[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 14, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S930-S965]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BROADER OPTIONS FOR AMERICANS ACT
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2579) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow the premium tax credit with respect to
unsubsidized COBRA continuation coverage.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
Amendment No. 1959
(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.)
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1959.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment
numbered 1959.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Amendment No. 1948 to Amendment No. 1959
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I call up the Toomey amendment No. 1948
to the Grassley amendment No. 1959.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. Toomey,
proposes an amendment numbered 1948 to amendment No. 1959.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
[[Page S931]]
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To ensure that State and local law enforcement may cooperate
with Federal officials to protect our communities from violent
criminals and suspected terrorists who are illegally present in the
United States)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. STOP DANGEROUS SANCTUARY CITIES ACT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Stop
Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act''.
(b) Ensuring That Local and Federal Law Enforcement
Officers May Cooperate to Safeguard Our Communities.--
(1) Authority to cooperate with federal officials.--A
State, a political subdivision of a State, or an officer,
employee, or agent of such State or political subdivision
that complies with a detainer issued by the Department of
Homeland Security under section 236 or 287 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226 and 1357)--
(A) shall be deemed to be acting as an agent of the
Department of Homeland Security; and
(B) with regard to actions taken to comply with the
detainer, shall have all authority available to officers and
employees of the Department of Homeland Security.
(2) Legal proceedings.--In any legal proceeding brought
against a State, a political subdivision of a State, or an
officer, employee, or agent of such State or political
subdivision, which challenges the legality of the seizure or
detention of an individual pursuant to a detainer issued by
the Department of Homeland Security under section 236 or 287
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226 and
1357)--
(A) no liability shall lie against the State or political
subdivision of a State for actions taken in compliance with
the detainer; and
(B) if the actions of the officer, employee, or agent of
the State or political subdivision were taken in compliance
with the detainer--
(i) the officer, employee, or agent shall be deemed--
(I) to be an employee of the Federal Government and an
investigative or law enforcement officer; and
(II) to have been acting within the scope of his or her
employment under section 1346(b) and chapter 171 of title 28,
United States Code;
(ii) section 1346(b) of title 28, United States Code, shall
provide the exclusive remedy for the plaintiff; and
(iii) the United States shall be substituted as defendant
in the proceeding.
(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection may
be construed to provide immunity to any person who knowingly
violates the civil or constitutional rights of an individual.
(c) Sanctuary Jurisdiction Defined.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided under paragraph (2),
for purposes of this section the term ``sanctuary
jurisdiction'' means any State or political subdivision of a
State that has in effect a statute, ordinance, policy, or
practice that prohibits or restricts any government entity or
official from--
(A) sending, receiving, maintaining, or exchanging with any
Federal, State, or local government entity information
regarding the citizenship or immigration status (lawful or
unlawful) of any individual; or
(B) complying with a request lawfully made by the
Department of Homeland Security under section 236 or 287 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226 and 1357)
to comply with a detainer for, or notify about the release
of, an individual.
(2) Exception.--A State or political subdivision of a State
shall not be deemed a sanctuary jurisdiction based solely on
its having a policy whereby its officials will not share
information regarding, or comply with a request made by the
Department of Homeland Security under section 236 or 287 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226 and 1357)
to comply with a detainer regarding, an individual who comes
forward as a victim or a witness to a criminal offense.
(d) Sanctuary Jurisdictions Ineligible for Certain Federal
Funds.--
(1) Economic development administration grants.--
(A) Grants for public works and economic development.--
Section 201(b) of the Public Works and Economic Development
Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3141(b)) is amended--
(i) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) the area in which the project is to be carried out is
not a sanctuary jurisdiction (as defined in subsection (c) of
the Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act).''.
(B) Grants for planning and administration.--Section 203(a)
of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 3143(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``A sanctuary jurisdiction (as defined in
subsection (c) of the Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act)
may not be deemed an eligible recipient under this
subsection.''.
(C) Supplementary grants.--Section 205(a) of the Public
Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.
3145(a)) is amended--
(i) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) will be carried out in an area that does not contain
a sanctuary jurisdiction (as defined in subsection (c) of the
Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act).''.
(D) Grants for training, research, and technical
assistance.--Section 207 of the Public Works and Economic
Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3147) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(c) Ineligibility of Sanctuary Jurisdictions.--Grants
funds under this section may not be used to provide
assistance to a sanctuary jurisdiction (as defined in
subsection (c) of the Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities
Act).''.
(2) Community development block grants.--Title I of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301
et seq.) is amended--
(A) in section 102(a) (42 U.S.C. 5302(a)), by adding at the
end the following:
``(25) The term `sanctuary jurisdiction' has the meaning
provided in subsection (c) of the Stop Dangerous Sanctuary
Cities Act.''.
(B) in section 104 (42 U.S.C. 5304)--
(i) in subsection (b)--
(I) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(II) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7); and
(III) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
``(6) the grantee is not a sanctuary jurisdiction and will
not become a sanctuary jurisdiction during the period for
which the grantee receives a grant under this title; and''.
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(n) Protection of Individuals Against Crime.--
``(1) In general.--No funds authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this title may be obligated or expended for any
State or unit of general local government that is a sanctuary
jurisdiction.
``(2) Returned amounts.--
``(A) State.--If a State is a sanctuary jurisdiction during
the period for which it receives amounts under this title,
the Secretary--
``(i) shall direct the State to immediately return to the
Secretary any such amounts that the State received for that
period; and
``(ii) shall reallocate amounts returned under clause (i)
for grants under this title to other States that are not
sanctuary jurisdictions.
``(B) Unit of general local government.--If a unit of
general local government is a sanctuary jurisdiction during
the period for which it receives amounts under this title,
any such amounts that the unit of general local government
received for that period--
``(i) in the case of a unit of general local government
that is not in a nonentitlement area, shall be returned to
the Secretary for grants under this title to States and other
units of general local government that are not sanctuary
jurisdictions; and
``(ii) in the case of a unit of general local government
that is in a nonentitlement area, shall be returned to the
Governor of the State for grants under this title to other
units of general local government in the State that are not
sanctuary jurisdictions.
``(C) Reallocation rules.--In reallocating amounts under
subparagraphs (A) and (B), the Secretary shall--
``(i) apply the relevant allocation formula under
subsection (b), with all sanctuary jurisdictions excluded;
and
``(ii) shall not be subject to the rules for reallocation
under subsection (c).''.
(3) Effective date.--This subsection and the amendments
made by this subsection shall take effect on October 1, 2018.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader.
Amendment No. 1958
(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.)
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1958 to the
language proposed to be stricken.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an
amendment numbered 1958 to the language proposed to be
stricken by amendment No. 1959.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
Amendment No. 1955 to Amendment No. 1958
(Purpose: To provide relief from removal and adjustment of
status of certain individuals who are long-term United States
residents and who entered the United States before reaching
the age of 18, improve border security, foster United States
engagement in Central America, and for other purposes.)
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I call up the Coons amendment No. 1955 to
the Schumer amendment No. 1958.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
[[Page S932]]
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for Mr. Coons,
proposes an amendment numbered 1955 to amendment No. 1958.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The amendment is printed in the Record of Tuesday, February 13,
2018, under ``Text of Amendments.'')
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is
recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, as we enter the second day of the debate
on immigration, everyone should be focused on finding a bill to protect
the Dreamers and address border security that can get 60 votes. That is
the ball game.
The majority leader's desire to vote on an unrelated, partisan
immigration bill--legislation that is not only silent on Dreamers but
is silent on border security as well--is not a productive way to begin
debate.
Let's get to the crux of the issue. Let Republicans offer whatever
they want on DACA and border security, and we will do the same. The
leader supports the proposal by Senator Grassley, which is,
essentially, the President's plan. Let's vote on that first. We will
have several bipartisan bills to offer. We should vote on those too.
Democrats are focused like a laser on finding a bipartisan bill that
can pass the Senate to protect the Dreamers. Several moderate
Republicans are working toward that as well. The one person who seems
most intent on not getting a deal is President Trump.
President Trump's contribution to this debate has been to put forward
a proposal that contains a vast curtailment of legal immigration, far
outside the scope of DACA and border security, and has demanded that
the Democrats support it. Instead of making a proposal in good faith or
working with Democrats on a compromise, President Trump is trying to
force his unpopular, hard-line immigration agenda down the throats of
the American people by calling it a DACA bill.
The President's proposal, now the Grassley bill, is so extreme on
legal immigration that several Republicans have been critical of it,
including my friends from South Carolina and Arizona. Yet President
Trump somehow thinks that Democrats would be to blame for not getting a
deal on DACA because we didn't go blindly along with his partisan
plan--extreme as it is and with no input from Democrats.
That will not happen.
Only in a Kafkaesque, 1984 world could the Democrats be blamed for
the current predicament on DACA. As much as the President wants to turn
the world upside down, as much as he wants everyone to just accept what
he is saying, the American people know better. Everyone here knows that
President Trump has stood in the way of a bipartisan solution to DACA
from the very beginning. Let's take a quick look at the history.
First, it was President Trump who terminated the DACA Program last
August, not the Democrats and not the Republicans here. Unilaterally,
we are in this pickle--worse than a pickle--in this bad situation
because President Trump chose to end the DACA Program last August. That
stands out above anything else.
Then President Trump turned his back on not one but two bipartisan
immigration proposals. I went so far as to put the wall--the
President's signature campaign issue--on the table for discussion. That
still did not drive him to a deal.
Finally, now that we are working hard in the Senate to come up with a
bipartisan proposal, President Trump is just trying to gum up the
works. According to reports, President Trump may threaten to veto
legislation that doesn't match his hard-line demands--``my way or no
way'' and with no Democratic input. A statement this morning from the
White House said the President would oppose even a short-term bill to
protect the Dreamers.
So who is intent on kicking out these people who know no country but
America, who work in our factories and offices, who go to our schools,
who serve in our military? Who is intent on kicking them out? It is not
the American people, as 90 percent want to support the Dreamers. It is
not any Democrat and not a good number of Republicans on that side of
the aisle. It is just the President.
On three separate occasions, President Trump has stood in the way of
a bipartisan solution to DACA--a problem he created in the first place.
Yet the President is in this dream world. He thinks: Oh, I can blame
the Democrats for the impasse.
As I said, only in a 1984 world where up is down and black is white
could this be true. Only in a 1984 world where up is down and black is
white would the American public blame the Democrats for this. They know
where Trump stands. They know it. The American people know what is
going on. They know that this President not only created the problem
but seems to be against every solution that might pass because it is
not 100 percent of what he wants.
If, at the end of this week, we are unable to find a bill that can
pass--I sincerely hope that is not the case, due to the good efforts of
so many people on both sides of the aisle--the responsibility will fall
on the President's shoulders and on those in this body who went along
with him.
Bipartisan negotiations are ongoing and are, perhaps, very close to a
conclusion. Nothing is ever certain given the contentious nature of
this debate, but I am hopeful that Senators can put the President's
hard-line demands to the side and come up with a deal that works for
both parties. If we want to go beyond border security and the DACA
kids, let's do comprehensive reform. We did it once. It worked pretty
well in the Senate, but the House blocked it. Let's go back to it.
First, the issues at hand are the DACA kids and border security. That
is the only thing that can pass this Chamber--the only thing.
We need to push through to the finish line. There are only 2 days of
debate remaining this week. Everyone has to make a final effort to
reach consensus. That doesn't mean adding new demands or drawing lines
in the sand. It means being willing to compromise and take yes for an
answer. If we pass something, it might not be everything that either
the Democrats want or everything that the Republicans want, but it may
get the job done for the Dreamers and the overwhelming majority of
Americans who would like to see them stay in the country.
Republican Tax Bill
Mr. President, on another matter--taxes--our Republican friends
argued that their massive corporate tax cut was not such a huge
giveaway to corporate America. They predicted that corporations would
spend the tax savings on benefits for workers. The evidence is already
mounting that those predictions were wrong. Since the passage of the
Republican tax bill, corporations have been pouring billions of dollars
into stock repurchasing programs, not into significant wage increases
or other meaningful investments in workers.
These stock buybacks--this stock repurchasing--which benefit,
primarily, the people at the top have reached a significant milestone.
Since the passage of the Republican tax bill, there have been over $100
billion in stock buybacks. As of last week, corporations had announced
twice the number of corporate share buybacks as during a similar period
last year. Let me repeat that. The number of corporate share buybacks
has doubled since the Republican tax bill passed.
Why is that so significant?
It is that share buybacks don't help the average worker. They inflate
the value of a company's stock, which primarily benefits shareholders,
not workers. It benefits corporate executives, who are compensated with
corporate stock, not workers, who are paid by wages and benefits. The
money corporations spend on repurchasing their stock is money that is
not being reinvested in worker training, equipment, research, new
hires, or higher salaries.
According to analysts at Morgan Stanley, companies that were surveyed
said they will pass only 13 percent of the Trump tax cut savings on to
workers in comparison to 43 percent that they will spend on share
buybacks. For manufacturers, it is even worse: 9 percent to go to
workers, 47 percent to share buybacks.
The Republicans made a conscious decision to give corporations and
the wealthiest Americans the lion's share
[[Page S933]]
of the tax cuts and promised it would trickle down to everyone else.
Unfortunately, trickle-down never works, and it is not what is
happening now. Corporate America is doing what is best for corporate
America, and working America is getting left behind. It goes to show
you just who President Trump and the Republicans were working for when
they crafted their tax bill. They gave corporations and the wealthiest
Americans a huge tax cut and cut out everybody else.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is immigration week in the U.S.
Senate, and we are preparing today's procedural moves to bring bills to
the floor for consideration as early as today, perhaps tomorrow at the
latest. It is an unusual time when the Senate is focused on such an
issue and actual bipartisan amendments and substitutes are being
offered.
We are at this point at this moment in time because of a decision by
President Trump on September 5 of last year when he announced he was
ending the DACA Program. DACA was a program created by President Obama
by Executive order, which allowed those who had been brought to the
United States as children, infants, and toddlers to be able to stay
legally in the United States on a temporary visa renewable every 2
years. It was called DACA, and 780,000 young people stepped up and paid
the filing fee of almost $500, went through a criminal background check
and an interview and received DACA protection. They then went on with
their lives, with 90 percent of them going to work or to school,
enlisting in the military--undocumented in America, willing to hold up
their hands and take an oath that they would die for America. That is
how much they love this country. Twenty thousand of them went to work
as school teachers across the United States of America. Perhaps they
are teaching your children or grandchildren today. They are doing
important things in this country. But President Trump announced last
September 5 that the program that protects them and allows them to work
will end.
Then he challenged us. He said to the Senate and the House: Do
something about it. Pass a law. Isn't that what you are there for? The
President is right. That is our job.
This week we are going to try to pass a law to end this crisis, which
is going to reach a head on March 5 of this year when the DACA Program
officially ends and 1,000 young people a day lose their protection. We
have less than 3 weeks. So we are going to move today, I hope, or
tomorrow or this week, at some point to consider some alternatives to
solve this problem.
I am sorry to say that there is no plan in the U.S. House of
Representatives to even address the problem--none. I don't understand
it. They know that lives hang in the balance, and they know that
overwhelmingly the American people want to give DACA and the Dreamers a
chance. The numbers come rolling in; 75, 80, 85 percent of Americans
agree that these young people should be given a chance to earn their
way to legal status and citizenship. Even 60 percent of those who voted
for President Trump agree with what I just said. It is a popular
political issue on both sides, and it also is the right thing to do.
What the President has proposed as his alternative, from my point of
view, is unacceptable. Let me tell you why. Two weeks ago the White
House released a one-page framework on immigration reform and border
security. The White House claimed that this is a compromise because it
includes a path to citizenship for Dreamers--some of them. That, of
course, as I mentioned, is supported by a majority of Americans. The
reality is that the Trump plan would put the administration's entire
hard-line immigration agenda on the backs of these young people. These
young, DACA-protected people are being held as political hostages for
President Trump's hard-line immigration agenda.
For example, the White House wants to dramatically reduce legal
immigration by prohibiting American citizens from sponsoring their
parents, siblings, and children as immigrants. We are talking about
literally millions of relatives of American citizens who entered this
system legally and are following our immigration laws. Some have been
waiting for as long as 20 years to immigrate to the United States.
The conservative Cato Institute says the following about President
Trump's proposal:
In the most likely scenario, the new plan [from the Trump
administration] would cut the number of legal immigrants by
up to 44 percent or a half million immigrants annually--the
largest policy-driven immigration cut since the 1920s.
Compared to current law, it would exclude nearly 22 million
people from the opportunity to immigrate legally to the
United States over the next five decades.
You have to go back in history to a time when there was a proposal
that passed on the floor of this Chamber that cut as many legal
immigrants to the United States. The year was 1924. Calvin Coolidge was
President of the United States. We had just seen the end of World War
I. There was a growing fear that because of all of the damage that was
done in Europe, Europeans would come to the United States. There was
also a concern that the wrong people were coming to the United States,
in the eyes of some of the Members of Congress.
The Immigration Act of 1924 passed, and it set quotas for countries,
and it set quotas for people. It was expressly designed to exclude
certain people from around the world from entering the United States of
America. It was a notorious piece of legislation. Those who were to be
excluded from America included people from Italy, Eastern Europe,
Japan, Asia, and Jewish people. That was the immigration policy of the
United States of America because of that bill in 1924. That is the last
time this Chamber has made such a dramatic cut in legal immigration to
America. It was a source of embarrassment for decades. The United
States established quotas and said: We want America to look a lot
different than it would look if other immigrants came to this country.
Thankfully, in 1965, it was changed. Thankfully, we gave up the
quotas that had been criticized roundly as being insensitive to the
realities of the world population and the reality of the population of
America.
Now the Trump administration wants to cut legal immigration to the
United States again, by 44 percent, the biggest cut--as the Cato
Institute tells us--since that horrible bill was passed in 1924.
Let me tell you what else the Trump immigration proposal would do. It
would create an unaccountable slush fund of $25 billion of American
taxpayers' money for a border wall that, as I remember correctly,
Mexico was supposed to pay for--$25 billion. I have to double check,
but I think that is almost the annual appropriation for the National
Institutes of Health. The President wants $25 billion and wants no
strings attached. He wants to be able to spend it where, when, and how
he wants. That is an invitation for fraud and waste. It is an
invitation for money to be spent for something other than its purpose.
It is an invitation for taxpayers to be the ultimate losers with this
slush fund for President Trump's famous Mexican wall.
The President's proposal on immigration, in the midst of the worst
refugee crisis on record in the world, is now calling for fast-track
deportations without due process of women and children fleeing gang and
sexual violence. I can't tell you how many times we have had this
conversation with members of the Trump administration. They create a
scenario. The scenario is of a 6-year-old child who is swooped up in
some Central American country. The parents give thousands of dollars,
their life savings, to a smuggler who says: I will get this child to
the border of the United States. The child is then taken off by the
smuggler in a car or truck or bus to the border. The child then comes
out of the car, is pointed toward one of our Federal employees with the
Border Patrol, and the child walks up and hands a piece of paper to the
Border Patrol agent with the name of someone in the United States. That
process then unfolds, and the child ultimately, in many cases, ends up
with that relative while a decision is made about the status of the
child.
Is there exploitation in this system? You bet there is. Is there
abuse in this system? For sure. Is there actual human trafficking
taking place? Yes.
[[Page S934]]
Are atrocities committed against these children in the course of this
journey? All true. Should we be dedicated to cleaning this up? Sign me
up, on a bipartisan basis.
Let me tell you another scenario, another story that has a different
origin than turning over a child to a smuggler. Let me tell you about
cases we know of in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala where, because
of the rampant crime, gang activity, and violence that takes place,
parents, desperate to save their children--some of whom have daughters
who have been victims of rape by these gangs--send them to the United
States in the hope that they can save their lives. They show up at the
border, having lived in fear of this violence in their countries, and
they are accepted into the United States to determine whether that fear
can be established in a hearing.
These are two different cases--a little child being exploited by a
smuggler, a young girl escaping violence and perhaps death because her
parents have nowhere to turn to save her life. Should we treat them
both the same? I don't think so. Historically, we have said that when
it comes to asylum seekers, who come to this country with a credible
fear for their own lives, the United States has given them a chance to
be protected. We have said that over and over again. We said it to the
Cubans who were escaping Fidel Castro. We have said it to the Soviet
Jews who wanted to have freedom of religion and came to the United
States, believing this was the only chance they had in the world.
The Trump immigration proposal does not make a clear distinction on
those two cases. In fact, what it does is end up with fast-track
deportations without due process. Accepting the Trump approach will
literally return many of these folks who have come to our border to
harm and in some cases death.
There are fast-track deportations in the Trump proposal without due
process for millions who have overstayed their visas. An estimated 40
percent of the 11 million undocumented fit in this category. So even if
they have no criminal record, without considering their legal claims to
remain in the United States, they would be deported. It dramatically
cuts immigration from sub-Saharan African countries.
We have a diversity visa program. It is far from perfect, but it is a
program that was created years ago, so countries that do not have an
opportunity to send people to the United States for legal immigration
would have a chance. Immigrants who come from these countries are
limited in number. They have to go through the background checks,
criminal background checks, biometric investigations--all of the
investigations and interviews that we would expect in order to make
sure we do everything humanly possible to cull out those who would be
any danger to the United States. They face that same scrutiny, and they
should. Many of them are rejected. They can't make the case for their
lives and what they have done with them, and they are not given a
chance to come. The President wants to eliminate the diversity visa
program. For those living in sub-Saharan African countries, huge
countries, about 12,000 to 15,000 come to the United States each year
through this program. By eliminating this program, the Trump
administration sadly is going to deny those immigrants from Africa even
a chance to apply for this opportunity.
In the past, many Democrats have been willing to support some of the
President's proposals, changes in our immigration system, eliminating
the diversity visa lottery, but when we made that offer 5 years ago, it
was part of comprehensive immigration reform with give and take and
compromise that tried to make sense out of senseless immigration laws.
In 2013, a Democratic-led Senate passed a comprehensive immigration
reform bill with a strong bipartisan vote of 68 to 32. The bill was a
product of months of negotiations, with committee and floor debate.
Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the House of
Representatives refused to even consider the bill. Now we are being
asked to accept the administration's proposal with no conditions, no
compromise, no give and take; rather, take it or leave it.
Democrats have shown they want to comprehensively fix our broken
immigration system, but right now we have to fix our focus on the DACA
crisis created by President Trump with his announcement of September 5.
That has to be our priority.
In the next day or two, we expect the so-called Grassley proposal,
which is the Trump immigration plan, to come to the floor. I want to
say for the record, Democrats support comprehensive immigration reform,
but we will not stand by and allow Dreamers to be held political
hostage to the administration's entire immigration agenda.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor out of great concern
for America's Dreamers, whose futures hinge on the ability of this body
to keep its word and get something done. I want to be clear whom we are
talking about when we talk about Dreamers. We aren't talking about
criminals. We aren't talking about terrorists. We aren't talking about
``bad hombres.'' We are talking about kids as American as apple pie. As
I often say, the only country they call home is the United States. The
only flag they pledge allegiance to is that of the American flag. The
only national anthem they know how to sing is the ``Star-Spangled
Banner.''
We are talking about 800,000 young people who were brought to this
country as children and were able to obtain legal protection under the
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, known as DACA. These
kids put enormous faith in our government. They came out of the
shadows, they passed background checks, and they registered with our
government--all to get a 2-year renewable work permit and protection
from deportation.
Even the Cato Institute, which is a conservative think tank, says
that deporting Dreamers--91 percent of whom are gainfully employed--
would hurt America's economy. At the same time, we are also talking
about thousands of additional Dreamers who were eligible for DACA but
didn't apply. Some couldn't afford the cost and others were still
working through the lengthy application process. These are the Dreamers
the White House Chief of Staff John Kelly called lazy asses. Well, Mr.
Kelly, here is what you don't understand: The reason they didn't apply
is not because they were lazy. In fact, in many cases, they didn't
apply because they were afraid--afraid of people like you. They were
afraid that if they came out of the shadows and registered with the
government, they would end up on a short list for deportation. What is
depressing is that this administration's actions have proven them
right. Now DACA recipients and undocumented Dreamers alike fear they
have a target on their back, and that is because President Trump put an
expiration date on their dreams when he decided to end DACA.
Now, let me be clear, DACA was never perfect, and it was never a
replacement for truly comprehensive immigration reform. Make no
mistake, we still need comprehensive immigration reform, and I am
committed as ever to that cause--a cause I have spent the better part
of my congressional career trying to achieve. I was a member of the
Gang of 8 in the Senate back in 2013 when a bipartisan supermajority in
the Senate passed the most historic reforms to our immigration system
since the days of President Ronald Reagan, only to die in the House of
Representatives without even a vote, but that debate is for another
day. That debate is for what President Trump called phase 2.
This week, we are not here to debate comprehensive immigration
reform. We are not here to debate the numerous types of visas that
exist under U.S. law. We are not here to debate how mayors run their
cities or how police officers do their jobs. We are here to protect
Dreamers. We are here to address a crisis that President Trump started
last September when he ended DACA. That is what this week's debate
[[Page S935]]
is all about--it is about protecting hard-working, upstanding Dreamers
across America from being deported to countries they haven't stepped
foot in since they were in diapers.
Now, many of my colleagues have met Dreamers from their States in
recent years, and they know the lion's share of these kids can't even
remember coming here--only growing up here. For the Dreamers who do
remember arriving here, they certainly didn't arrive through any
decision of their own. They were babies, toddlers, and very young
children, and I challenge my colleagues to think of any decision of
consequence they made when they were babies, toddlers, and very young
children. I bet you didn't decide what town you lived in, where your
parents worked, or what kind of status you had.
When we talk about Dreamers, we are talking about kids who have grown
up American in every sense of the word. We are talking about 22,000 New
Jerseyans like Parthiv Patel, who came to New Jersey from India when he
was 5 years old. He gained DACA status in 2012. He graduated from
Drexel Law School in 2016, and he became the first Dreamer admitted to
the New Jersey Bar in 2018.
We are also talking about students like Christopher Rios Martine, a
constituent of mine who came here from Colombia at the age of 2. Today
he is a junior at Rutgers University with a 3.74 GPA. He is president
of the Management Information Systems Association, and he is interning
at Colgate-Palmolive. Christopher said: ``I am proud to be a DACA
recipient and I plan on contributing as much to this country as I
possibly can.''
As another Dreamer from New Jersey, Sara Mora, recently wrote:
Without DACA her life has become ``one big question mark''--the
question of whether this Congress will act. Will we protect Dreamers
who have become integral to our communities, many who are teaching in
our schools, who are treating our patients, who are serving proudly in
the military of the United States--many are wearing the uniform of the
United States, risking their lives on behalf of our country, and yet we
talk about deporting them--and many who are starting families of their
own? That is right. Nearly one-quarter of DACA recipients are the
parents of U.S.-born American children.
That is whom we are talking about this week. We are not talking about
criminals. We are not talking about terrorists. We are not talking
about gangbangers or drug dealers. We are talking about Dreamers. They
are not undocumented immigrants, from my perspective; they are
undocumented Americans who have proven themselves worthy of the
American dream. Yet the administration slapped an arbitrary expiration
date on their dream, creating a crisis that Congress needs to solve.
I took President Trump at his word when he said he wanted to treat
Dreamers with heart, just as I took Leader McConnell at his word when
he said this week would be about protecting them from deportation.
Now, as I listen to many of my Republican colleagues on the Senate
floor, I am hearing less and less about Dreamers and more and more
about spending tens of billions of taxpayer dollars on a wall President
Trump promised Mexico would pay for. Considering the Trump
administration's own report noting that illegal border crossings from
Mexico have dropped to their lowest level in nearly 50 years, you have
to question the wisdom of a multibillion-dollar wall--a wall between
the United States and a country that serves as our second largest
export market in the world for American goods and services, as Mexican
consumers and businesses buy American goods and services that support
jobs created here at home.
Likewise, I am hearing a whole lot about politically loaded terms
like ``merit-based immigration'' and ``chain migration.'' These aren't
terms you find in our laws. They are political catchphrases designed to
incite fear and push policies that forever change how legal immigration
works in the United States. The more insidious, of course, is the term
``chain migration.'' I am appalled when I hear my colleagues talking
about chain migration, just like I am appalled that the media--even the
so-called liberal media--has adopted this phrase as if it is actually a
legitimate term, and I can't be the only one who thinks the term
``chain migration'' is downright insulting to the millions of Americans
whose ancestors were actually brought to this country in chains.
Now, I have heard a lot about family values from my Republican
colleagues throughout my time in Congress. The Republican Party has
long claimed to be the party of so-called family values. Well, ``chain
migration'' is a term that dehumanizes families. When we want to
dehumanize something, we create an inanimate object, but this chain is
about a mother and a father and a son and a daughter. It is not an
inanimate object, but it is a dehumanizing term.
It is a term designed to make our system of legal immigration and
family reunification sound threatening and illogical, but there is
nothing threatening about uniting mothers and fathers, and there is
nothing more common sense than uniting brothers and sisters and sons
and daughters. They are not linked by chains. They are bound by blood
and held together by love.
Families are the essence of American values in our society. Families
are the glue that builds strong communities--the foundation of our
country. Yet some of my Republican colleagues act as if the nuclear
family is a concept that has an expiration date. Well, I loved my
daughter since the day she was born and the day she turned 21 and the
day she turned 30, the same as I do my son. I didn't love them less
with each passing year. I don't love them any less now that they have
gotten married; in fact, I love them more.
So Americans need to know that when Republicans speak of ending chain
migration, they are talking about ending the legal right of U.S.
citizens to legally sponsor family members in our immigration system.
It is not chain migration; it is family reunification. That is what
America is all about. That is what immigration policy for the past
century has been about--keeping families together, not tearing them
apart.
The reality is, most Americans are, in some ways, the beneficiary of
family reunification. Without it, our country would be a very different
place. End family reunification, and we would never have seen the
leadership of individuals like Colin Powell, a general and Secretary of
State. That is right. His parents wouldn't have been able to come here
without the big bad chain migration that my colleagues in the majority
decry today.
End family reunification and suddenly billion-dollar American
technology companies like Kingston Technology would have never existed.
Before John Tu was a billion-dollar businessman, he was a self-
described mediocre student from China. He would have never come to
America if it were not for the sponsorship of his U.S. citizen sister.
He wasn't skilled when he got here, and yet he built a groundbreaking
company.
So let's get real. When President Trump professes his support for
merit-based immigration, he doesn't have a real plan for allowing a
million engineers and inventors from around the world to come to the
United States. He is talking about cutting legal immigration by nearly
50 percent. That is a policy with disastrous implications for the
future of this country when you consider basic economic facts.
Any credible economist will tell you that without steady immigration,
America's global competitiveness will suffer, and we will fall far
behind much larger countries like China, Pakistan, and India. According
to a Forbes magazine article, even President Donald Trump is a product
of chain migration. That is right. Friedrich Trump, Donald Trump's
grandfather, was able to come to the United States from Germany, with
no English-speaking ability and no merit-based skills. Why? Because his
sister was already in the United States and claimed him as part of
family reunification. You get to be President of the United States
because of chain migration.
If Republicans were being honest, they would call their term of
``chain migration'' what it really is. They would call it family
reunification, but they don't want to call it family reunification
because they don't want to own up to their intention, which is to strip
U.S. citizens of the right to sponsor their brothers and sisters,
mothers
[[Page S936]]
and fathers, and adult children as immigrants.
I ask my colleagues to please give it a rest. If you want to have a
debate about the merits of our immigration system, we can have that
debate, but that debate over comprehensive immigration reform is not
the debate we should have this week. This debate is about whether we
will do right by American Dreamers, about whether we will listen to the
voices of the American people who overwhelmingly want us to solve this
crisis.
According to the latest polls out this week from Quinnipiac
University, 81 percent of Americans support giving Dreamers a path to
citizenship. Yet, week after week, month after month, Dreamers have
languished in uncertainty. Republicans didn't let us protect them in
September or October or November or December or January. Yet,
throughout all this time wasted, I hear my colleagues in the majority
say such nice things about Dreamers--how talented they are, how hopeful
they are, how important they are.
I say to them today that it is getting harder and harder to take your
commitment to Dreamers seriously when, at every opportunity you have to
do something, you do nothing. Instead, it is beginning to look like
President Trump--the person responsible for ending DACA--has enablers
in Congress who have been intent on deporting Dreamers from day one. If
that is not the case, now is the time to prove it because March 5 is
just around the corner. Come March, America's Dreamers will see their
dreams extinguished, replaced with deportation orders to nations they
have never called home. So far, there are 19,000 already out of status,
and after March 5, there will be 1,000 a day.
If my colleagues want to have a debate about comprehensive
immigration reform, we can have that debate some other time but not
today, not this week, not until we protect Dreamers living in fear of
deportation due to President Trump's reckless decisions--a President
who once said about Dreamers that ``we're going to work something out
that is going to make people happy and proud.'' Well, the polls show
deporting Dreamers will not make Americans happy and proud.
The time for talk is over. The time for kind words is over. The time
for excuses is over. So, this week, Congress needs to take action. It
is time we let America see who stands with Dreamers and who is
complicit in their potential deportation. These young men and women
have shown incredible courage and strength in the face of adversity and
uncertainty. They were handed a crisis, and they created a movement.
They shared their stories and their dreams, and, in doing so, they have
captured the hearts of the American people.
I urge my colleagues in the Senate not to break America's heart
because our hearts are bigger as a country and our future is brighter
when Dreamers in this country stay right where they belong.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The Senator from North
Carolina.
Valentine's Day
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, in a moment, I am going to talk about the
immigration debate we are going to have here.
Before I do that, though, I want to recognize that this is
Valentine's Day. I happen to be several hundred miles away from my
sweetheart, but I want to wish my wife a happy Valentine's Day. I made
her a little card. I am sure I probably just violated a rule, but I
don't think anybody can fire me. I want my wife to know I love her and
wish I was with her.
Now, Mr. President, I want to talk a little about immigration reform.
We just heard a discussion. I tell you, sometimes I think I teleport
from this Chamber to the Kennedy Center because there are more
theatrics going on here than you can find down there on any given day.
Let me give you one example of that. The whole indignant position
that the Member from New Jersey just had on ``chain migration'' and
somehow that mean Republicans came up with this term because we wanted
to make a point. Demographers came up with this term decades ago.
People on the other side of the aisle even have references to chain
migration in bills they proposed. End the theatrics. Solve this
problem.
Let's talk about the President's framework. I was presiding just
before I got up here. I heard the word ``hard-line'' used--the hard-
line demand of President Trump. I don't agree with everything President
Trump has done. In fact, I said a year and a half ago--and I got
criticized for it--that when you sit down and talk border patrol and
talk homeland security, you are going to find out you don't need a
large, monolithic wall from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico.
After the President was elected and after he got into office, he
listened to homeland security and border patrol, and he came up with a
plan that isn't a long, monolithic wall across the southern border. It
is a strategic plan that actually lets us improve the security of the
homeland along the northern and southern borders. It is a plan that
tries to confiscate tons of drugs that are poisoning Americans in the
tens of thousands of every year. It is a plan that makes sure gang
members are more likely to be incarcerated when they cross the border
illegally and less likely to go into the very communities that many of
the people who immigrate to this country go into. It is a plan to make
those communities safer.
It is a plan to make sure we know the thousands of people that cross
the border illegally are not carrying illicit drugs in a truck or car
or a wheel well, the way they do it today, because it is using
technology to be able to search more vehicles to make sure our homeland
is safe.
It is also a plan that shows more compassion than President Obama's
DACA plan. Right now, they are saying: Let's keep DACA going. Well,
there are 690,000 people who are in DACA. Their future is
uncertain because it is an Executive order. It doesn't have the force
of law. It could possibly be challenged by the court. The President
decided on September 15 of last year, Congress do your job. You have
been talking about immigration reform for two decades. We have an
arguably illegal Executive order by President Obama that President
Trump kept in place for about a year, and then he said: I am going to
give you all 6 months to do your job and come up with something that
has enduring value.
The DACA proposal only provided the illegally present persons who
came to this country--through the decisions of an adult--some certainty
that they wouldn't be deported. It doesn't give them any certainty in
terms of a path to citizenship. People said the President has a hard-
line plan. DACA allows 690,000 people who signed up for it to be here
and, hopefully, not have that decision thrown out by the courts or have
the President rescind it.
What we just heard from three or four Members on the other side of
the aisle is that the President's hard-line plan is to have nearly
three times as many people with a path to citizenship, not a piece of
paper that hopefully will be in place for the time you spend in the
United States but citizenship. So the President's hard-line plan
actually legalizes about two and a half times as many people, not to
just let them be here present, to have legal status but have a path to
citizenship. That is hard-line?
I am not sure the President was there when he was running for office,
but he listened. He recognizes he wants to be the President who gets
something done, and he is willing to accept the criticism from people
on my side of the aisle who may not support a path to citizenship. I
do, and the President does.
I find it remarkable that somebody would say a President, who has
endorsed a bill to provide a path to citizenship to 1.8 million
people--two and a half times more than President Obama provided a
temporary and passing status to--is hard-line.
Border security. Why is border security important? Is it just purely
a hard-line deportation force sending people out? No. I already talked
about, No. 1, hundreds of millions of doses of heroin, fentanyl, and
other illicit drugs come across our border every year. We simply do not
have the people, technology, and infrastructure to interdict them. Of
the $25 billion, about $18 billion of it would be spent for border
security. About 10 percent to 15 percent
[[Page S937]]
of that is on the northern border. The remainder is on the southern
border. Some of that will be spent on wall structures.
When all is said and done, less than half of the 2,300 miles will
have a wall structure. The rest will be spent on training additional
personnel. If you have ever gone to a border crossing, you know the
long lines they have there. This is actually creating technology that
has low-intensity x rays where you could drive a vehicle through. The
Border Patrol folks can identify human smugglers, human traffickers,
and drug smugglers without ever having the person get out of the car.
That is what the border security plan is focused on as well. There are
wall structures where they make sense. They don't make sense along
about half of the border.
Let me tell you about the humanitarian case for this, which I find
remarkable no one on the other side of the aisle will bring up. I went
to Texas last year. I went along the southern border. I was on the Rio
Grande, on the Border Patrol boats, on horseback, and at night I took
ATVs around. I heard a lot of stories by a lot of people, including
property owners. Over the last 20 years, 10,000 people have died trying
to cross our border on U.S. soil. We have no earthly idea how many tens
of thousands of people die just trying to get there. So 10,000 people
died over the last 20 years because we didn't know where they were.
They were on American soil, but we didn't know where they were. About
1,000 of them were children. If that is not a case for needing to know
who is crossing the border and where they are--even if they may get
deported if they don't have a legitimate claim to asylum but have this
threat to their safety--then I don't know what else is. I don't see how
border security is hard-line when you look at the facts--not the
theater but the facts.
I think that second pillar of the President's proposal is balanced.
It is less than what he originally wanted, but it makes sense, and it
shows a lot of movement on his part. Again, two and a half times the
number of people are actually getting a path to citizenship--more than
the DACA Executive order proposed--and it has border security that
makes sense and is no longer this idea of a monolithic wall.
We heard somebody say there is a dramatic cut to legal immigration;
that the promise we made to everybody who is in line because of a
family relationship is going to be broken. That is utter nonsense.
There is no proposal like that on the table. The fact is, there are
about 3.9 million people in the backlog who, if the President's
proposal is accepted, will get to this country in half the time it
takes today. There are about 3.9 million people waiting to come to this
country because of a family relationship who we have proposed--that the
President has proposed--should be able to get here sooner.
The diversity lottery is also something, I think, people have been
misled or they are trying to mislead you. I will leave it to you to
decide. The diversity lottery is not ending. This actually comes up
with a reasonable way to use those 50,000 green cards in a way that
lets us draw down the backlog sooner--instead of having somebody wait
17 years or 20 years to get into the country, maybe 8 or 9, but then it
is also with a focus on the underrepresented countries. There are many
countries in Africa--about 15,000--that we would like to make sure they
have an opportunity every year to come to this country. They are from
an underrepresented country. We have already made proposals that said
we are open to other proposals to make that be a part of how the
diversity lottery gets settled. So 50,000 will continue to come. When
we say we are ending the diversity lottery, we are not saying we will
end the entry of 50,000 people; we are talking about modernizing it.
The last time we did any major immigration bill, I was 5 years old. I
think it is about time to look at how the world has changed and maybe
open your eyes and open your hearts to a better way to do it that
benefits the person trying to come to this country and benefits our
country as a result of their entry. I think it can be a win-win.
The last thing on chain migration is, I want to go back and find
everybody who voted for bills in the past, and they voted for a bill
with legislative language in it that referred to chain migration. I am
sick of that kind of garbage on the Senate floor. That is just
misleading. Chain migration is just a process that has been used in the
past--not only by our country but other countries--to kind of link
people together.
I am absolutely sympathetic with some of the things the gentleman
from New Jersey said, but to say that this is some hateful, divisive
term is not paying a whole lot of attention to your job. I have only
been here 3 years. Many of these people who are here voted for language
that had chain migration in it, and now they are saying it is something
the hateful folks in our marketing departments created to be divisive.
That is just untrue.
Now the last thing. When we are talking about legal immigration in
this country--we immigrate about 1 million to 1.1 million people a year
to this country. I don't have a problem with that number. If I had
Members on the other side of the aisle, some of my colleagues, say,
``Thom, we want to try to maintain that same amount of immigration over
time,'' I would say that I am open to it. Some of my colleagues I have
worked with on this bill may not be. But the way we go about doing it
needs to be modernized.
How many times have I heard that when we have a foreign national here
who graduates with an engineering degree or some degree in STEM, that
we should just staple a green card to the back of their diploma--how
many times have we heard that?--because we need high-end workers. We
need welders. We need carpenters. We need plumbers. We need people to
come to this country to fill jobs, or at some point, our economic
growth is going to be limited by the number of resources we have for
those jobs. Our unemployment is going down. The demand for the workers
is there. But we have an immigration system where about three-fourths
of everybody who comes to this country comes purely because of a family
relationship. I bet that if we dig into it, many of them actually could
qualify on the basis of merit, but right now, it is just a random
selection that doesn't really tie to our needs as a nation and for our
economic growth or for our economic security.
I believe that if we get the immigration policy right, over the next
10 years, we will be building a case to have more legal immigration
here, more than the 1 million or 1.1 million, but if we don't fix this,
we are not going to fix the underlying problem with our immigration
system.
I actually didn't plan on speaking. I just grabbed a couple of these
slides so that I could talk about it. But it is very important to me
for us to--I don't like being a part of an organization that talks a
lot and doesn't get anything done, and over the last 17 years, that is
all these folks have been doing. They say: Reelect me. I promise you
that next year, I will get immigration reform done. Next year, I will
file the Dream Act, and we will get it done.
Well, guess what. It hasn't gotten done under a Republican
administration. President Bush was sympathetic to this issue. He
couldn't get it done. Congress couldn't get it done.
President Obama comes in and says: I am going to fix immigration.
President Obama had the votes to pass ObamaCare. There was a time in
this Chamber when not a single Republican vote was necessary to pass a
bill out of here, right? So if you don't need a single Republican vote
in Congress, on the House or the Senate side, why didn't you get it
done? Because I don't think you have taken the time to construct
something that makes sense, that is compassionate, that is responsible,
and that will have the enduring value of law. So now is the time to get
it done, and the only way we are going to get it done is with
bipartisan cooperation.
If you don't like some of the elements of the President's framework
and you set a hammer to it, fold your hands, and say: If you will not
vote on mine, I will not vote on yours--look at this and tell us how we
can improve it. Tell us what we need to do to get a vote. Tell us what
we can do to moderate this. To call this a hardline bill is absurd. It
is theatrics. It is the kind of stuff that has prevented us from
getting things done for the last 17 years.
I hope people will have an honest discussion and debate. I hope
people will come down here, offer all the amendments they want to, and
I hope they
[[Page S938]]
will be mature enough, if they fail, to move on to the next one because
I, for one, want to provide certainty to the DACA population.
I say to the Presiding Officer, you know better than I because you
are in the Marine Reserves. There are 900 people serving in the
military today--that is more than a battalion, right? We have more than
900 DACA recipients serving in the military. I want to file this bill.
I want to get this bill to the President's desk and say to them:
Welcome to this country. Thank you for your service. I can't wait to go
to your ceremony where you swear the oath as an American citizen.
That is what we can do this week. But I guarantee you, anybody who
sits here and says that the President's proposal is unfair and
insincere and hardline is playing politics. It makes me wonder if some
of them would just as soon have this be the ``if you elect me next
year, I promise I will fix this problem'' campaign speech versus take
this off the table, provide them certainty, and do something different
for a change.
Finally, I started by wishing my wife a happy Valentine's Day. When I
get into these speeches--I worked in business most of my career. I
haven't been in politics very long. I get very frustrated with the lack
of production and with the lack of results. But, Sweetie, I am not mad.
I just get a little bit intense when I talk about an issue where the
solution is within reach. I am not mad. I am frustrated with the
Members of the U.S. Senate who don't see the opportunity to seize this
moment and get it done.
Mr. President, thank you for the opportunity. I probably went long,
and I apologize to anybody else who may be waiting to speak. But this
is the week to get it done. This is the Congress to get it done. This
is the President who has given us a historic opportunity. I hope we
seize the day.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate is debating the fate of our
Nation's Dreamers this week. Everywhere I go, people recognize the
uncontestable truth that underpins our discussion: We are all a nation
of immigrants. Unless you are Native American, you come from a line of
people who come from somewhere else. More than in any other country on
Earth, this simple fact is a defining characteristic of our national
identity. Throughout our history, immigrant communities have greatly
enriched our Nation; their individual stories have become the American
story. Out of many, we have become one.
My maternal grandparents emigrated from Italy, began a business,
hired a lot of people, and were pillars of the community. My wife's
parents emigrated from French-speaking Canada and also owned a
business. She was born in Vermont. Yesterday, we buried my wife's
uncle, an immigrant from Canada who started off as an $8-a-week clerk
at a shoe store. He was buried with honors at the age of 100 yesterday,
and people talked about the $20 million or $30 million he has given to
philanthropic causes in Vermont--this $8-a-week immigrant clerk at a
shoe store.
I think sometimes we forget who we are. In the late 1800s we passed
laws excluding Chinese immigrants. During World War II, we turned away
Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust--turned them away at the shores
of our country--and many went back to die in the gas chambers. We know
today that these were tragic mistakes, fueled by our own ill-informed,
xenophobic rhetoric. Mistakes were made, but they must never be
repeated.
Yet now, in 2018, I am concerned that we are hearing echoes of past
mistakes. Anti-immigrant voices, armed with the same shameful
fearmongering, are attempting a comeback in our country. In recent
months, Dreamers have been regularly disparaged. Some have even
suggested that Dreamers pose a risk of terrorism or have links to
international drug trafficking.
These absurd depictions would be laughable if they weren't so
damaging, especially to those of us who remember one of the biggest
terrorist attacks on our country, in Oklahoma City by Timothy McVeigh,
who was not an immigrant; he grew up there and was born there.
Thankfully, most Americans know better. Dreamers are not threats to our
national security; not a single one--not a single one--has been
suspected of terrorist activities. Nor do Dreamers present a threat to
public safety. Far from it. By definition, Dreamers are law-abiding
strivers who seek only to contribute to our country. Brought here as
children, Dreamers are now our neighbors, our first responders, our
teachers, our medical personnel. Nearly 1,000 have served in our Armed
Forces, risking their lives to defend the only country they have ever
known as home.
I will never forget one Dreamer who wrote to me last year. Dr. Juan
Conde is a DACA recipient. He is a resident of Vermont. He was born in
Mexico and brought to the United States as a young child by his mother.
In 2007, tragically, his mother died of cancer. Showing remarkable
courage and determination for a young man, Dr. Conde was motivated by
this personal tragedy to help cancer patients like his mother. He
ultimately obtained a Ph.D. in cancer research from the University of
Texas.
But as accomplished as he already was, Dr. Conde was not satisfied
with just studying cancer. He wanted to treat the people suffering with
and battling the disease. Every one of us in this Chamber knows
somebody who has suffered from and battled cancer, and many have died.
But only after he enrolled in DACA was Dr. Conde able to attend
medical school, and he is currently doing that. He is studying oncology
at the University of Vermont's Larner College of Medicine. Dr. Conde
hopes to spend his life in the United States treating cancer patients
and researching to find a cure for the disease. This Vermonter--and I
think all Americans would agree--believes that America is a better
place with Dr. Conde in it.
There are hundreds of thousands of Dreamers just like Dr. Conde, all
with the potential to contribute to our communities and to our country.
To deny them these opportunities because they were brought here as
children would be as senseless as it is cruel.
We are better than that. And this week, we have an opportunity to
prove it. I am proud of those in the Senate, both Democrats and
Republicans, who are engaged in good-faith negotiations over proposals
to protect our Dreamers and improve our border security. I sincerely
believe that we can find a path to 60 votes, and I hope the Republican
leadership will let us.
The Majority Leader's decision yesterday to seek to open up the
debate with a vote on a poison pill amendment about so-called sanctuary
cities--which has nothing to do with either Dreamers or border
security--was less than a helpful start. These kinds of attempts to
score political points stand in stark contrast to the bipartisan search
done by leading Republicans and Democrats behind the scenes for a
solution. As the most senior Member of this body, it is my hope that
all Senators will focus on a bipartisan solution, not on just divisive
distractions.
I respect this institution as much as anybody. For 43 years, I have
been here and I have seen--and I hope contributed to--the good that can
be accomplished. I have often said that at its best the Senate can and
should serve as the conscience of the Nation. But it can only do so
when we put aside our own self-interest, and we work across the aisle
in the spirit of compromise. I know we are capable of meeting this
challenge today. We have done it before.
Five years ago, when I was chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, we brought together 68 Senators, Democrats and Republicans,
and we voted for an immigration bill that provided protection for
Dreamers, including an expedited pathway to citizenship. Unfortunately,
the House, even though they had the votes to pass it, would not bring
it up. Well, it is time now for the Senate to do so again and, this
time, for the House to follow suit.
President Trump claims he will treat Dreamers with great ``heart.''
If he meant what he said, he will certainly sign our bipartisan
compromise that emerges. So let's get to work. The future of Dreamers--
and the fate of the
[[Page S939]]
American dream itself--lies in our hands.
As I left that funeral yesterday in Vermont, I thought of my wife's
uncle and her parents coming from Canada to make a better life, my
grandparents coming from Italy, and my great grandparents coming from
Ireland, all to make such a mark on our little State of Vermont, all
for the better. As a member of that family, how proud I am to stand
here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, but I want to do more than just
stand here. I want to vote for a bill to help more people like those
who come to our country and to make our country better.
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. 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, today a group led by Chairman Grassley of
the Senate Judiciary Committee formally introduced a bill to address
the DACA issue--the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals issue--that
we have heard so much about, as well as border security. I think it is
a good starting point, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of the
legislation, which is called the Secure and Succeed Act.
Perhaps the most important thing about this bill is that it actually
has a good chance of becoming law. That is because the President
supports it. It encompasses the four pillars the President has laid out
for us in any solution to the DACA challenge.
The Secure and Succeed Act provides legal status and a pathway to
citizenship for an estimated 1.8 million people who meet the specific
criteria of DACA. This is a far larger number than the number of
individuals covered by President Obama's Executive order. The fact is,
this President has not only said to the 690,000 DACA recipients ``You
are going to have a better, brighter future and a pathway to American
citizenship''; this President has also offered all of the young people
eligible but who might not have previously signed up that same
opportunity. What an extraordinarily generous offer.
This bill also provides for a real plan to strengthen border
security, utilizing the three things that Border Patrol has always told
me are essential: more boots on the ground, better technology, and,
yes, some infrastructure in hard-to-control locations, along with
enhanced ports of entry.
I know there has been some confusion about that. The President likes
to talk about the wall. It is true that back in roughly 2006 or 2007,
Congress called for something called the Secure Fence Act, which got
the support of then-Senator Obama, then-Senator Hillary Clinton, and,
of course, current Senator Chuck Schumer. They supported the Secure
Fence Act, as did an overwhelming majority of Senators from both
parties.
When the President has talked about the wall, he has made pretty
clear what he is really talking about is a barrier similar to what was
supported on a bipartisan basis. He said that the Border Patrol is
going to have to be able to see through it. Indeed, as he has conceded,
in many places it doesn't make any sense at all to have a physical
barrier. That is why technology and boots on the ground are so
important.
This legislation also reallocates visas from the diversity lottery
system in a way that is fair and continues the existing, family-based
categories until the current backlog is cleared, which would take,
probably, about 10 years. I am proud to cosponsor this commonsense
solution. But I know other colleagues have been working hard on their
ideas, which I look forward to reviewing as the debate continues.
One group I haven't heard from much, though, is our Democratic
colleagues, who literally shut down the government to force this debate
to occur on their terms and at a time they chose. We are still trying
to figure out--OK, you won, in a sense. I think the American people
lost when you shut down the government, but you made your point. You
wanted a time certain and you wanted a fair process by which to present
your ideas, and we have been waiting--here it is Wednesday, with the
clock ticking, still waiting--for that Democratic proposal. What is
their plan? What is their proposal? Do they even have one? And if they
do, why are they leaving the rest of us, as well as the Nation, in the
dark?
As the majority leader said yesterday, we need to stop trying to
score political points and start making law. The way to get this done
is to take a proposal like the President's and get started; people can
offer amendments to that. Whatever gets 60 votes in the Senate passes
the Senate, and then it is up to the House to pass it, and then it is
up to the President to decide whether to sign it. He has pretty much
given us the outline of what he would find acceptable. Again, insofar
as it grants a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million people, that is
extraordinary in and of itself.
The majority leader made a commitment to hold this debate and to hold
it this week. He has lived up to his promise, and now we can't let it
all go to waste. As each minute and each hour clicks off the clock, it
looks as if it is more and more likely to happen--that all of this will
go to waste.
The country is watching. The DACA recipients in my home State--all
124,000 of them--are watching and worrying, understandably anxious
about what their status is going to be when this program ends on March
5.
One of those DACA recipients is Julio Ramos, a biology teacher who is
getting his master's degree in biomedical informatics. He is from
Brownsville, TX, right along the U.S.-Mexico border, and he is a DACA
recipient. After his mother was diagnosed with breast cancer, he
decided he wanted to be a doctor. He has even been accepted to Texas
medical schools, but he wasn't sure whether he would be allowed to
attend. He is waiting and watching, worried about his future.
Then there is Miriam Santamaria from Houston, TX. She graduated from
high school in Houston with honors. She paid her way through community
college, and she works as a manager at a construction company and owns
her own photography business. She sounds like quite an entrepreneur to
me. Miriam said: ``I am not looking for any kind of recognition or
sympathy, [I'm just] looking to make a difference and inspire others.''
She is also looking to live in peace in the only country that she has
ever known and calls home. She came to the United States when she was 4
years old.
Finally, there is a man whom I will just call by the first name of
Daniel. He, too, lives in Texas. He graduated from the University of
North Texas with a degree in advertising and contributes productively
to society. Daniel came from Mexico at the age of 2, and he said: ``All
the choices I make, I made as an American, because that's what I am.''
We need to listen to these stories as we consider this legislation
and as people are perhaps tempted into the political grandstanding and
gamesmanship that, unfortunately, sometimes overwhelms our best
intentions. These are real human lives hanging in the balance. They are
important, and they teach us about the real people behind the policy.
But their stories are not the only ones we need to listen to. We need
to listen to the stories of the men and women who have been waiting
patiently for years to come here in a legal way through visas and green
cards, waiting patiently to join their families here in the United
States, doing it the old-fashioned, legal way. They have had to wait,
some for years, some for decades.
We should listen to the stories of the border communities, which I am
proud to represent in Texas, from men and women, many of whom are of
Hispanic origin, who have suffered property damage from illegal
immigration.
Illegal immigration is a pretty ugly business when you consider that
it is in the hands of drug cartels and transnational criminal
organizations. Recently, one of the military leaders who is responsible
for Southern Command, which is Central America south, said that these
transnational criminal organizations or cartels are ``commodity
agnostic.'' That is the phrase he used. He said that they don't care
whether it is people, drugs, or other contraband. What they are in it
for is the money, and they are willing to do
[[Page S940]]
anything for the money. Unfortunately, victims of human trafficking
know exactly what I am talking about.
Despite these hardships, businesses in many of the communities, like
those along the border, are thriving. But we need to do everything we
can to make sure that continues to be the case.
Sympathy for DACA recipients is right and good because, in America,
we do not punish children for the mistakes of their parents, and we are
not going to punish these young people who are now adults and have
become part of our communities. But Americans who live along the border
in my State realize that illegal immigration has caused real, tangible
harm in terms of public safety, property damage, and their way of life.
When I talk to people like Manny Padilla, the Border Patrol's sector
chief for the Rio Grande Valley, it is hard not to realize just how
much is required and how many more resources we need to maintain
situational awareness and operational control along the border.
I will say this: The Federal Government has failed over the years to
live up to its responsibility to maintain the security of our border,
so taxpayers in my State have to step up and fill the gap left by the
failure of leadership of the Federal Government. But we have an
opportunity to fix that in this legislation, following the parameters
the President has laid out for us. That is why, during this week's
debate, ensuring additional resources for border security is an
essential piece of the puzzle. That includes areas other than between
our ports of entry. Mexico is one of our largest trading partners. We
have legitimate trade and commerce that flows back and forth across the
border with Mexico and supports 5 million American jobs. Unfortunately,
the cartels have figured out how to exploit that as well. So, because
of antiquated infrastructure and technology at our ports of entry, many
of them are vulnerable through the importation of poison--literally,
drugs like methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, and the like--that has
taken the lives of so many Americans. We need to do more and better
when it comes to maintaining those ports of entry--upgrading the
infrastructure, improving the technology--so we can interdict more of
that.
Again, the border is as varied as anyplace in the world, with areas
that are flat and open, areas that have mountains and rolling hills,
rivers, obviously. Technology, as we have come to see, has transformed
our way of life, and technology can increasingly be the answer to
supplement the boots on the ground and the infrastructure that the
Border Patrol thinks are necessary.
There is a big difference between detecting illegal immigration in
rural areas and urban ones. In urban areas, the Border Patrol tells us
that you might have just a few seconds before someone can cross the
border and enter into the United States. In large, open areas, there is
more of a lag time, so perhaps a fence or some infrastructure is not as
important; technology might be more important, along with the Border
Patrol agents themselves.
My basic point is that border security is complex. For those who
think it is as easy as one, two, three, I encourage you to do as some
of my colleagues have done; that is, travel to the border--we will host
you--to see firsthand why it is crucial that we strengthen our
personnel, technology, and infrastructure. That has to be one of our
priorities, and I am grateful to the President for making this one of
his requirements as well.
We have an opportunity to address not only the anxiety and plight of
DACA recipients but also to make our country safer and more secure; to
reform our legal immigration system in a way that will help us
accelerate the reunification of families out of the backlog of people
waiting patiently and legally outside of the country to come into the
country through legal immigration; and to address the President's
concern about the roll of the dice in the diversity lottery that makes
little sense, given our need for people with job-based skills, graduate
degrees, and other merit-based criteria that would make them valuable
to the United States, in addition to winning the lottery.
I hope we will take advantage of this opportunity this week. Time is
wasting. It is Wednesday, and we don't have any time to waste at all.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PERDUE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PERDUE. Madam President, I rise to talk about the topic of the
week.
Although some of us have been working on this for some time, many of
us in this body have actually been addressing this for over the last 20
years or so. I am new to this body, as I have only been here a few
years, but, last year I got involved in this. We are dealing with the
immigration issue today, not just the DACA issue.
Our current immigration system is outdated, threatens our national
security, and does not meet the needs of our economy. The issue before
the Senate this week is not just about DACA, which is but one
manifestation of our broken immigration policies. Rather, President
Trump, while offering a generous solution for DACA recipients, has
proposed a broader solution to our legal immigration system that will
ensure that we are not back here in just a few short years to deal with
this same problem again. Over the past 11 years, Congress has failed to
fix our broken immigration system three times, primarily because it has
attempted to solve the entire situation, the comprehensive problem,
which would be the legal situation, the temporary work visa problems,
and then the illegal situation.
The Secure and Succeed Act only deals with our legal immigration
policy. From the onset of these negotiations, President Trump has been
consistent with what he has wanted as part of any immigration deal that
deals with the legal immigration system. Months ago, he gave us a clean
framework. He said that any plan that didn't fit that framework would
never become law. The Secure and Succeed Act, which we are dealing with
this week, is the only plan that actually fits that framework. It is
the only plan the President has said he will sign into law. The
framework that has been laid out by President Trump has four parts.
First, it provides a solution for the DACA situation and ends the
program. It does so in a compassionate, responsible way that every
Senator on the other side of the aisle should support and has supported
at various times. President Trump went out of his way to reach across
the aisle to the Democrats when he expanded the population that was
being discussed in the DACA situation, and he actually talked about
providing long-term certainty for this population group.
Second, this bill secures our borders with additional border security
and a wall where required. It puts $25 billion in a trust fund toward
border security and a wall system. This money would be spent over the
next few years to provide better national security for our country's
borders. It ends policies like catch and release, which encourage more
illegal immigration. It makes critical changes to the immigration court
system to clear out backlogs, expedite court hearings, and give law
enforcement the resources it needs to do its job properly.
Third, this bill fixes the flaws in the current immigration system
that spurred this DACA problem in the first place and incentivized
illegal immigration. It protects the immediate family of the primary
worker. Seventy-two percent of Americans believe immigration should
include the primary workers, their spouses, and their immediate
children, which is exactly what this bill does. In addition, two-thirds
of Americans actually believe that the solution here for illegal
immigration includes the DACA fix, an end to chain migration, border
security, and an end to the diversity lottery--two-thirds. That is from
a Harvard poll that was put out several weeks ago, and there are others
that actually corroborate that.
This bill also expedites the backlog, which is something that was not
even discussed before we brought this bill forward. This bill ensures
that the primary family of immediate citizens--
[[Page S941]]
some of them are recent green card recipients and new citizens who are
trying to get their families in--will be reunited. But there is a
backlog. We have that in this bill and have ensured that the backlog
will be taken care of and that these families will be reunited, which
is what most Americans want.
Fourth, the Secure and Succeed Act ends the archaic visa lottery
program. This failed program is dangerous, filled with fraud, and has
proven to be an avenue for terrorists to enter our country. We simply
must fix these national security flaws and close the loopholes in our
current immigration system that incentivize illegal immigration. If we
don't deal with these problems that got us here in the first place, we
will be right back here in just a few short years. This is the
President's objective. If we are going to deal with it, let's deal with
it once and for all on the immigration side and then move on to the
temporary work visas and solve that as well.
I don't think anybody in this body wants to be back here in a few
short years. Many on the other side and on our side have been trying to
find a common solution to this for decades. I believe we have an
historic opportunity right now to do something that people in this body
have wanted to do for a long time, and that is to solve our legal
immigration system in a very compassionate, fair way that will benefit
every American. That is why we have to deal with these issues in a
responsible and fair way.
Politicians have talked about this for far too long. I have
discovered, now having been in this body, that it is easy for some to
just kick this down the road. It is a great pandering opportunity for
one side or the other to blame this on them. Unfortunately, the
American people deserve better than that. We have a clean opportunity
here to do what most people in America want us to do.
Other than politics, there is no reason for the Secure and Succeed
Act not to have widespread, bipartisan support this week in this body.
Each part of the Secure and Succeed Act has been supported by many
Democrats at various times over the last 30 years. As a matter of fact,
in 1994, Barbara Jordan presented the result of her bipartisan
immigration commission report to then-President Bill Clinton. The
recommendations at that time were to change our immigration system from
our current country caps and chain migration system to more of a
skills-based system like those seen in Canada and Australia.
They knew then the flaws that were included in our immigration law
that was written in 1965 that actually incentivized illegal
immigration. Unfortunately, it seems that because these ideas are now
being put forward by President Donald Trump, the Democrats, all of a
sudden, disagree with these principles. President Trump has crafted a
deal that is tough but more than generous. Nobody asked him to expand
the number or to even talk about certainty in the long term. He has
brought that forward because he wants this done. He wants this solved.
He wants this ended right now.
The Secure and Succeed Act follows the framework that President Trump
has crafted. Compromises have been made on both sides of this issue. It
deals with the DACA issue, secures the border, and fixes critical flaws
in our immigration system that incentivize illegal immigration today.
This is to ensure that we are not back here in a few short years to
deal with the problem again of a new wave of young people who may be
brought here illegally.
Again, the President has said repeatedly that the Secure and Succeed
Act is the only bill that he will sign into law. Leadership in the U.S.
House of Representatives has also been clear that the only plan it will
bring up for a vote in its body is one that will be signed into law.
The Secure and Succeed Act is that plan.
We don't have many opportunities in this body for common thought and
common positions, but we have one here. I have seen what most people in
this body have said about these issues, and it impresses me that there
is commonality of thought. At the root, this body wants to solve the
DACA issue, but it also wants to solve the problems that caused this
issue in the first place.
This President called for a compassionate compromise when he met with
Democrats and Republicans several weeks ago at the White House, and we
all agreed it was time to do that for the American people. Yet the
American people want to be assured that the borders will be secure.
They want to be assured that the policies that are embedded in our
immigration system will not create another wave of illegal immigrants.
They also want this archaic diversity lottery to end, which has never
worked as was originally intended and is nothing but a loophole for
terrorists today.
I think there is too much talk about this bill cutting immigration.
That is not the intent here. The intent is long term. We have a bill in
here called the RAISE Act that would actually move us to a merit-based
system like those in Canada and Australia. That is not included in the
Secure and Succeed Act. What is included here is a first step toward a
long-term solution not only on our legal immigration side, but it sets
us up to then deal with the temporary work visas and, ultimately, with
the illegal population.
I believe, as I know the Presiding Officer does, that it is time for
those in this body to put our self-interests and our partisan interests
aside, as we say so many times, and to do what the American people want
us to do, for which we now have hard evidence.
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. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Congratulating Chloe Kim on Winning a Gold Medal at the Winter Olympics
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, let me begin by congratulating Chloe
Kim, a first-generation American who won an Olympic Gold Medal for the
United States in the women's halfpipe snowboarding event this week.
Her father, Jong Jin Kim emigrated from South Korea to the United
States in 1982, became a dishwasher at a fast-food restaurant, studied
engineering at El Camino College after working those low-skilled jobs,
and then became an engineer. He left his engineering job to support his
daughter's snowboarding ambitions so he could drive her 5\1/2\ hours to
the mountain for training.
Congratulations to Chloe and to her entire family. You make the
United States proud.
Madam President, the whole debate we are now undertaking over
immigration and the Dreamers has become somewhat personal for me
because it has reminded me, in a very strong way, that I and my brother
are first-generation Americans. We are the sons of an immigrant who
came to this country at the age of 17 without a nickel in his pocket, a
young man who was a high school dropout, who did not know one word of
English, and who had no particular trade.
A few years ago, my brother and I and our families went to the small
town where he came from, and it just stunned me, the kind of courage he
showed and millions of other people show leaving their homeland to come
to a very different world, in many cases, without money, without
knowledge of the language.
My father immigrated to this country because the town where he lived
in Poland was incredibly poor. There was no economic opportunity for
him. People there struggled to put food on the table for their
families. Hunger was a real issue in that area. My father came to this
country to avoid the violence and bloodshed of World War I, which came
to his part of the world in a ferocious manner, and he came to this
country to escape the religious bigotry that existed then because he
was Jewish. My father lived in this country until his death in 1962. He
never made a lot of money. He was a paint salesman.
My father was not a political person, but it turned out that without
talking much about it, he was the proudest American you ever saw, and
he was so proud of this country because he was deeply grateful that the
United States had welcomed him in and allowed him opportunities that
would have been absolutely unthinkable from where he came.
The truth is, immigration is not just my story. It is not just the
story of one
[[Page S942]]
young man coming from Poland who managed to see two of his kids go to
college and one of his sons become a U.S. Senator. It is not just my
family's story. It is the story of my wife's family who came from
Ireland, and it is the story of tens of millions of American families
who came from every single part of this world.
In September of 2017, President Trump precipitated the current crisis
we are dealing with by revoking President Obama's DACA Executive order.
If President Trump believed that Executive order was unconstitutional
and it needed legislation, he could have come to Congress for a
legislative solution without holding 800,000 young people hostage by
revoking their DACA status. President Trump chose not to do that. He
chose to provoke the crisis we are experiencing today. That is a crisis
we have to deal with in the Senate, and we have to deal with it now.
Let us be very clear about the nature of this crisis because some
people say: Well, it is really not imminent. It is not something we
have to worry about now. Those people are wrong. As a result of Trump's
decision, 122 people every day are now losing their legal status, and
within a couple of years, hundreds of thousands of these young people
will have lost their legal protection and be subject to deportation.
The situation we are in right now, as a result of Trump's action,
means, if we do not immediately protect the legal status of some
800,000 Dreamers--young people who were brought to this country at the
age of 1 or 3 or 6--young people who have known no other home but the
United States of America--let us be clear that if we do not act and act
soon, these hundreds of thousands of young people could be subject to
deportation.
That means they could be arrested outside their home, where they have
lived for virtually their entire life, and suddenly be placed in a
jail. They could be pulled out of a classroom where they are teaching,
and there are some 20,000 DACA recipients who are now teaching in
schools all over this country. If we do not act and act now, there
could be agents going into those schools, pulling those teachers right
out and arresting them and subjecting them to deportation. Insane as it
may sound, I suppose the 900 DACA recipients who now serve in the U.S.
military today could find themselves in the position of being arrested
and deported from the country they are putting their lives on the line
to defend. Some people say: Well, that is far-fetched. Well, I am not
so sure. It could happen. How insane is that? That is where we are
today, and that is what could happen if we do not do the right thing
and this week pass legislation in the Senate to protect the Dreamers.
We have a moral responsibility to stand up for the Dreamers and their
families and to prevent what will be an indelible moral stain on our
country if we fail to act. I do not want to see what the history books
will be saying about this Congress if we allow 800,000 young people to
be subjected to deportation, to live in incredible fear and anxiety.
Here is the very good news for the Dreamers. It is actually news that
a couple of years ago, I would not have believed to be possible. The
overwhelming majority of American people--Democrats, Republicans,
Independents--absolutely agree we must provide legal protection for the
Dreamers and that we should provide them with a path toward
citizenship. That is not Bernie Sanders talking, that is what the
American people are saying in poll after poll.
Just recently, a January 20 CBS News poll found that nearly 9 out of
10 Americans, 87 percent, favor allowing young immigrants who entered
the United States illegally as children to remain in the United
States--87 percent in Iowa, in Vermont, and in every State in this
country. There is strong support for legal status for the Dreamers and
a path toward citizenship.
On January 11, a Quinnipiac poll found that 86 percent of American
voters, including 76 percent of Republicans, say they want the Dreamers
to remain in this country.
On February 5, in a Monmouth poll, when asked about Dreamers' status,
nearly three out of four Americans support allowing these young people
to automatically become U.S. citizens as long as they don't have a
criminal record. In other words, the votes that are going to be cast
hopefully today, maybe tomorrow, are not profiles in courage. They are
not Members of the Senate coming up and saying: Against all the odds, I
believe I am going to vote for what is right. This is what the
overwhelming majority of the American people want.
Maybe, just maybe, it might be appropriate to do what the American
people want rather than what a handful of xenophobic extremists want.
Maybe we should listen to the American people--Democrats, Republicans,
and Independents--who understand it would be a morally atrocious thing
to allow these young people to be deported. When I think, from a
political perspective, about 80, 85, 90 percent of the American people
supporting anything in a nation which is as divided as we are today,
this is really extraordinary. You can't get 80 percent of the American
people to agree on what their favorite ice cream is, but we have 80
percent of the American people who are saying, do not turn your back on
these young people who have lived in this country for virtually their
entire lives.
We have to act and act soon in the Senate, and there is good
legislation that would allow us to do that. In the House, the good news
is, there is now bipartisan legislation, sponsored by Congressman Hurd
and Congressman Aguilar, which will provide protection for Dreamers and
a path toward citizenship. My understanding is, bipartisan legislation
now has majority support.
I urge, in the strongest terms possible, that Speaker Ryan allow
democracy to prevail in the House, allow the vote to take place. If you
have a majority of Members of the House, in a bipartisan way, who
support legislation, allow that legislation to come to the floor. Let
the Members vote their will, and if that occurs, I think the Dreamers
legislation will prevail.
Madam President, we all understand that there is a need for serious
debate and legislation regarding comprehensive immigration reform. This
is a difficult issue, an issue where there are differences of opinion.
There are a whole lot of aspects to it. How do we provide a path toward
citizenship for the 11 million people in this country who are currently
undocumented but who are working hard, who are raising their kids, who
are obeying the law? What should the overall immigration policy of our
country be? How many people should be allowed to enter this country
every year? Where should they come from?
All of this is very, very important and needs to be seriously
debated, but that debate and that legislation is not going to be taking
place in a 2-day period. It is going to need some serious time, some
hearings, some committee work before the Congress is prepared to vote
on comprehensive immigration reform, and it will not and cannot happen
today, tomorrow, or this week.
Our focus now, as a result of Trump's decision in September, must be
on protecting the Dreamers and their families and on the issue of
border security.
There will be important legislation coming to the floor of the Senate
today or maybe tomorrow, and I would hope that we could do the right
thing, do the moral thing, and do something that history will look back
on as very positive legislation. Let's go forward. Let's pass the
Dreamers bill. Let's deal with border security, and then, in the near
future, let us deal with comprehensive immigration reform.
I yield the floor.
(The Acting President pro tempore assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, our Constitution begins with three very
simple and very powerful words: ``We the People.'' It is the mission
statement for our Nation, for our Constitution. It is a vision in which
decisions are made of, by, and for the people, not for the privileged
and not for the powerful.
Who wrote those words? Well, it happened to be a group of White,
wealthy landowners--the powerful and the privileged. They didn't choose
to build a nation that would make laws for their benefit but laws that
would be designed for the entire populous to thrive.
They were descended from immigrants. In our country, unless you are
100 percent Native American, unless you have just arrived as a new
immigrant, you are descended from immigrants yourself. It is part of
the fabric
[[Page S943]]
of our Nation. It is what makes us a combination of powerful talents
and abilities from around the world.
George Washington himself once said: ``America is open to receive not
only the Opulent and respected Stranger, but the oppressed and
persecuted of all Nations and Religions.'' On another occasion, he
wrote to a friend: ``I had always hoped that this land might become a
safe and agreeable asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of
mankind, to whatever nation they might belong.'' True to Washington's
wishes and to his vision, that is the land we have been. It has been
that land of opportunity, that land that welcomes others to our shores
and gives them the chance to pursue the vision of opportunity, to help
participate in the making of our great Nation, and to do so, each
generation brings together a variety of languages and cultures and
backgrounds. That is America.
That is why, a century after our Nation's founding, the French gave
to the United States the Statue of Liberty. The Statue of Liberty has
stood as a beacon of hope, welcoming those from other lands. Inscribed
in the pedestal of that statue are these words:
Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning
to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp
beside the golden door!
Those are the welcoming words for hundreds of thousands arriving here
in the United States.
As I speak at this moment, 800,000 young men and women right here in
America are yearning to breathe free as full participants in the Nation
that they have grown up in. These are our Dreamers--Dreamers like this
group of Oregonians who visited my office in December, who came to this
country as very young children, who went to elementary school here, who
went to high school here, who are our neighbors, our community members,
who have gone on to college, who have taken jobs, and who are
contributing in every possible way to our community, studying in their
schools, practicing and working in our industry. They are now young
adults who are striving to support their families, building to
strengthen this economy, and building a future for themselves. They are
paramedics saving lives.
If you stand on a street corner in Oregon and look around, there is a
pretty good chance you will see a Dreamer. You may not know it because
they are full members of our community, and you will see them
contributing. But they have overcome a lot of obstacles, which creates
a grit of character. It also helps to build the future of our Nation,
just as it did for those of our forefathers and foremothers who arrived
1 or 2 or 3 or 10 generations ago.
We provided a program, the DACA Program, which struck a deal that
said: If you give us all of your information, we will make sure that
you are legally protected. President Trump has broken that promise. He
has broken that deal, that commitment made by our executive branch to
these Dreamers. So it puts them in a terrible spot of uncertainty and
stress and limbo. Now it is time to set that right. It could be set
right by the President in a moment.
Several of the courts have weighed in and said that the President has
acted unconstitutionally in attacking our young immigrants, our
Dreamers. But let's not wait for the courts to remedy this. Let's take
care of it ourselves in this Chamber, the Senate Chamber. After months
and months of inaction, after broken promises by President Trump, let's
finally protect these men and women who do so much to embody the
American spirit.
As we move forward in this debate, we must look again to what our
Founding Fathers intended for the Nation they created and ensure that
the ``golden door'' that the poet Emma Lazarus wrote about in her poem
remains an open door, open to all those who dream to become an American
and to contribute to this Nation. We must remain, in President
Washington's words, ``open to receive not only the Opulent and
Respected, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations.''
Yet, looking at the plan that President Trump has put forward and
similar plans offered in this Chamber, there is a real interest in
slamming the door shut by those who have already arrived as immigrants,
who have fled persecution, who have pursued freedom, who have pursued
opportunity, and who have escaped from famine to come in and slam the
door on everyone else. It is not very American to do that, and it is
not a strength to undermine the future success of our economy by
draining away the extraordinary talents of our Dreamer community.
President Johnson made the point. He said: ``The land flourished
because it was fed from so many sources--because it was nourished by so
many cultures and traditions and peoples.''
President Ronald Reagan made the point. He said: ``More than any
other country, our strength comes from our own immigrant heritage and
our capacity to welcome those from other lands.''
The founding President of our country, a respected Democratic
President of our country, and a respected Republican President of our
country have said the same thing: The strength of our country is in the
contributions that have been made by our immigrants.
The Founding Fathers wrote those words, that mission statement, that
this would be a nation of, by, and for the people, not one to make laws
by and for the powerful and the privileged. That is the vision we need
to continue to hold on to--to understand that the strength of this
Nation comes from weaving together the many cultural threads of the
people of the United States of America.
Let's get this Dream Act to this floor. There is a bipartisan
understanding around restoring legal status. There is a bipartisan
foundation for border security. Let's not give in to those far-right
Breitbart voices that are so out of sync with the traditions, the
strength, the culture, and the vision of our Nation. Let's restore the
legal status for our Dreamers, enhance our border security, and do the
work that this Chamber should have done long ago.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I am pleased to come and talk today.
This is a week where we had all anticipated a return to the Senate,
where ideas are widely debated. I was standing by the majority leader
last week when he was talking about this, and he said that we will let
a thousand flowers bloom. It didn't sound like something Senator
McConnell would normally use as a reference, but he did, and I am
thinking, well, that would be a good thing, to see a thousand different
ideas widely debated on the Senate floor.
So far this week, there has not been any debate because we can't seem
to agree on who votes on what first. I think that is a particular level
of dysfunction that we should all be concerned about. For the Senate to
do its work, we have to be willing to vote and we have to be willing to
take some hard votes. My sense of politics today is, whether you have
taken the vote or not, someone is going to accuse you of taking that
vote. So you might as well not worry about the vote you take; just
worry about the work we get done and whatever votes are necessary to be
taken to get that done.
On this topic, it does seem to me that we have two issues here that
should be solved, two issues on which there is broad agreement. I have
said for a long time that there are really three questions in the
immigration debate that need to be answered: No. 1, how do we secure
the border; No. 2, what are the legitimate workforce needs of the
country; and No. 3, what do we do with people who came and stayed
illegally?
As we think about securing the border, by the way, half the people
who are in the country illegally came legally and just stayed. So it is
not all a border issue, but it clearly is partly and significantly a
border issue.
One of the things that people expect a government to be able to do is
to secure its own borders. Often, when we hear a story of a country
somewhere in the world in which the government has disintegrated and is
no longer in control of the country, one of the first things that are
mentioned by people talking about that dysfunctional government is that
they don't control their own borders. It truly is a legitimate
expectation of a functioning government that you control your own
borders. It is also a legitimate expectation of government that you
look at
[[Page S944]]
your economy and you look at what workforce needs you have that aren't
being met and figure out the best way to meet those workforce needs.
In this debate, because we haven't controlled our borders and because
we haven't kept track of people who legally crossed our borders and as
a result, we have some number of people--usually the estimate is about
11 million people in the country--who are not here legally, what do we
do with those people?
My view has always been that if the government met its primary
responsibility, which is an immigration system that works, the American
people would be very forward-leaning about those other two issues,
because nobody really argues that if we don't have people here to do
the work that needs to be done, whether it is highly skilled or not
highly skilled, we ought to be thinking about what we need to do to get
people here who can do that work. Also, what do we need to do to keep
people here who came here to get training to do highly skilled jobs and
graduated from colleges and universities or other skill-enhancing
things that happened while they were here. If they want to stay, my
view is that if they didn't do anything that got them in trouble while
they were here, we should almost always want them to stay. If we don't
have that skill set in our economy, why wouldn't we come up with ways
to reach out and get it?
Those who are not here legally, generally, I think if people thought
the problem was solved, if they thought that the government had truly
met its responsibility to operationally control the borders and that
the government had met its responsibility to keep track of who comes in
legally and know if they have left or not--I mean, there is no retail
store in America that doesn't have a better sense of its inventory than
we do of whether people who have legally come into the country and
checked in with a Customs officer--we don't know if they have left. We
couldn't tell you in weeks, perhaps, whether somebody is still here,
even if they did everything exactly the way they were supposed to do
it.
This debate is largely driven by the most sympathetic of all of those
groups: that group of people who came here and were brought here by
someone else who entered the country illegally--often by their own
parents--but have grown up in America.
My first response, and I think the response of most Americans when
they think about that, is that kids who grew up here, kids who went to
school here, kids who haven't gotten in bad trouble while they were
here, kids who have no real memory or connection with the country they
were brought from--of course we want them to stay; of course we want
them to be part of our economy. Because they are an even younger
society than we would be without them, why wouldn't we want that to
happen?
In some respects, we have two separate issues here. People who were
raised here, who have done everything that anybody else would do to
acclimate as an American in all ways, who went to school here, who did
everything else here--70 or 80 percent of the American people, and I
occasionally see a number even higher than that, believe they should be
allowed to stay.
More and more, as people think about that, they also believe that
after they have been here, like any other immigrant who came to the
country legally, they would eventually be able to take the test and go
through the process to become a citizen. That is a widely accepted
premise that this debate should be built on.
Another widely accepted premise that this debate should be built on
is that 70 percent or so of the American people--and it would be a
higher percentage if people really knew the facts--believe the
government has not met its responsibility to secure our own borders.
Let's assume that number is 70. We have two 70 percent issues. We
would assume that a working Congress could take two 70 percent issues
and come up with a solution that makes its way to the President's desk
and solves both of these problems.
We are not going to solve these problems by saying: OK, we are going
to solve the problem for people who are already here, but we are not
going to do anything to make it harder for others to be brought here
illegally by someone who has control of them. We are not going to solve
that? Of course that is not going to work.
I don't think whether you signed up for DACA should be a determiner,
and apparently the President agrees. If you are here and in the
category of those who were brought here and grew up here, whether you
signed up as a DACA kid, you could still be part of that overall
discussion of how to stay, and you still get to stay if we can come up
with a solution for you to do that.
But we are not going to solve that problem and say: We will have a
study of the other problem to see what is wrong. If by now we largely
don't know what is wrong with the other problem, we are never going to
figure out what is wrong with the other problem.
In 1986, long before the Presiding Officer or I came to Congress and
maybe long before some of us graduated from high school, we were going
to solve this problem. Everybody who was here illegally could stay if
they wanted to, and the borders would be made secure. Here we are, over
three decades later, still debating the same thing.
We need to solve both of these problems. If we can solve other
problems while we are doing it, that is fine, too, but we need to come
up with a solution. There are a number of ideas out there as to how the
Senate should move forward.
On the DACA issue, it is important to remember that President Trump
said: I am going to give the Congress 6 more months to solve this
problem--until March 5. It is also important to know that the courts
have allowed people to continue to sign up, so really the deadline is
somewhere beyond March 5. But the President said: I am going to give
Congress 6 more months.
President Obama didn't do anything about this for years--not because
he didn't want to, I believe, but because he said he didn't have the
ability to. President Obama repeatedly said: The President cannot solve
this problem; Congress has to solve the problem. In spite of 6 or 7
years of saying that he couldn't solve this problem on his own, he
ultimately decided to try to do it with an Executive order.
The truth is, that Executive order was never going to do the job. I
think President Obama knew that. When President Trump did his own
order, he probably also knew he didn't have the ability to do that any
more than President Obama had to do what he did. But both of these
Presidents in their own way have tried to drive the Congress toward
making a decision that comes up with a plan that works--a plan that
works for kids who were brought here with no choice in the matter and a
plan for seeing to it that kids can't still be easily brought here with
no choice. We need to let young people come here because we need them
here as part of our workforce, as part of our country.
Legal immigration is what made America great. The rule of law is also
what makes our country what it is. We can't continue to let immigration
be an area where we have decided there are laws that we will not
enforce.
The challenge for the Congress right now is to come up with a
solution so that this problem is not going to continue to be the same
problem it is today, but as far as the problem today, we are going to
solve it. We are going to solve it in a way that lets kids who grew up
here become part of the solution.
I continue to be committed to strengthening our borders. I continue
to be committed to stemming the tide of illegal immigration. Frankly, I
continue to be committed to the idea of legal immigration as part of
continually reinforcing and re-enthusing who we are. But I am also
committed to finding a permanent solution for young people in that
category who were brought here, grew up here, haven't gotten in trouble
while here, and have every reason to want to be part of the American
dream and part of the American people whom they have been part of up
until now.
I hope we can find common ground on a bill that does that. I hope we
can pass a bill from the Senate that the House will also pass. If
Senators think they have done their job by passing a bill that can't
possibly pass the House, that is just kicking the can down the road. We
need to find a solution that really resolves this problem, and we solve
this problem by putting a bill on the President's desk. To do that, we
are going to
[[Page S945]]
have to vote. We can't do that by just having a quorum call or a
vacancy here on the Senate floor. We have to be willing to vote.
There are some things that I will enthusiastically vote for and some
things I will reluctantly not be able to vote for. But that doesn't
mean that I should say: If I can't be for whatever is brought to the
Senate floor, then I don't want to vote on it or debate it.
We can't continue to tune in to a vacant screen of the Senate floor.
This is the week that we have all committed to having a real debate
about solving as many problems as we can that relate to kids who were
brought here and grew up here and solving that problem so other kids in
these numbers are not likely to face that problem in the future.
As I yield, I hope the floor is filled over the next couple of days
with a vigorous debate about the best way to solve the problem before
us in a way that the people we work for will feel good about it and the
people who are most impacted by our decision will feel equally the
concern, the warmth, and the desire of our country to have a vibrant
economy that has people who want to be part of it, able to be part of
it, and particularly people who grew up in the United States of America
to be part of it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from Wyoming.
Tax Reform
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, it seems as though just about every day
we get more good news about the tax relief law that Republicans passed.
This week, the news is getting even better for a lot of people all
across the country.
By the end of this month, 90 percent of workers across the country
will see more money in their take-home paychecks. It doesn't matter
where they are. They can be in Meeteetse, WY, and they will see an
increase in their paychecks this week. That is because this Thursday,
February 15, is the deadline for employers to start using the new IRS
tax withholding tables. The IRS tells employers how much money to
withhold from people's paychecks so that their taxes work out pretty
close at the end of the year. That is the way it is set up. Well, the
IRS looked at the new tax law and saw that people are going to be
paying lower taxes at the end of the year, so they put out the new tax
tables. They told businesses to adjust how much money to withhold from
a person's paycheck and to do it by February 15, tomorrow. For 90
percent of Americans, this tax amount is going to be lower, which means
their paychecks are going to be larger. A tax cut is the same as a
raise. That is what we are seeing all across the country--people
getting a raise in their pay.
Some people have already gotten a paycheck with the new, higher
wages. Others are going to get it very soon. The website Yahoo Finance
crunched the numbers. They found that a typical worker making $60,000 a
year will get an extra $112 in their paychecks every month because of
the tax law. That is over $1,300 for the year. To me, that is very good
news for American workers.
I was at home in Wyoming this past weekend, traveling around the
State, and I am hearing about it in all the different communities I go
to. People are saying: This has been better for me and my family
personally.
On top of this, a lot of workers are getting special bonuses and
raises because of the tax law. So not only are they getting more money
because of the fact that the tax rates have been lowered, additionally,
they are getting more money because they have gotten a raise or a
bonus. It seems there are about 4 million hard-working Americans who
are getting bonuses of hundreds or even thousands of dollars as a
result of the new tax reform law. They are also getting extra money in
their retirement plans. They are getting higher starting wages. We are
seeing many places increasing the starting wages, some up to $15 an
hour. More than 300 companies have said they are increasing all of
these kinds of compensations as a direct result of the tax law.
In my home State of Wyoming, people across the State are getting
bonuses--bonuses. These are people who work at Home Depot, Lowe's,
Walmart, Starbucks, Wells Fargo, and other businesses that have
familiar names to people across the country. They are also people who
are working in smaller businesses, like the Jonah Bank in Wyoming. It
has branches in Casper and in Cheyenne. It is not a nationally known
bank, but it is very important in our State and in our communities.
Every employee of this bank is getting a $1,000 bonus. The bank is also
increasing its giving in the communities in which it has branches.
Workers benefit, and the community benefits.
That is what happens when we change the tax law so Washington gets
less and taxpayers get to keep more. That is why I voted for this tax
law--to give the kind of tax relief that made these bonuses and these
pay raises possible. It is good for Wyoming, and it is good for people
all across the country.
It is interesting--it is even good for people in States whose
Senators voted against the tax law. Ninety percent of people across the
country are seeing the benefits no matter which State they are from.
There is a business in Grand Rapids, MI, called the Mill Steel
Company. They said last week that they are giving an extra $1,000 to
their workers because of the tax law that every Republican voted for
and every Democrat voted against. Now, 400 people at that company are
getting a bonus.
Michigan has two Democratic Senators. They both voted against the tax
relief law. It still led to $1,000 bonuses for these 400 workers. What
do the Senators have to say about it now? Are they proud that they
voted against the tax law? Are they glad they said no to these sorts of
raises that made it possible for people in their home States to get the
bonuses?
We know what Nancy Pelosi thinks. She went out and first she talked
about how the tax law was Armageddon, and then she said it was the end
of the world. Most recently, she said all the benefits people are
getting under the tax law, in her words, are just ``crumbs.''
``Crumbs,'' she said. For her, it may be different, but for a lot of
Americans, a $1,000 bonus--certainly for the people in my home State of
Wyoming--is much more than crumbs. An extra $1,300--I talked about the
worker earlier--in that paycheck is much more than crumbs. For a person
with a starting wage of $15 an hour, that is more than crumbs.
It is bad enough Democrats tried to keep people from getting the
extra money--Democrats voted against it because they didn't want people
to get the extra money, it seems to me. It is hard to believe they
would continue this way and take pride in voting against it, but they
did. Now it seems like Democrats want to insult people by saying what
they are seeing and what their benefits are, are resulting in crumbs.
It is completely unfair, and I think it is disrespectful to the
American people.
These are just some of the cash benefits workers are getting from the
tax law. Republicans predicted, during the debate over this law, there
would be other benefits as well. We said businesses would pay less in
taxes, and some of them would be able to additionally cut prices for
consumers--let people buy things more cheaply.
Americans are starting to see this prediction come true as well. One
of the first places they are seeing it is in their utility bills. Gas,
electric, and water utilities are cutting their rates because their
taxes are going down under the law. In Vermont, the State's only
natural gas utility company is cutting rates by more than 5 percent
because of the tax law. Both of the Senators from Vermont voted against
the law, but it is the law Republicans passed that caused these rates
to go down. In fact, people living in at least 23 States and the
District of Columbia are going to be paying lower utility bills because
of the tax relief law. Another 26 States are looking into cutting
rates. Rates are going down in California, Maryland, New York,
Massachusetts, Connecticut--States where every Democratic Senator voted
against the tax law.
What do these Democratic Senators have to say now? Are they proud of
the fact they voted against the tax cuts that made it possible for
people to have lower utility bills in their States? When people's
monthly bills get cut, it is like a pay hike--more money in their own
pockets. They have more money to either save or to spend on other
things or to invest.
[[Page S946]]
The owner of a gym in Cincinnati, OH, spoke with his local television
station about what tax relief means for him. He said:
When people have that extra money to spend, they spend it.
Some save it.
They go out to eat. They buy gym memberships. And they
enjoy themselves.
People have that extra money to spend now, today, because of the tax
law Republicans passed. They have the extra money despite every
Democrat in this body voting against tax relief. Every one of them said
no. They all voted no. Democrats who voted no to tax relief for
American families essentially voted yes to keep the extra money in
Washington so they can decide how to spend it.
I have much more faith in people at home in Wyoming deciding how to
spend their money than any faith I have in Washington, DC. For so many
Americans, every dollar helps, and they are not crumbs. Democrats may
not know the difference, but the American families do. People in every
State of this country know the difference.
The American people understand what Republicans did with this tax
law. They are seeing more money in their paychecks, more take-home pay,
more money to decide what to spend and what to invest and what to save.
They know Republicans promised to cut people's taxes. People know
Republicans delivered on the promise. They know the benefits they have
gotten already, and they are confident the economy will continue to
grow stronger day by day.
People across the country also know the fact that every Democrat
voted against this law, voted against giving them a tax break, voted
against allowing them to keep more of their hard-earned money. The
American people know who took their side, who voted for the American
public versus who said no. Hard-working Americans asked us to do a job
for them. Republicans are doing the job; Democrats in Washington
certainly are not. Republicans are going to keep doing that job for the
American people--a job we have promised and a job which we have
delivered.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, it is time for the Senate to do its job as
a separate branch of government.
This week, we can come together on a bipartisan basis to resolve the
crisis Donald Trump created when he canceled DACA. We can provide
hundreds of thousands of young people in our country their shot at
pursuing the American dream without fear of deportation. Right now,
these young people who were brought to this country as children are
terrified they will be separated from their families and the lives they
have built here, in the only country they know and love.
I have met and spoken with so many Dreamers in the Halls of Congress
these past months. Their focus, determination, and commitment in this
fight continues to be extraordinary and inspiring. Each Dreamer has a
different story to tell, but they all share a profoundly simple
aspiration--to live, work, and study in the only country they have ever
called home.
When you sit and listen to their stories, it is not difficult to
understand why between 80 and 90 percent of Americans support
protecting these Dreamers--people like Karen, Maleni, and Beatrice, who
can attend the University of Hawaii because of DACA; people like
Victor, from Houston, who aspires to become a counselor for LGBTQ youth
like him; and people like Getsi, from Oregon, who works three jobs so
she can pursue her dream of becoming a nurse practitioner to care for
our seniors. These inspiring young people don't need to hear any more
promises. They need Members of Congress to put their votes where their
mouths have been and do the right thing.
Like many of my colleagues, I strongly support passing a clean Dream
Act--legislation that already has bipartisan support--but it is
critical that we get to the 60 votes we need to pass a bill. I am open
to discussing different provisions, including some funding for border
security to help us get there. We can and should have a debate on
comprehensive immigration reform but only after we pass legislation
this week to protect the Dreamers. We cannot and should not use this
debate to provide cover for efforts to dismantle the family-based
immigration system or to make massive cuts to legal immigration.
The President and a number of colleagues have made it clear they
would like to eliminate family-based immigration in favor of a system
that is designed only to recruit immigrants with advanced degrees and
specialized skills. It is important for the United States to recruit
highly skilled immigrants, and we have a number of immigration programs
that are designed specifically for this purpose, but when you restrict
immigration only to people with highly specialized skills or advanced
degrees, you lose out on a lot of human potential that has historically
contributed so much to our country. We don't have to look far back into
history to prove why this statement is true.
Over the past week, the Olympics has captured the excitement and
imagination of people across the country--in fact, the world. Many of
the people we have been cheering for are either the children of
immigrants or are immigrants themselves.
Over the weekend, we saw Mirai Nagasu, whose parents emigrated from
Japan, become the first American woman to land a triple axel in the
Olympics during her appearance in the team figure skating competition.
Yesterday, we saw Maame Biney, who immigrated to the United States from
Ghana, take to the ice to compete in the short track speed skating.
Two nights ago, I watched Chloe Kim throw down a near perfect score
in the women's snowboard halfpipe to win the Olympic Gold Medal. After
completing her history-making run, the cameras panned to her father
Jong Jin Kim, who proudly waved his ``Go Chloe'' sign in the audience.
Jong arrived in California in 1982 with $800 in his pocket. He worked
for years at minimum wage jobs to save for college. While studying at
El Camino College, he worked as a heavy machinery operator at night.
Jong encouraged Chloe to begin snowboarding when she was 4. They would
jump off the lifts together, but because he didn't know how to
snowboard, they would tumble to the ground. Jong bought Chloe her first
snowboard on eBay for $25. When Chloe was 8, Jong quit his job as an
engineer to support her snowboarding career. He would often wake up at
2 a.m. in the morning to drive Chloe over 300 miles to her practices.
After watching his daughter win the Olympic Gold, Jong said in
Korean, ``When I came to the United States, this was my American hope.
Now, this is my American dream.''
In reflecting on her father's sacrifice, Chloe said, ``My dad has
definitely sacrificed a lot for me, and I don't know if I could do it
if I was in his shoes, leaving your life behind and chasing your dream
because your kid is passionate about this sport. I think today I did it
for my family, and I am so grateful to them.''
Chloe's story of winning the Olympic Gold is extraordinary, but her
father's story speaks to a deep and abiding foundation of America and
to my personal experience as an immigrant.
My mom also came to this country--poor and without skills to escape
an abusive marriage--to give her three children, of which I am one, a
chance at a better life. Like Jong and Chloe, one generation after my
mom came to this country, I am standing on the floor of the U.S.
Senate, fighting for humane immigration policies.
These stories speak to the broader immigrant experience in our
country. We work hard and embrace the opportunities this country
provides, and we often see the result of this hard work within a single
generation.
I would ask my colleagues: Do you think the United States would be
better off if we prevented immigrants like Jong and me from coming to
this country? Targeting immigrants for discriminatory and harsh
treatment is denying our country's history. With the exception of our
original peoples, everyone came to our country from somewhere else. We
are fighting to preserve
[[Page S947]]
the spirit of our country--that shining city on a hill.
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.
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, like my colleagues from whom we are
hearing today, I also rise to talk about the importance of protecting
the Dreamers, not just in the State of Nevada but across this country.
I want to talk specifically about a term that I constantly hear
during this debate on how we need to protect Dreamers and at the same
time address this issue of ``chain migration.'' I call on my colleagues
and President Trump to really stop using that term and to abandon the
offensive and misleading term of ``chain migration'' because it paints
a picture that does not reflect reality.
Immigrants cannot sponsor their entire families to come here. Our
system of family-based immigration allows American citizens and green
card holders to petition for some of their immediate family members to
join them in the United States. There are numerous steps families must
take to legally immigrate to the United States. It is a long and
arduous process that leaves husbands, wives, parents, brothers, and
sisters waiting for decades. This system is so broken and slow that
many people die before they ever have the chance to be reunited with
their loved ones again.
So this image of immigrants coming in endless chains across our
borders couldn't be further from the truth. For instance, the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services is currently processing visa
applications for the siblings of U.S. citizens from 1994. That is 24
years ago. This backlog is painful for many American families, like
Fely. Fely is an immigrant from the Philippines who arrived in the
United States with her husband and her youngest son back in 1989. Her
father was a veteran who served in World War II, earned his
citizenship, and petitioned to have Fely join him in the U.S.
In the almost three decades since then, Fely has worked tirelessly to
reunite with her other children. Now at 80 years old, she is still
waiting and hoping that three of her children will make it through the
backlog to join her at home. Her story shows us that sponsoring even
your closest family members is a lengthy and difficult process.
Tragically, Fely's struggle is not uncommon. Thousands of Filipino
veterans all across this country are in the same situation.
As a daughter and granddaughter of veterans, I know firsthand that
when someone answers the call of duty, family members make sacrifices
too. I support Senator Hirono's Filipino Veterans Family Reunification
Act, a bill that would expedite the visa process for Filipino World War
II veterans' immediate relatives. We should honor the sacrifices that
veterans and their families make by passing this bill, not by forcing
them to wait in perpetual limbo.
Our immigration system reflects our national commitment to the
strength and importance of the family unit. Families are support
systems. They pull each other up when someone is in need and pull
together their resources. Strong families build strong communities.
Karl is a 20-year-old Filipino-American community organizer born and
raised in North Las Vegas. Karl's whole family is committed to
community service. While attending high school, Karl's brother
volunteers at an organization that serves the homeless. Karl's mother
teaches special education in North Las Vegas to low-income children.
Karl's dad is a mechanic and a military veteran, having served this
country in multiple branches of the armed services. None of them would
be here if not for our family-based, legal immigration system.
Some of my Republican colleagues claim to be champions of strong,
nuclear families and family values. Yet here we are today, considering
a measure that would tear apart families like Karl's, that would leave
parents without children, sisters without brothers, and husbands
without wives. Why does the party of family values think that is
acceptable?
The problem is that the party of Donald Trump is not the party of
family values. Donald Trump doesn't care about families. He wants to be
able to pick and choose which families get to come in and which have to
stay out. The White House immigration plan we are considering would cut
legal immigration by up to 44 percent. That is half a million more
immigrants who would be banned each year. This is one of the largest
xenophobic-driven cuts to legal immigration since the 1920s. It would
affect nearly 22 million people over the next five decades. What is
going on here? What are they so afraid of?
I recently sat down with immigrant workers in the Senate and the
Pentagon who are about to lose their protections from deportation. One
of them told me that she left El Salvador after seeing her husband
brutally murdered in front of her and her son. She has been working for
the Federal Government for the past two decades, serving the very men
and women who are preparing to vote to send her back to the country she
fled with her children.
I also spoke with a Dreamer who works right here in the Senate
cafeteria. She is the sole provider for her three American-citizen
children, and she, too, is afraid that under Donald Trump's deportation
policy, she is going to be ripped apart from her children and sent back
to a country that she fled.
These are the people Donald Trump wants to throw out of their homes.
They are not asking for special treatment or handouts or giveaways.
They just want to be allowed to stay and work hard and provide for
their families. They don't want to have to go back to a place where
they will have to live every day in fear for their lives and for their
children's lives.
This President will tell you that immigrants are taking jobs. That is
a myth. It is a lie that has been spread about every immigrant group in
American history, and it has been repeatedly debunked by economic
research. According to the National Academy of Sciences National
Research Council, a typical immigrant family will pay an estimated
$80,000 more in taxes than they receive in public benefits over their
lifetime.
Immigrant families bring long-term economic benefits to our country
by starting businesses, purchasing property, and supporting the
education and achievement of their children. Research shows that
immigrants drive growth. They generate new patents at twice the rate of
native-born Americans. In 2014, they earned $1.3 trillion and
contributed $105 billion in State and local taxes and nearly $224
billion in Federal taxes. Immigrants are 30 percent more likely to
start a business in the United States than nonimmigrants, and 18
percent of small business owners in the United States are immigrants.
They create jobs right here in the United States. Jobs are not the
problem here.
The problem is the color of immigrants' skin. We have a President of
the United States who has wondered out loud why we can't have more
Whites come to this country. President Trump denies being a racist. For
a nonracist, he has done a shockingly good job of cultivating support
among White supremacists.
This is not about the color of people's skin, but this is about
family. This is about strong nuclear families and family values. I am
proud of who I am, where I came from, and I am a descendant of
immigrants. But I also learned and believe in strong values and strong
family values, and we lead with those values. So our immigration system
should reflect our national commitment to the strength and the
importance of that family unit and those family values.
It makes no sense to me that we are fighting today to protect these
kids and keep them in this country and then take their parents and rip
them out of their homes and send them back to a country that they do
not want to go to, that they do not call home, and where their safety
is called into question. I don't understand that as a family value or
as an American value.
So I ask my colleagues, when we are talking about the immigration
system
[[Page S948]]
and protecting Dreamers, let's implement commonsense immigration
reform. Let's make sure that when we are protecting Dreamers, we are
also protecting their family unit and those family values. This is not
about pitting parents against their kids or having kids decide whether
they should stay here or their parents should.
No child should have to go to school concerned that when they come
home, their parents may not be there. I don't know about you, but I
went through the public school system in the State of Nevada, and I was
always, always comforted with the thought that when I walked through
that door, my mother and father would be there. Any other way to treat
these children and their families, to me, is inhumane. They are not
values that we stand for as Americans, and they are not values that we
lead with when we are talking about commonsense reforms to immigration.
So I ask my colleagues: Please, as we go through this debate,
remember who we are talking about. There are faces, there are families,
there are people behind the very decisions that we make this week.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, as the Senate takes to the floor to
debate a long-overdue, bipartisan solution for Dreamers--young
immigrants who came to our country as children--I would like to tell
you a story about one Dreamer in my home State of New Mexico to
illustrate what is at stake here this week.
Immigrants have long helped to write the economic, social, and
cultural story of my home State of New Mexico and, for that matter, our
entire Nation. We are, after all, a nation of immigrants. Over the last
centuries, our Nation's foundation and the enduring American spirit
were built by the hard work and the dreams of so many striving young
immigrants.
When President Trump made the outrageous decision last fall to end
the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program--DACA--he threw
hundreds of thousands of Dreamers deep into fear and uncertainty. Two
weeks ago, I was proud to welcome Ivonne Orozco-Acosta, one of the
estimated 7,000 Dreamers from New Mexico, as my guest at the State of
the Union Address.
Ivonne's family immigrated to the United States when she was 12 years
old. She learned English through middle school and graduated from high
school in Estancia, NM. It was during these challenging years of
learning that Ivonne was encouraged by her teachers to grow and to
learn. Ivonne knows the power that educators hold to create positive
change in students' perspective of themselves.
Ivonne attended the University of New Mexico, where she earned her BA
in secondary education with a concentration in Spanish. It is estimated
that somewhere between 500 and 1,000 students at the University of New
Mexico right now are Dreamers like Ivonne. These are some of our
brightest students, and they are our future leaders. Since she
graduated from UNM 4 years ago, Ivonne has been teaching Spanish at the
Public Academy for Performing Arts, a charter school in Albuquerque,
NM.
Ivonne told me what DACA has meant for her. DACA allowed her to get a
work permit, to follow her passion for education. It made it possible
for her to buy a home and her first car. It has also given her an
opportunity to impact the lives of her students each day and to
contribute to our State's economy as a teacher and as a taxpayer. DACA
gave Ivonne, in her words, ``a sliver of hope''--hope that she will
finally be able to have a permanent home and a place in the only
country that she knows how to call home.
Because of her excellent teaching in the classroom and her incredible
passion for her students, Ivonne was just selected as the 2018 New
Mexico Teacher of the Year by the New Mexico Public Education
Department. That is right; Ivonne has been recognized as the teacher of
the year for our entire State.
Ivonne's commitment to education and to giving back to her community
is truly inspiring, and it reminds us just how much is at stake for New
Mexico and our country in this debate. Our State already struggles to
keep schools filled with teachers and has one of the highest teacher
turnover rates in the Nation. Dreamers across the country, like Ivonne,
are stepping up to serve our communities, to teach our students.
Nearly 9,000 of the Dreamers who received temporary legal status and
work permits through the DACA Program are teachers like Ivonne. Many
more are firefighters; they are police officers; they are scientists;
they are doctors; they are members of our military. These inspiring
young people are Americans in every sense of the word, except for a
piece of paper, and they want nothing more than to be productive
members of their communities. But until Congress passes the Dream Act,
these young people like Ivonne will continue to worry about whether
they will be able to stay in school, keep working, contributing to our
economy, or remain even in their homes and their neighborhoods.
I have to ask: Why would we even consider threatening to deport the
teacher of the year from my State? I simply cannot accept that as
living up to all that our Nation stands for.
The Santa Fe New Mexican covered Ivonne's visit to Washington. The
New Mexican's editorial board said: ``It is no exaggeration to state
that as the immigration debate goes, so does her future.''
They went on to call the immigration debate we are engaging here in
Congress as a fight ``for the soul of this country, founded and
strengthened by immigrants throughout our history.''
I, for one, hope that we can learn from the best and most challenging
parts of our Nation's history of immigration and understand that
Dreamers like Ivonne are part of the immigration story that has always
made our Nation great. Deporting these young people who grew up in
America and want to contribute to their Nation is not what the America
that I know and love would do. Dreamers deserve commonsense,
compassionate, and responsible policy.
Two weeks ago, while President Trump was taking cheap shots at
immigrants during his State of the Union Address and insinuating that
all immigrants and asylum seekers pose an existential danger to our
children and our families, I couldn't help but think of the impacts of
his words on Ivonne as she sat in the Gallery. There are hundreds of
thousands of Dreamers like her. They are truly bright spots and rising
stars in our communities and in our country, and the time has come for
us to stop playing politics with their lives. Let's stop stirring up
fear and division when we should be working to find a real path
forward.
This week, I believe we have a path forward here in the Senate in
this debate, and we must pass a bipartisan immigration bill that
includes the Dream Act in the Senate and in the House. I will do
everything I can to pass a solution for Dreamers, to create rational
border security policies, and to make the investments that our border
region and its communities actually need.
I will stand with New Mexicans against President Trump's fear-based
and un-American views, frankly, on immigration and his offensive and
wasteful border wall that have no place in this debate.
I hope that each of us in this body recognizes our moral
responsibility and our obligation to live up to our Nation's ideals and
its values. We must act with a sense of urgency to find a way forward
for these Dreamers. Every day that passes without our passing the Dream
Act is another day of desperation and limbo for young people like
Ivonne who only know America as their home. Now is the time to give
these young Americans a permanent place and an earned path to
citizenship in our Nation. I will do everything I can every step of the
way to make that happen.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The Senator from Connecticut.
South Florida School Shooting
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, as we speak, there is a horrific scene
playing
[[Page S949]]
out in a high school in South Florida. Turn on your television right
now, and you will see scenes of children running for their lives--what
looks to be the 19th school shooting in this country, and we have not
even hit March.
I am coming to the floor to talk about something else, but let me
note once again for my colleagues that this happens nowhere else other
than the United States of America, this epidemic of mass slaughter,
this scourge of school shooting after school shooting. It only happens
here, not because of coincidence, not because of bad luck, but as a
consequence of our inaction. We are responsible for the level of mass
atrocity that happens in this country with zero parallel anywhere else.
As a parent, it scares me to death that this body doesn't take
seriously the safety of my children, and it seems as though a lot of
parents in South Florida are going to be asking that same question
later today.
We pray for the families and for the victims. We hope for the best.
Mr. President, I came to the floor today to talk about immigration. I
want to make a specific case to you today, but before I do, I want to
talk a little about process.
I heard a lot of my friends on the Republican side of the aisle say
on this floor and in the Halls of Congress that President Trump has
made an immigration proposal and Democrats have been asking for an
immigration proposal, so we should just accept his first and only
offer. What is the big deal? President Trump gave you something that
says ``immigration'' on it. Why aren't you accepting it?
It is a terrible proposal. It is bad for America. To his credit,
President Trump does attempt to try to deal with these Dreamer kids,
but there are 3 million potentially eligible individuals in this
country, and it only allows about 1.8 million of them to get through
the process.
But that is really not the worst part. The worst part is that it cuts
legal immigration by 40 percent. It basically abandons this country's
commitment to family-based immigration. I wouldn't be here if we only
had skills-based immigration. Most Members of this body wouldn't be
here if the only way that your parents or grandparents or great-
grandparents could have come here is because of a Ph.D. or a degree or
a certificate. Most of the people in this Chamber, I would imagine, are
here because their parents or great-grandparents or great-great-
grandparents came here because they had friends or family here. Let's
not reimagine the history of this country.
Democrats aren't obligated to accept the first offer from this
President if it is not good for America. Negotiation still has to be
part of the legislative process, and I am glad there are Members of the
Republican and Democratic caucuses who have been trying to do that. We
will see where that goes.
The President has put this proposal on the table that dramatically
cuts immigration into this country because he sees immigration as a
core weakness of this country. He views new entrants to America as an
economic drain. That is why he wants to potentially kick out 3 million
Dreamer kids next month if we don't act. That is why he wants to
dramatically cut down the number of people who are allowed to legally
immigrate to America. He views immigrants as a problem that needs to be
dealt with. And he is not alone. Many Americans agree. I, frankly, hear
from them regularly in Connecticut.
Frankly, one could also argue that there is nothing more American
than being scared of immigrants. Every single new wave of immigrants to
our shores has been met with some degree of fear and derision and
prejudice. Like clockwork, every generation or two, American
politicians denounce immigrants as a threat to the American-born
worker.
In the 1850s, growing numbers of Catholic immigrants from Ireland--as
the Murphys came--and from Germany led to an anti-immigrant party
arising in this country that elected more than 100 Congressmen, eight
Governors, and thousands of local politicians. They claimed that
Catholics could never be Americans because they owed allegiance to the
Pope.
Starting in the 1880s, hundreds of thousands of Chinese immigrants
began to immigrate to the west coast, causing a spike in anti-Chinese
sentiment that eventually resulted in the passage of something called
the Chinese Exclusion Act.
Fearing those who are different from us in skin color or religion or
national origin or language is an unmistakable facet of American
history, but over and over again, we have overcome these base instincts
because our better angels prevail but also because of this bright,
straight line that connects America's liberal immigration policy with
our economic greatness.
I want to take just a couple of minutes to make for you a compact but
irrefutable case for the correlation between economic power and
American immigrants.
From 1870 to 1910, it is no coincidence that America's transformation
into a global economic powerhouse occurred during a period of massive
influx of human capital. During that time, nearly 15 percent of all
Americans were foreign-born. That is a share that our country has never
reached since then. This period of unprecedented growth forever
dispelled the myth that we still labor under today that the number of
American jobs is fixed. Immigrants increase demand, and that increased
demand creates jobs.
Organizations from the National Academy of Sciences to the
conservative Cato Institute have done their own studies on this
question and have come to the same conclusion.
Cato recently said this:
Immigrants add jobs, in part by raising consumer demand. So
getting rid of immigrants, such as by deporting unauthorized
workers, would most likely destroy jobs and raise native
unemployment.
That makes sense, right? But if you don't believe that immigrants
create growth, there is another, even simpler explanation as to why we
need robust immigration. At present birth rates, we don't have enough
people born here to fill all the jobs that are going to be created in
the next 20 years. It is estimated that, accounting for growth, America
is going to need 83 million new workers to enter the workforce in the
next 20 years. But here is the problem. Only 51 million new workers
will be native-born. That leaves us 32 million short. Unless folks
start churning out a lot more babies, immigration is the only way to
fix that deficit.
Not convinced? Well, think about how the Federal budget works. Most
of our budget is social insurance--working-age Americans paying into
accounts that pay benefits to older, nonworking Americans. You need a
balance between the two in order to not go bankrupt. Many of our
competitor nations around the world are spiraling toward this
demographic cataclysm. By 2030, the median age in Japan, with strict
immigration policies, is going to be over 50. It is extraordinary. Do
you want to know why Germany is so interested in bringing refugees into
their country? Because without them, their median age in 2030 will be
48. Budgets simply can't work with that many retirees and that few
workers. Because of America's liberal immigration policy, our average
age, which today is 38, will increase in 2030 to just 39. During that
time, China--another country that doesn't really allow immigration--
will go from having a median age that is 2 years younger than that of
the United States to 3 years older.
In 2010, undocumented immigrants and their employers sent $13 billion
to Social Security. Without them, the trust fund would be out of money
today.
You are not there yet? Let's talk jobs. Just ask your farmers in your
State how important lower skilled immigration is to keeping their farms
afloat. But let's talk about high-skilled jobs. Would it shock you to
know that 31 percent of Ph.D. holders in this country are immigrants?
It is amazing. And more than one-quarter of all high-quality patents in
the United States are being granted to immigrants.
How about a study from 3 years ago that Senator Cortez Masto referred
to that found that immigrants are twice as likely as native-born
Americans to start a business. That is not good enough for you? Here is
a mind blower: 43 percent of Fortune 500 companies in the United States
were founded or cofounded by an immigrant or a child of an immigrant.
You know who they are. The founder of eBay came to the United States
from France, where he was born to Iranian parents. Google's cofounder,
Sergey Brin, emigrated with his family from Russia when he was 6.
[[Page S950]]
Elon Musk, who started SpaceX, which has 4,000 employees, came from
South Africa. Daniel Aaron, who cofounded Comcast, was a refugee of
Nazi Germany. Henry Ford was an Irish immigrant. Estee Lauder's family
was Hungarian. Herman Hollerith, one of the founders of IBM, had German
parents. You don't want Ford or IBM or Google to be part of the
American story? Then keep saying immigrants are an economic drain.
Margaret Thatcher once marveled of America: ``No other nation has so
successfully combined people of different races and nations within a
single culture.'' This combination is our definition as a nation, but
it is also the story of our economic greatness, of our sprawling leap
in under two short centuries from an idea to the biggest, most dynamic
economy on the face of the planet. To deny that history or to
misremember it would be perhaps an irreversible error.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, some of what I just heard, I can readily
agree to. Certain things, such as that we are a nation of immigrants--
no doubt about that. We need immigrants. We take roughly 800,000 to 1
million legal immigrants a year. They are welcomed. We also, though,
are a nation of laws, and as a nation of laws, we want people to come
here according to our laws and abide by the laws.
We are working with a group of people. If you call them DACAs, it
would be about 800,000. If you refer to them as Dreamers, it is maybe
1.8 million. We obviously have sympathy for them because as a baby
brought here in diapers by a person or family who crossed our border
without papers, hence entering our country illegally--we don't
attribute the sin and the unlawfulness of the parent to the baby. A lot
of that has happened.
There is a general agreement--maybe not everybody in my political
party agrees with this, but I think 80 percent of them do--that we need
to deal with people who are here through no fault of their own and give
them legal status. That is the compassion we are showing for people who
broke our laws by their parents doing it but not the kids doing it.
I also didn't ever think we would be here today debating this because
I went through the 2013 debate on immigration. The Senate passed a
bill; the House of Representatives didn't take it up. I was in the
minority at that time, both in the caucus that was in the minority as
well as in the minority that voted against that bill, because I didn't
think it did things the way I would do them. Everything died in the
House of Representatives. Then, 2 years later, I became chairman of the
Judiciary Committee. We have jurisdiction over immigration legislation.
I could have spent 3 months on immigration during 2015 or 2016 and sent
a bill to the House of Representatives that probably would have died,
but I made up my mind early in my chairmanship that I wanted to do
things that we could get passed. So over the period of the last
Congress, my committee voted out 31 bills, all bipartisan, and 18 of
them got to a Democratic President. In 2015 and 2016, I felt, why go
through that process if it is going to die in the House of
Representatives?
Now, a year later, after the election of a President who campaigned
so much against anything dealing with immigration and legalization of
people who are here--even young people, whom he has now come to the
conclusion we ought to legalize--I didn't think we would be having this
debate, and somehow I think Members of the Democratic Party didn't
think we would be having this debate. I think they probably were
shocked 2 or 3 weeks ago when the government shut down and when the
majority leader decided to make an agreement to bring up this issue.
But here we are, debating an immigration bill that, quite frankly, I
didn't think we would be debating. Here we are.
Then, of course, we didn't do anything Monday. We didn't do anything
on this issue Tuesday. I don't know whether we are going to have any
votes today, but here we are debating immigration. We have a chance to
do what Members of the other political party, as advocates for Dreamers
and DACA kids--and we have them on this side but maybe not as vocal or
as loyal as Democrats are on this issue. Somehow, we are now having a
difficult time getting the issue up and getting something passed.
I offer to my 99 colleagues something the President said he would
sign. Maybe you don't like exactly what is in that proposal. Then get
it up and amend it, and let's see what sort of compromise we can
accomplish. But we are here because the leader said that we are going
to work on this issue. It was something that the minority demanded. We
ought to reach a conclusion on it and get something to the President of
the United States.
Once we knew that this issue was going to come up--and we knew that
on September 5 when the President said that he was not going to
continue the illegal approach to the DACA kids that President Obama
did. We have reason to believe this from court decisions on older
people where they ruled that the President didn't have the authority to
do what he did with the DACA kids. In fact, at least a dozen times
before he made that decision, he was telling the entire country he
didn't have the authority to do it, and then he went ahead and did it.
So this President comes in, takes an oath to uphold the Constitution
and the laws of this country, and he decides that he can't continue
what was considered illegal activity by the previous President. This is
a congressional decision that needs to be made, and Congress ought to
make it. We were told on September 5 to do something by March 5, and
here we are.
I heard from the previous speaker--and maybe a lot of speakers--that
this is the President's plan. Yes, this is something that the President
said that he is going to support and will sign, but I want to say to
you that the work that a group of us Senators have put into this issue
over a period of the last 3 months, with about 18 meetings, 4 meetings
with the President of the United States to discuss the issue--most of
what is in the proposal that is put before you are things that a group
of Senators put together. I would say that as our group met, we
probably had subgroups of three who had different views, and some of
them felt strongly about their positions, but everyone came together in
a compromise that you see here before us in my amendment.
In some of those meetings, we discussed these things with the
President, and I want to give the President credit. In a January 9
meeting that he had where he called together 23 of us--bipartisan and
bicameral--we were able to dial down all the things that we would be
discussing on immigration, and we came to the conclusion that there
were four main points that we ought to be dealing with. You have heard
of these as the four pillars, but let me repeat them.
No. 1 was legalization of these children who were brought here by
their parents; No. 2 was border security; No. 3 was chain migration;
and No. 4, diversity visa. We discussed these things with the
President, and I suppose the President probably emphasized citizenship
to a greater extent than maybe we did in our deliberations, but we have
something that has been put together by Members of this body who have
compromised, with none of us getting everything we wanted. We are
fortunate enough to have the President's backing on this.
So I hope that you see this, not as we have heard from the other side
as the President's plan--as if seven of us who introduced this proposal
somehow just took something from the White House and put our names on
it, and it is here before the U.S. Senate--because that isn't how it
worked.
I want to address some of the issues that have been put before us by
people on the other side. I want to express--as you probably have seen
me expressing already in my remarks so far--my frustration with the
current status of the immigration debate here in the U.S. Senate. It
amazes me that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle simply
aren't ready to have a serious immigration debate. They have been
demanding to have this debate for months. They have even shut the
government down to get to this point, and now we are actually on this
issue that they have been demanding that we debate for months during
this Congress--some on the other side of the aisle for
[[Page S951]]
years--and now when it is time to put up or shut up, they have come up
emptyhanded. Despite having weeks to prepare, Senate Democrats are
still rushing to put some plan together.
Let that sink in. Think about this just for a moment. The Senate
Democrats recklessly shut down the Federal Government over immigration,
and they did it over plans that they still largely haven't drafted.
That should be very frustrating, not only to this Senator but to most
of my colleagues, and it is exactly why the American people seem to
have less faith in this process in Washington, DC. Even more
frustrating is that for 2 valuable days, they have refused to allow the
Senate to debate immigration measures.
I do understand why the Democrats are afraid to vote on ending
sanctuary cities. Those policies of sanctuary cities are massively
unpopular with the American people. In other words, the American people
feel that when the Constitution says that immigration law is one of the
18 powers of the United States, then no local or State government
should be able to interfere with what the Constitution says is the
supreme law of the land.
I can't understand why, for 2 days, Democrats have refused to allow
us a debate on an issue like sanctuary cities. That amendment would
help us keep our communities safe from dangerous criminals, besides
carrying out the intent of the Constitution that the Federal Government
has complete authority over immigration.
Who could be against an approach to send a signal that sanctuary
cities aren't justified when that is how to protect the American people
from the criminal elements that some sanctuary cities protect?
Apparently, the Democrats are, since they don't seem to be for
outlawing sanctuary cities.
I guess another way to say it is that they could do more to protect
hard-working Americans from the criminal element that is, albeit, a
small part of the immigration community we are talking about, but it
still creates havoc for people like the Steinle family, for example,
where Kate was murdered by an alien who was a felon who had returned to
this country not once but five times.
In other words, I have to ask my colleagues whether enforcement
issues are legitimately a part of the immigration debate, and that is
what the sanctuary city situation is all about. Isn't border security
more than just throwing money at infrastructure? Shouldn't we be
discussing how to reform our Nation's laws so that dangerous criminal
elements can't inflict harm on innocent families?
I am pretty sure--I am actually 100 percent confident--the answer to
those questions is yes. Those are important issues to the American
people. Those issues used to be discussed here.
I have already mentioned the name of Kate Steinle, who was murdered
by one of these people. I could add the names of Sarah Root and Jamel
Shaw. These people all had dreams, too, but they had their lives ended
by felons who had been deported but had come back into this country.
If my colleagues were actually serious about debating this issue, we
would be discussing border enforcement. Sadly, it seems as though the
plans that I have seen so far from my colleagues fall short of that
goal.
Legalizing Dreamers--yes, who is going to argue with that? A little
bit of money for border security--there is a lot to argue about there.
But not doing something about criminal aliens who are a threat to law
enforcement in this country and to the safety of our country--it seems
to me that ought to be a part of it.
So we get all the people in this room who say they want to do
something about border security by throwing money at it; yet they
refuse to actually give our law enforcement the legal tools that they
need to protect Americans. Just a wall or whatever you want to call
it--electric surveillance, more border patrol--it is all border
security, but it is more than a wall. It takes more than just those
things to protect the American people.
I am here to tell you that it is a tragedy that some people in this
body just want to legalize some people for 1 year, 2 years, or 3 years
and put maybe a little bit of money into border security with no
commitment to the future. Then all we have done is kick the can down
the road.
Worse still, none of my colleagues' proposals are being developed in
a way that they can actually become law. Maybe for them, simply passing
a partisan bill is enough. Leader Schumer said that this morning, and I
was here listening to him. But that is not enough for this Senator.
This Senator actually wants to see something passed into law that will
provide real protection for DACA kids.
That is why I have offered an amendment that could actually pass the
House of Representatives, and we know the President would sign it.
Polls show that the framework a number of us developed, along with the
President's input, is overwhelmingly popular. A Harvard Harris poll
showed that 65 percent of the voters agreed with our plan, including 64
percent of Democratic voters. So despite the hyperbole we hear from our
colleagues, the plan that the President said he would sign is not only
popular, but, again, it is the only plan that has any chance of
becoming law.
It is time for all of my colleagues to get serious about fixing DACA.
It is time to stop posturing, to stop showboating, and to stop simply
trying to pass a bill out of the Senate that will not get considered in
the other body and will not be signed by the President of the United
States.
The focus ought to be on making actual law. If all of us here in the
Senate, particularly those who are in the Democratic Caucus, focus on
those things, then the choice for them will be very clear. They will
vote for the amendment that the seven of us have put before the Senate
called the Grassley amendment, they will back the President, and they
will provide real security and real certainty to the DACA recipients
and the American people.
In fact, it is so simple for some on the other side who have been
promising DACA certainty for years and some for a few months, but, more
importantly, really strongly over the last three or four months. It is
an opportunity for everything you have told those kids, including that
you are going to get them legal and even give them a path to
citizenship that you can deliver.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the issue that we are
dealing with on the floor, and I am grateful for this opportunity.
I wanted to first of all stress the critical urgency that we act to
protect America's Dreamers. The United States is a proud Nation of
immigrants. Yet in September the administration insulted our values by
announcing a decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
Program, which we know by the acronym DACA.
Dreamers are young people who have lived in our country since they
were children. They are law-abiding residents who have learned English.
They have paid taxes, and they have secured jobs to support themselves
and their families. Our government promised them that they would be
protected if they came forward, and now the administration, at least so
far, has broken that promise.
Democrats have been fighting for something on the Dream Act since the
administration first announced its decision on DACA more than 5 months
ago. We have yet to vote on a single piece of bipartisan legislation to
protect Dreamers. I do, however, commend the bipartisan work of a
number of my colleagues in both parties who have come to the table to
draft legislation that protects Dreamers and secures our border.
With hundreds--soon to be thousands--of Dreamers losing protection
every day, it is critical that we come together to pass bipartisan
legislation that will provide permanent protections for these
remarkable young people. Dreamers are deeply integrated into
communities across Pennsylvania, as well as in a lot of other States
and across our country, of course. Dreamers work as nurses, caring for
our families. They work as teachers, educating our children, and as
servicemen and servicewomen in our military, working to keep us safe.
Take a young Pennsylvania Dreamer whom I met a few months ago--way
back, I guess, in September. She was
[[Page S952]]
studying to be a nurse. Talking about her own life, she said:
All I want to do is heal people. All I want to do is be a
nurse.
Then she became very upset thinking about whether or not she might
have that opportunity because of what had not happened in Washington--
no legislation passed to protect her.
Another Dreamer from Lancaster, PA--the Presiding Officer knows that
part of our State well--is Audrey Lopez. Audrey was brought to the
United States from Peru when she was just 11 years old. Audrey spent
most of her childhood in Pennsylvania, and her parents instilled in her
the value of hard work and education. Like so many Dreamers, Audrey
only learned that she was undocumented when she was applying to college
and learned that she did not have a Social Security number. Despite not
having access to financial aid, Audrey worked hard, and she graduated
from college.
After graduation, she took a job in public service working at Church
World Services, assisting refugees with resettlement. This past fall,
Audrey accepted a nearly full scholarship to American University, where
she will obtain a master's degree in international development.
Audrey is an American in every way but not on paper. She is
continuing to work hard, despite not knowing if she will have a future
in the country she calls home.
We should be supporting young, hard-working people like Audrey who
want to work in the service of others and our Nation. Instead, some,
but not all--not all--Republicans are threatening her future--not only
her future, but our Nation's future--by making us less safe and,
frankly, damaging our economy. Protecting Dreamers is not only the
right thing to do, but it is also good for the American economy, and it
is in our national security interests.
DACA has enabled almost 800,000 young people to grow and thrive in
America, including about 5,900 in Pennsylvania. As part of the fabric
of our community, these impressive young people, like Audrey, provide
an enormous contribution to our society, including paying an estimated
$2 billion each year in State and local taxes.
By contrast, repealing DACA would amount to a loss of $460.3 billion
from the national GDP over the next decade. So if you want to do it by
year, it is roughly $46 billion a year for each of the 10 years.
In Pennsylvania, ending DACA would result in an annual loss of $357.1
million to the State GDP, according to the Center for American
Progress.
Currently, about 900 Dreamers are serving in the U.S. military and
more than one out of every seven DACA-eligible immigrants has language
skills that are currently in short supply in the U.S. military. It
makes no sense to remove these Dreamers from a country they call home.
I believe it is both wrong and dangerous.
The American people overwhelmingly support allowing Dreamers to stay
in the United States. It is about time Congress listened to the nearly
80 percent of Americans who want to pass protections for Dreamers,
along with increased border security so we can prevent this situation
in the future.
So it is time for action. We need a real compromise solution that
will get 60 votes in the Senate and, of course, 218 votes in the House,
and a signature from the President of the United States.
While I have advocated in the past for a clean vote on the bipartisan
Dream Act, which is what I would prefer, compromise will be critical to
ensuring we get something done and sent to the President's desk.
In 2013, I and many others--67 other Senators--voted for a bipartisan
immigration bill that would have doubled the number of Border Patrol
agents. That bill also would have mandated 24-hour surveillance of the
border using advanced technology, like drones, and it would have
provided a pathway to citizenship for law-abiding immigrants.
There are a number of bipartisan proposals to pair Dreamer
protections with data-driven, sensible border security that focuses on
public safety.
I look forward to finally voting on these issues, and I hope my
Republican colleagues will continue to work with us to secure our
border and ensure that Dreamers like Audrey Lopez have a future they
can count on.
I yield the floor.
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. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I want to speak about our immigration
debate and my amendment in particular, but first let me say we are
going to find out just how serious our colleagues are about granting
not just legal status to the Dreamers--people who came to this country
or were brought here illegally when they were children and couldn't and
shouldn't be held accountable for that action. The proposal that will
be available for a vote later this week will not just grant legal
status but will actually grant a path to citizenship.
It goes well beyond the illegal Executive order President Obama
issued, and it will be available to far more people than those who took
up President Obama's illegal Executive order. It is really going to be
an extraordinary moment. I hope we are able to reach an agreement on
this because I think this needs to get done.
Mr. President, I want to first address an amendment I have offered
that is now up and pending--and I think we will be voting on it at some
point this week--which is all about keeping our communities safer by
addressing the terrible problem of sanctuary cities. This is a problem
that one father in particular knows all too well.
On July 1 of 2015, Jim Steinle was walking arm in arm with his
daughter Kate on a pier in San Francisco. Suddenly, a gunman sprang out
and opened fire, hitting Kate. She pleaded, ``Help me, Dad,'' as she
bled to death in her father's arms.
Now, any murder is appalling, but one of the things that makes this
even more appalling is that the shooter should never have been on the
pier that day. The fact is, he was an illegal immigrant who had been
convicted of seven felonies and had been deported five times, but even
more galling is, 3 months before the day he murdered Kate Steinle, this
murderer was in the custody of the San Francisco Police Department.
They had him. He was in custody. They had him on an old warrant for a
previous crime.
When the Department of Homeland Security found out that the San
Francisco Police Department had this guy in custody, they immediately
reached out and said: Hold this guy until we can get someone there to
take him into custody. We know he is dangerous, we know he is here
illegally, and we want to get him out of this country, but the San
Francisco Police couldn't provide that minimal cooperation. Instead,
they released this man back onto the streets from which, 3 months
later, he murdered young Kate Steinle.
Why would the police of San Francisco do a thing like that? Why in
the world would they refuse to provide this minimal cooperation with
immigration authorities with respect to a dangerous individual? The
reason is because San Francisco is a sanctuary city. That means it has
as its explicit legal policy a prohibition that forbids their police
from cooperating with Federal immigration officials, even if the police
want to. It extends to other law enforcement, like sheriffs and deputy
sheriffs.
This is the case even when local law enforcement authorities believe
the person is dangerous, and the local law enforcement folks wish to
cooperate with the Federal authorities because they know this person is
a threat to the security of their community, but local politicians
override the police and decide this will be a sanctuary city.
Such is the case with San Francisco, and so the San Francisco Police
had no choice. They were required by local laws to release this man
onto the streets.
One of the many ironies about sanctuary cities is if Federal
officials had called the San Francisco Police about any number of other
crimes--robbery, car theft, violating a trademark, counterfeiting--any
number of other Federal crimes, then the San Francisco Police would
have been allowed to cooperate. They would have been happy
[[Page S953]]
to cooperate. They would have been able to cooperate, but because the
crime was committed by an illegal immigrant, the police's hands were
tied. The police were forced to release Kate Steinle's killer.
It is just unbelievable to me that we have communities across the
country that wish to provide this special privilege--this special
protection--for even dangerous criminals because they are here
illegally. It is unbelievable, but that is the case.
Sadly, the Steinles are not alone. They are not the only family who
has been affected this way because, of course, San Francisco is not our
Nation's only sanctuary city. Philadelphia--the fifth largest city in
America, the largest city in my home State--has an extreme sanctuary
city policy, and it has had appalling consequences already.
Maybe the most heartbreaking of these is the case of Ramon Aguirre-
Ochoa. Ochoa was a Honduran national in the United States illegally. He
was deported in 2009, but he illegally reentered the United States,
which is itself a felony. He found his way to Philadelphia, and in 2015
the Philadelphia Police arrested him on charges of aggravated assault
and various other crimes. When the background check went through, the
Department of Homeland Security saw that the Philadelphia Police had
this guy. They knew who this guy was. They knew he was here illegally,
they knew he had been deported, and they believed him to be the
dangerous criminal that he was. So they asked the Philadelphia Police:
Could you hold this guy for 24, 48 hours, until we can get an agent
there to take him into custody and begin deportation proceedings? We
know he is a bad guy. We want him out of the country.
Unfortunately, Philadelphia Police had to refuse. Instead, they
released him onto the city streets in January 2015. The Philadelphia
D.A. didn't feel like he had enough evidence to prosecute the case. He
dropped the charges, and rather than cooperate with the Department of
Homeland Security, they released Ochoa back onto the streets of
Philadelphia.
That was January of 2015. In July of 2016, Ochoa was arrested for
raping a child under the age of 13. This brutal attack on the child was
only possible because Philadelphia is a sanctuary city. It is these
appalling cases--like the Steinle case or this case in Philadelphia--
that make it so important that we end these sanctuary cities if it is
at all possible to do so.
My amendment is a bipartisan amendment. It is identical to a bill I
introduced and the Senate voted to consider in 2016. I reintroduced it
in 2017. It does two things: It tackles a legal liability for
localities that wish to cooperate with the Department of Homeland
Security, and, with that legal liability problem solved, it imposes
penalties on communities that choose nevertheless to be sanctuary
cities.
We don't have the authority as a Federal Government to dictate the
policy that a local community must follow. There is a constitutional
separation that gives them the power to do what they will, but we don't
have to subsidize their behavior when it endangers all of us, and that
is what my legislation goes after. So let me discuss first the legal
liability issue.
There are now at least two court decisions that have put pressure on
municipalities, localities, to be sanctuary cities. Over a dozen
Pennsylvania counties have done so. One is a Third Circuit decision;
the second is a Federal district court in Oregon. They have held that
if the Department of Homeland Security makes a mistake and they make a
detainer request--let's say it is a case of wrongful identity. They ask
a local police force to hold someone who, in fact, is an American
citizen, should be here and is here legally, and so it is therefore an
erroneous detention. If that happens and the local law enforcement
folks comply with that request, under these court decisions, the local
municipality can be held liable for the ensuing litigation on the part
of the person who is wrongly detained.
My bill addresses this problem by simply saying that when a local law
enforcement officer complies with an immigration detainer request from
DHS that is a duly issued and bona fide request, then the local officer
has the same authority as a DHS official. In a way, the officer would
be considered an agent of the Department of Homeland Security for this
purpose, and the entity the person would then sue in the event that a
person is wrongly detained and their civil rights are violated would be
the Federal Government. The responsibility should be on the Federal
Government, since it was, after all, a request that initiated with the
Federal Government.
My legislation does not in any way curb an individual's ability to
file a suit if their civil or constitutional rights are violated,
whether it is intentional or accidental. There is no curb on an
individual's ability to redress that if they were wrongfully detained.
It simply transfers the liability from the municipality to the
origination of the detainer request, which is the Department of
Homeland Security.
So that is the first part: solve the legal liability problem which
has some municipalities across America--certainly in my State of
Pennsylvania--choosing to be sanctuary cities, even though they would
rather not be.
Now, having addressed that, if our legislation is adopted, and we
have thereby solved this legal liability problem, if a community
nevertheless decides it is going to endanger all the rest of us by
conferring this special protection on somebody just because they came
here illegally--despite the fact that they may well be a dangerous
criminal--in that case, under my amendment, that community will be
deemed a sanctuary city, and under my amendment several types of
Federal funding would be withheld from it. Specifically, we would
withhold from the sanctuary cities community development block grants
and certain grants from the Economic Development Administration.
I think this is eminently reasonable. Sanctuary cities impose costs
on all of us. They raise the cost to the Federal Government of
enforcing immigration law, but by far outweighing that is the cost to
the American people of more crime and the unbelievable, staggering cost
to families like Jim Steinle and his family, who lost their daughter. I
think it is extremely reasonable to have as a policy that if a
community chooses to impose those costs on the rest of us, the Federal
Government will not be subsidizing it.
Let me debunk some of the misinformation that is occasionally
disseminated about my amendment. One is that it is somehow anti-
immigrant. This is not anti-immigrant at all; this is pro-immigrant.
The fact is, the vast, overwhelming majority of immigrants in
America, legal and illegal, would never commit these terrible crimes;
there is no question about that. It is also obviously the case that any
very large number of people will include some criminals among them.
There are roughly 11 million people who are here illegally--11
million illegal immigrants in the United States. Some of them are
certainly violent criminals. It makes no sense to insulate those
violent criminals, however few they may be, from capture by law
enforcement. It would be absurd to allege that this is somehow anti-
immigrant when quite likely some of their victims will be other
immigrants. Immigrants want to live in safe communities too. I am
positive of that. They don't want dangerous criminals to be able to
walk the streets just because they came here illegally.
The second point I want to stress is that this amendment does not
discourage or punish illegal immigrants for coming forward to report a
crime. This is important because folks who want to keep sanctuary
cities sometimes charge that if my legislation were passed, victims and
witnesses to crimes, if they are here illegally, wouldn't come forward.
That is not so. My amendment in this underlying law explicitly states
that a locality will not be labeled a sanctuary jurisdiction for this
purpose, and therefore will not lose any Federal funds, if it has a
policy stating that if a person comes forward as a victim or a witness
to a crime, local law enforcement will not share information with DHS.
Let me be clear and explicit about this. We have an explicit carve-
out in the legislation. If a locality chooses to provide sanctuary
status to a victim of a crime or a witness to a crime, such a community
would not lose any Federal funds whatsoever. We think that
[[Page S954]]
makes sense because we do want to encourage victims and witnesses of
crimes to come forward. We get it. We don't want to create a worry that
there would be deportation consequences for them.
A third point which some have alleged and which I want to be very
clear about is that the penalties my amendment has for a community that
chooses to be a sanctuary city do not include the loss of any funds
whatsoever related to law enforcement or security. That is simply not
the case. The list of categories that we include in lost funding is
economic development in its nature. It is not at all law enforcement.
Another point that some on the other side have made is that somehow
this legislation, my amendment, would impose an unmanageable burden on
law enforcement. One simple fact to consider is, if that is the case,
then why has it been endorsed by law enforcement groups? The National
Association of Police Organizations has endorsed my amendment. The
International Union of Police Associations, a division of AFL-CIO, has
endorsed my amendment. The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association
has endorsed my amendment. Would these groups endorse a bill that
imposed an unworkable burden on their own members? I rather doubt it. I
think they understand that this amendment encourages local law
enforcement to share information with the Department of Homeland
Security and in some cases to temporarily and briefly hold people in
custody until the Department of Homeland Security can get there.
This is a bipartisan amendment. In 2016, when the Senate voted on
this very same amendment in the form of a freestanding bill, it
received a majority, and it had bipartisan support. Unfortunately, a
minority filibustered it and blocked it. But the fact is, it is a
bipartisan piece of legislation with majority support. I don't think it
should even be controversial.
I think we will have a vote on this relatively soon, in the coming
days. I hope it will have very broad support. This is common sense. It
stands for the principle that the safety of the American people
matters, that the lives of Kate Steinle and other victims of violent
crime matter, and that all of our communities should be as safe as they
can be.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Parkland, Florida, School Shooting
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, watching the pictures today as I came
to the floor was deeply moving. Even though there is much that we don't
know and a lot of information that we lack about what is happening at
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL, the images of
emergency vehicles and emergency responders and of young people and
children evacuating a school after another tragic incident of gun
violence brings back memories that are searing and harrowing. Once
again, we feel that churning in our stomach, that sense of gut-punch,
and a wrenching of hearts that reminds us of how we felt the day of
violence in Newtown. Yet another school is victimized by gun violence.
We are waiting to learn more of the details, but certainly our hearts
and prayers go to the victims and their loved ones. Our gratitude goes
to the courageous first responders who are on the scene now
apprehending the shooter and administering to the victims and
survivors. My thoughts and prayers are with those students, emergency
responders, parents, loved ones, and the community of Parkland.
Again, gun violence respects no boundaries. It spares no communities.
It victimizes all of us, wherever it happens and whenever, including
the gun violence that kills people every day individually, often
unpublicized and invisible.
My heart breaks to hear that one more school is facing this
unthinkable horror, that again this harrowing scene plays before the
people of America, literally unfolding in real-time. I know that I and
all of the Members of this Chamber share the grief and sympathy and
heartbreak that community is experiencing today.
Mr. President, I want to talk about the Connecticut Dreamers and
share their stories and call for this Chamber to take narrow and
focused action to prevent their draconian mass deportation and protect
them from that kind of very unfortunate outcome.
The Dreamers who would be covered under legislation, which I hope
will pass in the next 24 hours, came here as children. They grew up as
Americans. This country is the only one they know. English is the only
language many of them speak. They go to our schools. They serve in our
military. They support our economy. They believe in the American dream.
All of us believe in the American dream, but so do they. They work hard
and give back.
Deporting the Dreamers would be cruel, irrational, and inhumane--
unworthy of a great country. It would break our promise to the Dreamers
who came forward when they were told they would be given protected
status and would be a violation not only of the American dream but of
the promise made by a great nation.
Gabriela Valdiglesias came to the United States in 2001 from Lima,
Peru. She has lived in Connecticut for 17 years. She works for
Connecticut Students for a Dream, advocating for her fellow Dreamers.
For those workers, she has been working on securing their right to
safety, to higher education, to healthcare, and to live in a country
without fear and discrimination.
She shared with me some of the difficulties her family had while she
was growing up. She and her five siblings are supported by their
parents, who work in minimum-wage jobs. She hopes that if the Dream Act
passes, she will be able to take on some of the economic burden her
parents now carry. She hopes she will be able to make enough money to
support herself and her family.
She is currently in her first year of college, at a community
college, where she has faced many financial challenges. Not being able
to get a job at 18 years old is frustrating and sometimes devastating.
If the Dream Act is passed, she could finish her 2 years at community
college and transfer to a 4-year institution, and she could pursue her
dream of working as a lawyer or in the field of law.
There are countless other stories of Connecticut Dreamers, some
wanting to keep their identities confidential. There is a young man in
Bridgeport who was brought to Connecticut at the age of 5. He was
educated in the Bridgeport public schools. He majored in chemistry and
now attends Fairfield University. He has excelled there. He finished
his first degree and was accepted at the University of California,
Berkeley's physical chemistry program. He had to live under the threat
of deportation because he had no way to apply for permanent lawful
status. While he was continuing his studies here, he lived with the
threat of deportation.
There is a New Britain woman who was born in Mexico and brought to
America when she was 6 years old. The journey was terrifying. She could
barely understand what was happening. She had no idea at 6 years old
that she was entering America in a way that would affect her for the
rest of her life. It was not her choice to come here or to come here in
that way, but it has affected her. In fact, despite her attending
school and then going to college out of State at Bay Path University
and earning a great many leadership positions there, she remains in the
limbo of uncertainty and anguish and anxiety created by the threat of
deportation. She dreams about helping people, making sure that families
with low incomes can have access to occupational therapy. She is
pursuing a master's degree in occupational therapy.
Finally, there is a woman I know who came here from Venezuela. She
was brought here when she was 11 years old. She remembers her mother
telling her that she was going to America to learn English. When they
settled in Norwalk, CT, her mother also told her that she could be
successful if she were bilingual. She began to go to school right away.
Life was difficult at the beginning, and there was a lot to learn. By
the time she was a junior in high school, she stopped trying to get
perfect grades because she feared colleges would not accept her, and
even if they accepted her, she could not be eligible for financial
assistance because she was undocumented.
But she persevered, and she attended community college. She went on
to Western Connecticut State University, and she overcame obstacles
that for many Americans born here would be
[[Page S955]]
insuperable. Now facing deportation, she fears all of those dreams and
all of that work will be for naught.
These Dreamers, in fact, have trusted America. They believed in
America's promise to them. Coming forward, providing facts about their
residence, their family, their job, and Social Security number, they
believed in America. It wasn't a dream. America is to be trusted.
America is the land of opportunity. America is the greatest Nation in
the history of the world. They have a dream that is American, which is
that they will have the opportunity to pursue their full potential as
human beings to give back, to educate themselves, and to better their
lives. That is the American dream.
In Dr. Martin Luther King's ``I Have a Dream'' speech, he said:
When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent
words of the Constitution and the Declaration of
Independence, they were signing a promissory note . . . a
promise that all men--
And he might have added women--
would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.
The time has long since come for us to help the Dreamers. The time is
today for us to protect them against mass draconian deportation, a
violation of a promise that would be unworthy of America.
The promissory note of this American dream can be made a reality by
this Chamber today and tomorrow.
I understand that some of my colleagues may want to change the
immigration system. It is truly a broken system in need of
comprehensive reform. That task is for another day. Today, we must make
sure that we provide these Dreamers with legal status and a path to
citizenship. That is our moral obligation. That is our job. Let's get
it done.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, the Senate is probably interested in the
status of the debate on immigration. This debate started in September
in hallways, committee rooms, and in our offices--opportunities for us
to talk about these issues now for months.
Several weeks ago, there was a government shutdown demanding that we
actually have a vote on immigration right now or that we don't reopen
the government. After 3 days of government shutdown, the government was
reopened, demanding that we move the immigration debate earlier to make
sure we would get this done earlier. Now it is Wednesday of the week
that it was supposed to occur, and the proposals are not out on the
table. It has been a frustrating journey.
I can't even begin to count the number of hours I have spent in
bipartisan conversations trying to circle around a simple set of
issues. How do we resolve a small group of issues related to
immigration?
I thought this was resolved in some ways. Back in early January,
there was a large bipartisan meeting with the House and Senate to
discuss what was widely televised as the scope for immigration and the
key issues we were going to address. It came down to four issues, and
there was agreement among the leaders, among those in the room, that
these are the only four issues we are going to deal with: DACA and
those DACA-eligible and how we move them toward citizenship, border
security and all the things around border security, diversity visa
lottery, and family reunification. All of those have been dealt with in
legislation before--in fact, for decades, in one version or another--
except for the issue of DACA. That one is new. That is the only one
that hasn't been done with legislation before. The others all have.
The Gang of 8 bill in 2013 had border security and all kinds of
different issues related to both construction of walls, technology, and
legal loopholes. It had diversity lottery. It had chain migration in
it. If you want to go back to an immigration study during the Clinton
administration, in 1995, there was a proposal put out by Barbara
Jordan, the Democratic House Member from Texas, who led that particular
study during the Clinton administration dealing with chain migration,
dealing with how we transition to merit-based immigration.
This has been dealt with literally in hearings for decades, but what
I have heard for the past several months is that there is no time to do
any of those things. The only time that we have is to deal with DACA.
We can't even discuss anything else. Meeting after meeting after
meeting since early November, I have heard the same thing: There is no
time. There is no time. There is no time.
Now we are getting down to the day, and there is still a conversation
about how we deal with these four simple issues that we have talked
about for months, that the House and Senate have debated for decades,
and on which we have had an untold number of hearings for decades to
try to actually land them, to get legislation ready, and to get this
resolved.
Let me just focus on a few things, because a few of us have put out a
proposal that covers those four areas that was a middle-ground
proposal. It is certainly not everything that I would like to have in
border security, and it is certainly not everything that Democrats
would like to have, but it is a middle ground between all of those. It
is one the White House has already announced that they will certainly
sign. It has 1.8 million people moving into naturalization, or
citizenship. These are the individuals whose parents brought them
illegally, but they were children at the time. Those individuals came
into the country. They have now lived here for years. They know no
other country, on the whole. Those individuals are offered an
opportunity to become citizens of the United States 10 years from now.
Why 10 years from now? That gives a time period of 10 years, which is
commonly agreed that it will take to be able to secure the border. In
that 10-year time period, the border security could be put in place to
make sure we have a secure border. It is not an unreasonable thing. In
that same 10-year time period, about 2 million people are going to
move, actually, into citizenship.
How does that affect the rest of our process? Well, let me tell you
first how it affects it. Right now we have a 20-year backlog to be able
to come into the United States legally--20 years to be able to come
through that process. Once we add another 2 million people in that
process and all the family that will be connected to them, in all
likelihood, that backlog moves from 20 years to 25 years. It is
ridiculous at 20 years, and it is even worse at 25.
We all know that this issue of family migration and the broad
allowance of people coming in, not based on what skills they have but
based on being someone's brother-in-law, is not the best way to do
immigration, and we are the only country that does it like this.
Seventy percent of the people who come into our country legally come
through a family connection--being someone's brother, being someone's
sister, being a relative in some way that they are able to come into
the country.
Canada, just to our north, is exactly the opposite. Sixty-three
percent of the people who come into Canada legally through their
immigration system come because they are bringing a work skill. Now, I
don't want to oppose anyone coming from anywhere in the world. There is
a uniqueness to the United States and how we handle immigration, and we
allow people from all over the world, from every country, to come. That
should remain the same, but we should have one simple requirement: They
come to bring something to the Nation. I don't think that is too hard
of a hill to climb.
It is not a matter of who you are related to. You certainly should be
able to bring in your spouse and your children, but brothers and
sisters and other adults and such that would be in your family, maybe,
should come based on their own merit, as well, for them to be able to
come and be a part of our great culture, as well, or they are able to
come visit and come stay long periods of time but not necessarily come
for citizenship, unless you are coming to bring them. Again, that
doesn't seem too difficult.
The diversity lottery hasn't been the challenging issue. Quite
frankly, that has been an issue that was in the 2013 Gang of 8 bill,
saying: Why do we have 50,000 visas for individuals from anywhere, from
around the world, who can come who don't necessarily bring a skill at
all? Why don't we just add a skill requirement or an educational
requirement? We could say that you are welcome to come from anywhere,
but at least we should know that those who
[[Page S956]]
are coming from anywhere and everywhere bring something to the American
economy. Again, that hasn't been controversial nor partisan in the
past, and now, suddenly, it has become that.
The border security part of it has been the most confusing part of
the debate for me on this thing. Months ago, some of my Democratic
colleagues over and over said: The wall will do nothing. There is no
benefit in the wall. If you put up a 20-foot wall, there will be a 21-
foot ladder. It will do absolutely nothing.
Now, the conversation is this: Well, we will give citizenship to
DACA, and we will give you some money to build a wall, and we will call
it even. That has never been the request, and everyone knows it.
The request has been border security, not just a wall. I am very
aware that the President has talked about a big beautiful wall a lot. I
get that. But it has always been about border security, not just about
putting up a wall in certain places. There has never been an emphasis
to build 2,000 miles of wall. There isn't a need for a wall in certain
urban areas, but what is really needed is border security and everyone
knows it. I don't understand why border security has suddenly become a
controversial issue.
What we have asked for and what we have laid out in a proposal seems
to be a very middle-ground proposal. It doesn't do interior
enforcement. Quite frankly, our Democratic colleagues have said:
Absolutely no additional interior enforcement--we are open to border
security, but nothing that secures the interior of the country.
So we have said: OK, that will be a future bill dealing with interior
enforcement, but we do feel like border security is very important.
So they have said: OK, we will give you some money to build a wall in
sections.
Can I say what they are trying to exclude? Border security, when you
lay it out, is also the legal loopholes. So here are just a few of the
things that we have laid out, which I don't think should be that
controversial, that we have included in our language and said: If we
are going to do border security, let's be serious about it. For
instance, we have asked for additional penalties for people who do
human smuggling. Right now, it is a slap on the wrist if you do human
smuggling into the country. So coyotes and others are able to do human
smuggling into the country in transit.
There are also people who are individuals in our country watching out
for Border Patrol agents, radioing other people saying: Hey, Border
Patrol is here. Go a different direction. They are actually helping to
divert people away. We think we should increase the penalties. Our
Democratic colleagues have pushed back and said no on that. It doesn't
seem unreasonable to increase the penalties for human smuggling and the
same for drug smuggling. To increase the penalties for those who are
spying out and redirecting people who are doing drug smuggling doesn't
seem too hard to be able to accomplish.
We would like to allow an individual State and their National Guard
to be able to participate with Border Patrol. Now the National Guard is
not law enforcement. What does the National Guard bring, though? They
bring helicopters that have infrared technology. They are able to fly
over sections of the border to be able to see the area below and to
help direct Border Patrol to it. To participate with the National Guard
and allow them to bring some of those resources those States already
have shouldn't be that difficult. That is just a part of border
security, but our Democratic colleagues are pushing back on that.
We would like to do an initiative to be able to work with Mexico and
provide Mexico some additional funding and support and consultation on
their border between Guatemala and Mexico, the southern border of
Mexico--what is literally kind of our first border. It is their
southern border. We have been pushed back, though, to say that is not
border security. It is slowing down people illegally trafficking
through Central America into Mexico. We think that is part of it.
How about this one? All along the Rio Grande in Texas, there is
Carrizo cane that are there--this large cane that grows in the river in
that area. In that area, you are able to hide people, drugs--whatever
it may be--in this tall cane because you just disappear in it. It is on
both sides of the border. We think we should do an eradication of that
cane so that you can actually see through it. It hasn't been
controversial in the past, but suddenly it is controversial: No, we
don't want to eradicate the cane.
That cane is only there because it is hiding people and contraband.
We think we should be able to do that.
We think we should be able to add an electromagnetic spectrum at our
border ports of entry so you can look through a vehicle, looking for
chemical parts of the spectrum and to be able to see if we can
eradicate drugs that are being trafficked into our country. I don't
think that should be that controversial.
There is getting secure communications so that our individuals and
the Border Patrol can talk to each other and can interact with other
law enforcement to make sure no one from a transnational criminal
organization is listening in.
We should have license plate readers at the port of entry to be able
to help track that and speed it up.
Doing biometrics at the entry and exit is something that has been
required since the 9/11 Commission. So we can accelerate that process
that as people come in and out of our country we know when they come in
legally, but we also know when they depart legally.
There is dealing with what is sometimes called catch and release.
Individuals who come into the country and cross illegally into the
country are held in detention for a short period of time until they get
due process, and every individual gets due process. This is not trying
to remove due process from anyone. But as they cross into the country
illegally, we are able to pick them up, detain them, and make sure they
have due process. Some of them make claims for asylum or make claims of
credible fear or other things. Instead of doing a hearing on that, we
actually give them a piece of paper that is called a notice to appear
and release them into the country and say: We will see you in about 2
years for your hearing date--instead of actually doing the hearing
right then. Nothing has changed. No facts have changed. No information
has changed. Nothing has changed during that time of delay. We just
release them because we don't have enough judges or enough courts or
enough attorneys or enough advocates to be able to accomplish that. So
they are released for years in the country. You may be surprised to
know that most of the individuals never show up for that hearing. They
are just released into the country.
There is also a statement saying: Well, what about unaccompanied
minors? Again, you might be interested to know that three-fourths of
the unaccompanied minors who cross into the country are actually 14
years old or up. These are not 6-year-olds who are crossing in and 5-
year-olds who are crossing in. Most of them are older teenagers. Two-
thirds of the people who are coming in as unaccompanied minors are
actually teenage boys, and most of them come in to be able to work. So
the question is this: How do we handle that?
I think we do fair detention. I think we go through the due process
and make a decision right then. Again, you will be interested to know
that for individuals who actually do show up for their court hearing,
which is a small group, about 30 percent of those who go to the court
hearing do get asylum once they finally get to the court hearing. But
we are not getting to the court hearing for most of those individuals.
That shouldn't be that controversial. We should be able to handle how
we go through that process in an equitable and fair way.
I would like us to be able to deal with the cost, quite frankly, of
detention. We have asked for a simple part of this process on border
security, to honor the taxpayer, to say that we will not spend more
than $500 a night on housing individuals whom we have in detention.
Now, I think most Americans--certainly most Oklahomans--would like to
stay in a hotel that costs $500 a night. Putting a cap on how much we
spend on that per person per night, I think, is a reasonable thing to
be able to put into it, but we have had pushback.
[[Page S957]]
We have asked for emergency immigration judges. Right now there are
almost 700,000 people in a backlog in our immigration courts--almost
700,000. We don't think it is unreasonable to ask for emergency judges
to come in to help us with the backlog. We are not talking about
untrained judges. We are talking about judges who are in the Federal
system who are knowledgeable of these issues and to do a surge of
judges to help us get caught up.
We should be able to do all of these things. None of these issues
should be controversial. This is what it means when you start talking
about real border security, not just adding a wall in some places, not
just adding a couple of additional agents but actually putting the
things around them that they need to actually be able to enforce the
law.
I think people lose track of the fact that ICE folks and Customs and
Border Patrol are not enemies of our State. They are American law
enforcement. They work for our country to keep us safe and to enforce
the laws of our Nation. I am appalled at the way they are spoken of on
this floor and treated in conversations. They are American law
enforcement enforcing American laws. If there is a problem with what
they are enforcing, this body should vote on it and fix the law, not
beat up on the people who are enforcing the law and doing what we have
asked them to do as a Congress.
I hope in the days ahead we can actually get this passed. I hope we
can actually move toward citizenship for 1.8 million people, which the
President has asked for, and I think it is a reasonable thing to be
able to do for those individuals who came into our country as children.
But I also hope that this time we don't say that we are going to do
citizenship and not do border security. I hope we don't just throw some
money and pretend we are doing it. I hope we, as a body, can have a
serious conversation and say: Let's actually do border security and
help us as a nation to establish a secure border. I hope we actually
deal with some of the biggest issues on immigration and can walk
through this debate in a reasonable way without the emotion and heat,
but thinking this through because this affects the future of our
country for a very long time.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about an issue
that has occupied this floor, this body, this Congress for some time
now: the challenge of how to fix our broken immigration system. As many
of us have debated and talked and tried to find common ground and a
bipartisan path forward, I wanted to speak about why I have optimism
that we can find a bipartisan solution to this challenge.
I know I am not alone in my optimism about this. One of my very
dearest friends in the Senate, someone I respect and admire deeply,
someone who knows more about sacrifice and patriotism than anyone I
have ever met, believes the same thing. This friend of mine is not just
any Senator. It is Mr. John McCain, the senior Senator from Arizona,
who also happens to be an American hero and someone who has literally
fought for this country and its values throughout his entire life. He
is someone whom our mutual friend, former Vice President Joe Biden,
calls a ``man of . . . deep conviction, and unmatched character.''
John McCain is exactly the person the Senate and this country needs
in times like this, when the way forward is unclear, when our
disagreements seem too wide, when our instincts are to argue rather
than listen. This Chamber and this country need someone who is able to
show us a way forward and lead us out of our stubborn, sometimes too
partisan fights--someone like Senator McCain.
As this debate has progressed in recent days, I have been reminded of
something I heard Senator McCain say late last year when he accepted
the Liberty Medal from the National Constitution Center in
Philadelphia. When speaking about our country and when speaking about
the opportunity he has had here, he said:
What a privilege it is to serve this big, boisterous,
brawling, intemperate, striving, daring, beautiful,
bountiful, brave, magnificent country. With all our flaws,
all our mistakes, with all the frailties of human nature as
much on display as our virtues, with all the rancor and anger
of our politics, we are blessed. We are living in the land of
the free, the land where anything is possible. The land of
the immigrants' dream, the land with the storied past
forgotten in the rush to an imagined future.
What a country, indeed. Beautiful, brave, and magnificent, as John
said, but also challenged by occasional frailty, rancor, and anger that
we have seen too much of in this sustained debate over immigration.
The point Senator McCain made that night in Philadelphia--and the
point he has made every day serving our Nation for more than six
decades--is that working through our disagreements, our divisions is
worth it, not just as Senators but as citizens.
The whole point is, we may be boisterous and intemperate, which John
has certainly also been accused of being a time or two, but we don't
stop striving for our ideals, believing in our future, and respecting
one another. That is often difficult--especially here in politics--but
it is the challenge that comes with the blessings of living and serving
this great country.
So I was honored when Senator McCain reached out to me a week ago to
say: Let's work together to introduce in the Senate legislation that
could help solve our most pressing immigration issues and keep our
country moving forward.
The bipartisan bill we have introduced--the McCain-Coons bill--in the
Senate doesn't solve every immigration issue we face, and it doesn't
try to. What our bill does is focus on two issues right in front of us
that I believe we can address and resolve. It is an attempt to break
through what have been messy and divisive political debates and to
address, through a compromise, legitimate, substantive issues in front
of us.
Our bill would do two things: secure our border and finally give
Dreamers the pathway to citizenship they have long awaited for, and
they deserve.
First, to address border security, our bill would ensure we gain
operational control of the border by 2020 with new technology, new
resources for Federal, State, and local law enforcement, and new
infrastructure.
It would reduce the existing immigration case backlogs by funding new
judges and new attorneys, while also addressing one of the root causes
of migration into our country from Central America.
Our legislation would give certainty to 1.8 million Dreamers brought
here as children through no fault of their own, who are American in
every way but the paperwork. Dreamers who continue to play by the rules
by going to school, serving in the military, or being consistently
employed can become lawful, permanent residents and, at least 5 years
later, U.S. citizens.
Senator McCain and I aren't the only ones who think this bipartisan
solution makes sense. In fact, the reason we filed it here was because
of the strength of its development in the other Chamber, the people's
House, the House of Representatives. This bill was crafted by
Republican Congressman Will Hurd of El Paso, TX, whose district has
more than 800 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border--more than any district
in our country with a U.S.-Mexico border--and his partner, Democratic
Congressman Pete Aguilar, who is from Southern California. The two of
them put this bill together after a lot of consultation and meetings
with their colleagues in the House. Today, it enjoys 27 Republican
cosponsors and 27 Democratic cosponsors. I often hear we shouldn't take
up and consider anything that can't pass the House, but a bill that has
54 bipartisan cosponsors in the House is certainly on the right track.
Now, I am clear-eyed about the fact that this McCain-Coons bill is
not perfect, and I understand some of my colleagues may want to make
changes to it. Some of my Republican friends I have met with and heard
from and talked to in recent days have suggested it needs more
investments in border security to win their support, and that is fine
because our bill is more than just a set of policies. It is a way to
provide a framework for us to agree and not let our disagreements
prevent us from moving forward.
So my message is simple about this bill: We may not be able to fix
our entire immigration system this week--in fact, I am certain we
can't--but we can, over the next few days, perhaps
[[Page S958]]
even over the next few hours, take important, even historic steps
forward. We can lay the groundwork for securing our border with new
investments, new technology, and new manpower. We can help Dreamers
succeed in American schools, serve in our American military, and enrich
American communities without living in constant fear of imminent
deportation.
These are tough issues, but the solution can be fairly simple. I
think our legislation offers a real solution for right now. There have
been developments in recent days.
I have been proud to participate in a large bipartisan effort by the
Common Sense Coalition, and as it has, as a group, tried to hammer out
a bipartisan deal, I have been honored to have started this discussion,
this debate, with Senator McCain by filing our bill that we brought
over from the House. It is a bipartisan bill that I believe is the most
bipartisan bill currently before this Chamber on this issue. If we can
make more progress, if we can attract more bipartisan support through
some amendments or revisions, I welcome that.
I believe this week, this day, this opening on our Senate floor is
not only a challenge but an incredible opportunity to do the right
thing. We don't have to agree on everything. We just have to agree on
some things, and we can find a way forward together.
It is an enormous honor to have the opportunity to partner with
Senator McCain in this legislative effort. While he is not with us
today, I know he is with us in spirit and watching our deliberations,
and he is someone who has shown not just courage on the battlefield but
courage in American politics--a determined willingness to compromise
and to work tirelessly to advance the interests of the American people.
I can only hope my colleagues, when we get a chance to vote on this
bill--which I hope we will later today--will join me in supporting it
in recognition of his lifetime of service to our Nation and his
commitment to bipartisanship.
It is my hope that as this day and tomorrow unfolds, we will have the
open and fair process that has been promised, and that all of us,
together, can do what we were sent to do: listen to each other, trust
each other, work together, and find a path through compromise that can
solve these two most important and pressing issues in the field of
immigration.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
(The Acting President pro tempore assumed the Chair.)
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Parkland, Florida, School Shooting
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, every day in America we face the
devastating reminder of the toll of gun violence. Today, we are
watching the horrific scenes at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in
Parkland, FL, where yet another school shooting has taken place. It is
gut-wrenching. We know that so many families have just had their worlds
and lives changed forever by senseless gun violence. Ironically, this
is the 10th anniversary of a similar shooting at Northern Illinois
University in DeKalb, IL. Our prayers go out to the victims, to the
families, to the first responders, and, of course, to the Parkland
community.
Honoring Commander Paul Bauer
Yesterday, Mr. President, in the city of Chicago, which I am honored
to represent, we lost one of our finest, Commander Paul Bauer of the
Chicago Police Department. He was shot and killed by a gunman in the
Chicago Loop.
Commander Bauer was a 31-year veteran of the CPD and the commander of
the 18th police district in the Near North Side. He was a pillar of
that community. He was well-known in his district. He had been
commended by the city council last year for a charity holiday party he
helped to host for underprivileged kids.
He was a husband to his wife Erin and a father to a 13-year-old
daughter named Grace. Commander Bauer was at a training session
yesterday in the Loop, but he didn't hesitate to help out his fellow
officers when they were pursuing a fleeing suspect. Commander Bauer was
shot several times by the suspect, and he died from his wounds.
Chicago police superintendent Eddie Johnson said this was an
extremely difficult day for the Chicago police family. Commander Bauer
was a hero in life. He made the ultimate sacrifice to help protect the
city he served and the city he loved. His loss is a tragedy.
Our prayers go out to the commander's friends, colleagues, his loved
ones, and, of course, his family and daughter.
10th Anniversary of Northern Illinois University Shooting
As I mentioned, Mr. President, today marks the 10th anniversary of
one of the most devastating shootings ever to occur on a college campus
in America. On February 14, 2008, a gunman with a history of mental
instability walked into a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University
in DeKalb and opened fire. His bullets killed five students and wounded
17 more. It was a horrific mass murder, and it shocked the entire
Nation.
The five young Illinoisans we lost that day all had bright futures
ahead of them: Gayle Dubowski, 20 years old, from Carol Stream, who
worked as a camp counselor and was a talented singer in her church
choir; Catalina Garcia, of Cicero, 20 years old, a smiling, outgoing
young woman who planned to be a teacher; Julianna Gehant, of Mendota,
32 years old, who served our country in the U.S. Army and Army Reserve
and who went to NIU to study to be a teacher; Ryanne Mace, of
Carpentersville, a 19-year-old, who was funny and fun to be with and
who aspired to work as a counselor; and Daniel Parmenter, 20 years old,
from Westchester, a rugby player, who lost his life because he shielded
his girlfriend from the shooter.
It is heartbreaking to think what these five young people could have
accomplished in the 10 years since that horrible day. We mourn their
loss and, again, our hearts go out to their families.
We remember and honor the wounded who still bear the scars of that
terrible day. We renew our thanks over and over to the law enforcement
officers and first responders who headed toward the sound of gunfire
that day and who treated the victims as they were wounded.
We commend the many members of the NIU community who stepped up in
the days that followed, working to persevere through this tragedy, with
heavy hearts but unbroken spirits and moving ``forward, together
forward,'' in the words of that Northern Illinois University Huskie
fight song.
It is devastating to think that in this great country, students and
educators could be gunned down in our schools. But it happens so often
that I am afraid a numbness is setting in.
Just in the last few months, we have had fatal shootings of students
at Aztec High School in Aztec, NM; Wake Forest University in North
Carolina; Marshall County High School in Benton, KY; and then, today,
in Florida.
Other tragedies have been narrowly averted because of well-trained
staff. At Mattoon High School in Illinois, a heroic teacher named
Angela McQueen stopped a student gunman from causing a massacre there
last September.
The threat of shootings in our schools is ever present. According to
a tally kept by the group Everytown, there have been at least 18
incidents so far this year where a gun has been fired on a school or
college campus.
Schools and colleges are doing the best they can to prepare and
protect their students. I salute the educators and administrators who
are working hard, but is Congress doing all that it can to keep our
Nation's students safe from gun violence? Not even close.
Of course, there is no single reform that could stop every shooting
in America, but we know there are big gaps in our laws that make it
easy for criminals, abusers, and mentally unstable people to get their
hands on guns that hurt innocent people. Congress has done nothing--
nothing--in recent years to close those gaps and make America safer.
Congress hasn't even closed the gun show loophole that the 1999
Columbine, CO, killers used to buy their weapons, and we did nothing in
response to the murder of 20 first graders and 6 educators at Sandy
Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.
In fact, the only vote taken by the Senate on gun laws in this
current
[[Page S959]]
Congress was to weaken gun law safety provisions on the books. That was
a vote that Senate Republicans brought up last year that prevented the
Social Security Administration from alerting the FBI's gun background
check system about people with mental illness.
It is likely that before this year is over, the Republican majority
will call up more bills to weaken gun safety laws. That is the wrong
response to the epidemic of gun violence in America.
I am not going to give up on trying to close the loopholes in our gun
laws. I am going to keep fighting for universal background checks,
tougher straw purchasing laws, and better laws to prevent gun theft. I
am not going to give up because of people like Patrick Korellis, who
was shot in the head 10 years ago at the tragedy at Northern Illinois
University. Luckily, Patrick survived, and since that day, he has been
a leader in Illinois, fighting for commonsense gun reform. I have come
to know and admire him for his efforts.
No one should have to go through what Patrick went through and so
many others went through on that day in DeKalb, IL, 10 years ago. We
owe it to Patrick, to the other NIU victims and families and community
members, and to the hundreds of thousands more across America who have
been killed and wounded by guns this past decade to keep trying to
reduce the toll of gun violence.
Maybe we can't stop every shooting, but if we do our best to keep
guns out of dangerous hands, we will save lives. I intend to keep doing
my best to achieve that goal.
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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1958, as Modified
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I modify my amendment No. 1958 with the
text at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be stricken, insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Immigration Security and
Opportunity Act''.
SEC. 2. CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS FOR
CERTAIN LONG-TERM RESIDENTS WHO ENTERED THE
UNITED STATES AS CHILDREN.
(a) In General.--Chapter 4 of title II of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 244A. CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL FOR CERTAIN LONG-TERM
RESIDENTS WHO ENTERED THE UNITED STATES AS
CHILDREN.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Applicable federal tax liability.--The term
`applicable Federal tax liability' means liability for
Federal taxes imposed under the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, including any penalties and interest on Federal taxes
imposed under that Code.
``(2) Armed forces.--The term `Armed Forces' has the
meaning given the term `armed forces' in section 101 of title
10, United States Code.
``(3) DACA.--The term `DACA' means the deferred action for
childhood arrivals policy described in the memorandum issued
by the Secretary dated June 15, 2012 (rescinded on September
5, 2017).
``(4) DACA recipient.--The term `DACA recipient' means an
alien who was granted and remained in deferred action status
under DACA.
``(5) Disability.--The term `disability' has the meaning
given the term in section 3(1) of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102(1)).
``(6) Early childhood education program.--The term `early
childhood education program' has the meaning given the term
in section 103 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1003).
``(7) Elementary school.--The term `elementary school' has
the meaning given the term in section 8101 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
``(8) Felony.--
``(A) In general.--The term `felony' means a Federal,
State, or local criminal offense punishable by imprisonment
for a term that exceeds 1 year.
``(B) Exclusion.--The term `felony' does not include a
State or local criminal offense for which an essential
element is the immigration status of an alien.
``(9) High school.--The term `high school' has the meaning
given the term in section 8101 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
``(10) Institution of higher education.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the term `institution of higher education' has the meaning
given the term in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002).
``(B) Exclusion.--The term `institution of higher
education' does not include an institution of higher
education outside the United States.
``(11) Misdemeanor.--
``(A) In general.--The term `misdemeanor' means a Federal,
State, or local criminal offense for which--
``(i) the maximum term of imprisonment is--
``(I) greater than 5 days; and
``(II) not greater than 1 year; and
``(ii) the individual was sentenced to time in custody of
90 days or less.
``(B) Exclusion.--The term `misdemeanor' does not include a
State or local offense for which an essential element is--
``(i) the immigration status of the alien;
``(ii) a significant misdemeanor; or
``(iii) a minor traffic offense.
``(12) Permanent resident status on a conditional basis.--
The term `permanent resident status on a conditional basis'
means status as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent
residence on a conditional basis under this section.
``(13) Poverty line.--The term `poverty line' has the
meaning given the term in section 673 of the Community
Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902).
``(14) Secondary school.--The term `secondary school' has
the meaning given the term in section 8101 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
``(15) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Homeland Security.
``(16) Significant misdemeanor.--
``(A) In general.--The term `significant misdemeanor' means
a Federal, State, or local criminal offense--
``(i) for which the maximum term of imprisonment is--
``(I) more than 5 days; and
``(II) not more than 1 year; and
``(ii)(I) that, regardless of the sentence imposed, is--
``(aa) a crime of domestic violence (as defined in section
237(a)(2)(E)(i)); or
``(bb) an offense of--
``(AA) sexual abuse or exploitation;
``(BB) burglary;
``(CC) unlawful possession or use of a firearm;
``(DD) drug distribution or trafficking; or
``(EE) driving under the influence, if the applicable State
law requires, as elements of the offense, the operation of a
motor vehicle and a finding of impairment or a blood alcohol
content equal to or greater than .08; or
``(II) that resulted in a sentence of time in custody of
more than 90 days.
``(B) Exclusion.--The term `significant misdemeanor' does
not include a State or local offense for which an essential
element is the immigration status of an alien.
``(17) Uniformed services.--The term `Uniformed Services'
has the meaning given the term `uniformed services' in
section 101(a) of title 10, United States Code.
``(b) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary shall cancel the removal of, and adjust to
the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent
residence on a conditional basis, an alien who is
inadmissible to, or deportable from, the United States if--
``(1) the alien is a DACA recipient; or
``(2)(A) the alien has been continuously physically present
in the United States since June 15, 2012;
``(B) the alien was younger than 18 years of age on the
date on which the alien initially entered the United States;
``(C) subject to subsections (c) and (d), the alien--
``(i) is not inadmissible under paragraph (2), (3), (6)(E),
(6)(G), (8), (10)(A), (10)(C), or (10)(D) of section 212(a);
``(ii) has not ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise
participated in the persecution of any person on account of
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion; and
``(iii) has not been convicted of--
``(I) a felony;
``(II) a significant misdemeanor; or
``(III) 3 or more misdemeanors--
``(aa) not occurring on the same date; and
``(bb) not arising out of the same act, omission, or scheme
of misconduct;
``(D) the alien--
``(i) has been admitted to an institution of higher
education;
``(ii)(I) has earned a high school diploma or a
commensurate alternative award from a public or private high
school; or
``(II) has obtained--
``(aa) a general education development certificate
recognized under State law; or
``(bb) a high school equivalency diploma in the United
States;
``(iii) is enrolled in--
``(I) secondary school; or
``(II) an education program assisting student in--
``(aa) obtaining--
``(AA) a regular high school diploma; or
``(BB) the recognized equivalent of a regular high school
diploma; or
``(bb) passing--
``(AA) a general educational development exam;
[[Page S960]]
``(BB) a high school equivalence diploma examination; or
``(CC) any other similar State-authorized exam; or
``(iv)(I) has served, is serving, or has enlisted in the
Armed Forces; or
``(II) in the case of an alien who has been discharged from
the Armed Forces, has received an honorable discharge;
``(E)(i) the alien has paid any applicable Federal tax
liability incurred by the alien during the entire period for
which the alien was authorized to work in the United States;
or
``(ii) the alien has entered into an agreement to pay,
through a payment installment plan approved by the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, any applicable Federal tax
liability incurred by the alien during the entire period for
which the alien was authorized to work in the United States;
and
``(F) the alien was under the age of 38 years on June 15,
2012.
``(c) Waiver.--
``(1) In general.--With respect to any benefit under this
section, the Secretary may, on a case-by-case basis, waive a
ground of inadmissibility under paragraph (2), (6)(E),
(6)(G), or (10)(D) of section 212(a)--
``(A) for humanitarian purposes; or
``(B) if the waiver is otherwise in the public interest.
``(2) Quarterly report.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this section, and quarterly thereafter,
the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that
identifies, for the preceding quarter--
``(A) the number of waivers requested by aliens under
paragraph (1);
``(B) the number of waiver requests granted by the
Secretary under that paragraph; and
``(C) the number of waiver requests denied by the Secretary
under that paragraph.
``(d) Treatment of Expunged Convictions.--
``(1) In general.--An expunged conviction shall not
automatically be treated as a conviction referred to in
subsection (b)(2)(C)(iii), (o)(3)(A)(iii), or
(p)(1)(A)(i)(III).
``(2) Case-by-case evaluation.--The Secretary shall
evaluate an expunged conviction on a case-by-case basis
according to the nature and severity of the offense
underlying the expunged conviction, based on the record of
conviction, to determine whether, under the particular
circumstances, the alien is eligible for cancellation of
removal, adjustment to permanent resident status on a
conditional basis, or other adjustment of status.
``(e) DACA Recipients.--With respect to a DACA recipient,
the Secretary shall cancel the removal of the DACA recipient
and adjust the status of the DACA recipient to the status of
an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence on a
conditional basis unless, since the date on which the DACA
recipient was granted deferred action status under DACA, the
DACA recipient has engaged in conduct that would render an
alien ineligible for deferred action status under DACA.
``(f) Application Fee.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may require an alien
applying for permanent resident status on a conditional basis
to pay a reasonable fee that is commensurate with the cost of
processing the application.
``(2) Exemption.--An applicant may be exempted from paying
the fee required under paragraph (1) only if the alien--
``(A)(i) is younger than 18 years of age;
``(ii) received total income, during the 1-year period
immediately preceding the date on which the alien files an
application under this section, that is less than 150 percent
of the poverty line; and
``(iii) is in foster care or otherwise lacking any parental
or other familial support;
``(B) is younger than 18 years of age and is homeless;
``(C)(i) cannot care for himself or herself because of a
serious, chronic disability; and
``(ii) received total income, during the 1-year period
immediately preceding the date on which the alien files an
application under this section, that is less than 150 percent
of the poverty line; or
``(D)(i) during the 1-year period immediately preceding the
date on which the alien files an application under this
section, accumulated $10,000 or more in debt as a result of
unreimbursed medical expenses incurred by the alien or an
immediate family member of the alien; and
``(ii) received total income, during the 1-year period
immediately preceding the date on which the alien files an
application under this section, that is less than 150 percent
of the poverty line.
``(g) Submission of Biometric and Biographic Data.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may not grant an alien
permanent resident status on a conditional basis under this
section unless the alien submits biometric and biographic
data, in accordance with procedures established by the
Secretary.
``(2) Alternative procedure.--The Secretary shall provide
an alternative procedure for any alien who is unable to
provide the biometric or biographic data referred to in
paragraph (1) due to of a physical impairment.
``(h) Background Checks.--
``(1) Requirement for background checks.--The Secretary
shall use biometric, biographic, and other data that the
Secretary determines appropriate--
``(A) to conduct security and law enforcement background
checks of an alien seeking permanent resident status on a
conditional basis; and
``(B) to determine whether there is any criminal, national
security, or other factor that would render the alien
ineligible for permanent resident status on a conditional
basis.
``(2) Completion of background checks.--The security and
law enforcement background checks of an alien required under
paragraph (1) shall be completed, to the satisfaction of the
Secretary, before the date on which the Secretary grants the
alien permanent resident status on a conditional basis.
``(3) Criminal record requests.--With respect to an alien
seeking permanent resident status on a conditional basis, the
Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, shall
seek to obtain from INTERPOL, EUROPOL, or any other
international or national law enforcement agency of the
country of nationality, country of citizenship, or country of
last habitual residence of the alien information about any
criminal activity--
``(A) in which the alien engaged in the country of
nationality, country of citizenship, or country of last
habitual residence of the alien; or
``(B) for which the alien was convicted in the country of
nationality, country of citizenship, or country of last
habitual residence of the alien.
``(i) Medical Examination.--
``(1) Requirement.--An alien applying for permanent
resident status on a conditional basis shall undergo a
medical examination.
``(2) Policies and procedures.--The Secretary, with the
concurrence of the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
shall prescribe policies and procedures for the nature and
timing of the examination required under paragraph (1).
``(j) Military Selective Service.--An alien applying for
permanent resident status on a conditional basis under this
section shall establish that the alien has registered under
the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.),
if the alien is subject to registration under that Act.
``(k) Determination of Continuous Presence.--
``(1) Termination of continuous period.--Any period of
continuous physical presence in the United States of an alien
who applies for permanent resident status on a conditional
basis under this section shall not terminate on the date on
which the alien is served a notice to appear under section
239(a).
``(2) Treatment of certain breaks in presence.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B)
and (C), an alien shall be considered to have failed to
maintain continuous physical presence in the United States if
the alien has departed from the United States for any period
greater than 90 days or for any periods, in the aggregate,
greater than 180 days.
``(B) Extensions for extenuating circumstances.--The
Secretary may extend the time periods described in
subparagraph (A) for an alien who demonstrates that the
failure to timely return to the United States was due to
extenuating circumstances beyond the control of the alien,
including the serious illness of the alien, or death or
serious illness of a parent, grandparent, sibling, or child
of the alien.
``(C) Travel authorized by the secretary.--Any period of
travel outside of the United States by an alien that was
authorized by the Secretary may not be counted toward any
period of departure from the United States under subparagraph
(A).
``(l) Limitation on Removal of Certain Aliens.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary or the Attorney General
may not remove an alien who appears prima facie eligible for
relief under this section.
``(2) Aliens subject to removal.--With respect to an alien
who is in removal proceedings, the subject of a final removal
order, or the subject of a voluntary departure order, the
Attorney General shall provide the alien with a reasonable
opportunity to apply for relief under this section.
``(m) Certain Aliens Enrolled in Elementary or Secondary
School.--
``(1) Stay of removal.--The Attorney General shall stay the
removal proceedings of an alien who--
``(A) meets all the requirements described in subparagraphs
(A) through (C) of subsection (b)(2), subject to subsections
(c) and (d);
``(B) is at least 5 years of age; and
``(C) is enrolled in an elementary school, a secondary
school, or an early childhood education program.
``(2) Commencement of removal proceedings.--The Secretary
may not commence removal proceedings for an alien described
in paragraph (1).
``(3) Employment.--An alien whose removal is stayed
pursuant to paragraph (1) or who may not be placed in removal
proceedings pursuant to paragraph (2) shall, on application
to the Secretary, be granted an employment authorization
document.
``(4) Lift of stay.--The Secretary or Attorney General may
not lift the stay granted to an alien under paragraph (1)
unless the alien ceases to meet the requirements under that
paragraph.
``(n) Exemption From Numerical Limitations.--Nothing in
this section or in any other law applies a numerical
limitation on the number of aliens who may be granted
permanent resident status on a conditional basis.
[[Page S961]]
``(o) Terms of Permanent Resident Status on a Conditional
Basis.--
``(1) Period of status.--
``(A) In general.--Permanent resident status on a
conditional basis is--
``(i) subject to subparagraph (B), valid for a period of 7
years; and
``(ii) subject to termination under paragraph (3).
``(B) Extension authorized.--The Secretary may extend the
period described in subparagraph (A)(i).
``(2) Notice of requirements.--At the time an alien obtains
permanent resident status on a conditional basis, the
Secretary shall provide notice to the alien regarding the
provisions of this section and the requirements to have the
conditional basis of that status removed.
``(3) Termination of status.--The Secretary may terminate
the permanent resident status on a conditional basis of an
alien only if the Secretary--
``(A) subject to subsections (c) and (d), determines that
the alien--
``(i) is inadmissible under paragraph (2), (3), (6)(E),
(6)(G), (8), (10)(A), (10)(C), or (10)(D) of section 212(a);
``(ii) has ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise
participated in the persecution of any person on account of
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion; or
``(iii) has been convicted of--
``(I) a felony;
``(II) a significant misdemeanor; or
``(III) 3 or more misdemeanors--
``(aa) not occurring on the same date; and
``(bb) not arising out of the same act, omission, or scheme
of misconduct; and
``(B) prior to the termination, provides the alien--
``(i) notice of the proposed termination; and
``(ii) the opportunity for a hearing to provide evidence
that the alien meets the requirements or otherwise contest
the termination.
``(4) Return to previous immigration status.--The
immigration status of an alien whose permanent resident
status on a conditional basis expires under paragraph
(1)(A)(i) or is terminated under paragraph (3) or whose
application for permanent resident status on a conditional
basis is denied shall return to the immigration status of the
alien on the day before the date on which the alien received
permanent resident status on a conditional basis or applied
for permanent resident status on a conditional basis, as
appropriate.
``(p) Removal of Conditional Basis of Permanent Resident
Status.--
``(1) Eligibility for removal of conditional basis.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the
Secretary shall remove the conditional basis of the permanent
resident status of an alien granted under this section and
grant the alien status as an alien lawfully admitted for
permanent residence if the alien--
``(i) subject to subsections (c) and (d)--
``(I) is not inadmissible under paragraph (2), (3), (6)(E),
(6)(G), (8), (10)(A), (10)(C), or (10)(D) of section 212(a);
``(II) has not ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise
participated in the persecution of any person on account of
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion; and
``(III) has not been convicted of--
``(aa) a felony;
``(bb) a significant misdemeanor; or
``(cc) 3 or more misdemeanors--
``(AA) not occurring on the same date; and
``(BB) not arising out of the same act, omission, or scheme
of misconduct;
``(ii) has not abandoned the residence of the alien in the
United States;
``(iii)(I) has acquired a degree from an institution of
higher education or has completed at least 2 years, in good
standing, in a program for a bachelor's degree or higher
degree in the United States;
``(II)(aa) has served in the Uniformed Services for at
least 2 years; or
``(bb) in the case of an alien who has been discharged from
the Uniformed Services, has received an honorable discharge;
or
``(III) has been employed for periods totaling at least 3
years and at least 75 percent of the time that the alien has
had a valid employment authorization, except that any period
during which the alien is not employed while having a valid
employment authorization and is enrolled in an institution of
higher education, a secondary school, or an education program
described in subsection (b)(2)(D)(iii), shall not count
toward the time requirements under this clause;
``(iv)(I) has paid any applicable Federal tax liability
incurred by the alien during the entire period for which the
alien has been in permanent resident status on a conditional
basis; or
``(II) has entered into an agreement to pay the applicable
Federal tax liability through a payment installment plan
approved by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue; and
``(v) has demonstrated good moral character during the
entire period for which the alien has been in permanent
resident status on a conditional basis.
``(B) Citizenship requirement.--The conditional basis of
the permanent resident status granted to an alien under this
section may not be removed unless the alien demonstrates that
the alien satisfies the requirements of section 312(a).
``(C) Application fee.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary may require an alien
applying for lawful permanent resident status under this
subsection to pay a reasonable fee that is commensurate with
the cost of processing the application.
``(ii) Exemption.--An applicant may be exempted from paying
the fee required under clause (i) only if the alien--
``(I)(aa) is younger than 18 years of age;
``(bb) received total income, during the 1-year period
immediately preceding the date on which the alien files an
application under this section, that is less than 150 percent
of the poverty line; and
``(cc) is in foster care or otherwise lacking any parental
or other familial support;
``(II) is younger than 18 years of age and is homeless;
``(III)(aa) cannot care for himself or herself because of a
serious, chronic disability; and
``(bb) received total income, during the 1-year period
immediately preceding the date on which the alien files an
application under this section, that is less than 150 percent
of the poverty line; or
``(IV)(aa) during the 1-year period immediately preceding
the date on which the alien files an application under this
section, the alien accumulated $10,000 or more in debt as a
result of unreimbursed medical expenses incurred by the alien
or an immediate family member of the alien; and
``(bb) received total income, during the 1-year period
immediately preceding the date on which the alien files an
application under this section, that is less than 150 percent
of the poverty line.
``(D) Submission of biometric and biographic data.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary may not remove the
conditional basis of the permanent resident status of an
alien unless the alien submits biometric and biographic data,
in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary.
``(ii) Alternative procedure.--The Secretary shall provide
an alternative procedure for any applicant who is unable to
provide the biometric or biographic data referred to in
clause (i) due to physical impairment.
``(E) Background checks.--
``(i) Requirement for background checks.--The Secretary
shall use biometric, biographic, and other data that the
Secretary determines to be appropriate--
``(I) to conduct security and law enforcement background
checks of an alien applying for removal of the conditional
basis of the permanent resident status of the alien; and
``(II) to determine whether there is any criminal, national
security, or other factor that would render the alien
ineligible for removal of the conditional basis of the
permanent resident status of the alien.
``(ii) Completion of background checks.--The security and
law enforcement background checks of an alien required under
clause (i) shall be completed, to the satisfaction of the
Secretary, before the date on which the Secretary removes the
conditional basis of the permanent resident status of the
alien.
``(2) Naturalization.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of title III, an alien
granted permanent resident status on a conditional basis
shall be considered to have been admitted to the United
States, and to be present in the United States, as an alien
lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
``(B) Limitations on application for naturalization.--
``(i) In general.--An alien shall not be naturalized--
``(I) on any date on which the alien is in permanent
resident status on a conditional basis; or
``(II) subject to clause (iii), before the date that is 12
years after the date on which the alien was granted permanent
resident status on a conditional basis.
``(ii) Advanced filing date.--Subject to clause (iii), with
respect to an alien granted permanent resident status on a
conditional basis, the alien may file an application for
naturalization not more than 90 days before the date that is
12 years after the date on which the alien was granted
permanent resident status on a conditional basis.
``(iii) Reduction in period.--
``(I) In general.--Subject to subclause (II), the 12-year
period referred to in clause (i)(II) and clause (ii) may be
reduced by the number of days on which the alien was a DACA
recipient, if applicable.
``(II) Limitation.--Notwithstanding subclause (I), the
reduction in the 12-year period referred to in clause (i)(II)
and clause (ii) shall be not more than 2 years.
``(3) Limitation on certain parents.--An alien shall not be
eligible to adjust status to that of an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence based on a petition filed by
a child or a son or daughter of the alien if--
``(A) the child or son or daughter was granted permanent
resident status on a conditional basis; and
``(B) the alien knowingly assisted the child or son or
daughter to enter the United States unlawfully.
``(q) Documentation Requirements.--
``(1) Documents establishing identity.--An alien's
application for permanent resident status on a conditional
basis may include, as proof of identity--
``(A) a passport or national identity document from the
alien's country of origin that includes the alien's name and
the alien's photograph or fingerprint;
``(B) the alien's birth certificate and an identity card
that includes the alien's name and photograph;
[[Page S962]]
``(C) a school identification card that includes the
alien's name and photograph, and school records showing the
alien's name and that the alien is or was enrolled at the
school;
``(D) a Uniformed Services identification card issued by
the Department of Defense;
``(E) any immigration or other document issued by the
United States Government bearing the alien's name and
photograph; or
``(F) a State-issued identification card bearing the
alien's name and photograph.
``(2) Documents establishing continuous physical presence
in the united states.--To establish that an alien has been
continuously physically present in the United States, as
required under subsection (b)(2)(A), or to establish that an
alien has not abandoned residence in the United States, as
required under subsection (p)(1)(A)(ii), the alien may submit
documents to the Secretary, including--
``(A) employment records that include the employer's name
and contact information;
``(B) records from any educational institution the alien
has attended in the United States;
``(C) records of service from the Uniformed Services;
``(D) official records from a religious entity confirming
the alien's participation in a religious ceremony;
``(E) passport entries;
``(F) a birth certificate for a child of the alien who was
born in the United States;
``(G) automobile license receipts or registration;
``(H) deeds, mortgages, or rental agreement contracts;
``(I) tax receipts;
``(J) insurance policies;
``(K) remittance records;
``(L) rent receipts or utility bills bearing the alien's
name or the name of an immediate family member of the alien,
and the alien's address;
``(M) copies of money order receipts for money sent in or
out of the United States;
``(N) dated bank transactions; or
``(O) 2 or more sworn affidavits from individuals who are
not related to the alien who have direct knowledge of the
alien's continuous physical presence in the United States,
that contain--
``(i) the name, address, and telephone number of the
affiant; and
``(ii) the nature and duration of the relationship between
the affiant and the alien.
``(3) Documents establishing initial entry into the united
states.--To establish under subsection (b)(2)(B) that an
alien was younger than 18 years of age on the date on which
the alien initially entered the United States, an alien may
submit documents to the Secretary, including--
``(A) an admission stamp on the alien's passport;
``(B) records from any educational institution the alien
has attended in the United States;
``(C) any document from the Department of Justice or the
Department of Homeland Security stating the alien's date of
entry into the United States;
``(D) hospital or medical records showing medical treatment
or hospitalization, the name of the medical facility or
physician, and the date of the treatment or hospitalization;
``(E) rent receipts or utility bills bearing the alien's
name or the name of an immediate family member of the alien,
and the alien's address;
``(F) employment records that include the employer's name
and contact information;
``(G) official records from a religious entity confirming
the alien's participation in a religious ceremony;
``(H) a birth certificate for a child of the alien who was
born in the United States;
``(I) automobile license receipts or registration;
``(J) deeds, mortgages, or rental agreement contracts;
``(K) tax receipts;
``(L) travel records;
``(M) copies of money order receipts sent in or out of the
country;
``(N) dated bank transactions;
``(O) remittance records; or
``(P) insurance policies.
``(4) Documents establishing admission to an institution of
higher education.--To establish that an alien has been
admitted to an institution of higher education, the alien
shall submit to the Secretary a document from the institution
of higher education certifying that the alien--
``(A) has been admitted to the institution; or
``(B) is currently enrolled in the institution as a
student.
``(5) Documents establishing receipt of a degree from an
institution of higher education.--To establish that an alien
has acquired a degree from an institution of higher education
in the United States, the alien shall submit to the Secretary
a diploma or other document from the institution stating that
the alien has received such a degree.
``(6) Documents establishing receipt of high school
diploma, general educational development certificate, or a
recognized equivalent.--To establish that an alien has earned
a high school diploma or a commensurate alternative award
from a public or private high school, or has obtained a
general educational development certificate recognized under
State law or a high school equivalency diploma in the United
States, the alien shall submit to the Secretary--
``(A) a high school diploma, certificate of completion, or
other alternate award;
``(B) a high school equivalency diploma or certificate
recognized under State law; or
``(C) evidence that the alien passed a State-authorized
exam, including the general educational development exam, in
the United States.
``(7) Documents establishing enrollment in an educational
program.--To establish that an alien is enrolled in any
school or education program described in subsection
(b)(2)(D)(iii), (m)(1)(C), or (p)(1)(A)(iii)(III), the alien
shall submit school records from the United States school
that the alien is currently attending that include--
``(A) the name of the school; and
``(B) the alien's name, periods of attendance, and current
grade or educational level.
``(8) Documents establishing exemption from application
fees.--To establish that an alien is exempt from an
application fee under subsection (f)(2) or (p)(1)(C)(ii), the
alien shall submit to the Secretary the following relevant
documents:
``(A) Documents to establish age.--To establish that an
alien meets an age requirement, the alien shall provide proof
of identity, as described in paragraph (1), that establishes
that the alien is younger than 18 years of age.
``(B) Documents to establish income.--To establish the
alien's income, the alien shall provide--
``(i) employment records that have been maintained by the
Social Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service,
or any other Federal, State, or local government agency;
``(ii) bank records; or
``(iii) at least 2 sworn affidavits from individuals who
are not related to the alien and who have direct knowledge of
the alien's work and income that contain--
``(I) the name, address, and telephone number of the
affiant; and
``(II) the nature and duration of the relationship between
the affiant and the alien.
``(C) Documents to establish foster care, lack of familial
support, homelessness, or serious, chronic disability.--To
establish that the alien was in foster care, lacks parental
or familial support, is homeless, or has a serious, chronic
disability, the alien shall provide at least 2 sworn
affidavits from individuals who are not related to the alien
and who have direct knowledge of the circumstances that
contain--
``(i) a statement that the alien is in foster care,
otherwise lacks any parental or other familiar support, is
homeless, or has a serious, chronic disability, as
appropriate;
``(ii) the name, address, and telephone number of the
affiant; and
``(iii) the nature and duration of the relationship between
the affiant and the alien.
``(D) Documents to establish unpaid medical expense.--To
establish that the alien has debt as a result of unreimbursed
medical expenses, the alien shall provide receipts or other
documentation from a medical provider that--
``(i) bear the provider's name and address;
``(ii) bear the name of the individual receiving treatment;
and
``(iii) document that the alien has accumulated $10,000 or
more in debt in the past 12 months as a result of
unreimbursed medical expenses incurred by the alien or an
immediate family member of the alien.
``(9) Documents establishing service in the uniformed
services.--To establish that an alien has served in the
Uniformed Services for at least 2 years and, if discharged,
received an honorable discharge, the alien shall submit to
the Secretary--
``(A) a Department of Defense form DD-214;
``(B) a National Guard Report of Separation and Record of
Service form 22;
``(C) personnel records for such service from the
appropriate Uniformed Service; or
``(D) health records from the appropriate Uniformed
Service.
``(10) Documents establishing employment.--
``(A) In general.--An alien may satisfy the employment
requirement under section (p)(1)(A)(iii)(III) by submitting
records that--
``(i) establish compliance with such employment
requirement; and
``(ii) have been maintained by the Social Security
Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, or any other
Federal, State, or local government agency.
``(B) Other documents.--An alien who is unable to submit
the records described in subparagraph (A) may satisfy the
employment requirement by submitting at least 2 types of
reliable documents that provide evidence of employment,
including--
``(i) bank records;
``(ii) business records;
``(iii) employer records;
``(iv) records of a labor union, day labor center, or
organization that assists workers in employment;
``(v) sworn affidavits from individuals who are not related
to the alien and who have direct knowledge of the alien's
work, that contain--
``(I) the name, address, and telephone number of the
affiant; and
``(II) the nature and duration of the relationship between
the affiant and the alien; and
``(vi) remittance records.
``(11) Authority to prohibit use of certain documents.--If
the Secretary determines, after publication in the Federal
Register and an opportunity for public comment, that any
document or class of documents
[[Page S963]]
does not reliably establish identity or that permanent
resident status on a conditional basis is being obtained
fraudulently to an unacceptable degree, the Secretary may
prohibit or restrict the use of such document or class of
documents.
``(r) Rulemaking.--
``(1) Initial publication.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall publish in the
Federal Register regulations implementing this section.
``(B) Affirmative application.--The regulations published
under subparagraph (A) shall allow any eligible individual to
immediately apply affirmatively for the relief available
under subsection (b) without being placed in removal
proceedings.
``(2) Interim regulations.--Notwithstanding section 553 of
title 5, United States Code, the regulations published
pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) shall be effective, on an
interim basis, immediately on publication in the Federal
Register, but may be subject to change and revision after
public notice and opportunity for a period of public comment.
``(3) Final regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the
date on which interim regulations are published under this
subsection, the Secretary shall publish final regulations
implementing this section.
``(4) Paperwork reduction act.--The requirements under
chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, (commonly known
as the `Paperwork Reduction Act') shall not apply to any
action to implement this subsection.
``(s) Confidentiality of Information.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may not disclose or use
for the purpose of immigration enforcement any information
provided in--
``(A) an application filed under this section; or
``(B) a request for deferred action status under DACA.
``(2) Referrals prohibited.--The Secretary may not refer to
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection, or any designee of U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement or U.S. Customs and Border Protection any
individual who--
``(A) has been granted permanent resident status on a
conditional basis; or
``(B) was granted deferred action status under DACA.
``(3) Limited exception.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1)
and (2), information provided in an application for permanent
resident status on a conditional basis or a request for
deferred action status under DACA may be shared with a
Federal security or law enforcement agency--
``(A) for assistance in the consideration of an application
for permanent resident status on a conditional basis;
``(B) to identify or prevent fraudulent claims;
``(C) for national security purposes; or
``(D) for the investigation or prosecution of any felony
not related to immigration status.
``(4) Penalty.--Any person who knowingly uses, publishes,
or permits information to be examined in violation of this
subsection shall be fined not more than $10,000.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 note) is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 244
the following:
``Sec. 244A. Cancellation of removal for certain long-term residents
who entered the United States as children.''.
SEC. 3. REDUCTION OF FAMILY-SPONSORED IMMIGRANT VISAS.
(a) Prohibition Against the Sponsor of Unmarried Children
Older Than 21 Years of Age by Lawful Permanent Residents.--
Section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1153(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and
inserting the following:
``(2) Spouses and children of aliens lawfully admitted for
permanent residence.--
``(A) In general.--Qualified immigrants who are the spouse
or child of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent
residence shall be allocated visas in a number not to exceed
the sum of--
``(i) 114,200;
``(ii) the number (if any) by which such worldwide level
exceeds 226,000; and
``(iii) the number of visas not required for the class
described in paragraph (1).
``(B) Transition period.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary of State shall not
allocate a visa based on a petition filed by an alien
lawfully admitted for permanent residence on behalf of an
unmarried son or daughter under subparagraph (B) (as in
effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act)
after December 31, 2018.
``(ii) Savings clause.--The Secretary of State shall
allocate a visa to a principal or derivative beneficiary of
an approved petition filed by an alien lawfully admitted for
permanent residence on behalf of a spouse or an unmarried son
or daughter under subparagraph (B) (as in effect on the day
before the date of enactment of this Act) before January 1,
2019, in accordance with that subparagraph (as in effect on
the day before the date of enactment of this Act), if the
principal or derivative beneficiary is otherwise eligible for
the visa.
``(C) Retention of priority date.--In the case of an alien
child who is the principal or derivative beneficiary of a
petition filed under subparagraph (A) who turns 21 years old
before the date on which a visa becomes available, the alien
may retain the priority date assigned to the alien under that
subparagraph for a petition filed under this subsection.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--The Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 101(a)(15)(V) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(V)), by
striking ``section 203(a)(2)(A)'' each place such term
appears and inserting ``section 203(a)(2)'';
(2) in section 201(f)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1151(f)(2)), by striking
``section 203(a)(2)(A)'' and inserting ``section 203(a)(2)'';
(3) in section 202--
(A) in subsection (a)(8 U.S.C. 1152(a))--
(i) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(3), (4), and (5)'' and
inserting ``(3) and (4)''
(ii) by striking paragraph (4); and
(iii) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (4); and
(B) in subsection (e), by striking ``, or as limiting the
number of visas that may be issued under section 203(a)(2)(A)
pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A)'';
(4) in section 203(h)--
(A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``subsections (a)(2)(A)
and (d)'' and inserting ``subsection (d)''; and
(B) by striking ``(a)(2)(A)'' each place such term appears
and inserting ``(a)(2)'';
(5) in section 204--
(A) in subsection (a)(1)(B)--
(i) in clause (ii)--
(I) in subclause (I), by striking ``if such a child has not
been classified under clause (iii) of section 203(a)(2)(A)
and''; and
(II) in subclause (II)(cc), by striking ``section
203(a)(2)(A)'' and inserting ``section 203(a)(2)''; and
(ii) in clause (iii), by striking ``section 203(a)(2)(A)''
and inserting ``section 203(a)(2)''; and
(B) in subsection (k)(1)--
(i) by striking ``alien unmarried son or daughter's
classification as a family-sponsored immigrant under section
203(a)(2)(B)'' and inserting ``alien child's classification
as a family-sponsored immigrant under section 203(a)(2)'';
(ii) by striking ``son or daughter'' and inserting
``child''; and
(iii) by striking ``unmarried son or daughter as a family-
sponsored immigrant under section 203(a)(1)'' and inserting
``child as an immediate relative under section 201(b)(2)'';
and
(6) in section 214(q)(1)(B)(i), by striking ``(a)(2)(A)''
each place such term appears and inserting ``(a)(2)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date on which--
(1) the Secretary of Homeland Security has adjudicated each
petition that is filed under section 203(a)(2)(B) (as in
effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act)
before January 1, 2019; and
(2) the Secretary of State has allocated to each eligible
alien a visa based on a petition described in paragraph (1).
SEC. 4. BORDER SECURITY.
(a) Definition of Secretary.--In this section, the term
``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Homeland Security.
(b) Appropriations for Border Security.--The following sum
is appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, for U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, namely $25,000,000,000 for--
(1) the construction of physical barriers;
(2) border security technologies;
(3) tactical infrastructure;
(4) marine vessels;
(5) aircraft;
(6) unmanned aerial systems;
(7) facilities; and
(8) equipment.
(c) Availability for Fiscal Year 2018.--Of the amount
appropriated by subsection (b), amounts shall be available
for fiscal year 2018 as follows:
(1) For impedance and denial, $1,571,000,000.
(2) For domain awareness, $658,000,000.
(3) For access and mobility, $143,000,000.
(4) For the retention, recruitment, and relocation of
officers of Border Patrol Agents, Customs Officers, and Air
and Marine personnel, $148,000,000, including for not fewer
than 615 officers of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
(5) To hire 615 U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officers
for deployment to ports of entry, $75,000,000.
(d) Availability for Fiscal Years 2019 Through 2027.--
(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (f), of the amount
appropriated by subsection (b), the amount available for each
of fiscal years 2019 through 2027 shall be $2,500,000,000.
(2) Limitation.--Amounts appropriated under subsection (b)
for fiscal years 2018 and 2019 shall only be available for
operationally effective designs deployed as of the date of
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Public Law 115-
31), such as currently deployed steel bollard designs, that
prioritize agent safety.
(e) Report on Plan for Improvement of Border Security.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives and the Committees of jurisdiction of the
Senate and the House of Representatives a risk-based plan
[[Page S964]]
for improving security along the borders of the United
States, including the use of personnel, fencing, other forms
of tactical infrastructure, and technology.
(2) Elements.--The report required by this subsection shall
include the following:
(A) A statement of goals, objectives, activities, and
milestones for the plan.
(B) A detailed implementation schedule for the plan with
estimates for the planned obligation of funds for fiscal
years 2019 through 2027 that are linked to the milestone-
based delivery of specific--
(i) capabilities and services;
(ii) mission benefits and outcomes;
(iii) program management capabilities; and
(iv) lifecycle cost estimates.
(C) A description of the manner in which specific projects
under the plan will enhance border security goals and
objectives and address the highest priority border security
needs.
(D) An identification of the planned locations, quantities,
and types of resources, such as fencing, other physical
barriers, or other tactical infrastructure and technology,
under the plan.
(E) A description of the methodology and analyses used to
select specific resources for deployment to particular
locations under the plan that includes--
(i) analyses of alternatives, including comparative costs
and benefits;
(ii) an assessment of effects on communities and property
owners near areas of infrastructure deployment; and
(iii) a description of other factors critical to the
decision-making process.
(F) An identification of staffing requirements under the
plan, including full-time equivalents, contractors, and
detailed personnel, by activity.
(G) A description of performance metrics for the plan for
assessing and reporting on the contributions of border
security capabilities realized from current and future
investments.
(H) A description of the status of the actions of the
Department of Homeland Security to address open
recommendations by the Office of Inspector General and the
Government Accountability Office relating to border security,
including plans, schedules, and associated milestones for
fully addressing such recommendations.
(I) A comprehensive plan to consult State and local elected
officials on the eminent domain and construction process
relating to physical barriers;
(J) A comprehensive analysis, following consultation with
the Secretary of Interior and the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, of the environmental impacts
of the construction and placement of physical barriers
planned along the Southwest border, including barriers in the
Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge;
(K) Certifications by the Under Secretary of Homeland
Security for Management, including all documents, memoranda,
and a description of the investment review and information
technology management oversight and processes supporting such
certifications, that--
(i) the plan has been reviewed and approved in accordance
with an acquisition review management process that complies
with capital planning and investment control and review
requirements established by the Office of Management and
Budget, including as provided in Circular A-11, part 7; and
(ii) all activities under the plan comply with Federal
acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and practices.
(f) Limitation on Availability for Fiscal Years 2019
Through 2027.--
(1) Limitation.--The amount specified in subsection (d) for
each of fiscal years 2019 through 2027 shall not be available
for such fiscal year unless--
(A) the Secretary submits to Congress, not later than 60
days before the beginning of such fiscal year, a report
setting forth--
(i) a description of every planned expenditure in such
fiscal year under the plan required by subsection (e) in an
amount in excess of $50,000,000;
(ii) a description of the total number of miles of security
fencing or barriers that will be constructed in such fiscal
year under the plan;
(iii) a statement of the number of new U.S. Customs and
Border Protection Officers to be hired in such fiscal year
under the plan and the intended location of deployment;
(iv) a description of the new roads to be installed in such
fiscal year under the plan;
(v) a description of the land to be acquired in such fiscal
year under the plan, including--
(I) all necessary land acquisitions;
(II) the total number of necessary condemnation actions;
and
(III) the precise number of landowners that will be
affected by the construction of such physical barriers;
(vi) a description of the amount and types of technology to
be acquired for each of the northern border and the southern
border in such fiscal year under the plan; and
(vii) a statement of the percentage of each of the northern
border and the southern border for which the Department of
Homeland Security will obtain full situational awareness in
such fiscal year under the plan; and
(B) not later than October 1 of such fiscal year, the
Secretary certifies to Congress that the Department of
Homeland achieved not less than 75 percent of the goals of
the Department under the plan (other than for land
acquisition) for the prior fiscal year.
(2) Availability without certification.--If the Secretary
is unable to make the certification described in paragraph
(1)(B) with respect to a fiscal year as of October 1 of the
succeeding fiscal year, the amount specified in subsection
(d) for such succeeding fiscal year shall not be available
except pursuant to an Act of Congress specifically making
such amount available for such succeeding fiscal year that is
enacted into law in such succeeding fiscal year.
(g) Availability.--If amounts described in subsection (d)
are available for a fiscal year, such amounts shall remain
available for 5 years.
(h) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, none of the amounts appropriated under this section may
be reprogrammed for or transferred to any other component of
the Department of Homeland Security.
(i) Budget Request.--An expenditure plan for amounts made
available pursuant to subsection (b)--
(1) shall be included in each budget for a fiscal year
submitted by the President under section 1105 of title 31,
United States Code; and
(2) shall describe planned obligations by program, project,
and activity in the receiving account at the same level of
detail provided for in the request for other appropriations
in that account.
(j) Budgetary Effects.--
(1) In general.--The budgetary effects of this section
shall not be entered on either PAYGO scorecard maintained
pursuant to section 4(d) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act
of 2010.
(2) Senate paygo scorecards.--The budgetary effects of this
section shall not be entered on any PAYGO scorecard
maintained for purposes of section 4106 of H.Con.Res. 71
(115th Congress).
(k) Point of Order.--
(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``covered
appropriation amount'' means the amount appropriated for
border security for a fiscal year under subsection (b).
(2) Point of order in the senate.--
(A) Point of order.--
(i) In general.--In the Senate, it shall not be in order to
consider a provision in a bill, joint resolution, motion,
amendment, amendment between the Houses, or conference report
that would reduce the covered appropriation amount for a
fiscal year.
(ii) Point of order sustained.--If a point of order is made
by a Senator against a provision described in clause (i), and
the point of order is sustained by the Chair, that provision
shall be stricken from the measure and may not be offered as
an amendment from the floor.
(B) Form of the point of order.--A point of order under
subparagraph (A) may be raised by a Senator as provided in
section 313(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 644(e)).
(C) Conference reports.--When the Senate is considering a
conference report on, or an amendment between the Houses in
relation to, a bill or joint resolution, upon a point of
order being made by any Senator pursuant to subparagraph (A),
and such point of order being sustained, such material
contained in such conference report or House amendment shall
be stricken, and the Senate shall proceed to consider the
question of whether the Senate shall recede from its
amendment and concur with a further amendment, or concur in
the House amendment with a further amendment, as the case may
be, which further amendment shall consist of only that
portion of the conference report or House amendment, as the
case may be, not so stricken. Any such motion in the Senate
shall be debatable. In any case in which such point of order
is sustained against a conference report (or Senate amendment
derived from such conference report by operation of this
subsection), no further amendment shall be in order.
(D) Supermajority waiver and appeal.--In the Senate, this
paragraph may be waived or suspended only by an affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
An affirmative vote of three-fifths of Members of the Senate,
duly chosen and sworn shall be required to sustain an appeal
of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under
this paragraph.
(l) Enforcement Priorities.--
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Felony.--
(i) In general.--The term ``felony'' means a Federal,
State, or local criminal offense punishable by imprisonment
for a term that exceeds 1 year.
(ii) Exclusion.--The term ``felony'' does not include a
State or local criminal offense for which an essential
element is the immigration status of an alien.
(B) Misdemeanor.--
(i) In general.--The term ``misdemeanor'' means a Federal,
State, or local criminal offense for which--
(I) the maximum term of imprisonment is--
(aa) greater than 5 days; and
(bb) not greater than 1 year; and
(II) the individual was sentenced to time in custody of 90
days or less.
(ii) Exclusion.--The term ``misdemeanor'' does not include
a State or local offense for which an essential element is--
(I) the immigration status of the alien;
(II) a significant misdemeanor; or
(III) a minor traffic offense.
(C) Significant misdemeanor.--
(i) In general.--The term ``significant misdemeanor'' means
a Federal, State, or local criminal offense--
[[Page S965]]
(I) for which the maximum term of imprisonment is--
(aa) more than 5 days; and
(bb) not more than 1 year; and
(II)(aa) that, regardless of the sentence imposed, is--
(AA) a crime of domestic violence (as defined in section
237(a)(2)(E)(i)) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(i)); or
(BB) an offense of--
(CC) sexual abuse or exploitation;
(DD) burglary;
(EE) unlawful possession or use of a firearm;
(FF) drug distribution or trafficking; or
(GG) driving under the influence, if the applicable State
law requires, as elements of the offense, the operation of a
motor vehicle and a finding of impairment or a blood alcohol
content equal to or greater than .08; or
(bb) that resulted in a sentence of time in custody of more
than 90 days.
(ii) Exclusion.--The term ``significant misdemeanor'' does
not include a State or local offense for which an essential
element is the immigration status of an alien.
(2) Priorities.--In carrying out immigration enforcement
activities, the Secretary shall prioritize available
immigration enforcement resources to aliens who--
(A) have been convicted of--
(i) a felony;
(ii) a significant misdemeanor; or
(iii) 3 or more misdemeanor offenses;
(B) pose a threat to national security or public safety; or
(C)(i) are unlawfully present in the United States; and
(ii) arrived in the United States after June 30, 2018.
SEC. 5. OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Not later than September 30, 2021, the Commissioner of U.S.
Customs and Border Protection shall hire, train, and assign
sufficient special agents at the Office of Professional
Responsibility.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Cloture Motion
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for
amendment No. 1955.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on amendment No.
1955 to H.R. 2579, an act to amend the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 to allow the premium tax credit with respect to
unsubsidized COBRA continuation coverage.
Angus S. King, Jr., Christopher A. Coons, Heidi Heitkamp,
Joe Donnelly, Tim Kaine, Mark R. Warner, Sheldon
Whitehouse, Debbie Stabenow, Margaret Wood Hassan,
Jeanne Shaheen, Jack Reed, Tammy Baldwin, Patty Murray,
Edward J. Markey, Amy Klobuchar, Richard J. Durbin,
Brian Schatz, Charles E. Schumer.
Cloture Motion
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for
amendment No. 1948.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Senate amendment
No. 1948 to H.R. 2579, an act to amend the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to allow the premium tax credit with respect to
unsubsidized COBRA continuation coverage.
Mitch McConnell, Thom Tillis, Chuck Grassley, John
Cornyn, David Perdue, John Thune, Cory Gardner, Lindsey
Graham, Bob Corker, James Lankford, John Hoeven, Rob
Portman, Lamar Alexander, Steve Daines, Shelley Moore
Capito, Dan Sullivan.
Cloture Motion
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for
amendment No. 1958, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Senate amendment
No. 1958, as modified, to H.R. 2579, an act to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the premium tax credit
with respect to unsubsidized COBRA continuation coverage.
Mitch McConnell, Thom Tillis, Chuck Grassley, John
Cornyn, David Perdue, John Thune, Cory Gardner, Lindsey
Graham, Bob Corker, James Lankford, Lisa Murkowski,
John Hoeven, Rob Portman, Lamar Alexander, Steve
Daines, Shelley Moore Capito.
CLOTURE MOTION
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture amendment to the desk
for amendment No. 1959.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Senate amendment
No. 1959 to H.R. 2579, an act to amend the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to allow the premium tax credit with respect to
unsubsidized COBRA continuation coverage.
Mitch McConnell, Thom Tillis, Chuck Grassley, John
Cornyn, David Perdue, John Thune, Cory Gardner, Lindsey
Graham, Bob Corker, James Lankford, John Hoeven, Rob
Portman, Lamar Alexander, Steve Daines, Shelley Moore
Capito, Dan Sullivan.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________