Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this afternoon we will have an important vote, some might say even historic vote, on the motion to proceed to the immigration reform bill. I was here in 2007, the last time that subject was on the floor of the Senate. It proved to be a divisive and tough issue that we could not get through.

But I think if there is one thing that I sense, in terms of my constituents in Texas and sort of the impression I get generally speaking, it is that the American people believe that the status quo on immigration is unacceptable. Some of our colleagues have actually called the status quo de facto amnesty because essentially there is lawlessness in our broken immigration system. What we need to do is restore law and order and predictability and make sure our immigration system works in the best interests of the United States. That is true in a number of ways that are included in the underlying bill as it was voted out of the Judiciary Committee.

So I will vote yes on the motion to proceed because I think it is important we take up this debate. The majority leader has indicated we are going to be debating this and offering amendments over the next 3 weeks. I think that is a good period of time for the American people to understand what is in the bill and to listen to pro and con debates and to make up their mind how they want their elected representatives to proceed.

Yesterday I talked a little bit about an amendment I will offer to the underlying bill which would ensure that the Federal Government finally makes good on its promise--its perennial promise, but it is an unkept promise--to secure America's borders. This will not be any surprise to the Presiding Officer or my colleagues that coming from a State such as Texas, with a 1,200-mile common border with Mexico, this is a subject near and dear to my heart and that of my constituents. It is something we need to get right.

The Democratic majority leader, in an interview with the press, called my amendment a poison pill. But I thought that was unusual and even curious because we had not shared the language of the amendment with him or anyone else at the time he gave it that characterization. But I believe the opposite is, in fact, true. If we do not guarantee results on border security, if we do not guarantee to the American people that we actually are going to get serious about stopping the flow of people illegally crossing our southwestern border or the northern border, for that matter, I think we guarantee the failure of bipartisan immigration reform.

That is the real poison pill, failing to solve the problem and guarantee the results that the American people deserve and I think demand when it comes to dealing with our broken immigration system. If, in fact, by defeating sensible border security measures which guarantee implementation of border security, if by denying that, bipartisan immigration fails. Then the opponents of these sensible border security measures will have no one to blame but themselves, and that will prove to be the true poison pill.

For more than 25 years the American people have been told by Washington that it is actually serious about securing our borders. Of course, this became more urgent after 9/11 when we finally realized that although we were removed from places such as the Middle East, Europe, and Asia, we were not insulated by virtue of our proximity or a lack of proximity to these places. So we learned we are not safe in America just by ourselves; that we are vulnerable to attacks.

So this has given greater urgency to the importance of securing our borders and making sure we have a lawful immigration system that actually will work in the interests of the American people. We have also heard since 1986, when Ronald Reagan signed the first amnesty for 3 million people, it was premised on a promise of enforcement, and this would never ever happen again. The American people justifiably feel that the rug was pulled out from under them on that one when Congress and others undermined the enforcement measures that would made sure any future amnesties would no longer be required.

It is understandable and I believe justified for the American people to be skeptical about Congress when it makes promises without any means to implement guaranteed results. Back in 1996, Congress and President Clinton authorized a nationwide biometric entry-exit system to reduce visa overstays. Why is this important? Forty percent of illegal immigration occurs when people enter the country legally as tourists, students or otherwise, and they simply overstay their visa because we have not yet, in the 17 years since President Clinton and Congress authorized, indeed demanded an entry-exit system--it still has not been implemented.

In other words, the Federal Government has always said the right things when it comes to reassuring the American people, but it has never been able to translate those promises into results that are actually implemented. No wonder the American people are profoundly skeptical. Do not take my word for it. As of 2011, the Department of Homeland Security had achieved operational control of less than 45 percent of the United States-Mexico border. That is according to a GAO report; 45 percent of the southwestern border with Mexico is operationally secure, in the opinion of the GAO. More recently, radar surveillance by a new technology called VADAR was reported in the Los Angeles Times to have been successful in showing situational awareness along the border where it was tested but that, in fact, the Border Patrol detained less than half of the people crossing the border.

That seems to be consistent with this idea of 45 percent operational control, where less than half of the people crossing were actually detained. A recent Council on Foreign Relations report showed similar security results--or failures I should say. Members of the Gang of 8, who I think have done the country a public service by bringing this matter to us, believe our goal should be 100 percent situational awareness of the southern border and a 90-percent apprehension rate of illegal border crossers.

This may surprise my colleagues, but I actually agree with those metrics and those standards: 100 percent situational awareness, 90 percent apprehension rate. Members of the Gang of 8 who brought us this legislation also believe we should implement a national E-Verify system so employers do not have to play police, and they can get a card they can swipe through a reader which will verify that a person who applies to work at their workplace is legally qualified to work in the United States.

I think absolutely that is good requirement. I agree with the Gang of 8's proposal. So I wonder why it is, why can they not take yes for an answer? If we agree on the standards they set, why can we not agree on sensible measures that will guarantee the implementation and the success of accomplishing the very goals they themselves have set?

The difference is simply that my amendment would require national E-Verify and a 90-percent apprehension rate and full situational awareness along the border, a biometric entry-exit system before immigrants transition from the registered provisional immigrant status--we will hear a lot about RPI--to legal permanent residency. This is the leverage Congress and the American people have that will demand implementation of these security measures at the border and elsewhere.

Meanwhile, while my results amendment would guarantee implementation of these provisions that have been long promised but never delivered by Congress, the Gang of 8 bill would authorize permanent legalization regardless of whether our borders are ultimately secured, according to their own standards. In fact, their bill requires only substantial completion of a plan whose contents we haven't even seen yet. This is something that is supposed to be proposed by the Secretary of Homeland Security, but we don't know what that plan is going to be. There is no lever. There is no means of forcing the Department to actually implement it and to achieve the goal the Gang of 8 themselves have set.

My amendment contains a real border security trigger, while the Gang of 8 bill promises success but has absolutely no means to compel it. My amendment demands results, while the Gang of 8 bill is satisfied with just more promises, promises that historically have never been kept.

I want to reiterate: We agree on a number of things. We agree on the objectives for border security. We agree on the importance of worksite verification of the legal status of people who apply to work. That is an important part of immigration reform.

We agree on 100-percent situational awareness for our southwestern border, and we agree that the Department of Homeland Security should apprehend at least 90 percent of the people attempting to illegally cross the border. We agree on all of these realistic goals. The difference, once again, is that my amendment guarantees results, while the Gang of 8 proposal does not.

I will ask my colleagues who have done, as I said earlier, good work bringing this proposal to the floor why is it if we agree on the goals that you would disagree on the means to enforce those goals? It makes no sense to me. We don't disagree about as much as I think some people might suggest.

Another reason why I think this is not a poison pill is this is doable. The Gang of 8 said it is doable. I agree it is doable, but we need the leverage to compel the bureaucracy, Congress and everybody else, to actually make sure the American people aren't fooled again and the results that are part of the basic bargain contained in this bill are actually delivered.

Let me note a couple of other issues that I think need to be fixed in the underlying bill. Where the Gang of 8 would actually make it harder to prevent visa overstays by changing existing law, laws that have been on the books since 1986, my amendment has a border security trigger that will require a fully operational biometric entry-exit program at all seaports and airports.

Where the Gang of 8 bill would allow some criminals with violent histories to attain immediate legal status, my amendment would prohibit such criminals from gaining the benefits of RPI status or earn citizenship. Why should we reward people who demonstrated their inability or unwillingness to comply with our criminal laws? Why should we reward them with a pathway or a possibility of earning American citizenship? These people ought to be disqualified. The hard-working otherwise honest people who want to come here and seek a better life should be granted the benefits of this bill while excluding violent criminals.

Where the Gang of 8 bill would prevent law enforcement from sharing information, my amendment would give law enforcement access to critical intelligence about threats to national security and public safety.

One of the great failures of the 1986 immigration bill was that law enforcement was banned from gaining access to information in the applications of people who applied for amnesty that was clearly fraudulent, that would have reflected organized criminal activity and that would have rooted it out. Unfortunately, this current bill, underlying bill, contains the same prohibitions against information sharing that were contained in the 1986 bill, which unfortunately resulted in massive fraud and criminality. We need to stop that and learn from the mistakes of the 1986 bill and not repeat that again. Adopting my amendment would address that.

Finally, where the Gang of 8 would do absolutely nothing to bolster infrastructure and personnel at land ports of entry along the southern border, my amendment would make sure resources are available to significantly reduce wait times, improve the infrastructure, and increase the personnel at our land ports of entry.

This is important because this personnel and this infrastructure serve the dual purpose. No. 1, it makes sure legitimate trade in commerce crosses our borders. Why is that important? Six million jobs in America depend on lawful cross-border trade. These people are dual use. What I mean by that is they are also available to make sure illegal crossing doesn't occur and that drug dealers can't move bulk drugs and other contraband across, and that human traffickers are stopped trying to exploit our land ports of entry.

One of the underlying premises of this approach is we need to separate the legal and the beneficial from the illegal and the harmful. When we do that, we can let our law enforcement personnel focus on the illegal and the harmful, while allowing those who are complying with our laws and are engaging in beneficial commerce with America. This creates jobs here in America and greater prosperity, and law enforcement won't have to spend or waste its time focusing on them so much.

I don't know how any objective observer could look at my amendment and call it a poison pill. I think it is a mistake, again, because at the time the majority leader called it that, we hadn't even released the legislative language. I hope he and others will look at it carefully and work with us, because I think there is actually a path forward to bipartisan immigration reform that will secure our borders, eliminate the criminality in our system, and provide a legal means for America to be true to its values. It will look to its own economic self-interest in providing a pathway for legal immigration from the best and brightest, whom we ought to welcome with open arms.

I don't know how any objective observer could look at my amendment and call it a poison pill, especially because it embraces so many of the metrics included in the underlying Gang of 8 bill. All my amendment does is to guarantee results, rather than be satisfied with more promises that will never be kept.

This is the bottom line. Americans are tired of hearing endless border security promises without seeing any realistic mechanism for guaranteeing results. My amendment would guarantee such a mechanism, and it would guarantee the results Washington has long promised but never delivered.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source