Prepared Floor Statement of Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee
S.744, Border Security, Economic Opportunity,
and Immigration Modernization Act
Monday, June 10, 2013
As we look forward to a difficult, yet overdue debate about immigration reform, I want to share my thoughts on the bill we’re about to consider. I want to talk about the committee process as well as the substance of S. 744. I also want to share my personal experience from the 1980s, and how we can learn from history. And, finally, I want to express my hope for what a bill would look like before it leaves the Senate.
I don’t know of any Senator who thinks the status quo is right. But while we’re here, we need to concentrate on getting immigration right for the long term.
Earlier in the year when the bipartisan group of eight Senators released their framework for immigration reform, I was optimistic that the authors were going to produce legislation that lived up to their 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 the goal we must all strive for. We must find a long-term solution to fixing our broken immigration system. So, I was encouraged.
The authors, in the framework released to the public before bill language was available, said that the bill would “provide a tough, fair and practical roadmap to address the status of unauthorized immigrants in the United States…contingent upon our success in securing our borders and addressing visa overstays.”
Who can argue with that point? That’s exactly what we all believe a piece of legislation should do.
At the proposal was put forward, I reserved judgment until I saw the details of their proposal. I thought the framework held hope. But, I realized that the assurances the group of eight made didn’t really translate when the bill language emerged. It seems as though the rhetoric was spot on, but the details were dubious. What they professed --- that the border would be secured and that people would earn their legal status – was not what the bill actually did. The bill, as drafted, is legalization first, border security 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 the legislation. We had 100 hours of hearings and 300 witnesses before we marked up a bill in May 1982. Hundreds more hours and dozens more hearings would take place before 1986.
This year, we had six 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 am on April 17th. We held hearings on April 19th, 22nd, and 23rd. We heard from 26 witnesses in three days. We heard from the head of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency’s union. We heard from economists and employers, law enforcement and lawyers, 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 that many of us were finding.
Unfortunately, we still have not received responses to the questions we raised at her hearing on April 23rd. We should have the benefit of hearing from the Secretary, especially since she will have to enforce what’s laid before her.
After those hearings, the Committee was poised to consider the bill through a mark-up process. Our side of the aisle made it clear that we needed to have an open and transparent process.
We started the work on May 9. We held five 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. And of those 37, 12 were accepted and 25 were rejected. Those on the other side of the aisle will boast that many Republican amendments were adopted in committee. However, only 31 of the 78 Republican amendments offered were agreed to. Seven of those were from members of the group of eight. Of the 62 Democrat amendments proposed, only one was rejected, and even that one was narrowly rejected.
Common-sense amendments offering real solutions were repeatedly rejected. Those that were accepted made some necessary improvements, but the core provisions of the bill remained the same.
I respect the process that we had in Committee. Chairman Leahy deserves thanks for an open, fair and transparent. It’s a good format for what needs to take place on the Senate floor. In 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 for the long-term. Yet, I was disappointed that alliances were made to ensure that nothing passed that would make substantial changes and improvements to the bill. Many of those same people gave high praise to the amendments being offered, but continued to vote against them.
I often speak about the 1986 legislation and how that law failed the American people. Promises were made and never kept. We said it was a one-time fix, just like the Group of Eight says they have a one-time fix, but it 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 3-legged stool – control of undocumented immigration, a legalization program, and reform of legal immigration. We authorized $422 million to carry out the requirements of the bill, and created a special fund for states to reimburse 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 had worked in agriculture for at least 90 days prior to enactment. A total of 2.7 million people were legalized.
We also had enforcement. For the first time ever, we made it illegal to knowingly hire or employ someone 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 and enforcement activities of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in order to prevent and deter the illegal entry of aliens into the United States and the violation of the terms of their entry.”
Unfortunately, the same principles from 1986 are being discussed today. Legalize now, enforce later. But, it’s clear that philosophy doesn’t work. Proponents of legalization today argue that we didn’t get it right in 1986. I agree that 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 borders. 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 enforcing the laws on the books. And as important, there need to be legal avenues that allow people to enter and stay legally in this country.
If you want to know how important securing the border is, just come to my town hall meetings. So far I’ve been in 73 of the 99 counties. My constituents say to me that we don’t need more laws, we need to enforce the laws on the books.
Unfortunately, the bill before us repeats our past mistakes and does very little to deliver more than the same empty promises we made in 1986. 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 worsens the laws we currently have.
Those of us complaining have a responsibility to put proposals before this body that will correct those things that we think are a mistake of 1986. And, we will do this.
The bill ensures that the Executive Branch – not the Congress or the American people – have sole power to control the situation. The bill provides hundreds of waivers and broad delegations of authority. 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. The bill undermines Congress’ 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. Just think of the recent things that have come out. The IRS has too much power. Health care reform has 1963 delegations of authority for the Secretary to write regulations. I think we’re waking up to the fact that we delegated too much and legislated too little.
I wouldn’t have such strong resentment about this issue if I knew that I could have faith in this administration, or any future administration, to actually enforce the law. But, show me the evidence.
The present administration has curtailed immigration enforcement programs. It claims record deportations, but then the President turns around and says that the statistics are “deceptive.” The Secretary says the border is more secure than ever before. She denounced any notion of securing the border before people here 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 own accord. 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, Republican or Democrat, raises a lot of questions. They refuse to be transparent and forthcoming with Congress on almost every matter. So, when this bill was introduced, I had to really question whether the promise of border security – 10 years down the road – would ever be fulfilled.
No one disputes that this bill is legalization first, enforcement later. That’s the core problem, and the main reason I could not support it out of the Judiciary Committee. It’s unacceptable to me and it’s unacceptable to the American people.
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 six months to produce two reports --- a border security strategy and a border fencing strategy. As soon as those two documents are sent to the Hill, the Secretary has full authority to issue legal status – including work permits and travel documents – to the millions of people that apply. The result is that the undocumented population receives Registered Provisional Immigrant (or RPI) status after two plans are submitted.
RPI status is more than probation. RPI status is 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 that the Secretary would need to report to Congress on a fast track system and show that the border was secure to get Congressional approval before legalization would proceed, was defeated. We used the Committee process to try and 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 the 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 kick off legalization are inefficient and ineffective.
If we pass the bill as is, there will be no pressure on this administration or a future administration or those in Congress to secure the border. There will be no push by the legalization advocates to get that job done.
Moreover, the bill gives almost sole discretion over the border security and fencing strategy plans and implementation of these strategies without any input from Congress. Will a Secretary who believes that the border is stronger than ever before be willing to make it 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 that the triggers are achieved?
Proponents of the legislation claim that the bill includes the single largest increase in immigration enforcement in American history. They say that mandatory electronic employment verification is the solution to future illegal immigration. Yet, it's concerning that the bill delays for years the implementation of a mandatory electronic employment verification system, 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’re about to consider rolls back many criminal statutes, but also that there’s 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 the 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 to the bill. For me, this bill falls short of what I want to see in a strong immigration reform bill. We need real solutions, not more gimmicks that fail to fix the real problem and secure our border. And we need to be fair to the millions of people who came here the legal way, not bias the system in favor of those who snuck in through the back door. We need a bill that truly balances our national security with our economic security.
I remain optimistic that on the floor we can vote on common sense amendments that better the bill. Serious consideration must 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 American workers, and find consensus around measures that require employers to recruit and hire from homegrown talent before looking abroad. We must be willing to close loopholes in our asylum process, prevent criminals and evildoers from gaining immigration benefits, and ensure that we’re improving our ability to protect the homeland.
I assure my colleagues that I have an open mind on this legislation. I want immigration reform. I want to get it right this time. I want a bill that I can support, and to do that, I need to see a stronger commitment to border security. I need to know that future lawbreakers won’t be rewarded and 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 just rubber stamp the bill and send it to the President. I don’t think that’s going to happen. The House is prepared to move on its own legislation. There will be a conference committee, which is a rare occurrence around here. A conference of the two houses will ensure that the bill benefits from the various checks and balances that we worship through our Constitution. I’m not trying to jump ahead to the next step of the process; I’m simply telling my colleagues that this bill has a long way to go. It needs to change before it’s accepted by the American people or sent to the President. If they’re serious about getting this done, more compromises will have to 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.”
The path we take in the days ahead will shape our country for years to come. It’s my hope that 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.
Thank you. I yield the floor.
-30-