Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, we are about to vote to end debate--a debate that never really began on an amendment that is 1,200 pages and was filed on Friday afternoon after many Senators left town. We are now voting at 5:30 p.m. on Monday as many Senators are stepping off the airplane.

This is the 1,200-page amendment. We have seen this play before. It is reminiscent of ObamaCare--yet another bill we were told we have to pass to find out what is in it. Unfortunately, it seems there are some Republicans eager to go along with the Democrats in the mad rush to pass this bill.

In the 2007 immigration debate, close to 50 amendments were considered. In this debate, only nine amendments have been debated. I introduced seven substantive amendments to improve this bill. Not a single one of those amendments has been considered on the floor of the Senate.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRUZ. I would happily yield except we have 5 minutes left.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRUZ. Assuming that the time does not come out of my own, I have no objection.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRUZ. As my friend from New York knows well, the amendments are interspersed through a very complicated bill. Analyzing where waivers have been given and what the intersection is of new provisions with old provisions is not a simple endeavor. Indeed, in this particular body, it is not unbeknownst to this body to slide something in text.

My point is very simple: What is the rush? Why are we proceeding gangbusters? The only explanation that makes sense is that it seems there are many Senators in this body--perhaps on both sides of this aisle--who very much want a fig leaf. They want something they can claim they are supporting border security when, in fact, this bill does not do that.

I suggest that if we contrast this amendment to the amendment I introduced, we can see the difference between a bill that actually would protect border security versus something that is merely meant to tell gullible constituents that we have done something.

The first and most important difference is that this amendment provides legalization first and then border security maybe at some time in the future. We have seen this before. In 1986 it was the same promise Congress made. We got the legalization, we got the amnesty, and we never, ever got border security. In contrast, the amendment I introduced reflects the will of the American people to have border security first and only then the possibility of legalization.

Secondly, this amendment does not require operational control of the border. Current law requires that. This amendment weakens current law on operational control. My amendment would require that the problem actually be solved.

Thirdly, this amendment does not require a biometric entry-exit system. It weakens current law. Current law requires that; this amendment takes that out. Instead, it requires essentially a photo ID. For anyone who perhaps has known a teenager, they know that the difficulty of securing a fake ID with a picture on it is not very high. Any flea market in the land will allow it.

Fourth, this bill weakens the requirements of statutes on secure fencing, and it weakens the current law on border security.

Fifth, this amendment is not offset. My amendment was offset. So there is brandnew spending in this amendment with no offset.

Sixth, this amendment has no real enforcement. The amendment I introduced said: If the changes within it on border security were not implemented within 3 years, 20 percent of the salary of political appointees at DHS would be reduced, 20 percent of the budget would be reduced, and it would be block granted to the State to fix the problem.

Fundamentally, this is about political cover. It is not about solving the problem. I suggest the approach is one with which we are all familiar. It is the approach that perhaps in childhood we knew well. It is an approach that says: I will gladly secure the border next Tuesday for legalization today. Now, if we were naive and had not been through 1986 together and had not seen Congress play this same show game with the American people, perhaps we would fall for it, but I don't think the American people are that gullible. Everyone wants to fix our broken immigration system, but at the same time we should not replicate mistakes of the past.

This amendment and the underlying Gang of 8 bill grant immediate legalization. The border security changes will never be implemented, and the border will not be secured.

That is not a solution of which the American people can be proud. I urge this body to reject the amendment, to vote against cloture, and reject the underlying bill.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source