Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, there certainly is a lot of discussion--and understandably so--about the fact that so often there really aren't bipartisan efforts here in the Senate on major issues. We can turn on practically any talk show in America, and the constant refrain is, they are just not working together down there. The Democrats and Republicans can't find common ground and in many instances aren't even trying.

The issue before the Senate right now shows that is certainly not the case. We all understand how important this immigration issue is. It is an economic issue. It is a justice issue. It affects scores and scores of communities across the country. And for many months now here in the Senate, four Democrats and four Republicans, hour after hour after hour, have sought to come together in a bipartisan way to tackle a major issue. I certainly don't support every single provision in the bill. I am sure that is the case for most Senators. But I think in terms of its large implications, this is an extraordinarily important effort.

The immigration system is broken. Our country knows it needs to be fixed. And what this shows is that we can find some common ground to really address principled bipartisanship--not just bipartisanship for the sake of patting ourselves on the back but bipartisanship in terms of actually showing that the values important to both sides of the aisle can be addressed and at the same time the Senate can come together, work together, and pass a law and actually succeed in the business we are sent here to do, which is to pass legislation.

I particularly wish to commend three on our side of the aisle whom I have worked with on these and many other issues--Chairman Leahy, Senator Schumer, and, of course, our majority leader. They have constantly put the focus on trying to show that Senators will have a chance to be heard on this issue. We have had a lot of debate on it. They had literally scores and scores of amendments in the Judiciary Committee. We have had a lot of debate here on the floor of the Senate. Chairman Leahy, Senator Schumer, and Senator Reid have all indicated that Senators are going to have an extensive opportunity to be heard. But, yes, when there is a bipartisan bill produced by four Democratic leaders and four Republican leaders, those three have been resolute in saying that we are actually going to get it in front of the Senate, and I commend them for their very important work.

In addition to making it clear that I think bipartisanship is valuable, I wish to highlight for a moment three amendments that I hope that I will be able to make pending and that we will be able to get votes on. In particular, I am troubled by the fact that the bill as written waives our country's environmental laws in order to secure the border.

I am of the view that strengthening our immigration system should not come at the cost of throwing our environmental laws aside. These are bedrock principles with respect to protecting our environment, our public lands, and our natural resources. So I and seven other colleagues in the Senate have introduced an amendment that would strike several of the unnecessary provisions in the bill that thwart the rule of law and ensure, as we go forward with the very important security agenda in securing the border, that, as I have indicated, we don't do long-term damage to our environment that may take generations to recover from, if at all.

If we are talking about waiving the laws that protect our public resources--and I know the distinguished Presiding Officer cares a great deal about these issues--we ought to waive those laws only where there is compelling evidence that it is necessary, and even then it ought to be done in a narrow and targeted way.

So my first amendment I hope to be able to get pending and hope to be able to offer is amendment No. 1543. It would allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to work with the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, local landowners, and State and Indian tribes to determine if any negative impacts can be mitigated. This means that if in order to secure the border there is damage to important environmental concerns--private property, public lands, tribal lands--the Secretary could take action to reduce that damage. So if, for example, the wall along the border causes unintended flooding in a city, the Secretary would be able to look at measures such as new infrastructure, dikes, or drainage systems to prevent flooding. If a road has to be built through a wetland or the habitat of an endangered species, the Secretary would have the

authority to restore wetlands or conserve habitat for that species elsewhere.

All I want understood is that the Department has testified--Secretary Napolitano has testified several times before the Congress, including recent testimony before the Judiciary Committee, that the Department of Homeland Security does not need these blanket authorities to waive the environmental law. They have not requested blanket authority to waive the environmental law.

I think the Secretary's view in this regard speaks volumes to the need to carefully review what the legislation does so as to make sure, when we are talking about a matter of such enormous concern--and really also setting a precedent--that we think through how to ensure that we provide the security the American people want, and at the same time, if we are talking about waiving environmental laws, at least we provide the authority to the Department to mitigate the damages in doing that, particularly given the fact that the Department has not sought the authority in the first place. They didn't seek the authority in the first place, so let's at least give them the authority to mitigate the damages.

Another amendment I seek to offer is amendment No. 1544, which would simply sunset this provision to waive the environmental laws when what is called the second trigger in the legislation is met. There has been considerable interest in the committee with respect to sunset authority and provisions to do that in one additional area. We ought to make sure we sunset the provision to waive the environmental laws when the second trigger is met.

Finally, I hope to be able to offer amendment No. 1545, which creates a definition for ``physical tactical infrastructure'' in the waiver of all of the environmental laws. The amendment would define it as ``roads; vehicles and pedestrian fences; port of entry barriers; lights; bridges; and towers for technology and surveillance.''

So, again, what we are talking about is not getting rid of the waiver. I understand that isn't going to happen. But let's at least mitigate these damages that I think are very real threats, and let's set forward some unambiguous terms that relate to how this waiver is going to be used.

In my view these are amendments that improve the bill. They don't take away any of the authorities that are granted in this bill, but they are going to ensure that private property, public lands, and our environmental values are also going to be a priority while allowing the border to be secured as quickly as possible.

So in wrapping up, let me say again for all those who may be following this debate and who have been skeptical about whether there was enough good will to do anything bipartisan here, I think the Senate, in a bipartisan way, with a pretty significant vote next week--I will not join the parlor debates of speculating about how many Senators will vote for the bill, but I believe it is going to be a very substantial majority. It will, in fact, be a bipartisan law that is passed, that responds to a significant issue, not just some kind of issue du jour that may have come up in the last few days and all of a sudden a few Senators get interested and come to the floor. This is a major, substantive issue. It has gone on and on. It has been tackled in a bipartisan way. Initially, eight Senators were willing to stick their necks out and take a fair amount of flak, as invariably happens when trying to work on a partisan issue in a bipartisan way.

Again, it is also important to acknowledge, particularly on our side of the aisle, Chairman Leahy, Senator Schumer, and Leader Reid, who have tirelessly focused on trying to make sure Senators have a chance to be heard, and have done so, and I commend them for that effort.

I will conclude today by saying I think the three amendments I seek to make pending and get votes on will deal with another important issue. The bill as written waives the environmental laws in order to secure the border, and I and a number of other Senators would like, at a minimum, to make sure the Department of Homeland Security has the legal authority to mitigate the damage associated with that waiver wherever possible.

We think it is particularly important that those provisions that would mitigate the damages be allowed since the Secretary has actually testified she does not need those authorities in the first place.

Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source