Broader Options for Americans Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I call up the Coons amendment No. 1955 to the Schumer amendment No. 1958.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is immigration week in the U.S. Senate, and we are preparing today's procedural moves to bring bills to the floor for consideration as early as today, perhaps tomorrow at the latest. It is an unusual time when the Senate is focused on such an issue and actual bipartisan amendments and substitutes are being offered.

We are at this point at this moment in time because of a decision by President Trump on September 5 of last year when he announced he was ending the DACA Program. DACA was a program created by President Obama by Executive order, which allowed those who had been brought to the United States as children, infants, and toddlers to be able to stay legally in the United States on a temporary visa renewable every 2 years. It was called DACA, and 780,000 young people stepped up and paid the filing fee of almost $500, went through a criminal background check and an interview and received DACA protection. They then went on with their lives, with 90 percent of them going to work or to school, enlisting in the military--undocumented in America, willing to hold up their hands and take an oath that they would die for America. That is how much they love this country. Twenty thousand of them went to work as school teachers across the United States of America. Perhaps they are teaching your children or grandchildren today. They are doing important things in this country. But President Trump announced last September 5 that the program that protects them and allows them to work will end.

Then he challenged us. He said to the Senate and the House: Do something about it. Pass a law. Isn't that what you are there for? The President is right. That is our job.

This week we are going to try to pass a law to end this crisis, which is going to reach a head on March 5 of this year when the DACA Program officially ends and 1,000 young people a day lose their protection. We have less than 3 weeks. So we are going to move today, I hope, or tomorrow or this week, at some point to consider some alternatives to solve this problem.

I am sorry to say that there is no plan in the U.S. House of Representatives to even address the problem--none. I don't understand it. They know that lives hang in the balance, and they know that overwhelmingly the American people want to give DACA and the Dreamers a chance. The numbers come rolling in; 75, 80, 85 percent of Americans agree that these young people should be given a chance to earn their way to legal status and citizenship. Even 60 percent of those who voted for President Trump agree with what I just said. It is a popular political issue on both sides, and it also is the right thing to do.

What the President has proposed as his alternative, from my point of view, is unacceptable. Let me tell you why. Two weeks ago the White House released a one-page framework on immigration reform and border security. The White House claimed that this is a compromise because it includes a path to citizenship for Dreamers--some of them. That, of course, as I mentioned, is supported by a majority of Americans. The reality is that the Trump plan would put the administration's entire hard-line immigration agenda on the backs of these young people. These young, DACA-protected people are being held as political hostages for President Trump's hard-line immigration agenda.

For example, the White House wants to dramatically reduce legal immigration by prohibiting American citizens from sponsoring their parents, siblings, and children as immigrants. We are talking about literally millions of relatives of American citizens who entered this system legally and are following our immigration laws. Some have been waiting for as long as 20 years to immigrate to the United States.

The conservative Cato Institute says the following about President Trump's proposal:

In the most likely scenario, the new plan [from the Trump administration] would cut the number of legal immigrants by up to 44 percent or a half million immigrants annually--the largest policy-driven immigration cut since the 1920s. Compared to current law, it would exclude nearly 22 million people from the opportunity to immigrate legally to the United States over the next five decades.

You have to go back in history to a time when there was a proposal that passed on the floor of this Chamber that cut as many legal immigrants to the United States. The year was 1924. Calvin Coolidge was President of the United States. We had just seen the end of World War I. There was a growing fear that because of all of the damage that was done in Europe, Europeans would come to the United States. There was also a concern that the wrong people were coming to the United States, in the eyes of some of the Members of Congress.

The Immigration Act of 1924 passed, and it set quotas for countries, and it set quotas for people. It was expressly designed to exclude certain people from around the world from entering the United States of America. It was a notorious piece of legislation. Those who were to be excluded from America included people from Italy, Eastern Europe, Japan, Asia, and Jewish people. That was the immigration policy of the United States of America because of that bill in 1924. That is the last time this Chamber has made such a dramatic cut in legal immigration to America. It was a source of embarrassment for decades. The United States established quotas and said: We want America to look a lot different than it would look if other immigrants came to this country.

Thankfully, in 1965, it was changed. Thankfully, we gave up the quotas that had been criticized roundly as being insensitive to the realities of the world population and the reality of the population of America.

Now the Trump administration wants to cut legal immigration to the United States again, by 44 percent, the biggest cut--as the Cato Institute tells us--since that horrible bill was passed in 1924.

Let me tell you what else the Trump immigration proposal would do. It would create an unaccountable slush fund of $25 billion of American taxpayers' money for a border wall that, as I remember correctly, Mexico was supposed to pay for--$25 billion. I have to double check, but I think that is almost the annual appropriation for the National Institutes of Health. The President wants $25 billion and wants no strings attached. He wants to be able to spend it where, when, and how he wants. That is an invitation for fraud and waste. It is an invitation for money to be spent for something other than its purpose. It is an invitation for taxpayers to be the ultimate losers with this slush fund for President Trump's famous Mexican wall.

The President's proposal on immigration, in the midst of the worst refugee crisis on record in the world, is now calling for fast-track deportations without due process of women and children fleeing gang and sexual violence. I can't tell you how many times we have had this conversation with members of the Trump administration. They create a scenario. The scenario is of a 6-year-old child who is swooped up in some Central American country. The parents give thousands of dollars, their life savings, to a smuggler who says: I will get this child to the border of the United States. The child is then taken off by the smuggler in a car or truck or bus to the border. The child then comes out of the car, is pointed toward one of our Federal employees with the Border Patrol, and the child walks up and hands a piece of paper to the Border Patrol agent with the name of someone in the United States. That process then unfolds, and the child ultimately, in many cases, ends up with that relative while a decision is made about the status of the child.

Is there exploitation in this system? You bet there is. Is there abuse in this system? For sure. Is there actual human trafficking taking place? Yes. Are atrocities committed against these children in the course of this journey? All true. Should we be dedicated to cleaning this up? Sign me up, on a bipartisan basis.

Let me tell you another scenario, another story that has a different origin than turning over a child to a smuggler. Let me tell you about cases we know of in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala where, because of the rampant crime, gang activity, and violence that takes place, parents, desperate to save their children--some of whom have daughters who have been victims of rape by these gangs--send them to the United States in the hope that they can save their lives. They show up at the border, having lived in fear of this violence in their countries, and they are accepted into the United States to determine whether that fear can be established in a hearing.

These are two different cases--a little child being exploited by a smuggler, a young girl escaping violence and perhaps death because her parents have nowhere to turn to save her life. Should we treat them both the same? I don't think so. Historically, we have said that when it comes to asylum seekers, who come to this country with a credible fear for their own lives, the United States has given them a chance to be protected. We have said that over and over again. We said it to the Cubans who were escaping Fidel Castro. We have said it to the Soviet Jews who wanted to have freedom of religion and came to the United States, believing this was the only chance they had in the world.

The Trump immigration proposal does not make a clear distinction on those two cases. In fact, what it does is end up with fast-track deportations without due process. Accepting the Trump approach will literally return many of these folks who have come to our border to harm and in some cases death.

There are fast-track deportations in the Trump proposal without due process for millions who have overstayed their visas. An estimated 40 percent of the 11 million undocumented fit in this category. So even if they have no criminal record, without considering their legal claims to remain in the United States, they would be deported. It dramatically cuts immigration from sub-Saharan African countries.

We have a diversity visa program. It is far from perfect, but it is a program that was created years ago, so countries that do not have an opportunity to send people to the United States for legal immigration would have a chance. Immigrants who come from these countries are limited in number. They have to go through the background checks, criminal background checks, biometric investigations--all of the investigations and interviews that we would expect in order to make sure we do everything humanly possible to cull out those who would be any danger to the United States. They face that same scrutiny, and they should. Many of them are rejected. They can't make the case for their lives and what they have done with them, and they are not given a chance to come. The President wants to eliminate the diversity visa program. For those living in sub-Saharan African countries, huge countries, about 12,000 to 15,000 come to the United States each year through this program. By eliminating this program, the Trump administration sadly is going to deny those immigrants from Africa even a chance to apply for this opportunity.

In the past, many Democrats have been willing to support some of the President's proposals, changes in our immigration system, eliminating the diversity visa lottery, but when we made that offer 5 years ago, it was part of comprehensive immigration reform with give and take and compromise that tried to make sense out of senseless immigration laws.

In 2013, a Democratic-led Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill with a strong bipartisan vote of 68 to 32. The bill was a product of months of negotiations, with committee and floor debate. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives refused to even consider the bill. Now we are being asked to accept the administration's proposal with no conditions, no compromise, no give and take; rather, take it or leave it.

Democrats have shown they want to comprehensively fix our broken immigration system, but right now we have to fix our focus on the DACA crisis created by President Trump with his announcement of September 5. That has to be our priority.

In the next day or two, we expect the so-called Grassley proposal, which is the Trump immigration plan, to come to the floor. I want to say for the record, Democrats support comprehensive immigration reform, but we will not stand by and allow Dreamers to be held political hostage to the administration's entire immigration agenda.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, every day in America we face the devastating reminder of the toll of gun violence. Today, we are watching the horrific scenes at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL, where yet another school shooting has taken place. It is gut-wrenching. We know that so many families have just had their worlds and lives changed forever by senseless gun violence. Ironically, this is the 10th anniversary of a similar shooting at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, IL. Our prayers go out to the victims, to the families, to the first responders, and, of course, to the Parkland community. Honoring Commander Paul Bauer

Yesterday, Mr. President, in the city of Chicago, which I am honored to represent, we lost one of our finest, Commander Paul Bauer of the Chicago Police Department. He was shot and killed by a gunman in the Chicago Loop.

Commander Bauer was a 31-year veteran of the CPD and the commander of the 18th police district in the Near North Side. He was a pillar of that community. He was well-known in his district. He had been commended by the city council last year for a charity holiday party he helped to host for underprivileged kids.

He was a husband to his wife Erin and a father to a 13-year-old daughter named Grace. Commander Bauer was at a training session yesterday in the Loop, but he didn't hesitate to help out his fellow officers when they were pursuing a fleeing suspect. Commander Bauer was shot several times by the suspect, and he died from his wounds.

Chicago police superintendent Eddie Johnson said this was an extremely difficult day for the Chicago police family. Commander Bauer was a hero in life. He made the ultimate sacrifice to help protect the city he served and the city he loved. His loss is a tragedy.

Our prayers go out to the commander's friends, colleagues, his loved ones, and, of course, his family and daughter.

10th Anniversary of Northern Illinois University Shooting

As I mentioned, Mr. President, today marks the 10th anniversary of one of the most devastating shootings ever to occur on a college campus in America. On February 14, 2008, a gunman with a history of mental instability walked into a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb and opened fire. His bullets killed five students and wounded 17 more. It was a horrific mass murder, and it shocked the entire Nation.

The five young Illinoisans we lost that day all had bright futures ahead of them: Gayle Dubowski, 20 years old, from Carol Stream, who worked as a camp counselor and was a talented singer in her church choir; Catalina Garcia, of Cicero, 20 years old, a smiling, outgoing young woman who planned to be a teacher; Julianna Gehant, of Mendota, 32 years old, who served our country in the U.S. Army and Army Reserve and who went to NIU to study to be a teacher; Ryanne Mace, of Carpentersville, a 19-year-old, who was funny and fun to be with and who aspired to work as a counselor; and Daniel Parmenter, 20 years old, from Westchester, a rugby player, who lost his life because he shielded his girlfriend from the shooter.

It is heartbreaking to think what these five young people could have accomplished in the 10 years since that horrible day. We mourn their loss and, again, our hearts go out to their families.

We remember and honor the wounded who still bear the scars of that terrible day. We renew our thanks over and over to the law enforcement officers and first responders who headed toward the sound of gunfire that day and who treated the victims as they were wounded.

We commend the many members of the NIU community who stepped up in the days that followed, working to persevere through this tragedy, with heavy hearts but unbroken spirits and moving ``forward, together forward,'' in the words of that Northern Illinois University Huskie fight song.

It is devastating to think that in this great country, students and educators could be gunned down in our schools. But it happens so often that I am afraid a numbness is setting in.

Just in the last few months, we have had fatal shootings of students at Aztec High School in Aztec, NM; Wake Forest University in North Carolina; Marshall County High School in Benton, KY; and then, today, in Florida.

Other tragedies have been narrowly averted because of well-trained staff. At Mattoon High School in Illinois, a heroic teacher named Angela McQueen stopped a student gunman from causing a massacre there last September.

The threat of shootings in our schools is ever present. According to a tally kept by the group Everytown, there have been at least 18 incidents so far this year where a gun has been fired on a school or college campus.

Schools and colleges are doing the best they can to prepare and protect their students. I salute the educators and administrators who are working hard, but is Congress doing all that it can to keep our Nation's students safe from gun violence? Not even close.

Of course, there is no single reform that could stop every shooting in America, but we know there are big gaps in our laws that make it easy for criminals, abusers, and mentally unstable people to get their hands on guns that hurt innocent people. Congress has done nothing-- nothing--in recent years to close those gaps and make America safer.

Congress hasn't even closed the gun show loophole that the 1999 Columbine, CO, killers used to buy their weapons, and we did nothing in response to the murder of 20 first graders and 6 educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

In fact, the only vote taken by the Senate on gun laws in this current Congress was to weaken gun law safety provisions on the books. That was a vote that Senate Republicans brought up last year that prevented the Social Security Administration from alerting the FBI's gun background check system about people with mental illness.

It is likely that before this year is over, the Republican majority will call up more bills to weaken gun safety laws. That is the wrong response to the epidemic of gun violence in America.

I am not going to give up on trying to close the loopholes in our gun laws. I am going to keep fighting for universal background checks, tougher straw purchasing laws, and better laws to prevent gun theft. I am not going to give up because of people like Patrick Korellis, who was shot in the head 10 years ago at the tragedy at Northern Illinois University. Luckily, Patrick survived, and since that day, he has been a leader in Illinois, fighting for commonsense gun reform. I have come to know and admire him for his efforts.

No one should have to go through what Patrick went through and so many others went through on that day in DeKalb, IL, 10 years ago. We owe it to Patrick, to the other NIU victims and families and community members, and to the hundreds of thousands more across America who have been killed and wounded by guns this past decade to keep trying to reduce the toll of gun violence.

Maybe we can't stop every shooting, but if we do our best to keep guns out of dangerous hands, we will save lives. I intend to keep doing my best to achieve that goal.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source