[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 30 (Thursday, February 15, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1138-S1148]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              BROADER OPTIONS FOR AMERICANS ACT--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, right now it is estimated that 700,000 
Dreamers face the very real threat that they may be ripped from the 
only life and the only country they have ever known. These are young 
people who have grown up in America. They go to school here. They work 
hard here. Often, they work at multiple jobs. They get terrific grades. 
They give back to their communities. They have done everything right.
  I have met with them at home. My colleague Senator Merkley and I have 
met with many of them at joint meetings. A number of them say point 
blank: We like to serve America. We believe in America.
  That is all they have known. They serve in the military. They want to 
do police work. They want to be first responders.
  In fact, to earn their DACA status, they had to come forward, give 
their information to our government, and then submit to a background 
check. Now they are living under this cloud of

[[Page S1139]]

uncertainty because the President, on his own, stamped an expiration 
date on the DACA Program.
  What I wish to do for a few minutes is to talk about these terrific 
young people--these special young people, the Dreamers--and what they 
contribute to our country.
  I was very pleased recently to have Esli Becerra join me at this 
year's State of the Union speech because in my view he and his younger 
brother Kevin embody the very best about our country. Esli came to 
Oregon when he was 8 months old. He got his first job before he was 10 
in order to support his family. I am going to talk a little bit about 
these two terrific young people because, literally, for years now, each 
of them would take turns working to support the other, so that between 
them they were always saying: We want to do it the American way. We 
want to do it by dint of hard work and thrift and in the spirit we have 
in this country, where if you work hard, there aren't any limits to 
what you can achieve. They are two very, very special young men.
  Esli wanted to get a higher education. So his younger brother put in 
the sweat equity to make it happen. Kevin, who is a U.S. citizen, 
worked more than 80 hours a week after he graduated from high school to 
help pay for Esli to go to Lane Community College in Eugene.
  Let me repeat that. Kevin, a U.S. citizen, who worked in our office, 
as well, worked more than 80 hours a week after he got out of high 
school because he said: I want to help my brother get ahead.
  Esli has now built a real professional career. He is a visual effects 
artist in Portland. So he has turned around, and he is stepping up to 
help pay for Kevin's college education. We have these two remarkable 
brothers who, year after year, were either working or going to school 
in order to help each other get ahead in the way that we hope young 
people will do by dint of hard work and discipline and supporting each 
other. They are brothers, and they have been in each other's corner and 
supportive of their families their whole lives. We need more people in 
America like the Becerra brothers.
  They are not alone. Another of Oregon's estimated 11,000 Dreamers is 
a young man named Daniel Kim. He immigrated legally to Beaverton, OR, 
from South Korea, but he learned that his immigration lawyer never 
filed the paperwork needed to get permanent legal status. So without 
this information, he found out very abruptly that he was considered 
undocumented.
  Thanks to DACA and a special military recruitment program, Daniel had 
the opportunity to serve our country. He seized the opportunity and 
joined the U.S. Army the first chance he got.
  I will state that I just find it painful to hear the disparaging talk 
about immigrants. Unfortunately, the President uses that kind of 
language too often. Maybe it is easy for people in Washington, DC, to 
forget that these debates are about real people. They are not just 
about acronyms and numbers. Daniel and Esli are the types of young 
people this debate is about--a soldier on the frontlines defending our 
country, a young man working hard at home in Oregon and supporting his 
family. These are the young people whose lives have been turned upside 
down by a Presidential decision, and they are just pawns in this raging 
political battle.
  Young people like Esli and Daniel signed up for DACA so they could 
work and give back to the country. Dreamers are integral parts of their 
communities. They pitch in and help those communities grow. If all DACA 
recipients lost their protections, it would be a massive economic hit 
to our country--$280 billion lost. Even going beyond the humanitarian 
impact of breaking up families, that is what DACA recipients mean from 
a dollars-and-cents standpoint.
  The crisis Dreamers are facing began last year when the President 
made the decision to terminate the program. Senators from both parties 
have now been working to fix it. Time after time, Senators have brought 
bipartisan ideas forward, and I would like to note at this point that 
Senator Schumer went to the President and put the border wall on the 
table for discussion, making it clear that this was something that he 
didn't support but that he would put it out there just to try to 
generate some goodwill and to try to find a way to get folks working 
together. Throughout this discussion, sometimes it seems the President 
just will not take yes for an answer.

  So Senators from both sides keep working in the best tradition of 
this body. On the healthcare front, we sure showed here recently what 
could be done when there is bipartisanship and Senators are working 
together. He sits right over there--Chairman Hatch of the Finance 
Committee. He and I worked together. I am the ranking Democrat on the 
committee. We now have a 10-year authorization to the Children's Health 
Insurance Program. Nobody would have ever imagined that a year and a 
half ago. We have made a transformative set of changes in Medicare to 
update the Medicare guarantee to cover chronic illness, cancer, 
diabetes, heart disease, and stroke--where most of the healthcare 
spending is. We got that done, as well as the biggest change in child 
welfare policy in the Families First Program, an approach that 
Democrats and Republicans had been dreaming about for 30 years. I bring 
it up only by way of saying that bipartisanship can break out here in 
the Senate.
  Right now, as I am on the floor, I know we still have a big group of 
Democrats and Republicans who are saying that this is too important to 
just have another political food fight. They are working on a 
compromise plan--Democrats and Republicans--that would bring this DACA 
crisis to a close, invest in border security, make some changes to our 
legal immigration system, and particularly do justice to the Dreamers, 
like young Esli Becerra.
  The reality is that when we are doing something like that, it is 
pretty obvious that nobody gets the bill they would have written. 
Nobody gets the bill they would have written for themselves if they 
were to go back to their office and take out a sheet of paper and write 
down from A to Z, but that is pretty much what we have to recognize if 
we are going to find some common ground. That is how the bipartisan 
process is supposed to work.
  Colleagues, bipartisanship is not about taking each other's dumb 
ideas. Anybody can do that. Bipartisanship is about taking each other's 
good ideas. That is where we have a big group of Senators--Democrats 
and Republicans--working together on this issue.
  Unfortunately, it seems that recent reports indicate that the 
President and his team are working to derail this bipartisan solution. 
They are insisting on some kind of approach that will make radical 
changes to the legal immigration system, for example.
  I wish to note for a second that this is very important in the Wyden 
household. My parents fled the Nazis in the 1930s. Not all got out. My 
dad basically talked his way into the Army. They weren't all that 
interested in my dad. He was overweight, and he had health problems. 
But my dad convinced them that he was a German kid, and he could write 
propaganda pamphlets that we could drop on the Nazis, telling them that 
they were going to die and they were going to freeze. My dad was the 
most patriotic person I ever met. We are better because of legal 
immigration in this country. Yet in order to get this compromise, we 
have now seen proposals to radically change the legal immigration 
system.
  I see my colleague, an outstanding member of the Finance Committee, 
who knows so much about these immigration issues on the floor, and I 
look forward to his remarks.
  The fact is, the President is demanding an approach that goes way 
beyond DACA and border security, which are two natural bookends for 
bipartisanship, and it is where this debate begins. Unfortunately, what 
the President is really pushing breaks up families and severely cuts 
back legal immigration, and I just noted that I have seen why legal 
immigration makes our country better and stronger. What the President 
is talking about would, on top of this, do enormous economic harm to 
this country and is certainly not going to get the votes here in the 
Senate to proceed with 60 votes. The bipartisan solution on which both 
sides have worked hard together is the best opportunity that the 
Chamber has to end the DACA crisis.
  The Senate really cannot come up with sustainable solutions when we

[[Page S1140]]

just play to those who take the most extreme view. We can't get a 
sustainable solution. By the way, that is how debates in the Senate are 
supposed to work--two parties, hand in hand, bringing their ideas 
forward and finding solutions both sides can agree on. That is why I 
mentioned Chairman Hatch and our finally getting the major health 
reforms recently that people never dreamed were possible.
  On this debate at hand, the question of justice for the Dreamers and 
reasonable border security--two bookends that I happen to think could 
fit and produce principled bipartisanship through this group of 
Senators who are working together--this is our opportunity. Millions of 
families across the country are following this debate, and they are 
hoping to get some good news on this issue where there has been 
gridlock for so long.
  Passing the bipartisan proposal is our opportunity to give it to 
them. This is the time for the Congress to come up with a permanent 
solution for Dreamers. This is not something to be deferred any longer. 
It is time to act now. I urge my colleagues in the strongest way 
possible to support the bipartisan proposal--Democrats and Republicans 
coming together--when there is an opportunity to vote on it, which I 
believe will be shortly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I come to the floor today, fully aware 
that time is running out for America's Dreamers. Their fates rest in 
our hands. Their futures hang in the balance of our votes, and what Dr. 
King called ``the fierce urgency of now'' is officially upon us.
  If we fail to take action today, the dreams of 800,000 young people 
protected under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, 
known as DACA, and thousands of others like them will turn to 
nightmares. It is truly a terrifying prospect that Dreamers face--the 
prospect that at any moment after they fall out of status, they could 
be snatched up by President Trump's deportation forces, torn away from 
their families, and sent away to countries they consider foreign lands. 
Well, I refuse to be complicit in that nightmare.
  I refuse to be complicit in the deportation of innocent children. I 
refuse to be complicit in the deportation of 800,000 DACA recipients 
and the 22,000 Dreamers living, studying, and working in my home State 
of New Jersey. It is only out of compassion for them and commitment to 
them that I am prepared to vote for the bipartisan deal reached last 
night, the Rounds-King version.
  Let me be very clear. This is not the deal I would have drafted. It 
is far from the deal I would want, but I know for a fact that it is the 
only deal with a shot at becoming law. It is the only deal with any 
hope of earning 60 votes, a simple majority in the House, and maybe the 
forced signature of Donald Trump's pen. Therefore, it is the only deal 
with any hope of protecting more than a million Dreamers across America 
from the President's mass deportation agenda.
  To my fellow Democrats, to my friends and fellow leaders in the 
Hispanic community, to those in the immigration advocacy community, and 
to the millions of Americans in New Jersey and across the Nation who 
stood by Dreamers throughout this ordeal, I will not sugarcoat things. 
This deal is not the fairness that we would want. It is not as fiscally 
responsible as it should be. To be honest, if my Republican colleagues 
truly wanted to protect America's Dreamers in good faith, they would 
have done so months ago. Instead, they refused to address this crisis 
for months.
  Republicans chose to treat Dreamers like bargaining chips, pawns that 
could be used to advance far-right restrictions on lawful, family-
sponsored immigration to the United States and to deliver President 
Trump a big, fat $25 billion kiss in the form of border wall funding. 
The only thing more preposterous than asking Mexico to pay for a border 
wall is asking the American people to pay $25 billion for a border 
wall. That is $25 billion that could be going to repairing the walls of 
our crumbling public schools, outdated airports, and aging highway 
tunnels. That is $25 billion Americans will have to pay for Donald 
Trump's broken promise that Mexico would foot the bill.
  In case you couldn't tell by now, I am not the biggest fan of this 
deal. It is a bitter pill to swallow. So when I hear my Republican 
colleagues say that this legislation isn't tough enough, I encourage 
them to take a closer look. Look at the hard choices that I--and the 
community that I come from and others in this country--have to make to 
support this deal, as the most senior Hispanic-American in the 
Congress, as the son of immigrants whose thirst for freedom brought 
them to these shores, as the senior Senator from New Jersey, one of the 
most ethnically and racially diverse States in America.
  Many of the concessions Democrats agreed to were supposed to have 
died in the proposal that we and the Gang of 6 brought to the President 
weeks ago--only to have him reject it under the advice of the 
ethnocentric voices in his ear. For example, legal, permanent residents 
will no longer be able to sponsor their adult children to join them in 
this country, and that is not the only hard choice we had to make in 
order to protect Dreamers from deportation. While we grant them the 
opportunity to earn a 12-year pathway to citizenship, we pay a dear 
price by limiting the right to sponsor the parents they love so dearly, 
although other U.S.-citizen families will be able to do so.
  I take solace in the possibility that someday in the future, 
hopefully, in the not too distant future, Congress will return to our 
American values and stand proudly for the principles of family 
reunification--the family unit as the core of American society, 
communities, and our country--that have guided U.S. immigration 
policies for the last century. It is the very family reunification that 
ultimately allowed Donald Trump's grandfather to come to the United 
States and have his progeny come from there and ultimately rise to be 
the President of the United States.
  I am going to fight for the parents of Dreamers and the comprehensive 
immigration reform we need when that day comes, but for the moment, I 
am under no illusions. The cold, hard reality is that in 2 weeks the 
dreams of hundreds of thousands of innocent children and promising 
young people will be extinguished, and that is why we must act.

  To my friends in the immigration advocacy community, as well as my 
Democratic colleagues, I remind you that legislating is the art of the 
possible. We are in the minority in both Chambers of Congress. The 
opposing party occupies the White House. We may not enjoy this 
reality--I certainly don't--but it is a reality nonetheless. And in 
this reality, we do not have the power to make anything happen unless 
we get support from some of our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle. We have the power to try and stop terrible things from 
happening, but we can make things happen only if we have others join us 
in common cause.
  So I ask my fellow Democrats to please hold the line for the hundreds 
of thousands of innocent children and bright, young people who belong 
in this country and need our votes to stay in this country. We have to 
remember that compromise is the oil that keeps the wheels of Congress 
running, and, without it, Dreamers who have become integral to 
communities across the Nation may very well be forcibly removed. We 
know they belong here with us, strengthening the diverse threads that 
bind us together as one people.
  To my Republican colleagues, I ask you to remember the tough 
concessions we have had to make so that Dreamers have a chance to earn 
citizenship in a country they love and the only country they know.
  I again close by quoting the always relevant and forever wise Dr. 
King, who said:

       We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We 
     are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this 
     unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing 
     as being too late.

  My friends, the fierce urgency of now looms over us today. The fate 
of our Dreamers grows more uncertain with each passing second. I, for 
one, refuse to let their dreams die here on the Senate floor.
  Let's pass the Rounds-King amendment and pass it fast. There is no 
time for further delay. If we want Dreamers

[[Page S1141]]

to have a tomorrow here in this country, then we must act today.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I come to the floor now to offer brief 
remarks on the introduction of the latest so-called bipartisan 
proposal. There is simply no way to say it, but to say it: This 
proposal fails to meet the mark, will result in massive amnesty, and 
will result in a surge of illegal immigration, even encouraging the 
illegal crossing of our borders. It has absolutely no chance of 
becoming law because we have been reminded of what the President has 
said he would sign, and he has said that this bill we are talking about 
now would not be signed by the President of the United States. It would 
be vetoed.
  In my mind, the Department of Homeland Security, when they commented 
on this bill, has this one point right. This bill will absolutely 
destroy our ability--meaning the ability of DHS--to enforce our laws, 
secure our borders, and then, consequentially, not protect the American 
people. The American people expect our government to fulfill their No. 
1 responsibility, which is to protect the American people.
  It is hard to decide where to start when you dissect this ill-
conceived proposal, but to quote, I think, J.R.R. Tolkien, I guess the 
best place to begin is at the beginning. This proposal claims to have 
border security measures, but the simple fact is that it doesn't have 
border security measures. This proposal does something that Democrats 
and Republicans agreed last year isn't sufficient border security, and 
we have all agreed that simply throwing money at the border is not 
border security. So what does that lead you to, other than just what 
you do at the border?
  Everyone in this Chamber knows how hard Senators Cornyn and Johnson 
have worked on border security. Their hard work has shown all of us 
that real border security isn't just about infrastructure and money; it 
is about legal authority policy changes, as well, which may be more 
important. Like it or not, the simple fact is that our current laws 
contain numerous loopholes that actually prevent our law enforcement 
officers from apprehending, detaining, and speedily deporting dangerous 
criminal aliens.
  Professional staffers at the Department of Homeland Security--and I 
emphasize the words ``professional staffers,'' not political 
employees--all agree we need these authority changes.
  I ask my colleagues: What is the point of throwing money at the 
border if sex offenders, terrorists, gang members, child molesters, and 
war criminals can continue getting into our country? What is the point 
if we can't actually remove people who are entering illegally? What is 
the point if Americans continue to be victimized by crimes committed by 
undocumented immigrants?
  This bipartisan plan falls miserably short of providing real border 
security and doesn't do anything to make Americans safer.
  Worse than the border security problems, this bipartisan plan 
massively expands the number of individuals who are eligible for 
citizenship. The way this plan is written, more than 3 million 
individuals could become eligible for citizenship, and many of these 
people wouldn't be the very same people we have been trying to deal 
with all week--DACA and Dreamers.
  The way this bill is written, people as old as 43 could benefit. I 
thought when we began this debate we were talking about protecting 
young people, not middle-aged adults. This is clearly beyond the pale 
and is just another example of moving the amnesty yardstick.
  But the worst thing in this plan, the most egregious thing, is that 
it effectively suspends immigration enforcement until June 2018. Think 
about that. Why would you effectively suspend immigration enforcement 
at any time? If my colleagues look at the last page of this amendment, 
it clearly says that any person who illegally enters our country before 
the end of June 2018 will never be a priority for deportation. Think of 
the invitation that comes for people between now and June 30 to get to 
this country because they won't be a priority for deportation. Isn't 
that quite an invitation to violate our laws, to violate our 
sovereignty? I can't imagine that people in the States of Montana, 
North Dakota, South Dakota--any State, for that matter, but 
particularly in some of these really conservative States--that they 
would be thinking about voting for something that would actually be 
inviting people to this country because they won't be a priority for 
deportation. Let that point sink in.
  The authors of this plan are telling everyone in the world--not just 
south of our border--no matter who they are, what they have done, that 
if they get here before June, they will never be an enforcement 
priority. Isn't that immigration madness? I can't, for the life of me, 
understand why my colleagues would want to end immigration enforcement. 
What justification do they have?
  I would urge them that if they have justification, please come to the 
floor and please explain to the American people why you want people who 
aren't already here to come illegally. What could be the reason for 
that?
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It just isn't serious 
and will totally undermine our Nation's border security and immigration 
laws. This should not pass. I hope it doesn't pass. The President has 
proposed a veto.
  For the people who introduced it, it is a good bill, but are you 
interested in a good bill or are you interested in getting a law 
passed? That takes 60 in the Senate, takes a majority in the House, and 
takes a Presidential signature. I hope you are serious about working 
for things that can actually become law. That is what we have promised 
the Dreamers. That is what we can deliver if we get those 60 votes. We 
can do it in a way that is sound immigration policy, not something that 
is going to encourage more people to cross our borders without 
documentation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Colorado.


                 Honoring Sheriff's Deputy Micah Flick

  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, yesterday America witnessed another great 
tragedy in the State of Florida, and of course our souls ache with what 
must be unimaginable grief. As we turn to comfort those who lost so 
much in Florida, I come to the floor of the Senate again, for the third 
time in a little more than a month, to share the grief of Colorado, as 
well as to honor the life and legacy of a fallen Colorado sheriff's 
deputy.
  El Paso County Sheriff's Deputy Micah Flick was shot and killed last 
week while investigating a stolen car when he threw himself in front of 
his fellow officers to shield them from gunfire. Sheriff's Deputy Scott 
Stone, Sheriff's Sergeant Jacob Abendschan, and Colorado Springs Police 
Officer Marcus Yanez, along with a bystander, were also wounded in the 
attack.
  A total of 10 law enforcement officers in Colorado have been wounded 
or killed since December 31. On January 24, Adams County Sheriff's 
Deputy Gumm was fatally wounded. Another assault on law enforcement 
officers on New Year's Eve in Douglas County resulted in the death of 
Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy Parrish and wounded four other law 
enforcement officers.
  These three attacks left four children without fathers and countless 
loved ones with a loss they will never forget.
  Micah Flick was killed on his 11th anniversary with the El Paso 
County Sheriff's Department and leaves behind a wife and 7-year-old 
twins.
  Micah was a hero who, according to the Colorado Springs Gazette, was 
remembered by his brother-in-law as someone who ``never wanted to do 
anything else but protect this community.'' His fellow sheriff's 
deputies would always tease him that he was ``the poster boy of the 
sheriff's office.''
  Micah's wife Rachel captured her husband's heroism perfectly when she 
explained how she would always tell him to just do his job and not be a 
hero but understands that was not in his DNA. ``Micah was a hero, and 
he couldn't help it,'' she said. Micah's fellow deputy who was wounded 
in the attack confirmed Micah's heroism. Deputy Stone told Sheriff Bill 
Elder: ``Micah saved my life, and I will be forever grateful.'' Micah 
was a hero that day, and no one will ever forget that.
  Unfortunately, I have come to this Chamber far too many times just 
this year to honor a fallen Colorado law enforcement officer and repeat 
the words

[[Page S1142]]

for the third time of LTC Dave Grossman, who wrote that American law 
enforcement is the loyal and brave sheep dog, always standing watch for 
the wolf that lurks in the dark.
  We owe so much to Micah and his brothers and sisters in blue who 
protect our communities each and every day. I know that all of our 
families together sleep better at night knowing these heroes are out 
protecting every single one of us.
  Thank you, Micah, for answering the call. You protected your 
community. You saved your fellow officers. You are a hero. And I, along 
with Coloradans across the State, am forever grateful. Like your fellow 
officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice, we will remember your 
heroism for eternity and honor you and your family for your sacrifice.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  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. COTTON. 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. COTTON. Mr. President, I wish to speak today about the so-called 
Schumer amendment. Now, that is not the name that some people give it, 
but I will give it that name. Abraham Lincoln said: If you call a dog's 
tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, it has four, because 
calling something doesn't make it that.
  In the same way, you can call a bill bipartisan because there are 
some Republicans on that bill, but if the Republicans have simply 
acquiesced to the Democrats' position, it is a Democratic bill. Calling 
it bipartisan doesn't make it so.
  Let's just walk through a few of the weaknesses of this bill.
  No. 1 is the enforcement holiday for illegal immigration. You might 
call it the ``olly olly oxen free'' position. That is because it 
declares to anyone, worldwide, if you get to the United States in the 
next four months, or before June 30, 2018, olly olly oxen free, the 
Department of Homeland Security will not enforce our laws against you.
  Don't take my word for it. Look at it right here. In fact, it was 
done in handwriting last night. I suspect some of my Republican 
colleagues on this bill didn't even know that this change was made. It 
used to be January 1, 2018, and you had to be present for at least 5\1/
2\ years. That is not great, but it is better than a prospective 
enforcement holiday that says that if you get to this country illegally 
in the next 4 months, we will not make you an enforcement priority. So 
come on in, everyone. If you get here by June 30, under this amendment, 
the Department of Homeland Security will not make it a priority to 
enforce our laws against you.
  No. 2, let's look at the amnesty that it provides. The President has 
been extraordinarily generous in his offer to our Democratic 
colleagues. He didn't say a legal status for 690,000 people who are 
enrolled in the Obama-era DACA Program. He said citizenship. He said a 
full opportunity for citizenship for 1.8 million people--1.8 million 
people--who were not just enrolled in the program but would have been 
eligible for the program had they enrolled.
  This amendment would expand that to almost 3 million to 4 million 
people by lifting the age limits and by lifting the age caps--a vast 
amnesty, just among those younger people, of a quarter of the people 
who are here in this country illegally.
  It gets even worse than that.
  No. 3, the entire rationale of the DACA Program is that children 
ought not pay for the sins of their parents. How about the parents pay 
for the sins of the parents? This bill would allow the effective 
legalization of the very parents who created this problem in the first 
place. The sponsors of this amendment will say: No, no, we prohibit the 
parents from getting legal status. Let's look at how they do that. They 
say that no person can receive legal status if the Department of 
Homeland Security can show they knowingly assisted the entry of a minor 
into this country. Tell me how the Department of Homeland Security is 
supposed to make that showing. How are they supposed to go back 10, 15, 
20, 25 years and show that this illegal immigrant knowingly brought 
that person into this country? It is preposterous. It is the exact 
reason why so many immigration bills have failed for so many years in 
this body--the Democrats write bills they claim do one thing; in 
reality, they do the exact opposite.
  No. 4, they say that it reforms chain migration or at least makes a 
downpayment on it. Here is what it actually does. It briefly delays a 
tiny, tiny class of persons from being sponsored by newly legalized 
immigrants--only about 25,000 per year of the adult children of green 
card holders. It takes those and applies them to the other adult 
children, and when those immigrants become citizens--guess what--they 
get to sponsor their adult children again. So it does not make a single 
change to the practice of extended family chain migration, which is 
responsible for so much of the unskilled and low-skilled immigration we 
have had in this country over the last 40 years.
  It makes no changes whatsoever to the diversity lottery, not a single 
one, even though every other provision under serious consideration has 
at least eliminated that lottery and reallocated those green cards 
toward other purposes, such as clearing out the family-based backlog 
and clearing out the high-skilled backlog.
  Some people say that it appropriates $25 billion--$2.5 billion a year 
for 10 years--for the border wall. It does no such thing. Again, it 
says one thing and does another. It gives $2.5 billion for the first 
year. It can't be spent on physical barriers. Then, every year after 
that, it makes that money contingent on a report and a certification by 
the Department of Homeland Security that is purposefully onerous, 
difficult to achieve, and therefore means the money likely will not be 
available in future years. And, of course, if a Democratic President 
comes into office during the 10 years of this bill, we know that his 
Department of Homeland Security will never submit that report 
certification, and that money will never be spent.
  Finally, No. 5, this amendment has no chance of becoming law--zero 
chance. It shouldn't pass this Chamber to begin with, but even if that 
were to happen, President Trump issued a veto threat just minutes ago. 
The House of Representatives is not going to pass this bill. They 
probably will not even take it up, as they didn't take it up the last 
time the Senate passed a terrible immigration bill.
  My friends, this Democratic bill deserves to be roundly defeated.
  There is one bill that has a chance to pass the House of 
Representatives and get the President's signature; that is, the 
President's framework proposal, which, in a very generous and humane 
fashion, gives citizenship--not just legal status but citizenship--to 
1.8 million young people who were brought here or came here before the 
age of accountability.
  On the other hand, it mitigates the negative consequences of that 
decision, which we all know will happen.
  First, to control the increased incentives for illegal immigration, 
it provides the money and closes the loopholes necessary to secure our 
southern border.
  Second, to prevent that newly legalized class of citizens from 
sponsoring the very parents who created this problem in the first place 
and their siblings and ultimately their grandparents, their aunts and 
uncles, cousins, and their nieces and nephews, it ends the practice of 
extended family chain migration and says that American citizens can 
always sponsor their spouses and their minor kids, but anyone else, any 
other adult, should stand on their own two feet if they want to 
immigrate to this country.
  That is what the President said he will sign. That is, therefore, 
what the House of Representatives can pass. That is the bill that 
should pass today--the bill that is sponsored by Chairman Grassley of 
the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. President, 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.
  Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S1143]]

  

  Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to emphasize why 
the Secure and Succeed Act is the right bill for the Senate to pass 
this week. I chose to join my colleagues, who have worked hard on this 
bill for months, for a few important reasons.
  First, this bill provides a way forward for our DACA recipients. I 
have said time and again that I appreciate the contributions our DACA 
recipients are making in our communities. They are our friends, our 
neighbors, and our churchgoers. I support finding them a way forward. 
Our bill does this. It does it in a fair and humane way. But 
importantly, it also adds strong eligibility requirements to ensure the 
safety and security of the program and stops future illegal 
immigration. For instance, it does not reward the parents who came here 
illegally by giving them any type of lawful status and sets reasonable 
time limits and restrictions on who can apply.
  Second, it provides immediate and significant investments in our 
border. We cannot allow this problem to happen again. We have a duty 
and an obligation to keep our borders secure and our citizens safe. Our 
bill recognizes that spending money on the border without giving law 
enforcement strong authorities is like buying a boat without an engine. 
We need both to keep our borders and our communities secure.
  Third, our bill recognizes that you cannot view immigration in a 
silo--it is a bulky issue that represents many legal, economic, and 
security concerns. Many of these issues are deeply interconnected. 
Addressing DACA and addressing the border without addressing some of 
the other issues plaguing our system is a half solution. We must have 
the President's four principles to make this work.
  Finally, this is the President's plan. The White House has endorsed 
this proposal. The President's pen is ready to sign it.
  I urge my colleagues, let's pass the bill that addresses the right 
issues in this debate and can actually become law. Let's pass the 
Secure and Succeed Act.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motions filed during yesterday's 
session of the Senate ripen at 2:30 p.m. today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The majority whip.


                     South Florida School Shooting

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today we mourn the loss of life of at 
least 17 people at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School near Fort 
Lauderdale, FL. We are reminded that when we are asked to do something, 
there are things we can do to help lessen the likelihood of such 
terrible tragedies, recognizing that each of these circumstances is 
unique, and we don't yet know everything that there is to know or that 
we should know about this particular shooter. Suffice it to say, he 
telegraphed on social media, according to reports, his intention to do 
what he ultimately did.

  We in Congress, the policymakers, need to come up with tools to be 
available to law enforcement and the social media platforms to be able 
to monitor these sort of terroristic threats much in the same way we 
monitor social media for al-Qaida and ISIS and other terrorists abroad 
who try to recruit people in the United States in order to kill our 
fellow citizens in place. We need to not only think about and pray for 
the families and teachers and support staff who have been affected by 
this terrible act but conduct hearings and talk to the experts and find 
out what kind of tools might be available to us.
  I will mention another example of something we could do that would, I 
am confident, save lives.
  In my home State of Texas only a few months ago, we saw a mass 
shooting in a small town called Sutherland Springs, which is near San 
Antonio. The gunman there killed 26 people and wounded 20 more. He was 
a convicted felon. Under existing law, he could not legally purchase or 
possess firearms, but that didn't stop him from getting the weapons he 
used to murder those 26 people and shoot 20 more. Part of the reason 
was, his criminal history had not been uploaded to the National Instant 
Criminal Background Check System, which is maintained by the FBI. So 
the gun retailer, when he had gone in and lied on the background check 
document, hadn't known he had been legally disqualified from purchasing 
a firearm.
  I have introduced legislation to try to fix that specific problem. It 
is called the Fix NICS Act. The House has already passed it, but it is 
awaiting action in the Senate.
  Our churches and schools should be refuges--places where parents and 
children, especially, feel safe and secure. Many of these shootings can 
be prevented, perhaps not all, but we need to do everything we can. 
Part of the way we can ensure that our children are protected is to 
enforce current law--and not just our children but adults as well, as 
we saw in Sutherland Springs. We can fix our broken background check 
system and prohibit dangerous individuals who have been convicted of 
serious crimes from acquiring firearms legally.
  As I said, we don't know all of the facts of the Florida shooting, 
and the circumstances, as is almost always the case, appear to be a 
little cloudy right now. It may be we will find out there are some 
clues that this shooter had been sending well in advance of this 
terrible tragedy that might have prevented it from occurring.
  There is no reason we cannot advance this bipartisan legislation, the 
Fix NICS legislation, which has already passed in the House. I, 
personally, am unwilling to face another family member who has lost a 
loved one as a result of one of these mass shootings that could have 
been prevented by making sure the background check system had worked as 
Congress had intended.
  Mr. President, on a separate note, this week, a group led by Chairman 
Grassley of the Senate Judiciary Committee formally introduced a bill 
to address the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals issue and border 
security. It is a good starting point because it could actually be 
signed into law and solve the challenge we have promised to address in 
providing these young people who, through no fault of their own, find 
themselves in a box. Because they cannot become American citizens due 
to the fact that their parents brought them into the country illegally, 
it would provide them a predictable and productive future. I am glad to 
be a cosponsor of this legislation, which is called the Secure and 
Succeed Act.
  As the President has promised, it does provide a pathway to 
citizenship for an estimated 1.8 million people who are DACA-eligible. 
That is an extraordinary offer by the President of the United States. 
Who would have ever thought this President would say to these young 
people, ``We are going to give you a chance to become American 
citizens''? That number is far more than those who were covered by the 
Executive order that was signed by President Obama because, right now, 
there are only about 690,000--I say ``only''--DACA recipients. 
President Trump would make it 1.8 million.
  Just as importantly, this bill provides a real plan to strengthen 
border security by utilizing more boots on the ground, better 
technology, and additional infrastructure, and it enhances and 
modernizes our ports of entry through which many of the illegal drugs 
come that flow into this country from the south.
  This bill reallocates visas from the diversity lottery system, which 
is just sort of like a roll of the dice, but it will do it in a way 
that is fair, and it continues the family-based immigration categories 
until the current backlog is cleared.
  I know other colleagues have been working hard on their own ideas, 
some of which were introduced yesterday and earlier this morning, but 
one group I haven't heard much from so far is that of our colleagues 
across the aisle who shut down the government over the weekend a couple 
of weeks ago because they insisted we provide a time to address this 
issue.

[[Page S1144]]

  Indeed, in response, once they agreed to reopen the government, the 
majority leader offered them that time and that opportunity, and that 
is this week. Yet, so far, none of our Democratic colleagues have even 
produced a bill. Rather, the bill has been produced by Senator Grassley 
and his working group I mentioned. There is another bill by Senator 
Collins and Senator Rounds, which we will be voting on here shortly. 
Then, I believe, Senator Gardner and Senator Bennet have another 
proposal. The very folks who shut down the government over this issue 
have failed to produce a plan in response to this demand that we have a 
debate and that we have a vote to try to address the problem.
  On Tuesday, the majority leader tried twice to open the debate and 
start voting, but, both times, there were objections heard by our 
Democratic colleagues--this despite their repeated promises over the 
years to address the DACA issue once and for all. Now the clock has run 
so we can finally get started, and we will start voting, as I 
understand the majority leader's unanimous consent request, at about 
2:30 today. We are just getting started in our voting due to the 
stalling and the lack of, really, much debate. Certainly, there have 
been no substantive offers up until this point from our colleagues 
across the aisle.

  I believe sincerely that Republicans and Democrats alike want to 
provide certainty to these DACA recipients, but we have to address the 
underlying problems with our border security and our flawed immigration 
system as well.
  I know our colleague from Pennsylvania has introduced an amendment to 
end dangerous sanctuary city policies. It is simply unacceptable for 
local jurisdictions to decide they are not going to cooperate with 
Federal law enforcement agencies. We are a nation, and we are a nation 
of laws, so the idea that some local group could decide not to 
cooperate with Federal law enforcement authorities ought to worry all 
of us.
  Even though this amendment has been endorsed by the Federal Law 
Enforcement Officers Association and the National Association of Police 
Organizations, many of our colleagues across the aisle will probably 
vote against it. That is especially odd since some of them voted to 
advance a similar sanctuary city measure themselves in 2015.
  Even more of our Democratic colleagues voted to advance what is known 
as Kate's Law in 2016. It is named for Kate Steinle, the young woman 
who was murdered in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant who had been 
released from custody. Kate's Law would stiffen penalties for illegal 
immigrants who have been caught entering the country repeatedly, as her 
killer had done. What is controversial about that? If you break the law 
repeatedly and we find you, there should be very serious consequences. 
Perhaps Kate Steinle would be alive today had that been the case before 
her untimely death.
  I don't know why our Democratic colleagues refuse to vote for these 
and other related proposals. I really don't get it. Yet I do know one 
thing that is worth highlighting: Their unwillingness to support 
reforms represents a stark departure from what they have said in the 
past.
  For example, in 2006, the senior Senator from California said: 
``Democrats are solidly behind controlling the border, and we support 
the border fence. . . . We've got to get tough on the border.'' She was 
then joined by then-Senator Harry Reid, who had made similar 
statements.
  The senior Senator from Colorado has said the Democrats still believe 
in border security. That is good to hear. I wish their actions 
reflected that.
  In recent years, the junior Senator from New Mexico has said: ``It is 
critical we have the personnel, equipment, and policies in place that 
focus enforcement on the most significant public safety threats along 
the border.'' I could not have said that better myself, but when it 
comes time to vote, strangely, almost uniformly, our colleagues vote 
no.
  I agree with our colleague from Indiana as well, who went down to the 
border a while back and said he had seen for himself just how bad the 
situation was in certain areas. That is why he voted to hire more 
border agents, penalize businesses that hire illegal immigrants, and 
deport those who commit felonies.
  My point is, we should all remember we are not as far apart as the 
press would seem to make it. Now it is time to advance the bill to that 
effect--not next time, not next month, not next year. We know the clock 
is ticking. The President has given us until March 5 to get this done, 
but if this week is any indication, our colleagues on the other side 
don't seem to be in any particular hurry.
  As the majority leader said earlier this week, we need to stop making 
political points and start making a law. That means passing it out of 
the Senate, passing it out of the House, and getting the President to 
sign it into law. That is how you make law. Several weeks ago, as I 
said, the majority leader made a commitment to hold this debate and to 
hold it this week. He has lived up to that commitment, and now we can't 
let it all just go to waste and squander this opportunity.
  I am really shocked by that after the President made this offer of a 
pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million young adults who were brought 
into this country as children illegally by their parents. I have always 
said we don't hold children responsible for their parents' mistakes. 
That is why we should embrace this proposal by the President. I don't 
know how you tell these young people we had the opportunity to address 
their anxiety and the uncertainty in their futures by passing a bill 
that encompasses the President's proposal and gives them a pathway to 
citizenship. How do you look them in their faces and say we squandered 
this golden opportunity, maybe a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity?
  That is what this week is about. There are about 124,000 DACA 
recipients in my State of Texas, and I will proudly cast a vote soon to 
ensure that they stay here and contribute to our schools, our churches, 
and our communities. We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a 
nation of laws, and you cannot have one without the other.
  What this week is about is finding a bipartisan permanent solution 
for these young adults but doing more than just that. I, certainly, 
respect that some of our colleagues have introduced thoughtful ideas, 
but we have to remember that, ultimately, we need to move a bill 
through the Senate that can pass not only this body but the House and 
be signed into law by the President.
  This is not about grandstanding or making a political point. The idea 
is to produce a result, one that we have all said we want. So let's not 
waste any more time. Let's send the House and then the President 
something that can become law and provide certainty to these young 
people who are worried about their future and regain our legacy as a 
nation that believes in the rule of law and security for all.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, in the late 1980s, Congress debated and 
adopted amnesty legislation for 3 million people who were here 
illegally. It did so promising the American people that in exchange for 
amnesty, the Federal Government would finally, finally, finally secure 
the border. We all know what happened. That amnesty occurred, and the 
border never got secured. At the time, there were 3 million people 
living here illegally. Today, estimates are that there are in excess of 
12 million people living here illegally.
  Five years ago, in 2013, this body again debated amnesty. The so-
called Gang of 8 again failed to secure the border but once again made 
the same promise of amnesty for millions here illegally in exchange for 
an ephemeral, never-to-come promise to secure the border. The Senate 
ultimately passed the Gang of 8 bill. As it was being voted on, Senate 
Democrats bragged on television that they believed they had north of 70 
votes--that now was the time, again, to pass amnesty.
  Yet the American people rose up and said: Amnesty is not what we 
want. It is inconsistent with the rule of law. We saw Senators at the 
last minute jumping ship. At the end of the day, it passed this body by 
68 votes and then went nowhere in the House of Representatives.
  So again, today, we are here having the same debate. I feel like Bill 
Murray

[[Page S1145]]

in ``Groundhog Day,'' waking up and reliving the same day over and over 
and over, and the result is the same.
  Listen, I don't know how these votes will occur this afternoon. It 
may be that nothing gets 60 votes. That is possible. But it may also be 
that the Senate embraces one of the various amnesty plans that is put 
on the table. If that is the case, it will be every bit as big a 
mistake as the Gang of 8 was a mistake and as the amnesty in the 1980s 
was a mistake. I must say that I find myself flabbergasted at where my 
own party is in this debate, because every proposal that has Republican 
support that has been submitted begins from a place markedly to the 
left of that of President Obama.
  President Obama, as we all know, issued DACA, which was otherwise 
known as Executive amnesty. Executive amnesty was illegal and 
unconstitutional. The President has no authority to refuse to enforce 
the law. Yet President Obama decreed that he would not enforce Federal 
immigration laws, and that is exactly what he did.
  At the time, virtually every Republican denounced Executive amnesty 
as unconstitutional, as lawless, as wrong. Yet today, far too many 
Senate Republicans are staking out a place well to the left of 
President Obama on DACA on numerous axes. No. 1, DACA itself covered 
690,000 people. Yet what is the proposal being considered by this body? 
Under the mildest of the proposals, we are considering a path to 
citizenship for 1.8 million people. Why on Earth would we more than 
double--nearly triple--the DACA population? If there are 690,000 people 
who received illegal and unconstitutional Executive amnesty, then, it 
seems to me that, at the very most, the population we should consider 
is those 690,000.
  The argument is made that they have relied on this promise, even 
though the promise was illegal and even though it was unconstitutional. 
The people who relied on this promise are the 690,000, not the 1.1 
million who never even applied.
  So I would ask why Republicans--and, indeed, why Democrats--are 
nearly tripling what President Obama did in DACA. But that is not the 
only regard. DACA never included citizenship. Nothing in President 
Obama's DACA allowed citizenship. Nothing in it allowed a path to 
citizenship. DACA was a work permit, nothing more than a work permit--
an illegal work permit, mind you--but it did not allow citizenship. Yet 
today far too many Republicans are eager to embrace the Democrats' 
demands that 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 million people here illegally should be 
granted a path to citizenship. That is wrong. That is plain and simple 
wrong. It is unfair to the millions of working men and women. It is 
unfair to the steelworkers, the truckdrivers, and the mechanics. It is 
unfair to millions of American citizens, working men and women, who 
faced stagnant wages under President Obama. It is unfair to millions of 
legal immigrants whose wages are driven down by those here illegally. 
It is inconsistent with the promises made by virtually every Republican 
in this body.
  Every Republican who went out and campaigned against Executive 
amnesty said: We will not have amnesty. Well, now is the time to 
choose. If this body chooses to grant citizenship to 2, 3, 4 million 
people here illegally, those promises will have been directly broken. 
That is a mistake. It is wrong. Not only that, but the legislation this 
body is preparing to consider not only would grant citizenship, but it 
would make those here illegally eligible for Federal welfare--Federal 
welfare benefits. Not only do people come here illegally, but it drives 
up the cost.
  Every one of us has been asked by American citizens: Why are we 
spending vast sums of money providing welfare benefits? Why would we 
want to do that to those here illegally?
  We are a nation of immigrants. My father came as an immigrant in 1957 
with nothing--$100 in his underwear and not speaking English--but he 
came legally. We should be embracing legal immigrants rather than 
excusing and condoning illegal immigration.
  I do not believe we should be granting citizenship to anyone here 
illegally, nor should we be providing Federal welfare benefits to 
anyone here illegally, nor should we be expanding the pool of DACA 
recipients beyond that in the Obama program. Yet Republicans seem eager 
to do so. It is possible that our Democratic friends will save us from 
this foolishness--that even though Republicans are proposing a 
profoundly foolhardy immigration proposal, the Democrats will decide 
they want even more. There is not enough amnesty that the Democrats 
could take. If they do that, that will save the day for now. But if 
not, if this body gets 60 votes for one of these amnesty proposals, 
then it is incumbent on the House to stop it, much like with the Gang 
of 8.

  In the Gang of 8, the Senate couldn't stop it. The Senate has always, 
unfortunately, been very liberal on immigration. It has been very 
willing to make promises to the voters and promptly come down here and 
vote very differently from those promises. But the House of 
Representatives--the People's House--is designed to be responsive to 
the people. So it is my hope that House conservatives, facing the 
people and listening to the people, will recognize that we had an 
election in 2014 in response to the Gang of 8. The American people 
said: We don't want the Gang of 8. They elected the largest House 
majority of Republicans in 70 years. They elected 9 new Republicans in 
the Senate and retired Harry Reid as majority leader. Yet, somehow, 
Republicans in this body didn't hear the voters in 2014. We had an 
election in 2016 that the media was ready to call for Hillary Clinton. 
Yet, front and center in the 2016 election, was the American people 
saying: We don't want amnesty.
  My call to our colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, is listen 
to the people.
  There are many things we can and should be doing. We should be 
passing Kate's Law. I authored and introduced Kate's Law in this body. 
Kate's Law provides that for an aggravated felon who has been 
repeatedly entering this country illegally and who has been deported 
repeatedly, that that aggravated felon have a mandatory minimum prison 
sentence. Kate's Law is known for Kate Steinle, that beautiful woman in 
California murdered on a pier by an illegal alien deported over and 
over with multiple felony convictions. Had Kate's Law been on the 
books, I believe it is very likely that Kate Steinle would still be 
alive. That is the sort of commonsense legislation on which we ought to 
be coming together and passing. Yet there is the old adage: Those who 
fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
  This body made a grievous mistake in passing the Gang of 8 bill. 
Thankfully, the House saved us from our error. We may be on the verge 
of making the same grievous mistake. It is almost as if elections don't 
penetrate. We need to be listening to the voters.
  I do not know a single Republican--not one in this body, not one in 
the House of Representatives--who was elected on a promise: I will go 
to the left of Barack Obama on immigration.
  If one of us campaigned promising that, knock yourself out. Vote for 
this. But if you didn't say that Obama's Executive amnesty didn't go 
far enough, that we need to double or triple the pool, that we need to 
grant citizenship because Obama was too much of a conservative on 
immigration--if you didn't say that--then the only vote consistent with 
what we told the voters is to vote no today. We can come together and 
find commonsense solutions on immigration. We can secure the border. We 
can triple the Border Patrol. We can end catch and release. We can 
implement a strong E-verify. We can use strong tools and technology. We 
can continue to embrace and celebrate legal immigrants, and we can do 
all of that while respecting the rule of law.
  What I would urge my colleagues to do is very simple. Ask yourself 
what you told the voters before election, and let your conduct after 
election day match what you told the voters.
  As for the Democrats, the Democrats campaigned as the party of 
amnesty. They are at least being true to their promises. They promised 
amnesty. That is their priority. They are being true. But for 
Republicans, we promised something different. We promised to stand with 
the working men and women, the union members, the steelworkers, the men 
and women with calluses on their hands.
  I urge every one of us to listen to the working men and women, to 
respect the rule of law, and to vote against these misguided proposals.

[[Page S1146]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 
minutes before we proceed to the cloture vote scheduled at 2:30 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1955

  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I was honored when my good friend Senator 
John McCain reached out to me 2 weeks ago to suggest that we introduce 
bipartisan legislation here in the Senate that would attempt to solve 
two of our most pressing immigration issues and keep our country and 
Congress moving forward. The bill we have introduced--and which the 
Senate will soon proceed to vote on--doesn't solve every immigration 
issue we face, and it doesn't try to. What our bill does is focus on 
the issues on which we can agree. It is an attempt to break through the 
messy political debates and substantive disagreements here and find 
compromise.

  Our bill would do two simple things: Move to secure our border, and 
finally give Dreamers the path to citizenship they deserve.
  First, to address border security, our bipartisan bill would ensure 
that we gain operational control of the border by 2020 with new 
investments, new technology, new resources for Federal, State, and 
local law enforcement. It would also reduce current immigration court 
backlogs by funding new judges and attorneys, while addressing one of 
the root causes of immigration from Central America.
  Second, our bill would give legal certainty to 1.8 million Dreamers 
who are American in every way but the paperwork--young Americans who 
have known no other country but this one. Dreamers who continue to play 
by the rules by going to school, serving in our military, and 
maintaining consistent employment can become lawful permanent residents 
and, 5 years later, U.S. citizens.
  Senator McCain and I aren't the only ones who think this bipartisan 
solution makes sense; 54 Members of the House--an even split of 27 
Republicans and 27 Democrats--have cosponsored and led this effort. It 
has been championed by Republican Congressman Will Hurd of Texas, whose 
district has 800 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border, and Democratic 
Congressman Pete Aguilar of California.
  Our bill is more than just a set of policies. It is a way for us to 
agree when we can agree and not let our disagreements get in the way of 
making progress. There have been misrepresentations and half-truths 
said in attacking this bill, and I will simply say this: Would a true 
American hero and patriot like Senator McCain have lent his name to 
this bill if all these attacks were true? I think not.
  Our message is simple. We may not fix every immigration issue right 
now, but we can take a historic step forward, and with new technology, 
new manpower, a new pathway to citizenship, address Dreamers and allow 
them to succeed in American schools and in the American military and to 
enrich American communities without fear of deportation. These are 
tough issues, but the solution is simple. I hope my colleagues will 
join me in voting for the McCain-Coons bill.
  I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 1955, offered by the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, 
for the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Coons, 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, shall be brought 
to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 33 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCai
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). On this vote, the yeas are 52, 
the nays are 47.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now 
be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to each remaining vote 
in this series; finally, that any further vote in the series be 10 
minutes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 1948, offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. 
McConnell, for the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Toomey, 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, 
shall be brought to a close?
  There is 2 minutes of debate.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, Kate Steinle didn't have to be shot and 
killed on a pier in San Francisco. A 13-year-old child didn't have to 
be raped in the city of Philadelphia by Ramon Ochoa. Both of those 
crimes were committed by people who were in this country illegally 
after previously committing multiple crimes and after having been 
deported. In both cases, the

[[Page S1147]]

cities in which these crimes occurred--the police departments--had 
these criminals in custody shortly prior to the commission of these 
crimes. But in both cases, when the Department of Homeland Security 
asked for a temporary detention until they could take these people into 
custody and deport them, that was not allowed because these were 
sanctuary cities. These sanctuary cities systematically forbid the 
local police from even sharing information or cooperating with Federal 
immigration officials, even in the case of criminals.
  My amendment is a bipartisan amendment. I want to thank the Senator 
from West Virginia for cosponsoring it. This is an amendment that will 
ensure that any legal liability for wrongful detention is held by the 
Federal Government, and nonsecurity funds--CDBG grants and some other 
categories--will be withheld from sanctuary cities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Toomey amendment will withhold 
critical funding from cities, counties, and States whose police 
departments refuse to deploy their police officers as immigration 
agents for the Federal Government.
  Listen to what the two chiefs of police in Storm Lake and 
Marshalltown, IA, wrote last week to the Des Moines Register:

       Most significant, the proposed bill would diminish the 
     trust that keeps our cities safe in the first place. We 
     depend on residents, including immigrants, to come to us when 
     they see something suspicious or potentially criminal. If 
     they hear of a looming ``crackdown'' that could affect their 
     families and friends, they are less likely to come [forward] 
     to report and prevent actual crimes.

  This is from Iowa chiefs of police in the Midwest. It is common 
sense.
  My superintendent in Chicago, Eddie Johnson, said:

       I've said it before and I'll say it again. Undocumented 
     immigrants are not driving violence in Chicago. That's why I 
     want our officers focused on community policing and not 
     trying to be immigration police.

  Vote for our men and women in uniform. Vote against the Toomey 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 34 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--45

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 54, the nays are 
45.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.


                             Cloture Motion

  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The assistant bill 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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 1958, as modified, offered by the Senator from New York, 
Mr. Schumer, 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, shall be brought to a close?
  There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally divided.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I know there is some dispute about the 
name of this amendment, so let's just call it the ``olly olly oxen 
free'' amendment because it says to the entire world: If you can get to 
our country in the next 4 months, olly olly oxen free--you can stay 
forever.
  That is right. This bill directs the Department of Homeland Security 
not to prioritize enforcement action not only against illegal 
immigrants here today but anyone who gets here over the next 4 months.
  Second, it is an amnesty that is far broader than the DACA Program--
not 700,000, not 1.8 million, but over 3 million people.
  Third, it is even worse than that because it includes their parents 
as well. The bill purports to prohibit parents from being legalized, 
but it requires the Federal Government to show that the parents did not 
knowingly assist the entry of a minor into this country. How can the 
government show that 15, 20, 25 years later? And to say nothing of the 
fact that it puts onerous conditions on the spending of any money for 
security. It does virtually nothing for chain migration and nothing at 
all to the diversity lottery. That is why President Trump has issued a 
veto threat, and that is why every one of my colleagues should vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, while I enjoy the humor that my colleague 
from Arkansas has expressed, this is an important bill. What we have 
done is what the President has asked for.
  No. 1, this provides $25 billion for a border security system.
  No. 2, it addresses the issue of DACA. It takes care of 1.8 million 
young people who want to be citizens of the United States 10 to 12 
years from now. It does not provide a citizenship opportunity for their 
parents.
  I yield at this time to my colleague, the Senator from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, on January 9 of this year, the President of 
the United States said: We are going to come up with DACA. We are going 
to do DACA, and then we can start immediately on phase two, which will 
be comprehensive. I think we have to do DACA first. Later that evening, 
he tweeted and said that in addition to DACA, we need to do the border. 
This is that bill.
  Much of the criticism are for things not in this bill. They weren't 
intended to be. This is a narrow bill dealing with DACA and border 
security. This is what the American people want us to do, and they are 
going to be puzzled if anyone in this body votes against a bill that 
will deal with DACA and border security.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues, Senator 
Rounds and Senator King, in clarifying the intent of a provision from 
the Immigration Security and Opportunity Act, which has been offered as 
an amendment. What this provision seeks to do is send a strong message 
to people who come to the country after the bill is enacted that they 
are going to be a priority for deportation just like a person

[[Page S1148]]

who has committed a felony is prioritized for deportation. I commit to 
changing this date from June 30, 2018, back to the beginning of the 
calendar year, January 1, 2018, in conference should the amendment be 
adopted by the Senate.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, I agree with the senior Senator from Maine 
on the intent of this provision and support working with her and our 
colleagues to move this date to January 1, 2018. I would also offer 
that to prioritize some actions does not mean to do so at the exclusion 
of others, nor does it mean that DHS is prohibited in any way from 
enforcing the law.
  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I, too, would like to echo the comments by 
Senator Collins and Senator King on the intent of the provision and our 
commitment to move this date back to the beginning of the year. This 
provision is needed to ensure that we are providing a deterrent. 
Individuals who come to the U.S. after a particular date must know that 
we are going to focus resources on their deportation just like we will 
focus on felons and other criminals and those who pose a threat to our 
Nation's security or public safety.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, and I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays are mandatory under the 
rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 35 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hassan
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Isakson
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--45

     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 54, the nays are 
45.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.


                             Cloture Motion

  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The 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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 1959, offered by the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, 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, shall be brought to a close?
  There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally divided.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we offer you commonsense reforms. More 
than half of the Senators on that side just voted for a massive amount 
of funding that we need for border security. We offer that as well, but 
we also make it easier for authorities to remove criminals. We end 
chain migration. We end the diversity visa. We also have a path to 
citizenship for 1.8 million DACA recipients and Dreamers.
  In a sense, this is it. It is the only plan that can become law 
because the President has said he would sign it. This is it. This is 
one's last chance to vote for a path to citizenship for all of the 
people we have been talking about giving justice to and being 
compassionate about and bringing out of the dark. So here we are with 
an opportunity to do it. I hope you will vote yes and support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we have waited a long time and worked 
very hard for the chance to vote on a bill to protect Dreamers. I 
regret that the only bipartisan effort of the group of moderate 
Senators to come up with a bipartisan compromise couldn't get the 
necessary 60 votes, and I expect the Grassley proposal will not get 60 
either. I salute the eight brave Republicans who voted for the 
bipartisan compromise.
  There is only one reason the Senate will be unable to reach a 
bipartisan solution to DACA--President Trump. President Trump created 
this problem by terminating the DACA Program last August. Since that 
decision, President Trump has stood in the way of every single proposal 
that could have become law.
  In conclusion, immigration is always a contentious issue. There are 
intense feelings on both sides of the aisle. If there were ever a time 
for Presidential leadership, this was it. President Trump has failed 
his test of leadership--spectacularly.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays are mandatory under the 
rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 39, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 36 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

     Alexander
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Donnelly
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Manchin
     McConnell
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Scott
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--60

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Inhofe
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lee
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 39, the nays are 
60.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The Senator from North Carolina.

                          ____________________