in the world when it comes to murder rates. There is 
a fear that the gangs in these countries will kill their kids anyway.
  A young girl from one of these countries said: I ran. I didn't know 
what else to do because I was told one of the members of the gang 
wanted to take me on as a girlfriend. I know what happens to girls who 
become girlfriends. They are raped, killed, and left in a plastic bag 
on the side of the road.
  Sadly, that is the reality of life for those children in some of 
these countries.
  The United States is at the end of this journey and trying to decide 
the humane thing to do when an infant, a toddler, a 10-year-old, or a 
12-year-old, shows up.
  There is no easy answer.
  The one point I wish to make and clarify--and I hope I did it in the 
course of my colloquy with my friend and colleague from Texas--this is 
not a question about whether President Obama has dreamed up a new law 
or is not enforcing an existing law. The President is enforcing the 
existing law in America, and here is what it says: When an 
unaccompanied child shows up on our border and our Border Patrol takes 
this child into custody, within 72 hours--we give them some time 
because it is not easy--we need to put this child in a different place 
outside of a law enforcement agency. Technically, we need to take them 
out of the police station part of the world and put them in some part 
of the world that is best for a child. That is what they are required 
to do under a law introduced by a Republican Texas Congressman, Dick 
Armey, and signed into law by a Republican President, George W. Bush. 
What President Obama is doing is enforcing a law which President Bush 
signed and was supported by Republicans.
  So, please, for a second, can we stop the partisanship on this? Let's 
view this not as a political crisis but a humanitarian crisis, and 
let's acknowledge the obvious. The President has tried in his capacity 
to deal with the immigration issue. He has done more than he wanted to 
do as President. Last night at a gathering the President said: Does 
anyone think I believe Executive orders are the best way to govern 
America? No. It is better to do it by law. But let me tell my 
colleagues why he is forced into Executive orders.
  It was 365 days ago, on the floor of this Senate, that we passed a 
comprehensive immigration reform bill. It was one of my prouder moments 
as a Senator. There were eight of us who wrote the bill and it took us 
months: four Republicans, including John McCain, who was just on the 
floor, my friend Marco Rubio of Florida, Jeff Flake of Arizona, and--I 
am thinking for a second; I blanked on it, but I will think of the 
other one in just a second--Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. So the 
four Republicans, and on our side of the table we had Chuck Schumer of 
New York, myself, Bob Menendez of New Jersey, and Michael Bennet of 
Colorado.
  We went at it for months and we wrote the bill. We brought the bill 
to the floor, and we covered virtually every aspect of our broken 
immigration system, start to finish. It wasn't easy, but we covered it 
all. The bill passed on the floor of the Senate. It got 68 votes. We 
had 14 Republicans joining the Democrats in passing the bill. It was 
supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It was supported by the 
labor unions, the faith community. Grover Norquist, one of the most 
conservative Republicans in our country, supported it publicly and said 
it was a good idea, and we passed it.
  We sent it to the House of Representatives 1 year ago. What has 
happened to comprehensive immigration reform since we sent it 1 year 
ago to the House of Representatives? Nothing. Nothing. They refuse to 
call up the bill for consideration.
  So when Members come to the floor and talk about how broken our 
immigration system is, I agree. Many of us tried to fix it, and we did 
it the way we

[[Page S4108]]

should have--in a bipartisan fashion, give and take, compromise.
  We are sending, under this new bill, more enforcement to the border 
between Texas and Mexico than we have ever seen before. I said somewhat 
jokingly that the people at the border can reach out and touch hands, 
there will be so many of them--figuratively--at our border. That was 
the price the Republicans insisted on: border enforcement. All right. 
What we insisted on was to take the 11 million undocumented in America 
today, and if they have been here for at least 2 years, give them a 
chance. Let them come forward, register with the United States who they 
are, where they live, where they work, who is in their household. Let 
them pay their taxes, let them pay a fine, and let them learn English. 
If they do those things, we will do a criminal background check to make 
sure they are no threat to anyone in this country, and we will watch 
them. We will watch them for 13 years--13 years. Then they have a 
chance at legalization.
  That is what our bill says. They go to the back of the line and they 
wait 13 years while they pay their fines. It is tough. Some of them 
will not make it to the end of the road, but it is there. It gives them 
a chance.
  So when Members come to the floornd criticize our current immigration 
system, I say to them, there was a repair to that system, there was a 
fix to that system. It passed the Senate 1 year ago and Speaker Boehner 
refuses to call it to the floor of the House. I don't know why.
  Well, I do know why: Because it would pass. There would be enough 
Republicans joining Democrats to pass it and we would finally have done 
something on the issue of immigration.
  Now we have before us a resolution by the senior Senator from Texas 
and he suggests we should take it up. The first part of the resolution 
says the President has to make it clear the DACA Executive order does 
not apply to the new people coming across the border. Well, that is a 
fact. Those who are coming across the border today can't qualify to 
become legal in the United States--not under any existing Executive 
order or under the proposed comprehensive immigration reform we passed 
in the Senate. They can't become citizens. The President saying it 
personally? I am sure the President would say it personally because he 
sent the Vice President out to Central America to visit the countries 
and tell the leaders there: There is a mistake if your people believe 
they can stay in this country legally. They cannot.
  Secondly, he said we have to discourage this migration. I am for 
that. Who isn't for that? We need to discourage the exploitation of 
these children and their families and do it in every manner possible. 
So there is nothing in that suggestion that I think isn't already being 
done.
  The third thing is to fully enforce existing law. The point I tried 
to make to the Senator from Texas is the President is fully enforcing 
existing laws. If people want to change the laws, let's have that 
debate, but to argue the President is not enforcing existing laws is 
not correct. He is. Those laws may need to be changed or addressed, but 
he is dealing with them.
  I wish to say a word, if I can, about an issue which has come up on 
the floor and one that is near and dear to my heart. It was 13 years 
ago when I got a call to my Chicago office. There was a Korean-American 
mother who had an 18-year-old daughter who was a musical prodigy. She 
played classical piano in high school and she had been offered a 
scholarship to the Manhattan School of Music. Her family was a poor 
immigrant family and this was the chance of a lifetime. When the mother 
and daughter sat down to fill out the application to go to the 
Manhattan School of Music, there was a question which asked, What is 
your citizenship? She turned to her mother and asked, What do I put 
there? And her mother said, I don't know. We brought you here under a 
visitor's visa when you were 2 years old and we never filed any papers. 
The daughter said, What are we going to do? The mother said, We will 
call Durbin. So they called our office.
  We looked into the law and the law was clear. The law was clear. This 
18-year-old girl under our law had to leave the United States for 10 
years and then apply to come back in. Where was she going to go? Her 
family was here. So the mother said to me, What can we do? I told her, 
Under the law, almost nothing. So that is when I introduced the DREAM 
Act.

  The DREAM Act says if a person is brought here as a child, an infant, 
under the age of 16, and they completed high school and had no criminal 
record of any substance at all, if they served in our military or went 
2 years to college, they had a chance to become an American citizen. 
That was the DREAM Act. I introduced it 13 years ago--13 years ago. It 
has passed the House, but it didn't pass the Senate that year. It has 
passed the Senate as part of comprehensive immigration reform, but it 
hasn't passed the House.
  So several years ago I wrote to the President. I said to the 
President, with 22 other Senators, Would you consider issuing an 
Executive order saying you will not deport these DREAM children, these 
DREAMers--because they are eligible under bills that have passed both 
the House and Senate--give them a suspension of deportation and allow 
them to stay in the United States without fear of being deported? He 
signed the Executive order. So almost 600,000 have stepped forward and 
they have agreed they will submit the information to our government 
and, in turn, they will be spared deportation.
  They are getting on with their lives. They are going to school and 
getting jobs. Amazing things are happening for them. There are great 
stories, and I come to the floor and tell them all the time, but we 
still don't have the final law. We have the President's Executive order 
which gives them a break now, but we still don't have the final law to 
resolve it.
  I wish to tell a story about one of those DREAMers today. This is 
Marie Gonzalez Deel and her parents Marvin and Marina Gonzalez. Marvin 
and Marina brought Marie from Costa Rica to the United States in 1991 
when Maria was 5 years old. They came to the United States legally on 
temporary visas and settled in Jefferson City, MO. A lawyer said to 
them, Put down roots, get a job, and you have a chance to become a 
citizen.
  The Gonzalez family bought a house, paid their taxes, and were active 
members of their church. Marvin was a mail courier for the Missouri 
Governor. Marina taught Spanish at a local school, and Maria was at the 
top of her high school class. They thought they had done everything 
right, but then Maria's family was placed in deportation proceedings. 
The community of Jefferson City was angry that a good family such as 
this who was part of their community was facing deportation. They 
rallied around them.
  I first met Marie in 2005. She was one of the first DREAMers to tell 
her story publicly. Back then it was a pretty courageous thing to do. 
It still is. At my request, the Department of Homeland Security granted 
her a stay of deportation, but 9 years ago Maria's parents were 
deported back to Costa Rica.
  In 2008, Marie graduated from Westminster College in Missouri with a 
degree in political science and business, but her parents couldn't be 
there to see her. They had been deported back to Costa Rica. In 2009, 
Marie married her college sweetheart and planned a second ceremony in 
Costa Rica so her parents could be a part of it. On Thanksgiving, 2010, 
she and her husband flew to Costa Rica. As my colleagues can see from 
this picture, they were elated to see one another for the first time in 
5 years.
  Just a few hours later, Marvin, her father, who had prostate cancer, 
collapsed. He was rushed to the hospital. He passed away later that 
same day--the day this photograph was taken. Luckily, they got to see 
him before he passed away. The family held a funeral the next day and 
carried on with the Costa Rica wedding the following day with an empty 
chair at the head of the table where Marie's father would have been 
seated.
  Today Marie is the proud mother of an 11-month-old baby girl, 
Araceli. In March 2014, Marie became a citizen of the United States. 
Here is what she wrote to me in a letter:

       I was very blessed and thankful to get the opportunity to 
     stay in the United States on a temporary visa to be able to 
     finish my education, get a job, find my soul mate, and 
     eventually become a citizen, though at the cost of not 
     spending that time with my family and feeling alone for so 
     long. My family was torn apart when I was 18 and will never 
     be able to be reunited. My immigration

[[Page S4109]]

     struggle continues until the day I can once again have my mom 
     at my side. I hope other families don't have to endure this 
     pain.

  There are 11 million stories in America, many of them just like this. 
Hard-working men and women, law-abiding families, viable parts of our 
churches and our communities, who had the courage to leave everything 
behind and come to this great Nation. Those of us who are immigrants to 
this country, which includes the Presiding Officer and myself--at least 
my mother--thank our lucky stars we were given this chance. My mother 
was an immigrant to this country and her son is a U.S. Senator from 
Illinois. She was brought here at the age of 2. Her naturalization 
certificate is in my office upstairs. I am very proud of it. It is a 
reminder to me and a reminder to anyone who visits me that this is a 
nation of immigrants. We are a nation that thrives with the diversity 
of our immigration and the energy they bring, the courage they bring, 
leaving everything behind to come to this country. That is the family 
of the Presiding Officer, and that was my family. That is our story, 
but that is America's story. That is who we are.
  Have we reached the point where we cannot even discuss future 
immigration in the House of Representatives? Have we reached a point 
where we cannot even bring the matter to the floor for a vote? Are we 
going to ignore what that means to this family and millions just like 
them, what it means to the thousands of kids presenting themselves at 
the border?
  We are better than that. America is better than that. When we embrace 
our diversity, when we embrace immigration as part of who we are in 
America, we will be stronger for it and not just in the creation of new 
businesses and jobs. These immigrants are some of the hardest working 
people in America. They take the toughest jobs that a lot of Americans 
would not touch, but they know that is what an immigrant does.
  What is their dream? That their babies, their sons and daughters, are 
going to have a better life. Thank goodness that story has been 
repeated over and over and over. That defines who we are in America.
  Now--1 year later--the House of Representatives is about to throw up 
its hands and walk away from even addressing immigration issues. What a 
heartbreaking situation. What an abdication of responsibility.
  I know there is a partisan difference between the House and the 
Senate, but I honestly believe that if the Speaker had the political 
courage to call the comprehensive immigration bill--the bipartisan bill 
that passed the Senate--we would find enough Republican House Members 
who would stand and vote with the Democrats and pass it. Sure, there 
will be critics of the Speaker--he shouldn't have done it--but that is 
what leadership calls for, for the Speaker to have that courage and get 
it done. I hope he will.
  One year is long time to wait--and for these families, years and 
years, some of them with broken dreams that will never be fulfilled, 
families who have been split up and try to survive. But that is our 
responsibility, not just for DREAMers but for our country, to make sure 
we renew this commitment to our diversity and to immigration.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.