[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 81 (Monday, June 10, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4041-S4043]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND IMMIGRATION MODERNIZATION
ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I am delighted to see the
administering of the oath to our new Senator. As a former Federal
prosecutor, I know he understands much of the Federal law we deal with
around here. Having been one of those myself, I welcome him and believe
there will be many gifts and experiences he has had from that role that
will help him serve in the Senate, writing laws that will actually be
the laws enforced by his former fellow prosecutors around the country.
A closer examination of the legislation before us, this is it here,
over 1,000 pages now. But you have to study it because it makes all
sorts of references to ``except as provided by'' in this section and
that section and subsection E(2)(I)(1)(3) and things like that. It is
hard to read. But a close examination reveals that the promised
enforcement of immigration law in the future that is so critical, and
the American people deserve, the American people have asked for, for
decades, is not there.
The triggers are not triggers at all. In fact, it would actually
weaken even current law, granting the Secretary of Homeland Security,
now Secretary Napolitano in particular, unprecedented power to
determine how and when the border is secured, if ever. Remember, at
this moment, the Secretary of Homeland Security is being sued by
Federal law officers, ICE officers, Immigration and Customs Enforcement
officers, of her own department because they say she is issuing
directives to them to keep them from complying with plain Federal law.
In other words, she is directing them not to comply with Federal law.
The Federal judge has taken the case and allowed it to go forward and
is taking testimony on it. But the bill that illegal immigrants can
receive amnesty, not when the border is secured but when Secretary
Napolitano tells Congress she is starting to try to secure the border.
Within 6 months of enactment of the legislation, Secretary Napolitano
need only submit to Congress her views on a comprehensive southern
border strategy and a southern border fencing strategy and give notice
that she has begun implementing whatever plans she decides to
implement. At that point, she may begin processing applications and
granting amnesty. Indeed, she will be doing that without any border
security or enforcement measures ever being required to be in place.
The reality is, once amnesty has been granted, it is never going to
be revoked. Under this scheme, enforcement is unlikely ever to occur.
That is just like 1986, which Senator Grassley earlier today, ranking
member on the Judiciary Committee from Iowa, who was here in 1986, says
was a great failure at that time. He voted for the bill. He says it was
a mistake. It was a mistake because we did not put in mechanisms to
ensure that in the future the enforcement would actually occur.
That is why he opposes this bill. Frank Sharry, the head of America's
Voice, a pro-amnesty advocate, recently said about these triggers,
``The triggers are based on developing plans and spending money, not on
reaching that effectiveness''--
In other words, not reaching an effective system of security in the
future--it is not tied to that. Then he goes on to say, ``which is
really quite clever.'' Really clever, is it not, to see if they can
fool the American people. They have written something that looks like a
real trigger, that has teeth in it, that says you do not get your
amnesty and legal status until enforcement occurs. But when we read the
bill it is not there. Mr. Sharry actually lays it out.
In fact, in 2007, Senator Isakson first came up with an idea of a
trigger mechanism. That gained popularity. I think he was the one who
wrote the language that was in that bill. It is much stronger than this
one. It was much stronger than what is in the bill today. Actually, it
had the potential to work.
Remember, this was what was said when the bill was rolled out.
Basically, they said the American people, we got a good bill. You can
trust us. The enforcement will occur because we have triggers in the
bill to guarantee it is enforced. That is not so, is it? Colleagues,
does that not make you uneasy? Should it not make the American people
uneasy, when they have seen Congress time and time again avoid going
forward with real law enforcement?
The bill states that the southern border strategy should detail a
plan for achieving and maintaining ``effective control'' of the
southern border. Effective control is defined as ``persistent
surveillance,'' which itself is not defined, plus ``an effectiveness
rate of 90 percent or higher.'' What effectiveness rate? This is
calculated by dividing the number of apprehensions and turnbacks in a
sector during a fiscal year by the total number of illegal entries in
the sector during that fiscal year.
But this does not account for those who escape detection by the
Border Patrol. During her testimony before the Senate Judiciary
Committee, Secretary Napolitano all but acknowledged the effectiveness
rate is meaningless because, by definition, the Department of Homeland
Security has no idea how many people avoid detection.
How can you have that formula? The measure is subject to almost
limitless manipulation.
One thing we all should remember, having been involved in this for a
number of years now, the border should already be secure. It should
already be secure. The Secure Fence Act of 2006, passed by both Houses
of Congress, already requires, right now, the Department of Homeland
Security to maintain 100-percent operational control of all land and
maritime borders and required the Homeland Security to do so within 18
months of the bill having been passed in 2006. That mandate has been
ignored, not complied with, and the border is certainly far from 100-
percent operational control.
We are going to pass a new bill that is even weaker than this and
expect it is going to result in some major improvement in law
enforcement?
By contrast, the rejected 2007 immigration bill set a stronger target
of 100-percent operational control of the entire border, which had to
be met before illegal immigrants could be given the probationary legal
status.
The current bill is essentially the same as the failed 1986 bill. It
is legality immediately and a promise of enforcement in the future.
It is important to know that nothing in the bill prevents Secretary
Napolitano from submitting a strategy--that
[[Page S4042]]
is all she has to submit, is a strategy--that simply reiterates her
publicly stated views about the border. She says first that the border
is ``more secure than it has ever been.''
While the bill states that Homeland Security shall start ``the
implementation'' of the plan ``immediately after'' submission and give
notice to Congress of its commencement and provide reports on its
progress, nothing in the bill actually requires the Secretary to
implement anything. It just doesn't. It is not there. All she has to do
is start the amnesty process, what she intends to do, and then to
submit reports in the future.
We have heard there will be more fencing. You have heard that talk.
The bill is going to make sure we have more fencing. But no language in
the bill requires the Secretary to construct any fencing at all.
Rather, the bill states the Secretary shall submit to Congress, within
6 months of enactment, her views on a fencing ``plan'' to identify
where fencing, if any, including double-layer fencing, infrastructure
technology, including ports of entry, should be deployed along the
border.
The problem is Secretary Napolitano, who will be responsible for
implementing these provisions, has said multiple times that no further
fencing is necessary. She recently testified before the Judiciary
Committee that Homeland Security would prefer to rely on drones and
high-tech surveillance:
We would prefer money . . . if we have our druthers, we
would not so designate a fence fund.
Does it make more sense to use technology to observe people entering
the country illegally, or does it make more sense to stop them from
entering?
After the Secure Fence Act was passed in 2006 requiring 700 miles of
double-layer fencing, they said, well, we are not going to build
double-layer 700 miles of fencing. We have a better idea. We are going
to have a virtual fence. We are going to use technology, balloons, and
things of that nature. We have this sophisticated plan. They spent $1
billion on that plan--totally abandoned; an utter failure.
That is what is upsetting the American people in this country.
Promises are made. We are going to build a fence. We all vote for a
fence. Then, oh, no, we are not going to vote for a fence, we have a
better idea. Then we spend $1 billion and get zero for it.
This is not necessary. We can make great improvements at the border
if we have the will to do so. The will and the determination is what is
lacking.
Proponents of this bill have repeatedly said ``this legislation
contains the toughest border immigration enforcement measures in U.S.
history.'' If that is the case, then why is the bill weaker than
current law? Why is it weaker than in 2007, the bill that was offered
and rejected? Congress overwhelmingly passed the mandate to build a
fence in 2006--and I was engaged in that debate--by 80 to 19 votes,
with the support of then-Senators Biden and Obama. Vice President Biden
and President Obama voted for it. It hasn't come close to having been
built.
I think we have 36 miles of fencing having been completed, when the
bill called for 700. If we had done that, we would be in a lot better
place to ask the American people today, let's be compassionate and see
if we can't do something kind to people who have entered our country
illegally.
According to a Rasmussen's poll in April of this year, a substantial
majority of Americans want the fence built, but Congress has failed to
do so. The bill would authorize $8.3 billion in additional funding to
carry out all of its provisions.
You notice, it has some fencing language in it, $1.5 billion, but
what is the $1.5 billion for? Is it to build a fence? You can build a
lot of fence with that much money. No. It is for the developing of a
fencing strategy, and the other things that money would be spent for
too.
In fact, a fence does save money. Since the fence is a force
multiplier, fewer Border Patrol agents will be needed. They can cover
more miles, and it reduces costs. It makes a clear statement to the
world that the United States is serious: Our borders are no longer
open. Don't come here illegally. If you do, we are going to apprehend
you, and you will be disciplined in some fashion and deported. If we do
that, we will see a dramatic reduction in the number of people coming
to our country illegally.
During our Judiciary Committee markup on this legislation, an
amendment sponsored by Senator Leahy was adopted that says nothing in
this provision ``shall require the Secretary to install fencing'' if
the Secretary in her discretion determines that fencing is not
necessary. Of course, she says she doesn't favor more fencing.
In addition, the amendment requires that the Secretary consult with
the Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, States, local governments,
Indian tribes, and property owners, before she could ever build a
fence, and to minimize the impact on the environment, culture,
commerce, and quality of life for residents.
Well, you always try to do those things. All of this is an indication
that with regard to the question of barriers and fencing to enhance the
lawfulness at our border, this bill doesn't do it. Actually, this bill
is hostile to it. Can you see that language in there? This was
discussed at Judiciary. It passed in the committee.
Only 36.3 miles of fencing out of the 700 has ever been completed.
Had the rest of it been completed, we would be in a lot better shape
today.
We were told:
If, in 5 years, the [Secretary's border security] plan has
not reached 100 percent awareness and 90 percent
apprehension, the Department of Homeland Security will
lose control of the issue and it will be turned over to
the board of governors to finish the job.
That was Senator Rubio on the ``Mark Levin Show.'' This commission
they talk about at the border, the mere existence is left to the sole
discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security only if she determined
that Homeland Security, her own department, ``has not achieved
effective control'' of the border 5 years after enactment.
Wait 5 years, and if she hasn't done the job--she has certified she
hasn't done the job, and after the legalization has already been
granted--it is then entirely up to the Secretary to determine whether
her plans are ``substantially completed'' and ``substantially
implemented''--then and only then would the Southern Border Security
Commission be formed.
The bill's proponents claim the commission would be ``a powerful and
important policy-making body,'' and that the Secretary of Homeland
Security will be compelled to implement the commission's
recommendations. That was one of the Gang of 8's news releases.
Not so. The commission is empowered only to make recommendations to
the President, the Secretary, and Congress, which are then to be
reviewed by the Comptroller General. Nothing in the bill requires any
other commission's recommendations to be implemented. They don't have
any power. Once it makes its recommendations, the commission dissolves
in 30 days, kaput.
As Byron York noted in the Washington Examiner in his column today:
There is nothing in the bill requiring the commission to
finish the job of border security, and indeed it would have
no authority to do so.
Indeed, it would have no authority to do anything, really, except
issue a report.
The second issue that deals with illegality in our country is the
visa question. We were told the path to citizenship in the bill would
be ``contingent upon . . . tracking whether legal immigrants have left
the country when required.'' That has a plain meaning, have they left
when required.
Under current law, we have a mechanism where people are fingerprinted
and they are identified when they come into the country. There is no
clocking out when they leave the country.
What does the bill do? Does it fix that problem? Let's look at the
history of it. The bill rolls back the requirements in current law,
laws that were passed on six different occasions by Congress since 1996
for a biometric exit system. We have a biometric entry system at some
points, but not an exit system. Yet instead of forcing the
administration's hand, making this happen, this bill gives in to the
executive branch's obstinacy over at least two administrations and
provides for only an ``electronic,'' not biometric, exit system, and
only at air and seaports, not land ports.
[[Page S4043]]
It is estimated that nearly 40 percent of the illegal population here
today are visa overstays. GAO, our Government Accountability Office,
has repeatedly said a system such as the one called for in this bill
will not reliably identify visa overstays, and that without a biometric
exit system:
DHS cannot ensure the integrity of the immigration system
by identifying and removing those people who have overstayed
the original period of admission.
That is the Government Accountability Office's objective, nonpartisan
analysis of the legislation.
Beyond violating our laws, visa overstays pose a substantial threat
to national security. Visa overstayers come from all over the world.
The 9/11 Commission, after the 9/11 attacks, recommended that:
The Department of Homeland Security, properly supported by
Congress, should complete, as quickly as possible, a
biometric entry-exit system.
In a report entitled ``Tenth Anniversary Report Card: The Status of
the
9/11 Commission Recommendations,'' they came back together to see how
well their recommendations had been carried out. They praised the fact
that we have an entry system, a biometric entry system known as US-
VISIT. It has been proven to be valuable, they say, in national
security too.
Despite this successful deployment of the entry component of US-
VISIT, the Commission notes there is still no comprehensive exit system
in place. As important as it is to note when foreign nationals arrive,
it is also important to note when they leave. Full deployment of the
biometric exit component of US-VISIT should be a high priority. Such a
capability would have assisted law enforcement and intelligence
officials in August and September of 2001 in conducting a search for
two of the 9/11 hijackers who were in the United States on expired
visas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair. I believe 5 o'clock has arrived. I
thank the managers of the Agriculture bill. I know they worked hard on
their legislation.
I yield the floor.
____________________