Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I want to visit with my colleagues about border security. It refers to an amendment that I have pending to enhance the bill's provisions on border security. I would like to take a few minutes to discuss why I think my amendment is a good first step to restore the faith of the American people in government. That faith has to be restored on the issue of immigration because we promised so much in the 1986 bill on border security and stopping undocumented workers from coming to this country, so, consequently, for the institution of Congress and the executive branch both, because we are not enforcing existing law, the credibility on immigration is at stake. On this issue the American people have lost faith that, at least from the immigration point of view, we are really a nation based on the rule of law.
It is no secret that we in Washington, particularly in the congressional branch, have low approval ratings. A lot of people, especially in recent weeks, wonder about the trust of government--you know, Benghazi, IRS, AP investigations. They have also lost confidence, then, in the leaders. They question our ability to protect their privacy. They question our capacity to protect their security.
This is especially true when we talk about border security with average Americans. They do not think we are doing enough. They say we do not need to pass another law. They just do not understand why we cannot stop the flow and simply enforce the laws on the books. To them it is that simple.
It comes up in my town meetings in Iowa, but the bill before us complicates things. It takes a step backwards on an issue about which Americans care deeply. It says we will legalize millions now--that means millions of undocumented workers--and we will worry about border security down the road, in 5 or 10 years.
The authors of this document before us, the Group of 8, say they are open to improving the bill. My amendment now before the Senate does just that. My amendment improves the trigger that jump-starts the legalization program. It ensures that the border is secure before one person gets legal status under this act.
The American people have shown they are very compassionate, not just willing to deal with this issue of 12 million undocumented workers here but in a lot of other ways so numerous and well-known we do not even need to mention them. Many can come to terms with a legalization program.
But many would say that a legalization program should be tied to border security or enforcement. That is what is very simple for the American people: secure the borders. Let me give some examples.
Bloomberg recently released a poll in which they asked the following question:
Congress is debating changing immigration laws. Do you support or oppose a revision of immigration policy that would provide a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States?
Madam President, 46 percent said they would support it.
The poll then went on to ask the same respondents about elements in the immigration bill, and 85 percent said they favored ``strengthening border security and creating a system to track foreigners entering and leaving the country.'' So we have 46 percent saying they support immigration, but 85 percent of the same group say it is very necessary to strengthen border security.
In Iowa, a poll by the Des Moines Register found that 58 percent of the respondents were OK with a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants after--and I emphasize the word ``after''--the border is secure. Almost every poll shows the same results.
Sure, people would consider a legalization program, but it is almost always tied to the condition of border security. The American people do not think we are doing enough to secure the border. In a poll conducted by Anderson Robbins Research and Shaw & Company, 60 percent of those polled said the current level of security at the country's border is not strict enough. Also, 69 percent of the respondents said they favor requiring completion of a new border security measure first before making other changes in immigration policies.
Unfortunately, too many people have been led to believe this bill will force the Secretary of Homeland Security to secure the border. In fact, it does not guarantee that before legalization. That is why we need to pass my amendment on file now. It is a good first step to ensuring that we stop the flow of undocumented workers coming to this country. We need to prove to the American people that we can do our job. We need to show them we are committed to security.
Bottom line: Nobody says the existing immigration system is as it should be. People support reform, but they support reform if we have border security first.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suppose when some of us raise a lot of questions about this legislation and point out shortcomings in it that some question our sincerity. When we say we need a piece of legislation, we might be questioned by a lot of people who are listening. That may also sound like we question the sincerity of the Group of 8 when we raise questions about this bill that they worked hard to put together. I don't question their sincerity, and I do believe that legislation must pass the Senate.
There are those of us who have said for such a long time that the system we have is not satisfactory, we cannot maintain the status quo, and we have to be working for a product. All of us in the Senate are working toward a product. There is a difference of what that product should be in the final analysis.
I continue to come to the floor to raise some questions about, not the intent of the authors, but what I think is the practical effect of the legislation by these authors. I come to the floor today to respond to what my friend, the senior Senator from Arizona, said earlier today on this legislation. He is one of those hard-working Senators who have worked hard, hours I am sure I cannot comprehend, to put together this piece of legislation.
Today that Senator argued that poll after poll shows Americans support a legalization process if--and that is a very important ``if''--people pay back taxes, pay a fine, and get at the end of the line, and if we secure the border. I pointed out before that the problem with the legislation before us, as well intended, is that people do not really have to pay back taxes, or a fine, or go to the end of the line, and secure the border. So these polls are being misused if the practical effect of the language in the bill makes it possible that those things may never happen, even though it is well intended that they ought to happen. Nobody disagrees they ought to happen.
I will probably be somewhat repetitive, but I want to remind my colleagues, as I take a few minutes to discuss this, how the authors have tried to sell this particular immigration bill and what I see as false advertising. You see, the American people are being sold a product. In fact that is what politics is, it is a sale of ideas. A political party does not have any reason to exist if it does not have good ideas. Then the idea is to get in a position to put those ideas into effect.
This product is being sold, and I wish it comes out the way they say it does, but I have some questions about that. The American people are being asked to accept a legalization program. In exchange, they would be assured that the laws were going to be enforced. Normally, consumers are able to read the labels of things they are about to purchase. They have to read 1,175 pages to really know what is truly in this bill. Even a quick read of the bill would have many shaking their heads in confusion.
This bill is full of delegations of authority to the Secretary, possibilities for waivers, things of that nature--that really would be well down the road after the President signs legislation that you are really going to know how it is being carried out.
We have all heard the phrase ``the devil is in the details.'' At first the proposal the bipartisan group put forward sounded reasonable, but we need to examine the fine print and take a closer look at what the bill really does. As I noted yesterday, I thought the framework held hope, but I realize the assurances the Group of 8 made did not really translate when the language of the bill emerged.
They professed that the border would be secured and that people would ``earn'' their legal status. However, the bill as drafted is legalization first and enforcement later, if at all. So I would like to dive into these details and give a little reality check to those who expect this bill to do exactly what the authors promise.
I have on this chart four points that I would like to make and statements that have been made about this legislation.
No. 1, they say ``people will have to pay a penalty'' to obtain legal status. The reality is the bill lays out the application procedures, and on page 972 a penalty is imposed on those who apply for registered provisional immigration status. Those are the words in the bill for legalization. We refer to that as RPI. It says those who apply must pay $1,000 to the Department of Homeland Security.
What is the certainty of getting that $1,000? For instance, it waives the penalty for anyone under the age of 21. Yet, on the next page, it allows the applicant to pay the penalty in installments. The bill says:
The Secretary shall establish a process for collecting payments ..... that permit the penalty to be paid in periodic installments that shall be completed before the alien may be granted an extension of status.
In effect, this says the applicants have 6 years to pay the penalty. Six years is how long it takes to get RPI status, and at the end of 6 years, they have to extend it.
In addition to the penalty, applicants would pay a processing fee. That level is set by the Secretary. So here we have two instances of excessive delegation of authority to the Secretary. The bill says the Secretary has a discretion to waive the processing fee for any ``classes of individuals'' she chooses and may limit the maximum fee paid by a family.
The bill doesn't require everyone to pay a penalty. It doesn't require anyone to pay it when they apply for legal status. In fact, they may never have to pay a penalty.
No. 2, they say ``people have to pay back taxes.'' Who is going to argue with the fact that people have to pay back taxes to receive legal status? The reality: Members of the Group of 8 stated over and over again their bill would require undocumented individuals to pay back taxes prior to being granted legal status. However, the bill before us fails to make good on that promise. Proponents of the bill point to a provision of the bill that prohibits people from filing for legal status ``unless the applicant has satisfied any applicable federal tax liability.'' Doesn't that sound right? Absolutely it sounds right. As always, the devil is in the details.
There are two important weaknesses with how the bill defines ``applicable federal tax liability.'' The first one is: The bill limits the definition to exclude employment taxes, such as for Social Security and Medicare. For a lot of people, that may be the only taxes they pay, but they don't have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes.
Second, the bill does not require the payment of all back taxes legally owed. What it requires is the payment of taxes previously assessed by the Internal Revenue Service. Well, there are a lot of problems with the IRS assessing somebody for taxes if they have been in the underground, as an example. In order to assess taxes, it is quite obvious the IRS must first have information on which to base its assessment.
Our tax system is largely a voluntary system, relying on everybody to self-report their income on their tax return. But it also relies on certain third-party reporting, such as wage reporting by employers. That is why we get a W-2 form at the end of every year, so we and the IRS know exactly what we owe and what we paid and so they can figure out what more we might owe or how much we might get back.
If someone has been working unlawfully in this country and working off the books, it is likely that neither an individual return nor a third-party return will even exist; thus, no assessment will exist and no taxes will be paid. Similarly, it is very unlikely any assessment will exist for those who have worked under a false Social Security number and have never filed a tax return. A legal obligation exists to pay taxes on all income from whatever source derived, and nothing in this bill provides a requirement or a mechanism to accomplish this prior to granting legal status.
One of the Group of 8 members in January said:
Shouldn't citizens have to pay back taxes? We can trace their employment back. It doesn't take a genius.
While it may be a well-intended statement, it obviously meets the test of common sense, but I showed how difficult it is to make that happen. The other side of the aisle, for instance, is going to argue that establishing a requirement for back taxes owed rather than taxes assessed is unworkable and costly. They will also claim imposing additional tax barriers on this population could prevent undocumented workers and their families from coming forward in the first place.
But the sales pitch has been clear: To get legal status, one has to pay their back taxes. So let me provide a reality check. This bill doesn't make good on the promises made.
Let's go to the third item on the chart. ``People will have to learn English.'' The reality: The bill, as drafted, is supposed to ensure that new Americans speak a common language. Learning English is a way for new residents to assimilate. This is an issue that is very important to Americans. Immigrants before us made a concerted effort to learn English. The proponents are claiming their bill fulfills this wish.
However, the bill does not require people here unlawfully
to learn English before receiving legal status or even a green card. Under section 2101, a person with RPI status who applies for a green card only has to pursue a course of study to achieve an understanding of English and knowledge and understanding of civics.
If the people who gain legal status ever apply for citizenship--and some doubt this will happen to a majority of the undocumented population--they would also have to pass an English proficiency exam, as required under current law. So, yes, after 13 years, one would have to pass an exam, but the bill does very little to ensure that those who come out of the shadows will cherish or use the English language. The reality is English is not as much of a priority for the proponents of this bill as they claim it is.
The fourth thing on the chart: They say ``people won't get public benefits'' if they choose to apply for legal status.
The reality: Americans are very compassionate and generous people. Many people can understand providing some legal status to people here illegally, but one major sticking point for those who question the legalization program is the fact that lawbreakers could become eligible for public benefits and taxpayer subsidies.
The authors of the bill understood this. In an attempt to show that those who receive RPI status would not receive taxpayer benefits, they included a provision that prohibited the population from receiving certain benefits. There are two major problems with this point in the bill.
First, those who receive RPI status will be immediately eligible for State and local welfare benefits. For instance, many States offer cash, medical, and food assistance through State-only programs to ``lawfully present'' individuals.
Second, the bill contains a welfare waiver loophole that could allow those with RPI status to receive Federal welfare dollars. The Obama administration has pushed the envelope by waiving the welfare laws. If this loophole is not closed, they could waive existing law and allow funds provided under the welfare block grant known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to be provided to noncitizens.
Senator Hatch had an amendment during committee markup that would prohibit the U.S. Department of HHS from waiving various requirements and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program. His amendment would also prohibit any Federal agency from waiving restrictions on eligibility of immigrants for future public benefits. But the reality check for the American people is there are loopholes and the potential for public benefits to go to those who are legalized under the bill.
Again, the devil is in the details, and I hope this reality check will encourage proponents of this bill to fix these problems before the bill is passed by the Senate. The American people deserve truth in advertising.
I want to speak about the provision that deals with the commission. Aside from the claims I just gave on the promises to pay taxes, et cetera, one of the authors of the immigration bill before us stated early on that if the Department of Homeland Security has not reached 100 percent awareness and 90 percent apprehension at the southern border within 5 years, the Secretary would lose control of the responsibility and it will be turned over to the border governors to get the job done.
The fact is the border governors and the commission they serve with are not going to have any power, and that is the point I am going to make. There was a lot of talk about how the Secretary would be pushed to fulfill the congressional mandate to secure the border. I pointed out yesterday how this Secretary said: We don't need to secure the border. It is already secured. But at the end of the day, as far as this bill is concerned, the legislative text doesn't match up with the rhetoric.
The border commission created is not made up primarily of border governors, doesn't have any real power, and the Secretary is not held accountable for not getting the job done. Again, it is false advertising.
The bill states that effective control--and those words ``effective control'' are the legal language in the bill--of the border is the ability to achieve and maintain ``persistent surveillance and an effectiveness rate of 90 percent or higher.'' It defines the effectiveness rate as ``the percentage calculated by dividing the number of apprehensions and turn backs in the sector during a fiscal year by the total number of illegal entries in the sector during such fiscal year.''
First, the bill only states that effective control requires ``persistent surveillance.'' It does not require 100 percent awareness.
Second, there is nothing in the bill that turns over the issue of border security to border governors if the Department here in Washington, DC, is unable to secure the border. The bill provides for a commission to be created if the Secretary of Homeland Security tells Congress she has not achieved effective control in all border sections during any fiscal year within 5 years.
The southern border security commission is then created with the primary responsibility to make recommendations to the Secretary. There will be 10 members of the commission. While border States have a seat at the table, only 4 of the 10 members need to be southern border Governors or appointed by them. The members are allowed travel expenses and administrative support. They have to have some knowledge and experience in border security.
The commission is required to submit a report to the President, the Secretary, and the Congress with specific recommendations for achieving and maintaining the border security goals established in the bill. The members have 6 months to come up with a plan to achieve what the Secretary failed to do in 5 years.
The bill does not grant the commission any grand or impressive authorities. The bill simply states that the commission shall make recommendations. Nothing in the bill requires that the recommendations be acted upon or implemented by the administration.
The bill provides $2 billion to the Secretary to carry out the recommendations made by the commission. But, again, there is nothing in this bill requiring the Secretary to take any further action on those recommendations. Why not then give the commission actual authority to enforce border security? Then, if we don't do that, why create the commission at all?
In recent years, we in Congress have become accustomed to outsourcing our work. We have a responsibility to legislate. The executive branch has a responsibility to enact. These are basic tenets of government.
The commission called for in this bill is kind of irrelevant. This administration and any future administration must get the job done, no outsourcing the job to some commission, no excuses. This is so important because we quote these polls, and I refer to the polls the senior Senator from Arizona referenced before he made his remarks. They are all based upon certain propositions. They are well intended, but they do not provide the certainty they are going to be carried out, and legalization is based on that--the same for the polls that say people want the borders secure.
So this commission ought to have some power if the Secretary isn't going to act. But already the Secretary has the responsibility to see that the border is secure. She has testified it is secure, more secure than it has ever been, but I think the facts are that it has not been and we need to do better. For us to sell this bill to the American people, it must be based upon the proposition that the border be secured first and then legalization.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. I object.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Will the Senator yield?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the pending Grassley amendment be set aside and the following amendments be in order to be called up: Thune No. 1197, Vitter No. 1228, Landrieu No. 1222, and Tester No. 1198; that the time until 4 p.m. be equally divided between the managers or their designees for debate in relation to the pending Grassley amendment No. 1195 and the pending Leahy amendment No. 1183; further, I ask that at 4 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Grassley amendment; that upon disposition of the Grassley amendment, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Leahy amendment; that there be no second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes; that there be 2 minutes equally divided in between the votes.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Will the Senator yield to me?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Well, it is amazing to me that the majority has touted this immigration bill process as one that is open and regular order. But right out of the box, right now, just on the third day, they want to subject our amendments to a filibuster-like 60-vote threshold. So I have to ask, who is obstructing now?
There is no reason, particularly in this first week at the beginning of the process, to be blocking our amendments with a 60-vote margin as required when you suppose there is a filibuster.
Let's at least start out with regular order; otherwise, it really looks as if the fix is in and the bill is rigged to pass basically as it is.
Bottom line: You should have seen how the 18 members of the Judiciary Committee operated for 5 or 6 days over a 2-week period of time. Everything was open. Everything was transparent. There was complete cooperation between the majority and the minority. There is no reason we cannot do that out here in the Senate right now, particularly at the beginning. This is a very provocative act.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have come to the floor several times to discuss border security. Border security is so essential to people approving the legislation that we pass because most every poll shows when people want an immigration bill, it is premised on the assumption that we are going to have a secured border.
I talked yesterday about my amendment, and that amendment tends to be pending. I tried to improve upon the Group of 8 legislation on border security. I will take a few minutes right now--not very long--to discuss why I think my amendment is a good first step at restoring the faith of the American people--in this legislation, but in turn in our government.
I would like to mention why it is so important, not just for public confidence--because that is what I have spoken about in the past--but for national security and the defense of the homeland. Being a U.S. Border Patrol agent is a very dangerous job. A former agent said in an interview in the El Paso Times:
I was attacked one time by a group of seven men with rocks and I was pretty severely injured. Being assaulted is not really that uncommon. Whether it is rocks being thrown at you or a hand-to-hand combat situation or being shot at, it is not particularly uncommon.
We need a bill that will protect our Border Patrol agents who put their lives on the line every day and do their job of patrolling the border. They face threats and violence, and many, such as Brian Terry, have been killed because of gang violence or drug cartels. Not only do our Border Patrol agents face danger, but ranchers face daily encounters of drug smugglers and illegal border crossers.
Robert Krentz from Arizona, a rancher, was killed in 2010. His family expressed frustration with the Federal Government, stating:
The disregard of our repeated pleas and warnings of impending violence towards our community fell on deaf ears, shrouded in political correctness. As a result, we have paid the ultimate price for their negligence in credibly securing our borderlands.
No one can fault someone for wanting to improve their lot in life. Husbands and wives trek across the border to make a better life for them and for their families. People yearn to be free and to make life full of liberty and happiness. But people who cross the border illegally risk their own lives. They spend days walking through desert. They fall prey to smugglers and become victims of rape and abuse. Securing the border is one of the most humane things we can do to protect the lives of those who will venture into the United States, not caring about our laws but for the sole purpose of improving their lives. That is the goal of America, a better life for all of us who were born here as well as those who immigrate here.
It is dangerous crossing the border illegally for those people. We can give them legal avenues to enter this country to live, work, and raise a family. If we do not deter illegal border crossings, people's lives will remain at risk as they are at this very hour.
Nonetheless, proponents of legalization hold to the belief that the vast majority of people who cross our border are people seeking employment. Most times that is true; however, not everyone who crosses the southern border is a resident of Mexico who seeks to be reunited with family and do the jobs Americans will not do. The number of individuals from noncontiguous countries, otherwise known as ``other than Mexicans,'' should be a concern.
As of April 2, 2013, the ``other than Mexican'' numbers on the southwest border were up 67 percent from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2013. We know some of the ``other than Mexicans'' include terrorists who enter the United States via the southern border. Secretary Napolitano has testified before Congress to that very fact.
We also know a majority of ``other than Mexicans'' fails to appear for their immigration proceedings and simply disappears, lost here in this great country, the United States. Increasing bonds for these nationals would deter absconders, assist ICE and custom border police in covering detention and removal costs or, at a minimum, provide a disincentive to cross. Unfortunately, an amendment during the Judiciary Committee markup to raise the bonds for ``other than Mexicans'' failed.
Many commonsense amendments were defeated during the committee process and many amendments to beef up the border will be considered in the days ahead.
As I have said before, the bill before us only requires the Secretary of Homeland Security submit a plan to Congress before millions of people are legalized. There is little regard for the need to better secure our border. In other words, when a plan is presented, make sure the plan works. Some of them say we have done enough. The Secretary says the border is more secure than ever before. They say border security shouldn't stand in the way of legalization.
My amendment is a good first step to stopping the flow of illegal immigration. It sends a clear signal that we are serious about getting the job done. For the Secretary to simply submit a plan to Congress is only worth the paper upon which it is printed. We need to take action and we need to make it a priority.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source