Student Loan Rates

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I understand I have 10 minutes allotted; is that correct?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORKER. I want to thank my friend from Alabama, who has been down here vigorously and shows a lot of stamina. I have a sense he is not going to support this legislation.

I do want to talk, though, a little bit about this legislation this morning. I was asked yesterday by a reporter about the folks back home in Tennessee and how they feel about the legislation. No doubt there is a lot of controversy around this legislation. There have been a lot of statements made that, candidly, don't pass the trying-to-get-it-right test.

What I said to this reporter was that I have a lot of faith in Tennesseans. I believe Tennesseans, at the end of the day, will look at this legislation and study it, not just listen to what has been said by numbers of bloggers and people who are trying to spin things in such a way as to create confusion. At the end of the day, I believe when Tennesseans see what is in this legislation, the majority of them, the large majority of them, will believe this legislation improves the conditions from where we are today. I believe they will believe that.

Of course, it is my job to go back home to explain to Tennesseans directly, as I do on all controversial issues, why I support this legislation and why I think this is good for our country. But let me walk Tennesseans and Americans and people here in the Senate through, from my perspective, where we have been on this piece of legislation.

First of all, this bill was introduced to the Judiciary Committee months ago, and hundreds and hundreds of amendments were added in the process and dealt with during that judiciary markup. It went through regular order, something all of us around here have been hoping would occur with all legislation, which is that it goes through the committee process and comes to the Senate floor.

The bill has been on the floor now for 3 weeks, and I know a lot of people around here are complaining about the number of amendments. But let's face it, for a long time people on my side of the aisle would not let amendments be heard. It is just the truth. I mean, it is what happens with controversial legislation. A lot of times when people don't want to see something pass or see it improved, there are opponents to actually even hearing amendments.

So we had this ruse on the floor of the Senate yesterday about all this. Look, I would like to have 100 amendments on the floor. I am all for it. Bring it on. But the fact is, let's face it, both sides have been involved in keeping that from happening, and most recently it has been many of my friends on this side of the aisle.

Republicans gathered around the trigger that a Senator offered relative to border security, and it had to do with a 90-percent effectiveness trigger. That is where negotiations around this bill really hung up. But let me talk to people a little about this trigger.

When we look at the trigger that was in the border security bill, that I candidly supported, and many folks on my side did, the trigger was so subjective I would call it the Cheetos bag trigger or the granola wrapper trigger or the plastic bottle trigger. I want to make sure people understand the way this trigger was and why it wasn't acceptable to

the majority of people in the Senate.

The way this trigger works is it uses something called sign cuttings. This is a term that is used to track people through the desert and track them through the mountains. It has been used in the country for hundreds of years, especially in places that are less urban. So here is what was happening with that trigger.

Border Patrol agents were going to be able to look at a Cheetos bag or an empty granola bar wrapper or an empty Coca Cola can and say: I don't know, did 10 illegal aliens eat out of that Cheetos bag or did 1? I don't know. And it was that very subjectivity that people realized was going to cause people to be able to move the goalpost.

I am making light of it, but it is just true. This is the way, believe it or not, we keep stats on the border right now, in this very subjective manner. How many people attempted to get through? We didn't see them, but we think maybe 10 people went up through that crevice.

It reminds me of when I go hunting once a year down in Albany, GA. I have a friend who allows me to hunt on his place, and when a covey of birds flies by, he says: I think there were 12, and he marks that down in his hunt log. Now, I am sure at the end of the year he gets somewhat close to how many birds were on his plantation, if you will, but we are looking at something that was going to matter as it relates to green cards, and it was subjective and was put in place, candidly, in such a way many people thought the goalpost was going to be moved.

So Senator Hoeven and myself, working with a lot of others in the body, came up with tangible--tangible--triggers and not triggers some Border Patrol agent could fudge one way or the other. Not that anyone would attempt to, but one can understand, again, when someone is trying to guess how many people came through that they didn't even see--let me say that one more time.

One of the denominating factors was the Border Patrol agents were going to have to say how many people came through the border that they didn't see. Let's guess. By the way, let's make it exactly 90 percent.

So Senator Hoeven and I came up with an amendment that everybody could understand with 20,000 Border Patrol agents, a doubling along the southern border--20,000 agents. Every American can know whether that has happened. We added $4.5 billion worth of technology, and we listed the inventory. Every American can see whether that has happened. We have a fully implemented E-Verify. We don't want employers paying people under the table. We don't want people hiring folks who are here illegally. So that is fully implemented--fully implemented before a green card.

We also have an entry-exit visa program. I think many people know the reason we had the terrorist attack onÐ 9/11. We had people who overstayed their visas. Americans don't want to see that happen. So we have a tangible trigger--a tangible trigger--of making sure we have an entry-exit visa program.

We also have another 350 miles of fencing. Now, a lot of people say that is not required, but it is absolutely required. Anybody who would say that hasn't attempted to read the legislation.

So these are five tangible triggers. It is not a Cheetos bag trigger--not a Cheetos bag trigger but five tangible triggers that allow people to know whether we have actually met the goals that are in this bill.

There was a lot of discussion yesterday about an E-Verify amendment. As has been said, it is an amendment that could have easily been added to this legislation. It is a fine amendment. I would certainly be glad to support it. Candidly, I think it is an amendment, if it made it to the floor, that would be one of those 100-to-0 or 98-to-2 votes. Maybe it could pass by voice vote. It is not controversial. But the fact is the bill has a lot in there relative to E-Verify, and no doubt the House can make that even stronger.

Some of my friends are saying this is an amnesty bill. I don't know if people have looked at the provisions about people coming in out of the shadows and having to pay taxes--back taxes--and they will have to pay fines. They will have to pay taxes, by the way, into the U.S. system for 10 years and cannot receive a single benefit from the U.S. Government. That is the reason this bill scores so favorably from the standpoint of generating revenues into the Treasury.

But let me just say this. Nobody in this body has offered an amendment that would round up everybody in this country who is here illegally and deport them out of this country. Not a single soul has offered an amendment to do that.

Basically, what we have is a situation where we can cause people to come in out of the shadows, pay fines, pay taxes and receive no benefits and go to the back of the line. Everybody who came here properly or who has applied properly would be processed first. It is going to be a minimum of 10, maybe 13, 14, 15 years before people even have the ability to get a green card.

The option is to vote against this bill and basically say we are not going to do anything about the people who are here; we are OK with employers continuing to pay them under the table; we are OK with them continuing to not pay taxes, because not a single one of my colleagues has offered an amendment to round up these 11 million people in our country and ship them out. I call that de facto amnesty.

Some people have talked about the process. One of my closest friends in the Senate said, I don't like the process. We should have been working with the House from the very beginning.

I am not a Member of the Gang of 8, but we had eight Senators who worked for a long time to create a bill. The same thing is happening in the House right now.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORKER. I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORKER. The process is that the House passes legislation, if they so choose. They may not choose to take up immigration. My sense is they will not take up this bill; they will take up their own bill. The way the process works is we conference those, and we end up with a better piece of legislation.

Fiscally, if this bill passes, we are spending a lot of money on border security--and some people have said it is too much. But, again, I have had no amendments over here trying to lower the standards that were put in place by the Hoeven-Corker amendment. The fact is we would be spending $46 billion on border security to have these five tangible things occur, and we would be getting $197 billion back in the Treasury if we do this. I have never been able to vote for a piece of legislation that had this much fiscal benefit for our country that didn't raise anybody's taxes. Then we have seen the whole issue of the economic growth that is going to be created for our country if we pass this bill.

I believe voting against this bill is voting against border security. What that means is that things are going to stay exactly as they are. We are going to have porous borders, no entry-exit visa program, no E-Verify system. I think voting against this bill is voting for the status quo, which is, in essence, de facto amnesty.

I believe this bill takes a step forward. I believe it is good for our country in every single way I can imagine, and later today I plan to support this bill. I hope it is improved in the House.

I cannot imagine there is anybody in this body who believes where we are today is satisfactory. I came here to make progress, to solve problems, and I appreciate those involved in allowing me to help with that process.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source