[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 24, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S478-S479]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                  DACA

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we have 14 days, by our own established 
deadline, to do something about the Dreamers issue--about DACA.
  Why do we find ourselves at this place? Because on September 5 of 
last year, President Trump, as well as Attorney General Sessions, 
announced the end of the DACA protection program as of March 5 this 
year. The 780,000 young people who were undocumented in the United 
States and who came here as children were given a chance by President 
Obama to stay legally, be able to work legally, and not fear 
deportation. For the most part, they are students and workers who are a 
vital part of the community, and they have done good things in their 
lives and promised to do even more.
  This issue was created by the decision made by President Trump to put 
an end to this program. He made that decision. He also challenged 
Congress. He said: If we are going to end this Executive order, do 
something. Pass a law.
  Well, here we are, just about at the fifth month out of the 6-month 
period he gave us to get down to work, and nothing has happened. Some 
of us have been working on this issue, trying to address it on a 
bipartisan basis in the hope that this Republican-controlled Congress 
would join with enough Democrats to solve the problem that the 
President presented.
  I have worked with five of my colleagues--three Democrats and three 
Republicans--to craft a bill that we believe addresses the issue in a 
fair way. Compromise was included in that bill--some that I didn't like 
at all, but that is the nature of a compromise and bipartisanship.
  We presented this bill to our colleagues, and we also attended a 
meeting on January 9 with President Trump in which he addressed this 
issue. Here it was, 4 months after he issued the challenge to Congress, 
and he basically told us: It is time to get this done. He said to us--
and this was televised, so you can check my remarks if there is any 
question about what I am saying. He said to us, basically: Send me a 
bill, and I will sign it. I will take the political heat on this issue.
  Then the Republican leader on the House side, Kevin McCarthy said 
that it ought to include the following four elements: first, DACA and 
the Dreamers; second, border security; third, family reunification 
issues; and finally, the visa lottery system, the diversity system that 
we had established years ago.
  That is when I sat down and said to my fellow Senators--Democrats and 
Republicans, our little gang: We have to get this done. The President 
has challenged us, and he said that he is prepared to move forward if 
we can come up with a response. So we did. We came to an agreement 
among ourselves--the six Senators who had been meeting.
  We presented it to the President through Senator Lindsey Graham of 
South Carolina, a Republican, on January 11. He rejected it.
  So as of today, we really don't have a bill before us, and we are 
starting anew with a conversation about what to do to meet the 
President's challenge but equally, if not more importantly, to say to 
the 780,000 young people and those who were eligible to apply: This is 
what your future will be.
  We have had our ups and downs, and it was a rocky weekend just a few 
days ago relative to funding the government and whether we were going 
to take up this issue. I thought it ended on a positive note when 
Senator McConnell came to the floor and made an express promise to this 
Chamber--to Members on both sides of the aisle. I am going to try to 
characterize it, and I think this is accurate. Check the Record, if you 
don't think I say it quite right. But he said: If we have not reached 
an agreement on this issue by February 8, at that point, we will open a 
process on the floor of the Senate with what he characterized as a 
level playing field and an open amendment process. That, to me, is an 
opportunity, but I hope we can avoid that opportunity and reach an 
agreement, as he asked us to, by February 8. We have 14 days left. I 
would like to involve the House in this conversation so that we might 
reach a common agreement, but unfortunately, they are on recess this 
week. Those of us who were sitting and talking about it don't have a 
chance to get together with them. However, I am heartened by the fact 
that a number of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle are 
going to join a number on the Democratic side of the aisle this 
afternoon and start what we hope will be a productive process to reach 
a bipartisan agreement and do it in a timely way, as suggested and 
challenged by Senator McConnell. To achieve this goal, I think we 
understand we are going to have to be mindful of one another and 
mindful of the realities we face. There are a lot of issues relative to 
immigration. The list is pretty lengthy. There are important issues 
that should be considered.

[[Page S479]]

  It is unrealistic to think we are going to propose or even agree on a 
bipartisan and comprehensive immigration bill in 14 days. What we can 
do is address the President's challenge dealing with DACA and those 
DACA-eligible, so-called Dreamers. What we can do is address border 
security in a realistic and honest way.
  I took a look this morning at some of the publications of the 
Department of Homeland Security to try to get an understanding of what 
our challenge is when it comes to the undocumented of the United 
States. Where do they come from? How do they come to this country and 
how do they stay in this country if they don't have legal authority to 
do so?
  For example, the Department of Homeland Security tells us that each 
year 50 million--50 million--visitors come to the United States from 
visa waiver countries. Those who are visiting from those countries have 
not gone through an application process to visit the United States. 
They carry a passport from a country we have an understanding or 
agreement with that they can travel back and forth. Think about the 
European countries, for example, where we can travel extensively back 
and forth between there and the United States.
  Out of those 50 million, about 1.5 percent end up staying longer than 
they are supposed to. We end up with hundreds and thousands of 
undocumented people here by visa overstays. Forty percent of all those 
who are in this country undocumented came here by visa overstays. There 
is no wall you can build on the border of Mexico and Canada that is 
going to solve that problem. This is a problem that really relies on 
technology, which we should be investing in and which we can invest in 
on a bipartisan basis.
  So if your true goal is the reduction of the undocumented in America 
and trying to make sure there is legal status for as many as possible 
and you are looking at the incremental growth each year, you wouldn't 
look to the border first. You would look to the visa overstays first. 
Those are the ones who are slipping through the system, who should be 
policed and monitored with new technology.
  We have talked about it for decades. It is time to do something about 
it but also to concede, as I said, that no wall is going to stop that 
problem--no wall is going to solve that problem.
  When I take a look at the asylum issue, which I wouldn't say I am 
amused, but I would say I am interested--it is one that is always 
raised by the Department of Homeland Security; those who present 
themselves in the United States at the border or otherwise and suggest 
they have a credible fear in returning to their home country. It is 
interesting to look at the statistics because we find out that even 
though there may be this notion that they are primarily from Mexico, 
they are not. They are primarily from countries in the Northern 
Triangle of Central America. There is also a large contingent each year 
from China.
  So if we are talking about the asylum issue and not addressing all of 
the countries who are the major suppliers of those seeking asylum in 
the United States, then we are not talking about it in honest terms or 
in its entirety as we should.
  I might mention that China, along with 22 other countries, does not 
even have an agreement with the United States in terms of deportation, 
according to the report from the Department of Homeland Security. There 
is a lot we can do there to make sure China and those countries comply 
with the United States when we say we are deporting someone from your 
country that we find to be a danger to us, and rather than incarcerate 
them here, you get to have them back. They are yours. They shouldn't be 
here in the first place. When we talk about dealing with the issues of 
the undocumented, the issues of security in this country, many of these 
are not going to be solved with a wall. They are going to be solved if 
we deal with technology and look in honest terms and count real numbers 
about those coming from different parts of the world.
  I also want to address this issue about unaccompanied children coming 
to our border. I understand that challenge. The numbers have risen 
dramatically in prior years, and we have to take it seriously.
  I followed some of those children from the border to a protective 
gathering they have in Chicago in a place called Heartland Alliance, 
and I went in to meet them. I was shocked when I went into the 
cafeteria to see that some of these children were as young as 6 years 
of age, 6 years old presenting themselves at a border of the United 
States. What circumstances could have led to that? It is possible it 
was a smuggler who either threatened or exploited the family and ended 
up with a child, pushed them across the border into the arms of one of 
our Border Patrol agents. That is possible. That is something we should 
do everything we can to stop. That is an exploitation of that child. 
That child is likely to be abused in the process of this immigration, 
and it is something we ought to do everything we can to discourage, but 
to simply turn away children at the border is a dangerous thing. What 
are we going to do with that 6-year-old from Honduras or El Salvador or 
Guatemala at the border when they establish, through a written note or 
whatever, that there is a credible fear for them returning to their 
country? Do we ignore it? Do we turn them back to their country 
regardless? We better be careful. Awful things can happen.
  What do we do with the 12-year-old or 13-year-old girl who is a 
victim of rape and sexual assault in one of those countries, who was 
sent to the United States and our border because her parents believed 
she was about to be raped again or killed? Do we turn her back or send 
her back and ignore the reality?
  I commend to my colleagues and others who follow this debate an 
article that was written in the New Yorker last week by Sarah Stillman. 
It was entitled ``When Deportation Is A Death Sentence.'' She followed 
the terrible story of a young woman who was undocumented, who was 
stopped, and who said over and over again: If you send me back to 
Mexico, that husband of mine is going to kill me. There have been 
protective orders issued. He is a dangerous man. She was sent back 
anyway, and she was killed.
  These are complex situations not easily answered with the common 
definition that anyone who presents themselves to the border with such 
credible fears is going to be turned away without any consideration 
about the merits of that claim. We have to be careful. Human lives hang 
in the balance. Our reputation as a caring and principled Nation hangs 
in the balance as well.
  We need to do the right thing. Stop the exploitation when it occurs 
but also be mindful and sensitive to the fact that many people who do 
present themselves seeking asylum are truly leaving desperate 
circumstances and trying to find a safe place for themselves and their 
families.
  So the conversation continues this afternoon, on a bipartisan basis, 
among the Senators in the U.S. Senate to meet the President's 
challenge, to accept that challenge, and to come up with a bipartisan 
measure.
  I don't know the position of the President of the United States now. 
I couldn't express it after the experience we had a couple of weeks 
ago. I don't know where he stands. He has never issued anything by way 
of a suggestive piece of legislation. We haven't heard from him.
  So we have to do our part. We have to meet our responsibility in the 
Senate, hope the House does the same, and at some point the White House 
would join us in solving this problem, which the President actually 
created on September 5 of last year.
  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. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.