Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee
Comprehensive Immigration Reform, S.744
Consideration of Amendments
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Mr./Madam President,
It’s my understanding that, so far, 449 amendments have been filed to the underlying bill, including second degree amendments. We started off the debate on the Senate floor with my amendment that would have required the border to be “effectively controlled” for six months before the Secretary could process applications for Registered Provisional Immigrant status – or RPI.
Clearly, the other side was afraid of the amendment because it would have fundamentally changed the bill by requiring that the border be secured before granting 11 million undocumented workers a pathway to citizenship. They have already cooked the books on this bill, and don’t want to make fundamental changes – regardless of whether they are good changes or not – just because they don’t want to upset their deal. So, they insisted on a 60 vote threshold for the amendment to pass. I refused. In response, they moved to table my amendment.
What about the open and fair process we were promised? We learned on day one of the immigration debate that all this talk about “making the bill better” was just plain hog wash. It was all just a phony and empty promise. The sponsors would take to the floor and say they were ready to move and vote on amendments. But, in reality, they were afraid of any good change. They refused to let members offer amendments of their choosing. Instead, they wanted to pick what amendments members would offer. They wanted to decide who, what, when, and how it would be disposed of. That’s not right, that’s not an open process.
In the last two weeks, we have only debated 9 amendments to this bill. Of those amendments, the Majority Leader tabled 3 amendments by a roll call vote. Of the 9, we adopted 3 amendments by a roll call vote, we rejected 3 amendments by a roll call vote, and we adopted another 3 amendments by a voice vote. But I’m sure everyone would agree that debating 9 amendments out of almost 450 amendments is just not an open and fair process.
So we have a lot more amendments that have been filed, but have not been considered on the floor. These amendments would make this bill better. Now, the sponsors of the bill are arguing that because we had a process in the Judiciary Committee, that I have applauded as fair and open, that means we don’t need it on the floor. So, the other 82 members shouldn’t have a chance to amend the bill? Well, the problem is, while the Committee process was open, many amendments were defeated and no amendments were adopted that substantially changed the bill.
In order to address many outstanding issues with the bill, we’d like more votes on amendments before the end of the week. I’d like to discuss some of the amendments we’d like to see debated and considered before this immigration debate comes to an end, just so people have a flavor of the kinds of issues we feel have not been fully vetted on the floor of the United States Senate.
A number of amendments we’d like considered would strengthen provisions in the bill dealing with border security, something that the current bill fails to do in a satisfactory manner. As everyone knows, this has been a serious deficiency with the immigration reform bill.
For example, Lee amendment 1207 would prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from restricting or prohibiting activities of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection on public lands, and authorize Customs and Border Protection access to federal lands to secure the border. Coats amendment 1442 would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to certify that the Department of Homeland Security has effective control of high-risk border sections at the Southern border for six months before the Department can process RPI status applications. The Coats amendment would also require the Secretary to maintain effective control of those high-risk sections for at least 6 months before the Secretary may adjust the status of RPI applicants. Coburn amendment 1361 would allow Customs and Border Protection to enforce the immigration laws on federal lands.
Other amendments would beef up our interior enforcement, which we all know is absolutely critical with respect to the success of our immigration system. This is an area where the underlying bill doesn’t do enough. An excellent amendment we haven’t had an opportunity to debate and vote on is Sessions amendment 1334. That amendment would give a number of tools to state and local governments to enforce the immigration laws, including giving states and localities the ability to enact their own immigration laws, withholding specific grants from sanctuary cities that defy federal immigration enforcement efforts, facilitating and expediting the removal of criminal aliens, improving the visa issuance process, and assisting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in carrying out their jobs.
Another amendment, Wicker amendment 1462, would require information sharing between federal and non-federal agencies regarding removable aliens which would allow for quick enforcement against individuals who violate the immigration laws. The Wicker amendment would also withhold certain federal funding from states and local governments that prohibit their law enforcement officers from assisting or cooperating with federal immigration law enforcement.
Some of the amendments that we haven’t considered would ensure that our criminal laws are not weakened by the bill. I have an amendment, Grassley amendment 1299, that would address some of the provisions in the underlying bill that severely weaken our current criminal laws.
Specifically, Grassley amendment 1299 would address language in the bill that creates a convoluted and ineffective process for determining whether a foreign national in a street gang should be deemed inadmissible or be deported. I offered a similar amendment in Committee, where even 2 members of the Gang of Eight supported it. My amendment would close a dangerous loophole created by the bill that will allow criminal gang members to gain a path to citizenship.
Specifically, in order to deny entry or remove a gang member, section 3701 of the current bill requires that the Department of Homeland Security prove a foreign national:
1) has a prior federal felony conviction for drug trafficking or a violent crime;
2) has knowledge that the gang is continuing to commit crimes; and
3) has acted in furtherance of gang activity.
Even if all of these provisions could be proven, under the bill the Secretary can still issue a waiver. As such, the proposed process is limited only to criminal gang members with prior federal drug trafficking and federal violent crime convictions and does not include state convictions like rape and murder.
The trick here is while the bill wants you to believe this is a strong provision, foreign nationals who have federal felony drug trafficking or violent crime convictions are already subject to deportation if they are already here or denied entry as being inadmissible.
So the gang provision, as written in the bill, adds nothing to current law and will not be used. It is, at best, a feel good measure to say we are being tough on criminal gangs, while really doing nothing to remove or deny entry to criminal gang members.
It’s easier to prove that someone is a convicted drug trafficker, than both a drug trafficker and a gang member.
So, as currently written, why would this provision ever be used? Simply put, it wouldn’t.
Grassley amendment 1299 would strike this “do nothing provision” and issue a new clear simple standard to address the problem of gang members. It would strike this do nothing provision and include a process to address criminal gang members where the Secretary of Homeland Security must prove:
1) criminal street gang membership; and
2) that the person is a danger to the community.
Once the Secretary proves those two things, the burden shifts to the foreign national to prove that either he is not dangerous, not in a street gang, or that he did not know that the group was a street gang. It is straight-forward and will help remove dangerous criminal gang members.
My amendment also eliminates the possibility of a waiver.
Grassley amendment 1299 should have a vote to make sure this bill doesn’t weaken current law.
A number of other amendments that we’d like to see considered would help ensure that individuals comply with immigration law requirements and ensure that the RPI process does not allow individuals to game the system. For example, Rubio amendment 1225 would require RPI immigrants who are 16 year old or older to read, write and speak English. Fisher amendment 1348 would also insert an English language requirement as a prerequisite to RPI status. Cruz amendment 1295 would permit states to require proof of citizenship for registration to vote in federal elections. Hatch amendment 1536 would ensure that undocumented immigrants actually pay their back taxes before gaining RPI status.
Another amendment, Toomey amendment 1440, would increase the number of W non-immigrant visas available during each fiscal year, and would help improve the visa system.
Other amendments that we should debate and vote on would strengthen our immigration system by making sure that we don’t allow criminal immigrants to stay in our country and put them on a path to American citizenship. For example, Vitter amendment 1330 would make sure that undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of crimes of domestic violence, child abuse or child neglect would be inadmissible. Inhofe amendment 1203, the “Keep Our Communities Safe Act of 2013,” would allow the Department of Homeland Security or a subsidiary agency to keep dangerous individuals in detention until a final order of removal of that individual from the United States.
Cornyn amendment 1470 would make sure undocumented immigrants who have committed an offense of domestic violence, child abuse, child neglect or assault resulting in bodily injury, violated a protective order, or committed drunk driving, would be ineligible for legalization. Portman amendment 1389 would limit the discretion of immigration judges and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the removal, deportation and inadmissibility of undocumented individuals who have committed crimes involving child abuse, child neglect, and other crimes of moral turpitude concerning children.
Finally, Portman amendment 1390 would ensure that undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of crimes of domestic violence, stalking, or child abuse would be inadmissible. These are all extremely important amendments that would ensure that the worst kinds of criminal immigrants do not gain a path to citizenship.
So, I urge the majority to allow us to consider these and other amendments that we’d like to offer to improve the bill, instead of cutting us off and shutting off full and open debate on this very important issue.