Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I think we all agree our immigration system is broken and it needs to be fixed. Unfortunately, every time Congress has tried to fix our immigration system, promises of a more secure border are never upheld. The bill we have in front of us today is following the same path as past immigration bills.

Under this bill it is certain that 12 million people in this country who are here illegally will receive legal status soon after the bill is enacted. However, the border security provisions of this bill are again nothing more than promises which, again, may never be upheld.

When I talk to the people I represent in the State of South Dakota, one of the questions I get over and over is, When is our Federal Government going to keep its promises when it comes to the issue of border security?

The second question is, Why do we need more laws when we are not enforcing the laws we currently have on the books?

It is time that we follow through on promises of a more secure border.

Actually, you have to go back to 1996, which is the first time Congress spoke on this issue. At that time Congress stipulated that we needed to have a double- and even triple-layered fence system on the border.

Well, you roll time forward to 2006--10 years later--with the Secure Fence Act. Congress again passed a law requiring a double-layered fence, this time indicating very specific locations, totaling around 850 miles--even above the current 700-mile requirement. Eighty Senators voted for that bill. Let me repeat that. Eighty Senators, Republicans and Democrats, in a bipartisan way voted in 2006, under the Secure Fence Act, for 850 miles of double-layered fence.

Well, you go again forward to 2008. As part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress specified this time that not less than 700 miles of fencing would be required. To date, of course, of this requirement, only about 40 miles of the double-layered fencing has been completed.

During debate on the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act in 2010, an amendment was offered to require the completion of at least 700 miles of reinforced fencing along the southwest border, and this time with a specific timeline, a specific date in mind: December 31, 2010. That amendment was agreed to on the Senate floor. There were 54 votes in favor of it, including 21 Democrats, 13 of whom are still here today. But the fence has still not been completed.

The amendment I have offered, amendment No. 1197, simply requires that we implement current law, completing 350 miles of double-layered fencing prior to RPI status being granted. The completion of this section of the fence would be a tangible, visible demonstration that we are serious about this issue of border security. After RPI status is granted, the remaining 350 miles required by current law would have to be constructed during the 10-year period before registered provisional immigrants can apply for green cards. So 350 miles before RPI status; 350 miles after. I think it is a reasonable way of approaching this issue.

People have gotten up and said: Well, this fence is old school. It is not the only answer. It requires a combination of technology and manpower and surveillance, but there is an important place for infrastructure to play in this. A double-layered fence, which was called for by Congress first in 1996, again in 2006, again in 2008--for which there was broad bipartisan support here in the Senate--should be something on which we follow through.

One of the other issues that has been raised is, well, there is not money to do this. There is money appropriated in this bill. Mr. President, $6.5 billion is appropriated, $1.5 billion of which is dedicated to infrastructure. If you look at what it would cost to build a double-layered fence, the estimates are about $3.2 million per mile. So the 350 miles we call for before RPI status is granted would run in the range of $1 billion--sufficient within the money already allocated in the bill.

But my point, very simply, is this: We have made promises and commitments to the American people over and over and over again in a bipartisan way here in the Senate which have not been followed through on.

Now, the Senator from Alabama, who offered an amendment very similar to this at the Judiciary Committee markup, is here on the floor and has been a leader in terms of trying to secure our borders--an issue that I think most Americans, before we deal with any other aspect or element of the immigration debate, believe ought to be addressed.

I would simply ask the Senator, if I might through the Chair, does he think building 40 miles out of a 700-mile requirement is keeping the promise we made to build a border fence that is adequate to deter illegal crossings? Secondly, doesn't infrastructure, such as a double-layered fence, enhance the effectiveness of border control agents and surveillance technologies along the border--recognizing again that it is not the only answer; it is combined with, complemented by other forms of border security? But it is important, in my view, that we have a visible, tangible way in which we make it very clear that this is a deterrent to people coming to this country illegally.

We want people to come here legally. We are a welcoming nation. We are a nation of immigrants, but we are a nation of laws, and we have to enforce the laws. We have not been doing that, and we have not been keeping the promises we made to the American people when it comes to border security and more specifically when it comes to the building of the fence.

So I would ask my colleague from Alabama, through the Chair, about his views on this and whether we have followed through on a level that is anywhere consistent with what we promised to the American people. Secondly, doesn't the Senator think this infrastructure component is an important element when it comes to the border security part of this debate on immigration reform?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. I say to my colleague from Alabama--and, again, I thank him for his leadership on this issue, both past and present--what we are talking about here is something that is a part of the solution. This is not the totality. This is not the entirety.

People come down here and say: Well, you cannot just build a fence. People will tunnel under it. They will climb over it.

Of course they will. But coupled with additional Border Patrol agents, coupled with surveillance, coupled with modern technologies, it is a composite solution, if you will, but it still very clearly is a deterrent. It is a visible, tangible message and deterrent that we want people to come to this country legally, we want to discourage illegal immigration. I think the fence is part of the infrastructure component of that border security solution, and it is something we have all made commitments on in the past.

I think it is very hard to ask people to vote for an immigration reform bill that includes the legalization component to it if we are not going to follow through on the promises we have made because the American people have heard this before. Promises, promises is something they have heard plenty of in the past when it comes to this issue. We have yet to follow through on this with the exception of the 36 miles that I mentioned that have been built. But commitments were made in 1996, requirements to do this in 2006. As the Senator said, in 2008 the money was added. That was a 76-to-17 vote here in the Senate. Seventy-six Senators from both parties voted to fund this in 2008. In 2006, 80 Senators, including now-President Obama, who at that time was a Senator, now-Vice President Biden, who at that time was a Senator, and at that time Senator Hillary Clinton all voted for the Secure Fence Act in 2006.

So, again, I am not suggesting for a minute that it is the only solution, the cure-all, the panacea that is going to address this issue, but I think it is something that is very real, very tangible, very visible. It is something we have made a commitment on to the American people, and I think it is something on which we ought to follow through. It certainly ought to be a requirement--a condition, if you will--in this legislation before some of these other elements come to pass because if it is not, it will never get done, as we have already seen going back to 1996.

So I hope that on amendment No. 1197, when it is voted on this afternoon, we will have the same strong bipartisan support we have had in the past on this issue. I hope, again, as the Senator from Alabama and I have discussed, we will follow through on a commitment we made to the American people and do something really meaningful on the issue of border security.

With that, I say to my colleague from Alabama that, again, I appreciate his strong voice on this issue, and I hope he and I will be joined by many others today.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source