[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 13, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S895-S904]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BROADER OPTIONS FOR AMERICANS ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as people around the Nation listen to
this floor debate, I am sure they can hear the divisions about
immigration loud and clear. I know I can. Immigration policy is hard,
it is emotional, and it has vexed this Congress for decades.
While the floor debate we are having right now can be trying and can
be thrown off-kilter by one more ill-timed tweet from the President, we
have to keep our eyes on the ball because as tough as it may seem right
here, the stakes are so much higher for millions of people who live
every day in this country, trapped in a broken immigration system. They
face the constant fear of deportation, and they suffer from the threat
of being ripped apart from their families, their friends, and the
communities that they love.
Just like the deep divisions we see on this issue across the country,
finding a path forward in the Senate, in the House, and all the way to
the White House is not going to be easy, but tackling the tough issues
and engaging in fair and honest debate is why we are here. Creating a
more perfect union is why we are here. Finding a bipartisan path
forward both to secure our borders and protect the futures of so many
hard-working families is why we are here.
First, we have to agree to some basic truths. To start, Dreamers--
hundreds of thousands of our friends and neighbors, our teachers,
firefighters, servicemembers, and students--are not criminals. They are
not MS-13 gang members nor are they the shadowy pictures depicted in
disgusting campaign ads in the President's speeches.
They are not a drain on our economy. In fact, Dreamers are just the
opposite, contributing in countless ways to our communities and
enriching the lives of so many others.
So who are Dreamers?
Dreamers are determined; they are passionate; they are American in
every way except on paper. They are fighting for the only lives they
have ever known. They are fighting for their loved ones with everything
they have, and they are trying to do it the right way.
[[Page S896]]
A few years back, when Congress had fallen down on its job to fix the
broken immigration system, Dreamers stepped up to work in good faith
with the Federal Government--Dreamers like Jose Manuel Vasquez, who
grew up in south Seattle. He didn't know he was not a natural born
citizen until he went to get a driver's license. Thanks to the DACA
Program, Jose Manuel was able to graduate from the University of
Washington. He started a tech business, and he volunteers at local
nonprofits.
Another Dreamer who grew up in Pasco, WA, described being 4 years old
when he was taken to the airport to fly to the United States. He said
that he was so young, he didn't understand what was going on. He only
recalls being confused about why he couldn't bring all of his toys with
him to his new home in America. Years later, after he enrolled in DACA,
he said that he was able to quit working in manual labor and start
working as a personal banker at Wells Fargo.
There are hundreds of thousands of Dreamers with similar stories.
They came out of the shadows. They paid their taxes. They kept
promises. They underwent background checks and did the hard work, even
if only for a temporary shot at the opportunity so many others in this
country have taken for granted.
What Dreamers are is the embodiment of so much of what this country
was founded on. That is truth No. 1.
Truth No. 2: We all want to keep America safe, with commonsense
border security measures, and for anyone to claim otherwise is merely
making an attempt to muddy the debate so that critics can retreat to
their partisan corners, fall back on hateful rhetoric, and try to stop
a bipartisan bill from actually moving forward.
The reality is, no matter what political party you ascribe to,
protecting and defending the safety of fellow citizens and preventing
those who could do us harm from entering this country is something we
all believe in and something we are all working for, which leads me to
truth No. 3; that is, despite failed attempts in the past, today is a
new day and a new chance to finally fix our broken immigration system
for the Dreamers who call our country home. It is a new chance to honor
our country's rich tradition of welcoming people from around the world
who add to the rich tapestry of our Nation, who enrich our communities,
and who will write the next chapter of our Nation's history. It is a
new chance for my Republican colleagues to stand by their word and do
what they said--work with Democrats in good faith to find a bipartisan
path forward that will allow Dreamers to stay here in the country they
call home.
I hope Congress finally has the will to see this through, to be a
nation of laws and a land of opportunity. With the right piece of
legislation, we can do both.
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.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday we began floor debate on
something that we have literally been talking about for years. I
remember, after the election of 2012, meeting at the White House with
then-President Barack Obama, with Speaker of the House Boehner, Leader
McCarthy, Senator McConnell, and others. The President was prepared to
do something he had threatened to do, which we actually asked him not
to do, and that is, to try to take unilateral Executive action to deal
with the issue of these young adults who came with their parents, when
they were children, into the United States in violation of our
immigration laws.
We said: Please, President Obama, give us a chance to work with you
to come up with a solution.
He listened and said: No. I am going to sign an Executive order or
action, and I am going to go this alone.
Well, unfortunately for the young people who were the beneficiaries
of this DACA Executive order, the court struck it down, so they were
left in doubt and in some jeopardy, wondering, now that they had been
granted a deferred action against deportation by President Obama, what
their future would look like. So President Trump, upon the advice of
General Kelly, who was then Secretary of Homeland Security, said: Give
the Congress some time to deal with this.
Indeed, here we are with a deadline of March 5. All of the time that
this President has been in office--since January 20 of last year--this
has been basically living on borrowed time insofar as the DACA Program
is involved. President Trump quite appropriately said that this is a
legislative responsibility and that Congress needs to deal with this.
Well, here we are. The debate actually began on February 8, which is
the date that Senator McConnell, the Senate majority leader, agreed to
initiate the motion to proceed on the debate. Of course, you will
remember what happened. The government was shut down because our
Democratic colleagues refused to proceed to deal with the continuing
resolution for funding the government until there was some resolution
of this DACA issue. So the majority leader said: We are going to deal
with it starting February 8 if there is no other agreement, and it is
going to be a fair and impartial process. Everybody's ideas are going
to be aired, and people should be able to vote on those ideas.
Well, here we are. We started yesterday with cloture on the bill.
Now, under the Senate rule, there are 30 hours that will expire tonight
at 11 p.m. or thereabouts, and we are waiting on our colleagues across
the aisle to begin this process that they were so eager to initiate
that they shut down the government.
So far, the majority leader came to the floor and made an offer at
about noon today, saying: We will start with a vote on an amendment of
your choosing, and then we will go to one of our choosing. We will go
back and forth and have an orderly process so I can follow through on
my commitment to keep a fair, equal, and orderly process.
Well, even though they were willing to shut down the government to
bring us to this point, now they seem to be incredibly reluctant to
actually have a vote on any of their proposals. It really is bizarre.
We all want a solution for these young adults. In America, we don't
punish children for the mistakes their parents made, and we are not
going to punish these young people, who are now adults, who have been
able to go to college and, in many instances, become very productive
people. We want to provide them an opportunity to flourish. Indeed, the
President--notwithstanding the fact that 690,000 DACA recipients
currently exist, he said: I will be willing to up that number to
everybody who is eligible, whether or not they signed up. That is 1.8
million young people. Do you know what? We are not only going to give
them deferred action, we are going to give them an opportunity to
become Americans.
It is incredibly generous, but our colleagues across the aisle seem
to be tripped up by their own plan and unable to respond to this
generous offer.
The President has said: In return for the 1.8 million young people
who will have a pathway to citizenship and predictability and stability
and a great future for their lives, we are going to have to secure the
border. We are going to have to do the sorts of things the Federal
Government should have done a long time ago.
Coming from Texas, a border State, we have 1,200 miles of common
border with Mexico. As we heard this morning in the world threats
hearing in the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Director of National
Intelligence said the transnational criminal organizations or cartels,
which are commodity agnostic--they make money trafficking in people,
drugs, or other contraband, and they are exploiting the porous nature
of our border with our neighbor to the south, Mexico. Indeed, Central
American countries are sending even their young children up to the
border, exploiting a loophole in our law.
The President has also said that in addition to dealing with border
security, he wants to change legal immigration to focus on the nuclear
family--mom and dad and the kids. If other people want to come to the
United States, then they can qualify
[[Page S897]]
for various employment-based visas. They can come study as a student.
They can come as a tourist. They can qualify for an H-1B visa as
somebody who is highly skilled. There are other ways to come. But we
are going to limit the number of visas and green cards based strictly
on your family relationships.
Then the President said that he wanted to deal with the diversity
lottery visa. This is perhaps the most difficult to understand visa our
government issues. Basically, what we say is that there are 50,000
diversity visas, and for those countries that aren't otherwise
represented, we are going to sort of spread those like bread on the
water and welcome 50,000 people without regard to their background,
their education, their other merits or qualifications.
Some have said, like the President--and I agree with him--that we
ought to look at not only how immigrants can benefit from coming to the
United States but also what qualities they have that they can bring us.
Yes, we ought to compete for the best and brightest--for example, the
600,000 or so foreign students who come to our colleges and
universities. What about focusing on those who graduate in STEM
fields--science, technology, engineering, and math. There have been
some folks who have said: Well, we ought to staple a green card to
those people because we want to continue to attract the best and the
brightest. We don't want to train them, educate them, and send them
home, only to compete with us.
Well, those are some great ideas. We are not going to be able to have
votes on bills unless our friends across the aisle will agree to get
onto a bill. Preferably it is the bill that Senator Grassley and
others, including myself, have cosponsored, which will be filed this
afternoon, based on those four pillars.
Coming from a border State, I have spent quite a bit of time in the
Rio Grande Valley, down in Laredo, and over in El Paso, and I have
learned a lot from the experts at the border, who would be the Border
Patrol agents themselves. I have talked to people like Manny Padilla,
who is the chief Border Patrol officer in the Rio Grande Valley, which
is one of the most active regions in the country. His sector, at times,
has been one of the busiest in the country, with some 200,000
apprehensions a year just in the Rio Grande Valley itself. I have seen
the border firsthand, of course. It is vast, and the terrain varies
widely, from portions where the Rio Grande River flows strongly, to
ones where it has dried up, where there is hardly any water at all
separating Mexico and the United States, and still others that include
3,200-foot cliffs along the riverbank, particularly out in the Big Bend
area of West Texas.
I have also had the opportunity to welcome many of my colleagues who
don't come from border States to my State so they could become better
informed about the nature and the challenge of border security. When
you spend time there and speak to the local officials and people who
live and work along the border, you realize the scale of the challenge
we are facing in securing the border, as well as combating the cartels
and people who are importing poison into the United States and
unfortunately taking far too many lives as the result of drugs. You
realize that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work. Generations of
Texans know that too.
People who live in border communities are an invaluable resource, and
we ought to be talking to them about what would work best to provide
the security in a way that would also be helpful to their local
community. I have mentioned before one of those down in Hidalgo, TX,
where the Border Patrol said: We need some physical barriers to help
control the flow of illegal immigration across the border.
The local community said: Well, we need to improve the flood levee
system so that we can actually buy affordable insurance, so that we can
develop our property at a reasonable cost.
Out of that came a bond election for a levee wall system that was a
win-win. It provided the flood protection needed by the community, and
it provided the physical barrier that the Border Patrol said they
needed in order to control illegal immigration.
So there is an opportunity for a win-win here if we will just listen
to the experts and we will talk to the local stakeholders and the
people who live, work, and play along our border with Mexico.
I have also had many conversations with Hispanic leaders from across
my State. One of them is my friend Roger Rocha, the president of the
League of United Latin American Citizens, or LULAC, who has been
courageous in putting his reputation on the line in order to find
common ground and give DACA recipients an opportunity not only to stay
and work but to eventually become American citizens.
Well, yesterday, I said there will be a process that is fair to
everybody--that is what the majority leader guaranteed--and all of our
colleagues will have a chance to have their proposals considered.
Amendments will have a 60-vote threshold before they can be adopted.
That is the rule of the Senate. What I am interested in is solving the
problem, and that means not only finding a proposal that can get 60
votes in the Senate but one that can pass the House and be signed into
law by the President.
I read this morning--when I got up and was making a cup of coffee and
looking through the newspaper--that our colleague across the aisle, the
Democratic whip, whom I have worked with and met with on this topic
many times, said his goal was to get all the Democrats and 11
Republicans to get to that 60-vote threshold. That was his goal in this
legislation. What is missing is how he would propose to get this passed
through the Republican majority in the House and signed by the
President if it doesn't comply with the President's requirements that
he laid out in his four pillars. I am not interested in a futile act; I
am interested in actually making a law, which means passing the Senate,
passing the House, and getting signed into law by the President.
Yesterday, a group led by Chairman Grassley of the Judiciary
Committee put forth a proposal that I believe can pass the Senate, can
pass the House, and can be signed into law by President Trump. It is
called the Secure and Succeed Act. The name itself is quite fitting. We
have to secure the border, and we have to be able to provide for the
future success of DACA recipients. It is not one or the other; it is
both. The Secure and Succeed proposal provides a pathway to
citizenship, like the President proposed, for 1.8 million DACA-eligible
recipients, which is far more than President Obama ever offered. I
mean, this is pretty incredible. What President Obama offered was DACA
for 690,000 young people. This President has offered a pathway to
citizenship for 1.8 million. Some people may think that is far too
generous, but the President made that offer expecting to get border
security and these other provisions done at the same time.
This legislation provides a real plan to strengthen our borders and
utilize boots on the ground, better technology, and infrastructure. It
reallocates visas from the diversity lottery system in a way that is
fair, and it continues the existing family-based immigration categories
until the current backlog is clear.
I am proud to cosponsor this commonsense solution, not because it is
perfect--no piece of legislation ever is--but what it does is it
advances the issue in a way that can pass the Senate so the House can
take it up and the President can ultimately sign it. That is the only
way I know to get something accomplished here.
Everybody needs to get to work. Our Democratic colleagues who voted
to shut down the government over this issue now seem unprepared to meet
the deadline they themselves insisted upon, even after the majority
leader has provided a fair and open process for everybody to
participate. So everybody needs to get to work. Our colleagues have
known for a while that this was coming. They asked for this debate, but
they have not yet filed any proposed legislation. I am wondering what
the holdup is.
Here is the bottom line. I am not interested in gamesmanship for
gamesmanship's sake, political theater for political theater's sake, or
ideas that can't become law. As the President said 2 weeks ago, the
ultimate proposal must be one where nobody gets everything they want
but our
[[Page S898]]
country gets the critical reforms that it needs. About 124,000 young
people hope we can rise to the occasion. Just in my State alone, there
are 124,000 DACA recipients who hope we can rise to the occasion and
take advantage of the tremendous, generous offer President Trump has
made in a bill he said he would sign into law if we were able to pass
it in the Senate and in the House and get it on his desk.
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. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, last September, President Trump took it upon
himself to create an economic, humanitarian, and political crisis by
rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, or DACA,
without proposing a serious solution for the nearly 800,000 DACA
recipients who now face deportation. These people and their families
have had to endure fits and starts of uncertainty as Democrats and some
Republicans have worked tirelessly to advance the Dream Act and other
fair and reasonable compromises authored chiefly by my colleagues,
Senators Durbin and Graham, also supported by the Presiding Officer,
only to have President Trump and the Republican majority find every way
to say no, or to stall the process.
This week, however, the Senate has an opportunity to address the
panic and stress the President caused, not just for those on DACA and
their families, but also for our Nation's businesses and our broader
economy. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for this
chance for an open debate on a solution for Dreamers. In particular, I
again thank Senator Durbin, Senator Graham, and Senator Flake for their
advocacy and efforts to find a bipartisan compromise. I thank Leader
Schumer for his leadership in pushing for a resolution, and Leader
McConnell for keeping his commitment to have this debate. I thank them
all.
The basic facts of this debate are clear. The American people
overwhelmingly support finding a solution for Dreamers that protects
them from deportation and provides a pathway to citizenship for those
who work hard and play by the rules. I believe that a bipartisan
majority of my colleagues want the same thing. The question before us
is whether the partisanship and raw feelings surrounding this debate
will prevent a solution to this crisis from becoming law. So I urge my
colleagues: Let us forge the bipartisan agreement that the American
people want and the Dreamers deserve. Let us end this crisis. Then,
after this bipartisan show of good faith, let us again take up the kind
of comprehensive immigration reform that many of us in this body have
already voted to pass so we can fix our broken immigration system once
and for all.
I do not believe, however, that solving the DACA crisis, which
President Trump in a sense created, should come at the cost of
radically restructuring legal immigration. According to the
conservative Cato Institute, President Trump's immigration proposals in
exchange for resolving the DACA crisis would result in an approximate
44-percent reduction in legal immigration. This would be the largest
cut to immigration in nearly a century. In addition to the profound
effects such a cut would have on American families, culture, and
opportunities, it would also level a massive blow to the American labor
force and economic growth.
According to the Cato Institute and the independent research firm
Macroeconomic Advisers, slashing legal immigration by about half could
initially cut our projected economic growth rate by 12.5 percent in the
next year or two. That would be a significant blow to our economy, and
it could lead to further reduced economic growth projections down the
line due to the reduction in the size of the American workforce. And,
just as our Nation faces a skyrocketing deficit due to the impact of
policies like the Republican tax plan, the National Academy of Sciences
estimates that immigrants, on average, contribute over $92,000 more
than they receive in government benefits over the course of their
lives, and losing these American workers would only further shrink
revenue that could help balance the budget.
If Congress decides to take on immigration reform of this magnitude,
it must be in the context of bipartisan, comprehensive immigration
reform, and not in the context of resolving this crisis that has been
prompted by President Trump.
Nor should this discussion suggest that a desire to do the right
thing by Dreamers somehow indicates a lack of appreciation for the
importance of securing our borders. I believe my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle agree that border security is of critical importance
to our Nation. I have voted to increase the vetting of visa applicants,
to heighten security on international travel, and to increase support
for homeland security and border control by billions of dollars. In
Fiscal Year 2000, there were 8,619 Border Patrol agents on the
southwest border. Today, there are currently just shy of 20,000. The
Obama administration alone added more than 3,000 Border Patrol agents
on our southern Border, doubled the amount of fencing, and added
technological systems, including aerial and ground surveillance
systems. Unlawful immigration began lessening under President Obama,
and today, fewer people are entering the country illegally across the
U.S.-Mexico border than in the past 50 years. I believe in a strong
border that continues to adapt the best technologies and tactics to
keep our Nation safe. What I do not believe in, however, is symbolic
action, like the construction of a wall that would drain taxpayer
dollars without making Americans any safer.
There is a reason that Americans on both sides of the political
divide have spoken out against deporting Dreamers. A great many of
these young people are outstanding and accomplished, and our
communities would feel the loss of all that they contribute. It is true
that they were brought here as children outside the appropriate
processes, but this was through no fault of their own. As they have
grown up here, they have pursued higher education, started American
families, worked hard and paid taxes, and stayed out of trouble with
the law. They have passed background checks, been fingerprinted, paid
hundreds of dollars in fees, and submitted detailed records to
immigration enforcement officials whose job it is to prevent fraud and
spot any criminals in the system. Indeed, DACA status is not blanket
amnesty or an entitlement, but is something that must be earned and
kept up.
Hundreds of DACA recipients served in the U.S. Armed Forces, like
Zion Dirgantara, whose mother brought him and his brother from
Indonesia to Philadelphia when they were young, and who did not know
about his undocumented status until he applied for a driver's license.
Last fall, Zion told the Washington Post that he was deeply affected
when, at age 12, he watched the crash of United Flight 93 in his new
home State of Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001, but he could not join
the Army out of high school because of his undocumented status. Because
of DACA, he was able to enlist in the Army, but both his status and his
ability to continue serving his country hang in the balance during this
debate.
Many of my colleagues have spoken movingly and eloquently about the
Dreamers who have come forward to tell their stories. I associate
myself with their remarks, and challenge my colleagues who have not met
these young people in person to listen to their stories and
perspectives. Over the last few months, I, and my staff, have had the
opportunity to meet several very impressive Dreamers living in Rhode
Island who have illustrated what the loss of DACA means to them and
their families. I met one young woman studying at Brown University who
needs DACA to ensure that she can stay here to attend medical school
and help fill the shortage of doctors in America. Another young man I
met told me that DACA, for him, means being able to drive to school and
work every day to save up for advanced education.
These young people want to live productive lives and, indeed,
according to the Center for American Progress, letting DACA expire
completely would
[[Page S899]]
cost our Nation's economy over $460 billion over the next decade,
including an annual loss to Rhode Island's economy of an estimated $60
million. Finding a solution for these people is not just the right
thing to do, but it also makes smart economic sense, and I believe that
is part of the reason why the American people are largely in agreement
on helping Dreamers.
I also wish to note that this same moral and economic sense applies
to the need to provide deportation relief and legal status for
qualified recipients of Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, and
Deferred Enforced Departure. These individuals came to America from
devastated parts of the world seeking safety and a fresh start, and
they have become integral members of our community and our economy.
Like DACA recipients, they have passed rigorous and periodic background
checks, paid hundreds of dollars in fees, and demonstrated that they
are not risks to public safety or national security. The average TPS
beneficiary has been in America for 19 years and many have been here
even longer. About 70 percent to 80 percent are employed, and they are
collectively parents to nearly 275,000 American citizen children.
Since 1999, I have been fighting for a pathway to citizenship for
Liberians who came to States like Rhode Island to escape two bloody
civil wars and the Ebola virus outbreak. Some of these Liberian
refugees have been fixtures of our community for nearly 30 years but,
like DACA recipients, they could face deportation in a number of weeks
because of the expiration of TPS and DED protections. Congress can and
should include these populations in the solutions we discuss here this
week.
Mr. President, I, along with many of my colleagues, have taken the
tough votes to strengthen our border and ensure immigrants play by the
rules. I have voted for the DREAM Act and for comprehensive immigration
reform that passed in this body. I know that we can address this crisis
if we choose to, but I also know that the only true path forward is
real bipartisan compromise, not posturing or legislative gamesmanship.
I urge my colleagues to support compromise legislation to address the
specific crisis before us and, when we have done that, to begin earnest
discussions on bipartisan and comprehensive immigration reform.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Climate Change
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here for my 197th ``Time to Wake
Up'' speech. My poster board is getting a little dog-eared, but we keep
moving doggedly along.
Last week, I spoke about corporate America outsourcing its lobbying
to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--a determined enemy of any action on
climate change. When pro-climate companies support the chamber, they
support its anti-climate lobbying, its anti-climate election spending
and threatening, and they enable the chamber's anti-climate
stranglehold with the fossil fuel industry on Congress.
The chamber is not alone in its anti-climate advocacy on behalf of
corporate America. Another big Washington trade association obstructing
climate action, despite having been a pro-climate action member, is the
National Association of Manufacturers, often called NAM.
Over the last two decades, NAM has spent more than $150 million
lobbying the Federal Government, and each year, NAM lobbies extensively
for the fossil fuel industry.
Here are some of the greatest hits of NAM's fossil fuel lobbying.
NAM lobbies to expand offshore drilling in the Atlantic, Gulf of
Mexico, Pacific, and Arctic. I wonder how many of its members want to
be out there supporting offshore drilling in all those areas.
NAM advocates for the continued use of coal in the electric power and
industrial sectors. There is not a congressional district left where a
majority of voters don't want coal-plant emissions regulated. Yet there
is NAM.
NAM lobbies to roll back fuel economy standards that save consumers
billions of dollars at the pump. Never mind that the equipment that
keeps cars cleaner is manufactured; the National Association of
Manufacturers is opposed.
NAM sent what it calls a key vote letter to all Members of Congress
urging repeal of a rule to protect streams from mountaintop removal
coal mining pollution. More on that in a moment.
NAM urged the Trump administration to withdraw from the Paris
Agreement. More on that in a moment too.
Finally, NAM opposes any efforts to put a price on carbon pollution.
Back to that key vote letter. ``The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee
has indicated that votes on H.J. Res. 38, including procedural motions,
may be considered for designation as Key Manufacturing Votes in the
115th Congress.'' This letter warns Members of Congress to vote the way
the group wants or risk losing out on its endorsements and all the
campaign support that goes with it. Who knows--run up a bad enough
score and NAM may support your opponent.
Well, you would think protecting streams and drinking water from
pollution from coal mines would be nothing but common sense. Streams
fouled by coal mining waste literally run orange. This is the actual
photograph; this is not a black-and-white photograph that has been
color-corrected. This stream is running orange. As one West Virginia
woman whose local stream was contaminated told the New York Times,
``Orange is not the color of water.'' But NAM and its fossil fuel
allies opposed those clean water protections. Why? Where is the
manufacturing value in streams that look like that? Follow the money.
Look at the National Association of Manufacturers' major donors. A lot
of the usual suspects--coal companies, oil companies, and Koch-owned
oil production companies.
But here is what is strange. There are also a lot of companies that
care about climate and sustainability that fund the National
Association of Manufacturers. Just look at the pharmaceutical and
healthcare sector. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson,
Novartis, Pfizer, and UnitedHealth all belong to and fund NAM. If you
go on their websites, you will find them urging people to live
healthier, longer lives. So why are they lobbying through NAM to let
coal companies make streams look like this? You will find these
companies, on their websites, touting their commitments to
sustainability and to reduce carbon emissions. So why are they lobbying
through the National Association of Manufacturers against climate
policies they actually support?
The National Association of Manufacturers rather inexplicably opposes
all serious climate action. In particular, it opposes putting a price
on carbon emissions. It even funded a debunked study that claimed
putting an economy-wide price on carbon would cost millions of jobs. It
lobbied for a legislative amendment making it more difficult to begin
pricing carbon. But look at NAM's own member companies that are already
pricing carbon emissions. Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, Corning,
Microsoft, and Stanley Black & Decker all apply a price on carbon in
their own internal management and accounting. They understand that
pricing carbon doesn't kill jobs. They understand that pricing carbon
makes economic and environmental sense.
Here in Congress, what we see is NAM claiming to represent them but
actually carrying water for the fossil fuel industry and waging full-
scale war on good climate policy. Just like with the chamber's pro-
climate members, we see essentially no pushback when the ostensible
mouthpiece for these companies lobbies against these companies' stated
position. Why would you, as a big American corporation, take a position
on a very big issue and then delegate your lobbying to an entity in
Washington that is opposed to your stated position? Indeed, we see
virtually no corporate lobbying by anyone for good climate policy. Even
companies with an internal carbon price don't lobby for a carbon price.
The American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act, which Senator Schatz and I
have introduced in the last two Congresses, would create an economy-
wide price on carbon emissions, using market forces to dramatically
reduce
[[Page S900]]
greenhouse gas emissions, protect our future, and improve public
health. It would be border adjustable to protect American companies
from unfair competition abroad, and it would return all of the revenue
it raised to the American people. Liberal and conservative economists
agree that this is the best way to tackle climate change. But the
National Association of Manufacturers, on behalf of its fossil fuel
allies, opposes us. It protects at all costs the massive market failure
that allows the fossil fuel industry to duck the costs of its
pollution. That is market failure 101.
It is not just that. NAM opposed cap and trade. NAM opposed the Paris
Agreement. NAM sued to stop the Clean Power Plan. NAM supports the
climate deniers of the Trump administration. They have no alternative,
no better idea, no other way that they want to address the climate
crisis; they are just against any serious action on climate change.
Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, Corning, Microsoft, and Stanley
Black & Decker are members of NAM. All of them supported the Paris
Agreement, but all this time, they continue to fund the National
Association of Manufacturers. It doesn't make any sense. These
companies are already pricing carbon. They know it is good policy. They
support the Paris Agreement. Yet they fund the trade advocacy group
that is pulling out all the stops to kill the policy they support and
the agreement they support. I asked last week, and I will ask again:
When is the cavalry going to get here?
Lots of pro-climate companies fund the National Association of
Manufacturers' anti-climate crusade. It is bizarre, but it is true.
Intel says it ``believes that global climate change is a serious
environmental, economic and social challenge that warrants an equally
serious response by governments and the private sector,'' but Intel
funds NAM as NAM fights any response by governments.
KPMG has an entire practice area devoted to advising companies on the
emerging risks and hazards of climate change, but KPMG funds NAM as NAM
ignores and talks down those very hazards.
McCormick is focused on reducing its carbon emissions and, like a lot
of good companies, even expects its suppliers to do the same, but
McCormick also funds the National Association of Manufacturers.
Pernod Ricard is committed to reducing its carbon emissions, but
Pernod Ricard funds NAM.
Procter & Gamble says:
As a global citizen, we are concerned about the negative
consequences of climate change. We believe industry,
governments, and consumers can work together to reduce
emissions to protect the environment.
That is what they believe, but they fund the National Association of
Manufacturers, which tries to stop any such effort.
Verizon is so concerned about climate change that it has reduced its
own emissions by over 50 percent, but Verizon still funds the National
Association of Manufacturers.
I could go on, but you get the picture. Company after company claims
that addressing climate change is their priority, and many do great
things--truly great things--inside their fence lines and in many cases
even out their supply chains, demanding sustainability compliance out
their supply chains. But here, where the rubber hits the lawmaking road
in Congress, the corporate support is for groups leading the war
against climate action here in Washington, and virtually none of the
companies show up here on the other side.
It is not as though they say: OK, I will support the National
Association of Manufacturers and their efforts to obstruct any climate
action, but I am going to come down and make clear on my own, in my own
lobbying, that we want climate action. I am going to offset the
lobbying that this group I fund does against the position I espouse.
No, they don't do that. They almost never come in on their own to
support good climate policy to counterbalance what their own advocates
are advocating when their own advocates are advocating against them,
which explains why the fossil fuel guys keep on winning here in
Congress. It is easy to win when the other side doesn't show up or, if
they do, shows up wearing your jersey.
Here is how bad it is. The National Association of Manufacturers and
the chamber and the fossil fuel industry hired a bunch of Washington
lobbyists to create a fake consumer group called the Consumer Energy
Alliance. This fake consumer group then created a fake initiative in
Kentucky called--these names are always so comical--Kentuckians for
Solar Fairness. What is the goal? The goal is to support Kentucky
legislation making it harder for consumers to sell rooftop solar power
back to the big utilities.
NAM is behind this scheme. Why? If you are Johnson & Johnson or
Cargill or Corning or Microsoft or KPMG or Procter & Gamble, why do you
want to be associated with a scheme like this? Remember, this is
ostensibly the National Association of Manufacturers. Out in the real
world, there is a lot of manufacturing going on in renewable energy.
We manufactured offshore wind turbines in Rhode Island's waters.
Rhode Island boat builder Blount Marine even got the contract to
manufacture the new boat to get technicians out to service the
manufacturer turbines. The framing on which our offshore wind turbines
stand was manufactured in Louisiana. Solar arrays are manufactured and
installed all around the country, providing more American jobs than
coal. In Texas alone, solar provides nearly 9,000 jobs, and more than
1.6 gigawatts of solar capacity has been manufactured and installed in
Texas. Go to Iowa, where one-third of their electricity is from wind,
and look how much ground-based wind turbine manufacturing and
maintenance is going on--really good jobs.
Why is the National Association of Manufacturers so violently opposed
to manufacturing in the renewable energy industry? Why does NAM get
involved in a Kentucky utility regulatory issue with nothing apparent
to do with manufacturing? Why is the National Association of
Manufacturers exactly and perfectly aligned with the fossil fuel
industry and not its own membership on so many issues?
In Washington, the fossil fuel lobby is relentless. They have a bad
name and an obvious conflict of interest, so they like to do their
political dirty work through groups like the National Association of
Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
I get it. Disguise is an age-old tactic. But why does corporate
America put up with having its trade association used as disguise to
fight climate action and to get involved in State quarrels that benefit
only the fossil fuel industry?
The effect of corporate America allowing its trade groups to be
captured by fossil fuel interests is that corporate America is now, for
all practical purposes, collectively united against climate action in
Congress. Say whatever they say on their websites; do whatever they do
within their fence lines or out their supply chains; sign whatever they
sign by way of letters and advertisements; that is all good, but when
it comes to Congress, where the lawmaking rubber hits the road,
corporate America is collectively united against climate action, either
through direct antagonism like the fossil fuel industry or by letting
antagonists like the National Association of Manufacturers and the
chamber be their lobbying intermediaries and erase their good climate
policies by the time they get to Congress and replace them with the
fossil fuel industry's climate denial or by simply ducking the fight
and not showing up on game day.
If we are going to meet America's responsibilities and finally pass
good climate policy, we are going to need everyone, including corporate
America, to do their part. Right now, fossil fuel interests from
corporate America are all over the field, armed and ready for battle,
and the good guys are not even showing up at the game.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Rural High-speed Broadband
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, a community built without access to
drinking water would never be expected to grow and thrive. Parents
wouldn't move their children to a home where they don't have running
water for bathing and for drinking. Restaurants wouldn't be able to
cook and keep their kitchens clean. Manufacturers
[[Page S901]]
wouldn't build new factories where they couldn't access water for
cooling and other types of processes. Simply put, a community without
access to water would fail.
Being connected to high-speed broadband in the 21st century is as
critical to the prosperity of rural communities as being connected to
running water. I have seen it firsthand. While meeting with
Michiganders in Barry County, we discussed recent economic development.
Part of the county is seeing new construction of homes, the creation of
new businesses, and an influx of young families. The other part of the
county has seen much more limited growth. You can guess which part of
the county is set up for broadband and which isn't.
My constituents from Barry County know that high-speed internet is
the key to economic growth, educational opportunity, and access to
limitless services, information, and ideas. Our rural communities and
our Nation as a whole are now at a crossroads. We have the opportunity
to level the playing field for all Americans by making the right
investments, right now, in rural communities across our Nation. These
towns are not connected to broadband by choice. They are not connected
to broadband because it is simply too expensive to deploy in these
geographic areas.
Local city councils in rural areas must struggle to fund broadband
projects themselves or they struggle to convince providers that it
makes economic sense to invest in their communities, especially in
places where populations are small or spread out. While deployment can
be expensive, high-speed broadband is not a luxury. It is critical
infrastructure. High-speed broadband is critical infrastructure the
same way that the pipes that carry our water and the wires that carry
our electricity are critical infrastructure.
The Federal Government has a role to play in infrastructure when it
comes to the national deployment of life-changing, critical
innovations. We have been here before. In the 20th century, the United
States faced a parallel challenge with the deployment of electricity.
It took strategic Federal action to bring electricity to less populated
rural areas. These commonsense investments raised our overall standard
of living and spurred productivity in an agricultural sector that was
at risk of falling behind urban-based industries.
If we can successfully electrify a nation, then we have no excuse for
not connecting it to the internet in the modern era.
Rural electricity was the breakthrough in the 20th century. Universal
high-speed broadband will be the breakthrough of the 21st century,
provided we invest in it. Any serious national infrastructure package
needs real Federal investment in rural broadband.
Unfortunately, the Trump administration's infrastructure proposal
utterly fails to recognize the urgency for robust connectivity
nationwide, especially for communities caught on the wrong side of the
digital divide. The administration's plan fails to provide any
dedicated funding for rural broadband. Strategic Federal investments
are needed to fill in the gaps for States and local communities
struggling to keep up with the internet demands of today, let alone
getting ahead of the connectivity demands of tomorrow. This
administration's infrastructure proposal would only create more gaps.
Although the administration is advertising their infrastructure
proposal as a $1.7 trillion plan, $1.5 trillion of it would fall on the
backs of cash-strapped State and local governments. If this is all they
are proposing, this is simply a lost opportunity. If this is all they
are proposing, this administration is setting up our communities for
failure.
What are they actually proposing? They are proposing toll roads and
hiking State and local taxes. They aren't even being subtle about this.
It is in black and white. The administration's plan says: ``Providing
States flexibility to toll existing Interstates would generate
additional revenues.''
Michiganders did not send me to the U.S. Senate because they want
toll roads and higher local taxes. As a candidate, President Trump
promised real Federal investment in communities across our great
Nation. Now this administration is offering up State and local taxes
and tolls to pay for roads, bridges, waterways, and zero dedicated
dollars--zero dedicated dollars--for broadband expansion.
As I said earlier, any serious national infrastructure plan needs
real Federal investment in rural broadband. Universal broadband means
rural prosperity, continued economic growth, and international
competitiveness. We must invest in this goal in order to reach it.
I urge my colleagues to join me in making real investments in rural
high-speed broadband a top priority in any infrastructure legislation.
All of our friends, family members, and neighbors in rural communities
across our great Nation are counting on us to deliver this.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I want to share with my colleagues a
concern I have about a group of people who are legally in this country
and have a similar problem as the DACA registrant Dreamers who we need
to pay attention to. I am strongly in support of passing legislation to
protect DACA and Dreamers. I will talk a little bit about that also.
There is a group of individuals who have been in this country for a
long time--similar to the Dreamers--who know no other country but the
United States of America. They are legally here. They also have a date
on their back as a result of the Trump administration, in some cases,
not renewing what is known as temporary protected status; in other
cases, it has deferred that decision making on the extension of
temporary protected status.
In 1990, Congress passed legislation that authorized the creation of
the TPS program. We recognized that there were times in which armed
conflict or environmental disasters or other extraordinary
circumstances would present itself where individuals would not be safe
in their home country, and they would be permitted to legally come to
the United States under this protected status. I would like to call it
``humanitarian protected status'' because these conditions have
continued in many of these countries for decades.
Many of these people have been here for decades because the
circumstances in their home country have not changed. Administration
after administration has renewed their protected status, and they have
been permitted to live here legally, to be able to work and go to
school. They serve in our military. They have served our Nation very,
very well.
The numbers are smaller than those of the Dreamers. The total number
is approximately 437,000. The largest country by far is El Salvador,
which is 195,000; Honduras, about 57,000; and Haiti, about 50,000.
I think Members of Congress are fully aware of the circumstances in
Central America and recognize the fact that, for many families, it was
not safe for them to stay in their countries because, if they had,
their children would have either ended up in gangs or have been
murdered and that the economic circumstances in these countries had not
allowed for economic opportunities for their families. As a result, the
United States welcomed them here in a protected status, and they have
become part of our economy.
For the State of Maryland, this number is actually larger than the
Dreamer category. We have 22,500 who are in the TPS status--97 percent
from El Salvador, Honduras, and Haiti. It has been estimated that this
group has contributed $1.2 billion to Maryland's GDP. They have been in
our country for decades. The young people particularly know no other
country than the United States of America. It would not be safe for
them to return to their countries.
We have information about that, and I call it to my colleagues'
attention. The process in going forward on extending the TPS status is
that we first get the recommendation from our Embassy in the country
itself. In this case, I had a chance to review the recommendations from
the Embassy, and it is clear that our experts on the ground in the
country felt that these families should be able to remain in the United
States. There are many reasons for that.
[[Page S902]]
One is the bilateral relationship with the country itself, in which
the country has asked us not to return these individuals to the country
because it cannot handle this population's returning to the country.
They don't have jobs, and the infrastructure in the country will not
handle that. I think we are all familiar with Haiti and how devastated
it has been by storms. It literally does not have the capacity to be
able to handle the return of the Haitians. It would be an incredible
burden on the country of Haiti, and there are no jobs available for
these individuals.
I think all are familiar with what happened with the returning of
certain individuals to Central America. If we force deportation, make
no mistake about it, the individuals who have been law-abiding here in
the United States, who have been adding to our economy, who are part of
our social fabric, and who believe that they are Americans will be
returned to an environment in which they are going to be vulnerable to
the intimidation of gangs, and they will be without employment. Many
will have no choice but to choose to either join a gang or be subjected
to the type of intimidation and violence that one's standing up to the
gang brings not only to oneself but to the members of one's family.
That is something that we should not be allowing.
There are also economic reasons for which there have been
recommendations to continue this program. The challenge is that they
now have dates on their backs because of the decision in some of these
countries not to extend the TPS status by the Trump administration.
These are very similar circumstances to those of the Dreamers, but it
doesn't quite have the same amount of attention around the Nation.
These individuals are legally in this country. They came here legally,
but they have been here for the same length of time, and they are part
of our fabric, which is the same as the Dreamers. It is for that reason
that the right result is to protect their legal status here in the
United States and to give them a pathway to citizenship so that they
can become legal citizens of the country they know as home.
S. 2144, the SECURE Act, was introduced by me, Senator Van Hollen,
Senator Feinstein, and others in order to accomplish that. I hope that,
during the debate that we are having here, we will find a way to
incorporate protection for these 437,000 people who are legally here so
that they know their futures are here and that they are protected in
the workforce.
As I said, it is very similar to the Dreamer issue. We know that the
Dreamer issue--the crisis, the March date that we are facing--was
created by the President of the United States. The DACA Program was
created by President Obama on June 15, 2012. Since that day, we have
had about 800,000 people who have been registered under the DACA
Program. They are now legally working, attending schools, and are able
to operate motor vehicles. They are, clearly, our future teachers, our
doctors, our engineers, and our entrepreneurs. They are very much a
part of our economy. In Maryland we have 10,000 who have registered
under the DACA Program. They have contributed $500 million to
Maryland's GDP.
For so many reasons, it would just be common sense for us--I would
think without too much controversy--to pass a bill that would say to, I
believe it is, a total of 1.8 million: We know that you know of no
other home but America. We welcome you. We are going to pass
legislation that protects your status and gives you a pathway to
citizenship.
We do that because America doesn't tear families apart. We don't say
to people who know no other home but America that we don't want them to
stay here. That is what we stand for as a nation. These are the values
that make America the strong nation that it is. By the way, these
individuals are contributing to the growth of our economy, and all of
us benefit.
Over the last several months--over a longer period than that--I have
been in the company of many of the Dreamers and many of the people
holding TPS status. I have been at roundtable discussions during which
we have had opportunities to listen to their stories about how they
view America as their home.
One said that the best birthday present she ever received was when
President Obama passed the DACA Executive order--when she knew that she
had a future in America. Others have told us stories: Without the
protection under the DACA Program, one never could have gotten a
driver's license and, therefore, never would have had an opportunity to
advance in our economy. Others have attended our colleges.
The interesting thing is that I have been in many meetings on college
campuses in which, for the first time, students have recognized that
their fellow student had been a Dreamer. They hadn't known that. They
had just known him as one of their classmates in school. I have been in
businesses when, for the first time, employees had discovered that one
of their colleagues happened to be a Dreamer. They hadn't known that.
They had just known him as a fellow employee.
This is widely supported. It is important for our economy and
important for our values to keep the families together, and the
American people support us on this. Poll after poll shows that
Americans believe that those Dreamers should be protected here in the
United States.
I include statements that I have received from Prince George's, Anne
Arundel, Howard, and Montgomery Counties and Baltimore City school
superintendents.
They wrote:
Maryland is a national leader in providing students with a
world-class education. Essential to our success is our
commitment to providing children in our schools with a safe
and welcoming environment to learn. Termination of DACA will
have direct and damaging effects on the Maryland students who
are current beneficiaries.
It is a direct threat to Maryland's economic stability and
safety, as it will strip students of their ability to work
and drive legally, pay taxes, and pursue post-secondary
opportunities. Parents who lose work authorizations will face
deportation or be moved into a dangerous underground economy,
causing financial uncertainty for their families and harmful
stress on their children--our students. In addition the DACA
decision could impact our ability to motivate our youth to
remain committed to their education and pursuing college or
careers, and will lead to worsening economic hardships of our
DACA community.
I have seen many letters of support and many testimonies from both--
those with TPS and the Dreamers--but I emphasize the one letter that I
received from the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, which is
cochaired by the Montgomery County police chief, Tom Manger. What he
said, I think, is very important. There are a lot of reasons we should
be protecting TPS recipients and DACA recipients, but he wrote:
We are concerned that, absent action by Congress, the
Dreamer population will be driven back into the shadows and
be hesitant to report crimes or cooperate with
investigations. Such an outcome would risk undermining
community safety.
We are not safe by people going into the shadows. This is the United
States of America. Why would we want people to try to hide from us?
That is not the country we are. We do not create fear in the hearts of
law-abiding citizens. These are law-abiding citizens. They have sisters
and brothers who are U.S. citizens. They have other family members,
some of whom are TPS recipients, some of whom are Dreamers, and some of
whom are U.S. citizens. We don't tell families that we are going to
tear them apart. That is not what America believes in. These are all
individuals who have gone through security checks. These are people who
have been law-abiding--complying with our laws--working, serving in our
military, building this country.
I know that the first order of business is to make sure that the
Dreamers are protected. I strongly support that and would vote for a
bill on the floor right now, tonight, which has been introduced by some
of our colleagues, that protects the Dreamers, in and of itself, with
nothing else connected to it. We should do it, and it shouldn't be
controversial. I also urge us to make sure that we take care of those
who are in TPS status. It is a smaller group, and it doesn't have the
same degree of national attention, but this is about the same values
and the same economic concerns, the same families and the same issues.
I hope we can find a way in which we can include both the Dreamers
and TPS recipients in protecting their status here in America and
giving them
[[Page S903]]
pathways to citizenship because it is the right thing for them, the
right thing for their families, the right thing for our Nation, and the
right thing for our economy.
I know that my colleague from Maryland is on the floor. He has been
one of the great leaders on this issue. I know he has met with many
from the community who are in both the Dreamer and the TPS status. I
have joined him at meetings around Maryland in which we have talked to
the families. Through the Presiding Officer, I personally thank my
colleague for all of the work he has done in order to bring this issue
to the Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
Mr. President, I start by thanking my colleague from the State of
Maryland, Senator Cardin, for his leadership on many, many issues but,
especially, as we gather here on the Senate floor to discuss the
Dreamers and immigration issues, including the folks who are TPS
recipients. I thank him for his leadership in Maryland and around the
country on these vital issues.
I think the country understands how important it is that we provide
the Dreamers with a secure future. These are individuals who have grown
up in our country. They know no other country as home. They have been
in classrooms with our kids. They have pledged allegiance to the flag.
They are now students in college or individuals working in businesses.
Some of them are small business owners. Many serve in our Armed Forces.
It would be disgraceful if, after welcoming these young people, we were
to cast them away.
Unfortunately, last September, President Trump lit the fuse on the
deportation of the Dreamers, and that clock has been ticking every day
and every month as we approach the March 5 deadline. So we as a
Senate--as Republicans and Democrats but, more importantly, as
Americans--need to come together and finally do our work so that we
operate as a body that can help solve problems in this country. Part of
that is making sure that these Dreamers have a secure home and a
pathway to becoming full citizens here in the United States of America.
Just the other day I was talking to the president of the University
of Maryland. We have a number of DACA recipients who are there training
to be engineers, training to be doctors, and people who are looking
forward to participating in the only country they know, the United
States of America.
I wish to turn now quickly to people who are here under what is
called temporary protected status. These are individuals who are in the
United States and could not return home because of disasters in their
home countries, whether by earthquakes or hurricanes or other events
that made it impossible to return home because their homes had been
destroyed or other circumstances had changed that made it impossible
for them to return. We, the United States of America, granted these
individuals temporary protected status. These are individuals who are
in the United States legally, and many of them have been here for over
two decades. In the case of El Salvador, we have most people who are
here from El Salvador on temporary protected status since the year
2000. They have families here. They are small business men and women,
and they are working productively in our communities. In the case of
Honduras, it was even earlier, 1998.
Senator Cardin and I and others have introduced legislation called
the SECURE Act, which would also provide security here in the United
States for these individuals on TPS status. Unfortunately, a series of
decisions coming down from the Trump administration has put the future
of these individuals in jeopardy.
The clock is also ticking on many of these people who have been here
for more than 20 years toward deportation. These are individuals who
are, again, working here legally and are contributing to our
communities. I believe that as Americans we should recognize that it is
important that we provide a secure future for them as well. That is why
we introduced the SECURE Act.
So I am hopeful that as we debate a secure future for the Dreamers,
we also find a way going forward to provide a secure future for those
who are here under TPS.
It seems to me that the answer is in plain sight. The answer is
making sure that Dreamers have a secure future, providing a path to
citizenship as long as they meet all of the requirements, and that we
ensure we have border security. I don't think there is a Senator in
this body who does not believe that the United States has to have
strong and secure borders. The debate has always been what is the
smartest, most effective, most cost-efficient way to provide for border
security.
I hope nobody is interested in wasting taxpayer dollars on things
that don't work. It seems to me that we should be about the business of
finding the most cost-effective way to ensuring that border security.
As we do that, we should be listening to the experts as to what works
and what does not work. Unfortunately, we have seen more focus in
recent months on things that cost a lot of money but don't really
significantly improve our border security. I am hoping that we can come
together and have a rational conversation about how we can secure our
borders in the most cost-effective way.
This is a moment for the Senate to really stand up and do its job. I
think if you look at those two issues--a path forward for the Dreamers
with a path toward citizenship for those who meet all the requirements
and that we find a way to do smart, cost-effective border security--
then, that is clearly the way forward. I do hope that as we consider
those two important priorities, we also come together and find a way
forward for people who are here on temporary protected status, because
in my conversations with Republican Senators, they recognize that for
these individuals--who are here legally, working in the country, and
having been here for an average of 20 years--we should find a way to
make sure they have a secure future here.
We may want to look at ways to reform TPS going forward, and we can
have that discussion, but for those who are here now and have been
living in the United States for decades and working, let's find a way
to provide a secure future for them as well. This is going to be a test
for the Senate--hopefully, in the coming days, but if not, in the
coming weeks, and I hope we can get the job done.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion
to proceed to H.R. 2579 be agreed to; that Senator Toomey or his
designee be recognized to offer amendment No. 1948 and that Senator
Coons or his designee be recognized to offer amendment No. 1955;
further, that the time until 8 p.m. be equally divided between the
leaders or their designees and that following the use or yielding back
of that time, the Senate vote on the amendments in the order listed,
with 60 affirmative votes required for adoption, and that no second-
degree amendments be in order prior to the votes; finally, that if any
of the amendments are adopted, they become original text for the
purpose of further amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there have
been meetings going on all day on a bipartisan basis to try to resolve
the issue before us, which was the President's decision to end the DACA
Program effectively March 5 of this year. I believe progress is being
made. I hope we can continue along those lines. The proposed amendment
by the Senator from Pennsylvania does not address this issue, and for
that reason, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
[[Page S904]]
____________________