[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]]

  

                          ____________________