Nomination of Leon Rodriguez to Be Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, there are two things I wish to address here briefly on the floor of the Senate. The first, strangely enough, has to do with an editorial that appeared in the New York Times this weekend.

I remember one of the people who was influential to me when I was coming up through the political system in Bexar County, TX, and in Austin, and now working here in Washington and back home in Texas. One of my mentors said: Don't ever get into a fight with somebody who buys ink by the barrel.

That seemed like pretty sage advice, but maybe it is a little dated these days because so much of what we see in the news is not in written newsprint itself.

The point is, the editorial in the New York Times this weekend I am referring to was talking about criminal justice reform, a topic that in recent months has produced some genuine bipartisan legislation. I am proud to be a cosponsor of one of those reform bills, along with my colleague, the junior Senator from Rhode Island, Sheldon Whitehouse.

Our bill would allow low-risk Federal prisoners to earn credit toward completing a portion of their sentence outside of prison walls--for example, through home confinement, through halfway houses or community supervision.

Strangely enough, the Times editorial praises our bill as an example ``of significant progress toward a legislative solution.''

Unfortunately, it then proceeds to blame Senate Republicans, including me, for stalling progress on the bill and preventing a vote on the sentencing bill introduced by the distinguished majority whip, Dick Durbin of Illinois.

The strange thing about it is, as every Senator and everybody within the sound of my voice knows, it is Majority Leader Reid who determines what legislation comes up on the Senate floor, and this editorial didn't mention him at all. An amazing oversight. The last time I checked, the majority leader was the only person in the Chamber with the power to schedule a vote on any legislation he wants, and he can do so whenever he wants.

So for the record, I wish to correct the error in the New York Times editorial. I strongly support criminal justice reform, including sentencing reform. My concerns about the sentencing reform bill cosponsored by Senator Durbin and Senator Lee are that I believe the criteria it uses are excessively broad in deciding whose prison terms to shorten. But I think those are the sorts of things that could be worked out through an open amendment process on the Senate floor. And--I am sure we all agree on this--we don't want to prematurely release dangerous, higher level drug traffickers. That is my concern, that the bill is overly broad and would include them. Those kinds of concerns should not be taken lightly--and I am sure they are not--and I look forward to working with my colleagues to address them.

To reiterate, my opinions about the sentencing bill have nothing to do with the majority leader's prerogative to schedule a vote. He could schedule that vote anytime he wants. I would like to think the New York Times editorial board is knowledgeable enough to know that, but apparently they need a reminder.

IMMIGRATION POLICY

In the last week I have come to the floor a number of times to talk about the humanitarian crisis in South Texas. This of course is caused in large part by 52,000 unaccompanied minors, mostly from Central America, who have shown up on America's doorstep, on our border, saying they want to live in the United States. It is estimated those numbers could rise to as many as 60,000 to 90,000 this year alone and maybe double next year unless something is done.

I have to say I am somewhat encouraged because the Obama administration is finally acknowledging--somewhat belatedly, but finally they are acknowledging their policies may have contributed to this crisis in the first place.

This past weekend Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson published what he called an open letter to the parents of children crossing our Southwest border. This letter ran as an op-ed in Spanish language media outlets, and it warned parents of the extraordinary dangers facing Central American migrants who travel through Mexico, including the danger of kidnapping, sexual assault, torture, and murder.

Secretary of Homeland Security Johnson also made clear that the children who have been pouring into South Texas will not be eligible for the Obama administration's so-called deferred action programs. This is what he said:

There is no path to deferred action or citizenship, or one being contemplated by Congress, for a child who crosses our border illegally today.

In other words, Secretary Johnson's op-ed implicitly acknowledged that President Obama's policies have created a perception that children who make it across the border will be allowed to stay. I must say it is a very dangerous perception and one that simply has to be corrected, not only for the sake of U.S. border security and for the rule of law but for the sake of the very children who now constitute the humanitarian crisis on our southwestern border.

In discussing this matter with a number of our colleagues on a bipartisan basis, it has been observed that the drug cartels, which used to just traffic in drugs, now traffic in people. They have changed their business model. Essentially, they control the corridors by which drugs, people, and weapons traverse Mexico and, in this instance, come from Central America.

The fact is there should be a lot of concern on our part that this flood of unaccompanied children will prove to be a distraction from the interdiction of dangerous drugs coming across the same borders. In fact, in the Rio Grande sector of the Border Patrol, in the Rio Grande Valley, as the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security Committee knows, there has actually been a drop in the number of drug interdictions coming across the southwestern border in part because the Border Patrol and other law enforcement have been diverted to deal with this humanitarian crisis.

I see the chairman on the floor, and it looks as though he has a question on his mind. I yield to him for a question if he has one.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee is exactly right to say we can't just look at the border in dealing with this crisis.

My friend Henry Cuellar from Laredo, TX, a Member of the House of Representatives, likened this to a football game. He said: You can't only do goal line defense. We need to find ways of deterring people from leaving their homes in the first place and coming to the United States.

I know Vice President Biden was in Guatemala this last week and Secretary Johnson was in the Rio Grande Valley, and I know they are looking at all of this. There is no simple, single-shot answer to it. But the fact is there are a lot of people who want to come to the United States, for obvious reasons.

But I look at it as even though we are a nation of immigrants, we are a nation of legal immigration, one of the most generous in the world. I think we naturalize roughly 800,000 people a year now because they want to become American citizens through the legal system.

But to have this mass of humanity come at such a great flood and in such a short period of time, particularly as unaccompanied minors, threatens to capsize the boat. It creates a lot of hardship in local communities, States, and places around the country we wouldn't expect to be dealing with this, because they are going to have to be taken care of. We are committed to making sure these children are taken care of, but we have to send a message very clearly that if you are a parent contemplating this circumstance, you should not send your children, particularly on the perilous and dangerous journey leading from Central America.

I have mentioned in recent days a book written in 2013 called ``The Beast'' by a courageous Salvadoran writer named Oscar Martinez. Mr. Martinez, a journalist, traveled I think eight different times with the migrants from Central America and wrote in this book about their experiences and, unfortunately, the unspeakable brutalities these migrants encounter on a daily basis--again, because they are traveling through a smuggling corridor controlled by the cartels, in this instance the Zetas. The Zetas are a spinoff of the Sinaloa cartel. They used to traffic in drugs, but now they realize they can make money off these migrants--and they do, in terrible sorts of ways. Of course they are lawless, and the brutalities they exact on these migrants are shocking.

For example, Mr. Martinez in his book ``The Beast'' tells a story of one migrant woman who was raped on the dirt-and-straw floor of a cardboard shack before being strangled to death in a Mexican town along the Guatemalan border. This woman's picture was subsequently published in a local newspaper on a half page, with two other pictures of tortured bodies. In the meantime, an epitaph was written on a small cross that read: The young mother and her twins died November 2008.

I realize this is shocking and really horrible, and we prefer not to even think about it. But I think we need to acknowledge--and certainly the parents who send their young children unaccompanied on this long, perilous journey need to understand--what they are vulnerable to.

The dangers of the trans-Mexican migration journey have become far worse over the past decade as powerful drug cartels have effectively taken over the human trafficking business. As Caitlin Dickson in the Daily Beast reported yesterday:

While the journey north was always treacherous and costly, in the hands of the cartels it has become deadlier than ever. The entire border, and the routes leading up to it, are controlled by some combination of Los Zetas, Sinaloa, and Knights of Templar cartels, along with a few smaller groups--making it impossible to cross without their permission.

What they have to pay to exact their permission is a tax or a fee--basically, protection money--to allow them to pass more or less safely through their territory.

As I have said many times, there is nothing at all humane about encouraging mothers, daughters, fathers, and sons to put their lives in the hands of such vicious criminals. Yet when the President has talked as he has over the years about dealing humanely with migrants, he acts as if the decision to demonstrate more and more leniency or deferred action when it comes to our enforcement or immigration laws is itself a humanitarian act. Yet perversely what it does is it encourages this sort of illegal immigration and encourages mothers and fathers to subject their children to these tremendous brutalities.

I can only hope the ongoing crisis we are seeing now along the southwestern border will dispel any illusions that somehow by saying, well, we will not enforce our immigration laws as to this class of individuals, we are going to pick and choose or we have deported too many people, so we are going to quit deporting people--these actions and inactions have consequences, and this is the sort of consequence that sort of action produces. I hope it will dissuade the President from announcing yet another unilateral suspension of immigration enforcement later this summer.

There are various stories written and rumors told that the President, if immigration reform doesn't pass this year in Congress, will take action unilaterally through an Executive order. He has encouraged that perception, saying, ``I have a pen and I have a phone,'' and he has issued a number of Executive orders in a number of different areas, but I hope the President doesn't compound the problem by further sending the message that he is going to unilaterally suspend enforcement of our immigration laws because the consequences will be big and they will further jeopardize the health, welfare, and well-being of the people he thinks he is trying to help.

I would ask the President: What is more important, is it political posturing--trying to show to an important constituency that you are sympathetic to their concerns--or are we going to focus primarily on people's lives and their welfare?

Given all that has happened in this humanitarian crisis, how on Earth could the President possibly justify another unilateral change in immigration enforcement that will likely lead to another surge like we have seen on the border.

It is pretty simple. Unless we send a clear message that our borders are being enforced and that our laws are being upheld, we will continue to face crisis after crisis after crisis. Meanwhile, untold numbers of migrants will continue suffering and dying in Central America and Mexico just trying to get here or get here--showing up on our doorstep--and overwhelm our capacity to deal with them in a responsible way.

I yield the floor, and I would suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee is exactly right to say we can't just look at the border in dealing with this crisis.

My friend Henry Cuellar from Laredo, TX, a Member of the House of Representatives, likened this to a football game. He said: You can't only do goal line defense. We need to find ways of deterring people from leaving their homes in the first place and coming to the United States.

I know Vice President Biden was in Guatemala this last week and Secretary Johnson was in the Rio Grande Valley, and I know they are looking at all of this. There is no simple, single-shot answer to it. But the fact is there are a lot of people who want to come to the United States, for obvious reasons.

But I look at it as even though we are a nation of immigrants, we are a nation of legal immigration, one of the most generous in the world. I think we naturalize roughly 800,000 people a year now because they want to become American citizens through the legal system.

But to have this mass of humanity come at such a great flood and in such a short period of time, particularly as unaccompanied minors, threatens to capsize the boat. It creates a lot of hardship in local communities, States, and places around the country we wouldn't expect to be dealing with this, because they are going to have to be taken care of. We are committed to making sure these children are taken care of, but we have to send a message very clearly that if you are a parent contemplating this circumstance, you should not send your children, particularly on the perilous and dangerous journey leading from Central America.

I have mentioned in recent days a book written in 2013 called ``The Beast'' by a courageous Salvadoran writer named Oscar Martinez. Mr. Martinez, a journalist, traveled I think eight different times with the migrants from Central America and wrote in this book about their experiences and, unfortunately, the unspeakable brutalities these migrants encounter on a daily basis--again, because they are traveling through a smuggling corridor controlled by the cartels, in this instance the Zetas. The Zetas are a spinoff of the Sinaloa cartel. They used to traffic in drugs, but now they realize they can make money off these migrants--and they do, in terrible sorts of ways. Of course they are lawless, and the brutalities they exact on these migrants are shocking.

For example, Mr. Martinez in his book ``The Beast'' tells a story of one migrant woman who was raped on the dirt-and-straw floor of a cardboard shack before being strangled to death in a Mexican town along the Guatemalan border. This woman's picture was subsequently published in a local newspaper on a half page, with two other pictures of tortured bodies. In the meantime, an epitaph was written on a small cross that read: The young mother and her twins died November 2008.

I realize this is shocking and really horrible, and we prefer not to even think about it. But I think we need to acknowledge--and certainly the parents who send their young children unaccompanied on this long, perilous journey need to understand--what they are vulnerable to.

The dangers of the trans-Mexican migration journey have become far worse over the past decade as powerful drug cartels have effectively taken over the human trafficking business. As Caitlin Dickson in the Daily Beast reported yesterday:

While the journey north was always treacherous and costly, in the hands of the cartels it has become deadlier than ever. The entire border, and the routes leading up to it, are controlled by some combination of Los Zetas, Sinaloa, and Knights of Templar cartels, along with a few smaller groups--making it impossible to cross without their permission.

What they have to pay to exact their permission is a tax or a fee--basically, protection money--to allow them to pass more or less safely through their territory.

As I have said many times, there is nothing at all humane about encouraging mothers, daughters, fathers, and sons to put their lives in the hands of such vicious criminals. Yet when the President has talked as he has over the years about dealing humanely with migrants, he acts as if the decision to demonstrate more and more leniency or deferred action when it comes to our enforcement or immigration laws is itself a humanitarian act. Yet perversely what it does is it encourages this sort of illegal immigration and encourages mothers and fathers to subject their children to these tremendous brutalities.

I can only hope the ongoing crisis we are seeing now along the southwestern border will dispel any illusions that somehow by saying, well, we will not enforce our immigration laws as to this class of individuals, we are going to pick and choose or we have deported too many people, so we are going to quit deporting people--these actions and inactions have consequences, and this is the sort of consequence that sort of action produces. I hope it will dissuade the President from announcing yet another unilateral suspension of immigration enforcement later this summer.

There are various stories written and rumors told that the President, if immigration reform doesn't pass this year in Congress, will take action unilaterally through an Executive order. He has encouraged that perception, saying, ``I have a pen and I have a phone,'' and he has issued a number of Executive orders in a number of different areas, but I hope the President doesn't compound the problem by further sending the message that he is going to unilaterally suspend enforcement of our immigration laws because the consequences will be big and they will further jeopardize the health, welfare, and well-being of the people he thinks he is trying to help.

I would ask the President: What is more important, is it political posturing--trying to show to an important constituency that you are sympathetic to their concerns--or are we going to focus primarily on people's lives and their welfare?

Given all that has happened in this humanitarian crisis, how on Earth could the President possibly justify another unilateral change in immigration enforcement that will likely lead to another surge like we have seen on the border.

It is pretty simple. Unless we send a clear message that our borders are being enforced and that our laws are being upheld, we will continue to face crisis after crisis after crisis. Meanwhile, untold numbers of migrants will continue suffering and dying in Central America and Mexico just trying to get here or get here--showing up on our doorstep--and overwhelm our capacity to deal with them in a responsible way.

I yield the floor, and I would suggest the absence of a quorum.

Source