Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, we have been on this bill for about 2 1/2 weeks. We find ourselves in a very strange position where we have had votes on 10 amendments, and now Senators are talking about clearing another 45 amendments 2 days before the majority leader has basically set a deadline and said we are going to be through with this bill one way or the other. This strikes me as a strange way to do business, but here we are.

I have always believed that even though you want something--and in this case I believe virtually every Senator in this Chamber wants an immigration bill--that you can want something so bad and be so desperate that you will get a bad deal. I think we are beginning to see some elements in this bill, which I want to talk about briefly, that I think ought to give all of us pause and cause us to wonder whether this is the way we should be doing business.

One of the things my constituents in Texas found so infuriating about the process of passing the Affordable Care Act--all 2,700 pages--was the way there were backroom deals and various special interest boondoggles that helped garner the 60 votes necessary to pass ObamaCare back in 2010. Some of them became somewhat famous. There was the ``Cornhusker kickback,'' ``Gator aid,'' and the ``Louisiana purchase.'' They became symbols of Congress's irresponsibility when it came to discharging our duties as Members of the Senate.

It is suggested that if, in fact, individual Members got sweeteners that were sufficient to get their vote, that was the way we ought to be doing business. Unfortunately, we are starting to see similar tactics break out here on this immigration issue, suggesting that some Members are so desperate to get a deal, any deal, they are willing to take a bad deal, one in which none of these standing alone would pass muster or scrutiny.

Immigration reform is a nationwide challenge, and immigration reform should promote the national interests, not the special interests of individual Senators or any region or State or lobbying group. Yet when we look at the underlying bill, I see a litany of de facto earmarks, carve-outs, and pet spending initiatives. Because we have been in such a rush since last Friday to move to the designated deadline the majority leader has set for this bill, there may be many Members who are unfamiliar with these special carve-outs, de facto earmarks, and pet spending initiatives. I want to talk about a few of them.

The bill directs $250 million from the comprehensive immigration reform trust fund to boost immigration-related prosecutions in a single sector. There are nine Border Patrol sectors, but the Tucson sector is the surprise beneficiary of $250 million in a special earmark in this bill.

I have a simple question: Don't all of the border sectors need increased funding for prosecutions? Well, I believe the answer is yes. So I believe carving out the

Tucson sector for special treatment is entirely inappropriate. So we see that even longtime opponents of earmarks are now cosponsoring legislation that is filled with de facto earmarks, including one that benefits their State alone. We wouldn't see this sort of thing, I believe, if we had a stand-alone bill. But they have jammed that in here in order to get the maximum number of votes. We have seen strange things happen.

This bill also creates a bureaucracy to determine which occupational category should be prioritized under the new guest worker program. However, it requires a new bureaucracy to automatically designate Alaska seafood processing as a shortage occupation that receives special treatment. We might as well call this the Alaska Seafood Special.

I will mention one more boondoggle, and that is the jobs for youth pet program, which authorizes $1.5 billion to expand an Obama stimulus program that could conceivably be used to give free cars, motorcycles, scooters, and other vehicles to young people who participate. I am referring to page 1,182 of the jobs for youth amendment. It is title V under the bill, which says: The funds made available under this section may be used to provide supportive services, such as transportation or childcare, that is necessary to enable the participation of such youth in the opportunities.

So I believe this is an open-ended invitation to take this $1.5 billion and use it for purposes that many of us would cringe at if we really understood it.

I want to make two final points about the spending in the bill. First, we are going to be asked to waive all 11 budget points of order under the bill at a time when there is bipartisan concern about our fiscal standing, at a time when our debt is $17 trillion. I think we have been pretty good recently in not waiving budget points of order. I believe we are recognizing on a bipartisan basis that it is important we hold the line against increased deficit spending and increased debt. But we are going to be asked to vote to essentially violate our own pay-go rules in waiving the budget points of order, busting the Judiciary Committee's spending limit, and to designate certain spending as emergency spending even though it is obviously not emergency spending. So much for fiscal responsibility.

Supporters of the underlying bill continue to argue that this legislation will actually reduce the Federal deficit. It is a bizarre situation where we can spend almost $50 billion and claim that it actually reduces the deficit, but that is the argument. Yet, as I explained on Monday, the only way we can transform this bill into a deficit reduction bill is by double counting more than $211 billion worth of Social Security revenue. In other words, the money paid in in terms of Social Security taxes is eventually going to have to be paid out in benefits, and they can't say we will pay it out in benefits and then also use that surplus to fund the underlying bill because that is double counting.

Indeed, the bill assumes the very same pot of money can be used to fund new spending initiatives and fund these future Social Security benefits, but only in Washington can we get away with such magical accounting techniques. In the real world this bill actually increases the Federal Government's on-budget deficit over the next 10 years.

I am just suggesting that in our rush to get a bill we are making concessions we ordinarily would not make on stand-alone legislation, whether it is in these sweetener provisions, the de facto earmarks, special carve-outs, or by double counting revenue. But to add it all up, we are left with a bill that is chock-full of de facto earmarks, porkbarrel spending, and special interest sweeteners. This is a bill that increases the on-budget deficit but fails to guarantee a border that is secure and offers only promises, which historically Congress has been very bad about keeping.

Does that sound like real immigration reform? I know we can do better, and I know we must do better if we are ever going to solve our biggest immigration problems.

Again, I would love to support an immigration reform bill. Unfortunately, the way this bill is shaping up, I cannot and will not. My hope is that the House of Representatives will take up this issue on a step-by-step basis and in smaller increments so people can actually read and understand it. By working through this issue in the House, eventually they will be able to come up with a conference committee that will produce a responsible immigration reform bill, one that doesn't offer de facto earmarks and various sweeteners to people who support it, but one which will stand on its own merits and will not bust the budget by double counting Social Security funds paid into the bill in the future.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source