Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we have been working on immigration reform ever since I came to the Senate about 10 years ago. I have sponsored legislation--most notably with the former Senator Jon Kyl in 2005--called the Comprehensive Border Security and Immigration Reform Act.

The legislation I have worked on since I have been in the Senate has dealt with virtually every aspect of the issues that immigration touches on--from high-skilled visas and guest worker programs to border security to enhancement of our ports of entry. The staffing at those ports of entry is important. It makes it possible for legitimate commerce and trade to go back and forth, most notably, with Mexico which shares 1,200 miles of common border with my State of Texas.

As a result of that bilateral exchange, 6 million jobs are created in the United States alone. I believe I have been involved in some of the toughest parts of the immigration debate, and as I have joked to my staff and family, I have the scars to prove it.

The truth is this is a new topic in many ways to so many Members of the Senate because 43 Senators have come to this Chamber since the last time we debated this topic in 2007. While the Senate Judiciary Committee has had the opportunity to vote on this important legislation, the rest of the body has not had a chance to weigh in and offer their contributions, hopefully, with an eye toward improving the bill and making it something of which we can be proud.

When I first read the bill produced by the so-called Gang of 8, I saw many improvements in our current broken immigration system. For example, the bill, as written by the Gang of 8 and now passed out of the Judiciary Committee, allowed more STEM graduates; that is, graduates from our colleges and universities with math, science, and engineering degrees, to gain admission to our country as legal permanent residents and eventually citizens. Further, I think the bill makes some improvements in terms of family unification. It brings families together who are split because of archaic and unworkable provisions in our immigration law. I think the bill also helps take an important step toward regaining the public's confidence.

The Federal Government is actually up to writing laws that can be enforced and will actually work as advertised. That is where the E-Verify provisions are so important. It makes sure employers only hire people who are legally eligible to work in this country.

In that same vein, this bill as originally written would provide some enhanced penalties to employers who would game the system by evading legal workers and hiring people who cannot legally work in the United States.

All of these provisions enjoy broad bipartisan support. Yet, coming from a border State, as I said--one that shares 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico, through which the overwhelming majority of illegal immigration across our borders occurs--I believe there are dramatic improvements needed in this bill when it comes to securing America's borders and promoting public safety, and those cannot be disentangled from one another.

We know that the same border that allows somebody who wants to come into this country to work and have a better life--certainly something we can all understand and empathize with--also permits drug cartels and human traffickers to penetrate our borders and apply their dangerous trade.

We have also learned over time that our 2,000-mile southern border is very diverse. In other words, if a person is from California and their view is that the border of the San Diego area where they have double-fencing and mounted patrols, in essence, by the Border Patrol--that may well work to control the border in San Diego, but it may not work in Arizona or in Texas. As a matter of fact, we have seen dramatic improvements in Arizona. Two of the Members of the Gang of 8, Senator McCain and Senator Flake, have been very diligent in working on those issues in their State.

However, I must tell my colleagues that, coming from the State of Texas, where we have the longest extension of uncontrolled border in the country, there is a lot of work that needs to be done because of this diversity, and that is the spirit in which I intend to offer amendments to help improve border security and public safety.

Now, the bill grants permanent legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants as currently written without any guarantee of securing the border. How would that possibly be a good idea? In other words, there are many Americans who, in their humanity and out of simple human compassion, understand that the 12 million or 11 million people who are currently undocumented or who are in illegal status in this country--they understand we are not going to do a massive deportation of those 12 million people. It is just not going to happen. What they would be willing to do is to accept a legal status for those individuals if they can be assured the immigration bill that is actually passed will work as advertised.

Those eligible for immediate legalization under the current bill would include those already deported immigrants as well as people who have been convicted of serious crimes such as domestic violence, child abuse, and drunk driving. How could that possibly be a good idea? We need to fix those provisions and fix the bill in the process.

Meanwhile, unfortunately, this bill also weakens current law with regard to people entering the country legally but failing to leave when their visa expires. This is the so-called biometric entry-exit system which has been the law of the land since 1996. When we wonder why people are skeptical about the Federal Government's commitment to actually enforce the law as written, exhibit A is this 1996 requirement for a biometric entry-exit system that has never been implemented. Visa overstays account for 40 percent of illegal immigration. Don't we want to fix that provision of the bill? Yes, we should, and, yes, we will if my amendment is adopted.

This bill also hides from law enforcement officials certain critical information necessary to detect fraud. One of the big problems with the 1986 amnesty that Ronald Reagan signed based on the premise that there would be enforcement and no need to ever provide another amnesty again, that this would actually be enforced, was that there was so much fraud associated with it because of the confidentiality requirements of the law. Those same mistakes have been repeated in the underlying bill, and that needs to be fixed.

My amendment--something we call the RESULTS amendment because we need not just new promises, we need actual results--fixes these problems.

First, it requires the Department of Homeland Security to gain complete situational awareness and full operational control of the Southwestern border, with ``operational control'' defined as at least a 90-percent apprehension rate of illegal border crossers. Ultimately, the goal needs to be not just focused on how many we apprehend but on deterrence. Law enforcement generally operates when people are deterred from violating the law because they fear being captured and the punishment that goes along with it. So that ultimately needs to be our goal, but it will never happen unless we capture at least 90 percent of the people who come across, thus sending the message that the American border is now secure.

My amendment would also require the use of a biometric exit system at all airports and seaports where Customs and Border Protection is currently deployed, and it requires national implementation of E-Verify. Again, that system will allow employers not to be the police but to have a simple and easy way to verify that the individuals who present themselves for employment at their place of business are legally qualified to work in the United States.

The biggest difference between my amendment and the underlying bill is that my amendment guarantees results, while the Gang of 8 proposal merely promises results.

I have to tell my colleagues that perhaps with all of the confluence of scandals occurring in Washington, DC, including the IRS debacle and the Health and Human Services Secretary shaking down and raising money from the very people she regulates, there is a lot of what I would call a confidence deficit in Washington, DC--particularly given Washington's abysmal record in enforcing our immigration laws. But it is important to distinguish between promises and results.

Remember, the Federal Government has promised to secure our border for the last quarter century, and the trail of broken promises, as I said, goes back to 1986 when Congress passed an amnesty program while assuring voters they would see results on border security and enforcement. As everyone knows, we got the amnesty but not the enforcement in 1986, and the underlying bill suffers the same problems. At the very least, we should try to learn from history and not repeat it. Unfortunately, the underlying bill fails to acknowledge those lessons we should have learned about steps we need to take in order to guarantee results rather than make repetitive promises we ultimately don't keep.

I understand why the American people don't trust Washington. I understand why they dismiss some border security promises as rhetoric. That is why my RESULTS amendment is so important and essential to accomplishing the goal of bipartisan immigration reform.

As I said, right now Congress and Washington have a major credibility problem. No one believes we are actually serious about actually securing the borders and stopping the hemorrhaging of humanity across our southern border into the United States, including not just people who want to work but people who are up to no good--the human traffickers and the drug dealers. I am afraid the Gang of 8 bill in its current form would make this problem worse. So I believe the true poison pill would be the failure to take sensible measures by adopting amendments such as mine which are designed to actually solve the problem and guarantee results rather than ignore this important credibility gap Washington has.

As I said, we do not need promises, we need results, and that is what my amendment would provide. Instead of enacting so-called triggers that are just really talking points disguised as policy, it is time for us to adopt real triggers that condition the pathway to citizenship on Washington and the bureaucracy and Congress hand-in-hand working to make sure the law is enforced as written.

The majority leader reportedly, according to Politico, has somehow called my amendment a poison pill. We have heard that kind of language before. This is an effort designed to discourage those who would actually create a workable, results-driven immigration reform system from even offering their ideas. The irony is the majority leader hasn't even read my amendment because it hasn't been reduced to legislative language yet. He has prematurely called it a poison pill. In fact, the true poison pill would be failure to adopt such a sensible approach that would guarantee results so that when it goes to the House, we can see we are actually serious about delivering an immigration reform bill that functions as advertised and not just another series of hollow promises.

Strengthening border security and enhancing interior enforcement are not alternatives to fixing our broken immigration system; they are complements to the kinds of sensible reforms Members of both parties have endorsed. Indeed, the provisions of my amendment actually build on the framework created by the bipartisan Gang of 8 proposal. The difference is, again, that we don't just make the promises, we don't just require the issuance of a plan, we actually require metrics to measure success, and we hold the feet of Congress and the bureaucracy to the fire to make sure those metrics and those goals are actually achieved.

Even as we debate the most controversial issues, we should be doing everything possible to promote the type of legal immigration that benefits our society and our economy as well. It is with that spirit in mind that I will be introducing at a later time my RESULTS amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to take a look at it and join me in strengthening this underlying bill, making it more likely, not less likely, that we will actually pass a bill that will be taken up by the House of Representatives and eventually be presented to the President for his signature.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source