America's Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me first thank the minority leader, Senator Reid, for his kind words about the DREAM Act, which I introduced 15 years ago.

This was a piece of legislation that came about because a mother called my office in Chicago. Here was her family story.

She brought her two kids to America from Brazil. They actually started off in Korea, but they came through Brazil and came to Chicago--mother, father, and two kids. The father had the ambition of starting a church. There are a lot of Korean churches around Chicago and around the country, and his dream was to start a Korean-American Church. His dream never came true. He continued to pray and read the Bible, but he didn't work much. It was up to mom to go to work.

She went to work in a dry-cleaning establishment in Chicago. If you have been around the great city I am honored to represent and go into a dry cleaners, most of the time Korean families are running them. They are working around-the-clock, and are the hardest working people imaginable.

Mom went to work in the dry cleaners and the kids struggled because there wasn't much money coming in. One of their girls, Tereza, heard about a program in Chicago called the MERIT Music Program. It is a program that is available for low-income families of kids in public schools. The lady who left the money for it said to give them instruction in musical instruments and help them buy the instruments.

Tereza Lee heard about this when she was a little girl and decided to sign up for it and to practice the piano. Well, guess what. She turned out to be a prodigy. She was amazing. For her the MERIT Music Program was like an opening to another part of the world she had never seen. She participated in recitals. Sometimes they told me they had to give her a key to the Merit music offices because she wanted to stay and practice until late at night. It was tough for her getting through high school. She tells the story, when she was interviewed in the local press, that sometimes she didn't have a lunch to take to school or any money to buy food. She would wait until the other kids left, and she would go through the wastebasket and look for food they had left behind. That is how tough it was. But because of her skill at playing the piano, she was given an opportunity. She was accepted into the Juilliard School for music in New York and at the Manhattan School of Music conservatory to pursue the piano. She was that good.

When she and her mom started filling out the application, they reached that point where it said this: What is your nationality? What is your citizenship?

Her mom said: Tereza, I don't know. We came here on a visitor's visa way back when you were 2 years old, but I never filed any papers for you.

She said: Mom, what are we going to do?

Her mom said: We are going to call Durbin's office.

So they called the Senate office. We looked into it. The law in the United States was very clear for 17-year-old Tereza Lee. She had to leave the United States for 10 years and apply to come back in--leave for 10 years. She came here at the age of 2. She did not do anything wrong.

She did everything right. She finished high school, against the odds. She developed a talent, against the odds. She was accepted at one of the best music schools in America, and our law very clearly said: Leave; we don't want you. If you want to try to come back in 10 years, that is your business.

I don't think that is right. That is why 15 years ago I introduced the DREAM Act. It said: If you are one of those kids brought here under the age of 16, have finished high school, and have no serious criminal issues, we are going to give you a chance. Go to college or join the military and we will give you a path to ultimately getting to the back of the line but becoming a citizen of the United States--the DREAM Act.

When I introduced this bill to solve Tereza Lee's problem, I used to give speeches about it all around Chicago. A funny thing would happen. When I would finish the speech and go back to my car, sometimes at night, there would be somebody waiting by my car. As I got closer, it turned out to be a very young girl, usually, maybe with her friend.

They would wait to make sure no one was around. The young girl would say to me: Senator, I am one of those DREAMers. I am undocumented. My mom and dad are scared to death that they are going to be deported, and then I will be deported. I hope you can pass this.

Well, time passed. We called the bill on the floor and called it in the House. We have never been able to make it the law of the land. Sadly, the reality is that there are probably 2.5 million young people living in America who would qualify under the DREAM Act to be given a chance to become legal--2.5 million.

What happened to Tereza Lee? I have to finish that story. She ended up going to the Manhattan School of Music. Two families stepped forward--families that had befriended the Merit music program in Chicago. I know one of them well. They said: This girl is too good. We can't waste her talent. We will pay for her education.

They did so out of pocket. She did not qualify for any Federal assistance because she is undocumented. So Tereza finished school and played in Carnegie Hall. Now she is about to complete her Ph.D. in music. She is living in Brooklyn, NY. She is a mom with a little girl. She married an American musician so she is legal--finally. That is her story. Thank goodness this determined young girl stuck with it. We have to stick with it too.

The people who want to turn away these 2.5 million DREAMers ought to take a minute to meet them--just to meet them and to understand what it is to be a young person in America going through all the challenges of adolescence and all of the challenges that might be brought to you in your community or by our family and knowing in the back of your mind that at any moment, someone can knock on the door and tell you that you have to leave this country and that you are not here legally.

They do it, and they fight every single day for a chance and a dream so that someday they will become part of the only country they have ever known. These are kids who, just like the Senate a few minutes ago, got up every day in the classroom and pledged allegiance to that flag, the only flag they have ever known. They do not view themselves as Mexican or Korean. They view themselves as Americans.

The question is this: How do we view them? Do we view them as an asset to America or do we view them as a problem--a problem that should be thrown away and deported? You are listening to the Presidential campaign. We all are. I am not going to go into detail about some of the terrible things that have been said, but I just wish some of the haters, some of the people who want to turn on these young people, would meet them. Come and meet them. Hear their stories.

I think even the hardest, coldest heart would be moved by them. Across the street--you can see it through the window--is the Supreme Court building. It was about 12 years ago that we decided to do something in the Senate that I thought was a great idea. Every 2 years, when there is a new class of Senators, we have a dinner with the Justices of the Supreme Court. We do it at their place. It is right across the street. We line up in the entryway there--the beautiful marble entryway. There are tables set up, each of us sits at a table with one of the Justices.

I can remember one of the early times I went over there. I shared the table with another Senator, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, a legendary Member of the Senate and former President pro tempore of the Senate. He served here for decades and carried the Constitution around in his breast pocket. In his great days he could recite poetry nonstop. He was a real believer in the Senate. He wrote the history of the Senate, one that probably will never be matched. I shared a table with him in the Supreme Court for one of these dinners.

I said: Isn't this a beautiful building?

He said: It sure is.

I said: How often do you get over here, Senator Byrd?

He said: This is my first time.

I said: You have been in the Senate for 40-plus years, and this is your first time? Why?

He said: Well, it is a separate branch of government. We must respect them. They had never asked me to come over.

Well, I see it a little differently. I go across that street because, yes, it is a separate branch of government, but it is one that we should understand and respect, as I hope they understand and respect Congress on this side of the street. So this morning I did. I went over for an argument before the Supreme Court. There was a huge mob out in front of the Supreme Court because the case that was being considered is one that affects millions of lives in America--Texas v. United States.

The question is this: What are we going to do with people like Tereza Lee, whom I just described earlier. You see, what happened 6 years ago is that I joined with Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana and wrote a letter to President Obama saying: If the Congress is not going to change the law to make it possible for these young people to stay in this country, would you issue an Executive order that allows them, at least on a temporary basis, to stay in the United States?

Within a year or two, the President agreed to do it. He created what is known as the DACA Program. It basically says that young people like Tereza Lee, whom I described earlier, can step forward, identify themselves to our government, submit themselves for criminal investigation, and pay a filing fee of around $500, I believe it is. If they do, they will be given the right to stay in the United States on a temporary renewable basis for 2 years or 3 years.

That is what DACA is all about--so that young people can pursue their lives at least with the understanding that for a few years, they don't have to worry about that knock on the door. Oh, if they get a job, they have to pay their taxes. If they go to college, they are not going to get a penny from this government. We don't help them pay for their college education.

The President did it. I applauded him for doing it. So far, 700,000 young people just like Tereza Lee have signed up for protection under DACA. We estimate that the total universe of young people eligible is about 2.5 million. So the President attempted to extend the DACA Program. He said: We need to address the problem with their parents. Many of these parents have children who are U.S. citizens and legally in the United States, but they are undocumented and subject to deportation.

So the President said, in what is known as DAPA: The parents of these kids can come forward, submit themselves to a criminal background check with fingerprints and all, pay a filing fee of around $500, and then they will be allowed, on a temporary, renewable basis, if they keep their noses clean, to work in this country.

If they are going to work in this country, they have to pay their taxes. Well, that is what the President suggested. As soon as he made these two proposals to extend DACA and to create this other program for the parents, a lawsuit was filed. It was led by the State of Texas, and 25 other States, I believe, joined. That is the case before the Supreme Court today.

Before I get into the details of that case--and I want to say a word about it on the floor this afternoon--let me say one other thing. What Senator Byrd told me about not going across the street was not only respect for that institution of the Supreme Court, but as a Senator he was basically saying that we need to respect their right to be above politics. We want to make certain that that branch of government is above politics, that they apply the law and interpret the Constitution in a nonpolitical way.

Sometimes I read their decisions and think they have gone political on us. But the goal is to make sure they are preserved from becoming political. This morning, when I went before the Supreme Court, I did not face nine Justices, only eight. Antonin Scalia, who passed away a few weeks ago, created a vacancy that has not been filled. Why has the Senate failed to fill this vacancy on the Supreme Court? Because within hours of the untimely death of Justice Scalia, the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, who was here a few moments ago, announced publicly: We will not fill this vacancy on the Supreme Court.

That is important to remember. It is the first time in the history of the United States of America--the first time in the history of the Senate--that the Senate is refusing a hearing for a Presidential nominee to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. It has never happened before--never.

Oh, the Republicans argue: Well, if the shoe were on the other foot, I am sure you Democrats would do exactly the same thing. I call their attention to the year 1988. Republican President Ronald Reagan, with a vacancy on the Supreme Court, submitted the name of Anthony Kennedy to the Senate. A Republican President was filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court, and he submitted the name of his nominee.

The Senate, then controlled by the Democrats, gave Anthony Kennedy a hearing, a strong vote, and sent him over to the Supreme Court. So when the shoe was on the other foot, we did not play politics. But now we are. So I faced eight Justices over there as that argument was made this morning. I thought to myself: If they end up in a 4-to-4 tie--and that can happen--it will be chaos and confusion across America, with different courts and different districts having different interpretations of the same law.

How did we get into this mess? Because the Republican majority in the Senate has decided: We are not going to appoint anyone to fill this vacancy. Their argument is this: Let the American people speak to filling this vacancy in the Presidential election. Let them decide whether it will be a Democrat or a Republican President filling this vacancy.

There might be some value to that argument if President Obama, in the last election, when he was running for reelection in 2012, had been running for a term of 3 years. You can argue then that this fourth year he was not entitled to be President. But you know what. It turns out that he was running for a 4-year term. It turns out he won by 5 million votes. It turns out that when it comes to being Commander in Chief and President of the United States, he has all the powers vested in him by the Constitution, even in the fourth year. Isn't that amazing--4 years as the President? That is what the American people decided, but only to be overruled by the Republican majority in the Senate.

Sorry, Mr. President, they say, you only get 3 years. Maybe we give you 3 years and 2 months, but you sure don't have the right to try and fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, even though the Constitution explicitly says in article II, section 2: The President shall appoint a nominee to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Their argument is that you may think you are President when it comes to the Supreme Court, but the Senate Republican majority thinks otherwise.

I sat down with Merrick Garland. He is the proposed nominee to fill this vacancy. He is chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court, which is a high position in the judiciary. He was born in Illinois, so I come to his nomination with some prejudice, but he is an extraordinary person.

People have said: Well, why didn't the President choose a woman? Why didn't the President choose an African American? Why didn't he choose a Hispanic? Why didn't he choose someone from India? Why did he choose this man?

I think he chose him for an obvious reason: He is clearly qualified. Even Republican Senators have said nice things about him publicly. Many of them have said they refuse to even meet with him, will not even sit in the same room with him. Some have agreed to, but many have said no. Senator McConnell said: I won't meet with him because he is not going to get a hearing and he is not going to get a vote.

It is time for us to fill that vacancy. It is time for us to accept our constitutional responsibility and show respect for the document we all swore to uphold and defend when we took the oath of office. It is time to fill that vacancy and put nine Justices on the Supreme Court to avoid the uncertainty, confusion, and chaos which might otherwise emerge.

I wish to say a word about the case before the Court this morning. This was a case--United States v. Texas--a legal challenge, as I mentioned earlier, to the President's immigration policy, filed by 26 Republican Governors. I believe this lawsuit has no legal merit. It is driven by political hostility toward President Obama and his immigration policy.

I was proud to join an amicus brief signed by 39 Senators on our side of the aisle and 186 House Democrats in support of the administration's decision on immigration. The President is on very solid ground in this case. I am hoping and confident that the Supreme Court will rule in his favor.

As an initial matter before the case proceeds, the States that filed this lawsuit have to show they will be harmed by the President's immigration policy. Otherwise, they really don't have any standing to sue. It turns out that exactly the opposite is true. The President's policy allowing people to work here on a temporary basis under his Executive orders will create a huge benefit to the American economy.

Over the next 10 years, in the State of Texas alone--and they brought the lawsuit; at least started it--the President's immigration action would increase that State's gross domestic product by more than $38 billion and increase the earnings of all Texas residents by $17.5 billion. They argue that the President's immigration policy would cost the State of Texas money. It turns out that exactly the opposite is true.

Even if the States have standing to sue, the Supreme Court repeatedly has held that the Federal Government has broad authority to decide questions of immigration. Justice Anthony Kennedy, appointed earlier, wrote the opinion for the Court striking down Arizona's controversial immigration law. Listen to what he said:

A principal feature of the removal system--

Removal of people who are not eligible to be in the United States-- is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. . . . Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime.

This administration's immigration policy is not just legal, it is smart and realistic. The President has said simply: We should prioritize. We have limited resources. We can't deport all those who are here undocumented. If we are only going to deport some, let's pick those who are a danger to the United States.

The President has focused on those who have been convicted of serious crimes or pose a threat to our security. And shouldn't he? As Commander in Chief, shouldn't that be his highest priority, to make sure anyone who is a danger to the United States is gone? He knows he can't deport all even if he wished to, so he focuses on those who may be a danger to the United States--prosecutorial discretion. The Department of Homeland Security only has enough funding to deport a small fraction of undocumented, so the President wants to focus the limited resources on those who could do us harm. That is just common sense.

At the same time, the President said that we should not waste our resources on deporting young immigrant students who grow up in this country, such as Tereza Lee, whom I mentioned earlier, or tear apart families by deporting the parents of U.S. citizens. The President's policy is focused on deporting felons, not families--criminals, not children.

In November of 2014, President Obama established this program, DAPA, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents. Under DAPA, undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States for more than 5 years and have American children would be required to come forward, register with the government, pay a fee, go through a criminal background check and a national security background check, and pay their taxes.

If the government determines these parents have not committed any serious crimes and don't pose any threat, this Executive order says: On a temporary, renewable basis, they will not be targeted for deportation.

President Obama also expanded the DACA Program for children, as I mentioned earlier, at the same time. Why did he do that? Because for years Republicans in Congress have refused to consider legislation to fix our broken immigration system.

On the floor of the Senate on June 27, 2013, I joined a group of seven other Senators--four Democrats and four Republicans in total. We had worked for months to construct a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration bill. We had to give a lot. There were things in that bill which I didn't like at all and things which some of the Republican Senators didn't like, but it is the nature of legislation and compromise that that happens.

We brought the bill to the floor for a vote after a lengthy markup in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and dozens of amendments had been offered. The Senate passed comprehensive immigration reform legislation on June 27, 2013, 68 to 32--more than 2 to 1. That bill would have strengthened border security, protected American workers, and established a tough but fair path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants who were then currently living in our country.

What happened to the bill after it passed the Senate? I take you back to how laws are made and your civics course. It went across the Rotunda to the House of Representatives, which was under Republican control. The majority in the House of Representatives refused to call the bill, refused to even bring it to the floor for a debate, and refused to offer any substitute. They did nothing--nothing, despite our broken immigration system. In the face of this, the President was left with no choice.

For the good of the American people, he used the authority given him as President to try to make some reforms to our immigration system. The Center for American Progress has studied what the President proposed, and they say that over the next 10 years, if these two programs--DACA and DAPA--were passed, the gross domestic product for my home State of Illinois would increase by $15 billion and the earnings of Illinois residents would increase by almost $8 billion. Could your State use that--more economic activity, more people paying taxes to the Federal Government and to your State? Virtually every State could use that.

It is unfortunate that these bills have been blocked by the Senate, and now they are trying to block them in the Supreme Court.

I see Senator Cornyn is on the floor, and I will close by telling a story about another DREAMer. I have done this quite a few times. My staff has done a lot of work on it. I thank them all for it. These stories really say a lot more than I ever could in a speech. They tell us what was at stake before the Supreme Court of the United States this morning.

This attractive young woman is Vasthy Lamadrid. Her family came to the United States from Mexico. She was 5 years old. They came here with nothing. They moved into a home with four other families, so a lot of the kids slept in the same room.

Despite their poverty, Vasthy felt safe and excelled in school. Math was her best subject. She had nearly perfect scores on standardized tests. English was tough, but then she discovered a series of books called ``Goosebumps.'' If you have kids or grandkids, I bet you have heard of that one. She became an avid reader and mastered the English language.

By middle school, Vasthy was placed in the gifted program. That is where she discovered her love of engineering. She was a student in the Engineering Pathway at Bioscience High School, where she received the Young Entrepreneurs Award, made the principal's list every semester, and played tennis. She was an active volunteer, working with such groups as Girls For Change, CompuGirls, E-Tech, Hospice of the Valley, and St. Joseph's Hospital. Vasthy also helped younger kids in her neighborhood by tutoring them in math and tennis.

Vasthy went on to attend Arizona State University. Because she is undocumented, she didn't qualify for a penny of government assistance, and she had to pay out-of-State tuition despite the fact that she had lived her entire life in the United States, in Arizona.

Then something extraordinary happened. Counting on the generosity of the American people, Vasthy decided to crowdfund her college education. She shared her life story online and asked people to contribute to help her pay her tuition. Well, it worked. She is currently in her second year of college. In the first semester, she made the dean's list with a 3.79 GPA in the Ira Fulton School of Engineering.

Thanks to DACA--the Presidential Executive order--she is able to support herself. She has also made time to continue to volunteer for a club called STEM Academy mentoring young children. She volunteers with the Arizona Immigration Refugee Service as an English teacher. As a result of her volunteer work, she has decided she wants to become a science teacher. Can we use more science teachers in America? You bet.

This is what she said in a letter she wrote:

DACA signifies to me a chance to show that I belong here-- that inside I am an American. It represents an opportunity to show that my parents' sacrifice was worth it. I love this country and want to one day become a citizen and continue to give back to the community. I don't need that journey to become a citizen to be easily given to me, but I'd hope that the journey is fair.

Vasthy and other DREAMers have so much they can give to America.

I don't understand the Republican Party when it comes to the issue of immigration. We are a nation of immigrants. My mother was an immigrant to this country. I am a first-generation American and proud of it. It is my honor to serve and represent a great State like Illinois. I know what her journey was like. She was brought here at the age of 2 from Lithuania. I know what her early life was like as she struggled to try to make sure there was food on the table, first for her mom, sister, and brother, and then ultimately for her own family. That is my family's story, but it is a story that is repeated over and over again.

There is something in the DNA of immigrants who are willing to risk everything in this world to go to a country where they don't even speak the language because they know they will have an opportunity here, and they bring something with them. That is why they light up the scoreboard in Silicon Valley with all of these new inventions and new corporations with thousands of employees that make us an economic success in many fields. That is why we should think twice about those who condemn immigrants in this Nation of immigrants.

I am confident the Supreme Court will uphold the President's immigration actions. Then I hope, after they have done this, that the Republicans in Congress will finally decide to return to the table and work on a bipartisan basis for comprehensive immigration reform.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source