Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first of all, I wish to thank the Presiding Officer, the distinguished Senator from Delaware, who is not only an outstanding Member of the Senate, but he is the chairman of the homeland security committee. He has gone out of his way to understand the issues we face when we are addressing border security. The chairman was kind enough to visit the border between Arizona and Sonora, Mexico, and spent a lot of time with us and with the people who are entrusted to secure the border. He made some remarks I think were entirely accurate about the challenges we face in enforcing our border. So I wish to again thank the distinguished chairman of the homeland security committee.

I wish to address a few aspects of comprehensive immigration reform that need to be discussed. First of all, everybody says--and I say it too--we don't want to return to 1986 because in 1986 we guaranteed the American people we would secure the border, and it would never happen again. Well, the fact is, when we look at what we did in 1986--and I will, first of all, plead guilty for having voted for it--the only mandate in the entire legislation which gave ``amnesty'' to 3 million people was:

Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under paragraph one, sufficient funds shall be available to provide for an increase in the Border Patrol personnel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service so that the average level of such personnel in each of the fiscal years 1987 and 1988 is at least 50 percent higher than such level for fiscal year 1986.

Let me translate that. It meant we would increase the Border Patrol. That was the only mention of how we were going to secure the border after we gave amnesty in 1986. And at that time, I say to my colleagues, the cost, as I mentioned, was 50 percent higher. The Border Patrol has to be 50 percent higher.

Well, the number of Border Patrol agents in 1986 was 4,000--4,000. Now we have 21,000. So there was really nothing in the 1986 bill about fencing, about sensors, about other ways to get our border secure. So we learned from that.

We learned from that, and this legislation that recently passed through the Judiciary Committee and is now on the floor, as compared with 1986 where they said they would increase the numbers of Border Patrol agents by 50 percent--this legislation appropriates $3 billion in funding for the comprehensive southern border security strategy. No one who is in RPI status will be able to petition for a green card until certain requirements are fulfilled, including the following: E-Verify in use by all employers, an entry-exit system in place, $1.5 billion in additional funding for the southern border fencing strategy that has to be submitted within 180 days of passage of this legislation and signed by the President.

It sets the goal of a 90-percent effectiveness rate for all southern border States. If that goal is not reached within 5 years, there will be a bipartisan commission formed and authorized to spend $2 billion in additional funds to secure the border.

It will add an additional 3,500 Customs and Border Patrol agents. Remember, in 1986, there was a total of 4,000.

It will authorize the National Guard to provide assistance along the border if requested. The National Guard has had tremendous success on our border. No, they don't carry weapons, but they do incredibly important work, and I am glad they don't carry weapons, to tell the truth.

The bill funds additional Border Patrol stations and forward operating bases.

It increases something called Operation Stonegarden funding, which is vital, in my view, in disincentivizing people to frequently cross the border, and strengthens Border Patrol training.

It authorizes funds to triple the border-crossing prosecutions in the Tucson sector. Why do I mention the Tucson sector? Not because I am from the State of Arizona but because the Tucson sector for years has been a major thoroughfare for both people and drugs.

The current bill will authorize funds to help States and localities incarcerate criminal unauthorized illegal immigrants.

It grants the Department of Homeland Security access to Federal lands. That is a problem on our border, where we have an Indian reservation that is right on the border. They are sovereign nations, and this will authorize a greater ability for us to have access to those lands. There are wildlife refuges we need access to as well.

The bill removes the discretion from the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop the southern border strategy and provides the minimum requirements recommended by the Border Patrol. Those are the people on the ground. These are the people who today, in 120-degree heat at the Sonora, AZ, border, are sitting in vehicles and patrolling our border to keep our Nation secure. This is recommended by them and must be included in the strategy that we want to achieve and must achieve, which is 100 percent situational awareness of each and every 1-mile segment of the southern border.

The technology list will include, but is not limited to, sector-by-sector requirements for integrated fixed towers, VADER radar systems. These radar track people back from where they came.

The list includes unmanned aerial systems--what we know as drones--fixed cameras, mobile surveillance systems, ground sensors, handheld thermal imaging systems, infrared cameras, thermal imaging cameras, license plate readers, and radiation detection systems. All of these are part of this legislation and the billions of dollars we are going to spend to improve border security. We all admit the border is more secure, but where I disagree with the Secretary of Homeland Security is that it is not secure enough.

So we want to prevent the adjustment of status RPI, which is registered permanent status, for people who will be granted it once the passage of this bill is achieved until that strategy is deployed and operational--deployed and operational. This is just to achieve a legal status in this country; also, a technology list before anybody can adjust RPI to green card status.

It removes the sole discretion from the Department of Homeland Security to certify the strategy is complete. It requires written, third-party certification to the President and Congress that affirms the elements required by the strategy are operational and capable of achieving effective control of the border.

With these tools in place, we can achieve situational awareness and be guaranteed this technology is deployed and working along the border. So I say to my friends who say we do not have sufficient provisions for border security, we will be glad to do more, but let's look at this.

Look at what we are doing: billions of dollars of technology as well as additional people, as well as other measures, including the E-Verify. The magnet that draws people to this country is jobs, and if the word is out that unless an E-Verify is in operation--unless a person can get a job in this country they are not going to come here unless it is through a legal means and not through illegal means.

We are a nation of immigrants. I would remind my colleagues again, 40 percent of the people who are in this country illegally did not cross our border. They came on a visa that expired. So we need to have footprints and other physical evidence of illegal crossings. It is a tool for Border Patrol agents to identify and locate illegal border crossers. But it is imprecise. That is why we need to have this technology, so we can surveil and have situational awareness of the entire border.

The General Accounting Office is an organization all of us over time begin to rely on enormously, and I will quote from them:

In terms of collecting data, Border Patrol officials reported that sectors rely on a different mix of cameras, sign cutting--

That is tracking footprints--

credible sources, and visual observation to identify and report the number of turn backs and gotaways.

Turnbacks are those we catch and turn back, and gotaways are those we see come across and do not apprehend.

Again, quoting the GAO:

According to Border Patrol officials, the ability to obtain accurate or consistent data using these identification sources depends on various factors such as terrain and weather. For example, data on turn backs and gotaways may be understated in areas with rugged mountains and steep canyons that can hinder detection of illegal entries. In other cases, data may be overstated--for example, in cases where the same turn back identified by a camera is also identified by tracks. Double counting may also occur when agents in one zone record as a gotaway an individual who is apprehended and then reported as an apprehension in another zone. As a result of these data limitations, Border Patrol headquarters officials said that while they consider turn back and gotaway data sufficiently reliable to assess each sector's progress toward border security and to inform sector decisions regarding resource deployment, they do not consider the data sufficiently reliable to compare--or externally report--results across sectors.

That is why we need this technology.

Now, I wish to point out that from the Border Patrol, not from the Department of Homeland Security, I got a detailed list of what they believe is necessary, using their experience, as to the specific equipment and capabilities they need on each of the nine sectors of the border.

For example, in the Arizona sectors, including Yuma and Tucson, we need 56 towers, 73 fixed camera systems, 28 mobile surveillance systems, 685 unattended ground sensors, and 22 handheld equipment devices.

At points of entry or checkpoints we need one nonintrusive inspection system, and the list goes on. It is a specific list of what the Border Patrol believes we need in each of the nine sectors on our southern border in order to give us 100 percent situational awareness and put us on the path to a 90-percent effective control of the border.

So I say to my friends who say we cannot control our border, I respectfully disagree because of what we are doing in this legislation. And those who say we are unable to keep track of what goes on at our border, I would argue that the minimum requirements to be included in the southern border security strategy as provided by the Border Patrol should convince anyone of what we need.

I ask unanimous consent that these minimum requirements be printed in the Record.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCAIN. I see my distinguished friend from Vermont on the floor, who is always worth listening to, so I will be brief.

I wish to share with our colleagues another aspect of this problem that we really have not talked about very much, and that is the issue of drugs. Drugs are a problem of enormous proportion in this country. We see the effects of illegal drugs such as methamphetamine and others, and we see it is doing incredible damage to our Nation and particularly to our young people.

This document is called the Arizona High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Threat Assessment of 2013. Now, I am not going to go into a lot of the details, but there are some stark facts about the flow of drugs across our southern border that should disturb all of us. I quote:

The Tucson and Phoenix areas remain the primary distribution hubs for ton quantities of marijuana in the southwest region--

Ton quantities of marijuana in the southwest region--

as Tucson and Phoenix-based sources sell throughout the United States.

In other words, the drugs come up across the Arizona-Sonora border, they are tracked by guides on mountaintops and into Phoenix, and from Phoenix they are distributed throughout the country.

The Phoenix field DEA--Drug Enforcement Agency--Phoenix field division's biannual drug price list for 2012 indicates marijuana in the Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas remained stable during the period January 2011 to 2012.

Why is that important? Because the only real indication as to whether we are reducing a supply is the price of that supply. So when we see the price of marijuana on the street in Phoenix and Tucson is exactly what it was for the entire year, no matter what we see in the papers and on television of these large apprehensions, unless the price is going up, then we are not apprehending these drugs.

So I just want to mention a couple of other facts to my colleagues and why I think we are not addressing the drug problem sufficiently in this legislation.

The assessment continues:

The retail price of methamphetamine decreased in the Phoenix area and now ranges from $500 to $1,000 per ounce.

If there is a terrible drug on the market today, it has to be methamphetamine. I am told that one--one--ingestion of methamphetamine makes a person an addict. So what have we been able to do as far as methamphetamine? The retail price of methamphetamine decreased, which obviously means the supply has certainly not been impacted.

Wholesale black tar heroin prices in Arizona have remained stable or decreased slightly, including market stability.

Only 35 percent of the HIDTA--

The high density trafficking area--

respondents reported high cocaine availability in their respective jurisdictions. Intelligence indicates cocaine price increases in Mexico and Arizona during the past year may have impacted the supply of cocaine to the Arizona drug market, thus impacting other drug markets.

So that is good news.

Continuing to read from the threat assessment: The price per kilogram of cocaine increased $5,000 to $6,000 per kilogram in the Phoenix area.

My friends, I know my colleagues are very busy, but I would at least have your staff read this threat assessment of 2013 in the State of Arizona. Again, I do not say that because I represent the State of Arizona. But these same people--the Drug Enforcement Agency--will tell you still the bulk of illegal drugs crossing our southern border comes through the Arizona-Tucson sector.

So what is my recipe on this situation? Frankly, I do not know a real good recipe because clearly demand is either stable or on the rise in the United States of America depending on to whom you talk. In some places in America, the use of drugs is glamorized. In some places, it is kind of the sophisticated thing to do. I do not think there is any doubt that there are influences in the United States of America that increase the attractiveness of drugs to our citizens.

I am not saying I know the answer, but I do think that as we address the issue of border security, we have to understand that if there is a demand for drugs in the streets of every major city in America, they will use all ultralights, they will use submarines, they will use tunnels, they will do whatever is necessary in order to get that supply to where there is a market.

I will never forget being down in Colombia, where the government people there showed me a submarine the drug cartel people had built--a very sophisticated submarine. They had hired engineers to build it. It was one that travels under the water--not far but under the water.

I said: How much did it cost them to build this?

He said: Five million dollars.

I said: Five millions dollars. That is a lot of money.

The guy said: They make $15 million in one load--in one load.

So I am not coming to this floor with a lot of answers, but I am coming to the floor of this Senate and saying that the drug issue in this country is a serious one, and if anybody thinks we are reducing the supply of those drugs, I think the facts contradict that, and it is time we started seriously as a society addressing what is killing our young and old Americans.

So, again, I thank my colleagues for their consideration of this legislation. I really came to the floor to convince them that this is a far different situation from 1986. We have gone from 4,000 border agents to 21,000. We have put in all kinds of barriers to the border. But, most importantly, as the Presiding Officer from Delaware pointed out earlier today, we now have technology that can surveil and interdict people from crossing our border. Our challenge is to get it done.

I thank my colleague from Vermont for his patience, and I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business and engage in a colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in a couple of minutes the President of the United States will be announcing it is now conclusive that Bashar al-Asad and the Syrian butchers have used chemical weapons, which is, as we all know, a red line which the President of the United States announced that Bashar al-Asad cannot cross.

Asad has been very clever in using small amounts rather than large amounts. But the fact is we are not the first country to conclude the Asad regime has used chemical weapons in their attacks on the population of Syria.

The President also will announce we will be assisting the Syrian rebels in Syria by providing them with weapons and other assistance. I applaud the President's decision, 93,000 people dead later, over 1 million refugees, and the countries in the surrounding region erupting into sectarian violence, the clear spreading of this conflict into a regional conflict: Sunni, Shia, Saudi, Iran, Russia, all major players.

We see that Jordan is overwhelmed with refugees. Lebanon is experiencing sectarian violence. Iraq is unraveling and the entire region is bordering on chaos, not to mention the massacre and genocide that is taking place in Syria.

I applaud the President's decision, and I appreciate it. The President of the United States had better understand that just supplying weapons is not going to change the equation on the ground of the balance of power. These people, the Free Syrian Army, need weapons and heavy weapons to counter tanks and aircraft. They need a no-fly air zone. Bashar Asad's air assets have to be taken out and neutralized. We can do that without risking a single American airplane. We can do it by cratering the runways with cruise missiles, moving the PATRIOT missiles closer to the border, and protecting a safe zone where they can organize, they can work, and they can coordinate with the civilian side of the Syrian National Army, and they can have a chance of success.

Today--thanks to Iranians, thanks to Russia, thanks to Hezbollah pouring in by the thousands, thanks to people flowing in from all over the Middle East--including from Iraq back into Syria--they are losing. They are being massacred and they are sustaining incredibly heavy casualties. It is terrible.

I applaud the President's decision. I applaud the fact that he has now acknowledged what the French, the others, and all the rest of us knew, that Bashar Asad is using chemical weapons.

Just to provide weapons to the Syrian National Army is not enough. We have to change the equation on the battleground. If I might say, I have seen and been in conflicts where there was gradual escalation. They don't win. If all we are going to do is supply weapons, then there will be a commensurate resupply by the Iranians, Russians, and others.

I thank the President for acknowledging the Syrians are using chemical weapons and massacring their own people. I applaud his decision to provide additional weapons.

Every ounce, every bone in my body knows that simply providing weapons will not change the battlefield equation, and we must change the battlefield equation; otherwise, we are going to see a regional conflict, the consequences of which we will be paying for for a long time.

I yield to my colleague from South Carolina.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCAIN. May I ask my colleague if he remembers when the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff appeared before our committee well over a year ago and said, unsolicited, it is inevitable, it is inevitable that Bashar Asad will fall? Does the Senator remember that?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCAIN. This is from our highest ranking official and from our highest defense official, the Secretary of Defense.

At that time I said: What makes you so sure? How can you be so sure with the help from Hezbollah, with the help from the Russians at the time, the equipment and arms they are getting?

They said: Don't worry. The fall of Asad is inevitable.

Is there anybody today who believes he is going to fall? I don't think so. Because the facts on the ground are he is winning and the slaughter continues. The latest is 93,000 people have been massacred. As the Senator from South Carolina indicated, there are well over 1 million refugees overwhelming the neighboring countries.

It is my understanding the President has not made the final decision on arming, but he has made the decision that chemical weapons are being used. I think it is obvious they will be providing weapons. They need a no-fly zone. I would say there are military officials in the Pentagon who will say we can't do it, and we have to have total mobilization of every single Reserve in the world and the United States, and it is so hard.

We spend tens of billions of dollars a year on defense. If our military can't establish a no-fly zone, then, by God, American taxpayer dollars have been terribly wasted and we ought to have an investigation as to why we can't handle a situation in a third-rate country. I believe we can, I know we can. I know, because I talked to people, such as the head of our Central Command, a former head of our Central Command, our former head of NATO, and others, such as General Keane, the architect of the surge. We can go in and establish a no-fly zone, and we can change this equation on the battlefield.

Finally, I would ask my colleague, we understand the American people are war weary. They are weary because of what happened in Iraq. We remain in Afghanistan. Iraq is unraveling, by the way, but Americans are weary. They are tired of reading the casualty lists, of the funerals, and the terrible tragedies that have befallen American families. That is why neither I nor the Senator from South Carolina is saying we want boots on the ground. In fact, we don't want boots on the ground. We know it would be counterproductive. We know it would not lead to victory. We do know we can provide incredible assistance and change this battlefield equation.

Finally, because a lot of Americans haven't paid perhaps as much attention as some of us, and maybe because they are war weary, I think it would be wise for the President of the United States to go on national television to explain to the American people why we are stopping this genocide, explain why we are assisting these people who are struggling for the same things we stand for and believe in, why the United States of America went to Bosnia with air power, not boots on the ground, and why we went to Kosovo and didn't put boots on the ground. Explain how we can help these people while alleviating the unspeakable misery of the Syrian people.

Does my colleague from South Carolina agree with that?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCAIN. I would mention one other thing, as I know one of my colleagues is waiting on the floor. There is no other experience that I think anyone can have to see the terrible ravage of war than to go to a refugee camp. The Senator from South Carolina and I have been to refugee camps on both the Turkish and the Jordanian border to see thousands of people living in terribly primitive conditions; to see, as I did in one camp we visited--there had been a rainstorm the night before and people were literally living in water--the desperation on the faces of the people and the children.

I have had many moving experiences while visiting these refugee camps, but I also think there is an aspect we ought to understand and appreciate as Americans. They are angry and they are bitter because we wouldn't come to their assistance.

I will never forget a woman who was a schoolteacher escorting me around the refugee camp. She said: Senator McCain, do you see all these children here? Do you see all these children?

She said: These children are going to take revenge on those who refused to help them stop this slaughter by Bashar Asad.

So there are long-term implications both on the humanitarian side as well as other aspects of this issue. Believe me, it is the greatest blow to Iran in 25 years if Bashar Asad fell. So it is not just a humanitarian issue. If Bashar Asad goes, Hezbollah is disconnected from Iran, and the whole equation in the Middle East dramatically changes. If Iran and Bashar Asad succeed, we will see a direct threat of the State of Israel, which the Israelis understand, coming from the Golan Heights.

So this is not only a humanitarian issue, it is a national security issue. If Iran succeeds, keeping Bashar Asad in power, that will send a message throughout the Middle East about Iranian power, Iranian ability, and the Iranian ability to change governments throughout the Middle East. So there is a lot at stake.

I hope the President will go to a no-fly zone and give these people the weapons with which to defend themselves, as Russian arms and Iranian arms pour into the country on the side of Bashar Asad. My friends, it is not a fair fight, and we know, in that kind of climate and terrain, air power is the deciding factor.

I thank my colleague from South Carolina, and I appreciate the patience of the Senator from Texas.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source