[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 11 (Thursday, January 18, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S288-S289]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              IMMIGRATION

  Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I would like to make a few comments about 
the current immigration system. That seems to be the topic of the day 
recently. I want to tell you some of us have been working on this for 
years. Some in this body have been working on it at least the last 
decade. Three times in the last 11 years, this body has tried to solve 
this problem unsuccessfully.
  I believe one of the problems with each of those solutions or 
attempts at a solution was they tried to be comprehensive. People are 
misusing that word today when they talk about what we are trying to do 
on this side. These three attempts, over the last 11 years, attempted 
to solve not just the illegal situation and the temporary work visa 
situation, but they also tried to solve the legal situation. They tried 
to solve all of this.
  Today, what we are trying to do on our side is to solve just the 
illegal immigration system before we even talk about DACA. The legal 
situation is this: 1.1 million green cards are given out every year 
today. That is up from 300,000 in 1965, when this bill--the law we 
operate under today--was first passed. What we believe is, if we get 
this done, then the next step would be to move to the temporary work 
visas, where we give out 2.2 million temporary work visas every year. 
Those need desperate work. Both sides agree to that. Some categories 
probably need to be increased; others need to be streamlined. There 
might need to be a new category created, but that needs speciality 
work.
  Then, of course, we have to deal with the people who are here 
illegally. Remember, 40 percent of the people here illegally, or 
thereabouts, came into this country under a legal temporary work visa 
or a student visa, or some other form of temporary visa and overstayed 
their visa. We are one of the few countries in the developed world that 
can't track overstays, but that is not what we are trying to do. We are 
trying to bring focus to an issue that will stop this continuing 
evolution of immigration problems.
  I believe there is a better way, and there is a proposition to do 
just that. There was a meeting in the White House last week on Tuesday, 
and the President started out the conversation--it was bipartisan, 
bicameral. You heard my colleague from Iowa Senator Grassley talk about 
this. As part of that meeting, I was moved by how the President 
introduced this topic. He said, with regard to the DACA situation, we 
need to develop a compassionate approach that demonstrates love in 
dealing with these young people who are here illegally but through no 
fault of their own. The President, in that meeting, defined the scope, 
and he brought a sense of urgency to this topic. He expects a result.
  He undid what we believe was an illegal act by the past President in 
giving work status to these individuals, and said--now this is 
President Trump--he said: This is the responsibility of Congress to put 
a law in place to deal with this. I agree with that, but let's be very 
clear about what is going on right now. We are not debating what to do 
with the DACA individuals, mostly aged 15 to 36.
  My colleagues spoke last night as though they are the only ones 
committed to solving the DACA problem. That is not true. People on both 
sides of the aisle--in this body and in the House--believe we need to 
solve this problem. These individuals did not break the law, their 
parents did. We all agree there is a solution to be had. Again, the 
question is whether we are going to solve DACA without dealing with the 
things that created it in the first place.
  The President was very clear last week--and he has been consistent on 
this issue, as have those of us who have been working on this over the 
last year, this new, focused approach on legal immigration. The 
President made it very clear that any solution on DACA has to include 
border security--including a wall--an end to chain migration, and an 
end to this perverse diversity visa lottery.
  If we don't actually solve what created this, we are going to be 
right back here in just a few years. That is the problem I have with 
the bill that is being discussed here, this so-called Graham-Durbin 
exercise. I just don't know why we would do that and knowingly put 
ourselves in the same position in just a few years.
  Haven't we learned our lesson from what we did in 1986, 1991? We know 
kicking the can down the road on this is not going to give us any 
solution, but we have an opportunity because we have commonality in 
this body about what we need to do going forward with not only the DACA 
situation but this legal immigration system. There is a great deal of 
commonality in thought. I have done deals in the business world, and 
when you get this level of commonality, a deal should get done. There 
is a lot of symmetry here to be had if we would just talk with each 
other and

[[Page S289]]

get at the real issues and put political issues aside.

  If we give DACA recipients a path for legal status without a real 
investment in border security and a wall, we are going to further 
incentivize a new wave of illegal immigration.
  By the way, the President has said this publicly. It is not 
necessarily a 2,000-mile wall, but it is a system of constraints where 
we know that we can protect our southern borders. It is not just an 
immigration issue; it is a national security issue, as has been 
demonstrated by two acts of terror just in recent months. The plans I 
heard last night don't even address that seriously. A $1.8 billion 
allocation is not a serious attempt at that. The Dream Act--the 
estimated cost back in 2013 for doing that was $26 billion. Today, who 
knows what that estimate would be. It has to be greater than that.
  The second criteria in this was that if we are going to solve the 
DACA problem and eliminate the things that created this issue going 
forward, we have to deal with how to protect the family of the 
immigrant, the primary worker. We must protect the immediate family of 
the person who is sponsored and comes in as a citizen. But I believe 
there is a great deal of confusion about that. This is the so-called 
chain migration. There is nothing derogatory about that term. That was 
a term used by the Gang of 8 in 2013. The Democratic leader and the 
whip of the Democrats right now all used that term repeatedly. There 
was nothing derogatory and there is certainly nothing prejudicial about 
that term; it was a mere description of what happens in the current 
law.
  The current law says this: The person sponsored for citizenship comes 
in as a legal permanent resident, moves through a period of time, and 
becomes a citizen. If they apply, they become a citizen. After that 
process, as a citizen, they can then sponsor their spouse, their 
immediate minor children, their family, their adult married children, 
their adult unmarried children, their parents, and their siblings. The 
only thing we are talking about is limiting that to the primary worker 
and their immediate family, and that would break the so-called chain as 
described by our Members across the aisle.
  Let's be very clear. Seventy-two percent of Americans believe that 
immigration should be limited to the individual worker, their spouse, 
and their immediate family. Again, the only difference between that 
ethos and what we have today are the parents and the siblings.
  Somebody says: Well, I want to protect the family.
  Well, so do we. But whose family? The family of the sponsored worker 
or their parents' family or their parents' parents' family or their 
parents' parents' siblings' family? Which family? I believe the 
American people have spoken loud and clear about which family.
  There is a significant portion who believe it should just be the 
worker, but that is not our position. We believe we need to protect the 
family of that immediate worker.
  There are some of us who are trying to get to a merit-based 
immigration system like Canada and Australia have been using for 
decades and they have proven works. It helps their society, builds 
their economy, and opens their doors with a welcoming hand for those 
who want to come. Canada is no bastion of conservatism in its 
immigration policy. Yet it has a merit-based immigration system.
  Now, we are not proposing that. We are happy to wait for phase two, 
which the President talked about last week. Many people on the other 
side have absolutely discredited his words and confused them knowingly. 
What the President is talking about right now is, focus on this legal 
immigration system, solve DACA, solve the border crisis, eliminate the 
chain migration issue, and eliminate the diversity visa lottery. It is 
just that simple.
  The diversity visa lottery is the last thing in his scope, and it is 
so easy. We all know that needs to be eliminated. The issue comes up in 
their bill that they want to reallocate the 50,000 people who are 
coming in today. We know that the diversity visa lottery is fraught 
with fraud. We know that it has been related to at least one act of 
terrorism, and it needs to be eliminated. How to do it is the question. 
Well, let's talk about that.
  There is no reason why that can't be negotiated. But the Graham-
Durbin bill, if it is ever offered, ensures that we will be right back 
here in a few short years. What we want is to have a solution on the 
DACA side and protect America from repeating this mistake again and 
again and again.
  Let me be very clear. If we do what is on the table today in the 
Graham-Durbin bill, it would allow the parents of DACA recipients legal 
status. This would ignite future waves of parents entering the United 
States, putting their children at risk as they come across the border 
illegally. Thank God most of us have never had to deal with that. 
Imagine putting your children at risk coming across the border 
illegally. But then their children will eventually be given legal 
status, according to this bill and precedent, and then they will be 
able to sponsor their parents, who broke the law in the first place. 
Then here we go, reigniting another wave. So we have not done anything 
to prevent being right back here just a few short years from now.
  I believe it is time for action. My colleagues last night talked 
about, well, nobody is offering up any other solution. Well, that is 
just not true. There are three Republican Senate bills right now that 
relate to this issue, active bills that have been filed, and they are 
out there. The language is out there. You can read them. There is one 
bill in the House. Chairman Goodlatte was there in committee and 
brought out a bill. So it is just not true that we don't have things to 
talk about on the Republican side on this issue. What is missing in 
this process is a good-faith effort to negotiate the details of a deal 
and make it happen.
  To try to make an end run on that process is not going to work. I 
don't believe it, and I don't think the American people want it. What 
they want is to solve DACA and ensure that we are not doing it again in 
just a few short years. This means that we need a real investment in 
border security. We need to put a focus on the immediate family of the 
sponsored new U.S. citizen, the family of the incoming immigrant, and 
we need to end this archaic, outdated diversity visa lottery.
  The solutions are here. I might not be 100 percent happy, they might 
not be 100 percent happy, but I promise you that in my experience, this 
situation is closer to a deal, a negotiated deal right now because both 
sides really want to see an end to the situation where there is a 
question about the DACA recipients. But we want to make sure we are not 
back here in 5 years or even sooner dealing with the same problem 
again. That is the lesson we should have learned from 1986 and 1991.
  It is an honor to be in this body, but it is time for action. It is 
time to get to point B. We know we have been trying for over a decade 
with many Members of this body who are well-intended. I, for one, am 
ready to negotiate. The President is ready to negotiate. Let's get 
together and make this happen. It is time for action. The American 
people demand it. But let's please don't tie this solution to the 
funding of the Federal Government. That is totally irresponsible. Our 
men and women in uniform deserve better.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________