Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. I do not support the overall Senate legislation as it is drafted. On this particular matter, I agree with Chairman Leahy that logging employment would be covered in the definition of ``agricultural employment'' for purposes of the new W agricultural visa program. Those workers that previously had access to the H-2A program should have access to the new W agricultural visa program.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. I did not come to speak. I came to object to the Senator's unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Senator for his courtesy. I think there is an insinuation in his comment that there is a strategy on our part not to speak. That is not true. It is that there is a Republican meeting going on right now. I went to that meeting and said to the people in the meeting they ought to be out here speaking and they had an opportunity to do it. And, for the group, I have objected for that reason.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we have talked a lot about how the immigration bill would or would not prevent illegal immigration in the future. This is a huge concern because we don't want to be back in 25 years proposing the same short-term solutions to the problems.
I wish to take a few minutes about the national security implications of the bill. There are valid concerns that the bill will put public safety and the homeland at risk. I will walk through some of the issues and point out how we tried in committee to change the bill in this effort and, of course, we failed.
First, the bill contains a dangerous national security loophole that would render the U.S. Government unable to share information with foreign governments about immigrants who have had their status revoked. An amendment to preserve the ability of law enforcement to access critical, national security, public safety information and at the same time authorize the Secretary of State to share limited information with a foreign government while protecting legitimate privacy interests was rejected.
Second, the bill provides the Secretary of State with authority to limit in-person interviews of visa applicants abroad. The Secretary of Homeland Security is not required to interview anyone who applies for registered provisional immigrant status.
We learned a valuable lesson after September 11, 2001, because the hijackers were not interviewed and applications were rubberstamped. An amendment to require individuals who may be a threat to national security to submit to an in-person interview with consular officers when applying for a visa was voted down.
Third, there were gaping holes in the student visa process. Yet the committee rejected attempts to delay the expansion of the student visa program until the tracking system in place was improved.
Fourth, the amendment makes it almost impossible to revoke a person's visa when they are on U.S. soil. An amendment to clarify the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State to refuse or revoke visas when, in the national interest, as was the case with the Christmas Day bomber, was rejected.
Fifth, the bill does not address the concerns brought to the surface by recent events such as the Boston terrorist bombing. We are profoundly troubled with the lack of concern about lessons that can be learned from the failings of the immigration process, which may have contributed to recent events such as the Boston terrorist bombing.
We need to understand and we need to address these failures before proceeding with some of the provisions in this bill, especially the asylum and student visa expansion measures.
Putting revised procedures in place before gaining an understanding of what does not work in our current system is not good stewardship of the trust of the American people and the trust people placed in us as their representatives in Congress.
Our Nation's security is at risk and we cannot ignore it. We need to understand what is wrong with the system to prevent events such as the Boston bombing from happening again. However, an amendment to delay an expansion of asylum and student visa programs until there has been a coordinated review detailing the intelligence and immigration failures of the Boston Marathon terrorist attack was also voted down in committee.
Our national security must be a paramount concern with any immigration reform. Eliminating weaknesses in our system, including along the border and the interior, would make our Nation much safer. Regrettably, this bill falls far short of this goal.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I would like to make an inquiry about time. We were supposed to start the last 20 minutes. Is it OK if I start now with my final remarks?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, my colleagues have often heard me speak of my opposition to the legislation that is before us. They have not heard me speak about my opposition to immigration reform. As I have said so many times on this floor and in committee, or even to the press, I have not heard a single Senator say the existing system status quo ought to be maintained.
There are a lot of opinions about what should be done. So as we have seen over the last few weeks, immigration is an emotional issue that engenders strong feelings on both sides of the aisle. Saying it for a second time: Everyone wants reform, but everyone has their own ideas and different solutions.
Coming into the debate, I think my position has been very clear. I made it very clear because I have the experience of the 1986 legislation. That was legislation legalizing; it did not solve the problem. We screwed up in 1986 by not securing the border first, even though we had the intention
that would happen. Today, we are right back at the same place talking about the same problems, proposing the same solutions. Unfortunately, the process has not allowed us to fundamentally improve the bill. We have not been able to vote up or down on commonsense amendments. There has been 550 amendments filed. We have taken up about a dozen.
Despite the fact that the American people want the border secured before we provide a path to legalization, there appears to be a majority of this body who believes legalization must come first. Next Monday and Tuesday I will be holding 11 townhall meetings in Iowa. I know what I am going to hear from my people: Yeah, we need immigration legislation. But first we need to enforce the laws that are already on the books before you consider anything new.
Despite what the Gang of 8 wrote in their framework for immigration reform, legalization is not--emphasis upon ``not''--contingent upon our success in securing our borders and addressing visa overstays. The bill will not ensure that a future Congress is not back 25 years from now dealing with the very same problems. We need a bill that insures results. We need a bill that puts security before legalization, not the other way around.
We are a nation based upon the rule of law. We have a right to protect our sovereignty and a duty to protect the homeland. Any border security measures we pass must be real and, more importantly, be immediate, not 10 years down the road.
We also need meaningful interior enforcement, including allowing immigration officers to do their job and work with State and local officials. Enforcement of the immigration laws has been lax and increasingly selective in the last few years because Federal immigration enforcement officers have been handicapped from doing their job.
The States have tried to step in, but every time the States tried to step in under the 10th Amendment to protect their citizens when the Federal Government would not do it, they have been denied the opportunity to control their own borders. The unfortunate reality is the bill does almost nothing to strengthen interior enforcement efforts. It does nothing to encourage cooperation between Federal, State, and local governments.
The Federal Government will continue to look the other way--look the other way as millions of new people enter this country undocumented. Meanwhile, the bill gives the States no new authority to act when the Federal Government refuses. One of the major reasons immigration is a subject of significant public interest is the failure of the Federal Government to enforce existing laws. Some 11 million people have unlawfully entered the country or overstayed their visas because the Federal Government did not deter them or take action to remove them. The bill subsequently weakens current criminal laws and will hinder the ability of law enforcement to protect Americans from criminal undocumented aliens.
In addition to weakening current law, the bill does very little to deter criminal behavior in the future. It ignores sanctuary cities and increases the threshold required for action of what constitutes a crime. Regrettably, the bill is weak on foreign national criminal street gang members, an amendment that I tried to offer, but we could not get the other side to vote on whether gang members ought to be denied benefits in this immigration law.
Furthermore, the bill falls short in protecting American workers who need and want jobs in this country. While I support allowing businesses to bring in foreign workers, they should only do so when qualified Americans are not available. I have long argued that we must enhance and expand opportunities for people who wish to work legally in the country. Yet as we do that, we cannot forget the American worker. We need to fight for them as well.
Finally, I empathize with people who come into this country to have a better life. We are proud of our country. Those of us born here do not appreciate how great this country is. When I talk at a naturalization ceremony in my State, I tell the new citizens: You are new here. You came from another land where you know things are a lot different than they are here. When you hear Americans bellyaching about our great country, I hope you will tell these Americans who were born here--including this American--that this is the best country in the world, and how it is different in your own country and that you came here for a better life.
We are a compassionate people, and we are also the best country in the world. We are a great country because we have always abided by the rule of law. The rule of law is what makes opportunities that we have possible.
I am going to vote against this bill today. That is no surprise to anybody. I have hopes for a better product to come out of a conference committee. I hope for a bill to go to the President of the United States. My hope is that we will send a bill to the President that will make America stronger, make our borders more secure, and make our immigration system more effective. This is what Americans deserve and what we have a responsibility to deliver.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield to the Senator for 6 1/2 minutes. As far as I know, nobody on my side wants the time, and the Senator may have the time.
Once again, I wish to thank everybody who maybe hasn't heard me say it. The Senator had a fair and open process in our committee. There wasn't a single Member who didn't get a chance to offer amendments. This is the way the process ought to work, and the chairman made it work that way.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source