For Immediate Release June 24, 2013 Grassley Floor Statement on the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven Amendment Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee Comprehensive Immigration Reform, S.744 Schumer-Corker-Hoeven Amendment Monday, June 24, 2013 Some will say that I sound like a broken record every time I come to the floor to talk about the 1986 immigration bill. I said early on this year that I wanted to educate my colleagues about the mistakes that we made in 1986. Because I was here in 1986, I thought I could share the experiences we had. I know first-hand that we screwed up, and I was certain that other members in this body could learn from our mistakes. However, today, we’re right back at the same place, talking about the same problems, and proposing the same solutions. In 1981, as a freshman Senator I joined the Judiciary Committee and was very active in the subcommittee process. We sat down and wrote the legislation. We had 100 hours of hearings and 300 witnesses before we marked up a bill in May 1982. Hundreds more hours and dozens more hearings would take place before 1986. This year, we had six days of hearings. We spent 18 hours and 10 minutes listening to outside witnesses. The Judiciary Committee received the bipartisan bill at 2:24 a.m. on April 17th. We held hearings on April 19th, 22nd, and 23rd. We heard from 26 witnesses in three days. We heard from the head of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency’s union. We heard from economists and employers, law enforcement and lawyers, professors and advocacy groups. We even heard from people who are undocumented, proving that only in America would we allow someone who has violated our laws, not right with the law, to be heard by the American people. One of the witnesses on April 23rd was Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano. We attempted to learn about how the bill would affect the functions of the executive branch, and whether she saw the same flaws that many of us were finding. We asked follow-up questions that were thoughtful and focused on the mechanics of the legislation. We wanted to know her thoughts since she’d be implementing the law. Unfortunately, we still have not received responses to the questions we raised. Today, it has been 2 months that the Secretary has failed to answer our questions--in a sense ignoring us. She has refused to cooperate with us. She has refused to tell us how the bill would be implemented by her department. It’s amazing to me that the Majority puts up with this, let alone our own Republican colleagues. After the committee hearings, we started the mark-up process on May 9. We held five all-day sessions where members were able to raise questions, voice concerns, and offer amendments. Common-sense amendments offering real solutions were repeatedly rejected. Those that were accepted made some necessary improvements, but the core provisions of the bill remained the same. I respect the process that we had in committee. It was open, fair and transparent, even thought the end result was already determined. We had a good discussion and debate on how to improve the bill. It was a productive conversation focused on getting immigration reform right for the long-term. Yet, I was disappointed that alliances were made to ensure that nothing passed that would make substantial changes and improvements to the bill. Those alliances remained in effect when we moved to the floor. As of this morning, 349 amendments have been filed to the underlying bill. We started off the debate on the Senate floor with my amendment that would require the border to be “effectively controlled” for six months before the Secretary could process applications for Registered Provisional Immigrant status – or RPI. Clearly, the other side was afraid of the amendment because it would fundamentally change the bill. They insisted on a 60 vote threshold for the amendment to pass, which I refused. So, in response, they moved to table my amendment. What about the open and fair process we were promised? We learned on day one that all the talk about “making the bill better” was just hog wash. It was a phony and empty promise. They’d take to the floor and say they were ready to move and vote on amendments. Yet, in reality, they were afraid of them. They refused to let members offer any amendment of their choosing. They wanted to pick our amendments. They wanted to decide who, what, when, and how it would be disposed of. That’s not right. What’s even more disturbing is the fact that the alliances made thwarted the ability of the minority to have a say. Republicans were obstructed, even by members of our own party. They voted to table amendments. They refused an open amendment process. One Republican member said: “I am confident that an open and transparent process – one that engages every senator and the American people – will make it even better. I believe this kind of open debate is critical in helping the American people understand what’s in the bill, what it means for you and what it means for our future.” This same Senator also wrote Chairman Leahy on March 30th saying: “I write to express my strong belief that the success of any major legislation depends on the acceptance and support of the American people. That support can only be earned through full and careful consideration of legislative language and an open process of amendments.” In a letter to me on April 5, the Senator wrote: “If the majority does not follow regular order, you can expect that I will continue to defend the rights of every senator, myself included, to conduct this process in an open and detailed manner.” When the bill was introduced, the senior senator from New York said: “One of the things we all agree with is that there ought to be an open process so that people who don’t agree can offer their amendments.” The Gang of Eight called for a robust floor debate. They said they supported regular order. So, I ask them now: Do they think that having only considered 9 amendments equates to a robust and open process? Do they think the Majority has allowed regular order? From my point of view, the answer is a clear and resounding NO. And, now we’re at a point where the process is halted. It’s unclear if any more amendments will be debated and voted on. The only amendment that is in order is one that was concocted behind closed doors. And it’s loaded full of provisions that are shockingly close to what can be called earmarks. We’re back where we started --- with a gang of members promising that their legislative text is the best thing to happen to immigration reform; that their solution is the end of future illegal immigration. Does anyone really think this will solve the problem once and for all? From my point of view, based on my experience in 1986 and since, the answer is a clear and resounding NO. Fundamental Flaw–Legalization First I’m going to take this opportunity to walk through the changes to the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment. The authors claim the amendment is a border “surge” that leaves no more doubt about whether the border will be secured. Yet, the border changes only account for half of the total amendment. There are changes to every title. There are changes to exchange visitor programs, the future guest worker program, and visas for the performing arts. This isn’t just a border amendment. There are provisions in the bill to attract other senators to support its passage. I’ll dive into these provisions in detail in a moment. But, first, I want to focus on the border measures. The sponsors of this bill want you to believe it’s different than the 1986 legislation. They say it will be a tough and expensive road, and it would be easier for individuals to just go home than to go through this process. What the sponsors don’t like to admit is that the bill is legalization first, enforcement later, if ever. Take for example the fact that one of the sponsors who went on Spanish television tried to apologize for speaking the truth. He said: “Let’s be clear, nobody is talking about preventing the legalization. The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: first comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence.” He spoke the truth. And, the fundamental flaw of the underlying bill has not changed with this amendment. Let’s be clear – nobody is preventing the legalization. It’s going to happen, as opposed to the promise when this bill was first put forward. More Money, More Micromanaging, More Waivers What the amendment does is require more boots on the ground. It increases the presence of Border Patrol even though the members of the Gang of 8 have long opposed the idea. They said it was unnecessary and costly. But, let’s be honest with the American people. The amendment may call for more border patrol agents, but it doesn’t require it until the undocumented population – who are now RPIs – apply for adjustment of status, or a green card. Legalization first; Border Security long down the road. I’m all for putting more agents along the border. But, why wait? Why allow legalization now and simply promise more agents in the future? And, even then, who really believes a Secretary, like the one we have today, will actually enforce the law? Then there’s the fencing. One of the conditions that must be met before the Secretary can process green cards for people here illegally, is that the Southern Border Fencing Strategy has been submitted to Congress and implemented. This fencing strategy will identify where 700 miles of pedestrian fencing is in place. Note that this is not double layered as in current law. The amendment states that the second layer is to be built only if the “Secretary deems necessary or appropriate.” Additionally, the underlying bill still specifically states that nothing in this provision shall be interpreted to require her to install fencing. The amendment also requires that an electronic entry/exit system is in use at all international air and sea ports, but only “where U.S. Customs and Border Protection are currently deployed.” This is actually weaker than the underlying bill, which required that an electronic entry exit system be in use at air and sea ports – not just international. It is still weaker than current law which requires biometric entry/exit at all ports of entry, including air, sea and land. The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment border proposal adds technology in addition to man power at the southern border. It authorizes the Secretary to purchase and deploy certain border technology. Here’s an example of what the bill includes: In Arizona, the Secretary is allowed to deploy: 50 fixed towers, 73 fixed camera systems, 28 mobile surveillance systems, 685 unattended ground sensors and 22 hand held equipment devices, including night vision goggles. In San Diego, the Secretary is allowed to deploy the same type of equipment, but of different quantities. They also will deploy non-intrusive inspective systems, a radiation portal monitor, and a littoral detection and classification network. In El Centro, California, the Secretary is allowed to deploy the same equipment, but the list also includes 2 sensor repeaters and 2 communications repeaters. They will also get 5 fiber-optic tank inspection scopes, a license plate reader, a backscatter, 2 portable contraband detectors, 2 radiation isotope identification devices, 8 radiation isotope identification devices updates, 3 personal radiation detectors, and 16 mobile automated targeting systems. The list goes on. It includes certain helicopters and aircraft upgrades. It includes 10 Blackhawk helicopters and 30 marine vessels. I’d like to know what some of these items are. Who provided the amendment sponsors with this list? We had hearings in Judiciary, and not once did a list appear. Secretary Napolitano did not provide the committee with any list. Did Sikorsky, Cessna, and Northrup Grumman send up a wish list to certain members of the Senate? So while the Senate micromanages what technology is to be purchased and deployed, we should take note that the bill allows the Secretary to “reallocate” the personnel, infrastructure and technologies laid out. The Secretary can change it all anyway. Litigation Exception But, let’s also not forgot about the “force majeure” and litigation exception. The triggers or conditions may never have to be met. Green cards can be issued if the Supreme Court grants review of litigation on the constitutionality of the implementation of the conditions. Under the bill, if any court in this country issues a stay on implementing one of the conditions, then green cards are to be issued after ten years. The bill does not specify what sort of ruling must prevent implementation, or even that the ruling be on the merits. Nor does the bill require that appeals run their course, even if the appeal upholds the condition. Southern Border Security Commission The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment also re-tools the “Southern Border Security Commission,” but still does not give it any teeth. The amendment requires the creation of the commission one year after enactment (instead of five). They’d also be required to hold public hearings once a year. Under the original version of the bill, this commission would be in existence until they submitted a plan. Under this amendment, the commission will live for ten years. Yet, the recommendations they provide still do not hold any weight. They can be ignored. They’re non-binding. Spending In addition to micromanaging the resources in each sector, the amendment increases taxpayer spending by $40 billion over the introduced version of the bill. Originally, the legislation called for expending $100 million for start-up costs and $6.5 billion for the Secretary to carry out the law. When we got to committee, a so-called “technical” amendment increased the start-up costs by 100 percent and went from $100 million to $1 billion. During mark-up, Senator Schumer and his allies increased the Trust Fund allocation from $6.5 billion to $8.3 billion. Now, this Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment increases that Trust Fund to $46.3 billion. Add the $3 billion for the Secretary to have for start-up costs, and we’re at $50 billion. That’s over a 500 percent increase in spending. A billion here, a billion there. Now, apparently, we’re talking real money. Note that this isn’t shifting money from the trust fund, like Senator Cornyn’s amendment would have done. Instead, it’s just new spending. The sponsors found a money tree to pay for the wish list provided by Secretary Napolitano or the aerospace industry. Based on reports of how this deal was struck, we have a pretty good idea of why spending has increased. According to a Politico article from last week, negotiations for this deal were at a standstill until the Congressional Budget Office’s score was released. The Congressional Budget Office stated that if this bill becomes law it will cut the deficit by almost $1 trillion over the next 20 years. Thus, with this estimate in hand, the Politco report tells us how the negotiators were able to find a solution. “Throw money at it.” According to the article, it was suggested that senators could funnel some of [the] savings into border security.” And that’s what they’ve done. Again, as is often the case here in Washington, the solution always seems to be to just throw money at a problem. But the money has to come from somewhere. Furthermore, paying for the agents requires raiding the Social Security Trust fund. Indeed, the bill sets aside $30 billion to pay for the Border Patrol agents. But when asked on the floor how the Gang of Eight found the money, Senator Hoeven said he and Senator Corker were able to add the $30 billion in spending because the CBO projects that S.744 will bring in more revenue than it requires in expenditures. But upon closer examination, it is clear that the projected revenue under the CBO analysis is due to an increase in Social Security and Medicare taxes. This money must be set aside if Social Security and Medicare are to remain solvent. Thus, taking that tax revenue and using it for the fence means raiding the Social Security Trust Fund. On the date of enactment, the Treasury will transfer $46.3 billion to the Trust Fund. The sponsors claim that the Treasury will be repaid. But, when will the funds be paid back to the Treasury? When will the American people be reimbursed? The sponsors of the bill say that taxpayers won’t bear the burden. Yet, there’s no requirement that the funds be paid back. There’s no time limit or accountability to ensure that they are repaid. The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment increases fees on visas for legal immigrants in order to replenish the Trust Fund and the Treasury. Employers, students, and tourists will pay the price. The bill allows the Secretary to increase those fees. So employers who bring in high-skilled workers will bear the burden. Students and tourists who come in the legal way will bear the burden. Meanwhile the amendment says that the fees on those being legalized cannot be charged more than what is allowed. The Secretary cannot adjust the fees and penalties on those who apply for or renew their RPI or blue card status. No Interior Enforcement The amendment, and the underlying bill, will not end illegal immigration. The Congressional Budget Office reported that illegal immigration would only be reduced by 25 percent due to increased numbers of guest workers coming into the country. The amendment does nothing to radically reduce illegal immigration in the future, and does not provide any resources to interior enforcement agents whose mission it is to apprehend, detain, and deport illegal immigrants. Just like with the 1986 amnesty, we will be back in the same position in ten years facing the same problem. The amendment, in section 1201, attempts to address people who overstay their visas. It says that the Secretary shall 1) initiate removal proceedings; 2) confirm that immigration relief or protection has been granted or is pending; OR 3) otherwise close 90 percent of the cases of nonimmigrants who were admitted and exceeded their authorized period of admission by more than 180 days. So, while it appears to be tough on overstays, it only affects people that overstay their visa by 180 days – 6 months. It also allows the Secretary to close the cases. What does it mean for the Secretary to close these cases? Under current law, an immigration judge has the power to administratively close a case. It’s used to temporarily remove a case from the calendar. Sometimes, the judge waits for further action to be taken. An administrative closure is not a final order. Closure does not mean termination. It does not mean deportation. So, I think it’s unclear what this language does and who it’s applying to. Moreover, it’s unclear how the Secretary would know who has overstayed if no exit data or tracking system exits. Also, why doesn’t the amendment require the Secretary to deal with 100 percent of the people that overstay their period of authorization? Given there are no ramifications for the Secretary if she does not capture 90 percent of visa overstays, this is again another law that will not be followed. It does nothing to end this administration’s anti-enforcement policies and instead gives the Secretary of Homeland Security vast discretion to ignore serious criminal convictions of immigration violators, including gang related crime, domestic violence, drunk driving and child abuse. The bill would not only create an immediate legalization for those here illegally today, but also a permanent legalization program for future undocumented immigrants. The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment includes a provision that would make individuals admissible despite the 3 and 10 year bars. I’d like to know more of the rationale from the sponsors about why this language was included. Earmarks There’s no doubt this amendment was crafted in the back rooms here on Capitol Hill. And, it really is no secret that some members were able to insert provisions in the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment while the rest of us attempted to work out an agreement on pending and filed amendments. While some of us were trying to legislate and bring up amendments for votes on the floor, others were taking advantage of the “pay to play” games. Clearly, some of the amendments filed were included. Let me share some examples: 1) The amendment now authorizes funds for an “Educational Campaign” to help deter illegal crossings into Mexico from the South. The amendment would put American taxpayer money toward training for law enforcement officials in Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, and other countries. It would allow for taxpayer expenditures to educate nationals of other countries “about the perils of the journey to the United States.” This amendment should have been considered under regular order. 2) The amendment now includes a provision that would require Customs and Border Protection officials to reduce airport wait times. This amendment, which was filed, should have been considered under regular order. 3) The amendment now makes it harder for Border Patrol agents to enforce U.S. immigration law along the Northern border by limiting the mileage or distance that agents can search vehicles and other forms of transportation. This amendment, which was filed, should have been considered under regular order. 4) The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment includes amendment number 1283 that creates a “Youth Jobs Fund” using $1.5 billion from the U.S. Treasury, to be repaid through fees. The goal of the fund is to “provide summer and year-round employment opportunities to low-income youth.” This amendment should have been considered under regular order. 5) The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment includes amendment number 1493, which designates zone 1, 2, or 3 occupations involving seafood processing in Alaska as shortage occupations. It also includes amendment number 1329, which extends the J-visa Summer Work Travel Program to seafood processing positions only in Alaska. These amendments should have been considered under regular order. 6) The amendment now includes amendment number 1183, which was actually pending before the Senate. It would allow for fee waivers on certain visa holders, namely O and P nonimmigrants, who come to the U.S. to work in Hollywood or play professional sports. We could have voted on this and had regular order on the amendment. Clarifying Amendments The amendment also includes so-called “technical fixes.” One fix is related to the H-1B visa cap. The sponsors of the bill and those who worked behind closed doors to devise an H-1B visa package stated that the annual cap would not exceed 180,000. Yet, the language didn’t do what they said it did. As written, it provided 20,000 more than they claimed. So, this amendment includes a clarification to say that the cap shall not exceed 180,000. The second clarifying change in the amendment is related to visas for countries that have entered into Free Trade Agreements with the United States. During committee consideration, the Senator from New York added an amendment that would provide 10,500 visas for countries in the African Growth and Opportunity Act and the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act. The change in this amendment clarifies that only a total of 10,500 may go to those countries, rather than to each country that is a described under the Act. Still, it’s not 100 percent clear that the clarification achieves the goal. But how many more clarifying amendments are necessary? These two provisions were included because my staff caught them and brought them to the sponsors’ attention. But, how many more provisions are not written properly, and they don’t know it? At the end of the day, the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment doesn’t do what the sponsors say it will. As we have seen all along, we’re being promised one thing and sold another. I’m frustrated with how the Majority has processed this bill. We could have had three genuine weeks on this bill, processing amendments and having votes. Yet, we’re forced to vote on packages that were concocted behind closed doors. We were given 72 hours to read the legislative text. Even then, the American people would have had a difficult time getting their hands on the bill over the weekend or understanding its true ramifications. I will obviously vote against this amendment. It does nothing to change the legalization first philosophy, and offers little more than false promises that the American people can no longer tolerate. I yield the floor.
Posted on: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 23:02:03 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015