Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act—Motion to Proceed
by Senator Chuck GrassleyPosted on 2013-06-10
GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as we look forward to a difficult and
yet overdue debate about immigration, I wanted to share my thoughts on
the legislation. I want to speak about the committee process as well as
the substance of the bill before us. I also want to share my personal
experience from the 1980s and how we can learn from history. Finally, I
want to express my hope for what I think the bill should look like
before it leaves the Senate.
I do not know of any Senator who says the status quo is the way it
ought to be. In other words, this issue being on the floor of the
Senate is very appropriate. But while we are here, we need to
concentrate on getting immigration right for the long term. In 1986,
the last time we had major legislation going to the President, I was
there. I lived it. I voted for it.
I acknowledge that what we did in 1986, we got it wrong. We cannot
afford to make the same mistakes of yesterday. From our national
security to our economic security, too much is at stake. So do not
repeat 1986. See that the borders are absolutely secure. No excuses
from that point. No exceptions on that point.
Now, we are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws.
It is my solemn responsibility to respect the law and ensure that law
is upheld. Do it the right way, not the easy way. Take what time is
necessary to get it right. We know what works in Congress and what does
not work. I think if we look back at health care reform as an example,
we know that we did it in too hurried of a way and, consequently,
questions about carrying out that legislation now are legitimate points
of discussion.
Earlier in the year when a bipartisan group of eight Senators
released their framework for reform, I was optimistic that the authors
were going to produce legislation that lived up to the promises. In
their framework they stated:
We will ensure that this is a successful permanent reform
to our immigration system that will not need to be revisited.
Without a doubt this is a goal we should all strive for. We must find
a long-term solution to fixing our broken system. So I was encouraged.
The authors, in the framework released to the public before bill
language was available, said the bill would ``provide a tough, fair,
practical road map to address the status of unauthorized immigrations
in the United States contingent upon our success in securing our
borders and addressing visa overstays.''
Who can argue with that point? That is exactly what we all believe a
piece of legislation should do. At the time this bill was put forward
and the framework was put forward, I reserved judgment until I saw the
details of their proposal. I thought the framework held hope, but I
realized the assurances that the Group of 8 made did not really
translate when the bill language emerged. It seems as though the
rhetoric was spot on, but the details were dubious.
This is what was professed by the authors: that the borders would be
secured and that the people would earn their legal status. That was not
what the bill actually did. The bill, as drafted, is legalization
first, border secured later, and tracking visa overstays later, if at
all.
In 1981, when I was a freshman Senator, I joined the Judiciary
Committee and was active in the subcommittee process. We sat down and
wrote legislation. We had 150 hours of hearings, 300 witnesses before
we marked up a bill in May 1982. Hundreds of more hours and dozens more
hearings would take place before the 1986 passage.
This year we had 6 days of hearings. We spent 18 hours and 10 minutes
listening to outside witnesses. We had a hearing on the ``needs of
women and children,'' another hearing focused on ``building an
immigration system worthy of American values.''
The Judiciary Committee received the bipartisan bill at 2:24 a.m on
April 17. We held hearings on April 19, 22, and 23. We heard from 26
witnesses in 3 days. We heard from the head of the Immigration and
Customs Enforcement agency union. We heard from economists and
employers, law enforcement and lawyers, to professors and advocacy
groups. We even heard from people who are undocumented, proving that
only in America would we allow someone not right with the law to be
heard by the American people.
One of the witnesses was Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano. We
attempted to learn about how the bill would affect the functions of the
executive branch and whether she saw the same flaws many of us were
finding. Unfortunately, we have not received responses from Secretary
Napolitano to the questions that we raised at her hearing on April 23.
We should have the benefit of hearing from the Secretary as to certain
questions that were raised about this legislation, particularly when it
comes from somebody in the executive branch who has to enforce what is
laid before her.
After those hearings the committee was poised to consider the bill
through a markup process. Our side of the aisle made it clear that we
needed to have an open and transparent process, so we started work on
May 9. We held five
[[Page S4031]]
all-day sessions where Members were able to raise questions, voice
concerns, and offer amendments. Hundreds of amendments were filed. I
alone filed 77 amendments. Of those, I offered 37. Of those 37, 12 were
accepted, 25 were rejected.
Those on the other side of the aisle will boast that many Republican
amendments were adopted in committee. They are somewhat right. However,
only 13 of 78 Republican amendments offered were agreed to; 7 of those
were from members of the Group of 8. But get this: Of the 62 Democratic
amendments proposed, only 1 of those 62 amendments was rejected, and
even that one was just narrowly rejected.
Commonsense amendments offering real solutions were repeatedly
rejected. Those that were accepted made some necessary improvements.
But get this: The core provisions of the bill remain the same coming
out of committee as they were introduced into the committee.
I respect the process we had in committee. Chairman Leahy deserves
thanks from all of us on the committee because he promised an open,
fair, and transparent process. Quite frankly, it was. It is a good
format for what needs to take place on the floor of the Senate if the
legislation that is finally voted upon is going to have credibility.
In that committee we had a good discussion and debate on how to
improve the bill. It was a productive conversation focused on getting
immigration reform right in the long term. Yet I was disappointed that
alliances were made to ensure that nothing passed that would make
substantial changes or improvements in the bill. Many of those people
gave high praise to the amendments being offered but continued to vote
against them.
I have often spoke about the 1986 legislation and how that law failed
the American people. Now 99 other Senators are probably going to get
sick of me reminding them of my presence there in 1986 and saying that
we screwed up, because at that time promises were made and those
promises were not kept. We said it was a one-time fix, just like the
Group of 8 said they have a one-time fix. But that one-time fix did
nothing to solve the problem.
In fact, it only made matters worse and encouraged illegality. People
came forward for legal status, but many more illegally entered or
overstayed their welcome to get the same benefits and chance at
citizenship. The 1986 bill was supposed to be a three-legged stool:
control undocumented immigration, a legalization program, and reform of
legal immigration.
We authorized $422 million to carry out the requirements of the bill
and even created a special fund for States to get reimbursed their
costs. The 1986 bill included a legalization program for two categories
of people: one for individuals who have been present in the United
States since 1982, and the second for farm workers who have worked in
agriculture for at least 90 days prior to enactment. A total of 2.7
million people were legalized. We also had enforcement in that 1986
legislation.
For the first time ever we made it illegal to knowingly hire or
employ someone who was here undocumented. We set penalties to deter the
hiring of people here undocumented. We wrote in the bill that ``one
essential element of immigration control is an increase in the Border
Patrol and other inspection enforcement activities of the Immigration
and Nationalization Service in order to prevent and to deter the
illegal entry of aliens into the United States and in violation of the
terms of their entry.''
Unfortunately, the same principles from 1986 are being discussed
today: legalize now, enforce later. But it is clear that philosophy
does not work. Proof of that is it did not work in 1986. So proponents
of legalization today argue we did not get it right in 1986. How true
they are. I agree the enforcement mechanisms in 1986 could have been
stronger. There was no commitment to enforcing the law or making sure
we protected every mile of our border.
Knowing what I know now, an immigration bill must ensure that we
secure the border first. Legalization should only happen when the
American people have faith in the system. There needs to be a
commitment to enforce the laws on the books, and, as important, there
needs to be a legal avenue that allows people to enter and stay legally
in the country.
Now, if you want to know how important securing the border is, just
come to my townhall meetings in Iowa. So far I have been in 73 of our
99 counties. When immigration comes up and I talk about legislation,
there are outbursts that we do not need more laws; why do we not just
enforce the laws that are on the books--things such as ``bring the
troops home.'' ``Put them down on the border.'' ``Then we won't have a
problem.'' Unfortunately, the bill before us repeats our past mistakes
and does very little to deliver more than the same promises we made in
1986, which promises turned out to be empty. Instead of looking to the
past for guidance on what to do in the future, the bill before us
incorporates the mistakes of the past and, in some cases, even weakens
the laws we currently have.
Those of us who are complaining, as I have just complained, have a
responsibility to put a proposal before this body that will correct
those things we think are a repeat of the mistakes of 1986, and we will
do this.
To further explain this bill, the bill ensures that the executive
branch, not the Congress or the American people through their Congress,
has the sole power to control the situation. First, the bill provides
hundreds of waivers and broad delegation of authority. Two, the
Secretary may define terms as she sees fit. In many cases, the
discretion is unreviewable, both by the American people and by other
branches of government. Can you believe that? Unreviewable.
The bill undermines Congress's responsibility to legislate, and it
weakens our ability to conduct oversight. We should learn a lot of
lessons from past legislation. We should be doing more legislating and
less delegating. Think of the recent things that have come out that the
IRS has too much power.
In health care reform, there are 1,963 delegations of authority to
the Secretary to write regulations. You might think you understand a
2,700-page piece of legislation that the President signed 4 years ago,
but you aren't going to know what that legislation actually does until
those 1,963 regulations are written. I think we are waking up to the
fact that we delegated too much and legislated too little. We shouldn't
be making that same mistake with this piece of legislation and, as it
is written, we are making that mistake.
I wouldn't have such strong resentment about this issue if I knew I
could have faith in this administration or any future administration.
By the time this thing gets down the road, that is going to be a future
administration to actually enforce the law.
Show me the evidence. The President and the administration have
curtailed enforcement programs. It claims record deportations, but then
what does the President say? He turns around and he says the statistics
are--and this is his word--``deceptive.''
The Secretary says the border is more secure than ever before, but
she denounced any notion of securing the border before people here who
were undocumented were given legal status. The administration
implemented the DREAM Act by executive fiat, saying Congress refused to
pass a bill so it decided to do something on its accord. It did that 1
year after the President told a group of people he didn't have the
authority to do it. They provided no legal justification for the
actions and very few answers about how they were implementing the
directive.
The refusal of any executive branch of government, whether it is
Republican or Democratic, to refuse accountability raises a lot of
questions. They refuse to be transparent and forthcoming with Congress
on almost every matter.
When this bill was introduced, I had to question whether the promise
for border security 10 years down the road would ever be fulfilled. No
one disputes that this bill is what I have said already, a bill that
legalizes first and enforces later. That is the core problem. That is a
core problem from the standpoint of everybody who is going to tell us
on this floor and during these weeks of debate that immigration reform
is overwhelmingly popular. I am not going to dispute that.
Understand that there are very many things that are caveats in a
poll. No. 1
[[Page S4032]]
is that we ought to have border security. The core problem is that
enforcement comes after legalization, a core problem, and the main
reason I could not support it out of the Judiciary Committee. It is the
main reason. It is unacceptable to me, and it is unacceptable to the
American people.
The sponsors of this bill disagree. If they would read their own
legislation, they would realize this fact. Later in the week I will
discuss an amendment I plan to offer to change this central flaw, but
allow me to tell my colleagues who are not on the committee about this
major objection I have.
We have millions of undocumented people in this country. Under this
bill, Congress would give the Secretary of Homeland Security 6 months
to produce two reports, one on border security strategy and the other
on border fencing strategy. As soon as those two documents are sent to
the Hill, just as soon as they come up here, the Secretary then has
full authority to issue legal status, including work permits and travel
documents, to millions of people who apply.
The result is the undocumented population receives what the bill
calls registered provisional status after two plans are submitted.
Registered provisional immigrant is RPI. RPI status is more than
probation. RPI status is outright legalization.
After the Secretary notifies Congress that she believes her plan has
been accomplished, newly legalized immigrants are given a path to
obtain green cards and a special path to citizenship.
Without ensuring adequate border security or holding employers
accountable, the cycle is destined to repeat itself. I used the
committee process to attempt to strengthen border security. My
amendment to fix the trigger so the Secretary would need to report to
Congress on a fast-track system and show that the border was secured to
get congressional approval before legalization would proceed was
defeated. We used the committee process to try to track who was coming
and going from our country. Amendments to require a biometric exit
system at all ports of entry, which is current law, were defeated.
We tried to hold employers accountable and stop the magnet for
illegal immigration. My amendment to speed up implementation of an
employer verification system was defeated.
At the end of the day, the majority argued against securing the
border for another decade. The triggers in the bill that kicked off
legalization are ineffective and inefficient.
If we pass the bill as is, there will be no pressure on this
administration, future administrations, or those in Congress to secure
the border. There will be no push by the legalization advocates to get
the job done.
This is what is so important about when does legalization take place,
before the border is secure or after the border is secure. Once the
plans are presented, there will never be any pressure from advocates
for legalization, or anybody else who is interested in solving this
problem, to push to get the job done.
Moreover, the bill gives Congress the sole discretion over border
security, fencing strategy, and implementation of these strategies
without any input from Congress.
We have a lot of questions. Will the Secretary, who believes the
border is stronger than ever before, be willing to make it even
stronger? Will a Secretary who does not believe a biometric exit system
is feasible ensure that a mandated system is put in place? Will a
Secretary who does not believe anything should stand in the way of
legalization ensure the triggers are achieved?
Proponents of the legislation claim it includes the single largest
increase in immigration enforcement in American history. Proponents say
mandatory electronic employment verification is a solution to future
illegal immigration. It is concerning that the bill delays for years
the implementation of a mandatory electronic employment verification
through which 99.7 percent of all work-eligible employees are confirmed
immediately today.
I will speak later in the days ahead about how this bill weakens
current law, particularly laws on the books to deter criminal behavior.
It concerns me greatly that the bill we are about to consider rolls
back many criminal statutes, but also that there is nothing in the bill
that enhances the cooperation between the Federal Government and State
and local jurisdictions. In fact, it preempts State laws that are
trying to enforce Federal laws currently in place.
We have a lot of work cut out for us. I know there are some who don't
want to see a single change in this legislation.
For me, this bill falls short of what I want to see in strong
immigration reform. The fact is we need real reform, not gimmicks that
fail to fix the real problem and secure our border. We need to be fair
to millions of people who came here the legal way, not bias the system
in favor of those who sneaked in through the back door. We need a bill
that truly balances our national security with our economic security.
This is what we can do to improve the bill: I remain optimistic that
on the floor we can vote on commonsense amendments that better the
bill. Serious consideration will be given to amendments that strengthen
our ability to remove criminal gang members, hold perpetrators of fraud
and abuse accountable, and prevent the weakening of criminal law. We
must seriously consider how the bill works to the detriment of the
American workers and find consensus around measures that require
employers to regroup and hire from homegrown talent before looking
abroad, but also improving the mechanism by which people can come here
when they are needed. We must be willing to close loopholes in our
asylum system, prevent criminals and evildoers from gaining immigration
benefits, and ensure that we are improving our ability to protect the
homeland.
I assure my colleagues I have an open mind on this legislation. I
want immigration reform. I want to get it right this time, not make the
same mistakes I did in 1986. I want a bill I can support. To do that, I
need to see a stronger commitment to border security. I need to know
future lawbreakers won't be rewarded, and that there will be a
deterrent for people who wish to enter or remain illegally in the
country.
Basically and simply, I want the words of this bill to match the
rhetoric of those proposing the plan. The bill sponsors want a product
that can garner around 70 votes in the Senate. Doing so, they seem to
think, would send a message to the House that they should rubberstamp a
bill that passed the Senate and send that bill to the President. I
don't think that is going to happen. The House is prepared to move on
its own legislation.
There will be a conference, which is a rare occurrence around here,
by the way. A conference of the two Houses will ensure that the bill
benefits from various checks and balances that we worship through our
Constitution.
I am not trying to jump ahead to the next step of the process, I am
simply telling my colleagues this bill has a long way to go through the
legislative process. It needs to change before it is accepted by the
American people or sent to the President. If they are serious about
getting this done, more compromises will be made.
Allow me to end by echoing the words of President Reagan:
Our objective is only to establish a reasonable, fair,
orderly, and secure system of immigration into this country
and not to discriminate in any way against particular nations
or people. Future generations of Americans will be thankful
for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and
thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred
possessions of our people: American citizenship.
That was President Reagan.
The path we take in the days ahead will shape our country for years
to come. It is my hope we can find a solution while learning from our
mistakes and ensuring that future generations don't have to revisit
this problem down the road.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.