Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Corker-Hoeven amendment. I have listened carefully to those who are opposed who have come to the floor today and Friday, and I have come to one conclusion: They won't take yes for an answer.
Most of the criticism that has come at this amendment is it does too much for the border. Even some of my colleagues who are opposed say it does too much, even though they proposed similar things themselves.
My good friend from Texas says we don't need more border agents but had proposed 5,000 himself. My good friend from Texas also said, well, we need technology, but there was no technology in his bill. My dear friend Senator Coburn, whom I very much like and admire, first says we need money for ICE agents, not Border Patrol. But ICE is funded to deport about 400,000 people a year.
Most of the 11 million will become citizens and not be deported. We have more than enough ICE agents to deal with the much smaller number who will be here illegally, certainly in the beginning and throughout the bill.
Dr. Coburn said we don't have more money for U.S. CIS agents. We do--$3.6 billion more.
Finally, Dr. Coburn talks about the trigger. Let's face it, for many on the other side the No. 1 priority is securing the border. For many on our side the No. 1 priority is achieving a path to citizenship. The bill proposed by the Gang of 8, we believe, did both. But, certainly, there were many on the other side who thought the amount we were putting into border security was not enough, was not adequate, so we were willing to augment that in the Corker-Hoeven amendment, which I am going to talk about in a minute.
Certainly, what we do not want to do is choose one in place of the other. The problem with the 90 percent, which Senator Cornyn proposed, was that under many different types of scenarios and circumstances--an act of God, an administration that was decidedly against a path to citizenship and counted things differently or held up the count--we could envision no path to citizenship. That was out of the question for us.
What we tried to do is say we can have both. We also said we are going to do border security first. But what we made sure of in the triggers--and there are five triggers now with the amendment in this proposal. We make sure the triggers could not be used deliberately by somebody who was opposed to the path to citizenship as a way to block them--whether that be a Congress or a President or somebody in the administration.
So we have come up with the right compromise. We have not split the baby in half, which is what Senator Cornyn and, I gather, Senator Coburn want to do. We have had both. We have satisfied those who are for border security and those who are for a path to citizenship, and only when we satisfy both will we get a bill. We cannot do it with one and not the other. So let me go over the border security part and why it will work.
First, to say the experts were not consulted, as my good friend from Oklahoma said, is not fair, particularly to Senators MCCAIN and FLAKE, who are probably greater experts on what is needed at the border than any of us. They may not be chair or ranking member of the committee--although I believe Senator McCain is on that committee--but they live on that border. And, to boot, Senator McCain has tremendous military experience in terms of surveillance.
What we have done is looked at each sector. There are nine. They are different. The sector of the Senator from Texas has a river and has private property that goes right up to the edge of the river. It would take 30 years to build a fence on that side of the property because we would need eminent domain, and I am sure there are some ranchers who would say: I don't want a fence on my side, right by the river. That is where my cattle come to graze and drink.
There are parts of the Arizona sector that are heavily populated where a strong fence is needed, and there are parts that are so rugged that have no roads that a fence would be a waste of money.
Our bill relies on different approaches in each of the nine sectors. But the best approach did not just come out of the air. That came with Senator McCain sitting down, working with Senators HOEVEN and CORKER, but also working with the Department of Homeland Security as well as those who work in the Border Patrol as to what is needed. That is in the bill.
We heard the objection from others that they do not trust DHS, either this one or a new one, to implement what is needed. So it is in the amendment.
Why do we need so many men and women on the border? Let me explain. Our American people demand that we make the border airtight. That is why some have proposed a 2,200-mile fence, double. That is what they wanted. The cost would be--I think it might go to the hundreds of billions, but it also would not work in many areas for the reasons I mentioned. But they want it airtight. So here is what we have: We have adequate eyes in the sky, whether it be drones or airplanes. So every person, every single person, 100 percent observability, 100 percent situational awareness is what it is called. Any single person crossing the border will be detected, every single person, whether it is night or day, whether it is sunny or stormy. The technology not available 10 years ago allows us to do just that.
Then we have proposed a large number of Border Patrol. It is true there are enough agents that 24-7 we could station somebody on the border every 1,000 feet, all the way from the western edge of the border in San Diego, CA, to the eastern edge of the border in Brownsville, TX. Why? Because the minute one of those eyes in the sky detects someone approaching the border, there will be adequate personnel there to say we will detain them or turn them back.
It is obvious. It is what the experts tell us will work. It is very explainable to the American people. So, yes, there are a lot of resources on the border. Yes, each of us, if we wrote the bill, might do it a different way or put in more money or less money. But no one can dispute that the border becomes virtually airtight--virtually airtight. That means those who cross the border will be few and far between.
There are two things I would like to mention. It is expensive. This amendment does not come cheap. But the CBO report was a game changer because it said what everyone understands, but it verified it. It gave it the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. We all know one of the great economic engines of America--or we should all know; many of us do. I know, Madam President, you know it, being an immigrant yourself--that one of the greatest economic engines America has had to propel it and make it the greatest country in the world is immigrants.
Immigrants are willing to risk everything. They cross stormy oceans, trek across deserts to come to America. What a beautiful, wonderful thing. I am so proud that out the window of my den in Brooklyn, NY, I can see that lady who holds the torch. To the whole world she symbolizes what a great country we are. And people come.
Anyone who doubts and says the Sun is setting on America, just look at how many people risk their lives to come here, how many people separate from families to come here, how many people uproot themselves to come here. If America were not such a great, attractive place, we wouldn't have a problem of so many illegal immigrants. People want to come here. When they come here they work. Boy, do they work. To be able to send $10 a week to their mother or kids in Oaxaca Province or in the Philippines or in Bosnia is a huge thing. It gives them joy. That is why they are sometimes willing to work under the kinds of conditions we don't find acceptable for people who are here legally. But it is the greatest economic engine there is.
Immigrants form companies because so many of the smartest and brightest come here. Immigrants make our meat factories and our farms work because even those who may not have such an education are willing to work under very difficult conditions to earn enough money to feed themselves and maybe send a little home to their families. They are the greatest economic engine we have--the greatest.
Republicans say the way to get this economy going is to cut taxes. Democrats say the way to get this economy going is to spend money. You can decide which one you believe in. But I tell you, no one can dispute that a greater economic engine of either of those is the blood, sweat, toil, and tears of our immigrant communities--not just starting today but from the day in my city when the new immigrants were called ``English'' because the Dutch had settled New York and didn't want these newcomers to come in. In fact, the two oldest high schools in America are in New York City. They are both private schools, but one is called Collegiate. It was formed by the Dutch Reform Church in 1628.
When the English came, they didn't want to go to a school with this Dutch Reform Church. So they formed the Trinity School for the Episcopal English, the Anglican English. There were all kinds of tension. Of course, there is always tension. But when these new English people came, they worked hard and the Dutch saw that.
Peter Stuyvesant recognized it and made New York, actually--the reason so many have written that we have become the greatest city in the world is because, unlike other cities, we would take everybody as long as they worked hard. It is one of the reasons my people settled so heavily in New York, in America. It was a tradition that lasted a long time. Boston was bigger than New York, Philadelphia, but they were closed to outsiders. New York was open.
So the greatest economic engine America needs is immigrants and their hard work, whether they are Ph.D.s in nuclear physics or cutting sugar in Florida or Louisiana. The CBO vindicated that report. Amazing. We are busy talking about Mr. Bernanke and how he could twist the dials and GDP growth might go up 0.3 percent. Do you know what the impartial CBO showed? If we did our bill, which both brought 11 million workers out of the shadows and brought hundreds of thousands more in, in the next decade--millions more in--whether through the Future-Flow Program or Family Unification--GDP would go up 3.3 percent. I know of no government program or tax cut that even professes to do that much. And in the second decade it would go up over 5 percent.
Of course, this is good for America, and we want to secure our borders and we want to rationalize our system and we want to be fair on a tough but earned path to citizenship for those who cross the border illegally. The bill, with the addition of the Corker-Hoeven amendment, will convince everybody they do it all.
One other point. Those who said this new Corker-Hoeven amendment will cost money, it will. But let me read what CBO has just said in the last half hour:
The amendment--
Corker-Hoeven--
would significantly increase border security relative to the committee-approved version of the bill, and it would strengthen enforcement actions against those who stay in the country after their authorization has expired. Therefore, CBO expects that relative to the committee-approved version of S. 744, the amendment would reduce both illegal entry into the country and the number of people who stay in the country beyond the end of their authorized period.
I say that to my colleague from Texas, who is on the Senate floor, and others who say this will not work. CBO: Illegal immigration will decline as a result of the Corker-Hoeven amendment.
Here is something else CBO says:
All told, CBO and JCT--
Joint Committee on Taxes--
expect that enacting the amendment would, like enacting S. 744--
The base bill--
reduce the federal deficit over both the next 10 years and the second decade following enactment--fewer illegal immigrants, higher GDP, more jobs, reduced deficit.
Who could oppose that? I don't know of anybody who could oppose that if they care about America.
Once again, on the border stuff my colleagues just won't take yes for an answer. This is the toughest, strongest, most expensive border provision we have had. It is augmented, of course, by the entry-exit system improvements and the mandatory E-Verify, which many of my colleagues, including my good friend from Alabama, have been calling for for a long time. Illegal immigration will drop dramatically, GDP will go up, jobs will go up, and the deficit will go down.
Pass this amendment and pass this bill. It is good for America.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source