Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee
Comprehensive Immigration Reform, S.744
Entry-Exit System
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
One of the concerns I have about the immigration bill before us is that it weakens current law in several areas. We had lengthy discussions during the Judiciary Committee mark-up about provisions dealing with criminal activity and deterring illegal immigration in the future. I found that many existing statutes have been revised and watered down, sending exactly the wrong signal that should be sent to people who seek to intentionally break our laws.
The sponsors of the bill have claimed that the bill will make us safer. They insist that people will “come out of the shadows,” allowing us to know exactly who is where and whether they are national security risks.
We’ve talked a lot about the need for border security this week. I think it’s the most important thing we can do for our national security and to protect our sovereignty.
But, amazingly, when I bring up border security, I’m told by proponents of the bill that we don’t need to focus all of our efforts here. They remind me that about 40 percent of the people here illegally are visa overstays, or people who never returned to their home country.
I couldn’t agree more that visa overstays need to be dealt with. We need to know who is in the country, when they’re supposed to depart, and when they actually leave.
We realized this in 1996 when we created the “entry – exit” system. Congress called for a tracking system to be created following the first bombing of the World Trade Center. We knew there were gaping holes in our visa system.
Unfortunately, administration after administration dismissed the need to implement an effective entry-exit system. So, here we are today – 17 years later --- wondering when that system and that mandate from Congress will be achieved.
When introduced, the bill before us did nothing to track people who left by land. It did nothing to capture biometrics of foreign nationals who departed.
We approved an amendment in committee that made the underlying bill a little bit stronger, but it fell short of current law.
Current law says we should track all people who come and go using biometrics. It says the entry-exit system should be in place at all air, sea and land ports.
We already know that anything less than what is in current law will not be effective. The Government Accountability Office has stated that a biographic exit system, like the one set forth in this bill, will only hinder efforts to reliably identify overstays, and that without a biometric exit system,
“DHS cannot ensure the integrity of the immigration system by identifying and removing those people who have overstayed their original period of admission—a stated goal of US-VISIT.”
If we don’t properly track departures, we won’t know how many people are overstaying their visas. We won’t have any clue who is in our country.
Some will say we can’t afford it. Some will say our airports just aren’t devised in such a way to capture biometrics before people board airplanes. They will find any excuse not to implement current law.
This is a border security issue. It’s a national security issue. Without this system in place, we aren’t in control.
I encourage my colleagues to really understand how this bill weakens our ability to protect the homeland, and that the Vitter amendment to improve this matter should be incorporated into the bill.
-30-