[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 87 (Tuesday, June 18, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Page S4546]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           IMMIGRATION REFORM

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, when I closed last night I posed nine 
questions to Secretary Napolitano about the immigration bill. She said 
that when confirmed, she would answer questions that Congress put 
before her. My questions came at the end of her hearing on the 
immigration bill, and we have not received an answer now in 49 or 50 
days. I would appreciate answers to those questions.
  I would like to speak about the entry-exit system in the legislation 
before us. One of the concerns that has been made about the immigration 
bill before us is that it weakens current law in several areas. Now, 
when I go to my town meetings, I invariably get somebody who says: We 
don't need more legislation; just enforce the laws that are on the 
books. Those very same constituents of mine would probably be really 
chagrined at the fact that we have legislation before us that would 
weaken current law.
  Well, we had a lengthy discussion during the Judiciary Committee 
markup about provisions dealing with criminal activity and deterring 
illegal immigration in the future. I have found that many existing 
statutes in this legislation--1,175 pages--have been revised and 
watered down, which sends exactly the wrong signal that should be sent 
to the people who seek to intentionally break our laws.
  The sponsors of the bill have claimed that the bill will make us 
safer. They insist that the people will ``come out of the shadows,'' 
thus allowing us to know exactly who is here, where they are, and 
whether they are a national security risk.
  We have talked a lot about the need for border security in the last 
week. I think it is the most important thing we can do for our national 
security and to protect our sovereignty. Border security is what the 
people demand. This legislation has weak border security provisions.
  Amazingly, when I bring up border security, I am told by proponents 
of the bill that we don't need to put our entire focus on the border. 
Well, tell that to the people of grassroots America. These authors 
remind me that about 40 percent of the people here illegally are visa 
overstays or people who never returned to their home country. I don't 
dispute that 40-percent figure. I couldn't agree more that visa 
overstays need to be dealt with as much as people who are here 
undocumented and did not come here on a visa. We need to know who is in 
our country and when they are supposed to depart, and then we need to 
know if they actually leave.
  We realized this way back in 1996 when we created the entry-exit 
system. At that time, Congress--and still today--under the law, called 
for a tracking system to be created, and this followed the first 
bombing of the World Trade Center. We knew there were gaping holes in 
our visa system, and that is why the entry-exit system was set up. 
Unfortunately--and the people of this country probably don't believe 
this--we had legislation calling for this system to be in place and it 
still is not in place. Administration after administration--and that is 
Democratic, Republican, and now Democratic--dismissed the need to 
implement an effective entry-exit system, thumbing their noses at the 
laws on the books. So here we are today--17 years later--wondering when 
that system and mandate from Congress will be achieved.
  When introduced, the bill before us did nothing to track people who 
left by land. It did nothing to capture biometrics of foreign nationals 
who departed. We approved an amendment in committee that made the 
underlying bill a little bit stronger, but it fell short of current 
law. Current law says we should track all people who come and go by 
using biometrics. It says the entry-exit system should be in place at 
all air, sea, and land ports. We already know that anything less than 
what is in current law will not be effective.
  The Government Accountability Office has stated that a biographic 
exit system, such as the one set forth in the underlying legislation, 
will only hinder efforts to reliably identify overstays and that 
without a biometrics exit system, ``DHS cannot ensure the integrity of 
the immigration system by identifying and removing those who have 
overstayed their original period of admission--a stated goal of US-
VISIT.'' If we don't properly track departures, we won't know how many 
people are overstaying their visas and we won't have any clue of who is 
in our country.
  Some will say: We can't afford it. Some will say: Our airports aren't 
devised in such a way to capture biometrics before people board 
airplanes. They will find any excuse not to implement current law, and 
that is why this current law hasn't been executed in the last 17 years.
  This is a border security and national security issue. Without this 
system in place, we are not in control of our immigration system.
  Senator Vitter's amendment, which is pending, would ensure the 
current law is met before we legalize millions of people. I encourage 
my colleagues to understand how this bill weakens our ability to 
protect the homeland. I also encourage the adoption of the Vitter 
amendment when we vote at 3 o'clock.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________