Prepared Floor Statement of Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee
S.744, Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Southern Border Security Commission
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Mr. President, one of the authors of the immigration bill before us stated early on that, if the Department of Homeland Security has not reached 100 percent awareness and 90 percent apprehension at the southern border within five years, the Secretary would lose control of the responsibility and it will be turned over to the border governors to get the job done.
There was a lot of talk about how the Secretary would be pushed to fulfill the Congressional mandate to secure the border. But, at the end of the day, the legislative text doesn’t match up to the rhetoric. The border commission created isn't made up primarily of border governors, doesn’t have any real power, and the Secretary isn’t held accountable for not getting the job done.
The bill states that “effective control” of the border is the ability to achieve and maintain “persistent surveillance and an effectiveness rate of 90 percent or higher.” It defines the effectiveness rate as “the percentage calculated by dividing the number of apprehensions and turn backs in the sector during a fiscal year by the total number of illegal entries in the sector during such fiscal year.”
First, the bill only states that effective control requires “persistent surveillance,” not 100 percent awareness. Second, there is nothing in the bill that turns over the issue of border security to the border governors if the Department of Homeland Security is unable to secure the border.
The bill provides for a commission to be created if the Secretary of Homeland Security tells Congress she has not achieved effective control in all border sectors during any fiscal year within five years. This “Southern Border Security Commission” is then created with a primary responsibility to make recommendations to the Secretary.
There will be ten members of the commission. And while border states have a seat at the table, only four of the 10 members need to be southern border governors or appointed by them. The members are allowed travel expenses and administrative support. They have to have some knowledge and experience in border security.
The Commission is required to submit a report to the President, the Secretary, and Congress, with specific recommendations for achieving and maintaining the border security goals established in the bill. The members have six months to come up with a plan to achieve what the Secretary failed to do in five years.
The bill does not grant the Commission any grand or impressive authorities. The bill simply states that the Commission shall make recommendations. Nothing in the bill requires that the recommendations be acted upon or implemented by the administration.
The bill provides $2 BILLION to the Secretary to carry out the recommendations made by the Commission. But, again, nothing in the bill requires the Secretary to take any further action on their recommendations.
Why not give the Commission any actual authority to enforce border security? Why create a commission at all?
In recent years, Congress has become accustomed to outsourcing our work. We have a responsibility to legislate. The Executive Branch has a responsibility to enact. These are the basic tenants of government.
The commission called for in this bill is unnecessary and irrelevant. This administration – and any future administration – must get the job done. No outsourcing the job to a commission. No excuses.
I yield the floor.
-30-