[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 180 (Tuesday, November 12, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6494-S6497]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Immigration

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was honored today to attend the second 
hearing I have attended in the Supreme Court of the United States. If 
you stand right here on the floor of the Senate and look east through 
these glass doors, you can almost see the Supreme Court buildings 
directly across the street. The Supreme Court is, many times, the last 
stop when it comes to human rights and civil rights. After all the work 
that has been done by the Congress, by the President, many times, it is 
the Supreme Court that has the last word.
  In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, when the Supreme Court held that 
segregation was constitutional, that last word was a disappointment. 
And Korematsu v. The United States, when the Supreme Court upheld the 
internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, that was another 
disappointment.
  But other times, the Supreme Court has risen to the challenge: The 
famous case of Brown vs. Board of Education, which finally struck down 
the concept of separate but equal; Obergefell vs. Hodges, where the 
Supreme Court recognized the right to marriage equality.
  Well, today, the Supreme Court faces another human rights issue 
involving another group. Just a few hours ago, the street between the 
Capitol and the Supreme Court was literally filled with thousands and 
thousands of demonstrators. The issue before the Court today was the 
fate of DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
  This measure, DACA, is one that I have worked on for many years--many 
years. Nineteen years ago, I introduced the DREAM Act. Before that, the 
term ``Dreamer'' was hardly ever applied in the conversation about 
immigration, but now, it has become standard and really defines this 
group of Americans, people living in America.
  In their case, they came to the United States, brought here by their 
parents, when they were children. They may have had legal entry into 
the United States, but at some point in their lives, they no longer 
were legal. They became undocumented, in the words of the law. Most of 
these young people never knew that status until they reached their 
teenage years and their parents finally told them the truth of their 
legal condition.
  They had no control over the decision of their parents to come to 
this country or file the necessary papers. Frankly, many of them were 
shocked to learn that they were undocumented. They went to school with 
our kids. They grew up in our communities.

[[Page S6495]]

They played on the sports teams. They probably attended the same 
churches and temples and synagogues as our own kids. They were just 
part of the group. But they knew--they privately knew they were not. 
They knew that they were one knock on the door away from being deported 
from the United States.
  It was because of one of these young people that I decided to 
introduce that DREAM Act legislation 19 years ago. Her name is Tereza 
Lee, brought to the United States at the age of 2 from Korea by her 
parents to Chicago. She grew up in a family that struggled to make ends 
meet. Her father wanted to be a minister, but never quite put that 
church together. Her mother worked in a dry-cleaning establishment to 
feed the family. She went to public schools, and as luck would have it, 
there was a program at one of these schools called the Merit Music 
program that gave her a chance to learn how to play the piano.
  She started playing, and she followed her father around to these 
churches. Then she took it seriously, and she became an amazing pianist 
to the point where, when she finished the public high school, she was 
offered an opportunity to go on for music education at the Manhattan 
Conservatory of Music. When she filled out her application and reached 
the point where they asked her nationality and citizenship, she asked 
her mom: What am I supposed to put on here? Her mom said: I am not 
sure. We better call Senator Durbin's office.
  They did, and we checked the law, and the law is very harsh. For 
Tereza Lee--who had lived 15 or 16 years in the United States, beat the 
odds by finishing high school and developing this great talent at the 
piano--the law told her that she had to leave the United States for 10 
years and apply to return. That is the law.
  It seemed unfair to me that a young woman, brought here at the age of 
2, should face that as her only legal choice, so I introduced the DREAM 
Act. It said, if you were brought here as a child, raised in the United 
States, went to school, and had no criminal record of significance, 
that you should be given a chance--the chance to make it in the United 
States to earn your way to legal status and citizenship.
  That is what the DREAM Act was all about. We passed it in the House 
and in the Senate, but never in the same Congress, so it is still not 
the law of the land. It was 8 years ago when I appealed to my former 
colleague in the Senate, Barack Obama, as President, to try to help, 
and he did.
  By Executive action, he created DACA, which said that young people 
like Tereza Lee could apply, go through a criminal background check, 
fill out the necessary forms, pay the filing fee, and be allowed to 
stay in the United States for 2 years at a time, renewable, not to be 
deported, and be able to legally work.
  After President Obama came up with DACA, over 780,000 young people 
came forward and became protected by DACA. It really changed their 
lives. For the first time in their lives, they had some government-
recognized status. They were no longer just undocumented. Then amazing 
things happened. They went on and pursued an education, a career, a 
life, a future. They started realizing their dreams. It was a good and 
positive thing all around.
  Then, President Trump came into office. Initially, he was very 
complimentary of Dreamers, saying positive things about them, but, 
unfortunately, over a period of time he changed his attitude about this 
issue. On September 5, 2017, President Trump announced he was going to 
end the DACA Program, end the protection for these young people.
  It was a sad day and a challenge for us to decide what to do, to try 
to pass legislation in the Congress that would protect these young 
people, and we rolled up our sleeves and put together several 
bipartisan measures in the Senate. President Trump rejected every 
single one of them. He wasn't going to have it. He was opposed to our 
enacting legislation that dealt with it.
  That repeal of DACA has created uncertainty for hundreds of 
thousands. A lawsuit was filed in an effort to try to protect them, and 
the courts said their protection would continue while the case was 
being argued. The case worked its way through the courts and ended up, 
this morning, at the U.S. Supreme Court across the street.
  I was proud to lead 172 current and former Members of Congress on a 
bipartisan amicus brief in support of DACA. Now it is clearly up to the 
Justices in the Supreme Court to follow the law and to reject what I 
consider to be President Trump's illegal repeal of DACA, but only 
Congress can provide a permanent solution for Dreamers.
  The U.S. House of Representatives has responded to President Trump's 
cruel decision to repeal DACA by passing the Dream and Promise Act on a 
strong bipartisan vote of 237 to 187. This legislation is based on the 
DREAM Act I originally introduced 19 years ago. This bipartisan 
legislation would give Dreamers a chance to earn their citizenship. The 
bill passed the House. It is here. It is now up to Senator Mitch 
McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, to call the Dream and 
Promise Act for a vote in the U.S. Senate.
  Mr. President, I want to make a unanimous consent request in relation 
to that measure and ask for a consent after we debate my UC request to 
complete my remarks. I see a Senator on the floor who I believe is here 
to object. I want to be courteous to her because she has been in the 
Chair for a while. Can I have a unanimous consent to return to the 
debate after I make my unanimous consent request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 6

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for clarity, I ask unanimous consent to 
bring to the floor the Dream and Promise Act for a vote in the Senate--
a measure which would address the very issue that is before the Supreme 
Court today. I am making this on behalf of Senator Schumer, Senator 
Leahy, Senator Rosen, Senator Tim Kaine, Senator Menendez, and Senator 
Cardin.
  As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 112, H.R. 6; 
further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and 
the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon table, with 
no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I am reserving the right to object, 
and I will object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I would like to articulate the reason 
for the objection to the legislation that is brought forward by my 
friend the Senator from Illinois.
  Once again, I found it necessary for the good of the order to object 
to a unanimous consent request brought by our friends in the minority. 
Once again, they are attempting to bypass the Senate's rules on behalf 
of a piece of legislation this body has not had time to debate, to 
deliberate, or to consider in committee.
  The American Dream and Promise Act passed the House of 
Representatives by a near party-line vote; unsurprising, considering 
the bill addresses the contentious issue of immigration law. This bill, 
supported by the Senator from Illinois, would offer temporary legal 
status to 2\1/2\ million undocumented immigrants.
  Those affected immigrants have tried to remain in the United States 
under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or the DACA Program--
a backstop made possible by nothing more than an Executive memo signed 
by former President Barack Obama.
  I think this is important for us to realize that it was an Executive 
memo that put this program in place. It is not a Federal law. President 
Trump ended the DACA Program in 2017, arguing the Obama 
administration's attempt to subvert immigration law on such a massive 
scale was unlawful and possibly unconstitutional. Soon after, President 
Trump offered a path to legalization for DACA recipients, but our 
friends in the minority refused to take him up on that offer.
  We have to remember this: There was a path to legalization for DACA 
recipients that was offered by President Donald Trump. Our friends in 
the minority said: No; no, we do not want that.
  They continued with the issue. I will tell you, every Dreamer in the 
country should be outraged by the minority's

[[Page S6496]]

refusal to come to the table and negotiate on an offer that was on the 
table. I encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle to 
remember that the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court decision to 
maintain an injunction on the nationwide DAPA Program--a scheme similar 
to DACA but aimed at parents, as opposed to children.

  Although that decision set no legal precedent, it did open up an 
opportunity for the new administration--and for each and every one of 
us in the Senate--to rebuild various fixes in our immigration system 
without running afoul of existing legal barriers.
  As my friend the Senator from Illinois likes to point out, Senators 
from both sides of the aisle have been working on this issue--it has 
been with us for years--and it is imperative we find a consensus 
solution.
  If the minority wishes to offer peace of mind and a path forward to 
Dreamers, they should do it in such a way that allows the American 
people to hold each and every one of us accountable for repercussions. 
We should do this through regular order. I reiterate my objection to 
the minority whip's motion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator object?
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, yes, I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for the record, how many pieces of 
legislation did we consider in the Senate last week? None. The week 
before? None. How many months has this measure been sitting in the 
Senate, the Republican-controlled Senate? Five months, and for five 
months the Republican leader has not considered it worthy to even bring 
it before the Senate for debate.
  I don't control the agenda. Senator McConnell does. He has decided 
this measure is not worth debating on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
  When I come and make a unanimous consent request to bring this 
measure to the floor, it isn't as if we are taking away an option, 
which the Republican leader is using. He is not. When we look back to 
the debate or at least the effort to find a compromise with President 
Trump on this issue, it is next to impossible. He is surrounded by 
people who are completely against DACA and Dreamers. Stephen Miller is 
a good illustration of one. It used to be Jeff Sessions. He is no 
longer with the administration. Every time the President starts to lean 
toward DACA and the Dreamers, these people intervene and stop him, and 
negotiations come to an end.
  It is time for us in the Senate not to wait for a permission slip 
from President Trump to pass legislation. I am prepared to bring this 
matter to the floor and to accept the decision on the amendments on the 
floor. We are in the minority. We will lose some of these amendments. 
So be it. Let's let the Senate be the Senate and deliberate these 
measures. To argue that I shouldn't be asking to bring it to the floor 
because it has to go through regular order, the obvious question is: 
When is Senator McConnell going to pursue regular order on a measure 
that has been sitting here for 5 months?
  Let me say a word, if I can, while we are on the subject, about the 
people who are involved. We can talk about Senate procedure and law all 
we wish, but what we should do is discuss the real people who are 
involved.
  In 1,000 days in office, this President has issued 11,000 tweets. No 
surprise, is it? There are 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 a day. He issued one this 
morning about the young people who are in question here. I would like 
to read President Donald Trump's tweet from this morning, as the case 
was headed to the Supreme Court. Here is what he tweeted:

       Many of the people in DACA, no longer very young, are far 
     from ``angels.'' Some are very tough, hardened criminals. 
     President Obama said he had no legal right to sign order, but 
     would anyway. If Supreme Court remedies with overturn, a deal 
     will be made with Dems for them to stay!

  May I address one particular aspect of the tweet of the President of 
the United States on this subject affecting the fate of 780,000 young 
people living in the United States? Probably the best thing is not to 
do it generically but to talk about specifics.
  Let me tell you a story about two DACA recipients, both attending 
Loyola University in Chicago--the city I am honored to represent. They 
both came to Washington, DC, today, and sat in the Supreme Court during 
the argument. I am going to leave it up to my Members and colleagues in 
the Senate, as well as those who are following this debate, to reach 
their own conclusion about these two whom I am about to tell the story 
of. You decide whether this man is a tough and hardened criminal. His 
name is Cesar Montelongo. He grew up in the State of New Mexico. He was 
a pretty good student. In fact, he was an excellent student. He 
graduated from high school with a grade point average of 4.0 and ranked 
third in his class. He went on to New Mexico State University, where he 
was a triple major in biology, microbiology, and Spanish, as well as 
two minors in chemistry and biochemistry. Cesar graduated with a 3.9 
GPA.
  This hardened criminal then went on to earn a master's degree in 
biology, with a minor in molecular biology, while working as a teaching 
assistant. Then DACA came along. For the first time in his life, he had 
a chance to apply for medical school. He never thought that could 
happen. He applied and was accepted at Loyola University's Chicago 
Stritch School of Medicine. It is quite an achievement.
  The Presiding Officer, who is also a medical doctor, I am sure 
understands that, but he did one better. He enrolled in the M.D.-Ph.D. 
program at Loyola University. He was just in my office upstairs, and he 
told me that in a matter of 2 or 3 years, he will have completed his 
Ph.D. in microbiology, and then he can go on to complete his medical 
degree and his residency.
  This tough, hardened criminal--according to the President--has 
designs on becoming a medical researcher in the United States of 
America. When he completes this highly competitive program, he will 
have a medical degree and a doctorate degree in science.
  He is one of dozens of DACA recipients at the Stritch School. My hat 
is off to Loyola University. They have admitted more DACA students to 
their medical school than any other medical school in the United 
States. They are amazing students. I have met them. Many, if not all of 
them, have promised to come back to my State of Illinois, having had 
this chance to go to medical school in Chicago, and serve in 
underserved areas after they have become practicing doctors. Loyola 
doesn't give them any special treatment in the selection process. They 
are not eligible for any Federal financial assistance.

  I just want to thank them and say to the President of the United 
States: Before you put out a tweet calling Cesar Montelongo or people 
like him hardened criminals, Mr. President, take a minute and meet 
these young people.
  While you are at it, meet this young lady too. She was just in my 
office. Her name is Fernanda Herrera Vera. When she was 2 years old, 
her family brought her from Mexico to the United States. When she was 
7, her family was forced to leave Guntersville, AL, when her father 
lost his job due to his immigration status. The family settled in 
Gadsden, AL, where Fernanda attended a private Catholic school on a 
scholarship.
  When she was 10, her parents opened a restaurant. Every day after 
school, she went to the restaurant to wait tables and help run the 
restaurant, doing her homework in her spare time. During Fernanda's 
junior year of high school, Alabama passed the harshest anti-
immigration law in the country, which forced her family to close down 
their restaurant.
  Alabama barred Dreamers from attending even public colleges, but 
thanks to DACA, Fernanda was able to attend a private school, Samford 
University in Birmingham, AL. Her parents worked hard to pay tuition. 
She qualified for no Federal financial assistance. Her dad worked 80 
hours a week at a chicken plant so that she could go to college. She 
graduated from Samford in 2017, and her experience has driven her to 
become an immigration activist. She worked at the Alabama Coalition for 
Immigrant Justice.
  After President Trump repealed DACA in 2017, Fernanda came to 
Washington for a 4-day hunger fast with other DACA recipients on the 
Capitol lawn.
  Last year, Fernanda was admitted to the Loyola University Chicago 
School

[[Page S6497]]

of Law. But this spring, her mother was pulled over in Georgia for 
driving with a broken taillight. Her mother is now in deportation 
proceedings.
  It is tough enough to go to school without Federal financial help. It 
is tough enough to work your way through it. It is tough enough not to 
know how the Supreme Court is going to rule tomorrow or the day after 
and whether it will change your fate. It is tough enough to know that 
any knock at the door could mean deportation for members of your 
family. Yet she has persevered.
  A hardened criminal, Mr. President?
  Fernanda's dream is to become an immigration lawyer. She wants to 
help people just like her mom.
  Without DACA, Cesar Montelongo will not become a doctor. Fernanda 
Herrera Vera will not become an attorney. Will America be a better 
country if they are forced to leave, if they are deported? I don't 
think so.
  Cesar, Fernanda, and hundreds of thousands of other Dreamers are 
counting on the Supreme Court to do the right thing and reject 
President Trump's repeal of DACA. They are also counting on those of us 
who serve in the Senate to stop making excuses and solve this crisis.
  A bill has passed the House. I tried to bring it to the floor of the 
Senate, and there was an objection today. It isn't because we are 
overwhelmed with work. As you can see, we spend a lot of time making 
speeches.
  Since Senator McConnell refuses to take any action to address the 
plight of the Dreamers, I am going to continue to make this unanimous 
consent request. Next week, I don't want the excuse to be that we are 
not following regular order, but in the meantime, I hope the Senate 
Judiciary Committee will take up this measure, as they have so many 
times over the last 15 years or so, and bring it to the floor of the 
Senate.
  Once and for all, could we be the U.S. Senate for a week? Could we 
actually consider a piece of legislation here that addresses an issue 
that is critically important to hundreds of thousands of people living 
in the United States of America?
  What a relief it would be to see this Senate actually as a Senate, to 
see Members on the floor debating issues. I am not going to win every 
debate. Every amendment I want is not going to pass, but I am prepared 
to accept the outcome. Let's do what the Senate was elected to do.
  I am sorry there was an objection today. As long as I am a U.S. 
Senator, I am going to continue to come to the floor of the Senate to 
advocate for Cesar, Fernanda and all of the Dreamers. It would be an 
American tragedy to deport these two promising young people.
  Now it is in the hands of Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican 
majority leader, to give the Dream and Promise Act a vote and to say to 
those 780,000 who do not know what their future will be just days or 
weeks from now that there is an answer: We want you to be part of 
America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know my friend from Illinois, Senator 
Durbin, is sincere in his desire to get some relief for the DACA 
recipients, whose case is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. I 
share a desire to give them some certainty. That is why I supported 
what President Trump offered in February of 2018, which was a pathway 
to citizenship not only for the individuals who had applied for and 
received deferred action under President Obama's administration but for 
all those who were eligible but did not apply.
  What continues to confuse me is how our Democratic colleagues will 
routinely vote against that offer, which was incredibly generous. I 
don't think any other President in my lifetime would have had the 
boldness and the courage to offer a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 
million DACA-eligible young people, but President Trump did, and our 
Democratic colleagues turned it down. That leads me to wonder about 
their sincerity. Do they like this political issue more than they have 
a desire to find a solution to the problem?
  I agree that these young people, who through no fault of their own 
came to the United States because their parents brought them here, are 
the most sympathetic and deserving cohort of immigrants in the country. 
I wish we could work together to come up with a solution. But at some 
point you have to wonder whether our Democratic colleagues prefer not 
to solve the problem but would rather try to portray this as a 
political football for partisan advantage in the runup to the next 
election.
  That is tragic--toying with the lives of these young people, stoking 
their insecurity, telling them you are on their side but on the other 
hand voting against an offer to provide them a pathway toward 
citizenship. I don't know how you reconcile those two positions.