Fixing America's Welcome Mat

Floor Speech

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President they say history has a way of repeating itself. That certainly came true in June when the Senate approved a sweeping reform bill to revamp the nation's immigration laws. Unfortunately, the U.S. Senate failed to learn from the mistakes created by the 1986 overhaul.

In the 1980s, about 3 million people who were living in the country illegally were granted legal status. Today, 27 years later, the U.S. estimates 11 million undocumented immigrants are living here.

What should that tell us? It says that the 1986 law failed to stem the flow of illegal immigration. It sent the wrong signal by granting legal status to millions while ignoring the need to secure the border.

I do not need a crystal ball to tell me what would happen on the road ahead if we repeat the mistakes of the past. I saw how legalizing before securing our borders turned out. It turned America's time-honored welcome mat into a timeworn doormat.

America's immigration system is broken. It is time to fix it so that a legal flow of immigration can help the economy and bolster areas of the workforce that are short of workers, from low-skilled to high-tech workers.

But immigration laws should not come at the expense of American workers or cause them to be disadvantaged, displaced or underpaid. Rooting out fraud and abuse from many of our visa programs should be a priority.

Unfortunately, the bill passed by the U.S. Senate would not fix what is broken and is chock-full of loopholes that make the legalization system far from ideal.

Thankfully our system of self-government protects representation of, by and for the people with a bicameral Congress. Now the U.S. House of Representatives has a chance to get it right.

The House is moving on a number of bills. They are having very thoughtful discussions on how to improve the legal system while adhering to the rule of law. They also know that passing one sweeping bill is a recipe for disaster--one that inevitably creates loopholes and allows special interest provisions to override good policy.

I would like to discuss a few of their good ideas.

First, the House Judiciary Committee approved the SAFE ACT, a bill that beefs up our interior enforcement efforts. It provides tools to State and local law enforcement agencies to help the government enforce immigration laws.

It enhances the 287(g) program, which I helped author. It gives the States and localities the power to enact and enforce their own immigration laws as long as they are consistent with Federal law. The bill would improve our country's ability to remove criminal aliens. Dangerous individuals would be detained, sex offenders would be made inadmissible, and gang members would be both inadmissible and deportable.

These are provisions that are omitted from the Senate bill. Dangerous criminals are ignored in the Senate bill, and it was apparent that the other side of the aisle did not want to have votes that would bar these dangerous criminals from receiving legal status.

Securing the border is very important, but so is focusing on individuals who violate our laws and violate the terms of their stay in the U.S. If we are serious about being tough on sex offenders, domestic abusers, drunk drivers, and other criminals, then the SAFE Act needs to be passed by the Senate and sent to the President.

Second, the House Judiciary Committee approved a bill that improves the existing E-VERIFY program. This program is a valuable tool and should be made mandatory for all businesses. While the Senate bill does make it mandatory, it does so over 6 years and provides exceptions for certain employers. The House bill would implement the program on a faster timetable, for which I have advocated.

Third, the House Judiciary Committee approved bills that improve the legal system for people who want to live and work in the United States. The committee approved a bill that focuses on high-skilled workers that are needed in the country, and another bill that improves the legal channels for people who want to work in agriculture. If we want to ensure that we do not deal with millions of people here illegally in the future, then we have to focus on getting our legal immigration system in order.

Now, I would like to talk about the border bill that was approved by the Committee on Homeland Security. This is a bill I am not ready to endorse. Let me explain why.

The bill, known as the Border Security Results Act, is not a serious and comprehensive approach to border security. While it takes a good first step in requiring metrics to assess whether the borders are secured, there is nothing that ensures that results are achieved.

The bill requires the Department of Homeland Security, within 6 months of enactment, to develop a strategy on how to secure our borders. The strategy includes an assessment of threats along the border. It will take into consideration the coordination of departments and the cooperation of foreign countries. The strategy calls for an assessment of technology needed. But, it does not actually do anything to give agents the resources they need. It does nothing to require fencing to be built.

After the strategy is submitted to Congress, the Secretary develops an implementation plan and provides that to Congress and the Government Accountability Office.

But like the Senate bill, there is no repercussions if the Secretary does not actually submit a strategy. And, there is no verification or approval of the strategy by Congress. Instead, it relies on this or a future administration to make promises they will not keep. It relies on them to fulfill the law, but we have seen time and again that they thumb their nose at bills we send them. They not only refuse to implement laws they like--such as ObamaCare-- but they will refuse to carry this one out as well.

The bill requires the Secretary to develop metrics to measure the ``effectiveness'' of security at ports and between ports of entry. That is a good start. But, there are no consequences if the Secretary does not develop such metrics. The GAO would evaluate the metrics, but again, there is no real consequence if they are flawed metrics. The border still will not be secured.

The Secretary then certifies that her department has achieved ``operational control.'' The definition of ``operational control'' is weakened from current law. The bill defines it as a ``condition in which there is a not lower than 90 percent illegal border crossing effectiveness rate, informed by situational awareness, and a significant reduction in the movement of illicit drugs and other contraband through such areas is being achieved.''

The GAO would attest if the certification for operational control is truly done. What if the Secretary never certifies this? What if the GAO says the Secretary's certification is not accurate? If the Department fails to achieve control of the border, then they have to issue a report to explain why. Again, it lacks any true accountability for this or any future administration to secure the border.

Finally, I want to mention one part of the House border bill that is most concerning to me. During committee mark-up, an amendment was accepted that would require a plan on the exit tracking system, but unfortunately there is no beef to it. Implementation of a biometric exit system was a key point when the Senate considered immigration.

The Congress has passed several laws that require the executive branch to track the entry and exit of foreign nationals. Those mandates have been ignored. The airline industry has resisted. Instead of building upon current law and finding a way to make it happen, the House bill provides a way out if the exit system is not deemed feasible by the Secretary--the same Secretary that has made no progress on the system.

Border security is not only putting manpower and technology along the southern border. It is also about tracking people that enter this country. Given that 40 percent of our undocumented population consists of visa overstays, we must address this problem immediately.

This problem is highlighted by a GAO report that was issued on Tuesday. GAO found that the Department has lost track of more than 1 million people. We know they arrived in the United States, but we do not have departure records.

By statute, the Department is required to report overstays. They claim they do not report the estimates because of lack of confidence that the data is reliable. After 17 years, the law has been ignored. The government is not sophisticated enough to match incoming and outgoing travel records, and that is a serious risk to our national security.

Over the years, the GAO has highlighted the challenges that the Department faces in putting the entry and exit system in place. Their new report casts more doubt on the Department's competency.

When the Senate passed the immigration bill in June, I was very clear in suggesting that the bill would have to be fixed by a conference committee with the House, if it ever goes to a conference. With the exception of the border security bill, the House has presented some valuable ideas.

While I want an immigration reform bill sent to the President, I want it done right. We can take our time to get it right.

Over the August recess, the American people will get their opportunity to inform members of Congress how they feel about the immigration proposals on the table.

But I can predict what many will say. I know from previous townhall meetings in my State, the people do not want more laws that will go ignored. They want the laws we have in place to be enforced.

We need legislation that upholds American values of hope, freedom and opportunity. We need immigration laws in place that welcome law-abiding immigrants to share their entrepreneurial spirit, build better lives for themselves, and help make America a better place for generations to come.

But we need legislation that upholds the rule of law and ensures that we do not saddle future generations with the same problems we are faced with today.

It is my hope that Congress, over the August break, will listen to the American people and work to enact true reform that achieves real results and makes good on the promises made in Washington.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

Source