[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16083-16091]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           IMMIGRATION REFORM

  Mr. REID. Madam President, today marks the 510th day as so well 
represented on the poster the Senator from California had on display. 
That is how long it has been since we passed an immigration reform 
bill--comprehensive immigration reform. The House of Representatives 
simply has refused to address this issue. They have refused to address 
the fact that we have a broken immigration system that needs to be 
fixed. All the Speaker would have to do is bring this up for a vote and 
it would pass. The bill that passed here 510 days ago would pass the 
House overwhelmingly. But he refuses to bring it up.
  In this bill we passed 73 weeks ago, we were able to pass 
comprehensive immigration reform because Senate Democrats and 
Republicans recognized that our immigration laws are failing the 
American people. We sent that same bipartisan bill to the House 17 
months ago. For the last 17 months, the House Republicans, led by a 
small, vocal, really radical group, has forced the Speaker, I assume, 
not to do anything. They have neglected to tackle the real issues 
affecting our immigration system.
  We have talked about 510 days, we have talked about 73 weeks, and we 
have talked about 17 months. That is enough time for them to consider 
the bill the Senate considered and passed in just a few weeks, but they 
still refuse to do anything, even as families across the country have 
been ripped apart.
  I have been present at meetings, meetings--I remember one of the last 
at the White House--where the Republican leaders of the House and 
Senate have said: Give us some time, give us some time. We have given 
them time--510 days, to be exact. And they are always saying: Let's do 
something. Well, something is not enough, they need to do comprehensive 
immigration reform, and they refuse to do that.
  So in light of the fact that families are being ripped apart--and 
there is no question they are. The first time I saw this, where I 
really felt it in my heart, Bill Richardson, with whom I served in the 
House--he was Secretary of Energy and Ambassador to the United 
Nations--he came to Las Vegas, and he said: Let's go out to the Rafael 
Rivera

[[Page 16084]]

Center. It was, at the time, a new place, named after the first non-
Indian to see the Las Vegas valley--Rafael Rivera. I have a painting in 
my office that reflects that. So we went to that center, and I can 
remember so clearly these mostly women crying over the fact that their 
husbands had lost their jobs, they were being deported, and they had 
little American boys and girls there with them. These were boys and 
girls who had been born in the United States. I thought, gee, that is 
terrible. I mean the suffering and the sadness. I have never forgotten 
that, and that is one of the main reasons I have worked so hard on 
immigration reform.
  In light of the Republicans' inaction, and our action and our 
advocacy of this issue, it seems to me what the President said at his 
State of the Union Address is really applicable here. Here is what he 
said: If the Republicans continue to do nothing, I am going to be 
forced as the President of the United States to do something by 
Executive order. And I am glad. I am glad he is going, in the next 
couple of days for sure, to use his constitutionally established 
authority to fix as much of our broken immigration system as is 
possible. He told everybody he was going to do it in his State of the 
Union and he has waited and waited and nothing has happened.
  Some Republicans are threatening to shut down the government. They 
have done it once before, so I guess we should take their threat 
seriously. They want to shut down the government because of what the 
President said he is going to do and what he is going to do. But this 
isn't about the Republicans and President Obama, this is about where 
the Republicans stand with the immigrant community.
  My father-in-law, my wife's dad, was an immigrant. He was born in 
Russia. He came to the United States to escape the oppression in 
Russia. So this whole issue is about how Republicans stand with the 
immigrant community.
  The immigrant community is what has made this country what it is. 
Those who will come forward under this Executive action the President 
is going to take are, with rare exception, hard-working immigrant dads 
and moms who are supporting their families. They came to America for 
the same reasons early immigrants came to America, just like my father-
in-law, Earl Gould, did. By the way, he changed his name when he came 
to the United States. He came here as Israel Goldfarb, and he changed 
his name, as many immigrants have done.
  As my father-in-law did, the people who are going to come here under 
this Executive order can build a better life for themselves and their 
families. They have deep ties in America. They work hard. As I have 
indicated, they have spouses and children. Under our broken immigration 
system, there is no line for these people to get into, no process for 
them to sign up for, and no way to remedy this situation. They are in 
limbo. They are in the shadows. They are in darkness.
  President Obama, fortunately, is going to do something to give them 
just that, a line to come forward, a line that he recognizes must be 
done to get the system started.
  We can't give these people their green cards and put them on the path 
to citizenship immediately. Only Congress can and must finish the job 
in overhauling and rewriting these laws. I want to be clear that 
Executive action is important, but it is not a substitute for 
legislation, and the Speaker should understand that.
  Yes, we passed a bill. The President will be happy to sign such a 
bill. But because Republicans have refused to legislate, President 
Obama is taking what steps he can to keep these families together and 
enforce the laws. The President is acting within his legal authority to 
use his Executive power to improve the immigration system.
  Did he just dream this up one night meeting with his staff? Did 
someone suddenly come to him and say, I have a great idea. Why don't we 
try to do something different? He is going to do something that has 
been tried 39 times since Dwight Eisenhower was President. Virtually 
every President since Eisenhower was President has done Executive 
actions as relates to immigration.
  I would also say to my Republican friends who are always talking 
about, boy, we have to do something important financially for the good 
of this country, why not pass this bill? It would benefit our country 
to the tune of $1 trillion.
  I strongly support the steps the President is going to take. I 
support him, and I hope he does it as soon as possible, because his 
Executive action will help keep families together and focus law 
enforcement resources on real criminals.
  We have waited a long time for House Republicans. Since they won't 
act, the President will, and he should act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to remind my colleagues that 
it has been over 500 days since the Senate passed a strong bipartisan 
bill to fix our broken immigration system.
  There is a lot of hand-wringing going on on the other side of the 
aisle about the President taking Executive action, as he has now 
announced he intends to do. Republicans are saying that anything and 
everything is on the table to stop the President from taking Executive 
action. Well, if the bounds are anything and everything, I have a 
suggestion. Pass our bill. It is a very simple suggestion.
  If the House votes on our bipartisan bill, the discussion about 
Executive action would be made moot. It is the other body of Congress 
that has led us to the point where we are today. The only reason the 
administration has to take Executive action is because the House has 
failed to address our broken immigration system. I think everyone on 
our side agrees it would be far preferable to pass the bipartisan bill 
that passed the Senate 68 to 32 than any Executive action.
  Let me say a few things. The bill is a bipartisan bill with support 
from every corner of the political map--business, labor, evangelicals, 
Catholics--and it has been sitting on the shelf gathering dust for 500 
days. So it is the absolute height of hypocrisy for House leadership to 
say that now Congress should be in the driver's seat on immigration 
reform when they refused to take the wheel.
  And let me say this, Mr. President. I don't think anyone has any 
faith that if they were given another 3 months or 6 months or 9 months 
that they would come to any kind of real bill. They can't. They have 
the tea party. Such a high percentage of their primary voters strongly 
argue against doing a bill. In fact, many of those tea party types are 
saying shut down the government.
  The dithering and dawdling on the House side is particularly 
perplexing because our bill would achieve so many goals the Republicans 
claim are part of their agenda. It would secure the border, create 
jobs, add economic growth, and cut the deficit.
  The bipartisan bill that passed the Senate provides more than $40 
billion to secure our border. This would mean more than doubling the 
Border Patrol presence on our Southwest border, completing the border 
fence, setting up much more surveillance technology--sensors, drones, 
many of which are so good they can detect--these are the drones that 
surveil, not shoot--they can detect the difference when a deer or a 
person crosses the border. They are not on the border now.
  Yes, the border needs help. Blocking our bill, not passing our bill, 
keeps the status quo, which nobody likes. Passing our bill solves the 
problem. With a Republican amendment authored by the Senator from 
Tennessee, Senator Corker, and the Senator from North Dakota, Senator 
Hoeven, that tightens up the border tougher than it has ever been.
  The bipartisan bill also strengthens interior enforcement of our 
immigration laws. So many of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle keep saying E-Verify, E-Verify, E-Verify. Well, it is in the bill 
to crack down on unscrupulous employers requiring an entry-exit 
tracking system at our airports and seaports to catch people who 
overstay their visas, and reforming and clarifying the list of violent 
crimes that make an immigrant deportable so law enforcement officials 
have the tools they need to keep us safe.

[[Page 16085]]

  For America to remain competitive, we must have a legal immigration 
system that works. Right now we have it backwards. We turn away people 
who would create jobs. Our bipartisan bill will change all that for 
farm workers, tech firms, entrepreneurs, and so many more, while 
leveling the playing field for American workers. Because of internal 
enforcement, when someone crosses the border and doesn't have a real 
job available and has no family connection, they can't stay. They won't 
get a job.
  Many of our labor friends are for this bill. The construction trades, 
which probably suffer more from illegal immigration than any other, are 
strongly for our bill. The bill clears the employment and visa backlogs 
so American businesses can have access to the workers they need and 
their families will be united, decreases family wait times at our 
bridges and ports of entry. It is great for the tourism industry, 
making it easier for foreign travelers to spend their dollars here 
instead of somewhere else and, finally, a tough but fair pathway to 
citizenship.
  The other side says it is amnesty. They are listening to Rush 
Limbaugh--amnesty, amnesty, amnesty. Amnesty means you get away with it 
without paying a price. Here is the price someone has to pay if they 
cross the border illegally: No. 1, they have to pay all their back 
taxes; No. 2, they have to keep working; No. 3, they have to admit 
wrongdoing; No. 4, they have to pay a fine; No. 5, they have to learn 
English; No. 6, they have to go to the back of the line, which is what 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have always asked for.
  This system was set up by none other than Marco Rubio in our Gang of 
8, and it says: If somebody crossed the border illegally in 2008, but 
someone else has waited patiently at the Embassy since 2007, the 2007 
person gets to come into this country before the 2008 person.
  Because of all this, here is what the bill does:
  First, it would grow the economy by 3.3 percent over the next 10 
years and 5.5 percent over 20. No Republican tax cut, no Democratic 
spending program would have that effect--and without any cost to the 
deficit. In fact, at the same time we are growing our economy with this 
proposal--this is CBO, not Chuck Schumer--we reduce the deficit by $150 
billion in the next 10 years and $900 billion over the next 20 years. 
So $1 trillion in savings, as we benefit America.
  The bill has unprecedented support: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the 
guardian of business interests; the AFL-CIO, the protector of American 
workers; the faith community, evangelicals, Protestants, Mormons. The 
liberal and conservative religious sectors in America are for our bill, 
America's farmers, growers, and American farmworkers, law enforcement, 
the immigrant rights community.
  So the historic coalition came together because again this bill 
strengthens our borders and national security, provides an enormous 
boost for the American economy, fairly and conclusively addresses the 
status of people here illegally, and prevents future waves of illegal 
immigrants.
  When we got this bill passed we were almost certain the House would 
pass it. It is a conservative bill, and try and try and try as they 
might, they couldn't. So now we are up to the last hours of this 
Congress and there is one more chance. Just put the bill on the floor, 
Speaker Boehner. You don't have to twist a single arm. It has the votes 
to pass. It will do America so much good.
  I love America. I want to see us stay No. 1 in every way and 
economically above all. This bill will do it more than anything else we 
could do.
  I would say to my colleagues, don't be afraid of the Tea Party. They 
are afraid of the word ``amnesty,'' even though the bill is not amnesty 
at all as I mentioned. But Rush Limbaugh says ``amnesty'' incessantly, 
and I know my Republican colleagues--I am a political guy in some 
ways--they are afraid primary voters that skew far right believe it is 
amnesty. The Tea Party may be a sliver of the American public, but they 
are a huge percentage of primary voters in too many Republican 
districts and that is what they are afraid of. Talk about courage. Talk 
about loving the country. Talk about doing the right thing. We have to 
pass the bill.
  The real Republican Party position on immigration is pretend to be 
pro-immigration reform rhetorically but never allow immigration reform 
to come to a vote. That is the bad news.
  The good news is there is still time to fix it. So I urge my 
colleagues, avoid this conundrum, avoid your dilemma that you will 
create. Pass the bill, and we will not even have to debate Executive 
action.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk about 
one of the most important issues facing our Nation as we have been 
hearing for the past 15 minutes; that is, our longstanding, desperate 
need to finally fix our Nation's broken immigration system.
  Too often in the debate about immigration it is difficult for some 
people to understand that the millions of undocumented families in our 
country are already an important part of our communities. Immigrants 
work hard and they pay their taxes, they send their children to 
American schools, and they make up a critical part of the fabric of our 
society. They are Americans in all but name.
  So when we talk about immigration reform, we are not talking about 
some vague philosophical issue. This is an issue that impacts families, 
it impacts our businesses, it impacts our national security, and it 
impacts what we stand for as Americans.
  It is not a new issue either. It is something we have been debating 
and arguing about for more than a decade, but it is something we have 
never been able to tackle, and that is not for the lack of trying.
  As everyone here remembers, more than 500 days ago now the Senate did 
something remarkable. Members from different backgrounds and different 
States and different parties came together to reach an agreement, and 
in the Senate we passed a real bipartisan coalition of 68 Republicans 
and Democrats, a comprehensive immigration reform bill that would 
finally start to fix our broken immigration system.
  As we heard from the Senator from New York, it would improve our 
security, provide businesses with the certainty they need, and provide 
a real path to citizenship for the millions of undocumented immigrants 
who are forced to live in the shadows.
  Not only was this bill a step toward fixing our broken immigration 
system, it was good for our economy. The Congressional Budget Office 
estimated that the Senate bill would reduce the deficit by nearly $1 
trillion over the next two decades.
  So we sent the bill to the House of Representatives knowing the path 
forward there might not be easy, but we heard from Members of the House 
on both sides of the aisle that they also knew immigration reform had 
to happen this Congress.
  Back then, in June of 2013, we knew we had time on our side. Speaker 
Boehner had a full year and a half to do one simple thing, bring the 
bipartisan Senate bill up for a vote. We knew then what we still know 
today; that if the Speaker brought that bill up for a vote, it would 
pass with bipartisan support and become law.
  But instead of doing that, the Speaker sided with the Tea Party and 
refused to move our country forward. He has made it very clear that the 
House will refuse to act this Congress and ignore the historic 
opportunity we have.
  For years and years millions of immigrant families who have played by 
the rules--paid their taxes, raised their children in the United 
States--have waited and waited for action. They have organized, they 
have hoped and they have prayed and they have trusted the system would 
eventually work. The system has failed. So now it is time to act.
  President Obama has made it clear that because the House refuses to 
act--because the House refuses to act--he will take administrative 
action before

[[Page 16086]]

the end of the year to improve our immigration system, and I support 
his decision to do that.
  The President's authority to take action is well established. In 
fact, every President since Eisenhower, including Presidents Reagan and 
George H.W. Bush, has used his authority to improve the administration 
of our immigration system and to focus enforcement resources on serious 
criminals rather than on hard-working immigrants with deep roots in our 
communities.
  When the President does act, I have encouraged him to do several 
things: expand the already successful implementation of deferred action 
for DREAMers to include people with strong ties to the United States 
who have not committed serious crimes; to change implementation of our 
laws to make immigration and border enforcement humane, 
nondiscriminatory, and respectful of due process; and, finally, I have 
asked the President to improve the legal immigration system to keep 
immigrant families together, to protect our workers, and to provide 
employers--from agricultural producers to high-tech firms--certainty in 
a system that has often left them without answers.
  But I also want to be very clear that administrative action is not a 
long-term solution. Plain and simple, the only way for us to 
permanently and effectively fix our broken immigration laws is through 
comprehensive immigration reform legislation. Administrative action is 
a bandaid, but it is better than nothing, and nothing is what the House 
Republicans are offering.
  So I also wish to say it has been deeply disappointing to hear that 
some of my Republican colleagues are now threatening to shut down the 
government just to keep families from getting some initial relief from 
the pain our broken immigration system is causing. That is the latest 
example of extreme Republicans creating uncertainty and threatening to 
hurt our economy if they don't get their way, and it is the exact 
opposite of the approach Congress needs to take going forward.
  We all know what happens when Tea Party Republicans go down this 
road. We saw it just last year when we had a 16-day government shutdown 
that brought the day-to-day workings of the government and businesses 
across the country to a screeching halt. That shutdown, we all know, 
was bad for our economy. It hit workers' paychecks, it made families 
across our country question whether their elected officials could get 
anything done at all. It was all because of a failed Tea Party 
political effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act for the umpteenth 
time.
  Look. Even children understand that flipping the table over doesn't 
help win the game. It just means someone has to pick up the mess they 
just made. When it comes to Tea Party political tactics, we have seen 
more than enough of that in this Congress.
  As we all remember, the budget deal I reached with Chairman Ryan 
wasn't perfect--I know Chairman Ryan would say the same thing--but it 
was an important step away from brinkmanship and toward bipartisanship 
on the budget.
  In the next week Republican leaders are going to have an important 
choice to make. They can choose bipartisanship and continue to push the 
Tea Party aside and work with Democrats on issues such as the budget 
and fixing our broken immigration system or they can go back to Tea 
Party-style governing by crisis, which hurts families and communities 
and our economy and will make it much more difficult to put in place 
the lasting comprehensive immigration reform we need.
  I urge them to take the bipartisan path. I am ready and willing to 
work with them if they do, and I know my Democratic colleagues are as 
well. I know our country will be stronger for it now and for decades to 
come.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Washington for 
her strong statement. It makes so much sense.
  We have this poster here, ``510 Days.'' That is how long ago the 
Senate passed the bipartisan immigration bill that Senator Murray 
talked about and Senator Schumer talked about. That is 17 months; 510 
days is 17 months.
  So here is the deal. The Republicans in the House refuse to take up 
the Senate bill, which strengthens the border while giving a pathway of 
legality to hard-working immigrants here who are undocumented.
  It is pretty simple but comprehensive--common sense. Here is the 
thing: They will not take up the bill. So then we say: What is your 
idea? Where is your bill? They don't have one.
  So then President Obama, knowing we have 11 million undocumented 
immigrants living in America, realizes he can't let this matter go on. 
He has waited 100 days, 200 days, 300 days, 400 days, 500 days. The 
country has waited for 17 months.
  So the President is going to do what Presidents are supposed to do, 
which is look at a problem that is hurting the country and do his best 
to fix it. The President has said to the House he would be thrilled to 
sign the bipartisan immigration bill the Senate passed. Take it up and 
pass it.
  Oh, no. Do you know what their answer is? To verbally threaten the 
President and, frankly, the American people by such comments as--this 
is one that I heard the Republican leader Mitch McConnell say: If he 
does this, if he takes this action, if he takes action on immigration, 
it would be like waving a red flag in front of a bull.
  No, it wouldn't be. It would be a President who understands that 
action is needed. Guess what. Eleven other Presidents, Republican and 
Democrat, have taken Executive action on immigration. I never in all my 
years ever heard one Republican take to task any of those other 
Presidents, and I will give you the list of who they are: Presidents 
Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George Bush, 
Sr., Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and President Obama used his 
authority for the DREAMers.
  The charts are being held up to show you how many actions have been 
taken. We have these two charts here that show a lot of Executive 
actions by Presidents on immigration.
  What is wrong with my Republican friends? Do they not know history or 
are they just blindly attacking this President because they are annoyed 
that he got reelected?
  Step up to the plate, smell the roses, look at the reality. The 
reality is all these other Presidents have taken action. Look what the 
immigration council says, the American Immigration Council said:

       Past Republican presidents have not been shy to use the 
     White House's power to retool immigration policy. In fact, 
     Obama could learn a lot from Presidents Ronald Reagan's and 
     George H.W. Bush's Executive actions to preserve the unity of 
     immigrant families and move past congressional refusal to 
     enact immigration reform.

  So, Earth to the Republicans: You refuse to take up the bipartisan 
Senate bill which strengthens our border while giving a legal path to 
citizenship or legality to our undocumented, making sure that those who 
commit crimes are deported. We look at what is happening in our ag 
community and fix that. They won't do it.
  So they are stamping their foot and saying what President Obama wants 
to do is unconstitutional. Excuse me, unconstitutional? Presidents 
Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Eisenhower--I read the list. They never said 
that before. They never said that before. Carter, Kennedy, Johnson, 
Nixon, Ford, Clinton, Bush, Sr., Reagan, George W., and Obama. Now they 
say to the President--and I don't have the exact quote. We heard a 
comment from the Republican leader. What they are basically saying to 
the President is, If you do your job, we are going to be mad. And what 
the President has said to them is, Please do your job. If you do your 
job, I won't have to take Executive action. I would prefer to have this 
in legislation. And as Senator Murray has said, that is the preferable 
road. But they either won't do it or they don't want to do it or they 
want another confrontation with the President.
  I think it was John Boehner, the Republican Speaker, who said if the

[[Page 16087]]

President takes this Executive action, which as I have shown you many 
other Presidents have done, he will ``poison the well.'' He is telling 
the President that if the President does his job--my words--as 11 
Presidents have done, it will ``poison the well.''
  And what are they going to do about it? Who knows. Are they going to 
try to impeach the President or sue the President? I guess they have to 
impeach 10 others.
  And by the way, I wrote the President a letter and asked him to take 
Executive action. In my view, it is absolutely necessary, because if 
you follow the law, 11 million people could be deported--our neighbors, 
our friends, families would be split up.
  I thought Republicans were the party of family values. Family 
values--I have been lectured on family values. Somehow if one supports 
a woman's right to choose and to get health care, it is not following 
family values, but one can break up families and have parents and 
children separated, and that, I guess, doesn't fall under the 
definition.
  It has been 17 months since we passed our bill and either they are 
too lazy to take it up or they don't want to take it up. They would 
rather threaten this President. I just have to tell them, we have a 
Congress, we have a court system, and we have a President. We don't 
have President McConnell, we don't have President Boehner, we don't 
have President Reid, we don't have President Boxer. We have President 
Obama, and he has to do his job. If you don't like it, that is fine. 
Lord knows I have served with five Presidents. I didn't agree with them 
half the time, but I didn't threaten to shut down the government or 
impeach them or sue them.
  Now here is the deal: Why can't they find time to take up our bill? 
They have voted 50 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act--50 times--
but they cannot find time to debate or pass a bill to reform our 
Nation's immigration laws.
  I served in the House for 10 years. The rules in the House are easy. 
It is nothing like the Senate where you need unanimous consent to do 
anything, to even open up the Senate. In the House, if the majority, 
who are now the Republicans, wants to introduce a bill, all they have 
to do is introduce a bill.
  They won't do it. It has been 17 months. Then the President says, oh, 
my God, we have got an issue here. Everyone agrees we have 11 million 
undocumented immigrants here. We have issues at the border. We have 
issues at detention facilities. We have issues in the ag industry. We 
have issues of families being torn apart. The President is going to do 
what he can do, just as 10 other Presidents have done previously. So 
what does he get in response from our Republican friends? Nothing that 
would allay our concerns. They don't say, Mr. President, we understand 
your frustration. Don't worry, we will get a bill done. It may not be 
the same as the Senate. We have other ideas. They do nothing. They are 
do-nothing and they want our President to be do-nothing when it comes 
to immigration.
  Frankly, if our President did not take action, it would be a terrible 
mistake. I have already established that he is within his 
constitutional rights. He would be joining 10 other Presidents who, by 
the way, acted on 40 occasions over the last 60 years. So here is a 
group of Republicans threatening to impeach the President, sue the 
President, shut down the government over something that 11 Presidents 
have done over the past 60 years on 40 occasions. I never ever, ever 
heard one Republican or Democrat threaten to shut down the government 
when a President took action over immigration.
  The Republicans won't act. So what do they think is going to happen, 
status quo? The status quo doesn't work. It is not working at the 
border. It is not working for our families. It is not working at the 
workplace. It is not working in our communities.
  I was in the House when President Reagan signed into law a major 
immigration bill legalizing 3 million immigrants in 1986, and then the 
Congress didn't do the next step. They didn't take the next step. So he 
took Executive action to stop deportations that would interfere with 
family reunification. President Reagan--I didn't hear one Republican 
threaten to impeach the President, sue the President, take action, shut 
down the government, make life miserable for the American people. No. 
But they are doing it now.
  In 1990, President George Herbert Walker Bush directed his Attorney 
General to halt deportations of an estimated 190,000 Salvadorans who 
were fleeing the civil war there, and he used his power to halt the 
deportation of up to 1.5 million spouses and children. I did not hear 
one Republican--not one--threaten to sue the President, threaten to 
take him to court, threaten to impeach him, threaten to shut down the 
government and make life miserable for the American people.
  President Bush's family fairness policy Executive action was 
sweeping. It affected more than 40 percent of the undocumented 
population in the United States at the time. He thought big--George 
Bush, Sr.--he thought big, and this President should think big.
  I will tell you why. If you ask economic experts what are the best 
measures we can do for our economy, they are clear about it. They say 
one measure we should implement is to raise the minimum wage. We 
Democrats are trying to do that and we will never give up trying to do 
that. Reforming immigration is another measure that is one of the best 
ways to stimulate our economy and create jobs, and it is all laid out 
in a USC study which shows that immigration reform with a path to 
citizenship would inject $8 billion into my State's economy--my State 
of California--each year--$8 billion each year. Nationwide it would 
increase our gross domestic product by $1.5 trillion over 10 years, 
increase wages for workers, and lead to between 750,000 to 900,000 new 
jobs. That is almost a million new jobs created, according to the 
Center for American Progress.
  So help me out here, Republicans. What is your problem? You never 
complained when Republican Presidents took Executive action to fix a 
broken immigration system. You say you are for jobs and the economy and 
business, and if you look at the support for immigration reform, it 
runs right through our society from the Chambers of Commerce to labor 
and everybody in between. And if we don't act, the dire situation of 
undocumented immigrants will only get worse. Families will continue to 
be torn apart. People will continue to live in the shadows. The reason 
our economy will be thriving once people get out of the shadows is they 
are not afraid to come out. They are not afraid to buy a house. They 
are not afraid to spend money. They are not afraid to start new 
businesses. They are not afraid to hire workers. It is a no-brainer. 
This is one of the most important things we can do for our economy, for 
jobs, for prosperity, for our communities.
  In closing, because I see my friend from Connecticut is here, and I 
want to yield the floor, there are two priorities that are at stake: a 
healthy economy--and I have laid that out--and family values. The 
American people, including the people of California, support bold and 
compassionate action on immigration reform. We have already established 
that the President has the legal authority to act just as other 
Presidents of both parties have in the past.
  I say to the President today, as I have said to him in writing, if 
you act you will have my strong support and you will have the support 
of so many people across this country. You will keep our families 
together, you will strengthen our economy, and you will make our 
country stronger.
  I say to the House again, while you are still here in Washington, if 
you don't want the President to fill the void for your lack of action, 
then take up and pass the Senate immigration bill. Get to work. If you 
don't like that bill, then make another bill, but take care of this 
problem because if you continue to be a do-nothing House when it comes 
to immigration, I can assure you this President will not follow your 
lead and be a do-nothing President when it comes to immigration. That 
would be terribly wrong. It would be wrong not only for our immigrant 
community but for every single one of us.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have two articles printed 
in the

[[Page 16088]]

Record, along with an article in the National Journal that details the 
number of times Presidents have used their authority to act on 
immigration.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From huffingtonpost.com, Nov. 15, 2014]

  Reagan, Bush Also Acted Without Congress To Shield Immigrants From 
                              Deportation

                           (By Andrew Taylor)

       Washington (AP).--Two presidents have acted unilaterally on 
     immigration--and both were Republican. Ronald Reagan and his 
     successor George H.W. Bush extended amnesty to family members 
     who were not covered by the last major overhaul of 
     immigration law in 1986.
       Neither faced the political uproar widely anticipated if 
     and when President Barack Obama uses his executive authority 
     to protect millions of immigrants from deportation.
       Reagan's and Bush's actions were conducted in the wake of a 
     sweeping, bipartisan immigration overhaul and at a time when 
     ``amnesty'' was not a dirty word. Their actions were less 
     controversial because there was a consensus in Washington 
     that the 1986 law needed a few fixes and Congress was poised 
     to act on them. Obama is acting as the country--and 
     Washington--are bitterly divided over a broken immigration 
     system and what to do about 11 million people living in the 
     U.S. illegally.
       Obama wants to extend protection from deportation to 
     millions of immigrant parents and spouses of U.S. citizens 
     and permanent residents, and expand his 2-year-old program 
     that shields immigrants brought illegally to this country as 
     children.
       A tea party-influenced GOP is poised to erupt, if and when 
     Obama follows through on his promise.
       ``The audacity of this president to think he can completely 
     destroy the rule of law with the stroke of a pen is 
     unfathomable to me,'' said GOP Rep. Steve King of Iowa, an 
     outspoken opponent of relaxing U.S. immigration law. ``It is 
     unconstitutional, it is cynical, and it violates the will of 
     the American people.''
       Some Republicans have even raised the possibility of 
     impeachment.
       Here's a timeline of then and now:
       1986. Congress and Reagan enacted a sweeping overhaul that 
     gave legal status to up to 3 million immigrants without 
     authorization to be in the country, if they had come to the 
     U.S. before 1982. Spouses and children who could not meet 
     that test did not qualify, which incited protests that the 
     new law was breaking up families.
       1987. Early efforts in Congress to amend the law to cover 
     family members failed. Reagan's Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service commissioner announced that minor 
     children of parents granted amnesty by the law would get 
     protection from deportation. Spouses and children of couples 
     in which one parent qualified for amnesty but the other did 
     not remained subject to deportation, leading to efforts to 
     amend the 1986 law.
       1989. By a sweeping 81-17 vote, the Senate in July voted to 
     prohibit deportations of family members of immigrants covered 
     by the 1986 law. The House failed to act.
       1990. In February, President George H.W. Bush, acting 
     through the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
     established a ``family fairness'' in which family members 
     living with a legalizing immigrant and who were in the U.S. 
     before passage of the 1986 law were granted protection from 
     deportation and authorized to seek employment. The 
     administration estimated up to 1.5 million people would be 
     covered by the policy. Congress in October passed a broader 
     immigration law that made the protections permanent.
       2012. In July, the Obama administration announces a new 
     policy curbing deportations for certain immigrants brought 
     illegally to the country as kids. The policy, Deferred Action 
     for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), applies to people younger than 
     30 who were brought to the U.S. before they turned 16 and 
     meet other criteria such as graduating high school. It has 
     now granted two-year deportation reprieves and work permits 
     to nearly 600,000 people.
       2013-2014 (Congress). After months of work, the Senate in 
     June 2013 passes, 68-32, a huge immigration overhaul bill 
     that includes a path to citizenship for immigrants who meet 
     strict criteria. The House fails to act. In a televised 
     interview with Telemundo, Obama says expanding the DACA 
     program to cover the parents of children allowed to remain in 
     the country under the program ``would be ignoring the law in 
     a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. 
     So that's not an option.''
       2014 Frustrated by Congress' inability to act on 
     immigration, Obama announces in June that he'll use executive 
     powers to address other elements of the flawed immigration 
     system. Like Bush, Obama is expected to extend deportation 
     protections to families of U.S. citizens or permanent 
     residents. Obama's anticipated action would not award legal 
     status, but it would offer temporary protection from 
     deportation to up to 5 million people, as well as the 
     possibility of obtaining a work permit. He delayed action 
     until after Election Day. On Monday, Democratic leaders sent 
     a letter to Obama saying they strongly support his plans to 
     take executive action on immigration.
                                  ____


                   [From the hill.com, Oct. 2, 2014]

   When Reagan and GHW Bush Took Bold Executive Action on Immigration

                            (By Mark Noferi)

       Congressional Republicans are outraged that President Obama 
     may take executive action on immigration reform after the 
     mid-term elections--perhaps by deferring deportations and 
     providing work authorization to millions of unauthorized 
     immigrants with strong family ties to the United States. 
     However, past Republican presidents have not been shy to use 
     the White House's power to retool immigration policy. In 
     fact, Obama could learn a lot from presidents Ronald Reagan's 
     and George H. W. Bush's executive actions to preserve the 
     unity of immigrant families, and move past Congressional 
     refusal to enact immigration reform.
       The story begins on November 6, 1986, when Reagan signed 
     the last comprehensive legalization bill to pass Congress. 
     The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) gave up to 3 
     million unauthorized immigrants a path to legalization if 
     they had been ``continuously'' present in the U.S. since 
     January 1, 1982. But the new law excluded their spouses and 
     children who didn't qualify. As the Senate Judiciary 
     Committee stated at the time, ``the families of legalized 
     aliens . . . will be required to ``wait in line'.
       Immediately, these split-eligibility families became the 
     most polarizing national immigration issue. U.S. Catholic 
     bishops criticized the government's ``separation of 
     families,'' especially given Reagan's other pro-family 
     stances. In early 1987, members of Congress introduced 
     legislation to legalize family members, but without success.
       Shortly after Congress' failure, Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service (INS) commissioner Alan Nelson 
     announced he was ``exercising the Attorney General's 
     discretion'' to assure that children would ``be covered'' by 
     legalization. The administration granted a blanket deferral 
     of deportation (logistically similar to today's Deferred 
     Action for Childhood Arrivals program) for children under 18 
     who were living in a two-parent household with both parents 
     legalizing, or with a single parent who was legalizing.
       Lawmakers and advocates, however, urged Reagan to go 
     further. Spouses and some children who had one parent able to 
     legalize but not the other remained unprotected. A California 
     immigrants' rights group called this ``contrary to the 
     American tradition of keeping families together.'' And as 
     Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.) told the INS, ``If you have the 
     discretion to protect children, why not a family?''
       In July 1989, the Senate moved to protect a bigger group--
     all spouses and children of those who legalized under IRCA. 
     The Senate passed legislation 81-17 that prohibited the 
     administration from deporting family members of immigrants in 
     the process of legalizing and directed officials to grant 
     them work authorization. The House failed to act on the 
     Senate's bill.
       George Bush Sr. then responded in February 1990 by 
     administratively implementing the Senate bill's provisions 
     himself. As Bush's INS Commissioner, Gene McNary, stated: 
     ``It is vital that we enforce the law against illegal entry. 
     However, we can enforce the law humanely. To split families 
     encourages further violations of the law as they reunite.'' 
     Under Bush's ``family fairness'' policy, applicants had to 
     meet certain criteria, and reapply to the INS every year for 
     extensions.
       The Bush administration anticipated its family fairness 
     program could help enormous numbers of immigrants--up to 1.5 
     million family members, which amounted to over 40 percent of 
     the 3.5 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. at the 
     time.
       After the Bush administration moved, the House followed. In 
     March 1990, 33 House members introduced legislation with 
     similar provisions to stay deportation of family members. In 
     October, Congress then passed a combined Immigration Act of 
     1990, with a permanent ``Family Unity'' provision. The Act 
     broadened Bush's family fairness policy to include children 
     under 21 and increased family immigration visas, ultimately 
     providing more families a path to citizenship.
       If voters thought Bush overstepped his authority, the 
     midterm elections didn't show it. In 1990, the Republicans 
     lost a scant nine House seats and one Senate seat (out of 33 
     up for election)--far lower than average midterm losses by a 
     president's party. Bush then signed the Act in November, 
     hailing it as continuing ``support for the family as the 
     essential unit of society'' and ``our tradition of family 
     reunification.'' (Bush did issue a signing statement 
     reserving the ``authority of the executive branch to exercise 
     prosecutorial discretion in suitable immigration cases.'')
       The success of the Reagan-Bush family fairness policy 
     serves as a strikingly similar historical precedent for 
     Obama. Bush Sr. ``went big'' to treat families fairly--
     deferring deportations for over 40 percent of unauthorized 
     immigrants. Reportedly, Obama's actions could be similarly 
     broad and help up

[[Page 16089]]

     to 5 million immigrants--over 40 percent of today's 
     unauthorized population. Bush Sr.'s actions gave immigrants a 
     safe haven and spurred the House to act without negative 
     impacts in the subsequent midterms. And the Reagan-Bush 
     fairness policy deferred deportations to protect families, 
     compared to previous uses of presidential authority to 
     protect war refugees or immigrants stranded by a foreign 
     policy crisis.
       We don't know what executive action Obama will take. But we 
     can say with certainty that presidents Ronald Reagan and 
     George H. W. Bush led the way.
                                  ____


  Critics Say Executive Action on Immigration Would Be Unprecedented. 
                       They Forget Their History


  Presidents have almost always acted first to permit immigration or 
  prevent deportation--with Congress ratifying those actions later on.

                         (By Charles Kamasaki)

       The president's announcement that he would soon take 
     executive action to ``to do what he could'' to fix a broken 
     immigration system in the absence of legislation has prompted 
     critics to assert that this would be unprecedented unless 
     first authorized by Congress. In fact, the record 
     demonstrates the opposite. For at least the last 70 years, 
     presidents have routinely acted first to permit the entry of 
     people outside normal channels or to protect large numbers of 
     people from deportation, with legislation ratifying the 
     executive action coming later.
       During World War II, the Roosevelt administration 
     negotiated a temporary worker arrangement with the Mexican 
     government, later known as the Bracero program, an action 
     Congress ratified a year later. When the authorization 
     expired in 1947, the Truman administration continued the 
     program until it was reauthorized in 1951. Before it ended in 
     1964, millions of workers entered the United States under the 
     auspices of the Bracero program, hundreds of thousands under 
     executive--not legislative--authority. The program was 
     rightly criticized for numerous labor and human-rights 
     violations, but few questioned the executive authority it 
     operated under.
       After the war ended, President Truman used his executive 
     authority to permit 250,000 people from Europe to enter or 
     stay in the U.S. outside normal immigration channels. It was 
     only three years after this exercise of discretion that 
     Congress passed the Displaced Persons Act, permitting some 
     400,000 additional entries.
       In April 1975, at the end of the Vietnam War, President 
     Ford used parole authority to authorize the evacuation of 
     200,000 South Vietnamese to this country; it was not until a 
     month later that the Indochina Migration and Refugee Act of 
     1975 was enacted, providing resettlement funding for 130,000 
     of those parolees. Full legislative authorization to resettle 
     those fleeing Indochina did not come until 1980, when 
     Congress passed the Refugee Act, resulting in permanent 
     resettlement of 1.4 million Indochinese in the U.S.. Although 
     most entered as bona fide refugees, hundreds of thousands 
     were paroled into the country when statutorily authorized 
     numbers proved inadequate.
       But these broad exercises of discretion were limited to 
     refugees fleeing wars a long time ago, right? Wrong. 
     Presidents have exercised their discretion more than 20 times 
     since the mid-1970s to permit people already in the U.S. from 
     being deported. Some sought to avoid return to a Soviet bloc 
     country. Iranians in the 1980s sought protection from the 
     regime that overthrew the shah and occupied the American 
     Embassy there. Afghans in the U.S. in the 1980s and 1990s 
     were protected first from the Soviet puppet state and later 
     from the Taliban. Others would have been returned to face 
     civil war or natural disasters abroad. Not until 2003, 
     several decades after the practice of country-specific relief 
     from deportation was first deployed, did Congress codify the 
     practice known as ``temporary protected status.''
       The record also shows that Congress made many executive 
     orders of temporary relief permanent, often years after the 
     fact. As Fidel Castro took power in Cuba in 1959, more than 
     900,000 Cubans fled to the United States, the vast majority 
     paroled into the country by Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, 
     and Johnson. Not until 1966, some seven years after the 
     influx began, was the Cuban Adjustment Act passed.
       In 1980, 130,000 Mariel Cubans and nearly 40,000 Haitians 
     arrived in South Florida. Most, but not all, of the Cubans 
     were paroled into the U.S. by President Carter. Haitians 
     initially were protected from deportation by litigation 
     challenging the denials of their asylum claims; most of these 
     Haitians, and some Cubans whose entry had been challenged, 
     eventually received discretionary ``Cuban-Haitian entrant 
     status'' in the Reagan administration. Six years later, the 
     Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 provided lawful 
     permanent resident status for Cuban-Haitian entrants.
       In 1987, Reagan administration Attorney General Edwin Meese 
     directed the Immigration and Naturalization Service not to 
     deport an estimated 200,000 Nicaraguans in the United States 
     without authorization, including those whose asylum claims 
     had been denied. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush 
     instructed his attorney general to provide ``deferred 
     enforced departure'' status to an estimated 190,000 
     Salvadorans fleeing civil war. In 1997, a decade after 
     Meese's initial action, Congress passed legislation 
     permitting these groups' adjustment to permanent residence.
       In 1989, the Bush administration provided DED status to 
     80,000 Chinese students in the U.S. who feared returning to 
     the strife that eventually led to the Tiananmen Square 
     massacre and later issued an executive order extending their 
     status. Congress then passed the Chinese Student Protection 
     Act in 1992, three years following the initial executive 
     action, making the students eligible for green cards.
       OK, but major exercises of prosecutorial discretion have 
     been used only for foreign policy reasons, right? Wrong 
     again. Executive actions have been used by every modern 
     administration on more than a dozen occasions to further 
     purely domestic policy objectives. After domestic 
     emergencies--the San Francisco earthquake, the 9/11 attack, 
     Hurricanes Katrina and Ike, and others--immigration officials 
     relaxed enforcement efforts to advance public health and 
     safety. Beginning with President Carter in 1980, every 
     administration has instructed immigration officials to reduce 
     enforcement efforts during the census.
       Other exercises of discretion went beyond specific 
     emergencies or events. In 1977, Carter administration 
     Attorney General Griffin Bell suspended deportation of about 
     250,000 people unfairly denied visas by a quirk in the 
     allocation process. It was not until nearly a decade later, 
     via IRCA in 1986, that all of these cases were resolved.
       In 1990, INS Commissioner Gene McNary issued a ``Family 
     Fairness'' policy deferring the deportation of 1.5 million 
     immediate family members of people receiving legalization 
     under IRCA, building on a more-limited exercise of discretion 
     in 1987 by Edwin Meese. Three years after Meese's original 
     executive action, Congress codified the action in the 
     Immigration Act of 1990.
       In 1997, President Clinton provided DED status to some 
     40,000 Haitians previously paroled into the U.S. At the end 
     of the 105th Congress a year later, legislation passed 
     allowing these Haitians to permanently adjust their status.
       The record is clear: Presidents of both parties have used 
     discretionary powers on multiple occasions to protect various 
     groups from deportation for an enormously wide variety of 
     reasons. Except for temporary conditions, Congress acted 
     later--often years later--to ratify the president's 
     decisions.
       Looking back now, would we reverse any of these executive 
     actions? Should we have returned Eastern Europeans to behind 
     the Iron Curtain, Cambodians to the killing fields, 
     Ethiopians to a brutal civil war, Iranians to the arms of the 
     ayatollah, or Chinese students to face the tanks in Tiananmen 
     Square? Would we be better off without the Cubans and 
     Haitians who revitalized South Florida over the past 40 
     years? Were we wrong to prevent the separation of 1.5 million 
     people from family members getting right with the law under 
     IRCA's legalization?
       Many of these actions were controversial when first 
     announced. But Congress later affirmed virtually all of 
     them--without explicitly reversing any of them--suggesting 
     that eventually they were widely accepted. Decades from now, 
     people looking back on President Obama's imminent 
     announcement of broad-scale executive action will see that he 
     prevented the separation of families, began fixing a badly 
     broken immigration system, and improved wages, housing, and 
     education for those receiving legal status, thus immeasurably 
     enriching the economy. They'll likely see that Congress later 
     ratified his actions, as happened so often before.
       And, they'll wonder: what was all the fuss about?
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to my colleagues who have come to the floor this 
afternoon and are still to come to the floor, thank you.
  Republicans have threatened to close down this government. They are 
having a temper tantrum and refuse to act on immigration and want to 
paralyze the Presidency.
  It is time to get behind this President. It is time to get behind the 
American people. It is time to take a stand for this economy and for 
family values.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am grateful for the strong and 
eloquent words that were said by my colleague Senator Boxer. I am 
grateful to so many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle for 
supporting the President as he considers Executive action that would 
essentially enforce the law on immigration more rationally and 
effectively, which is what prosecutorial discretion means.
  As a former U.S. attorney as well as the State attorney general in my 
own

[[Page 16090]]

State for 20 years, I know about prosecutorial discretion. I know that 
in exercising his discretion, the President is aware that there is 
simply no way every undocumented person in the United States of America 
can be deported tomorrow, let alone this year--probably ever.
  There are 11.5 million undocumented people who live in the shadows, 
and the question is, How do we use the resources of the Federal 
Government most rationally and effectively to serve the public interest 
and uphold the rule of law?
  The question is, essentially, How should law enforcement use its 
resources? That question arises every day in the United States when 
there is a Federal or State prosecution. It arises every day on our 
borders when the agents of our Federal administrative law enforcement 
apparatus make decisions about law enforcement. As I have learned from 
my experience in law enforcement, it best serves citizens when it uses 
those resources efficiently, effectively, and humanely in a concerted 
effort to address a direct threat to public safety. Law enforcement has 
a job to do, and it can't do everything all the time everywhere.
  Decisions are necessary in the real world in practical circumstances 
to preserve public order and protect public safety, and that is what 
the President is doing by issuing an Executive order which, in effect, 
directs Federal resources to deport undocumented immigrants who 
represent a threat to this country by virtue of their criminal activity 
or criminal background or other circumstances that justify that 
rational and selective approach to law enforcement.
  This approach is hardly novel, and it is highly unoriginal. In fact, 
President Obama's authority to direct how Federal immigration resources 
will be marshaled in the service of protecting public safety is very 
much in the tradition and history of this office. Every President since 
Dwight Eisenhower, whether Democratic or Republican, has done exactly 
what President Obama is doing in this Executive order.
  In 1990 President George H.W. Bush took Executive action to defer 
removal and grant work permits to roughly 1.5 million undocumented 
individuals--nearly half the undocumented population at the time. Think 
about that for a moment. Out of 3 million people, President Bush 
decided that 1.5 million of them should, in effect, not be prosecuted. 
He set law enforcement priorities. That was his job, and that is 
President Obama's job.
  Many of us--and I am very much in this camp--would prefer to address 
this situation through legislation. I worked hard, along with the 
distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee and Members on both 
sides of the aisle of the Judiciary Committee and of this body, to 
approve legislation. It was resolved and written up after several days 
of detailed and painstaking markup. I was told that is the way 
legislation used to be routinely done in this body--Members trading 
ideas, exchanging views and perspectives, drilling down on facts, and 
arriving at a bipartisan solution that eventually was approved by 68 
Members of this body from both sides of the aisle. That is a matter of 
history.
  My hope was and still is that we have legislation along the lines of 
what was approved by the Senate. That legislation was far from perfect. 
In my view, it was way short of the ideal immigration reform I would 
favor, but the good cannot be the enemy of the perfect and the perfect 
cannot be the enemy of the good. What we need now is a practical 
approach to this problem through legislation. The House refused to take 
up the Senate bill. It didn't even consider it and never voted on it.
  The President has a responsibility, and his job is to take actions 
that are within his legal authority to address a system that is broken 
and takes a toll on human lives that is intolerable. It threatens to 
divide families, to put people out of work--not just undocumented 
immigrants out of work but citizens of this country because they work 
for businesses that are owned and operated by those immigrants who 
might be deported. I have seen that firsthand in Connecticut, and I 
know it is true around the country.
  This measure is not only good for human lives, it is good for our 
economy. It is essential to make sure our immigration system--a broken, 
failed system--is at least prepared in the short term while we work 
toward legislation that is absolutely necessary to comprehensively 
revise and reform that system.
  Every day that the Federal Government fails to act on immigration 
reform, people in this country are forced to live in fear and the 
anxiety and apprehension that children suffer when they are afraid they 
will lose their parents and siblings. Connecticut citizens live in fear 
of losing their neighbors and their employers, their congregates in 
church, and members of their immediate and extended families. Millions 
of immigrants who have lived in this country for years--5 or 10 years 
or longer--and are working hard, paying taxes, abiding by the law, and 
contributing and giving back to their communities are forced to live in 
fear that they will have to leave everything they have worked so hard 
to build and everything that means so much to them--their families, 
their homes, and the country they have come to love. They appreciate 
the freedoms of this country and the opportunities it offers in ways we 
routinely take for granted. For them, this country is a beacon of hope 
and opportunity which they appreciate so deeply and fervently that they 
are willing to lay down their lives for it and, in fact, sometimes do 
as members of our armed services.
  The lack of action on immigration reform hurts everyone. When 
businesses employ workers under the table, our economy and our Nation 
are deprived of their taxes. They are often ducking regulations and 
taxes, which in turn drives down wages for every working American.
  Immigrants should be able to come out of the shadows not just for 
their sake but for the Nation's sake. They are a resource that can be 
used so much more fully to the benefit of our Nation. When they come 
out of the shadows, they should be forced to undergo background checks, 
obtain work permits and proof that they are abiding by the law. That is 
necessary to show they are not a threat to public safety.
  When immigrants live in fear, law enforcement can't know who lives in 
the communities they police. Immigrants who live in fear are simply not 
going to be as willing to report individuals living near them and 
represent a real threat to public safety because they feel 
uncomfortable reporting crimes and cooperating with authority when they 
feel they may then be the object of enforcement. Getting more people 
who are already living in this country into the system will allow law 
enforcement to go after the truly bad actors--serious criminals, 
serious national security threats, and people who seriously should not 
be in this country.
  As the American people wait for legislative action and wait for the 
House to act on the Senate bill and perhaps wait on the Senate to act 
again, President Obama has both the authority and the moral 
responsibility to institute these reforms. These reforms are crucial. 
He has the authority under law to exercise his discretion. He has the 
moral responsibility to fix this broken system as long and as well as 
he can using that responsibility.
  I am encouraged to hear that the President intends to focus his 
authority on serious criminals, not law-abiding individuals. At a 
minimum, my hope is that he will ease the minds of children and put to 
rest the anxiety children feel when they fear they may lose their 
parents. Whether they are DREAMers or U.S. citizens, they should be 
spared that apprehension and anxiety that interferes with everything 
they do in school or work.
  My hope is that he will exercise that authority on behalf of the 
parents of those children--U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and 
DREAMers.
  My hope is that he will ease some of the arbitrary restrictions that 
prevent the DOCA program from achieving its full purpose--restrictions 
like the cutoff age.

[[Page 16091]]

  As he acts to exercise his prosecutorial discretion with respect to 
deportation, he should also consider his administration's policies with 
respect to detention. As I wrote to the President earlier this year, 
along with my colleague and friend Chairman Leahy, I believe the 
administration's decision to dramatically expand the detention of whole 
families, many of whom have shown a credible fear of being returned to 
dangerous situations in their home countries, is counterproductive and 
harmful. Migrants must be given an adequate opportunity to show they 
have a valid claim as refugees.
  The policy of indiscriminately holding families in enormous, 
privately run facilities leads to inhumane living conditions. Violence 
against women and children and simply inefficient use of resources are 
more the rule than the exception. Warehousing young children in 
complexes that are little more than jails is deeply incompatible with 
our national values and it serves none of the goals of an effective 
immigration system.
  Tomorrow marks the 25th anniversary of the U.N. Convention on the 
Rights of the Child. Faith leaders and community members from around 
the country will be doing vigils and telling the stories of children 
and mothers who are spending this holiday season behind bars. Yes, in 
the greatest country in the history of the world, children and their 
moms will be spending Thanksgiving behind bars.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. These families are not flight risks and they are not 
dangerous. We owe it to them to do better. I am proud of standing with 
my colleagues on calling on the President to keep families together, 
target resources effectively, and run an immigration system that 
reflects America's values and builds a stronger future.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________