Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHER. Of course.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise today to express my deep disappointment with the current immigration reform legislation and the extremely limited opportunity for Senators to amend this bill. Although I was not a Member of the Senate in 2009, I watched the debate on ObamaCare closely. I was amazed the world's greatest deliberative body could vote on such a massive change to Federal policy without having time to read or adequately amend the bill.

Failure to fully comprehend the consequences--intended or otherwise--left many Americans skeptical, and rightfully so. We were told the need to act justified passage of this massive bill, and we were admonished that we needed to pass the bill to find out what is in it. The American people were not pitched sound policy, the American people were pitched sound bites. Public polling suggests the American people still haven't bought it, and with good reason.

A few years later, Americans are starting to learn the devastating, real-life impact of the flawed health care policy, including the loss of current benefits and the sticker shock of rising premiums. The litany of broken promises seems endless. Yet here we are again, another dire problem in desperate need of a solution, and this time it is immigration.

I agree, and Nebraskans agree, we must address the problem of illegal immigration. The status quo is unacceptable. Our border remains dangerously insecure, and 11 million illegal immigrants currently enjoy de facto amnesty.

We are told there is only one solution--rather, we are only allowed to vote on one solution that has been agreed upon behind closed doors by the majority leader and a small group of Senators. We are told we have no choice but to pass this bill.

The pundits in Washington tell us the failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform will leave the Republican Party in an uncertain electoral wilderness. Well, I, for one, am more concerned about the future of this Nation--the future America I will leave to my children and my grandchildren--than I am about any political party's electoral prospects.

We are told that simply devoting tens of billions of dollars, with no plan, will solve the problem.

We have tried throwing big money at big problems in the past. It didn't work then, and it won't work now.

Some have suggested there has been plenty of time to read the revised bill. They argue there are only 119 pages of changes that have been added to the 1,200-page legislation before us. But those changes are spread across and throughout the entire language of this bill. There have been little fixes here and there. But if you blink, you might miss an important word that has been dropped or a clause that has been added, and the result is a lasting effect for generations to come.

Some of these changes include special carve-outs similar to the cornhusker kickback that helped bring ObamaCare across the finish line. Nebraskans know exactly what I am talking about. These new carve-outs include special treatment for the seafood industry, special treatment for Hollywood, and extensions of the failed stimulus program.

I am disappointed the majority leader has once again rushed a bill of this magnitude and impact. It is another artificial deadline imposed by the leader, so members can make it back for some backyard barbecues. That is disappointing.

I don't sit on the Judiciary Committee. The only opportunity I and 82 other Members of the Senate have to offer amendments to reform the flawed aspects of this bill is through floor debate. Yet we are being denied that opportunity by the majority leader. So far, we have only voted on nine amendments. Given the emotional, controversial, and complicated nature of this issue, reforms are not made easily. We have a duty to make sure we get it right and that we avoid the mistakes of the past.

I have always believed that before we address any form of legislation that deals with legalization for our undocumented population, we must first fully secure the border. Without a fully secure border, the United States will find itself in the same dire straits down the road. Yet the amendment offered by Senators Schumer, Corker, and Hoeven falls short of this very necessary goal. We need a proposal that brings about verifiable, measurable results along the southern border.

I support a carefully crafted border security plan that is strategy driven, cost effective, accountable, and responsive to the needs of law enforcement officials, and those law enforcement officials have expressed concerns with the legislation before us.

The attempt of the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment to reach a compromise on border security metrics has resulted in vague ineffective standards. The border security amendment I filed would provide needed oversight to ensure border security goals are being achieved and maintained in a timely fashion.

The border security amendment I filed requires that the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Commissioner of the Customs and Border Patrol submit a written certification that all border goals have been met. The Homeland Security inspector general must also sign off on certification. And, finally, congressional approval must be obtained.

Importantly, the definition of operational control in my amendment would maintain the current law's definition, rather than watering it down. But my amendment hasn't received a vote.

The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment also fails to require a biometric entry and exit system at land, air, and sea ports. Instead, it simply provides a basic electronic screening system--and only at sea and air ports, not land ports of entry.

This is absolutely unacceptable--and it is remarkably weaker than the border security provisions in the 2006 and 2007 comprehensive immigration bills, which required implementation of a biometric entry-exit system.

The border security amendment I filed implements a biometric entry-exit system at all points and ports of entry. But my amendment hasn't received a vote.

Border security is a question of national security. It is not a position that can be watered down or compromised. The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment does just that.

We also need to make sure we are being fiscally responsible. Last time I checked, we are still $17 trillion in debt. Yet this amendment throws $46.3 billion at border security with no plan from the Department of Homeland Security detailing how that money is going to be used. There is no clear justification for the amount detailed in this request. There is absolutely no strategy driving this funding request.

There is also not nearly enough accountability. The reporting requirements to Congress are toothless. I reject--and I suspect Nebraskans reject--the idea that massive amounts of spending alone are the solution to our border security problem.

In addition to the lack of strategy behind the funding, I am concerned this legislation provides legalization first and border security second. Specifically, this legislation creates a loophole allowing certain people who have overstayed their nonimmigrant visas to obtain a green card without returning home. The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment also creates a number of loopholes for criminal aliens to remain in our country.

Under their proposal the Secretary of Homeland Security has broad authority to waive deportations for certain criminal activity. For example, it would allow many members of criminal gangs to gain entry and the legal right to remain in the country.

In a written statement, Immigration and Customs Enforcement council president Chris Crane stated:

The 1,200 page substitute bill before the Senate will provide instant legalization and a path to citizenship to gang members and other dangerous criminal aliens, and handcuff ICE officers from enforcing immigration laws in the future. It provides no means of effectively enforcing visa overstays which account for almost half of the nation's illegal immigration crisis.

The list of problems goes on.

In short, this legislation and the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment remains fatally flawed. The American people demand--and they deserve--better policy.

I am committed to working on lasting solutions that will reform our immigration system once and for all. But let me be clear: I will not support legislation simply because it might be vogue or politically expedient or could ingratiate me with the inside-the-Beltway club. I vote for legislation if it is sound policy, if it will improve the lives of hard-working taxpayers, and if it reflects the values of Nebraskans. This legislation has a long way to go.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHER. Yes, I will.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHER. I have been, at the Texas border.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHER. That was in the early 2000s.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I would say I believe my statement is correct. It reflects the values of my State, it reflects the values of Americans, and it truly reflects their concerns with this piece of legislation that is before us now.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague and friend, Senator McCain from Arizona, and I look forward to accepting his invitation to visit his fine State.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source