Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley
Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee
Closing Remarks
S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Mr. Chairman, tonight we bring to a close an open and transparent process on legislation to reform our broken immigration system. You’ve surely kept a promise and I hope that promise is maintained by our leadership as the bill moves to the floor of the United States Senate. I appreciate the way that the process has gone, and the willingness of members to debate many amendments and discuss the provisions in the bill. It was a productive conversation focused on getting immigration reform right for the long-term.
Coming into the debate, my position was clear. I voted for amnesty for 3 million people in 1986, and it didn’t solve the problem. And, today, we’re right back at the same place, talking about the same problems, and proposing the same solutions.
I accept the sincerity of the group of eight when they said in the preamble of their working paper that they were proceeding that they were proceeding in a basis that would fix this problem once and for all, and in their words so it wouldn’t have to be revisited. I hope we reach that point, but at this point we have not.
The sponsors of this bill want you to believe it’s different than the 1986 legislation. They say it will be a tough and expensive road, and it would be easier to just go home than to go through this process. They say the bill will make us safer and that a legalization program will be different this time around.
The bill includes very little, if anything, to improve the executive branch’s ability to enforce the law. No one disputes that this bill is legalization first, enforcement later. And, that’s unacceptable. And, I think if you read the polls, yes, immigration reform is very much desired by the American people, and it ought to be because the system is broken, but that’s pretty much based on us securing the borders.
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 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 the 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, ineffective, and unrealistic. All while amendments that managed to make the bill bigger and costlier were accepted.
So, this bill falls short of what I want to see in a strong immigration reform bill. We need to be fair to the millions of people who came here the right way. At my town meetings in Iowa, some of the resentments of immigration reform is that people who have come here legally and gone through the process, resent others who came here illegally, jumping ahead of the line. So we have to take into account those views as well.
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.
Again, I respect the process that we had here in this Committee. It was a useful conversation and brought real issues to the forefront. We had an open process, which isn’t new or unexpected. As done in the past, this committee works diligently through an extensive and transparent process when working on immigration reform. I’m glad we continued that tradition.
But, now, the real work begins to see if we can reform this bill before we send it to the House of Representatives. We need a bill that truly balances our national security with our economic security.
The bill sponsors, the group of eight, have all said they want a product that can garner around 70 votes to send a message to the House that they should just rubber stamp the bill and send it to the President. Well, my message to the Senate and the House is that absent significant changes on the Senate floor, the House should take up their own process, develop their own product with input from their constituents, and work toward a conference on this bill. That will ensure that the bill benefits from the various checks and balances we have within the legislative process to reach the proper outcome.
I thank the Chairman for working constructively on this legislation. But, as one who was here the last time we voted for legalization without border security, I cannot support this bill at this point.
We need a common sense approach that goes step-by-step and makes sure that every line, every provision, and every detail makes America stronger, our border more secure, and our immigration system more efficient and effective. That’s what Americans deserve, and what we have a responsibility to deliver.
Having said that about the substance of the legislation, I believe we have to move this bill along. I think in the final analysis, I won’t know if I’m for this bill or not, until it gets to that final product. If this system is broken, we all ought to make every effort we can to make sure that this system is fixed and fixed right.