I have expressed my frustration in the last week about the lack of progress on getting votes. We have been on the bill for three weeks, yet we’ve only dealt with nine amendments. It’s unclear if any more amendments will be debated and voted on. We have provided a list to the Majority on amendments we believe will make the bill better.
But, it seems as though the only amendment that will be in order before we vote on final passage is the Schumer-Hoeven-Corker “grand compromise.” This is the one that was concocted behind closed doors for days, stalling progress that we wanted to make in the public.
Not only is the amendment before us loaded with provisions that some would call earmarks, but it continues to promote false promises that the border will be truly secured. You get the impression from the authors debating the amendment that tomorrow we’re going to have a secure border. That’s not going to happen, and I’ll explain that later.
We are a nation based on the rule of law. We have a right to protect our sovereignty and a duty to protecting the homeland. Any border security measures we pass must be real and immediate. We can’t wait 10 years to put more agents on the border or to implement a system to track foreign nationals. We have to prove to the American people that illegal entries are under complete control and that visa overstays are being punished.
Unfortunately, too many people have been led to believe that the bill before us will force the Secretary of Homeland Security to secure the border. It doesn’t.
This amendment is legalization first, enforcement later, if ever.
People will be legalized merely on the submission of a plan by the Secretary of Homeland Security. The same Secretary who thinks the border is strong enough. The same Secretary who has refused to answer questions from Congress and be forthright about the department’s policies.
The amendment puts additional agents on the border despite clear opposition from the other side of the aisle. Some of the sponsors of the bill have argued that more agents are not necessary.
But, let’s be honest with the American people. The amendment may call for more border patrol agents, but it doesn’t require it until the undocumented population – who are now RPIs – apply for adjustment of status, or a green card.
I’m all for putting more agents along the border. But, why wait? Why allow legalization now and simply promise more agents in the future? And, even then, who really believes a Secretary will actually enforce the law?
Then there’s the fencing. One of the conditions that must be met before the Secretary can process green cards for people here illegally, is that the Southern Border Fencing Strategy has been submitted to Congress and implemented. This fencing strategy will identify where 700 miles of pedestrian fencing is in place. Note that this is not double layered as in current law. The amendment states that the second layer is to be built only if the “Secretary deems necessary or appropriate.” Additionally, the underlying bill still specifically states that nothing in this provision shall be interpreted to require her to install fencing.
The amendment also requires that an electronic entry/exit system is in use at all international air and sea ports, but only “where U.S. Customs and Border Protection are currently deployed.” This is actually weaker than the underlying bill, which required that an electronic entry exit system be in use at air and sea ports – not just international. It is still weaker than current law which requires biometric entry/exit at all ports of entry, including air, sea and land.
The amendment dictates to the Secretary which equipment to purchase and deploy at the border. The members who wrote the bill were apparently given some secret list of technology that agents need – but I’m not sure if this came from the Department or some defense contractor.
But, have no fear – the border will be secured because the amendment calls for fixed towers and cameras, unattended ground sensors, night vision goggles, fiber-optic tank inspection scopes, a license plate reader, and backscatters. I say that facetiously.
What’s not so funny is the spending of taxpayer dollars in this amendment. Originally, the legislation allocated $6.5 billion for the Secretary to carry out the law. When we got to committee, the Gang of Eight increased the Trust Fund allocation from $6.5 billion to $8.3 billion. Now, we’re looking at $46.3 billion upon date of enactment for the Secretary to spend as she wishes.
As is often the case here in Washington, the solution always seems to be to just throw money at a problem. This grand compromise measures the success of the amendment by the amount of money spent, not by outcomes.
The money has to come from somewhere.
The amendment requires the government to raid the Social Security Trust fund. It’s Health Care Reform all over. It’s irresponsible and unacceptable.
Moreover, the amendment sponsors will claim that people here illegally will pay for our border security needs. Money has to come in to the Trust Fund and then be repaid to the Treasury. When will the American people be reimbursed? The sponsors of the bill say that taxpayers won’t bear the burden. Yet, there’s no requirement that the funds be paid back. There’s no time limit or accountability to ensure that the taxpayers are repaid.
The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment increases fees on visas for legal immigrants in order to replenish the Trust Fund and the Treasury. Employers, students, and tourists will pay the price. Meanwhile the amendment says that the fees on those being legalized cannot be charged more than what is allowed. The Secretary cannot adjust the fees and penalties on those who apply for or renew their RPI or blue card status.
The amendment, and the underlying bill, will not end illegal immigration. The Congressional Budget Office said that illegal immigration would only reduce by 25 percent due to increased numbers of guest workers coming into the country. The amendment does nothing to radically reduce illegal immigration in the future, and does not provide any resources to interior enforcement agents whose mission it is to apprehend, detain, and deport illegal immigrants. Just like with the 1986 amnesty, we will be back in the same position in ten years facing the same problem.
The authors have talked a lot about the border “surge” in their amendment. But, they seem to be hiding from the fact that the border changes only account for half of the total amendment. There are changes to every title. There are changes to exchange visitor programs, the future guest worker program, and visas for the performing arts. This isn’t just a border amendment. There are provisions in the bill to attract other Senators to support its passage.
At the end of the day, the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment doesn’t do what the sponsors say it will. As we have seen all along, we’re being promised one thing and sold another.
I encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment. It does nothing to change the legalization first philosophy, and offers little more than false promises that the American people can no longer tolerate.
I yield the floor.