[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 86 (Monday, June 17, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4518-S4520]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND IMMIGRATION MODERNIZATION
ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 744, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 744) to provide for comprehensive immigration
reform and for other purposes.
[[Page S4519]]
Pending:
Leahy/Hatch amendment No. 1183, to encourage and facilitate
international participation in the performing arts.
Thune amendment No. 1197, to require the completion of the
350 miles of reinforced, double-layered fencing described in
section 102(b)(1)(A) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 before registered
provisional immigrant status may be granted and to require
the completion of 700 miles of such fencing before the status
of registered provisional immigrants may be adjusted to
permanent resident status.
Landrieu amendment No. 1222, to apply the amendments made
by the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 retroactively to all
individuals adopted by a citizen of the United States in an
international adoption and to repeal the pre-adoption
parental visitation requirement for automatic citizenship and
to amend section 320 of the Immigration and Nationality Act
relating to automatic citizenship for children born outside
of the United States who have a United States citizen parent.
Tester amendment No. 1198, to modify the Border Oversight
Task Force to include tribal government officials.
Vitter amendment No. 1228, to prohibit the temporary grant
of legal status to, or adjustment to citizenship status of,
any individual who is unlawfully present in the United States
until the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that the
US-VISIT System (a biometric border check-in and check-out
system first required by Congress in 1996) has been fully
implemented at every land, sea, and airport of entry and
Congress passes a joint resolution, under fast track
procedures, stating that such integrated entry and exit data
system has been sufficiently implemented.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, at every confirmation hearing of every
Cabinet position, and probably a lot of other positions as well, a
Cabinet nominee is invariable asked a question similar to this: Will
you come when you are called to a committee meeting for a hearing, and
will you answer inquiries made by members of the committee to certain
questions you might be asked? Invariably--and I don't know an exception
to this--we get the answer that, yes, they will respond to our
communiques.
Well, I come to the Senate today to ask why Secretary Napolitano of
the Department of Homeland Security hasn't answered inquiries we have
made that ought to have been answered by now. And the answers ought to
have been made by now because we are dealing with the legislation to
which the questions refer.
On April 23, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing to discuss
immigration reform and the bill presented by the Gang of 8. Secretary
Napolitano was the only witness. The hearing lasted 2 hours and 20
minutes, and most members were able to ask her 5 to 10 minutes' worth
of questions. We also submitted questions for the record, which means
we submitted questions to her in writing for her to answer. Committee
members were given just 24 hours to turn around those questions to
present to her. But it has been over 7 weeks--that is more than 49
days--since we submitted those questions to Secretary Napolitano, and
we have yet to get answers to those questions.
The questions I asked were genuine and related to the implementation
of the bill if it were to be signed into law. I asked questions of the
Secretary because she will be responsible for carrying out Congress's
intentions. I wanted to know about costs and feasibility, and I asked
for data and specifics. So I am concerned I have yet to receive
responses.
Keeping information from Congress and the American people is not
helpful to ensuring we have the best product coming out of the Senate.
Since this bill is right now before the Senate, it is important for
Members of this body to have the answers to the questions I am going to
describe that I submitted to her.
I will take this opportunity to discuss some of the questions I asked
of Secretary Napolitano, although not all of them. Right now I will
focus on nine questions I asked about border security because border
security is an issue before the Senate as part of this 1,175-page bill.
I may discuss other questions later in the week.
Question No. 1 to Secretary Napolitano: You have emphasized that
apprehensions at the border are down and in doing so praised the
administration's record on border security; however, Customs and Border
Protection has just released numbers showing that apprehensions
increased 13 percent over the last year. Does the fact that border
apprehensions are up mean that the border is becoming less secure?
That was question No. 1 to Secretary Napolitano.
Obviously, is the border more secure or isn't the border more secure?
That was the whole basis of the debate over the last week in this body.
Question No. 2 to Secretary Napolitano: The bill only calls for
establishing an entry-exit system for air and seaports before
implementing the path to citizenship. Aside from cost, what impediments
are there to instituting the system at land ports?
Question No. 3: The bill requires your department to establish a
strategy to identify where fencing should be deployed along the
southern border. During the hearing, you indicated the administration
believes that sufficient fencing is in place and that you would prefer
not to increase fencing along the southern border. So my question: Do
you anticipate that your study will call for any additional physical
fencing?
Now that seems to me to be a pretty important question at this time
when border security is very basic to whether there will be any
legalization. We have not received an answer yet.
Question No. 4: During the hearing we discussed the fact that the
northern border was not part of the trigger and did not need to be
secured before green cards are distributed. You said the northern
border is a different border but that it is a part of the discussion.
Can you elaborate? Can you describe how the northern border is
``different''? Please provide a list of ``other than Canadians'' who
have crossed the northern border illegally in the last 10 years,
including their country of origin.
Question No. 5. Section 1102 of S. 744 requires the Secretary to
increase the number of CBP officers by 3,500; however, it does not
specify how many of those agents will be used to secure the physical
border versus customs enforcement and other mission requirements. How
do you envision this section being implemented and how would the
Department make decisions with regard to determining how many agents
are hired to secure the physical borders?
Talking about border security, that seems to me to be a legitimate
question that ought to have been answered by the Secretary a long time
before we even started debate on this bill but surely before we get
done with it.
The sixth question: Section 1104 provides funding for only the Tucson
sector of the southwest border region. Does the administration support
only resources to this sector? Are there other sectors that should be
included? If so, please provide details.
Seventh question: Section 1105 relates solely to the State of
Arizona. Should this provision be expanded to all of the southwest
border States?
Question No. 8: Section 1107 provides for a grant program in which
individuals who reside or work in the border region and are ``at
greater risk of border violence due to the lack of cellular service''
can apply to purchase phones with access to 911 and equipped with GPS.
Does the administration believe the Southwest border region is safe and
secure, rendering this grant program unnecessary?
Question No. 9, and my last question I will discuss tonight, does the
administration have any views on section 1111 on the use of force,
including the requirement that the Department collaborate with the
Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the
Department of Justice?
Those are the nine questions that I think are very pertinent to just
the part of the bill we spent the last week debating and we are going
to spend a few more days debating. Is the border secure? That is very
basic to everything else that goes on in this piece of legislation.
As I said, the questions I have asked the Secretary are meant to
ensure that we pass the best bill possible. We ought to know how she
will carry out the bill if it is signed into law. I hope she will
provide answers to these and the other questions I submitted on April
24.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, on June 12 and 13, 2013, I filed two
amendments, Nos. 1258 and 1282, to S. 744, the Border Security,
Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. The name of
Senator Hirono
[[Page S4520]]
was inadvertently omitted as a cosponsor of both amendments. I have
asked that Senator Hirono be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 1258
and amendment No. 1282.
____________________