[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 163 (Wednesday, October 16, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5810-S5812]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Immigration

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise today on the Senate floor to 
address an issue that is really fundamental to who we are as Americans. 
It is the issue of immigration.
  We just celebrated, this past week, a day dedicated to Christopher 
Columbus, who, supposedly, discovered America. Of course, we know 
better. Native Americans were here and discovered it before him, but he 
was the first European to discover America and really triggered an 
immigration to this part of the world that has really changed America 
and the world forever.
  This immigration from all over the world has created one of the most 
diverse nations on Earth. I am a beneficiary of that immigration. My 
mother was an immigrant to America in 1911, coming here from Lithuania 
to East St. Louis, IL, where she was raised and where I had the chance 
to grow up, as well.
  Today, her son--this immigrant mother's son--has been serving as a 
U.S. Senator from Illinois with humility and pride. It is an indication 
of our family's story, but it is also America's story--how immigrants 
came from far and wide to America and made lives and great futures and 
built families that continue to serve this Nation to this day.
  You would think, since immigration is such a central part of who we 
are as Americans, that there would be a general consensus about the 
issue, but it turns out to be one of the most hotly contested and 
debated issues almost since the arrival of the Mayflower.
  How many people should be allowed to come to this country? Where are 
they going to come from? What will they do when they come here? What 
impact will they have on those of us who are already here? All of these 
questions of national security have led us into an ongoing national 
debate about immigration.
  Today, this morning, I come to the floor to discuss one aspect of it. 
This last Sunday morning, I was back in Illinois and was invited to a 
Democratic Party event in Schaumburg, IL. It was a fairly routine 
breakfast meeting of the Democratic township organization. I have been 
to many of them. It is great to see old friends.
  When I arrived at the event, I was surprised to see demonstrators, 
protesters--perhaps 200 of them--holding signs with my name on them. It 
is not exactly the way you want to start a Sunday morning, greeting 200 
people with signs about this fellow named Durbin. I had a chance to 
talk to them. I didn't run away from them because I wanted to find out 
who they were and why they were there.
  By and large, they were people from India who are currently living in 
the United States and want to become legal citizens here. Most of them 
came to the United States bringing special skills that were needed. 
Many of them are in the Silicon Valley high-tech industries--engineers 
who came to the United States once companies certified that they 
couldn't find an American to fill the job, which is a requirement. 
Having been unable to find an American, these companies asked 
permission to bring in these highly skilled people from India to serve 
as engineers in the United States.

[[Page S5811]]

  They come in on what is known as H-1B visas, by and large, and that 
allows them to work in the United States for several years and to renew 
that work status on a recurring basis. But there reached a point where 
they wanted to stay here. They have lived here awhile. They bring their 
families and raise their families here, and they want to become part of 
America's future. They apply for what is known as an employment-based 
immigrant visa, which leads to a green card. A green card is the ticket 
to legal, permanent residency, which can lead to citizenship.
  So these people from India, who were waiting to see me and say a few 
words to me, stated the fact that the waiting list for those in this 
category from India has now passed 520,000. There are 520,000 who are 
seeking permanent status in our country.
  I met one of them from my hometown of Springfield, IL, a young Indian 
physician who is serving at one of our hospitals in Springfield. He 
brought with him his daughter. His daughter is 12 years old. He is 
worried because if he, the physician who came here to work from India, 
is not allowed to legally stay in this country and his daughter reaches 
the age of 21, her status changes. She is no longer his dependent. She 
now has her own immigration status, and she is not technically, 
legally, beyond the age of 21, allowed to stay in this country.
  So he says to me: Here is my daughter, who has been here for 10 
years. This is the country she knows and loves and wants to be a part 
of, and if I don't get approval to stay as a doctor in this country, 
she is technically undocumented at that point, and we run into problems 
with the future.
  For example, it is no surprise that this doctor wants to see his 
daughter go to college. Well, his daughter, undocumented, will not 
qualify for any assistance in the United States by way of Pell grants 
or loans. How is she going to pay for college? Where would she go? Our 
immigration system says, at that point, if her father doesn't reach 
this green card status, she would return to India, a place she maybe 
never remembers and that was part of her infancy in her early time here 
on Earth.

  So it is a complicated situation. There is a debate under way here 
about how to stop this backlog of people who are waiting in line 10 
years, 20 years, and more to reach green card status. You can imagine 
the uncertainty in their lives, the uncertainty for their children, and 
why they are looking for some relief.
  I came to this issue never dreaming that I would end up being in the 
middle of most debates in the Senate on immigration, but I welcome it 
because it is such an important issue and because I have strong 
feelings myself about America's immigration policy.
  I serve as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Border Security 
and Immigration for the Senate Judiciary Committee. As I have said, my 
own personal family and life experience have really made me warm to the 
subject, and I try to learn as much as I can about a complex field. 
Make no mistake, the immigration system of the United States of America 
is badly, badly broken. How to fix it is hotly debated here in the 
Senate and in the House and across the Nation.
  Last night, when I was watching the Presidential debates, groups were 
running ads on a regular basis on the issue of immigration. Many 
believe that it is going to be a hot topic in the 2020 election. It is 
quite possible that it will be. We know that in State legislatures and 
city halls, on cable news and social media, and almost everywhere, 
there is a debate under way about immigration. But there is one place 
where there is no debate about immigration--here in the U.S. Senate.
  This year, we had one hearing in the Border Security and Immigration 
Subcommittee. And the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on only one 
immigration bill. The chairman limited debate to only one hour and 
didn't allow any amendments, and we have not had any debates on the 
floor of the Senate.
  I look to the Galleries and the people who come to the Senate and 
expect to see a debate on an issue--an important issue. Here is one: 
immigration. But all they have is a speech from this Senator and a few 
others, instead of addressing the issue of immigration.
  Senator Kennedy has come to the floor, and I am going to make a 
unanimous consent request in just a few minutes. He is a member of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, too, and I think he appreciates, as I do, 
what a great honor it is to serve on this storied committee. But the 
fact is that to have the titles of Judiciary Committee and Border 
Security and Immigration Subcommittee and to do nothing, I think, is a 
dereliction of duty.
  We are supposed to step up and debate these things and come to the 
best bipartisan conclusion we can to solve problems in this country. 
Here is a problem we are not solving: how to deal with a backlog of 
people, highly skilled and important people, like the doctor from my 
hometown of Springfield, from India, who wants to have a green card, 
giving him an opportunity to become an American citizen.
  Do you know what? I want that doctor to become an American citizen. I 
want him to get a green card. We need him in my hometown and many more 
just like him, and I want his family to be there with him so that his 
life is complete as he pursues his professional responsibilities.
  Now, in recent weeks, there has been an effort to pass a bill to 
address this issue. The bill is S. 386. It is known as the Fairness for 
High-Skilled Immigrants Act. Unfortunately, there was an effort to pass 
it without any debate or a chance to even offer an amendment.
  Now, this bill makes significant changes in our immigration laws, but 
there has never been a hearing on the bill or a vote in the committee. 
The lead sponsor of the legislation is Mike Lee, who is the senior 
Senator from Utah and a personal friend. He has negotiated several 
amendments in private with his Republican Senators, but there has been 
no conversation with myself or any other Democratic Senators about 
these negotiations.
  That is not how the Senate should work. I believe I have seen the 
Senate at its best, and, unfortunately, it was 7 years ago. We 
decided--eight of us in the Senate, four Democrats and four 
Republicans--to actually sit down and try to fix the immigration 
system. It is a pretty ambitious task, but we had some pretty talented 
people engaged in it. Leading on the Republican side was John McCain 
from Arizona. Next to him was Lindsey Graham from South Carolina, Jeff 
Flake from Arizona, and Marco Rubio from Florida.
  On our side, I was engaged with Senator Chuck Schumer, who is now the 
Democrat Senate leader, as well as Bob Menendez, of course, a Hispanic 
Senator from the State of New Jersey, and Michael Bennet from Colorado.
  So the eight of us came together. We did what I think the Senate is 
supposed to do. We sat down and took our time and spent months, every 
single week, sometimes several evenings each week, going through a 
different section of our immigration law and trying to make it work, 
reform it, and change it. It took us months--some 6 months of meetings. 
That is what we are elected to do.
  We produced a comprehensive immigration reform bill that was 
supported by virtually everyone. Groups of business leaders, as well as 
groups of labor leaders, the church community, and all sorts of people 
from the conservative side of politics to the liberal side of politics 
said that this was a good, fair, bipartisan compromise.
  So in 2013, we reported this bill to the floor, after our Democratic 
Judiciary Committee chairman at that time, Patrick Leahy from Vermont, 
had a lengthy hearing. We considered over 100 amendments--amendments 
offered by those who were voting against the bill, like Jeff Sessions 
from Alabama, and amendments offered by those supporting the bill, like 
Mazie Hirono from Hawaii. Each person offered an amendment, debated it, 
and we voted. It sounded like the U.S. Senate; didn't it? We were 
actually voting on amendments on a critically important bill. Thanks to 
Chairman Leahy's skill and patience, I might add, after hundreds of 
amendments were considered, the bill was reported out of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, came to the floor of the Senate in 2013, and we 
called for a vote. It passed 68 to 32. After all that work, on a 
bipartisan basis, we finally got it right. I thought we did, and I 
voted for it.

  Sadly, that bill was sent across the Rotunda, over to the House of 
Representatives, as the Constitution requires, and, unfortunately, the 
Republican Speaker, John Boehner, refused

[[Page S5812]]

to call the bill or debate an alternative to it. It literally died from 
lack of any effort to deal with the issue in the U.S. House of 
Representatives.
  So one would ask--that was more than 6 years ago--what has happened 
since? The answer is nothing--virtually nothing--except decisions by 
the Trump administration, for example, to eliminate some aspects of our 
immigration law, like the DACA provision.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. In light of an attempt to pass the Fairness for High-
Skilled Immigrants Act without hearings or debate, I come to the floor 
today to present an alternative. I am introducing the Resolving 
Extended Limbo for Immigrant Employees and Families Act, known as the 
RELIEF Act, which will treat all immigrants fairly by eliminating 
immigrant visa backlogs.
  One of the most serious problems of our immigration system is that 
there are not enough immigrant visas, known as green cards. As a 
result, immigrants are stuck in crippling backlogs for decades. Close 
to 4 million future Americans, many of whom already live and work in 
the United States, are on the State Department's immigrant visa waiting 
list. However, under current law, only 226,000 family green cards and 
140,000 employee green cards are available each year. Children and 
spouses of lawful permanent residents, known as LPRs, count against 
these caps, which further limit the number of available green cards.
  The backlogs are a tremendous hardship on families caught in this 
situation. Children of parents waiting to become LPRs often age out, as 
I described earlier, because they are no longer children by the time 
the green cards are available for them. The solution is clear: increase 
the number of green cards.
  Let's be clear. Lifting green card country caps alone, without 
increasing green cards, as the bill that Senator Lee is sponsoring 
would do, will not eliminate the backlog for Indian immigrants, the 
nationality with the most people in the employment backlog, and it will 
dramatically increase backlogs for the rest of the world.
  Mr. Ira Kurzban, who is the Nation's expert on immigration laws, has 
said that we are virtually trying to solve the problem with Senator 
Lee's bill for Indian immigrants at the expense of everyone else in the 
world. He says:

       From 2023 until well into the 2030s, there will be zero EB-
     2 visas for the rest of the world. None for China, South 
     Korea, Philippines, Britain, Canada, Mexico, every country in 
     the [European Union] and all of Africa. Zero.

  It would also choke off green cards for every important profession 
that isn't in the information technology field.
  More than 20 national organizations have now rallied against the Lee 
legislation and have said things such as that the bill offers a ``zero-
sum approach,'' pitting one group of immigrants against another to 
fight the broken immigration system.
  The RELIEF Act, which I am introducing today, is a solution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2603

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his extra 3 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am making a unanimous consent request.
  As in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2603, introduced earlier 
today; further, that the bill be considered read three times and passed 
and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, no one 
in this Chamber has more respect for the senior Senator from Illinois 
and the Democratic whip than I do. I share much of his frustration. I 
also share, and I believe what the Senator also believes, that 
immigration is an extraordinarily important subject that this body 
should be addressing. We are a nation of immigrants. The American 
people support legal immigration. I know the senior Senator from 
Illinois supports it. I certainly support it.
  I am rising to object because a number of my colleagues--and I don't 
want to simply put it on them; I join with them in this--would like a 
little additional time to study this bill. Equally important, if not 
more important, many of my colleagues' sentiment is that we should take 
this bill up first in the Judiciary Committee.
  I commit to the minority whip that I will join with him in trying to 
get our esteemed chairman to take this bill up. I don't think we ought 
to be afraid of this issue. I don't think we ought to be reluctant to 
take difficult votes. That is why we are here in the U.S. Senate. I 
also cannot think of a subject that is more important for this body to 
address than the subject of immigration, including but not limited to 
legal and illegal immigration.
  The fact of the matter is that the American people deserve an 
immigration system that looks like somebody designed it on purpose.
  For the reasons I just expressed, Madam President, I respectfully 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleague from Louisiana. We have worked on 
things together, and I hope we will continue to do so in the future.
  This is controversial, but it is so timely and important. The 
hundreds of people who demonstrated against this Senator last Sunday 
were people I welcomed into this country and believe will be an 
important part of our future. I am willing to find a solution to the 
problem, and I am willing to work on a bipartisan basis to do it. Your 
help will be invaluable.

                          ____________________