[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 11 (Thursday, January 18, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S286-S287]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  DACA

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to offer 
remarks about an issue of utmost important to this body and to the 
American people--the ongoing negotiations over the future of the 
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.
  I should explain the justification for these young people. The 
children were brought here by their parents. Their parents crossed the 
border without papers, violating the law, but the children cannot be 
held guilty for the sins of their parents. That is why we feel it is 
very legitimate to do this humanitarian thing of legalizing DACA 
children--not in and of itself, but, as you heard from my colleague 
from North Carolina and you will hear from other people, the necessity 
of making sure that we have border security, that we do away with chain 
migration, and that we also do away with diversity visas--this is the 
scope of negotiations that ought to be going on to get a compromise for 
the humanitarian reason of giving certainty to these young DACA people.
  Those things were narrowed at the White House a week ago Tuesday, not 
the famous Thursday meeting that you heard so much about last weekend 
but the meeting of 23 Republican and Democrat Members of both the House 
and Senate. When you get a bicameral, bipartisan group of people 
together with the President--and you want to do that because you want 
to make sure that when you reach an agreement, the President will sign 
it--it seems to me that is a significant way to move forward. But 
things tend to take different routes around here, and I am here because 
of some routes that I think are very puzzling at this point--pretty 
much along the lines of what the Senator from North Carolina just 
stated.
  Last week, speaking to my colleagues, I told this body that we still 
weren't any closer to a legitimate and fair deal that promotes and 
protects the interests of the American people in a lawful immigration 
system, and, at the same time, what is very important is providing a 
fair and equitable solution on DACA. But we also want to take care of 
the interests of the American people, particularly the safety of the 
American people when it comes to criminal aliens.
  Since I made that speech a week ago, we made some progress in a 
meeting that went on at the White House, which I just told you about. 
In spite of the many events of these past 2 weeks, the pronouncement I 
just made that we don't have a legitimate, fair deal on one hand to 
protect the American people and, on the other hand, to deliver the 
humanitarian ends that we need for the DACA kids--that pronouncement 
still holds true.
  Unfortunately, immigration has become the ``Groundhog Day'' of the 
U.S. Senate. Democrats, and even some Republicans, keep repeating the 
same mistakes that we have been making for the past 30 years, and they 
don't seem to be learning from them. I should probably tell my 
colleagues what I have learned in those 30 years.
  Thirty years ago, when I voted for an immigration bill--the last 
great big reform of immigration--we had 3 million undocumented people 
here. In good faith, we thought we had secured the border because 
throughout the history of the country, from the beginning, it had never 
been illegal to hire an illegal alien, and for the first time, we made 
it illegal for our employers to hire someone who is undocumented, 
taking away the magnet to come to this country. We thought it would 
secure the border if they couldn't be legally hired, and we legalized 3 
million people. We didn't take into consideration the whole industry of 
false documents in which, if I go to an employer and show him a false 
document and they believe it is a true document, then they are not 
guilty of hiring me, even though I am technically an undocumented 
worker, because I am using a fraudulent document.
  What happens when you reward illegality? You get more of it. So 
instead of the 3 million people we had legalized, we now have an 11-
million person issue. That is what I have been told.

[[Page S287]]

  We don't want to repeat those mistakes, and that is why, besides 
legalizing DACA kids, border security and doing away with chain 
migration are so important. One of the bombers in New York was here 
because of chain migration--the terrorist who was just about ready to--
well, he didn't kill anyone, but he injured a lot of people. Then we 
have another person who was here on a diversity visa and killed 8 
people and injured 12 while driving down the streets of New York. So we 
have a major problem we have to take care of.
  The President is very interested in taking care of this problem, as 
he enunciated in that Tuesday meeting, which was bicameral and 
bipartisan and narrowed the issues so that it would be easier for us to 
reach an agreement here. Instead of dealing with 100 things, 4 are 
taken care of--DACA, border security, doing away with diversity visas, 
and doing away with chain migration.
  We don't want ``Groundhog Day'' to happen again in the U.S. Senate 
because it has been happening quite frequently. In the last 30 years, 
we thought we could solve this problem once and for all by taking away 
the magnet for people to come here for jobs, and we would secure the 
border. Well, 30 years later, you can understand why the President 
wants a wall and more border security.
  In recent days, several of my colleagues formed what can best be 
described as a poor man's version of the Gang of 8. The Gang of 8 is 
affiliated with a very bad bill called comprehensive immigration. It 
passed in 2013 and went nowhere in the House of Representatives because 
it was unrealistic. These six Senators have decided that they--and they 
alone--will come up with a solution to the DACA crisis. Now they are 
demanding that their solution--and no other solution--receive a vote or 
they will shut the government down at midnight tomorrow night. That is 
right. These Senators, along with many Democrats, are threatening to 
shut the government down unless this plan gets a vote.
  Surely, if these Senators are willing to prevent basic services from 
being provided to law-abiding, tax-paying American citizens and legal 
immigrants, their plan must be something that could garner wide 
bipartisan support, pass the House, and be signed into law by the 
President. It is far short of those four things that were agreed to at 
the bipartisan, bicameral meeting at the White House.
  What is actually in this grand plan these Senators have come up with? 
Well, as of today, neither I nor my staff have actually seen text of 
the bill they are promoting. Why are they threatening a shutdown of the 
Federal Government over a bill that almost no one has been given a 
chance to read, and why are they threatening to shut down the 
government when there is still plenty of time? The deadline is March 5 
to come to a meaningful solution that can earn bipartisan support.
  Well, here is what we do know about their proposal, from one-page 
summaries. The bill would provide a massive amnesty to millions of 
people who are in this country unlawfully--before border security, 
making the same mistake we did in 1986. Their proposal doesn't just 
provide status to the young men and women enrolled in the DACA Program, 
which everyone in this Chamber agrees should be done; it dramatically 
expands the scope, granting legal status to potentially millions of 
others, including those who knowingly violate the law. It is 
unthinkable to me that we should reward that unlawful conduct, and it 
is ridiculous that Democrats and some Republicans are turning the 
tables and making this last-minute demand when there was such a 
successful meeting at the White House a week ago Tuesday. It was 
bipartisan, bicameral, with the President leading the discussion and 
everyone agreeing that we would narrow the 100 issues down to 4: DACA, 
border security, diversity visas, and ending chain migration.
  Surely then, in exchange for this massive amnesty, their proposal 
would provide significant border security, enforcement, and chain 
migration reforms. If you were hoping for that answer to be yes, don't 
hold your breath. Their proposal has a paltry amount of funding for 
existing border security infrastructure improvement. That is right--no 
new infrastructure.
  Their proposal also doesn't add new legal authorities to make it 
easier for law enforcement to apprehend, detain, and deport dangerous 
criminal aliens. Now, I think they are somewhat embarrassed that they 
don't have some proposals in there that dangerous criminal aliens ought 
to be deported easier than they are today.
  So I have to ask, is there a reason why these Senators don't want to 
make it easier to remove these dangerous criminals? Do they want to 
protect sex offenders? Do they want to protect child molesters? Do they 
want drunk drivers, gang members, like MS-13, human traffickers, and 
drug smugglers roaming throughout this great United States of America?
  I can't imagine the answer to any of these questions is yes. If I am 
right, then they need to tell the American people why they refused to 
give our government the new authorities needed to remove these 
individuals who have endangered our communities. They either support 
removing dangerous criminals or they don't. There is no going in 
between.
  Their plan also fails to truly end chain migration. In fact, in that 
one-page document I have seen, these Senators acknowledge their chain 
migration fix would only affect 26,266 visas per year. That is right, 
just a little above 26,000. So in exchange for a potential amnesty for 
8 million people, they have agreed to eliminate 26,000 visas a year. I 
am no mathematician, but that doesn't seem to be a very balanced 
agreement to me. They seem to be making the same mistakes I made in 
1986.
  Finally, their proposal doesn't even end the Diversity Visa Program. 
Remember, this is one of four agreements in a bicameral, bipartisan 
meeting with the President of the United States that everybody left the 
White House with an agreement that we were going to break within those 
four.
  This Diversity Visa Program, we all know, is subject to fraud and 
abuse, and colleagues on both sides of the aisle have long called for 
its elimination--and I mean elimination, not reallocation. The proposal 
they are floating around doesn't do that.
  To sum it up, this proposal is heavy on amnesty, learning nothing 
from the 1986 mistake I learned a lot from. Too bad there is only a 
handful of us around the U.S. Senate from that time because there would 
be a lot more missionaries saying that what happened in 1986 shouldn't 
be repeated.
  Also, more importantly, it is nonexistent on security measures. This 
approach has been tried time and again, and that approach has failed. 
The American people simply don't want to provide a massive amnesty 
first and secure the border later. For those Members who think we can 
do amnesty first and security second, I think I made it quite clear: I 
think that is the wrong approach. I know because I have been here a 
long time, and I have been here at the time those mistakes have been 
made. We know they failed the goals we sought. I remember why it 
failed. Maybe--just maybe--if we actually provide safety first and then 
consider more comprehensive reforms later, we can break this repetitive 
cycle and end this immigration ``Groundhog Day.''
  Maybe I ought to add to those four points that were agreed to at the 
White House. The President was promoting another step or two called 
comprehensive immigration reform, but get this done first. Secure the 
border first. If we actually provide security first, doing so would 
instill trust with the American people that we are dedicated to fixing 
this immigration issue, not simply delaying the same debate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.

                          ____________________