c-span in prime time. here on the beauty we are taking the u.s. senate goes to gavilan to begin work on the immigration bill focusing on border security and the daca program. majority leader mcconnell will introduce a bill which will allow any amendments as long as they receive 60 votes and about to begin the formal debate for immigration will happen, we expect, at 5:30 eastern and if approved, the debate and both are expected to continue throughout the week. the house meanwhile not in session today. the gavilan tomorrow with several bills this week including recovery of personnel listed as missing in action. also sanctions against hamas and a number of financial bills to mortgage lending. all this for the house and senate ahead of the present state break. the house break presidents' day next week. the house will be live over on c-span in the senate live next on c-span2.

our refuge in life's stormy seasons. inspire our lawmakers to place their trust in you. lift them above divisions and cynicism, as they depend upon the unfolding of your powerful providence. may they find peace because of your redemptive love. remind them that you are faithful to help those who ask you for guidance and strength. we pray in your great name. amen. the president pro tempore:

please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: today, president trump will put forward his budget requests for the next fiscal year. i look forward to reviewing the president's priorities. the bipartisan -- with a bipartisan funding agreement now in place, congress and the white house can work together to begin rebuilding our military, improve care for veterans, and tackle other urgent matters from disaster relief to the fight against drug addiction. i especially appreciate the president's focus on improving america's infrastructure. the quality of our country's infrastructure affects everything from our long-term economic future to working americans every day -- americans' everyday routines. as of 2016, nearly one in ten bridges in our nation is structurally deficient. the average commuter loses 42 hours per year to delays. and the average age of our

inland waterways, lox and dams is over 50 years oalt. we're intimately familiar with this in kentucky where we ship millions of tons of coal, agricultural products, and other cargo on more than 1,900 miles of inland waterways. the problem runs deeper than dollars and cents. american workers built skyscrapers in less time than our government now spends reviewing, not even building, but reviewing plans for new bridges and stretches of highway. so i'm particularly happy that the president is proposing to eliminate regulatory barriers and streamline lengthy and overcomplicated permitting processes. historically, infrastructure has been an area of bipartisan cooperation. our last three highway bills passed with large bipartisan majorities, averaging more than 80 yes votes. so did our last three wrda bills

and our last three f.a.a. bills. i hope we can build on this record and make more bipartisan progress on this subject. now, on another matter, as i have repeatedly stated, now that there is an agreement on long-term government funding, the senate will proceed to a fair debate over the daca issue, border security, and other matters pertaining to the subject of immigration. this process begins in just a few hours. we will vote to proceed to an unrelated, neutral house-passed bill that will serve as a vehicle for any legislation that succeeds here in the senate. as i have repeated many times, i will ensure that a fair amendment process gives senators the opportunity to submit proposals for consideration and votes. i hope this body can seize this opportunity and deliver real progress toward securing our border, reforming aspects of immigration policy, and achieving a resolution for

individuals who are brought to our country illegal when they were young. the american people have heard no shortage of rhetoric on this issue. they have heard many of my colleagues across the aisle insist this issue requires swift action. now is the time to back up the talk with the hard work of finding a workable solution. that means finding an agreement that can pass the senate, pass the house, and which the president will sign. not just making a point. a number of my colleagues, senator grassley, cornyn, tillis, perdue, lankford, cotton, and ernst will introduce a balanced proposal that tries to meet these requirements. i support the president's proposal and my colleagues' legislation to implement it. the secure and succeed act is fair, addresses both sides' most pressing concerns, conforming to the conditions the president has put forward. it offers a compassionate

resolution for 1.8 million illegal immigrants who were brought to the united states as children. in exchange, this solution delivers funding for president trump's promise to fully secure the border, reforms our approach to extended family chain migration, and reallocates our arbitrary visa lottery into a more sensible merit-based system. this legislation is a fair compromise that addresses the stated priorities of all sides. it's our best chance to producing a solution that can actually resolve these matters. which requires that a bill pass the senate, pass the house, and earn the president's signature. it has my support. the time for political posturing is behind us. now we have an opportunity to resolve the issues. i hope we make the most of it.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. and under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to h.r. 2579, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 302, h.r. 2579, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, and so forth. mr. mcconnell: i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: good p afternoon. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: before i begin, i'd like to thank the majority leader for the invitation to louisville this morning. it was at great pleasure to speak to hundreds of bright kentucky students interested in the future of this great country. seeing these kids gives you faith in the future of america despite what we witness in this city. and it was my distinct pleasure to give the majority leader a

bottle of brooklyn bourbon. it was not to suggest anything. our craft distilling industry and we have very good bourbon made no place other that brooklyn, new york. it's called, by the way, as long as it's made in america, it can be called bourbon. i'm not sure if it can be called kentucky bourbon, but it can be called bourbon. anyway. now on to the business of the stay day -- of the day. on the heels of passing a significant bipartisan budget deal, the senate returns this week to grapple with one of the most contentious of issues, immigration. leader mcconnell, to his credit, has promised debate on a neutral bill with amendment process fair to both sides. democrats and republicans are working hard to find a bill to protect the dreamers and brief

border security that will garner 60 votes. no easy task. i'm sure we'll have an opportunity to vote on a few ways to do it, but the key is to find a consensus bill largely acceptable to a significant number of members in both parties. the purpose here is not to make a point, as the republican leader just said, that's easy. the purpose is to get something done. that's hard, but it really is so important. it won't be easy, it's certainly achievable. democrats are fully committed to protecting dreamers and we have long supported effective border security. many republicans are in the same boat. the only enemy here is overreach. now is not the time to place -- now is not the time, nor the place, to reform the entire legal immigration system. rather, this is the moment for a narrow bill and every ounce of our energy is going into finding

one that can pass. just like on the budget, this an opportunity for the senate to lead the nation. let the same spirit of bipartisanship and compromise that generated the budget deal carry forward this week as we debate the fate of the dreamers. now on infrastructure. today the trump administration released its infrastructure plan. democrats released our own plan over a year ago and have waited just as long to see this plan because infrastructure is an issue where we thought we could find some common ground. unfortunately, despite a glaring need, the president's proposal would do very little to make our ailing infrastructure better. instead of proposing direct federal investments to help all parts of the country, the trump infrastructure plan relies on private parties or state and

localities to put up the lion's share of the money. in turn, those entities would either have to charge local taxpayers now tolls or raise taxes and other fees to pay for the new infrastructure. so a word that describes so much of the president's bill, probably about 80% of it, is trump tolls. the trump infrastructure plan is like a hollywood facade. it may look real from afar, but in true it's a flat mirage. it has the skin of an infrastructure plan but lacks the guts. it would leave out large parts of america, particularly rural america where local governments don't have the money to attract private investment. small town cities throughout the heartland have waited too long for upgrades to their schools,

roads, and water systems as well as access to high-speed internet. just as franklin roosevelt said, every rural home should have electricity in the 1930's, democrats believe every rural home should have access to high-speed internet in the 21st century. roosevelt called for the r.e.a. in the 1930's, and soon enough, it took a while, every rural home had electricity. we democrats are calling for the 21st century vision of roosevelt's vision. every rural home should have access to high-speed internet and that should be one of our goals. very little could be done more to revitalize the rural area. we democrats insisted on a certain amount of money be allocated for that, not enough to get it done, but a start.

now the administration's infrastructure would also result in trump tolls across america. wealthy investors, large banks will only invest in projects that generate a profit. how do they get the profit? they charge middle-class americans hundreds of dollars a year in tolls. in fact, it's written into page 20 in the plan. page 20 of the trump infrastructure proposal has a section entitled, providing states tolling flexibility. so, mr. president, the middle class need not ask for whom this bill tolls, it tolls for thee. the middle class is already struggling with ever rising costs of health care and child care, college tuition, prescription drugs. they don't neat higher local

taxes -- they don't need higher local taxes and trump tolls on top of all of that. this is the kind of plan you would expect from a president who surrounds himself with bankers and financiers and wealthy people. it's a plan designed to reward rich developers, large banks and the president's political allies, not to rebuild the country. it would put unsustainable burdens on local governments which are hurting right now and it would lead to trump tolls all over the country, particularly in middle-sized cities, small cities, and rural america. no investor is going to invest in a bridge in springfield or hannibel, missouri, to pick a couple of places, because they don't have the revenue to repay it. so those places will be stuck

just as so much of america. and at the same time the trump proposal undermines protection like buy america. we believe if we're going to put some real investment into this, the stuff, the steel, the pipes, the concrete, and everything else ought to be made in america and employ people, americans. they left that out of the bill, unfortunately. democrats want to work in a bipartisan way to improve our infrastructure, which is why we put forward a real plan that would expand access to high-speed internet across the country, rebuild our roads and bridges, modernize our electric grid while creating millions and millions of good-paying, middle-class construction jobs. unfortunately, the president's plan falls short on all of these fronts. i'd remind my republican colleagues, the federal government has invested in infrastructure and road building for a very long time.

henry clay, from the great state of kentucky, called for internal improvements. i believe it was in the -- in the mid-1800's because he wanted and knew the economic benefits of connecting places that were called the far west in those days, kentucky, tennessee, ohio with all the people who lived on the eastern seaboard. dwight d. eisenhower -- and henry clay was not a republican, he was a wig. dwight d. eisenhower, republican president in the 1950's started that interstate highway program that benefited so much of america for so many decades. and ronald reagan never cut back on infrastructure, even though he cut back on lots of or -- lots of other programs. it's brand-new that president trump is the first president in a long, long line of democrats and republicans who doesn't really believe that the federal

government should be at the forefront of building our infrastructure whether it's highways, roads, bridges, water sewer, power grid, high-speed internet. i hope -- i hope that democrats and republicans can do what we did on the budget, sort of ignore president trump because he's way off base on this, and come together ourselves because people on both sides of the aisle have always believed in investing in infrastructure. now, a final word on the president's budget request for next year. we already now have dealt with this year's budget request, but he put in a budget request for next year that was just sent to congress. we passed a two-year budget on friday. so the trump administration should have no illusions about its budget becoming law. it won't become law. presidential budgets are still important as a statement of the

administration's priorities. now, unfortunately, the president's priorities are so far away from what the american people want in terms of how he portrays his budget. the president's budget request just six weeks after slashing taxes on the wealthiest, biggest corporations, after creating a massive deficit, who does the president ask to pay for this? middle class and older americans. he slashes education, environmental protection and medicare and medicaid. while corporations reap billions in tax giveaways, older americans now have to worry about the trump administration cutting medicare and medicaid. it's in his budget. many others, including children and working families, would be hurt by the budget as well. if americans want a picture of who president trump works for, the combination of the tax bill

and this budget that he approached today make it crystal clear. he's for the rich, the powerful at the expense of the middle class. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, this week in washington, we're going to do something that hasn't been seen for a long time. for over a year. if you're not careful, you may tune in and see an actual debate on the floor of the senate, real senators, democrat, republicans coming to the floor actually debating an issue. i'm not sure what's going to

happen because it's been so long since we've tried this, but it really is exciting to think about that men and women elected to this body known as the greatest deliberative body in america are finally going to deliberate. it's true. and it's by design, not by accident. after a lot of negotiation back and forth, senator mcconnell, the republican leader, agreed that this week we would debate immigration and daca, the dream act. it would come to the floor of the united states senate. i'm excited about it, although i have no idea how this debate will end. most good debates you don't know. it depends on the strength of an argument as to whether a measure is going to pass or not pass. but it's certainly an issue i've been waiting for. in fact, i've been waiting five years for it. it's a long time, even by senate standards. it's been five years since we actually debated immigration on the floor of the united states

senate. it's not because the immigration laws of america are so perfect. far from that. it's because it's a tough issue. it's a delicate issue. it always has been in america. i just have this notion that as soon as the mayflower landed and the passengers governor off that boat, they -- got off that boat, they looked over their shoulder and said i hope no more people are coming. we're perfectly happy with this country, the way we see it. because throughout history, waves of immigrants have come to make america what it is today and there's always been resi assistance from -- resistance from those already here from new people from new places with different languages, cultures, religion and food. we've done things in the past which are not exactly things to brag about. it was 1924 when we passed an immigration bill. there was a fear after world war i that because europe was in

shambles, all of these people would come flooding into america. and so the congress right here in this chamber and in the house of representatives passed the immigration act of 1924. it was horrible. it was horrible. it expressly exclude groups that we didn't want to be part of america's future, groups like people of the jewish religion, italians, people from eastern europe, the japanese, and many others. that immigration act said we don't want any more of those people. and for 41 years that was the law of the land. there were slight modifications, but that was the basic standard for immigration in america. not until 1965 did we look at immigration again with a different view to a broader acceptance of the world as part of our future. and since then, we've continued to have problems withimmigration

and questions about change of policy -- with immigration and questions about change of policy. i will flat out say from ten or 15 different perspectives, the current system in america is broken, broken. when we have 11 million undocumented people in this country today, it is a broken system. eight of us got together five years ago, four republican senators and four democratic senators, and we spent months debating a new immigration system for america. i might say modestly i think we did a pretty good job of it. we presented it in the senate judiciary committee and faced over a hundred different amendments. people wanted to change it. at the end of the day we had a bill that we brought to the senate floor and it passed with a substantial overwhelming bipartisan vote. comprehensive immigration reform. we tackled every aspect of it from ag laborers to hs-b's to the dream -- h1-b's to the dream

act to undocumented, right on through. we passed it here in the senate. but, of course, with our bicameral system of government, we needed the house to tackle the same problem and they reviewed. they wouldn't even consider the bill we passed. they wouldn't come up with an alternative. they wouldn't try to amend it. they just said we're not going to talk about it and they didn't. so for five years we've done nothing, and this year we have a chance to do something. in fact, we need to do something. on september 5 of last year, president trump announced he was eliminating what was known as the daca program. now, the daca program was created by executive order under president obama to give to those who were characterized as dreamers a chance to be legal in america on a two-year renewable basis. 780,000 young people had signed up for president obama's daca

program. all across the united states. these were young people brought to the united states by their parents at a very early age and they were going to be given a chance to stay here two years at a time and not be deported and be able to legally work. well, who are these young people? 91% of them are currently in school or working. we know as well 20,000 of them have graduated from college and are teaching in our schools, grade schools and high schools. we know that 900 of them, even though they are undocumented, volunteered to serve in the united states military and are currently in uniform willing to risk their lives for this country that hasn't accepted them as citizens. the list goes on. they are premed students,

they're in first responder status. they're doing pretty extraordinary things. but president trump announced last september 5 that the program that allowed them to stay in the united states was coming to an end. when? in three weeks, march 5 this year. what happens if congress fails to do anything before march 5? if we fail to do anything to resolve this crisis created by president trump, we will see 1,000 of these young people every single day falling out of protected status and they'll be in a position where they can be deported from this country. for many cfntry. for many of them who were brought here as infants and toddlers, they would be sent back to some country they don't even remember to face a language they don't speak. that would be a terrible outcome. and that's why we need to take up this debate and pass on a bipartisan basis a measure to correct the situation, the

challenge created by president trump's actions. and we need to do it now because if the house of representatives is to take action before march 5, we have little time left. both the house and the senate will be gone for one week in the month of february so there's very little time left before the march 5 deadline. and i hope that we can tackle it and get it done. well, the question that needs to be asked is, what will be debated this week. i think a lot of things may be debated. it's an actual open debate on the floor, to some extent. and it could conceivably not only deal with daca and the dream act, it might even get into other immigration issues. there was a recent poll that was taken by quinnipiac on some of the issues that might come before us this week in the united states senate. the american people have been listening to this conversation, and they've come to some pretty interesting conclusions. this is a new quinn if i yak --

quinnipiac poll that was just released today. by a margin of 81% to 14%, americans want dreamers to gain citizenship. support is overwhelmingly pro-dreamer when respondents were asked if they support, quote, allowing undocumented immigrants who were brought to the united states as children to remain in the country and eventually apply for citizenship. 81-14. support for the dreamers is overwhelmingly across party lines. 94% of democrats support it. 82% of those who are independents. 68% of republicans support citizenship for these dreamers. i've read other polls that say even 61% of trum voters -- of donald trump voters support it. republican voters support citizenship 68-24. white men 75-20. and voters over 65, 80-14.

it's hard to find any issue in our politically divided country that brings so many people together, but this one does overwhelmingly, both political parties and independents. the other side, the president, is proposing a border wall. we remember that during the campaign for sure. a big, beautiful wall from sea to shining sea and the mexicans are going to pay for it. how many times did we hear that speech? many times. well, where are the american people on this border wall? interesting what the quinnipiac poll tells us. by approximately a 2-1 margin, the american public opposes a border wall. and when you attach the price tag to it, how much will it co cost? $25 billion, the numbers change. when asked if they support a border wall with mexico, the

poll opposes it. to the $25 billion price tag that president trump has requested to build the wall, it generates even stronger opposition, 65-33. 2-1 oppose to the border wall. and then they say -- some of them say on the other side -- we should slash legal immigration into the united states. let's put some numbers behind this question. we are a nation of approximately 350 million people. each year 1.1 million legal immigrants come into the united states. about 70% of them are members of families of those already here. some of them have waited for their chance to join up with their families 20 years. so 75% of the legal immigration is family unification. as i mentioned some have waited for a long, long time. many on the other side want to

limit legal immigration into the united states, want to limit this family unification effort and those who come in with promises of jobs. so the question was asked in the poll as to whether or not we should cut legal immigration levels. and the quinnipiac poll, 78% of americans are opposed to cutting legal immigration. a majority of americans 54% support keeping legal immigration at the same or current level. more americans, 24%, supporting increasing it rather than decreasing it 17%. even 71% of republican voters want legal immigration levels to stay either the same, 53%, or increase, 18%. additional poll questions found support for maintaining the current policy regarding family reunification, 49-43. and the diversity visa lottery,

48-39. then we asked some hot button issues on immigration. and throughout our history, these are the issues usually raised about immigrants. immigrants, they say, take american jobs. immigrants, they say, commit too many crimes. if you listen to the president's state of the union address a week or two ago he talked about ms-13, this reprehensible gang engaged in criminal activities overseas and in the united states. i don't know of either political party that endorses that. the president used some graphic examples of their horrible conduct. when the public was asked did these two positions -- are these immigrants taking away american jobs? are they committing more crime? interesting result. the american public overwhelmingly rejects the idea that undocumented immigrants take jobs from americans and are prone to commit crime. americans do not believe undocumented immigrants take

jobs away from americans. 63% to 33% reject it. it's because our eyes can see. come to central illinois near my hometown of springfield. go to the local meat processing plant or chicken processing plant and watch who comes out of that plant at quitting time. hispanics and africans, taking what are pretty tough, dirty, rough jobs because others don't want them. and take a look next time you go into a nice restaurant in chicago, a city i'm honored to represent. look who justified cleaned the dishes off the table. and when the door swings take a look at who's in the kitchen doing the dishes. by and large it's going to be immigrants who are doing those things. not many of us say to our sons and daughters, i'm hoping they will come -- when you decide to go and pick fruit for a living. hardly ever hear that because we know it's hard, backbreaking

work and immigrants do the work. so many jobs that they fill are jobs that americans aren't jumping to fill. how about issue of crime? the majority of americans do not believe that undocumented immigrants commit more crimes than american citizens. 72% to 17% rejected this idea and that just reflects the idea. the incidents of crimes committed by those who are immigrants is lower than those who are native born. it's a fact. it's a fact that some like to ignore. when it comes down to the fundamentals of the debate which faces us in the senate, the american people by overwhelming majority numbers picked their side of this. the question is whether democrats and republicans here can find a middle ground to agree on. it remains to be seen. i have been engaged in this debate now for 17 years. that's a long time even by senate standards. but it was 17 years ago when i introduced the dream act. 17 years ago when i said if you were brought here as a kid, a

baby, an infant, a toddler, even a young teenager and you have no voice on where your family was headed, it shouldn't be used against you. tpufd -- if you have had a good life, not a criminal, you deserve a chance to earn your way into legal status, into citizenship. i come to this with some prejudice. my mother was an immigrant to this country. she was brought here at the age of two. she was the first dreamer in my family, and she was brought here from lithuania, where she was born. her mother brought her to this country, didn't speak english. but brought her three kids here in the hopes that they could find an opportunity they couldn't find back in lithuania. for them the land of opportunity was a city called east st. louis, il, which -- illinois whs where i was born and grew up. it offered immigrants a lot of

tough jobs, but opportunities, maybe create a better life for their kids. when it came to this kid, my mom and her family gave me a chance to serve in the united states senate. that's my story. that's my family's story. but that's america's story. time and again that's america's story. my grandfather didn't come here with any extraordinary skills. he came here with a strong back and a determination to work and feed his family. and he did it. my grandmother, the same. that's the story of this country. now we're going to debate this week in the united states senate whether it will continue to be the story of this country. some will grew we've had enough of these immigrants. we don't need any more of them. and others, i hope, will realize that we have an opportunity here. an opportunity to not only allow people to come to this country, be part of this country's future, to create the kind of diversity which makes us unique in the world, the diversity of immigration. i think we can come up with a

reasonable answer to this. there will be differences of opinion, strongly held beliefs on one side or the other. the question is whether this body, the united states senate, with 49 democrats and 51 republicans, just about as close as you can get, can reach a common bipartisan agreement. wouldn't it be a headline across america if this senate actually had a debate and this senate actually agreed on something, a bipartisan agreement -- i see some heads nodding. i won't say where. somewhere in this chamber. but people who are following this debate. i think we can do it. i really believe we can. it will be a real test. but that's what we're sent to do, isn't it? not to debate and issue press releases and wave our fists at one another, but actually tackle a problem. the president has created a challenge, that challenge that involves hundreds of thousands of lives. and now it's our turn to meet that challenge as a senate and

to show that we're up to the job. madam president, i yield the floor.

mr. cornyn: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: madam president, i want to begin my remarks today by discussing a piece of bipartisan legislation that i've sponsored with our colleague, the senior senator from california, senator feinstein. this bill is not something you're going to see reported on in the evening news, in all likelihood. and it is rather obscure in its origins, but it is extraordinarily important, and i'll explain that in just a moment. it's called the foreign investment risk review pho --

modernization act and it concerns another acronym, the committee on foreign investment in the united states known as cfius. it's a committee on foreign investment in the united states. cfius is a multiagency panel headed by the treasury department, secretary mnuchin chairs that panel. and its job is to vet foreign investments to determine if they pose a threat to our national security. i'm an ardent supporter of free trade, and i strongly support more foreign direct investment in the united states. but unfortunately, some of our adversaries, most notably china, has altered the strategic landscape and is not playing by the same set of rules. china has weaponized investment in an attempt to vacuum up our advanced technologies and simultaneously undermine our defense industrial base. as it acquires u.s. firms and technology and intellectual property as well as the know-how

to put it to use, the risk is that the chinese government, which has its tentacles not just in state-owned chinese companies, but also in so-called private chinese firms, that it will get its hands on these capabilities and use them against us. this is already -- this has already been shown to happen in a number of documented cases. standing by and allowing our national security to be compromised through these continued transfers of dual-use technology and know-how to china would be highly irresponsible if we just stood by and watched this continue to happen. that's why cfius, the committee on foreign investment in the u.s., that process needs to be updated and modernized. as its core, the bill i've introduced would expand the scope of reviewable transactions to more effectively address national security concerns. cfius has not been updated in more than 40 years, and since

that time global threats like the one posed by china have grown in complexity and scope. china has studied our laws and has found ways to game the export control system and to evade cfius review. this bill has strong support not just from the white house, but also from secretary mnuchin, secretary of commerce ross, and the attorney general of the united states, jeff sessions. it's also been endorsed by secretary of defense mattis as well as three of his predecessors and two former directors of national intelligence, and many others. in industry, major u.s. companies are starting to recognize the risks here as well, and several have stepped up and endorsed this bill. however, there's a very small group of other u.s. firms that are activity opposing cfius

modernization having decided their bottom line is more important than our nation's security. unfortunately, they're starting to release some of their false claims about this legislation into the press, but they really don't hold water on further examination. and their own track records, when it comes to handling sophisticated dual use technology to china undercut the credibility of their arguments. i would call this a patriotism deficit on their part. in order to perpetuate the status quo and prevent statutory updates that are both urgent and necessary, this handful of firms and their proxies like to point to exaggerated doomsday scenarios. these are typified by the words of one detractor who recently stated the new legislation would, quote, paralyze business. i'm sorry. he said it would literally paralyze business. i would urge all of our

colleagues to study this legislation more and to resist these kind of scare tactics and mischaracterizations. i would urge them to consider the paralysis we'd incur by not passing cfius reform. we could see the erosion of our defense industrial base, and that means jobs here in the united states going overseas because they're capable of building this cutting-edge, dual-use technology in their home country and not having it built here in the united states. despite critics' scare tactics, the bill would not sweep up harmless business transactions with no ties to national security. that's not the point. but i do want to make that abundantly clear. under the bill, there are reasonable safeguards to prevent this from happening. for example, cfius would be authorized to create a safe list of certain allied countries for

which certain transactions are exempt from review. under the bill, cfius would also be granted authority to exclude ordinary, routine transactions where other laws already address national security risks. the treasury department as the lead agency for cfius has stated an intent to use this authority to narrowly tailor the implementing regulations. the second thing to note is that existing alternative like multilateral export controls are not an adequate substitute to what we're proposing in this bill. it's true that export controls work well in many cases but they have inherent limitations and are not enough by themselves. we simply need a second line of defense, and that is a modernized cfius process. the cfius process and the export control system are designed to be interbe active and complimentary. in other words, this bill does not duplicate the export control

system, and in fact for pure technology transfers, the export control system would remain as the sole review mechanism. cfius wouldn't be involved in that at all. finally, there's a concern that our bill could flood cfius with too much work and they'd be overwhelmed and would lack the resources and expertise to do the job. our bill would help provide those additional resources and allow cfius to charge a modest fee to help promote its self-sustainability and submit a unified annual budget request covering all of its member agencies. furthermore, the bill's own provisions guard against an unfunded mandate, with any expansion only taking effect after cfius determines on its own that the necessary personnel and other resources have been provided. finally, our bill exempts certain transactions that are done through ordinary customer relationships, ensuring that harmless, day-to-day activities don't have to be reviewed.

in closing, i'll say this, it's certainly appropriate to consider the potential impacts of this bill on foreign investment. but those effects shouldn't be considered in a vacuum. we must also ask what the impacts are on our long-term national security. and what they will be if we do not take action. for example, in ten to 15 years will our troops have the best equipment in the field. our military superiority is not a birthright. i'd urge my colleagues to advance this bill and to study it and to help work with us to improve it. the bill -- the time so modernize cfius is now and we must not allow ourselves to be the frog in the boiling pot of water so to speak. we can't be blind to the growing risks. madam president, on another

matter, today we are about to begin to deliver an important promise to the american people, debating an immigration solution for the young adults brought to the u.s. by their parents who now find themselves in limbo. several weeks ago our democratic colleagues shut down the federal government to placate the extreme elements in their own party. the majority leader disagreed with this approach and he and the rest of my republican colleagues urged them to abandon the shutdown employ before it was -- ploy before it was too late. but they refused to listen. the majority leader then promised what had been the plan all along, and that would be the continued bipartisan discussions that would be followed by open debate on the floor. shortly, this evening, we'll take up a vote on a vehicle to which members can offer their ideas on how best to solve this

problem. it will be a process that's fair to all sides. once we vote to adopt a motion to proceed, my colleagues and i will have the opportunity to have our proposals considered under regular order. in other words offer amendments, debate amendments and vote on the amendments. amendments, as usual, will have a 60-vote threshold before they can be adopted. 60 votes, that's what we need. what i'm interested in is solving the problem, and that means not only a proposal that can get 60 votes, but one that can pass the house and be signed into law by president trump. that is critical. this should not be an exercise in futility or for political grandstanding purposes. this should be about getting a bill sphiend into -- sphiend into law -- signed into law. today, led by senator grassley,

a group of senators from this side of the aisle, will put forth a comprehensive proposal, including the presiding officer, that centers around the four pillars the president said he would like to see addressed. i think most people have been surprised, maybe shocked is a better word, for the eligibility for the daca eligible recipients. there are 690,000 signed up, but the president's office would not only offer a legal status, it would offer 1.8 million young people a pathway to citizenship, far more than president obama ever offered and it allows us to keep our commitments when it comes to border security, utilizing more boots on the ground and better security. it reallocates visas from the lottery system in a way that is

fair and continues the family based categories until the current backlog is cleared and changes to more of a merit-based system. i'm proud to cosponsor this commonsense solution which i think can pass the senate and the house and be signed into law by president trump. i know too that others have been working hard on their ideas and i look forward to reviewing their work product. i urge my democratic colleagues this week to remember their predecessors when it comes to immigration, which include my fellow texan, barbara jordan. one of the great civil rights leaderrers of our -- leaders of our time, she was one of the first women to be elected to the house of representatives. while serving in that role she once said, for our immigration policy to make sense, it is necessary to make distinctions

between those who obey the law and those who violate it. i think that's a great principle to keep in mind as we begin to sort out this week's challenges. although we all recognize the anxiety of daca recipients who came to this country through no fault of their own and now face uncertain futures, at the same time we must recognize that many americans face certain plights too. they are dreamers too, as the president has said, and we need to restore our legacy as a nation that believes in and applies the rule of law. indeed, equal justice under the law. but here's the bottom line. i'm not interested in a futile exercise or gamesmanship or political theater or ideas that can't become law. as the president said two weeks ago, the ultimate proposal must be one where nobody gets everything they want but our country gets the critical reforms that it needs.

more than 124,000 young people in my state hope we can rise to the occasion, and, indeed, all 28 million of them hope that we can work together in a bipartisan fashion, not only to provide relief to the daca recipients, but also to restore our border security and to craft immigration laws that serve america's best interests. again, the two pillars upon which our immigration system has been built is that we are a nation of immigrants. all of us at some point in our family came from somewhere else, almost all of us. but we are also a nation of laws which distinguishes us from most of the rest of the world and it has been those two great pillars, the nation of immigrants and nation of laws that need to be restored and which need to be our focus. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa.

mr. grassley: thank you very much. i want to -- before the senator from texas leaves the floor, i think he needs to be complimented because one of the four things of the bill that i'm talking about our introducing, and he's going to be one of the cosponsors of it, is border security. he has worked years on border security. he needs to be complimented about it. he's chairman of the immigration subcommittee of our committee on judiciary, and i think also that senator johnson of homeland security has some aspects of border security as well. so i think you and senator johnson ought to be complimented for being in the lead of 100 senators to make sure that we don't make the same mistakes that we did in 1986 when we gave

amnesty because we thought we had border security, and quite obviously, the numbers show that we didn't do a good job of border security in 1986. and the senator from texas and the senator from wisconsin are are going to make sure that we don't make that mistake again. so thank you very much. i rise today to announce the formal introduction to amendment h.r. 2579, which is the vehicle for immigration. this amendment is cosponosered by senators -- cosponsored by cornyn, lankford, perdue, cotton and ernst. it is the product of several months of hard work between these senators, including the white house. since this past september, i've

held more than two dozen meetings with interested senators in an attempt to craft a fair and permanent solution to daca. i've also met with the president on four separate occasions to figure out exactly what he needs to see in a legislative package so that it can be signed into law. because what is the point of our working hard if we're not going to get something that's going to be finalized by a signature by the president of the united states. i just said i met with the president on four separate occasions. i should have said that this group of introducers of this legislation met with the president on those four occasions. most importantly, i've been continuously listening to what

my colleagues have said they need in any immigration consensus. as a result of our meetings and conversations with our colleagues, the senators sponsoring this amendment have attempted to develop a simple, commonsense framework that can address everyone's concerns while also providing necessary and critical changes to our nation's immigration laws. so what does our amendment do? working off the bipartisan, bicameral framework agreed to january 9 at the white house, our amendment has four key pillars. now, i said bipartisan, bicameral. that's approximately 2,300 members of congress that met with the president for an hour and a half to boil down all the

issues that can be brought up, and we ended up with these four key pillars. first, and most importantly, our amendment fully funds the president's border security request. other plans that we heard about claim that they fund the president's border security request by -- i want to put this word in quotes, authorizing money, but anyone who knows washington knows that just an authorization turns out to be a gimmick sometimes, it turns out to be a promise sometimes, or an i.o.u. to maybe funding is at some later date. and every member of the united states senate knows that in this town washington, d.c., promises are quite cheap. we want -- we went down the road in 2006 when congress authorized

money for border fencing, much of which congress never actually funded. our amendment rejects that approach. instead we actually appropriate $25 billion into a border security trust fund. this trust fund will allow homeland security to use between $2.5 billion to $3 billion a year for infrastructure, for technology, and for personnel recruitment and retention. by setting up a border security trust fund, we ensure that the department of homeland security will actually have the money it needs every single year to secure our borders, while also retaining congress's ability to exercise oversight. but unlike other plans, we also

recognize that real border security is more than just throwing money at the border. this group of senators realize that real border security means that we have to close the legal loopholes and the current law that allow dangerous criminals to enter and remain at large within our country. so our amendment ends these dangerous loopholes and makes it easier for our law enforcement to apprehend, detain, and speedily remove sex offenders, drug smugglers, human traffickers, international terrorists, criminal gang members, repeat border crossers, drunk drivers, and other dangerous people. second, our amendment provides a generous and permanent solution

for daca and daca eligible recipients. our plan contains an earned path to glipship for -- citizenship for young people. provided these young people serve in the military or go to college or maintain full-time employment, they can eventually gain citizenship. this represents a major concession for many republicans, including this senator, but this concession is necessary to provide a permanent and fair solution to this issue. third pillar, our proposal reforms family based immigration to place greater emphasis on nuclear family. moving forward we limit family

based immigration to the nuclear family, meaning the spouses and minor children of citizens and lawful permanent residents. this change doesn't end family-based immigration. it simply recognizes that extended family immigration doesn't serve the american people or our country's economies' interest. it's important for all of my colleagues to recognize these family-based changes are prospective. this means that all four million immigrants who are waiting in line for a family-based petition will continue to have their petitions processed under the old rules. this group of senators understands that we can't penalize the millions of people who actually follow the law and by following the law, doing the right thing. in addition to rewarding those

who did the right thing by grandfathering all pending petitions in the pipeline, it will take years by some estima estimates more than a decade, for congress to debate and enact merit-based immigration reform. finally, our plan reallocates the 55,000 visas in the diversity visa lottery to clearly -- to clearing backlogs in the family-based and employment-based backlogs. by reallocating these visas, we not only promote faster family reunification but also speed up the immigration of skilled workers in the e.b.1, effort b.2 and effort b.3 cat -- e.b.3 categories. as you can see, this is an imminently fair plan that

closely mirrors the president's framework. this plan is a true compromise. supporting -- and supporting it will require concessions from all senators, conservatives, liberals, democrats, republicans, and everyone in between. this senator is ready and willing to make a major concession and once again vote no a path to citizenship. other senators need to be willing to do the same, to make sacrifices when it comes to border security and to chain migration. but at the end of the day, in spite of everything else, the simple fact remains that this amendment is the only plan that the president supports. this plan is the only senate plan that has any possibility of

passing the house of representatives and becoming law. so i have asked my colleagues who oppose this proposal, are you interested in actually getting something done, in actually providing a path to citizenship for these daca kids or are you interested in a political issue for the 2018 elections? if you're actually interested in getting something done, in getting a bill signed into law and fixing the d.c. issue, well, the choice is obvious. you'll vote to support this plan. but if my colleagues are more interested in grandstanding, in passing a bill that will never become law, and that won't actually protect daca kids, well, that choice is pretty clear as well.

to all my colleagues, i urge your support for this amendment. let's fix this issue. let's demonstrate that we can find solutions to the challenging problems that americans are calling on us to solve. this is a compassionate compromise and the people that have been advocating for this for years, longer than i have been, because i've been at it just a short period of time. let them accept a compassionate compromise. let them do what they've called for being done for a long period of time settling the daca issue once and for all. let's then show the world that we're serious about finding a long-term solution instead of kicking the problem to a future date. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas.

mr. cotton: i want to thank my colleague from iowa, chairman grassley, for the excellent work that he has helped lead us all on this issue. we have -- the president herself belongs to the small working group. we introduced legislation this week that transforms the president's four-pillar framework into an actual bill. and it's the one bill that can become a law. we have a plan not to pass a bill but to pass a law. because twice in the last 12 years, the senate has passed a bill that hasn't become a law because the house of representatives couldn't pass it and ultimately, therefore, the president couldn't sign it. so i urge my colleagues let's not simply signal our virtue to our counterparts in the house or to the president by passing a bill. let's solve this problem by passing a law.

and this bill is the one bill that can become a law because it is the one bill that translates the president's framework into actual legislation. it provides legal status and ultimately citizenship for people who were brought here through no fault of their own as minors before the age of accountability. it provides more money and legal authorities to secure our southern border and help our brave immigration agents. it eliminates the useless diversity visa lottery and reallocates those green cards to more productive and worthwhile purposes, and it puts an end to the practice of extended family chain migration allowing an immigrant to bring not just his or her spouse and minor children but parents, siblings, and out matily grandparents, aunt -- ultimately grandparent, aunts, uncles, on down the extended family tree. it doesn't solve any problem under the sun we have with immigration. it doesn't, for instance,

include mandatory nationwide e-verify which i would support. it doesn't resolve the many problems we have with numerous desk worker visas but it is consistent with the president's framework and it solves the problem in front of us, of young people who were brought here through no fault of their own but also the side effects of giving those people legal status. i know there are a lot of half measures floating around the senate right now saying we should give legal status to these 1.8 million people in return for a small pittance at the southern border. but it simply will not do. it's not responsible. because if we give those people legal status, we'll have two negative side effects. first, we'll create more incentives, perverse incentives to encourage illegal immigration with minor children to this country. that is dangerous. it is immoral. not to mention unwise from our national interest. second, if we give legal status

to these 1.8 million people, we'll create a whole new pool of legal permanent residents and ultimately citizens who could naturalize their extended family, to include their parents, the very people who created the problem to begin with undermining the rang natural for -- undermining the rational for the program to begin with. the rational is the children ought not pay for the sins of the parents but surely parents can pay for the sins of the parents. so if we do those things, provide legal status for the 1.8 million people who find themselves in this situation through no fault of their own but control those negative side effects by securing our southern border and ending the practice of extended family chain migration, we will have a bill that can become a law. at the same time, though, we'll also grandfather in every person who is currently in the backlog waiting to come to this country, who has applied to get a green

card because they have a parent or child or sibling in this country, some of whom have been waiting up to 20 years. so no one will be cut out of that waiting line. furthermore, we will continue to allow american citizens to get a renewable nonworker visa for their elderly parents who live overseas. so if you immigrated to this country and you still have parents back in the home country who need your care, who need to live in a home with you or maybe live down the street in a nursing home, this law will allow you to have a visa to bring them here. that's a generous, humane solution. but it is also one that handles the problem responsibly and starts to build the kind of immigration system that this country needs, a system that focuses on the skills that our economy needs, not one that is just based on family ties or country of origin. and for that reason it's immensely popular. a recent poll showed that 65% of

americans support this proposal. two out of every three americans support it. and they should since after all, every part of this proposal is popular. most of us have seen polls that suggest fewer than 20% of americans want to see these people have to return to their country that in many cases they don't remember. at the same time, 72% want to end the practice of extended family chien -- chain migration. and securing our southern border is equally popular. so oftentimes in congress, we have to make a tough choice between something that is popular and necessary or something that's unpopular. but in this legislation, we're simply asking our colleagues to do the right thing, take the responsible step which all happens to be popular with the american people as well, and it should be popular because it is both generous and humane on the one hand but responsible on the

other hand. it's the only approach that will begin to change our immigration system from one that treats people for where they come from and who they're related to to a system that treats them for who they are. nothing could be more american than that and i urge my colleagues to recognize that this is the one bill that can pass the house of representatives, earn the president's signature, and become a law. so i'll simply say again, as we go through this exercise, let's have a plan that is going to pass a law, not pass a bill. madam president, i yield the floor.

mrs. ernst: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mrs. ernst: thank you, mr. president. i would like to start by thanking my colleague, and especially my friend from iowa, our senior senator, chuck grassley, for his tremendous work on this project. and all of those that have participated in the discussions on the secure and succeed act. this legislation puts us on the best path forward to provide a permanent solution for our daca recipients all while strengthening our borders and entry security. our legislation addresses the unique challenges faced by the

daca population, many of whom were brought to america by their parents through no fault of their own when they were just children. in iowa and across our nation, daca recipients are an integral part of our community. they are our neighbors. they are our classmates. and they are our fellow churc churchgoers. this last summer when i was at the county fair, i was approached by a young lady and she came up to me and she said senator ernst, i would like to know where you stand on daca. so i explained my position to her and meanwhile, she's pulling out her billfold and out of the bill fold she pulled out a small card. she showed it to me and she said, i'm a daca r recipient.

i said thank you for taking the time to come up to me and share your story with me. she was there with her younger siblings at the county fair just enjoying the day. and she explained her situation to me. she had been brought into the country by her parents. they came illegally into the country from mexico. and then she pointed out her younger siblings. and she said, they were born here. they're citizens. but i am not. i am not. so she went on to explain to me, as we were standing there at the county fair, right by the iowa army national guard recruiting booth of which i was a member of the iowa army national guard, and she explained to me that a while back she had actually met with one of the recruiters and they had told her, we can't accept you. we can't accept you because

you're a daca recipient. she expressed to me how disappointed she was. she wanted to join our military. she wanted to serve this country, the only country that she had known to be her home, the country that she loved. her story and her determination and her desire to serve this country and defend our freedoms was absolutely clear to me. this bill would allow daca-eligible recipients to defend the only country that they have ever known, the country that they love. that said, i cannot overstate the importance of addressing the

legal, economic, and security concerns that are ever present in this debate. a huge priority of mine has been and remains to be border security. our homeland and our borders must be secure. period. tragically, human, drug, and sex trafficking are still viable markets in the most darkest corners around this world. and unfortunately, we have those corners of the world right here in our own nation. ensuring the integrity of our immigration system is essential in working to prevent these bad actors from infiltrating our very own borders. this legislation would direct

funds towards bolstering our border patrol and various degrees of security along the border, such as physical and virtual fencing, radar and other technologies. it also cuts immigration loopholes and ensures that dangerous criminals are denied entry. this legislation addresses the current debate in a humane and thoughtful manner, and i urge my colleagues in the senate to support this commonsense pathway forward. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina.

mr. tillis: thank you, mr. president. i want to personally thank you for the work you've done to come up with what i believe is the right framework for fulfilling the problem to solve, create a viable solution for the daca population and to deal with the other things that are critically important as we take this first major step in immigration reform after decades of failure. senator lankford, who will be speaking after me, and i last year decided that we really wanted to get a discussion around a legal path to citizenship for a significant population of the illegally present, or a significant portion of the population of the illegally present. the deferred action program that was implemented by president obama is what we used as a kind of a baseline for determining how we can actually define that population and set terms so that we could ultimately accept them into this country and they could ultimately get citizenship. the proposal that we've outlined

today, i should also thank senator grassley for his leadership -- chairman grassley. i served on the judiciary committee for three years, and in my first term in the senate, for three years in the immigration subcommittee. and under his leadership we've crafted a framework that's consistent with what the president has proposed. it's also consistent with what virtually everybody who has been around here any amount of time has voted for in one form or another. it's a four-pillar framework that first begins with a path to citizenship for some 1.8 million daca-eligible persons in the state today. they were young when they came to this country. some are adults now. but they came to this country through the decision of their parents. and i for one, and i believe many of my colleagues who support this bill, believe they should be given an opportunity to become u.s. citizens. they'll have an opportunity based on a 10-year, 12-year

timeline with after the bill is ratified a path to obtaining legal status. fairly straightforward with requirements to come into the program. some 1.8 million will qualify once we ratify this bill and send it to the president's desk. but coupled with this, it's critically important to not make the mistakes of the past. first off, let's not just come out and assume we're going to pass a stand-alone dream act. the reason for that is it's failed every single time it's been attempted. it's failed under a republican administration, failed under a democratic administration. it even failed at a time when president obama was in the white house and there were super majorities of democrats in the senate and a majority in the house. so even when not a single republican vote would be necessary, they were unable to produce a solution. now this week we have an opportunity to debate one that i think works. number one, there's broad

consensus, even among people who have never supported a path to citizenship before, there's broad consensus that this is a workable, viable, compassionate framework. 1.8 million daca-eligible persons qualified for a path to citizenship. then we get into border security. senator ernst talked about border security. it's critically important to think about border security. it's not the wall. the president has said that he does not see in his vision a wall going from the pacific ocean to the gulf of mexico. there are certainly places where we need structures, but we also need so many other things layered on top of it so that we actually know who's coming to this country, what's coming to this country, and if they should try to cross the border illegally, we know where they are for no other reason than for humanitarian reasons because thousands of people have died crossing the border. over the last 20 years about 10,000 people, about 1,000 of them young children.

by putting into place a wall structure where it makes sense, better technology and resources at the border, we're going to know who's coming to this country, we're going to know what drugs are coming into this country. we're going to do a much better job of finding and protecting people who may be trafficked to this country for the purpose of sex trade, human trafficking. it comes to a commonsense ten-year implementation that was developed by homeland security and border patrol. this wasn't something that started in the white house. it's something that's taken a year or two to get into place, which is a rational, multiphased, multifaceted solution for border security. then what we've got to take a look at is the reality of our broken immigration system. we have millions of people waiting to come into this country, some of them as long as 20 years. this proposal, the proposal that we'll introduce this week and hopefully gain the support of the senate that we know the president supports and that we

believe the house will support draws down a cue that's been out there are for almost 20 years. 3.9 million people that are in the process right now have been petitioned for because of a family relationship with some other u.s. citizen. we're proposing, actually trying to figure out a way to accelerate that, to have them move through the naturalization process far sooner than they will if we fail to produce a solution this week. and then over time we can find other possible opportunities for immigration. but today why don't we at least look at how we fix the broken immigration system, make sure that those who are in the system know that we're not turning our back on them. and then over time we can get on to possibly, in my case, i think at some point we can actually even build a case for even more legal immigration than we have today. but now let's at least make sure we've got an immigration system that people can rely on and actually can become u.s. citizens. the real sticking point, and i

think what you're going to see this week is we're going to see more and more consensus on the three pillars that i just discussed. the daca population. border security. and the visa lottery being used in a way that rewards merit and also uses those green cards to bring more people into the country sooner rather than the two decades they have been waiting. the last thing that we have to look at is chain migration. family unification or reunification. we are out of step with most other countries in terms of how we allow immigration into this country. i, for one, think it's reasonable to continue to have a component to allow families to be reunified -- people that come over on work visas or people coming through whichever immigration process they may choose -- but at the end of the day, to have such a small number of our immigrant population, some 1 million every year to

come over without regard to merit is irresponsible. in fact, i think if we continue to do it, we do it at the expense of maybe future immigration, where we want more and more skilled people, people who can come to this country, contribute immediately, satisfy the needs of our society. and we can do that through a reasonable, rational discussion about what our immigration policy should look like over time. and i'll leave you with this, in a country like canada, 63% of their legal immigration has a skill requirement associated with it. in a country like australia, the same thing. but we have almost three-quarters of all of our immigration has no tie whatsoever to the needs of this nation, our economy, our educational institutions, our communities. all we're saying is let's take a look at this and maybe change the proportions so that we can actually have a program that's modernized, that's also focused

on the needs that we have for our great country. this week you're going to hear a lot of things. i told a group today at lunch to be ready for me to vote against something that you would expect me to vote for. i'm going to do that. i fully expect i'll have some of my republican colleagues and democratic colleagues offer an amendment that i don't have a problem with the underlying policy but i have a huge problem with producing a result here in the senate that has virtually no chance of going to the president's desk and becoming law. and then we'll ultimately get on the secure and the succeed act. it's a well-structured, four-pillared solution that's been very much instructed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that i know the president will support, and i believe that the president can convince our colleagues in the house to get it to his desk. again, i want to thank my colleague, senator lankford, and senator grassley, senator perdue, cotton, all those who have weighed in, senator cornyn, to try and craft a solution

that's responsive to the president's framework, responsive to some of the concerns that our friends on the other side of the aisle have. and now it's time for us to act. let's do something different. let's produce a result. let's not get up here and talk about it and say, well, i tried. let's produce a result, provide certainty to those people waiting for us to being the a, to those daca recipients, let's secure our border and modernize our broken immigration system. and if we do that, we've done a great thing. thank you, madam president. mr. hatch: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: is there someone else that was ahead of of me? no. madam president, today we begin our immigration debate in earnest. senator mcconnell has kept his promise to bring an immigration vehicle to the floor. this week we'll be taking a series of votes on daca, border security and other related subjects. i'd like to take just a few minutes to outline where we're

at on these issues and where i see this week's debate headed. i made very clear madam president, that i believe we need a legislative fix for daca. we cannot continue to keep people in our country and grant them work authorization by executive fiat. daca recipients deserve certainty. so too do other immigrants who enter our country legally and have done their best to follow the rules. we also need better border security and interior enforcement. 30 years ago we granted amnesty to nearly three million illegal immigrants, and the result over the next two decades was a surge in illegal immigration. we need to prevent that from happening again. i think it's fair and equitable to give daca recipients a pathway to lawful status because they came to our country through

no fault of their own. but i also believe we need to pair daca legislation with strict border security and interior enforcement measures so that we don't find ourselves right back here again in another 20 or 30 years, or even shorter. i also think legal immigration needs to be part of the discussion, in particular, high-skilled immigration. i have spoken several times here on the senate floor about how high-skilled immigration is merit-based immigration. it's immigration targeted at the best, the brightest, and the most highly educated. it's immigration targeted at individuals who have the skills employers need. madam president, i believe we can find a path forward in our current immigration controversy, and i'm committed to doing everything i can to bring both sides together. but i also want to be clear right here at the outset,

high-skilled for merit-based immigration needs to be part of the discussion, especially if we start talking about reforms to family-based immigration. getting to 60 votes is going to take a lot of negotiation. i know that as well as anyone. i have passed more bills into law than any other member of congress alive today. i know how this process works. and so i say to my colleagues, as you think about how to advance your priorities this week, keep in mind the priorities i have outlined recently. take a look at my bill and at the amendments i will be filing. these are indications of what i am hoping to accomplish. i believe we can get something across the finish line, i really do. i think we can have the bill we can all be proud of, but in order for that to happen, we have to be reasonable. we have to consider a broad

range of views. it can't just be my way or the highway. and we need a bill that can also pass the house and then be signed into law by the president. i'm ready to roll up my cleaves and get to work, and i'm ready to work with my colleagues to find areas of compromise and to accommodate competeing priorities. i have made my priorities clear. let's work together to get something done. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: madam president, i am looking forward to this debate, as senator hatch has indicated. it's going to be a robust debate, and it could produce the best of what the senate can produce, a bipartisan agreement which it will have to be in order to get to 60 votes.

and i'm glad to come here to the floor to support the dreamers because since months ago when the president said that he was eliminating protections for dreamers, and some of them have already lost that status, these young people -- of course they were brought here sometimes as infants. they have grown up here. they only know america as their country, and we owe it to them to enact permanent protections and a path to citizenship. it's long since past time for congress to act and to make sure that this becomes law. now, this week presents a real good opportunity to do that. after we have been waiting for almost two decades, this senator

is a sponsor of the dream act, and i have supported senator durbin in his efforts ever since i came into the senate, now this is the third term. and i have always been inspired by the corps of elijah dockets. let me tell you about elijah. i found out about him because i read a news clip that he was in jail. here was a fellow, grew up in america, only knowing that he was american because he was brought to america from the bahamas at age 6 months. he served two tours in iraq. he came back and joined the navy reserves. he had a top-secret clearance.

his reserve duty was in guantanamo with that top-secret clearance. and then because of an application for a passport, he was suddenly swept up and put in jail. now, fortunately, we found out about it, started raising a stink about it. it was brought to the attention in one of the court hearings by a federal judge, and the federal judge said to the assistant u.s. attorney what in the world are you doing putting a fellow like this in jail? and, of course, after that tongue lashing from a federal judge, we got involved with elijah. i'm happy to report to you that elijah is today a u.s. citizen.

elijah is a productive member of the jacksonville community. and he is educated and he is contributing to his community. and our country is so much better off having the dreamers. they are our people. they are among the best and the brightest. the senate has voted overwhelmingly to pass a bipartisan bill that includes victories and concessions for both sides. that was the comprehensive immigration reform in the past, but of course the house wouldn't take that up. that was about five or six years ago. so the only way to achieve a solution to the daca crisis is to keep it simple and on one

side a path to citizenship for dreamers and on the other side what is required by the white house, a path for funding for border security. i have been working with the next senator that's going to speak in what we call a bipartisan group that has been carefully trying to put together a balanced approach to find a solution that does that simple solution. neither side is going to get everything they want, but that's why it's called a negotiation. and so i urge our colleagues to come together to achieve a reasonable and bipartisan agreement as soon as possible,

and i hope in the senate by the end of this week, because the dreamers need to know that we appreciate them, and now we're going to turn that appreciation into law. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: madam president, we go back the past 20 years, it's hard to find an immigration debate that has really occurred that ended with making law. immigration issues has been contentious over the years, and necessarily so. they have been emotional over the years, and necessarily so. it's connected to families and people and real lives and real stories. i get that. now we're at a point again where we're debating on this floor all of this week about immigration. the dream act is something that was proposed 15 years ago.

three different times, it's come up before the house or the senate or both. all three times in 15 years, it's failed. just dealing alone with those dreamers. then a very, very large package was tried in 2013 that include not just the dreamers, their parents, every other person illegally present in the united states. wholesale reform of every part of the immigration system. that was tried in 2013. it also failed. now it's time to be able to find that middle ground. where can we find the basic issues here? in september, the president of the united states challenged the house and the senate to get a legislative solution for the recipients of daca and those that are daca eligible. at the time the president was decried as throwing people out of the country, but he was very clear at that point. he did not feel like president obama had the authority to be able to make a wholesale executive answer for those individuals on what they call deferred action for childhood

arrivals. but president trump said i want a legislative solution. i want certainty. i want these individuals to sign up every two -- don't want these individuals to sign up every two years and be at the whim of a future executive. let's get a permanent answer to all of this issue. but with that, we have to pick up the issues surrounding it at the same time. the president actually gave the nation a great gift at that time, a deadline. immigration for two decades has been well known to be a problem, but there has been no deadline. the president set the deadline of march 5. to have this resolved. we're nearing that now. it's time to move from just debating it in the hallways and in our offices to debating it on the floor of this chamber and trying to get this resolved. and here's what i propose, along with chairman grassley, john cornyn, david perdue, tom tillis, tom cotton, joanie ernst and myself. to be able to lie out a commonsense solution, to be able to say let's stick to four

items, four items that the white house has also identified, those things that are all connected together. excuse me. those four items beginning, obviously, with daca and those that are daca eligible. about 1.8 million individuals currently living in the country that grew up literally speaking english, pledging allegiance to our flag, go to our schools, engaging in our commerce, in every way, they have lived and functioned in americans, except they are not. they were brought into the country illegally. so now what do we do about that? president obama set a time period. he set a 2007 time period. you had to be in the country by 2007, be under a certain age, and then you're eligible. we actually advance that since it's been so long now and said from the time that president obama announced that which was june, 2012, if you were in the country at that time or before and you're under that time period and that certain age, you are eligible for it, apply, go through the process. we think that's not only entirely fair, that's also

entirely compassionate. but it also sets a warning out to those that are going to rush at our border and say the easiest way to illegally cross into the united states is to bring a child with you. we do not want that to occur. that is a dangerous crossing in many places, and many children have died, individuals have had horrible things happen to them on the way. we want to discourage that. so we set the june, 2012, date. that's when president obama first announced the program and said that is a reasonable time period. but with that, we said it would take ten years for those individuals to be able to cross into naturalization. that is in line with other individuals around the world that are currently getting in the line right now. it's no one jumping ahead of anyone else, but holding those individuals harmless that are already here and saying let's start you through the process, ten years from now, you will get naturalization. at the same time that we put them in line, we also put into a process of border security. the reason we have 11 million-plus individuals in

the country currently with no legal status is because our border security process has been so bad. there's no -- that's no great shock to anyone. what we are doing is taking those individuals that are in daca and say let's take ten years to be able to move to naturalization. during that ten-year time period, we also want to set up the basics of border security. that gives us time to get security first and naturalization second for those individuals, but both with great certainty. it's not just a wall, although there should be sections of wall. an area where it's highly populated on both sides of the border, we need a wall as a demarcation, but in most areas of the border, it's not highly populated on both sides. it's open desert or mountains. we need cameras, we need technology. we need interaction with our national guard who can bring resources to the battle as we're trying to interdict with drugs. we need an increased ability in our laws dealing with terrorism, drug smuggling, human smuggling. we need consistency of how we handle immigration. right now there is one policy if

you come from cuba, another policy if you come from honduras, another policy if you come from mexico. why don't we be consistent with our immigration policy? and to say it's not specialized from one or the other. we need additional customs and border patrol. we need additional i.c.e. agents. my colleagues immediately retire from that and say that's interior and enforcement. well, that's not. if you have customs agents, they go to the border, they are immediately detained as they go through the process. but you can't just detain people. you also have to have judges and attorneys. you have to have advocates for those individuals. so we need to increase the number of judges and attorneys and advocates to be able to help. we node to increase the number of translators to make sure those individuals that are coming, we get good response to them and understand what is going on. right now, there are 600,000 people in a backlog waiting for their day in court for due process. 600,000. that is absurd.

one of the reasons that we have such an open, porous border is that individuals know if they get across the border, they will only be detained a couple of weeks and then they will be released into the united states with what's called a notice to appear. some people appear at their court date, sometimes two, three, four years later. some people do not. but they have been released into the united states in the meantime. we need to accelerate that process. we have individuals that are coming across the border and they claim asylum, but they don't get an asylum hearing for a couple of years. we should have that as a rapid process. they should get due process and they should have the ability to be able to make that claim. but as we have said over and over again, justice delayed is justice denied. we have some interesting things that we put out in this. dealing with some cost to the taxpayers. we have put a cap on the amount that we can spend per person, per day, in housing individuals, and we set the cap at $500 per

day. per person. to actually do detaining. we think it's a reasonable amount, and it's honestly one of the things that i think should be universally accepted, both by the pears and by this body. -- by the taxpayers and by this body. we put in additional penalties for those that are doing human smuggling and human trafficking and trafficking drugs across our border. many people in this body and across the united states may be surprised to know that individuals in cuba picked up for armed robbery in the united states, though they committed a violent offense, typically they would have to suffer the consequences of being in prison here and then deported back to their country but cuba does not accept them. though they commit a violent offense, they do their time period here and they are

released back into the united states. why would we do that? we established processes to resolve this. now, that's basic with border security and also dealing with naturalization for daca, but we've had individuals that said where is the diversity lottery and the issue of family unification come into this? let me tell you how it connection and they actually do connect. right now we have four million people waiting through the process legally to come to the united states. that is a 20-year backlog -- 20 years. that's irrational. what weed like to be able to do is fix the process. before we add another two million people into this and take a 20-year process and maybe a 25 or 30-year process once we get back to the backlog time period, let's fix what is obvious. this is not a new issue.

in 1995, democratic house member barbara jordan led a study about what to do on immigration and made a proposal on what to do on what they called at that time in 1995 in this democratic-led group called chain migration, saying that adult siblings and adult children should come in under their own merit and not under their families and we should target skills for individuals coming in, not just my brother-in-law so he gets a chance to come as well. this would allow us to empty out the backlog, the 20-year backlog to be able to come into the united states in a faster pace. we have people from all over the world that come into the united states and we continue to welcome people from all over the world. i'm fascinated the olympics, as people march in from their

country, everyone looks the same under their flag until you get to the united states. and when the united states marchs in you can't pick out which one looks american. we are american. but in many countries around the world, they all look the same because you're not welcomed if you don't look like them. not so with us. we welcome people freely from around the world. but we also want to be able to come and bring a set of skills. we believe that we can use those same numbers to be able to encourage people from around the world to be able to bring that his skills into the united states, to repurpose the diversity lottery and say, yes, come from everywhere around the world but come bringing your skills because we need them as a nation and you're always welcome to could far from making the statue of liberty cry, we are polishing up her torch and

asking others to come. come. if you want to prevent a 20-year backlog from getting worse, we have to fix the family migration issue. if we want to deal with border security and the issues that we face, we've got to deal with the basics of border security and we should address the issue of daca recipients. we can do this. we'll walk through this journey together. an over the course of this week, i hope we can keep this civil and open and fact based rather than charged with emotion and accusations. we all want to help the country. let's work on helping the country together this week. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa.

mr. grassley: we've had a chance this very day to listen to my colleagues discuss what we think is the only piece of legislation that can get through the senate, through the house of representatives, most importantly signed by the president of the united states. all are cosponsors of this bill, except senator hatch, who spoke on another issue he is interested in but it's an important immigration issue as well. we heard from senator cornyn, then i spoke, senator cotton spoke, senator ernst, senator tillis, senator lankford now. senator perdue is one of those who is a cosponsor of the bill and would have like to have been here to speak, but he is just now returning from his constituency. so we have tried to lay out a

path to giving daca kids certainty, doing it from the standpoint of being humanitarian for people who were brought to this country by their parents. their parents may have broken the law, and did break the law by coming over our borders without documentation, but we never should hold children responsible for what their parents did. so this legislation takes ta xash yacht and reasonable -- compassionate and reasonable approach to reforms including pathway to citizenship, grandfathers people waiting in line for family visas and

expedites clearing that backlog. it helps to keep young people out of the same legal limbo in the future. this legislation is a product of compromise. the president and many conservatives have come a longs -- a long ways to offer this plan, and especially the part of the plan that offers citizenship to this group of people. one example of compromise, as chairman of this committee, there's a lot of things i would have liked to have seen in this legislation that can't be in there as a way of getting a broad base of compromise, i'm a strong supporter of mandatory e-verify, but that is not in this document. so i think the other side needs to be willing to compromise as

well p. we need to -- well. we need to pass something that can become law. several times my colleagues have been told that this is the only plan that the president supports, and you've heard him say that on television many times since he put out the four-pillar program, as we call it, that came from his white house. the house isn't going to bring up anything that the president won't sign so i think we need to stop political posturing and pass something that can fix a real problem by providing border security and certainty for daca kids. this legislation then is a reasonable approach to shielding children illegally brought to our country through no fault of their own while also taking meaningful steps to ensure that

nobody finds themselves in the same situation in the future. this is a rare opportunity to fix a real problem and protect the country in a thoughtful and compassionate way. we simply have to correct the loopholes in current law that allows dangerous criminals to enter and remain at large in our country. our proposal is supported by the president who has come a long ways to reach compromise. just think of the long ways from the positions he took are from his campaign for president. this president can be very correct in stating that a platform he wants -- ran on he wants to serve on. in this particular case, i think he's come to the same conclusion as a lot of us have, that -- that these young people are here through no fault of their own. they may be technically

violators of law, but as a practical matter, humanitarianism calls for us to make a legalization. this is the only senate proposal that has any chance of passing the house and being signed into law. if my colleagues are serious about finding a real and permanent solution to daca crisis, they should be ready and willing to support this compromise. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. ms. hassan: i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to speak for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, it is so ordered. cortez masto -- ms. cortez masto: many daca recipients have lost their status. i posted this sign outside my office so that my colleagues can see that 122 dreamers are losing their status every single day, but this chart cannot begin to tell the story of the impact that this arbitrary decision has had on dreamers' lives. over the past year i held roundtables with dreamers throughout nevada. i wanted to hear their concerns, listen to their stories, and make sure that they know their

rights. dreamers are not charts or numbers. they are people. and, mr. president, they are amazing. they are putting themselves through school. they are studying hard, serving in our communities, our churches, and our military all while working multiple jobs to support their families. in meeting with them, i've learned they are their own best advocates. dreamers deserve the chance to speak for themselves. they deserve better than to be used as pawns in a cynical game. they should not be forced to choose between achieving protection in the only country they've ever known and seeing their families attacked with arbitrary and cruel cuts to family unification and the diversity visa programs. i am tired of seeing the white house pit people against one another. tonight and this week congress is about to determine the futures of these patriotic young

men and women. before we begin this debate, we need to take fa few moments to -- take ta few moments to -- take a few moments top undernd -- understand what they are. i want to read a few of the letters that they sent me. listen to this letter from hetti. he is a freshman at nevada state college. he said he was born mexico. i recently started my freshman year at nevada state college. i am majoring in business administration in the hope that i can open a small family restaurant some day. i have grown-up in las vegas my entire life. it is the city i know. it is the city that raised me. it is my home, my only home. listen to this letter from maggie. she wrote, i came to the united states when i was ten years old, i faced language barriers when i

started elementary school but i quickly learned english. i graduated from high school in 2007 with $20,000 in academic scholarships but couldn't use them because i was undocumented. after receiving deferred action for childhood arrivals in 2013, i was able to work as an health enrollment counselor. i was accepted to the university of nevada reno where i continued working to help people access affordable health care while going to school full time. that was maggie. that was her letter to me. and then listen to francisco, his letter to me. my story is very much like others in this country. i am one of the 1.5 million undocumented children that were brought to the united states as minors by their parents. on september 17, 2012, i applied for deferred action hoping to be

granted a work permit. around that time i learned i had been admitted to the university of nevada las vegas. when my work permit arrived, my family and i came to tears after learning the news. i warranted to star -- wanted to start paying for my school. anna wrote, i came to the united states with my family from the philippines at the age of 7. my father left our family in 2001 and our visas expired soon after. i graduated from centennial high school in 2008 and started nursing school at the college of southern nevada. i graduated in 2012 and received my daca acceptance a year later. i am currently going on my third year working at university medical center as a pediatric i.c.u. nurse. these are only four of the stories that i've heard from dreamers, and there are hundreds of thousands more just like

them. i want to point out just recently i received a batch of 32 letters from seventh graders at bailey middle school in las vegas. and their concerns to a t, every single one of these seventh graders was the same thing. clarissa, one of the seventh graders wrote, i would like to change trump's decision and let the daca program stay so immigrants get to have the life they had before. my family and friends are all i have in my life. i don't want to see them go because they can't go to school or get a job. thank you. that was clarissa. we also have andrea g. president trump's decision affects my family and people i know and the community. it affects my family because my two older siblings were brought here when they were just babies. it affects people i know because some of my other family members were brought here as babies. i hope president trump does not end daca. thank you. to a t, mr. president, all of

these letters, all of the information, and all of the people that i've met with, both here in the capitol and in nevada, these dreamers are incredible people, incredible individuals that are contributing to our communities. when you hear these stories, you see that this fight is not about charts and numbers or political leverage. this fight is not even about individuals. it's about entire communities. it's not just about what will happen to maggie and san frisco and annie, all of those connected somehow to those kids at bailey middle school. it's about what will happen to the customers, their students, their employers, their parents, their families, and their friends. you see, mr. president, dreamers of our first responders. they serve in our military. they drive our ambulances, and they pray with us in church. they are on the front lines teaching our kids and defending

our country. what happens when they're not here anymore? the debate over immigration in this country has focused for too long on misconceptions and stereotypes. immigrants are not taking our jobs. they're creating them. they're not causing crime. they are putting their lives on the line to fight it. what do we gain by deporting them? what do we gain when maggie and francisco are forced to drop out of school? how do we gain when anna can't go back to work in the pediatric i.c.u.? heavy has no memory of the country where he was born. he spent only the first six months of his life there. what do we gain when we send him back? living in a community means depending on the people around you. it means having neighbors you can turn to in times of need.

i tell you, mr. president, dreamers, they are our neighbors. this is their time of need. i'd urge my colleagues understand who dreamers really are. don't pit kids against parents or neighbors against neighbors. this is bigger than partisan politics. it's about human lives. it is time to fight for these families and keeping these families together who are an integral part of our communiti communities. i know many of my colleagues support the dream act and reasonable border security measures. let's get through the finish line. the american people are watching us and 80% of them want us to help dreamers. dreamers belong here. dreamers are american and this is our chance to do what is right. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

the presidin the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 302, h.r. 2579, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 and so forth signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to h.r. 2579, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to allow the premium tax credit with respect to unsubsidized cobra continuation coverage shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory

under the rule and the clerk will now call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 97, the nays are 1, three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader.

the senate will be in order. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i have one request for a committee to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 403, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 403, designating february, 2018, as american heart month, and february 2, 2018, as national wear red day. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tuesday, february 13. further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. i further ask that following leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to h.r. 2579. finally, that the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m., and that all time during recess, adjournment, morning business, and leader remarks count postcloture on the motion to proceed. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of senator hassan. the presiding officer: without objection.

ms. hassan: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. hassan: thank you. mr. president, in my home state of new hampshire, and in communities across the nation, there is no greater public health and safety challenge than the fentanyl, heroin, and opioid crisis. everywhere i go, i hear stories from people affected by this crisis. i hear inspiring stories from those in recovery who are tirelessly working to stay healthy and rebuild their lives, and i hear tragic stories from siblings, parents, and friends who have experienced the unimaginable pain of losing a loved one. the courage of people willing to share their stories is key to breaking down the stigma of addiction and pushing for solutions. this month, i saw reports that mothers in new hampshire and in

our neighboring state of massachusetts are doing just that. these mothers have all lost their children to overdoses, but through their grief, they are fighting to ensure that other parents are spared from what they have endured. they are writing letters to the white house that are set to arrive on valentine's day, all enclosed with photos of the children they have lost. their message is that more must be done to end this epidemic, and that more funding must be allocated to help those struggling. their initiative is putting faces to this crisis and showing the white house that these lives lost are more than just numbers. one of the mothers said, quote, we have broken hearts. we want the president to see that. mr. president, we can never

thank the families who have lost loved ones enough for speaking out and for working tirelessly and courageously to try to prevent others from suffering as they have. we owe it to them to listen to their stories, but more importantly, we owe it to them to take stronger action. mr. president, i'm encouraged by recent work in congress to provide a significant increase in funding to combat this crisis. over the past months, i have been pushing for more support for treatment, recovery, prevention, and law enforcement efforts, and the bipartisan agreement that passed last week included billions of dollars in additional resources, an important next step in strengthening our response. this is welcome news for states across the nation grappling with the challenges of this epidemic, and it will be critical that these new federal dollars are prioritized for states like new hampshire that have been the hardest hit.

i'll continue working to ensure that that happens. but even with with this -- with this additional funding, we know that it will ultimately take a far greater investment to turn the tide of this horrible epidemic. communities, law enforcement, and those struggling need our continued support and action, and members of both parties must continue to work together in order to make progress. thank you. i ask that the following statement be printed separately in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hassan: thank you. and i also rise today to announce the next granite stater of the month, a young woman who is well known among people in new hampshire's state house and across the granite state. cassandra laveck, an 18-year-old from barrington, is an advocate at the forefront of an important

fight -- outlawing the practice of child marriage in new hampshire and across the country. last year, after learning that child brides face a higher likelihood of domestic violence and divorce and a lower chance of professional success, cassandra set out to close the legal loopholes that allow children as young as 13 to wed in new hampshire. as she took on this fight, she heard stories of women in her community who had been abused by their spouse after being married as a minor. cassandra bravely shared the story of her own grandmother and great grandmother, both of whom were married as young teenagers and were subsequently abused by their husbands. with encouragement and support from her girl scout community and with the help of a state representative, cassandra got a bill introduced in the legislature that would have closed the loopholes that allow childhood marriage to occur. she testified during a hearing on the bill, closely followed

debate on the bill in the full house of representatives, and spoke out in the media to explain why the legislation was so important. while the bill ultimately failed by a close margin, cassandra has continued to speak out and raise awareness, and just last month, the legislative efforts to end child marriage began anew. cassandra exemplifies new hampshire's strong tradition of civic engagement, especially by women, and she has inspired other young people to become active in their communities, too. cassandra launched a program in libraries around the state that helps kids learn about issues that they are passionate about and gives them the tools that they need to become advocates. in new hampshire, we roll up our sleeves and work together to address injustices and solve problems in our communities, and cassandra is a perfect example of that spirit.

i'm deeply grateful for cassandra's hard work, and i'll continue to follow her efforts closely. i look forward to the day when we can say that, thanks to people like cassandra, child marriage is a thing of the past in new hampshire. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate previous order, the senate beginning work on immigration policy. lawmakers voted late this afternoon to advance the bill. several days of work now expected as majority leader mcconnell has promised that any senator can offer an amendment as long as they can garner 68 votes. more life senate when the gavel comes down right here on c-span2. senate democratic leader chuck

schumer travel to kentucky today and gave remarks at the university of louisville mcconnell center. he spoke about democratic priorities as well as the nature of bipartisanship in the senate. so that event on a computer network c-span at 8:00 p.m. present have delivered his budget proposal to congress. if you like to read the document we've got a link at the top of our homepage at w ww .-dot e -- span .org. the senate budget committee will do meet tomorrow to discuss the plan with mcfall beanie. you want to live at 10:00 a.m. eastern over on c-span. treasury secretary will be out this week to discuss the president's budget. he testifies wednesday for the senate finance committee. watch that live at 10:30 a.m. eastern on our computer network, c-span3.