[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 177 (Wednesday, November 6, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6415-S6416]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2603

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, when I first came to the Senate, I was 
asked to serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I considered it 
quite an honor. It is an extraordinary committee with a rich history of 
involvement in some of the most important issues of our time, and that 
has been the case for generations.
  Recently, when it was reformed, I was asked on which subcommittee I 
wanted to serve. I chose the Immigration Subcommittee. I took it for 
two reasons. First, I am a lucky American. My mother was an immigrant 
to this country. She was brought here at the age of 2 from Lithuania. 
Her mother, who brought her, didn't speak English, but my mom was a 
pretty smart little girl. She spoke English and Lithuanian, and she was 
the translator for the family. They even called her into a courtroom as 
a little girl to translate for a person who was being charged so that 
they understood the law. My mother was an extraordinary woman. She had 
an eighth grade education, but was one of the smartest people I have 
ever known. I guess that is a son talking, but you might expect it.
  I often thought I was lucky that she lived long enough to see me 
sworn into the U.S. Senate. This immigrant girl, who became an American 
citizen, saw her son become the 47th Senator from the State of 
Illinois. That is my story. That is my family's story. That is 
America's story. That is who we are.
  We are a Nation of immigrants. But for those blessed to be able to 
trace back their roots to indigenous people and Native Americans, all 
of us have come to this country--either ourselves personally, our 
parents, or grandparents.
  Immigration means a lot to me because I think the diversity of this 
country is its strength. The fact that people were willing to sacrifice 
so much to come to the United States of America tells me something 
about them. Many of them risked everything. They left everything 
behind--left behind their families, their places of worship, their 
language, their culture, their food--and came to a place they had never 
seen before because they heard what America was all about--a land of 
opportunity. So I wanted to be on that subcommittee.
  The second reason I wanted to be on the subcommittee is that the 
immigration laws of the United States are a disaster. They are terribly 
broken. They do not serve our Nation, either in terms of security or 
bringing the diversity we need for our future. I have known this for a 
long time.
  It was 6 or 7 years ago that we put together a group of Senators, 
four Democrats, four Republicans. John McCain was leading the 
Republicans with Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Jeff Flake. On the 
Democratic side was Senator Schumer, who just spoke on the floor; 
Senator Menendez of New Jersey; Senator Bennet of Colorado; and I. We 
sat down for months, night after night, looking at every section of the 
immigration law--this broken law--to say: How will we change this? How 
can we reach political compromises and serve the best needs of this 
Nation? And we came up with it.
  We came up with this comprehensive bill and brought it to the floor 
of the Senate, and it passed with 68 votes. We finally found a 
bipartisan answer--just exactly what the American people sent us to do.
  We sent our work product over to the House of Representatives, and 
they refused to even consider it. They wouldn't bring our bill up for a 
vote. They wouldn't debate it, wouldn't offer an amendment, an 
alternative substitute--nothing. And here we sit with this broken 
immigration system.
  I want to describe to my colleagues--or at least those listening in 
the Senate--one of the issues that came up recently. Here is what it 
comes down to. There are people who come to the United States to work. 
Many of them come on what is known as an H-1B visa. It is a specialty 
visa, and it says that in this situation, this company cannot find an 
American to fill the job and wants to bring a talented person from 
another company on a temporary visa to work. Thousands come under this 
program each year. Many of them come from the country of India. They 
are trained engineers, by and large, but they are also doctors, and 
they are professionals who are needed in communities all across our 
country.
  Well, we have run into a problem because once they are here and have 
been here for some time, many of them want to stay. That in and of 
itself is a good thing, as far as I am concerned. If they are 
productive employees making a business profitable, creating new jobs in 
the process, I want them to stay. Some of them were actually educated 
in the United States and are using that education, working here, but 
now they want to be permanent residents in this country.
  There is a difficulty in the problem because we limit the number of 
people who can apply for what is known as green cards--employment-based 
visas--each year. The limitation is 140,000. It may sound like a lot, 
but believe me, there are hundreds of thousands more who are seeking 
these visas.
  We have a problem particularly when it comes to those of Indian 
descent. The problem is the fact that so many of them have come to fill 
these temporary work jobs and are applying for green cards that there 
are many more applications for green cards than there are actual cards 
to be issued. There are only 140,000 total each year for the entire 
world. There are over 500,000 Indians who have come to this country and 
are asking for green card status. The law also says that no more than 7 
percent can come from any 1 country of the 140,000. If you do the 
simple math of about 10,000 each year and with there being over 500,000 
Indians waiting, imagine what that means. It means that many of them 
will never live long enough to qualify for a green card. So this has 
become very controversial. Many of them are desperate, and they should 
be, for their plights are now so uncertain.

  It is complicated by the fact that if you come here in an employment-
based situation--on a temporary visa, an H-1B--you can bring your 
family with you, meaning your spouse and your children. Yet, if you 
stay here for a period of time and if your children reach the age of 
21, they can no longer stay based on their parent's visa. Frankly, they 
are subject to deportation, and some are deported.
  The other night, I met a large group of these Indians in the State of 
Illinois who came to me pleading for help. I want to help them. I hope 
they understand and those who are listening understand as well that 
when it comes to immigration, I am in favor of border security and of 
orderly immigration, but I am in favor of immigration and the diversity 
it brings to this country and the talent it brings to this country.
  I have a bill before us, known as the RELIEF Act. It would lift that 
cap of 140,000 so we could absorb more people each year into our 
country who have been here already or who have been working here 
already and whose families have been established here already but who 
just want a chance to, ultimately, apply for citizenship. That is what 
my bill would do.
  It would do two other things, and I want to bring these points up for 
those who are considering my unanimous consent request that I am about 
to make. I want them to understand how personal and important this is 
to the people I am talking about.
  One of the provisions I mentioned relates to the fact that if you 
bring children to the United States while you are working on those 
temporary visas, those children are protected until they reach the age 
of 21, but they are then subject to deportation. I cannot tell you the 
emotional scenes I have witnessed in the last few weeks as these 
parents have introduced me to their children and have said to me: 
Senator, I am in this long line waiting for a green card. My 12-year-
old daughter could end up being 21 years old and deported while I am 
still waiting. I want to take care of her. I want her to have a chance 
to go to school, and I want her to have a bright future. Yet her fate 
is tied to the fact that there are not enough green cards for me to 
stay in this country.

[[Page S6416]]

  One of the provisions in the RELIEF Act that I urge my colleagues to 
consider when I make this unanimous consent request is that if you 
apply for a green card as a parent, the age of your children at that 
moment is basically frozen for legal purposes. Those children cannot 
age out while you are waiting in line if you applied while they were 
still minors. This will protect these children from deportation. This 
is one of the most important and humane things we can do.
  The second thing is, if we are going to establish any standards or 
quotas for those who are allowed in this country to have employment-
based visas and green cards, we shouldn't count the spouses and 
dependent children. Let's just count those who are, frankly, going to 
work as engineers and doctors in our communities.
  The net result of the RELIEF Act is to create a realistic way to lift 
the cap in order to allow more to come in each year who are qualified, 
who have already been vetted, and who have gone through the background 
checks. It is not to penalize the minor children who might age out 
while their parents are waiting. We should make sure the spouses and 
dependent children aren't counted toward any ultimate quota.
  The RELIEF Act would lift country caps that limit the number of green 
cards that go to immigrants from any particular country. These country 
caps have contributed to this terrible backlog that we currently have. 
Yet lifting these caps alone will not clear the green card backlog. 
Without more green cards, which is what I am calling for, the current 
backlog of 800,000 people total--I mentioned 500,000 were from India--
who are waiting for employment-based green cards will actually increase 
if we don't lift the cap by 300,000 in the next 10 years.
  The RELIEF Act is not novel or controversial. You will remember that 
earlier I talked about a comprehensive immigration bill. What I am 
proposing today is included in it. It is a bipartisan proposal, and it 
is one that, I think, we should return to in order to solve the 
problem.
  The RELIEF Act has been endorsed by many national business, 
immigrant, and labor organizations, including the New American Economy, 
the National Education Association, the American Immigration Lawyers 
Association, United We Dream, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, South 
Asian Americans Leading Together, United Chinese Americans, the 
National Iranian American Council, the Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers, the American Hellenic Educational Progressive 
Association, which, incidentally, is the largest Greek-American 
organization, and the Ancient Order of Hibernians, which is the largest 
Irish-American organization.
  In light of the failure of our immigration subcommittee's taking any 
action to solve this problem, I will ask for unanimous consent to move 
this bill forward.
  To those who are considering whether they will accept or reject it, 
meet with these people in your State. Sit down with them, and hear of 
the plights they face today. They are trying to follow the law, and the 
law is not responsive.
  Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further 
consideration of S. 2603 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
considered read a third time 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 (Mr. Sasse). Is there objection?
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I come 
to the floor to, first, compliment Senator Durbin on his remarkable 
story and his family's story about legal immigration to this country. 
It is something I support. I think we should all consider it a 
compliment when people want to leave the countries of their births to 
come to the United States, for they know what we know--that it is a 
great place in which to live and thrive.
  I have a concern with the unanimous consent request before us, the 
RELIEF Act. Senator Durbin and I have worked on a couple of immigration 
issues on which we have bridged the gap but have not quite gotten 
there.
  First off, it could lay the groundwork for a significant increase in 
legal immigration, but I am also concerned with the mechanics we find 
ourselves in right now. As I understand it, the RELIEF Act has six 
cosponsors--all Democrats. Yet there is another bill that is moving 
through the Senate right now that was offered by Senator Lee. It has 
been offered in other Congresses, but it is actually making headway. It 
has 35 cosponsors, and 15 of them are Democrats. They include Senator 
Harris, of California, and Senator Duckworth, the junior Senator of 
Illinois. I believe this is a very narrowly focused effort to address a 
lot of the concerns that Senator Durbin has.
  I do not believe Senator Durbin has the support of the Senate to take 
this through regular order at this point, let alone through unanimous 
consent. I hope Senator Durbin and others will recognize that we do 
have a shortage of high-skilled workers in this country and that we do 
need to fix a number of problems, but I don't think they can be fixed 
with the RELIEF Act.
  I encourage Senator Durbin to work with Senator Lee and with the 34 
other Senate Members on a bipartisan basis to address this so we can 
bring the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act to the floor and 
send it to the House for its consideration.
  Because of the lack of consensus on many of the provisions in the 
RELIEF Act, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senator from North Carolina and I both 
serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee. What I have asked for is a 
hearing before the Immigration Subcommittee so Senator Lee can bring 
his bill forward and so I can bring my bill forward so we can try to 
work out the differences between us. That is usually how the Senate 
operates. Unfortunately, last week, on the floor, Senator Lee announced 
that he was opposed to having any hearing on his bill. He didn't want 
there to be a hearing and a markup. I think it is unfortunate. It 
really will not lead us to having a bipartisan agreement that might 
actually solve this problem.
  I also think there is a fundamental flaw in Senator Lee's approach. 
He would take care of the issues facing those from India at the expense 
of the issues of the immigrants from virtually every other country, for 
they would be denied the opportunity to apply for green cards while we 
would be taking care of the backlog from this one nation. I don't think 
that is the way to approach this.
  As the Senator from North Carolina said, if we truly believe more 
legal immigration of those with talents would be good for America, this 
is our chance to do it. At this point, I am disappointed. I have told 
these families who come to see me regularly that I will continue to 
fight for them--to give them a chance to protect their children and to 
have a future in America.
  I hope Senator Lee will reconsider and allow for a hearing to take 
place so we can move this bill forward and not just exchange unanimous 
consent requests on the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.