Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. I won't be taking all of that time right now. I will reserve some time and hopefully other colleagues will come down to the floor and engage in a discussion.

As you know, the past few days I have been talking about the importance of border security in this immigration bill. To remind anybody who happens to be listening, I come from a State, Texas, that has the longest common border with the country of Mexico, 1,200 miles.

While many of our colleagues or some of our colleagues come from States such as California where in San Diego they have the fence there that they view as restricting illegal immigration and entry into the country, Tucson, Arizona, has a little different situation because much of the land is Federal land. In Texas, our 1,200-mile common border with Mexico is largely private property on the Texas side. It also is enormously diverse. You can go out to West Texas near Alpine where Big Bend National Park is where you will see huge cliffs that go some 1,000 feet down to the Rio Grande River. While some have said we need a fence across the entire border, I daresay that putting a fence on a 1,000-foot cliff is not going to enhance border security much. What I have argued for from the beginning is the need for a comprehensive border security plan and for Congress to make a sincere and enforceable commitment to follow through on that plan.

I do believe, in the 6 years since the last time we debated immigration reform in 2007, there is an emerging consensus in the country. Many people are mad, and they deserve to be mad, about the Federal Government's failure to live up to its promises when it comes to our broken immigration system.

We can go back to 1986 when Ronald Reagan, the father of modern conservatism in the Republican Party, signed an amnesty for 3 million people. His rationale was we are going to enforce our immigration system so this will be the first and last time any President will have to sign an amnesty.

We know the enforcement component didn't work, that promise was not kept, causing a lot of deeply seated skepticism in the American people as to whether Congress and Washington can be depended upon to keep their commitments when it comes to enforcing our laws and securing our borders.

My amendment that we will be voting on perhaps as early as noon today is designed to turn border security rhetoric into reality. More specifically, what it adds is a trigger. We have been talking about triggers to the Gang of 8 bill, the underlying bill, but it would require the Federal Government to have 100-percent situational awareness of our border, the southwestern border. We can do that from Border Patrol, radar, ground sensors, and using all of the magnificent technology the Defense Department and our military have produced--amazing American innovators--that our military has used effectively in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't believe there is any doubt, and I know our Gang of 8, the people who wrote the underlying bill, believe that 100-percent situational awareness of our border is possible and attainable if we have the political will to make it happen and if our law enforcement authorities are provided the appropriate resources to do it. And 100-percent situational awareness is one of the requirements.

The second is operational control. Right now we don't have control of our southwestern border. The latest Government Accountability Office estimate is only about 45 percent of our southwestern border is under operational control.

For example, a few weeks ago I was in South Texas in Brooks County in deep Rio Grande Valley, the Rio Grande Valley sector of the Border Patrol, visiting with them. On 1 day they detained 700 people coming across the southwestern border in the Rio Grande sector and 400 of them came from countries other than Mexico. Some of the rescue beacons they have down there for people who are in distress--immigrants coming from Central America, coming from around the world through our southwestern border into the United States--the rescue beacons they have down there that I saw with my own eyes, where if people get in big trouble and they realize they may lose their life unless they call the Border Patrol in to help them, are in English, Spanish and, get this, Chinese. Chinese. This is in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas.

I asked the local law enforcement authorities, why Chinese? They said: Well, for a while, we got a whole lot of Chinese immigrants coming across the border, being smuggled across into the United States.

I said: What is the going rate you have to pay the coyotes, as they call them, the smugglers?

They said: About $30,000.

For $30,000 somebody from China can get somebody to smuggle them into the United States, which is the reason why those rescue beacons were in English, Spanish, and Chinese.

Indeed, the Border Patrol statistics reveal we have people who have come across the border in the last year from 100 different countries around the world. A couple of years ago I had the opportunity, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, to ask the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency whether this porous border was a national security issue. Both of them said it was, which is pretty obvious.

We know if people from 100 different countries can penetrate our southwestern border because of a lack of appropriate security there, if they have the money and they are determined enough, they can come from anywhere in the world, including countries that are state sponsors of terrorism. Operational control of the border is very important.

Third, my amendment offers a real trigger that requires a nationwide biometric entry-exit system. That sounds a little obscure. Basically, what happens when you come to the United States from another country is you are required to give fingerprints. That is a biometric identifier because you can't use phony documents or a fuzzy picture to claim to be somebody you are not and get into the country illegally.

The importance of the biometric entry-exit system was noted particularly by the 9/11 Commission, because several of the people who were involved in the plot to kill 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, entered the country legally, but they never left. Hence, the importance of a biometric entry-exit system to document not just when people come to America as tourists or students or whatever, but that they actually leave when their visa is expired.

Right now, 40 percent of illegal immigration is a product of a failure to have an effective entry-exit system because people come legally and they simply stay and melt into the great American landscape. Unless they come into contact with our law enforcement officials, commit a crime--driving while intoxicated, domestic violence, or the like--they are never going to be caught.

Fourth, my amendment requires nationwide E-Verify. E-Verify is the name given to a system with which all Federal offices have to comply. For example, when somebody wants to be hired in my Senate office, either in Texas or up here in DC, we are required by law to run their name through the E-Verify system to verify this person is legally eligible to work in the United States. That is an important part of the provisions in my amendment that provide real triggers.

Let me talk a moment about triggers, because you are going to hear a lot of discussion about a trigger. A trigger is more than a promise. We know there is a litany--indeed, there is a trail of broken promises--when it comes to our immigration system that dates back to at least 1986.

What a trigger means is there is an enforceable mechanism that will prevent people from transitioning, in the case of my amendment, from probationary status to legal permanent residency until the objectives set out in the underlying bill, 100 percent of situational awareness and operational control, are met, together with a biometric entry-exit system and nationwide E-Verify.

I wish to emphasize that my amendment uses the same standard, metrics, and targets as the underlying bill. The difference between my amendment and their bill is their bill promises the Sun and the Moon when it comes to border security, E-Verify, and entry-exit, but it has no enforceable mechanism.

I ask the question, why should the American people trust Congress? Why should the American people trust Washington to enforce this part of the essential bargain, the security part of the bargain, if it has failed to do so in the past?

I would suggest to you that given the current trust deficit here in Washington, with scandals everywhere, that we can't reasonably expect the American people to rely on ``trust us.'' We need something enforceable, which is what my amendment provides.

The trigger in my amendment is not designed to punish people. It is designed to realign incentives. Everybody from conservatives to liberals to people in the middle of the road--Republicans, Democrats, you name it--everybody is incentivized to hit the standard set out in the underlying bill, 100-percent situational awareness and operational control.

Over the past few days I have cited a number of experts. We in the Senate have a lot of experts. We have people from different States, some of whom, to be honest, know more about the subject than others. I have cited a couple of experts, including the former head of Customs and Border Protection and the former Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security at the Department of Homeland Security, all of whom believe the border security requirements in my amendment--and again I stress in the underlying bill--are reasonable and realistic.

No fewer than three members of the Gang of 8--Senator Bennet of Colorado, a Democrat; Senator Flake of Arizona, a Republican; and Senator McCain, a Republican from Arizona--have said the 90-percent apprehension rate for illegal border crossers is a perfectly attainable goal.

Senator McCain 2 days ago said he had talked to the head of the Border Patrol who said this is a perfectly realistic goal, 100-percent situational awareness and operational control. I agree with that.

If the goal is attainable, why not make it mandatory? Why not make it go beyond the usual promises and platitudes and demand actual results? That is what my amendment does. It demands results, and it creates a mechanism that ensures those results will be delivered.

Again, this is designed to realign all of the incentives so all of us are absolutely focused like a laser in ensuring that the executive branch and the bureaucracy will do what the bill promises will be done. If we are able to accomplish that--I believe the American people are a compassionate people and understand we have a very difficult hand to play here because we haven't enforced our immigration laws for many years now. If they believe sincerely this will end the illegality in our broken immigration system, if this will return law and order to our broken immigration system, I believe they will accept dealing with the 11 million people here in a humane and compassionate way.

If you think our immigration system is broken, as I do, and if you think the status quo is unacceptable, that doing nothing is not the answer, then I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is the only way, I believe, to get truly bipartisan and, even more important than that, truly effective immigration reform.

Mr. President, may I ask the Chair how much time I have remaining.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair.

As I mentioned a few moments ago, I wish to spend a few additional minutes talking about a portion of my amendment that hasn't received much attention because we have been focused so much on the border security component. Indeed, I think most Americans would be shocked to learn the underlying bill--the Gang of 8 bill--would allow eligibility for immediate legalization of people with multiple drunk driving convictions. Indeed, the bill even legalizes drunk drivers who have already been deported, amazingly enough.

Just for perspective, in the year 2011, Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported nearly 36,000 people with DUI--driving under the influence--convictions. The problem is especially bad in Houston, TX, where I was born. Just last month, a Harris County Sheriff's Office sergeant named Dwayne Polk was killed by an illegal immigrant drunk driver who had previously been arrested for driving under the influence and illegally carrying a weapon. After his earlier arrest he was deported, but he eventually came back to Houston and once again drove while intoxicated, with the tragic results of SGT Dwayne Polk losing his life.

In May of 2011, Houston police officer Kevin Will was killed by an illegal immigrant drunk driver who had been deported to Mexico on several occasions. In August 2007, an illegal immigrant drunk driver, with a blood alcohol level three times above the legal limit, killed three people on a Houston area freeway, including a husband, a wife, and their 2-year-old son. The driver who killed them was out on bail at the time of the accident after having been arrested for domestic violence.

For that matter, not only does the underlying bill legalize immigrants with multiple drunk driving convictions, it also legalizes people with multiple domestic violence convictions--domestic violence convictions. That is mind-boggling.

I realize some people, when they hear the word ``misdemeanor,'' think we are talking about jaywalking or a speeding ticket or something similar to that or driving a car without a functioning taillight, but the truth is--and the former prosecutors in this Chamber know--the technical difference between a misdemeanor and a felony can be as little as 1 day additional time in prison.

Typically, a misdemeanor is punished, potentially, with up to 1 year in jail. Anything over that is traditionally called a felony. More clearly, felonious conduct is often pleaded down to a misdemeanor, particularly in instances such as domestic violence, where the victim is either married to or lives with the assailant and there is difficulty getting cooperation. Sometimes the only thing the prosecutor can do, even in a case of a very serious physical or other assault, is to get a misdemeanor conviction, even though the underlying circumstances are very serious indeed.

There are numerous States that classify certain domestic violence crimes as misdemeanors, and there is a lot of variety in this, but that doesn't mean the conduct at issue is any less of a domestic violence offense. By my count, 23 States have specific misdemeanor domestic violence offenses. These include California, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and South Carolina.

Minnesota, for example, defines misdemeanor domestic assault this way:

Whoever ..... against a family or household member: (1) commits an act with intent to cause fear and another of immediate bodily harm or death; or (2) intentionally inflict or attempts to inflict bodily harm upon another.

As I am sure my colleagues from Minnesota know, crimes that qualify as misdemeanor domestic violence under Minnesota law include domestic abuse with a deadly weapon--even domestic abuse with a gun. While it is called a misdemeanor in the statute books, it is obviously a very serious underlying offense.

I would love it if some Member of this Chamber would explain why conduct such as this should not be a bar to the generous opportunity afforded in the bill to obtain probationary status and eventually earn a pathway to citizenship. Why should we include people such as this, who have shown so much contempt for our laws?

We are not just talking about people who have come here to work in violation of our immigration laws, we are talking about people who have come in violation of our immigration laws and who have also committed serious offenses. We should have zero tolerance for anyone who enters our country and commits such a heinous act.

America has always been a deeply compassionate and understanding society, and nothing has changed, but when it comes to granting legal status to people who have violated our immigration laws, our criteria should be very clear: no drunk drivers and no violent criminals, period. My amendment guarantees that, which is just one more reason why this Chamber should embrace it.

For now, I wish to conclude by saying I read in the press, including the New York Times, a story by Ashley Parker, dated June 19, 2013, that says, ``Two GOP Senators are close to a deal on border security.'' It cites the efforts of my colleagues Bob Corker of Tennessee and John Hoeven of North Dakota, who have been working behind the scenes to try to improve the border security component of the underlying bill.

I applaud them for their efforts, and I applaud them for moving the underlying bill in a more positive direction when it comes to border security. I am going to wait to pass final judgment until I actually see language because the devil is so often in the details on things such as this. But I would point out that just before their efforts, which now reportedly would include an additional 20,000 Border Patrol agents, the underlying bill had zero additional Border Patrol agents--zero additional boots on the ground.

My amendment adds 5,000 Border Patrol agents. Reportedly--and, again, we need to see the details of the proposal--Senators CORKER and HOEVEN would add 20,000 additional Border Patrol agents.

To show what a dramatic change that has been, Senator Schumer, one of the chief architects of the underlying bill, in a speech on June 12, said: Whatever CBO--the Congressional Budget Office--says, 6,500 border agents is a multibillion-dollar proposition, unpaid for, which is why I know my colleagues on the other side rue the day when we vote for unpaid obligations.

Again, he said--and this is on June 12--how can you manufacture 3,500 new personnel and say it doesn't add to the cost and will be reallocated? I want to know where it is going to be reallocated from.

Similarly, my colleague Senator McCain said: But those who think we need more people, we do need more people to facilitate movement across ports of entry, but we have 21,000 Border Patrol agents. Today there are, at the Mexico-Arizona border, people sitting in vehicles in 120-degree heat.

He said, in a speech on June 18: What we need is not more people. He went on to say: But the fact is, we can get this border secured, and the answer, my friend, is as is proposed in the Cornyn amendment; that we hire 10,000 more Border Patrol agents. He said: That is not a recognition of what we need.

Finally, he said: No expert I have talked to, to say the best way to control people from crossing the border illegally, which I desperately want to do, works better with a huge amount of personnel.

So I point out those comments by Senator Schumer and Senator McCain, two of the leading members of the Gang of 8--their comments on June 12. So if it is true, as reported in the New York Times and elsewhere, that Senator Corker and Senator Hoeven have moved them off the zero additional Border Patrol agents to doubling the size of the Border Patrol agents, that is a substantial movement in terms of boots on the ground.

I will conclude, for now, by saying this: I am looking forward to seeing the language that is being proposed, the alternative language. But for now, I believe my amendment deserves the support of the Members of this Chamber because I believe it is the only way we have available to us to ensure our constituents, to look them in the face and say: We know we have broken promises in the past when it comes to border security. We know we promised 17 years ago there would be a biometric entry-exit system, when President Clinton signed that into law. But you know what, we didn't do it. But we are serious about doing the enforcement and security measures now and, in fact, we have put a provision in the bill which will guarantee it.

That is what my amendment will do.

I reserve the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have been here numerous times over the last couple of weeks to talk about why the essential bargain that needs to underlie this bill has to be one that is not based on phony promises such as the ones made in the past about restoring legality and order to our broken immigration system. It actually needs a mechanism that will compel results and realign all of the incentives for people across the political spectrum, Republicans and Democrats alike, to make sure Congress, and the executive branch in particular, keep their promises when it comes to border security. That is what my amendment is about and that is what we will be voting on perhaps in the next half-hour.

The underlying metrics contained in my amendment are derived from those in the underlying bill: 100-percent situational awareness and 90-percent apprehension. Some people may question that and say, How can we have 100-percent situational awareness? The fact is by using the technology currently deployed in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq. Technology such as that was featured in a Los Angeles Times article a few weeks ago called the VADER, a type of radar pilot that was being tested on the western part of the border. With it we can do a comprehensive job of seeing the border.

I am not talking about a Border Patrol agent seeing three people coming across the border and not seeing a handful of others who scamper across in some other place. I am not talking about that sort of imprecision. I am talking about using available technology such as that, for example, demonstrated by AT&T. AT&T recently came in and demonstrated in my office the use of fiberoptic cable to create, in essence, an acoustic system which will identify people crossing the border and which then will trigger cameras to focus on the individual coming across to make sure it is not a deer or a javelina, that it is actually what the Border Patrol should be focused on; that is, people crossing the border illegally.

They could basically lay that cable down the entire U.S.-Mexican border for, I think they told me, somewhere on the order of $80 million. It is a lot of money, but it is not too much when it comes to securing our border.

Likewise, I mentioned the VADER technology. I know there are fixed towers and radar systems and camera systems that are being used by the military that need to be used by the Department of Homeland Security when it comes to protecting our border and keeping our commitments to keeping America safe.

There are dirigibles, I will call them, blimps that are used successfully in places such as Afghanistan and which should provide an ability to see a huge stretch of the border, using, again, radar and cameras. So this idea of situational awareness--that that is somehow not possible--simply ignores the technological advances that have been made and deployed by our U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq and which could be deployed if we had the political will to make it happen along the southwestern border.

I do not think it is too much to ask that of the people you actually see, that the Border Patrol ought to detain 90 percent. Right now, according to the Government Accountability Office--in 2011--our border is only 45 percent under operational control--45 percent. So that means, if you do the rough arithmetic, out of the 350,000 people who were detained coming across our border last year maybe the Border Patrol seizes and detains half of the people. Who knows what it is. We are guessing. We know the enumerator, but we do not know the denominator. So we need to deploy the technology and assets we have in order to meet that goal.

Again, I would refer to the New York Times article I talked about a moment ago of June 19. The headline: ``Two G.O.P. Senators Are Close to a Deal on Border Security.'' This refers to the efforts of our colleagues Senator Corker and Senator Hoeven. I have applauded them publicly, and I will do so again in making sure under their agreement--which we have not yet seen, and we understand we will see language maybe tonight--they have helped make sure that we focus more assets on the border security issue. I think they have added very constructively to this process, but I think the problem is--and we will have to wait until we see the language--under this pending agreement it says they have agreed to make the 90-percent apprehension rate a goal rather than a requirement--a goal.

Well, the American people will not be fooled. When Congress says to the American people, on something as important as border security: Trust us, it reminds me of the old sort of lame joke that the most feared words in the English language are: I am from the government, and I am here to help.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. We are saying, in essence, on border security: We are from the government. Trust us. We have an aspirational goal to actually secure the border, but you have no guarantee that it will be done.

That is why my amendment is so important, because what it does is not create any sort of punitive effect, but it realigns all of the incentives for people across the political spectrum--Republicans and Democrats alike--to make sure the executive branch and the bureaucracy keep their commitments when it comes to border security. Then I believe the American people, demonstrating their typical generosity and compassion, will say: Yes, we need to find a humane way to deal with the 11 million people who are here.

Mr. President, I have a sheet in front of me entitled ``What They Are Saying About Border Security Metrics.'' This sheet has excerpts from a number of experts in the border security area who talk about the importance not just of measuring inputs--how many Border Patrol agents, how many drones, how many radar; I call those inputs--what they say is that we actually need outputs, we need results, and we need metrics or measuring sticks to be able to show we are making progress toward the intended goal.

I ask unanimous consent that this document citing these experts be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

I hope my colleagues will vote to take up my amendment. I understand the majority leader will likely move to table it in short order. I hope my colleagues will vote no on that motion to table because I think this is an important building block in terms of restoring Congress's and the Federal Government's credibility when it comes to our broken immigration system.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the majority leader has moved to table my amendment which provides a guarantee of actual results rather than false promises, which have been the sad litany of most of our history when it comes to immigration reform and border security.

Starting in 1986, when Ronald Reagan signed an amnesty for 3 million people premised on enforcement, the American people, in their typical generosity and compassion, accepted that based on the representation it would never happen again. In 1996, 17 years ago, President Bill Clinton signed into law the requirement for a biometric entry-exit system, which would address the 40 percent of illegal immigration that occurs because people enter legally, simply stay, and melt into the great American landscape, unless they happen to commit a crime or are otherwise caught by law enforcement.

We cannot ask the American people to trust us because of this litany and sad story of broken promises when it comes to immigration reform. That is why we need real enforcement, why my amendment needs to pass and not be tabled.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I honestly respect and value the work the so-called Gang of 8 has done on this legislation, as well as the contributions made by my colleagues from North Dakota and from Tennessee. I think they have moved this bill in a constructive direction to give people more confidence that we are actually serious about dealing with border security.

But I want to ask them to distinguish, if they will, between the provision I know they both supported in my amendment that was tabled earlier which makes the progress from probationary status to green card contingent upon 100-percent situational awareness of the border and a 90-percent apprehension rate which is defined as operational control. How does their amendment differ from that?

I know it hasn't been completed yet, but my understanding is Senator Schumer and the Democrats would not agree to that. I know they object to it. Senator Schumer has been quite clear in his telling me that. But my impression is this is a promise of future performance, and there is no contingency in the same sense that there was a trigger that prohibited the transition from probationary status to legal permanent residence.

Could the Senator please clarify?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. I have one last question, because I know there are others who want to talk and it is not my intention to interfere with their colloquy here.

The 20,000 additional Border Patrol agents, here is an area where the movement has been pretty dramatic, because we started with zero additional Border Patrol agents. My amendment was disparaged by the distinguished senior Senator from Arizona and the distinguished senior Senator from New York as being a budget amendment buster, 5,000 Border Patrol agents. I was told we don't need more boots, we need technology. Now I find, to my shock and amazement, the distinguished senior Senator from Arizona saying we need 20,000 more Border Patrol agents. How much is it going to cost? That is the question.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know things seem like they are speeding by us at the speed of light on this bill. We received an announcement of a breakthrough on the part of some of our colleagues that is going to give this bill the momentum to pass and come out of here with a bunch of votes. But I think there are some questions we need to ask.

First of all, I see the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee. I know he has probably looked at this. The underlying bill provides that $8.3 billion is immediately appropriated as emergency spending to fund the trust fund that will fund at least some of the operations in this immigration reform bill. But when I started to look at it a little more closely and consider the fact that even though the underlying bill had zero funds for new Border Patrol personnel, this new bill--this new proposal, I should say, that we have yet to see--supposedly it is going to come around 6 o'clock--has an additional 20,000 Border Patrol. That is doubling the size of the Border Patrol.

Senator Hoeven, the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, said earlier in response to a question I asked him, that would cost an additional $30 billion. So we have $8.3 billion, if my arithmetic is correct, and $30 billion. That is $38 billion.

I noticed on page 48 of the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate, the CBO estimates that implementing this bill, the underlying bill, would result in net discretionary costs of about $22 billion more. That is starting to be real money, it seems to me, $60 billion. I know we have been having some spirited debates about whether the 85 or so billion dollars that was sequestered under the Budget Control Act was something we could live without or not, or whether it had to be made up through additional revenue. But this strikes me as very significant that we are talking about $60 billion of additional deficit spending--or additional spending, adding to the deficit, which has not been paid for, if my numbers are correct.

I would welcome anyone else to come help me figure that out.

Now, one of the rationale, as I was talking to our colleagues--they looked at the original score and said this actually generates additional revenue because people who come out of the shadows and are working will begin to pay Social Security taxes. But the $211 billion in the score is Social Security trust fund money, which, of course, must someday be paid in terms of benefits to these very same people.

So it appears that there is double counting going on here. Our colleagues are saying: Hey, we have additional revenue because of the negative score. But that is money that is going to require an IOU to the Social Security trust fund and will have to be paid back at some point in the future.

So, as Senator Sessions, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee pointed out, the on-budget deficit will increase by $14.2 billion. That is before you add the additional $30 billion for 20,000 Border Patrol and $22 billion in additional spending to fund this underlying bill.

So my only point is I think we need to take a deep breath. First, we need to read the proposal that is coming out supposedly at 6 o'clock. But already there is talk about what the end game in the Senate is. Potentially, the majority leader will file cloture on this Corker-Hoeven amendment. Then we will have a vote on Monday or maybe Tuesday. I think it is extraordinarily important when you are talking about numbers like this, and a bill this big, that we take our time and are careful and we know exactly what the impact of this bill is because if, in fact, what is happening is double counting, which is my suspicion based on my review of this CBO documentation, that is a serious matter, indeed, because that money is going to need to be paid back.

On another but related note, I would say we have been told this surge that is going to be funded under the Corker-Hoeven amendment, and the additional 20,000 Border Patrol agents and a whole bunch of new technology and other assets, that this will be sufficient to secure our borders and make illegal immigration a thing of the past. We have been told that supporters of the bill welcome a robust and extensive debate over its provisions. Yet when we look at the way this is happening, where people are announcing breakthroughs, people are saying, well, I am going to cosponsor that, only to find out the bill itself has not even been written or released, it seems to me we have the cart ahead of the horse. We better be careful about what we are doing.

We have Members of the Chamber calling for a vote this weekend on an as yet unreleased amendment. I know, I, for one, and others, I suspect, would like to read it and know what is in it.

I commend our colleagues--I mean this in all sincerity--for trying to do their best to improve this bill. But I worry their solution amounts to throwing more money at the problem without any real system of accountability. We have talked about how important it is to have inputs into the bill. But really what we all want are results or outputs. And what we have under this amendment, as I understand it and as I asked the distinguished Senators from Tennessee and North Dakota, they conceded that because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle object to any sort of contingency between the probationary status and legal permanent residency based on accomplishing the situational awareness requirements in the underlying bill or operational control, because they object to that, then all we have are more promises about future performance.

I must say our record of keeping our promises when it comes to immigration reform are beyond pathetic, starting back in 1986 with the amnesty and promise of enforcement, then in 1996 where, as I mentioned earlier, President Clinton signed a requirement of a biometric entry-exit system which has still not been deployed at the exits, at airports and seaports even though the 9/11 Commission noted that some of the terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, included people who came into the country legally but simply overstayed their visas, and we lost track of them because we had no effective entry-exit system. The 9/11 Commission said this is something we need to fix. That was 2001. Still it has not been done.

Until today, our colleagues on the so-called Gang of 8 argued that it was too expensive and too impractical to add even 5,000 Border Patrol agents, to say nothing of 20,000 agents. As I pointed out earlier in asking some questions of our distinguished colleagues, Senator McCain from Arizona, and Senator Schumer, the senior Senator from New York, it is amazing how quickly their tune changed.

Their underlying bill had zero Border Patrol agents. When my amendment had 5,000 Border Patrol agents, they said that was a budget buster. Imagine my surprise when their amendment comes out with 20,000 Border Patrol agents, doubling the Border Patrol, $30 billion.

I wish to know whether the proposals that have been made here are being sufficiently vetted. I don't know exactly what all the new border patrol is going to be doing. While I think it is important we get the advice of the experts in terms of what sorts of new technology can be deployed here, I worry that by being overly prescriptive about both the number of the boots on the ground and the technology they are going to use that we are going to freeze in place legislatively a solution that will quickly become antiquated and become inefficient.

That is why I prefer, and why I think it is much better, an output for a result metric we could look at. Let the experts--let the Border Patrol, let the Department of Homeland Security, let the technology experts who developed great technology we have already paid for and deployed in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan through the Department of Defense--advise us and the Border Patrol what they need in order to accomplish the goals in order to meet the mark. Let's not let a bunch of generalists such as ourselves, who are not expert in this field, prescribe this solution for a 10-year period of time when it will become quickly outdated.

From everything I have heard and everything I have read--and I think it was confirmed by the Senators this afternoon--the Hoeven-Corker amendment creates a border security trigger based on inputs rather than outputs. It is, I think it is accurate to say, aspirational. In other words, they promise to try to meet those goals.

Ten years from now, I daresay half the Members of this Chamber will not even be here. Since 2007 we have had 43 new Senators. The promises we make today in exchange for the extraordinary generosity toward the 11 million people--to provide them an opportunity to gain probationary status and then potentially earn legal permanent residency and citizenship--that extraordinary offer made in the underlying bill--we have no idea whether the border security, whether the entry-exit system or the E-Verify will actually work and accomplish the goals we all hope they will accomplish.

Once again, Washington is saying trust me, trust us. We mean well. We are going to try.

Do you know what. We have no means to compel the bureaucracy and the executive branch to actually do what we say they should do here. This is why we need a trigger, a hard trigger, to realign the incentives so that all of us, from the left to the right, Republicans and Democrats, join together in putting the focus on the problem like a laser and making the bureaucracy hit those objectives.

We have promised a lot of things. We have had 27 years of inputs into our immigration system since the 1986 amnesty, and we still don't have secure borders. There were 350,000-plus people detained at the southwestern border last year.

GAO says we have about 45-percent operational control of the border. Who knows how many people actually made their way across--although we do know that among those who made it across who were detained, they came from 100 different countries, including state sponsors of international terrorism.

I am not suggesting there are massive incursions of terrorists coming from other countries, although I am saying the same porous borders that will allow people to come into this country from other countries around the world can be exploited by our enemies. It is a national security issue.

When I go home to Texas, people tell me they simply don't trust the Federal Government when it comes to securing our borders. Why would they? Based on the historical experience, there is no reason for them to do so. Three decades of broken promises have destroyed Washington's credibility. The only way to regain that credibility is to demand real results on border security and create a mechanism that incentivizes all of us to make sure it happens.

I am afraid this amendment, the Corker-Hoeven amendment, no matter how well-intentioned--and I do believe it is well-intentioned; everyone is eager to find a solution to the broken immigration system, including me. The status quo is unacceptable, and it benefits no one.

In the rush to try to come up with something that seems good at the moment, in failing to take the care to look at the detail, whether it is financial or whether it will actually produce results, and based on text we haven't even seen yet, I think we are rushing to judgment here. I think it is something we ought to reconsider.

Looking beyond border security, I am eager to know whether the proposed amendment includes other issues that were contained in my amendment that was tabled earlier today.

I know, speaking to Senator Hoeven and Senator Corker, they did include a border security component. As I understand it, there are other Senators who are coming to them and saying we want to be included in your amendment, so we don't know what subjects are also included in that amendment.

I wish to know whether it includes things such as does it prohibit illegal immigrants with multiple drunk driving convictions from receiving legal status? What about people who have been guilty of multiple instances of domestic violence? What about immigrants who fall into one of those categories and have already been deported?

Believe it or not, under the underlying bill, people could have actually been deported for committing a misdemeanor and be eligible to reenter the country and register for RPI status. I think that would be shocking to most people if they think about it, if they knew about it. Under the Gang of 8 bill, all of the people I have just described are available for immediate registered provisional immigrant status.

Earlier this year, I mentioned a remarkable statistic, at least it is to me. In fiscal year 2011, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, deported nearly 6,000 people with DUI convictions, driving under the influence. I challenge any Member of this Chamber to come down to the floor and explain why drunk drivers and people who committed domestic violence should be eligible for immediate probationary status. I doubt anyone will take me up on that challenge, because who would want to defend the indefensible?

As I have said before--and I will conclude my comments with this because I see other Senators on the floor who want to speak. As I said before, the American people are generous, they are compassionate, but they don't want to--it is the old adage: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. They don't want to be fooled again when it comes to unkept promises in fixing our broken immigration system.

I know we are committed to finding a reasonable, responsible, and humane way to solve the problem of illegal immigration, but we should never ever grant legal status to people with multiple drunk driving or domestic violence convictions. I don't know, but I will certainly be careful to read and learn whether the proposed alternative to the amendment that was tabled earlier today contains some of these provisions that were in the tabled amendment. If they don't, we will be filing--we have filed separate amendments, on which we will urge an up-or-down vote.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from Alabama that he reads it the same way I read it. You can't do both. You can't raise the money to pay for the bill and say you don't have to pay Social Security benefits. These very same people are going to expect some day that they will get those benefits. What happens, as I understand it--and the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee can correct me if I am wrong--when we borrow money, in essence, from the Social Security trust fund, there is an IOU there that is going to have to be paid back.

It does appear to me there is double counting here. I would say the $14.2 billion on-budget deficit, that is before you add in the $30 billion of additional cost for 20,000 Border Patrol agents.

As I read page 48 of the CBO, they estimate that implementing the underlying bill would result in net discretionary costs of about $22 billion over the 2014-to-2023 period. It sounds to me as if the costs keep mounting and there is double counting going on. I think we have to get to the bottom of it. Given our rush, we need to slow down, understand the numbers, and understand the financial impact, because that is not going to go away if we get it wrong.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source