Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont, and I wish to particularly thank my distinguished colleague from the State of Tennessee for all of his work on this border surge amendment. That is what we are talking about: a border surge amendment. The amendment we have offered, Hoeven-Corker, is about securing the border first. As the good Senator from Tennessee described, that is absolutely the focus of what we are doing here.

We are willing to work with everybody on both sides of the aisle in this body and in the House to come up with legislation that secures the border. We believe that is what Americans want. That is what we are working so hard to do.

What I would like to start with, though, this morning in terms of my comments is this budget point of order we are going to be voting on in a few minutes. I would like to cite right from the Congressional Budget Office report. So I am going to just take facts, statistics right out of the CBO report because, as the good Senator from Tennessee explained a minute ago, so much of this is getting either misunderstood or misinterpreted. So let's get right to the CBO report, and let's look at exactly what it says.

According to CBO, it is clear that this legislation will reduce our deficit. The CBO report shows that in the first decade there is $197 billion provided from this legislation that we can use for deficit reduction--less, obviously, as Senator Corker just explained so well a minute ago, as we are putting significant resources into securing the border. So if you take out that additional $40 billion that our amendment costs to make sure we secure the border, to make sure we have the E-Verify system, to make sure we have electronic entry and exit at all of our international airports and seaports--deduct that $40 billion, that is $157 billion that we have available in the first decade and, according to CBO, in the second decade, $700 billion. So that is about $850 billion over the next two decades that is available to help us reduce the deficit, and that is after putting the five triggers in place that we provide in this legislation to secure the border first.

That means a comprehensive southern border strategy: 20,000 additional Border Patrol agents; 700 miles of fence in total--350 in addition to the 350 we have; a national mandatory E-Verify system; and electronic entry and exit identification must be in place, as I said, at all international airports and seaports. These things must be done upfront. These triggers must be met and illegal immigrants must be in provisional status for 10 years before anyone can get green cards, other than DREAMers or some blue card ag workers. So the cost of border enforcement is paid for, and we still have $850 billion available for deficit reduction.

So you might ask, well, why the budget point of order, then? Why the budget point of order when we are trying to get the debt and the deficit under control? Well, the budget point of order goes to the amount of dollars coming in on-budget and off-budget. What do we mean by off-budget? That means entitlement programs. So the amount of dollars coming in do not match up with what is exactly in the budget, now both on-budget and off-budget. But that is understandable, isn't it?

This is new significant legislation, so of course we have to adjust the on-budget and the off-budget to account for this $850 billion we did not have before. OK--almost $1 trillion now that we have. OK. So of course we have to make some adjustments.

So the real question here, the real question on this budget point of order is, Would you rather have $850 billion available to reduce the deficit or would you rather not have it? Because if you do not pass the legislation, you do not get the $850 billion in funds to help with deficit reduction. That is, if you will, kind of the bottom line here, isn't it?

Now, it is true, as I say, we have to adjust our budget categories, but overall, CBO scoring--after paying for an incredible amount of additional resources to secure the border first--$850 billion over the next two decades.

Also, this funding strengthens entitlement programs. Right. Why? Because the funding we are talking about is paid into Social Security and Medicare. CBO shows that in both the first decade and the second decade more is paid into those programs to make them solvent. But opponents say: Well, yes, sure. More is paid in, but those payers someday are going to get benefits, so they are going to take it out. But CBO shows that the amount being paid in is more than the benefits being paid out and that the amount is on a growth trajectory, not the reverse, meaning more is paid in in the second decade than the first decade, so we make those programs even more solvent, and it gets us on the right trajectory. That is why we should defeat the budget point of order--because, quite simply, we want the $850 billion to help reduce the deficit. That is the real issue we are dealing with.

Also, I want to take a minute again to address the GDP, GNP, wages, and unemployment. Again, I want to quote from the CBO because I really believe these things are getting misinterpreted.

GDP--gross domestic product--in the first decade grows 3.3 percent more with the legislation. In the second decade, it grows 5.4 percent more. OK. GNP--gross national product--per capita in the first 10 years, 0.7 of 1 percent less, it is true, in the first decade, but after that we get more GNP. So long term, more GDP, more GNP.

Unemployment. This talk about increasing unemployment--0.1 of 1 percent in the first 6 years, as you adjust. After that, there is no difference in unemployment.

The same thing with wages--initially 0.1 of 1 percent lower because you have immigrants coming in who earn a lower wage, but over time, in the second 10 years, wages go up. OK.

What is my point? The point is that for all of these categories, in all four of these categories, we do as well or better--as well or better--over the long run. Isn't that what we want?

I will summarize.

The first order of business for immigration reform is to secure the border. Americans want immigration reform--of that there is no doubt. But they want us to get it right, and that means securing the border first.

Our amendment, as the Senator from Tennessee said, is 119 new pages--not 1,200. Madam President, 1,100 is in the base bill. That has been out here since May.

Our amendment secures the border with five tough provisions or triggers that must be met before green cards are allowed. We have talked about that. A comprehensive, high-tech plan on the southern border must be in place: 20,000 Border Patrol agents, a total of 700 miles of fence--things our colleagues on our side of the aisle have been asking for are here--a national, mandatory E-Verify system, electronic entry and exit at international airports and seaports. That is about securing the border first. That is what this amendment is about. It is objective, and it is verifiable. That is what the technology on the border--$4.5 billion in technology for sensors, radars drones, helicopters, planes--that is what it is all about, so we know we have the border secured.

So we ask our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with us. Let's rise up. Let's meet this challenge for the American people, and let's address border security. That is what this legislation does.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Vermont.

Americans want immigration reform, but they want border security first, and that is exactly what this amendment does. It secures the border with five tough provisions or triggers that must be met--that must be met--before green cards are allowed. Those five triggers are: a comprehensive southern border strategy that must be deployed and operational, 20,000 additional Border Patrol agents, a total of 700 miles of fence, a national mandatory E-Verify system must be in place, and electronic entry and exit identification must be in place at all international airports and seaports.

Simply put, this is about making sure we secure the border, and we do it in an objective and verifiable way.

I want to thank all of my cosponsors on this legislation, and turn to the good Senator from Tennessee and thank him for his work.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source