Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, let me start by complimenting the Senator from Nevada on his concerns with regard to staffing at our ports of entry, airports, and seaports. We have similar challenges, even at our land ports in Texas where legitimate commerce and tourism is taking place but which is being inhibited because of hardship or inconvenience on travelers because of a lack of staffing and infrastructure at those ports of entry.

I have come to the floor to talk about an amendment I intend to offer, which I have discussed over the last couple of days, which uses many of the same standards the underlying Gang of 8 bill does. Let me explain.

Of course, the Gang of 8 represents the Republicans and Democrats who came up with the original framework that then was adopted, by and large, by the Judiciary Committee, which is the base bill we are talking about today. But both the Gang of 8 bill and the results amendment which I will introduce call for the Department of Homeland Security to achieve 100 percent situational awareness of the southern border in 10 years. Both the Gang of 8 bill and the RESULTS amendment that I will offer call for the Department of Homeland Security to achieve full operational control of the border, which is defined as a 90-percent apprehension rate of illegal traffic. Both the Gang of 8 bill and the RESULTS amendment which I will offer call for a nationwide E-Verify system or a system of employer verification so we don't have our employers, small and large alike, having to be the police. We can give them a system that will be easily implemented--cards swiped and the like--which will allow them to determine and satisfy themselves that the worker who presents himself or herself for work is legally qualified to work in the United States.

Both the Gang of 8 bill--the underlying bill--and the RESULTS amendment which I will offer call for a biometric entry-exit system at America's largest airports. In other words, rather than a poison pill--if my amendment is a poison pill as some have suggested--then the Gang of 8 bill itself is a poison pill. But neither is true.

The most important difference between my amendment and the Gang of 8 bill is that my amendment has real border security triggers in place while the Gang of 8 bill has no effective trigger that will guarantee implementation of border security standards that reach the gang's own standards of 100 percent situational awareness and a 90-percent apprehension rate.

The Gang of 8 bill endorses many of the same border security standards that my amendment does, but it also authorizes a permanent legalization program for illegal immigrants regardless of whether the United States-Mexico border is ever secured. In other words, it is another promise Congress is making to the American people, but the American people have no way of knowing whether that promise will ever be kept.

As further indication that truly what I am trying to do in my amendment is consistent with what the Gang of 8 has proposed, here is a quote from the majority whip, Senator Durbin from Illinois, in January of 2013. He said their bipartisan framework for comprehensive immigration reform--in that bill--a pathway to citizenship needs to be ``contingent upon securing the border.''

But yesterday, as reported in the National Journal on June 11, Senator Durbin said the gang has ``de-linked the pathway to citizenship and border enforcement.''

What my amendment does is restore this contingency which, if the gang's own standards are met--and I believe they will be--will allow people to transition from RPI status--registered provisional immigrant status--to legal permanent residency if they comply with the other requirements of the law.

My amendment would delay permanent legal status until after we have that 100-percent situational awareness along the border and full operational control and nationwide E-Verify and a national biometric entry-exit system at all airports and seaports where Customs and Border Protection are currently deployed.

Some have said my amendment and the standards in my amendment are unattainable or some say it is just too expensive. Let me answer both of those criticisms. If the standards the Gang of 8 has set itself for situational awareness and operational security are unattainable, then why did they embrace those standards in their own bill? Again, the only difference between my amendment and their initial proposal is that my amendment creates a trigger or a contingency requiring that standard to be met before immigrants who qualify for registered provisional immigrant status can transition into a legal permanent residency status.

It has also been claimed by some of our colleagues, who interestingly were speaking without having actually seen language in the bill, that somehow the cost of my amendment is just too high. The fact is this bill appropriates $8.3 billion to pay into a trust fund that is created by the underlying legislation. On page 872 of the bill, it is called the comprehensive immigration reform trust fund.

The initial funding is $8.3 billion.

If my colleagues will simply read the legislation in my proposal, my amendment, the funding for my amendment comes from that same trust fund and does not appropriate any other additional funds. So I am satisfied by merely reallocating those funds in a way that I believe will help the Department of Homeland Security, help Congress, help the U.S. Government make sure we keep our promises to the American people.

Well, you do not need to take my word for it. The Washington Post recently asked a number of immigration experts whether the goals set out in the Gang of 8 bill and in my amendment are, in fact, attainable. One of them, Asa Hutchinson--a name that is familiar to many of us because he has served as a Member of Congress, a member of the Drug Enforcement Administration, and as Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security at the Department of Homeland Security--told the Washington Post that the border security requirements in my amendment are both ``reasonable and attainable.'' In fact, Hutchinson said my amendment ``only requires security measures that are attainable in the near future.''

Another expert, Cato Institute scholar Alex Nowrasteh, who is a strong supporter of the underlying Gang of 8 bill, said my amendment is ``very much in the vein of the rest of the bill.'' He also affirmed that it would be, indeed, possible for the Federal Government to attain that 90 percent apprehension rate along the southern border.

As for the biometric entry-exit system and the E-Verify requirements, if a nationwide biometric entry-exit system at our airports and seaports is unrealistic, then somebody should have told President Clinton in 1996 when he signed such a requirement into law.

That is really the problem that my amendment is designed to solve. It has been the law of the land that Congress and the Federal Government implement a biometric entry-exit system for people entering our country and leaving our country since 1996, but do you know what. It has never been done.

After the tragedy of 9/11 where 3,000 Americans lost their lives on that terrible day, the 9/11 Commission itself undertook a comprehensive study of how to stop such a terrible tragedy from occurring again. What they recommended, again, is a biometric entry-exit system. But while the biometric entry system is in place--it is just fingerprints on a fingerprint reader; pretty quick, easy technology, relatively cheap--there has been no implementation at the airports and seaports of an exit system, which would tell us when people have entered legally but then have illegally overstayed their visa, which is 40 percent of illegal immigration.

I would just close on this: On the E-Verify component--this, of course, is the employment verification system--if that is unrealistic, than somebody should have told our friends on the Gang of 8 because the E-Verify language in their bill is identical with my amendment.

But here is the bottom line and the reality: Without a border security trigger, immigration reform will be dead on arrival in the House of Representatives. My amendment provides such a trigger. The Gang of 8 bill does not. That does not mean my amendment is a full-scale alternative to the Gang of 8 bill. But it does mean my amendment is essential to moving this legislation forward and to getting an outcome that ultimately will end up on the President's desk.

I believe we should try to do our best to improve this underlying bill. My amendment is in that spirit because I do believe that the status quo is simply unacceptable, as I believe almost virtually all of our colleagues do. If we do not guarantee results on border security, particularly at a time when skepticism about Washington is at an all-time high, we guarantee the failure of bipartisan immigration reform, and that would be a tragedy.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, while the Senator from New York is still here, I would like to respond briefly and in a nonconfrontational way. But I would hope that on something as important as this, we are all operating from the same facts and not based on erroneous information or erroneous assumptions.

First of all, my understanding is the Congressional Budget Office has not scored the underlying bill. As I said earlier, on page 872 of this bill, a comprehensive immigration reform trust fund is created, and $8.3 billion is transferred into that trust fund. My amendment uses the same money the underlying bill does to fund the requirements of my amendment.

This notion that somehow having a biometric entry-exit system costs $25 billion is completely detached from any factual information I am aware of. My staff informs me, based on our best estimate, that a biometric entry-exit system at airports and at seaports would cost roughly $80 million a year. We are more than happy to share that information with our colleagues and have them take a look at it.

Further, I know there has been an assumption that somehow there has been a figure of 10,000 new Border Patrol agents mandated in my amendment. That is an incorrect reading of it. The underlying bill calls for 3,500. We plus that up, we do, by not only Border Patrol but also customs and border agents to help facilitate the flow of legal commerce across Arizona, Texas borders, and elsewhere, which creates about 6 million jobs in America.

So I do not mind us having a disagreement about policy. We are used to that. That is fine. I think some of these claims about extravagant expenses are not borne out by the facts. We would actually rely upon the same money that the trust fund created by the underlying bill does.

I would yield to my friend from Arizona.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. If I can respond to my friend, it comes from the same trust fund the underlying bill uses. It reallocates the money and does put some more money toward personnel. One of the problems is that there is so much that technology can do. I am exited about the prospects of technology when it comes to 100-percent situational awareness and allowing the Border Patrol to do a good job. But you have to have border patrol who show up and detain people when they come across illegally. My State has the longest border with Mexico--1,200 miles. Arizona has its own challenges. We have our challenges as well. So we do need more personnel.

But the part that I would think is sort of baked into the underlying bill is that we also need to separate the legal commerce and tourism that is beneficial to both sides of the border. That is part of why the Customs agents who are included in my amendment are also there as well, the theory being--I think it is a good one--if you identify legitimate commerce and beneficial tourism and separate that from the bad guys, then law enforcement can focus more on the bad guys. That is what my amendment attempts to do. It is no additional money.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. It is $8.3 billion. They allocate some of that money for the purposes set out in the underlying bill. My amendment reallocates some of that same trust fund for other purposes, including additional personnel. There is no additional money. This is an appropriation made in the underlying bill. So I think it is a misunderstanding of what my amendment is.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, what is this--the third day this bill has been on the floor? There has been no scoring of the bill by the Congressional Budget Office, so no one knows what the official scorekeeper of the Congress has to say about this bill. But I would say that my amendment does not appropriate any additional money other than the money in the bill. Indeed, this leaves it up to the Department of Homeland Security within 120 days to render a plan, and then under the underlying bill, you can transition after 10 years from RPI status--registered provisional immigrant--to legal permanent resident by substantial completion of a plan we do not know anything about.

I mean, I do not think we are the experts in how exactly this should be done. I would hope that technology, which I think is fantastic--what answers that may provide to us 10 years hence in terms of how to accomplish the goals. But to suggest that somehow this legislation, which I have complimented on numerous occasions that it represents a substantial step in the right direction--to say that we cannot touch it, we cannot change it because eight Senators got together and decided what it should be, is preposterous. That is exactly what we are supposed to do. We ought to have a regular process to debate it and vote on it. But we should not be sort of suggesting ``been there, done that; you had your shot in committee'' and then not allow this process to move forward.

I do not think we are all that far apart if we will stick to the facts and stick to the text of the bill. But we should not make things up, particularly on the order of $25 billion. I do not know where that came from. I know there was a suggestion that my amendment called for 10,000 new Border Patrol agents. That is not in the bill. So let's stick to the facts.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source