[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 687-692]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           IMMIGRATION REFORM

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I know there is a group of Senators who 
announced today that they have ideas, a plan, an outline, and a 
framework for a new comprehensive immigration bill. Indeed, the fact 
that our current immigration system is not working effectively and is 
failing on a daily basis cannot be denied. It certainly needs to be 
fixed. It is a challenge for us to do so and it will not be easy. I 
want to warn my colleagues that a framework is not a bill.
  In 2006 and 2007, with the full support of the Republican President 
of the United States, a bipartisan group announced with great 
confidence that they had a plan that was going to fix our immigration 
system and we were all going to just line up and vote for it. The 
masters of the universe had decided, met in secret, had all the special 
interest groups gathered and worked out a plan that was going to change 
our immigration system for the better, and we should all be most 
grateful.
  It came up in 2006, and it did not pass. It came back again in 2007 
with even more emphasis, and it failed colossally. It failed because it 
did not do what they said it would do. It did not end the illegality, 
it did not set forth a proper principle of immigration for America, and 
it did not sufficiently alter the nature of our immigration system to 
advance the national interest of the United States. It did not, and 
that is why it didn't pass. They had all the powerful forces, including 
the TV and newspaper guys, the Wall Street guys, the agriculture guys, 
the civil rights group, La Raza, and the politicians. But the American 
people said no. It was a challenge, and there was a long debate, but it 
didn't pass. I thought the lesson learned from that was there needs to 
be a demonstration that the law is being enforced, end the illegality, 
and then we can wrestle with how to compassionately treat people who 
have been in America a long time. I thought that was kind of what we 
had decided.
  Now my colleagues say: Don't worry, this is going to be a better 
piece of legislation that can work for us. I hope that is true. We do 
need to fix the immigration system. There are things we can do on a 
bipartisan, nonpartisan basis which would make our country's 
immigration policy better and more effective, and I hope that is what 
will result from this.
  But no one should expect that Members of the Senate are just going to 
rubberstamp what a group of Members have decided. We are not going to 
just rubberstamp what the President of the United States has just 
decided because we need to analyze it. Each one of us, every Member of 
this Senate has a responsibility, a firm duty to evaluate this proposal 
to ensure that it enhances our ability as a nation to do the right 
thing.
  We are a nation of immigrants, and we are going to continue to be a 
nation of immigrants. We admit over 1 million people into our country 
every single year legally. But now we are told that after 1986, when 
they had that immigration bill, that amnesty bill, that we have allowed 
11 million more people, give or take a few million, into the country 
illegally. They have entered the country illegally. In 1986 Congress 
promised the American people that if they would give amnesty to the 
people who were here and who entered illegally, they would stop illegal 
immigration in the future and we wouldn't face this challenge again. In 
fact, our colleagues basically said that in their piece they put out 
promoting the bill: We are never going to have to worry about 
immigration again if Members pass our legislation. That was the promise 
made in 1986 when the bill did pass, but it did not fulfill its 
promise.
  So once again I think we are in a situation where the promise will be 
made that people will be given immediate regularized status and they 
won't be given full rights of citizenship until certain laws are 
enforced, and don't worry about it--it is all going to work out 
sometime off in the distant future. But questions do need to be asked, 
and we will ask those questions, and it will be important for us to do 
the right thing.
  I know there are people who like low wages. I know there are people 
who believe that it is hard to get Americans to do certain jobs and 
that we can use immigrants and they will do those jobs at less pay and 
ask fewer questions and demand fewer benefits. I know that is out 
there. We have talked about that in the past. I am hoping this 
legislation is not designed for the special interests but designed to 
advance American interests.
  What are some of the principles I think need to be in this system? I 
like Canada's system of immigration. It seems to work very well. They 
ask a number of questions. They give points when one applies to come 
into Canada, and a person gets more points for meeting the goals they 
have. One of the goals they have is that the potential immigrant speak 
the language. In Canada, they have two--French and English. If a person 
speaks French or English, they get more points or maybe they don't even 
get in if they don't have some grasp of the language before they come 
in on a permanent basis. Then they give more points, more preference to 
people with education, skills they need in Canada.
  This proposal suggests it does that. It should do that. It should be 
a major part of any immigration reform that focuses on trying to get 
people who will be most successful in America, the ones we know are 
going to be able to do better here.
  The plan should not admit a person who is likely to be a public 
charge. However, that is already the current law. A person is not 
supposed to be admitted to America if they are likely to be a public 
charge; that is, they will need government aid to take care of 
themselves. Some people will be turned down because of this. We should 
take the ones who are not going to be a public charge.
  We discovered in looking at the numbers recently that less than one-
tenth of 1 percent of applicants that come to the United States are 
turned down on the basis that they might be a public charge. So, in 
effect, that is not being enforced. Basically, it is just not being 
enforced.
  So how can we be sure of that? My friend Stephen Moore was on the TV 
today. He is at the Wall Street Journal. He said: You don't have to 
worry about people coming in and being a public charge. There is a law 
against that.
  Well, Mr. Moore, there may be a law against it, but it is not being 
enforced. We need to know it is going to be enforced in the future.
  Younger people in Canada get a priority. Pretty soon, people will be 
on Social Security and Medicare when they reach those ages. Shouldn't 
we as a rational nation look to give priority to younger people who 
will work a little longer and pay more into the system before they draw 
these benefits?
  They give preferences to investors, those who create jobs and bring 
factories and manufacturing to their country. Those are the kinds of 
things I think we ought to be talking about.
  This proposal makes reference to guest workers. It is a very delicate 
issue. Let me tell my colleagues what was in the bill in 2007 and the 
reason. In my mind, it was one of the greater errors in the 
legislation. People would come into the country for 3 years. They could 
bring their families. If they were still working at the place at which 
they came in to work, they could extend for another 3 years and then 
another 3 years and then another 3 years. So I would ask, somebody who 
had been in the country 8, 9, 10 years, could we just easily ask them 
to leave? Not likely. What if they have had two children and the 
children are automatic citizens?
  This is a very impractical system. So we need to examine how a guest 
worker plan will actually be carried out. In my view, a guest worker 
should come without family for less than a year at a time to do 
seasonal--to do particular work and then return to their country. 
Otherwise, we create an entirely new system, and it will be very 
difficult to enforce.
  We need to know pretty much what the Nation can rightly absorb in 
terms of the number of people who come each year, and as a result of 
that, we need to make sure any legislation has a limit that would make 
common sense in the world in which we live.

[[Page 688]]

  Finally, I would say that we face a particular hurdle this time. We 
faced this hurdle last time, but I believe it is even more serious this 
time. That is, if the chief law enforcement officer of the country--
then President Bush, now President Obama--President Obama has 
particularly acted to undermine the ability of the law enforcement 
community to actually enforce existing laws----
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have 
voted unanimously ``no confidence'' in Mr. John Morton, the Director of 
ICE, because of his failure to lead and his, in fact, undermining of 
their ability to do their jobs, and they sued him for interfering with 
their ability to do their jobs in enforcing the laws of this country. 
Actually, a federal court just recently upheld the lawsuit and allowed 
it to proceed. What a terrible thing it is that law enforcement 
officers have to sue their leadership to be able to do their jobs.
  So we need to be sure we have in the President someone who is 
committed to enforcing the law if it is passed. If that had been so, we 
would be in a lot better position today.
  I see my colleague from Louisiana, and I believe he is to be 
recognized next. He has been such a good student of this issue. He is a 
fabulous lawyer, editor of the Tulane Law Review, and he understands 
this, and I am really glad he could be here today.
  There is one more thing I would note. In addition to the fact that we 
have a President less willing to enforce the law, the labor 
participation rate in 2007 when the last comprehensive reform bill that 
included amnesty was defeated was 66 percent. Today, labor 
participation has dropped to 63.6 percent. Unemployment in 2007, when 
the last proposal failed, was 4.5 percent. It is now 7.9 percent.
  So I think we need to ask serious questions about any proposal, and 
maybe we can move forward with some legislation that would serve the 
national interests. Maybe we can do it on a bipartisan basis, but it is 
going to take real attention to details. The details are what make the 
difference, and that is what I am concerned about.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
8 minutes, and I ask the Chair to alert me when 6 minutes has elapsed.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object, but I ask unanimous consent to follow the Senator from 
Louisiana to speak.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Mr. President. Through the Chair, I wish to 
thank Senator Durbin for his courtesy in light of another engagement I 
have.
  I rise to join my colleague from Alabama and to join many others to 
express real concern on this topic of illegal immigration and the 
desperate need to fix this problem, to solve this problem.
  I believe we all want to cherish and hold up and continue the proud 
tradition of this country which is founded on immigration. One of the 
many things that make America unique is that we are a nation of--all of 
us--immigrants. None of us somehow has some blood oath or blood tie to 
this land that goes back from time immemorial. We all came here 
relatively recently in the grand scheme of things from other lands, all 
of our families. We are a nation of immigrants and immigration, and we 
cherish and celebrate that.
  But, of course, historically, that has been a system of legal 
immigration. It is so worrisome to me and so many others that over the 
last 30 years in particular, it has really evolved into a wide open, 
relatively little enforcement system of illegal immigration that 
flourishes and abounds and grows as our traditional legal immigration 
system gets less and less workable for the folks trying to follow the 
rules. That is my concern as I look at many of these immigration reform 
proposals, particularly proposals for so-called comprehensive reform 
such as the one outlined today.
  I think the test is pretty simple: How do we uphold our tradition of 
immigration and fix the problem, solve the problem, and not allow it to 
continue or, worse yet, grow and mushroom? To me, that is the bottom 
line. Will any proposal we make be debated--will the proposal outlined 
by some of my colleagues today fix the problem or will it perpetuate 
the problem or, God forbid, even grow the problem dramatically?
  What heightens my concern is that we have history as a guide, and 
history suggests that brand of so-called comprehensive immigration 
reform--this promise of enforcement as long as we have an amnesty--all 
of those things put together are a recipe for failure. Of course, the 
most notable case of this was in 1986 under President Reagan. There was 
a so-called comprehensive immigration reform proposal passed into law. 
The promise, the model was very simple: We are going to get serious 
about enforcement--we really, really are--and we are going to have a 
one-time leniency or amnesty. It will fix the problem once and for all. 
We will never have to look back, and that will be done.
  As we know from bitter experience since then, it didn't quite turn 
out that way. The promised enforcement never fully materialized. In 
fact, in my opinion, it never materialized to any significant extent. 
However, the leniency, the amnesty happened immediately. It happened 
the second that bill was signed into law.
  So did it fix the problem estimated at about 3 million illegal aliens 
then? No. It not only perpetuated the problem, it grew the problem to 
12 million-plus--some people think as high as 15 million to 20 million 
illegal aliens now. So it grew the problem enormously because we had 
promised enforcement which never adequately materialized but an amnesty 
which happened immediately. That is the fundamental concern. That is 
the deadly scenario I am concerned about with regard to virtually all 
of these so-called ``comprehensive'' solutions.
  There is one thing--at least one thing--that has changed since 1986. 
It is this: Compared to 1986, we have a President and an administration 
in power which has proved time and time again that they have no will, 
no focus on real enforcement. Why do I say that?
  Well, this is the administration that sued States attempting to 
enforce immigration laws and get control of the border. It did not 
support those States, did not try to find a Federal fix. It did one 
thing: sued States such as Arizona trying to deal with a flow across 
the border and all of the violence and crime that is an aspect of that.
  This is the administration that ended the 32 287(g) local law 
enforcement programs that were fairly effective, at least in focused 
limited ways, with regard to enforcement. They scuttled that program, 
completely threw it out the window. This is the administration, of 
course, that propagated the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal and 
still has not answered questions about that adequately, in my opinion.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has consumed 6 minutes.
  Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  This is the administration that unconstitutionally put into effect 
the DREAM Act by administrative fiat. Congress would not pass that. A 
Democratic House and a Democratic Senate failed to pass it. President 
Obama at the time said he did not have adequate powers to put it into 
law administratively, and yet when it came time to run for election, he 
did it by administrative fiat, in my opinion--in many people's 
opinion--well beyond his legal authority.
  So that is the main thing that is different from 1986. We have a 
President and an administration that has proved

[[Page 689]]

to be completely opposed to aggressive and real enforcement. So I hope, 
as we continue this debate with my distinguished colleague from 
Illinois and many others, we focus on that central question: Will this 
solve the problem?
  In my opinion, we have seen this movie before. We have tried this so-
called comprehensive approach before--this marriage of promises of 
enforcement with leniency or amnesty. History suggests that does not 
work. The enforcement never adequately shows up. The amnesty 
immediately does. In this proposal, although it might not be immediate 
citizenship, it is immediate legal protection and many benefits that 
flow from that.
  Mr. President, I look forward to continuing this discussion.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it was July of 1911. A boat arrived in 
Baltimore. It came over from Germany. And among the passengers getting 
off that boat were a small number of people from Lithuania. They 
included my grandmother, my aunt, my uncle, and my mom. My mother was 2 
years old in 1911, and she was brought to America along with her family 
as an immigrant.
  I wish I had asked the questions before everyone passed on about how 
much anyone remembered from that experience because I have always 
wondered about it. I always wondered how this family who spoke no 
English got off that boat and got to East St. Louis, IL, which is where 
I grew up, and where a lot of Lithuanian immigrants went to work in the 
packinghouses, in the steel mills, and coal mines nearby. But that is 
the story of the Durbin family, at least my mother's side of it. It is 
not a unique story. It is a story of America.
  My mother came to this country 2 years of age, with a mother who did 
not speak English, and today her son serves in the U.S. Senate. It is a 
great story about this great country. It also tells the story of how 
many millions such as her came to these shores looking for something 
that was important in their lives--first and foremost, to feed their 
children, to get a job. That is always the No. 1 reason.
  But up in my office here, just a few steps away from the Senate 
floor, in a desk drawer I have one thing that was carried in the 
luggage by my grandmother when she came over from Lithuania. It is a 
prayer book. It is a Catholic prayer book. We are Roman Catholics. They 
were leaving Lithuania where the Russian czar had come in and said to 
the Roman Catholics: If you are not Russian Orthodox, you are going to 
have to play by different rules. And one of the rules is, you can't 
have any of your prayer books written in Lithuanian. They must be 
written in Russian.
  Well, my grandmother, whom I never knew, must have been a defiant and 
risk-taking woman because she had one of these contraband prayer books 
and brought it with her to America because she knew she could use it 
here without a problem because of the freedoms in this country.
  That again is a little family story from my life experience, my 
family experience, but one that could be replicated in many different 
ways.
  We just had a press conference upstairs, and you may see some 
coverage a little later on. There were five of us representing six 
Senators who had been sitting together and working on this immigration 
issue--three Democrats and three Republicans. On the Democratic side, I 
have been honored to join Chuck Schumer of New York and Bob Menendez of 
New Jersey. On the Republican side is John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey 
Graham of South Carolina, and Marco Rubio of Florida. It is a pretty 
interesting group, right? It is a pretty interesting political spectrum 
represented by these six Senators.
  For the last few months, we have been sitting down and working out a 
statement of principles about immigration reform. And today we unveiled 
those principles. We have a lot of work to do. We still have to write 
the law, and we still have to bring it to the Senate to be debated and 
to be passed.
  I do not assume for a minute that we are going to have the support of 
every Senator on both sides of the aisle. That would be too much to 
consider or to ask. But I know from listening to the speeches that were 
given by Senator Sessions of Alabama and Senator Vitter of Louisiana, 
they have many questions they want to ask about how we approach 
immigration reform. So let me try, if I can, to speak to some of the 
basics that are included in our effort.
  First, when I listened to the Senator from Louisiana, he said that 
President Obama had done little to enforce immigration laws. I think 
you will find, for the record, that this President has deported more 
people in his tenure than predecessors, particularly those who have 
been associated with criminal activity. In fact, he has received some 
criticism saying he is going too far. So to argue that he is not 
enforcing the law is not supported by the facts and the statistics.
  The Senator from Louisiana also said that President Obama was the 
author of the Fast and Furious program, which was a border effort to 
try to stop the flow of guns that blew up in the face of those who 
engineered it, and ended up in the tragic death of one of our own. I 
would say for the record that program began under President Bush, not 
under President Obama. So there are some facts that we need to put on 
the record. But I wish to also speak to a couple elements here that 
have been raised about this effort on immigration reform.
  Let's get down to basics. Immigration is part of who we are in 
America. It is the reason we are such a diverse Nation. My family 
story, as I said, could be repeated over and over. Every generation has 
faced a new wave of immigration coming into this country.
  I think it is healthy. I think there is something in the DNA of those 
people who get up and come here who are determined to improve their 
lives. These people turn out to be the entrepreneurs and the teachers 
and the leaders of our Nation because they were not content staying in 
someplace where they did not achieve their goals. They wanted to come 
to America.
  So immigration is part of who we are, and the debate over immigration 
is part of who we are. It has been going on forever. I think as soon as 
the first boat to America landed with immigrants, they started 
questioning whether we needed another boatload of immigrants. That 
debate has gone on throughout our history. There have been some 
terrible things done in the name of immigration reform and some good 
things as well.
  Secondly, immigration and the demand for immigration says a great 
deal about America. People want to come here. It says a lot about it, 
doesn't it? Here we are in a democracy with the freedoms we enjoy and 
an economy that offers such wonderful opportunities, and people from 
all over the world, given a choice, would come here for their future. 
That is a positive.
  But the third thing is, our immigration system is broken. I got 
elected about 16 years ago to the Senate. One of the first phone calls 
came from Senator Ted Kennedy, chair of the Immigration Subcommittee in 
the Judiciary. He said: Welcome to the Judiciary Committee. Please come 
on my Immigration Subcommittee. I said: Well, thank you. I am honored 
you would ask. He said: We are about to rewrite the immigration laws. 
We have not done it for 10 years. The last time was under President 
Reagan. Now we are going to do it again, and we need you to be part of 
it.
  Oh, I signed up in a hurry. It did not happen and 16 years have 
passed.
  So for 25 years-plus, we have not looked at this immigration law. It 
is broken. It is broken badly. It is broken when we have 11 or 12 
million people living here who are undocumented. Many of them came here 
on a legal visa and overstayed their visa. Some did sneak across the 
border to come into the United States. There are a variety of 
explanations, but they are here. I have come to know them. For many 
people who are not in this business, maybe you do not know them. But I 
will tell who they are.
  They happen to be the person who just took the plates off your table 
at the restaurant. They are the ones who

[[Page 690]]

are unloading the food at the dock behind the restaurant. They will be 
making the beds in the hotel rooms across America tonight. A lot of 
them are in the day-care centers every day with our children and 
grandchildren, whom we dearly love. Some are tending to our parents and 
grandparents who are in nursing homes. And some of them have sat down 
next to you in church on a regular basis. They are undocumented. They 
do not talk about it. They do not wear it on their sleeves. Many of 
them are afraid to say anything. And they do not live in a house full 
of undocumented people. By and large, you are going to find families 
split up. You may find dad, who has been here the longest, who 
qualified under the Reagan amnesty in 1986. He is a legal citizen. Mom 
is not. All three children born here are. There is a family that is 
literally split by our immigration system.
  That is the reality of what we see in America today. The question is, 
how did we reach this point? What can we do about it? We now are 
sitting down on a bipartisan basis to address it.
  First, we need to make sure we are doing everything we reasonably can 
do at the border to keep illegal immigration down, to reduce it as low 
as possible. I know, as I said earlier, there are people from all over 
the world who want to come here.
  But for those who suggest we are not doing enough at the border, I 
wish to call their attention to a recent press release from the 
Migration Policy Institute. This press release is from January 7 of 
this year. It says: ``The U.S. government spends more on federal 
immigration enforcement than on all other principal federal criminal 
law enforcement agencies combined, with the nearly $18 billion spent in 
fiscal 2012 approximately 24 percent higher than collective spending 
for the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, Secret Service, U.S. 
Marshals Service and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 
Explosives. . . .''
  So to argue that this President is not enforcing the law, when we 
have so many deportations, and to argue that he is not taking it 
seriously, when we are spending record-breaking amounts on the borders 
is not backed up by the facts. But still we need to make sure we are 
doing everything we can to keep the borders safe and to reduce illegal 
immigration. That is the first thing.
  The second thing is to say that those who are here, if they want to 
be legal, have to earn their way to legal status. How do they earn it? 
First they go through a criminal background check. We do not want 
anyone here who is a threat to our Nation or to the people who live 
here. They will be asked to leave. In fact, they will be forced to 
leave.
  But for those who pass the criminal background check, they will need 
to pay a fine, they have to pay their taxes, and then they can stay and 
work in a probationary legal status while we make the borders safe. 
Ultimately, they have to be able to speak English, learn our history 
and civics, and then go through a lengthy process before they are 
granted--even possibly granted--citizenship.
  We also say at the same time that we are going to build into this 
system enforcement for the workplace. What brings most people to 
America? Jobs. It is all about a job. If in the workplace we have real 
enforcement, where we have an identification card from those who are 
seeking a job, and an obligation on the part of the employer to make 
sure they are registered in this country, then we can start to have a 
system of enforceability.
  We also need--and Senator Rubio of Florida has been pushing this--we 
also need to make sure that when it comes to visas in the United 
States, when we allow people to travel here to be tourists or students 
or for business purposes, and they have an expiring visa, they leave 
when they are supposed to. Our system now is not as good as it should 
be. We want to strengthen that system. That is part of what we need to 
do.
  I think immigration reform is long overdue. This immigration system 
we have is badly broken and needs to be fixed.
  We need to take the leadership in Washington. This bipartisan group 
of Senators has started an effort in that direction. We have a long way 
to go. We have to write the bill. We hope to have it done by March. We 
hope to bring it through the committee process for regular hearings, 
for the amendment process and everything that entails. That, to me, 
will make sense in the long run. In the meantime, I want to say a word 
about the DREAM Act.
  I introduced that bill 12 years ago. It was referred to on the Senate 
floor. It is worth a minute or two to recount why I introduced the 
bill.
  We received a phone call in our office from a program in Chicago 
known as the Merit Music Program. It is a wonderful program. A lady 
left some money for it and said to use the money to buy musical 
instruments for kids in poor schools and to give them music lessons.
  What an amazing transformation it has created in their lives. One 
hundred percent of the graduates of the Merit Music Program go to 
college, all of them. It is an amazing thing what a musical experience 
will do for a young person.
  Well, there was a young Korean girl named Tereza Lee who came from an 
extremely poor family. She became part of the Merit Music Program and 
turned out to be an accomplished pianist. She was encouraged to apply 
to go to Julliard School of Music and Manhattan Conservatory of Music 
she was so good.
  As she started to fill out the application, she stopped and turned to 
the person at the program and said: I don't know why I am doing this. I 
am undocumented. I have never told anybody that. But I do not know why 
I am wasting my time with this--at which point they called our office 
and said: What can we do for Tereza?
  Well, it turned out the law was very clear. She had to leave the 
United States for 10 years, go back to Brazil, which was the last 
country she was in, and then apply to come to the United States. That 
seemed unfair. She was brought here when she was 2 years old. She did 
not vote on that. Her parents picked her up and brought her here.
  I started thinking: I bet there are others just like her. It turns 
out there are--hundreds of thousands. So I introduced the DREAM Act.
  Here is what it said: If you were brought to the United States before 
the age of 16, you finish high school, you have no serious criminal 
issues, and you are prepared to either enlist in our military or finish 
at least 2 years of college, we will give you a chance to become a 
citizen. I introduced it 12 years ago.
  I have called it up on the Senate floor over and over. The Senator 
from Louisiana is correct; the Senate did not pass it. We could not get 
60 votes to break the Republican filibuster on the DREAM Act. We had a 
majority, we just did not have 60. That was several years ago.
  So President Barrack Obama, who was my colleague in the Senate before 
he was elected President and was a cosponsor of the DREAM Act, said: I 
am going to suspend the deportation of those young people who would be 
eligible under the DREAM Act. He did. It went into effect last August.
  Congressman Luis Gutierrez of Chicago is a great leader on 
immigration reform. He and I held a workshop in August at Navy Pier, 
which is a big gathering place in Chicago, for those who would be 
eligible for this deferral of deportation under the DREAM Act. We never 
dreamed they would start lining up at midnight the night before. They 
would stay out there all night long with their families waiting for a 
chance to sign up. It was such a heart-warming experience to know how 
much this meant not only to the young persons but many times to their 
undocumented parents who thought: At least my child will get this 
chance.
  So some criticized the President for making this decision. But two-
thirds of the American people, Democrats and Republicans alike, think 
it was the right decision. I do too. I have met those DREAMers. I have 
talked about them on the floor of the Senate over and over. I will 
continue. But these young people will make this a better

[[Page 691]]

country. They deserve a chance to do just that.
  So those who are critical of the DREAM Act are basically saying these 
young people are not needed in this country. I think they are. They 
have spent their whole life being educated here. They have gotten up 
every morning and in school put their hands on their hearts and pledged 
allegiance to that great flag, believing this is their country too. 
They deserve a chance to make it such.
  Marco Rubio of Florida and I have worked on this DREAM Act issue. He 
said something I remember and would like to recount. He said: This is 
not an immigration issue; this is an issue of compassion, 
humanitarianism. These people were kids when they were brought here. 
They deserve this chance. So I know this will be included in any 
immigration reform. I certainly hope we will pass it and pass it soon.
  We spoke to the President last night. Senator Schumer and I had a 
conversation with him. Tomorrow he will be making a statement in Nevada 
about immigration. He is committed to immigration reform. He is 
committed to fixing this system. He told us what we are setting out to 
do is generally consistent with what he wants to see done. But he did 
tell us: Get it done. Do not let this drag out again. Seize the moment 
and move forward with it.
  Well, we have that chance. We have to do it. We have to do it because 
this Nation of immigrants, this Nation that will still attract 
immigrants, needs a legal system that works for those who are here and 
for those who want to come here. We have to make sure we are sensitive 
to the fact that Americans should receive the first preference for 
jobs, and that will be included in our bill, but also beyond that jobs 
that some Americans do not want. In agriculture, for example, and in 
other areas, we need some people coming in to help. They can be part of 
this immigration reform as well.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll:
  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I want to speak on one of the topics of 
the day. A group of bipartisan Senators has had a press conference 
today announcing their support for a comprehensive immigration reform 
piece of legislation. This is a significant step. Perhaps the biggest 
step was--on the way to immigration reform--the result of the November 
6 election. As a matter of fact, it has been chronicled in all of the 
newspapers that the Hispanic community in every State voted 
overwhelmingly for the candidate that was perceived to be fair on the 
immigration issue.
  I think that has propelled political motivation to address this issue 
and to address it fairly. I want to commend that bipartisan group of 
Senators for doing this. There are a number of key elements that as we 
get into the specifics of the legislation are going to be important. 
Notice they want to lay everything on the predicate that there is going 
to be the essence of a real border security effort done.
  It is hard to patrol a border of thousands and thousands of miles 
like we have, particularly where there is no geographical barrier and 
people can merely walk across the border. But it has to be done in the 
context of overall immigration reform. Another interesting part that 
has been very thorny in the business community is the fact of 
verification by employers.
  When this Senator was a young congressman and voting on immigration 
back in the 1980s, as a matter of fact there was supposed to be 
verification by employers of those they were hiring that they were here 
in a documented status. Well, that never happened. As a result, you see 
all of these head fakes in implementing the law about whether somebody 
was here in a documented status. Then when they were found not to be, 
everybody was pointing like this: Well, it is the other guy's fault.
  There has to be a verification system put in place. Some have 
suggested electronic verification. That needs to be explored. There are 
going to have to be a lot of new things being explored in order to make 
sure, if we are going to have comprehensive immigration reform, those 
who are being employed here, in fact, are in a documented status. But 
the big question in the past politically has been, What about the 11 
million who are estimated to be in this country working and in an 
undocumented status?
  I think the principles laid out by the group earlier today are very 
good: They must play by the rules; they must not have a criminal 
record; they must pay back taxes; They must pay a fine; and then go to 
the end of the line. Even though they would be allowed a legal status 
to stay here and to continue working--and that is another one of the 
elements--they must have a job and demonstrate they have had a job in 
the past. It would not be fair for all of them to suddenly get at the 
head of the line when others have been waiting patiently in the legal 
process to get a green card. Thus, we would not have this economic 
upheaval as some here have approached this issue in the past year.
  We have not heard a lot about this since the election, but previous 
to that we heard a lot about, for example, sending them all home, self-
deportation, deporting all of the illegals. Well, first of all, there 
would be an economic collapse of part of the economy of this country if 
we suddenly eliminated all of those workers upon whom the economy 
certainly is dependent. It, also, in many cases would not be fair.
  There is another part of this that needs to be added. This is the 
fairness question for the children who came here through no fault of 
their own. They have grown up thinking they are only an American, and 
then the current law is they have to be deported. Well, this Senator 
has intervened in a number of cases for children who wanted to go into 
the military after high school, wanted to go on to college. They were 
at the point of being deported.
  As a matter of fact, we had a Bahamian child who came when he was 6 
months old. He only knew he was American. He served two tours in Iraq 
in the U.S. Army, came back, went into the Navy Reserve, had a top 
secret clearance and was a photographer for the Navy at Guantanamo 
prison. When he came back, the authorities put him in jail--a veteran, 
someone who was still Active-Duty U.S. Navy Reserve.
  A U.S. Federal judge of Cuban-American descent made a very harsh 
statement in Miami toward the prosecutors for them putting a child, now 
an adult, now a veteran, having served both the Army and the Navy, with 
a top secret clearance, putting that Bahamian, now adult, in jail.
  This is how ridiculous the system has gotten. This Senator had to 
intervene in this case, and once we raised enough Cain, finally people 
came to their senses and said: What is the commonsense thing to do?
  The commonsense thing now for us to do is all to pass a comprehensive 
immigration reform law and, hopefully, that is going to occur.
  The question is, though, what is going to happen at the other end of 
the hall, down there in the House of Representatives? Because there are 
a lot of people in the other party down there who haven't changed their 
attitude since the election. They still are expressing that they don't 
want anything but deportation. I think we are just going to have to use 
common sense and moderation and try to explain why this is the fair 
thing to do.
  As a young Congressman, I favored this comprehensive approach decades 
ago. I voted for it as a Senator. I will gladly, once they knit 
together the legislation, be one of the cosponsors of this legislation.
  I wish to thank the bipartisan group of Senators who got together, 
which includes my colleague from Florida, Mr. Rubio, for their 
willingness to take the initiative and to start plowing new ground of 
legislation that ought to be able to be passed this year.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page 692]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________