Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, last week I previewed an amendment I will be offering, hopefully, as early as this afternoon, on the underlying immigration bill. This is an amendment which the Democratic majority leader and at least one or two other Members of the Senate have called a poison pill.
I find that somewhat bizarre, especially in light of what others have said about this amendment, which I will talk about briefly. It strikes me as unusual that anytime anyone offers a different idea by way of an amendment that people do not like they call it a poison pill, as if that was the only option. You either take it without the amendment or you accept the amendment and it kills the legislation.
We know the truth is far different. In fact, several members of the so-called Gang of 8 who have been very much involved in negotiating the underlying bill have different opinions, which actually I find somewhat refreshing but not all that surprising.
Senator Flake, for example, from Arizona, said, ``I don't think it is a poison pill,'' on June 12. Senator Rubio said of my results amendment, ``It's an excellent place to start.'' I am grateful for their comments. Senator Bennet, a Senator from Colorado, on the other side of the aisle and Senator Flake argued that ``they are not afraid of adding a requirement to nab 90 percent of would-be border crossers.'' That was at the Christian Science Monitor breakfast on June 12. Senator Bennet went on to say, ``I have every confidence that we are going to meet the mark well before the 10 years.'' He said that on June 12 as well.
The interesting point about this discussion is the very same measurement or standard that is in my amendment actually comes from the bill that was introduced by the Gang of 8: 100 percent situational awareness of the border and a 90-percent apprehension rate. All my amendment did is to say: OK, you set the standard, but we are going to make sure the Federal Government actually keeps its promises because, unfortunately, the history is littered--recent history, in particular--with broken promises by the Federal Government, particularly when it comes to immigration.
My amendment is necessary. My results amendment, which I will describe further, is necessary because in its current form, the underlying bill does not include a genuine border security trigger. You do not have to take my word for it. Last week, the assistant Democratic leader, Senator Durbin of Illinois, himself said quite explicitly that while the original proposal--as he described it in January 2013, he said: ``A pathway to citizenship needs to be contingent upon securing the border.'' He said that in the context of the bipartisan framework for comprehensive immigration reform.
But later on he was quoted in the National Journal, on June 11, saying, ``The Gang of 8 bill has delinked the pathway to citizenship and border enforcement.'' The bill that is being sold today delinks the pathway to citizenship and border enforcement. My amendment would reestablish the very same linkage the gang themselves trumpeted in January 2013.
I think this is a remarkable admission, that the current bill delinks the pathway to citizenship and border security. I think most Members of the Senate believe that whatever we do in terms of the status of people who are currently here in undocumented status, that one thing we have to do is to make sure we do not ever deal with this issue again by failing to deal sensibly and responsibly with border security and enforcement.
Basically, the approach of the proponents of the underlying bill, as currently written, before my amendment, is: Trust us. Trust us. I have to say that you do not have to be a pollster to know there is not an awful lot of trust toward Washington and the Congress and the Federal Government. It is easy to understand why with all of the various scandals or things that have been represented one way that turn out to be another way.
There is a trust deficit in Washington, DC.
For those of us who believe that doing nothing on immigration reform is not an option, what I would like to do is to do something to make things better. But in order to get there, we are going to have to guarantee that border security and the interior enforcement provisions and the reestablishment of basic order to our broken immigration system is accomplished in this bill; otherwise, it is not going to happen.
In the words of Ronald Reagan, I think we should ask people to trust, but we should also verify that trust is justified. I am not sure some of my colleagues appreciate how essential border security is to immigration reform. For the past three decades, the American people have been given one hollow promise after another about the Federal Government's commitment to secure our borders.
The rhetoric from Washington has been impressive, but the results have been pathetic. The reality on the ground in Texas and in other border States has been quite different. Let me put it this way. A decade after the 9/11 terrorist attacks that killed 3,000 Americans in New York, the Department of Homeland Security has gained operational control of less than 45 percent of our southern border--45 percent. The Secretary of Homeland Security said: ``The border is secure.'' The President said: ``It is more secure than it has ever been''--45 percent secure. For that matter, it has been more than a decade since the 9/11 Commission recommended another important requirement that is contained in my amendment, which is a nationwide biometric entry-exit system.
It has been 17 years since President Clinton signed legislation mandating such a system. So we wonder why there has been such a lack of confidence and a trust deficit between the American people and Washington when it comes to immigration reform and fixing our broken immigration system. It is because they have been sold one hollow promise after another.
We still do not have a biometric entry-exit system that President Clinton signed into law 17 years ago, even though about half of illegal immigration occurs when people come into the country legally and overstay their visa and simply melt into the great American landscape. That is where 40 percent of our illegal immigration comes from. We are asking the American people to trust us again?
Until Congress acknowledges our credibility problem when it comes to enforcing our immigration laws, including border security, and until such time as we take serious action to fix it, we are never going to get true immigration reform, and we will never be able to pat ourselves on the back and say: You know what. This is not going to happen again.
My amendment goes beyond mere promises and platitudes. It demands results. It creates a mechanism for ensuring them. Under my amendment, probationary immigrants are not eligible for legalization until after the United States-Mexico border has been secured and until after we have a nationwide biometric entry-exit system at all airports and seaports and after we have a nationwide E-Verify system, which allows employers to verify the eligibility of individuals who apply for jobs to work legally in the country.
That is what a real border security trigger looks like. That is why it is so important. Because we need to incentivize everybody who cares passionately about border security and restoring the rule of law to our broken immigration system, on the one hand, and those who, on the other hand, more than anything else want an opportunity for people to eventually become American citizens, even if they have entered the country illegally, after they have paid a fine and proceeded down a tough but fair path to citizenship.
What we need to do is incentivize the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the entire bureaucracy to make sure we guarantee that those will happen. This is the only way I know of to do it. Unfortunately, many of our colleagues do not want a real trigger when it comes to border security. Above all, they want a pathway to citizenship. I am not convinced beyond that they have much concern for whether we keep our promises with regard to border security. They are hoping that once again the American people will put their faith in empty promises.
But the time for empty promises is over when it comes to our broken immigration system. If we are ever going to push immigration reform across the finish line, which I want to do, we need to guarantee results. My amendment does that. I would contend that rather than my amendment being the poison pill, the failure to pass a credible provision ensuring border security and interior enforcement will be the poison pill that causes immigration reform to die.
That is not a result I want. I want us to see a solution. I do not want the status quo because the status quo is broken. It serves no one's best interests. I am just amazed at some of my colleagues who are resisting this amendment. Why will they not take yes for an answer? Why will they not take yes for an answer on something that unites Republicans and Democrats, who are actually desperately interested in finding a solution and believe the status quo is simply unacceptable?
As I have repeatedly emphasized, my amendment simply uses the same border security standards as the underlying Gang of 8 bill. They are the ones who came up with the standard 100 percent situational awareness. They are the ones who came up with a 90-percent apprehension rate.
But their bill reiterates a promise but guarantees no results. We have had 27 years of input since the 1986 amnesty, and we still do not have secure borders. Now it is beyond time to guarantee not just more promises or inputs but real outputs.
I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. The latest data shows that U.S. authorities apprehended about 90,000 people along the United States-Mexico border between October of last year and March of this year. Given that we apprehend fewer than half of illegal border crossers, this means we still have hundreds of thousands of people coming into the country across our southern border every year.
The problem, it will not surprise the Presiding Officer, is particularly serious in my State because we have the largest common border with Mexico, 1,200 miles.
As the New York Times reported this last weekend: ``The front line of the battle against illegal crossings has shifted for the first time in over a decade away from Arizona to the Rio Grande Valley of South Texas.''
Indeed, on one day in the Rio Grande Valley Sector, the Border Patrol detained 700 people coming across the border; 400 of them were from countries other than Mexico--400 of them. During the fiscal year which began last October, the number of apprehensions in South Texas has increased by 55 percent, with more than 94,000 apprehensions just in the Rio Grande Valley.
I was in South Texas a few weeks ago meeting with property owners, ranchers, law enforcement officials, and others deeply concerned about the rising tide of illegal immigration. But not only is this a national security issue because people are coming from countries other than Mexico, including countries that are of special concern because they are state sponsors of terrorism, this is also a major humanitarian issue.
In Brooks County last year, 129 bodies were found, people coming across ranchland after suffering from exposure because they have come from Central America, they have come from China, and they have come from the Middle East. They have come from all over the world, and we have seen a sharp increase in the number of people die because they are trying to navigate our broken immigration system.
One final point about immigration reform. Whatever legislation we pass in this Chamber will necessarily have to go to the House of Representatives.
If we want the Senate bill to have any chance of passing in the House and becoming law, we need to include real border security measures and a real border security trigger. Our House colleagues have made that abundantly clear. In other words, my amendment is not a poison pill, it is the antidote because it is the only way we are ever going to truly have bipartisan immigration reform.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source