[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8257-8269]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND IMMIGRATION MODERNIZATION 
                         ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 744, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to calendar No. 80, S. 744, a bill to 
     provide comprehensive immigration reform, and for other 
     purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 5 
p.m. will be divided, with the Senator from Alabama or his designee 
controlling 2 hours and the Senator from Vermont or his designee 
controlling the remaining time.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, when the Senate Judiciary Committee held 
lengthy and extensive markup sessions to consider the Border Security, 
Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, or S. 744--the 
bill before us--we worked late into the evenings debating the bill. We 
considered hundreds of amendments. But what was interesting and what we 
heard the most about was the fact that the public was able to witness 
our consideration firsthand. They saw all our proceedings streamed live 
on the committee's Web site and broadcast on C-SPAN. We made available 
on our Web site proposed amendments, and reported developments in real 
time throughout the committee process. I know this made a difference 
because I was receiving e-mails and calls from all over the country 
from people watching it. Whether they agreed or disagreed on a 
particular matter, they said how much it meant to them to actually know 
what the Senate was doing. And Members from both sides of the aisle 
praised the transparent process and the significant improvements in the 
bill made by the Judiciary Committee.
  The bill, as we amended it, was passed out of committee by a 
bipartisan two-thirds majority. Again, everybody worked together, set 
politics aside, and allowed the American people to see what we were 
doing. In many ways this is how we did it when I first came to the 
Senate, except we didn't have a way of streaming things live and we 
didn't have C-SPAN, so it is even more transparent now.
  I appreciate what President Obama said this weekend about immigration 
reform. I agree with him that we have to move in a timely way. Of 
course, the time is now for the Senate to act, so I hope we can take 
some of the same steps in the Chamber that we took in the Judiciary 
Committee during our debate of this legislation to have an efficient 
and transparent process. After all, look at the markup of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee: both parties--and it goes across the political 
spectrum as well as geographically, from the west coast to the east 
coast, from southern borders to our northern borders.
  During our committee consideration last month, an editorial in the 
Barre Montpelier Times termed our proceedings a ``lesson in 
democracy.'' Our committee proceedings demonstrated to the American 
people and the world how the Senate can and should fulfill its 
responsibilities despite our differences.
  The ranking Republican on the committee, the senior Senator from 
Iowa, and I were on different sides of the legislation, but we were 
able to work well together. I hope we can continue to work here on the 
Senate floor in a bipartisan way. Although he voted against the bill, 
the senior Senator from Iowa said had his vote been necessary to report 
the bill to the Senate, he would have voted to do so. I appreciate that 
sentiment, and I look forward to his cooperation.
  I have proposed to Senator Grassley, who as the ranking Republican on 
the Judiciary Committee will be managing the bill for the minority, 
that we try to replicate here in the Senate the fair and transparent 
process we were able to achieve in the committee. To that end, once the 
Senate is able to proceed to the bill, I suggest we establish a filing 
deadline for amendments, as we did at the outset of our committee 
consideration. Ideally, then we will be able to take these amendments 
and group them and thereby work together by issue and by titles, as we 
did in the committee. It makes it a lot easier for the public as well 
as for the Senate to know what we are doing on the bill. It will help 
us with the Senate's timely consideration of this important 
legislation.
  Of course, in order for Senators to be able to file amendments and 
work on the bill, the Senate has to proceed to the bill. Republicans 
and Democrats worked together to develop this legislation. Senators 
from both sides of the aisle, including the Senator from Alabama, who 
has already spoken on the Senate floor at length about this 
legislation, had amendments adopted in committee. Almost none of the 
more than 135 amendments adopted by the Judiciary Committee were 
adopted on party-line votes. So we should be able to work together to 
ensure consideration of amendments and then proceed to a vote on final 
passage without filibusters.
  The American people want us to vote yes or no, up or down. They do 
not want us to add delaying tactics that allow us to say, well, maybe 
we would have been for it or maybe we would have been against it. They 
expect more of their Senators. Vote yes or no.
  I had hoped the Senate would turn immediately to the consideration of 
amendments to this important bill. I regret that tomorrow afternoon, 
instead, we will vote on cloture on a procedural motion to allow us to 
begin debate on the bill. The legislation before us is the result of a 
bipartisan group of Senators who came together and made an agreement. 
It was initially a proposal from the so-called Gang of 8. It came 
through the committee process a product of a group of 18, supported by 
a bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee.
  If Senators who have come together to help develop this bill keep 
their commitments, I have no doubt we will be able to end this 
unnecessary filibuster and pass this fair but tough legislation on 
comprehensive immigration reform.
  There is broad agreement that our Nation's immigration system is 
broken and is in need of a comprehensive solution. There is also broad 
agreement in this Nation that people are tired of unnecessary delays in 
the Senate. They would like to see us do the work we are paid to do, 
the work we were elected to do, and vote yes or no, not continue voting 
maybe by delaying. This bipartisan legislation will achieve this. Given 
the impact the broken system has on our economy and our families, we 
cannot afford delay. This is a measure on which the Senate should come 
together to consider and pass. We should do what is right, what is 
fair, and what is just.
  Comprehensive immigration reform was last on the Senate floor 6 years 
ago. When it was blocked by the minority party--the Republican Party--
the former chairman of our immigration subcommittee, Ted Kennedy, said:

       A minority in the Senate rejected a stronger economy that 
     is fairer to our taxpayers and our workers. A minority of the 
     Senate rejected America's own extraordinary immigrant history 
     and ignored our Nation's most urgent needs. But we are in 
     this struggle for the long haul. . . . As we continue the 
     battle, we will have ample inspiration in the lives of the 
     immigrants all around us. He was right. We are back--in 
     strength.

  I had the privilege of serving in the Senate with Senator Kennedy 
from the time I arrived until the time he died. I know how passionately 
he felt about this issue. I also know, both from then and now, that a 
small minority of the Senate that continues to reject this measure 
should not prevail this time and close the door on so many people in 
our country--both those who are citizens and those who aspire to become 
citizens.

[[Page 8258]]

  I have taken inspiration from many sources, from our shared history 
as immigrants, from the experiences of my own grandparents, from my 
wife's parents, from our courageous witnesses Jose Antonio Vargas and 
Gaby Pacheco and, as Senator Kennedy noted, from the millions of 
American families that will be more secure when we enact comprehensive 
immigration reform.
  During his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Vargas asked 
the committee:

       What do you want to do with us? What do you want to do with 
     me?

  Poignant questions. But this legislation answers Mr. Vargas, and it 
sends a message to the millions of others who are looking to Senators 
to be true to our ``extraordinary'' history and tradition as a nation 
of immigrants.
  I am encouraged that some on the other side of the aisle are 
signaling their support for this legislation. I welcome the support of 
those who supported immigration reform in the past, who support this 
effort again.
  I trust that those Republican Senators who helped draft this 
legislation--and helped us greatly--will be with us for the long haul, 
be firm in their commitments, and will defend the legislation they 
asked the other 14 members of the Judiciary Committee to consider and 
approve.
  I will hope and expect that they will not look for excuses to abandon 
what has been and what needs to be a bipartisan effort because 
everybody had to give some on this bill. The bill now before the Senate 
is not the bill I would have drafted. I voted for amendments in the 
Judiciary Committee that were rejected, and I voted against some 
amendments that were accepted. I withheld an amendment on what, to me, 
is an issue of fundamental fairness in ending discrimination, after 
Republican Senators pledged to abandon their support for this bill had 
that amendment been offered. I cannot begin to tell this Senate how 
much it hurt to withdraw that amendment. But despite many shortcomings 
as a result of compromise, the bill before the Senate is worthy of this 
Chamber's immediate attention and support.
  It is time for us to stop voting ``maybe'' and instead proceed to 
this bill and get to the business of legislating. After all, that is 
what the American people, Republicans and Democrats alike, expect us to 
do. The Congress was unable to achieve this goal during the last 
decade. Now, in the second decade of the 21st century, we again have 
the opportunity to make the reforms we so desperately need to carry us 
forward and strengthen our Nation. As I said on the Senate floor late 
last week, if a majority of us stand together, if we stay true to our 
values and our agreements, I believe we can pass legislation to write 
the next great chapter in America's history of immigration--a chapter 
for which succeeding generations will thank us.
  Mr. President, before I conclude on this issue, I ask unanimous 
consent that a copy of the editorial I referred to be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows;

                  [From the Times Argus, May 11, 2013]

                          Lesson in Democracy

       In a remarkable demonstration of the way democracy 
     ordinarily works, Sen. Patrick Leahy held a mark-up session 
     Thursday allowing the Senate Judiciary Committee to shape a 
     new immigration bill.
       A mark-up session occurs when a committee discusses and 
     debates a bill, marking it up with amendments, giving both 
     sides a say and putting on display for the world to see the 
     differences and compromises. In watching a mark-up session, 
     we are able to observe senators in the actual process of 
     lawmaking.
       That an important issue should be subject to an open and 
     public mark-up session would not be so remarkable were it not 
     for the remarkable distortion of the legislative process that 
     has occurred in recent years by the manipulation of 
     legislative rules.
       Lately, we have become accustomed to seeing major pieces of 
     legislation used as chips in an unsavory game of poker, with 
     all the cards in the hands of a few players. Action on budget 
     and debt ceiling votes has been held up until the last minute 
     when leaders are forced by a looming deadline to reach a 
     deal. The members themselves, instead of being engaged in the 
     process of lawmaking, are left to twiddle their thumbs until 
     they get the call from their leaders that a deal has been 
     struck.
       Everyone complains that making laws is like making sausage: 
     You don't want to see what goes into it. But when the deal-
     making happens behind closed doors, cynicism can be the only 
     response. The decision by Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary 
     Committee, to hold several lengthy open mark-up sessions on 
     the immigration issue is a sign that both Republicans and 
     Democrats see a way through the thicket. If the Republicans 
     were interested merely in blocking the bill, they could use 
     their usual tactics. But given the importance of the Hispanic 
     vote and the party's record of hostility toward minorities, 
     some Republicans have recognized they must deal with the 
     issue.
       Protracted debate about bills in committee ought to be the 
     norm. It is what committees are for. But the process has 
     perils that legislators sometimes seek to avoid by using the 
     rules to foist a measure on the body where a majority can 
     hurry it through. It is unlikely that the Democrats could 
     hurry anything through the Senate these days, so Leahy has 
     decided to take the risks inherent in the amendment process 
     to craft a bill that will win at least some Republican 
     support.
       The immigration bill is the product of the so-called Gang 
     of Eight, a group of four Democrats and four Republicans who 
     have sought to forge a bipartisan compromise on immigration. 
     They are looking for a way to achieve both border security 
     and a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million immigrants 
     who are here illegally. Hard-line anti-immigration members 
     will never be placated; the Senate will be working toward a 
     formula allowing the skeptics who worry about border security 
     enough assurance that they can lighten up a little on the 
     punitive measures.
       Senate bills follow a perilous path, particularly these 
     days, when Republican use of the filibuster has created what 
     amounts to a political oligarchy: the rule of the minority 
     over the majority. This was the bitter lesson that Leahy 
     learned on gun control legislation, which also began in his 
     committee. The bill calling for universal background checks 
     had majority support on the Senate floor, but the minority 
     was able to quash it by use of the filibuster.
       And yet this is why Leahy retained his position as chairman 
     of the Judiciary Committee rather than moving to the 
     Appropriations Committee. The appropriations process has 
     become subject to the poker game, which robs the committee of 
     its authority in creating and marking up a bill. As chairman 
     of Judiciary, Leahy is giving the nation a lesson in 
     democracy. It's a lesson that needs to be retaught.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, seeing nobody seeking recognition, I ask 
permission to speak as in morning business on an issue we will vote on 
later today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Rural Gigabit Pilot Program

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, let me speak on an important issue the 
Senate will be voting on later today, my amendment to the farm bill. 
The Internet has made a fundamental difference in our lives. From how 
we shop to how we stay connected to one another, there are few aspects 
of life the Internet does not touch. In the 21st century, access to 
high-quality, high-speed Internet is not a luxury but a necessity.
  Unfortunately far too many Americans, particularly those living in 
rural areas, like so many in my own State of Vermont, can only dream 
about having access to this kind of critical infrastructure. We must 
take action to correct this.
  I am pleased the Senate will vote today on an amendment I have 
offered that sets our sights high for real, ultra-high-speed Internet. 
In some areas, these next-generation networks are already being built. 
These networks offer gigabit speed--speed that is 100 times faster than 
what we are accustomed to today.
  These networks bring with them innovation and jobs. Over the next 5 
years these networks are going to become more widely adopted in urban 
areas, but rural America is at risk of falling further behind. If that 
happens, rural Americans will be left behind. They will lose potential 
economic growth. They will cede engines of innovation to urban areas 
that are equipped with ultra-high-speed Internet capability.
  My amendment will establish a pilot program within the Rural 
Utilities Service Program that is part of the farm bill to fund up to 
five projects to deploy ultra-high-speed Internet service in rural 
areas over the next 5 years. The pilot is narrow in scope. It is 
carefully crafted to ensure that the main focus of the RUS Program is 
deploying service to unserved rural areas, while

[[Page 8259]]

at the same time giving RUS the flexibility to find the best rural 
areas to test gigabit service investment. This will help pave the way 
for the Internet infrastructure that rural communities across the 
Nation will need as our economy turns the corner into this next 
generation of Internet service. Next-generation gigabit networks have 
the potential to transform rural areas. They can dramatically improve 
education and health care. They have the potential to bring the 
innovations of Silicon Valley to the Upper Valley of Vermont and to 
rural areas across the country.
  Rural America has so much to offer in our way of life, but without 
the great equalizer of high-speed Internet, it cannot live up to its 
full potential. So now is the time to invest in these networks. One 
need only look at the number of applications Google received for its 
Google Fiber project to know that cities and towns throughout the 
country understand the innovation and economic growth that comes from 
gigabit networks. If we are going to invest money in rural networks, it 
makes sense that we invest some of it in networks that are going to be 
future-resilient.
  The broadband revolution of the last decade brought a bright new 
future for many areas of the country, but I know firsthand that many 
rural areas are still playing catch-up. As the next generation of 
broadband investment begins this decade, let's learn from those past 
mistakes and test our investment in gigabit networks in rural America.
  I thank Chairwoman Stabenow for working with me since the committee 
first started on this amendment and for her commitment to improve the 
quality of life for rural America, and I thank those Senators--both 
Republicans and Democrats--who have supported me. Most importantly, 
rural America supports it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum 
and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as we look forward to a difficult and 
yet overdue debate about immigration, I wanted to share my thoughts on 
the legislation. I want to speak about the committee process as well as 
the substance of the bill before us. I also want to share my personal 
experience from the 1980s and how we can learn from history. Finally, I 
want to express my hope for what I think the bill should look like 
before it leaves the Senate.
  I do not know of any Senator who says the status quo is the way it 
ought to be. In other words, this issue being on the floor of the 
Senate is very appropriate. But while we are here, we need to 
concentrate on getting immigration right for the long term. In 1986, 
the last time we had major legislation going to the President, I was 
there. I lived it. I voted for it.
  I acknowledge that what we did in 1986, we got it wrong. We cannot 
afford to make the same mistakes of yesterday. From our national 
security to our economic security, too much is at stake. So do not 
repeat 1986. See that the borders are absolutely secure. No excuses 
from that point. No exceptions on that point.
  Now, we are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. 
It is my solemn responsibility to respect the law and ensure that law 
is upheld. Do it the right way, not the easy way. Take what time is 
necessary to get it right. We know what works in Congress and what does 
not work. I think if we look back at health care reform as an example, 
we know that we did it in too hurried of a way and, consequently, 
questions about carrying out that legislation now are legitimate points 
of discussion.
  Earlier in the year when a bipartisan group of eight Senators 
released their framework for reform, I was optimistic that the authors 
were going to produce legislation that lived up to the promises. In 
their framework they stated:

       We will ensure that this is a successful permanent reform 
     to our immigration system that will not need to be revisited.

  Without a doubt this is a goal we should all strive for. We must find 
a long-term solution to fixing our broken system. So I was encouraged. 
The authors, in the framework released to the public before bill 
language was available, said the bill would ``provide a tough, fair, 
practical road map to address the status of unauthorized immigrations 
in the United States contingent upon our success in securing our 
borders and addressing visa overstays.''
  Who can argue with that point? That is exactly what we all believe a 
piece of legislation should do. At the time this bill was put forward 
and the framework was put forward, I reserved judgment until I saw the 
details of their proposal. I thought the framework held hope, but I 
realized the assurances that the Group of 8 made did not really 
translate when the bill language emerged. It seems as though the 
rhetoric was spot on, but the details were dubious.
  This is what was professed by the authors: that the borders would be 
secured and that the people would earn their legal status. That was not 
what the bill actually did. The bill, as drafted, is legalization 
first, border secured later, and tracking visa overstays later, if at 
all.
  In 1981, when I was a freshman Senator, I joined the Judiciary 
Committee and was active in the subcommittee process. We sat down and 
wrote legislation. We had 150 hours of hearings, 300 witnesses before 
we marked up a bill in May 1982. Hundreds of more hours and dozens more 
hearings would take place before the 1986 passage.
  This year we had 6 days of hearings. We spent 18 hours and 10 minutes 
listening to outside witnesses. We had a hearing on the ``needs of 
women and children,'' another hearing focused on ``building an 
immigration system worthy of American values.''
  The Judiciary Committee received the bipartisan bill at 2:24 a.m. on 
April 17. We held hearings on April 19, 22, and 23. We heard from 26 
witnesses in 3 days. We heard from the head of the Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement agency union. We heard from economists and 
employers, law enforcement and lawyers, to professors and advocacy 
groups. We even heard from people who are undocumented, proving that 
only in America would we allow someone not right with the law to be 
heard by the American people.
  One of the witnesses was Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano. We 
attempted to learn about how the bill would affect the functions of the 
executive branch and whether she saw the same flaws many of us were 
finding. Unfortunately, we have not received responses from Secretary 
Napolitano to the questions that we raised at her hearing on April 23. 
We should have the benefit of hearing from the Secretary as to certain 
questions that were raised about this legislation, particularly when it 
comes from somebody in the executive branch who has to enforce what is 
laid before her.
  After those hearings the committee was poised to consider the bill 
through a markup process. Our side of the aisle made it clear that we 
needed to have an open and transparent process, so we started work on 
May 9. We held five all-day sessions where Members were able to raise 
questions, voice concerns, and offer amendments. Hundreds of amendments 
were filed. I alone filed 77 amendments. Of those, I offered 37. Of 
those 37, 12 were accepted, 25 were rejected.
  Those on the other side of the aisle will boast that many Republican 
amendments were adopted in committee. They are somewhat right. However, 
only 13 of 78 Republican amendments offered were agreed to; 7 of those 
were from members of the Group of 8. But get this: Of the 62 Democratic 
amendments proposed, only 1 of those 62 amendments was rejected, and 
even that one was just narrowly rejected.
  Commonsense amendments offering real solutions were repeatedly 
rejected. Those that were accepted made some necessary improvements. 
But get this: The core provisions of the bill remain

[[Page 8260]]

the same coming out of committee as they were introduced into the 
committee.
  I respect the process we had in committee. Chairman Leahy deserves 
thanks from all of us on the committee because he promised an open, 
fair, and transparent process. Quite frankly, it was. It is a good 
format for what needs to take place on the floor of the Senate if the 
legislation that is finally voted upon is going to have credibility.
  In that committee we had a good discussion and debate on how to 
improve the bill. It was a productive conversation focused on getting 
immigration reform right in the long term. Yet I was disappointed that 
alliances were made to ensure that nothing passed that would make 
substantial changes or improvements in the bill. Many of those people 
gave high praise to the amendments being offered but continued to vote 
against them.
  I have often spoke about the 1986 legislation and how that law failed 
the American people. Now 99 other Senators are probably going to get 
sick of me reminding them of my presence there in 1986 and saying that 
we screwed up, because at that time promises were made and those 
promises were not kept. We said it was a one-time fix, just like the 
Group of 8 said they have a one-time fix. But that one-time fix did 
nothing to solve the problem.
  In fact, it only made matters worse and encouraged illegality. People 
came forward for legal status, but many more illegally entered or 
overstayed their welcome to get the same benefits and chance at 
citizenship. The 1986 bill was supposed to be a three-legged stool: 
control undocumented immigration, a legalization program, and reform of 
legal immigration.
  We authorized $422 million to carry out the requirements of the bill 
and even created a special fund for States to get reimbursed their 
costs. The 1986 bill included a legalization program for two categories 
of people: one for individuals who have been present in the United 
States since 1982, and the second for farm workers who have worked in 
agriculture for at least 90 days prior to enactment. A total of 2.7 
million people were legalized. We also had enforcement in that 1986 
legislation.
  For the first time ever we made it illegal to knowingly hire or 
employ someone who was here undocumented. We set penalties to deter the 
hiring of people here undocumented. We wrote in the bill that ``one 
essential element of immigration control is an increase in the Border 
Patrol and other inspection enforcement activities of the Immigration 
and Nationalization Service in order to prevent and to deter the 
illegal entry of aliens into the United States and in violation of the 
terms of their entry.''
  Unfortunately, the same principles from 1986 are being discussed 
today: legalize now, enforce later. But it is clear that philosophy 
does not work. Proof of that is it did not work in 1986. So proponents 
of legalization today argue we did not get it right in 1986. How true 
they are. I agree the enforcement mechanisms in 1986 could have been 
stronger. There was no commitment to enforcing the law or making sure 
we protected every mile of our border.
  Knowing what I know now, an immigration bill must ensure that we 
secure the border first. Legalization should only happen when the 
American people have faith in the system. There needs to be a 
commitment to enforce the laws on the books, and, as important, there 
needs to be a legal avenue that allows people to enter and stay legally 
in the country.
  Now, if you want to know how important securing the border is, just 
come to my townhall meetings in Iowa. So far I have been in 73 of our 
99 counties. When immigration comes up and I talk about legislation, 
there are outbursts that we do not need more laws; why do we not just 
enforce the laws that are on the books--things such as ``bring the 
troops home.'' ``Put them down on the border.'' ``Then we won't have a 
problem.'' Unfortunately, the bill before us repeats our past mistakes 
and does very little to deliver more than the same promises we made in 
1986, which promises turned out to be empty. Instead of looking to the 
past for guidance on what to do in the future, the bill before us 
incorporates the mistakes of the past and, in some cases, even weakens 
the laws we currently have.
  Those of us who are complaining, as I have just complained, have a 
responsibility to put a proposal before this body that will correct 
those things we think are a repeat of the mistakes of 1986, and we will 
do this.
  To further explain this bill, the bill ensures that the executive 
branch, not the Congress or the American people through their Congress, 
has the sole power to control the situation. First, the bill provides 
hundreds of waivers and broad delegation of authority. Two, the 
Secretary may define terms as she sees fit. In many cases, the 
discretion is unreviewable, both by the American people and by other 
branches of government. Can you believe that? Unreviewable.
  The bill undermines Congress's responsibility to legislate, and it 
weakens our ability to conduct oversight. We should learn a lot of 
lessons from past legislation. We should be doing more legislating and 
less delegating. Think of the recent things that have come out that the 
IRS has too much power.
  In health care reform, there are 1,963 delegations of authority to 
the Secretary to write regulations. You might think you understand a 
2,700-page piece of legislation that the President signed 4 years ago, 
but you aren't going to know what that legislation actually does until 
those 1,963 regulations are written. I think we are waking up to the 
fact that we delegated too much and legislated too little. We shouldn't 
be making that same mistake with this piece of legislation and, as it 
is written, we are making that mistake.
  I wouldn't have such strong resentment about this issue if I knew I 
could have faith in this administration or any future administration. 
By the time this thing gets down the road, that is going to be a future 
administration to actually enforce the law.
  Show me the evidence. The President and the administration have 
curtailed enforcement programs. It claims record deportations, but then 
what does the President say? He turns around and he says the statistics 
are--and this is his word--``deceptive.''
  The Secretary says the border is more secure than ever before, but 
she denounced any notion of securing the border before people here who 
were undocumented were given legal status. The administration 
implemented the DREAM Act by executive fiat, saying Congress refused to 
pass a bill so it decided to do something on its accord. It did that 1 
year after the President told a group of people he didn't have the 
authority to do it. They provided no legal justification for the 
actions and very few answers about how they were implementing the 
directive.
  The refusal of any executive branch of government, whether it is 
Republican or Democratic, to refuse accountability raises a lot of 
questions. They refuse to be transparent and forthcoming with Congress 
on almost every matter.
  When this bill was introduced, I had to question whether the promise 
for border security 10 years down the road would ever be fulfilled. No 
one disputes that this bill is what I have said already, a bill that 
legalizes first and enforces later. That is the core problem. That is a 
core problem from the standpoint of everybody who is going to tell us 
on this floor and during these weeks of debate that immigration reform 
is overwhelmingly popular. I am not going to dispute that.
  Understand that there are very many things that are caveats in a 
poll. No. 1 is that we ought to have border security. The core problem 
is that enforcement comes after legalization, a core problem, and the 
main reason I could not support it out of the Judiciary Committee. It 
is the main reason. It is unacceptable to me, and it is unacceptable to 
the American people.
  The sponsors of this bill disagree. If they would read their own 
legislation, they would realize this fact. Later in the week I will 
discuss an amendment I plan to offer to change this central flaw, but 
allow me to tell my colleagues who are not on the committee about this 
major objection I have.

[[Page 8261]]

  We have millions of undocumented people in this country. Under this 
bill, Congress would give the Secretary of Homeland Security 6 months 
to produce two reports, one on border security strategy and the other 
on border fencing strategy. As soon as those two documents are sent to 
the Hill, just as soon as they come up here, the Secretary then has 
full authority to issue legal status, including work permits and travel 
documents, to millions of people who apply.
  The result is the undocumented population receives what the bill 
calls registered provisional status after two plans are submitted. 
Registered provisional immigrant is RPI. RPI status is more than 
probation. RPI status is outright legalization.
  After the Secretary notifies Congress that she believes her plan has 
been accomplished, newly legalized immigrants are given a path to 
obtain green cards and a special path to citizenship.
  Without ensuring adequate border security or holding employers 
accountable, the cycle is destined to repeat itself. I used the 
committee process to attempt to strengthen border security. My 
amendment to fix the trigger so the Secretary would need to report to 
Congress on a fast-track system and show that the border was secured to 
get congressional approval before legalization would proceed was 
defeated. We used the committee process to try to track who was coming 
and going from our country. Amendments to require a biometric exit 
system at all ports of entry, which is current law, were defeated.
  We tried to hold employers accountable and stop the magnet for 
illegal immigration. My amendment to speed up implementation of an 
employer verification system was defeated.
  At the end of the day, the majority argued against securing the 
border for another decade. The triggers in the bill that kicked off 
legalization are ineffective and inefficient.
  If we pass the bill as is, there will be no pressure on this 
administration, future administrations, or those in Congress to secure 
the border. There will be no push by the legalization advocates to get 
the job done.
  This is what is so important about when does legalization take place, 
before the border is secure or after the border is secure. Once the 
plans are presented, there will never be any pressure from advocates 
for legalization, or anybody else who is interested in solving this 
problem, to push to get the job done.
  Moreover, the bill gives Congress the sole discretion over border 
security, fencing strategy, and implementation of these strategies 
without any input from Congress.
  We have a lot of questions. Will the Secretary, who believes the 
border is stronger than ever before, be willing to make it even 
stronger? Will a Secretary who does not believe a biometric exit system 
is feasible ensure that a mandated system is put in place? Will a 
Secretary who does not believe anything should stand in the way of 
legalization ensure the triggers are achieved?
  Proponents of the legislation claim it includes the single largest 
increase in immigration enforcement in American history. Proponents say 
mandatory electronic employment verification is a solution to future 
illegal immigration. It is concerning that the bill delays for years 
the implementation of a mandatory electronic employment verification 
through which 99.7 percent of all work-eligible employees are confirmed 
immediately today.
  I will speak later in the days ahead about how this bill weakens 
current law, particularly laws on the books to deter criminal behavior. 
It concerns me greatly that the bill we are about to consider rolls 
back many criminal statutes, but also that there is nothing in the bill 
that enhances the cooperation between the Federal Government and State 
and local jurisdictions. In fact, it preempts State laws that are 
trying to enforce Federal laws currently in place.
  We have a lot of work cut out for us. I know there are some who don't 
want to see a single change in this legislation.
  For me, this bill falls short of what I want to see in strong 
immigration reform. The fact is we need real reform, not gimmicks that 
fail to fix the real problem and secure our border. We need to be fair 
to millions of people who came here the legal way, not bias the system 
in favor of those who sneaked in through the back door. We need a bill 
that truly balances our national security with our economic security.
  This is what we can do to improve the bill: I remain optimistic that 
on the floor we can vote on commonsense amendments that better the 
bill. Serious consideration will be given to amendments that strengthen 
our ability to remove criminal gang members, hold perpetrators of fraud 
and abuse accountable, and prevent the weakening of criminal law. We 
must seriously consider how the bill works to the detriment of the 
American workers and find consensus around measures that require 
employers to regroup and hire from homegrown talent before looking 
abroad, but also improving the mechanism by which people can come here 
when they are needed. We must be willing to close loopholes in our 
asylum system, prevent criminals and evildoers from gaining immigration 
benefits, and ensure that we are improving our ability to protect the 
homeland.
  I assure my colleagues I have an open mind on this legislation. I 
want immigration reform. I want to get it right this time, not make the 
same mistakes I did in 1986. I want a bill I can support. To do that, I 
need to see a stronger commitment to border security. I need to know 
future lawbreakers won't be rewarded, and that there will be a 
deterrent for people who wish to enter or remain illegally in the 
country.
  Basically and simply, I want the words of this bill to match the 
rhetoric of those proposing the plan. The bill sponsors want a product 
that can garner around 70 votes in the Senate. Doing so, they seem to 
think, would send a message to the House that they should rubberstamp a 
bill that passed the Senate and send that bill to the President. I 
don't think that is going to happen. The House is prepared to move on 
its own legislation.
  There will be a conference, which is a rare occurrence around here, 
by the way. A conference of the two Houses will ensure that the bill 
benefits from various checks and balances that we worship through our 
Constitution.
  I am not trying to jump ahead to the next step of the process, I am 
simply telling my colleagues this bill has a long way to go through the 
legislative process. It needs to change before it is accepted by the 
American people or sent to the President. If they are serious about 
getting this done, more compromises will be made.
  Allow me to end by echoing the words of President Reagan:

       Our objective is only to establish a reasonable, fair, 
     orderly, and secure system of immigration into this country 
     and not to discriminate in any way against particular nations 
     or people. Future generations of Americans will be thankful 
     for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and 
     thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred 
     possessions of our people: American citizenship.

  That was President Reagan.
  The path we take in the days ahead will shape our country for years 
to come. It is my hope we can find a solution while learning from our 
mistakes and ensuring that future generations don't have to revisit 
this problem down the road.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, our current immigration system is a travesty. 
It is inefficient, uncompassionate, and dangerous. It doesn't serve 
America's economic or social interests, and it undermines respect for 
the rule of law and for our Democratic institutions.
  Fundamental reform is both badly needed and long overdue. That is why 
I support immigration reform, and it is also why I initially joined a 
bipartisan group of Senators to try to find common ground on this 
issue. But it is also why I left that group and why today I must oppose 
the so-called Gang of 8 immigration bill.
  At the outset of this debate, the gang promised a grand immigration 
bargain:

[[Page 8262]]

strict border security in exchange for a pathway to citizenship for 
approximately 11 million illegal immigrants already here. Even before 
the bill was introduced, gang members distributed talking points that 
lauded the bill's beefed-up security provisions, new visa reforms, and 
measures that would make the pathway to citizenship long and tough.
  But once the gang produced actual legislation, and Senators, the 
media, and members of the public began to read the bill, it was clear 
the talking points did not reflect the reality of the legislation 
itself. After pointing out glaring discrepancies between claims about 
the bill and the actual text, Senators were told they would have an 
opportunity to make changes during the markup in the Judiciary 
Committee.
  But the four gang members on the committee banded together as a block 
with Democrats to defeat virtually all substantive amendments proposed 
to the bill. Congressional approval of the border security plan? No. 
Improve interior enforcement and strengthen workplace verification? 
Rejected. Manage the flow of new legal immigrants? Failed. Limit access 
to some of America's most generous welfare programs? Blocked.
  As a result, the bill that will come to the Senate floor this week is 
essentially the same huge, complex, unpredictable, expensive, and 
special interest-driven, big government boondoggle it was when it first 
came to the committee.
  The bill does not secure the border, it doesn't build a fence, and it 
doesn't create a workable biometric entry-exit system for immigrants to 
this country. What standards and benchmarks it does set, the bill 
simultaneously grants the Secretary of Homeland Security broad 
discretion to waive. It will, however, immediately legalize millions of 
currently illegal immigrants, make them eligible for government 
services, and put them on a pathway to citizenship.
  Many critics compare the gang bill to the failed 1986 immigration 
law, which, similar to this one, also promised border security in 
exchange for amnesty but did not deliver on its promises. But the gang 
bill actually reminds me of a more recent piece of legislation: 
ObamaCare. Similar to the President's health care law, the gang bill 
was negotiated in secret by insiders and special interests who then 
essentially offered it to Congress as a single take-it-or-leave-it 
proposition.
  The bill grants broad new powers to the same executive branch that is 
mired in scandal for incompetence and abuse of power. Total cost 
estimates are in the trillions, according to some. Rather than fix our 
current immigration problems, the bill makes many of them worse. 
However well-intentioned, the Gang of 8 bill is just an immigration 
version of ObamaCare.
  That is why true immigration reform must be pursued on a step-by-step 
basis, with individual reform measures implemented and verified in the 
proper sequence. Happily for immigration reformers such as I, this 
appears to be the approach being pursued in the House of 
Representatives. It is the only one that makes sense.
  First, let's secure the border. Let us set up a workable entry-exit 
system and create a reliable employment verification system, one that 
protects immigrants, citizens and businesses alike from bureaucratic 
mistakes. Then let's fix our legal immigration system to make sure we 
are letting in the immigrants our economy needs in the numbers that 
make sense for our country.
  Once these and other tasks--which are plenty big in and of 
themselves--are completed to the satisfaction of the American people, 
then we can address the needs of current undocumented workers with 
justice, compassion, and sensitivity.
  Since the beginning of this year, more than 40 immigration-related 
bills have been introduced in Congress between the House and the 
Senate. By a rough count, I could support more than half of them, eight 
of which have Republican and Democratic cosponsors. We should not risk 
forward progress on these other bipartisan reforms just because we are 
unable to iron out each of the more contentious issues.
  The Gang of 8 bill is not immigration reform. It is big government 
dysfunction. It is an immigration version of ObamaCare. All advocates 
of true immigration reform, advocates on both the left and the right 
side of the aisle, should therefore oppose it.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this week we begin a historic debate. For 
the first time in 25 years we will actively debate the comprehensive 
reform of America's immigration laws.
  I will be the first to admit that I come to this debate with a 
prejudice, with a bias. Similar to many Americans, I am the child of an 
immigrant.
  In 1911, 102 years ago, my grandmother came to this country with 
three little children. One of those children was my mother. She was 2 
years old when she arrived in America, in Baltimore. My grandmother 
didn't speak a word of English, but somehow she managed to get my mom 
and my aunt and uncle on the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad train to St. 
Louis, MO. They were on their way to East St. Louis, IL, to meet my 
grandfather.
  Just one floor and a few steps away is my desk for the majority whip 
office. Behind my desk is a naturalization certificate from my mother. 
I keep it as a reminder of who I am and where I came from and the fact 
that the Durbin family--and in her case the Kutkaite family--were 
immigrants to this country. I am sure my grandmother never imagined 
that one of her grandchildren would be standing here today representing 
the State of Illinois in the Senate of the United States. That is my 
story, that is my family's story, and it is America's story.
  Perhaps it is partly because of this family history, but I believe 
immigration is the defining positive force in America.
  How can you tell when a country is in decline, when immigrants stop 
wanting to come to it. Many other developed countries have had this 
experience. They have watched their economies decline and fail. That 
has never been the experience in America. Look at our history. Every 
generation, immigrants coming to our shores from around the world have 
made us stronger. Immigrants do not take away. They add to society. 
They are hard-working men and women with the courage to leave 
everything behind and to come and try to build a new and better life 
for themselves and their children. Every succeeding wave of immigrants, 
every generation of immigrants brings new life to America.
  But today our immigration system is broken and doesn't reflect our 
heritage as a nation of immigrants. There are millions of undocumented 
immigrants in our country who want to be full-fledged Americans. They 
have strong family values. They contribute to our economy and take some 
of the hardest jobs in our Nation. But under current law there is no 
way for many of them to even get in line to be legalized. We can't turn 
our backs on the people who are already in this Nation, already 
yearning to be officially part of the American family.
  They sit next to us in church. Their kids go to school with our kids 
and grandkids. They are the ones who serve our food at the restaurants 
and clean up the tables afterward. They clean our homes. They care for 
our kids and grandkids and they care for our elderly parents and 
grandparents.
  When I first came to the Senate in 1997, I got a surprise phone call 
from Ted Kennedy. I was still pinching myself, thinking I am going to 
serve in the same place as Ted Kennedy. He said: I have a request for 
you, Dick. I would like you to be a member of my Immigration 
Subcommittee on Senate Judiciary. He was the chairman. I accepted his 
invitation.
  I had sat in that gallery and watched Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator 
Bobby Kennedy on the floor of the Senate. I was just a student at the 
time. I

[[Page 8263]]

thought, I am going to have a chance now to sit in the same committee 
room with this man and speak to the issue of immigration. I didn't 
think 16 years later I would be standing on the floor of the Senate, 
with Senator Kennedy gone, and we would still be struggling to fix 
America's broken immigration system. We have been through a lot in that 
period of time.
  Twelve years ago I wrote a bill called the DREAM Act. That bill would 
allow immigrant students who came to the United States as children to 
earn their citizenship by attending college or serving in the military. 
I have been fighting to make that the law of the land. I have called it 
for a vote on the Senate floor. We have received majority votes, but I 
could never ever break the filibuster. I could never get the 60 votes I 
needed.
  In the last decade, with the leadership of Senator Ted Kennedy and 
Senator John McCain, we have made serious efforts to pass comprehensive 
immigration reform legislation, but we have always fallen short.
  Prior to this particular debate, I can recall sitting in a room right 
off the Senate floor with another young Senator named Barack Obama 
working on immigration reform. It has been our challenge. Now the 
Senate is going to take up this issue again this week. This is the best 
chance we have had in 25 years to finally get this job done.
  Six months ago I sat down for the first time with seven other 
Senators, four Republicans and three other Democrats. On my side of the 
table: Chuck Schumer of New York, chairman of the Immigration 
Subcommittee; Senator Bob Menendez, a leader with the Congressional 
Hispanic Caucus; and Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, who knows this 
issue firsthand from his State; on the other side of the table, John 
McCain; Senator Marco Rubio of Florida; Senator Lindsey Graham of South 
Carolina; and Jeff Flake of Arizona. They started calling us the Gang 
of 8. I have been in so many gangs around here, I think I need to get 
some tattoos, but I am not likely to do that. But these gangs are 
constructive efforts to solve problems.
  This is a diverse group. Think about sitting across the table from 
McCain, Rubio, Graham, and Flake. There sits Schumer, Durbin, Menendez, 
and Bennet--a lot of differences. But what brought us together was the 
realization that if we couldn't reach an agreement, neither would the 
Senate. If we couldn't bridge the differences between Democrats and 
Republicans, conservatives and others in our negotiations, the Senate 
never would.
  We set out to get the job done. Several times I wasn't sure if we 
were going to be successful.
  The Republicans had a bottom line. They wanted strong measures to 
secure our border with Mexico and to prevent future illegal 
immigration. We had a bottom line on our side of the table, too: a 
tough but fair path to citizenship offered to 11 million undocumented 
immigrants. We met for 4 months. We met 24 times, long and difficult 
sessions. A couple of those sessions I thought were the last ones, we 
would not be back another day, but we returned. We made concessions. 
Everybody gave a little. At the end of the day we reached an agreement.
  We announced in January our set of principles and then we started the 
hardest part, drafting the actual legislation. By the middle of April 
we finally had a bill almost 850 pages, if I am not mistaken. It is 
here now. I probably ought to take a look and make sure I got the page 
numbers correct. This version is a lot longer because it is the 
committee substitute, but it is more than 850 pages.
  We heard testimony in the Senate Judiciary Committee from dozens of 
witnesses, supporters, and opponents. Then in May we sat down for a 
markup, which is where we actually amend the bill. I have been a member 
of the Judiciary Committee for 15 years and I have never been through a 
markup like that. Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont, President pro tempore 
of the Senate, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, pledged he 
would make this markup open and fair to both sides--and he did. It took 
us 3 weeks. We met 5 times for a total of 37 hours on this bill. More 
than 300 amendments were offered. We debated and voted on 212 of them, 
including 112 by Republicans and 100 by Democrats. Mr. President, 136 
amendments, or changes, were adopted and all but 3 of those 136 passed 
with a bipartisan vote. The spirit of bipartisanship was in the Senate 
Judiciary Committee as it was in our meetings leading up to it.
  Finally came the vote for reporting the bill out of committee. It was 
one of those historic moments which no Senator present will ever 
forget. When Chairman Leahy announced the 13-to-5 vote in favor of this 
measure, the room erupted in applause and cheers. People stood up at 
their seats and came up and embraced one another, realizing we had just 
made history.
  Let me go through the basics of the bill. First, our bill will secure 
the border and stop future illegal immigration. The border of the 
United States today is safer and stronger than it has ever been in 40 
years. We have invested billions of dollars. We have doubled the number 
of Federal personnel working on the border, monitoring the coming and 
going of people across that border every single day. We have reached a 
level of competence and security we never dreamed of. Now we are going 
to do more. We have promised the Republicans at the table we will 
secure that border with even more technology and more investment.
  Each year we spend about $18 billion policing the border between the 
United States and Mexico--$18 billion. That is more than the combined 
expenditures for all of the Federal law enforcement agencies--FBI, 
Secret Service, Drug Enforcement Administration, Alcohol, Tobacco, 
Firearms, and U.S. Marshals Office. We spend more than that each year 
on the border and now we will invest even more.
  For those who argue we are not serious about border protection, 
believe me, we are. The investments will be made with the very best 
technology, with the advice and cooperation of the States affected by 
these decisions, to make that border as safe as humanly possible. We 
have made amazing progress.
  We can do more. The Border Patrol agents, over 20,000 of them at work 
today, are better staffed than at any time in the 88-year history of 
that agency. The Department of Homeland Security has completed 651 
miles of border fencing out of the 652 miles mandated by Congress. I 
was a skeptic when they said they would put fences on the border. I 
really was. My belief was if you build a 10-foot fence it was an 
invitation for a 12-foot ladder, and my belief was they could easily 
overcome it. They put fences in places where they could work and they 
put other devices in places where fences won't work. Significant 
results have been shown. Cities on the southern border are among the 
safest in the country. Violent crimes in the border States have dropped 
an average of over 40 percent over the past 20 years and the top 4 big 
cities in America with the lowest rates of violent crime are all in 
border States: San Diego, Phoenix, El Paso, Austin.
  Our bill will do more. We set a clear, tough target for border 
security. The bill requires the Border Patrol to have 100-percent 
persistent surveillance of the southwest border. In other words, the 
Border Patrol will have to be able to see in real time every single 
person who crosses that southwest border illegally. We also required a 
90-percent effectiveness rate for southwest border sectors. In other 
words, the Border Patrol will have to stop 90 percent of all people who 
attempt to enter the country illegally in each border sector. It 
requires the Department of Homeland Security to create a southern 
border security plan and a southern border fencing strategy within 6 
months after the bill is passed. The border security plan will spell 
out the personnel, infrastructure, and technology necessary to achieve 
this 90-percent effectiveness rate.
  The bill approves $3 billion for this border plan, $1.5 billion more 
for a fencing strategy. If the Department of Homeland Security does not 
reach 90 percent effectiveness within 5 years, the Border Commission, 
made up of

[[Page 8264]]

southwestern State officials and bipartisan Presidential and 
congressional appointees, is empowered to employ additional steps to 
secure the border. Our bill appropriates up to $2 billion in additional 
spending, if necessary, for those measures. Anyone who takes a look at 
this--and you will hear many of the critics in the next few weeks say 
``they are just not serious about the border''--believe me, we are. We 
have been. We continue to be. We put the resources on the table, with 
the cooperation of the States bordering Mexico, to make sure we have 
done absolutely everything within our human capability to keep that 
border safe and strong and secure.
  Of course, improving border security overlooks one very obvious 
weakness: Forty percent of the undocumented immigrants in the United 
States did not cross the border illegally. They came into the United 
States legally on visas: students, visitors. Similar visas were given 
to them and they overstayed. They were supposed to come to go to 
college and they stayed after college. They were supposed to come for a 
vacation or family event and they overstayed their visas, so 40 percent 
of the undocumented people overstayed their visas. We address that.
  This bill requires the electronic tracking of people who enter and 
exit America. We require, in this bill, that all visas, passports, and 
other travel documents for immigrants who are entering or exiting the 
United States be in the form of a machine-readable document which can 
be scanned as they enter and leave the country so we will know who is 
coming and going. The bill mandates this machine-readable system be 
interoperable with the databases that are used by Federal immigration 
and law enforcement agencies and the intelligence community. We are 
trying to integrate all of this information about people coming and 
going and living in this country, to make us safer and make the system 
work.
  This gives the authorities real-time access to information to connect 
the dots across law enforcement data bases, including the FBI 
fingerprint check, name check, and the NCIC list. The new machine-
readable entry-exit system will access this information when 
determining whether to issue a visa or deny entry.
  I say to those observing this debate, when you hear just the two 
things I have mentioned, you have to say this bill, S. 744, is going to 
make America safer. The border is going to be stronger. We are going to 
know who is coming and going in America.
  And there is more. We also need to address the job magnet that brings 
illegal, undocumented people into the United States. We need to make it 
more difficult to hire undocumented people. Our bill does it. We 
require all employers to use a mandatory electronic employment 
verification system to verify the employees are legal. Job applicants 
would have to show identifying documents such as a U.S. passport, 
drivers license, or biometric work authorization card that includes 
photo identification. The employer in any business, in any town across 
America, with access to a computer goes to the E-Verify system, enters 
the vital information about the person sitting across the table, pushes 
the button and waits to see if the photo that comes across the computer 
screen is the same photo as the one that has been presented. There is 
the verification. The employment can continue to go forward.
  Our bill will reform our legal immigration system to strengthen our 
economy, our families, and our workers. We need to ensure that families 
who have been separated for many years can be finally reunited. 
Employers should be given a chance to hire an immigrant worker when 
truly needed, but first--and I insisted on this throughout--we require 
that you have to offer the job to an American before you bring in a 
foreign worker.
  Our first obligation, whatever State we represent, is to the people 
we represent, particularly those who are out of work. This bill 
requires when there is a job opening, before you can offer it to a 
foreign worker you must offer it to an American. Maybe they cannot fill 
the job. Maybe they do not have the qualifications. Maybe you need some 
specialty. Then you can go forward under specific conditions here, with 
limitations, in hiring that foreign worker.
  We have been told by the business community, especially high tech, 
that there is a need for more high-skilled workers in our country. Last 
week I went to the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago. There 
was an incubator there. In small suites of offices, amazing things are 
underway. Some of them I cannot even explain to you. I am a liberal 
arts lawyer, OK? The closest I ever got to real science was political 
science and that doesn't count. I tried to listen and absorb as much as 
I could about what they were doing at this fabulous institution. Some 
of the things they are doing there are dramatically reducing the cost 
of producing biological vaccines and medicines--medicines that are 
used, for example, in cancer therapy--to cut the cost in half. They 
have been experimenting on new ways to do that.
  I met a young man named Bo Sung, from China. The man who was 
introducing us was from India himself and he was the head of the 
project. He said: ``This young man came to the Illinois Institute of 
Technology, and to Chicago, to get an advanced degree. He is 
possibly,'' he said, ``the smartest student I have ever had in any 
class--straight As in China, learned English and came here to learn 
more.'' He is working on this project. I got to meet him. He was kind 
of shy, friendly, in a way, standing off to the side. They brought him 
over.
  I said to him: Let me ask you, Mr. Sung, would you be interested in 
staying in the United States and developing this project?
  He said: If I could, I would.
  Here was a man, brought for education in the United States, who will 
soon be given a choice to go back to China or to stay in the United 
States. His preference was to stay here. We require in this bill that 
if you have an advanced degree in STEM subjects--science, technology, 
engineering, and math--an advanced degree, and you have a job offer, 
that you be offered a green card. A green card is a path to 
legalization and citizenship. I think that is a smart thing to do.
  I can recall attending the graduation at the same school a few years 
back where it seemed every advanced degree was going to someone from 
India or South Asia. I thought to myself: What a sad situation. We are 
handing them advanced degrees, which they earned in the United States 
at the best schools, and we are handing them a map on how to find their 
way back to O'Hare and leave.
  This is a better approach. If there is a job offer, we need to keep 
this talent in America. It will not just employ that person, it will 
employ many others who can work for the companies they are going to 
help. Employers, under our bill, will be given a chance to hire 
temporary foreign workers when they truly need them, after they have 
tried to recruit Americans for the same jobs. We also require that any 
employer who hires a foreign worker must pay a fee to be set aside for 
a fund to help train Americans.
  Let's put the cards on the table here. If you go to the graduation 
ceremonies at these schools, the best engineering schools in America, 
you will find a majority of foreign students. That is the reality 
today. So let's change the reality. Let's take the fees we will collect 
when these foreign workers, trained in the United States, are brought 
here to work--take the fees and create, as we do in this bill, 
scholarships and college funds for American engineering students. Let's 
grow our own in this country. Let's make sure we have young people 
coming out of our high schools and colleges who are prepared to get 
advanced degrees who are from America. There is nothing wrong with 
that. That is our first obligation, and this bill will do that.
  In Illinois, more than 40 percent of the students who earned master's 
or doctoral degrees in a STEM field are temporary nonimmigrants.
  In 2011, almost 2,700 specialists in advanced fields such as computer 
science, programming, and biomedicine who earned degrees in Illinois 
could not obtain visas upon their graduation. Yet

[[Page 8265]]

in Illinois alone we will need 320,000 STEM graduates in the next 5 
years.
  It makes no sense. They are trained at the best schools in Illinois, 
we need them in Illinois, and then we tell them to leave?
  It makes no sense.
  Our bill allows employers to sponsor for a green card any student who 
graduates from a U.S. school with an advanced degree in STEM fields if 
they will be working in a STEM job. We also have a significant increase 
in H-1B visas for skilled workers. We now have a limit of about 65,000 
H-1B visas a year. It can go up to 115,000, depending on the supply and 
demand, and even as high as 180,000.
  For the first time employers will be required to post the job on the 
Department of Labor Web site for 30 days before they hire a foreign 
worker, which goes back to the point I made earlier--first, the job is 
offered to an American.
  Under current law, employers are permitted to pay H-1B visa holders 
substandard wages. We changed it. We raised the wages to be paid to the 
H-1B workers. We don't want to create the incentive to bring in low-
wage foreign workers. We want a good wage to be offered to an American 
first.
  We also take important steps to crack down on the biggest abuse of H-
1B visas--outsourcing of American jobs. When most people think of H-1B 
visas, which are visas to bring in professionals, most people think of 
high-tech companies such as Microsoft and Google hiring engineers they 
need and paying them top dollar. The reality today is dramatically 
different.
  In fiscal year 2012 all of the top 10 H-1B visa applicants were 
outsourcing foreign firms. These 10 companies used 40 percent of all 
the H-1B visas. Under current law employers can legally use the H-1B 
visa program for outsourcing. We changed it. We phased out the abuse of 
the H-1B system so that those using the H-1B program will be actually 
hiring the employees they need.
  One of the items in this bill near and dear to all of us--certainly 
on our side of the table--is a path to citizenship.
  During the last Presidential campaign one of the candidates on the 
other side advocated what he called self-deportation--that is the 
phrase he used--of undocumented immigrants who are currently living in 
our country, to leave. He was basically forcing undocumented people to 
leave.
  It wouldn't work, it is impractical, and I think it is fundamentally 
wrong. Instead, we need a fair and firm solution strengthening our 
national security and our economy that is true to our heritage as a 
nation of immigrants. Our legislation creates a tough but fair path to 
citizenship.
  What it boils down to is we need to say to the 11 million 
undocumented people in America: If you can prove you were here 
continuously before December 31, 2011, you have a chance to step 
forward, register with the government, and submit yourself to a 
background check. If there is a serious problem with your criminal 
background, you are finished. Leave. You cannot become a citizen. But 
if there is not, you can pay your taxes, pay a fine, live legally in 
America, work legally in America, travel, and come back into this 
country, and work towards citizenship over time.
  It is a long process. They will be monitored. They will be forced to 
learn English to make sure they and their children can be part of 
America and its future. We would do this over a 13-year period of time. 
What we have today is de facto amnesty. We have 11 million undocumented 
people, and we don't have a law to apply--at least not one that is 
enforced on a regular basis. Our new law, if passed, will create a 
level playing field.
  According to the Center for American Progress, if our bill becomes 
law, undocumented immigrants will increase their earnings by 15 percent 
over 5 years, leading to $832 billion in economic growth and $109 
billion in tax revenue over the next 10 years. It also will create an 
estimated 121,000 jobs.
  I have sat down with workers, particularly union workers, in my 
State. They say: Senator, what are you doing to us? You are bringing in 
all of these people who will now be competing with us in the workplace.
  I asked them to stop for a moment and reflect on the following: These 
undocumented workers are competing with them today. We can find a brick 
layer, a plumber, somebody who can put on a roof in virtually any major 
city in America, and many of those folks are undocumented. In many 
cases they are getting paid many times less than a minimum wage, and 
they are competing with other workers legally here in America. We 
change all of that. They come forward, identify themselves, and they 
are bound by the laws of this country. It is going to help them 
ultimately, but it helps workers in general so they are not facing this 
unfair competitive advantage.
  I see Senator Cornyn is here, and I want to give him a chance to say 
a few words. But first I want to close by speaking about two things 
before I do.
  At the beginning I mentioned that 12 years ago I introduced the DREAM 
Act. The DREAM Act was a response to a call to my office in Chicago. 
There was a young girl in the city of Chicago who came to that city 
from Korea through Brazil. Her mother and father brought her into 
Chicago with her brother and sister, and they were very poor.
  Her father wanted to be a minister and have a church. He never 
realized that dream, and he stayed at home and prayed for that dream 
every day. Her mother finally said: Somebody has to earn some money. So 
she went to work at a local dry cleaners.
  Well, the kids were raised in a one-room efficiency with hammocks so 
they could sleep, get by with what little they had, and it was a pretty 
desperate circumstance. This young woman, whose name is Tereza Lee, had 
to basically go to school and look through the wastebasket after lunch 
to find food that other kids had thrown away so she could eat. That is 
how desperate she was.
  Somewhere along the way she was invited to become part of the Merit 
Music Program. What a wonderful program. About 10 years ago a woman in 
Chicago said: As my legacy, I want to create the Merit Music Program 
which offers free musical instruments and musical instruction to the 
poorest students in our public schools. It has worked miracles. One 
hundred percent of the kids in the Merit Music Program go to college. 
Well, Tereza Lee was one of them.
  It turned out Tereza Lee was an accomplished music student who 
learned the piano. They finally gave her a key to the Merit Music 
Program building because it was warm, and she liked to stay there late 
at night and play the piano. She got so good they said: You have to 
apply to the Juilliard School of Music and the Manhattan School of 
Music in New York.
  She got the papers----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask for 4 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. She had the application to fill out, and it asked for her 
citizenship and nationality. At that point, she turned to her mom and 
said: What should I put there?
  Her mom said: I don't know. When we brought you here, you were on a 
visitor's visa, but we never filed any more papers.
  Tereza said: What are we going to do?
  Her mom said: Let's call Senator Durbin.
  They called my office, and we checked the law. The law was not very 
kind to a young person in that circumstance. It said she had to leave 
America immediately and stay away for 10 years and apply to come back.
  She was 17 years old. It didn't make any sense. She didn't do 
anything wrong. She was brought here as a baby.
  I introduced the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act said young people who came 
to the United States under the same circumstance as Tereza and were 
brought here before the age of 16, finished high school, had no serious 
criminal issues, and could finish at least 2 years of college or enlist 
in the military would have a chance for citizenship. I have been trying 
to pass that ever since.

[[Page 8266]]

  These DREAMers, which they now call themselves, have started stepping 
forward and telling their stories. They are in some peril when they do 
this, but they want America to know who they are. Some of them have 
amazing stories to tell.
  I will tell two stories very quickly. This is Alejandro Morales. He 
was brought to the United States from Mexico at the age of 7 months and 
raised in Chicago. His dream was to become a U.S. marine. He enrolled 
in the Marine Math and Science Academy in Chicago and excelled in 
school in the Young Marines Program. He eventually rose to become the 
City Corps staff commander, the highest ranking cadet of 11,000 junior 
ROTC students in Chicago.
  In a letter he wrote to me he said:

       I want to serve and fight to protect my country. I am an 
     American; I know nothing but the United States.

  Last week, in a sad, tragic, mean-spirited vote, the House of 
Representatives passed an amendment to deport DREAMers such as 
Alejandro. It is a shameless display of lack of understanding of this 
fine young man and thousands more just like him who want to be a part 
of America's future. Losing him will not make us any stronger.
  Let me introduce another DREAMer. This is Issac Carbajal and his 
mother Victoria. Issac was brought to the United States from Mexico 
when he was 5 years old. They settled in the suburb of Portland, OR, 
and he went to high school there. A military recruiter told Issac he 
could have a promising career in the Armed Forces.
  He sought the advice of a family friend, Dr. John Braddock. John and 
his wife Kim came to think of Issac as another son. Issac met the 
Braddock family shortly after arriving in this country.
  In a letter to me John wrote that Issac ``loved this country, his 
country.'' They both believed the recruiter who told Issac he could 
enlist in the military and apply for citizenship in 2 years.
  In January 2011 when Issac went to San Diego to enlist in the 
military, he was immediately arrested, turned over to ICE, and deported 
to Tijuana the next day. He was dropped off alone in a country he had 
not seen in almost 15 years with no identification and nothing but $18 
in his pocket.
  Now he is barred from returning to the United States for 10 years. He 
originally went to enlist in the military. Although it has been almost 
2\1/2\ years since he has been deported, he still wants to come back 
and serve in the Armed Forces of the United States.
  There are so many stories just like this of these DREAMers who want 
to make this a better Nation. The strongest DREAM Act provisions that 
have ever been crafted are included in this bill and agreed to on a 
bipartisan basis.
  Let's pass this bill. Let's end this debate after a fulsome exchange 
of ideas and amendments. Let's end this debate with a strong bipartisan 
vote that says both Republicans and Democrats understand that this 
Nation of immigrants must renew its commitment to every generation to 
our heritage. We need to renew our commitment to those people in our 
families who had the courage to get up and come to this great Nation, 
face great sacrifice, and succeed and build what we call home: the 
United States of America.
  Now it is our turn. Let's not only prove we can do the right thing 
for them and the heritage of this Nation, let's prove that every once 
in a while this great institution of the Senate can actually get some 
important work done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we have been working on immigration reform 
ever since I came to the Senate about 10 years ago. I have sponsored 
legislation--most notably with the former Senator Jon Kyl in 2005--
called the Comprehensive Border Security and Immigration Reform Act.
  The legislation I have worked on since I have been in the Senate has 
dealt with virtually every aspect of the issues that immigration 
touches on--from high-skilled visas and guest worker programs to border 
security to enhancement of our ports of entry. The staffing at those 
ports of entry is important. It makes it possible for legitimate 
commerce and trade to go back and forth, most notably, with Mexico 
which shares 1,200 miles of common border with my State of Texas.
  As a result of that bilateral exchange, 6 million jobs are created in 
the United States alone. I believe I have been involved in some of the 
toughest parts of the immigration debate, and as I have joked to my 
staff and family, I have the scars to prove it.
  The truth is this is a new topic in many ways to so many Members of 
the Senate because 43 Senators have come to this Chamber since the last 
time we debated this topic in 2007. While the Senate Judiciary 
Committee has had the opportunity to vote on this important 
legislation, the rest of the body has not had a chance to weigh in and 
offer their contributions, hopefully, with an eye toward improving the 
bill and making it something of which we can be proud.
  When I first read the bill produced by the so-called Gang of 8, I saw 
many improvements in our current broken immigration system. For 
example, the bill, as written by the Gang of 8 and now passed out of 
the Judiciary Committee, allowed more STEM graduates; that is, 
graduates from our colleges and universities with math, science, and 
engineering degrees, to gain admission to our country as legal 
permanent residents and eventually citizens. Further, I think the bill 
makes some improvements in terms of family unification. It brings 
families together who are split because of archaic and unworkable 
provisions in our immigration law. I think the bill also helps take an 
important step toward regaining the public's confidence.
  The Federal Government is actually up to writing laws that can be 
enforced and will actually work as advertised. That is where the E-
Verify provisions are so important. It makes sure employers only hire 
people who are legally eligible to work in this country. In that same 
vein, this bill as originally written would provide some enhanced 
penalties to employers who would game the system by evading legal 
workers and hiring people who cannot legally work in the United States.
  All of these provisions enjoy broad bipartisan support. Yet, coming 
from a border State, as I said--one that shares 1,200 miles of common 
border with Mexico, through which the overwhelming majority of illegal 
immigration across our borders occurs--I believe there are dramatic 
improvements needed in this bill when it comes to securing America's 
borders and promoting public safety, and those cannot be disentangled 
from one another.
  We know that the same border that allows somebody who wants to come 
into this country to work and have a better life--certainly something 
we can all understand and empathize with--also permits drug cartels and 
human traffickers to penetrate our borders and apply their dangerous 
trade.
  We have also learned over time that our 2,000-mile southern border is 
very diverse. In other words, if a person is from California and their 
view is that the border of the San Diego area where they have double-
fencing and mounted patrols, in essence, by the Border Patrol--that may 
well work to control the border in San Diego, but it may not work in 
Arizona or in Texas. As a matter of fact, we have seen dramatic 
improvements in Arizona. Two of the Members of the Gang of 8, Senator 
McCain and Senator Flake, have been very diligent in working on those 
issues in their State.
  However, I must tell my colleagues that, coming from the State of 
Texas, where we have the longest extension of uncontrolled border in 
the country, there is a lot of work that needs to be done because of 
this diversity, and that is the spirit in which I intend to offer 
amendments to help improve border security and public safety.
  Now, the bill grants permanent legal status to millions of 
undocumented immigrants as currently written without any guarantee of 
securing the border. How would that possibly be a good idea? In other 
words, there are many

[[Page 8267]]

Americans who, in their humanity and out of simple human compassion, 
understand that the 12 million or 11 million people who are currently 
undocumented or who are in illegal status in this country--they 
understand we are not going to do a massive deportation of those 12 
million people. It is just not going to happen. What they would be 
willing to do is to accept a legal status for those individuals if they 
can be assured the immigration bill that is actually passed will work 
as advertised.
  Those eligible for immediate legalization under the current bill 
would include those already deported immigrants as well as people who 
have been convicted of serious crimes such as domestic violence, child 
abuse, and drunk driving. How could that possibly be a good idea? We 
need to fix those provisions and fix the bill in the process.
  Meanwhile, unfortunately, this bill also weakens current law with 
regard to people entering the country legally but failing to leave when 
their visa expires. This is the so-called biometric entry-exit system 
which has been the law of the land since 1996. When we wonder why 
people are skeptical about the Federal Government's commitment to 
actually enforce the law as written, exhibit A is this 1996 requirement 
for a biometric entry-exit system that has never been implemented. Visa 
overstays account for 40 percent of illegal immigration. Don't we want 
to fix that provision of the bill? Yes, we should, and, yes, we will if 
my amendment is adopted.
  This bill also hides from law enforcement officials certain critical 
information necessary to detect fraud. One of the big problems with the 
1986 amnesty that Ronald Reagan signed based on the premise that there 
would be enforcement and no need to ever provide another amnesty again, 
that this would actually be enforced, was that there was so much fraud 
associated with it because of the confidentiality requirements of the 
law. Those same mistakes have been repeated in the underlying bill, and 
that needs to be fixed.
  My amendment--something we call the RESULTS amendment because we need 
not just new promises, we need actual results--fixes these problems.
  First, it requires the Department of Homeland Security to gain 
complete situational awareness and full operational control of the 
Southwestern border, with ``operational control'' defined as at least a 
90-percent apprehension rate of illegal border crossers. Ultimately, 
the goal needs to be not just focused on how many we apprehend but on 
deterrence. Law enforcement generally operates when people are deterred 
from violating the law because they fear being captured and the 
punishment that goes along with it. So that ultimately needs to be our 
goal, but it will never happen unless we capture at least 90 percent of 
the people who come across, thus sending the message that the American 
border is now secure.
  My amendment would also require the use of a biometric exit system at 
all airports and seaports where Customs and Border Protection is 
currently deployed, and it requires national implementation of E-
Verify. Again, that system will allow employers not to be the police 
but to have a simple and easy way to verify that the individuals who 
present themselves for employment at their place of business are 
legally qualified to work in the United States.
  The biggest difference between my amendment and the underlying bill 
is that my amendment guarantees results, while the Gang of 8 proposal 
merely promises results.
  I have to tell my colleagues that perhaps with all of the confluence 
of scandals occurring in Washington, DC, including the IRS debacle and 
the Health and Human Services Secretary shaking down and raising money 
from the very people she regulates, there is a lot of what I would call 
a confidence deficit in Washington, DC--particularly given Washington's 
abysmal record in enforcing our immigration laws. But it is important 
to distinguish between promises and results.
  Remember, the Federal Government has promised to secure our border 
for the last quarter century, and the trail of broken promises, as I 
said, goes back to 1986 when Congress passed an amnesty program while 
assuring voters they would see results on border security and 
enforcement. As everyone knows, we got the amnesty but not the 
enforcement in 1986, and the underlying bill suffers the same problems. 
At the very least, we should try to learn from history and not repeat 
it. Unfortunately, the underlying bill fails to acknowledge those 
lessons we should have learned about steps we need to take in order to 
guarantee results rather than make repetitive promises we ultimately 
don't keep.
  I understand why the American people don't trust Washington. I 
understand why they dismiss some border security promises as rhetoric. 
That is why my RESULTS amendment is so important and essential to 
accomplishing the goal of bipartisan immigration reform.
  As I said, right now Congress and Washington have a major credibility 
problem. No one believes we are actually serious about actually 
securing the borders and stopping the hemorrhaging of humanity across 
our southern border into the United States, including not just people 
who want to work but people who are up to no good--the human 
traffickers and the drug dealers. I am afraid the Gang of 8 bill in its 
current form would make this problem worse. So I believe the true 
poison pill would be the failure to take sensible measures by adopting 
amendments such as mine which are designed to actually solve the 
problem and guarantee results rather than ignore this important 
credibility gap Washington has.
  As I said, we do not need promises, we need results, and that is what 
my amendment would provide. Instead of enacting so-called triggers that 
are just really talking points disguised as policy, it is time for us 
to adopt real triggers that condition the pathway to citizenship on 
Washington and the bureaucracy and Congress hand-in-hand working to 
make sure the law is enforced as written.
  The majority leader reportedly, according to Politico, has somehow 
called my amendment a poison pill. We have heard that kind of language 
before. This is an effort designed to discourage those who would 
actually create a workable, results-driven immigration reform system 
from even offering their ideas. The irony is the majority leader hasn't 
even read my amendment because it hasn't been reduced to legislative 
language yet. He has prematurely called it a poison pill. In fact, the 
true poison pill would be failure to adopt such a sensible approach 
that would guarantee results so that when it goes to the House, we can 
see we are actually serious about delivering an immigration reform bill 
that functions as advertised and not just another series of hollow 
promises.
  Strengthening border security and enhancing interior enforcement are 
not alternatives to fixing our broken immigration system; they are 
complements to the kinds of sensible reforms Members of both parties 
have endorsed. Indeed, the provisions of my amendment actually build on 
the framework created by the bipartisan Gang of 8 proposal. The 
difference is, again, that we don't just make the promises, we don't 
just require the issuance of a plan, we actually require metrics to 
measure success, and we hold the feet of Congress and the bureaucracy 
to the fire to make sure those metrics and those goals are actually 
achieved.
  Even as we debate the most controversial issues, we should be doing 
everything possible to promote the type of legal immigration that 
benefits our society and our economy as well. It is with that spirit in 
mind that I will be introducing at a later time my RESULTS amendment, 
and I encourage my colleagues to take a look at it and join me in 
strengthening this underlying bill, making it more likely, not less 
likely, that we will actually pass a bill that will be taken up by the 
House of Representatives and eventually be presented to the President 
for his signature.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). The Senator from Alabama.

[[Page 8268]]


  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I wish to express my appreciation to 
the Senator from Texas. He is a superb member of the Judiciary 
Committee. He offered an amendment to this effect in the committee. I 
thought it should have passed. It would have helped with a flawed bill. 
But it was voted down. I know that he is working even harder now, and I 
know that whatever he proposes will be the kind of legislation that 
will strengthen this bill.
  I share with the American people a deep frustration with the current 
failed operation of our immigration system and share some fundamental 
principles of immigration reform that have been expressed by the Gang 
of 8.
  The Gang of 8 has said the current system is broken. I agree. But 
more accurately, we should say the current law and procedures are not 
being properly carried out and are resulting in monumental illegality 
in our country--something that is not worthy of a great nation.
  The Gang of 8 says that we must toughen our approach to border 
security and that we can do better. They implicitly, even openly 
acknowledge that our government officials have a long history of failed 
border enforcement and that they cannot be reasonably trusted to 
enforce the law. So even when the American people plead with our 
government to do something about the illegality, for decades this 
government has failed to do so.
  I agree that the gang has touched on something important. But the 
gang acknowledges, in effect, the governing class and the activists and 
special interests want amnesty, and these groups lack interest in or a 
will to sustain a policy of fair enforcement in the future. They say we 
have to guard against that, but that is what happened before. They 
acknowledge that. And I agree.
  To ensure that amnesty does not take effect immediately, with only 
promised enforcement in the future--which never occurs, it seems, as 
happened in the 1986 amnesty bill--they have promised that they have 
triggers that ensure amnesty will not result unless enforcement occurs. 
That is the promise: We have triggers and we have mechanisms so that 
you cannot get amnesty unless enforcement occurs. We have a guarantee 
of that, and we will ensure that happens.
  So I agree with the sentiment and this concern because we know what 
has been happening. I have been engaged in this debate since I have 
been in the Senate, but I do not agree their legislation comes close to 
fulfilling this promise. It just does not. That is the rub. The 
comprehensive immigration bill does not fix our failing system. The 
provisions, the faux triggers, the expression of interest in fencing, 
commissions, will work no better than current law. It will not end the 
illegality in the future.
  So I will discuss some of the flaws in their plan today, but I want 
to make one thing clear. I think most Americans believe in immigration. 
I know they do. Most Americans are concerned about people who have been 
here a very long time and have had no real problems in their lives 
other than the immigration illegality, and they are prepared to reach 
out and do some compassionate things for them to give them a legal 
status that allows them to raise their families and their children who 
have become citizens. They are willing to do that, but they are 
concerned about the future.
  Will we end up again, like in 1986, where a bill is passed that 
promises enforcement, but the amnesty occurs immediately, and then the 
promises in the future do not ever occur? What was Wimpy's line? ``I 
will be glad to pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today.'' I am glad to 
say we will have amnesty tomorrow, but I want the enforcement today in 
concrete.
  A recent Rasmussen poll explains how the people view this issue--
actually it was within the last few days. By a 4-to-1 margin, people 
say the enforcement should come first. Yes, they are willing to be 
compassionate, willing to wrestle through a fair and decent way to 
treat people, but they do believe that enforcement should come first 
because we have not had it before.
  On this point the instincts of our citizens are correct. Their 
compassion is real. Their respect for the rule of law is real. They 
know amnesty has an erosive, corrosive impact on the rule of law, and 
we have to be very diligent to ensure in the future that we are not 
creating the kind of events that erode our law even more. People are 
not biased. They approve of our system of 1 million people immigrating 
here every year, but they do want the system followed fairly.
  The Gang of 8, in their public statements, seem to say that is what 
good policy should be. That is what they have been talking about. That 
is what they expect the American people to hear about their 
legislation. That is what they have promised them they are working on, 
and that has been produced and laid out here.
  They say they, too, are upset about what is happening. They say their 
plan will end illegality in the future, and it is the toughest 
immigration law in history. One Senator of the gang in the committee 
said it was ``tough as nails.'' Thus, without equivocation, they say we 
must have enforcement. But it is in the future, and we have a plan 
where you can sleep well at night and know it is going to happen.
  So that is the fundamental test of where we are in this legislation. 
There are a lot of problems with the bill--a lot of very serious 
problems--and we will talk about them. But I think fundamentally the 
question is just: Have our sponsors laid forth a strategy that will 
work?
  Let's examine the key components of any system that is laid out, see 
how it deals with them. There are two ways to become an illegal 
resident of America. One is to come by visa, overstay that visa, and 
just not return home. Forty percent of the people here illegally came 
legally by visa, but they just refused to go back home at the time 
their visa expired. The other way is simply to cross the border 
illegally, and we have had that by the millions in recent years.
  This legislation does not fix the enforcement defects of either one 
of those entry methods. I have studied this issue. It can be done. We 
can fix both of them. It is within our grasp. It is something we can 
accomplish, and I would like to see us do so.
  Unfortunately, analysis of this bill shows we have a problem. First, 
the Gang of 8's written principles that they announced at the beginning 
of their discussions said the path to citizenship in their bill would 
be ``contingent upon securing the borders and tracking whether legal 
immigrants have left the country when required.''
  So that is both areas: the failure to leave upon expiration of a visa 
and the illegal crossing of the border.
  Senator Rubio went so far as to say:

       The process of legalization . . . none of that happens--
     None of that happens--until we have been able to certify that 
     indeed the workplace security thing is in place, the visa 
     tracking is in place, and there is some level of operational 
     control of the border.

  That was in January of this year.
  Well, that is right. We should not be doing this until we can certify 
and we know we have this system under control.
  But around the same time it was reported that Frank Sharry, the head 
of the pro-amnesty group, America's Voice, said Democratic Senators 
privately reassured amnesty advocates that the border commission--one 
of the so-called triggers--would not be constructed in a way that would 
hold up the amnesty process for too long. He said the Democrats cannot 
``allow the commission to have a real veto'' over setting in motion the 
path to citizenship. He also noted that the Democrats see the 
commission as ``something that gives the Republicans a talking 
point''--a talking point--to claim they are prioritizing tough 
enforcement, giving themselves cover to back a process that ``won't 
stop people from getting citizenship.''
  In other words, the gang apparently seemed to be quite happy to allow 
people to go out and make these promises. But to the people who are 
actively engaged for amnesty, they said: Do not worry about it. It is 
not going to keep anybody from getting their full legality and 
eventually citizenship.
  This should be a concern because the American people are unhappy with

[[Page 8269]]

their government. The American people have asked for a lawful system of 
immigration for 30 years, and the Congress has refused to do so. They 
have passed laws that they have said will work and never have had them 
effectively carried out, never effectively ending the illegality, and 
the American people are unhappy about it.
  I have suggested Mr. Sharry's statement is a good indication that the 
people who are behind this bill--particularly the staff and special 
interests and lawyers who have come together from all kinds of groups 
to help write the bill--do not care about enforcement in the future. 
All they care about is what they want today. That is letting the cat 
out of the bag, and the American people need to be very nervous about 
it. They have every right to be because I will talk about the history 
of some of the things that have been happening, and it should make 
every American concerned.
  Shortly before the bill was introduced, the lead sponsor, Senator 
Schumer, frankly and openly--this is after the initial comments--openly 
on ``Meet the Press'' said this:

       First, people will be legalized. . . . Then we'll make sure 
     the border is secure.

  It is undisputed that the bill will provide amnesty first without a 
single border security or enforcement measure ever having to be put in 
place.
  On Sunday, in an interview with Univision, Senator Rubio said:

       First comes legalization, then comes this border security 
     measure and then comes the permanent residency process. What 
     we are talking about here is the permanent residency system. 
     Regarding legalization, a vast majority of my colleagues have 
     already accepted that: that it must take place and that it 
     must start at the same time we start with what has to do with 
     security. That is not conditional. Legalization is not 
     conditional.

  What he is saying is that there is no condition in this bill--no 
requirement of any security to be achieved before the legalization 
occurs. The legalization occurs without condition, and then it is just 
a mere promise in the future to effectuate a legal system that we have 
not done for the last 30 years. Even the Wall Street Journal agrees 
with that analysis.
  Indeed, nothing at all needs to happen for those eligible for the 
DREAM Act and for agricultural workers amnesty to receive it. Their 
process, which covers roughly 4 million people is not connected in any 
way to any trigger or enforcement measure whatsoever.
  The American people reject such a policy. That is not what they have 
asked for. That is what the June 7 Rasmussen poll said. The Rasmussen 
report says this: The bill ``legalizes the status of immigrants first 
and promises to secure the border later. By a 4 to 1 margin, voters 
want that order reversed.''
  That is the polling data, and I think that is a good response from 
the American people. They know the system has been manipulated before.
  Madam President, I see our majority leader. I know he is a very busy 
man.
  I say to Senator Reid, I have some time left before 5 o'clock, but if 
you have something that needs to be done--
  Mr. REID. At 4:30. The Senator can talk until 4:30. Go ahead and talk 
until 4:30.
  Mr. SESSIONS. In a 2009 Department of Homeland Security report, 
prepared by the research arm for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services, it says this:

       Virtually all immigration experts agree that it would be 
     counterproductive to offer an explicit or implied path to 
     permanent residence status (or citizenship) during any 
     legalization program. That would simply encourage fraud and 
     [encourage] illegal border crossings that other features of 
     the program seek to discourage. In fact, for that reason and 
     from that perspective, it would be best if the legislation 
     did not even address future permanent resident status or 
     citizenship.

  This a government agency making a plainly commonsensical statement 
that is virtually undeniable. A grant of amnesty is going to be 
counterproductive, and it is the kind of thing that would incentivize 
actions that our policies are designed to discourage--illegal entry 
into the United States.
  Indeed, increased illegal entries into our country are happening 
right now. The numbers are going up. Just on hearing that there is an 
amnesty plan afoot, immigration illegality is increasing.
  According to the Border Patrol, so far in this year 90,000 people 
illegally crossing the border have been taken into custody. That is 50 
percent more than the same time last year. And 55,000 of them--I would 
note for those who are interested in this and recognize the 
international nature of it--55,000 of the 90,000 are not Mexican 
nationals.
  During markup, Senator Grassley offered an amendment to require the 
Secretary to certify to Congress that she had maintained effective 
control over the entire border for 6 months before amnesty begins, but 
it was rejected by a 12-to-6 vote.
  We were told the bill would have the toughest enforcement measures in 
the history of the United States, potentially in the world, and would 
fix the illegal immigration problem once and for all. Would that not be 
great? That is one of the Gang of 8 members on national TV, ``Meet the 
Press,'' recently. Would that not be good? I think that is something we 
should strive for. But does the legislation do this?
  I see the majority leader. He approved my time this afternoon. I have 
only so much of it left. I am due to have the floor until 5. I see 
there is important business to be done.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________